Israel falls victim to its own rhetoric

The original Saudi Peace plan was rejected by Israel because it clearly stated that a settlement must include the Right of Return for the Palestinian refugees. (Right of Return is the most fundamental law in Israel, however it only applies to Jews.) The new version of the Saudi Peace Plan, now dubbed the Arab Peace Initiativ (Initiativ for short), no longer states “Right of Return”. The new formula is “Just Solution of the Refugee Problem.” Israel has stated that the Initiativ is interesting, that it is a good starting point for negotiations, but that they cannot accept the refugees Right of Return.

The response from Israel implies two things:
1) We are not really interested in peace
2) Right of Return is a just solution

The first implication is clear due to the fact that they purposefully misread the text so as to make the suggestion harder to swollow than it is, making it seem as if it’s the Arabs who are stubborn. Any sound reading of “Just solution” would be that it is an issue we must negotiate about in order to reach something that is just to all parties. Israel’s reading however states that this cannot be negotiated, hence it must be removed from peace negotiations altogether. Anybody who knows anything about the issue knows that a peace with no solution concerning the refugees, is no solution at all. Hence, by implication, we (Israel) have no interest in reaching a solution.

The second implication is by far the most interesting. In order to make the The Arab Peace Initiativ negatable Israel has been forced to make an admitance it otherwise would not have dared to make, and surprisingly few commentators have caught this point. The Arab Peace Initiativ solves all of Israel’s stated problems as well as modifying the biggest sticking point from “Right of Return” to “Just Solution”. Interestingly Israel has then re-modified the text from “Just Solution” to “Right of Return” in order to make the initativ unreasonable. Does this not imply that Israel consideres the terms “Right of Return” and “Just Solution” to be interchangeable? If this is the case Israel will in fact have made their greatest admitance as of yet – We are responsible for the refugee’s plight, and justice will only be fulfilled once they are given their right of return. This is in a sense also a double admittance: Yes, right of return is just, and no, we will never grant it.

On objectivity and the worldview of the other

Objectivity is an ideal and never a reality. One must always be aware of the limitations of knowledge. To be objective is to write Truth. Since all intelligent people with a certain amount of insight would realize that Truth is a preposterous goal, the best one could aspire for is “objectivity”. “Objectivity” is the subjective’s approach towards the ideal of Truth. The closer one appraoches this ideal, the more “objective” one is. However, one must realize that the goal can never be reached, merely approached.

Since every form of ”objectivity” is bound with a subjectitvity, the “objectivity” can never be fully neutral. Hence, all ”objectivity” pertains a limitation in its outset. What then is the role of the subjective in this strive for neutrality? The subject’s first and foremost responsibility lies in becoming aware of its own heritage – cultural, historical etc. Everything else followes. A high degree of personal insight is required in order to understand one’s limitations, and hence limit the impact these have on one’s thoughts/writing.

This is important as one writes about/analyses something using your own worldview (Weltanschauung). However it is doubley important if one is to describe the worldview of the other. In such cases subjectivity is doubley present and has a double function. First of all there is the subjectivity of the subject. This will effect his/her thoughts on the other. Secondly, and this is more importantly, the other posseses its own subjectivity. This subjectivity must be treated with the utmost caution as it can neither be ignored, removed nor remain untreated. With this I mean to say:

a) The other’s worldview has a value in itself
b) The other’s worldview is independent of our worldview, but
c) The interpretation of the other’s worldview is dependent on our worldview

The implications of this are as follows – In order to present the world as they see it, we are forced to present the world as we interpret them seeing it.

The other’s interpretation of the world can be wrong (based on lies), but it is none the less ”true” (”objective”) in the sense that it is their interpretation (in which they fully believe). The ”objective” analyser must be aware of this double subjectivity – the first must be controlled, while the second must be used. In order to approach the ”objective”, the second subjectivity must dominate the first, while simultaneaously making the reader aware that the ”objectivity” lies in the very fact that this is a presentation of the subjective worldview of the other.
The point presenting somebody elses view of the world lies not in portraying the world as it is, but rather how it is percieved. This is in reality only a differnce of sorts as the world never really is, it merely is percieved to be. (That is not to say that the world doesn’t exist as such, it merely means that the world is always percieved.) What is special in this case is that one attempts to describe somebody elses view of the world – a fact that only enhances our understanding of the difference between the world as it is and the world as we percieve it. This form of analysis therefore has a double function in that it both reveals how the other views the world, and also aids us in understanding the fact that there is no Truth, merely ”objectivity”. Certain things can be more correct than other, but there is no final Truth.