Articles By Bob

Today we continue our discussion of historical revision regarding the Middle East conflict through the structure of a True/False test.

True or False? Whenever there is a conflict going on, we should immediately assume that both sides are partially right and partially wrong. There is no other explanation for conflicts.  They are a matter of perspective. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” If people aren’t getting along or if nations aren’t getting along, there are always two sides to the story.

Answer: False

We Baby Boomers and Baby Busters grew up on Star Trek where Captain Kirk or Captain Pickard arbitrated between two planets or two factions on one planet. “If you could each listen to one another…”

That sounds great. Listening with empathy is certainly ideal.  But there’s also a problem. What if one side doesn’t wish to listen?  What if one side simply wants the other dead?

Now let’s all think for a moment:  Isn’t it possible, just remotely possible, that on some occasions one side is completely in the wrong?  Before you answer in haste, I must point out that with other conversations you, yourself, have been quite willing to use labels such as right and wrong.

This is a concept we all embrace. It’s just that we tend to select our issues differently when dealing with faulty information.  Starting at the level of family, are there two sides to the story when a husband beats his wife?  As a society we quickly and properly condemn the man. We admonish the wife to take a stand, get a restraining order and press charges. We exhort her to stop enabling the abuse. Indeed, by enabling the abuse she often puts her own children in harms way.   Unfortunately, the role of the enabler is not limited to family members.  Whole nations can enable other nations.

But nations also have a conscience and sometimes this conscience can be stirred.  In the days of slavery, when abolitionists debated slave-owners or debated anyone advocating that despicable institution, would it have been appropriate to say that both view points were equally valid, simply because two strong opinions existed?  Supposing somebody wanted to defend rape?  Supposing somebody wanted to defend racism? Should the passions advocating gladiator combat have been deemed equally moral to the condemnation of the practice?  Many Roman writers denounced the gladiator games.  Were they being too judgmental?  Was their’s just a mere opinion, no more right and no more wrong than anyone else’s?

Were the Nazis justified in their ideologies and practices? Were there two sides to the story; the side of the Allies and the side of the Axis?  When Hitler signed treaties with Chamberlain, he did so with the intention of breaking them. No other course of action even once crossed his mind. He was going to conquer the world for the Arian race, murder the Jews, murder the homosexuals, murder the mentally challenged…Shall I go on?

Yes, sometimes there are two sides to the story.  And sometimes there’s only one side.

True or false? The Palestinians are a culture dating back to ancient times. They are indigenous to the land and this land was conquered and taken away from them by the Israelis.

Answer:  False.

This answer will be discussed in tomorrow’s post.

Bibliography

1) The Complete Idiot’s Guide To Middle East

Conflict by Mitchell G. Bard, Ph.D

2) Philistine, by Ramon Bennett.