Skip to main content

What's Qatar's role in the Israel-Hamas negotiations?

In short: Qatar, a small country in the Persian Gulf with “absurd” natural gas and oil wealth, told the U.S. it would discuss its relationship with Hamas. Despite its small size, Qatar has historically played an outsize role in negotiating with organizations or countries that the U.S. can't or won't deal with directly. Most recently, Qatar is helping to negotiate the release of hostages taken on Oct. 7 from Israel by Hamas.  

Where is Qatar?

Qatar, which is four times the size of Rhode Island with a population roughly the size of Kansas, sits on the southwest coast of the Persian Gulf. It has a gross domestic product of $235.5 billion, or roughly $81,970 per person. In comparison, while the U.S.’ GDP is $26.95 trillion, its GDP per person is slightly less than Qatar’s, at $80,410.

Most of Qatar’s wealth comes from oil and natural gas, which “account for more than 70% of total government revenue, more than 60% of gross domestic product, and roughly 85% of export earnings.”

Qatar has used its wealth to bolster its international profile and military. When Qatar hosted the World Cup in 2022, it spent $220 billion on building stadiums, airports, hotels, a train system, and other infrastructure necessary to host the teams and the fans attending the event. In all, Qatar spent “15 times more than Russia did in 2018 as the previous hosts.” 

Qatar also spends heavily on its military, spending more per person than any other country at $5,171 – doubling Israel, the second-largest spender.

What is the U.S.’ relationship with Qatar?

The U.S. and Qatar have what the U.S. calls a “strong” relationship, despite Qatar’s support of Hamas, cooperation with the Taliban government in Afghanistan, and past U.S. allegations that Qatar finances terrorist groups.


The Overview newsletter

The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.

 

The two countries established a relationship in 1972, a year after Qatar became independent from the U.K. Qatar is now home to the U.S.’ largest military base in the Middle East, Al-Udeid Air Base, which can accommodate about 10,000 military personnel, the U.S. Air Forces Central Command, and four other command centers.

The U.S. is also “Qatar’s largest foreign direct investor,” owning $3.9 billion in Qatari stock in 2022. In 2019, Qatar announced plans to invest $45 billion in the U.S. These investments have included buying stakes in Washington state’s NHL, NBA, and WNBA teams. Qatar also sold 4.18 million barrels of oil to the U.S. between January and July 2023.

In March 2022, the U.S. officially designated Qatar a “major non-NATO” ally. Countries with this designation can receive U.S. military training and become reserves for U.S. military stockpiles.

Iran asks other countries to stop weapons transfers to Israel

The Al-Udeid Air Base, which is Qatari-owned, has become a point of tension in the Israel-Hamas war, as Iran urges other countries in the region to stop weapons transfers from the U.S. to Israel that use U.S. bases as waypoints. 

Qatar also has often served as a middleman between the U.S. and countries or organizations the U.S. doesn’t have relations with. This fall, Qatar has helped negotiate the release of five Americans imprisoned in Iran and four Ukrainian children who had been taken to Russia.

What role is Qatar playing in Israeli hostage negotiations?

Qatar is once again a middleman, negotiating the release of over 200 hostages Hamas took from Israel on Oct. 7 – so far, four hostages have been released.

Why won't the U.S. talk directly with Hamas?

Since the U.S. has long held the position that it doesn’t negotiate with terrorists and since Hamas has been designated a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” since 1997, the U.S. won't directly negotiate the release of hostages.

Qatar is in a unique position to negotiate. While maintaining strong relations with the U.S., it also has a close relationship with Hamas. A Qatari official told NBC News that Qatar gave $1.49 billion in aid to Gaza between 2012 and 2021. But NBC News also notes, “Experts, enemies and Western governments have questioned whether Hamas mingles the money for its military operations with money meant for civilian use.”

Qatar says the money – which is overseen by Israel and the United Nations – has not been used for unapproved reasons, including to support Hamas.

Qatar has “paid the salaries of civil servants in the Gaza Strip, provided direct cash transfers to poor families and offered other kinds of humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza,” as part of past cease-fire agreements between Israel and Hamas, according to PBS.

