There comes a time when the continuation of a struggle based upon the purity of purpose ceases to make sense, and compromise becomes the name of the game, especially when the stakes are measured in human life. There comes a time when engaging in dialogue becomes more important than winning a debate.
The world is beset with a myriad of conflicts that have polarized the participants to the point that their respective worlds have gravitated into extremes of right and wrong, black and white, good versus evil. This is normal in conflict—the tendency to dehumanize your opponent to the point that their lives hold no value, and their opinions are rejected out of hand. If, at the end of the day, one side is eventually able to prevail over the other, then to the victor go the spoils. The winner writes the history, and their position will be exalted while the loser will be condemned for decades, if not centuries, to come.
But what happens when a conflict reaches the point where there can be no clear winner, and the black-and-white, good versus evil struggle simply becomes a human meatgrinder delivering nothing but death and destruction? When an off-ramp from the horrors of sustained mortal combat must be constructed by those who refuse to beat their swords into plowshares?
Here there is a distinct need for dialogue, whether done directly between the parties involved or, more commonly, with the assistance of a mediator.
I recently was invited by Mario Nawfal’s new project, 69 X Minutes, to participate in a “debate” with Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz on the topic of Palestine and Israel, and which side had the stronger argument regarding legitimacy of their respective cause. I did my due diligence, researching Mr. Dershowitz’s position on the issue (he is unabashedly pro-Israel), and critically examining his previous engagements of this sort with persons taking a pro-Palestinian position.
Almost invariably, what was intended to be a constructive discussion turned into a recital of extreme positions by both sides, peppered with personal attacks that did nothing to further the debate. I had originally planned to avoid personal attacks but instead try to engage in what I openly acknowledged was “click bait”—trying to “one- up” Mr. Dershowitz by playing to the pro-Palestinian crowd, mirror-imaging their own oft-stated positions and repeating their time-tested retorts to Mr. Dershowitz’s familiar case on behalf of Israel.
At that moment I was struck by an epiphany of sorts: did Mario Nawfal invite me on his new project to simply provide a cut-and-paste restatement of those who had gone before? Yes, I could make the same time-tested arguments as had those previously put in opposition to Mr. Dershowitz. Who knows? I might garner more supporters on X and Telegram, and more subscribers (paid and unpaid) to my Substack.
But then I scanned the headlines. Palestinian civilians were still being slaughtered in Gaza and the West Bank, and Israel’s genocidal policies in opposition to Hamas and other resistance groups continued unabated.
Nothing I would say in a click-bait generating “debate” with Mr. Dershowitz would change any of this harsh reality.
It was time, I decided, to break the paradigm of black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, and instead try to engage with Mr. Dershowitz in a manner that was designed more to foster the act of dialogue over the theater of debate.
I knew from the start this would be a very unpopular move; my X follower count would drop by thousands, as would my Telegram followers. I would lose Substack subscribers by the dozens, which meant a significant drop in personal income.
But I could not ignore the hypocrisy attendant to any activity on my part that did not seek to bring an end to the killing in Gaza, especially if I continued to raise the murder of Hind Rajab and her family, and tens of thousands like them, as justification for my hardline stance in opposition to Israel’s genocidal policies.
So, I decided that instead of confronting Mr. Dershowitz, I would have a conversation—a dialogue—where I would respectfully listen to his point of view, and then, void of any hostility or confrontation, articulate my own position, even if it was in violent opposition to that being presented by my debating opponent.
The result speaks for itself.
Yes, I have been vilified by the pro-Palestinian crowd as being “too soft” on Mr. Dershowitz. Many of those in the digital mob who claim to be pro-Palestinian have stepped forward proclaiming how they could have done a better job of attacking Israel and Mr. Dershowitz.
Perhaps.
But the innocent civilians of Gaza and the West Bank would still be dying, and the cause of a Palestinian state would not have been advanced one iota.
Instead, Mr. Dershowitz and I finished our dialogue agreeing that we disagreed—vehemently in some instances—on many of the issues that defined the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
But then Mr. Dershowitz did an amazing thing.
He said that our dialogue was unique in his experience in that both sides treated the other with respect.
That we sought to find common positions amongst our many points of disagreement.
And then he said he would like to continue this conversation.
And therein lies the key to victory.
Not a victory defined by defeating or discrediting the other side—that methodology has been proven to be a distinct failure, fanning the passions that promote conflict instead of cooling tempers so that reason might prevail.
No, the key to victory in a conflict whose only output is dead bodies is the termination of that conflict on terms that will not satisfy the hardliners on either side of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. This can only be done by finding common ground and developing a since of mutual empathy as fellow human beings.
I don’t know if Alan Dershowitz and I will continue our dialogue. I sincerely hope we do.
What I do know is that the only path that will lead to the end of this conflict is one that foregoes traditional definitions of victory, and embraces a common understanding of peace.
And this can only happen through dialogue.
It has been said, with good reason and evidence, that truth is the first casualty of war. That being so, a high regard for truth will be a necessary first step toward the end of war and beginning of peace.
Lies and deception being essential to the prosecution of war, embracing truth implies abandoning war as a method. So I heartily commend Scott for this effort with Mr. Dershowitz, and hope to see him condemn war itself as a bad method--one more act of courage in his life of many acts of courage.
Thank you for doing the debate! For a next time, the possible second debate (hinted at) try bringing this thought into the discussion:
The ONE single step most needed to begin making real progress in bringing peace to the Middle East, would be for each nation (state, government, regime...) to state openly and clearly, with full commitment to their words: We (the state, government involved) commit our country and ourselves to complete freedom of religion, wherein NO religious group of any kind - whether minority or majority of the population - would be allowed ANY privileges that other groups do not have.
This is not enough, of course!!! This statement of purpose would be, MUST be, accompanied by removing the respective wording of the nation's self-description: For example, the muslim states would declare themselves NOT muslim states (or God-States, or whatever the wordings), and Israel would officially remove the wording "jewish" state. Without this change in the description of the country, any promise of upholding complete religious freedom in that society would be a clear - and dangerous - contradiction.
This sounds too simple, at first. But I am convinced that anyone who thinks this through calmly and clearly would see that it makes sense: There is no JUST society in the world (never has been and never can be) where some people are above the law and have more privileges than others. Start with religious freedom, freedom of thought and speech - for every single human individual - and a new day will begin to show itself to all.
Is it not so? Thanks for listening.