|
A Greek philosopher
once said, "In argument, truth is born." Even though sometimes feelings
and emotions come into play that confuse the issue at hand, usually an
argument results in a new insight on the subject. Even if a person holds
strong views that are unshaken by anything his adversary may say, he may
nevertheless gain from the debate. It forces him to organize and analyze
his views, leaving him with a clearer understanding of the subject than
before. Further, his opponent's arguments help him better appreciate his
views and their differences. Finally, the argument forces both to look
inwards, at their character and value system.
For these reasons, I
enjoy debating issues that are important to me and about which I hold
strong views. One such issue receiving great national attention is the
Middle East peace process. While the peace process has always been
important to the American community as a whole, and more specifically to
the Jewish American community, the assassination of Israel Prime
Minister Yitzhak Rabin has focused the spotlight upon it, as well as
intensified the debate around it. Since I attend a private Jewish
school, I often discuss this topic with my peers, often finding myself
in the minority. Most of them support the peace process, while I adhere
to the views of the Likud (opposition) party, which opposes the peace
process.
Complicating the
issue are several emotional stigmas that are often attached to it,
transforming the discussion from an objective one to one driven by
passion. The foremost of these stigmas is the accusation, which is often
hurled at the opponents of the peace process, of promoting war and
violence. Often made by people who know little about the issue, this
view fails to realize that opposition to the peace process does not
imply opposition of peace. Rather, it implies disapproval of certain
tactics and specifics of the peace process as it was carried out by
Rabin.
Another commonly
advanced accusation against American Jews who disagree with the peace
process centers around the question of whether they have the right to
influence Israeli policy. "You don't have to send your children to the
Army," it is said, "your children don't die in wars. What right have you
to oppose peace?!" The fallacy of this argument is that it doesn't
differentiate between belief and action. While it is true, for precisely
the reasons above, that American Jews have no right to try to influence
Israeli policy, that does not preclude them from having ideas of what
that policy should be.
Finally, the
assassination of Yitzhak Rabin has introduced yet another dimension into
this debate. In its aftermath, opposing the peace process sometimes is
identified with condoning the assassination itself. Such an
identification of the man and his beliefs involves grave dangers, such
as rashly implementing his ideas in a flurry of compassion and
commiseration.
What all of these
stigmas have in common is that they forsake logical and objective
debate, opting rather for emotions, generalizations and accusations. And
the dangers of that happening are the main lesson I learned from my
debates. While those debates have shed new light on the issue and have
forced me to reconsider what I think is moral and just, most importantly
they have demonstrated the necessity of objectiveness and removal of
emotions from the discussion, especially when, as in the case of the
peace process, thousands of lives are at stake. When passions and hatred
take over, we must stop and think of what it all is really about.
|
