How to Talk About the Middle East

Welcome to Up for Debate. Each week, Conor Friedersdorf rounds up timely conversations and solicits reader responses to one thought-provoking question. Later, he publishes some thoughtful replies. Sign up for the newsletter here.

Last week, I noted the polarizing conflict in the Middle East and asked how citizens of faraway countries should handle differences about the best way forward so as not to tear their own societies apart.

Replies have been edited for length and clarity.

Charles counsels restraint:

I just think people need to remember they aren’t required to publicly declare their opinions on world events. We all need to calm down, try to educate ourselves on the history behind the conflict, and listen to the people actually being directly affected by this tragedy, instead of just pumping more empty, ill-informed rhetoric into the world.

Tom urges “great forbearance.” He writes:

I generally think I have answers to every question but on Israel versus the Palestinians, I am at a loss. The monstrous atrocities by Hamas on October 7 have placed the Israelis in the most clear-cut, no-win situation I have ever seen. In the interest of full disclosure, my sympathy is with Israel.

How should we address this difficult situation? I come from a mixed family, politically. My mother and father were both Iowans and officers in World War II, but my dad was a Republican and my mother, a New Deal Democrat. The political etiquette in my family was to state your views and listen respectfully to the views of others. The expectation was that you would think about what you had heard and come to your own conclusion, which I think is the most reasonable intellectual expectation, and a positive model for political discourse. People have a right to demonstrate, and without recrimination. In my youth, half a century ago, we demonstrated against the Vietnam War, sometimes daily. It is best if pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian demonstrations not compete for time or place. If they must coincide, let the police keep them from coming to blows, preferably with overwhelming numbers that obviate the need for force.

But I hope the two sides will listen to each other, with courtesy and an open mind. A lot of what is said at rallies is probably nasty, radical one-upmanship, but some of it will be selfless and thoughtful and should be heard and reflected upon.

Let us treat with respect those on the other side whose views are heartfelt and reasonable even if we disagree. As for narcissistic rabble-rousers, don’t play their game by becoming part of the rabble. We are all adrift in this together, and we should not forsake the liberal values that have served us so well. Our goal should be to guide the misguided back to reason, not to crush them. College students have a strong propensity to adopt causes, but the SAT scores of students at Harvard, Yale, and Cornell suggest that they can be reasoned with.

Jaleelah urges consistency. She writes:

Slander should be off the table. I am more than happy to debate people who come to me with the belief that Israel should continue its occupation of the West Bank. I will not debate people who claim that I am a terrorist sympathizer repeatedly and unapologetically. Secondly, people should select the right time and place for their political monologues. The optimal time to defend the moral code of Israel’s police is certainly not right after I have shared that they killed one of my relatives. Finally, people should be more open to acknowledging ideological inconsistencies in their stances.

One of the worst inconsistencies on all sides of the Israel-Palestine conversation concerns slogans and identifiers. Many people uncritically switch between the positions that a) slogans and identifiers have concrete meanings that can be traced back to their first known use and b) slogans and identifiers should be judged by the actions of their adopters.

When my grandfather uses the term “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” he cheers for a world where he can return to his ancestors’ graves and his living siblings’ homes without being shot. The slogan predates Hamas. But surely anti-Semites use this phrase to cheer for ridding the land of Jewish people. Growing up, I had lots of conversations with my Jewish friends about the term Zionist. In their eyes, the term described supporters of Jewish people’s right to live freely and practice their religion in their ancestral homeland. And they were right! The term predates Theodore Herzl and the “colonial” project he proposed. (Another inconsistency: Should political groups be defined by quotes from their founding documents or their current stated and implied positions? If it’s the former, Hamas is genocidal and political Zionism is a colonial project. If it’s the latter, neither of these things is quite as certain.) But surely some people who want to exterminate Palestinians claim the term Zionist.

Consistency dials down frustration quite a lot. It also makes people more amenable to your position.

L.K. encourages intellectual humility:

When dealing with controversial issues in an ideologically diverse, open society, here’s one golden rule to keep uppermost in mind: Remember to entertain doubt. There is always another view that we haven’t considered; there is always additional information that we don’t (yet) have; and there is always a greater wisdom that we can adopt if and when we keep these admonitions in mind. A sure sign that we need to entertain more doubt is that we feel absolutely certain about our cause. If we’re part of a crowd storming the Capitol, that’s a sign that we are in desperate need of more doubt. More to the immediate point, if we are posting online images of para-gliders (in support of Hamas) or tearing down posters of kidnapped Jewish children, it simply could not be more clear that we are suffering from a profound and dangerous absence of doubt. And when all doubt is gone, we have arrived at fundamentalism (of the religious or secular variety).

The beauty of remembering to entertain doubt is that it need not destabilize us. We are still free to proceed with a chosen course of action. In fact, with doubt in mind, we are more likely to spot and correct our own mistakes. We can still hold beliefs. But with doubt in mind, we will remain receptive to feedback that can help us strengthen or abandon those beliefs as necessary. Rather than weakening us, doubt can provide strength and resilience. And that is the kind of strength and resilience a society will need to settle its most profound differences in as much of a peaceful manner as possible.

Z.H. tries to influence others by example:

Contentious topics such as the Middle East have a way of tearing people apart. I have my own opinions, yet throughout my life I have found myself able to stay friendly with those who hold opinions opposite myself on highly divisive subjects. I do this by keeping in mind the aphorism “Be the change you want to see in the world.” How? I keep in mind my shared powerlessness with the people I am involved with. I keep in mind that my goal for the world is more peace, not less. The people I know don’t have any real influence or power over the Middle East conflict. So let’s say I try to bully someone into changing their opinion. What does that accomplish in practice if I succeed?

Almost nothing. The Middle East conflict will go on all the same. What do I accomplish if I fail? A damaged relationship and more disharmony in the world—which is the much more likely outcome of arguing. Virtually no one changes their opinion when they feel they are on the defensive. I rarely succeed in having someone change their position completely, but by approaching them with empathy and curiosity to try to understand their views and how they developed them, I often succeed in moderating their positions toward mine. This is how others succeed in moderating my opinions and beliefs as well.I want more peace and diplomacy in the world. Manifesting that outcome means focusing on what I can control—myself, by being peaceful and diplomatic with others.

I see no point in fighting with someone over having a differing political opinion on something neither of us has any real power over. Save the aggressive energy for your politicians, not your friends and family. Ask yourself what getting into a heated disagreement is accomplishing. It’s often a Pyrrhic victory. It’s good for people to care, but channel that energy into constructive efforts, not destructive ones. Peace in the world starts by having peace with one another. How can we hope for Palestinians and Israelis to have peace if we can’t even have peace ourselves when discussing the topic?

Chris emphasizes the need for compromise:

Both sides have legitimate historical grievances and both are guilty of abuses. If you’re serious about a solution, both sides are going to [have to] compromise on what they now regard as nonnegotiable principles; both sides will have to leave a lot of scores unsettled; and neither side is going to be happy with the final outcome. But unless you’re an unhinged militant, any outcome is preferable to interminable warfare. If you’re not willing to start from this premise, you’re not serious about a settlement. You’re part of the problem.