I remember picking out my clothes that morning. It was an all black ensemble to symbolize my state of mourning, composed of light, draped fabrics in an attempt to protect myself from words and glances that stick to your skin like burrs. I drove to campus in silence, dreading the conversation ahead of me.

I know the importance of conversations with people who disagree with you. I have been a peace studies student for four years- I can promise you that I have heard the adage again and again. At this point, it might sound like I don’t believe in it. In truth, in addition to my intense commitment to Palestinian liberation, I have dear friends who are Israeli and who I have spent many hours grieving, conversing, and sometimes arguing with. But I hate saying it out loud. Not because I do not love my friends and not because I do not believe in the importance of co-creating a future, but because my love for my friends and my commitment to this work so quickly becomes weaponized for civility politics. I have no interest in being civil with people who do not respect me, Palestinians, or the sanctity of human life. I have no interest in compromising on the tangible, material safety of the lives of Palestinians for the abstract comfort of the state of Israel. I won’t let my commitment to liberation be distorted in service of those who wish to silence and repress “uncivil” forms of resistance.

Given everything I just covered above, you might now be able to see just why I was so worried about this event. The description for the Wilkinson College Shared Humanity Day One event reads,

“For two years Mira Sucharov, Jewish-Canadian political scientist, and Omar Dajani, Palestinian-American legal scholar, have traveled within, discussed the tough issues of, and written about this region and conflict. Their conversations demonstrate the difficulties, promises, and importance of developing friendships across the divide.”

There it is. “Across the divide.” The phrase conjures up notions of “working across the aisle”- a phrase seemingly only used by Democrats as they slash important legislation to appease the extremist right while we rapidly descend into a political hellscape. I don’t believe it is hard for one to imagine why this phrasing raises the hackles of any politically engaged leftist.

When I took my seat in Fish Interfaith center, I immediately grabbed the index card on my chair to arm myself for notetaking. When the talk began, I analyzed every opening comment from Professor Rangel and Dr. Leitz as I jotted down key words and tried to determine the coming direction of the conversation. Words matter and framing is everything. I was ready to strike at any word that seemed out of place or phrase that suggested a particular stance. By the beginning of the Q&A with Mira and Omar, I had relaxed a bit. These people were friendly and they spoke with conviction, but also intention and compassion. When it came time to address the New York Times article about Hamas’s sexual violence (which I have plenty to say about and whole heartedly understand Omar’s reaction to, but that’s a topic for another post), my blood pressure shot through my head. I had heard Mira’s accusations of rape apologia from many on the internet before and I was ready for a fight. I was armed to the teeth with sources and hellbent on shutting this point down. And then it came time for Omar to address the issue, and I relaxed. And then immediately felt a little silly. His answer was true to his own feelings on the matter, but gentle and well-considered. This both humbled and infuriated me. He had every right to be mad at some of Mira’s blatant examples of white fragility, and yet here he was considering her a good friend and speaking gently and with care about her, their friendship, and their work. He was vulnerable and compassionate even when he has every right to act otherwise. I understand that there is certainly a portion of that associated with the fact that oppressed peoples often have to work civilly and carefully in order to be listened to and deemed worthy of consideration, but that does not mean doing so is not extremely hard. By the end of the event, I had a great appreciation for both Omar and Mira, and even went so far as to recommend Mira’s Facebook group to some of my friends.

As I walked back to my car in the rain after the event, I slipped off my shawl to take in the sensation of the gentle drizzle. I had gotten dressed that morning searching for protection from stinging words, but by the end of the event I was able to shed my shell and feel the sky’s tears mix with mine. Maybe words can be more than weapons. Maybe they can be the cleansing balm needed to water the seeds of peace.

The Israel-Palestine conflict has become one I followed closely while studying peacebuilding in college. Following the events of October 7th, the conflict has escalated to a massive humanitarian crisis and possible genocide. Following the crisis through social media and news sources, the conflict affects much more than just those in the Middle East, as violence is being reported in America from both sides. Watching the atrocities occur and feeling helpless in the situation, I was excited to hear professionals from both sides explain the situation. 

