Compromise as Inevitably Patronizing?
Inspired by another visit to Dubai. Another Saturday morning at synagogue in Abu Dhabi and early evening at the Sheikh Zayed Mosque – this time with an Israeli, Jewish child. Impressions. Observations. And a young American adult with multiple identities.
Discussion begins. Rationalizing. Justifying. Empathizing. Perspectives. Angles.
Framing. Wartime trauma. Like a temper tantrum. Reflexes or counter reflexes. Perceived threats. Fear. Helpless fear. Thrashing. Kicking. Or curling into a decompressed form of wishful thinking – to be invisible, untouchable, impenetrable.
Agreeing the only absolute is relative. Setting a starting point, yet it remains relative to other times. Imperialism and colonialism. Redressing injustices in one historic time frame, under a time-appropriate set of sociopolitical considerations. The considerations that generated the reality with which we arguably look at the injustice in its historical context. With the filters of our times. Regardless, we are where we are. It’s all forward from here.
Imperialist disappropriation. Subjugation. Indigenous. Distribution of responsibility. Different times. Different places. Interests. Empowerment. At the expense of usurping power. And when it seems that power redistributes, vengeance seeks opportunity. Threats replace givens. Other threats bear promise – for others.
Collective identities clash with combined individual identities. Arbitrary. Victims of circumstances determined by predecessors, circumstantially. Void of intentionality.
Mainly providing material for this conversation. If we have the conversation. Do you know what I am talking about? Is futility the destination?
Identities intercept and digress. Into conflicting narratives. Parallel. Irreconcilable. Just an excuse for delaying reconciliation?
Adjusting focus with precision.
An interjection into the conversation: “From the river to the sea.” Interjected interpretation, by an Israeli, explaining to the interested foreign listener: “It means eliminating me.” The interested listener suggests it means, “Palestinians should be able to live freely alongside Israelis from the river to the sea.” We don’t disagree, but what does that mean?
We know what it could mean. We know what we think it should mean. We know what we would like it to mean. It could mean one binational state. We think it should mean shared societies in the State of Israel and in Palestine. Because we would like it to mean a two-state solution.
A two-state solution not only because we continue to believe in the necessity of a state for the Jewish people, and the value of a liberal, democratic Jewish state, equality for all citizens evident in shared society.
Momentarily asking myself if it is only the existence of the State of Israel that generated the idea of establishing another state, Palestine, for the Palestinian people.
Palestine, in which I would want all citizens, regardless of religion and national identity to live under a liberal, democratic regime with equality inseparable from shared society for all citizens and residents. But that’s what I want.
In some inevitable manner, my commitment to the value and importance of a two-state solution, which I understand to be a necessary compromise, is patronizing to many Jews – me relinquishing things in their name, and they would not agree. I call it compromise. Admittedly, my terms. I unabashedly argue it’s in Israel’s best interest. Compromise, for me. A conglomeration of continually negotiable elements. Absolutely relative.
My compromise however makes assumptions. This most likely perceived by the other as patronizing. My assumptions of what my compromise offers to the other is, by definition, patronizing. Still, I hope this other is equally patronizing, assuming my willingness to share this space, this land, to let it flourish for two peoples, two nations, living in peace.
Harriet Gimpel – December 8, 2025
