I Am Not Here to Change Anybody’s Mind, Only to Speak About My Feelings
Most of us have a strong need to retain our pre-existing beliefs, posture on contentious issues, bond to our group identity
https://commons.wikimedia.org/
Right now, I recognize my smallness in the larger scheme of things. I acknowledge that I can’t control global events and how people respond.
And I’m not here to change anyone’s opinion or belief. I learned long ago that I can only manage my emotions, thoughts, and behavior. But I have a voice, a route to locate my convictions and moral obligation to other humans I come in contact with.
It wasn’t easy for me to write this. I took some time to have it fermented in my mind, and I concluded that I would be as honest as possible but, at the same time, tread with caution.
It most likely happens more than once: You spend time persuading someone that their belief on a specific issue is wrong. You go out of your way to make sure your argument is airtight. Yet instead of coming around to your point of view, your conversation partner pushes back, still resolved in their ultimate rightness.
Psychological research proposes that once our minds are made up on crucial matters, altering them can be as challenging as stopping a train racing at full speed, even when there’s danger straight ahead.
Most of us have a strong need to retain our pre-existing beliefs, posture on contentious issues, bond to our group identity, and root ourselves in opposition to perceived enemies.
Therefore, changing our viewpoint can exact a high personal toll, which can be seen as defection.
It even feels as frightening as leaping off a window ledge — and to a certain extent, this apprehension is reasonable. When you think and behave in ways that separate you from community members, you’ll likely experience some exclusion. Therefore, most people would rather deny or downplay uncomfortable knowledge than redesign their worldview to adjust it.
Since October 7, Western academics, students, artists, and activists have denied, excused, or even praised the murders by a terrorist sect that broadcasts an anti-Jewish genocidal program. Some of this is happening out in the open, some behind the masks of humanitarianism and justice, and some in code, most famously “from the river to the sea,” a disturbing phrase that implicitly endorses the killing or deportation of the 9 million Israelis, two plus million of which are Israeli Arabs.
And then there are those, perhaps a quiet majority, who are unsure which side they should support.
Well, if you are one of those people, I may have a glimmer of good news for you amid all the horror: You can support both. You can stand for the right of Israelis to live in safety and security in a Jewish state and, at the same time, support the right of Palestinians to self-determination in a state of their own. In peace!
During wartime, when there is no single answer or “side” to take, language can be more of a barrier than a bridge to understanding. What comes next? How can we function, let alone go forward, in the face of so much anger, pain, and confusion?
Critics of Israel often speak of 75 years of settler colonialism, making the sweeping claim that the foundation and ongoing existence of the Israeli state are instances of settler colonialism.
This claim is misleading at best.
Both Israeli and Palestinian nationalisms are founded on deep and legitimate connections to the land. Further, while Jewish immigration to Palestine reached its height under British colonial rule, the Zionists were not citizens of a colonial power sent to displace the existing population but refugees fleeing persecution.
Zionism was a complex historical phenomenon simply not comparable to notorious instances of settler colonialism, like the European invasion and the colonizing of the Americas.
Today’s Hamas apologists and atrocity-deniers, with denunciations of “settler-colonialism,” remind me of history that was never left behind, the tradition of leftist intellectuals who supported Stalin, and those aristocratic sympathizers and peace activists who excused Hitler.
On October 7, we all learned what the decolonization narrative means.
It has dehumanized Israelis to the extent that otherwise rational people excuse, deny, or support barbarity. It embraces that Israel is an “imperialist-colonialist” force, that Israelis are “settler-colonialists,” and that Palestinians have a right to eliminate their oppressors. Therefore, it casts Israelis as “white” and Palestinians as “people of color.”
What about Hamas?
Well, recent events have given us the most shocking reminder yet that if you support peace, you must reject Hamas. But this would not make you anti-Palestine — no! Quite the opposite. The weaker Hamas becomes, the greater the chances are for a peace agreement that would allow an independent Palestine to thrive alongside Israel. So, not only is it possible to be anti-Hamas and pro-Palestine: If you support a free Palestine, you should oppose Hamas.
Is there a place here for moments of moral clarity? Is there a place here to see the humanity in each other? Is it possible to rise above the awful pain?
The way things stand right now, the ability to engage in moral dialogue is pretty bankrupt. The louder we yell, the more committed we are to our beliefs.
We’ve traded moral dialogue for moral statement-making. I don’t believe that any moral philosopher would say there’s something wrong with conversing with someone with different views than you do.
It’s especially hard psychologically to sort through these things when we are in “reaction mode” rather than thinking through what we should believe or the trouble of collecting facts.
But if we try to observe the world and understand human motivations — to zoom out and grasp the situation with seriousness, humility, and empathy- I think our society is failing to do this right now.
But what is clear to me is that supporting Hamas’ actions and supporting the broader Palestinian cause (or Palestinian civilians) are very different positions. Still, they are getting entangled in disturbing ways. I suspect many here in America who endorse Hamas’ actions would be aghast if they were required to live under Hamas rule.
In the recent protests on campuses, the most common chant I heard was “Free Palestine.” It is a powerful slogan but also an ambiguous one. We should ask those who call for a “free Palestine” what they mean.
If they mean an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, then they are, in fact, pro-Palestine and pro-Israel at once.
But if they say they want an independent Palestinian state instead of Israel, ask them: What do you think should be done with the more than 7 million Jews who now live between the river and the sea?
The lack of decency and respect for human life is astonishing: Almost instantly after the Hamas attack, a legion of people emerged who downplayed the slaughter or denied actual atrocities had even happened as if Hamas had just carried out a traditional military operation against soldiers.
October 7 deniers, like Holocaust deniers, exist in an incredibly dark place.
The truth should be obvious among decent people. Yet, in light of the abundant evidence of the atrocious acts upon innocent civilians, unlike those fools of the 1930s, who slowly came around to the truth, many in this country and Europe have not changed their views an iota.
And I’m not here to change anybody’s mind, only to speak about my thoughts.
It is so true that people who are not entrenched in their anti- Israel beliefs to the point that they do not want to be “confused by the facts”, are people who can learn if they were educated. If you ask most of those chanting “from river to sea” which river, and what’s the name of the sea, they can’t even answer.
Three important comments to add to the history of the area called Palestine by the British— and at the time referred to the Jewish population of that area. The mandate on Palestine that was given to the British in 1918 was for the purpose of “creating a homeland for the Jews.” However, soon after, the British went on to hand over 76% of that land to the Hashemite, creating Jordan, which was made of the population that called themselves Palestinians . So for 75 years the fight is over the remaining remaining 24%.
The second comment relates to the fact that for thousands of years there was a Jewish life in this area, notably in cities such as Safed and Jerusalem. Jews did not just begin to arrive in numbers following the holocaust, but during a revival in the late 1800s. According to independent observers, such as Mark Twain, the land then was desolate, and almost empty of inhabitants.
Third, once the Jews began to arrive, dried swamps that covered most of the center of Israel, (the Sharon) built roads, and began agricultural projects, Arabs started to come in, seeking work. They did not come to claim the place as their ancestral land, as the Jew did. Eventually the Arabs made homes and built villages, there is no denying that, but the numbers show that they had had hardly lived there before the Jews began to develop the land .
Great article.