Shame enthusiast 🇵🇸🔻

There are absolutely valid criticisms of how protective presence operates in the West Bank, particularly when people monetize Palestinian suffering, center themselves, or become more of a liability to the communities they’re supposedly there to protect. But I think it’s deeply misguided to dismiss protective presence as a concept, especially when Palestinians themselves have explicitly called for international volunteers to provide it. Protective presence has a long history in Palestine. It can serve a real purpose, whether accompanying farmers facing settler attacks, helping communities remain on their land, documenting Israeli violence, or attempting to deter it through international visibility. That doesn’t mean every volunteer is effective, or that good intentions automatically translate into meaningful protection. We should be demanding more accountability and more meaningful solidarity, not ridiculing the very idea of people physically showing up for Palestinians. And we shouldn’t forget people like Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall, and Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi, who were killed by Israeli forces while standing in solidarity with Palestinians. Their sacrifices are a reminder that this history cannot simply be reduced to performative activism or Instagram likes. I can’t speak to everyone’s intentions, particularly in the age of social media, and I certainly don’t think international volunteers should be beyond criticism. But there’s a difference between criticizing people who exploit solidarity and dismissing a practice that Palestinian communities have requested and continue to rely on. The question should be how to make protective presence more effective, accountable, and responsive to Palestinian needs, not whether we should discourage people from showing up in the first place.