How to tell when a 'Mideast Expert' is lying

[oberliner]

Excerpt:

So, How Do You Know When a 'Mideast Expert' is Lying?

1. The Expert knows with certainty which of the two sides - only one - is responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and which - the same one - for the failure of Mideast peace efforts.

2. The Expert treats the civilian victims of violence on one side as individuals, but assesses collective responsibility for the violence on the whole of the other side.

The Expert speaks as though entire civilian population of the other - call it the Dark - side, were directly, actively, complicit and thus accomplice to whatever excesses were committed in its name, and therefore deserves whatever sanction, condemnation, or reflexive collective punishment the Dark Side civilian population is about to experience.

3.Field Guide

Dark Side: Commits atrocities, war crimes, crimes against humanity.
Expert's Side: Exercises its right to self-defense.

Dark Side: Violates peace deals with impunity.
Expert's Side: Cannot move forward in light of Dark Side's bad faith.

4. The Expert hints, implies, or states outright that the actions of the DS are comparable to those of the Nazis.

5. The Expert begins, "The conflict is fundamentally very simple."

6. The Expert advocates a One State Solution.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1162455.html

[Sherman A1]

1. I would just go with

their lips are moving.

[LeftishBrit]

31. Certainly that's the best way of telling when a British politician is lying!

Especially during an election campaign like right now.

[MUAD_DIB]

2. Does the expert bring up the illegal Israeli settlements?

How about the Israeli reluctance to let the Palestinians have their own state?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[azurnoir]

4. Oh no because when held up to those standards

the Goldstone Report is quite fair something which IMO it is I wonder though id Oberliner would be willing to admit that

[shira]

7. Transformation? We're one and the same!

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

9. This is a Bradley Burston Op-Ed piece in Ha'aretz

His last one generated a pretty reasonable discussion which I believed you were a part of.

Not sure why you are reacting to this one the way that you are.

[aranthus]

11. It's part of a theme.

I suspect that PM's problem with the article is that it suggests that there are two legitimate sides to this war. On another thread, PM called me "diabolical" for suggesting that Palestinians have some responsibility for their current situation. Burston's article essentially says that those who think there is only one very wrong side to this conflict are lying. I'm not surprised that PM has a problem with it. She is clearly of the opinion that the Palestinians are totally innocent victims and that it is a travesty to even suggest otherwise.

[MUAD_DIB]

12. Although the Palestinians drink from the same cup of guilt as the Israelis do

there is no question that the Israelis have the tanks, guns, bombs and overall firepower. The Palestinian have rocks, rockets and the drive to keep what they perceive to be a fight for their lands going.

If the Israelis were smart then they would move out of the Illegal settlements and let the Palestinians have their damn state.

If the Palestinians were smart they would stop firing rockets and throwing stones while appealing to the U.N. to acknowledge their right to have a state.

[aranthus]

14. I agree with everything that you've written except

that the settlements aren't illegal. Wrongful yes, but not illegal.

[Ken Burch]

18. If they're against international law, they're illegal

And there's no point in hairsplitting on the distinction between illegality and wrongdoing. Saying that something is wrong, but not technically "illegal" doesn't mitigate the wrong.

[aranthus]

46. Except international law isn't law.

I recognize that there are many people who believe that it is, but that doesn't make it true. Also, it isn't hairsplitting to say that illegal and immoral are two different things, especially if the "legal" standard under discussion is international law, which is decidedly amoral.

[LeftishBrit]

29. Agreed.

[Ken Burch]

17. It's the equation of "advocacy of a one-state solution" with "lying"

That statement is itself a demagogic lie. And you're a decent enough person to know it.Those who advocate the One State idea(and, at this point, I'm not one of them)are basing their position on these TRUTHS:

1)If the settlements remain, it goes without saying that there can't possibly be enough land and resources to create a viable Palestinian state;

2)Any Palestinian leader who accepted the meaningless trivial sliver of lands and the other degrading proposals the Israeli government is presently willing to allow Palestine as a "state"(with the settlements preserved forever and bisecting the state, with both East Jerusalem AND the Jordan itself out of the state, with no independent supply of water and no army to protect the Palestinians from Israeli aggression)would be immediately and permanently discredited in the eyes of the Palestinian people and would be immediately supplanted by a more militant and violent alternative(as the 1990's Israeli government campaign to discredit Fatah proved), with the result that the war, even with a Palestinian state, couldn't possibly end;

3)It may be too late to remove the settlements without a civil war being caused within Israeli society. If that is the case, it would be unsustainable to even try a Two State approach.

