Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Wikilibrium: Shades of Grey
So I'm off to Israel tonight. While net-surfing to learn more about Israel's troubled history, I reached a startling conclusion: Wikipedia, despite much criticism about the accuracy of an encylopedia edited by its readers, often winds up providing fair and balanced articles on very controversial topics. This because both sides of an argument contribute, sources and footnotes are encouraged, and the Wiki-staff aims for balance and errs on the side of completeness. Now, I'm solid centre-left Democrat, those are my core beliefs, but I also believe there are two sides to every story. FDR, for example, remains my hero and the finest President of the 20th Century, but it's quite possible that some of his programs may have actually prolonged the depression. Very little is black-and-white, and Wikipedia is good at capturing the shades of grey.It's interesting, for instance, to read about Israel and Palestine, having been raised with only the Israeli side of the story. However pro-Israel one is, it's hard to object to the fairness of mentioning that when Israel was partitioned, Arabs outnumbered Israelis 2 to 1 in the portion assigned to Israel. I certainly believe Israel deserves its own state and defensable borders, but I can also see how this looked to the Arabs. There was particularly good balance on explaining why so many Arabs fled Israel - there was virtue and blame on both sides - many Jews really did encourage Arabs to stay, a few Jewish mayors did expel their towns' Arabs, while the Arabs themselves, preparing to attach Israel, encouraged Arab non-combattants to flee temporarily to neighboring countries for safety. More balance: while Israel's independence created half a million Arab refugees, half a million Jews more or less had to flee most of the Arab countries where they had lived for centuries. Not so black-and-white, after all.
this entry's permalink
Comments:
Post a Comment