I’m glad the two speakers came from different backgrounds, as Mira Sucharov is Jewish and Canadian with emotional ties to Israel. At the same time, Omar Dajani is an American-born Palestinian whose father fled the country after Israeli occupation. These professionals create a good dynamic to discuss the conflict as they work together to understand each other’s perspectives. 

Since my thesis is on how social media plays a role in the Israel and Palestine conflict, I really enjoyed hearing their discussion of Facebook posts. I was surprised their relationship began with Mira reposting an article by Omar and defending him to her followers. They may have never met without social media, demonstrating how social media produces intergroup dialogue and connections. Furthermore, in their discussion of social media, they explained how their different narratives of the conflict lead to different reactions to media posts. Such as an article about sexual violence among Israelis on October 7th, Mira’s reaction was disgust and fear of the violence while dealing with rape denial in her comments. However, Omar had a very different reaction as he worried these events would lead to further dehumanization of Palestinians as a whole, which would lead to more violence against the community. Using narrative theory, their perspectives and experiences will lead to different reactions to given information due to their fears and concerns. Such as Mira is a Jewish woman who fears this violence is being put on her community due to their identities. At the same time, Omar is in denial of the information at first because he fears how the information will lead to further dehumanization of Palestinians. 

They continue their discussion of narratives by discussing terms like “Zionism” and sayings like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” They addressed a misinterpretation of the slogan and Zionism, as both are seen as the destruction of the others. One of Mira’s students heard that “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” and something along the lines of “deaths to Jews.” However, Omar argues the slogan is fighting for Palestinians’ right to be free. Similarly, Mira was unaware of how many Palestinians view Zionism as the destruction of Palestinians, as it is multifaceted with different understandings and meanings revolving around support of a Jewish homeland. Mira and Omar demonstrate how their narratives lead to varying interpretations of terms and slogans. They highlighted the difficulty of peacebuilding and standing up for their beliefs while honoring other emotions and fears. 

Although I enjoyed the talk, I wish they had discussed how we can help the humanitarian crisis or the future. I was also surprised that Omar said we do not need more intergroup dialogue, as it leads nowhere. I wish I had heard more of his thoughts on intergroup dialogue and if he thinks the situation should be fixed by a third party or just Palestinians and Israelis. Overall, this event was informative on how narratives affect interpretations and can lead to further polarization and violence.

Continuing to Learn and Educate for Shared Humanity: Day 1

Conversations between Jews and Palestinians for a Better Tomorrow

By: Sophie M

Since this event, I have been thinking even more than I had previously about the horrors occurring in Palestine. I follow independent journalists on the ground in Gaza named Bisan Owda and Motaz Azaiza, and I have been more frequently watching their videos. I find their journalism especially impactful because it is not filtered through American news sites with biases etc. I have been, but every day I become more appalled, disgusted, saddened, angry, and shocked. I don’t personally know anyone in the area of the conflict, but I couldn’t imagine how I’d feel if I did. I have so much empathy for those with loved ones in Israel-Palestine. I just felt it was right to start off with some of my feelings on the issue. I struggle to figure out how to word any of my opinions and feelings, or even format this piece of writing. I have no authority on the topic, and I think that the best thing for me to do, generally, is step back and support those who are affected and more educated than I am. 

I agreed with my classmates’ critiques of the talk from the brief conversation we had in class; I wish that Omar Dajani and Mira Sucharov had talked more in detail about what “shared humanity dialogue” looks like in practice. I really appreciated when they walked the audience through how they worked out their conflicts with the NYT sexual violence article. I agree with others that I wish they did more of this, because I think what students really need to learn during this issue is how to move forward in conversations with loved ones and friends, where there might be differing opinions and backgrounds. I know I have personally experienced this with friends and family, and I could use the advice on how to navigate these kinds of conversations. 

 From a peace studies perspective, something that stood out to me from the talk was the two speaker’s views on the call to “globalize the intifada”. I thought it was very interesting to hear about what each of them thought of this phrase and how they took it, given their cultural backgrounds. Hearing their differing perspectives, and in detail, was very interesting, especially when it is difficult to find and verify information on the issue as the conflict progresses. Dajani spoke about how the “intifada” (translating to “resistance” or “shaking off”), for him, means resistance, at its core. He said that as a Palestinian, he sees the call as a push for an expansion of the resistance against the horrors currently occurring in his home. Sucharov, however, had different views as someone who identifies as Jewish. She saw this phrase as more intimidating, and as encouraging the commission of violence against Jews, all over the world.

