The Daily Clarity

How debate shapes reality in Israel and Palestine

We have, of course, been following with close scrutiny the debate on the Gaza, and the relative positions of those who are pro-Israel or pro-Hamas. There are many positions in between these two ends of the spectrum, but it is the extremities that garner both the most scrutiny and and are most often cited in the heated world of the Internet debate. It took another article, however, to spark our little epiphany that it is the debate itself , and often the most extreme examples, that shape the reality that most perceive in the region. The article that started this mental exploration had nothing to do with the Israel-Palestine issue. It was a snippet announcing that Sarah Palin had started a fund that many think indicates she will  run for President in 2012. The writer prefixed the piece by saying, ’she is beautiful, photogenic and connects to common people of America.’ My point has nothing to do with Palin the politician, love her or hate her, it is the frame of reference of the comment. The same criticism could be applied to many who voted for Obama. Leaving aside the concern that the writer of that piece has a vote that is equal, and could cancel out, yours – it is a disturbing way to view the political world at any level. For example, I have three dogs. At least two could be considered beautiful (the basset - it all  depends on your aesthetics). Two are photogenic, the other one is probably at that moment covered in something unmentionable, and not fit for a photo op. Two out of the three, at any one time, are probably attractive to anyone that meets them, so connect with people. It doesn’t make them qualified to run for President, however. It is the framing of the argument that is the problem, and that is what causes the polarization of the debate

So it occurred to me, that a person’s ‘world picture’, to poorly paraphrase philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein,  the mental framework from within they seek to understand the world, that creates ‘reality’ for that individual. People see the world through a filter of their own value set, and that anything they see, read or evidence is construed somehow, to fit within that world picture to support their view. Nowhere is this more true than in the debate raging in the online world over the relative merits of  Israel and Palestine both by and for a crowd where many have never been to either, but are still convinced that they are right and their opponents are wrong. To some, Israel can do no right. To others, Israel can do no wrong. The same can be said of those who argue on behalf of either Hamas specifically, or Palestine, generically. Any rocket Hamas fires in protest at poor living conditions, although any violence is condemnable, to the extreme Israeli supporter  has no possible validity of cause. Contrary, any reaction Israel makes to being attacked by rockets, again though any violence is to be condemned, is never valid – they should be stoic and bear it and cede territory with any concessions. If you start your analysis from either of the extremes, if your world view is so rigid as to allow for no objective analysis of a single incident for right and wrong, then there is no capacity for compromise. Sadly, this is where we find ourselves in the Israel-Palestine postings from both sides. What gets even scarier in this great chasm of ideological divide, is the extension that the extreme-of-the-extreme can make. All Islam is bad, it is a religion of violence and oppression. Or alternatively, Judaism is a religion of hate and revenge. Okay then…this level of anger and extremism  doesn’t do anything to resolve the issue. It simply  smacks of fundamentalism, medieval mind-sets, setting people on fire, putting them into gas chambers, racism, oppression - the worst of what man is capable. And yet, in the online world it is tolerated and accepted. We have written before about the nastiness, the snark, of online writing, but in the debate around Israel and Palestine the anger is white hot.

There are many commentators in the online world, famous and not, that trade on this extremism knowingly for popularity. If you have read our publication, you will know that we have an aversion to the work of Michelle Malkin. It is indicative of the worst of the online writer – mean, petty, vitriolic and venomous – she writes to agitate and incite  her readership. This is probably a very successful commercial strategy for her, but it feeds a ‘world picture’ to the ill-informed that feeds their anger that some how the world just ‘done em wrong’. It is natural, on occasion, to be angered by events in the world. It is admirable to seek justice in a cause you feel passionate about. However, just once in a while, challenge your world picture to see if an incident, any incident, may soften or extend your perspective. Read things you don’t agree with to see if there is a logic or a validity of thought process in the argument. Read things that support your world view and challenge yourself to find fault in the thinking. In the Israel and Palestine debate, if you take this approach, I think you might be surprised to find that there exists right, wrong and shades of gray on both sides. Neither is a paradigm of virtue, nor is either one unsullied by using violence as a means of political expediency. If we can challenge ourselves this way, then maybe just maybe, the protagonists can do the same some day, and the potential for a lasting peace may emerge. Now back to the normal programming, on who wears a white hat and who wears the black one, or take a break and review the history, complexities and nuances of the region and see if you can’t invest the time more wisely.