Qatar lets an exiled Hamas leader operate an office in Doha, the Qatari capital.  

“Qatar has a 360-degree foreign policy,” former CIA official and Middle East scholar Bruce Riedel told The Washington Post. “They host senior Hamas political officials. They provide the United States with a huge air base. They talk to the Iranians. They cover all their bases, so they can communicate with anybody at any time in a low-key fashion.”

After the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and Israeli siege on Gaza that ensued, Qatar released a statement saying Israel is “solely responsible for the ongoing escalation due to its continuous violations of the rights of the Palestinian people…”

But Qatar has said it will “revisit” its relationship with Hamas after the hostages are returned, according to The Washington Post.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
4 minute read

What is a 'humanitarian pause' and how is it different from a 'cease-fire'?

Two resolutions to stop the Israel-Hamas war were vetoed by the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.

The U.S.-backed resolution called for a “humanitarian pause” in the besieged Gaza Strip. The pause would allow for the delivery of essential goods like food, water, medical supplies, and fuel into the region. 

Other council members noted that a pause is not the same thing as a cease-fire, which is supported by U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres among others.

According to the U.N., a “humanitarian pause” is a “temporary cessation of hostilities” so that humanitarian aid can be carried out. A pause usually lasts for a defined period — it could be as short as a few hours — and occurs in a specific area.

A “cease-fire,” by contrast, is intended as a long-term cessation of fighting with the aim to “allow parties to engage in dialogue, including the possibility of reaching a permanent political settlement.”

On Friday, the U.N. General Assembly is expected to vote on an Arab states-backed resolution that calls for an immediate cease-fire.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
1 minute read

The US is sending more troops to the Middle East. Where in the world are US military deployed?

In short: Iran’s foreign minister warned the Israeli government to stop airstrikes on the Gaza Strip or else “anything is possible at any moment and the region will go out of control.” In response, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced, in a statement, the deployment of more U.S. military to the region. In 2022, there were about 170,000 troops stationed outside of the U.S. and its territories – as of June 2023, there were over 30,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East alone.

Where are U.S. military stationed around the world?

While the U.S. boosts its military presence in the Middle East, it maintains troops on every continent.

As of September 2022, there are 171,736 active-duty military troops across 178 countries, with the most in Japan (53,973), Germany (35,781), and South Korea (25,372). These three countries also have the most U.S. military bases – 120, 119, and 73, respectively.  

There are around 750 U.S. military bases in at least 80 countries, though Al Jazeera says the number “may be even higher as not all data is published by the Pentagon.”  

Many U.S. military bases were built after World War II “when the U.S. took position as the global leader and peacekeeper in and around Japan and Germany,” which explains why those two countries have the most bases. Then the Cold War and the Korean War gave the U.S. another reason for global military expansion – to contain communism.

The U.S. has since expanded into the Middle East and surrounding area – Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia each have at least 10 bases.

From October 2001 through September 2020, U.S. taxpayers paid $6.4 trillion to the federal government that went to wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan. In the post-9/11 years through 2022, the Department of Defense also received an $884 billion increase to its baseline budget.  

In 2022, the U.S. spent $877 billion on its military – the most of any country, and more than China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, the U.K., Germany, France, South Korea, Japan, and Ukraine combined. This figure includes $19.9 billion in military aid to Ukraine, according to the report.

The U.S. spends $2,169 on the military per person, according to NATO data. In total, the U.S. spends about 12% of all its spending on the military, compared to China’s 4.79%.

Historically, the U.S. has used promoting democracy as justification for its far-reaching military network, although U.S. dependence on oil from the Middle East also has been “an underlying motive for direct military intervention or meddling in political development,” according to the Global Policy Forum.

How have U.S. military deployments and bases changed this year?

As tensions ramp up in the Middle East and the South China Sea, the U.S. has upped its military presence in these regions.

Since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel that led to an Israeli siege on Gaza, the U.S. has sent military support to Israel and deployed more to the Middle East generally.

On Oct. 8, Austin announced that he ordered the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group, the Navy’s “newest and most advanced aircraft carrier,” to move into the region and be ready to aid Israel.

