Simple and hard
When we think about problems or work to design solutions, we tend to conflate simplicity with ease and complexity with difficulty.
But they are different, and mixing them up is profoundly unhelpful when designing practical solutions to our wicked problems.
Simple isn't always easy, and complicated isn't always hard.
It's always comforting to imagine that exactly those problems we'd rather avoid thinking about are just too hard to solve… but let's not bullshit each other; it's often just a cop-out.
After all, who can blame you for not solving something that's supposedly impossible?
This mindset is especially prevalent when dealing with conflicts as enduring and emotionally charged as the Israel-Palestine situation.
I've lost count of the times I've heard some version of the following:
"Those people are going to fight each other forever. It's way too complex… Let's be real; we'll never be able to solve it. Fuck 'em. I'm tired of hearing about it."
This framing, though widespread, is incorrect, corrosive, and profoundly unhelpful.
This isn't just a stupid 'word nerd' semantic argument (though I do love those). It is foundational—it shapes how we understand a problem's challenges and how we might design solutions to address those challenges and fix the bloody problem.
Simple vs. Easy
When something is described as "simple," it implies clarity and straightforwardness. A simple idea cuts through the noise, offering a clear path or principle.
For example, "all civilians deserve protection during a conflict" is a simple truth. It's not ambiguous or complicated.
But simplicity is not the same thing as ease.
Something can be "simple" and yet incredibly hard to achieve.
"Easy" implies a lack of effort or resistance — something that can be accomplished without significant struggle.
Even the simplest truths or actions can be exceedingly difficult to implement, especially when they require sacrifice, courage, or a departure from entrenched positions.
Complex vs. Hard
When we talk about something being "complex," we often refer to something intricate, interconnected, or multi-layered, making it hard to understand or solve. But complexity doesn't always equate to difficulty. Sometimes, a complex problem can have a straightforward solution.
When we say something is "hard," we're considering the effort or persistence required to accomplish it, regardless of its complexity.
For instance, maintaining a ceasefire in a deeply divided conflict zone is hard, not because the concept is complex, but because it demands discipline, trust, and sustained effort.
Who gives a shit? We all should.
Grasping these distinctions is crucial for addressing conflicts in realistic and humane ways.
It allows us to focus on what can be done rather than getting lost in what should be done in some ideal world.
This framework pushes us to prioritize pragmatic solutions over unattainable ideals in the Israel-Palestine conflict, where maximalist demands and magical thinking have often prevailed.
A framing for progress
Understanding these distinctions is crucial for framing the work to develop pragmatic solutions to real-world problems.
In the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict, much is dismissed as intractable — a perpetual cycle of violence that defies resolution.
But this overlooks the reality that the principles needed to move forward are actually quite simple, even if they're undeniably hard to implement.
Understanding can move us from seeing the conflict as an insurmountable complexity to viewing it as a series of difficult but manageable tasks with simple goals and outcomes.
We, those of us on both sides who are committed to the idea of resolution, must focus on acknowledging the simple, hard truths at the heart of this conflict.
They aren't complex but difficult to embrace because they require sacrifice, courage, and a willingness to engage with uncomfortable realities.
More importantly, they are ultimately the immutable prerequisites for meaningful progress. Without them, we risk falling into the trap of magical thinking — hoping for easy, all-encompassing solutions that will never materialize.
A list of simple and hard truths and some thoughts on how to center them.
1. All human lives have equal value, regardless of nationality or religion.
For Israelis, this means recognizing the humanity and worth of Palestinian lives, especially in the context of military actions.
For Palestinians, it involves valuing Israeli lives equally, even amidst occupation.
Despite its simplicity, recognizing this is hard because it demands setting aside deep-seated biases and seeing the "other" as fully human.
Yet, it's necessary because the cycle of violence will never end without mutual recognition of each other's humanity.
For those who are neither Israeli nor Palestinian, the role is to challenge dehumanizing rhetoric on both sides and advocate for policies that prioritize the protection of all civilians, emphasizing the equal value of every human life.
2. Civilians are never acceptable targets in a military conflict.
Palestinians must reject tactics that harm Israeli civilians, and Israelis must avoid military actions that result in civilian casualties.
While simple in theory, this principle is hard to internalize because the long-lived hatreds, stereotypes, and narratives in this conflict have continually blurred the lines between combatants and non-combatants.
Nonetheless, we must find ways to uphold this principle and maintain moral boundaries, preventing further escalation.
Everyone should support efforts that hold all parties accountable for targeting civilians and promote international norms that protect non-combatants in conflict zones.
3. Collective punishment is always unjust and always unacceptable.
Israelis need to reconsider policies like blockades that impact entire Palestinian communities, recognizing that punishing a whole population for the actions of a few is morally wrong.
