When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change - Wayne Dyer
The Palestinian and Israeli worlds have been looking at their conflicts the same way for centuries and have not budged since 1948 with little progress. Maybe it’s time to change that (*please see note at end).
In the tragic and seemingly endless cycle of conflict between Israel and Hamas, both sides have been locked in a dance of blame, counter-blame, and entrenchment that prevents any meaningful progress. As a psychiatrist, I have always believed in the power of listening and of fully understanding each other’s position even in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. However, in the geopolitics of the Middle East, the voices of reason often get drowned by the clamor of "Yes, but," "It will never work," or "That's impossible."
But what if, for a moment, we leaned into that very notion of impossibility? What if, instead of running from it, we embraced the "impossible" to pave a way for a future that neither party has dared to envision? Herein lies the power of "The Impossibility Question."
The premise of this question is straightforward but deeply introspective and ironic. It challenges each party to think of an "impossible" action on their part that, if done, could potentially transform the conflict landscape. The key, however, is that this action should be about what *they* could do differently, not about what they expect from the other side.
Let's imagine, for a moment, this dialogue taking place:
To Hamas: "What is something that would be impossible for you to do, but if you could do it, would be a step in preventing all future conflicts between you and Israel and beginning to normalize relations? But it's impossible."
And to Israel: "What is something that would be impossible for you to do, but if you could do it, would be a step in preventing all future conflicts between you and Hamas and Palestine and beginning to normalize relations? But it's impossible."
The beauty of this approach is that it sidesteps the age-old trap of victimhood. By starting with an acknowledgment of impossibility, it allows each side to imagine freely, without the constraints of immediate realpolitik or historical baggage.
Imagine Hamas admitting, "Something that would be impossible for us to do, but if we could, would be to fully recognize the state of Israel and its right to exist."
Similarly, consider Israel acknowledging, "Something that would be impossible for us to do, but if we could, would be to end the blockade of Gaza and grant Palestine full sovereignty."
The next step is to ask: "What would make it possible?"
For Hamas, perhaps the answer lies in guarantees of their own legitimacy and sovereignty, in financial and infrastructural support to rebuild Gaza, and in assurances that their people will live in dignity and freedom.
For Israel, the path to possibility could be through iron-clad security assurances, regional alliances that neutralize threats, and a shared vision of economic prosperity that binds Israel and Palestine in mutual success.
None of this is to suggest that answering "The Impossibility Question" will magically resolve all issues. But by reframing the conversation, it has the potential to shift the narrative from one of perpetual grievance to one of shared responsibility. It can break the cycle of blame, fostering a climate where both sides can, perhaps for the first time, genuinely hear each other.
Wars are won and lost on battlefields, but peace is forged in the hearts and minds of people. The "impossible" solution to the Hamas-Israel conflict might just lie in finding the courage to ask the questions each side has been too unwilling to ask of itself, and in listening, truly listening, to the answers that emerge.
In the face of deep-seated enmity and centuries-old conflicts, finding common ground may seem impossible. But perhaps, in that very impossibility, lies the seed of a new beginning.
* Since I have posted this I have received a number of emails praising this “outside the box” approach and a number of emails criticizing it as doing a disservice to Israel and the Jewish people stating that there can be no reasoning with ideological extremists who “hate Jews more than they love their children.” That statement in particular got to me because I thought that perhaps a way to get through to Hamas or Hezbollah bent on the death of all Jews and complete destruction of Israel might be through their families’ beseeching their mainly male fathers and brothers to stop. I have been soundly disabused of this notion and am instead defaulting to the wise advice of a professor whose name I can’t remember which was “to identify and stop evil at the earliest opportunity.”
I wonder what would happen if the US and UK governments and media would also change their views too. Noam Chomsky’s lucid and balanced view of their historic behaviour seems to suggest they are complicit in the terrible scenes we are witnessing today.
Mark,
I don't think you understand the situation at all. Hamas and the Palestinians are a newly created organization and their only goal is to destroy the Jewish nation. There is no interest in peace and no interest in 2-states living side by side in harmony.
Hamas wants Jews dead and our nationstate destroyed and Jews want to live and do so in our ancestral homeland. How do you compromise?