The older I get, the less certain I am about things. There's nuance everywhere, and heroes often prove to stand on legs of sand. Things that seemed clear only a few years ago, now don’t seem nearly so clear. Things are happening fast and what happens next is unpredictable. And so, I'm surprised when I encounter people so confident in their beliefs — to an extreme — not only sure, but holding firm that anyone who holds any view different from their own is either stupid, misinformed, or even evil.
This brings to mind a wonderful quotation from philosopher Eric Hoffer:
“The beginning of thought is in disagreement — not only with others, but also with ourselves.”
I struggle with my beliefs every day. We all should.
This leads me to Israel and Palestine. Beyond the various protests, peace plans, and accusations, I have concluded that no breakthrough can occur as long as people on all sides cling to their perceived truth, and cannot see a different “truth” from another perspective. Rather than recounting the long history of enmity between the protagonists, or seeking to weigh these arguments, I’d like to think about ways in which the Gordian knot can slowly be unwound and people can live in peace.
Is there any justification for the “other point of view”?
Recently, I was accosted by a friend who claimed that my “facts on Israel” were all wrong — asserting that Israel has been 100% justified in all of its actions in Gaza, which have included at times the bombing of hospitals and the denial of food and humanitarian aid. A week earlier, I was admonished by someone else for being pro-Zionist and, in their mind, complicit in the Israeli occupation and the terrorism meted out by West Bank settlers. That person sees the October 7th murders as, while not justifiable, not surprising in light of Israel’s actions as a “colonial power.” Neither person could see even a shred of empathy for, or logic in the concerns of, the other. Meanwhile, children throughout the region are sacrificed in a seemingly endless struggle. As someone who tries to find the merit in both sides of any debate, I tried to share with each of them a more nuanced view that acknowledged the suffering of the other, without success.
Tragedy followed by hope?
We're approaching the third anniversary of October 7, 2023, when Israel suffered the greatest unprovoked attack upon Jews since the Holocaust. Most rational observers acknowledge the brutality and inhumanity of that day. Many will concede that the response has proven excessive. Now that the hot war is over and a fragile ceasefire exists, the hard part of rebuilding and reconciliation lies ahead. While there's reason for cautious optimism, particularly after the outlines of next steps seem to be supported by the bulk of the international community, I worry that the cease fire is merely the latest “breather” until the next confrontation.
The struggle of Israel and the Palestinians is a place where history is subverted and bent by both parties to serve competing narratives, neither of which is completely true (nor is completely false). Each of these narratives is felt with absolute confidence by most of its adherents. Until that certainty evolves to allow for challenges to deep-seated beliefs and acceptance of “the other,” how can there be hope for a lasting peace?
Before any boundaries can be drawn and before any governing vehicle can be established, two things must happen. First, the dehumanization of the other must end. Until each side can empathize with the death and destruction meted out to the other over decades of shared suffering, there can be no peace. Second, the delegitimization of the other must end. Each side must accept the sincerity of the other’s narrative (even while disagreeing with it to a significant degree), together with the other’s right to nationhood and self-determination.
Tragic from all perspectives
I have friends who believe that Palestinian terrorism is at the root of the troubles. They believe there is no legitimate peace-loving entity representing the Palestinian people. They cite repeated rejection of peace proposals by the Palestinian Authority and repeated acts of terrorism by Hamas, an organization whose raison d'etre is the destruction of its neighbor. They don’t hold Israel accountable for any aspect of the plight of the Palestinian people.
Similarly, I have friends who note that Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza has impeded any meaningful progress forward, rendering any Israeli policy fundamentally invalid and justifying nearly any act of resistance. Many of these people also question the legitimacy of any “ethnocentric” regime (ignoring the others in the Arab world), and some of them question the very legitimacy of Israel as a Zionist state.
The Israeli narrative of the war of independence is one where all the land was purchased from Palestinians or the Palestinians left their homes in anticipation of eradication of the state by its Arab neighbors. That initial failure has been followed by terrorism and intifadas leaving Israelis feeling vulnerable. The Palestinian narrative is one of forced and often violent exile in a perpetual state of second-class residency in an occupied territory. They suffer the regular indignity of statelessness and humiliation. Both narratives contain truths and, yet, an adherent to one narrative often is nearly blind to the other’s perspective on events. (For a reasonably balanced history, Ari Shavit’s My Promised Land is a good starting point.) The fact remains that virtually all national movements are born of violence and that those who oppose such movements similarly are driven by violence. But, in the end, the facts on the ground dictate that both parties must move on by acknowledging the truth in their narrative and the truths in the competing narrative.
Both parties have some facts on their side — but they cannot find a common future without acknowledging that history does not fully justify their position. They need not accept the other side’s views, but they cannot continue to delegitimize the right to hold those views.
The seemingly conflicting perspectives on the ongoing struggles in the Middle East feel quite consistent to me. I believe it's consistent to suggest that Israel has a right to exist, Palestinians have a right to self-determination, the dehumanization of the other is unacceptable, the events of October 7th and other acts of terrorism are reprehensible, the conditions endured daily by non-citizens in the West Bank are unacceptable, and Israeli actions in Gaza over the past nearly three years have been extreme.
Baby steps
I think it's important to understand where each “side” is coming from and reasonably should expect. They must break the “cycle of certainty” that causes them to see but one side. They must see the humanity, the reason, and the hope in the other. You have to begin somewhere. I suggest four guiding notions:
- People (all people — Arabs and Israelis), regardless of where they live, should be safe and secure in their homes and should be able to practice their own religion..
- People should be entitled to basic human dignity and respect. This means one cannot dehumanize the “other” nor be indifferent to their suffering.
- People should have a basic right of self-determination and freedom of movement within and between internally contiguous territories.
- Nations cannot be expected to benignly accept neighbors arming themselves, with a stated goal of eradicating that nation.
When is enough enough?
The injuries from the murderous Hamas rampage and the maximalist Israeli response have not been limited to people directly injured. There's a generation of young Gazans forever scarred and a generation of Israeli soldiers suffering from PTSD and other disorders related to relentless fighting. The damage to both societies will be felt for years. Questions of what to do with the remnants of Hamas, how to rebuild, and how to govern must go hand-in-hand with a whole lot of personal introspection, and learning of the “other” narrative. This will take a lot of work from everyone.
The Israeli people deserve security and leaders who resist the temptation of continuing this seemingly endless conflict. The Palestinian people deserve rights and leaders who care more about their aspirations than for continuation of a multi-generational war. I grieve for the innocent victims in Gaza, grieve for those Israelis murdered on that fateful day in October, grieve for the trauma visited upon everyone. I grieve for what all of this is doing to Israel, the Palestinians, and what inevitably must be a shared future. That future can only be realized after an end to the dehumanization and an end to the delegitimization of the legitimate position of the other. Everyone must learn that two narratives can describe the same reality.
When he isn’t writing his column Thinking Things Through, Glenn Sonnenberg heads a real estate investment company and serves on several nonprofit boards. A graduate of the University of Southern California, Mr. Sonnenberg also received his J.D. from USC. He began his career as an attorney specializing in real estate and finance. Follow him on Substack here.