Palestinians must also oppose any form of collective punishment against Israelis, avoiding generalizations that cast all Israelis as enemies.
A moral society must distinguish between the guilty and the innocent, condemn collective punishment wherever it occurs, and advocate for policies that protect the innocent.
4. The path to resolution is justice, and justice is about fairness, not revenge.
For both Palestinians and Israelis, this means seeking justice through legal and diplomatic channels rather than acts of revenge. Both peoples need to understand that only true justice fosters peace, not more bloodshed, and they must both ensure that all acts of violence, including those committed by their own forces, are met with swift accountability, action, and, above all, fairness.
It is essential to support balanced approaches to justice that seek to heal rather than deepen wounds. Restorative justice initiatives that focus on reconciliation and mutual understanding should be promoted.
5. Peace requires dialogue, even with those you consider enemies.
There is no fucking planet where this is resolved without both sides talking to each other. It's ridiculously simple to see that Israelis must engage in dialogue with Palestinian leaders, and Palestinians must be willing to talk to Israeli officials.
Despite that, it's frustratingly hard for either side to cross this line, seemingly because it requires a willingness to listen and engage with those you fundamentally disagree with.
Dialogue is the only way to resolve conflict without violence. Everyone should encourage and facilitate that dialogue, providing platforms and support for the critical conversations that are the only path to lasting peace.
6. Both Israelis and Palestinians have legitimate historical and emotional ties to the land.
Palestinians must acknowledge the deep historical and emotional connections that Jews have to the land and understand that these ties aren't merely political but deeply personal and religious.
Israelis, likewise, must recognize the deep historical and emotional connection Palestinians have to the land, including their historical presence and their right to self-determination.
For those on the outside, advocating for a narrative that respects the historical claims and emotional connections of both peoples is crucial. This means rejecting zero-sum approaches that deny the legitimacy of either side's ties to the land.
7. Acknowledgment (if not empathy) for the other side's suffering is a critical step toward peace.
Israelis must understand the suffering and hardships faced by Palestinians under occupation, including the daily struggles and psychological toll of living in a conflict zone.
Palestinians must acknowledge the fear and trauma experienced by Israelis, particularly those who have lived through wars and terrorist attacks.
Promoting empathy-driven initiatives that humanize both sides and encouraging media, education, and cultural exchanges that foster understanding and compassion are essential.
8. Security won't come at the expense of another group's freedom.
Israelis must recognize that Palestinian security and freedom are integral to Israel's own long-term security, understanding that policies that suppress Palestinian freedoms will only lead to more conflict.
Palestinians must acknowledge that Israeli security concerns are legitimate and that addressing these concerns is crucial for achieving their own freedom and statehood.
For the global community, supporting balanced security measures that protect both Israelis and Palestinians is vital, advocating for policies that don't sacrifice one group's freedom for another's security.
9. History must be remembered but shouldn't dictate the future.
Israelis must acknowledge the painful Palestinian history of displacement, suffering, loss, and survival.
Palestinians must acknowledge the painful Jewish history of displacement, suffering, loss, and survival.
Both sides must understand that their suffering and loss are no more or less valuable than that of the other and that their futures are inextricably tangled. Focusing on building a future that prioritizes peace and coexistence rather than solely seeking redress for past wrongs is a critical step forward.
We must encourage a forward-looking approach that respects historical narratives without allowing them to justify ongoing conflict, and we must work on and support initiatives that focus on building a shared future.
10. True peace requires both sides to make painful and meaningful compromises.
Israelis must be willing to make concessions and compromise.
Palestinians must be willing to make concessions and compromise.
The world should support peace processes that involve mutual compromise, recognizing that no lasting solution will be perfect or satisfy all demands but that it is the only path to peace.
11. The inherent dignity of every individual must be respected.
Israelis and Palestinians must recognize that every human has inherent dignity and rights, regardless of political tensions or conflict, even in the context of a bitter, long-time conflict built on decades of hatred and violence.
We must rise above the dehumanizing narratives that often dominate the discourse on both sides because, without mutual respect for human dignity, any attempt at peace is hollow. We must advocate for the dignity of all individuals in the conflict, challenging any rhetoric or actions that diminish this fundamental human right.
12. The principle of non-violence must guide actions.
Palestinians must focus their efforts on nonviolent resistance, even when faced with oppression and violence.
Israelis must understand that restricting the ability of Palestinians to engage in nonviolent resistance serves only to, ironically, increase the appeal of violence.
While violence can often seem like the quickest path to security or justice, the truth is that violence begets violence, and this isn't a conflict that will be resolved by either side, conclusively defeating the other.
We must support nonviolent movements and condemn all forms of violence, advocating for peaceful resolutions.
