Mercy Global Concern - 2006

Mercy Global Concern: Report Number 2, July 2006

Israeli-Palestinian conflict can’t be reduced to one truth

Recent weeks have revealed the raw emotions that surround the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As the world focuses on the problem, what clear that physical distance from the Middle East does not dilute the passions very much.

And yet, our physical distance from the region could be far more of a benefit than we allow. Removed from the searing intensity of the conflict, we should try to see over the psychological and rhetorical walls that separate us from our putative enemies. At this distance we should try to talk to each other, recognizing the common humanity that unites us. If not here, where?

To do so, those of us who feel a stake in the conflict – Muslims and Jews, Arabs and Israelis, supporters of Palestine and supporters of Israel – would do well to remember the following propositions.

First, the conflict is not a fight between good and evil: Supporters of either side tend to see the other in demonic terms, as the embodiment of pure evil. Conversely, they tend to wrap themselves, at least for external presentation, in the cloak of beneficence. The reality, though, is more complicated.

Jews did not come to Palestine beginning in the late 19th century with the explicit goal of dispossessing the local Arab population. They came on the heels of a nationalist movement whose main objective was to restore the Jews to their ancestral homeland, an impulse rooted in traditional Jewish liturgy. Relatively soon after arriving (i.e., the 1920s), they understood that in order to realize their dream, they would need to vanquish the local Arab population politically, demographically and militarily. And they set out to do so, methodically and, at times, brutally.

From the other side, it is easy to see how Palestinian Arabs perceived Zionist settlers as interlopers and meddlers. After all, the former had been residents of the land for centuries, and suddenly tens of thousands of European settlers arrived to lay claim to a mysterious ancient birthright. The path the Palestinian Arabs chose, with unfortunate frequency up to the present, was armed struggle rather than reconciliation. It is fair to say, at a minimum, that neither side is above reproach.

At the same time both national movements contain a good deal of truth and virtue on their side. The difficult realization at which we must arrive in regard to this conflict is that there are multiple truths – not a single one – at work.

Secondly, it is better to recognize than to denigrate the experience of the other. It is all too easy to assert the superiority of one's own side by denying the experience of the other, but the more honest tactic is to try to understand the other side through its own lenses.

Thus it does no good for supporters of Israel to deny the pain of the "Naqba" – the flight of Palestinians from homeland to exile in 1948. Nor does it do much good to deny the growing body of evidence that points to the expulsion by Jewish forces of a fair portion of the Palestinian refugees. Would Jews not feel a similar sense of resentment had the tables been reversed and they lost the 1948 war? On the other hand, it does no good for supporters of the Palestinian side to deny the age-old aspiration of Jews to go from exile to homeland. Nor does it do any good to distort the term Holocaust by applying it to Israeli occupation.

I am a fierce critic of the occupation and believe it to be illegal, inhumane and debilitating. But it can and should not be compared to the systematic murder of millions of people under the Nazi reign of terror. Indeed, supporters of both sides must move beyond their comfort zones and pat cliches to understand the pain of the other.

Thirdly, the conflict is not a zero-sum game. Far from the battleground, we are in a position to grasp the concept that support for Israel is not exclusive of support from Palestine , and vice versa. One can feel passionate about and committed to the Jewish presence in the historic land of Israel and still recognize both the pain and the legitimate national rights of the Palestinians. And one can agitate for the rights of a free and viable state of Palestine without invalidating the right of the Jews to a state of their own. To do so is not utopian or Pollyanish; it is to come to terms with reality. Neither group is going to go away in the near future. The sooner the land is divided between two autonomous and sovereign nations, the sooner the cycle of bloodshed will come to an end.

What can we do? We are relatively limited in our power to impose a solution. But we can eschew the path of demonization and instead treat each other with respect. Perhaps we will sit down to an honest and painful discussion about each other's past and the prospect of a shared future.