Dualism is built into us — perhaps part of our neural make up, surely part of our cultural inheritance: light/dark, war/peace, hot/cold, wet/dry, joy/sorrow. Fortunately, we know that there’s a continuum between the antipodes, that things can sometimes be neither hot nor cold but simply lukewarm, neither wet nor dry but simply moist. And in truth, we often find ourselves, whether by choice or perforce, at a place along the continuum.
But there’s another way to structure reality, one suggested by quantum mechanics. Perhaps it is possible to experience both hot and cold simultaneously, both joy and sorrow together, and so forth.
What brings this perspective to mind just now is the dysfunctional disposition of people, in thinking about the Israel/Palestine conflict, to suppose they must choose sides. If Israel is the side they choose, then Palestine is the side they reject. The choice of Israel may rest on belief about God’s promise to the Jews, or may be more pragmatic, as in “we have no partner for peace,” or “we cannot trust them to keep their word.” If Palestine is the choice, and Israel is therefore rejected, the argument may be that the Jews have usurped the land, or that they are an alien intrusion, or that there’s a holy mandate to rid the area of infidels, or that the Palestinians are unjustly being asked to pay the price for Europe’s sins against the Jews.
Nadav Safran was a distinguished professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard. Born in Egypt, he’d lived in Israel (and fought in its War of Independence) before coming to America. His first major book, published in 1963, was “The United States and Israel.” In his preface to that book, Safran wrote, “I believe that fundamentally both Arabs and Jews have an unassailable moral argument. A person who cannot see how this is possible does not understand the essence of tragedy; much less does he realize that his position serves only to assure that the Palestine tragedy should have another sequel, and yet another.”
That was 1963, and by now we know that the sequels have piled up, and still show no sign of passing.
So let me state the proposition as plainly as I can: To feel empathy for the Israelis does not preclude feeling sympathy for the Palestinians.
This is more than and different from saying that one man’s independence is another man’s disaster; it is not simply that there are competing narratives and that both are compelling. It is to say that both narratives are true, that independence and disaster are irretrievably intertwined. It is to say that the unfolding events in the Middle East — specifically, the chronic conflict between Israelis and Palestinians — are a tragedy.
And the tragedy is profoundly exacerbated by those on both sides who are without empathy for the side that is not theirs. This is not a case of innocence versus guilt. By now, there is blood on everyone’s hands, and no purpose is served by trying to count up the droplets to determine who has bled more profusely. Can the Israelis be blamed for the fear that is their constant companion? Hardly. Can the Palestinians be blamed for their belief that they are the oppressed? Hardly. Is the distant observer required to choose which tears are saltier, whose grief over the fallen is deeper? No.
But in the world we inhabit, it is just such choices that are made ever day. Those who rise to defend Israel in the courts of American opinion believe that if they allow even a crack of empathy for the Palestinians, they risk that crack opening into a floodgate; if they accept even a tiny degree of Israeli responsibility for Palestinian suffering, they lose the moral advantage they believe, sincerely believe, is theirs. And those who take up the Palestinian cause close off any prospect of reconciliation when, instead of an appreciation of Israel’s hard choices and real fears, they choose to depict today’s Israelis as heirs to the accursed Nazi past.
It doesn’t work that way. The robes of innocence have long since been soiled; they are unbecoming and ill-fitting costumes that should embarrass those who persist in thinking them proper dress, be they Israelis or Palestinians. The portrayal of the Other as Evil incarnate is a lie, a deadly lie.
The work of reconciliation, so long postponed, rendered by now both so much harder by virtue of the accumulated memories of insult and injury and, at the same time, so much more urgent by the prospective future of still more insult and more injury, cannot proceed on an either/or foundation. That work depends for its success on a capacity to stand for both/and.
Who speaks of reconciliation in the face of so protracted and so bitter a conflict? Must not the blood be allowed to dry first, the grave sites to green? No, for if we wait, there will be only more blood and new graves. That is how it has been, and is, and will be. Who speaks of reconciliation? Our children and our children’s children, whose guardians we are. Isaac and Ishmael, weary of sacrifice and exile.
No, pretty words and sweet sentiments are inadequate to the task. There are tough choices to be made, hard bargains to be struck. The lawyers and the diplomats and the accountants, too, will be stretched. That is their work.
And ours? To take to heart Deuteronomy 30:19: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Therefore choose life, so that you and your descendants may live.” To breathe life into the words, life for Us and life for Them, for there is no life for either unless there is life for both. Both Israelis and Palestinians. Both, and.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Reconsider Decision on Rabbis and Intermarriage
Is Steven Hawking’s Decision To Boycott Israel a Boon to BDS?
Alas, Poor GOP: 3 D.C. Scandals That Weren't
Forced Out by Nazis, Grandmother Returns With Family to Germany
Mother of Jewish Teen Killed on Brooklyn Bridge Speaks Out
You've successfully signed up!
Things are improving. Today, people suggest that the Palestinians are human beings with feelings and rights, and the Jewish right wing attacks them as an anti-Semites or serving the interests of anti-Semites. A few years ago, the Jewish right wing had completely intimidated everyone into silence.
"Pianist11" justifies the Arab rejection of the 1947 UN Partition Plan and their decision to go to war. However, peoples that decide to go to war must also accept the consequences of their very heavy decision. The Palestinian attitude (which "piano11" seems to share) has always been that it was their right to reject partition and to go to war to prevent the founding of Israel - but at the same time they do not accept any responsibility for their failed war. Their attitude is that they had a right to resist, but Israel had no right to defeat them. This attitude continues to this very day when, on the one hand, the Palestinians justify suicide bombings (or shelling Sderot) as their "right to resist" - while, on the other hand, they totally reject Israel's right to take counter-measures (roadblocks, fences, retaliations etc). Many peoples throughout history have decided that they must go to war - and here the Arabs are no different than others. However, those who go to war must accept the responsibility for their war - and here the Arab attitude (and the attitude of their supporters such as "piano11") has always been very strange.
