For professor of Jewish history David Myers, the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just as much about the past as it is about the present. In a lecture on Tuesday, Myers discussed where the responsibility in the conflict lies, drawing upon Jewish, Arab and European historical context to illustrate his point.

While he noted that assigning blame in such a tense conflict is an “ambitious” undertaking, he said that using historical examples to do so “very much comports to my own sense … that history, my discipline, can and must serve the present.”

To utilize historical context to its fullest, one must adopt a three-dimensional approach to the conflict, he said. A one-dimensional approach would involve total attribution of blame to one party, while a two-dimensional view would split the blame between two parties — in this case, Israel and Palestine. Neither approach considers outside influences, which could hold the key to a peaceful resolution, Myers argued.

Key moments from the conflict place blame on both Jews and Arabs, said Myers, who teaches at UCLA. In 1967’s Six Day War, for example, Arab states instigated violent conflict with Israel. On the other hand, in continuing to occupy territory conquered in the war, Israel has deliberately ignored international law, he argued.

In 1947, Palestinians also denied a two-state partition plan, which might have avoided the conflict entirely. However, Myers claimed, the Palestinians were somewhat justified, as Zionists had displaced thousands of Palestinians in their attempt to settle a Jewish state.

Yet the Zionist movement would not be what it was if not for European anti-Semitism and colonialism, Myers pointed out.

Notably, Theodor Herzl, a founder of modern Zionism, was compelled to establish the first Zionist Congress in 1897 because of the fear he felt for his surroundings, he said.

Moreover, the 1919 Little Treaty of Versailles, which protected the status of minorities in Poland but fell short of giving them full agency, told the Jews that they needed to become a national majority group, he said. Additionally, the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which promoted the establishment of a Jewish state, conveyed to the Jews a need for an independent state.

In other words, the Jews were placed in a situation that made their search for national sovereignty appear to be a necessary act of survival, Myers argued. “I think we must consider adding a new link to the causal chain of the Israel-Palestine conflict,” he said. “That new link helps us understand the Jews’ transformation from a disliked, at times oppressed and often beleaguered minority into a dominant … and oppressive majority.”

As a result of this three-dimensional scope, an ideal reconciliation would require nations whose actions contributed to the rise of Zionism to acknowledge their part in the conflict, Myers theorized. These nations must make financial and political commitments to ensure the Jews’ place in Israel and to alleviate the Palestinian refugee problem, he said.

Palestinians should also acknowledge their violent actions in the conflict, in addition to recognizing Jews’ rights to reside in their homeland, he added. Israel, meanwhile, should acknowledge its role in the refugee crisis and should end its occupation, granting Palestinians full citizenship or their own state.

Ultimately, Myers concluded before fielding questions, the goal of this three-dimensional approach was not to shift blame or to absolve it. Rather, the intention was to push conversation to a position “between the poles of absolute virtue and absolute evil,” he said. “Between the pole of sole culpability on one hand and no culpability on the other, to which far too many succumb in sizing up the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”