Shanti, Shanti, Shanti: Seven Reflections Towards Peace in the Middle East
Summary:
The conflict in the Middle East is often seen as an ancient, unresolvable issue, but while ancient religious tensions are indeed involved, this is also a modern geopolitical struggle. To move forward, we need to embrace new approaches that honor both the need for peace and the right to security for all.
Below are seven guiding principles that lay the groundwork for a path toward healing and resolution in the region:
Nonviolence, nonviolence, nonviolence
All beings have the right to defend themselves
Impartial Removal of Terrorist Organizations
Constructive Criticism of a Government’s Actions is Acceptable
Cooperation, Not Conflict: Bridging Divides with Environmental and Economic Cooperation
Addressing both Mental Health and Fundamentalist Islam
Reconsidering U.S. Foreign Policy
We can no longer afford to remain locked in old paradigms. These principles offer a new framework for understanding and addressing the complexities of the Israel-Palestine conflict, based on human rights, cooperation, and accountability.
Read on to explore how these ideas form a cohesive vision for peace in the Middle East.
Opening Prayer of Gratitude
First, I must start with a kind of prayer. 🙏 I placed my palms together in gratitude as I prayed aloud the below words, and I would be humbled if some readers would place their palms together as they read:
As I write(/read) this essay, I sit in such comfort. My room could be any perfect temperature I desire. I have all the foods of the world available to eat. I could burn incense or walk to a forest of some of the freshest air in the world. I could walk to good restaurants or tourist spots, a quiet park or library, spend my afternoon with my son in a hundred different ways — from educational to amusing. I can read books from across the world and across time. I can meet people in peace and security — and in the rare events where there are issues or crime, there are authorities who can come at a moment's notice. Our society here has problems, and it is not perfect, and there is suffering; but our existence on this continent — crime and natural disasters aside, especially remembering those facing the effects of the hurricanes in our Southeastern States — our existence on this continent is so fortunate. What did we deserve to be born here, rather than born in these lands in the “Middle East,” the heartlands of Earth, full of conflict, perhaps never-ending? Perhaps it is karma. I do not know. What I know is that we must be eternally grateful, that just as easily as we can tune in and watch the news on this conflict, we can tune out, turn it off, and return to our comfort.
We must begin from a place of gratitude…
Introduction
The Israel-Palestine conflict has long been a symbol of entrenched, seemingly intractable violence. The conflict is a complex web of historical, political, territorial, and religious challenges. At its core, however, the conflict is not necessarily an ancient feud, but a modern struggle born of geopolitical and historical circumstances, especially in the 20th century. The aftermath of World War II, the Holocaust, and the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 triggered a cycle of violence and misunderstanding. This conflict, while deeply connected to religious differences, stems from political failures that can and should be addressed with modern solutions.
Central to the issue is also the fundamental question: "Whose land is this?" or "Who was here first?" These are questions that transcend the Middle East and echo throughout history, especially for nations like the United States, where we have struggled with our own legacy of displacing indigenous peoples, building a nation on the backs of slaves, and even annexing foreign lands like the Kingdom of Hawaii. The answers to these questions are rarely clear-cut, and they evoke deeper philosophical and moral questions about justice, history, and sovereignty.
As someone committed to non-violence, my aim is to reframe the conversation, finding common ground for both sides while presenting practical, compassionate solutions that foster healing and cooperation. Below are seven foundational thoughts that guide my approach to this issue, with the hope of not only easing tensions but also offering a pathway for broader peace and understanding.
In contemplating the conflict, I sought to distill the most pressing issues into a few key reflections. Initially, I aimed for 3 to 5 core principles, but ultimately arrived at seven—a number with deep spiritual and cultural resonance across various traditions. Seven symbolizes completeness, balance, and thoughtful reflection, hence my use of the word reflection in the title, as opposed to thoughts, principles, paths, or any other noun. By organizing these ideas into seven, I hope to create a framework that mirrors both the complexity and the potential harmony needed to move toward peace.
