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.