Those considerations are among the ones that drive the One State advocates to the conclusions they reach. It's disgusting to equate their position with "lying", and you should have known better to have posted that article considering how pointlessly inflammatory that statement of Burston's was.

If you want a Two State solution, Oberliner, you have a moral and intellectual obligation to demand that ALL the settlements be removed and that the Palestinian state include ALL of the West Bank and East Jerusalem(with access to all religious sites for all people guaranteed). That is the minimum position that ANY Palestinian leadership, ever, can settle for. They don't have the option of accepting a bisected, demilitarized state. Accepting that position is already a massive compromise for Palestinians, since there was never any reason they should have been expected to accept the existence of Israel in the first place. It's compromise enough that Palestinians will only get 22% of the land that was meant to be theirs.

BTW, why should their state have to be demilitarized if the Israelis don't have to be? Why SHOULD Palestinians have to trust the Israeli military in a way that no one(even Fatah or likely even Hamas)would have demanded that the Israelis trust Palestinians. No one ever demanded that Israel be demilitarized. No one ever will. And even you would have to agree that the Palestinians have suffered at least as much from the IDF(if not far more)than Israelis have from what the media calls "terrorism". Thanks to the work of Israel's "New Historians" like Tom Segev, we now know that the Israeli military hasn't displayed any moral superiority in its rules of engagement for decades...if it ever did.

[oberliner]

21. He has altered that statement

The "lying" he is referencing appears to be about claiming not to be a "One-Stater" but actually in fact tacitly endorsing that reality.

Advocating a one-state solution without actually coming out and saying so.

[Ken Burch]

23. In that case, he's trying nto turn the "One State" question into a kind of McCarthyism

It doesn't always matter whether someone backs one state or two.

[oberliner]

25. How so?

If people support the one-state solution, they ought to just say so rather than obfuscating about it.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

26. That's how I feel about Zionists who support the status quo but are ashamed to say so.

I am proud to say that I believe every human being from the river to the sea is entitled to full human rights, not only Jewish people. If Jewish Israelis refuse to allow a viable state for Palestinian people, then they must annex the territory and provide citizenship for all.

The status quo, in which there are 4 levels

Jews anywhere in Israel or the territories have full rights, full movement
Christians and Muslims within the Green Line have some rights, some movement
Christians and Muslims within the West Bank are subject to racist apartheid laws
Christians and Muslims within Gaza live in a de facto concentration camp

is utterly unacceptable.

Do you agree Oberliner?

[oberliner]

27. I share that feeling

If someone supports the status quo, they ought to come right out and say it.

Those who pay lip service to the "peace process" but in reality take no steps towards making peace are just spinning their wheels.

Netanyahu needs to stop playing these kinds of games and must either step up or step aside and let someone else lead the inevitable march towards peace.

[aranthus]

28. I think that you are being generous.

While there may be some misguided souls who sincerely support the status quo, I don't think that are really many of them. I think most of the people who claim or imply support for the status quo want something more sinister. The settlers certainly don't want the status quo; they want the Palestinians gone. I think Netanyahu agrees with them. I don't think many on this board do.

[stray cat]

5. sounds like duers

[proteus_lives]

15. +1

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. Oh yes. The West is INUNDATED with pro-Palestinian "experts." I guess Zionists like Obie don't

want even the smallest iota of the Palestinian perspective shared in the media.

Which party in the conflict spends millions of dollars a year to package and sell its spin?

If this weren't so diabolical it would be funny. Instead it's simply more despicable propaganda that decent people should be ashamed to peddle.

[oberliner]

10. Diabolical? Despicable Propaganda?

The Palestinian perspective is presented extensively in the media.

You yourself have posted articles repeatedly on this forum presenting that perspective (including several from this very source, Ha'aretz).

This piece is by no stretch suggesting that the Palestinian perspective should not be shared in the media.