13. The right to self-determination is universal.
Israelis must acknowledge the Palestinian right to self-determination, including the establishment of an independent state.
Palestinians must also recognize Israel's right to exist and self-determine as a sovereign nation.
Maximalist positions on both sides notwithstanding, this is a fundamental prerequisite for any genuine peace agreement.
We should all support frameworks that respect and uphold the right to self-determination for both peoples, promoting solutions that allow for mutual recognition and coexistence.
14. Ethical governance and leadership are crucial for peace.
Israeli leaders must govern with transparency, justice, and a commitment to peace and negotiating a compromise solution (e.g., they should avoid policies that create new 'facts on the ground' and exacerbate the conflict).
Palestinian leaders must also commit to governing with transparency, justice, and a commitment to peace and negotiating a compromise solution.
Power corrupts and pushes leaders to prioritize political gain over the common good. We've got to get past that and understand that ethical, legitimate, conflict resolution-focused governance is critical for building trust and creating conditions for peace. We must hold both Israeli and Palestinian leaders accountable for ethical governance, supporting civil society efforts to promote transparency and justice.
15. The inviolability of children in conflict must be a core focus.
Israelis must ensure that Palestinian children are protected from the violence and trauma of conflict, including avoiding military actions in civilian areas.
Palestinians must similarly protect Israeli children, rejecting tactics that endanger them indiscriminately, including military actions in civilian areas.
Children are often the most vulnerable in a conflict, and the future of both peoples depends on the well-being of their children.
We should all advocate for the protection of all children in the conflict, supporting initiatives that provide education, trauma care, and safe spaces for children on both sides.
16. It's perfectly acceptable to criticize the Israelis.
Israelis need to distinguish between legitimate criticism of government policies and antisemitism, recognizing that not every critique is an attack on Jewish identity.
Palestinians should focus their critiques on specific actions and policies of the Israeli state, ensuring they don't generalize to all Jewish people or invoke antisemitic tropes.
We must defend the right of people to criticize Israeli positions and actions in legitimate and nonviolent ways that are focused and constructive and avoid undermining the broader focus on conflict resolution and de-escalation.
17. It's perfectly acceptable to criticize the Palestinians.
Palestinians must recognize that legitimate criticism of their leadership, tactics, or political strategies doesn't equate to a denial of their right to resist occupation or to seek self-determination.
Such criticism is necessary to hold all parties accountable, including Palestinian movements that may engage in harmful practices or rhetoric.
We must defend people's right to criticize Palestinian positions and actions in legitimate and nonviolent ways that are focused and constructive and avoid undermining the broader focus on conflict resolution and de-escalation.
18. Some of the anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian protests are clearly antisemitic and must be condemned.
Anti-Israeli protesters should work to ensure that their resistance and protests remain targeted at the policies and actions of the Israeli government, avoiding inflammatory and hateful rhetoric that targets Jewish people as an undifferentiated, nefarious, or evil "other."
We've got to stand unequivocally against antisemitic speech and behavior; valid critiques of the Israeli government notwithstanding, there is no place for broad, harmful generalizations that seek to delegitimize the rights of the Israeli people or undermine their rights to liberty, safety, and self-determination.
19. Some of the anti-Palestinian/pro-Israel protests are clearly racist and Islamophobic and must be condemned.
Israeli and Jewish American activists should ensure that advocacy remains focused on specific policies and actions of the Palestinian leadership, avoiding rhetoric that targets Palestinians as an undifferentiated, nefarious, or evil "other."
While criticism of Palestinian leadership and their actions is valid, there is no place for racism, bigotry, or Islamophobia in the pursuit of security and peace.
We must stand unequivocally against anti-Arab and anti-Muslim speech and behavior; valid critiques of Palestinian leadership notwithstanding, there is no place for broad, harmful generalizations that seek to delegitimize the rights of the Palestinian people or undermine their struggle for justice and self-determination.
20. Protest, resistance, and demonstration are rights, but these need to be focused on those responsible, not entire groups.
Both sides need to channel their advocacy and focus it on those who are directly responsible for the things they oppose.
We should protect and support focused, ethical protests that target specific injustices.
21. The Israeli desire to delegitimize protest and resistance against it is hugely counterproductive.
The Israeli government's pushback against all forms of protest and resistance (including movements like BDS) creates a dangerous environment where there are no legitimate outlets for expressing dissent.
When nonviolent protest is suppressed, it leaves the marginalized and voiceless with fewer options and pushes them toward more extreme measures.
This is a recipe for the radicalization of individuals who feel they have no other means to fight back.
Accepting protest (even while pushing back against its focus) allows for legitimate dissent that, while challenging, is far preferable to the more extreme actions of people who feel that they have no other options.
