The Power of Questions in an Argument

We can sometimes help others reach the same conclusion as us by asking them the logical questions that lead them to discover the conclusion for themselves rather than simply stating the conclusion as a fact. This approach can be especially useful when explaining an argument because it allows the other person to participate in the reasoning process. Instead of being told what to think, they are given the opportunity to follow the reasoning and arrive at the conclusion through their own understanding.

 

This method can also help prevent conflicts that arise from misunderstandings during an argument. When we simply state a conclusion, the other person may disagree with it without understanding the reasoning that led us there. By asking questions, however, we can identify the assumptions and reasoning involved one step at a time. This gives both people an opportunity to examine the argument itself rather than simply arguing over opposing conclusions.

 

Questioning is therefore a powerful method of explanation. The Greek philosopher Socrates is well known for using questions as a method of examining complex ideas, uncovering assumptions, analyzing concepts, and pursuing greater understanding. This approach, commonly associated with the Socratic method, can also be valuable in education because it encourages students to actively participate in the process of reasoning rather than simply memorizing an answer provided by a teacher.

 

For example, suppose a student believes that a particular rule is unfair because it applies to one group of students but not another. Rather than immediately telling the student whether the rule is fair or unfair, a teacher could ask: What is the purpose of the rule? Does the rule apply differently because the two groups are in different circumstances? If the circumstances are actually the same, would applying the rule differently still be justified? What principle would we be using to determine whether the difference in treatment is fair?

 

By answering these questions, the student is encouraged to examine the underlying principles of fairness rather than simply accepting the teacher's conclusion. The student may eventually recognize that the rule is justified because the circumstances are different, or they may discover that the distinction cannot be logically justified. In either case, the student has reached a conclusion through their own reasoning.

 

This illustrates the greater value of questioning as a method of communication. A well-constructed question can cause a person to examine an assumption that they had never considered, recognize a contradiction in their reasoning, or discover information that changes their perspective. Rather than attempting to force a conclusion upon someone, we can guide them through the reasoning necessary to evaluate the conclusion for themselves.

 

The purpose of this method is not to manipulate someone into agreeing with us. Questions should be used to investigate the reasoning honestly, including the possibility that the conclusion we initially believed to be correct may turn out to be mistaken. When questioning is used in this way, it becomes a tool for discovering truth rather than merely winning an argument.

 

Sometimes the most effective way to explain what we believe is therefore not to tell someone what the answer is, but to ask the questions that allow both of us to discover whether the answer is actually justified.

 

(Greek philosopher Socrates)

 

© 2026 Hazon, Nir

 

Share:

Read More

Questioning the Acquisition of Scientific Knowledge

When inspecting scientific knowledge, we should consider not only the knowledge itself but also the method by which that knowledge was acquired. Within scientific education, we frequently encounter teachings for which the experiment, observation, or other method used to obtain the knowledge is not mentioned or discussed. This can make it difficult to evaluate the evidentiary foundation upon which the knowledge rests.

 

For example, we may learn about the functional areas of the human brain without learning how scientists originally determined that different areas of the brain perform different functions. What observations or experiments were performed to obtain this knowledge? What evidence allowed scientists to associate particular functions with particular regions of the brain?

These questions are especially important when considering knowledge that was established before the development of modern technologies. The National Library of Medicine notes that the modern diagram of the functional areas of the human cerebral cortex was published in 1909 by German neuroanatomist Korbinian Brodmann. His work was based primarily on the anatomical organization of the cerebral cortex and the identification of different cortical areas through microscopic examination of brain tissue.

 

Knowledge about the functions of different regions of the human brain was also developed through observations of patients who had suffered brain injuries and subsequently displayed changes in their abilities or behavior. Such cases provided important evidence that damage to particular regions of the brain could be associated with impairments in particular functions.

Modern technology has since provided scientists with additional methods for investigating brain function. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), for example, allows researchers to observe changes in brain activity associated with different tasks. However, fMRI was not introduced until much later, with modern fMRI research beginning in the early 1990s. Therefore, the knowledge we possess about the functional organization of the brain cannot simply be attributed to modern brain-imaging technology. Much of this knowledge was developed through earlier anatomical studies, observations of patients with brain injuries, and other forms of neurological research.

