Judging from Different Perspectives (Column 760)

With God's help

A few days ago I listened to a podcast on the "One a Day" channel, which dealt with the organization known as "Doctors Without Borders." The topic was chosen because at that time Israel had barred the organization from continuing its activity in Gaza. To be sure, Israel had a clear interest in this activity, since this is the most professional and significant medical-aid organization operating in Gaza, and perhaps in the whole world. There is no doubt that its absence will be felt there very keenly, and Israel too has an interest in maintaining calm and preventing a humanitarian deterioration among the population there.

The reason the organization's activity was stopped was its refusal to provide details about its employees as part of the approval procedure. The background needs to be understood. Some of the organization's people were caught engaging in terror activity against Israel, and as an organization it is also very critical of Israel and voices that criticism publicly. For those reasons my initial attitude toward them was clearly hostile. Their refusal to provide details struck me as part of their hostility toward us, especially against the backdrop of events like those I described. And yet, listening to the podcast prompted thoughts in me about the importance of looking at an issue from different angles.

"Doctors Without Borders" versus "the Red Cross"

In the podcast the establishment and character of this organization were described, mainly in comparison with another organization active in these fields, the Red Cross. The organization was founded in the 1960s in the wake of the Biafran War. For anyone old enough, it is hard not to recall the terrible images that came from there: children ravaged by starvation, with swollen bellies, and masses of starved, dead bodies lying on the ground. It seems to me that this was the most photographed disaster up to that time, and it was etched into the world's memory. Biafra became a synonym for cruel famine.

The Red Cross operated in Biafra and tried to provide assistance to the many victims there. French doctors were sent there to help as part of the Red Cross, and at the end of the war they returned shocked by the horrific situations, but no less by the policy of the Red Cross. Their claim was that the Red Cross kept silent and cooperated with the murderous government and its crimes. That of course reminds us of the Red Cross's silence regarding our hostages in Gaza (while, through its silence, participating in the sickening ceremonies that Hamas staged during the release events), and regarding the acts of rape and the many murdered people in the Gaza border region. We were all outraged by that policy, and the feeling was that this was outright antisemitism.

A few years later, in 1971, several French doctors gathered, left the Red Cross, and established another medical-aid organization, "Doctors Without Borders" (MSF), which adopted a different policy. An essential part of the difference between it and the Red Cross is that the new organization permits itself to speak publicly and to criticize war crimes committed by the actors on the ground.

Both organizations have made neutrality their banner, but they give it different interpretations. The Red Cross does not choose sides. It provides aid, to the best of its ability, to anyone who needs it, without entering into criticism of the forces on the ground, whatever their conduct may be. Doctors Without Borders likewise does not take sides in the war and does not devote itself to helping one side rather than the other. But it certainly does see it as part of its duty to warn against war crimes, to bear witness to what is happening, and to criticize various parties publicly, especially for conduct that interferes with its ability to provide aid to those who need it.

At first this was a small and not very significant organization. But over time, toward the end of the 1970s, it grew and became a much more significant actor. In those years there were Vietnamese refugees from the war taking place there, who boarded rickety boats and found themselves in extremely dire conditions out at sea. Doctors Without Borders was the only organization operating on those boats in very difficult and dangerous circumstances, and it provided devoted medical assistance to those miserable refugees. It made sure to photograph and publicize its presence there in order to bring to public awareness situations that it was convenient for everyone to ignore. The organization grew enormously and acquired a reputation for bold, devoted, and highly professional activity wherever it was needed. Its logistical and administrative capacities improved greatly (it also began to provide other aid, such as food and clothing, beyond medical assistance), and it became a factor of great international importance.

These differences in policy had consequences. On the one hand, the different voice sounded by the new organization became more dominant and appreciated, and therefore of course cast the Red Cross in a more problematic light because of its neutral policy. On the other hand, the criticisms voiced by the new organization created many difficulties in the provision of aid. There were places from which the organization was expelled, and there were even cases in which states it had criticized captured and even murdered some of its staff. The price of the organization's policy was heavy.

Thus, for example, this happened in the mid-1980s during the great humanitarian disaster of the civil war in Ethiopia. Doctors Without Borders discovered that the regime was using the aid and the refugee camps whose management it had helped with in order to carry out population transfer and thereby advance its war aims against the rebels. One must understand that using humanitarian aid for the purposes of war is contrary to international law, and of course also to the ethical code of the organization itself. The organization decided to launch public criticism of the Ethiopian government, and even called on the nations of the world not to provide aid under such circumstances. By that stage it was already a large and highly respected organization, and this criticism received broad resonance and therefore hurt the Ethiopian government badly. It responded by expelling them and confiscating their equipment. The same happened in Rwanda, another shocking case of humanitarian disaster in Africa, when this organization was one of the only ones operating there. Its people themselves debated how to react and what to say publicly, but nonetheless decided to criticize the crimes committed there. There too their activity was banned, and there are claims that some of them were even murdered by the regime.

