"Bad Things"

by von

I'm commenting on Publius' recent post, All That Chas, but I'm doing so on the front page because I'd like to head in a direction different from Publius' argument.  Publius writes:

And the hyper-sensitive, hysterical attacks on critics of Israel’s current policies simply illustrate that – on some subconscious level – these people recognize that Israel is doing some bad things. Otherwise, there would be no need to stifle debate and bully critics.

Maybe yes, maybe no.  But I was left with a question:  what do Publius (and many commentators on this post) mean when they write or imply "that Israel is doing some bad things"? 

Are these "bad things" the types of things that the US wouldn't do if put in Israel's position?  Because I'm fairly confident that the US would respond with overwhelming military force if the de facto government of Mexico was randomly firing rockets at Laredo and McAllen, TX.  (Indeed, we basically did that with Pancho Villa.)

Is it because Israel's response is viewed as disproportionate?  If so, what's a proportionate response?  Lobbing rockets back into Gaza, tit for tat? 

Is it because Israel's response is viewed as counterproductive?  I might agree with that view, but this is a strategic objection, not a moral one.  No one confused me with a moralist, for instance, when I criticized the Iraq war because we lacked enough troops.

Is it because civilians are being hurt?  If so, how is this different from any other war?  And how does it differ from a proportionality objection (I.e.: you're hurting civilians because you're using too much force.  OK; fine.  How much force should I use?)

I have no doubt that Israel is doing "bad thing" in the sense that every country and every person does "bad things."   You frequently can't act -- particularly in the middle of a shooting war (which Israel is in) -- without doing some kind of harm.  And you need to act sometimes.  But I don't understand what "bad things" means in the context of Publius' post or the resulting discussion.

Comments

[ScentOfViolets]

In an ironic bit of synchronicity:

Peace activists with the International Solidarity Movement said Tristan Anderson, of the Oakland, Calif., area, was struck in the head with a tear gas canister fired by Israeli troops. The military and the Tel Aviv hospital where Anderson was taken had no details on how he was hurt.

"He's in critical condition, anesthetized and on a ventilator and undergoing imaging tests," said Orly Levi, a spokeswoman at the Tel Hashomer hospital. She described Anderson's condition as "life-threatening."

The protest took place in the West Bank town of Naalin, where Palestinians and international backers frequently gather to demonstrate against the barrier. Israel says the barrier is necessary to keep Palestinian attackers from infiltrating into Israel. But Palestinians view it as a thinly veiled land grab because it juts into the West Bank at multiple points.

Whadda surprise. And further:

About 400 protesters turned out in Naalin on Friday, the military said. Some of them hurled rocks at troops, who used riot gear to quell the unrest, it added, without elaborating.

Ulrika Jenson, an International Solidarity Movement activist, said troops fired tear gas canisters into the crowd from a hill above.

"Tristan was hit and fell to the ground," Jenson was quoted as saying in an ISM statement. "He had a large hole in the front of his head, and his brain was visible."

So. The military fired into a large dense crowd. From the top of a hill. And they claim that 'some' protestors threw rocks, with no corroborating evidence, and while military personnel were wearing protective gear. And don't forget that this was a protest at yet another land grab.

If someone wants to make an analogy about 'firing 20 or 30 bullets into a dense crowd', may I suggest this is the place to do it?

But somehow, somehow, you just know that 'Israel' wasn't behaving badly. After all, according to the military, some of the protesters were throwing rocks at them. Uphill at that.

I'd really like to see these scum on trial for war crimes.

[DBN]

But rather than look at all the claims, counter-claims etc, and get bogged down into deliberately extended arguments as to whether three rocket attacks equals one Palestinian child crushed by a bulldozer, the study looked at verifiable results. Which sounds like good science to me - and which tells me you're not much for science.

This is not what I said. What I said is that using military actions resulting in fatalities to indicate the termination of a cease-fire agreement is inaccurate, since not all cease-fire violations result in fatalities, and Israel is disproportionately capable of inflicting casualties. One could, for example, consider Israel's blockade to be a military action and violation of cease-fire, but one that would not be counted using a fatality metric.

Picking the metric that will give you the results you want is not science. It's pseudo-science.