In the wake of Hamas’ initial attack and the Israeli blockade on Gaza that lasted for over two weeks, Israel is preparing for a ground invasion. Iran has alluded to stepping in to support Hamas if the ground offensive starts.

Iran asks other countries to stop weapons transfers to Israel

The Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar has become a point of tension in the Israel-Hamas war, as Iran urges other countries in the region to stop weapons transfers from the U.S. to Israel that use U.S. bases as waypoints. 

Al-Udeid Air Base is the biggest U.S. military base in the Middle East, with space for 10,000 military personnel. It hosts the U.S. Air Forces Central Command and four other command centers. The air base is owned by Qatar, which released a statement saying Israel is “solely responsible for the ongoing escalation due to its continuous violations of the rights of the Palestinian people…”

In April 2022, the U.S. officially designated Qatar a “major non-NATO” ally, which meant certain “privileges” like assisting military training and weapons transfers.

Tensions are spreading in the Middle East, and there has been “a wave of attacks” on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria that injured 24 U.S. troops.

Austin announced on Oct. 21 that another aircraft carrier would be sent to the same area as the Eisenhower, and military units would be sent throughout the Middle East to “bolster regional deterrence efforts, increase force protection for U.S. forces in the region, and assist in the defense of Israel.”

An aerial view shows a vessel preparing for a search-and-rescue exercise off Taiping island, in the South China Sea , Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2016, as part of efforts to cement its claim to a key island in the strategically vital waterbody. Eight vessels and three aircraft took part in Tuesday's drill, which simulated a fire aboard a cargo ship that forced crew members to seek safety on Taiping in the Spratly island group. (AP Photo/Johnson Lai)

In the South China Sea – the area between China and Taiwan – tensions have increased since the beginning of the year. China believes it has sovereignty over the island, which has been self-ruled for nearly 75 years, and may be ramping up its efforts following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, according to Taiwan Defense Minister Chiu Kuo-cheng.

In April 2023, China performed “large-scale combat exercises around Taiwan” that included a simulated blockade.

While the U.S. does not officially recognize Taiwan, a U.S. law requires it to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself.

In February the U.S. and the Philippines struck a deal that allows U.S. forces access to four additional military camps in the Philippines; two of these are near Taiwan, giving the U.S. access to a total of nine military camps. Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. told China that the military bases available to the U.S. military wouldn’t be used for any “offensive action,” only to aid the Philippines.

Why does the Philippines let the U.S. use its military camps?

In 1951 the U.S. and the Philippines signed the Mutual Defense Treaty, assuring that if one nation were attacked, the other would come to its aid. A later agreement, the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, provides the U.S. access to certain Filipino military bases.

How do Americans feel about U.S. engagement overseas?

Overall, young Americans seem to have less trust in U.S. institutions, such as the military, and question U.S. military involvement abroad.

A September 2023 Gallup poll found that one-quarter of Generation Z have “very little” trust in the U.S. military, although Gen Z Republicans are more likely to trust the military compared to Gen Z Democrats.

More than half of Gen Z also believe that the U.S. should stay out of world affairs, according to polling from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and over one-third believe the U.S. should cut its defense spending.  

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
5 minute read

'Peace is possible'

"Only last week we were in Jerusalem, in the Dead Sea together, hundreds of Israeli and Palestinian women calling the leaders of both sides to begin negotiations before things escalated. We cannot live like this anymore. We deserve peace. All of us in this region." -Dr. Yael Braudo-Bahat, Women Wage Peace

Editor's note: On November 13, it was reported that Israeli officials had notified peace activist Vivian Silver's family that she had been killed in the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, not held hostage in Gaza as originally believed.

German public opinion on Israel-Palestinian conflict shifts after Hamas attack, new polling shows

Before Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, killing 1,400 people, most Germans thought Israelis were slightly more responsible than Palestinians for the conflict between them. But new polling shows that the recent violence has changed public opinion in Germany.

The survey of over 3,000 people was conducted both before and during Hamas’ attacks and Israel’s ongoing bombing campaign in the Gaza Strip, and captured Germans’ attitudes changing in real time as the violence unfolded. 