Steven: Stop spewing the same old right-wing bull[word deleted]. You say the Arabs are solely responsible for the conflict because of not "accepting" Israel. Let's look at the facts. The partition of Palestine, which led to the creation of Israel, was done without the consent of the Arab Palestinian population. The Arabs were a majority in Palestine in 1947/8. Why were they morally obligated to accept a Jewish state just because that's what the Jews wanted? Were they really wrong in wanting to have a say about Palestine's future? To say that the Arabs were obligated to accept partition would be like saying that someone has to get married because that's what their boyfriend/girlfriend wants. It's ridiculous! Then you say: "If the Arabs laid down their arms tomorrow and recognized Israel's right to exist there would be a two state solution and peace tomorrow." No, there wouldn't. Israel would still be occupying the Palestinian territories, where Palestinians have neither independence nor Israeli citizenship. No one would be satisfied with living under these conditions. Even if every Palestinian and Arab recognized Israel's existence, the occupation problem would remain and there would be no peace. You also say: "There have never been any serious attempts by the Arabs toward coexistence. Not one!" Huh? What about Egypt's and Jordan's peace treaties with Israel ending their state of war? What about the invitation by the king of Morocco inviting Moroccan Jews in Israel to return? Your statement is simply untrue. And Israel's actions simply don't match those of a country where virtually everyone wants peace. If peace is the only concern, why build hundreds of settlements in the land which has to be a basis for any Israel-Palestinian peace agreement? Your diatribe is precisely why articles such as the one Leonard Fein has written here are necessary.
Leonard, thank you for once again expressing my own thoughts and beliefs in your incomparably eloquent prose. I am a lifelong fervent Zionist, who long ago came to accept the built-in contradiction to my early indoctrination, and who is continually pained by the suffering and humiliation of Arabs today, as well as the reluctance to face the past easily. Maybe this is all just a matter of time, but we need people like you to "tell it like it is," and maybe win over the doubtful or the ignorant. Best wishes to you for good health and continued writing vigor.
Ben Levi: I'm not taking sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict. I do, however, think it is self-evident that the Arabs had a right to refuse the partition plan. You say that "Their attitude is that they had a right to resist, but Israel had no right to defeat them." Well, hasn't that been the attitude of virtually every combantant in history? The American patriots thought they had a right to fight the British for independence, but that the British had no right to defeat them and keep the American colonies. In the Civil War, the Confederates thought they had a right to independence from the Union, but that the Union had no right to fight to keep them from becoming independent. The Union saw it the other way around. And on and on. If you're fighting a war in the first place, you generally believe you are "right" and you opponent is "wrong"--why else would you be fighting? I agree that objectively speaking, the Arab-Israeli conflict can be viewed as a conflict between "two rights" rather than as one between right and wrong. However, the Arabs can hardly be targeted for special criticism for not seeing it this way. After all, they did view Israel as the initial aggressor for creating a state without their consent in a land in which they were the majority--and from their perspective, this was not an unreasonable point of view. Furthermore, how many Zionists have shown the fair mindedness you demand of the Arabs? How many are willing to say: "The Jews had to create Israel as a protection against persecution, although the Arabs were also justified in resisting something that no one asked them permission to do"? You say that the Arabs have to take responsibility for their actions. But if the Arabs have to, the Zionists have to as well. If they chose to create a state in the midst of a hostile population, don't they have to accept some blame for the conflict that has followed? Do they really have a right to complain about not being accepted? This is what irritates many people about Israel, this theme of "Why are we so hated? The Arabs just hate us for no reason!" This is obviously not true. In reality, both sides are guilty of the behavior you describe--assigning all the blame to the other side and taking none for themselves.
psychopaths have binary thought processes...either Democrat OR Republican, peace OR war...on and on. The dilemma of America.
Fein excels at acting like he's better then everyone else because of how even handed he is, but he is living in fantasyland. If you equate the violence perpetuated by the Arabs with Israel retaliating in self-defense then you are a moral idiot. If the Arabs laid down their arms tomorrow and recognized Israel's right to exist there would be a two state solution and peace tomorrow. If Israel laid down it's arms it would be destroyed by the Arabs. This is the reality regardless of how depressing it might be. Israel did not start any of the previous wars. They were all started by belligerent Arabs who surround her and are still bent on her destruction. This is a reality which we must honestly face rather than blindly hoping for peace. You can not make peace with an unwilling partner. From the heads of state to the ordinary man in the street, the Arab world’s attitude toward Israel is one of hatred and contempt. There have never been any serious attempts by the Arabs toward coexistence. Not one! We must take an honest look at the situation, confronting it with realism rather than idyllic abstractions about peace. We must firmly establish our priorities emphasizing the security of Israel, first and foremost. The term "peace process" has become virtually synonymous with demands for Israeli concessions. Peace can never be achieved when only one side gives and the other merely receives. Are we condemned to perpetual war? We must look at ourselves squarely in the face and say, “Perhaps.”
Mr. Fine: We met once. Can't help but ask you for a list of the jornalists in the Palestinian press who express the parallel thesis in the Palestinian press urging them towards peace with Israel with equal repetiveness and urgency. Would like to know their names. Thanks