As of five minutes ago, I had the opportunity to attend a documentary about the occupation of Israel from a militaristic legal point of view. After reading a quick synopsis online, I decided not to attend with my friends. The interesting thing was that right before I decided not to go, I said to myself, "I probably should go." I implied to myself that I should go as a courtesy to myself to become more informed on the subject because I should be as informed and educated as I possibly can on an issue as crucial as this and as it will be my future occupation. The reason I decided not to go to the documentary was because from the synopsis, I felt that the militaristic legal point of view was already skewed. It kept saying the "Occupied Territories" or Israel as an "occupier." The main question it was trying to ask was: "Is it possible for a state to be an occupier while retaining its democratic values?" And I think this is absolutely ridiculous. I could not bring myself to attend a movie when its premise is not based on fact. Israel does not occupy the West Bank. But this is not about the debate between occupation or no occupation or the legal ramifications or anything else in the matter. This is about me and whether or not I choose to not educate myself because something does not fall in line with my beliefs. Am I so arrogant that I believe myself to know more than legal scholars? Am I so ignorant to actively choose not to educate myself because I do not agree with the premise of the opposition? Should I not choose to educate myself on the other side or on a different perspective so that I may know all sides if I continue to argue my own perspective? Maybe it's ignorance. Maybe it's arrogance. Maybe it's conviction. I don't know.
No comments:
Post a Comment