“Just completely randomly, that survey coincided with the recent Hamas attack,” said Anselm Hager, a political scientist and Humboldt University professor who conducted the online poll. He and his co-author, Miguel Pereira, were surveying German attitudes on antisemitism at the time, including a question asking respondents to rank on a 10-point scale: “Who do you think is more to blame for the Israel-Palestine conflict?” where a zero indicated that “Israelis are entirely to blame,” a five indicated that both sides were equally responsible, and a 10 indicated that “Palestinians are entirely to blame.” 

Hager told Blue Marble that the data has not yet been peer-reviewed and to not overinterpret the results. But he and Pereira decided to share their findings on X (formerly Twitter) to help audiences understand how public opinion was changing in “a chaotic situation,” Hager said.

Recent polling shows a snapshot of public sentiment in Germany from before the latest Israel-Hamas war. Polling from YouGov this summer found that 17% of Germans sympathized more with the ”Israeli side” and 15% sympathized more with the “Palestinian side.” Twenty-six percent sympathized with “both sides” equally while nearly half (43%) was unsure. 

Last year, polling from an independent German research group found that about one-third of Germans agreed that “what the state of Israel is doing to the Palestinians today is in principle no different than what the Nazis in the Third Reich did to the Jews.” Forty percent disagreed and one-quarter said they did not know. 

In Hager’s survey, just before the Oct. 7 attack, Germans said Israelis were slightly more responsible for conflict with Palestinians – scoring 4.5 on the 10-point scale. 

There was a one-point jump immediately after the attack — to about 5.5 — meaning the German public thought Palestinians were slightly more responsible. 

Hager said that people’s attitudes toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are usually “fairly stable” and would be hard to change. 

“So a one-point jump — that’s a lot,” Hager said. 

That’s also true in the U.S., where polling over two decades from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs has found little change in support for Israel and Palestinians over time. 

“Few people say it’s entirely Israel, it’s entirely Palestine,” Hager said. 

In response to the Oct. 7 attack, Israel declared war on Hamas and dropped at least 6,000 bombs on Gaza, killing thousands of residents.

During Israel’s bombing campaign, German public opinion blaming Palestinians for conflict continued to harden among Germans aged 24 and over. 

“If anything, the effect is stronger now,” said Hager. 

Attitudes shifted most among left-leaning Germans and older Germans, but the opinions of younger respondents aged 18-24 did not change: They continue to hold Israelis slightly more responsible than Palestinians. Among Germans over age 24 however, public opinion continued trending toward blaming Palestinians even as Israel escalated its bombing campaign in Gaza after Hamas’ attack.

Overall, Hager’s research has found that when German politicians see polling, they change their rhetoric to match public opinion

“Politicians listen to the polls,” Hager said. 

Lama El Baz contributed to reporting and data analysis for this story. 

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
3 minute read

U.S. financial assistance to Israel

In short: After the latest Israel-Hamas war broke out Oct. 7 and Israel began a siege on the Gaza Strip, President Joe Biden announced $100 million in “humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank.” Biden also sent Congress a request on Oct. 20 for $14.3 billion in aid for Israel. While the U.S. and Israel have what has historically been called a “special relationship,” the U.S. has given funds directly to the Palestinian territories as well and is often among the top donors to a United Nations agency that runs Palestinian refugee camps.  

When did U.S. aid to Israel start?

The U.S. has been giving aid to Israel since 1948, when it became a state.

U.S. aid to Israel has largely been direct giving (also called bilateral aid), for three goals:

  • Military: money given to Israel to build up its armed forces and its private defense industry, “which now ranks as one of the top global arms exporters”
  • Economic: aid that is meant to improve a country’s industry to meet “near-term political, economic and development needs,” according to the U.S. State Department
  • Missile defense: money approved by Congress for U.S.-Israel missile defense programs, where “Israel and the United States each contribute financially to several weapons systems and engage in co-development, co-production, and/or technology sharing in connection with them.”

In total, the U.S. has given Israel “$318 billion since the end of World War II,” according to PolitiFact. It’s given the Palestinian territories more than $11 billion since 1950.

How has U.S. aid changed?