Finally, I must address the word genocide. While some critics accuse Israel of genocidal actions against Palestinians, this is a heavily debated and legally contested term. What is undeniable, however, is the humanitarian crisis and the immense civilian suffering caused by the conflict.
1. Commitment to Non-Violence
At the heart of my perspective is an unwavering commitment to non-violence. This is not just an ethical or spiritual stance, but a practical one. The history of the Israel-Palestine conflict has shown that violence breeds more violence, perpetuating a cycle of retaliation. Peace cannot be achieved through force; it must be rooted in dialogue, empathy, and understanding.
Incorporating non-violence into national policy, education systems, and public discourse is crucial for long-term peace. Both sides must be encouraged to pursue conflict resolution without resorting to violence. Non-violence requires us to move beyond retributive justice and instead embrace restorative justice, which focuses on healing relationships and addressing the root causes of conflict.
One religious leader wrote to me,
In the end, my vow is to support peace, sanity, and care for all beings on all sides. How a nation or people go about doing that, I do not know. What I do know is how to work with the individual heart, which must seek forbearance and broad-mindedness.
2. The Right to Self-Defense for All Beings
While non-violence is the ideal, it is essential to acknowledge the right to self-defense. Both Israelis and Palestinians have the right to defend their people from aggression. However, this right must be exercised proportionally and ethically, ensuring that defensive actions do not become offensive or contribute to further destabilization.
Self-defense, as a principle, must be balanced with a larger vision of peace. It should not be a justification for disproportionate military action or the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. The international community, especially impartial coalitions, must work to monitor and prevent escalations that result in unnecessary suffering.
Empathy as a Political Strategy
Empathy, as a political strategy, would encourage Israelis and Palestinians to engage in empathy-building exercises (like the “Parents Circle,” which brings together families who have lost loved ones on both sides of the conflict). The idea here is that building empathy for each other’s suffering can lay the groundwork for long-term peace. Potential replacement: This could replace the emphasis on self-defense, reframing the conflict as one that requires mutual recognition of humanity rather than simply acknowledging defensive rights.
3. Impartial Removal of Terrorist Organizations
If Hamas and Hezbollah are indeed terrorists, they should be removed by the United Nations, the United States, neighboring Middle Eastern countries, or another coalition. However, I believe the time has come for the world to acknowledge that Israel is too emotionally and geographically attached to the conflict to be responsible for removing these organizations from power. They are too close to the situation.
The key is to ensure that such efforts are not purely militaristic but also address the underlying causes of terrorism, such as poverty, political disenfranchisement, and ideological radicalization. A coalition must focus on rebuilding communities and offering viable political alternatives that appeal to Palestinians, giving them a future that doesn’t involve violence.
The dangers here, of course, are that a power vacuum will be filled, and the US has made many mistakes in history, sometimes eliminating hostile powers that were replaced by something far worse. Thus here, too, I do not know the answer. But brighter minds than my own are everywhere, and attracting them to help the situation proceed peacefully is not only possible, it is welcome.
Restorative Justice Instead of Punitive Justice
Rather than concentrating on removing actors like Hamas or Hezbollah through military or political force, we might also shift to a restorative justice model. This approach would emphasize healing, reparations, and reconciliation, involving both Israeli and Palestinian civilians who have suffered from the violence.
International Mediation Led by Neutral Parties
Moreover, we might consider that neutral international mediators (potentially from countries with no significant geopolitical stakes in the conflict) lead peace talks. These mediators could come from neutral Scandinavian countries, for example, or even nations like Costa Rica, which has no military. The focus would be on diplomacy, humanitarian law, and human rights rather than military force.
4. Constructive Criticism of a Government’s Actions is Acceptable
It is vital to differentiate between criticism of Israel’s policies and anti-Semitism. When Israel’s defensive measures become excessive or cross into aggression, it is the responsibility of the global community to speak out. Criticism should focus on the actions of the nation-state, not on the Jewish faith or ethnicity. Israel, like any nation, must be held accountable for its actions on the global stage. This includes respecting human rights, adhering to international law, and ensuring that military operations do not lead to widespread civilian casualties.
