It’s Not Either-or

A trait that seems to be steeped in the human brain is “either-or” thinking. I was reminded of this when numerous university campuses ended this spring semester not with calm graduation celebrations but with protests about the war in Gaza. The majority of student protesters is decrying the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza at the hands of the Israeli military. A minority is standing up for the right of Israel to defend itself by destroying Hamas, a group denying Israel’s right to exist.

For yet another time, we are faced with the question, “Which side is right?” But the Israeli-Hamas divide is just the latest example of either-or thinking in our country. Fox News or CNN; Republican or Democrat; climate change deniers or advocates; pro-life or pro-choice; woke or everything’s fine in America; supporting Ukraine or withdrawing support; evolution or creationism; science or public opinion. Whenever we favor one side of these options, we are at the same time denying the validity of the other option. A premise of binary thinking is that one side is right, and the other side is wrong.

Of all the costs that come with either-or thinking, the most damaging one is the failure to accept the complexity of many issues. Put another way, either-or thinking is often lazy thinking. The war in Gaza is a perfect example. On the day that Hamas breached Israeli borders and committed atrocities against Israeli citizens, the Israeli Ambassador to the Vatican delivered not a request but a demand to Pope Francis. He demanded that in all of Pope Francis’ statements about the war, he was to portray Israel as the innocent victim and Hamas as the unjustified aggressor.

I assume if Hamas had sent a comparable spokesperson to the Vatican, that person would have demanded that Pope Francis portray the Israeli government as the longstanding oppressor of the Palestinian people and Hamas as brave soldiers who have decided to no longer keep silent.

What the Israeli government and Hamas have in common is either-or thinking. One side is right; the other side is wrong. War will settle the issue.

But war will not settle the situation in Gaza. What if we didn’t jump to either-or thinking until we appreciated the complex history of the Middle East? Part of that history is the desire of Jews to return to their ancient homeland. That desire is not based on anything as simple as nostalgia but on an eternal promise and a sobering reality. For more than two thousand years, Jews have been stateless, living at the mercy of other governments. Vulnerability and death’s nearness have been the ever-present experience of Jews. The desire for a secure homeland must be accepted as an enduring fact of Jewish existence.

Another fact is that Palestinian Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, have occupied that same territory for over fifteen hundred years and know it as “home.” They too desire a secure homeland in ancestral territory, and that desire will also never fade away.

With either-or thinking, it is tempting to conclude that only one side, Jewish or Palestinian, will live in peace in this land. But this is where either-or thinking fails us. We need to shift from either-or thinking to a perspective offered by the twentieth-century theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. His insight about how peace can be achieved is neither simple nor obvious. Lasting peace is achieved not by defeating one’s neighbors or surrendering to them. A nation will only live in peace, Niebuhr argued, when its neighbor’s/adversary’s desire for a life of dignity, security, and hope is also met.

What could this mean for the situation in Gaza? The belief that peace will be achieved when one side in the conflict demoralizes the other is misguided. What research and history teach us is that demoralizing or humiliating the neighbor/adversary leads only to more resistance and violence.

Peace in the Middle East will only be achieved when leaders understand that either-or thinking leads to demonizing one’s neighbors, never empathizing with them.

The path to lasting peace begins when we accept that our neighbor’s right to a humane life is equal to our own right to the same.