Existential Inequality - To Abide in Peace or Not

There has been much focus on the glaring income inequality in the U.S.  On the immorality of some people having so much, more than they could ever possibly make use of, while so many people have so little, not being able to make ends meet, homeless, even while working, while many others barely keep their heads above water.

Clearly, income inequality has a huge impact on the lives that people are able to live.  The extent of creature comfort and financial security they are able to obtain.  The education their children are able to get.  And the list goes on.

But does income inequality impact whether a person experiences peace and happiness in his or her life?   The answer is no.  Acquiring material things, while they may satisfy ego needs and desires and make you feel good, does not in practice equate with peace and happiness.  Nor does the lack of material security equate with the lack of peace and happiness.  Ask any psychologist or therapist, watch bio-documentaries, and you will find this is true.  

This seems counter-intuitive.  Certainly if you live in poverty, how can you have peace and happiness?

Before going any further, we must first define peace.  Peace is the absence of fear, anxiety, hatred, guilt, shame, doubt and confusion … or better put, it’s not the absence of these emotions but not being controlled by them. It’s also being free of an intense desire for things you don’t have or to be someone other than you are.

Without question, most people who live in poverty do not have such peace.  But then most people of affluence also don’t have such peace.

The answer to this riddle is the following.  The only way to achieve peace and happiness is through a spiritual practice that frees you from the emotions, judgments, cravings, and attachments of the ego-mind.  Whether rich or poor, the only people who experience true peace and happiness are the ones who have rediscovered their true selves and freed themselves from the control of their ego-mind.

“So?” the reader may ask.  Since there is nothing more important to the human soul than experiencing peace and happiness, the greatest inequality in our country, and in the world, is between those people who have achieved a spiritual practice that provides freedom from the control of their ego-mind, or who have made progress in that direction, and those who are bereft of a spiritual life and are subject to the control of their ego-mind and thus to the whims and vagaries of our culture and their immediate surroundings.  It is more damaging to suffer psychically than materially.

What happens when you free yourself from the control of your ego-mind?  

1. When your buttons are pushed, you will have no emotional reaction.  You will be aware, but you will not react.  
2. You will know that you have everything inside you that you need to be at peace and happy and allow nothing to disturb that peace and happiness; you need nothing outside of yourself.  You will undoubtedly desire other things, whether its someone special in your life or material things, but those are all icing on the cake; their absence or presence does not impact your peace and happiness.  You will not attach to them.
3. You will know that all you need to be at peace and happy is to offer yourself and others joy, respect your mind, respect your body, be in touch with nature, and live within your means.  And if you have loved ones and friends, to be in contact with them.
4. You will know that you will be ok, safe, regardless what life throws your way because you have returned home to your true self, free of your ego-mind.
5. You will as a result experience true freedom, the ability to do what is in your true best interest.  What your ego-mind tells you to do, and thus what you want to do, is not in your best interest because it is captive to all your anger, fear, and doubt, to your learned experience, to your conditioning.  (See my post, “Freedom - What Does It Mean,” on www.thepracticalbuddhist.com.)

I know of no surveys that assess who has a spiritual life and who does not.  Certainly, questions commonly asked about religious practice are not a marker for having a spiritual life.    Many people “believe” in God or in Jesus Christ, even feel they have a “personal” relationship with Christ, but nevertheless do not lead their lives as God or Christ would have them do, even if they are orthodox and follow all the prescribed rituals.  For their relationship with themselves and the world around them is controlled by their ego-mind, not by their divine essence.

Just looking around me at what I see happening both in my immediate surroundings and in the broader world, it is safe to say that the number of people who have freed themselves from the control of their ego-mind is relatively small.  And as long as that continues to be the case, we will live in a world primarily characterized by its dysfunction, whether within the family, the workplace, or the broader world.

Those people who follow a spiritual path, and those traditions that support the teaching of our God/Buddha essence and the purity of our natural state, thus need to expose more people to this teaching.  Not by proselytizing but by making their teaching/beliefs on this subject known so that people who are suffering have the opportunity to say, “I think there may be something here,” and take the step to begin their own inquiry into their true self, their soul.

