How to solve a conflict when empathy and goodwill fall short
By: Franco D'Angelo
Tags: Journey, Conflict, Palestine, Peace, Israel

I’ve always had a keen interest in people’s behaviour. How are societies organized? How do we interact with one another? What drives our day to day behaviour? Why do we react to what happens to us the way we do? Subjects like history, literature and sociology were among my favourites, to understand different points of view.

In August 2019, I had the immense opportunity to join more than 20 bright minds on a trip to Israel and the Palestinean territories. The goal: to expose us to diverse perspectives around the conflict. Through gatherings, discussions and reflections, Insight Journeys provided us with the possibility to form an opinion of our own around an intricate discord that combines history, religion, politics, multiple agents and as many interests.

The Old City of Jerusalem. Photo Credit: Fundación IO.

Before this trip, I had a very narrow idea of the available resolutions for a conflict. In my experience, you could either approach a conflict open to reach common-ground or close yourself to it. And, in my very close perspective, that depended upon the intentions of the parties involved. If the parts were open to reaching common-ground, they would probably reach it. And if any of the parties refused to find common ground, then the conflict would become a zero-sum game. However, as soon as our journey began, I realised there is (at least) a third option that had never crossed my mind.

What happens when the parties involved are willing to reach common ground, but they can’t empathise with each other to the level of understanding what a possible (and fair) solution could be?

Each day we would go over a different narrative via debates, listening to speakers or visiting impactful places. And, as the days went by, I grew more and more intrigued by what could be the outcome of this situation. What was happening that made the idea of a peaceful resolution so remote?

The program unfolded, we got exposed to even more perspectives, and I began to struggle with my emotions. All the viewpoints seemed partly right and partly wrong. I could empathise on different points with everyone we met. I didn’t know what was justice anymore.

After discussing my feelings with other participants, I reached a small and simplistic theory of what was going on. Each time we met someone, they analysed the conflict on a different level than the one before. As a result, the discussions were always on multiple layers making it extremely hard to reach common ground.

In other words, even if you believe you are approaching conflict with goodwill and being empathetic, you may be standing on layers so different, that they may never meet.

So, what is empathy? Are there different levels to it? How could you possibly try to understand what others are going through when your frames of reference are so different? What can you proactively do to take this into account and fight your bias?

I still do not have a complete answer, but here’s a list I am working on:

Accept you may not be able to comprehend what others are experiencing and be humble about it.

Accept that in no moment in time, you are aware of all your biases.

Give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

Empathy is a ladder take it step-by-step. You may not be able to understand fully what the other part is experiencing, but you can go through your personal experiences and look for the ones that made you feel (even in a small way) similar to how the other may be feeling.

Thought of another one? Let me know!