Peace Begins Here: Relationships are crucial to building good will in the Middle East.

As an American Jew working for Catholic Relief Services, I did not expect to be talking about peace in the Middle East with Palestinian Christians during my first month on the job. But there I was, on a C.R.S.-sponsored regional workshop in Beirut, Lebanon, recently, when I first met two Palestinian colleagues based in the C.R.S. Jerusalem office. I remember how hopeful I felt then about the possibility of achieving peace in the Middle East, in contrast to how I feel now as I reflect on the most recent conflict between Israel and Hamas, which left more than 1,400 Palestinians dead in Gaza, at least half of them civilians. Thirteen Israelis also lost their lives.

In Beirut, after meeting my two new friends Khalil and Vivian, both Palestinian Christians, we decided to go to dinner together. Khalil already knew about my religious background, but Vivian did not. I thought it was important for the sake of openness to let her know, so I managed to find a way of introducing the fact that I am Jewish. After a brief pause, they both shared with me their own experiences and hopes about building peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

By the end of our conversation, a number of things became clear to me. For example, Khalil and Vivian were both committed to living their own lives according to the same principles they espouse and apply in their professional lives, working for Catholic Relief Services as peace-building advisers. They are following Gandhi’s quiet, powerful exhortation: “Be the change you want to see.”

Icould see that there was no hint of animosity, anger or resentment toward me or any Jew—American or Israeli—as a result of the U.S.-backed Israeli policies that have caused undue suffering for many Palestinians. Most of them are innocent victims who have no interest in participating in acts of terror against Israel and just want to go about living their lives.

I realized that if my two colleagues, who are living with this conflict daily and experiencing the damage and trauma it wreaks on them and their loved ones, can renounce hatred, why can’t I? What was I holding on to that made me want to “win” the debate with them in our discussions of these admittedly thorny issues? Why must there be a winner and a loser?

I no longer had any interest in participating in any discussion in which we, as individuals, would be identified as being on opposite sides of such a “debate.” I realized the futility of trying to outdo each other either in justifying who was more right or who had been more wronged. Maybe there is some way of objectively determining which group—Israelis or Palestinians—has suffered the most at the hands of the other, but that debate has kept both groups spinning around endlessly in an escalating cycle of violence. I realized that this debate also enables opponents of peace on both sides to claim the mantle of victimhood while demonizing the other as the perpetrator. This approach allows them to avoid accountability for their actions and to continue to incite and perpetuate violence with relative impunity. Instead of supporting peace-building efforts, both sides wrap themselves in a cloak of bigoted righteousness so that they can shout down (and sometimes shoot down, as we have seen) proponents of peace as being sellouts—naïve, self-hating sympathizers—to the “other.”

Finally, this experience reinforced my commitment to peace-building and conflict transformation, which in my more cynical moments I, like opponents of a peaceful solution, have dismissed as naïve and futile. Now, after dinner with my two colleagues, I am even more determined to try to figure out how we can help create a platform where we can catalyze more of these small personal connections for an even greater number of people, building on them and aggregating them to create a more inclusive network for peace and justice. It is in these relationships, interacting with each other in meaningful ways, that people will recognize for themselves that violent conflict of any kind is not only politically inconceivable but also personally unacceptable.

Don't miss the best from America

Sign up for our Newsletter to get the Jesuit perspective on news, faith and culture.

The latest from america

Pope Francis listens to a question from Vera Shcherbakova of the Itar-Tass news agency while talking with journalists aboard his flight from Cairo to Rome April 29. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
The situation in North Korea, he added, has been heated for a long time, "but now it seems it has heated up too much, no?"
Gerard O'ConnellApril 29, 2017
Pope Francis greets children dressed as pharaohs and in traditional dress as he arrives to celebrate Mass at the Air Defense Stadium in Cairo April 29. (CNS photo/L'Osservatore Romano)
Francis took the risk, trusting in God. His decision transmitted a message of hope on the political front to all Egyptians, Christians and Muslims alike, who are well aware that their country is today a target for ISIS terrorists and is engaged in a battle against terrorism.
Gerard O'ConnellApril 29, 2017
Pope Francis greets the crowd as he arrives to celebrate Mass at the Air Defense Stadium in Cairo April 29. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
The only kind of fanaticism that is acceptable to God is being fanatical about loving and helping others, Pope Francis said on his final day in Egypt.
U.S. President Donald Trump talks to journalists in the Oval Office at the White House on March 24 after the American Health Care Act was pulled before a vote. (CNS photo/Carlos Barria, Reuters)
Predictably Mr. Trump has also clashed with the Catholic Church and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on many of the policies he has promoted during his first 100 days.
Kevin ClarkeApril 28, 2017