The Shame of Religion: An Open Letter to All Christian-Islamic-Jewish Religious Leaders

Most of the major conflicts in the world over the last 1500 years have either been a result of religious intolerance or were supported by religious authority.  This makes it the #1 cause or abetter of death and misery at the hands of man.  Religion has also been central to the neurotic suffering of man, his lack of true self-love.

Something just doesn’t seem right here.  I ask you, what should be the essential function of any religion?  In the words of the angels who announced the birth of Christ, “Peace on Earth, goodwill toward men.”  That about says it all. 

And indeed, the mystical traditions of all three Abrahamic faiths - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - have an almost identical approach to their mission of leading man to be at peace with himself and his fellow man.  They all teach that the true nature of man is peace and goodness.  The religious establishments of the three religions, however, have pursued a different mission, with catastrophic (the word is not too strong) results for mankind. 

The common teaching of the mystical traditions is that the God-essence and thus peace is our true self, not our ego. They further teach, however, that our true nature is unknown to us; it has been concealed from us. And so it is for us to rediscover it, to uncover it, and allow it to embrace us and transform us.  (As an aside, this is also the teaching of Buddhism and Hinduism, as well as the classic secular Greek philosophies that speak to how we should live life.)

• Christian Gnosticism teaches that the human true self is a fragment of the divine essence, the “divine spark.”  But  we are “ignorant of our true origins and our essential nature” because forces cause us to remain attached to earthly things that keep us enslaved. It is this ignorance which brings about sin; man is not inherently sinful. Salvation from that ignorance is stimulated by the teachings of others, such as those of Christ, but man must ultimately find his own truth.
• According to Jewish Kabbalah, “every soul is pure in essence and the only salvation is to become enlightened (i.e. to remember the truth of who and what we really are). … Salvation is the process of clearing out whatever obstructs our manifestation of the concealed divine image. … Kabbalah leads to the conclusion that ultimately we must rely on ourselves - for we alone have the power to save ourselves.” It is to our heart we must look for guidance, not our ego-mind.
• Islamic Sufism is again about the journey of self-realization. Sufi means “unfoldment of the spirit towards its original condition.”  That original self is the Divine presence in man’s heart. Our heart is love, faith, trust, compassion, wisdom, and peace. Insecurity is a product of the mind. When one truly knows oneself, one knows God. “He has to find God within himself, but He can only be found in a heart that has been purified by the fire of love [of God].”

When you look at these teachings of the mystical traditions, it is clear that we are all children of the same God.  Regardless whether the messenger was Moses, Christ, or Muhammad, the message of the religion, the message of God, is the same.  The road to peace within man and to goodwill among men is for man to reconnect with the divine-essence he was born with and free himself from his ego-mind, from which flow the seven deadly sins and all strife. 

Indeed, the very word “religion” is ultimately derived from the latin, meaning “to reconnect.”  (Note: The more common derivation given is the latin, religio, but that word itself is a compound derived from the latin words meaning “to reconnect” or “to rebind.”) 

There is nothing in the mystical traditions that promotes one religion over another.  There is nothing in any that says it is the only way to salvation, to God.

The teaching of the religious establishments of the three faiths, however, has been very different.  Regarding relations among men, for most of their history each espoused that it was the only true way; that the others were false.  That the others were threats to the true religion.  For the powerful forces of Christianity and Islam, the others were to be dealt with as an enemy, at times ghettoized, at times killed in religious wars.  While today the more liberal branches of the three faiths certainly do not espouse such teachings, the more orthodox ones still view the others, and even the more liberal sects of their own religion, as being infidels or traitors.

How did this perversion of religious thought happen?  “Religion is usually started by pure, enlightened beings like Jesus whose aims are to help humanity understand higher spiritual truths and make the world a better place. Then sometime later the followers of those spiritual masters formalize, set forth, the teachings into a set of religious doctrine [the Bible, the Quran] and build institutions with seats of power to propagate the faith and control people.”  A change in mission.  

We know today without question that the writers of each of the holy books were not God or even the prophets.  Even when the words are presented as spoken by the prophet or God, we have no way of knowing what words the prophet actually spoke and what words are the words of the writers, devoted religious men but lesser beings with possibly their own take on the prophet’s words.  

As for the institutions, like many others, their survival (and so the faith’s) often overwhelmed the original purpose … here, the purpose of religion being to reconnect man with his divine essence and promote peace and goodwill among men … and so segregation, hatred, and prejudice were used to further the cause of the now one-true-faith. 

