Since Oct. 1, over 50 attacks, mainly stabbings, against Jews by Palestinians have occurred in Israel. This has brought back into focus a lot of questions about this broad and difficult issue. It also further fuels an on campus debate that admittedly never really stopped. Although the issue directly could merit many columns, here I instead aim to discuss the problematic way in which many of us approach this issue, and many other controversial issues as well.
Too often when confronting difficult issues, we look at them as binary choices. By this, I mean that we talk about them as if there are only two sides and everyone is on either one or the other. For example, people will talk about being on the “Israeli side” or the “Palestinian side”, being “for” or “against” what’s happening at Yale, being for “large government” or “small government”, etc. We do this because separating issues into binaries makes them simple to understand. In a binary issue, there are only two sides and you immediately know who’s on your team and who’s not. Unfortunately, trying to turn complex issues into binaries inherently causes inaccuracies. So many of these problems, the Israel-Palestine one being no exception, are extremely multi-faceted, involving elements of history, culture and politics that are constantly evolving. Trying to neatly put people on one side or the other inherently leads to misrepresentations and people talking past, rather than to each other.
To move more specifically to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, one thing we must take into account is the huge number of factions, organizations and groups involved. For example, there is the Israeli government, the IDF, Hamas, Fatah, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Hezbollah, the Al Qassam Brigades and many others, not to mention the external actors also in play. Additionally, there are also the simple, unorganized people, who get caught up in all this: Israeli-Jews, Israeli-Arabs, Gazans, Arab West-Bankers, Israeli settlers, African migrants, etc. Furthermore, even within these people groups we must remember that everyone is different. All these actors have their own independent motivations, disagreements and views. As a result, when we reference a side, talking as if all the groups on that side act in concert, we are often very far from the truth.
In addition to a plethora of groups involved, there are also a large number of sub-issues within the conflict. These include Palestinian statehood, the Occupation of the West Bank, the Boycott Divestment Sanction movement, the right of return, the Gaza blockade, the Hamas-Fatah split and reconciliation, Zionism, the Iran deal and settlement building to name a few. Thus if I were to say I was “pro-Israeli”, do I support the West Bank Occupation? Do I support the Gaza blockade? How do I feel about Palestinian statehood or the Iranian Nuclear deal?
Why is all this a problem? Because it causes us to make assumptions about people and groups that may not be true. For example, let’s look at the recent stabbing attacks. If we try to force this into a side narrative, we come up with the idea that the “Palestinian Side” is attacking the “Israeli Side” and supports stabbing civilians. Put in this paradigm, it would make sense to oppose and want punishment for all Palestinians and Palestinian organizations. In reality of course, only a tiny number of Palestinians actually carry out these attacks. On the flip side, we can look at cases like the one this July in which Israeli settlers set fire to a Palestinian house, burning a Palestinian baby alive. The side paradigm would say that the “Israeli side” attacks Palestinians and burns babies, when of course this was only done by a handful of settlers and was heavily condemned by the Israeli government.
While of course we all understand these distinctions rationally, the more we talk about sides, the more we forget them and the easier it becomes to blame entire groups for the actions of a small number, or support people we shouldn’t because they are on “our side.” So the next time you’re discussing Israel and Palestine or any other issue, don’t claim to be on one side or the other. Rather, clearly and specifically articulate your beliefs and who or what you support and do not support. You’ll often find that you have a lot more in common than you realize with those on the “other side.”
Colter Smith is a computer science major from Bronxville, N.Y. He can be reached at crsmith@princeton.edu.
Read More
Regulations on ‘disruption’ restrict dialogue at Princeton. Let’s change the standard.
Rishi Khanna“When Princeton administrators suppress mere disruptions tied to progressive speech, they effectively suppress a substantial portion of the speech itself.”
“When Princeton administrators suppress mere disruptions tied to progressive speech, they effectively suppress a substantial portion of the speech itself.”
Why student protests shouldn’t use ‘intifada’ as a rallying cry
Sydney Eck“As we actively criticize Princeton, media focus on the happenings of elite college campuses amplifies our voices. As our words are carried further from McCosh courtyard, the risk that our words are truncated, distorted, and used for hate grows.”
“As we actively criticize Princeton, media focus on the happenings of elite college campuses amplifies our voices. As our words are carried further from McCosh courtyard, the risk that our words are truncated, distorted, and used for hate grows.”
For the record, video cameras at CPUC meetings must not go
Alex Norbrook“The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”
“The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”
