The shared humanity event that occurred on Monday was seemingly productive. The speakers, Mira Sucharov and Omar Dajani, who are on two completely different sides of the conversation, came together to unite the bridge and work towards a productive conversation on the Israel/Palestine conflict and how it has impacted them so differently. They are working on a podcast called “The Vacant Lot” to create dialogue and discuss the future of the conflict and whether or not people from both sides can eventually come to an understanding, regardless of what the state of Israel is doing, or what legislation in Palestine is doing to come and discuss resolutions. The event shed light on the nature of violence and how that is defined on both sides, what constitutes fear and what is considered valid to be in fear of, and the definition of Zionism in public surveys.

Both Mira and Omar started off by sharing their experiences with the conflict. Mira said that she was raised Jewish and lived in Israel three separate times. She also said that she felt a connection to the land, being that she was able to be herself in a space deemed safe enough. Omar, on the other hand, told the audience that his family left the region in 1948, the time the Nakba started. As the audience, we already witness the two realities divide and give us a whole different timeline between the two. Another divide is how both perceived the October 7th attack. Mira said that it led to a lot of sexual violence committed by Hamas towards Israeli women, on account of victims that contacted her. On the other hand, Omar admitted that he was hesitant to fully acknowledge this issue, as he was concerned it would lead to a disruption of the Palestinian struggle and his work in getting people to understand it. Both admitted that they were skeptical about certain articles and how certain instances were phrased, as they did not want to believe what was said until they discussed it with one another. Mira and Omar also shared that they were working on a book together, with the collective goal that they can reveal their true feelings of one another’s communities while understanding each other’s goals and struggles for what they want from the conflict and what levels of understanding they want from readers.

However, I found one thing that was interesting between the two speakers, and failed to understand. While understanding the struggles and histories that each party came from is important, is it also not equally as important to acknowledge the actions of external actors that could have driven the wedge between the two parties? I think that coming together as one to understand one another can lead to a smaller likelihood of holding interpersonal grudges or heavy feelings towards one another, I personally do not see how beneficial the conversations would go without acknowledging the outside actors, such as the United States funding Israel through military means yearly, or Yemen announcing their solidarity towards Palestinians by attempting to blockade Israeli ships from crossing the Red Sea. I feel as if acknowledging the root of the tensions post WW2 as well as looking at both families’ understanding of what could have been defined as liberation to each person during the time could lead to a better understanding of how things came to be, as well as see how the past has become a certain layout for the present.

I found that the survey Mira conducted sort of reflected this phenomenon. When defining Zionism a certain way, Jewish Americans were more inclined to vote for the definition that meant that Zionism promoted self-determination in the homeland of Israel, in comparison to the definition that stated it was more of an act of Jewish supremacy with the intent to make the land all of theirs and to displace Palestinians (in verbatim of what Mira said). This goes to show that narratives can impact the way one feels about their current conditions, but in terms of this conflict, the narrative itself is extremely different in everyone’s lived experiences that sometimes it can’t be chalked up to a “both sides” conversation, but open dialogue for everyone.