The results of these teachings were religious wars, starting with the Crusades in the 11th and 12th centuries and the Reformation Wars of the 16th and 17th centuries down to the Irish “troubles” and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Granted, most of these conflicts were to a large extent secular fights for power, but the line between religious and secular was often blurred (or nonexistent) and the religious establishments lent a very essential and ready hand to support the secular contests.  There was no religious voice saying, “This is wrong.  We are all children of the same God.  We should not be fighting each other.”

The same is true for wars that were not a result of religious intolerance.  All the major wars of the 20th century were such … WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnamese War.  Yet in each case, the religious establishments in the western countries mostly supported these secular wars of power.  It was only outliers such as Father Berrigan during the Vietnam War who protested.  It is the case, however, that much of the U.S. religious establishment did protest the Iraqi war.  Why the switch?  Probably because it was unavoidably clear to most people that the war in Iraq was not a “just” war.

As a result of these wars and conflicts, millions died fighting; civilian deaths were many times higher.  Add to that those who were seriously wounded physically as well as those wounded mentally and the number would be staggering.  

Then there are the human tragedies of genocide, slavery, and lynching, which are further examples of man’s inhumanity to man.  And here again, the religious establishments were either supportive or silent.  In one instance, the Spanish inquisition, the church was actually both instigator and implementer.  

And let us not forget colonialism and its devastating impact on native populations.  That form of oppression and religious/cultural intolerance was again supported by each country’s religious establishment.  The white man’s “burden” was very much the view of the religious establishments, as they saw their mission as spreading the faith by saving the heathens.

But the even greater tragedy, although more subtle and hidden, has been the impact of the religious establishments’ teaching on man’s relationship with himself and those around him.  Whether in the 16th century or in current times, the teaching of the religious establishment has not empowered man to live life well … which is to be at peace and happy.  

For those religions that preach the doctrine of original sin, what a terrible label to place on man that he is born a sinner.  The Catholic Church tries to have it both ways, saying that each man is born in the image of God, but his nature is inclined toward evil because of original sin; its practical emphasis, however, unfortunately is on man’s evil nature.  

Even those religious establishments that do not espouse the doctrine of original sin still do not teach that every man has the divine-essence inside him.  That the ego pulls him away from his true self causing him endless suffering.  And that man’s salvation lies in reconnecting with his true self and releasing all desires and emotions, which are a product of his ego-mind, and embracing all aspects of his being and experience.  They do not teach that the messages/urgings of our culture are the modern equivalent of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

What a different world it would be if religious establishments saw their mission first and foremost as enabling us to see the God-essence in ourselves and bringing about peace on earth and goodwill toward men.  Rather than preserving the institution and increasing its power through propagation of the faith and its hold on people.  To the extent that religious leaders are more servants of their establishment and our culture than of God, their spiritual bona fides must be questioned.

I pray that religious leaders of all faiths lay down their rhetorical arms, embrace each other as equally valid representatives of God, and embrace all people as not just children of God but as having the divine-essence in them.  I pray that all religious leaders return to the teaching of their mystical traditions and lead the way to saving mankind from himself.

Understanding Rage and Bringing Us Back from the Brink

Many people would look at the phrase “understanding rage” as an oxymoron.  To them rage is irrational.  It’s craziness.   And because it’s not a rational state, it cannot be understood.  It’s true that there is no reasoning with rage.  The rational forces of democracy are not only helpless to hold it in check, the democratic process gives rage the opportunity to assume the ascendancy and control.

But while the emotion of rage is irrational and there is no reasoning with it, the experiences that trigger rage are very rational.   Those experiences can be countered with reasoning if combined with heartfelt mea culpas and action that counters the rational source of the rage.

What is behind rage?  Whether one looks at the white, formerly middle-class now unemployed/underemployed, worker or people of color or Muslims, regardless of country, the cause of rage is exploitation.  People either feel that they have not been given a chance to get what they deserve or have been promised, or they feel that they have lost what they rightfully had.  In either case, an economic or political force is blamed as the exploiter.  

People in general feel used and abused, regardless of their color or status in life.  One could probably safely say that 90 - 95% of people in the U.S. feel exploited in some way.  What they mostly don’t realize is that it’s the top 1% who is doing the exploiting (except for Blacks where the percentage is much higher).  It is they who control the wheels of international commerce and government.  It is they who have brought about the sad state of human life that most of us suffer from.  In a very important way, while circumstances among people vary greatly, most of us are all in the same boat … we just don’t know it.

