How to tell when a Mideast Expert is lying

Have you seen that John le Carre book about the Israeli secret service's assassination squad? Well, I think Bradley Burston is trying so hard to play one of the lead characters in that homage to righteous sadism (or whatever le Carre thought he was trying to accomplish) that he is starting to grin at himself. That may be the "straight-faced test" in operation. If so, it may put my theory of that test to the test. My theory is that this self-parody and stifled nervous giggling is not simply the result of cognitive dissonance or similar autonomous feelings of implausibility, but rather the response to a calm stare, at such a time and place where that stare is more eloquent and persuasive than any gesture, no matter how clever or violent.

"One Staters" is a lie unto itself. Denying that Jordan is and always has been the Arab State in Palestine is the another lie.Pretending that yet another Arab State on Israeli land is a just solution is a bigger lie yet. Come on people let's tell the truth for a change.

Anyone who argues that is possible is lying as well. At minimum it must be a 3 state solution. Not only is Gaza separate, but the notion of both a contiguous Palestinian state and a contiguous Israel is geographically impossible.

"The Jewish People are a middle eastern people." Some. " Yes, many Jews from Europe are mixed primarily due to forced atrocities upon our women and in modern times some intermarriage." Those from Japan, China etc ? "After all, some Native Americans are mixed with Europeans but they are still native americans" Because they were BORN in America. "A large percentage of Israelis are children of Jews living as second class citizens for centuries in Arab Lands" They could have gone to Palestine for centuries " The only fair solution is for the 22 Arab countries to absorb their brethren who resided in the Land of Israel as the Jews of Israel absorbed their Arabic Jewish brethren" The Palestinians did not kick them out of Arabic countries why should they observe your stupidity? "I pray that a fair and JUST solution will be found for all the peoples of the middle east - Jewish and Christian as well as Muslim May peace be upon you" Uh?? You just wanted the Palestinians out

By the time the British Mandate ended, (ocupation) there were Jewish forces in control of Palestinian territory under Plan Dalet. One cannot declare Sovereign Independence with someone else controlling one's territories. It is why the British Mandate had to end before either party, if they wished, could declare Sovereign Independence. With Jewish forces already in their territory May 14th '48, the Palestinians COULDN'T declare Sovereign Independence, even if they wanted to. They still can't, only Israel prevents it. Nothing else.

" The partions of 1947 partitioned the land of Israel " Strange, that's not what the partition resolution says. I guess if you're justifying Israeli expansionism, you'll say just about anything...no matter how ridiculous..

We learn from the best ron. That is creatures like you who try to keep us down & out & my people succeed in every level & best your types every time.I heard there were a lot of inbreeding in fairfax fyi. It explains alot.

That the author of these articles tells basic lies,half truths & is as self hating of his heritage as can be.The Jewish AIDS of our time is called GUILT. all the talk bloogers in here suffer the same malady who lemming like agree with him.

This is one of the best written, most insightful and most memorable articles I have have ever read. Your case studies pertain to the issue with which you and your countrymen deal but your description of human interaction is universal, and honest. Again, well done.

With all due respect Ms. Hughes Thompson - The Jewish People are a middle eastern people. Yes, many Jews from Europe are mixed primarily due to forced atrocities upon our women and in modern times some intermarriage. After all, some Native Americans are mixed with Europeans but they are still native americans. A large percentage of Israelis are children of Jews living as second class citizens for centuries in Arab Lands. The only fair solution is for the 22 Arab countries to absorb their brethren who resided in the Land of Israel as the Jews of Israel absorbed their Arabic Jewish brethren. I pray that a fair and JUST solution will be found for all the peoples of the middle east - Jewish and Christian as well as Muslim May peace be upon you

I am so sick and tired of hearing "peace activists" as well as white house residents... "It is not for me to say what the solution is..." but then, as you point out, they would have to stand naked before the world.

"Many Israelis make the assumption that the Palestinians erred by not accepting the UN resolution partitioning Palestine. Would Israel accept such a resolution partitioning Israel? Of course not." Actually the Jews already accepted such a resolution - in 1947. Both peoples had an equal claim to Palesine. The Jews decided to reliquish about half of the territory they claimed (many Jews were angry and Ben Gurion for agreeing to partion the land, but it was the right thing to do) The Palestinians refused to make the same compromise.

"Would Israel accept such a resolution partitioning Israel?" Yes, the Jews already have. The partions of 1947 partitioned the land of Israel

That there are any legitimate rights for an Arab state west of the Jordan river. In 1946 the British subverted the purpose of their Mandate and unilaterally granted Transjordan its independence thereby creating an independent Arab state in the Levant with no regard for the rights and needs of the Jewish population. According to Sir Alec Kirkbride, the British representative in the area, Transjordan was: "... intended to serve as a reserve of land for use in the resettlement of Arabs once the National Home for the Jews ... became an accomplished fact. There was no intention at that stage of forming the territory east of the River Jordan into an independent Arab state." By granting Transjordan`s independence, the British in 1946 created an independent Palestine-Arab state. See UK SoS Bevin`s speech to the U.N. General Assembly proclaiming Transjordan`s independence (reported fully in The New York Times, Jan. 18, 1946).

Amazing how much Jews and Palestinians have in common. The NYU School of Medicine and the Academy of Science discovered that ME Jewish men have a common genetic signature with Lebanese men, Syrian men and Palestinians, and with no other non-Jews in the world. But if your claim of takiyya is accurate, they also have a lot in common regarding morals. But Jews don't have to wait for war, espionage, concealment, or in weakness to lie. According to the Talmud, Jews can lie to a gentile anytime: "Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile."

why no lying peace plan, shall work. that does not include TheG-D of TheTorah's Plan here in IT. is self evident, in these same days of the resurrection of adam and your grandmother, as always here in TheTorah. in this world that does not really believe in TheG-D of Only TheTorah, here and now forever actually in IT. cause that's the origional lie, is to reject TheG-D of TheTorah here in IT. because the more subtle than anyother beast of the fields says so. or haven't any of you truly read the story, how this is going now here in TheTorah. for the world refusing to repent of your the origional sin. and further more nationalizing yerusalem won't work, because the religions of the beasts of the fields wins. and that will only anger G-D more than HE already is at us all. shalomcha vshalomech???,?...

