Recognizing that others may have a point too

Developments at Columbia University and other campuses in the United States and the arrest of protesting students cannot but cause alarm – regardless of whether or not one agrees with their point of view – about the freedom of speech. The arrests also hark back to behavior and actions that we believed, perhaps naively, were well behind us.

In a recent Kathimerini piece respected Greek academics who teach at the renowned university shared their views on the ongoing student protests against the war in Gaza.

One of them, archaeology professor Ioannis Mylonopoulos, stressed the need – which should go without saying – for one side to listen to the other. This is true of the war in the Middle East but also applies more generally.

No matter how strong someone’s opinion may be, no matter how staunchly one may think themselves to be in the right, acknowledging that simple reality that there may be another valid point of view is essential – and it may also make the difference between a catastrophe and the ability to avert it.

It is true everywhere, from politics and international relations, to bonds of friendship and marriage, and even to strangers who disagree. No matter how strong an opinion a person, or even a country, may have, and no matter how well supported this opinion may be, it is always best to approach any discussion or difference with an open mind, receptive to the possibility that the other side may actually be right or may “also” be right or may, even – and this is the easiest of all – be “partially” right.

It is much easier – and also more dangerous – to stick to one view and refuse to budge. It is harder – but also more useful – to have the guts to hear the other side out and to try to also look from their point of view at whatever difference there is dividing you.

Personal and national relationships would be a whole lot different if everyone adopted this notion. It offers so much more flexibility and gives so much more room to avoid an escalation and to reach a reasonable and honorable compromise. In an international setting, it would also make avoiding armed conflict more likely.

There are too many cases to count – not just on the big global issues, but also at the regional and perhaps even bilateral level, especially between neighboring countries – where the “absolute truth,” which is often based on selective references to history and supported with relatively sound legal arguments, stands in the way of resolving solvable differences.

I am not referring to cases where the arguments are unfounded and the intentions clearly aggressive or expansionist, but to those where the other side may also have a point – and where heeding their point of view may contribute to preventing a friendship, a family, a business or even the peace between two countries, from collapsing.