Those in that top 1% will denigrate such comments as promoting class warfare.  The U.S. has historically been said to be a classless society.  And so to promote class warfare is un-American.

While we have never had a class-structured society as in England or India, to say that we are a classless society is to ignore reality.  At some point, it is necessary to call a spade a spade.

The reader might say, “OK, I can see that this make sense in many situations, for example why Blacks can get so angry, but how does exploitation explain Muslim extremist rage?”  That very pertinent question is actually rather simple to answer.  

The exploitation, or just as important the feeling of exploitation, exists on many levels.  I shall proceed from the more global to the narrower concerns, the former of which feed the latter.  

The forces of Islam controlled or had great influence in much of the Mediterranean region from around 600 - 1200 AD.  Later the Ottoman empire controlled much of the Eastern half of the Mediterranean region for centuries.  Only as the European states became more powerful in the 19th century and colonized northern Africa did the empire weaken.  It finally collapsed after it was on the loosing side of WWI; it’s lands were carved up and controlled by the British and French.  

So after almost 1300 years of great political/military power and cultural preeminence, the Muslim world shrank and sank to a rather insignificant hovel controlled/exploited by the Western powers.  During much of the 20th century, the Muslim countries were treated no better than the European colonies of Africa and Asia.  This is global exploitation #1.

The other aspect of this defeat by the West was religious.  While the conquests of the 19th Century and WWI were political in nature, to the Muslim mind they were a continuation of the Crusades of the 12th century to free the holy land from “infidels.”  And for a Christian, who is an infidel to the Muslim mind, to call Muslims infidels is a great insult both to themselves and their prophet, Muhammed.  This is global exploitation #2.  

We have seen the seemingly irrational rage when western writers or cartoonists, or fallen Muslims such as Salmon Rushdie, have in some way blasphemed or shown a lack of respect for Muhammed and Islam.  Such violent rage, while never condoned, can be understood against this backdrop of historic exploitation and conquest.

These are the main factors that shape the forces of Jihad against the West, only recently  enabled to be vast and deep-reaching through the power of the Internet and other modern technologies.  Layered on top of these global exploitations/defeats, lies a more direct exploitation that explains why movements such as al-Queda or ISIS or Hamas find so many young people willing to both sacrifice themselves to the cause and kill so many innocent people in the process.

Throughout much of the Muslim world, as well as in the West, many young Muslims find themselves at loose ends … they see no future, are poor, and are politically powerless.  In their own countries, there has been little economic development and the problem of income inequality is even worse than in the U.S.  Poverty and the lack of education is widespread.  For most Muslim young people, there is little cause for hope.  This domestic lack of hope lay at the core of the Arab Spring uprisings in 2010-12.  It also, layered on top of historical and current exploitation by Israel, lies at the core of the various Palestinian Intifadas.

In the West, the terrorist threat from domestic Muslims has varied greatly.  The greatest terrorist expression has been in France, fed by France’s historically notorious failure or even lack of interest in absorbing North African immigrants into its society, and complicated or augmented by the fact that France was the former colonial power and exploiter in the countries from which these immigrants come.  While England has seen one major terrorist attack, and white Britons are certainly seething, Muslims seem to have been treated better there than France.  

Germany was the home of Muhammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 attack, and has seen several small isolated terrorist attacks, but it has not experienced what either France or England has.  Muslims seem to be better integrated into German workforce and society.  Also, Germany was not a former colonial power for them.  

In the U.S., while there certainly have been individuals who have volunteered for the Jihadist cause, either abroad on in the U.S., there seems to be far less alienation among young Muslims here both as a result of their greater access to education and opportunity as well as the religious freedom here.  But while we are not part of the historical record I noted, our support of Israel and our more recent post-9/11 military forays into the Arab world aggravate many even more than history.

So given this understanding, how do we move forward?  How does the world come back from the violent, chaotic brink that we seem to be standing on?  The past is past.  We can’t change it.  However, every society can and must clearly acknowledge the past and be heartfelt in their mea culpas.  For example, in my post, “Reflections on Yom Kippur and Mideast Peace,” I noted that Israel must do this, as well as the Palestinians.