And often it includes blood libels, most frequently against Jews. Let's be clear on the nature of the problem.

may it please be given to all of us to avoid becoming fascists. BS can be unconscious or truly disingenuous. Fascists, who exist in all societies tend to the latter. May we learn not to listen to this devil in our midst.

It's not really lying. It's really bulls---, a conscious, phenomenological adoption of one's own perspective as though it were factual and true, and the subsequent building of a scaffold of "reality", based on the original BS, through which all else is filtered. I commend to you a wonderful little volume by Harry G. Frankfurt, "On Bullshit",. Princeton University Prss. It explains much of what--and who-- passes today for leadership.

But what do we do with the proposals to put them out of their misery. Germany, reunited, exists. Jordan is not Palestine. The Bedouin king of Jordan a Sharif has said so, as did his father, who was also a descendant of Mohamad.

I have taken a side in this. But that's not the point. I was raised to think critically about everything I hear; even what comes out of my own mouth. My father said: "don't ever believe your own gas [=methane, by product of bullshit.] I decided based on following a lot of his writing but this article put me over the edge, that I like Bradley Burston. Yes, most of us all over the "free" world call it politics. But in most places the moves are not as draconian nor the the deals so faustian as what passes for posturing for negotiations as in the ME. Two peoples have nowhere else to live. Work it out and in doing so take pity on American working people who shouldn't be spending so much on your problems because we have real problems of our own.

It is an established historical fact that the Palestinian Jews accepted the partition plan while the Arabs did not. It is also an historical fact, that one day after the UN partition vote, the Arabs started a war of annihilation against the Palestinian Jews.In spite of the invasion by the regular armies of the Arab states, Israel won that war. The war, the Arabs started, brought nothing but disaster to their people, including the refugee problem. Without the war they started, there would have been NO refugees. I will leave to Burston's imagination to guess what would have been the fate of the Palestinian Jews, had they lost that (or any other) war... It is answer A (the truth) and not B (the lie).

An observer in Germany in 1946 would have seen death, refugees,hunger and misery. Would it have been justified to say: Yes, well, history to one side and all that, the whole world hates them and is occupying them and they have cut their country to pieces, and look at them suffering! Being a victim doesn't mean you have to be in the right, you can be a victim of your bad choices, too. In German'y case a century of militarism and nationalism reduced the nation to rubble, but no one was sorry.

" It seems to me the deadline to declare sovereignty was a formality and had already been rejected." I GAVE YOU the deadline. The Resolution was non-binding. Neither party was obliged, either party could if they controlled their respective territories. No one can tell anyone to declare independence and no one can declare independence if someone else is in control of their territory. I N D E P E N D E N C E. Look it up. "Rejection of the Partition Plan was not a declaration of the war, but I suspect this followed soon thereafter or at least was a STRONG SIGNAL that war was about to ensue." The preempter starts a preemptive war. The Arab states did not "The Arabs made no indication they intended to declare sovereignty or build a Palestinian state" They were not obliged to. Nor could they once Jewish forces were in their territories. 3. A) The Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine said no such thing. B) No parts of the Jewish state have ever been in Arab hands

Most of them were told to leave, and yes were not allowed to return. It was a ethnic war! And did jews have to leave predominantely palestinian aereas and were their properties distryed or taken? Of course, in Hebron, the whole jewish quarter incl grave yards in Jerusalem etc were destroyed. Were they allowed back? No it was a war like other wars. Period.

Some arguments stand in the way of the truth. The whole argument about 1948 (did they go or were they pushed) has stood in the way of the unarguable truth, that having gone (for whatever reason you favour) the State of Israel did not allow the refugees to come back, and permitted Israelis to move into or demolish their 500-600 villages and dozen or so towns. End of argument.

CJ, you aren't really answering my questions directly, and partly they are not truthful. 1. It seems to me the deadline to declare sovereignty was a formality and had already been rejected. You respond with 'non-binding, no obligation'. This is ambiguous. I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me. 2. Rejection of the Partition Plan was not a declaration of the war, but I suspect this followed soon thereafter or at least was a STRONG SIGNAL that war was about to ensue. The Arabs made no indication they intended to declare sovereignty or build a Palestinian state. 3. While you claim the invasion of Palestine was not a threat to Israel this is clearly misleading for at least two reasons. One, many Arab leaders had clearly declared intention to push the Jews into the Mediterranean and thus take all of the land from the river to the sea. Secondly, why did parts of the Jewish state subsequently disappear into the hands of the Arabs?

There's two distinctions I'd like to make first--there's history and then there's morality. The historical record, I'll be the first to admit, is complicated. Who did what when? as a response to what? Was it justified? etc, But on the other hand, the morality I think is very simple. Just look at the current situation of Israelis and Palestinians--who's killing, who's dying, who's dominant, who's relegated to an inferior status. At this point it is very, very clear--most Israelis live comfortably and most Palestinians don't. Look at the casualty rates for each side--it's like 7 to 1, and you know which side the 7's on and which side the 1, Then look at the level of poverty, etc--and there really is no comparison. The Palestinians have really suffered and Israelis can't equivocate. It is clear that the moral issue here is Palestinian suffering, and that is the focus for people who take a side in the conflict out of morality rather than national or ethnic chauvinism, or whathaveyou.

people can tell themselves all the comforting lies they want, in the end its what you do or don't do that speaks volumes.

Brilliant Brad, sad but true!!

Mr. Wright, you keep asking everyone to read your book, the Qu'ran?? Have you chosen the path of converting others to your faith?? Just a question??

