Not only is the “voice” option a bad one, then, but the “exit“ option is closed. The west’s repressive immigration policies mean our peace-loving Gazan can’t easily emigrate to a quiet life.
Expecting Gazans to remove Hamas is, then, a violation of methodological individualism, and an ignorance of the problems of collective action. It’s bad social science.
Worse, it might be a terrible cognitive error - the out-group homogeneity bias, the tendency to see other groups of people as an indistinguishable mass whilst one’s own group comprises diverse individuals.
Which brings me to why I’m not interested in Gaza. I suspect views such as Ms Dvir’s are, though not universal, widespread on both sides of what is a tribal conflict; I could find similar or worse tosh from Hamas supporters, if I could be bothered to look.
But I can find cognitive biases anywhere. There’s nothing interesting here for the economist or social science, is there?
You’ll object that this is a callous pose of a world-weary ivory tower academic looking only for amoral intellectual stimulation.
It is. But aren’t cold hearts better than hot heads?