All that is left of you

Date: 06-03-2026

Yesterday, I went to watch 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, I quote Cherien:

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

In her movie, we see the protagonists choosing to be kind and humane when beset with this choice…

It is an interesting question to ponder over…

How free and how accessible is human morality as a choice? And who gets to sit over these judgements?

German writer Bertolt Brecht’s famous line comes to mind (from one of his plays from 1928 where he called out the hypocrisy of the morality imposed by the Church and state):

“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?

In scarcity? in war? in authoritarianism…?

In one of her works, philosopher Hannah Arendt argued that the presence of a moral choice and 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 shake our heads in unison and deem them amoral…and hence, not worth our pity or thought.

Is it always possible for us to negotiate between our supposed inner angels and demons?

Or is it more likely for revenge and 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 vividly portrayed this inner dialogue in 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 tries to cling onto himself and humanity. Through him, the writer reflected on the moral choice of new Israel and its imposition that its pain and trauma be passed on because

“When the dead are hungry, they judge the living without pity.”

Is it moral absolutism that is breaking down?

Or is it moral consistency that is a luxury of the few?

Not always, maybe not even frequently, but still in so many socioeconomical situations, we see people choosing morality and kindness and generosity over personal needs, even when they can not afford to…even when it is very difficult to do so. So many go out of their way to offer you whatever food they have and go hungry themselves. So many 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…