Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A Right to Exist in Mutual Dignity

Opinion

A Right to Exist in Mutual Dignity

Paper cut-outs of people and the earth.

Getty Images, Liliia Bila

The question of Israel's right to exist isn't an abstract debate—it's written in the ashes of six million souls, in the tears of generations, and in the fierce determination of a people who refuse to let their story end in darkness. Any questioning of Israel's right to exist is to whisper that the Jewish people's centuries-long journey of survival, resilience, and hope, somehow matters less than others. As a Black American, I know too well how systems of oppression work to deny people their fundamental humanity.

When Hamas' charter calls for Israel's destruction, it echoes the same dehumanizing logic that has justified countless atrocities past and present. However, there is an inconvenient truth one must remain answerable to. Israel's right to exist doesn't permit any of us to look away from Palestinian suffering. Personal experiences with injustice inform the understanding that pain doesn't cancel out pain. Trauma doesn't negate trauma. The Jewish people have a right to security and self-determination in their uniquely established territorial homeland alongside—not in opposition to—the Palestinian people's right to dignity and self determination in their ancestral homeland.


The evidence of Jewish connection to this land runs deeper than politics. It's etched in stone, written on scrolls, and woven into daily prayers that have been lifted across the diaspora. For three millennia, every Jewish heart has turned toward Jerusalem in prayer; every wedding remembers its destruction, and every Passover ends with the promise: "Next year in Jerusalem." The mantra isn't just ancient poetry—it's identity, memory, and hope, braided together across generations.

Israel's existence isn't validated solely by ancient claims or religious canon. The modern State of Israel emerged in 1948 as the world's belated answer to centuries of persecution, culminating in the Holocaust's unprecedented horror. The United Nations' recognition wasn't charity—it was the international community's acknowledgment that the Jewish people needed and deserved safety to live and thrive.

Today, Israel stands as one of the Middle East's leading expressions of democracy, however imperfect. It's a nation that has absorbed Jewish refugees from Ethiopia to Ukraine, from Yemen to Russia, not without controversy. In a time when antisemitism is surging again—where Jewish students feel unsafe on college campuses and synagogues need armed guards—Israel's existence as a haven isn't a luxury. It's a necessity. And yet, Israel's security cannot come at the cost of Palestinian dignity. Moreover, no individual or nation's security, prosperity, or inalienable rightness should be at the cost of another's! I have stood at the fortified divide of the West Bank, reminded of the visible and invisible barriers that have divided communities globally over the years. When I hear of Palestinian family displacement, I immediately think of the many acts of segregation and forced relocations exacted in America.

The moral challenge of our time isn't choosing sides—it's choosing humanity. It's recognizing that supporting Israel's right to exist doesn't require us to endorse every Israeli policy, just as supporting Palestinian rights doesn't mean accepting violence against civilians brought on by Hamas. We can and must hold space for both and all peoples' legitimate aspirations.

The path forward demands what theologian Reinhold Niebuhr called "moral imagination"—the ability to envision a future and ethics different from the past. All people deserve to live free from fear, raise their children in peace, and build communities where hope outweighs hatred. Israel's right to exist is non-negotiable. Not because it's perfect, again, no nation is. This premise should not diminish Palestinian rights; rather, it sets the stage for genuine dialogue about how both peoples can flourish.

In the end, this isn't just about Israel and Palestine—it's about who we are as a human family. Can we build a world where "never again" means never again for everyone? The answer lies not in choosing between rights but expanding our circle of moral concern until it encompasses all who seek to live in dignity and peace.


Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, and scholar-practitioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.

Read More

High School Civic Innovators Bridging America’s Divide

At just 17 years of age, Sophie Kim was motivated to start her organization, Bipartisan Bridges, to bring together people from both ends of the political spectrum. What started as just an idea during her freshman year of high school took off after Sophie placed in the Civics Unplugged pitch contest, hosted for alumni in Spring 2024. Since then, Sophie has continued to expand Bipartisan Bridges' impact, creating spaces that foster civil dialogue and facilitate meaningful connections across party lines.

Sophie, a graduate of the Spring 2024 Civic Innovators Fellowship and the Summer 2025 Civic Innovation Academy at UCLA, serves as the founder and executive director of Bipartisan Bridges. In this role, Sophie has forged a partnership with the organization Braver Angels to host depolarization workshops and has led the coordination and capture of conversations on climate change, abortion, gun control, foreign aid, and the 100 Men vs. a Gorilla debate. In addition, this year, Sophie planned and oversaw Bipartisan Bridges’ flagship Politics and Polarization Fellowship, an eight-week, in-person program involving youth from Tustin, Irvine, Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach, California. A recent Bipartisan Bridges session featuring youth from both Los Angeles and Orange County will be featured in Bridging the Gap, an upcoming documentary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Democrats can reclaim America’s founding principles, rebuild the rural economy, and restore democracy by redefining the political battle Trump began.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Defining the Democrat v. Republican Battle

Winning elections is, in large part, a question of which Party is able to define the battle and define the actors. Trump has so far defined the battle and effectively defined Democrats for his supporters as the enemy of making America great again.

For Democrats to win the 2026 midterm and 2028 presidential elections, they must take the offensive and show just the opposite–that it is they who are true to core American principles and they who will make America great again, while Trump is the Founders' nightmare come alive.

Keep ReadingShow less
Mirror, Mirror On the Wall, Who's the Most Patriotic of All?

Trump and the MAGA movement have twisted the meaning of patriotism. It’s time we collectively reclaim America’s founding ideals and the Pledge’s promise.

Getty Images, LeoPatrizi

Mirror, Mirror On the Wall, Who's the Most Patriotic of All?

Republicans have always claimed to be the patriotic party, the party of "America, right or wrong," the party willing to use force to protect American national interests abroad, the party of a strong military. In response, Democrats have not really contested this perspective since Vietnam, basically ceding the patriotic badge to the Republicans.

But with the advent of Donald Trump, the Republican claim to patriotism has gotten broader and more troubling. Republicans now claim to be the party that is true to our founding principles. And it is not just the politicians; they have support from far-right scholars at the Heritage Foundation, such as Matthew Spalding. The Democratic Party has done nothing to counter these claims.

Keep ReadingShow less
Communication concept with multi colored abstract people icons.

Research shows that emotional, cognitive, and social mechanisms drive both direct and indirect contact, offering scalable ways to reduce political polarization.

Getty Images, Eoneren

“Direct” and “Indirect” Contact Methods Likely Work in Similar Ways, so They Should Both Be Effective

In a previous article, we argued that efforts to improve the political environment should reach Americans as media consumers, in addition to seeking public participation. Reaching Americans as media consumers uses media like film, TV, and social media to change what Americans see and hear about fellow Americans across the political spectrum. Participant-based efforts include dialogues and community-based activities that require active involvement.

In this article, we show that the mechanisms underlying each type of approach are quite similar. The categories of mechanisms we cover are emotional, cognitive, relational, and repetitive. We use the terms from the academic literature, “direct” and “indirect” contact, which are fairly similar to participant and media consumer approaches, respectively.

Keep ReadingShow less