Israeli-Palestinian conflict can’t be reduced to one truth

Recent weeks have revealed the raw emotions that surround the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict here at UCLA. The events surrounding
Israeli Independence Day earlier this month sponsored by Jewish
student groups, followed by this week’s “Israel and
Palestine: Obstacles to Peace” sponsored by Students for
Justice in Palestine, the Muslim Student Association and others,
make clear that physical distance from the Middle East does not
dilute the passions very much.

And yet, our physical distance from the region could be far more
of a benefit than we allow. Removed from the searing intensity of
the conflict, we should try to see over the psychological and
rhetorical walls that separate us from our putative enemies. At
this distance we should try to talk to each other, recognizing the
common humanity that unites us. If not here, where?

To do so, those of us who feel a stake in the conflict ““
Muslims and Jews, Arabs and Israelis, supporters of Palestine and
supporters of Israel ““ would do well to remember the
following propositions.

First, the conflict is not a fight between good and evil:
Supporters of either side tend to see the other in demonic terms,
as the embodiment of pure evil. Conversely, they tend to wrap
themselves, at least for external presentation, in the cloak of
beneficence. The reality, though, is more complicated.

Jews did not come to Palestine beginning in the late 19th
century with the explicit goal of dispossessing the local Arab
population. They came on the heels of a nationalist movement whose
main objective was to restore the Jews to their ancestral homeland,
an impulse rooted in traditional Jewish liturgy. Relatively soon
after arriving (i.e., the 1920s), they understood that in order to
realize their dream, they would need to vanquish the local Arab
population politically, demographically and militarily. And they
set out to do so, methodically and, at times, brutally.

From the other side, it is easy to see how Palestinian Arabs
perceived Zionist settlers as interlopers and meddlers. After all,
the former had been residents of the land for centuries, and
suddenly tens of thousands of European settlers arrived to lay
claim to a mysterious ancient birthright. The path the Palestinian
Arabs chose, with unfortunate frequency up to the present, was
armed struggle rather than reconciliation. It is fair to say, at a
minimum, that neither side is above reproach.

At the same time both national movements contain a good deal of
truth and virtue on their side. The difficult realization at which
we must arrive in regard to this conflict is that there are
multiple truths ““ not a single one ““ at work.

Secondly, it is better to recognize than to denigrate the
experience of the other. It is all too easy to assert the
superiority of one’s own side by denying the experience of
the other, but the more honest tactic is to try to understand the
other side through its own lenses.

Thus it does no good for supporters of Israel to deny the pain
of the “Naqba” ““ the flight of Palestinians from
homeland to exile in 1948. Nor does it do much good to deny the
growing body of evidence that points to the expulsion by Jewish
forces of a fair portion of the Palestinian refugees. Would Jews
not feel a similar sense of resentment had the tables been reversed
and they lost the 1948 war? On the other hand, it does no good for
supporters of the Palestinian side to deny the age-old aspiration
of Jews to go from exile to homeland. Nor does it do any good to
distort the term Holocaust by applying it to Israeli
occupation.

I am a fierce critic of the occupation and believe it to be
illegal, inhumane and debilitating. But it can and should not be
compared to the systematic murder of millions of people under the
Nazi reign of terror. Indeed, supporters of both sides must move
beyond their comfort zones and pat cliches to understand the pain
of the other.

Thirdly, the conflict is not a zero-sum game. Far from the
battleground, we are in a position to grasp the concept that
support for Israel is not exclusive of support from Palestine, and
vice versa. One can feel passionate about and committed to the
Jewish presence in the historic land of Israel and still recognize
both the pain and the legitimate national rights of the
Palestinians. And one can agitate for the rights of a free and
viable state of Palestine without invalidating the right of the
Jews to a state of their own. To do so is not utopian or
Pollyanish; it is to come to terms with reality. Neither group is
going to go away in the near future. The sooner the land is divided
between two autonomous and sovereign nations, the sooner the cycle
of bloodshed will come to an end.

What can we here at UCLA do? We are relatively limited in our
power to impose a solution. But we can eschew the path of
demonization and instead treat each other with respect. Perhaps
next year Jewish and Muslim groups on campus, as well as supporters
of Israel and Palestine, will not segregate themselves among the
like-minded, but will sit down to an honest and painful discussion
about each other’s past and the prospect of a shared
future.

Myers is a professor of Jewish history and director of the
UCLA Center for Jewish Studies.