No worries it is quite difficult of a poem haha
I decided to do the same in under 25 mins and this is what I got: The poem presents the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through two directly parallel perspectives before concluding with a shared lament. By structuring the poem as a triptych, three connected panels, the poet deliberately places Palestinian experience first, then mirrors it with an Israeli perspective, before collapsing both voices into a final section of mutual grief. This structure forces the reader to confront the symmetry of suffering while rejecting the idea of moral simplicity or triumph.
The first section clearly represents Palestinian identity and displacement. This is established through culturally specific language such as “za’atar”, “tatreez”, “keffiyeh”, and olives, which ground the speaker in land, tradition, and inherited memory. The repeated motif of “roots” symbolises deep historical belonging, contrasting painfully with exile. Natural imagery such as wind, earth, and stone suggests permanence, while violence is portrayed as invasive and unnatural. The line “rifles rip through our flesh” uses harsh alliteration and violent verbs to emphasise bodily destruction, making the suffering intimate and human rather than abstract.
Children appear early in this section, “trac[ing] patterns in the dust”, which symbolises both vulnerability and resistance. Dust implies impermanence, yet the act of creating “tatreez” patterns suggests cultural preservation. The poet’s intention here is to show that even when land and homes are destroyed, identity survives through memory and ritual. The personification of the Jordan River “weep[ing] in crimson tide” extends suffering beyond humans to the land itself, reinforcing the idea that the environment absorbs the consequences of violence.
The second section deliberately mirrors the first, but shifts perspective to Israeli experience. This is made clear through new cultural references such as “challah”, “Tel Aviv sand”, “blue and white”, and “scroll of life”. The poet repeats similar sentence structures and motifs, including children, maps, the Jordan River, and wind, creating a structural echo. This parallelism is intentional and confrontational, forcing the reader to recognise that fear, loss, and historical attachment exist on both sides.
Language in this section continues to emphasise vulnerability rather than dominance. “Sirens wail through shattered nights” suggests civilian fear and constant threat, while “we wrap our fears in blue and white” parallels the earlier image of wounds wrapped in a keffiyeh. The poet uses fabric imagery in both sections to symbolise care, protection, and identity, reinforcing equivalence between the two experiences. By repeating accusations from outsiders such as “settlers”, the poet highlights how labels simplify complex histories and perpetuate division.
The final section removes individual perspectives and merges both voices into one collective tragedy. Cultural symbols collide, “za’atar and challah burn in the air”, suggesting that identities once rooted in nourishment are now consumed by violence. Structural repetition continues, but now images overlap rather than mirror, showing how conflict entangles both sides irreversibly. The Jordan River “runs red from both its shores”, erasing boundaries and reinforcing shared culpability and loss.
The poet’s language becomes more abstract and accusatory in this final section, particularly through religious imagery. Lines such as “faith without mercy blinds the sight” reveal the poet’s intention to criticise dogmatic belief systems that justify violence. The closing line, “Not to conquer but to mourn”, rejects nationalist narratives entirely, positioning grief as the only honest response.
Overall, the poet uses a triptych structure, mirrored language, and recurring motifs to challenge the reader to move beyond partisan thinking. By presenting two parallel narratives and ending in shared mourning, the poem argues that the land does not belong to one people alone and that suffering, when repeated across generations, becomes universal rather than divisive.
Bear in mind I do English lit and I’m in year 13 so definitely have a lot more experience with analysing though. You did so well considering the time constraints!! When I was doing GCSEs I used mr bruff and also mr salles teachers English on YouTube, could be useful for your own revision I’d highly recommend it!
