To end Hamas-Israel wars, deal with the mutual despair

Despair during this third Hamas-Israel war is so high on both sides that despair itself needs to be addressed. Recognizing it as a shared problem helps not only as a point of empathy but can dispel the notion of despair as destiny.

AP Photo
Israelis light candles with shape of the word "Sorry" in Hebrew and place portraits on the ground of Israelis and Palestinians who have been killed in the conflict, during a demonstration against the Gaza war in Tel Aviv July 26.

The latest war between Israel and Hamas, their third in less than a decade, has now produced at least one shared result: utter despair among Israelis and the Palestinians in Gaza that either side knows what peace might look like.

This emotion of despair is difficult to measure. Yet it can be seen on the faces of people disheartened by the rocket-and-bomb violence that began in June. Each side should now more easily recognize it in the other. And perhaps with that can come some hope of a shared response to despair – and its paralyzing effect on resolving Israeli-Palestinian differences.

This possibility was heard in a Tel Aviv rally Saturday in which about 7,000 people chanted “Jews and Arabs refuse to be enemies.” And in a noted speech there, Ben Kfir, an Israeli whose daughter was killed by Hamas, said: “In Gaza they are digging concrete tunnels and we are erecting a separation fence. How sad it is that we can’t channel these efforts for peace.”

It was also heard at a July 8 peace conference sponsored by the newspaper Haaretz in which writer David Grossman offered these words:

“We cannot afford the luxury and indulgence of despair. The situation is too desperate to be left to the despairing, for accepting despair amounts to an admission that we’ve been defeated. Defeated not on the battlefield, but as human beings. Something deep and vital to us as humans was taken away, was stolen from us, the moment we agreed to let despair to have a dominion.”

Addressing despair itself should now be the top priority among Israelis and Palestinians, for two reasons:

1. When each side talks about possible details of a compromise, it becomes all too easy to bring up past grievances, current injustices, or future threats. How much of Israel’s blockade of Gaza should be lifted? Should Hamas be totally disarmed? Often such issues quickly descend into questions of Israel’s 1948 founding, the Holocaust, and even the biblical origins of Jews and Arabs. Word choices alone -- such as defining occupation, civilian, or terror – can become flash-points for feuding. Better to start by acknowledging that each side is fed up with despair and wants to exchange it for hope.

2. Many leaders on each side have learned to exploit or encourage public despair in their competition for power with political rivals. Despondency becomes an excuse to militarize, hunker down, or stall for time. The past failures of peace deals, such as the 1993 Oslo peace accords, are used to sow pessimism about the potential for new ones. The breakdown of the recent American-led peace negotiation becomes an opportunity for radicals to deny hope of a deal.

Despair can be abused but it can also be used as a point of empathy. After the 1973 war between Israel and Egypt, a shared despair helped drive talks that led to the Camp David accords and a long peace between the two countries. That old despair is largely forgotten. This lesson – that despair can quickly end when simply confronted as a self-imposed obstacle to peace – should now be applied to make sure this latest Hamas-Israel war is the last.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to To end Hamas-Israel wars, deal with the mutual despair
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today