All that is left of you

Date: 06-03-2026

From Cherien Dabis’ 2025 Palestinian movie “All That’s Left of You”: when the opressor takes away your land, your home, your children, your rights, your food, your dignity, your safety, your history and your future:

“All that is left of you is your humanity. They can not take that away.”

We see the protagonists choosing to be kind and humane when beset with this choice…

it is an interesting question to ponder over…

German writer Bertolt Brecht’s famously wrote in 1928 (in one of his Marx-inspired plays while calling out the hypocrisy of the morality imposed by the Church and state at the time):

“Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral” or “Grub first, then ethics”

is this always true though?

or is there always a moral choice?

in theory? in mind? in principle?

even in scarcity or starvation or war or authoritarianism…?

In one of her works, philosopher Hannah Arendt argued that the presence of a moral choice and the undeniable power of non-violent resistance is always there even under totalitarianism.

is this claim applicable to all cases of human suffering though?

or is that an illusion we want to construct? would that be another way the oppressor dehumanizes one so the rest of us can keep our hearts at ease regarding the uncomfortable question of the oppressed? so that we can nod our heads and deem them amoral…

is it always possible for us to negotiate between our supposed inner angles and demons?

or is it more likely for revenge or trauma to overwhelm the will to stay humane in a world that has not afforded you any humanity?

In his book “Dawn”, writer Elie Wiesel portrayed a Jewish protagonist from 1947 British-controlled Palestine, a teen survivor of the Buchenwald concentration camp, who has been charged to execute a british soldier. He ultimately becomes the antagonist although he struggles with the moral choices and tries to cling onto himself and humanity. Through him, the writer reflected on the morality of the the new Israel and its imposition that its pain and trauma be passed on because

“When the dead are hungry, they judge the living wihtout pity.”

is this is not about moral absolutism then?

is it consistent morality that is a luxury of the few then?

In so many and varied cultural and social situations, I have seen people choosing morality and kindness and generosity over personal needs, even when they could not afford to…even when it was very difficult to do so…so many will go out of their way to offer you whatever food they have and go hungry themselves…many will choose to stay in adversity but do not want to feed their children any food that has been stolen from someone else’s child’s mouth…