Something else I also liked that Sucharov mentioned was the different definitions of Zionism, and the perspectives Jewish people have on the concept when presented with the differing definitions. She spoke about how the majority of Jewish people support the theoretical, more idyllic definition of Zionism; a safe place for Jewish people. But, when given the definition of Zionism as it functions now, as the preference and privilege of Jewish people over other peoples, the vast majority of Jews are not in support. I had never really thought about these different definitions and their implications, and it’s interesting to read the news from the multiple sources I consume in this context now.  

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. 

Professors Omar Dajani and Mira Sucharov provided an informative discussion on the Israel/Palestine conflict that upheld the importance of protecting humanity and understanding different perspectives. Although this talk was valuable in many ways, I appreciated how they acknowledged Palestinian suffering without engaging with the argument that doing so is insulting to Jewish people. I found it interesting that Professor Sucharov began this discussion by articulating her experience of watching attention shift from Israel on October 7th to Gaza in the following days and months as Israel began to unleash attacks. I felt that this perspective was important because it highlighted the importance of both events without legitimizing the extremity of Israel’s actions in the following months.   

I also found Professor Dajani’s discussion on Jewish attachment to the land to be an important point in their conversation. Professor Dajani explained that a recognition of this importance is crucial, however it does not legitimize an acceptance of Jewish supremacy in Israel. In other words, acknowledging the importance of this region to Jewish people is not intrinsically linked to the preservation of Jewish supremacy. I found Professor Dajani’s statement to be a well-articulated argument for the importance of providing a safe space for Palestinians to live and tell their own stories while still upholding the fact that this does not deny the right of Jewish people to exist in this region. I appreciated the openness that both professors brought to this discussion, as well as the depth of information that was used in their analysis and explanations.  

Along a similar line, I found Professor Sucharov’s explanation of her understanding of Jewish privilege in Israel to be particularly interesting. She explained that, in the past, because many Palestinians in Israel speak Hebrew, she used interactions in Hebrew to attempt to establish a common ground. However, she did not account for the fact that speaking in Hebrew to Palestinians in Israel is a form of “othering” them because they are required to speak Hebrew as a result of Jewish supremacy. In this sense, Professor Sucharov explained how she began to understand what it means to hold Jewish privilege in Israel and how it is vital to acknowledge the impacts this structure has on the lives of Palestinians. I felt that this was a valuable example of the importance of dismantling structures of Jewish supremacy in Israel to promote a space that also protects the lives and rights of Palestinians. I also appreciated how this segment of the conversation reiterated the importance of acknowledging the experiences and humanity of both parties, and that it reemphasized the fact that acknowledging Palestinian suffering is not an attack on Jewish people or their existence in Israel. 

I found this event to be incredibly valuable not only because of the depth of information provided, but because it discussed the importance of understanding and acknowledging Palestinian experiences in a way that I previously struggled with communicating to others. Within my own interactions with this subject, I have found that many individuals are reluctant to accept or realize that arguing for the rights of Palestinians to live safely in this space does not imply a delegitimization of Jewish existence within the region, and that denouncing Jewish supremacy is not promoting their removal from the land. I felt that I left this event with a more robust understanding of how to continue to advocate for Palestinian rights and safety in a way that does not delegitimize Jewish experiences or allow for the argument that protecting both groups and their existence in this space is wrongful. 

A conflict can make or break a friendship. The way conflict is dealt with or ignored can be a determining factor in its success or failure. The region that initially brought Mira Sucharov and Omar Dajani together was the conflict they shared their journey with us regarding. It was humbling to listen to. To hear about how these two highly educated individuals could feel the same way we do, passionate in their position even if it put them at odds, but then for them to recognize that and be able to take a step back before starting a conversation where both sides had an opportunity to speak. 

