I hate the fact that I feel the need to defend the legitimacy of my ideas to you before I have typed a single, substantive sentence, but I’m afraid that such is the nature of the current discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Discourse and discussion have become polarized into what feels like two distinct groups: those that support the state of Israel, and those that support the humanitarian Palestinian cause.

It’s lonely to be a person who feels like he can relate to both Israelis and Palestinians in the wake of the newest cycle of violence in the conflict. It’s even more frustrating to read columns that are painfully shallow in depth and unnuanced in their treatment of the recent hostilities.

Angry, one-sided Op-Eds and inflamed rhetoric make the very same mistake as those who utilize violence to solve conflicts. They assume dogmatic possession of the truth. They are insensitive. They encourage polarization, not empathy. They galvanize radicals on both sides and leave us moderates out in the cold.

It’s not just newspapers, American politicians and television news that are blind in their total acceptance of one side or the other: it has happened to my friends too. Many who strongly advocate on Israel’s behalf installed “Qassam counters” on their Facebooks so that every time I checked their profiles, I knew exactly how many rockets had been fired from Gaza into Israel. Likewise, supporters of the “other side” changed their Facebook pictures to images of the Palestinian flag and used their statuses to denounce Israeli tyranny or even the “holocaust” of Palestinian civilians.

I am a Zionist and I am an American Jew. I believe Israel’s right to exist is non-negotiable. Yet I assure you this does not prevent me from being critical of the Israeli government, nor does it prevent my heart from breaking at the loss of Palestinian civilian lives. Personally, I do not think violence was an appropriate response to the end of the cease-fire and the renewal of rocket attacks from Gaza. The popularity of Hamas within the Gaza Strip itself had waned by December, 2008. Gazans themselves had grown tired of the harsh economic consequences forced upon them by an extremely repressive Israeli blockade. Hamas desperately needed a boost in its popularity, and it found a political marriage of convenience with the Israeli government.

With elections for Prime Minister set in February, Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni in particular were looking to establish their security credentials. The end of the cease-fire gave them a justification to react with force towards Gaza. Hamas popularity has sky-rocketed after the mini-war. How Barak and Livni will fare in February is yet to be seen. Wouldn’t it be ironic if this round of violence was what catapulted Livni, the Israeli candidate best suited to make peace, into office? But that’s a whole different issue. The main point is that Israel’s repressive blockade of Gaza was an integral part of the domino effect that led to the latest outbreak of violence. The use of demeaning checkpoints, the miscalculated use of force and the politics of fear are all things that must change if peace is to be attained.

Yet Hamas too deserves criticism. Hamas militants fired rockets into Israel and deliberately killed innocent civilians. I may not agree with Israel’s use of force in this round of violence, but I can see how it is justified. Israel acted to protect her citizens from rocket attacks that have continued over a period of more than two years now. In contrast, Hamas used its citizens, both to shield themselves from attacks and for political gain. It cloaked its fighters in residential neighborhoods and submerged its weapon caches under hospitals. Recent Hamas tactics are disgusting, and their rockets did pose a meaningful threat to Israeli civilian lives. There is no way around these points.

Many Israel-detractors argue that the Israeli military response was disproportionate. I’ve yet to hear or read a meaningful explanation of what that means or what a viable alternative would involve. Since when is self-defense proportional? How many Israeli civilians must die before it is OK to use enough force? How far must the missiles be able to reach? Is there some kind of formula Cornell hasn’t taught me? If a Hamas militant fires a rocket off of a hospital and kills an Israeli civilian, what should Israel do?

Both sides have exhibited varying degrees of despicable behavior and have made costly mistakes. I don’t mean to imply a moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel, because there is none, but I don’t know how anyone can sanctimoniously criticize only one side amidst such senseless tragedy. What I do know is that until Israelis realize that electing leaders who advocate the use of force and settlement only boosts the popularity of Hamas (the militant party du jour) and perpetuates the cycle of violence, the violence will continue.

Until Palestinians demonstrate that they can demand from their government the recognition of Israel and publicly hold their government accountable for the perpetuation of violence, the violence will continue. Until the United States learns that it must be an even-handed negotiator and not Israel’s best friend, the violence will continue. Most relevant, until we students learn to be critical of both sides, respectful of each other (i.e. not stereotyping or prejudicing kashrut-observing American Jews or any group relevant to this discourse), and openly proud of our shared desire for peace, we accomplish nothing but the elimination of meaningful dialogue and the perpetuation of the violence that we so desperately continue to hope will one day cease.