What Causes Bias on Israel/Palestine?

Bryan Caplan of EconLog has written a wonderfully dispassionate analysis of some 'bias errors' in comprehending the issue of Israel/Palestine. One approach is to examine the "enlightened preference":

The key idea is that you give subjects two surveys.  The first tests objective knowledge; the second elicits policy preferences.  The idea is to see if - controlling for other respondent characteristics - people who know more want different policies.

Of course, this might not work; would partisans even be able to agree on a set of facts? Maybe not on many of them, but a few stand out as 'objective.' The number of Palestinians registered as refugees is a fact; whether or not all of them deserve that status is not.

If we did such a test, would we find that those who are more knowledgeable of the actual facts have a policy preference that tilts towards Israel or Palestine? Remember that the numbers won't mean jack; this tests for trends, not absolute numbers. Even if there are more Americans who support Israel, this would only see if those who know the most about the issue are also pro-Israel.

One of the commenters on the site points out that in the United States, awareness of foreign policy issues corresponds to education level and news consumption habits, and therefore to class. Since the upper classes tend to support the status quo, the enlightened preference approach might discover that those who know more support current US policy and lean towards Israel.

Understanding bias can help illuminate the landscape of arguments over Israel/Palestine. The site also mentions 'recency bias.' This is our human tendency to make recent news feel more urgent, true and significant than old news. As a result, our time frame for examining the conflict is always at risk of being shortened. When bombs were going off in Israel, Palestinians argued for lengthening the time frame, so that the causes of violence would be part of the story. When Israel invaded Gaza, leaving horrific scenes of destruction, Israelis (successfully) fought against recency bias, but making sure that the time frame was extended to include all the rockets fired from Gaza in recent years. (But no further!)

My experience is that when students who do not have an emotional connection to the issue take a class in say, Middle Eastern history, they discover that both sides have an interest in manipulating the story so as to emphasize one narrative at the expense of the other. Folks standing in the middle have a hard time indeed. Try telling one group that the Jewish history of persecution and genocide is integral to our understanding, and they are likely to accuse you of being pro-Israel, by default. Try telling the other group that the Palestinian experience of exile and dispossession is at the heart of the conflict, and must be addressed by an Israel that takes responsibility for that history - and they will be sure you are blinded by sympathy for the Palestinians.

Over time, fair minded folks tend to gravitate towards one narrative or the other, depending on what feels more urgent, or aligns better with ones views on other issues. Forcing people in the middle to choose is the job of partisans on both sides.

Allow me to suggest that this is unfortunate. A more empowered and engaged middle ground would do more for peace than the scoring of a few more points by one side against the other.