Do Both Sides have an Excellent Case?
by Michael Lame, posted on February 19, 2010
A couple weeks ago, within one 24-hour period, two friends on opposite sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sent me emails. One message came from Amman, the other from Tel Aviv. Each contained a link to a website.
www.islamonline.net referred me to www.ifamericansknew.org, whose tagline is “what every American needs to know about Israel/Palestine” and which claims to provide “full and accurate information on this critical issue…” Of course, the organization is terribly biased, in this case against Israelis.
The second email linked me to www.mythsandfacts.org and a long article by an Israeli-American polemicist entitled “This Land is My Land”. Of course, the piece is terribly biased, in this case against Palestinians.
Now, it’s a truism that you can find anything and everything online, including lies masquerading as facts, half-truths presented as whole-truths, false analogies, faulty reasoning, unwarranted benefits-of-the-doubt, and plenty of wishful thinking.
One common-sense fallacy, espoused frequently by people of goodwill, upon first looking in on a conflict from the outside, is the assumption that the truth must be found somewhere in the middle, as in “I’m sure they’re both right and they’re both wrong.”
Others, who naturally side with the underdog in a controversy, assume that the weaker party is in the right.
The schoolyard rule of thumb is that whoever throws the first punch is the bully and definitely in the wrong.
Many of us, myself included, start from the assumption that my people are in the right, however one defines “my people” – by nationality, ethnicity, religion, class, or alma mater.
All of these assumptions can be recognized and the biases overcome, but to do so takes hard work – both internally, by examining oneself, and externally, by studying the issues and their context.
Wittgenstein wrote that “from nothing in the field of sight can it be concluded that it is seen from an eye.” Yet perhaps the most important realization about what one sees is that one is seeing it. Absent that insight, one may simply imagine that one is seeing the world as it is, rather than seeing it from a particular vantage point. Since the eye cannot see itself, it is no easy matter to recognize one’s own physical point of view, or, more broadly, one’s own bias.
Even a comprehensive educational program culminating in a PhD in Middle East Studies is unlikely to produce an absence of bias. Scholars, like everyone else, bring their prior bias to their reading and writing. The scholar’s bias is then reinforced by selective facts and figures, with references to documentary evidence, eyewitness accounts, and original source materials.
But the region’s conflicts are real and complex, not simply the products of academic interpretation or biased viewpoints. Syrians, Lebanese, and Palestinians, as well as other Arabs, have bones to pick with Israel, and vice versa. The basis of their grievances – not only the grievances themselves – deserves our close attention. Our support can be gained by the power of the claims and by compelling reasoning behind the claims. Alternatively, if the claims appear insubstantial or the reasoning seems faulty, our support may be lost.
In presenting their arguments, Arabs and Jews often rely on law – Talmudic, Islamic, Ottoman, British, Israeli, natural or international law – though neither side relies exclusively on jurisprudence to make their case. In the search for authoritative criteria, both sides also bring in other disciplines: history, archaeology, scripture, demography, economy, etc. Appeals are made to one’s humanity, to national interest, to the future of one’s people, to the future of all people.
Each side questions the validity of the criteria employed by its opponents: Is the Tanach or the Qur’an a legitimate authoritative source for determining claims to the land? Is there such a thing as “Palestinian soil” or “Jewish land”? What entitles a group of people to political self-determination? Who should have a place at the table in determining the outcome of the dispute? What sorts of attacks against what kinds of targets are beyond the pale?
Knowledgeable people of goodwill, intelligence, and strong conviction can be found all across the political spectrum and on all sides of Middle East conflict. One need not postulate bad intent to account for Zionist or anti-Zionist sentiments.
In light of the above, consider this recent quote from Jeffrey Goldberg:
“The Middle East is a tragedy precisely because the Israelis have an excellent case, and the Arabs also have an excellent case.”
Should we buy this argument? Do both sides really have an excellent case? Even if some merit can be attributed to the position of each of the parties, does one side’s claim or contention decisively outweigh the other’s?