We should support the right to peaceful protest (whatever we think of its aims and goals) and oppose efforts to suppress protest, as that avenue is critical to preventing the escalation of despair and violence.
22. The Palestinian approach of proposing existential and zero-sum solutions to the conflict is hugely counterproductive.
When Palestinian leaders and activists frame the conflict in terms of the existence or extinction of Israel, it not only hardens Israeli positions but also makes the possibility of finding a peaceful solution increasingly difficult.
This zero-sum framing perpetuates the myth that a state for the Palestinians must come at the expense of a state for the Israelis and creates a deadlock where neither side feels safe or heard.
By insisting that the only acceptable outcome is one where Israel ceases to exist as a Jewish state, Palestinians elevate and validate Israeli fears and heighten their resistance to any form of compromise.
A more nuanced approach that recognizes Israel's right to exist as the counterpart to Palestine's right to exist is a sine qua non for peace in the region.
We should all help to center the importance of mutual recognition and coexistence as a foundation for lasting peace.
23. The U.S. should be as pro-Palestinian as it is pro-Israel and focus its advocacy on the people, not the governments.
The United States has long been viewed as a staunch ally of Israel, but we need to evolve and grow this alliance into an advocacy for the rights and needs of both peoples equally.
This doesn't (and shouldn't) mean becoming less supportive of Israel, but rather ensuring that our foreign policy is balanced and fair and centered on the collective well-being and interests of both peoples.
As a nation, we should end the entrenched political alliances and narratives within U.S. politics that have long contributed to the conflict and instead focus on helping both sides reach a just and sustainable resolution.
24. U.S. citizens must ask national leaders to reject narratives demonizing either side.
The U.S. should actively counter-narratives that demonize either Israelis or Palestinians, promoting a balanced and fair discourse that acknowledges the humanity and rights of both peoples.
This requires challenging deeply ingrained biases and rhetoric within domestic and international politics, but creating a more constructive and empathetic environment for peacebuilding is necessary.
25. The U.S. government must acknowledge the suffering on both sides equally.
Americans should insist that our leaders recognize and address the suffering of both Israelis and Palestinians.
This means speaking out against violence and injustice wherever it occurs and supporting initiatives that provide humanitarian aid and promote reconciliation.
We must challenge narratives that portray either side as entirely justified and the other as entirely wrong.
26. We should demand that U.S. foreign policy center on human rights over political considerations.
We as citizens should be pushing our leaders to prioritize human rights in the Israel-Palestine conflict and advocating for policies that protect civilians and uphold international law, regardless of which side is responsible for violations.
The U.S. is the region's only hope for resolution, and we will never be able to advocate for or manifest a sustainable peace without credibility as a mediator that genuinely supports a peaceful resolution.
27. The U.S. government should be facilitating dialogue, not just brokering stop-gap deals.
The U.S. should focus on fostering genuine dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians rather than simply brokering temporary deals that don't address the underlying issues.
We must support grassroots efforts and peacebuilding initiatives that bring people together rather than just engaging with state actors, and we must understand that real peace comes from dialogue and empathy.
I could go on, but I won't (since I've probably gone on too long already).
In the end, it's essential to understand that the principles guiding us toward peace aren't complex—they are simple concepts firmly rooted in a noncontroversial and fundamental focus on human rights and universal humanistic justice.
What makes these ideas hard isn’t their conceptual difficulty or complexity but the scope and scale of the immense effort, sacrifice, and moral courage required to abandon chauvinistic and jingoistic tribalism and replace it with a more universal and humanist approach to resolving the conflict.
We must reject the notion that this conflict is too complicated to resolve and focus instead on staying true to the simple, clear truths that can guide both people forward.
We all need to advocate for an approach that centers on the humanity and dignity of everyone involved.
This means recognizing the legitimate rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians, holding all parties accountable for actions that violate human rights, and rejecting narratives that dehumanize or demonize either side.
This means creating space for debate, allowing protest and disagreement through nonviolent, focused protest, facilitating dialogue that can bridge divides, and demanding that our governments prioritize protecting civilians and pursuing justice over political expediency.
Understanding that justice and humanity are the best way forward is incredibly simple, but it is also incredibly hard to center that focus.
It is hard because it demands that we confront uncomfortable truths, make painful compromises, and commit to a sustained, disciplined effort.
But we must travel this road if we are ever to achieve a just and lasting end to this conflict.
All of us have a role to play.
We've all got to push our leaders to adopt a balanced, humane approach that supports the rights and needs of both peoples, rejects extremism, and fosters the conditions for peace.
We've all got to choose the hard but necessary path of empathy, justice, and mutual recognition, understanding that the simplicity of these principles does not diminish their power.
We've all got to move past the cycles of violence and despair towards a future where both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and dignity.
We've all got to.