1. Ask a Palestinian refugee living in a refugee camp outside his homeland Palestine what really happened 2. Ask the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank who live under the Israeli occupation what Israel means to them. 3. Ask Mr. Balfour who for British imperial interests promised a homeland for the "Jews" when the true Jews were against his declaration. 4. Ask GOD for the truth. But then again the truth depends upon which one you ask. Everything else is just politics.

"All the so called Arab territories have been home to Jews for hundreds of years." And home to as many, if not more, other folk. In Palestine Jews have been a minority. Even 3,000 years ago, it was highly unlikely that the Jewish ruling class actually outnumbered those they conquered.

you state "Benni Morris has documented the shelling, death threats and looting committed by the Haganah, Irgun and Lechi, where`s the evidence of being told to leave by Arab leaders?" Please watch the PBS documentary called Israel and the Arabs, the fifty years war. In that documentary the Arab leaders, Egyptian newspaper editors and other Arabs admit this quite openly and state it was one of their biggest mistakes. They admit lying to the local Arabs that Jews will come and rape their wives and that the Arab armies will be massacring Jews so they should leave and come back to claim the spoils after the war. It is a known fact that they did this but one that the world chooses to ignore because its inconvenient to their argument that the refugees are the fault of the Jews when the Arabs admit openly that they did this. Everyone should watch this PBS documentary, its very well done and informative as well.

Is there such a thing as accuracy. If history is a true record, how do we know we can trust the record-keepers. As people sift through history, can anyone be trusted not to let their biases creep in. After all... facts are cherry-picked to fit an argument. Certainly, this lightweight effort is the gold standard for blogs and talk-backs. And everybody knows accuracy is too dull for politics, news or journalism. In a cynical world, people will believe what they want to believe... fact, fiction or an outright lie.

you say the Jews came to a land where they were a clear minority? Who told you that? Jews have been a majority in Jerusalem since the 1500's. Its well documented. There was never a time where Arabs outnumbered Jews. The truth is that most of the Arabs that live here now are immigrants themselves that came over within the last sixty years. Also the writer makes false statements too. He Jews argue they should be allowed to live in anywhere in east Jerusalem since Arabs can live anywhere in west Jerusalem. That?s not the point made, the point made is that many parts of east Jerusalem were Jewish neighborhoods before Jordan ethnically cleansed all Jews from there in 1948 without any compensation what so ever and that they should be allowed to return to the land that their families legally purchased before that tragedy. Jews were also ethnically cleansed from Gaza by the Turks in the 1800. All the so called Arab territories have been home to Jews for hundreds of years. Lets be honest.

".. to what extent was the deadline to declare sovereignty a mere formality?" //not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III// "..the Arabs rejected the partition plan upon its public release...I don`t see anyone would have waited for expiration in the face of a serious existential threat." A) Non binding. No obligation. B) Rejection of partition was not a declaration of war. The Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of PALESTINE, contained no threat to Israel. There's no UNSC Res condemning their action. Israel was no longer a part of Palestine. " ...I am just of the impression that their existence did not change the outcome of the 1948 proceedings significantly" In order to declare Sovereignty an entity must control all the territories it declares, Jewish forces in the Palestinian territories prevented them being able to declare Sovereignty then and ever since

The only thing i would change though is that: instead of starting the article with (Allow me to begin with a word or two about lying.)it should be (Allow me to begin with a word or two about Middle East). that would be more accurate.

Thank you for telling me. How do I make this right since I inherited this state of situation. I already sent a brief over. I am reading as I go. I really inherited this problem so it is okay to hate me. Both sides have underground groups both sides hate. Both sides have hated. I didnt ask who you were when you were hurt I treated you. I dont ask who you are or your dna when I sit by you on the buses. I am trying really trying to find a solution. All I can do is try to make it neutral first for safety to you. With United Nations help. I only started this in 2007 and it is just now 2010. Elections are coming up and alot of those people are in the USA, Canada, England. Please just go into an office or voice for your people in peaceful manner and help to rebuild. We can do this. Karoon-Rankoo

Imaginations run wild sometimes.I had a phone call to my office about the plans we spoke of. Municipal plans for all of the land of Israel. It is not a state idea it is a national idea with states that has been implemented and people were angry. Still they do not understand without national protection there are certain municipal rights not allowed to the other states overseen then by different nations. I cant help you there like we can if combined with Israel. Plans to feed you not harm you, plans to cloth you not hurt you, plans to care for you not kill you, plans to educated you and your babies, plans to house you plans for new sewers. Plans for hospital upgrades, plans for better food, plans for a better life no war. Plans for squares in the old ways with men on outside with children and mothers safe in center. Coffee walks and gardens. Sunflowers, water from seawater making fresh water on mountains by spray for future fresh water streams. Plans of peace. NO polio. Karoon-Rankoo

Burston presents two origins of the Palestinian refugee expulsion (or "issue" if you want to be sanitary). While Benni Morris has documented the shelling, death threats and looting committed by the Haganah, Irgun and Lechi, where's the evidence of being told to leave by Arab leaders?

but the real question is how many Jews and Arabs are ready for it? No real idea. When belief collides with truth and wisdom, truth and wisdom don't stand a chance. How many settlers in Ariel are interested in leavening their beliefs with humanism? How about the Palastinains whose beliefs lead them to name streets and squares after terrorists: what's their humanism quotient?

As an out-of-the-closet One Stater, it's great for me to know that the world is full of hidden co-thinkers. Personally, my motivation has nothing to do with the well-worn and over-rehearsed histories because I feel it's time to write a new chapter, which will be about fusion and marriage, not fission and divorce. I'm perfectly happy to say out loud that it means dismantling the present state, but also believe that Israelis have more to gain than to lose; that everyone won't be voting in solid ethnic blocks but find common cause across ethnic boundaries; and that as power-sharing equal partners in the country it will remain a unique homeland for Jews, with many of the good things retained and improved on. And if there's a mass influx of refugee Palestinians, the main problem will be a surfeit of doctors and teachers. As my grandmother would have said, SUCH problems we should have...

