Talk:Accusation in a mirror

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

2023 Israel

[edit]

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]

This whole concept seems problematic because it's self-referential. Giving any party as an example is itself an accusation in what this party accuses others. In other words, a form of itself.--Nngnna (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


War in Gaza (2023-2024)

[edit]
Main articles: Gaza genocide, Palestinian genocide accusation, and Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

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]

References

  1. ^ a b "Israel, Palestinians Accuse Each Other Of 'Genocide' At UN". Barrons. (Agence France-Presse). Archived from the original on 2023-12-11. Retrieved 2023-12-11.

@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]

US Political Left

[edit]

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]

Censorship of the "Talk" section

[edit]

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]

Netanyahu

[edit]

Would it be appropriate to include Netanyahu and some of his statements regarding Palestinians wanting to kill Jews in the article? Thanks Ecpiandy (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They do, and they say so openly. You yourself are engaging in accusation in a mirror. 49.199.172.72 (talk) 49.199.172.72 (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MAGA / US Political Right

[edit]

If anyone feels up for writing it, I feel it would be helpful to have a section on the US right, as this is often in their playbook. See: Trump's Ukraine quid-pro-quo to Hunter Biden's "faulty business practices" that were never fully substantiated, basic legislation choices which are later denied and thrown onto democratic congresspeople. Arguably the "deep state", an unfalsifiable boogeyman that was just a useful narrative cover-up for Trump's failures in leadership, then contrasted with Elon's behavior early in Trump's second term with illegally strangling departments with seemingly no accountability, acting analogously to what was described as a "deep state". There are a lot of historical examples to pull from. Loverthehater (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Loverthehater, one of the sources for Rwanda mentions that briefly:
Nadeem F. Paracha (11 August 2024). "THE MIRROR ARGUMENT". DAWN.COM.
49.182.128.98 (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine inclusion

[edit]

I'm sure you could dig up sourcing for this, but the current sentence in the article needs work if it is to be included. "Similarly, Arab and Palestinian factions have accused Israel of genocide for decades while simultaneously inciting offensives against it." "Offensives" is not the same thing as genocide, and it appears neither Arabs or Palestinians are explicitly mentioned in the source. Furthermore, the source you quote seems to contradict itself by describing the same thing as "commonplace in the Middle East" and "extremist". (t · c) buidhe 04:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this edit can be kept either. I checked the sources and most of them do not mention the "accusation in a mirror" technique, making them WP:original research.
The reason you aren't allowed to do this is that while Iran accuses Israel of carrying out "mass murder and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians", and Israeli actors accuse Iran of wanting the same thing to happen to Israelis, notably Iran states that this is not its intention. I would have to check gordon again, but I'm not sure if he brings up Iran as an example of AIAM, as opposed to "incitement to genocide", which again, is disputed and not the same thing. (t · c) buidhe 19:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is literally an example given in Marcus's book (page 375), from which much of this wiki article is sourced, quoted and sourced (with the relevant quotes from the cited pieces) below. I have edited this in the wiki article to say "opponents of Israel", I hope this is acceptable:
It has become commonplace in the Middle East for Israel’s extremist adversaries to accuse the Jewish state of harboring genocidal ambitions while simultaneously urging the destruction of the Jewish state and the Jewish people. Over the last several years, for example, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly engaged in AiM[1][2], insisting that Israelis “have no boundaries, limits, or taboos when it comes to killing human beings,” while simultaneously asserting that Israel “should be wiped off the map.” As if to dispel any ambiguities about his intentions, President Ahmadinejad paraded a Shahab-3 missile through the streets of Tehran in 2008 with the message, “Israel must be wiped off the map.” As historian Robert Wistrich observed, “There is a compulsive annihilationist dimension to these declarations.” Telecart (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: For Palestinian faction's use of AiM, a good source would probably be "Freedom of Expression, Hate Speech, and Incitement to Terrorism and Genocide: Resonances and Tensions" by Gordon (2018) (link) but I'm fine with leaving it as "opponents of Israel" if that works. Also: extremism is not uncommon in the Middle East (see: the Houthis, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, The Islamic Republic of Iran, The Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.). I don't think the fact that these ideologies are not rare makes them any less extreme. That's not a contradiction. Telecart (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goebbels misattribution

[edit]

This article garbles the connection of Goebbels to the topic. On the face of it, the claim in the article is

"Drawing on the ideas of Joseph Goebbels, he [an anonymous Rwandan propagandist] instructed colleagues to 'impute to enemies exactly what they and their own party are planning to do'".

This is referenced to Benesch 2008, p. 504. Checking this reference, you will find that the statement "he [an anonymous Rwandan propagandist] instructed colleagues to 'impute to enemies exactly what they and their own party are planning to do'" is lifted directly from it, but the connection to Goebbels isn't made.

The "drawing on the ideas of Joseph Goebbels" seems to have been added later, probably by a different editor, as a pretext for including the image of a ranting Goebbels, with the unsubstantiated caption "The strategy was used by Joseph Goebbels".

In reality the connection is exactly backwards. The name of Goebbels is often associated with this topic because it was Goebbels who had made the claim that "the enemies of Germany" "accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing".[2] Goebbels has never "instructed colleagues", as far as we know at least, to use the technique, his contribution to this topic was making the claim that the technique was being used against him. On p. 510 Benesch 2008 does mention (correctly) how both Streicher and Goebbels accused the Jews of using this technique against them but it isn't clear how this means the Rwandan paper has somehow "drawn on the ideas of Goebbels".

Of course the additional claim could be made that somebody who makes this claim is itself an example of using the technique, but (a) this just results in a recursive loop of accusing your enemy of accusing you of accusing them of accusing you, and (b) more pertinently, we do not seem to have anyone cited who explicitly makes such a claim aboug Goebbels.

The reference to Goebbels should be

  • removed entirely if nobody is willing to fix it
  • be put on its feet to the effect that he is notable for claiming to be a victim of the technique, not for recommending it be used
  • or conceivable be expanded to include new references that would support the presently untenable inclusion of the picture plus caption

--2A02:1210:1601:CE00:BD0A:2C27:1923:7C07 (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Gordon, Gregory (2008), From Incitement to Indictment?, p. supra note 6, at 900–01, This type of incitement is sometimes referred to as "accusation in a mirror." See Gordon, supra note 118, at 186. Through this tactic, one imputes to "the adversary one's own intentions and plans." Id. It is used to persuade the audience that attack by the enemy justifies taking whatever "measures are necessary for legitimate defense." Id.
  2. ^ Marcus, Kenneth (2009), Iran’s Nuclear Anti-Zionism Is Genocidal, Not Political, INFOCUS Q, Ahmadinejad uses what genocide scholars call "accusation in a mirror," a technique previously refined by Nazi, Serbian, and Hutu propagandists. A Rwandan propaganda theorist, for example, counseled his co-conspirators to, "impute to enemies exactly what they and their own party are planning to do." The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia observed this phenomenon in Serbia as well: "In articles, announcements, television programs and public proclamations, Serbs were told that they needed to protect themselves from a fundamentalist Muslim threat… that the Croats and Muslims were preparing a plan of genocide against them.".