OpinionsI find it hard expressing things in too declarative a way or forming too many opinions because there are some things that I always come back to. These include concepts like...
-there are pros and cons to everything
-just because its difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't do it
-there are other ways to look at that
-things always seem different than they really are because we can ever
really know what happened or what someone was thinking
-the grass is always greener on the other side
These are the lines I usually whip out when people throw at me an opinion that just seems pigheaded, stubborn or having been said without too much thought for the greater context. This usually occurs when discussing politics but is also applicable in other areas.
When I say these phrases I don't mean that I am unwilling to engage in conversation. It's not my intention to end the conversation with a catch-all phrase like "there are pros and cons to everything." But insofar as having to express a single, cogent opinion on a complicated issue, I'd rather focus on explaining the complicated nuances of the situation rather than espouse what I would consider an uneducated opinion.
A perfect example is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. People (both in Israel and friends back in New York) constantly ask for my opinion on the matter and what my political leanings are but I prefer to ask questions and make them realize the nuanced complexities instead of just issuing a blanket statement which reeks of naivete.
No one should ever make statements like...
-they should just go back to the '67 boundaries today
-they should just start negotiating for peace now
-they should just build the anti-terrorist barrier on the Green line
Each statement, said in such a nonchalant way, is at best naive and at worst dangerous. In any case, they show no understanding of the complexities of the situation and of course do not represent actual, realistic "solutions" or "proposals."
I am sticking to what I've said before and repeated above - I am not espousing any particular political opinion here. I'm merely trying to enlighten people to the complexities. We tend to want to ignore or gloss over nuance but that's where the crux of everything lies. I won't address all of the blanket statements above but just a few points to make when it comes to understanding nuance...
Do you know that no one even really knows where the green line is? This is referred to as the "thick pencil" that was used by Moshe Dayan and his Jordanian counterparts to demarcate the cease fire lines of '67 on their maps. In many cases the thick line of the pencil went through entire villages. When cease fire was declared, many times there were soldiers literally pointing guns at each other across artificial no-man-lands. Where does the Green line actually go in those cases?
Do you know that there was never a sovereign Arab Palestinian state on this land? There did used to be a sovereign Jewish state here but never an Arab one. Hence, even the term "Palestinian" is rife with complexity because it doesn't refer to citizens or former citizens of a Palestine under their own sovereign rule. Before '67 the West Bank was JORDAN, not "Palestine." Before '67 the Gaza Strip was EGYPT, not "Palestine." Israel is not "occupying" Palestinian land, if anything it is occupying Jordanian and Egyptian land. But they no longer claim those lands as their own and we actually have bona-fide peace agreements with the two countries.
So when we talk about "occupation" of Palestinian land it's important to realize it is not, really, Palestinian land. Likewise, anytime we talk about building the anti-terrorist barrier on Palestinian land, or any other time we refer to "Palestinian land" it is important to realize we are merely referring to the
likely future land of a likely future Palestinian state. And if you're wondering when that will happen - simple - that will come about through comprehensive negotiations which Israelis are willing to hold at any moment so long as terrorism ceases to be the primary means of operation employed by those the Israelis would be negotiating with. How can it be any other way?
I'd also like to offer more insight into the complexity behind the blanket statement "they should just stop demolishing houses and executing targeted killings" but I have to go to my hair cut appointment now.
