Talk:Accusation in a mirror

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Freedom of speech This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The phrase Accusation in a mirror leads to the anchor paragraph in the article Incitement to genocide. Can someone help to link directly to this article? It would be preferable to have this article without the (rhetoric) comment. Thank you.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (t · c) buidhe 19:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples include Hitler's prophecy and Edmund Heines statement shortly before his murder that "it was an old putschist trick" to accuse others of what one was planning oneself.[1] (t · c) buidhe 19:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks buidhe for solving the problem and for your suggestion. So far I have been unable to access Eleanor Hancock's "The Purge of the SA Reconsidered: "An Old Putschist Trick"?" but it sounds like it would be a good addition.Oceanflynn (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of Zionist propaganda is mirroring: "Arabs told Hitler to exterminate the Jews!" and "Palestinian villages are really forward command posts of their invading army." Then there's the big one "Peace will come when Palestinians love their own children more than they hate Jews." Are there any write-ups on this BS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9DE0:22B0:F187:950F:B402:8DE4 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone make reference to Israel's recent usage of the mirror argument? Citing self defence as justification for collective punishment (I won't bother calling it a genocide even though that is what it is). I don't have the time but I figured it's appropriate. 100.42.253.49 (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the recent events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complex matter, involving multiple perspectives. Regarding the specific comment, it is essential to note that Hamas has consistently expressed intentions to eliminate any Jewish presence, both in the region and globally, since its establishment. These sentiments persist, as evidenced by their recent plot to target Jewish individuals in Germany.

According to a poll conducted by https://www.awrad.org/ (Table 33), 75% of Palestinians surveyed support the destruction of Israel, favoring the option of "A Palestinian state from the river to the sea." This choice stands in contrast to options that explicitly mention coexistence, such as the "One-State Solution for Two Peoples" and "Two-State Solution for Two Peoples." Given that Israel, de facto, exists in the area "from the river to the sea" and comprises a 70% Jewish population, these expressions can be interpreted as advocating ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.

The events on October 7 further magnify these intentions, translating them into actions on a significant scale. Israel's justification for military actions, citing "self defence," is rooted in historical precedents used by states in times of war.

Moreover, the attack on October 7, was not claimed as an act of "self-defense" but as resistance against Israel.

While accusations of using the "Accusation in a mirror" tactic are leveled against one side, it is crucial to recognize that both sides employ this strategy regularly. A comprehensive analysis of these accusations and their origins would require an entire article to offer a balanced perspective on this complex issue. 116.240.168.151 (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@116.240.168.151

"Given that Israel, de facto, exists in the area "from the river to the sea" and comprises a 70% Jewish population, these expressions can be interpreted as advocating ethnic cleansing and/or genocide."

No, it cannot. This is intellectual dishonesty and, ironically, a QED for this wiki page considering the incessable and brazen calls for genocides by Israeli officials, officers, media personalities. It's a most abject fallacy to equate the call for the end of a (in Palestinian perspective) occupying / colonizing state to a call for ethnic cleansing. *You* may "interpret" it that way but I fail to see why that should be the criterion here. South Africa was an Apartheid state governed by whites. Anti-apartheid, thus the overthrow of the exclusively white state, was not a call for the ethnic cleansing of whites (and I'm sure there were calls for that too). Neither were all of the other African, Asian and American calls for decolonization. Zionism equals nationalism or colonialism (depending on your perspective), but certainly not Judaism. Honest ink (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it absolutely can be interpreted that way. Your entire statement is in fact, intellectual dishonesty. There is no neutrality here, you are openly advocating one sided political views and propaganda. You are in fact taking part in Mirror propaganda. 2601:18C:9083:B7F0:BC24:A377:5B8D:5F5 (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:I agree Israel is doing the same thing to the Palestinian people. They keep conflating being anti-zionist or even being critical of Israel is antisemitic even if it’s not. And yes as an anti-zionist Jew it’s horrible what Israel is doing. Shelly098 (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) ::Here is a link to an example Deleted/striked thru because the user personally wants to have better sourced information[reply]

During the 2023 to 2024 Gaza war both sides accused the other of genocide.^[1] At the United Nations Office at Geneva, Yeela Cytrin, a legal advisor at the Mission of Israel to the United Nations emphasized, "The attacks by Hamas on October 7 were motivated by a genocidal ideology".^[1]

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (July 2024)

@User:Honest_ink, This section was removed in the most recent edit. I pasted here for discussion, so it doesn't just disappear. The person who removed it doesn't seem to have started a thread here, but you're already on the topic?

I'm not sure what a source could say that makes it any more obvious? They are responding to accusations of genocide by calling the other side genocidal.

Does it need to include the word "mirror"?

FourPi (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2024/02/13/what-are-the-politics-of-respectability-during-a-genocide/ FourPi (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I included the explanation in my edit summary: [this is a] misunderstanding - this article is about a specific propaganda technique, not any case where two groups accuse each other; [including this] would need sources that say the specific technique has been used (or is alleged to be used) in this conflict. Without reliable sources that specifically make that statement, using our own reasoning to infer that the technique was used would be original research, even if we personally think it obviously fits the definition.

An opinion piece, in a student newspaper, is a very weak source for this kind of thing (and this is a scholarly question, meaning academic sources are the ideal, but it is a bit early for such sources to exist). At this point, it would be more appropriate for an article like Gaza genocide (or a related article) that covers the allegations and counter-allegations extensively. Even on those articles, you are likely to find opposition unless your sources are considerably stronger, but the editors there are also more familiar with the topic and may be able to help with improvement. Sunrise (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the section on Russia doesn't have that, but I don't think that should be removed. FourPi (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The political left in the US openly utilizes this against the political right. Why is there no mention? 2601:18C:9083:B7F0:BC24:A377:5B8D:5F5 (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As above, you will need reliable sources that specifically identify the use of the technique in this context. Sunrise (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd lke to note that the "Talk" section for the wiki article is being censored aggressively with users's comments often being altered and/or edited away. While I do understand the wiki article itself might be treated with caution in the context of recent events, there's really no excuse for what's been happening in the "Talk". It's highly concerning. I'm not sure if I'll be able to respond further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.12.92 (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]