From the Boston Herald:
Our world is plagued by conflicts, both domestically and globally, fueled by political, social, economical or religion tensions. One that has gotten significant attention is the Israeli Palestinian conflict, which seems to have reached a peak with the Israel-Hamas war and the protests on college campuses.
Although the Israeli Palestinian conflict is very complicated, in an era governed by social media and polarization, it is not surprising that it is often depicted in simplified terms, using unidimensional frameworks, and driving the public to adopt an “Either/Or” approach. You are either with the underdog or against it. The heroes in the story are either powerful or weak. You are either a pro-Palestinian (and anti-Israel) or you are pro-Israel (and anti-Palestinian).
This forced simplicity is detrimental as it is often motivated by ignorance, increases polarization, and is not helpful in finding a constructive path forward. Is there a better way to think about the Israeli Palestinian conflict that could lead to a deeper understanding of the complex reality and inspire more useful engagement with the issue? I came across an excellent book and mindset that opened my eyes to the value of embracing conflict and tensions, and the paradoxes that underlie them. “Both/And Thinking,” by Wendy Smith and Marianne Lewis, discusses paradoxes – competing but interwoven views that are a source of sustained conflict.
These paradoxes surround us in our personal and professional lives. As paradoxes create discomfort, uncertainty, and stress, we often want to solve them as quickly as we can. The easiest way to solve a paradox is to adopt an Either/Or approach – choosing one clear path and to fully stand behind the decision to regain a sense of control and minimize cognitive dissonance. Although an Either/Or approach may lead to short-term relief, this approach narrows our options, limits opportunities, listening and learning, is less creative and collaborative, and is likely to have a negative long term effect. Alternatively, a Both/And approach requires us to grapple with the paradox and identify a less linear, not unidimensional, learning-based and more creative path forward.
The Israeli Palestinian conflict is full of paradoxes. Between the old and the new. Between the extreme and the moderate. Between security and autonomy. Between hope and reality. Between the short term and the long term. Between anger and empathy. What can we learn on the Israeli Palestinian conflict and how can we address some of these paradoxes if we adopt a Both/And thinking? Who are the indigenous people in the story?
The Either/Or approach of the conflict views the Palestinians as the indigenous people and the Jewish Zionists – the national movement of the Jewish people – as “settler colonialists.” The Both/And approach would review history and religion to reveal that they connect both Jews and the ancestors of the Palestinian people to the land of Israel/Palestine. Further, for many centuries, much before the establishment of Zionism in the late 19th century, Jews lived in the holy land, emptying the concept of “colonization.”
Still, after the 1967 war, Israel did occupy the West Bank (among other territories) where the majority of Palestinians live. This territory is still under dispute, and the very small group of Israelis that have decided to live there are often viewed as “settlers”; their strategy is often debated even within Israel. So, both the Jews and the Palestinians share “the old” and are here to share “the new”. Does the story depict white privileged vs. non-white under privileged?
The Either/Or approach of the conflict has borrowed the “white=privilege” framework from other social justice battles like that of the civil rights movement. It is first valuable to note that the “white=privilege” framework is simplistic and is not able to capture many instances (you can be white and poor or non-white and successful). The Both/And approach will reveal a more nuanced reality. First, most Israelis are not “white” and, in fact, many come from Arab countries.
Interestingly, during 1948, when Israel was established and the Palestinian refugee crisis began, roughly the same amount of Jewish refugees had to flee their homes in the Arab world – about 800,000 people. So, both the Jewish and Palestinian people’s history is associated with being refugees and neither is “white.” Who should we criticize?
The Either/Or approach of the conflict has led people to be either critical of, and put all blame on Israel or critical of, and put all blame on Hamas and the Palestinians. The Both/And approach suggests that most of the time, the reality is more multi-layered. Israel is rightly perceived as the stronger actor, with a successful economy and strong military. Viewing itself as part of the Western developed world by holding similar values, Israel is disproportionally singled out for some of its actions in the context of the conflict.
Although mistakes have been made, and some of Israel’s policies and actions can be criticized, there is no logical reason to de-legitimize the country. Further, on Oct. 7, the country faced a brutal attack by Hamas, catching it off guard militarily, socially, and politically. On the other side, the Palestinians, deserving a state to reflect their self-determination, have not established effective institutions and governance systems to be able to avoid the fate of “failed nation.”
At the same time, in the West Bank, the lives of Palestinians are far from being easy, also because of Israeli policies. Finally, the extreme, jihadist branch of the Palestinians – Hamas – has demonstrated hate, evil and corruption, and is as far as can be from the values liberals in the West hold dear. Their Oct. 7 attack and strategy of hiding within and under civilians have led to a huge tragedy for Gazans. Overall, a Both/And approach could lead one to be both pro-Israel (or at the minimum empathize with Israelis) and pro-Palestinian (or at the minimum empathize with Palestinians), and at the same time be anti-Hamas.
Moving away from an Either/Or approach and adopting a Both/And thinking will not solve the conflict. But it might allow for more people to become open to learn more and listen, accept that reality is often more complicated than portrayed in social media, and be engaged with others in a more useful way. It can also enable us to reframe some of the questions we ask around the conflict. Rather than “Who is the one to blame?” or “Who is the victim?” we can start asking questions such as “How can we combine tradition and modernity in the Middle East” or “How can we create realistic hope”?
This is an opportunity for learning, in the context of the current conflict, but more broadly, a Both/And thinking can serve us well as individuals, organizations and societies, helping us address the many conflicts and underlying paradoxes around us.