The root of the dispute

We can now understand the dilemma. The Red Cross adopts a neutral policy because otherwise it will not be able to deliver its aid to the victims. Its silence is an instrument, not a value. It too is horrified by the crimes and wants to protest and publicize them, but it understands that its primary goal, providing aid, may be harmed by that. MSF, by contrast, argues that it is its duty to publicize the crimes even at the cost of restrictions on the provision of aid. There are simple consequentialist reasons here (silence will lead to worse results than the risk that aid will be halted), but my impression is that these are mainly value-based reasons: one must not remain silent in the face of such acts at any price.[1]

In light of the description I have given here, one can understand that there are no righteous and wicked here, nor right and wrong. These are two kinds of policy, both of which can be justified. The Red Cross is not indifferent to crimes and does not love criminals. It is simply trying to provide the greatest possible help. MSF too is not simply acting against those it hates. It believes there is important value in publicizing crimes and trying to prevent them, even if this sometimes comes at the expense of the ability to provide assistance.

Back to us

Notice that, for some reason, in the case of the war in Gaza, where we are one of the parties involved, we level opposite criticisms at these two organizations. We criticize the Red Cross for keeping silent (about Hamas's crimes), and we criticize MSF for taking sides (and criticizing Israel). Of course, this can easily be explained: clearly we are right and Hamas are criminals. Therefore there is no contradiction in the criticism we direct at the two organizations from opposite directions. And yet, I think we do not sufficiently understand their side. The Red Cross keeps silent because if it does not, it will not be able to provide help. That is not necessarily antisemitism, but rather a policy with a rational and reasonable logic for advancing an obviously moral goal. As for MSF, which criticizes us and does not preserve neutrality, although I do not agree with it, I can understand its point of view. It sees a suffering population, and from its perspective—which is not concerned with politics or the history of the conflict, but with the concrete situation before its eyes—it sees terrible things and therefore voices criticism.

Further. Both organizations recruit employees from the field, because without that it is hard to provide help. This is the available manpower on the ground, and it is also what enables them to understand the field and communicate with it. It is no wonder that among those employees there are also Gazans who act against Israel and carry out terror operations or assist terror. I assume that neither organization wants this, and certainly neither initiated it. This is an almost inevitable result of their presence and activity on the ground, which, let us recall, is commendable in itself.

From our point of view, both are hostile organizations. One remains silent about crimes and the other criticizes them, and we dislike both for opposite reasons. Of MSF we demand that it remain neutral, and of the Red Cross we demand that it take sides. But one has to understand that these organizations have other considerations, entirely legitimate despite the contradiction between them. They act for the sake of their goals, not for the sake of political justice, solving the conflict, or punishing the guilty. They want to help those who suffer, and they do so in the way that seems to them most correct (as noted, the two ways are opposite). Moreover, one must understand that from their point of view criticizing Israel is reasonable, since there is less chance that a democratic state will prevent them from providing aid. By contrast, criticism of Hamas would destroy their ability to provide aid on the ground. To us this looks outrageous, biased, and even antisemitic, but from their point of view it is a reasonable and rational course of action in service of their lofty goals, together with a willingness to pay the unavoidable price.

I will now go one step further. MSF refused to provide the details of its employees because it feared for their safety. It knows that Israel suspects them, and from its perspective justifiably so (for there were indeed cases of terror). But on the other hand, if it provides details, workers will not join it and it will find it very difficult to provide help. It also does not trust Israel to allow it to provide aid and employ people, because of Israel's suspicions toward Gazans in general. From Israel's perspective, the focus is protecting the security of its soldiers and citizens, not providing aid. These are opposite points of view, and both are understandable. I can understand that point of view, even though it outrages me. They ask Israel to understand that they too have no interest in their people engaging in terror. They really do maintain neutrality and try to prevent such acts. They do not always succeed, but in my view it is unlikely that they want such acts out of anti-Israel animus and the like. These are failures, as happens everywhere, with us too, of course. Therefore, from their point of view, it is more reasonable that Israel trust them to try to prevent such acts and accept the risk of failures, than that it take for itself the authority to deal with terror initiatives by their people, which would gravely harm their ability to operate on the ground. Remember that they see themselves as truly neutral, and from their point of view they really are trying to ensure that no such actions are carried out. We do not see it that way, but I believe that from their perspective this is the genuine point of view. They sincerely see the situation that way and see this as the proper way to act within it.

