Beyond frames – the unyielding value of every child's life amidst conflict and justification

I want to start off with a statement that is as obvious to me as saying the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. The life of a Palestinian child is worth exactly the same as that of an Israeli child. There is no “yes, but”. There is no “but it is more complicated than that”.

For those of you who do not find this obvious, I will say it again. The life of a child in Gaza is worth exactly the same as any Israeli child killed by Hamas on 7 October 2023. 

If, as you read this, any part of you feels a “yes, but” coming on, then please stop reading, as what I am going to say is going to drive you into paroxysms of rage.

We all tell stories and narratives to make sense of a world that sometimes feels simple, sometimes bewildering, and often frightening. We also tell stories to explain our mistakes, exaggerate our good deeds, and occasionally to justify our cruelty.

Narratives provide us with reassurance when we are scared (“when you die you will go to heaven and be reunited with lost loved ones”); provide a sense of agency in a world full of capricious unpredictability (“I am a self-made man, luck had nothing to do with it”); and they hide our savagery (“children killed in this conflict are collateral damage”).

We may call these stories belief systems, or myths or ideologies. For the purposes of this article, I want to use a more technical term, and to call them “frames”.

A frame, or a framework, is essentially a mental shortcut that helps us make sense of our world. The shortcut can be positive when it brings attention to a neglected area. In my field of research, the use of the frame “toxic stress” has been highly influential in bringing attention to the impact of poverty and neglect on child and adolescent development.

They can also be neutral, albeit essential for our wellbeing, as in the belief in an afterlife.

But they can also be cruel and used to justify the most heinous of acts. Golda Meir, one of the first leaders of Israel, once stated “we will never forgive the Arabs for making us kill their children”. This is a savage and chilling frame. No responsibility, total transfer of blame, and said in the sure knowledge of her utter impunity.

Another example of a frame would be the world view of Douglas Murray, the right-wing associate editor of the Spectator. Murray is a fanboy of Western civilisation. He is also a rabid defender of anything Israel does, and a virulent racist who openly uses the word barbarian. If your frame is “Muslims are barbarians” (as Douglas Murray’s patently is), then 25,000 children being slaughtered is necessary to protect Western civilisation.

I contend that the response of most Western countries to what is happening in Gaza and Lebanon (with exceptions like Ireland and Spain) can be understood using the following frames:

• Israel is facing an existential threat.


• As a result of this existential threat anything Israel does is justified OR nothing Israel does violates international law.


• Israel can never be the aggressor.


• It is complicated.


• Israel always tries to limit civilian casualties OR Israel has the most moral army in the world.


• Israel is saving Western civilisation.


• Israel can never commit a terrorist act.


• The life of an Israeli child is more valuable than that of a Palestinian.


• Anti-Zionism is the same as antisemitism.