 

This raises an important question concerning the acquisition of scientific knowledge: What evidence was originally used to establish the teaching?

It is important, however, not to assume that an unknown experiment was necessarily unethical. The fact that a particular scientific teaching was established before modern technology does not demonstrate that unethical experimentation was used to obtain it. We must distinguish between what is documented and what is merely possible. If we do not know how a particular piece of knowledge was acquired, the rational response is to investigate its historical and evidentiary origins rather than assume an answer.

 

This distinction becomes particularly important when examining the history of medical experimentation. There are documented examples of unethical experimentation involving human beings. Psychosurgery, for example, involved surgical procedures performed on living patients and was practiced for decades during the twentieth century. Likewise, the Nazi medical experiments and the experiments conducted by Japan's Unit 731 constitute well-documented examples of unethical human experimentation.

 

These historical examples demonstrate why the method by which knowledge was acquired matters. If a scientific claim was established through unethical experimentation, that fact is relevant when evaluating the circumstances under which the knowledge was obtained. However, the existence of unethical experimentation in medical history does not by itself establish that a particular scientific teaching was obtained through such experimentation.

 

The same principle can be applied to questions concerning human survival. For example, what evidence was used to determine how long a human being can survive without food or water? Was this knowledge obtained through controlled experimentation, through observations of people experiencing famine or dehydration, through medical emergencies, through historical records, or through some combination of these sources? These questions are important because the answer tells us something about the evidentiary basis of the knowledge.

 

In some cases, the answer may be that no deliberate experiment was performed. Scientific knowledge is not acquired exclusively through experiments. It can also be acquired through observation, natural experiments, clinical cases, anatomical examination, historical records, and other systematic methods of investigation. Therefore, the question should not necessarily be, “What experiment was used?” but more broadly, “What method was used to obtain this information, and what evidence supports it?”

 

This is the broader principle I believe should be applied when inspecting scientific knowledge. Scientific teachings are often presented to students as established information without explaining how the information was originally acquired. Yet understanding the acquisition of knowledge is essential to understanding the knowledge itself.

 

When we encounter a scientific teaching, we should therefore ask: “How was this information obtained?” What experiment was performed? What was observed? What evidence was collected? What methods were used? And how did scientists move from that evidence to the conclusion being taught?

 

Questioning the acquisition of scientific knowledge does not mean rejecting scientific knowledge. Rather, it means examining its evidentiary foundation more carefully. By investigating not only what science teaches but also how the knowledge was obtained, we can develop a more precise understanding of the reliability, limitations, and evidentiary basis of scientific knowledge.

 

© 2026 Hazon, Nir

Share:

Read More

A Model for the Acceptance of Information From People

The Acceptance of Information From People

People are one of the most important sources of information available to us. Much of what we know about the world comes from other people. We learn from our parents, teachers, friends, scientists, historians, journalists, coworkers, and countless strangers whose words reach us through books, television, and the internet.

Yet trusting a person as a source of information requires careful judgment.

We should neither blindly trust people nor blindly distrust them. Instead, we should evaluate both the person providing the information and the information itself.

In order to evaluate a person as a source of information with rationality, we can begin by asking:

"Has this person given me a reason to believe that they may be dishonest?"

If we have no reason to suspect dishonesty, we can continue listening with an open mind. If a person has demonstrated dishonesty in the past, we should take that history into consideration, but we should not automatically conclude that everything the person says in the future is false.

Past dishonesty can provide a reason for increased skepticism, but it does not logically prove that the person's next statement is dishonest. Likewise, a person who has consistently told the truth has earned a greater degree of trust, but their history does not guarantee that their next statement will be true.

Therefore, we should distinguish between trusting a person and accepting a statement.

A trustworthy person can be mistaken.

An untrustworthy person can sometimes tell the truth.

A person can honestly communicate information that they themselves incorrectly believe to be true.

And a person can deliberately communicate something false.

For this reason, evaluating the truth of a statement requires more than evaluating the character of the person who made it.

---

Who Are You?

Some people may be inclined to trust or distrust another person based on appearance alone. But appearance tells us very little about whether a person's information is accurate.

A person's clothing, age, physical appearance, social status, confidence, popularity, or manner of speaking should not be treated as proof of the truth of what they say.

The evaluation of a person as a source of information takes time.