Criticizing Israel as a nation is not the same as criticizing Judaism, and it is certainly not anti-Semitic. The separation between criticizing state policy and respecting religious identity must be clear to ensure meaningful dialogue on these issues. Criticism of Israel—whether of its government, its military actions, or its policies—is not inherently anti-Semitic and should be seen as part of the broader democratic discourse, both in private conversations and on the international stage.
One major issue in the Israel-Palestine conflict is the religious identity of Israel. While Israel is a Jewish state, I propose that it could consider adopting a more inclusive, non-religious identity, similar to the United States' First Amendment, which ensures a separation of church and state. In the U.S., we do not identify as a Christian nation but as a country of diverse faiths, and this has helped to foster religious tolerance and inclusivity. If Israel moved toward a more secular national identity, it could become a refuge for people of all faiths and backgrounds, sending a powerful message to the world about its commitment to peace, equality, and human rights.
Israel is a young nation, and like all nations, it must grow. It is officially a Jewish nation-state, and that is its right, both for its religious and ethnic identity. However, perhaps easing the tensions with its neighbors and within its own population could involve removing religion from government policy. A more secular state that remains the largest home for Jews but also welcomes people of other faiths—perhaps even refugees and outcasts—could be a step toward maturity and long-lasting peace.
5. Cooperation, Not Conflict: Bridging Divides with Environmental and Economic Cooperation
Religious and cultural divides have long fueled tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, but a new path toward peace can be forged through joint environmental and economic cooperation. Both communities face shared challenges—particularly around critical resources like water and energy. The region’s water scarcity is an urgent issue that affects both populations. By working together on water management, conservation, and the development of sustainable agricultural practices, Israelis and Palestinians could move beyond conflict and focus on survival and mutual benefit. Addressing these environmental challenges fosters not only cooperation but also a sense of shared responsibility for the land and its resources.
Similarly, economic collaboration could help break down barriers. Cross-border trade, technology development, and the creation of economic zones that benefit both sides could reduce poverty and build interdependence. In a time where broader regional dynamics are in play, interdependence on resources like water and energy could extend beyond Gaza and the West Bank, creating incentives for regional stability. Rather than remaining divided by religious and national lines, Israelis and Palestinians could see one another as partners in prosperity, sharing in the region’s economic growth. This practical, collaborative approach could help both communities move toward enduring peace, grounded in shared interests rather than long-standing divisions, with the potential to influence broader regional cooperation with neighboring states.
6. Addressing both Fundamentalist Islam and Mental Health
Radical Islam and Its Impact
The rise of radical Islam, especially within Palestinian territories and across the wider region, cannot be ignored. Groups like Hamas exploit these ideologies to justify violence, particularly against Jews, Christians, and even other Muslims. This radicalism is often fueled by a combination of poverty, lack of education, and frustration with the political status quo, but we must also confront the deeper, ideological roots of this extremism. Radical Islam thrives in environments where despair, historical trauma, and oppression have taken root, and where religious teachings are distorted to promote violence.
While many Muslims live peacefully, rejecting the extremism of radical groups, we cannot deny the troubling aspects of Muhammad’s life that have been used by these extremists to justify their actions. Historically, Islam spread rapidly through military conquests, often marked by rape, enslavement, and looting. Many new converts accepted Islam under the threat of violence or the promise of a higher social status, rather than by spiritual conviction alone. To address radical Islam, we must acknowledge and confront this aspect of the religion's history, while working to promote a moderate, peaceful interpretation that is rooted in human dignity and empathy.
Context of the Prophet Muhammad's Life
We must also be honest in our assessment of Muhammad’s life and the actions he took. While it is often argued that his multiple wives and his marriage to Aisha, who was traditionally believed to be as young as seven, were norms of the time, this does not absolve these actions from moral scrutiny. The historica Buddha, for example, was born a prince, but sought enlightenment through meditation and nonviolence. Jewish prophets, too, often transcended their time, calling for social justice and denouncing sacrifice in favor of caring for the suffering. Jesus, though a rebellious Jew who overturned the tables of merchants in the Temple, lived a largely peaceful life, fasting in the desert and preaching compassion and love for the poor and outcasts.
