I believe in the notion of truth. Not merely propositional truth like 2 + 2 = 4, though that too, but also the idea that what someone says can be authentic, profound and true.
Another aspect of truth is beauty. I think music can be harmonious and art aesthetically true. I don’t claim to have special knowledge over what is true, beautiful or harmonious, only that those things exist, and human beings can discern them. I also believe in justice which in my view is moral truth.
Truth, beauty and justice exist even if we are not personally able to recognize them. In other words, while they are perceptible to human beings generally, any particular person or group might miss them.
One example that comes to mind is if you renovate a home. You and your architect might disagree about the layout. Imagine he persuades you to trust him, and you discover he was correct, the house is more harmonious, proportionate and beautiful than had you done it your way. The aesthetic truth for that house was not what you had imagined, but it existed, and you were lucky someone else had the eye for it.
. . .
I don’t write much about what’s going on in Israel and Palestine because I’m not interested in it. I’m not interested in it because it doesn’t affect my immediate existence, and those who are interested in it mostly seem to be closed-minded and emotional about the topic. Because I am not into it, I am not especially informed, nor am I inclined to inform myself better. As far as I can tell, it’s a depressing and tiresome argument between two miserable factions.
That said, the topic sometimes comes up in part because I’m Jewish and know a lot of Jews who care about it and also because I follow people on Twitter on both sides who also care about it. For that reason, I’m aware of *some* of the narratives that are presented and consequently I’ve formulated two main ideas about it, two axioms, so to speak:
(1) Whatever is the just (morally true) result — whether Israel shutting down and leaving the region, Israel conquering and annexing Palestinian territories entirely, or more likely something in between — that's what I would like to see happen.
In other words, no matter how much anyone in particular might disagree with it, the just result, whatever it might be, is the outcome for which I’m rooting.
People will argue for what they think is just based on various narratives, but I hope for what is actually just, irrespective of those narratives. And I believe such a result must exist, even though I am in no position whatsoever to say what that result would be.
(2) To the extent some people think Palestinians are incorrigible barbaric terrorists and others think Israel (and even "the Jews" more broadly) are incorrigible genocidal maniacs, consider that sense of incorrigibility is directed by both parties at both parties.
In other words, at least one of you* incorrectly believes the other is inherently beyond redemption, and just as they would be mistaken in believing that about you, you could also be mistaken in believing it about them. In fact, the greater your certainty about their inherent evil, the more difficult it is for you to course-correct, and the closer to their description you actually become. Paradoxically, the more sure you are of who they are, the more correct they are about you.
Before anything approaching a concrete answer to this problem can emerge, I think it's important to realize (1) A just outcome that does not depend on anyone's narrative exists; and (2) That the extent to which you view your adversaries as beyond redemption you most resemble their description of you.
If we accept these two axioms, that justice is possible, and that viewing the other side as incorrigible is a hallmark of one’s own zealotry, we have established the ground upon which a solution is possible. If we reject them, no amount of discussion will ever bear fruit.