Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian has warned Israel that the Middle East could spiral out of control if it does not stop strikes on Gaza.
He said the US was also “to blame” for providing military support to Israel.
Hours later, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu warned troops his people were in a battle for their lives and said the war against Hamas was “do or die”.
Yea, sometimes to truly understand an issue, situation or long standing human conversation or culture, there is simply no escaping biased sources all the way to the point where you actually want to seek them out, especially if they themselves do their bias and cause as much “justice” as they can.
One, because there’s always bias, so trying to escape it is futile to the point of constructing a bias all on its own. Two, because the situation/issue/culture/conversation is the biases, and so if you want to understand it you have to understand the biases of the various parties, to understand the parties themselves and their interactions … right?!
This isn’t “two-side-ism”, where you stridently presume neutrality and give all sides equal uncritical weight, but rather that you try to understand all sides even when you’re pretty sure you want attack their position as strongly as you can.
In application, this often manifests in the fact that best way to understand an argument is to study the side you are inclined to disagree with or the side that is stridently in the minority. The general idea is to not try to avoid bias to try to seek it out and characterise it.