Paul Cantrell
This remains a good overview. It will make a lot of people angry, because it skewers a lot of bet theories that allow people not to think too hard and thus remain cynically passive but it’s largely accurate within my understanding.
I especially recommend at least reading myths 1-3, which are pervasive, misleading, and just flat-out wrong:
https://www.vox.com/2015/5/14/18093732/israel-palestine-misconceptions
Paul Cantrell
Those who’ve follow my posts on the topic will recognize my one big quibble: Fisher sometimes uses the “a nation is a single people” metaphor, as if each nation or each side is a single entity.
But right now, I think it’s at least as illuminating to view the opposing sides as peacemakers vs surpemacists, rather than Palestinians vs Israelis.
Paul Cantrell
(Working out that critique of the nation-as-person metaphor a bit: “What does Israel want?,” for example, is not a meaningful question. There are many people in Israel, all of whom are individual beings possessing separate minds. Israel, a political entity, does not “want.” People do. The more meaningful forms of that question are things like “What is prevailing opinion within the group?” or “What unites this faction?” More here: https://www.arieverhagen.nl/files/George-Lakoff-1991-Metaphor-and-War.pdf)
Paul Cantrell
@unikitty
We do tend to anthropomorphize systemic effects, and to some extent that can be useful. (I’ve heard “intentionality” used as a term of art for intention-like behavior emerging from a system which does not actually have a mind.)
In this case, it’s misleading — especially if we try to understand the conflict using only national divisions.
Princess Unikitty
@inthehands
I'd argue that all institutions "want" (in an abstract way) to preserve their existence and power. States especially "want" this and can be very aggro about it.
Paul Cantrell
My first semester of college, I took a class called The History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict from the formidable Dina Le Gall. It was a remarkable class. I wonder how she’s doing.
She repeatedly emphasized points similar to the Vox article above:
This is a conflict about land, not religion. (Religion may be a catalyst, but not underlying cause.)
It is a modern conflict with modern origins. (They’re haven’t been “fighting forever.”)
The other large-scale impression I took from her class…
Paul Cantrell
…is that any attempt to use history to parse out who really owns the land, or which entire nation is the bad guys here, rapidly descends into nonsense. That is a fool’s errand.
This land was shared by many groups for centuries. There are many valid overlapping land claims. Colonial powers variously promised everything to everyone after WWI. History doesn’t offer answers to questions of what is fair and good here. Instead…
Paul Cantrell
…if we want to ask question about what is fair and what is good, we can stick with the basics:
What are the conditions under which people live?
Do they have a home? Do they feel safe there?
Do they have self-determination?
Do they have peace?
Can they thrive?
These are the questions.
Paul Cantrell
(To be clear, my words here, not Le Gall’s; don’t want to put words in her mouth:)
It is not the purpose of history to parse out which nation •deserves• to suffer. History is not an excuse for us to abandon our moral lens. History does not absolve current atrocities by any party, ever.
History does help us understand where we might find a path to peace, if we are willing to work for it.
Paul Cantrell
Looking back on that class, I realize many of my fellow students who were either Jewish or of Arab descent were probably wondering, without quite being willing to ask out loud, “Are we the good guys here?”
History won’t answer that for you.
But here’s a Paul answer, fwiw: if you’re working for peace, you’re the good guys.
That’s not a question that one can ask of a whole nation. It’s a question every individual person must ask of themselves.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.