One of the best articles I've seen come out of Haaretz in a while. I'm sure some people disagree with some of the things said in here - but overall a nice objective view point, and I don't think it hit far from the truth at all.

The one who gave answer A supports the side that is responsible for the Nakba. Should he admit this he would feel very guilty. He would even feel that his state has no legitimacy. He has every reason to lie to himself. The one who gave answer B does not have such a trauma. There is no reason why he should lie. Ergo, the truth is not somewhere in the middle, but in answer B.

So what about the verse in Brit Hadasha which states "All liars shall have their place in the Lake of Fire"?

"The lying is not in the parallel narratives - the narrators really believe what they are saying - but in the activities around them. And there, every country in the world has the same problem.)" - sh The verb lie can mean to make an untre statement with intent to decieve, or to creat a false or misleading impression. I concur that the parallel naratives are believed by the repective proponents. There is, however, an intent to create a misleading impression. This is rooted in self-deception. "Far more crucial than what we know or do not know is what we do not want to know." - Eric Hoffer In each case the true believer lies to themselves by rejecting any knowledge which complicates or negates their belief system. Mr. Burston may have been excessive in using the term 'lie', or it may have been necessary because at the root of both sides in this dispute is a great deal of self-deception for the effect of creating a narative which is quite different than the much more complex reality

To wander a bit far afield, Burston reminds me of Paul Krugman, the economics columnist for the New York Times. Krugman posts many and varied arguments for economic policy -- but they all have one thing in common. In one way or another, they all promote a return to the kind of managed capitalism/social welfare vision epitomized by the Western European economies of a generation or two ago. Similarly with Burston. He says all kinds of things -- but they're all in aid of an Israel but only an Israel that is within the pre-1967 boundaries. It's a bit dull. Surely reality isn't that monolithic? Don't some aspects of it imply there should be no Israel at all, whilst others imply it should have all of Palestine? There is a kind of mendacity here. All events conspire to demonstrate that the exact cease-fire line Israel reached in 1949 is the one eternally true, just, and workable solution. I'm inclined to be skeptical.

Telling the truth is easy to defend. Telling lies requires constantly lying in order to maintain the lying position. If the lies wander off the subject than that person is found to be a liar and the credibility changes. Over the years in the Middle East we have heard a lot of half-truths (considered lies.) This is considered listening to one side of an argument and never listening to the other side. Peace agreements will be reached when both sides listen to all options, have discussions and finalize conclusions that satisfy everyone. This does not mean that all are satisified, but sometimes it is necessary to more forward.

No matter what kind of one-state it starts out to be, in the end it will most likely be a state for people connected to the land of Palestine, plus whichever people the European Jewish immigrants welcome a democratic state where all are treated equally. There will be many among the Israeli Jewish population will find it unacceptable to live among non-Jewish indigenous Palestinians (Christians, Jews and Arabs) and will leave. Apartheid might last for a while but ultimately the world community will respond as it did to South Africa. Once that happens it will be the beginning of a true democracy, and it won't matter much which group has the most people. Inshah'Allah

'Made up by anti-Semites, but don`t exist at all. Some of them even "quote" non-existent books or tractates... Yes- Islam does sanction lies. There`s no connection between truth and your lies. They are opposites.' I didn't quote anything from the Talmud at all -- so how could I have fabricated anything? There's a certain inconsistency in your position -- you do realize that, don't you? Selective quotes from the Talmud are fabrications -- selective quotes from the Qu'ran are a fine guide to Islam? Anyway, I actually take everything negative I hear about the Talmud with a grain of salt -- I realize perfectly well the potential for selective and even fabricated references. However, I do get tired of self-appointed experts on Islam who have done just this with the Qu'ran. ...and the Qu'ran is relatively short. There's really little excuse not to just spend a few days reading the thing if you want to make pronouncements about Islam. Have you?

In the USA we have a saying; Q. "How can you tell when a politician is lying?" A. "When they're talking" Seems applicable.

Good article, Bradley. Interesting to see all the "experts" correcting you, as if to say "yes, BUT..". There is no but. You are right on the money this time.

The problems with a one-state solution are numerous, but the most obvious is that the populations want to separate, not integrate. Moreover, Jews have been threatened with annihilation for thousands of years now. They have never really been safe anywhere, especially in their ancestral homeland or anywhere in the middle-east. Everyone knows that the supposed 'one-state solution' is equal to the eradication of the jewish homeland. No one truly believes that there could be any peace for the jews under such conditions. Surely you can't be that naive.

The problem with most whi look at this issue is that they see things as mutually exclusive: i.e. the Arab states attacked, or, There was a naqba. These are not mutually exclusive events. Ditto the Israeli Army is murderous, the Palestinians want to obliterate Israel. Again, unfortunately not mutually exclusive, and for the most part untrue to both sides. however I did feel a bit sick at a recent dinner party, where loads of supposed middle of the road people sat round discussing the merits and pitfalls of ethnic cleansing, as opposed to killing the children of terrorists to make them think twice...

Now start talking. (The lying is not in the parallel narratives - the narrators really believe what they are saying - but in the activities around them. And there, every country in the world has the same problem.) Repeat: now start talking, face to face, not through third parties.

Let's just recap the facts on the last Gaza war: 1- Israel prevented journalists from reporting from Gaza.. I wonder why. 2- Human rights reports state that more than half of the deaths from that war were women and children. Did Israel compensate the families of those innocent people who lost their lives? 3- Israel refused discussion and/or shot down any attempt for a fair investigation; e.g the Goldstone report. Aside from that, the settlement activity in the West Bank is nothing but a systematic way of confiscating Palestinian land, validated by a wall built by the State of Israel. We really don't have to go 60 years ago to know who's lying and who isn't. We just need to look objectively at what's happening now and what happened a little over a year ago.

Paddy, the Palestinians could have had a state in 1947. They turned it down. That's no lie. And they've turned down several eminently reasonable offers from Israeli prime ministers on both the right and left. That's no lie either. The truth is that they and their Arab brethren keep hoping one day there won't have to be a two-state solution...if they could just destroy Israel and drive out the Jews. Otherwise, they'd have a nation right now...we wouldn't be writing these silly notes.