In the first few decades of U.S. aid to Israel, the amounts were "relatively small.” From 1949 to 1973, the U.S. gave Israel a total of $3.1 billion – $700 million less than it receives annually under a 2016 Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Israel.

Between 1970 and 1979, the U.S. gave Israel a total of $16.3 billion.

Israel initially “received significant economic and humanitarian aid along with military aid. However, as Israel has become wealthier, the U.S. has dramatically reduced its economic and humanitarian aid, while continuing its military aid,” according to PolitiFact.

How wealthy is Israel?

In 2020, Israel was among the “top 20 economies in the world” based on its per capita GDP. That year, Israel’s GDP per capita – a country’s total value of goods and services produced divided by the total population – was $52,200. By comparison, Canada’s GDP per capita was $52,400 and the U.S.’ was around $70,200.

Between 1949 and 1959, only .06% of U.S. aid to Israel was for military assistance. In 2021, 99.8% of U.S. aid to Israel was military, according to USAID’s foreign assistance database.

A $38 billion "Memorandum of Understanding"

Some of Israel’s military funding comes from the 10-year “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) the U.S. and Israel signed in 2016. The agreement guarantees Israel $3.3 billion in U.S. military aid each year and an additional $500 million for missile defense funding through 2028. The total aid will be $38 billion. This is the third 10-year MOU the U.S. and Israel have signed since 1981. ­­

What is aid like now?

Israel is set to receive at least $3.8 billion per year from the MOU until 2028. Biden also requested $14.3 billion for Israel from Congress on Oct. 20 – part of a $105 billion package that would also include money for Ukraine, Taiwan, the Indo-Pacific region, humanitarian aid, and security at the southern U.S. border.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has signaled the bill is likely to pass the Senate, although the House has been unable to elect a speaker, putting any other voting on hold.  

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
3 minute read

US financial assistance to the Palestinian territories

In short: After the latest Israel-Hamas war broke out on Oct. 7 and Israel began a siege on the Gaza Strip, President Joe Biden announced $100 million in “humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank.” Biden also sent Congress a request on Oct. 20 for $14.3 billion in aid for Israel. While the U.S. and Israel have what has historically been called a “special relationship,” the U.S. has given funds directly to the Palestinian territories as well and is often among the top donors to a United Nations agency that runs Palestinian refugee camps.  

When did U.S. aid to the Palestinian territories start?

The U.S. gives aid to the Palestinian territories in two ways:

  • Direct funds to the Palestinian territories (also called bilateral aid). This can come directly from Congress or through government agencies like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) or the Economic Support Fund (ESF), which provides economic development funding abroad.
  • Contributions to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), which operates 58 refugee camps, including in Gaza and the West Bank.  
Why are there Palestinian refugees?

In 1922, the region that is now Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank was deemed the Mandate for Palestine by the League of Nations and administered by the U.K. In 1947, the U.N. proposed separating the region into two states – one Palestinian and one Jewish. A war broke out between Jewish and Arab groups in the region, and in 1948 Israel declared independence.

During the war, Israel took over 77% of the region, and more than “half of the Palestinian Arab population fled or were expelled.” In 1967, an estimated 500,000 Palestinians fled the West Bank and Gaza. Those who fled due to the 1948 war, as well as the descendants of male refugees, are officially defined as “Palestine refugees” by the U.N.

Since 1950, the U.S. has contributed over $6 billion to the UNRWA. The U.S. is one of the UNRWA’s largest contributors, along with Germany, the EU, and Sweden, which together make up 61.4% of the total funding. (Here’s a full UNRWA donor list going back to 2006.)

Direct aid from the U.S. to the Palestinian territories began in 1994, when an initial agreement was reached for “Palestinian self-rule” in Gaza and the West Bank; that aid totals over $5 billion.

In total, the U.S. has given the Palestinian territories over $11 billion since 1950, including the $6 billion given to the UNRWA. It’s given Israel “$318 billion since the end of World War II,” according to PolitiFact.

How has U.S. aid changed?

Bilateral U.S. aid to the Palestinian territories increased in 2007, after Hamas and Fatah were unable to maintain a coalition government in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Fighting broke out, and Hamas eventually took control of Gaza.

