The discussion last week between Mira Sucharov, a Jewish professor at Carleton University, and Omar Dajani, a Palestinian-American professor at McGeorge School of Law, provided new perspectives that I had not heard in other discussions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before. Since less time was spent explaining the background and context of the conflict, the speakers got into a more nuanced and productive discussion. Many other events I have attended related to this conflict begin with a lot of historical context that takes up much of the event. While this educational and contextual part is essential, it can become repetitive, and then time runs out to move past just the surface level. Therefore, I am glad that this event at Chapman differed from just explaining the history from two perspectives. Perhaps this is because it was a Peace Studies event or maybe it was because the speakers assumed that at this point in the conflict, almost everyone is aware of what is happening in Israel/Palestine. At the same time, I felt like this event was not as long as needed. Unfortunately, time constraints are inevitable. However, it takes some time for speakers to warm up and get to the heart of the conversation. Therefore more time would have allowed for an even better event, as I was interested in hearing more of their insights and perspectives.

Throughout the discussion, I thought there might have been deliberate partisanship in terms of each speaker only speaking for their respective communities instead of acknowledging the other community’s experiences at some points. With their close relationship, I had thought they would have presented their perspectives in a different, more holistic manner. However, it still felt polarized. This may be the reality of their positions, which is understandable. I personally came to this talk trying not to assume anything about the speakers so I could listen to each of them with the same amount of trust and understanding. Still, I felt myself taking sides and making assumptions if I disagreed with what one person said, so I understand the almost unachievable neutrality in this conflict. In general, I wonder if neutrality is no longer a goal to aim for, especially in conflicts with such depth as the Israeli-Palestinian one. As we have seen, even the way history is presented is almost never neutral. So how can we expect to find any neutrality in the people involved in the conflict. For one to be able to ignore their emotions around the conflict may be impossible. Instead, working with emotions while allowing space for both sides to feel validated in their feelings and experiences.

Despite my optimism about being able to work with people so different from yourself, I still struggle to fully grasp how they do it due to how extremely opposing their views are, which can sometimes negate another’s entire identity. They discussed how they still get frustrated with one another; however, the fact that they still maintain their relationship despite this is inspiring. Most other people would want to put in less effort to understand one another. I suppose that having a common goal is something that unites them. Neither of them wish suffering on the other side, which is something not all can say in this conflict. Overall, I appreciated their honesty and humility in listening to someone else’s perspective and conversing.