The lesson: looking from the opposite point of view

The description I have given so far expresses the insight I wanted to discuss here. From my point of view as an Israeli, these are hostile organizations. They assist terror and the Gazans who carry it out, and they defame us. Of course, I have no great interest in helping Gazans, even those who are not involved in the fighting (see, for example, column 635). As far as I am concerned, they may all perish, if that is what is needed to achieve our own goals. But this podcast helped me get inside the heads of those organizations for a moment and understand that they too have a side. They are not evil and not stupid, and not necessarily antisemitic. These are organizations with good intentions, and above all with great self-sacrifice. People leave their homes, their countries, and their families and voluntarily enter disaster-stricken and dangerous regions with which they have no connection, simply in order to help suffering people, whoever they may be. That is simply admirable. Truly.

That does not mean that, after listening to the podcast, I changed anything in my position. I still see Gaza exactly as I did before. But I now see these organizations differently. For me, they are no longer stupid or malicious antisemites. They are wonderful people with wonderful intentions and with a point of view different from ours, who sometimes fail as well, like all of us. It is certainly possible that some among them are also antisemites, and clearly they see the situation in a partial and tendentious way (who can remain balanced and neutral in the face of disasters on such a scale, with sick children not receiving treatment and being slaughtered there en masse?!). And still, these organizations, as organizations, now command in me an appreciation entirely different from what I had in mind before listening to the podcast. Both organizations, with their opposite policies, gained standing in my eyes and evoked an entirely different understanding from what I had before. One must understand that this is not a matter of new information. I already knew everything I needed to know. What changed was the point of view from which I looked at the information. It required me to step into their shoes and see the world, with the very same facts, from that point of view.

From this I learned a more general lesson, not specifically connected to Gaza. It is very important to see the situation from the other person's point of view. Not necessarily in order to be persuaded, but at least in order to judge the other more balancefully. Stepping outside my own subjective point of view (which really is the correct one, to the best of my understanding, and I do not relinquish that at all, nor do I accept any pluralism) requires no small amount of inner work, but in my opinion it is an important and necessary exercise.

If you want an even harder exercise, think about the left-wing students and lecturers in Europe and the United States who take part in deranged demonstrations against Israel and in favor of Hamas. There is nothing more outrageous and stupid than that. It is no wonder that it seems obvious to all of us that they are simply antisemites. And yet, it is important to understand that even there this is not necessarily antisemitism. One must remember that they are fed partial and tendentious information, and of course they do not look at it from our point of view. They do not know the context, and they also know that Israel is the strong side and the Gazans are the weak side. Within that framework, when horrifying images of suffering and dying children reach them, together with unceasing propaganda from interested parties of great power and influence, I can certainly understand, and even appreciate, those who go out and demonstrate against what appears to them to be an injustice. Most of them are probably not the sharpest pencils in the box, but I still assume that many of them are good people. Good and mistaken (very). It is very easy to sit quietly in the face of injustice. It is no less easy to say that I do not understand and know enough to form a position. But still, the fact that a person is willing to go out, demonstrate, and act against what seems to him (even mistakenly) to be an injustice is something worthy of appreciation. Looking from their point of view will at least teach us that they are not necessarily antisemites, but perhaps naive and mistaken. At least some of them, and I suspect most of them.

Let me stress again that there is no pluralism here. I think they are badly mistaken and acting on behalf of very bad goals. I think there is a good deal of stupidity there, bordering even on wickedness. In that sense, my judgment of them is different from the judgment I have of the aid organizations. We saw that, in the case of the aid organizations, we are dealing with a sensible policy aimed at providing assistance to sufferers. What is outrageous from my point of view is, from their point of view, a sober policy willing to pay a price for lofty goals. By contrast, among the detached academics I described, that justification does not exist. If they thought a little more and took a little more interest, I assume they could understand that they are useful idiots supporting terror. Unlike the aid organizations, they are not paying an unavoidable price in order to bring about a good result. They are bringing about wholly bad results out of stupidity. And still, even in their case, looking from their point of view can teach us something about them (and perhaps also about us). They may be stupid, but not necessarily evil or antisemitic.

