Breaking the Cycle: Jonathan Glover’s Vision for Peace in Israel and Palestine

From Demonization to Dialogue: Applying Glover's Philosophy to Conflicts Abroad and at Home

In the midst of the ongoing crisis in Gaza, where violence claims lives and entrenches divisions on both sides, Jonathan Glover’s 2024 book, Israelis and Palestinians: From the Cycle of Violence to the Conversation of Mankind, offers a fresh, humane perspective. Drawing on moral philosophy, psychology, and lessons from history, Glover dissects the conflict’s roots—not as an abstract geopolitical puzzle, but as a human tragedy driven by fear, resentment, and misunderstanding. He urges a shift from retaliation to empathy, reminding us that true values are revealed not in words, but in actions toward the vulnerable.

This message feels especially urgent amid recent domestic events in the U.S., such as the “Operation Midway Blitz” in Chicago—a 2025 immigration enforcement surge that saw federal agents, backed by helicopters and armored vehicles, raid apartments and detain over 900 people, including families and non-criminals. Reports of children being taken from homes unclothed and families separated highlight a “lack of basic humanity” in these actions, where power is wielded with apparent indifference toward the weak. Such events illustrate Glover’s warnings about how demonization of the “other”—whether Palestinians, Israelis, or immigrants—fuels cycles of resentment and radicalization, aligning with Rev. Benjamin Cremer’s observation: “When you demonize and mistreat the immigrant, the poor, and the marginalized, I’m not interested in hearing about your religious beliefs. You’ve already shown me what they are by how you’re demonizing and mistreating the immigrant, the poor, and the marginalized.”

Glover’s analysis is both realistic and hopeful, providing tools to break these patterns wherever they arise. Here are the book’s key insights and proposed solutions:

1. Understanding the Cycle of Violence: Glover portrays the conflict as a psychological trap, where humiliation and retribution trap both Israelis and Palestinians in identity-based enmity. Haunted by past atrocities, each side’s fears perpetuate the spiral—much like how mistreatment exposes underlying beliefs, as seen in Chicago’s raids and echoed by Cremer.

2. Critiquing Current Approaches: Applying Just War Theory, Glover argues that disproportionate actions—such as widespread bombardment, cutting off essentials in Gaza, or extremist attacks by groups like Hamas—fail to deter violence. Instead, they breed resentment and radicalization, sabotaging peace efforts. Similarly, the indiscriminate sweeps in Operation Midway Blitz highlight how unchecked force alienates communities rather than protecting them.

3. Shifting to the ‘Conversation of Mankind’: Inspired by philosopher Michael Oakeshott, Glover’s core idea is fostering uncoerced dialogue to humanize the “other.” By focusing on shared human desires for security and dignity, this approach counters demonization with empathy and mutual recognition—a remedy urgently needed amid domestic divisions.

4. Starting with Small Steps: Build trust through grassroots initiatives, such as integrated schools for children, cultural exchanges like the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra, or joint environmental projects on water and ecology. These incremental efforts create personal connections that politics often overlooks, offering a model for healing rifts in places like Chicago’s affected neighborhoods.

5. Embracing the Grey Zone: Acknowledge atrocities and humanity on both sides, drawing from successful reconciliations in South Africa and Northern Ireland. This moves beyond black-and-white narratives toward shared responsibility, judging progress by concrete actions rather than professed ideals.

6. Exploring Practical Frameworks: Glover proposes flexible structures like federal systems with overlapping sovereignties, allowing cooperation on shared issues (e.g., borders or resources) without forcing rigid one- or two-state solutions. Models from the European Union illustrate how this could reduce hostility over time, with potential applications to U.S. immigration challenges.

In Jonathan Glover’s book, potential political solutions like one-state, two-state, and federal/semi-federal models are examined, yet none fully passes the ‘double-double’ test of ensuring self-determination and security for both Palestinians and Israelis, with advocates often more convincing in arguing why alternatives are unrealizable or unworkable than in providing a problem-free account of their own.

• One-State Solutions: The book discusses a single-state approach where Israelis and Palestinians share one democratic state, with key concerns including both sides fearing minority status—Palestinians worry about living under Israeli occupation without full equality, while Israelis fear persecution in a Muslim-majority state, drawing on historical examples like treatment of Christians or Jews in Arab countries; proposals often include constitutionally entrenched rights for both peoples, but the author notes these guarantees can be overturned, as seen in Zionist history’s skepticism (e.g., Herzl’s views); Scandinavian ideas suggest incorporating Palestinian Arabs (or all Arabs) into a confederacy, but overall, it’s viewed as unrealistic due to deep mistrust and potential for Zionism’s dilution.

• Two-State Solutions: This involves creating separate sovereign states for Israel and Palestine, aiming to provide self-determination and security for each; a key example is the 2003 proposal by Sari Nusseibeh and Ami Ayalon, which includes borders based on 1967 lines with a physical link between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Jerusalem as an open city with religious freedom and access to holy sites serving as the capital for both states, right of return (Jews to Israel, Palestinians to Palestine), and international guarantees for the security of a demilitarized Palestine; the author sees it as plausible in theory but struggling for support, with Israeli resistance to losing settlements (e.g., in areas like Amos Oz’s mentioned places: Jaffa, Beer Sheva, Haifa) and Palestinian fears of unequal outcomes; it’s criticized as unrealizable due to the gap between what each side wants and the compromises required.

• Federal and Semi-Federal Solutions: These hybrid models blend elements of unity and separation; Uri Avnery’s late-1960s idea starts with a two-state setup, then evolves into a federation where a Palestinian state joins Israel in a “Semitic Union”—a confederacy of regional states to reduce unpalatability and frictions; another angle, from Omar Dahbour, focuses on ecological federations for shared resources like water, allowing overlapping sovereignties rather than all-or-nothing structures; the book highlights successful limited cooperation (e.g., Israel-Jordan water agreements) as a model for blurred or shared control over specific issues, avoiding arousal of broader hostilities that doomed efforts like the Oslo Accords.

Glover’s work is a profound call to action in a time of despair, blending philosophical depth with practical hope. By applying his ideas to conflicts abroad and crises at home, we see their timeless relevance. For his innovative use of moral reasoning to address intractable divisions and promote dialogue as a pathway to peace, I believe Jonathan Glover deserves consideration for the Nobel Peace Prize, much like past laureates who emphasized human connection in divided societies. If this vision resonates, pick up the book and reflect: What small step toward understanding the “other”—whether across borders or in our own communities—can you take today?