Everyone is wrong about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

In his first Substack essay, an Israeli tour educator rejects the conventional wisdom of foreign policy elites and introduces a better way to analyze the conflict

What’s all the fighting about?

Most people will begin their answer by saying, “It’s complicated.” Well, so is quantum physics. You have to start somewhere. The job of an educator is to start teaching.

That’s what I’m going to try to do here in these essays.

In normal times, I work as a tour guide. One of the benefits of being a tour guide is that I get to do a lot of listening. I pay attention to how people who don’t know anything about Israel are experiencing Israel for the first time and forming opinions about it.

I can’t be a good educator if I don’t know who I am talking to. Listening to tourists helps me understand where they are coming from and how they make sense of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Everyone these days has opinions about Israel. Some people have informed opinions about Israel. Some people have uninformed opinions about Israel. But everyone has opinions about Israel because everyone feels like they must have opinions about Israel. People don’t feel like they must have opinions about Mongolia or Uruguay or Ethiopia or Cyprus.

You don’t have to sound like you’re an expert on the Czech Republic when you return home from Prague. But people who have been to Israel one time want to be able to explain “the conflict” and “what US policy should be.”

I know how these conversations go. I’ve listened to enough opinions about Israel to last a lifetime.

There are two big questions that everyone wants to be able to answer when they talk about Israel.

The first question is: Why is there a conflict?

The second question is the most American question: What’s the solution?

Why is there a conflict, and what’s the solution?

Because I’ve spent so much time listening to other people talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I have a pretty good idea of how most normal, reasonable people attempt to answer these two questions.

When Israelis talk to foreigners about their problems, the one word that they use more than any other is security.

When Palestinians talk to foreigners about their problems, the one word that they use more than any other is occupation. “End the occupation,” they say. “Palestinians want a state.”

Israelis want security; Palestinians want a state.

This is what reasonable people hear again and again and again. They hear it from official spokespeople on each side. They hear it from the White House and the State Department. They hear it from the European Union and the United Nations. And they hear it from everyone they talk to.

If you are a reasonable person who is hearing these two messages again and again – Israelis want security; Palestinians want a state – then it’s pretty easy to predict how you are going to explain the conflict and its solution.

You are going to say: The conflict continues because Israel doesn’t have security and because Palestinians are occupied and don’t have a state. How about as a solution, Palestinians give Israel security and then Israel gives Palestinians a state – and then that’s it. Conflict over.

If you want to sound a little bit smarter, you can add: Everyone knows what the solution is. The two sides just need to work out the details.

With very little effort, you have answered question one – why is there a conflict? – and you have answered question two – what’s the solution? (Congratulations, you are now qualified to work at the State Department.)

The solution that you have come up with after listening to the two sides is called the two-state solution.

It’s a comfortable place to be in any conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That’s because policy debates about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are often framed around this question.

In your conversations about Israel, you may be asked: “Do you support a two-state solution?”

If you say yes, you are a good person. You are somebody who wants peace.

If you say no, you are a bad person. You are somebody who is against peace.

So far, everything is clear and simple.

At this point in the thought process, a reasonable person will ask: Which side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict supports the two-state solution, and which side does not?

Let’s find out.

If you ask Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he supports a two-state solution, the answer is no.

If you ask Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas if he supports a two-state solution, the answer is yes.

Very interesting, says the reasonable person.

If a two-state solution is the obvious solution to the conflict, and the Palestinians support it and the United States supports it and the European Union supports it and the United Nations supports it and the Arab League supports it, but Israel doesn’t support it, then why is there a conflict?

Mostly because of Israel.

Are you following me so far?

Let’s summarize how the thought process of the Reasonable Person™ works:

1. Why is there a conflict? Israel doesn’t have security; Palestinians don’t have a state.

2. What is the solution? A two-state solution, Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace.

3. Who is to blame? Mostly Israel.

This is how a lot of people understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I don’t blame them. It’s the conventional wisdom.

But there is a problem with this way of thinking: It doesn’t explain the behavior of both sides. The theory does not hold. In fact, it’s insulting to both sides, each of whom are fighting for something much bigger than security or a state.

When I am asked, “Do you support a two-state solution?” – I answer by asking: “A solution to what problem?”

What is the problem that needs a solution? Is it as simple as Israel’s lack of security and the Palestinians’ lack of a state?

The answer is no.

The comfortable framework of the Reasonable Person™ is missing two important follow-up questions:

1. What is Israel trying to secure?

2. Why do Palestinians want a state?

These questions sound simple, but they aren’t. We must leave what we think we know aside and listen deeper.

In order to answer these questions, we must examine what Israelis and Palestinians say about themselves, to themselves, rather than listen to the State Department, the secretary-general of the United Nations, or Thomas Friedman.

The answers to these two questions – What is Israel trying to secure, and why do Palestinians want a state? – can teach us a lot about the core reasons for the conflict – and the viability of the “two-state solution” for solving the conflict.

In essays to follow, I will suggest a different theory for why there is a conflict and why the “two-state solution” is elusive.

It is a theory that shows more respect, awareness, and empathy for the positions of both sides than you might expect to hear from someone like me.

Stay with me.

This was the first essay in a series.

Keep reading:

Essay two is: What Israelis really want in a peace agreement.

Essay three is: What Palestinians really want in a peace agreement.