In contrast, Muhammad participated in military campaigns, leading forces in defense of the early Muslim community and at times engaging in acts of violence against his enemies. While these actions were typical of 7th-century Arabia, they stand in stark contrast to the nonviolent examples set by other religious leaders. To position Muhammad solely as a spiritual guide, without acknowledging his role as a military leader and conqueror, risks perpetuating a one-sided narrative.
If Islam is to mature as a religion—much as Judaism and Christianity have done—it must come to terms with this history. Just as Christianity has had to confront its violent past, from the Crusades to colonialism, Islam must take responsibility for the radical elements within it that continue to incite violence and division today.
Distinguishing Mainstream Islam from Extremism
However, we must distinguish between mainstream Islam, practiced peacefully by the vast majority of its 1.8 billion adherents, and the radical Islamist factions that misuse religious rhetoric to fuel hatred and violence. The Quran contains passages that emphasize the importance of preserving life and coexistence:
Quran 2:256: "Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood."
Quran 5:32: "Whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [being committed] in the land—it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one—it is as if he had saved mankind entirely."
The challenge for modern Islam lies in reclaiming these teachings of peace from extremists who distort them for their own violent ends. Good Muslims around the world must raise their voices, not just against extremists but also in critique of the historical actions that continue to inspire violence today. By doing so, Islam can grow into a religion that stands on the global stage alongside others that have faced and reconciled with their own violent pasts.
Mental Health and Extremism
Radicalism is often a symptom of deeper societal and psychological issues. Decades of conflict have left both Palestinians and Israelis deeply traumatized, and mental health struggles fuel much of the extremism we see today. The psychological scars from living under constant threat, violence, and fear must be addressed for any sustainable peace to take root. International partnerships that promote mental health programs and trauma recovery are critical to reducing extremism.
In addition to the trauma caused by conflict, modern life contributes to mental health struggles across the globe. Pollution, screen addiction, social disconnection, and nutritional deficiencies—such as global lithium deficiency, linked to mood disorders, aggression, and suicide—exacerbate these problems. Poor mental health can inflame religious rhetoric, leading vulnerable individuals to embrace radical ideologies.
Failure to address these crises could lead to catastrophic outcomes, as extremism—fueled by poor mental health and radicalism—threatens to ignite wider conflicts. To prevent further violence, we must promote holistic well-being for all people, recognizing that mental health and social stability are deeply interconnected. Radicalism thrives where hope is absent, and addressing these crises is essential for preventing wider conflicts and promoting a vision of global healing.
7. Reconsidering U.S. Foreign Policy
The United States must reassess its role in the Israel-Palestine conflict, particularly as Israel’s military actions have extended beyond Gaza into Lebanon and potentially other regional fronts. Our deep ties to Israel, including military and economic support, have often compromised our ability to serve as an impartial mediator. Should we continue providing military aid and economic backing, especially when Israel’s actions—such as aggressive military operations against Hezbollah and civilian casualties in Gaza—are seen as disproportionate or counterproductive to peace? This is a complex issue, and it is critical that the U.S. Congress facilitate a transparent debate on the future direction of American foreign policy in the region.
At the core of this conflict is a question that echoes across history: "Whose land is this?" or "Who was here first?" Both Israelis and Palestinians lay claim to the land, each with deep historical, religious, and cultural ties. Competing historical narratives further complicate these claims. However, as Americans, we are not without our own difficult history. The United States was built on the displacement of Native Americans, the exploitation of enslaved peoples, and even the annexation of sovereign territories, such as the Kingdom of Hawaii. These historical injustices weigh heavily on our national conscience, and they should inform our approach to foreign policy. Just as we grapple with the question of land and justice in our own country, so too must we consider these complexities in the Middle East.
