Perception is the interpretation of what you see.
Test for perception is
conducted in a literal sense in some psychological tests. What happens there is
that an imprecise picture is shown to several candidates who are then asked to
tell what they perceive. The different answers they give point to the
psychological condition of each candidate.
Such test is also used
metaphorically every day in real life. What happens there is that an author writes
a fictional piece that's meant to move people. After many have read the piece,
it will have evoked a different emotion in each of them depending on his or her
experience in life. This will become apparent when they get together and
discuss the book as they do in book-clubs.
What this says is that we go
through life interacting with each other in imprecise terms because we speak of
things that each of us perceives differently, using a language whose words we
do not bother to define, and reach agreements that each of us will interpret
differently.
However, when it comes to the
business of determining what is owed to whom, we enter the realm of the legal
profession. This is where precision of the language becomes paramount. It is
why legal texts usually contain a glossary that defines the key words which
appear in the text. But despite all of this, serious squabbles do occur at
times when a legal document that's in force is invoked by one party or the
other to make their case. This is how, despite the best effort to define the
terms, different perceptions can still cause different interpretations of the
legal language.
But here too, the squabble can
be made in good faith or in bad faith. When it is done in good faith, calling
on a third party to mediate between the two, usually brings the litigating
parties to see each other's point of view, thus helps to solve the problem. But
when the squabble is done in bad faith by one of the parties, the dispute
becomes haggling, and goes on forever. The thing is that disputes going forever
is what normally happens with Jews, and happens in almost every case.
You can see how an example
such as that, is playing out when you go over an article that came under the
title: “Obama and His Revisionist Take on Israel,” written by Jeremy Rosen, and
published on December 13, 2020 in the Jewish online publication Algemeiner. It
is the story of Rabbi Rosen doing the normal haggling with himself, and doing
it in bad faith about a book that former President Barack Obama wrote. It is
that the former President had mentioned a few things about Israel that do not
sit well with the Rabbi. So, what’s new!
Here are two of the pertinent
passages that appear in the rabbi's article:
First passage: “Obama writes:
The British were occupying Palestine when they issued the Balfour Declaration.
It is true that they were well on the way to defeating the Ottoman Empire at
that moment, but the Ottomans were not yet defeated and did not concede until
1918, whereas the Balfour Declaration was in 1917”.
Second Passage: “It was the
League of Nations that said: Recognition has hereby been given to the
historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds
for reconstituting their national home in that country”.
As to the first passage, it is
an example of the imprecise use of language such as we speak every day. That's
because when we see the words, “The Ottomans did not concede until 1918,” we
think of the presidential elections in America when the loser concedes, and power
is transferred from the incumbent president to the incoming one. But this is
not how things happen in a war, especially one that was as brutal and messy as
the First World War.
What happened then was that
the Ottomans surrendered piecemeal: one garrison at a time, one town at a time,
one military base at a time … and where the British flag replaced the Ottoman
flag one at a time. Then, in 1918 a representative of the long-defeated Ottoman
Empire was summoned to a British warship where he was made to sign an armistice
treaty, promising not to attack the allied forces. But Jeremy Rosen being a
rabbi, had to haggle with himself over this moot point.
As to the second passage, it
is an example of the precise use of language. That one was written by lawyers
as precisely as lawyers write a legal document for the ages. What comes out
clearly in this text, is that it speaks of Palestine as being a country, and
speaks of the Jews having a home in that country, not having the country as
their homeland.
Thus, as you can see, the
rabbi was so consumed with attacking President Obama, he saw fit to haggle
about two points, not realizing that they make Jewish lawyers who defend
Israel, fret when they are brought into the debate.
Rosen may or may not have
upset the former president, but he slaughtered the Jewish lawyers who take up
Israel's case, arguing that Palestine was never a country, and that it is the
homeland of the Jews not the homeland of the Palestinians.
Who says that idle haggling does not come useful at times?