Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Here's the key to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Palestinian and Israeli flags painted on a wall
Tuomas A. Lehtinen/Getty Images

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is among the most complex conflicts in the world today – and in the history of the world. The war launched by Hamas against Israel, the latest piece of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is immensely complicated, notably because Hamas militants have used Palestinian citizens, especially women and children, as shields.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rooted in rival conceptions of what happened when the Middle East was reshaped after World War I followed by the events of 1948, when Israel issued its Declaration of Independence and six Arab countries attacked the new nation. The roots go even deeper – all the way back to ancient times.

Any resolution of the conflict would have to deal with many issues, including the abundance of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the status of Jerusalem, the governance of Gaza after the current war and of course the very question about whether Palestinians will get a homeland.


There are two things that must happen for any resolution to be possible. They are the most basic impediments that have prevented peace for generations, one applying to Israel and one applying to the Palestinians. Israel must recognize that the Palestinians have a right to exist and to a homeland, and some group of Palestinians with a degree of authority must recognize that Israel has a right to exist and to a homeland. Both sides tried this approach with the Letters of Mutual Recognition in 1993, but the Oslo Accords were never implemented.

Israel already has a homeland, and thus the question here would be whether any parts of Israel need to be given to the Palestianians. The Palestinians do not have a state that is recognized by Israel and many other countries (although some land is recognized as Palestinian by the United Nations, notably the West Bank and Gaza).

Hamas, which represents Palestinians in Gaza, stands for the annihilation of Israel (as does Iran), although the Palestine Liberation Organization has gone back and forth on the position of seeking to annihilate Israel. Israel does not recognize a Palestinian state yet since 1947, with the United Nations Partition, it has frequently affirmed the right of Palestinians to have their own state.

The Palestinian position (and Iran's position), at least from the standpoint of Hamas, is a much more difficult obstacle to overcome because it is so extreme. Even Adolf Hitler did not stand for the annihilation of the countries (or all the citizens of those countries) he was fighting, notably France, England, Russia and the United States. He wanted territory, natural resources and naked power. What Hitler did stand for was the annihilation of the Jews, and he led an effort that killed two-thirds of the Jews of Europe.

There are a considerable number of Palestinians and Israelis (who count 2 million Arabs, mostly Palestinians, among their population) who want either a two-state solution or a confederation solution. Moreover, many major world powers, including the United States, Russia, China and a number of European nations, are also advocating for some form of a two-state solution.

It must be emphasized that there are not "two sides" in this conflict in any clear sense of the term, both because the Palestinians are divided and because Hamas, which has governed Gaza since 2007, is not governing it now. Moreover, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government, which many regard as extremist, could be replaced in the near future.

Thus the process of achieving peace over the next few years – especially with the United States and some Arab countries, notably Qatar, acting as brokers – is a very fluid situation. It is not even clear if Hamas or the Netanyahu government would be at the table when peace was achieved, let alone when monitoring would follow a peace deal.

However the politics evolves, it is still the case that the fundamental problem in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that both sides must recognize each other's right to have a homeland. Israel has been more consistent over the years in doing just this, but the Netanyahu years have been subject to international criticism for promoting policies that do not promote conditions for Palestinians to have their own state, notably a massive build up of settlements in the West Bank.

Read More

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
Hand blocking someone speaking

The Third Way has recently released a memo stating that the “stampede away from the Democratic Party” is partly a result of the language and rhetoric it uses.

Westend61/Getty Images

To Protect Democracy, Democrats Should Pay Attention to the Third Way’s List of ‘Offensive’ Words

More than fifty years ago, comedian George Carlin delivered a monologue entitled Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” It was a tribute to the legendary Lenny Bruce, whose “nine dirty words” performance led to his arrest and his banning from many places.

His seven words were “p—, f—, c—, c———, m———–, and t—.”

Keep ReadingShow less