ENOUGH: It’s time to accept that we’re all human and well past time to start acting like it.
I want to discuss my perspectives on a foundation for moving toward peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Still, before I do, I’d like to beg your indulgence for a short personal interlude that (I promise) will lead back to my perspective.
Writing is purgative; writing allows me to get messy ideas out of my brain and into a more tangible form that I use to figure out what I think.
Writing is my way of dialoguing with myself, and writing has, for the greater part of my life, only been something that I might share with one or two close friends.
That changed dramatically last month when some of my writing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict went ‘viral’ (Man, I hate that word).
While many might welcome the idea of lots of folks reading their stuff, I have to say that for me, as a deeply introverted person, coming to terms with (a) lots of people engaging with my writing and (b) lots of people connecting with me about that work has been a weird mix of amazing, overwhelming, and enlightening.
It’s amazing because it’s an insane and deeply humbling mind-fuck to think that over half a million people are reading something I wrote.
It’s overwhelming because the idea of trying to respond to everyone who has reached out is a powerful paralytic; my executive function abilities are at an all-time low. (I apologize to those to whom I have not yet responded. I am slowly working my way through.)
It’s enlightening because it’s been hugely interesting to watch some folks latch onto specific aspects of what I wrote and disagree with it in ways that challenged their ability to engage with the bigger picture.
Many got stuck on particular points of disagreement (whether about historical interpretations or specific perspectives) that sometimes prevented them from grokking my broader message about the critical need for empathy, compassion, and nuanced understanding as the foundation for peace.
This is what has prompted this piece: my attempt to highlight the necessity of focusing on what’s important for motion rather than what’s important for emotion.
My position is NOT that some disagreements are unimportant; many of the disagreements people floated are critical ones that will absolutely need to be sorted out and resolved. My position is that these disagreements aren’t important right now.
My position is that focusing on these disagreements right now prevents us from moving forward toward dialogue and resolution.
My position is that first, we must align around a joint focus on our shared humanity and avoid getting caught up in the subjective minutiae of who did what, when, to whom, and why.
My position is that these debates lead us toward greater conflict and friction without a solid foundation of trust and acknowledgment.
To me, this is all about the order of operations.
We must build trust by defining common ground that we can ALL agree on. Adherence to the basic tenets of human dignity and rights will lay a foundation for constructive dialogue.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs posits the compelling idea that we need to address our fundamental needs before we can progress to more complex aspirations.
Applying this to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict makes clear that we need to focus on the bottom of the pyramid, addressing safety, security, and fundamental human rights first.
There are many things that we can disagree on and negotiate to a resolution, but there are (at least to me) the non-negotiables that we must agree on, and if someone I am speaking to cannot agree to these things, then, honestly, I’m out.
There is (to me) a set of things that are sine qua non, those things without which we have nothing.
My non-negotiables
We must agree that everyone involved is human.
This sounds simple, but so many forces on both sides are driving a narrative of invalidation, deprecation, and denial that it is staggering to realize that simply recognizing each other’s humanity has become a radical act.
Everyone involved in dialogue around this conflict must start with recognizing the other side’s humanity.
We must begin recognizing and honoring each other as fundamentally human, with inherent and inalienable dignity and worth.
Dehumanization lowers the bar for each side to engage in inhumanity.
On the other hand, recognizing a shared humanity allows us to move towards the greater empathy and understanding that lay the groundwork for genuine dialogue and peace.
We must agree that all humans have rights.
Human rights are not earned; regardless of one’s religion, nationality, origin, or political beliefs, those rights transcend everything.
Everyone involved in the conflict must recognize and uphold these rights as the foundation of a shared moral framework, which is vital if we are ever to reduce hostilities and promote coexistence.
What are those fundamental rights?
- All humans are born free with equal dignity and rights.
- All humans have the right to life, liberty, and security.
- All humans have the right to live, believe, worship, and thrive as they choose.