A further sharpening

Above I noted that I do not mean to support pluralism here, that is, a plurality of truths. I have written more than once that I am a convinced monist. In most cases, as I understand it, there is only one truth, and whoever disagrees with it is mistaken. The importance of looking from an opposite point of view is not because of pluralism. The goal is not to understand that they are right just as I am. Even after the podcast, I am still fairly sure that I am the one who is right, and yet I want to argue that it is important to look at such issues and such people also from the opposite angle. An explanation for this can be offered on several levels.

On the first level, even if I am a monist, that still does not mean that I am necessarily right. It only means that only one of the sides in the argument is right. But perhaps it is you and not I? Therefore it is worth listening to the opponent's arguments. This is in fact one of the lessons of the Yom Kippur War: it is very important to hear contrary assessments, even if it is clear to us that they are wrong. Conviction and excessive self-confidence lead to a failed conception (then and now). Thus, the first gain from stepping into the shoes of one's opponent, and even one's enemy, is to test whether perhaps he is actually right.

On a second level, even if in principle I am right and do not change my position, it is still worthwhile to listen to the opponent's arguments, because I may better correct and balance my own (correct) position. Perhaps there are aspects in which I am not right, or perhaps there is a more moderate formulation of my position. It is worth citing here the Talmud in Gittin 6b:

As it is written: “His concubine played the harlot against him.” Rabbi Evyatar said: He found a fly in her. Rabbi Yonatan said: He found a hair on her. Rabbi Evyatar later encountered Elijah and said to him: What is the Holy One, blessed be He, doing? He said to him: He is occupied with the incident of the concubine at Gibeah. And what is He saying? He said to him: Evyatar, My son, says thus, and Yonatan, My son, says thus. He said to him: Heaven forbid! Is there uncertainty before Heaven? He said to him: Both these and those are the words of the living God: he found a fly and was not particular about it; he found a hair and was particular about it.

Elijah tells Rabbi Evyatar that both sides are right: that man found both a fly and a hair; over the fly he did not mind, and over the hair he did. On the face of it, that would mean that neither view counts as “the words of the living God,” since both were mistaken. It seems that the Talmud means to say that each of them grasped one facet of the truth, and the full truth is the combination of both. That means that when Rabbi Evyatar listened to Rabbi Yonatan's arguments, he could improve, refine, and complete his position. He was right from the outset, but not completely. Listening to the other side could help him complete his picture of the issue. So on the second level, stepping into the opponent's shoes enables us to improve our conceptions and make them more precise, complete, and better grounded.

There is also a third level. Suppose I have rejected pluralism entirely, and the conclusion is that those who disagree with me are entirely mistaken (in my view), and for the sake of the discussion let me assume that there is not even any need to correct my own position. Even so, looking from the opposite point of view will allow me to judge them favorably. One can argue that this is a reasonable mistake, meaning that any reasonable person who found himself in such a situation (including me) would act similarly. Perhaps one could apply here the saying of the Sages, Do not judge your fellow until you have reached his place. (do not judge your fellow until you have reached his place).

But here my main intention is not even that, but rather an explanation on a fourth level. Even if I cannot justify the other person's position or judge him favorably, one can still understand that although the other is mistaken, he is not necessarily a fool or a villain. There is a reason he thinks or acts as he decided. It is not wickedness but error.

I will conclude this column with a brief discussion of the foolish cycle, which was already mentioned in column 710.

The foolish cycle

I explained there that we are caught in a positive-feedback loop from which it is very hard to escape. Each side sees the other side as stupid or wicked. As a result, there is no point in listening to its arguments and reasons. But if I do not listen, then it becomes obvious to me that they have no real reasons or arguments in defense of their position. So why do they hold it? Because they are stupid and wicked. Therefore, again, there is no point in listening to them at all, and round we go.

What blocks discourse on issues of public disagreement in our society is not manners or attitude toward the other. It is primarily contempt for the other and seeing him as stupid or foolish, which leads to not listening to his arguments. As I wrote there, in my opinion manners are not the problem, and I would be very happy if those who disagree with me listened to my arguments and took them into account when forming a position on the issue, and as far as I am concerned they can curse and revile my mother if, in their view, I deserve it. I assume that after listening the insults too would moderate, but that would be a side effect and not the goal itself. What interests me more is that we be able to conduct a discussion in order to improve our thinking and our decisions. The problem in our mutual relations is only secondary, and a symptom of that deeper problem.

