We do not know what is happening in Israel and Palestine. We do not know what is happening in Ukraine. In Iraq. In Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, we do not know what is happening in the British Parliament.
Quite simply, we are not there when the bombs or rockets are falling, or when the politicians are negotiating.
If these events remain unmediated, we are left in a political-moral vacuum where our knowledge hardly extends beyond the ends of our street.
This is why we need newspapers. We derive our thoughts from them, or, at least, we gather from them the information with which our thought processes can then operate.
In particular, there are two types of information we receive. We receive facts: the indisputable building blocks that all impartial observers more or less agree about. And we receive arguments: ways to construct more meaningful edifices of these building blocks.
We only ever heard the what of the conflict, never the why
Often, we hear about the demise of traditional newspapers and their rapid decline in the face of the internet and social media. Revolutions, so we hear, are now happening via Facebook, and that the main point of public contact with this summer's violent events in Gaza and Israel was Twitter. Indeed, social media is dynamic and agile, and is proving to be increasingly useful to mobilise people. Their soundbites capture the imagination and the political will.
Yet would we trust the veracity of facts reported on Twitter? And have we ever encountered as much as a shred of a proper argument in a Facebook status update?
It is my argument that newspapers matter as they consensually mediate the events of the Middle East, and it is they (alongside their traditional counterparts in the media) that should help us to understand acts or words or violence arising there. Politically speaking, they should help us making up our own minds.
Based on recent research I devoted to the coverage of the 22-day-long first Gaza war, or Operation Cast Lead (December 2008- January 2009), however, it is also my argument that British broadsheets fail at that task of facilitating understanding.
It is common knowledge that Britain's broadsheets are either conservative right-wing (Daily Telegraph, The Times), or progressive liberal-left wing (Guardian, Independent).
It is also next to common knowledge that conservatives are "pro-Israeli", and left-liberals more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Many people also presume that these political opinions mask some other agenda, that the allegedly progressive pro-Palestinian stance of the left often carries antisemitism; or that the predilection to take note of this "antisemitism" is a conservative ploy to deflect criticism from the state of Israel.
Yet when it came to Operation Cast Lead, British broadsheets did not write all that differently from each other. With some exaggeration, their efforts had as much to do with helping readers to understand the conflict as pub discussions between football fans to understand last night's game.
Examining which topics were high on the newspapers' agendas, I found very little difference between the publications. Whether reporting the facts of the war, actions of the participants, deaths occurring on either side of the conflict, mundane or controversial events, the broadsheets attributed roughly the same amount of space to these issues.
This was a replication of old and well-rehearsed patterns. Be it Hamas's capacity to reach further with their rockets than ever before, or Israel controversially starting its offensive in the middle of the day, with small and unsystematic divergences the broadsheets uniformly neglected what was novel and specific about the war.
Of course, numerical frequency of topics is one thing, whereas arguments in which those topics are embedded are quite another. And narratives and judgments relating to the war presented in editorials did in fact appear to convey different perspectives. Yet beneath the surface of fierce pro-this or pro-that posturing there were once again no significant differences.
The business of understanding the war was inevitably relegated in favour of a black-and-white tale of blame and innocence. We "learned" (from conservative papers) that Hamas does what it does because it is "evil" and "antisemitic", or (from the Guardian) that Israel responds in the way it does because it is violent.
We did not learn how or why Hamas came to carry out evil actions or Israelis violent ones; what impact Hamas's actions affect Israeli policies; or vice versa.
Thus, left or right, the broadsheets by and large neglected just about the only function that makes them distinctive and useful for us: in their search for the Good Guys and the Villain they made next to no attempt to help us understand the conflict.
Discussing a topic by way of defending Good Guys and disparaging the Villains may be appropriate when discussing football in the pub.
But there, discussion is but a pseudo-debate with absolutely no expectation that we can convince let alone educate one another by recourse to rational argument.
If we enter the saloon bar as Arsenal supporters, we will not exit as converted Spurs fans.
Such "debates" are mere vehicles of this or that emotion and functions as ways of boosting our identity and sense of belonging.
As such, they are highly important. Yet they simply cannot take over the role that arguments play in political and moral debates. Without exercising the capacity of understanding and the will to have a genuinely open and substantial argument, there may be games -or wars - but not proper politics or true peace.
What does it mean to try and understand something?
A recognition and appreciation of context is vital. In the case of Operation Cast Lead, for example, this would mean looking beyond the mere fact of the Israeli offensive - for instance, looking not just at the material consequences of Hamas rockets but the motivation behind their being directed at Israeli civilians.
It would require examining the historical rhetoric of Israel's historical enemies and not just the outcome of the conflicts. Consideration is also necessary of the effects of hostile, destructive language upon the collective psyche of a self-proclaimed Jewish state.
It is not easy to confront such inflammatory events with an open mind but it is essential if real understanding is to be achieved.
Cool heads are necessary to understand what could have brought Hamas to such a pass. Can it simply be a bunch of evil-minded outlaws or is there a genuine political, and even philosophical outlook somewhere deeply obscured by its actions?
To what extent is it a consequence of the Israeli blockade, or the occupation of Palestinian territories?
To understand something does not mean to find a neat and exclusive political label to attach to it, left, right or in-between. Matters are rarely that simple.
The fact that an open-minded, intelligent approach is a difficult one to take should never deter anyone wishing to seek a fair and just outcome. Politics is far too important to be carried out in terms of pub banter or name-calling. That is the way to endless war.
The Middle East conflict is a far bigger issue than yesterday's football game. And we have a right to expect our newspapers and other media to help us towards a proper understanding of the events.
David Kaposi teaches psychology at the University of East London. His book, 'Violence And Understanding in Gaza is published by Palgrave Macmillan.