When you speak of Fatah wanting "all Jews ... evacuated from their homes in the areas they will control" you neglect a few pertinent details. First, are there any Arab Israeli settlers in occupied territory? Second, in juxtaposing the 'Jews' that would be removed with Arabs living in Israel you create a false pretext. The Arabs in question are Israeli citizens, they are not "occupying" Israel. Thalk about rethoric!

This seems a reasonable set of statements, and the comments that have coalesced around the article mirror the examples given in a way that is both ironic and just a little disconcerting. I agree with the premise that any way forward, in any negotiation, requires that such misrepresentations are addressed and then set aside in favour of a future that neither side may actually be ready to believe in. I have one friend here, emigre from Palestine, who insists that the single stumbling block is right of return, and he insists that, because of that, there is no way forward. I guess it's tantamount to a life sentence of conflict and insecurity for everyone ever born there until the end of time. Which is utterly ridiculous.

Eli Wapniarski: says: "we need to negotiate in such a way whereby all sides take responsibility for the morass we all find ourselves in." Will all sides also take the responsibiliity for ending the morass as well? The blame-gamers won't! They drown in their own mendacity, and there is no other one who can save them. For them, it is sink or swim Eli also talks of redemption. Most appropriate in this season! Who, today, will bring peace to Jerusalem?

I am totally shocked. I thought Middle East experts never lie. Well, unless they have to.

to equate the victums of zionism as equal to zionist liars is anti semitic and beneath contempt

Colin, excellent response to the non sense that came out of James Meeker #9.

Many Israelis make the assumption that the Palestinians erred by not accepting the UN resolution partitioning Palestine. Would Israel accept such a resolution partitioning Israel? Of course not. The Palestinian land was not for the UN to give away. Israel has a long history with the UN in which Israel has accepted the few things they like and rejected the great majority of UN resolutions. It is not as if the UN is god. In any case, the infant UN then got out of the land partitioning business, having given the Palestinians a one time bad deal. The truth behind the UN action was that America, Britain, France, and the other allies did not want to absorb Jewish refugees. The Palestinians had no power and Palestine is what the Jews wanted. Easy fix, right? Now the allies are reaping what they have sown.

"lying is a tactial art form...used to benefit those who speak those words" True! Melodrama is a view of life which divides all social and political issues into two, and only two, catagories: the good and the bad. There can be no compromise between them, no middle of the road. Any issue becomes a footbal game. There must be a winner and a loser. One side must win at the expense of the other. And herein lies the irony of war. For in war, nobody wins. All are losers. The melodramatic goal is not peace, but Victory. President Obama wants to destroy Iran's nuclear capability; Ahmadinejad wants Zionism to fade into obscurity; Netanyahu wants to dominate Palestinian livlihood. All demand that the other side become a loser. It is Victory at the expense of the loser. But How to tell when a Middle East expert is lying? Easy! Does what he say demand that there be a loser? If the answetr to this question is yes, then he is lying.

absolutely marvelous. can you make obama read it? or at least his envoy and bibi?

never will want or make peace. Here are the statements by successive Isreali leaders since 1939- Not the continuity in their resolve to nevr stop working towards a Greater Israel. When you have read the statements below----go look up the Likud Charter to get you right up to date. "* In a letter Chaim Weizmann sent to the Palestine-British high Commissioner, while the Peel Commission was convening in 1937, he stated: "We shall spread in the whole country in the course of time ..... this is only an arrangement for the next 25 to 30 years." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 66) * Ben-Gurion emphasized that the acceptance of the Peel Commission would not imply static borders for the future "Jewish state". In a letter Ben-Gurion sent to his son in 1937, he wrote: "No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning ..... Our possession is important not only for itself ... through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state .... will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country." (Righteous Victims, p. 138) * In 1938, Ben-Gurion made it clear of his support for the "Jewish state" on part of Palestine was only as a stepping ground for a complete conquest. He wrote: "[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107 & One Palestine Complete, p. 403) * One day after the UN vote to partition Palestine, Menachem Begin, the commander of the Irgun gang and Israel's future Prime Minister between 1977-1983, proclaimed: "The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever." (Iron Wall p. 25) * ""Shamir has said Israel must keep the territories in order to accommodate the immigrants. "A great aliyah [immigration]," he said, "requires a Greater Israel."(5) He has insisted that, although Soviet Jews are not being directed to the territories, any Jew has the right to live anywhere in the land of Israel, which for most Israelis includes the territories. "

How to tell when a Middle East "expert" is lying? Easy. They constantly employ moral relativism to insist that both sides are equally responsible. According to their post-modern, liberal viewpoints, there is no right and no wrong, and it's impolite to call a terrorist a terrorist.

I must admit, I have now read a couple of your articles and there isn't one that hasn't impressed me. There is almost no point you make, that I do not agree to. You bring a very much needed light realism to the table which I really enjoy. You seem to love yourself, before the fact that you are jewish. You seem to love this piece of land between the jordan river and the mediteranean, before the state that stands on it. The time has come for idealistic people, to perspectivate their truths. There is no one answer, there is no such thing as a clear consciousness! Keep up the good work Bradley

Sure, I can disagree with that or comment on this, but the bottom line is brilliant. 'nough said.

You are very right. The UNSCOP released their partition plan in 1947 and your point about the negotiating process is very relevant as well. This is my opinion, but I feel that Arab rejection of the partitioning process was very much not in their favor and did account for their 'unfair' share of the land. I think the Jews were right and smart when they went about embracing the UN instead of acting divisively. However, my question was about the timing of Plan Dalet. If the Arabs had already rejected the partition (as appears to have been the case in 1947 or before) then it was justifiable for the Jews to prepare for war, regardless of when the declaration date expired. I think that had the Arabs embraced the democratic process in the 1940s and before even, the conflict would have never emerged. I guess it is difficult to expect them to participate in a process to which they were relatively unfamiliar. But their lack of understanding and tact should not be an excuse.

