Sincerity

Sincerity is highly overrated, or more accurately, sincerity is often ascribed to those who do not deserve it.

Take those behind the divestment movement as an example. On the surface, they are credited with being a grassroots Somerville group with sincere devotion to human rights in the Middle East based on their passion and willingness to work so hard to see Somerville divest from the Jewish state. As they present themselves, they sincerely care about fairness, they sincerely care about human rights, and they sincerely care about Somerville.

Yet, if they are so sincere, why did they try to maneuver our aldermen into passing this resolution behind the back of the public? If they are so concerned with our town, why did they not inform our aldermen:

That the complexity of the Middle East conflict makes assigning blame to only one side both grossly unfair and detached from reality, a reality in which the Arabs can clearly be assigned blame for substantial human rights violations?
That bringing this issue before the town would cause the same bitterness and divisiveness created whenever this same group (under different names) tried to import the Middle East conflict into other communities?
That this "simple/symbolic" petition might put Somerville in conflict with US Federal anti-boycott law? Considering that US Commerce Department is considering whether divestiture activities falls under US law regarding secondary boycotts of friendly countries, didn't the divestiture movement at least owe our leaders the truth about the potential consequences of the action they were requesting?

Sincerity has a pair of ugly cousins: self-righteous fury and ruthlessness. The fact that the divestiture crowd is willing to say anything and do anything, regardless of the consequences, to further their cause should not be confused with sincere commitment. In fact, the willingness to hide critical information, manipulate communities and leaders, and seize on "virtue words" like "human rights" and "fairness" purely for propaganda purposes (see Propaganda) is a textbook example of an "ends-justify-the-means" strategy that defines ruthlessness. Their ability to pose indignantly when their efforts are rejected by the people (as they have on every campus in America and will be tonight in Somerville) should not be confused with the real virtue of sincerity.

Which gets us to tonight.

While it is preferable for our aldermen to lump the Middle East into the many, many other conflicts upon which they do not feel informed enough to speak, must less take action (see Compromise - Part I), there will likely be an impetus to vote on some resolution if and when the current one is rejected.

If our leaders feel it critical to make some statement on this matter, it is important that any such alternative cannot in any way be interpreted as a victory for the forces of self-righteousness and ruthlessness that have brought so much misery to our town.

Even seemingly innocuous suggestions such as singling out Israeli bonds or Caterpillar Tractor shares for scrutiny represents a way to let one-sided criticism of Israel in through the back door and must be resisted. If our aldermen want to make a statement concerning a desire for peace in the region and asks for the US government to work towards that end, this would be in keeping with statements Somerville has made in the past on international issues, and while not likely to do much good, at least will do no harm.

"First do no harm" is the mantra of the medical profession, and it deserves to be the guidepost to action on this sensitive issue at this sensitive time. Sincere devotion to human rights councils no other action.

Home