Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A Right to Exist in Mutual Dignity

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

Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Political outrage is rising—but dismissing the other side’s anger deepens division. Learn why taking outrage seriously can bridge America’s partisan divide.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Taking Outrage Seriously: Understanding the Moral Signals Behind Political Anger

Over the last several weeks, the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital to crack down on crime. While those on the right have long been aghast by rioting and disorder in our cities, pressing for greater military intervention to curtail it, progressive residents of D.C. have tirelessly protested the recent militarization of the city.

This recent flashpoint is a microcosm of the reciprocal outrage at the heart of contemporary American public life. From social media posts to street protests to everyday conversations about "the other side," we're witnessing unprecedented levels of political outrage. And as polarization has increased, we’ve stopped even considering the other political party’s concerns, responding instead with amusement and delight. Schadenfreude, or pleasure at someone else’s pain, is now more common than solidarity or empathy across party lines.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping.

Recent data shows that Americans view members of the opposing political party overly negatively, leading people to avoid political discourse with those who hold different views.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

How To Motivate Americans’ Conversations Across Politics

Introduction

A large body of research shows that Americans hold overly negative distortions of those across the political spectrum. These misperceptions—often referred to as "Perception Gaps"—make civil discourse harder, since few Americans are eager to engage with people they believe are ideologically extreme, interpersonally hostile, or even threatening or inferior. When potential disagreement feels deeply uncomfortable or dangerous, conversations are unlikely to begin.

Correcting these distortions can help reduce barriers to productive dialogue, making Americans more open to political conversations.

Keep ReadingShow less
Divided American flag

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson writes on the serious impacts of "othering" marginalized populations and how, together, we must push back to create a more inclusive and humane society.

Jorge Villalba/Getty Images

New Rules of the Game: Weaponization of Othering

By now, you have probably seen the viral video. Taylor Townsend—Black, bold, unbothered—walks off the court after a bruising match against her white European opponent, Jelena Ostapenko. The post-match glances were sharper than a backhand slice. Next came the unsportsmanlike commentary—about her body, her "attitude," and a not-so-veiled speculation about whether she belonged at this level. To understand America in the Trump Redux era, one only needs to study this exchange.

Ostapenko vs. Townsend is a microcosm of something much bigger: the way anti-democratic, vengeful politics—modeled from the White House on down—have bled into every corner of public life, including sports. Turning “othering” into the new national pastime. Divisive politics has a profound impact on marginalized groups. Neither Ostapenko nor Donald Trump invented this playbook, yet Trump and his sycophants are working to master it. Fueled by a sense of grievance, revenge, and an insatiable appetite for division, he—like Ostapenko—has normalized once somewhat closeted attitudes.

Keep ReadingShow less