When we encounter someone whose reliability we do not yet know, an important question to ask is:

"Who are you?"

We may not initially know the answer. But as we learn about a person, we can develop a more informed understanding of their reliability.

We can consider their past behavior, their knowledge and experience, whether they distinguish facts from opinions, whether they acknowledge their mistakes, whether they provide evidence for their claims, and whether their statements can be independently verified.

Over time, a person can develop a record of providing accurate or inaccurate information.

However, even an excellent record should not cause us to abandon our own ability to think critically.

A source can deserve our trust without deserving our unquestioned belief.

---

Trust the Person, Examine the Information

One of the most important principles in evaluating people as sources of information is this:

We should evaluate the credibility of the person separately from the truth of the statement.

Suppose a person has given us ten accurate pieces of information. We have good reason to regard that person as a reliable source. But when the person gives us an eleventh statement, we should still ask whether that particular statement is supported by sufficient evidence.

Likewise, suppose someone has previously lied to us. We should remember that history when evaluating their future statements, but we should not automatically assume that their next statement is false.

This allows us to avoid two opposite mistakes:

Blind trust: "This person is trustworthy, so everything they say must be true."

Blind distrust: "This person has lied before, so everything they say must be false."

The rational position lies between these extremes.

We should allow a person's history to influence our degree of trust, while allowing the evidence for each individual claim to influence our degree of belief.

---

Things to Consider When Judging a Person as a Source of Information

When evaluating a person as a source of information, we can ask:

1. What do I know about this person?

What is their history? What do they know? What experience do they have? Have they demonstrated reliability?

2. Has this person given me a reason to believe that they may be dishonest?

Have they lied, deliberately misled others, concealed important information, or demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty?

3. Has this person demonstrated that they are willing to admit mistakes?

A person who can acknowledge being wrong may provide more reason for trust than someone who refuses to reconsider any of their beliefs.

4. Does this person provide evidence for their claims?

Are they asking us merely to believe them, or are they giving us reasons to believe what they say?

5. How does my perception of this person change as I learn more about them?

Our initial impression may be incomplete. As we learn more, our assessment should be allowed to change.

6. If this person has been correct many times, am I treating their reliability as a guarantee?

A strong record can increase our confidence in a person, but it cannot guarantee that every future statement will be correct.

7. Can the information be independently verified?

Whenever possible, we should determine whether other evidence supports the person's statement.

---

Listen With Open Ears Without Immediately Accepting

One of the most useful habits in the pursuit of knowledge is learning to entertain a thought without accepting it as true.

We can listen carefully to an idea without immediately believing it.

This allows us to investigate information without prematurely accepting or rejecting it.

When someone tells us something unfamiliar, we can temporarily hold the idea in our minds and ask:

"Could this be true?"

Then we can investigate.

This is a more useful approach than immediately responding with either:

"I believe you."

or

"I don't believe you."

The first response may lead to blind acceptance. The second may cause us to reject information before we have properly examined it.

The better response is often:

"I will consider what you have said, and I will determine whether the evidence supports it."

---

Ask Questions

To understand information more deeply, we should ask questions.

We can ask:

"What is this?"

"What do you mean?"

"How do you know?"

"Why?"

"What evidence supports this?"

"Could there be another explanation?"

Questions allow us to move beyond the surface of a statement and investigate what lies underneath it.

When we ask someone to explain the meaning of their words, we may discover that we initially misunderstood them. A statement that sounded one way may have been intended another way.

This is especially important because people communicate through more than literal words.

People use metaphors, humor, sarcasm, exaggeration, figures of speech, and emotional expressions. Therefore, understanding another person's words sometimes requires understanding the context and intention behind them.

The literal words alone would therefore not fully communicate the meaning.

---

Ask "Why?"

The question "Why?" is one of the most powerful questions available to the human mind.

When someone performs an action, we can ask:

"Why did they do this?"

When someone makes a statement, we can ask:

"Why do they believe this?"

When someone gives us information, we can ask:

"Why are they telling me this?"

Asking why can reveal motives, assumptions, causes, and perspectives that are not immediately visible.

However, we should be careful when attempting to determine another person's motives. We cannot directly enter another person's mind, and we should not treat our interpretation of their motives as established fact.

Instead, we should consider the person's circumstances, experiences, goals, beliefs, and perspective and then form a tentative explanation.