But according to a 2018 Congressional Research Service report, since 2010, “the executive branch and Congress have taken various measures to reduce or delay U.S. aid to the Palestinians.”

These reductions included former presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump lowering the baseline funding for the ESF and for the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement, which gave assistance to the Palestinian Authority to “train, reform, advise, house, and provide nonlethal equipment for PA civil security forces in the West Bank loyal to President [Mahmoud] Abbas.”

One of Obama’s last actions in office was to send $221 million to the Palestinian Authority, which governs part of the West Bank; Trump later blocked the aid.

In 2018, the Trump administration cut over $200 million in bilateral Palestinian aid and reduced UNRWA funding by $300 million.

Then in 2019, the U.S. froze all aid to the West Bank and Gaza over an anti-terrorism law. The law allows “Americans to sue those receiving foreign aid from their country in US courts over alleged complicity in 'acts of war.'" The Palestinian Authority asked the U.S. State Department to stop all aid, according to a BBC report, for fear of lawsuits.

In 2020, the law was amended to be more specific, subjecting “to U.S. jurisdiction anyone making a payment to a convicted terrorist or their family member, anyone who maintains an office or headquarters in the U.S. (with certain exceptions, including offices maintained for the purposes of conducting business with the United Nations), or anyone who conducts activity in the U.S. on behalf of the Palestinian Liberation Organization or the Palestinian Authority,” but opening up the door to otherwise send aid.  

What is aid like now?

In April 2021, Biden resumed sending U.S. aid to the Palestinian territories, and in March 2022 Congress approved $219 million in aid for Palestinians. In July 2022, the Biden administration announced an additional $200 million to UNRWA.

USAID announced it had spent $150 million in the Palestinian territories in 2022 and will spend $500 million between 2021 and 2024.

On Oct. 18, Biden announced $100 million in humanitarian aid due to the Israel-Hamas war and Israel’s ongoing siege, which has cut off access to food, water, and electricity in Gaza.

“This funding will help support over a million displaced and conflict-affected people with clean water, food, hygiene support, medical care, and other essential needs,” according to a White House statement.  

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
4 minute read

What to do when you don't know what to say — about Gaza, the Israel-Hamas War, or anything else

Since the recent war broke out in Israel and the Palestinian territories, students, universities, politicians, and companies have taken to social media to condemn the violence and express concern for those killed and injured.

Some have received pushback for what they have said. Others have received pushback for what they have left unsaid. Many more have sat in a mix of grief, rage, and confusion asking, “What do I say at a time like this?”

It is understandable to want to engage in what is going on in the world. In recent years, social media has become the primary vessel to do so. But pausing can be just as important as publishing.

“I think it's completely unrealistic to think that we ought or even could be adequately informed about everything,” Mónica Guzmán, author of “I Never Thought of It That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times” told Blue Marble. “It is very good, as an internal sort of self-awareness, to recognize when we have more questions about an issue than we have answers.”

Guzmán isn’t saying that we should log off, or even take a position of silence. Rather, she says that social media should be a starting point for engaging in global issues. She offers up the idea of ‘containment’— a more intentional “Can we take this offline?” — as a step toward more productive conversations.

She spoke with Blue Marble’s Christina Colón about the pressure to belong, the limitations of social media platforms, and how we can have more mindful conversations.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Mónica Guzmán: What we have to say becomes one of the most important things about who we are. A lot of folks have put into their Twitter [now X] profiles, or wherever they are, statements about what they believe and what they don't believe. And I think it feels like that's what we need to do in order to be anything in these spaces. It's closely tied to having a sense of identity, which at its core is about finding a sense of belonging.

Who are your people and who are not your people is a question that you're constantly negotiating when you're on social media. And the way to do that is to put your statement, put your stuff out there, and then maybe respond or judge everyone else's.

Christina Colón: This gets at the question of, ‘What do we do when we want to say something and we want to let people know who we are, but we don't feel informed enough about an issue to put something out there?’ How do we approach those moments?

