Upset and shocked are not enough to describe the utter dismay I feel over the response—or lack thereof—to the recent proposal and acceptance of a ceasefire in Gaza. Over the past two years, the outcry from artists, celebrities, and politicians raging for a ceasefire has rippled through the walls of Latin and exploded within the world at large. “Ceasefire Now” has become the chant of many of my generation, urging an immediate end to the war in Gaza. So why now, when Gaza is on the brink of peace, when Hamas can soon be disarmed and the hostages living in peril can finally return, are the cries of the movement suddenly quieted?

Celebrities like Mark Ruffalo, Billie Eilish, and Lorde have spoken out against Palestinian casualties in Gaza, pledging to boycott Israeli films and music streaming in Israel, and urging a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. Whether consciously or not, their choices to wear the red hand pins—representing the bloodstained hands of people who murdered Jews—have much uglier roots, which contrast with their narrative for peace. For many, these public assertions are seen as the ultimate form of advocacy, standing up for the oppressed, and showing their alliance with the victims of the conflict. While I try not to assume ill intentions, the most recent instances of silence from these same people regarding this ceasefire deal have made me increasingly wary of their true passion for peace in the Middle East.

If their ultimate goals are to provide aid to those suffering and stand up for peace, why are these people so quick to take a stance against Israel, yet—at the perfect opportunity—they shrink in silence when the onus is placed on a terrorist organization?

If this deal mirrored anything like past proposals—one that doesn’t mention a finite stop to the fighting or any sort of ideas for a future of leadership in Gaza—I would more easily understand their reluctance to speak out. But this deal is unprecedented for the war. This deal calls for the eventual dismantling of Hamas, which would significantly improve the lives of the innocent Palestinians who have had to endure Hamas’s exploitative regime for over 20 years. In addition, it requires the immediate return of all 48 hostages, alive and dead, and also outlines the redevelopment of Gaza for the Palestinian people. In the deal, the restoration of Gaza consists of massive aid for Palestinians, including rehabilitation of infrastructure, food, and entry of necessary equipment to remove rubble from the streets of Gaza.

Not only would Hamas be ruled out as the leading government, but Israel would not be the country occupying the region. Rather, a group of Arab countries would collaborate to stabilize the region, allowing for eventual statehood for the Palestinians and a future where Palestinians and Israelis could finally coexist in peace.

While I understand the arguments that this deal does not initially give Palestinians self-determination,

one of the 21 points within the plan specifically states that after the committee designated to stabilize the region succeeds in its mission to redevelop Gaza, the “conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.” While the initial transition period may not reflect the most idealized paradigm for the Palestinian people, I would argue that this deal is one of the best ways to help them achieve their goal of self-governance, and many Palestinians share this view.

The silence among public activists for a ceasefire poses the question of what else would create a better solution to this incredibly nuanced and complex conflict. The current proposal affords the Palestinians a new chance at freedom and rehabilitation. Wouldn’t this be the deal that answers their wishes? Wouldn’t this be the time for the “activist” celebrities to use their megaphones to amplify their desires and celebrate the implementation of a ceasefire? Instead … crickets.

What concerns me most about this silence is that it may be a manifestation of a global narrative that demonizes Israel so much that it calls into question any attempts that Israel proposes to make peace in the region. This vilification invariably leads to a bias against Israel that has often caused people to extend their criticism beyond just Israel’s governmental policies, and into words that threaten the very existence of a state for the Jewish people. Statements like “globalize the intifada” or “from the river to the sea” that call for the extermination of the state of Israel and the Jewish people are dangerous and alarming. We have seen time and time again how dehumanizing language about a group of people—specifically Jews—can lead to extremist actions and mass devastation.

While I’m not nearly arguing that these sentiments will cause an outcome as extreme as the Holocaust, I do believe that Jews all around the world will continue to feel the dangerous impact of this language. Unfortunately, this has led to even more antisemitic attitudes and incidents, such as the murder of two Israeli consulate staffers, the stabbing attack at a Manchester synagogue during the High Holidays, and the Molotov cocktails thrown at a rally in Boulder for a hostage release.

If these influential celebrities truly care about safety for all innocent people, I hope they can see through the blurred lines of politics and stand up for peace, despite possible backlash. Let’s hear them cheering in the streets, celebrating the implementation of a deal that will permanently end the war and allow for real change in the lives of all the shattered Palestinian people.