We should remember that two people can observe the same event and interpret it differently. They can have different experiences, different assumptions, different values, and different understandings of the same words.

Understanding these differences can help us understand not only what another person believes, but why they believe it.

---

Listen to the Meaning Behind the Words

Communication involves more than vocabulary.

A person's tone of voice, facial expression, timing, emphasis, and surrounding circumstances can sometimes provide information about the meaning they intend to convey.

Therefore, when listening to someone, we should pay attention not only to what they say but also to how they say it.

However, these signals should be treated as clues rather than proof.

A person's tone may suggest anger, sadness, excitement, sarcasm, or uncertainty, but we should not assume that we know their internal state merely from their voice.

When the meaning is uncertain, the best method is often simply to ask:

"What did you mean by that?"

Asking can prevent us from turning an interpretation into an assumption.

---

What Should We Believe?

We should not determine the truth of information solely by deciding whether we like or trust the person who provided it.

Instead, we should consider what can reasonably be established from the available evidence.

Some information can be confirmed through direct observation. Other information can be established through reliable records, measurements, experiments, documents, testimony, mathematical reasoning, or multiple independent sources.

Therefore, we should not limit knowledge only to what we personally see with our own eyes. Much of what we reasonably know about the world comes from evidence that we cannot personally observe.

The important question is not:

"Did I personally see it?"

The better question is:

"What evidence gives me good reason to believe it?"

This distinction allows us to benefit from the knowledge of other people without surrendering our own ability to evaluate information.

---

The Goal of Trust

The goal of this model is not to teach us to distrust everyone.

Human beings depend upon one another for knowledge. No individual can personally investigate everything that needs to be known. We rely on other people because our ability to understand the world is greatly expanded when we can learn from the experiences, observations, and expertise of others.

The goal is therefore informed trust.

We can trust people while remaining intellectually independent.

We can respect expertise without treating experts as infallible.

We can remember a person's history without allowing that history to determine the truth of every future statement.

And we can change our assessment of a person as new evidence about their reliability becomes available.

Ultimately, the most rational approach to information from other people is neither blind trust nor blind suspicion.

It is open-minded examination.

Listen with open ears.

Ask questions.

Seek clarification.

Consider the person's perspective.

Examine their history.

Look for evidence.

Verify important claims when possible.

And, most importantly, never surrender your own ability to think critically.

A person can be an excellent source of information without being an infallible source of truth.

The wise mind therefore does not ask only, "Do I trust this person?"

It asks the deeper question:

"What reason do I have to believe what this person has told me?"

© 2026 Hazon, Nir

Share:

Read More

Reading Beyond the Surface

Reading can be understood as a progressively deeper form of engagement with written material. Simply being able to recognize words does not necessarily mean that a person understands what is being communicated. A person may read something without understanding it at all, but beyond this is the ability to comprehend the information presented and, ultimately, to look deeper into the writing to understand what may be inferred from it. Reading therefore can become more than the process of receiving information; it can become a means of examining ideas, understanding the perspective of the writer, and discovering information that is not stated directly.

One form of reading is understanding the face value of the material. This means comprehending the information that is directly presented by the writer. In school there can be a distinction between cramming information in order to pass a test and studying the material in order to comprehend it. Although both approaches may allow a person to remember information, giving the material serious consideration can lead to a more meaningful understanding of what is being communicated. Understanding the face value of a text is therefore an important part of reading, but it does not necessarily represent the full extent of what can be learned from it.

A deeper form of engagement with writing occurs when we begin to read through the lens of the writer. Rather than limiting our understanding to what is explicitly stated, we can examine the way the writer communicates and consider what this may reveal about the author's understanding of the subject. This involves paying attention to the writer's choice of information, the way ideas are presented, and the strategy used to communicate them. By doing so, we can begin to understand not only what the writer is saying, but also how the writer thinks about the subject.

This deeper form of reading can be extended through inference and insight into the mind of the writer. The power of inference allows us to obtain additional information by using what is presented to reach conclusions about what has not been explicitly stated. We can seek to understand the author's intentions, goals, persuasion techniques, preferences, and other aspects of the author's thinking. For example, if we read that the details of a patient's life history were recorded, we can infer that the doctor used an interview process to obtain the information being presented. The writing does not necessarily tell us every detail of how the information was obtained, but the information provided allows us to make a reasonable inference. In this way, reading becomes an active process of investigation. We move from simply receiving the words on the page to examining the ideas behind them and considering what else can reasonably be understood from what the writer has communicated.

