If you’ve ever discussed a sensitive topic (I assume you have), nuance is a rare but precious commodity. Almost nowhere is this more true, in my experience, than in the wild “debates” over actions in Israel & Palestine—the spewing of name-calling and half-truths (and sometimes honest dialogue) once again back at the podium.

Much of the problem, at least for semi-genuine interlocutors, is the constant conflation of their position with associated ones. In other words: the other side says you are supporting a position that you’re not. “False accusations” as those are sometimes called are the quickest way to undermine any common ground for discussion.

Occasionally these confusions are really that: honest confusions of a political position. Other times they are calculated smears: assigning a taboo view to an opponent is a great way to score points.

Hopefully the confused and the calculating can recognize that an honest portrayal of an opponent is ultimately most effective: that’s how you directly confront it, that’s how you foster honest discourse, that’s how honest discourse works its way in to trusting relationships.

Sadly, there is an all-too-common penchant for both sides to inaccurately attribute beliefs to their critics. I, and perhaps you, am most familiar with the equations that opposing Israeli policy = being Anti-Israel, or that being Anti-Israel = being Anti-Semitic. These views can overlap, but they are certainly not the same: the same problems can occur on the other side.

Here is a guide:

In situations like Israel/Palestine, we can distinguish three spheres: the State, the identity, and the policy. They sometimes overlap, and sometimes they don’t.

This distinction is not complex: but it is extraordinarily common to avoid it. Critics of Israeli policy are labeled anti-semites; many with anti-Arab beliefs attempt to disguise it in pursuit of Hamas. Both are misleading in their own right: but perhaps more damaging, they degrade the entire conditions of discourse.

It’s important to identify motivations for what they really are: anything else just muddles this conflict even more.