It is an obvious rhetorical trick to put two views as extreme but equally balanced opposites and then to raise a flag somewhere in between and claim moderation and objectivity. Take the issue of where Arabs in Israel can live. I think that there are far more Arabs in majority Jewish towns in Israel than Jews living in majority Arab towns in Israel. Jews in Jejoula or Kfar Kassem? Pretty rare if it exists at all. But aside from that fudging how about the political balance. Fatah is the ruling authority in the PA and holds that all Jews must be evacuated from their homes in the areas they will control. In the Knesset there maybe only one member claims similar for Arabs in '48 Israel. And we have a court system that would never allow for it in any case. That isn't a difference in degree but a profound difference. You just have a goal of using the worse to condemn the bad (in Jews) or to excuse the bad (the PA).

Arab States and the Palestinians, boycotted the Partition plan from its onset, i.e. from 1947 when the first plan was presented and further negotiated. This is one partwhich is important as anyone who wishes to state that the partition plan was unfair can do so (hell you can state almost anything you like in this world), but must remember that at least partially, the reason as to why is because of politics and poor political prowess, i.e. if you boycott a partition plan while the otherside is actively pursuing it you will most likely end up with the smaller share. I personally think that had Palestinians gone to the negotiations they'd have had the 55% if not more. Palestinians-Arabs wanted a Natoinal, one state, with "negotiations for special measures" to have a Jewish Element or possibly jewish province, but didn't want two states a Jewish State next to an Arab one (as per 47 partition plan which overtly states, JEWISH and ARAB)

A people's national history is a long list of lies and fabrications that glorify that people's contributions and sacrifices while demonizing whatever enemies had to be overcome for the nation to be established and thrive. All nations' "truths" are inversely lies to its enemies. Please refer to "Lies My Teacher Told Me" to get an idea of some of the many lies that are fed to Americans about their glorious history. However, lying and exaggerating are very closely related. When Arabs claim that Israel is committing "genocide" against Palestinian Arabs, they're not lying, they're only exaggerating because for them genocide means a few people killed either while committing acts of violence or as collateral damage.

That was probably the first article by you that I've read, agreed with. Humourous, Quite true in many instances and balanced, perhaps a first where Burston hits for the cycle, now if only the jays could've won...

nice column

Mr. B writes: "foil, undermine and otherwise ice any Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.". But the slang use of "ice" means "to clinch" (a victory). Here it means "freeze", i.e. "congelare", which is the opposite. *Lying* is what politicians are paid to do. Op-Ed writers live in the suburbs of politics, so they are paid to lie to. Mr. B is no exception. It is a lie to suggest that the Israeli account is equivalent in medacity to the Palestinian story. So Mr. B has iced the case for mendacity by his own words.

As anyone who has ever been in a Middle Eastern souk trying to avoid purchasing an item will agree, telling lies is a game, played by both seller and purchaser. Only at the market, no one gets killed.

No. 30 CJ makes statements that puzzle me. The partition was voted on in the UN in 1947. As my uncle was a journalist covering the event and wanted me to follow in his footsteps, he got permission for me to work as his assistant. I was there when the Arab states wo voted against the partition delcared they would not follow the diktat of the UN and would as my uncle translated for me "drive the Jews into the sea." It was also the translation given by the UN intepreters at Lake Success that day. (This was before the imposing structures were built in Manhattan.) Would you not agree that this was the position of those Arab nations, especially since the following year five of them launched attacks against the newly declared state of Israel? I submit that they immediately decided on their views and acted to destroy the Jewish state, not share the land at all.

I don't get it, you seem to think that anyone who believes in a one state vision wants it to belong one side with the other disappearing. don't you think some people actually believe in sharing? just because you are a two stater (come out and say so as the first paragraph in your piece) - doesn't mean you have to call anyone who disagrees with you a liar.

..used to benefit those who speak those words. It is an artform where some are simply better and more euipped to dabble in it than others. Israel is good at this BUT it is not a tool exclusive to Israel BUT thankfully the mediums that are used to band these words around on their behalf are often through impartial and open minded. If it wasn't for Haaretz or the global media then Israel would already be in Gaza and the west bank by now.

I see your point. However, to what extent was the deadline to declare sovereignty a mere formality? My knowledge of the region in 1948 tells me that the Arabs rejected the partition plan upon its public release. If my knowledge is correct, I don't see anyone would have waited for expiration in the face of a serious existential threat. Please correct me if I am mistaken. I'm not do not support the historical paramilitaries, I am just of the impression that their existence did not change the outcome of the 1948 proceedings significantly.

His lips are moving!

The question is not to know whether somebody is lying or not. The cardinal question is has somebody the legitimacy to claim a territory he left for almost 2 milleniums... Has somebody the right to claim a territory on the base of a biblical promise... If the answer is "Yes" then many,many geopolitical situations ought to change..

The author of the article forgot to specify what type of "one state" solution these experts support by implication. The "one state" they envision is either: [1] one state of Palestinian "Arabs" (that is, the Arabic-speaking population of Muslims, Christians, Druze, Jews and Samaritans who inhabited Palestine prior to the Zionist migrations) devoid of Jewish immigrants to Palestine from the after the birth of modern Zionism, or [2] one state of Jews of all backgrounds (established and lead so far by Askenazim, but including the Arabic-speaking Palestinian Musta'arabi Jews, plus all Jewish immigrants from around the world) devoid of Palestinian "Arabs" (excluding Arabic-speaking Palestinian Musta'arabi Jews). These extremists on both sides are not advocates of a "one state" in the sense of a binational state: incoporating Jews and Arabs (Arab Muslims, Arab Christian, etc) into one single state, with equality for all, regardless of race, ethnic/cutural identity or religion.

