Lately, Isaac and I have been engaged in conversations about the situation in Gaza. I don't want to make this entry about this conflict (well, I do --but I'm trying to resist)--but I will summarize our discussions. Despite the fact that I have friends of Israeli origin that I love dearly (and I can't seem to resist those "Dead Sea" salespeople in the malls), I am not pro-Israeli government. I am not a fan of the "occupation" of the West Bank or of Gaza. I see Israel as a powerful bully picking on an eight-year old child (although I guess the metaphor is better described as a younger, stronger man picking on an elder). I feel the current attack on Gaza is a perfect example of Israeli bullying. I do not want to put words into the mouth of Isaac--but our conversations (read arguments) have included the fact that the only way to get Hamas to stop its attacks is to show it that it is powerless against the might of Israel. Sometimes you have to cut your losses and realize that you're engaged in a battle that you'll never win, and that it is Hamas who is at fault for the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian children. I generally follow with discussions of the civil or women's rights movements. They, too, were fighting a much more powerful force that did not just one day decide that racism or sexual discrimination was wrong--but it took a fight.
Anyway, Democracy Now! has been focused on the conflict in Gaza for the last week or so. Anyone who is familiar will know without me saying that Amy Goodman has feelings similar to my own. In the interest of discourse she generally invites people from opposite sides to come onto the show (read "duke it out"). What sparks my curiosity is the notion that some people are credible (to me) and others are not. What makes someone credible in our minds? It can't be just because they say something with which we agree. I must have gotten my opinion about Israel and Gaza from someone.
We heard a NPR piece this weekend discussing whether Hamas is getting weapons from Iran. There were two guests: one felt certain that there was some transfer of cash and potentially weapons and the other felt certain that there was not. Isaac found one of the guests completely believable and credible and I found the other one to be such. It wasn't just that I thought one was credible, but I thought the other one was completely lying. Both had credentials, both had experience in the region. Are we really so transparent that we only believe those who say what we want to hear??
Take the rest of politics. It has come out that some of Obama's nominees have some indisgressions in their pasts. We say that Timothy Geithner made an "honest mistake" in failing to pay over $40,000 in taxes. What would we have said if he was part of the Bush Administration?? Be honest. We have to recognize our own hypocrisy before we can rid ourselves of it. Why do I find Neve Gordon a more credible "expert" on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than Lanny Davis? Neve Gordon is an Israeli professor at Ben Gurion University of the Negev and Lanny Davis was a former Clinton advisor and an advisor to the Israel Project. I can try to rationalize and say, "Well Neve Gordon lives in Israel and if he says that Israel is in the wrong, it must be true." Is that legit? Maybe Neve Gordon has other motives? Sometimes I tell myself that it's my instinct that tells me who's telling the truth. Am I just rationalizing my bias? Most likely.
Its frustrating to be confronted with my own hypocrisy. I know it's there--and I try to be honest about it--but sometimes it just jumps up and slaps me on the face!
For those interested, I highly recommend watching some of the discussions on the topic at Democracy Now! You can watch the videos on line for free. Here are some of the more poignant ones.
12 January
13 January
14 January
No comments:
Post a Comment