A bit of theory...

So, why am I going?


Two main reasons, to learn Arabic and to do some research for my dissertation. I plan on using this blog to make a record of my experience of Birzeit and of the West Bank and Israel.


So, what's my perspective?


The conflict between Palestine and Israel is one of the most emotive topics in contemporary affairs. I think therefore its best to outline my own perspective on the conflict right now in order to make it clear where I'll be coming from politically when I post on this blog.

1. I don't know enough about this issue to assume the right to be an authority. I'm a British student who, until I arrive, will have learned everything I know about Palestine and Israel via the media, text books, teaching or through conversations with people with more experience than me. I'm only going for two months and even if I was to live in the West Bank for the rest of my life I doubt I could ever truly understand what it is like to be a Palestinian or an Israeli. The first thing I want to say at all in the form of a substantive blog is a qualification for all my later posts. Whatever I say here, and however declarative I appear to be, it is my honest hope that I will maintain a critical outlook, that begins with skepticism toward what I appear to know most definitely.

2. With this in mind, I should also explain that my research isn't a balanced analysis of the conflict. In fact, my question doesn't really begin in politics. I hope that it is more a philosophical inquiry, albeit administered fairly practically. My interest is in identifying the motivations for why Palestinian Children get involved in the conflict.

3. Almost as I wrote that I could feel myself leaping to a number of immediate conclusions, perhaps you did too? Did the any of the following terms spring to mind?: 'suicide bombers', 'martyrs', 'religious extremism', 'terrorism' etc. etc. -- well, of course they did! This is the image thats painted of Palestine in the media all the time, particularly in recent years. While I'm not arguing that these are not factors (they must be or else we wouldn't hear of them through the media at all) I want to make the point that these are not the whole story. The prevalence of such extreme measures as suicide bombings are relatively rare in contrast to the less high profile violence that occurs daily and is, by all accounts, an intrinsic part of the Palestinian identity. So, I should make it clear then that this isn't a tabloid expose of blah blah... I'm not really interested in looking at 'extreme measures' as a phenomenon in that respect. What interests me is the less specific more generalized acts of violence by young people in the population at large.

Who's side am I on?

Well - there is no way of getting round this question... even if I go to great pains to assert my impartiality frankly its not going to wash. So what I will say is this: I've been pondering the idea for some time now that human comprehension of the external world is always somewhat flawed. In a sence it has to be, we could not appreciate the sheer data we are exposed to without some element of simplification (perhaps Kantesc 'categorization') what this tends to mean in terms of conflict, however, is that we often make unfair assumptions regarding the nature of what we are looking at. I know I do this. I think what I do is look for the key elements and relationships that I understand the meaning of and apply them to the complex data in front of us. This creates a narrative, or a story, that a) conforms to basic structure we are familiar with, b) defines the protagonists and antagonists as the particular roles we can understand, and c) helps us fill in gaps in our knowledge with further assumptions.

The effect of this is the narrative, or the story, of the conflict. With this structure as means we can take the complex data of any given situation and 'understand' what we see much more simply. There are antagonists and protagonists and there is usually a beginning, middle and in the future some 'end' that we all look towards. This narrative, of course, changes in all these respects according to whomever is telling it, and according to whomever is perceiving it.

The Israeli-Palestinian narrative is often simplified in the respect of we comprehend it as two sides: Israel vs. Palestinians, or if we have a slightly more complex understanding of the conflict, we will understand it maybe in terms of a combination of the following Likud/Kadimir/Labor vs. Hamas/Al-Fatah/Islamic Jihad etc.etc. but even here we run into problems. Even if i was to try and express a preference for any one of these factions, as a 'side' (I might declare: Al-Fatah or The Labor party have the right attitude) my preference would only be fully comprehensible within my own narrative.

So what is the solution to this? Well, there isn't one. I have to provide a context or else my research will make no sence. However, as soon as I do, I will portray the data inaccurately. I can help matters tho. The context I am hoping to provide is for a question that is basically non-political.
I'm not at all interested in arguing that any action is 'Just', what I am interested in is 'how is it justified?' in a sence I'm shrugging off Kant at this point. I don't want to discuss these issues in the shadow of an objective right and wrong, I want to talk about them in terms of cause and effect. Even if we understand that humans have the capacity for free will (although I'm not a big fan of this idea, but thats another story) we know from experience that when we act we can often point to why it is we acted in that particular way, not discounting that in any case our actions maybe based on flawed reasoning, they always seem to be based on some kind of reasoning. My project is simply to identify that reasoning and write it down.