Bradley, you missed the point. Most of the people I know are honest and display the utmost integrity. History is not black and white as you know and there are always grey areas especially when variuos people claim different things. I respect your opinion regarding the ability of politicians Israeli or other to not tell the absolute truth, but that still does not make all Israeli's or all Arabs for that matter liars. I still feel this type of article is damaging. If you are a patriot, you should make clear distinctions instead of generalizations

declaring sovereignty had expired. Because Jewish forces held control of areas designated for the new Arab states, they couldn't declare sovereignty, even if they wanted to. (not that it was obligatory).

Quoting Arafat: "For my cause I am ready to die, why shouldn`t I be ready to lie?" What is Israel`s cause, Mr. Bradley?

If I understand correctly, a Mid Eastern expert, of any kind, is known to be lying whenever he or she opens his or her mouth. Perhaps! On the other hand it may be only that every expert simply has his or her own bias and that when dealing with his ideas, that bias should be taken into account. There are liers, damn liers, and politicians; if an "expert" is also a politician, stop listening.

if you have not noticed. The signs as prophesized are all there. For the Christian believers Anti-Christ is a real person. For others like myself Anti-Christ is the spirit of the Times. The Prophets say very clearly that "the time will come when ppl claim the truth a lie and the lie the truth". I recommend you read Jeremiah. The description of these Times we*ve entered is all there. IF you have paid attention, the world leaders across their pol. ideologies, all speak about the New World Order; one mankind under the same Law as THE goal. Global economy and climate change are paving the way. Both are lies, but bring THE goal closer. As the Torah exhorts us to choose betw. "life and death", mankind has chosen "death", for we*re heading toward our demise. Man*s GREED is leading to this. The final battle *ll be fought in Jerusalem bc of GREED for power over world dominion. Call greed the ultimate TEMPTATION Eve and Adam fell in for in the Gan Ha Eden. Greed seals mankind*s fate eventually.

Much of what Bradley says is right on - it also gets us beyond a lot of the BS by identifying the simplifications and lying. However, one can still advocate and hope that their lie gets out on top. How? Just look over the article closely and you'll see while it's fair to say both sides are painted as liars, the brush's stroke is far wider when it comes to those who advocate for increased sensitivity to Palestinian concerns. E.g. - why can't a person be one-state without being some sort of liar? How is it lying to say that Israel simply shouldn't be a Jewish ethnocracy? Bradley does an AMAZING rhetorical shift here, but it's tried and tired...also very Middle Eastern.

The jews came in huge numbers to a land where they were a clear minority (true) The local arabs didn't want them (understandable) and started wars (somewhat understandable) The jews won, and the local arabs became refugees as they were (most likely) forced to leave The Jews then thought that the local arabs would manage to rebuild their lives in a different place just like we were doing. But they didn't. The local arabs, it turns out, are less able than the jews, when it comes to "restarting your life". We overestimated their capabilities, thinking they were like us. Nevertheless, it is their prerogative, and the fault remains ours. We need to take care of them, just like we help less abled individuals in our daily lives. Just because we can, and they can't.

To divide the plethora of opinions and positions into those who support the two state solution (and wear a white hat) and those who support a one-state solution (and wear a black hat) seems simply like an over-simplification. The disagreements between the sides that both support a two-state solution are still enormous.

I appreciated your piece, Mr Bradley. But you should also let your experts go on. Because however good the arguments on both sides are about the creation of the refugee problem, if they are remotely honest they have to agree that Israel perpetuated the refugee problem by refusing to let the refugees return, and by confiscating their property. And by the way, you are also guilty of the 'straw man' approach. You can certainly find "experts" on both sides who tell barefaced adn provably false lies, but the only one of those who have allowed into your piece is on the "B" side. It is simply untrue that the Jewish attacks aimed to eliminate the entire Palestinian population. By having your expert B say that, you make him an undoubted liar, and therefore devalue all he says. Try harder next time.

You know that all of Colin Wright's Talumdic "quotes" are fabrications ... when he hasn't produced any. I wish I could go through life with the sort of certainty you have. There are words for people with that sort of certainty. Try a bit of Googling yourself and you'll find them.

Gentlemen, I agree that the characterization having to do with lying is insulting and potentially harmful. That is why I have often ducked the subject in the past. But that, itself, was a form of dishonesty. We are all of us hostage to the ill-effects of lying here, of corruption, of rampant swindling in commerce, of military secrecy to protect careers rather than national security. I don't believe we can deal effectively with the end-products of lying, without actually relating to lying itself. This, if nothing else, was my honest opinion.

"For source, click here" LOL! I know exaggerations, omissions and blatent lies of my students: Sometimes they only fear the barbaric punishments I generally impose. But on the other hand, because I know that they lie and because I don't always have the time to investigate, it's still better to trust exclusively in my own ethical views and to punish the facts regardless of the motives. After all, you can punish them at will even if occasionally you don't always have a factual reason: THEY will know dozens; otherwise you invent some... ;)

LOL, Mike. You are the perfect subject of this piece. While you are not an expert per se, you are a prime example of one who lies to achieve political or sympathetic gain. The point was that there is no clear-cut responsibility for the refugee problem. It is ignorant to say it remains uncontroversial and that Israel is required to 'accept blame' without any further qualifications.

with respect to the refugee issue, I think Expert answer A is closer to the truth. Expert answer B raises some important issues regarding the force of Jewish paramilitaries, but is it not true that Plan Dalet would never have been constructed had the Arabs accepted the UN Partition plan. I see a selective exclusion of facts in part A whereas part B propagates pure lies such as 'these attacks were aimed to annihilate the entire Palestinian territory and population. Great job writing a moderate piece at long last. Many of the Haaretz op-eds espouse a far leftist view and fail to incorporate valid criticisms of their political adversaries.

Made up by anti-Semites, but don't exist at all. Some of them even "quote" non-existent books or tractates. Google "Rabbi Gil Student", who debunks them one by one. Yes- Islam does sanction lies. There's no connection between truth and your lies. They are opposites.