A sustainable path forward may involve reassessing the nature of our support for Israel, potentially introducing a phased reduction of military aid contingent upon measurable improvements in human rights practices. This approach would not mean abandoning an ally, but rather encouraging Israel to adopt a more balanced and just approach that promotes peace and stability. The U.S. should continue to encourage a two-state solution that respects both Israeli and Palestinian sovereignty. By conditioning aid on improvements in human rights, we can assert that American values—including peace, democracy, and human dignity—guide our foreign policy, not just geopolitical strategy.
Should the U.S. continue its commitments to Israel, even when its actions may be seen as overreaching? I do not have a simple answer. It’s a question that requires thoughtful debate and consensus rather than reactive decisions. If elected, I would be honored to help lead this conversation in Congress, seeking a balanced approach that reflects America’s core values while promoting peace and regional stability. As a global superpower, the U.S. has a responsibility to ensure that its foreign policy reflects compassion and wisdom, encouraging cooperation and humanitarian progress on all fronts.
Campaign commitments:
Thus, if elected, I must go to the Middle East — as soon as possible. With the permission of President Biden, I could travel to the middle-East as early as December, likely remaining through the Christmas holiday.
And even if any political ‘peace talks’ led to nothing substantial, the trip would be a good one. As President-Elect, I would learn, study, educate myself with the air and smells and tastes and looks from the region around me, nearest the waters and deserts and hand-made maps, fabrics, and music of the Middle East. I have already tasted the air and feel of the region during my deployments to Qatar and Afghanistan, and I would welcome returning to it more intimately. Most importantly, I would listen to the stories of the locals, all suffering for so long.
One of my absolute favorite quotes is often attributed as a Persian proverb, but it more likely originates from Paramahansa Yogananda's 1946 book Autobiography of a Yogi:
"Look in the sky to find the moon, not in the pond. Seek truth in meditation, not in moldy books."
While the style resonates with traditional Persian wisdom, it was Yogananda who popularized the saying in a modern spiritual context. Though there’s some uncertainty about its exact origins, this does not diminish the beauty of the prose or the profound wisdom it conveys.
And so it is with all human conflict: the further we travel into the fog of war, the cloudier our vision becomes. I do not know exactly what to do or say with respect to the Middle East, but I believe that recognizing this uncertainty is the best place from which to begin to listen.
A closing word of gratitude
Again, in closing, I do not know anything. I do not know what to do, nor what to say, beyond nonviolence. I do not know.
For many of us, it feels like this religion has been in conflict for what seems like the age of the earth itself. The weight of history, misinformation, and manipulation makes this conflict incredibly complex. And while the words attributed to the Prophet Muhammad have been interpreted in ways that fuel conflict, I believe there are countless Muslims who reject violence and yearn for peace between Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike. Their voices, though sometimes quiet, are essential in building a bridge to unity.
Ultimately, the solution lies not in force, but in unity, empathy, and shared human dignity. The seven reflections outlined here offer possibilities for healing—ideas that move beyond the narrow confines of geopolitics and embrace a vision of peace that serves not only the Middle East but the entire world.
But again, I humbly admit that I do not know everything. I sit in the comfort of a peaceful continent—one that has not known a major war within its borders for over a century. We have become complacent in our stability, often too removed from the realities of conflict that others face daily.
All I truly know is that I know nothing.
For those who have taken the time to read this in full—or even in part—I extend my deepest gratitude. Please join me in prayer or reflection: 🙏
I am but an average citizen running for President, fighting my own David-and-Goliath battle against political powers so thoroughly entrenched that they control my own nation. I am skeptical we can heal these wounds of human history, doubtful we can help heal the divide between these nations and religions, lacking hope I will have any positive effect. Why others would read my words I do not know, but I am grateful. I am grateful.
And while I do not know anything, and sometimes all hope seems nearly lost, I do retain a sliver of hope: if humanity truly wants peace in the Middle East, it is within our reach. It is certainly worth walking towards, step by step.
Shanti, Shanti, Shanti: Peace, Peace, Peace.
🙏
—John