I think what it takes to gain that perspective and confidence that you don't have to have a statement or an opinion on everything, and you don't have to feel like something is wrong with you if you are not informed enough on every single thing, is to spend some time off those platforms where you can reconnect to the moment, your setting, the people who are around you, and you feel the primacy of that presence.

You live in your own head. And in your own head, you're constantly being queried. You're constantly being put on the stand. What do you believe? Where do you stand? What do you do now? I think that it is very good as an internal sort of self-awareness to recognize when we have more questions about an issue than we have answers.

I would say that a lot of us miss recognizing that we feel the pressure to just belong. And so we feel the pressure to just say, to just repost, to just agree or disagree reactively, rather than say, ‘Well, I don't know a lot about this. What do I need to unlearn? Where can I go to ask some questions?’

But the other challenge is that even if you do that, it's not just about information. It's about concern, worry, hope, emotion. And we all have this radar, these gut senses, that we either like or don't like [something]. We cringe or we lean into issues. And you don't need to be informed for that reaction to come up. And sometimes that reaction is enough. And that's when we get rage, we get fear, we get all these things. So it also takes some mindfulness: 'I have this feeling, I have this revulsion to this. Let me get curious about where that comes from.'

That's a way of being informed as well.

And how do we approach those conversations when they are emotional — and for very good reasons. How do we know how to get in those spaces and have meaningful conversations? How do we know how to open those doors and not create more divisiveness or hostility in those moments?

The first thing is to check the context. So if you're coming into an Instagram or a TikTok comment thread, keep several things in mind. One is, if you comment, if you say something into this, it's public. Whatever you're saying and whatever people are saying back has this mass audience of indeterminate size – a sort of panopticon. And if your concern is belonging and coming off smart or morally right, then in those kinds of exposed spaces – especially where people cannot witness the listening of others – then what we do is we perform our perspectives instead of explore our perspectives. It's a theater.

Now, if what you want is to approach it productively, that can mean many things. But if part of your definition is, ‘I want to explore, along with somebody else, the questions that I have and sort of test my views against theirs and see what we can learn,’ an open, exposed space is not a great place to do that.

What I would do is encourage you to increase what I call ‘containment.’ The containment of a conversation is the degree to which it is contained to the people actually participating in it. If you're going back and forth with someone on one thread, but it's part of a larger conversation, which is part of this other post, it's so uncontained you don't know who is listening. That other person is not going to be candid and neither are you. So how useful is that really? Turn up the containment. Reach out to that person and say, ‘Hey, can we get on the phone? Can we go to a DM?’

And then the other that I'll mention is the context on social media is often asynchronous, which is a beautiful, incredible thing. It scales our conversation, our ability to have lots of conversations. But you don't have to answer right now. What will that do? Well, if we're having a stressful conversation, I'll be stressed out about what you're gonna say for an hour while I wait. I'm not there in presence with you to witness how you might struggle with what you'll say. And so we just stretch out this anxiety. And is it worth it? Is that really what we want to do?

Just because it starts on social media doesn't mean it has to stay on social media. And it probably shouldn't. Take it offline. Take it somewhere where the full toolbox of human communication can serve you.

How do you signal to someone on social media that you are coming from a place of curiosity and exploration? That you want to take this offline?

You can only use the tools at your disposal. [On] social media platforms, the number one thing is text. Take everything that your smile would have done for you and put it into text. You end up having to write a lot more words: ‘I know this is a really tough one. I think what I hear you saying is … I don't mean to press you if you don't want to answer this right now, but I am curious about what you have to say on this issue … I wonder if we could take this offline.’

A lot of folks, without meaning to, end up coming off kind of curt or short on social media because they're speaking as if they were on platforms where more of their gestures and their tone and their laughter and everything was doing work for them. But when all that is stripped away, you have to interpret all of that into words and put that in. And it can be awkward. But it’s not impossible.

Mónica Guzmán is the senior fellow at Braver Angels, the nation's largest grassroots cross-partisan nonprofit dedicated to political depolarization and the author of “I Never Thought of It That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times.” She is also the host of “A Braver Way,” a podcast that seeks to equip people with the tools they need to bridge the political divide in their everyday lives.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
7 minute read
Subscribe to