 

© 2026 Hazon, Nir

Share:

Read More

Skepticism and the Pursuit of Truth

 

Those who pay close attention to the media and the news may recognize how easily factual information can be accompanied by persuasion, selective presentation, or misleading interpretations. The same principle applies to information encountered in virtually any setting. The existence of an established industry, the publication of a claim in a college textbook, or the endorsement of an idea by an authority can make information appear more trustworthy than it has actually been demonstrated to be. Current knowledge may contain errors, incomplete explanations, or overlooked evidence, because human beings are responsible for producing, interpreting, and communicating knowledge. Even science, despite its methods of testing and verification, is not immune to human error. For this reason, blindly accepting information can prevent us from recognizing mistakes and can cause us to repeat the assumptions of those who came before us.

 

Skepticism therefore serves an important intellectual purpose. To be skeptical does not necessarily mean rejecting a claim; rather, it means withholding complete confidence until there is sufficient reason to accept it. When we encounter a claim, we should ask what evidence supports it, how that evidence was obtained, whether it has been independently verified, and whether alternative explanations have been adequately considered. For example, if a news report announces that scientists have discovered a new element, it may be reasonable to regard the claim as provisionally credible if it comes from a reliable source, but it should not be confused with personally verified knowledge. Our initial understanding of the discovery comes through testimony—the report of people who conducted or observed the research. Unless we have independently examined the evidence ourselves, our acceptance of the claim remains dependent upon the reliability of that testimony.

 

This distinction is important because information can be encountered at different levels of certainty. A statement may be presented as established knowledge while the individual receiving it has only a belief that the statement is true. Recognizing this distinction does not require us to reject everything we cannot personally verify. In many areas of life, direct personal verification is impractical or impossible. Instead, skepticism encourages us to consider the quality of the evidence and the reliability of the sources before deciding how much confidence a claim deserves. The goal is not to demand absolute certainty from every statement, but to ensure that the degree of our confidence corresponds to the strength of the available evidence.

 

The practice of skepticism has a long intellectual history. In the late tenth and early eleventh centuries, the mathematician and philosopher Ibn al-Haytham emphasized the importance of critically examining what one encounters in the pursuit of truth. His approach encouraged the investigator to challenge information rather than simply accept it because it had already been written or taught. This spirit of inquiry is also associated with the Socratic method, in which questioning is used to examine assumptions, clarify definitions, expose contradictions, and determine whether a claim is adequately supported. Both approaches demonstrate an important principle: questioning knowledge is not necessarily an obstacle to discovering truth; it can be one of the means by which truth is more carefully pursued.

 

Consider, for example, a claim that every piece of evidence collected over the past century has supported the theory of evolution. Rather than accepting such a sweeping statement simply because it was presented by an academic or professional, a skeptical thinker would ask what evidence has actually been examined and whether the claim is stated too broadly. The appropriate response would not be to assume that any unusual observation automatically disproves evolution. Instead, the observation should be investigated carefully, its evidence evaluated, and its relationship to existing evolutionary explanations determined. If an observation appears to conflict with an established explanation, scientists should examine whether the observation is accurate, whether the interpretation is justified, and whether the existing explanation needs to be modified or reconsidered.

 

The same principle applies to information presented by journalists, professors, scientists, historians, governments, and other authorities. Expertise can provide valuable reasons for trusting a source, but expertise does not make a person infallible. Authority should therefore be treated as evidence of credibility rather than as an automatic guarantee of truth. The stronger the claim, the more important it becomes to examine the evidence supporting it. By asking questions, seeking independent verification, considering alternative explanations, and distinguishing between what is established and what remains uncertain, we can make more informed judgments about the information we encounter.

 

The pursuit of truth requires more than collecting information. It requires examining the information we receive and being willing to revise our conclusions when better evidence becomes available. Skepticism, properly understood, is not a rejection of knowledge but a safeguard against unjustified certainty. By making careful inquiry a habit, we can reduce the likelihood of being misled, recognize the limits of what we currently know, and move closer to the truth.

