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.

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.

The talk on Monday night was both what I expected, and not. Having two, such different individuals on stage together discussing a topic as divided as this one was very fascinating to watch. A lot of why this conflict can not be resolved it because of the lack of trust between the two sides and the inability to form a relationship across sides; but Omar and Mira proved that it is possible. It is important to acknowledge though that these two individuals are not as immersed in the conflict as those living on the ground and so bridging the gap between the oppressed and the oppressor is not as easy.

One thing I do wish more from the talk was that it went more in depth into the conflict and got a little more real than it was. Some of the conversation felt a little bit on the surface and would touch on the topics that make individuals “uncomfortable”. But I think that is very important. The only way that we can start to move towards a path forward is to have those “uncomfortable” conversations and discuss the injustices or the misconceptions, whatever it may be, so that they can be corrected. This is the most important part of the discussion that people are so scared and hesitant to get into. But why? Why is this such an untouchable subject that most do not want to touch with a ten foot pole? We can not neglect a group of suffering people because of a stereotyped narrative our world has come to believe. Palestinians deserve us to at least have these conversations, to raise awareness, and make necessary changes. I will say that this moment is one that I am seeing the most attention and interest in this conflict than any time before in my life time; it is just sad to have a genocide be the reason why.

I found myself in a conversation with Omar, Professor Rangel, and two women who attended the talk and from what I was able to catch, discussed the usage of the word genocide and how it would’ve outraged some of their other friends if they were at the talk, to the point where they would have left. And in my mind I thought, this is the problem. We are not willing to listen to one another; and we walk away the moment someone says something that we don’t like. This can not be the case in this conflict. The sides are so polarized that if this is the case, then people are going to continue dying because of people’s sensitive, ill feelings.

Overall I think the talk was interesting, a good starting point. With the complexity of the issues I think it is important for individuals who may not be well versed on it to know that there is much more to unpack. Omar and Mira brought really interesting perspectives; and showed that a relationship and a conversation between people on opposite sides is possible, and necessary.