They explained to us that their friendship had been built over the years. Years of working together, trips, and research. Through all they shared, I found their compassion for each other and life as a whole so moving. There were topics they spoke about that were obviously difficult not only for us to hear but for them as well, and yet they gave space to each other even while talking to us. They never raised their voices or fists against the other, even when they had disagreements, and that stems from their compassion. 

When considering the conflict the Israel/Palestine conflict, I contemplate identity theory often. I think about how we form our identities and the struggle with acknowledging our intersectionalities, and I wonder how we are meant to build peace when it is sometimes so difficult to not only recognize another’s identity but to respect it. It is essential to consider how identities are constructed within an individual and as a group and how they can evolve in response to social, political, environmental, and economic factors. When people label themselves as something, they choose their community and embrace an identity, but they are also a part of that identity’s history and formation. Conflicts emerge when identities clash. The differing views can exacerbate tensions, discrimination, and violence, which, in the end, will end up reshaping or reinforcing the existing identity itself. 

The key to navigating will be compassion and conversation. Sucharov and Dajani gave us a great example when they were sharing. Sucharov explained how she thought offering a phrase in Hebrew to some of the people she and Dajani met during their travels could be a way to bridge the gap and show their similarities. It wasn’t until Dajani corrected her that she realized she was only disrespecting the other identity. They explained that Dajani was kind in his explanation, educated her on the difference, and helped her see why it wasn’t what she was aiming for. Sucharov admitted it was hard to hear, but it was a shift she took to heart and then adjusted for. Starting the conversation and being a part of it was difficult on both ends, even when it’s about good intentions, but these conversations are crucial to moving forward. 

Compassion within communication, especially in conflict, is also incredibly pertinent. It is easy to stand by one’s convictions and preach about them to anyone who will listen. It’s harder to be open to listening to another’s conventions while firm in your own. It takes compassion and patience to listen to someone who might disagree with everything you believe in and not write them off. To respect another person and their beliefs, traditions, and history while still holding your close is a powerful ability. It is needed to truly build peace the way we talk about it in our courses. 

My biggest takeaway was the strength that both individuals demonstrated—their ability to appreciate each other and their friendship despite their disagreements and differences. I mentioned earlier that listening to them speak to us about a conflict that is so personal to them was humbling, and it was. They took time to come and visit us on our campus to share about their lived experiences. They talked of the history, their beliefs, the conflict, and hope for the future. It was inspiring to see and really spoke to the hope aspect of the conversation. To see them, unwavering in their own beliefs but open to hearing the other out, responsible enough to recognize when they may not be available to the other’s opinion, and being able to take that step back, that is what we need. Those are the skills we want to develop within ourselves and every generation that comes next, because that will be the vehicle of change, the driving force of hope, as we work towards peaceful resolutions in conflicts of all shapes and sizes.

As I walked into Chapman’s interfaith center one late afternoon for a conversation between a Palestinian man and a Jewish woman, I was unsure of what to expect. In recent months, the conflict of Israel-Palestine has become more and more divisive, leading to an uptick in polarity, hate speech, and misinformation. Even on Chapman’s sheltered campus, tens of thousands of miles away from Gaza, hostilities against Arab and Jewish students have arisen. As a peace studies student, conflicts like these are the bread and butter of our curriculum, but I wondered, how would other people in the Chapman community react? 

This question was answered as the room flooded with more and more people, new chairs being added at the ends of rows to fulfill the demand. Regardless of personal stance on the issue, those in attendance were there to learn from two experts in the field, and for the next hour and a half, we learned about a friendship that persevered because of a shared desire for understanding. Mira Sucharov had an interesting perspective as a Jew from Canada, who although is not an Israeli citizen, feels a deep personal connection to the country. Omar Dajani is an American born Palestinian whose father fled the country after Israeli occupation. Together these scholars have traveled to Israel-Palestine, teaching one another about their own perspectives on the region and sharing personal experiences. 

