In December, I wrote an article outlining what I see as the four layers of the Middle East conflict — a framework for understanding the forces that shape the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader region. That article was prompted by a statement from Standing Together Co-National Director Alon Lee Green suggesting that the conflict needs to be simplified.

A couple of weeks ago, I attended J Street’s national convention, where I interviewed two other leaders of Standing Together: Co-National Director Rula Daoud and National Field Organizer Uri Weltmann. Our conversation explored how their movement — the largest joint Jewish-Arab grassroots organization in Israel — engages many of the same dynamics described in that earlier framework.

Standing Together is a joint Jewish-Arab movement focused on advancing peace, equality, and social justice for Israelis and Palestinians through partnership and collaboration — an approach embodied by leaders like Rula and Uri themselves.

Rula is a Palestinian citizen of Israel who lives in Jaffa, while Uri is an Israeli Jew who resides next door in Tel Aviv. Together they represent the cross-community partnership the movement seeks to build — though they acknowledge that such work comes with significant challenges.

According to them, the movement’s greatest challenge since October 7 has been the growing strength of Israel’s far right. In the aftermath of Hamas’s October 7 attack and the war in Gaza, they argue that the far right’s vision of a “Greater Israel” has gained unprecedented traction at the political level. Some political leaders have called for the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza, the rebuilding of Israeli settlements there, and the annexation of the West Bank.

Standing Together seeks to challenge that vision with an alternative grounded in peace and equality. Central to that effort is what the movement calls building a “new majority” within Israeli society through Jewish-Arab partnership.

Standing Together’s structure as a joint Jewish-Arab movement not only allows it to challenge the far right’s political momentum by building a new majority, but also uniquely positions it to address deeper dynamics of the conflict itself.

In my earlier article, I described the first two layers of the conflict as rooted in the conflicting daily grievances and nationalist aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians. Many Israeli Jews experience the conflict primarily through fear for their safety, while many Palestinians experience it through the desire for freedom. At the same time, many people on both sides believe the entire land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea belongs exclusively to their people.

Rula and Uri argued that Standing Together’s vision attempts to address both tensions.

Rula described their proposal for two states within a shared homeland — a framework intended to balance both peoples’ aspirations. She explained that safety requires political independence, while freedom requires access to the broader land that both peoples consider home.

Under their vision, Israelis and Palestinians would each have their own sovereign state, but with open borders allowing freedom of movement across the land.

“(Our) vision of peace…speaks not about walls and separation, but a peace of real partnership…A peace where we can share the land, but we can still have an independence to each one of us.”

This approach, she suggested, may also soften the ideological rivalry between Zionism and Palestinian nationalism. Although neither side would exercise sovereignty over the entire land, both peoples would retain access to places central to their identity and history.

“I am a Palestinian citizen of Israel…(but) I have family in Bethlehem, which is (in) the West Bank…Uri has family in Kfar Saba, but (there are Jews) who feel very much (connected) to Hebron. They want to go there, they want to pray (there).”

Of course, persuading Israelis and Palestinians to embrace such an ambitious vision is easier said than done. But Rula and Uri argued that their strategy of building a “new majority” allows them to reach people across political and ideological divides.

Uri explained that Standing Together tries to meet people “where they are,” avoiding ideological purity tests and engaging anyone willing to talk. Rather than dismissing people’s fears or grievances, they begin by acknowledging them and then showing how their vision seeks to address those concerns.

Rula added that many Israelis and Palestinians — even those who appear politically opposed — share similar everyday aspirations. Most people, she said, simply want to live in safety, earn a living, and provide opportunities for their children.

If those needs can be addressed, she believes it becomes possible to build a broad coalition of support — even among people who identify strongly as Zionists or Palestinian nationalists.

They pointed to concrete examples suggesting this approach may already be gaining traction. Standing Together was the first political organization in Israel to call for a ceasefire-hostage deal, and polls suggested that even a majority of Likud voters supported such an agreement. Before the war, roughly 3,000 members contributed monthly dues. Today that number has risen to more than 7,000.

Uri ultimately argued that Israeli and Palestinian aspirations are not merely compatible — they are deeply interconnected. Just as Palestinians cannot achieve freedom without Jewish safety, Jews will neither be safe nor truly free without Palestinian freedom. As an Israeli Jew, he noted that the conflict shapes Israeli life through constant security fears and the international isolation many Israelis feel abroad.

“Palestinian liberation and (safety) for Jewish Israelis…(are not) two things…in contradiction…(they are) two sides of the same coin.”

Yet the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is shaped by more than competing aspirations between Israelis and Palestinians themselves. As I argued in my earlier article, broader regional dynamics and civilizational narratives also play an important role.

For decades, Israel has existed in a region where many states viewed it as an illegitimate outsider, shaping a long-standing Israeli sense of being the “other” in the Middle East. The conflict is also sometimes framed as part of a broader cultural divide between the West and the Islamic world — narratives that can deepen mistrust and make reconciliation more difficult.

Rula offered an interesting perspective on the regional dimension. As a Palestinian citizen of Israel, she reflected on how internal hierarchies and narratives of belonging can shape how societies view those they consider outsiders.

“These divisions (happen when) you have one side thinking that (there) is a first class and a second class, and whoever sees himself as a first class does not want the second class to be there…It is a concept of politicians…sees the place for the benefits of a smaller group upon the benefits of the majority of the people living back home.”

In that sense, the regional dimension of the conflict may mirror dynamics within societies themselves. Just as Israeli Jews must learn to see Palestinian citizens not as “others” or as second-class participants in society, broader regional narratives may also need to evolve.

For lasting peace to take hold, leaders across the Arab and Muslim world may need to move away from framing Israel as an illegitimate outsider and instead accept Israelis as a permanent and legitimate part of the region.

Uri also challenged the assumption that cultural differences between Israelis and Palestinians are obstacles to reconciliation. Instead, he suggested they could ultimately become a source of mutual enrichment.

In their vision of two states within a shared homeland, the cultural ties between the two independent nations would allow Israelis and Palestinians not only to understand one another better, but to learn from one another as well.

“People’s religious affinity is important. People’s history is important. Yet bridges exist…When we reach this reality of two states on a shared homeland…the two states have cultural ties and freedom of movement and open borders. Palestinians can learn a lot from Israeli society. Israeli society can learn a lot from Palestinians, and our cultures would mutually influence one another and create something new.”

Taken together, these perspectives suggest that Standing Together’s approach touches each layer of the conflict — from daily security and freedom to competing national aspirations, regional legitimacy, and deeper cultural narratives. It may be precisely because the movement is a joint Jewish-Arab partnership that it can address these dimensions simultaneously.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader challenges facing the Middle East are not driven by a single issue, and they will not be resolved by a single solution. They require multiple approaches that reinforce one another. Movements like Standing Together — built across political, ideological, and communal divides — may therefore help generate the ideas and coalitions needed to confront a problem as complex and dynamic as the Middle East itself.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)