The answers to these questions may not be true for all time. Your answer ten years ago might be different than your answer today or ten years from today. A once-righteous cause can lose its potency over time. A solution that looked good in the heady days of Oslo may be less attractive now. Conversely, a feeling of hopelessness dating back to the second intifada could conceivably be replaced by a sense of renewed possibility.
I look forward to reading your responses to these questions.
6 responses so far
No, I would not buy the argument. Sometimes, there is a right and wrong. I don’t believe, for example, that one can have an opinion on the Holocaust. It was wrong and we must be clear about that. Same applies here. Let me direct you to yet another 2 websites that I hope you can use to judge both of the ones you reviewed:
http://www.un.org/en/law/
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/genevaconventions
Rgds,
Sam
I think you have to separate the factual story and background from the practical or pragmatic solution. Even so, I think a lot of the solutions offered today are based or derived from wrong historical facts. For instance: the 2-state solution based on the “facts” that there are two peoples, Jewish and Palestinian, that need to have a country. But what if the assumption about the existence of a Palestinian people turns out to be a myth or that it is based on false historical evidence? (I did not conclude that yet but I am leaning towards it.) Would our solution then have to change? Would the international community then have to push towards a different solution (maybe the “Jordanian option”)?
I am in the middle of reading “This Land is My Land” and also I will read some of the articles on the Palestinian site you just referred me to. I will try to come with the historical facts because I think it is highly important to know them.
Hopefully I will come up with something soon and forward it to you.
We can find a lot of answers, and questions online and on the Internet, but we can’t find morality, compassion or justice there.
And some questions need not be answered. The only questions that MUST be answered is, when we look in our hearts, have we acted as civilized people, have we treated others fairly, honestly and with understanding, and have we been fair in what we have done? Have we committed acts of injustice, something that needs not to be looked up on the Internet except within our own hearts? Can we recognize the rights of the other, accept our own blame and show compassion for their needs and feelings?
The biggest problem in your statement is that it assumes a tribal conflict: Israelis vs Palestinians or Jews vs Arabs. There is simply no “both sides” or two sides here the way you describe them. At many many levels this is not the case. This is simply never the case also in other places. It was not blacks vs whites in South Africa struggle against apartheid or the civil rights movement in America. It was never Americans vs Vietnamese even. Our joint human struggle is against Israeli apartheid to bring some form of justice to natives who have been robbed of their lands unjustly. That is a human struggle. I myself certainly have more in common with progressives who fight for equality and justice whether they are Israelis, Palestinians, or others than I do with say Hamas members. I consider myself a human being and I do not believe in nationalism.
I am not sure if you are saying that in history one cannot discern the truth. In my humble opinion, there is a truth out there and there are common human values we all should be sticking with. These cannot be “both sides are right”. Either ethnic cleansing is right or it is wrong. Either returning refugees to their homes and lands is right or it is wrong. Either killing children is right or it is wrong.
Trying to say both sides have a case is not only misleading, it is very dangerous to the causes of freedom and justice for all people. Once you accept a narrative of oppression and racism as an equal narrative (whether it is Zionism, Nazism, Apartheid, or Bin Laden’s Islamism), I am afraid you simply validate oppression and support continued conflict. May I suggest you read my book “Sharing the Land of Canaan” to get some ideas that go beyond the propaganda of “binarism”.
The “Seeds of Peace” educational group that Dr. Aaron Miller, the former State Dept. Mideast negotiator, was involved with after retiring from government has an interesting approach. They run a conflict resolution summer camp for Jews and Arabs (mostly Palestinians). After introducing both sides to the narrative of “the Other” they make them switch sides, assume their enemy’s identity, and explain how they would have done things differently. It is my suspicion that if, somehow, leading members of the Israeli Right suddenly woke up as Palestinians they would quickly become leading terrorists and if Hamas members woke up as Israelis they could quite quickly become leading members of the religious Zionist movement.
