Some of the problems we are now facing can be seen as an error in structural thinking, which reduces all problems to an either/or option. In fact, the very reality that we are forced into by choosing box A or Box B may be contributing to the continuation of the very problems we seek, through a false binary perspective, to resolve.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the current Israel/Hamas war. The dialogue has been reduced to a false paradigm, in which one chooses either a pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian stance. And the resultant discourse of necessity focuses on these two options, de facto negating the possibility of another viewpoint.
I would like to propose a meta analysis here, to wit — OF COURSE Israel has the right to defend itself. OF COURSE the Palestinian situation is abhorrent. Neither of these realities are being disputed here. What we need to consider is how this situation developed, why it developed and who benefits from a false binary perspective.
Could it be that by constructing a conflict and then containing the possible reactions to two options that another agenda is obscured?