Conflicts abound large and small. This is a big issue in our individual lives and our collective civilization. This post proposes some possible solutions that require acknowledgment, attribution, and accountability and suggest how those principles are related. Let’s start with the micro and then move to the macro.
In our marriage of 56 years, my wife and I have had our share of conflicts. Since I’m looking forward to another decade or so of married life, I won’t share the exact details of those conflicts. That would result in divorce by disclosure. Suffice it to say that the way we have managed to build a happy and fulfilling relationship over the years was by being willing to acknowledge and own our individual roles in problems as they occurred. We have also become better over time at fairly assigning responsibility for whatever issues arise. Instead of taking an “it’s all your fault” attitude to disagreements, we gradually reach an understanding of what’s the right amount of “my bad.” We both hold ourselves and each other “accountable” to the standards and commitments we have established in the relationship.
In my work as an organizational psychologist, when I’m asked to mediate conflicts—after deep listening to each person’s point of view—I ask three questions: First, how do you see your role in this problem? Second, how much of this problem is your responsibility and how much does it belong to the other person: 10%, 50%, 90%? And third, what might be an acceptable way to hold yourself and each other accountable for reaching a desired and agreed-upon outcome? When both parties blame the other for 90% of the problem, chances for a sustainable resolution are slim.
What I have found is that without honest acknowledgement and fair attribution of responsibility, there is very little chance of resolving conflicts and holding people accountable for their actions. Literature provides powerful stories showing what happens when characters or societies refuse to acknowledge their roles in a given situation and accept a fair attribution of responsibility.
In 1850, Nathaniel Hawthorne explored what happens to the human soul and a community when there is a refusal of public acknowledgement and unfair attribution of responsibility in his classic book, The Scarlet Letter. When Hester Prynne gives birth to a child out of wedlock in 17th-century Puritan Boston, the community demands full accountability—but only from her. She is forced to wear the scarlet letter “A” on her chest and endure public shaming on the scaffold. Meanwhile, her co-sinner, the revered minister Arthur Dimmesdale, remains silent, allowing Hester to bear 100% of the social attribution for a shared act.
The Reverend’s refusal to acknowledge his role publicly does not spare him; it destroys him from within. He suffers severe guilt and psychological torment. His public sermons on sin become deeply hypocritical because he cannot apply his moral standards to himself. The Puritan community operates under the delusion that it has purged sin by punishing Hester, completely blind to the hidden corruption within its own leadership. When responsibility is unfairly attributed to one party while the other hides behind a facade of innocence, true reconciliation is impossible, and the unacknowledged guilt eventually rots the relationship and/or society from within.
In 1954, William Golding published Lord of the Flies, an epic novel about how the moral norms in a group of stranded schoolboys slowly devolves into savagery. Rather than attributing the growing fear and disorder to their own unchecked instincts and failure of self-governance, the boys invent an external monster: “The Beast.” This misattribution of evil leads them to scapegoat Piggy and brutally murder Simon—the only boy who realized that the “beast” was inside themselves. By attributing their internal corruption to an external enemy, the boys abandon all moral accountability, leading to the destruction of their island society.
In Orwell’s 1984, the Party maintains absolute control through the Ministry of Truth, continuously altering historical records so that the state is never proven wrong. Slogans like “Who controls the past controls the future” capture a world where acknowledgement is outlawed and attribution is dynamically altered to serve political power. Without objective truth or historical accountability, language loses its meaning, genuine human connection becomes impossible, and society enters a state of permanent war against an ever-shifting enemy. Sound familiar?
Now let’s apply those principles to one of the most intractable macro issues the world is facing right now. I’m using the Israel-Arab World wars as my example.
The long-standing conflict between Israel and the broader Arab world—specifically involving the Palestinian people—serves as a primary modern case study in what happens when acknowledgement, fair attribution, and accountability are systematically absent across all sides of a dispute.
For decades, significant portions of the Arab world and Palestinian political movements have refused to acknowledge the historic, religious, and political ties of Jewish people to the land or the legitimacy of Israel as a sovereign state. Polling illustrates how deeply entrenched this non-acknowledgement remains. According to the 2024–2025 Arab Opinion Index conducted by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies across 15 Arab nations, 87% to 95% of respondents oppose recognizing Israel or normalizing relations with it. In countries like Jordan and Libya, opposition reaches 95% and 96% respectively.
By framing Israel solely as an illegitimate colonial implant rather than a national movement born out of both ancient roots and modern existential necessity (such as refuge from European antisemitism and the Holocaust), regional actors eliminate the possibility of a peer-to-peer compromise. When one side’s very existence is classified as an unpardonable sin, there can be no negotiation—only struggle and war.
Conversely, dominant Israeli political discourse and public consensus frequently display a severe failure of acknowledgement regarding the Palestinian experience. About 90% of Israeli Jews systematically reject characterizations of their policy in the West Bank and Gaza—such as military occupation, expansive settlements, blockades, and systemic civil inequality—as oppressive or unjust, viewing them purely through the lens of national security.
Following the events of October 7, 2023, public opinion polls from institutions such as the Israel Democracy Institute revealed that about 90% of Israeli Jews viewed military operations in Gaza as entirely justified and rejected international claims of war crimes or excessive force, often regarding external criticism as inherently biased or antisemitic.
When a society views its actions solely through the prism of absolute self-defense, it creates a moral blind spot where civilian death, displacement, and systemic disenfranchisement are minimized or rendered invisible. Without acknowledging the historical reality of the Nakba (the 1948 displacement) or the material realities of occupation, Israeli society struggles to attribute genuine responsibility to its own state mechanisms, making long-term peace impossible to construct.
The crisis of attribution extends into Western political discourse, where external observers often retreat into moral absolutes that erase agency. Portions of the Western far-left frame violent acts committed by groups like Hamas as purely deterministic reactions, arguing that armed militants “had no choice” but to execute atrocities on October 7 due to the blockade.
This view strips non-state actors of moral agency and accountability, treating their actions as justified reactions rather than intentional violence targeting civilians. Conversely, hyper-partisans on the opposite side treat Israeli actions as existing in a moral vacuum, ignoring decades of expansionist settlement policies, systemic inequality, and civilian casualties. When external allies practice selective attribution, they fuel the cycle: one group is excused of all moral boundaries, while the other is granted total impunity under the banner of defense.
Whether managing international geopolitics or personal relationships, progress requires moving away from defensive narratives toward shared truth. Explanation does not equal justification. Understanding the historical context or trauma that drove an action does not mean excusing or endorsing atrocious behavior. Every entity—whether a sovereign nation, an armed organization, or an individual—must be held to basic standards of human conduct regardless of past grievances.
Sustainable peace treaties (such as the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission) demonstrate that justice cannot begin until both sides officially document and acknowledge the harm they inflicted on the other.
In this post, I have tried to show how the same principles apply to a wide range of problems – from petty marital squabbles or personality differences within organizations to entrenched geo-political conflicts. I have tried to show that in order to achieve sustainable solutions, both parties need to acknowledge their own role in the problem, accept a fair attribution of responsibility for causing the problem, and agree to reasonable standards and metrics for accountability.
Last week, I suggested the conditions that lead to F’d up results; this week, I’m proposing three principles for Acing conflict resolution. We all could use fewer “F’s” and more “A’s.” I’m hoping we can all do a little better at owning our roles and responsibilities in conflicts and striving together for higher standards. May it be so.
