Test Yourself: The Mideast in 10 self-deceptions or less

[oberliner]

How can you know truth from self-deception - Here's a simple self-test that may help:

1. True or False: One side is regularly condemned internationally for war crimes it is alleged to have committed. The other is shielded, left to commit them at will.

2. True or False: One side desecrates holy places. The other respects religious shrines, and the right of all to worship as they choose.

3. True or False: One side can be trusted to observe negotiated peace accords and agreed cease-fires. The other side violates them at will.

4. True or False: One side takes care to abide by the terms of peace agreements and cease-fires, until such time as the other side blatantly violates them.

5. True or False: One side has learned the lessons of the Holocaust. The actions of the other side are reminiscent of those who perpetrated it.

6. True or False: One side has a legitimate historical claim to territory of the Holy Land, being direct descendants of its ancient inhabitants. The claims of the other do not stand up to factual inspection.

7. True or False: One side repeatedly launches attacks which kill innocent civilians. The actions of the other are acts of legitimate self-defense.

8. True or False: One side genuinely seeks peace. The other side truly wants the land on its own terms, and is prepared to continue to kill people on the other side as long as its actual desires are unattained.

9. True or False: News media are over-sympathetic to one side only.

10. True or False: The people who support and speak for the other side are either lying or self-deceived.

Excerpted from: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/802578.html

[breakaleg]

1. They lost me with #6. Having a historical claim in the biblical sense doesn't allow ANYONE to TAKE

the land by force today, especially when it has a current owner.

[oberliner]

2. I think the idea is that they are all supposed to be false

for someone who is not a victim of self-deception according to the author of the article.

[breakaleg]

3. Just read the article. Yes, we can convince ourselves to believe whatever we want to.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. #9..I assume he's talking about the Israeli media...

..because if it was the US media I'd have to say true for that one, but I got false for the rest...

[pelsar]

6. i didnt understand?....

we used their "ex mosques" for resturants, storage etc...so that would go under "desecrating holy places"....and they tend to do the same in one fashon or another.....

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Yr talking about #2, pelsar...

When it comes to that one, I think that since the conflict started both sides have desecrated holy places...

[pelsar]

5. where does it say bibical?

seems to me that is precisly what the auther is getting at...self deception..reading not what is there, but what one wants to read.......

[breakaleg]

7. It says historical. I keep reading about God's promise to Abraham being the basis

and I thought that was from the bible. My eyes glaze over at these types of arguments.

[pelsar]

9. archeology

most israelis arent religious and see the religion as culture...and the early zionists were if nothing anti religious being more socialistic and communist oriented.....

[breakaleg]

11. I think you mean anthropology?

[pelsar]

14. both i would say...

this place is full of digs coming up wth old jewish civilizations.....put in some anthropology and a bit of imagination and guesswork to fill in the holes, some bibical stories for toppings and presto!
the complete cultural experience....

(same could be said for the "other side")

[breakaleg]

16. Archeological digs don't mean a lot today about current land claims at least.

[pelsar]

18. they go for hisorical claim....

one can back up to the jordanians, Egytians,...british....turks, Syrians and keep going back to the romans and then to the jews, as to who had "property rights".......making a line somewhere and saying: this is where the history stops is simply being arbitrary about it.....

if your claiming the jews have no historical right to the land.....where do are you putting the line?...which year? and who controlled it (the jews actually had their properties titles chisled in stone, but the romans wouldnt let them take them with them when the kicked out and became slaves....)


the original O/P was exactly what your remark was about, being one side about a particular subject: archelology has very much to do with it, from the jewish side of things.

[breakaleg]

20. We've had this discussion already.

[pelsar]

22. i know...

but that was infact exactly what the OP was about....telling one faction that what is important to them...isnt.......that kind of attitude is what keeps the conflict going.....

[breakaleg]

25. Where am I doing that?

Surely you don't think that not believing in that Abraham crap is saying they can't believe what they want. At some point the real world has to come into account and relying on biblical references to acquire land that someone else owns is that time.

