The Israel-Palestine conflict has been long lasting and is entrenched in history and international law. After the recent events on October 7th conversations regarding the conflict have been something that most have avoided or only discuss in private. The shared humanity events last week were helpful not only in providing context but also in demonstrating that differing perspectives and backgrounds can be a foundation for a more fruitful conversation and working relationship.
Mira Sucharov, Jewish Canadian political science professor and Palestinian American legal professor Omar Dajani both utilized their familial history, lived experience and academic expertise to provide context and insight to the conflict. One thing that they did that I thought was really interesting was that they defined context. Both speakers elaborated that context is history, politics and international treaties. My takeaway was that you have to understand both the Israeli history and the Palestinian history and merge them in order to get the full picture and understanding of the past to understand the current situation. I appreciated how both speakers explained how their relationship began and the struggles and strengths of working with a person who they would otherwise not have worked with because of differing opinions.
Something that kind of bothered me was when Sucharov was talking about how “cool” it was that Palestinians in occupied territories are multilingual speaking Arabic, Hebrew and English. Yes, being trilingual is cool but for these Palestinians it is not necessarily a choice but rather a means of survival. When she mentioned that she did not know it was offensive to speak to a Palestinian in Hebrew I was taken back because she did not realize that she was reasserting the power dynamic of colonialism until she was told it was wrong. What I did appreciate is that she talks about that experience and showcases her personal growth and understanding of a group that she was raised to believe was the “other”.
The shared humanity event really highlighted that to have a conversation regarding Israel-Palestine with someone with an opposing perspective does not require neutrality and having different perspectives does not directly insinuate a debate. I think that their ability to agree on the points that they do and disagree on others without forcing the other to change their stance was really interesting. Personally I do not think that I am there yet but maybe I could get there some day. I think that the biggest struggle I face is when people deny or justify the atrocities that have been and are committed against the Palestinans.
The speakers also spoke about chants and slogans utilized by groups advocating for Justice for Palestine and what they mean to them. In his answer regarding this question Dajani made a really interesting point. He explained that with the slogan “From the river to the sea Palestine will be free” that his Jewish colleagues felt attacked and interpreted the slogan to signify free of Jews. I think because this conflict deals with identity that people feel themselves and their groups being threatened and the perceived threat to ontological security propels polarization and intensify the conflict both in the region and internationally.