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Israel treats all its citizens equally. IDF the most moral army in the world. IDF does not target civilians. Israel does not steel land for settlements. Israel does not steel water from the West Bank. Israel does not steel valuable agricultural land. Israel abides by International Law. Israel respects human rights. Israel has no Greater Israel ambitions. ISRAEL BELIEVES IN PEACE

One state binational solution is on paper an ideal solution. It was even the official position of the World Zionist Federation untill the Biltmore conference. The problem is it's practical application. It seldom works. Look at ex Yugoslavia, Cyprus etc.Even an advanced european country like Belgium has ethnical problems without previous years of animosity like in our conflict. In other words: perfect utopical solution.

Thank you for your contribution. I don't suppose it would slow you up much if we pointed out the numerous examples of lying in the Bible, noted Thomas' Aquinas' excellent demonstration that lying sometimes is NOT a sin, or dug up bits and bobs from the Talmud? As to what Muhammad said, you might find the Qu'ran a better guide than I-hate-Muslims websites. In fact, in your case at least, I would heartily recommend reading the whole thing. It would broaden your horizons.

You manage to portray advocates of the one-state solution as somehow diabolical opponents of peace. I don't think that's very fair. My flavor of the one-state solution appeals to me because it is the one solution that is both just in some sense and doesn't involve the massive dispossession that would be necessary to realize it in any other sense. In other words, I can see the 'single secular state' solution. Others at the other extreme have an argument of their own. 'Israel is Palestine is the land of the Jews,' in a nutshell. I disagree with that completely -- but I see their reasoning. Ironically, the one solution that isn't just no matter how one looks at it is to allot 22% but only 22% to the Palestinians. Either they're entitled to an equal place in all of it, or they're entitled to none of it. You might be able to prove you have title to my house. It's highly unlikely you can show that you have title to the front bedroom and the front bedroom only.

I like a lot of Bradley's articles and I know what he's trying to say in this, but I think he's slightly off-target. There may have once been a Western culture where people fearlessly told the truth, but probably not. And today, Western countries are just as full of lies as the Middle East. Politicians and big companies lie before breakfast and keep lying until bedtime. In both West and ME you have to have a well-adjusted BS monitor. In the words of the X-Files, the Truth is Out There, you just have to know where to look. And pretty much all sane people know that in the ME there is right and wrong on both sides and that true peace will only come when both sides acknowledge that. Which is why we in the West should be shunning those on the Israeli side who deny this truth, like Lieberman, Bibi and Shas, just as much as we shun Hamas.

Of all the liars in the ME, just who is the most prolific liar? Start with a group who lay claim to an area because they say their god "gave" it to them. Problem here is that the majority of these people are atheists. (FIRST REALLY BIG LIE!) Next we have this group of people accepting their % of this land and wave the Balfour Declaration, but from the first moment have of acceptance, have NOT abided by it's conditions. (NEXT REALLY BIG LIE) Then we have same group signing on to UN membership, agreeing to the conditions of acceptance. Again from the first moment, said conditions are completely ignored. (YET ANOTHER REALLY BIG LIE) The pattern of lying by this group has continued unabated for decades. Recent lie resulted in 1400 dead Palestinians. Then we have the second group of people(liars). Their lies pale into insignificance in comparison.

Muhammad himself sanctioned lying by saying that Allah will not hold a Muslim accountable when he lies in war, espionage, concealment, or in weakness Muhammad went on to say, "War is deception." This deception can be practiced at a personal level as well as at community level through its leaders and institutions. Takiyya is practiced by all Muslims, Sunni and Shi'ites alike. See "How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of War" by Raymond Ibrahim Middle East Quarterly Winter 2010, pp. 3-13 http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war

You appear to equate advocacy of a one state solution with being a liar or having some other unacceptable motivation. Equality in the land between the original native inhabitants and those who have settled in it over the past 80 years would be the moral, human and tolerant alternative to an otherwise divisive and ultimately racist desire to divide people based on religion and ethnicity.

I do not agree with you on such insult , either for Jews nor for Arabs . Your essay lost much of it's credibility . What do you say ?

Bradley, by stating that "lying is a way of life, which is to say, it is a cultural imperative", you give credence to those not wishing to business with Israeli companies. You destroy their ability to trust in us. You should be ashamed for helping to cause the possible collapse of businesses in Israel and the resultant job losses. In addition you have no right whatsoever to generalize about a population. I beleive you owe a lot of us a public apology

You may lose the farm but you will go home smiling. LOL!

The truth here is so evident, no right-winger can attack it. Many people in Israel and abroad need to take this in and realize that time is not on our (Israeli) side. We need first and foremost a strong Israel, then we need strong diplomacy. We need both for Israel to survive in the 21st century. We cant be afraid of diplomacy.

For the first time Bradley in your efforts to find the middle ground and change the discourse from the extremes or pre 1940's National Chauvanisms and totalitarianisms to one of mutual National redemption (redemption is the right word -- not divine redemption but rather redemption in the eyes of people) and democratization; I must say; Its about time somebody besides me says this. I agree 100% we need to negotiate in such a way whereby all sides take responsibility for the morass we all find ourselves in. Absolutely brilliant analysis.

Bradley you continue to overlook or simplify tha nakba by making it seem that it's a debatable topic. The nakba occured, stop denying it, to do so is really wrong. Israel needs to confess the nakba and appologize and compensate the refugees.

In the usa we call it politics. thank you, Bradley

Hello, I'll tell you that in west, you may feel a similar need of lying. I felt familiar with what you described. To make your way, you have to melt in the general hypocrisy. For most of us, saying your truly opinion will in the end show a disrespect to the institution or to the general consensus. It is more important to respect institution here, than the man you have in front of you. If i liked the lying story, in my sense you failed to make the link with point 5, which is the real point of your paper. You don't adress one staters arguments, just saying they are liers. Here in France, and in Europe in general, antisemitism is rising, islamophobia the same. And it is the same fascists who are making both grow. And racism will most probably increase, because economical and political crisis. None of you have interest in dealing with fascists, and still both of you do. And i think both did before. Find a way between cousins before West put really his noise. Impossible ? so what ?