How projection replaces understanding
When people with little to no context about a conflict speak with moral certainty, especially from a place of detachment and safety, it can feel not only shallow, but also dangerously misinformed. It’s especially difficult when their performative activism becomes more about them… about being seen as righteous, than about helping those directly affected. Some contributing social and psychological factors:
The Illusion of Moral Clarity Feels Good
Conflict in the Middle East is incredibly complex — historically, politically, religiously, and emotionally. But complexity doesn’t go viral. Simple, binary narratives do. When someone posts, “This side = evil, this side = good,” it offers a seductive sense of clarity and virtue. They feel like they’re doing something without actually having to understand the people whose lives are at stake.
The Social Reward System
Online platforms reward outrage and visibility. The moment someone takes a loud stance, they get engagement, validation, and a sense of belonging. In this warped feedback loop, having “the right take” matters more than having an informed one.
Projection and Identification
People can filter global issues through their own identity politics or trauma — seeing every conflict as a metaphor for their struggle. So they end up projecting local injustices onto foreign ones, flattening and distorting the situation in the process. “This must be like racism in the U.S.” “This is just like apartheid.” Except… it isn’t. It’s its own thing.
Low Stakes for Being Wrong
Because they’re not directly impacted, they can say what they want without real consequences — especially if they’re protected by distance, privilege, or anonymity. But for people on the ground, these simplified narratives can fuel real-world consequences — more hate, more polarization, more suffering.
They Mistake Speaking About for Speaking For
There's a big difference between informed advocacy and self-serving commentary. A lot of people think that “raising awareness” is inherently good, even when what they’re raising awareness about is incomplete, inaccurate, or harmful.
It’s important to question how people engage with this war. The lack of caution, humility, willingness to listen and learn, isn’t brave. It’s easy. And often an irresponsible projection of one’s ideology.
The gap between people’s intentions and their impact, especially when they believe they’re being righteous, helpful, or “on the right side of history” is important, and uncomfortable. Why do so many people who are doing the things mentioned above — oversimplifying, projecting, moralizing, truly believe they’re not? Why do they believe that they’re informed… That they “get it”… That they’re helping…
The Ego-Protective Nature of Moral Certainty
Moral certainty acts like armor. The brain wants coherence, especially moral coherence. Once someone takes a public stand, even a poorly informed one, they become psychologically invested in believing it’s right. Admitting otherwise would require:
Admitting they might be wrong
Confronting their own ignorance
Recognizing their complicity in spreading harm
All of that is deeply uncomfortable. So instead, they double down. They have to believe they’re being responsible and informed because the alternative threatens their self-image.
Cognitive dissonance keeps people locked in certainty, not because they’re evil, but because they’re protecting their sense of self.
Social Media Makes People Feel Closer to Things Than They Are
We live in a hyper-connected world where watching a video of a bombing or a crying child feels intimate. But emotional proximity is not the same as contextual understanding. People confuse:
Seeing → Knowing
Feeling → Understanding
Reacting → Helping
They’re flooded with images and narratives that look like the truth. So they feel informed, even if they’re just consuming highly curated, context-stripped content. And once they’re emotionally activated, they’re often unwilling to slow down and ask, “Wait… what am I missing?”
Dunning-Kruger Meets Virtue Signaling
There’s a psychological effect where people with low knowledge overestimate their competence. And when this mixes with a desire to be seen as virtuous, you get people proudly “using their voice” on something they’ve spent 10 minutes Googling.
They don’t realize how little they know, and they do believe that intention is enough. As long as they feel like they’re trying to help, they assume they’re doing good. It’s a self-flattering illusion: “I care, therefore I’m correct.”
Colonial Guilt, Projection, and the Savior Complex
Especially in Western activist spaces, there’s a persistent guilt over historical (and present) injustice — racism, imperialism, colonialism. That’s valid. But it leads many to reflexively side with whoever they see as the “oppressed” in any conflict, even if they don’t understand the dynamics. In that mindset:
Complexity feels like a cop-out
Nuance sounds like complicity
Listening looks like weakness
They’re acting out a morality play, not analyzing a geopolitical crisis.
Performative Empathy: It Feels Like Solidarity, But It's Really About Themselves
A lot of people genuinely believe they’re showing compassion. But often, what they’re really doing is externalizing their own values to the world, making a statement about who they are. They don’t stop to ask:
“How might this affect someone who is actually there?”
“Am I adding clarity or noise?”
“Do I know enough to say something useful?”
They confuse expression with contribution. They want to be seen standing for good, but haven’t asked if their stance is even legible to the people living the reality.
The Comfort of Simplified Oppression Narratives
Many people treat every global conflict as if it were a carbon copy of the one they’re most familiar with. So Americans, for instance, often see the Israel-Hamas war as:
Israel = systemic oppressor, like the U.S. government
Palestinians = marginalized group, like Black Americans
This allows people to instantly “understand” the conflict through their own lens. But this shortcut distorts the situation and ignores its unique history, and ends up being deeply disrespectful to both Israelis and Palestinians. It’s not empathy. It’s projection with a moral mask.
So why do they feel proud?
Because everything around them — social feedback, online algorithms, cultural scripts, rewards them for feeling that way. They’re in an ecosystem that tells them:
Speaking is more important than listening
Reacting is more valuable than learning
“Silence is violence,” so speaking poorly is better than not speaking at all
And once they've said something publicly, the psychological costs of admitting ignorance or error become enormous. So they just keep doubling down.
Why this is so damaging
This kind of shallow certainty doesn’t just “fail to help”— it actively makes things worse:
It drowns out the voices of people who actually know or live the conflict
It incentivizes polarizing narratives over thoughtful ones
It feeds into propaganda machines
It distorts public perception of what’s happening, and what needs to happen
Worst of all: it turns real human suffering into aesthetic, content, and moral currency.