Two Sides of Every Question

Rabbi Melanie Aron

May 4, 2002

In America we tend to think about there being two sides to every story. That is how we often operate in daily life and that is how we tend to frame things.

To some extent, as this tendency is brought into our news coverage, it is helpful. It promotes the exploration of other viewpoints and perspectives. Point - Counterpoint keeps the news coverage lively and gives different people a chance to have their voices heard. But sometimes this stress on the two sides of the story and the creation of moral equivalence between them can be misleading. Sometimes facts are ignored as we try and turn a story that doesn't really lend itself to this approach, into something with two parallel and equally valid sides. Most particularly I think some of us would agree that coverage of the Middle East by the Mercury News and by some of the networks often falls into this pattern and is problematic as a result.

In the chapter of Pirke Avot which we read this week, we have an interesting paragraph about the issue of controversy.

"Every controversy which is for the sake of heaven, shall, in the end, lead to a lasting result. But that which is not for the sake of heaven, shall not, in the end, lead to a lasting result. What is a controversy for the sake of heaven? That would be the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And what is one not for the sake of heaven? The controversy of Korach and all his company."

Hillel and Shammai disagreed about many aspects of Jewish law. But the point of their disagreement was to further Jewish learning and knowledge. They were respectful of each other, and even when the followers of Hillel became dominant, they continued to quote the minority opinions of the followers of Shammai. They listened and respected each other.

This model of disagreement is what our Arab Jewish dialogue group is at its best moments. There are times when we are dedicated to really understanding each other and when we focus on our areas of disagreement, it is with the intention of learning and becoming better informed.

But our dialogue group is not always like that, nor are all the exchanges or panels on the Middle East that I and others participate in. Typically when we have a visitor at our dialogue as when we have had Congressman Mike Honda or Congresswoman Anna Eschoo join us for the afternoon, we find that there is lot more speech giving than dialogue. At those times people use of language to convince, not to promote understanding, and the stress is on the rhetorically and the propagandistic, rather than the straightforward and the factual.

I have also been invited to panels that were put forth as exploration of the religious aspects of Islam and Judaism that have turned into highly confrontational political discussions. Often here material is presented as factual which is problematic from a historical perspective, and it is difficult to challenge what is being said, as it is "his side of the story." On one occasion, a speaker suggested that the Israelis attacked out of the blue in 1967, in a premeditated war of conquest and without provocation. Evidence from newspapers in the weeks before the war, or information on the Egyptian's blockade and removal of the United Nations peacekeepers was viewed as irrelevant.

This type of interchange is like the disagreement between Korach and Moses. Korach presented himself as being concerned for democracy- "are not all God's people holy", he asks rhetorically. But if we probe a little deeper we find that he was a demagogue, presenting himself as the champion of the people, but really just jealous of his uncle and cousins and trying to gain a better more powerful position for himself. Korach used slogans and words that he knew would appeal to the people, regardless of whether they really related to the matters at hand. He made attacks that were spurious, and personal, and otherwise showed that his interest was in confrontation and not understanding.

We need to be careful when we enter into discussions that we understand what type of forum we are participating in. When we expect dialogue and instead find propaganda, we can find ourselves unprepared. Think of Moses in confrontation with Korach, his nephew, reduced to sputtering: I have not taken even a donkey of any one of them, not so much as a sandal strap have I taken." But that should not make us avoid all discussion with those of opposing views. When we disagree and approach that disagreement honestly and with commitment to hearing and learning, then all of our words are for the sake of heaven.