But it cannot stop there.  Words or laws will not suffice.  The injury lies far too deep.  There must be action that reverses past decades or centuries of indifference, discrimination, and exploitation.  What that will be will vary for each country.  But until Muslims and all people feel that they are respected and treated as equals, there will be no peace.

The Middle East Conundrum - A Suggested Way Forward

The history of conflict between the Jewish people and the majority cultures in the Middle East is an old one going back to biblical times and reemerging with a vehemence in the 20th century.  To find a way out of the Middle East conundrum, one must first understand that history.  Please bear with me; it’s a bit complicated.

The Jewish people have perennially been looking for a place to call home, spiritually and physically.  For more than 1000 years, from biblical times through the early period of Roman rule, they found that home in what is present day Israel and the West Bank (Judea, Samaria, and Galilee).  They prospered but were not safe even there as they were conquered several times during that period, persecuted by the victors, and ultimately dispersed to all corners of Europe.  

During the long period of diaspora that followed, Jews remembered the days when they were a people in their own land and not subject to persecution.  The phrase, “Next year in Jerusalem,” was invoked not just as nostalgia but as a fervent hope that Judaism would once again have a spiritual center and physical home.

Fast forward to modern times.  Jews and Arabs have been in a constant struggle since the early 1900s over the establishment of a Jewish state in the historic Holy Land.  It’s important to note that this has not been a conflict of religion but a conflict over land.  

Prior to WWI, the Zionist movement within Judaism sought to make the dream of next year in Jerusalem a reality and encouraged Jews to immigrate to the area.  During WWI and after the fall of the Ottoman empire, both Arabs and Jews sought promises from the British, who came to have the mandate over the area, designated Palestine, to establish an independent state.  

Many Jews denigrated the Palestinian claim for a state in Palestine because they had never governed the area nor had they ever been a distinct people.  But remember that this was a time when a people’s right to self-determination, however vaguely defined, came into vogue as a basis for nation building.  Even though the Arabs living in what became known as Palestine had never before that creation identified themselves as Palestinians, or some other name distinct from their fellow Arabs, this was the land where they had lived for hundreds of years and they felt they should have the right of self-determination.

The Arabs and Palestinians, on the other hand, felt that the Jews were interlopers.  Regardless the situation in biblical times, they had not been present to any but a marginal extent for almost 2000 years.  Even at the end of WWI, after a period of immigration, there were only 60,000 Jews in Palestine or 8% of the population.  By the end of the mandate, though, further Jewish immigration had swelled that number to 570,000 or 32% of the population.

In 1947 the U.N. General Assembly voted to support partition of the Palestine Mandate into separate Jewish and Arab states, with the two in an economic union.  Israel was subsequently declared a state at the end of the British Mandate.  The Arab countries, who had not cooperated with the U.N. Commission that drew up the partition plan, chose not to accept the partition and instead invaded to try to gain all the territory for an Arab state.  Not only did they lose the 1948 war, but the Palestinians were left with much less land than they would have had under the U.N. partition plan.  After the war, the Palestinians again chose not to declare a state in the area under their control.  

The Palestinian leadership for decades were pawns in the hands of the powerful Arab countries of the area who had no desire for peace.  They wanted Israel wiped off the map.  Period.  The Palestinian leadership adopted the same attitude.  Whether or not they still do is a confusing puzzle.  In 1988, Yasser Arafat stated that the PLO accepted the existence of Israel; later moderate leaders have said the same.  But despite claiming that the Palestinian Charter had been amended to remove the clauses calling for the destruction of Israel, it has never been actually amended; they decided to amend it but never followed through.  So their position is at best murky.  Hamas, of course, still calls for the destruction of Israel.

For Israel’s part, it has always and understandably thought of itself as in a defensive position with enemies on all sides.  As a result, although Israel is a democracy with protected rights of religion, etc., and the Palestinians who chose to remain in Israel and become citizens have on the one hand full legal rights of citizenship, including voting for the Parliament, they have been treated as second-class citizens in many ways.  For example, there is widespread employment and other forms of official and unofficial discrimination, and a large disparity exists in state funding for Palestinian schools and towns compared to Jewish ones as well as other Jewish v Arab needs.  Israel thinks of itself as a Jewish state, not just a Jewish-majority state, and that not surprisingly creates problems. 

