It's OK not to be sure. Embrace it.
In August 2019, the headlines have been dominated by news of the Israeli Government denying entry to two U.S. Congresswomen.
Israel, which controls all access to the disputed territories (the West Bank), has a 2017 law prohibiting entry to any foreigner who supports or calls for the Boycott of Israel (BDS).
However, Israeli officials including Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer, previously said that Congresswomen Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) would be permitted to enter the country.
Shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted that allowing the Congresswomen to enter Israel would be a sign of weakness, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel would be denying them entry, though would consider a special application on humanitarian grounds if Congresswoman Tlaib made an application to visit her grandmother and agree not to use the trip to promote a boycott.
Across party lines in Israel, the U.S. and abroad, this episode has divided opinions more than I can remember ever happening before. Left, right; ardent supporters of Israel and/ or its government; it's been interesting to see how different people have been evaluating and making decisions.
Senior Republicans and Democrats have condemned the decision - including Nancy Pelosi and Marco Rubio - saying that it undermines the Israeli Democracy and is beneath what is expected of the State of Israel.
Most stark of all was that AIPAC, the Pro-Israel lobbying group, publicly criticised the decision - a rare move to say the least. AIPAC supported the controversial decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and was also accused by Omar of pushing allegiance to a foreign country - a long-standing anti-Semitic slur. Nonetheless, in a tweet that began by reaffirming their opposition to the boycott, AIPAC expressed that the Congresswomen should be allowed to enter Israel.
Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Ministers defended the decision, saying it was not a matter of party politics but of principle. In statements, Netanyahu noted that the sole purpose of the trip was to delegitimise Israel and iterated that whilst Israel respects all members of Congress, it also respects itself.
My facebook feed is filled with supporters and opponents of the decision sharing their opinions - whether written, via imagery or by sharing articles and posts that support their viewpoint. I however, am decidedly torn over the issue.
On the one hand, Israel is a democracy and the idea that we deny entry to people who disagree with us, criticise us or protest against us is deplorable. It goes against the values upon which the state was founded and it undermines our very identity. In particular, members of the legislative branch of one of our closest allies should be welcome. We should have nothing to fear from inviting our greatest critics to speak their minds, as we should have nothing to hide.
Banning the Congresswomen is not just bad optics, it's ethically wrong. The issue is not just that critics can now claim that Israel silences its opponents and does not allow for freedom of speech, it's that they have a point. I want to be able to go out and say, "look, Israel rolled out the red carpet for two vocal critics - that's how strong freedom of speech is", just like I remind people that there are parties in the Knesset (Israeli Assembly) who oppose the existence of the State, but I no longer can.
Let's not forget also that Netanyahu is fighting an election after failing to form a government following the previous elections only a few months ago. As is evident in all his campaign materials, his favourite campaign angle (and one that seems to work) is that he is the only person capable of protecting Israel (despite the fact that his last opponent was a party lead by three former military Chiefs of Staff). Banning the congresswomen was an obvious move to create a rally effect, strengthening his image in the eyes of the Israeli right and right-leaning centre. It was also a welcome distraction on the day that the State Prosecutor recommended charges against Interior Minister Aryeh Deri, leader of the Shas Party which regularly forms part of the Netanyahu coalition.
Furthermore and perhaps most significantly, though the Israeli Government is stressing that this was not the case, it seems as though the US President has used Israel to further his own political gain; as though the Netanyahu government made the decision to ban the Congresswomen in a direct attempt to please Donald Trump. I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but even if I were, I don't think that the Israeli government should be so controlled by any foreign executive. As a state, a nation with laws and its own elected government, the decisions made should be our own. I don't believe the Israeli leaders of old would have caved to any of their foreign counterparts.
On the other hand, the Congresswomen were invited only a few weeks earlier on a trip together with 72 other freshmen. That trip, arranged by the American Israeli Education Foundation, met not only with PM Netanyahu and leader of the opposition party Benny Gantz, but also with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. The trip was widely praised by its participants as being instructive and giving them a valuable insight they would not have been able to get otherwise.
The itinerary of Omar and Tlaib's trip by contrast, had a very clear purpose - furthering their anti-Israel agenda. They were not planning on engaging with both sides, rather only Palestinians. They had no intention of meeting with Israeli ministers or civilians and they didn't even list Israel on the plan - calling it only Palestine.
They applied for permission to enter a state with the stated intention of feeding a biased, aggressive discourse against it, back home to the US. Which country would allow this? The issues of Trump's involvement and the convenient pre-election timing aside, there remains a strong case to have denied the visas from the outset.
And so I remain torn on this issue. And that's okay - luckily, I'm not the one in power making the decision. But there's an important business lesson to be learned here (the real reason I'm writing about politics, which I try to avoid).
It's okay to have mixed feelings. It's okay to not be sure and it's okay to recognise that there are two sides to every argument - at least - and that both sides have their positives and negatives. Two parties can have equally strong claims; two solutions to a problem can be viable and attractive.
In business, the repercussions often aren't as significant, so there's a value to weighing up options and making a decision, despite recognising alternatives - sometimes, getting things done is what's important. The details... well there are options.
Other times, it's worth seeking advice and the opinions of trusted advisers. People who, like you, are able to see both sides of the coin and can explain why they view one way as preferable to the other.
For some people, writing all the pros and cons on a piece of paper to compare them helps. For a complex issue, you could write them on small slips of paper and order them by importance. Or on the computer, make a table in excel and rate each point from 1-100 in strength and importance. Sort the table by value and you might find an answer.
Just don't be like most of my facebook friends - taking one side to the extreme and not recognising the valid points of the other.
