What Is Truth?

On Monday, we saw many aspects of the official Palestinian narrative – and then ended the day with its unofficial underbelly. Despite the general picture of Palestinian leadership as divided and rudderless, I found the official line remarkable consistent and in most respects utterly reasonable. Yes, reasonable. This may be news to many Westerners and particularly to Americans raised on images of Palestinian terrorists and rock-throwing youth, but every person I encountered today was eminently qualified, well-spoken, measured, calm – in all respects, in direct contrast to the media’s portrayal. There was no ideologue, no rabid anti-Semite, no talk of pushing Jews into the sea. Of course, some of this moderation is in part a response to the extremism of radical groups like Hamas and their threat to Palestinian viability. Another factor may also be that despite the dominant image of Arabs and especially Palestinians (keffiya-shrouded Arafat with his oversized sunglasses and “freedom fighter” ‘tude) is true only for a minority of the population.

The contrast between Monday, hearing the mainstream Palestinian viewpoint and Tuesday, hearing very right-wing Israeli views, was stark – and perhaps unfair. We didn’t hear radical views on the Palestinian side, which of course exist, and weren’t exposed to more moderate, left-leaning Israelis. Fortunately, this situation was rectified today (Thursday), when Dror Etkes, of Settlement Watch, took us on a tour of the same settlements we saw yesterday, but from a completely different perspective. What I was most impressed with was that his outrage was tempered by fairness toward the other side. He consistently repeated that Israel is indeed a democracy, one deeply flawed, but nevertheless with an independent judiciary and free press. Even the settlers he did not disparage in terms of their intelligence or even their worldview. He simply put them in an alternative reality and kept them there, with few derogatory remarks. This was markedly different from the professions of some of the settlers and the rabbi at the pre-military camp, all of whom spoke of the violence of Arabs as a sort of existential sin.

So far, I think everyone in our group is more frustrated, more confused, and above all increasingly more enlightened. More than the touring, the lectures and seminars – which are, of course, remarkable in their immediacy and relevance – the interaction with my fellow students is giving depth and analysis to the barrage of new information hitting us daily. Last night, for example, my roommate and I talked about the need for a generational shift in conflicts of this depth and magnitude. Until we talked, I had been quite hopeless about the conflict, especially after encountering the settlers’ intractability. I felt that no solution would ever be reached. The element I was missing, however, was time. Yes, this conflict needs even more time. While we think of the present situation as age-old, in truth it is a relatively recent affair and one whose memory is still fresh. Once the first and second generation of the Israeli Independence/Nakbah become less prominent in culture and politics – and we keep educating and challenging the views of the youth – the next generations may be poised to take actions and make concessions not previously entertained. After all, France and Britain were quite possibly as bitterly opposed as Arabs and Israelis, and in several hundred years time transformed into strategic allies. Is this a fair comparison? Perhaps not. But in the perpetual quest for truth and reconciliation, sometimes the young have more insight than the old and tired.