Lex Fridman Israel-Palestine Debate - My Comments

 I recently heard a 4-hour conversation on the Lex Fridman podcast with three historians and one political commentator debating the Israel-Palestien conflict. It was so surprising and upsetting at times, that I wanted to start a blog and write about it. I don’t expect anybody to read these comments, so this is more for my own recollection of my thoughts.

I wanted to start by addressing my thoughts towards Norm Finkelstein, as his approach to the conversation inspired me to write this in the first place. In comparing each of the debaters' argumentations, I think Norm Finkelstein stood out from the very beginning as the most factual and convincing. I say from the very beginning as my thoughts evolved as the conversation progressed. I was very impressed by Dr. Finkelstein’s great depth of knowledge pertaining to Israeli-Palestinian genres of literature, which makes sense given his dissertation on Zionism and his publicly held opinions towards the Israeli state and its behavior – unjustifiable, in the spirit of Dr. Finkelstein’s proclamations in this conversation –  over the past 70 years. Certainly, his “I only deal in facts” approach was a basis for his argumentation, founded upon the many books he has consumed as a clearly voracious reader. What I dislike about this approach – and I could be naïve in this comment –  is his perception that primary sources, channeled through him, are unbiased simply because they are derived from primary sources. Several times throughout the conversation, Dr. Finkelstein fell prey to ad hominem towards Destiny through comments berating his lack of exposure to the great depth of literature he was yet unfamiliar with, claiming his arguments were based on “two Wikipedia articles” as opposed to the nearly 10,000 books he and the others at the table had read. The implication, in my mind, was that his sources were unreliable, and his argument was thus unfounded. Yet I think Dr. Finkelstein was unable to see the various ways he read and interpreted his own viewpoints in the sources he was quoting. Just because a source is primary does not mean that the way you interpret that source is equally as valid. I can read a book and derive a conclusion completely contrary to the authors, simply by selectively choosing evidence and providing my own interpretations. I think Destiny and Dr. Morris explicitly pointed out that Dr. Finkelstein could agree with all parties on the facts yet derive an entirely different conclusion. Thus is the nature of being human – we all view the world through the lens of our own experiences and interpretation. Where Dr. Finkelstein goes wrong is his inability to acknowledge his bias, which in turn creates an air of superiority over the others in the room, save Dr. Morris (whom it seems he both reveres and strongly disagrees with).

My perceptions of Destiny in this conversation were opposite to Dr. Finkelstein's, as were Destiny’s philosophical and physical positions in the podcast. In other podcasts I have heard from him (and in debating people who follow him religiously and shape their views and debating points on his) I see him falling prey to the same things Ben Shapiro falls prey to – talking fast and exploring ideas shallowly. For those not knowledgeable on the issues at hand, Destiny’s debating style can easily be confused as one of a well-informed, articulate consumer of information. I certainly felt this way when I was younger listening to Ben Shapiro debate college students who didn’t know any better – it seemed like he was dominating the conversation, having rebuttals to any point brought up. In hindsight, I think I was simply uninformed. I believe this style of debating is a technique used to pander to an audience more than foster meaningful academic exchanges. In bringing up multitudes of points without delving into them, it paints the picture that each is in full agreement with your argument but skims over the nuanced, non-binary nature of the world at large. Bringing up these points at the speeds that both Shapiro and Destiny do gives the listener no chance to process what is being said, and forces them to make an instantaneous, subconscious decision as to whether they agree or disagree. This effect serves to polarize the audience, which is why I believe both are such polarizing figures. Bringing it back to the conversation, I think Dr. Finkelstein had a point – Destiny knew the talking points to create an argument that would typically pass as coherent, yet in a room full of historians, he was exposed as unknowledgeable. He couldn’t match the other historians' depths when it came to argumentation; rather he could only provide counterpoints based on hypotheticals or by quoting events without explaining his rationale. What I think Destiny did have over Dr. Finkelstein, was an ability to deal with the bigger picture.

To explain this point, I will use an Astronomy analogy. Telescopes are capable of imagining everything from a vast area of the sky to a small point source of light. Researchers hoping to image supernovas or binary star systems may prefer the highly accurate, extremely focused forms of imaging, and alas, the vast majority of astronomy research is based upon these observations. Yet these points of interest cannot be found without the large sky surveys, or the Hubble deep fields, or the large-scale non-specific forms of imaging. Both are simultaneously important, even though one is more practical to current research than the other. This analogy is applicable to Dr. Finkelstein and Destiny’s approaches to argumentation. Dr. Finkelstein, being incredibly knowledgeable on the topics in these conversations, can delve into books he read 40 years ago and quotations from Dr. Morris simply by flipping through his memory. Yet these sorts of micro-analyses can sometimes ignore the broader context and nuance of events, laws, and – especially evident in this conversation – quotations. Destiny’s over-arching approach allowed him to make good points that seemed well-informed, as they took dynamics spanning the entire region into account. What comes to mind are Destiny’s points about the flight of Jews from various Arab countries and the push-pull motivations involved. If I, as a largely uninformed, unknowledgeable listener, were to give recommendations to both Destiny and Dr. Finkelstein, I would say that they should try and look at the issues from the perspectives of the other. Dr. Finkelstein could be more willing to stray away from “facts” and towards more abstract thinking, while Destiny could do better to read literature on the topic rather than secondary or tertiary sources.

I came away from this debate having learned one lesson – don’t pretend to know enough about this topic to debate it. So many events – like the Nakba and Palestinian attacks before it - were talked about, and almost all of them I knew little to nothing about. And even after hearing each side debate and shout, I couldn’t find myself aligning with one side or the other. Simply on principle, I think I related the most to Mouin Rabbani, as he was one of the only debaters willing to be civil, concede points, and ensure his speech wasn’t at the expense of the others at the table. I would be curious to hear how people more opinionated than I on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict perceived the arguments of each side, as I do not consider myself to be a part of that group – I am not opinionated on this topic, only saddened.