[subsuelo]

13. oh, ok, now all One-Staters are liars...

file this garbage away in the Not That Serious category

[oberliner]

20. He changed it - the article no longer makes that claim

Instead he amended it to read:

6. The Expert advocates a One State Solution, but doesn't come out and say so.

[Ken Burch]

16. Why does advocacy of a One State Solution equate to LYING?

I can agree with the rest, but why that?

I'm not even for a One State Solution, but why is advocating for that the same as lying?

Isn't the actual lie the claim that the Palestinians could have a viable state on ONLY the land the Israeli government is WILLING to leave them(I.E., the tiny bits that are of no value)?

[oberliner]

19. 6. The Expert advocates a One State Solution, but doesn't come out and say so.

Bradley Burston actually changed number six on his list to the above - perhaps he read some of the comments on this thread!

[Ken Burch]

32. Sure...he changed it...AFTER it had been out there for hours and hours

and after it had had the effect Burston wanted.

[Dick Dastardly]

43. The actual lie is the claim that the two state solution is no longer viable or

will soon be no longer viable because there are only tiny bits of land left and only bantustans are possible. Many hidden one state supporters make such claims to hide their real desire.


While it is true that the settler population has increased over the years. Its a lie to say that a two state solution is impossible because of this. This is because 80-90% of the settlers live on settlements adjacent to the green line which will remain part of Israel in any peace deal and also because the actual municipal borders all of the WB settlements only occupy around 4-5% of the WB and have not changed much as even Btselem acknowledges. Most of the population growth has been within the municipal boundaries of settlements that are going to stay with Israel anyway.
Many who perpetuate the lie that only bantustans are possible dishonestly include the security corridors that lie outside the municipal borders and are controlled by Israel but will revert to Palestinian control in any peace deal.

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. you mean like Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert

"Outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday time was running out for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

At an annual memorial ceremony for Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli prime minister killed by an ultranationalist Jew in 1995, Olmert again advocated a peace deal under which Israel would withdraw from nearly all of the occupied West Bank.

"If God forbid, we procrastinate, we could lose support for a two-state solution," he said, referring to the creation of a Palestinian homeland alongside Israel, a concept at the foundation of U.S.-sponsored peace negotiations.

"The decision must be taken now, without hesitation, before ... the narrow window of opportunity to plant (that) solution in the consciousness of our people and the nations of the world vanishes in front of our eyes," Olmert said.

Olmert has said that failure to establish a Palestinian state could lead to pressure on Israel to agree to a binational state including the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in which a higher Arab birthrate would eventually ensure Jews became the minority."

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36431420081110

With the exception of the brief period between the release of the Clinton Parameters on December 23, 2000 and the end of the Taba Talks on January 27, 2001 - no Israeli government as ever come close to even officially proposing removing enough roads, bypasses and closed areas to make even a contiguous West Bank even plausible.


"“ there is no Palestinian state, even though the Israelis speak of one.” Instead, he said, “there will be a settler state and a Palestinian built-up area, divided into three sectors, cut by fingers of Israeli settlement and connected only by narrow roads."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/world/middleeast/11road.html?_r=14&pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=22948d4799a34065&ex=1187496000&emc=eta1&oref

[Dick Dastardly]

45. That is false again, niether Olmert or Barak claimed that a Palestinian state is no longer viable or

close to no longer viable because only tiny bits of land are left and only bantustans are possible.

In the first place Olmert was making a political speech. Secondly he was making a "what if" statement about what if the political climate changes to put pressure on Israel for a one state solution. He says nothing about viability due to only bits of land being left making only bantustans possible.


Barak was stating if Israel annexes or keeps the WB making it part of Israel. If it is part of Israel then it can only be binational if the Palestinians otherwise it will become aparthied. Again he also says nothing about viability due to only bits of land being left making only bantustans possible.

With the exception of the brief period between the release of the Clinton Parameters on December 23, 2000 and the end of the Taba Talks on January 27, 2001 - no Israeli government as ever come close to even officially proposing removing enough roads, bypasses and closed areas to make even a contiguous West Bank even plausible.