As Omar and Mira talked, I was surprised with their friendly repertoire with one another. It was obvious that although they are coworkers, they have a friendship beyond their work. This makes it all the more interesting that at times, they are forced to call one another out on issues in which they disagree. For example, Mira told the story of a recent New York Times article reporting on sexual violence against Israeli’s by Hamas. While Mira saw this as a legitimate source, Omar viewed the article as a potential catalyst for Palestinian hate, and questioned the validity of the claims within the article. It is moments like these in which Mira and Omar’s differing backgrounds shape their context and opinions. Although for some these conflicts could splinter a working relationship and friendship, Omar and Mira took the time to reflect on a middle ground, and how they could agree on legitimate sources in the future. To me, this serves as a prime example on the way to peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict. First, the acknowledgement of differing experience, and then finding what facts or emotions can be mutually agreed upon. 

Throughout the discussion, I was left with the impression that Omar and Mira wanted to clarify they had a unique position within this conflict. While they are both individually affected, they are also a degree of separation from the conflict- neither of them currently residing in Israel-Palestine or experiencing the horrors of war. This allows them to come to mutual understandings that others in the line of direct fire may not have the chance to. Regardless of this separation however, they are experiencing the pain and fear that Jews and Palestinians are feeling across the world. Omar’s fear of what comes tomorrow, and how long suffering will continue. The pain of hate speech within their own communities, where Mira’s children have expressed a fear to show their Jewishness. While these tensions remain, the friendship between Mira and Omar serves as a hope for what tomorrow could hold, a world in which everyone can see their shared humanity.

The Israel-Palestine conflict has spanned generations and has provided many lessons about the challenges and barriers that can present themselves when attempting to build peace. The roots of the conflict have existed for many decades, and the amount of suffering and violence that has been experienced is immense. The recent events on October 7th have escalated the conflict, and we are now witnessing one of the largest modern humanitarian crises. I am not the most educated or informed on this conflict and have been trying to learn more and navigate through sources to uncover a deeper understanding of the root causes and the challenges within this conflict. Because of this, I was very happy and grateful to have had the opportunity to attend Mira Sucharov and Omar Dajani’s talk at the Fish Interfaith Center and learn more about the conflict and prospects for peace, among other important topics. 

Although I do wish that the talk spoke more specifically about the conflict and the build-up to current events, I still felt that there were many important lessons that are crucial to our consideration and analysis of this topic, especially through a Peace Studies lens. The opportunity to listen to two speakers, one Jewish and one Palestinian, presented important questions and insights that allowed us to touch on various important aspects of peace and conflict analysis. 

The first that came to mind was narrative theory, in which learning and listening to the different perspectives and narratives from both speakers allows us to understand more deeply the framing of the conflict as well as the root causes/concerns present for either party in conflict. During the talk, for example, Omar mentioned that his initial rejection/distrust with regard to reports of Palestinian sexual violence towards Israeli women was, in hindsight, more due to his fears of what these allegations would mean for Palestine as opposed to simply a denial of the reports. This is very important to keep in mind because it speaks to the changes in the ways in which different actors within the conflict may interpret information differently and the ways that fears and concerns impact this interpretation.

Omar and Mira also did something extremely important and impactful during their talk that is crucial to the process of peacemaking in conflict zones: they acknowledged the suffering of the other party in the conflict. At times, it can be immensely challenging to acknowledge that the “other” has also suffered through great violence, tragedy, and anguish throughout the conflict. Despite this, it is extremely important to do so as it highlights the need to create peace and the importance of ceasing the violence and human suffering occurring. In addition, I think it is an incredibly brave and powerful message that these speakers are sending that, despite not always being well received by their communities, can inspire a similar empathy and understanding in many others. 

A final thought I had as I reflected on this event was regarding the power and the importance of language in the dialogue occurring when discussing conflicts. This was a central idea within the speakers’ event as they highlighted the sensitivity and consideration that is crucial to creating effective dialogue regarding this topic. Mira highlighted the difficulties, confusion, and controversy regarding the term “Zionism” for example. This is an important lesson for us to understand as we conduct research and analyze different conflicts around the world. We must be cautious and informed when selecting the words we use and we must understand that words carry a significant and potentially destructive weight to them. If we will be agents of change and peace, we must ensure that we are mindful of the impacts that our writing and talks can have.

Overall, this event was very informative for me and I was very happy to be able to attend. I plan to continue researching, reflecting, and having that dialogue with others that Mira and Omar highlighted as essential to understanding the conflict today.

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.