Dear President Obama,
I write as a citizen and an aspiring peacebuilder who learns constantly from the personal qualities that you have brought to your office. Watching your efforts concerning Israel and Palestine this week I feel compelled to write—both to celebrate your achievements and to offer a humble suggestion for refining your approach.
One extraordinary quality of your Middle East speech on May 19, 2011 was your ability to empathize with all sides to the conflict, seeing everyone as having a valid perspective and holding at once the tension among all of those perspectives. As you put it: "For Israelis, [the situation] has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own." This empathy and complexity of mind have been a hallmark of your presidency, and for me, always struggling to cultivate these virtues in myself, have been an inspiration to watch.
I'm not well informed enough to comment on the merits of the speech's policy recommendations, but I believe that the simple act of hearing all sides as valid could be a major contribution to the situation. If Israeli and Palestinian leadership felt truly heard by you, then perhaps they could more easily acknowledge each other's perspectives as well—thus encouraging a more collaborative stance in all parties
But reactions to the speech suggest that this has not particularly taken place. It is true that some American Jews, notably Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, viewed you as understanding the concerns of their side, but responses by Israel and Palestinian leaders tended mainly to defend their own positions and attack the other side's. For example, rather than acknowledging your articulation of Jewish Israelis' need for security, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu mainly stressed that the 1967 borders are "indefensible" as though he were the only one looking out for the defensibility of the Jewish state.
I thus find myself asking why your articulation of multiple perspectives does not have the hoped-for effect. And there is a great deal at stake here for my own work in building peace. If even a Nobel laureate's nuanced understanding of a conflict goes unacknowledged by the parties, what hope do I have?
Reflecting on the question, what I have come to see is that having an understanding of someone is not always enough to make them feel heard. They must hear you not only articulate your understanding, but also open that understanding up to the possibility of feedback and revision. They must know that you have not entered the situation unshakably convinced that you already know their needs in advance.
The danger you encounter is that by confidently describing everyone's fear and suffering without visibly demonstrating that the description is open to revision, you seem to be like a brilliant law professor who knows all the theoretical positions but is not connected in a heartfelt way to the situation at hand. And even though an outsider like me may hear your speech and believe that you understand all sides, your actual audience may not feel that way until you have developed a more humble relationship to their perspectives.
My suggestion is to make sure that your understanding is not a conclusion but a revisable hypothesis. The overall attitude becomes: "I believe that both sides feel a certain kind of pain. But I may not have gotten that completely right. What am I missing?" This allows you to remain constantly open to new information that alters your previous descriptions. As soon as Prime Minister Netanyahu called the 1967 borders "indefensible," you could have said: "I now hear your need to have borders that are defensible. All right, then this peace process must speak specifically to the question of defensible borders. Tell me, what else do you need?"
I believe that this subtle difference would move you from giving the impression of an omniscient jurist speaking from "on high" to that of a fallible peacebuilder who relates at "eye level." The change leaves intact your empathy and complexity, while emphasizing that you need other people to help you gain comprehensive understanding. And I believe that this change, from certainty to curiosity, could help to show parties in conflict that your understanding of their experience is rich, deep, and full of heartfelt wisdom.
Zeke Reich was born and raised in the heart of New York City.
NOTE: Individuals of many cultures, nationalities, religions, and beliefs are actively involved with Initiatives of Change. These commentaries represent the views of the writer and not necessarily those of Initiatives of Change as a whole.
English