[current thought]
[thoughts index]

October 16, 2000

“When you’re willing to render to the guilt you concede
When truth is your reason, then lay the blame on me
When you unveil a conscience and with peace you agree
When love is your constant, then lay the blame on me”
                                                                     -Collective Soul, “Blame”

Today, October 16 2000, I attended a student rally in support of Israel and of peace and an end to the conflict in the middle east. For anyone who doesn't know, the tense situation between Israel and the Palestinians erupted about ten days ago and has escalated from there.

The strategy of both sides and of the world was immediately to point fingers. Each side claimed that it was the fault of the other side, and this "war" began to be fought not with guns but with printed words on the front page of a newspaper.

Yes, I believe in Israel. I believe that I have a moral obligation and duty to stand up to be counted, to lend my support and pledge my solidarity to Israel.

However, I'm also a person and as such, by my very nature, I'm biased. I'm primed to believe Israel's side and Israel's explanation of events of the past week and a half. But do I know, 100% for a fact, that what they're telling me is the truth? Of course not. How could I? I'm here in Canada, and Israel is thousands of miles away. Everything I come to believe is based on what I'm told from various sources, media, personal, or otherwise.

Let's examine the media. Is the media (meaning TV, newspapers, wire services, etc) free from bias? We all know that it isn't, from being told over and over again not to trust it. But do we really know just how biased it is? And why should we expect otherwise? I mean, the media is run by fallible human beings too! The rally I attended today (and remember, I was there) had an overall message of promoting peace. However, when I watched the news coverage on CBC a few hours later, the story was done with an angle making it seem like each side was trying to provoke the other. The newscaster interviewed two students, one Jewish and one Palestinian. Both kept trying to say that they think dialogue is the best way to end the conflict, but the reporter kept cutting them off and trying to get them to give examples of tensions and provocations. We like to think that the news is objective, but in fact, most reporters go into a story with a preconceived angle and end up writing or covering it based on those biases.

Both sides in this conflict are fully aware of the value of using the media to manipulate world opinion. If points were being given out for success on that score, I'd have to declare Palestinian Authority Leader Yassar Arafat the clear winner. He knows full well that if you repeat a distortion often enough, it comes to be accepted as truth. For example, his claim that the visit of Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount was the trigger of all the violence has some serious problems. For one thing, Sharon asked permission for this visit - something that he was not required to do but he did anyway as a courtesy - and it was granted so long as he did not set foot into a mosque. He didn't. The Palestinians then spread the rumour that he had "desecrated Islamic holy sites", setting off the wave of violence that then escalated from there. Sharon's visit was intended all along as an excuse. It was planned that way. The violence was triggered by the fact that the protesters and leaders encouraging them to protest were against peace and wanted it to fail at any and all costs.

The next unfortunate example is the condemnation of Israel for shooting children. Children! How could they, the world exclaimed in shock and horror. What was not mentioned is that these teenagers were sent out to act as human shields by their parents. They actually sent them out to become martyrs that could later be used as political weapons. Unfortunately, these children are taught from grade school and even earlier only to hate. Hate the Jews! Death to Israel! This is what they are taught in second grade. So while these children cannot and should not be blamed, the other side of the story must be told. The entire situation is unfortunate. Period.

How do I know all this, you're probably asking. How did I come to be so opinionated? Well, it's probably a lot of chutzpah on my part because, like I said, I don't know any of the above for a fact. The problem with conflict is that both sides are spreading incendiary rumours in order to gain public support, and with all the distortions it's hard to know what to believe.

Barak and Arafat both know this. Right now, they are at an emergency summit called in attempt to negotiate a cease-fire. One of Arafat's sticking points is that an international inquiry into what caused the violence be called. Barak is against this; he says that he will only accept an inquiry led by the United States, Israel's ally. How could he be so blatantly against an attempt to find the truth?

Unfortunately, the situation is such a mess that the sides are unlikely to agree on a version of the "truth" satisfactory to everyone. So unless G-d himself descends from the heavens and sends a clear message of what the objective truth is, how can we know? We are all people and as such we all have biases. Barak and Arafat both know that the findings of such an inquiry are likely to go down in history as the accepted "official version" of the truth. So if Barak is trying so hard to make sure the inquiry commission is favourable to his side, then Arafat must be trying to do the same on his. Which brings up the question of who would be a part of Arafat's "international inquiry". The fact that Barak is disputing his request means that surely, Arafat has an ally, or two, or three, in this UN committee.

Think of a trial by jury. A man is brought before the court accused of a crime, and twelve supposedly impartial citizens are to decide his guilt or innocence. These twelve people may have the best intentions to be objective, but they are human beings and therefore biased by their very nature. They write a version of the truth on which the fate of the accused is based. It may or may not be the "real" truth, assuming such a truth even exists, which is probably does not. But it is the truth that they write and as such becomes the truth. Whether the man really did the crime or not is irrelevant. That's why lawyers spend so long on jury selection for a trial. Each side is trying to pick people likely to be sympathetic and predisposed to their arguments. Barak and Arafat, naturally, are trying to swing the jury selection as well. In absence of clairvoyance into the objective truth, we have to find other means of writing history, and they know it.

Rumours getting spread is only going to increase the tension and provoke both sides into calling each other spreaders of propaganda. Not all the rumours are bald provocative lies, though. Some are truths that get distorted after being repeated many times, like broken telephone. In either case, we can't know what is truth without seeing it with our own eyes, and even then we should always question our vision. Ask three people in a room during an event what they saw and you'll surely get three different answers. It's called perception and it's what makes us unique as individuals. It's also what unfortunately causes conflict.

So how can we resolve this? Firstly, we need to stop playing the blame game. Pointing fingers will accomplish nothing. Do I think Israel is in the right? Yes, I strongly support Israel's need to defend itself. I believe that the commitment to peace on the Israeli side is much stronger than it has ever been n the Palestinian side. At Camp David, Barak was willing to make record concessions only to be snubbed by Arafat, who volunteered nothing in return. Yes, Israel fired missiles, but it was in retaliation for the brutal massacre of Israeli reservists so graphic that even the news networks refused to show parts of the footage. I do recognize, however, that this perception of mine is not based on firsthand knowledge of facts, but on a combination of my predispositions and on what I'm hearing, reading, and being told. I also know that someone else's interpretation of the facts may be completely different.

Both sides need to restate a commitment for peace and a condemnation of violence, regardless of who was in the wrong. The two sides are likely never to see eye to eye on this, so all it can do is cause more conflict. Instead, they need to put the past behind them and work towards the future. If Israel and the Palestinians are to live side by side as neighbours, they must learn to get along. I urge all Jews to show their support for the State of Israel, and to do all they can to promote a peaceful resolution of the current conflict.

So how does anyone know what to believe, with all these inherent biases in the media and in ourselves? My only answer to that is that knowledge is power. The more we read, learn, hear, and know, the better off we'll be. So the idea is to read and critically assess as many different sources of information as possible. We still won't be able to know empirically, but at least we'll be more fair in interpreting the secondhand versions of facts. I hope.

“Question your answers; truth has no anger”
                                                                     -Collective Soul, “Blame”