Evidence Does Not Necessarily Arrive at the Same Verdict

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Aug 24, 2011 at 16:17

So then what might we infer, in the context of the post-'Middle Eastern Studies in Upheaval'- that any who do not understand exactly what is in the portent of the upheavals we see in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere, will not get it when Islam takes it to the next level? One does not need to read and speak Arabic to get to that understanding. Be that as it may.

History as written by certain perspectives that we should be able to learn from historical mistakes, but it is evident such is not the case. If we cannot learn from history, (and yes I am familiar with the phrase of being doomed to repeat it), then mankind appears compelled to resort to patterns of behavior.

I hear so frequently lately that the evidence is there to make the appropriate conclusion, but even that is skewed for reasons of perspective and manufacturing outcomes. Hence the phrase, 'history is written by the victor.'

But the attempts at intellectualism in enveloping oneself in studies for trying to make sense of it all (myself included) seems at times contradictory, for it always requires looking at all the facts and not just the ones you want to agree with to arrive at a more compellingly accurate assessment of any situation.

One can reduce Middle Eastern studies to this: investigating competing ideologies of western occidental mindsets versus eastern oriental sensibilities, ostensibly to arrive at a conclusion of which best represents the best mankind can offer. The problem is that any absolutes that may be introduced cannot be debated by human reasoning, therefore only opinions are made out as presumptions of fact and the debates become circular. Complicate this with which thought processes govern one's ability to communicate in the debate and arrive at why so many believe in chaos.

One might make a case for 'forensically' examining the evidence in studying events, for which we might look at Egypt after the expulsion of Mubarak. We are told and the evidence suggests that the military that has always been in the government background there is still in control. But, prior to Mubarak's exit, Israel is now experiencing border incidents not seen since a peace deal with Egypt was reached years ago. What should be the conclusion of the study there? Of course, some will say more study is needed. Really? The same mentality that assassinated Sadat is still there today-and why Sadat was eliminated.

If the evidence and the study of things Middle Eastern tell us one thing, and one thing only, it is that Israel is the center of all the controversy; and most everyone in the know knows why from human reasoning. But what is reasonable to the human mindset and what the physical evidence shows is that knowing why and handling the truth are humanly impossible. So while everyone gets upset at the upheavals like Syria and its government battles with its own population, are we to conclude the same thing there as we might with Libya?

In other words, does the evidence suggest that the root causes of the upheavals are for the same humanly argued reasons? To point, that if as it is asserted here that Israel is at the center of it all, one might look at the underlying realities of what is being achieved in these upheavals and find the evidence, study it from the best available sources; then arrive at the conclusion that has been waiting all along-mankind will never solve the question about the land of Israel.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".