Arguing with the close-minded

My Obiter Dicta has an interesting and insightful

post on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguing

with close-minded ideologues and hotheads on the

subject of Judaism. I thought I might share my own

musings on arguments with such people regarding

history - especially the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I come across (and also check up on, perhaps due to

masochistic tendencies) anti-Israel and anti-Jewish

bile on a regular basis. Not a month goes by when

some "expert" doesn't come out with an infuriating

book or article expounding on why it's all our fault.

Whenever this happens, I feel the sudden and natural

urge to rip that guy's argument to shreds.

Indeed, on one occasion I entered into a correspondence

with an anti-Israel professor who justified the equation of

Israel and the Arab states on the basis of the Teddy

Katz/Tantura (see this site for all, and I mean ALL

relevant documentation regarding the subject) affair,

in which an MA student's thesis, which falsely

charged that a massacre had been committed in Tantura

village, was revoked. Needless to say, the argument went

nowhere, with both of us ultimately talking to a wall.

Later on I realized that when you argue, you have

to think about who you're trying to convince. One would

hope that you don't need to convince yourself, and trust

me when I say that there's no point in trying to convince

the hard-cases. Should you decide to debate such folk,

your mission should be to convince the folks who are

undecided on the issue, who have an open mind and

are willing to listen. If this is not a possibility, then I would

recommend following Obiter Dicta's advice at the end of his

post and work toward educating rather than fighting on

to achieve nothing.

Never Lose Hope. AIWAC