Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

The Middle East: Why we need to understand both sides of the question

The Middle East is undoubtedly the most discussed landmass in the world, especially in the press. Since time immemorial, world opinion has vacillated first in support of one side in the conflict, then in support of the other. In 1947 the UN voted in favour of a Partition Plan and the creation of the State of Israel and the press almost unanimously supported the newly-born state as a victim through the 1948 War of Independence that followed. Fast forward several decades, exactly the opposite can be said of the War in Gaza, with almost unanimous support being given to the Palestinians, who are viewed as being as much a victim as the Israelis were in 1948. To support the underdog is a natural instinct, but is there really any fair reporting in this support if it neglects to examine every side of an argument? In the examples cited, the 1948 support of Israel failed to appreciate the Arab nations’ possible motives for fighting, whilst the present decade has seen a complete failure to acknowledge the eight years of illegal bombing of the Israeli town of

Sderot.

Cherwell’s recent online feature ‘Our Man Abroad’ falls prey to the same prejudice. Whilst it provides an illuminating insight into Jordan and Syria, comments such as ‘the view on the other side of the water [not being] so pretty’ are effectively rendered invalid, given the lack of research undertaken. Of course each should be entitled to its own opinion, but is this opinion really acceptable given this tour of the Middle East does not include Israel? Upon visiting Quneitra the author comments, ‘As an exercise in anti-Israeli propaganda it is awfully successful’, illustrating by his own example that viewing the conflict from one side only is insufficient. In truth, Quneitra is a town on the border, which exchanged hands four times between 1967 and 1974, and was the site of devastating combat fighting. Far from displaying Israeli ‘wanton vandalism’, it simply highlights the destructive effects of warfare, in much the same way as Ypres might with regard to the First World War, or Stalingrad with regard to the Second.

Facts are easily obscured and neither side is innocent. However, in the current stalemate that has characterised the Middle East for some time, attitudes must change. Progress will not be made whilst bold statements built on bias continue to be made on both sides, in particular those expressed in the media. Writing has the power to influence opinion – it can breed anger and hatred, but it can also spread hope and affect positive change, and this is what the media should be aiming to do. A traveller who writes about the Middle East should attempt to understand the Middle East as a whole, sunbathing on both shores of the Dead Sea, visiting Quneitra as well as standing on the hilltops facing it to hear the post-67 story from the mouth of an Israeli, making it possible to form an educated opinion that is constructive, inspired by truth and an appreciation of the struggle on both sides.

In 1983, Jan Svankmajer won first prize at the Animated Film Festival for Dimensions of Dialogue, beautifully illustrating the consequences of conflicting ideologies that refuse to see the opposite point of view. The best hope for the future would be to allow development to take the place of destruction, to absorb culture from every corner of the Middle East and to engage in dialogue that is truly open-minded. At this point in time the question who is right and who is wrong is not important. Rather, we should concentrate on drastically overhauling each and every one of our attitudes and we should avoid jumping to conclusions that are both hasty and invalid.

 

 

Check out our other content

Most Popular Articles