 

“Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” -Albert Einstein

© 2026 Hazon, Nir

Share:

Read More

The Practice of Compassion

 

My study and practice of Eastern psychology began when I was 17 years old. During that time and throughout the several years that followed, I actively incorporated many of the teachings of Buddhist wisdom into my life. Through continued practice, many of these teachings eventually became second nature to me. I no longer have to consciously remind myself to apply them because they have become habitual responses to the events of life. One of the teachings that has had the greatest impact on me is the teaching of compassion. Through my many experiences practicing compassion, I have come to place great value on it as an effective method of emotional self-healing. The practice of compassion has helped guide me through some of the most difficult periods of my life and has provided me with a way to respond to suffering with greater understanding rather than allowing suffering to control my state of mind.

 

For a period of approximately eight years beginning when I was 18 years old, I endured circumstances that involved significant hardship and injustice. I attribute much of my ability to endure these experiences to my practice of Buddhist wisdom. During these difficult periods, the teaching of compassion became particularly important because it gave me a way to respond to my suffering internally. While compassion could not remove the circumstances I was experiencing, it could change the way I related to those circumstances. Instead of adding further suffering to an already difficult situation through harshness toward myself, I could deliberately respond to myself with understanding and compassion.

 

The most important practice of the teaching of compassion is self-compassion. To practice self-compassion, we take a moment to acknowledge ourselves, recognize what we are experiencing, and deliberately choose to respond to ourselves with compassion. Rather than criticizing ourselves for struggling, we recognize that suffering is part of the human experience and allow ourselves to be treated by our own minds with the same understanding that we would offer another person who was going through a difficult time. This practice can help alleviate emotional suffering, clear the mind, and improve our emotional state. The more frequently we practice self-compassion, the more naturally it can become our response to life's unfortunate circumstances.

 

The second important practice of the teaching of compassion is having compassion for others. When we deliberately practice compassion toward other people, we cultivate the mental state associated with compassion, which can also strengthen our ability to practice compassion toward ourselves. Compassion for others can also broaden our understanding of suffering by reminding us that hardship is not an experience unique to ourselves. Every person encounters difficulties, disappointments, and forms of suffering throughout life. Recognizing this commonality can help us develop greater understanding toward both ourselves and others. In this way, practicing compassion for others can reinforce the practice of self-compassion and contribute to our own emotional well-being.

 

Many people may not realize that compassion can be deliberately practiced as a way of responding to suffering. We often think of our emotional responses as things that simply happen to us, but practices such as compassion can give us a greater degree of influence over how we respond to difficult experiences. By learning to practice compassion toward ourselves and others, we can gradually develop a more compassionate habitual response to life's challenges. In my experience, this practice has been an important part of emotional self-healing and personal growth. When we learn that we can use our own minds to respond to suffering with compassion, we take an important step toward becoming wiser human beings who use the mind not only to understand life, but also to support our own well-being.

© 2026 Hazon, Nir

Share:

Read More

The Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process

 

    The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been ongoing for a number of decades. It is a topic of war, bloodshed, hate, and discrimination. All those who are affected by this conflict, including those people who only read of this subject, may experience emotions of suffering as a result. The goals of this paper are to help the reader who may carry feelings concerning this subject alleviate their suffering and to educate on how I create peace with Palestinians. While there are many that may doubt that peace between the Israelis and Palestinians can take place, there are also many people, including myself, who believe that peace is achievable. I have seen this in my life on an individual basis and I have begun seeing it happen on the world stage with new movements for peace such as Realign for Palestine and The Abraham Accords.

    Peace between Israelis and Palestinians on an individual basis can be easily achieved with logical reasoning. If one realizes that both parties have no reason to hate one another when they do not think of themselves primarily as Israelis and Palestinians, then one can conclude that hatred in cases such as this is foolish behavior. This form of hatred is strictly based on the labels of nationality that one places upon others and neither party has a real reason to hate one another as they do not even know each other. What people need to know is that not every Palestinian wants war and not every Israeli agrees with new settlements in the West Bank. There are individuals, families, and groups of both sides who would enjoy peace, going to work, and living their lives. There are some who would argue that this conflict of war is over land. I would argue that, as we can see, the Israelis did not take that much land from the Arab world and that losing land or material possessions is not the end of the world. Life can continue from that point forward, and doing so is preferable to resorting to barbaric behavior such as violence and bloodshed. I, personally, have lived an unusually difficult life, and there was a time when I lost all of my material possessions. Rather than focusing my energy on seeking revenge, I continued living my life from that point forward. This is the preferable approach to living life as we continue taking steps towards prosperity instead of taking steps towards additional misery and sorrow. The continuation of this conflict of war is unnecessary.