The wars, occupation, and intifadas that have followed were an almost inevitable outgrowth of this historically combative and distrustful relationship.

There has always been a peace movement in Israel, but most governments have acted more to strengthen Israel’s presence in the West Bank and thus make a Palestinian state on the ground impossible.  Even the much ballyhooed  peace plan presented by then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak during President Clinton’s Camp David peace initiative in 2000 was not a plan, objective observers felt, for a viable Palestinian state.  Nevertheless, it’s rejection by Arafat was the final straw for most Israelis and many Americans in the debate over whether the Palestinians really want peace.

On the other side, the almost 50-year occupation of the West Bank has with each passing decade deepened the hatred of Israel, especially since 2000 when West Bank Palestinians ceased being able to work in Israel as a result of the Second Intifada.  Thus you now have a whole generation of young men who have never interacted with Israelis other than the occupying military and Jewish settlers.  The problem is now not so much the enmity of the large Arab states, as it is the hatred of Israel by many Palestinian.  This shift can be seen in Hamas’ winning the ill-conceived election of 2006.

In the Bible, it speaks of Pharaoh’s heart having been hardened towards the Jewish people.  God sought to show his power and break Pharaoh’s will by sending the plagues.  And while that worked, Pharaoh quickly regained his senses and chased after the departing Jews only to be drowned in the Red Sea.

This story, regardless of the lack of historical or archeological documentation, has direct relevance to the current situation in the mideast.  Violence and fear do not soften hearts.  The hearts on both sides, which tended to distrust the other from the very start, have only been hardened over time as a result of the violence meant to break the other.  

In my opinion, if the peace process is to be truly revived and bear lasting fruit, a way must be found to soften the hearts of both sides.  Because of the history, this must be something much deeper than the “confidence building measures” that have been suggested in past negotiations.  As the saying goes, half measures will avail us nothing.

Because I feel it is impossible to imagine that an Israeli government, not just the current Netanyahu-led government but any future government, or the Palestinian leadership will have the mental and political flexibility and openness necessary for this process to move forward, I suggest that a working group be formed of citizen-representatives from both sides to work out a plan that would then be presented to the people as well as the then-existing governments.

“Who the hell do you think you are?” I can see readers thinking.  “This problem has been intractable even when very experienced and determined heads have put their minds to this.”  Ah, but the minds have almost always been government-connected political minds.  I honestly think that a major problem has been that people unconnected with government haven’t been asked to take the lead.  They are the ones who truly want peace.

It would be presumptuous for me to express my thoughts on what the major points of a peace plan might be, and so I will not, with one exception (see below).  However, because this problem has been so intractable and all efforts to date have failed, I am going to suggest something about the process, beyond the point I’ve already made, to help soften hearts.

1. Each side must acknowledge the role they’ve played in creating distrust over the years.  This must be more than a mouthing of words.  It must be a heartfelt mea culpa of the various ways in which each side contributed to the current state of affairs.  
2. A massive information and people-to-people campaign needs to be undertaken to reintroduce Palestinians and Israelis to each other as human beings after years of conflict. 

Finally, the one point I feel needs to be addressed here regarding a peace plan, because I have never heard it discussed when previous plans or outlines were presented, concerns the status of Palestinian-Israelis.   I have noted earlier in this piece that they are second-class citizens, suffering from widespread official and unofficial discrimination.  That must end.  They must be treated equally in all areas of public policy, including budgetary matters.  All official examples of discrimination against them must be removed.  And the government must undertake a major campaign to stamp out employment and other private discrimination against them.

That said, it takes two to tango.  If Palestinian-Israelis wish to remain in Israel and be citizens of that nation, then they need to pledge allegiance to the flag/state in exchange for finally being treated as full and equal citizens of Israel.

There is no question that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians/Arabs will be exceedingly difficult to bring to a peaceful conclusion.  It will require the suspension of decades of distrust.  It will require the ability to not let the violent actions by those who would seek to destroy the peace process … and almost certainly there will be such actions by groups on both sides … to succeed.  It will require giving your former enemy the benefit of the doubt over and over again.

Most important of all perhaps, it will require reeducating both populations that Israelis and Palestinians are all human beings with basically the same desires and that all deserve freedom, respect, and equality.