As a white, middle-class student living in the United States, I can say with much confidence that I have not seen major conflict. I have not had to face prejudice. And I have certainly never witnessed violence, been judged or feared because of my religion and the way I practice it, or felt as if I needed to justify my values to others.

 

This is something I am incredibly grateful for; yet it has also caused me, and many from similar backgrounds, to be blind to the struggles and conflict that others face on daily basis.

 

Before arriving in Israel, the extent of my knowledge about the Israel-Palestine conflict was based on articles I read reporting violence, political movements and government action. The only opinions I had heard were from friends and student groups who felt that they had strong ties and stakes in the outcome of the conflict. Their passionate explanations of why and how they came to hold their positions were lost on me. As someone who identifies as neither Israeli nor Arabic, neither Jewish nor Muslim, at the time I felt as if I had no interest in the matter, and certainly no side to take. I strongly believe this sentiment is not unique to me.

 

Not hours after arrival and for the following 10 days, my fellow student travellers and I were immersed the complex history and culture of the Holy Land. From sacred sites, to media outlets, to Jewish settlements and Arab cities, we began to witness a recurring theme. Almost every person we met--Israeli or Arabic--took the time to explain his opinion and experience. As merely a student traveller, albeit a journalist, I could not understand why they felt telling us how the conflict should be solved would fix anything.

 

I was very surprised how varied the ideas of peace solutions were. Up until that point, I had not understood how complex the details of a peace settlement could be.

 

Our first taste of this was during our visit to the West Bank. Unsurprisingly, our day in such a contentious area saw many zealous arguments on either side. Our historical introduction of the region ultimately led to a heated debate between our travel guides and the presenter, Miri Maoz-Ovadia. Of course, being a resident of a settlement, the presenter had strong ties to the area, and held that the only peace she could see would recognize the legitimacy and sovereignty of the settlements. Our travel guide, who identifies as a secular Israeli, did not see this as a viable option.

 

Our visit to the Jewish settlement, Beit El, and meeting with a resident named Yehuda culminated in a discussion of the conflict as well. Yehuda criticized what he saw as a “industry of peace.” He proposed a one-state solution in which Israel would elect to lose some of its Jewish identity, such as the Star of David on its flag. Should Palestine be recognized as a nation, he and his neighbors would take up arms.

 

Later in our meeting with Fatah Central Committee member and Arab Relations Commissioner Abbas Zaki, we saw an entirely new side. Zaki called for a Palestinian state, the violence against Palestinians to end, the expulsion of Jewish settlers, and the relocation of refugees to the settlements. Because they do not have the resources of a true nation, Zaki felt that Israel’s help in combating extremism was necessary.

 

Many—although not all—of the Israeli news sources we met with throughout our 10 days represented left-wing views. Many fight to expose injustice by Israel towards the Palestinians. On the other hand, right-wing reporter Ben Dror Yemini went as far to claim that much of the media is dominated by lies portraying Israel and the IDF as evil and oppressive.

 

Visiting the other side of conflict coverage, Arab radio reporter Suhel Karam also discussed oppression. He upheld that Israel’s democracy fails, as much of their population consider themselves outsiders in their own country.

 

Others’ views on the conflict were very new and surprising. During our visit to a kibbutz, our guide discussed the idea that all national borders in the region were meaningless. Nation names and identities were created by man during political maneuvers. To him, Israelis are a people, Arabs are a people, but calling Palestinians a people is wrong, as Palestine is a nation created by politics.

 

The feeling of affiliation is everything. It is human nature to bind to a group you identify with, to feel as if you are part of something larger than yourself. Because of this, it makes sense as to why, when meeting with foreigners, people fought for their side and their stake in the conflict. My experience in Israel has helped me understand why the Northwestern student body fractures and faces off, why they fight to gain supporters when reason would deny them any true effect in a global conflict.

 

This is not specific to young American students struggling for a voice. I noticed this struggle was transcendent across continents. It just took a different form. When feeling helpless in the face of terrifying international conflict, one can only hope to keep fighting for his cause in the hope that something, anything, he and his group says or does is finally heard.

 

I came back from Israel with a no clearer opinion in this enduring conflict. I do have a better appreciation for the complex history, cultural bindings, religious ties, and political realities that fuel conflict and hinder progress. Of all these hindrances, I noticed no greater deterrence to growth than ignorance.

 

I am grateful that my identity allowed me to be unbiased. As an observer, unaffected by affiliation or a sense or obligation, I noticed what I may not have had my judgment been clouded by preconceived ideas.

 

What I noticed was the rejection of a grey area. To some degree – both small or large, many people we met dismissed the legitimacy of the other side. The wrongdoings of the enemy were inexcusable. There were very few attempts to recognize motivations. Assumptions carried arguments and notions of compromise were superficial. This, I feel, is not unique to those I met during my trip. Many of the passionate arguments felt reminiscent to those I’ve heard at home.

 

I realize that this is not something that can be changed. Roots run deep in a land where religious sites are thousands of years old and bombs are launched in both directions. However, in a nation far outside of the conflict, we can choose acceptance. As naïve and idealistic as I know it may be, we can choose to understand the humanity of everyone involved in the conflict. We can choose to realize that this is not a battle of good versus evil.

 

The in-depth exploration of Israel I was able to be a part of taught me that while my actions may be ineffectual on the grand scale of a violent conflict, at home they can inspire growth. By choosing to sympathize and understand the plight of every group involved in the conflict, I can help foster an attitude of acceptance within my own community. By reporting truly fair, balanced, and sympathetic coverage of conflict, I can encourage a fair and balanced public opinion. In a nation that has a major role in global politics, I believe this can be extremely significant.

​

​

​

​

​