Here's the problem with being open-minded: a constant state of confusion. Well, maybe it's the combination of an open mind and only sporadic bits of information about world events. I'll give you some examples.
Arizona passed a law recently regarding illegal immigrants. Now I'm perfectly clear about how I feel about the law--I think it's a bad law. I think when we base our actions on hatred and fear, we're going to make some very bad decisions. Research has shown that undocumented workers actually contribute as much or more to the communities in which they live as compared to the resources they use. So what am I confused about? Boycotting Arizona (is that anything like Raising Arizona?). On the one hand, I think I get it. Let's cut off our financial and other dealings with the state of Arizona as a way of protesting this asinine, hateful law. Would a boycott be effective? Is there a better way to protest the law? Let's bring this question to a place near and dear to my heart: Dodger Stadium. The Arizona Diamondbacks are playing at Dodger Stadium this week. There were protesters at the stadium. So are the protesters expecting that the Dodgers would refuse to play the Diamondbacks? I'm thinking, that doesn't make sense. But I don't know how to articulate my thoughts in a coherent way.
Okay, here's a more complex issue, and one that I am woefully ignorant about. A flotilla (is that the right word?) of boats with humanitarian aid approached a blockade set up by Israel, to try to get aid to Palestinians in the West Bank. Israeli soldiers boarded the boats and there were violent altercations. The two sides tell pretty different stories about what exactly happened. The world of public opinion is really pissed at Israel. I see smart and educated friends on Facebook talk about how horrible Israel's actions were. But then, I've also heard a spokesperson from Israel discuss the situation. He said that the blockade is set up to prevent weapons from getting to terrorists. He said that Israel told the group trying to deliver aid that they COULD deliver the aid, but not by breaking through the blockade but by working with the Israelis. And you know what, I believe him. Maybe I'm being naive, but it makes sense to me that they would allow the aid, as long as they controlled what and how the aid was brought into their country. And I do think Israel has a right to protect itself. I think the protesters chose, in an act of civil disobedience. to try to break through the blockade to show that they believed that the blockade was wrong. I think that they had a right to perform this act of civil disobedience. But I also think that their protest and resulting PR was more important to them than actually getting the humanitarian aid to the people in need. That's their right, but it does mean that Israel isn't as big of a monster as so many seem to be saying.
But then, I really only have the most surface understanding of what's going on in the region. So I am confused, and don't feel that I know enough to even have an opinion. It's like, I want someone who is VERY knowledgeable and not emotionally involved or biased in any way to explain the situation to me, with all of the history, current events, and nuances. Oh my God, I know what I need. I need someone logical. Someone brilliant. Someone who can help me grasp the complexities. I need you Spock!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm no Spock (nor am I JFK), but I do have a couple of comments:
ReplyDelete1. IMHO using a purely rational solution leads to decision-making that is devoid of things like empathy. Don't underestimate the importance of the non-rational.
2. A friend of mine who is opposed to racial profiling thinks that maybe the AZ law is good b/c it brings the constitutional issues to the forefront.
Just food for thought--nothing like Vulcan brandy, though.
The Arizona law is bad, but boycotting Arizona doesn't make sense. There is no "Arizona". There are lots of people there, some of whom have some responsibility for the law and some ability to change it, and most of whom don't, and would be innocent victims of such a boycott. If expressing your disapproval of the law is more important to you than anything else in the world you can think to do, then do something more direct to change people's minds. Boycotts seldom do that (usually they entrench mistakes on all sides).
ReplyDeleteAs for the flotilla, I think you're right that it was a PR stunt, that included some very bad people who intended violence. Israel has a right to defend itself, and protect itself from weapons that have been used against it, repeatedly, but the trade embargo could be handled much better. More trade would help everybody. I suggest opposing both the dangerous blockade running, and the excessive trade restrictions.
Israel has done a lot of foolish things, but they aren't monsters. Much of the world chooses sides in the conflict the same way Gina chooses soccer teams to root for.