Perspectives, Convictions, and Judgements

     The last 24 hours have had a theme of perspective. And by last 24 hours, I mean last night and I was thinking about it an hour ago. I had multiple people tell me that it was a good to always talk to the other side of an issue even one as complicated as one as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because that is the only way to get peace. But I have a difficult time digesting that since there are people out there who I feel, by talking to them, serve no purpose. That's not necessarily true. I don't believe that it's not good to talk to the other side. It simply depends on who that "other side" is. As well as, it also depends on what your goal is by having a conversation. If you're trying to create a narrative of the situation, then getting as many perspectives is the means to achieving the goal of creating a narrative. If you're trying to create a solution, then gaining perspectives is important, but understanding their convictions is much more important than simply understanding their perspective. But if you're trying to make a judgement, then perspectives are meaningless. The perspective of an individual on a situation as complicated as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is worthless in the grand scheme of things because they are one person living in one place for a specific amount of time. No person is alive today who experienced the Balfour Declaration with meaning (they understood the importance) and therefore, even if they were a mere teenager during the 1948 war, they lived in a specific place and have not experienced all of the conflict as a whole. That is why, when we make a judgement, we can't focus on perspectives because they create a tunnel vision. If we are trying to make a judgement, however, we need to focus on objective facts. If you're trying to create a narrative of a lover's quarrel that eventually ended with the man attempting to kill his wife should then you would need to speak to both the man and the woman in order to hear why each acted the way they did. On the other hand, if you're trying to make a judgement, who was right and who was wrong, there's no need to gain the perspectives. The man tried to kill his wife. Now maybe there are extenuating circumstances that we need to know about, but those are not perspectives. Those are more facts in order to be put into the equation in order to make a proper judgement. 

     But back to my original point about obtaining perspective. When making a judgement, perspective is meaningless. My friend had a conversation with two members of the Muslim Brotherhood while along her travels. Without seeming disappointed in her personal decision or attacking her decision to engage conversation with what she deemed as friendly people, I wonder why gaining the perspectives of two men who are engaged in an organization like the Muslim Brotherhood is helpful or should be encouraged? This organization is anti-Zionist and frankly anti-Semitic. So what perspective could I possibly get from that would be a reasonable one that would help further along the process of gaining a reasonable narrative? It's the same reason that talking to a member of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade or Hamas would be ridiculous. When you join a group like that, you don't join it like you would join a club on your university's campus. It's not even similar to associating yourself with a political party. You join an organization like this because you believe what they believe. The reason that I know this is what possible reason would an individual have for joining this organization if he DIDN'T believe in the beliefs of the organization? Hamas has STILL not recognized Israel's right to exist as a state. So why would I sit down and have a conversation with them? So they can tell me why my homeland should be annihilated and I should be driven into the sea? It's the same reason that you wouldn't sit with a Nazi or a member of the Ku Klux Klan. You can't expect to have a reasonable discussion with someone who believes that you are less than they are because of the color of your skin and you can't have a reasonable discussion with a person who believes you should die because of what you believe. It's absurd.

     I was told that you have to have conversations with these people because that is the only way we move forward, that is the only way we reach compromise. Compromise of what? On one side of the table, there is a person who believes in a piece of land being shared. On the other hand, there's a person who believes you should die. What compromise can be achieved with a person like this? You don't create compromise by unraveling a narrative. You create compromise through conviction and the action of giving up one's conviction in order to create a better situation for both parties.

     This is why I do believe that it's important to talk to the other side that is reasonable like talking to Palestinian citizens. It's important to talk to them, not to create a narrative, but to understand their convictions. Peace will be made not when we try to reconcile the differences of narratives. I support the discussion between Israeli and Palestinian teens just as much as the next guy, but you're not going to create true and lasting peace. The way you create peace is by both parties recognizing the convictions of the other. What does the other person want so badly that they are willing to die for? And then you reconcile those convictions. Israel wants no terrorism. That's a fair request. Palestine wants no checkpoints. That's a fair request. Israel wants defensible borders. That's a fair request. Palestine wants no settlements. That's a fair request. These are convictions that will the parties will not give up on and they are fair convictions to hold. So why hasn't peace been made? Because of the convictions that are not fair. Israel's policy on settlements is not fair and Palestine's request for 1967 borders and the Right of Return is not fair. So we must give up some of our convictions in order to benefit both parties as a whole. 

     Narratives are nice. They are easy, peaceful, non-confrontational, and overall universally not bad. It's good to know the full story in order to better  your opinion on the subject at hand. But it won't create peace. Having the full story in a situation like this will not help because one narrative will be Israel won the land and the other will be it was stolen by Palestinians. We must not focus on the narrative, but focus on judgement based on facts and history. Because in this world, there IS a right and there IS a wrong. The perspective of Hamas I'm sure is great in building the narrative of the Israel/Palestine conflict, but in the end, they are a still terrorist organization and the belief that Jews should be killed or that innocent Israelis should be killed is WRONG, no matter what narrative you come up with. In the end, narratives don't matter. All that matters is the judgement.