I think that many of the bad things that each side says about the Other are true. But each side deliberately avoids dealing with the positive things about the Other or the negative things about themselves. Just take for instance the native vs. settler controversy. Israelis, with the exception of a few academics, are resolutely in denial that Zionists arrived in Palestine as settlers protected by the British. Palestinians are in denial that they have historical roots to the land and arrived with the support of the international community. Objectively the Zionists were settlers with unique claims of legitimacy but neither side wants to admit this. Likewise many of the Palestinians and their supporters are in denial about the terrorist nature of the Palestinian resistance. They are unable to separate just ends from just means, possibly because the just war theory was a Western/Christian tradition. But many Israelis are unable to see Israeli actions as contributing to terrorism by providing personal motivations to future terrorists. And the list goes on and on.
On another blog that I normally comment on one respondent gets very angry when it is pointed out that his stereotypes about Arabs and Muslims can also apply to Jews and Israelis.
I think playing with the facts and the truth does not really change them. What changes, is our willingness to accept, what set of facts, and what truth,according to our intentions ,and morality. Facts findings are almost,a very substantiated science. If we want to rely on what so called ,the Holy books, as our undisputed facts and truth, then we already have set ourselves up for conflict and disputes, as history have and still is showing us today. Religious zealots have been,and still are a great cause of some of our human tragedies. If Israel’s creation,and legitimacy is based on the religious bases of having existed in that region of the world some three thousand ,or so years ago, and in 1893 some of what so claimed the decedents of those people-the Israelite, the Hebrews, the Jews- have waken up to try and claim that land as their rightful place to recreate a new country for themselves; Then that should be examined. What about the right that they had in those countries and nations, where they and their parents and grand parents ,and so on, for three thousand years have enjoyed life and existed? Why do still the majority of Israelis carry duel citizenship, and would not relinquish it for any reason? Is there a delima,and confusion in the Jewish /Israeli psyche/identity? What is that all about, and why? What does that say about them and their cause, if that is true?
Lets us go back to that saying of someone about their God, not being a Real Estate broker, that can grant them the Deed to that land.
Did any body ever bother to ask the Native Americans ,about their Gods, and if they have been granted a deed to their land ,when the European decided to come to America ,and slaughter them, in order to settle this land? Did any body ever bother to ask the Native Aztecs and Mayan, south American Natives,about their Gods given deeds to the land? Before the Spaniard did what they did to them? Or is this just an acceptable ways of the European ,white man to go where they please and vanquish the natives so he can take their place? Is this what so called, civilized world ,and people is all about? I almost do not want to be called civilized any more. If this is what Israel and the Zionists are following as their guide lines, then it’s clear of whom they are. They do not need to hide behind any written bible and such, and blame the Gods for giving them such a hard task to achieve.
Don’t think I am going to let the Muslims slide in their;” Fetuhat el Islam” The Islamic conquest! They also have done it under the order of the Holy Koran. It told them to spread the word of God into the Nations ,to create believers out of the infidels. Do any of you Christians, and Jews subscribe to this? Can you legitimize it for the Muslims? I did not think so. So maybe now you can see, how legitimate those scriptures are in giving any one the right to invade,conquer, occupy and murder other people in order for you to settle and steal their land. If we use one set of rules to judge others, we should then use the same or equal rules to judge ourselves.
Not every one could be right Michael. Truth and facts? Man have the gift of being able to distinguish them from fabricated realities. We just sometimes are misguided. Sometimes have selfish intentions. Sometimes our morels are absent. Sometimes our conscious is in a state of a coma. Then the truth becomes multiplied according to what will serve our greed and ill intentions toward others.
The reality of the Palestinian /Israeli conflict ,is not that obscure. Most of the decent fair intellectuals, who bothered to educate themselves, even the Zionists, and the innocent Jews who came to the Palestine/ Eretz Israel, knew exactly what they are doing, and who was there. There was only one problem, It did not work well for their selfish plan, and they are and have been stumbling all over it.