[pelsar]

26. not the biblical stuff....

thats not for me.....as i see it, your absolutly saying the jews have no historical right to israel because the last time the were there was "too long ago"....that is precisly what the questions above are all about. There are no absolutes here, those who believe so simply have no part in the solution.

the jewish "claim" is based on history and culture (i.e. the religion having a strong cultural element as well). Discounting jewish culture is not very tolerant....i dont think the romans conquest of the jews was a bibical story...or are you discounting that as well?

the real world btw, involves accepting the jewish culture and its past and as well as the reality of 2,000 years of being chased and hunted down throughout the world....and the reasons the jews started israel...that too is part of the real world.

[breakaleg]

28. ...

What I'm saying is having a historical connection to a place does not equal current land ownership. It shocks me that anyone thinks it does.

Who is discounting Jewish culture? I have a claim on Ireland too. But I don't get to go back there and say I'd like my little piece of prime real estate in downtown Dublin. It's more of a piece of my history that's nice to know about but it doesn't give me any rights if someone else actually physically OWNS the land today.

[pelsar]

30. land was bought...

well if you want to get serious about the jewish immigration.....then there was nothing "stolen' about it. The early immigrants, like immigrants all over the world, bought the land (i assume that selling to jews isnt considered 'stealing')....when the state was declared the public lands, that were once british, turkish, etc were now within the ownership of israel.

so where is the "stealing".....

i assume you not going to say that jews moving to palestine is somehow different from other immigrants that moved to other countries all over the world......

[breakaleg]

31. all of it?

I read that only 6% of the land from the original partition was owned by Jews.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

12. The argument is that Ismael (the first born of Abraham and his

wife's handmaiden Hagar (an Egyptian (I believe)) is the rightful heir to the land under the law.

After Sarah bore Issac (Abraham and Sarah's first born), Sarah made Abraham send Hagar and son away. As they wandered in the desert God spoke to Hagar and told her to worry not, that he would make a Great nation for Ismael.

God also said that their would be continual tension between the two brothers (nations). This is where literalists can make the their arguments.

[breakaleg]

13. Thank you for that. Not an argument that should have any effect today.

[azurnoir]

8. #6

I would love to see a mitochondrial DNA study done of the 2 sides, because if what I suspect is true BOTH sides have the SAME historical claim to the land. Not all of the Jews were expelled from then Roman Judea and in the ensuing millenia there have been more then a couple of mass forced conversions both to Christianity and Islam.
As to the rest of questions they were obviously neither true or false of either side.

[breakaleg]

10. Wasn't there a study recently that said there was neglible difference in DNA between

Jews and Arabs? And it was scheduled to be published and then pulled from a certain journal for political reasons.

[pelsar]

15. i read the same thing.....

but it wouldnt be surprising.....i've read elsewhere as well, nothing specific but enough to know were all related

[rpannier]

19. Number 6 is really kind of bizarre

Ubder their scenario, my Celtic relatives have claim to central England because they were pitched out by the Anglos and the Normans.

[dave_p]

21. Oh yes

Dave too says explain no.6 or piss off and stop wasting our time. Bless.

Hey, where are the answers anyway? Is this a pro-PLO thing? Goodness!

[pelsar]

23. its an exercise in ethnocentrisim....

if you find that "your side is correct" and the other side is "wrong"....your saying the conflict is "black and white"..which it isnt....its built on grays with conflicting histories, narration and viewpoints. The problem is that to take such a simplistic stand, such as 'we have the rights and "they dont"..is simply feeding the fanatics

[oberliner]

24. Maybe read the linked article?

It's from Ha'aretz.

[pelsar]

27. i actually read the paper..

the real thing on friday...and read the article then.

[oberliner]

29. wasn't responding to you

was responding to the the person who asked:

"where are the answers anyway?"

Sorry for any confusion.