I wrote the other day about maintaining equanimity in the face of pretty horrible social media comments. That is, of course, made even more difficult when many of those comments utterly misrepresent one’s position on various issues.
A case in point is the current situation in Gaza and the broader issues in the region. Obviously, as a New Zealand Jew who has a role as part of the Executive for the NZ Jewish Council, I have been the target of many comments suggesting that I (and, by extension, the Jewish Council and furthermore all Jews) unilaterally support all of Israel’s moves and see Palestinian self-autonomy as a terrible thing.
This utterly misrepresents the position of myself and many of my co-religionists, and hence I wanted to be clear, both as a member of the representative group of Jews in New Zealand, but more importantly, as a human being who in no way celebrates human suffering of any sort. So, what is the accurate representation of my position?
I am a supporter of the principle of a two-state solution, one that guarantees security, dignity, and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians. A peaceful and democratic Palestinian state living alongside Israel is not just desirable. It is essential. But achieving that vision requires leadership, compromise, and courage from both sides.
This position shouldn’t be controversial, yet in our increasingly polarised discourse, it apparently is. The tendency to force complex geopolitical realities into neat binary choices, you’re either with us or against us, mirrors the same reductive thinking I’ve observed in other unrelated situations here in New Zealand. Just as innovation requires a nuanced understanding of market dynamics, regulation, and social impact, meaningful progress on issues of justice and peace demands that we resist the comfortable oversimplifications that social media thrives on.
There can be no future state built on terror. Hamas has proven, through its actions and ideology, that it does not accept the Jewish people’s right to self-determination and is not a partner for peace. Its attacks on civilians, its refusal to release hostages, and its commitment to violence are fundamentally incompatible with any vision of peaceful coexistence, to say nothing of the suffering and disaster it has wrought on Gazans. For a Palestinian state to be recognised, it must be led by those who reject extremism and commit to democracy, accountability, and non-violence.
This isn’t about demonising Palestinians or denying their legitimate aspirations. It’s about recognising that sustainable solutions require partners committed to peace, not destruction. In my work with New Zealand organisations, I’ve seen how transformation initiatives fail when leadership pays lip service to change while maintaining destructive practices. The same principle applies here; rhetoric about liberation means nothing when accompanied by actions that perpetuate suffering.
At the same time, Israel must also be a genuine partner in this process. That means showing a consistent commitment to Palestinian self-determination, and not undermining the viability of a future state. It must be a goal actively worked toward, grounded in mutual respect and a shared future.
This is where many of my critics fundamentally misunderstand my position. Supporting Israel’s right to exist and defend itself doesn’t mean providing blank cheque approval for every policy decision. Just as I can support New Zealand while critiquing or opposing specific government actions, I can recognise Israel’s legitimate security concerns while expecting accountability and progress toward peaceful coexistence.
The challenge is that this nuanced position doesn’t fit neatly into the tribal categories that dominate online discourse. Social media algorithms reward extreme positions and bad-faith actors who care more about promoting a narrative than the truth because they generate engagement. Thoughtful analysis that acknowledges complexity gets buried beneath inflammatory takes designed to provoke rather than illuminate. Any path forward must begin with the immediate release of hostages and a clear signal from both sides that peace is not just a slogan, but a real and urgent priority. A just and lasting resolution will only come when both peoples are led by those prepared to move beyond grievance and towards genuine reconciliation and recognition of the other’s perspectives, needs and aspirations.
This emphasis on concrete actions rather than rhetorical commitments reflects lessons learned from decades of failed peace processes. Like organisational change initiatives that focus on vision statements rather than measurable outcomes, peace processes that prioritise symbolism over substance inevitably disappoint.
What frustrates me most about the online discourse surrounding these issues is how it mirrors the worst tendencies in New Zealand’s public debates. Whether we’re discussing co-governance, housing policy, or climate change, too often we retreat into ideological corners rather than listening, learning and engaging with the complex trade-offs that real solutions require.
The assumption that supporting Jewish self-determination automatically means opposing Palestinian aspirations is as intellectually lazy as suggesting that supporting Māori rights means opposing other New Zealanders’ interests. These false dichotomies prevent us from building the coalitions necessary for meaningful progress.
As someone who has spent years advocating for diversity and inclusion in New Zealand’s business community, I understand that real change requires uncomfortable conversations and genuine commitment from all stakeholders. It’s not enough to issue statements about equality while maintaining structures that perpetuate inequality. Similarly, achieving peace in the Middle East requires all parties to move beyond comfortable narratives and engage with difficult realities.
The vision I support, of two peoples living with security, dignity, and self-determination, isn’t utopian. It’s practical. It recognises that sustainable peace requires that everyone’s fundamental needs are met, not just the needs of the loudest voices or the most sympathetic cases.
In a world of easy answers and tribal loyalties, choosing the difficult path of principled compromise isn’t just admirable, it’s essential. The alternative is a future where grievance replaces governance, where slogans substitute for solutions, and where perfect becomes the enemy of good.
We can do better. We must do better. And that starts with honest conversations about what real solutions actually require.
Thank you for your clarity, your empathy and understanding of a complex situation.