Whilst trying to study for a finance exam at a local coffee shop today, I happened to overhear three middle aged men engaging in the age-old Israel v. Palestine political argument. However, what made this particular and presumably highly-caffeinated conversation unique to me was the fact that two of the men were actually from region, and the other was of a South American nationality.

One of the men, a physician who claimed to be an Israeli who actually still lives there, was of course championing the Pro-Israeli argument. He seemed to be favoring the democratic Israeli argument above all rest - pointing out that Israel is the only truly democratically-run state in the region.

The second man claimed to be Palestinian; one who had lived and grown up in Israeli territories until 1980, as well as one who had grown up with many Jewish (Israeli) peers amongst side of him. This man went by another very popular argument, evidently Pro-Palestinian, and alluding to the harsh, inhuman conditions dealt to the Arab-Palestinian peoples by the Israeli government.

The third man was more of a spectator to the argument, rarely talking - though every so often he nodded to the agreement of the Israeli gentleman.

What I concluded through observing the argument dominated primarily by the Israeli and Palestinian men, was that both men seemed to make comparisons to political spheres outside of their home region. The Israeli man would constantly return the example of Iran, in which he’d prolifically state the incompatibility of government and Islam. The Palestinian man, who repeatedly dodged this point, would make comparisons to human-right violations across the world, such as those being committed by the Syrian government onto the Syrian people, and Continental African cases.

And What did I realize? I agree with them both. Both men made very well-rounded arguments concerning the well-being of their peoples. I fully agree with what the Israeli man said - I am firm believer in secular government. While I wouldn’t openly state my opposition to any theocratic, and presumably oppressive governments myself, I can state my allegiance to the American system, or political systems that we see being run in France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Brazil, and beyond.

I also had to agree with what the Palestinian man said. He appealed to the more emotional, humanly tendencies found in most people. He seemed to counter almost everything said by the Israeli man with an emotional connection to the violence committed by the Israeli forces. While he would occasionally agree with the Israeli man, primarily on the matter of democratic election in Israel, he’d often return to objecting the defenses of the Israeli man based upon the existence of the Israeli state.

Surely I must not be the only one who thinks this way. What makes my stance so special? Why is that I see sensibility in what both of these men believe? That’s it - there is nothing special about me. Nothing at all. Not in the slightest. I’m just one, in the hundreds of millions of people educated in a culturally-diverse, open-minded society, governed by a secular government.

Now I’m by no means an advocate of imperialism and colonialism, but why cannot we see some individuals with such views, not like mine - but like the millions of people who have been properly-educated in open minded that promote free speech and idea-exchange come to power? And more importantly, why can we not have people come to power who are able see beyond the preexisting cultural and religious norms of their societies come to power? Yes, these people must be courageous enough to rally their causes in the face of their superiors, but surely they could achieve their goals through proper-backing.

I’m an admirer of nationalism. Wherever it may occur - Iran, Syria, Egypt, the many ex-colonies of Africa, so on and so fourth. I admire the passion of those who have sparked revolution in the face of imperialist oppressors and have stared down the barrel of colonial muskets.

We don’t need any more Arab Springs, Winters, or Green Movements. We just need time to soften the stubborn norms which have been set in concrete over the last 100 years. Surely with the constant advances in technology, someone’s going to invent some jackhammers and bulldozers strong enough to crack that concrete into pieces.

Sina

(AP Photo/Nasser Ishtayeh)