    Peace between the Palestinians and Israelis on the world stage can be a permanent ceasefire and we can have that at any given time. This depends on the governing bodies of the Palestinians and Israelis. Until both governing bodies agree to a permanent ceasefire, we cannot enjoy peace on the world stage. We can, however, enjoy peace with one another on an individual basis. I, an Israeli-born man, have enjoyed making peace with Palestinians here in Los Angeles. When I encounter Palestinians here, I tell them nice things like “We come here to get away from the conflict” and “We come here to wash our sins away in the Pacific Ocean.” Peace on an individual basis is an easy process and many other Israelis and Palestinians as well as Jews and Muslims enjoy it here in the United States of America. My first best friend in America was a Muslim, in high school I played basketball with Palestinians and I even had a Palestinian best friend. One of my graduation photographs from college is myself doing a fist bump with a Palestinian graduate. I performed a rap presentation for my trigonometry class with a Palestinian beatboxer and posted the video on YouTube. One of my favorite memories is the time a Palestinian woman jumped me with a hug. As a known peace-maker between our peoples in the Los Angeles area, it was brought to my attention that there is an Israeli-Palestinian marriage that happened in Los Angeles.

    In the media of today it may be difficult to navigate through all of the hateful rhetoric when it comes to this subject. It seems that our understandings of the terms “Pro-Israel” and “Pro-Palestinian” are ones of strictly supporting one of the sides with the opposition to the other when we can be both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. From an American perspective, as our political objectives are to create peace between Israelis and Palestinians, we should seek to be both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian. What this means is not being anti either side and wishing for a safe lifestyle for both peoples.

    I have studied the teachings of Christianity in order to enhance my networking skills as I live in a Christian majority nation and I have discovered a useful teaching. Christianity teaches it's followers to forgive their enemies. While it may appear in some cases that forgiveness is outright stupid, in many other cases it is not and could serve the purpose of cleansing our own minds of negative emotions. This is why, whenever it is possible to do so, we should forgive our enemies. We can find ways to forgive our enemies in order to cleanse our minds. For example, we can forgive our enemies on the basis that they may have received poor education and that they may be under pressure from others to oppose us. Teachings such as this as well as ones that are included in Buddhist wisdom can help us alleviate our suffering.

    In recent times, there have been campaigns of misinformation that have been targeting those who support Israel. These campaigns of misinformation teach lies such as “Israel is a European colonial project” and “All Jews are white.” I am personally offended by the latter, which has arisen numerous times in conversations that I have been around, as I am a man of brown skin tone of 100% Yemeni Jewish descent. It is also worthy to note that Israel is not a European colonial project and is a direct result of the unfortunate genocide of the Jewish people known as The Holocaust. These campaigns of misinformation bring about chaos in the world and we must shun their voices as their objectives are not ones of mutual benefit to both peoples of this conflict. Adolf Hitler taught that if you tell a lie enough times then others will believe it. This is why it is important for these voices to be shunned. There are also people on both sides who may post on social media or say things that are based on emotional feelings instead of rational thinking when it comes to this subject and offend other people as a result. With the proper education, we can minimize this problem as well as solve many others. It can be viewed from the perspective that the Palestinian people have the opportunity to be the group of people in the world who granted peace upon the Jews.

    The truth is that peace between the Israelis and Palestinians is achievable. The statement that it is achievable is true. I also know from personal experience that our peoples are compatible with one another. Whether the governing bodies of both peoples reach an agreement for a permanent ceasefire cannot be controlled by the ordinary person, however, we can enjoy peace-making on an individual level. By seeing the truth of the individuality of people, we can eliminate the hatred that we may foolishly hold for an entire group of people. Efforts toward progress in the peace-making process can bring about real change and hope, and even through the clouds of hateful rhetoric, we can see this happening right now.

© 2026 Hazon, Nir

Share:

Read More