As the images of a war half a world away—one that has nothing to do with the United States no matter how much brainwashing you have suffered—are blasted on your screen and flooding social media, people will inevitably start searching for answers that will not only end this bloodshed but prevent these conflicts in the future (once they get over their initial horror or bloodlust). However, solutions in real life are the most difficult to devise, especially when you’re dealing with humans trying to live their lives in a historical way. If they are actively discouraged from doing so, this will only make things worse. Tension and chaos don’t lend themselves to clear minds and logical thinking.

When it comes to the current conflict, proposals have been made in the past in the form of one-state and two-state solutions. I’m not here to argue for or against either. What I’m pointing out is that whether you believe either of those frameworks are plausible or not, these proposals have been supported in the past by rational people, well before this “conflict” reached the point where they seemed impossible due to either side reaching a breaking point. Serious people on the Israeli and Palestinian sides supported both one- or two-state solutions. That neither were adopted may be tragic in that they could have prevented bloodshed.

What people who wish to be taken seriously do not advocate for is a no-state solution. This solution is the realm of people who are either lost in an online fantasy culture or those who are selling utopia but will argue all day that because they never use that word, you’re straw-manning them. Yet, some of these same people will say with a straight face that there is nothing more utopian than believing that the state will bring about utopia. Which is, of course, a straw man as well. I have read many political theorists, and none who advocate for a state say it could ever lead to utopia. Except possibly communists, which would put the accuser in the realm of calling every statist a communist.

I understand that people’s principles are important to them, and I would never discourage someone from living out those principles in their personal lives, but applying your personal morality to those who don’t share the same morality when it comes to the political realm is suicidal. Not to mention, trying to sell people on an untested “no-state” framework when a war is going on is about the most tone-deaf thing I can think of. I’m of the opinion that many of the atrocities we’re seeing on social media have been staged by both sides, but if people believe they’re true and are scared the local Piggly Wiggly is going to be overrun by mutated Hamas chimeras, maybe start by pointing out that the charred body may be AI. Or it may be from Waco circa 1993. But sure, they want to hear your proposal for ending all nations because “it couldn’t be any worse than it is now!” Prove that assertion.

If you’re one of those people who feels as if you have to save the world, I would beg you to please stop and save yourself first. Then worry about those around you and those who share your values—those who are on your team. When fear and despair are gripping people and they’re searching for answers, they should be looking to those closest to them for those answers. This first means they have to trust you. I don’t know that I’d have time for someone in my inner circle whose answers are “Just end the state, bro.” That doesn’t solve the problem in front of you. People want answers to what they’re suffering right now. Your principled conclusion that no one alive has an immediate path doesn't solve imminent problems. Making a good-faith attempt to provide those solutions, even if they produce no fruit, is more productive for your people than pie-in-the-sky platitudes. It builds trust. And trust builds community. And trust is the path to the order we seek.