Washington Post: What if we’re wrong about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

In the debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we may be wrong, so we must be humble.

Jake Sullivan bragged a few days ago to the audience that “the Middle East region has become calmer than it was two decades ago under the Biden administration”.

It seems that he was greatly overconfident in this reality.

Under the title of intellectual humility, we must leave room for the possibility of making a mistake, even if we are certain that we are right.

This applies to our perceptions of how we morally interpret the historical conflict between Israel and Palestine.

The original cause of the conflict between Israel and Palestine began in 1948, when the Palestinians were expelled from their homes and the State of Israel was established.

Subsequent injustices began in 1967 and have not ended until now.

Many may see Hamas as evil, but it’s a symptom of the original conflict and not a cause of it.

Therefore, we have to acknowledge two things at once; We condemn Hamas’ actions against Israeli civilians, but we must also condemn Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestinians.

There are two main parties to the conflict, and each has its own narrative competing with the other regarding the amount of harm, so how do we reconcile the two narratives?

Its morally unacceptable for Israeli President Isaac Herzog to suggest that “there are no innocent civilians in Gaza,” and that the entire nation is responsible.

It’s also morally unacceptable to deprive students at American universities of expressing a moral position because they are less important than the Biden administration and the Israeli government.

Morality isn’t a luxury granted only to the powerful.

The writer concludes by saying that morality does not follow circumstances.

In a conflict between parties with legitimate and competing grievances, we cannot expect moral consistency.

This is the least we can think of out of intellectual humility.