Rather than speaking about the conflict, I speak about the conversation around it.
The idea of a Jewish state, the IDF, Israel, the idea of a Palestinian state, Hamas, and Palestine are falsely identified as “enemy,” and for this reason, war persists. War should not be conceptualized as something that renders a winner. Yet, for as long as we misidentify the enemy, we fall prey to the illusion that victory can be achieved at its expense. War itself is, of course, the enemy, and its antidote is conversation.
We debate so that our ideas can go to war in our place. Or even, our ideas put us to war when it is too difficult for them to perform complex negotiations themselves. In a debate, you are obligated to argue on the merit of each point presented. Resorting to personal attacks indicates that you are more concerned with "winning" than attending to your own ignorance in search of a solution. What is interesting to see is that many are perfectly willing to debate in bad faith if it means they can appear correct to themselves and to the people they’re trying to impress (not help). After seeing so many people capitulate to the complexity of the intellectual landscape and resorting to “attack mode” (something that was unbelievably interesting to see on the Lex Friedman podcast when the leading historians on the matter got into it), it makes sense why the war is happening. This is devastating. The fact that something as absurd, destructive, and evil as war can exist and it makes sense. War should be so far removed from the order we’ve established that its existence is simply too dissonant to be comprehensible. But it’s not. It’s here and it makes sense why.
Undoubtedly there are occasions in which the ideas at hand are simply too complex for a neat agreement to be met. Also, it often feels as if engaging in conversation with the opposition only pushes them more deeply into alignment with their convictions. However, we must recognize that the alternatives to arduous conversation are far worse. We fight when we fail to speak, and when we fight, both those who failed to speak and those who did their part are subject to suffering. In a verbal contention, your enemy is neither the person representing the ideas you hate nor the ideas themselves, but the blindness and bitterness that addle you both such that you value victory more than harmony, love, truth, and beauty.
In this conflict, many conversations are tainted by hypocrisy. I’ve seen people - whom I once perceived to be highly credible - obstinately refuse to condemn the IDF and people obstinately refuse to condemn Hamas. Many have such a need for justice that they are willing to neglect the need for truth. Truth and Justice should converge in their manifestations, and pursuing justice through practices that render you blind to the truth is regressive, to say the least. In saying that people abandon the truth, I mean that they approach the sophisticated problem without a willingness to be wrong (or to negotiate). Knowledge only differs from dogmatism in that the approach to knowledge involves a willingness to be wrong.
Once again, it seems that humility and curiosity are the virtues that could allow for fruitful conversation and eventual peace (I know. How naive to say “eventual peace” right now). When conversations can be centered around a common aim and when the personal attacks that occlude conversation can be regarded with sufficient criticism, the problem may begin to look like it is at least possible to solve.
Commentaires