Part 1: Responses to previous comments
@ba3kawy: you are right. I take my words back. It just shows how difficult it is to communicate when we don't share the same beliefs. I promise to try harder!
@EngineeringChange: you said "
I.B--What do you mean your perception has changed?". I'll try to explain this in Part 2 of this post.
@Mon 0eil: your comment will not be understood correctly by Arabs. Please see Part 2 - I hope I can explain what I've realized.
@Blue: I don't think anymore that the Arab media is biased against Israel. I thought so up until a few days ago, but no longer. I now think it truthfully depicts events IN THE WAY THE ARAB WORLD UNDERSTANDS THEM. Israelis understand this as bias.
@Mohammed, @Egyptian-in-USA: I will try to answer you in Part 3 - but *please* read Part 2 first.
Part 2: Explaining what I have realized
This is
really difficult to explain, so please let me know if I didn't do a good job, and I'll try again.
My realization has to do with a concept called
Mental Models:
A mental model is an explanation in someone's thought process for how something works in the real world.
(source: Wikipedia)
People are not aware of their own mental models. We accept them as absolute truths without even thinking about them.
For example, if I see a glass cup fall from high above onto a hard surface, and the glass does not break, I will look for some way to explain this using the concepts of my mental model - my understanding of events around me. If I lived in the dark ages - I most likely would have thought the cup has been taken by a demon. Nowadays, I will probably check if the cup was in fact made of plastic and not glass.
People are extremely resistant to changing their mental models. For ages, people explained the rising and setting of the sun as gods moving in the sky. Imagine going back in time, and telling an ancient greek that the earth orbits the sun: if you're lucky, that greek will only think you're crazy. Your explanation will not match his mental model - his understanding of how the universe works. You might try to reason with him, and tell him that your model explains many things, like solar eclipses, or the seasons. But his response to you will be: "nonsense - eclipses are the will of
Helios, and seasons are the will of Zeus!".
In LOTR, think of Gollum/Smeagol. Gollum and Smeagol have different mental models - different explanations of reality. They see the same things, yet explain them in a totally different way:
Gollum: Master tricked us
Smeagol: No, Master is kind to us
In this example, Gollum and Smeagol use their mental models in order to
guess Frodo's
intentions. This is a crucial point. Frodo wants to save Smeagol from the archers, so he betrays Gollum to Faramir. Gollum is certain that Frodo is evil, and this mental model is strengthened by this action. Smeagol's mental model cannot cope with this action - because he doesn't have all the information.
My realization is that Arabs and Israelis have completely different mental models for describing the conflict! We both see a single action taken by the other side, but, like Gollum/Smeagol, when we guess the other side's intentions, we reach different conclusions. This is why you do not believe the Hizballa is firing rockets from civilian villages and I do. Before realizing this, I kept thinking: "hey, these Arabs are crazy. There's no point talking to them. How can they not see the Hizballa terrorists are firing from within villages?". Now I think: "ok, these Arabs are not crazy. If someone told me Luke Skywalker was using evil tactics in his fight against the Evil Empire, of course I wouldn't believe that".
Part 3: How Israelis think
First of all: there are at least 3 different Israeli mental models of the conflict (probably more).
To many in the
Religious Jewish Right Wing: Israel belongs to the Jews. This Holy land was given to the Jews by God. It is God's will that we live here, and it is God's will that we defend our land. This is the absolute truth.
To many in the
Right Wing (orthodox or not): We are normal people, but Arabs want to kill us. Arabs are liers and are bloodthirsty. We can't trust them. We do not share the same values. They are not ashamed of lying about us in the newspapers and inciting violence. No matter what we do: they will try to kill us. They will keep trying to kill us even if we gave up Tel Aviv. We have to defend ourselves. Giving up land is a mistake, because Arabs will interpret this as a sign of weakness, and this will encourage them to keep trying to kill us. Israeli aggression may not solve the conflict, but at least it will buy us some quiet for a time. Our aggression is justified, because it is in self defence. This is the absolute truth.
To many in the
Left Wing ("peace camp"): Indeed, there were Arab villages in Israel before we came back here, but there were also Jews who lived here. Israel has done many things to oppress Palestinians. The occupation is wrong. Settlements are a mistake. The Palestinian resistence is in many ways (but not all) Isreal's fault. Suicide bombers are the result of extreme poverty. But at least some Arabs are reasonable people, and if we show them we mean peace (for example, by withdrawing from Gaza) - they will stop the violence, and we can work together towards a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
We Israelis, who have these different explanations for reality, are in a constant argument with each other.
Most importantly: like Gollum/Smeagol - our interpretation of Arab actions - and our guesses of Arab intentions - depend on our mental models.
The Left Wing's interpretation has been significantly weakened by the events of the past few months. Many of us thought that by withdrawing from Gaza, we are sending a signal of peace. We definitly didn't expect more Qassam missiles, kidnapping of soldiers or Katyusha rockets on Haifa. Our mental model was not supported by reality, and many are now looking for an alternative model - accepting the Right Wing model as the truth.
What I realized through our discussion, is that neither model can explain Arab intentions and actions. I now have my own, different, mental model of the conflict.