Instead of focusing on improving the atmosphere and on listening politely to one another, it would be better if we practiced stepping into the other person's shoes and trying to understand his point of view. If each of us tries, as best he can, to defend the position opposed to his own, even if only as an exercise, the results on all four levels I described above would be very beneficial. He may discover that he was mistaken. He may refine and better balance his own position. He may understand the other person's error. And in the worst case, he may discover that even if the other person cannot be understood, there is still no necessity to see him as stupid or wicked.

I am attaching in an appendix a proposal I sent to a certain Knesset member with whom I am in contact, and it deals precisely with this issue. Tonight I am supposed to have a conversation about it. We shall see whether anything comes of it.

 

Appendix: Turning Things Around: Defending the Indefensible (and the Atmosphere)

(A proposal for Purim)

Description of the situation – the problem in public discourse: The main problem in discourse in the Knesset and generally is not manners or the way people treat one another, but the lack of willingness to listen to the arguments and reasons underlying the different positions. Positions on the issues on the agenda are formed by identity politics rather than on the merits. The result is that, although on most points there is agreement among a large majority of the public and its representatives, they do not succeed in reaching agreements and moving things forward.

Diagnosis – the 'foolish cycle': Each side is perceived by its opponents as a combination of wickedness and stupidity. Each side is convinced that this is a war of the children of light against the children of darkness, and therefore every position raised by the other side is met with abuse and no positive aspect is seen in it. In such a situation a self-reinforcing foolish cycle is created: if Reuven is wicked and/or stupid, there is no point in listening to his arguments. If I do not listen to his arguments, then it is clear that his position is stupid and/or wicked (for who holds such a position without reasons and arguments?!). It therefore becomes obvious that there is nothing to listen to, and therefore his position is wicked and stupid, and round we go. This is a black hole from which one cannot escape.

Direction toward a solution: Usually people think about purifying the discourse by reaching a more proper attitude toward the people participating in it. But esteem and attitude toward people are only an instrument, and it is not right to focus on them. In light of the above diagnosis, it seems that what needs improvement is the level of the discussion, and in particular its substantive quality, by stopping the foolish cycle described above. Better treatment of people may perhaps follow as a result.

A practical proposal – "Turning Things Around" week: In preparation for Purim, one should declare a week during which, in the Knesset, in the media, and in various public forums, discussions will be held in which each person chooses a controversial issue close to his heart and presents, in the best possible way, the position of his opponents. He defends the 'indefensible' with 150 reasons (and perhaps it will turn out not to be entirely indefensible). Let me clarify that the 'indefensible' here is an issue, not a person (there is no need to compliment one's opponent or to appreciate him. This is about substantive discussion and presenting positions on the issue at hand). It is important to understand that this is not a rhetorical exercise. The point is truly to enter into the issue from the opposite point of view and sincerely try to experience the other person's conception from within.

The Knesset will lead the initiative. There, each Knesset member will choose a controversial issue on which he recently spoke, and for 5-10 minutes will present, in the best possible way, the opposing position, and only that position. One may enlist the parliamentary aides of a Knesset member who holds the position I oppose in order to prepare a speech that explains and substantiates that position as well as possible. (One can devote a minute at the end to explaining why he himself does not accept it. But perhaps it would be better to avoid that at the first stage.)

Desired result – the 'wise cycle': There is, of course, no demand here to change positions. The goal is to become aware of the complexity of the issues on the agenda. That is, to see that in each of them there are arguments in both directions. And from this it follows that someone who thinks differently has reasons, and is not necessarily simply wicked or stupid, even if I do not agree with him. The hope is that listening will lead to listening, which may create a 'wise cycle' opposite to the 'foolish cycle' described above. In the end, perhaps the attitude toward people too will improve, and not only the attitude toward positions.

Implications: I think that a few such days would do a great deal to purify the atmosphere and improve the level and substantive quality of the discussion on the issues at hand. Perhaps people would grow accustomed to examining positions substantively, and thereafter it would become possible to conduct a discussion and make decisions. As a byproduct, mutual esteem may also improve, and each side will not see the others in black-and-white terms, that is, as stupid and wicked, but as people with a different position. And perhaps, perhaps, it will turn out that there are issues on which agreement is even possible.

[1] In the podcast, this was presented as a dispute over what would bring the best results for the victims. I doubt that this description is correct. If that is indeed the dispute, then there is room to distinguish between places and situations. Nor do I get the impression that anyone in either organization conducted any field survey in order to check which of the two is more dangerous for the population. Therefore my feeling is that this is mainly a value dispute: how far one may remain silent for humanitarian reasons.