Distrust – Caution or a Political Instrument?
It is quite natural for there to be deep distrust between two peoples engaged in a protracted conflict, and for good reasons on both sides—for example, between Israelis and Palestinians. A small illustrative example: Israelis experienced the deadly Al-Aqsa Intifada following relatively generous offers from the Barak government and after a peace summit; Palestinians witnessed a surge in settlement construction precisely after the Oslo Accords were signed. Trust was sharply eroded on both sides.
For this reason, there is both a moral and practical imperative to address this distrust—not by abandoning caution or ignoring warning signs (such as suspicion, fear, and risk assessment), but by taking measured steps that involve calculated risks. This raises the question: do we seek to resolve the distrust even while exercising maximum caution, or do we aim to preserve it as a justification for a pre-determined political agenda? Broadly speaking, there are two ways to approach this issue:
The first approach is to proceed cautiously—through small, trust-building tests that, even if they fail, do not result in disaster. Examples might include pilot governance projects for the Palestinian Authority in additional small areas of existing enclaves or even granting the PA limited control over the territories as a whole while temporarily excluding the security dimension, or assessing its commitment to de-radicalization and combating incitement and terror before moving on to the next phase. Similar steps can—and should—be applied by the international community to evaluate Israel’s commitment to peace and de-radicalization. These measures allow us to determine whether the other side’s verbal assurances are mere rhetoric or genuine promises backed by both goodwill and capacity. Even if implementation capacity requires strengthening, there is a foundation to build upon
The second approach is that of the self-fulfilling negative prophecy: “They are liars; they are just trying to speak nicely to the world; they cannot be trusted; it will collapse; it will fail; it will become our nightmare.” We have tried this path before, say the leading voices of this approach—despite there being many other avenues to peace yet unexplored, and despite having tried numerous approaches of war and confrontation to no avail. The conclusion: there is no point in attempting rapprochement, even in small steps; it is a waste of time—the horror is predetermined and immutable. This approach is not genuine caution, even if it masquerades as such. It is a wholesale rejection of any effort to build trust, even in steps that, even if they fail, would cause no major catastrophe. This attitude perpetuates the conflict and oppression (one of the conflict’s accelerators), undermines trust on the other side, weakens moderates within their ranks, further destabilizes relations, and may indeed make the possibility of breaking through walls of suspicion and hostility extremely difficult. In moments of dark potential, such an approach can accelerate risks so they may escalate into cycles of bloodshed (as we experienced on October 7). This approach does not aim to strengthen caution against danger but serves a political agenda tied to preserving the conflict. In other words, beyond all its drawbacks, it is also a fundamentally dishonest approach—sometimes stemming from self-deception: instead of saying, “I do not want to resolve this conflict” it tries to close the door amid any hope, presumably because there is no chance; it refuses even to explore the possibility that a solution might exist.
The goal of peace advocates should not be to dismiss or eliminate the logic foundations of distrust (“Just trust them; give peace a chance; what can go wrong?”)—that merely signals irresponsibility (and often rightly so) and reinforces defensive armor, rendering people less receptive to reconciliation. In Israel in 2025, people will not be willing to listen to those living disconnected from the dangerous reality. Instead, the approach should be to advance cautiously, expose the utility of this approach, reveal the falsehood underpinning the wholesale negative-prophecy approach, and strengthen the ability to discern between approaches and understand the role each serves. This is the pro-humane way combined with practical wisdom.
This is how one should approach a speech by Abu Mazen or any other Palestinian leader attempting to build bridges; this is how I would hope Palestinians would engage with Israelis seeking rapprochement—proceeding cautiously; and this is how third parties around the world should interact with both sides and encourage them (us) to take initiative.
Only in this way can the humanity of both sides be respected—the horizon of a better future alongside the genuine, rational (even if sometimes exaggerated by extremists) concern that trusting the other could lead to danger or disaster.
It is therefore regrettable that progressive organizations and institutions around the world have played a largely negative role in this process: instead of proposing trust-building measures that could offer a reassuring path for both sides of the conflict, these bodies engaged more in polarizing discourse, which only deepened the sense of siege, suspicion, and resistance to peace.