As your post shows the settlements cover only 1.7 percent of the WB and as I said their municipal boundries cover 4-5%. 80-90% of the settlers live on settlements adjacent to the green line which will remain part of Israel in any peace deal. As I figured someone would post a map or something including zones of control which are as it states about 41% but with nothing on the municipal boundries. Usually we see someone try to claim those are the settlements or make some other false statement to argue how it makes the two state impossible or not viable. There is always some false excuse just as your claim is which the below map and articles show. Even if your claim above was not false, it does not support the common claim that a two state is now impossible or close to being such as the settlements physically occupy too much of the WB.




The Palestinians blew another one by rejecting the Olmert offer. As Ray Hanania said they should have grabbed it and ran with it




Haaretz exclusive: Olmert's plan for peace with the Palestinians
Olmert wanted to annex 6.3 percent of the West Bank to Israel, areas that are home to 75 percent of the Jewish population of the territories. His proposal would have also involved evacuation of dozens of settlements in the Jordan Valley, in the eastern Samarian hills and in the Hebron region. In return for the annexation to Israel of Ma'aleh Adumim, the Gush Etzion bloc of settlements, Ariel, Beit Aryeh and settlements adjacent to Jerusalem, Olmert proposed the transfer of territory to the Palestinians equivalent to 5.8 percent of the area of the West Bank as well as a safe-passage route from Hebron to the Gaza Strip via a highway that would remain part of the sovereign territory of Israel but where there would be no Israeli presence.

Olmert gave Col. (res.) Danny Tirza, who had been the primary official involved in planning the route of the security fence, the task of developing the map that would provide the permanent border between Israel and the Palestinian state. Olmert's proposed annexation to Israel of settlement blocs corresponds in large part to the route of the security fence. In his proposal for a territory swap, Olmert rejected suggestions previously raised involving the transfer to the Palestinians of the eastern Lachish hills, deciding instead to establish communities there for evacuees from the Gaza Strip. He also showed a preference for giving the Palestinians agricultural land over the transfer of the Halutza sands near the Egyptian border.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135699.html




http://www.haaretz.com/hasite/images/iht_daily/D171209/olmertmap.pdf


Is Olmert peace plan real?
Regardless of Olmert's true intentions, Palestinians should embrace peace gesture

clip
The “one-staters” don’t want peace, but as is their style, they never offer a realistic or practical plan to make one-state happen, without destroying Israel
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3334131,00.html





Abbas commends Olmert 'peace offer'
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2006/11/200852512231269222.html

Text

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. Olmert's Foreign Minister Livni tells France's Kouchner: I oppose Olmert's peace plan

With Olmert's own Foreign Minister publicly opposing the plan and Netanyahu publicly announcing that he would not honor a peace deal negotiated by Israeli Prime Minister Olmert there was simply no plausible scenario in which the proposal could have been ratified by the Knesset with Olmert embroiled in scandals of his own and already heading out the door.

Furthermore, the Olmert plan did not deal with East Jerusalem in a way that would have resolved a most central issue - not only to the Palestinians but throughout the Arab and Islamic world. Without resolving Jerusalem, the conflict is not resolved.

I would absolutely support a genuine two-state solution. But so far, no offer has been made by an Israeli government that was capable of delivering. A viable contiguous state would absolutely require that a great deal of settlement infrastructure - be removed or at least Israeli control would have to be withdrawn - which would be implausible without also the removal of a large portion of the settlements and the half-million settlers. It is absolutely ludicrous to imagine that a viable and contiguous Palestinian state is possible while keeping close to half a million settlers in the Occupied Territories. It is ludicrous to imagine that most of the settlers and the settlements would stay without most of the infrastructure that now supports them.

For whatever reasons, both the current Israeli Defense Minister and the former Israeli Foreign Minister and a lot of other people who obviously are certainly not advocates of the single-state solution - recognize and have said quite publicly that the window of opportunity is rapidly closing on the two-state solution.

BTW: I am not an advocate of the single-state solution. I am just looking at the on-the-ground realities coupled with political plausibility. Obviously a single-state solution is not a politically plausible idea at least for the foreseeable future either. As long as the consensus is in favor of the two-state solution and it remains more plausible than a single-state solution - I will support it. I just agree on this point with Mr. Olmert and Mr. Barak that the window for that opportunity is closing.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told her French counterpart Bernard Kouchner that she opposes the agreement in principle that outgoing prime minister Ehud Olmert has offered Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

"I do not believe in far-reaching proposals and an attempt to expedite matters, especially in light of the political situation," Livni, the prime minister-designate, told Kouchner on Sunday.

snip: "Livni's explanation was a criticism of Olmert. "Abu Mazen in his present political situation cannot accept such an agreement," she said. "The political situation in Israel also does not allow it to be signed."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1026575.html

Netanyahu: Abbas-Olmert peace deal will be invalid

Opposition leader and Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu hinted Thursday that if he were to be elected prime minister, he would not honor any peace agreement struck between current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, if one should be achieved.