- All humans deserve to live free from oppression and have the liberty to pursue personal happiness.
- All humans deserve to be safe, secure, and able to live outside the shadow of existential fear.
- All humans have inherent worth and treating them with the respect they deserve means looking beyond stereotypes and prejudices to uphold each other’s dignity.
We must agree that however we disagree, we must acknowledge each other’s aspirations.
We’ve got to stop invalidating each other.
It’s not useful in the slightest.
Recognizing each other’s right to exist and thrive is crucial for lasting peace.
We’ve got to accept the salience (even if we don’t agree) of each other’s narratives, histories, and aspirations.
It’s about accepting where we are each coming from.
We must agree that violence will solve nothing.
We must agree that violence against civilians is always unacceptable, and this belief needs to guide our actions and policies.
The long tail of violence is profound, long-lasting, and deeply corrosive.
It perpetuates grievance and hatred and continually escalates an already plenty-fucking-bad-already-thank-you-very-much situation.
We must agree that the goal is a peaceful resolution.
We must agree that the ultimate goal is a peaceful resolution that benefits ALL parties.
We must commit to dialogue over destruction and hatred.
Peaceful resolution can’t just be an end goal; it needs to be a guiding principle that seeks solutions that consider the needs and aspirations of all involved.
By prioritizing peaceful resolution, we signal a shared commitment to coexistence and mutual prosperity, which are ultimately critical for long-term stability.
We must agree that neither side is responsible for the behavior of its worst elements.
Until we can separate the extremes on either side, we will be giving insane people the right to veto peace. (It’s as ridiculous as asking the NRA to approve gun control legislation.)
We need to start engaging with and speaking to the middle of each side — those with whom we may not agree on everything but with whom we can engage on a shared journey to coexistence.
We cannot punish the whole for the sins of the extremes, and we should instead focus on justice and accountability in ways that move us toward a more just and equitable peace.
We must agree to police our own worst people.
Both sides must commit to vigorously and proactively policing themselves.
Reining in the worst of our own communities, combating hatred, and challenging stereotypes while holding our own leaders accountable and rejecting extremism from within.
When we take responsibility for our own sides, we create a space where trust can grow.
This is not a sign of weakness; it’s a sign of strength and a commitment to healing and reconciliation.
That’s it. Everything else to me is details.
If we can start from a place like this, we can begin to create the foundational prerequisites for building trust and paving the way toward more complex negotiations and disagreements.
Trying to address contentious issues without this foundation is like trying to staple a water balloon to a wall of Jello®.
We must, both peoples, affirm a commitment to shared human values before tackling the more divisive aspects of the conflict.
You don’t build Maslow’s pyramid from the top down.
You start at the bottom and work your way up.
Building consensus on the basics creates a momentum that can and will carry us through more challenging discussions.
Finding common ground and building on it empowers people of good faith and arms them with understanding and compassion, which are tools for tackling the most complex issues with at least a sense of shared purpose and understanding.
Learning to look forward from safety allows us to focus on actionable steps that can improve lives NOW without getting tied up in debates about history or grievances.
Understanding history is essential, but it’s also important to understand that everyone has their own take on history, that our takes may not align, and that this lack of alignment should not be a roadblock that prevents us from moving forward.
We should focus on the present and future, on what we can do now to create a better reality for everyone involved, and quickly and with intent and emphasis, break the cycle of blame and retribution as we move towards reconciliation.
We don’t have to agree on every detail to build trust and understanding.
Focusing on the most fundamental principles that unite us can create a strong foundation for dialogue and negotiation.
We must facilitate more constructive discussions that ensure that the pursuit of peace is anchored in shared values of dignity, respect, and human rights — principles that are the starting point for the necessary work towards a just and lasting peace.
In the end, agreement breeds more agreement, and by working to figure things out together on a foundational level, we empower ourselves to tackle the many complexities in the future.
With much love and the most profound respect to all :)
