I was exchanging some words with a friend, after I had mentioned an article. He suggested that the article “could easily be Israeli propaganda to legitimize a new attack on Gaza.” I tried to explain that such information seemed contrary to Israeli interests — that if Israel wants to publish propaganda, it should write something that is more advantageous to itself –, that the newspaper that Haaretz used as a source was owned by a Saudi who has been accused of funding Hamas and seems quite unlikely to start publishing Israeli propaganda, and that the source that this latter paper used seemed credible and, if it was a lie, could easily have been denied by Hamas. Then the conversation became about whether Haaretz was trust-worthy. This lead me to write a letter that was much longer than our previous exchanges and is perhaps more suited to this website than through the medium we were using:

Haaretz is a well-respected Israeli newspaper which I have been reading for some time. I can tell you that, especially in contrast to other voices coming from Israel, it is favourable to Palestinian interests, though it does not, of course, neglect Israeli interests. Just read about Gideon Levy, who is an editor for Haaretz that regularly publishes pro-Palestinian articles. Haaretz does, however, publish a diversity of view points, so there will be one extreme with Gideon Levy, but also a variety of op-ed articles that speak in favour of Israel’s interests. To suggest that it is a mouthpiece for the Israeli government to publish propaganda, however, seems like no more than ignorance as to what the paper actually publishes.

Rather than limit myself to a few sources, which each carry some biases in terms of which point of view they present the facts from, I read a diversity of papers, including Haaretz (Israeli) and Al-Jazeera (Qatari), The New York Times (US left), the BBC (fairly neutral) and The Economist (left on social issues, right on economic issues), and my most prized source of information: Stratfor (neutral analysis of geopolitics etc). I also have some other sources which I look at every now and then, such as the CBC and Le Monde. I read a lot more beyond this, but these are my regular sources. With this experience, I have not noticed any serious contradictions in terms of how these sources present the issues, though articles tend to present only one facet at a time — and there are many facets, especially to an issue as complex as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Because of competition amongst news-sources and their importance to society, blatant lies will be caught by people who read the papers and can prove that what has been said was false — which is very possible in the case of the Haaretz article which I mentioned. I have no read about any controversy over this article, which Hamas is free to stir up if it feels that it has been misrepresented. You may accuse Haaretz of twisting the facts — though I believe such claims to be exagerrated and in need of evidence –, but to persistently suggest that a paper such as Haaretz is falsfifying information for the sake of Israeli propaganda is clearly in need of proof, especially considering that Haaretz says things quite contrary to the interests of the current Israeli government. It is an Israeli paper and that comes with certain inherent biases, but this is the level of bias that will exist in all sources of information. We can not dismiss something simply because it comes from a biased source, for then, what are we to believe, since all humans have their biases?

You can try to place the burden of proof on me, but Haaretz has a solid reputation, while you are just an individual, so if you are to challenge Haaretz’ reporting, you should come up with some compelling arguments as to why it is flawed, rather than empty suggestions which I like to call selective nihilism, but the typical term would be “argument from ignorance”.

As for you not having the time to pursue this issue, this is the kind of claim that frustrates me. It is quite rare, especially in our society, for a person to simply not have the time for such things, since this means that all time is spent covering basic needs. Rather, there are other things which you rather spend your time on, such as entertainment and perhaps some other intellectual pursuits. I do not expect people to answer me, we are all free to manage our time as we wish, but to say that you do not have the time seems to me like no more than en excuse. I rather be told that there are other things which interest you more.

This said, I must continue. For any understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, it is important not to limit oneself to Western media, which mostly reports the unpleasant facts, such as the rockets that Palestinians aim at Israel and the land-grabs on the part of the latter. Interesting thoughts can be found in the New York Times, the Economist and so forth, but they are also limited by the fact that we simply do not feel these issues as Israelis and Palestinians do. When we limit ourselves to such information, we cannot get a good grasp of the political complexity of the situation in Israel — it is ridiculous to merely scream about what they should, ideally, do. Rather, we must consider the emotions involved in both sides as well as the different powers at play.

People tend to simplify Israel as some sort of united government, but, like all democracies — especially in the Israel’s democracy –, there are many contradictory currents that lay beneath the surface. Like many countries, Israel has two dominant parties: Kadima (left) and Likud (right), but it also has ten other parties in the Knesset, which hold far more significance than the minor parties in countries such as Canada and the United States. This is not only because the seats are better spread out between the different parties, but because Israeli governments tend to rely heavily on fragile coalitions. This lends greater weight to the interest of minority parties. Likud must not answer only to the interests of its party, but to the minor parties, if it is to stay in power. This is part of what lends such weight to the extremists in Israel and simply talking about how Israel needs to do “this” or “that” ignores the many factors to consider in achieving anything. This is my main gripe with the left’s attitude to the Israeli-Palestinian problem: they are not interested in understanding the situation, they are not interested in dealing with the “real world” problems that Israeli politicians face, but simply want to scream out loud about their solutions. Those who offer blind support to Israeli policies are no better, but it is easier for me to dismiss someone who blindly favours the status-quo than one who speaks of change, ignorant of the reality which he wishes to change.

I have seen the fear of Arabs in the faces of several Israelis. They felt that, if the Arabs had the power, they would not hesitate to destroy Israel (a purpose which was, until 1998, clearly outlined in the Palestinian constitution). Imagine if the Palestinians did destroy the Israeli government, creating a new country to be ruled by Palestinians. What would happen? To many Israelis, the answer is genocide and this fuels their belief that Israel’s security is the single most important issue and must not be compromised no matter what. They argue that Israel should do all that it can to limit the threat to its citizens and that Israel was created precisely to prevent another Holocaust from happening (a Holocaust which Western countries are responsible for, even those that fought the Axis and yet were quite reluctant to accept Jews into their own countries when they were trying to escape genocide).

At least on the short term, this is how they justify the disproportionate harm caused by Israel to Palestinian. They say: as long as Palestinians do anything to make us feel threatened, we will punish them. This might make sense in terms of Israel’s short-term interests, but what is key to resolving this issue is that, even if we take the assumption that Israel must treat Israeli lives as being infinitely worth more than Palestinian lives, it is in Israel’s interests to address the concern of Palestinians if, over the long run, it is to see fewer Israelis die.

It is extremely difficult — perhaps impossible — to make such Israelis feel compassion for the Palestinians. Many of them know people that were killed by Palestinians and the fear that another Holocaust will occur is very powerful, even though it seems unthinkable to the vast majority of Westerners. In the case of both Israelis and Palestinians, it is crucial that this fear is replaced with compassion. This is a great challenge that we must work on, but this alone is not enough. Simply repeating that one or both sides are mistaken will not accomplish anything. We must work within the context of fear and assumptions, hate and rigidity. This is the only way by which we will ever see change.

We can all dream of a world where people understand those things that are so evident to us, but this is not going to accomplish anything. Many people are anchored in their ways and it will take more than elegant arguments to change this. It will take political action; and such political action can only be effective if we accept to work with the different assumptions at play, including the assumption that Palestinians are worth less than Israelis, including the assumption that, if the Palestinians had the power, they would murder all the Jews of Israel. This may not be true, but because there are those who believe this, and because they hold the power that could be used to resolve this conflict, they must be worked with and this can only be done by lending weight even to those ideas we oppose the most.

-Dussault

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website