Illustration by Josh Hagler

Realistic. Subjective. Frightening. Unwavering. If I were asked how to describe my encounter with the Israeli Defense Forces ex-Brigadier General Nechemia Dagan, I would begin with these words.

Last night, I had the privilege of feeding my insatiable appetite for information on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict when General Dagan came to our campus to give us his perspective on the struggle. Speaking remarkably better English than even some of my professors, Dagan began by telling us outright that he was not offering us the truth but a "different angle of observance."

I was pleased he chose this realistic starting point, because discussing truth, when it comes to the age-old Middle Eastern conflict, is naive and self-righteous. Personally, I am very pro-Palestinian, but more importantly, I am pro-peace. In order to make a rational opinion about this subject, it is integral to explore all sides of the argument. Thus, I welcomed this opportunity to discuss Israel and hear from a completely new and first-hand perspective. I was not disappointed.

The general explained the Israeli perspective using two groups of citizens: the first being the Holocaust survivors and their kin, the second being those from "the ghetto" who possessed the strongest anti-Arab sentiment.

Dagan explained that Israel's most important objective in the past was the establishment of a Jewish state. Instantly, the thought that ran through my mind was, "What about a Palestinian state that was there before Israel?" He went on to address the wars of 1947, '67 and '73. From this bit, the audience received a bite of subjective history, as this man had actually fought on the Israeli side in all three wars.

Although his stories and information were very informative, they were strongly tainted with a strong pro-Israeli sentiment. This is not a criticism but an observation. It is indeed unfortunate that there was not a Palestinian representative to create a balance.

During the question-answer period when anyone asked about the Palestinian situation, Dagan had one recurring response: "That is not my problem." Then whose problem is it?

Thank goodness he possessed the compassion for his own son who is now a fighter pilot and feels the importance of avoiding another war. When it's your own blood out there, the feeling of superiority and self-righteousness seems to surrender to compromise and consideration.

The general also addressed the issue of the American media being very pro-Palestinian because the Palestinian are the underdogs. This paradox is interesting to note since Jewish CEOs largely control the American media. One example of this is our famous news tycoon Michael Bloomberg.

To even this unfair representation, one man asked the general to give an example of the worst thing he had done to the Palestinians and the worst he knew of what they had done to them. Either diplomatically or deceitfully - I don't know which one - Dagan chose to dodge this question and left some of the audience wanting more.

The reality of discussing the creation of two states, one Palestine and one Israel, was refreshing. I appreciated Dagan saying it will have to happen in order for peace and that it is not a question of "Is there a solution?" but "How do we get the solution?"

The most important message I learned from the lecture Wednesday night would have to be that open dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis must resume regardless of how many die or what happens. Without some kind of constructive discussion, there will be no end to this conflict.

Neither political backbiting nor bombing should deter negotiators from creating a peaceful result to this horrendous situation. Listening to Dagan made me realize that there is some hope.

One of Dagan's most important points was that to build relationships between nations you can't count on trust. Especially with Israel and Palestine, trust is an impossible target. There must be sound and sensible agreements both sides can settle on. Not only did my evening with the Israeli general give me the chance to see from a new "angle of observance," it also made me realize that both sides will not bend their unwavering opinions.

However, that does not necessarily mean the peace process will fail. Instead, it might be best chance for success - as long as the peace talks do not stop.