Disclaimer: Some content is inappropriate for readers under 18 years of age or those offended by swear words, references to sexuality, atheism, and libertarianism.

Friday, December 07, 2007

Are You a Fanatic on the Middle East?

I found some of the comments made by Mr. Burston interesting in terms of perspective from both sides of the Israeli-Arab conflict. While a little over-simplified and obviously biased, thar be truth in bits of it. Now if both sides were better represented in a "quiz" such as this, I'd be a little more interested. The source of the quiz is in the hyperlinked title.



Self Test: Are you a fanatic on the Middle East?
By Bradley Burston.






Ask fanatics whether they are fanatics, and the answer they are likely to give is a calm No.

It's an honest answer. It reflects a self-conception of clear thinking, unsullied judgment, broad knowledge, and political consistency.

The fact that it is often dead wrong never seems to intrude. It's a primary perk of the genuinely extreme.

So how can you possibly tell if you are, in fact, a fanatic? As a start, take the following self-test.

Part One [30 Points]: True or False - The more I learn about the Israeli-Arab conflict, the clearer it becomes.

Part Two [70 Points]: The following are a list of Seven Deadly Sins of the Mideast. For each, answer the following question, regarding the two sides of the Israeli-Arab divide, with respect to the side that ethnicity, religion, lineage, and/or sentiment place you on.

A. The other side is constantly guilty of this sin.
B. Both sides are often guilty of this sin.
C. The other side is flagrantly guilty of this sin, and my side is often and unjustly accused of it.
D. My side is flagrantly guilty of this sin, and the other side is often and unjustly accused of it.

1. Gall

Example: In an interview on the eve of a state visit to London in late October, Saudi King Abdullah accused Britain of failing to act strongly enough to combat international terrorism. He told the BBC that most countries, Britain included, did not view terrorism seriously enough.

"It will take 20 to 30 years to defeat the scourge of terrorism with vigilant effort," he said. "And I strongly urge all countries in the world, including Great Britain, to take the matter of fighting terrorism very, very seriously."

This, from the nation which remains the world's pre-eminent source of funding for terrorism.

This, from the royal family which spawned - and until he turned his guns around to face them, sponsored - Osama Bin Laden.

This, from the country which brought you 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001, and which did precious little about it afterward.

2. Sanctimony

Example: June, 2006. Seven Palestinian civilians are killed in an explosion in Gaza. It may have been an errant artillery shell, a buried artillery shell, or some other explosive. Israel's response is instinctive.

"The IDF is the most moral army in the world," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert tells his cabinet.

"It does not and never has made a policy of targeting civilians."

ASIDE: Let us, for the moment, put aside the debate comparing intentional versus incidental killing of civilians. Let us consider, instead, the possibility that the only truly moral army is the one which never faces an enemy, one which never fires a shot. One which is never at war.

Those who have served in the IDF will attest both to acts of extraordinary humanity under fire, and egregious acts of gratuitous cruelty in carrying out the duties of occupation. Neither, strictly speaking, are policy. They are a reflection of the broad autonomy of action granted Israeli commanders and soldiers.

3. Obscenities of Honor

Example: From a 1998 article http://www.merip.org/mer/mer206/ruggi.htm on Honor Killings in Palestine by journalist Suzanne Ruggi in the Middle East Report:

"Every year, hundreds of women and girls are murdered in the Middle East by male family members. The honor killing-the execution of a female family member for perceived misuse of her sexuality-is a thorny social and political issue. Palestinian activists campaigning for equality find it difficult to stop the killings altogether. Legitimacy for such murders stems from a complex code of honor ingrained in the consciousness of some sectors of Palestinian society."

"The family constitutes the fundamental building-block of Palestinian society. Family status is largely dependent upon its honor, much of which is determined by the respectability of its daughters, who can damage it irreparably by the perceived misuse of their sexuality."

4. Obscenities of Victimhood
THE MECHANISM: [Repeat until convinced]
I am the victim. I am the only victim. There is no other victim before me. The other side, if it suffers, has brought this suffering on itself. The other side, if it suffers, cannot know how my side has suffered immeasurably more. The other side, if it suffers, deserves it.

5. Racism
ASIDE: Examples are legion. In many areas of the Middle East, Muslims of Arab origin mistreat Muslims of African origin, calling them "slave," shunning them or, in cases like Sudan, slaughtering them.

In Israel, there is an elaborate, multi-tiered pecking helix of racism and mutual hatreds, among them the Ashkenazi-Sephardi divide, the Jewish-Arab divide, and local feuds along such ethic lines as Jews of Russian, Moroccan and Ethiopian origin.

6. Obscenities of Higher Law, or, Claiming God's Will for Immoral Acts
MECHANISM: Holy men sanction and legitimize violence against innocents and against institutions of religious denominations they oppose.

7. Lust for Vengeance
Fill in your favorite.
SCORING

Part One: True - 30 Points. False ? 0.
Part Two: For every C or D answer, 10 points. For every A answer, 5 Points. For every B answer, 0 points.

70 Points and above: Congratulations. You are a true fanatic.
40-65 Points: You are conflicted, and may find yourself envying the conviction and apparent happiness of the fanatic.
Less than 40 points: You are doomed to a certain level of woe. You are the true victim of the Seven Deadly Sins - a moderate.

2 comments:

Fahed said...

I read it on Haaretz. I liked one of the responses by a Ben A:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/932319.html

START

Even though the intended purpose of Bradley`s article is to put the blame on both sides; I am afraid this is not possible.

Just because there are two sides to a conflict, the truth is not in the middle.

It would be utterly laughable to use Bradley`s logic when debating Nazis or Skinheads or racists.

Israeli is made up of a people who want to take land and empty it of as many non-Jews as possible for the benefit of Jews. This is hardly something that we can rationalize, no matter how offensive or even criminal some Palestinian acts can be.

The Palestinians might be tactically stupid and in some cases reprehensibly violent, but strategically they will always have the moral higher ground. Zionism makes it so.

END

TeacherLady said...

You can't deny that taking someone else's land is a bit of an obvious taboo, to say the least, true. Especially if that act is what results in all the tragedies that follow. We could trace back even further and blame Hitler. My opinion, obviously.