Yet a third reason is that a monologue is a device for allowing the audience a privileged glimpse of the character's interior. From its tone, I suspect that David Hare, in his "Wall: A Monologue," published in The New York Review of Books, intended his monologue as more of a Hyde Park op-ed piece - a voluble, live-action, attention-grabbing public intellectual's speech - than as a window into his depths, but I found the piece most significant for what it revealed about him: that he's a shallow-thinking asshole.
I don't say this for political reasons. I agree with his political conclusions. Like him, I am against the Wall.
But I don't support Hare coming to the same conclusions for the wrong reasons. And Hare, from the evidence of his monologue, can't reason.
Two examples suffice. First, Hare quotes with approval the analogy posed by Professor Sari Nusseibeh:
[The wall is] like sticking someone in a cage and then when he starts screaming, as any normal person would, using his violent temper as justification for putting him in the cage in the first place. The wall is the perfect crime because it creates the violence it was ostensibly built to prevent.(p. 8.) This analogy is dramatic and emotionally-manipulative, but it's wrong. The wall is like sticking a criminal in prison, along with his family, his neighbors, and everyone in a miles-wide diameter. Yes, it's unfair. Yes, it's disproportionate. Yes, the innocent suffer. But, yes, there is a criminal in the mix. The criminal doesn't justify the wall, but any reasoned conclusion about the wall has to absorb the baseline fact that Israelis are trying to protect themselves from suicide bombers.
Hare does not absorb this fundament. As he says later, after having been scandalized by a Saddam Hussein poster in a coffee shop in Nablus,
At least now I know why the wall's gone up. The Israelis want to separate themselves from people who display posters of Saddam Hussein. Who can blame them? Or - hold on, the old conundrum - do they display posters of Saddam Hussein because somebody just put up a wall?
(p.12.) Hold on, Hare: Saddam Hussein posters are not the issue. The wall has gone up because Israelis are dying in suicide bombings, which have - as Hare acknowledges - decreased 80% since the wall went up.
I don't think this statistic justifies the wall; even 100% reduction in suicide bombings wouldn't justify the wall from my perspective. The wall imposes unwarranted punishments on too many innocent people for its effectiveness against criminals to be justified. But I accept that deaths - not the unbearable sight of Saddam Hussein's visage - is the price of the wall's removal.
In Hare's view, the wall is a frivolous exercise in power "because they [the Israelis] can." (p. 10.) Well, if that's the way you see the balance of costs, then it takes no courage, conviction or intellectual exercise to conclude that the wall needs "gates." (p.12.)
The Israelis who are against the wall, on the other hand, have a more nuanced understanding of the balance of costs. Consciously deciding that the wall is the wrong approach to security in Israel requires an openness to risk, a breadth of compassion, and a generous measure of moral integrity (better to live in danger than impose harm on innocents) - qualities that, in Hare's analysis, the Israelis don't have.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has imposed such profound, unnecessary and devastating costs on so many people for so long for many reasons, but one reason has been an absence of clear thinking. Despite Hare's obvious empathy for the Palestinians (which I share), he's doing them no favors with his contribution to the muddled (lack of) reasoning that has characterized the Israeli-Palestinian confrontations.
So should I call this blog post a "monologue"?