Suspension of disbelief refers primarily to the willingness of a reader or viewer to accept the premises of a work of fiction, even if they are fantastic or impossible. It also refers to the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium, so that these do not interfere with the illusion. However, suspension of disbelief is a do ut des: the audience agrees to provisionally suspend their judgment in exchange for the promise of entertainment.
As most of my blogger friends are either left, or left leaning, we all share similar outlooks politically and socially. We also have formed common goals by way of the Bloggers against torture, posting against the excess force and reaction from Israel during the summer, in short, coming up for the underdog. Speaking for myself, I have always felt the need to understand what was behind a supposed obvious situation. In the Netherlands, there is an expression: to look past the end of your nose. (rough translation). In other words, don't take everything at face value, examine a bit further. As we were all appalled this summer at the Israeli attacks in Lebanon and Gaza, we also found out that someone at Reuters 'spruced' up a picture to make it look worse than it was. Remember the famous black cloud over Beirut? I would like you to consider and investigate the following, the death of Mohamed al Durah in 2000. Before you do, also consider people's own experiences and read Rogel's:
My story involve no violence or shooting. At a quiet day, we stop during a patrol to rest along side the road. Near us was a group of Palestinians working in an orchard, cutting trees – a job that the orchard owner paid them to do. It was quiet enough that we were able to drink coffee and rest from the patrol. It was that quiet that we didn't pay to much attention to TV crew that stopped near us, interviewed the workers and took some pictures.
The day after I got 48 hours vacation so I was able to watch on that news channel how my patrol forced the poor Palestinians to cut the trees. It was my first lesson about the way news are being reported, or rather being made.
Back to Mohamed al Durah:
On September 30, 2000, images of 12-year-old Mohammed Al Durah and his father--cowering behind a barrel at Netzarim Junction, in the Gaza Strip--circulated globally, along with a claim that they had been the targeted victims of Israeli fire. If Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount two days earlier had sparked riots, these images triggered all-out war. The ensuing horror and outrage swept away any questions about its reliability. Indignant observers dismissed any Israeli attempt to deny responsibility as "blaming the victim."
This is not about whether we believe the Israeli occupation is wrong, or if we believe that, because of the situations of the Palestinians that it is ok for facts/images to be changed so that they get the appropriate attention and sympathy from the world. This is about something that we, mostly left leaning bloggers pride ourselves about; to be truthful and expose falsehoods and to be honest in self examination.
I personally believe that in conflicts such as the Israeli-Palestinian one, that there are many parties who have their own agenda, their own scruples or lack thereof. It is not all one-sided in that case. Our sympathy with which ever side should not cloud our judgement as to what we can can call out to be wrong or right.
For further investigation: the second draft.