"The agreement that Olmert will or will not achieve is no more than a cynical invalid deal - not in legal terms, but in terms of reality," Netanyahu said in an interview with the right wing affiliated newspaper Makor Rishon.

Olmert and Abbas promised U.S. President George W. Bush to try to reach a peace deal by the end of the year.

Netanyahu said in the interview that he would regard general elections as a referendum on the potential peace deal, saying "then the public would be the judge."

"If they win the election - fine. But if they don't, they can't force upon the public, in a cynical and manipulative manner, something the public is not interested in," he added.

In response to the question whether he would honor a peace agreement calling for the division of Jerusalem between Israel and the Palestinians, Netanyahu said "I can say with certainty that I will not divide Jerusalem."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/976050.html

this statement was made prior to Olmert's offer

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. In the spirit of the OP: How to Tell when a "Liberal" Zionist is lying

Sometimes it's hard for those who are neutral in this conflict to tell the difference between those partisans who call themselves "liberal Zionists" and those who are more right-wing. Just like Burston's "mideast expert" who seems neutral but clearly has a preference, I do believe there are posters here who call themselves progressive, but in fact have an I/P agenda that is anything but.

I offer the following guide:

1. When Liberal Zionists claim to want peace, but don't approve of any form of resistance for Palestinians. They are against BDS and weekly demonstrations at villages like Naalin and Bilin... Really the only resistance faux Liberals zionists approve of are letters to the editor. But only in English. Just like their RW counterparts, faux "liberal Zionists" really want Palestinians to "be good" until Israelis change their mind about continuing the occupation. To that end...

2. When Liberal Zionists are against putting any real pressure on Israel to end apartheid in the WB and the destruction and siege of Gaza because the alternative "will destroy Israel." ... Faux liberal Zionists are against BDS, they are against international solidarity movements likes ISM, they are against reports like Goldstone (not 2-sided enough!, they are against just about anything we can do to put pressure on the gov't of Israel... Just like their RW counterparts, although they make make noises to the contrary, faux "liberal Zionists" seems quite satisfied with the status quo and the special laws for Jews-only in Israel.

3. When Liberal Zionists are against the Right of Return because it will "destroy Israel."... Just like their Likud counterparts, faux "liberal Zionists" refuse to see that the "Right of Return" isn't a single demand for all time, but a discussion that begins with Israel taking responsibility for their crimes in 1948. When a "liberal" Zionist denies the Nakba, it's a sure sign...

4. When Liberal Zionists say they disapprove of Israel's human rights abuses, but don't want Israel criticized because that criticism singles Israel out... Israel can't be criticized for war crimes until every nation which commits war crimes is equally criticized. Just like their RW counterparts, faux "liberal Zionists" care more than Israelis might be criticized than that Israelis have, for example, dropped white phosphorus on children.

5. When liberal zionists say that that providing all human beings with the same basic human rights will "destroy Israel."... Can someone explain that one?

6. When liberal Zionists (OMG! Iran!) drop constant references to (OMG! Iran!) the ongoing danger (OMG! Iran!) that Israel faces(OMG! IRAN!) you have another clue that the poster might not (OMG! IRAN!!) be presenting him or herself honestly.

So when a "liberal Zionist" offers all of the above, it's time to ask that person: what is the difference between you and Netanyahu?

[oberliner]

24. This is great - very artfully done!

You should consider trying to get this published in other places where "liberal Zionists" congregate.

[LeftishBrit]

30. I read the article differently from some people

Some people here seem to take the use of 'one state solution' as meaning only the way that it's used by some pro-Palestinians; and hence assume that the article doesn't criticize pro-Israelis as well. It's fairly clear from the examples used in the article, that Burston is also using the term to refer to *any* solution that doesn't result in two states, including continuation of the status quo and denial of the Palestinian right to statehood.

