According to the recent reports in The Washington Post, the Israeli “left,” also known as the Israeli “peace movement,” is shocked, disappointed and discouraged that Palestinians still possess anger and frustration toward Israel. Other commentators are more blunt, describing Palestinian actions as “mindless hatred,”blood lust” and the like. Seems that no one in the press, and few in the American public, can understand why Palestinians harbor anger, even irrational or self-destructive anger, towards Israel. Imagine. For others of us, it isn’t so strange.

The State of Israel was founded by a minority of the inhabitants of the region, with the help of European powers and against the wishes of the vast majority of inhabitants. This state took for itself the majority of the available land, as well as control of the majority of important resources. It was established as a religious state, leaving the Palestinian residents in permanent second-class status. Later, the remainder of the land was conquered and an illegal occupation established, which has persisted for over 30 years.

Throughout, Israel has continuments in the Occupied Territories in blatant disregard for international law. This has continued throughout the “peace process” and has gone on at a higher pace under Labor than under Likud. Throughout, Palestinians in the Occupied Territories have been subject to military rule, constant surveillance, endemic poverty, frequent brutality, torture, murder and house demolition.

Now, let me acknowledge two things here. I mention them because it is a sort of inevitable reflex for various people to “point these things out” whenever someone calls for basic human rights in the Middle East. First, many Arab states have launched wars with Israel. This was wrong, both morally and tactically, and had I been more than a child at the time, I would have opposed it. Second, many Palestinians have engaged in acts of terrorism against civilians. This too was wrong, both morally and politically, and I have opposed it. None of this has anything to do with my point, however, namely the realities of oppressive occupation and their predictable consequences.

In the face of all this, many “left peace groups” have worked for dialogue and reconciliation. They made it possible for lots of adults and children to talk to one another. This made many in Israel feel much better about a process which cements the injustice of the situation. Political processes, including the “peace process,” maintain an economically weak, divided and exploited status for the Palestinians and give Israel control of crucial resources, economic centers and all of Jerusalem – notwithstanding the silly pretense of announcing that Palestinians will be allowed to pretend that a suburb of Jerusalem is Jerusalem. In the midst of this process, a war criminal creates an inflammatory incident, and the “left” is shocked, shocked to find hostility still among the Palestinian people.

In the face of ongoing structural violence, there are three broad strategies: The left/peace/justice strategy is to struggle for an end to injustice in solidarity with the oppressed. (And there is a real left/peace movement in Israel. Groups such as Bat Shalom, Yesh Gvul and Women in Black are actively working against both the current violence and the ongoing oppression.)

The right/conservative/authoritarian strategy is to explicitly support the status quo, working and arguing for a continuation of oppression.

The left/peace/liberal approach is to try to make the injustice a little nicer and more understanding, to help people get along so they won’t notice the situation as it is.

Dialogue and reconciliation are not, of course, bad in themselves. It is good that people talk, that they understand one another. But it is self-deception to imagine that dialogue and reconciliation are substitutes for justice. If placed within a context of justice work, dialogue and reconciliation are crucial to the rebuilding of societies torn by past hostility. If given precedence over work for justice, they merely obscure reality and postpone violence. Without changes in the structural violence inherent in the situation, psychological reconciliation simply papers over reality. The current confrontations lay it bare.

It is to be hoped by anyone seriously committed to peace that the underlying realities will be addressed before the violence becomes worse. Once this happens, genuine reconciliation can begin.

Mark Lance is an associate professor of philosophy and an associate professor of justice

and peace.