I agree with the article, except that I'm not sure the 'experts' - on either side- are always lying consciously. Sometimes they're just blinkered or wrong.

[Lithos]

33. blinkered...

interesting expression.

Is this the same as wearing blinders, or alternatively rose-coloured (spelling for you) glasses?

[LeftishBrit]

34. Wearing blinders. Only seeing a small part of the whole. Narrow-minded.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. They're blinkers, not blinders...

I've never heard of blinkers being called blinders before. Blinkers are what horses used to wear to narrow their vision, which is where the phrase you used came from, and a blinder is when someone has an incredibly awesomely amazing experience, usually of a sports related nature...

[oberliner]

38. Blinders, also known as blinkers, are a piece of horse tack that restrict the horse's vision

Blinders, also known as blinkers or winkers, are a piece of horse tack that restrict the horse's vision to the rear and, in some cases, to the side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinders

Other contexts:

How Wearing Blinders Affects Your Relationships

People go through life wearing blinders that allow them to see only a small piece of the total picture. Everyone has a unique view that leads to their own interpretation of events.

http://ezinearticles.com/?How-Wearing-Blinders-Affects-Your-Relationships&id=2820126

U.S. Wearing Blinders on Global Warming

http://www.ombwatch.org/node/1872

[Violet_Crumble]

37. It looks like Bradley Burston did revise the article after it was first posted here...

I'm not sure what exactly was changed, but when I read it only a few moments ago, he specifies what he's talking about when it comes to the one-state thing...

'In some cases, the obfuscation about being a One Stater, or the reliance on phrases like "It is not for me to say what the solution is, only to give voice to those whose voices go unheard" may have something to do with not wanting to come right out and say that you really believe that there should be no Palestine at all, ever, or that Israel should not continue to exist. Especially when a two-state solution, as difficult as it will doubtless be to effect, is the stated goal of most parties to the conflict, including the Obama administration, the UN, the PA, and Benjamin Netanyahu.

For various reasons*, the closet One-State Expert may instead attack every other option, by the process of elimination. "Peace Plan A can't be implemented, Peace Plan B will cause civil war, Peace Plan C will cause thousands of deaths, Peace Plan D is another word for genocide ..."

Or, One Staters may use lies aimed at reinforcing their side:

"Jews should be able to live anywhere in East Jerusalem. After all, Arabs can live anywhere they want in West Jerusalem."

"Arab rulers have always related to their Jewish subjects with tolerance, respect, security and freedom."

Oddly, both in the case of pro-Israeli and pro-Palestian True Believers in their respective One State solutions, the tactic is the same: foil, undermine and otherwise ice any Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

*The unstated belief on the part of the True Believers is that time is on their side, and only their side. If current trends and historical processes continue, the reasoning goes, my side will have its One State.

And what about the other? While the reply of the Expert will likely be sophisticated, the bottom line will be plain:

"They had their chance."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

fwiw, I did enjoy reading that article and recognised the 'expert' tactics that have appeared in some posts in this forum far too regularly over time....

And I agree on the blinkered thing and feel compelled to repeat that it's blinkered and not blinded or any other weird stuff...

[oberliner]

39. Blinkers and Blinders are the same thing

1. blinders A pair of leather flaps attached to a horse's bridle to curtail side vision. Also called blinkers.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blinder

Glad you enjoyed the article!

[Violet_Crumble]

40. That was one language difference I wasn't aware of before...

If I ever go to the US I'm going to have to carry round one of those touristy phrase-books to make myself understood...


Thanks for posting that article, btw. Maybe I just never took much notice of Bradley Burston before, but I'm finding lately that I really like how he cuts to the chase and makes really good observations about the nature of the conflict and stuff like that...

[bemildred]

36. A way to discern when they are telling the truth would be more useful. nt

[ProgressiveMuslim]

41. My thoughts exactly. I think this piece was disgusting. Everyone "here" lies? No they don't.

Were the examples regarding the Nakba representing two liars? The Palestinian narrative is taken from the Miftah site. Does Burston believe that those moderate Palestinans are "liars?"

I say to Burston: speak for yourself, liar.

[bemildred]

42. Number 6 was where it lost me.

But I gotta admit I didn't spend any time analyzing it.