Finally, I don't believe you when you say your sympathetic to the Palestinians. Got any quotes to back that up?

LOL! Like I need to justify myself to you!

The Palestinians have suffered terrible injustices, but poor-quality arguments like this are of little utility, except in confirming the biases of your opponents.

[ScentOfViolets]

Chuckle. Iow, yes, you are a wingnut, and no, we won't be seeing these statements of great sympathy you have professed elsewhere. And whether by deliberate design or by virtue of a simple defect, you are unable to comprehend simple statements.

By all means, count the blockade as well. That only makes Israeli aggression look worse - in fact, makes them the aggressor 100% of the time. Unfortunately, it is also a fact that the blockade is also endlessly 'disputed' as 'not counting'. As is the stealing of Palestinian money, etc.

So rather than get sidetracked into a discussion which is, after all, expressly designed to distract and derail and equivocate as long as possible, let us simply count undisputed deaths.

This isn't rocket science, and since the counting actually works in Israel's favor, I don't see the objection. Particularly since I can't think of anything more objective than, you know, discounting subjective intentions by unknown actors and enumerating the results of actions. The fact that you either won't or can't suggest a measure that would be more objective is especially telling (I suppose this is where you start with a pious mea culpa about how such an objective measure is impossible, and so we've just got to pick who to believe and so we're all 'equally biased'. Way ahead of you, son.)

I'll note that you're not doing yourself any favors with your talk about not having to justify yourself to anyone. It just makes you look like a dishonest git. But hey, that's your problem. Not mine. By all means, broadcast to one and all that you're nothing but a concern troll.

[Carleton Wu]

Chuckle. Iow, yes, you are a wingnut, and no, we won't be seeing these statements of great sympathy you have professed elsewhere. And whether by deliberate design or by virtue of a simple defect, you are unable to comprehend simple statements.

SOV, I've been arguing against a pro-Israeli partisan this entire thread, and yet I find you to be highly irritating and your reasoning to be incredibly sloppy. And your accusations of bad faith directed at anyone who doesn't completely agree with you make me wonder why you'd bother with a message board in the first place.
Your trash talk is pretty weak, too. But it is your strength, and I understand that we must all play to our strengths.

[Gary Farber]

A non-cartoon Israeli.

[ScentOfViolets]

Okay, Carleton, why don't you suggest what you think is more objective metric, and why you think this is so?

Nor, btw, am I tash talking. When I say that someone is failing to read what I have plainly written, I mean that they are failing to read what I have plainly written. Again, not rocket science.

Finally, speaking of weak styles . . . don't you think it would have been more effective to actually explain what you thought was sloppy reasoning, rather than merely state this to be so? You know, the basic principle of "show, don't tell"? I dunno, maybe that's just that sloppy reasoning of mine kicking in again ;-)

[d'd'd'dave]

Civil discourse brought to you by ScentOfViolets:

"you are one of those odious types … this tosser … drivel like this … you are a bad-faith shill … you'd best change your behaviour … these scum … you are a wingnut … by virtue of a simple defect, you are unable to comprehend simple statements ... expressly designed to distract and derail and equivocate as long as possible … you look like a dishonest git … you're nothing but a concern troll."

[Nell]

Thank you, d'd'd'ave. I can't think when I've agreed with one of your posts before, but that one is on-point.

[Hartmut]

One might mention claims by Hamas members that with rockets that can be aimed precisely they would target only the Israeli military (any maybe other offcial institutions), not civilians. Whether that is believable or not is another question but the only way to find out would be to hand them better rockets and target coordinates (obviously not a realistic option).

[jr32133213]

Bad things like intentionally not buying a CRAM system so that you can use taxpayer dollars to develop the Iron Dome (claiming it will protect against the rockets) when it was never designed to do that and was instead simply meant to be marketed and sold internationally. Bad stuff like saying the rockets are more psychologically harmful than physically harmful and then pretending they mean the DEATH OF ISRAEL!!!OMG!!!!and using them as an excuse to grab more land. Bad stuff like violating the cease fire so that you can grab more land. Bad stuff like increasing the settlements so you can grab more land. Bad stuff like blockading food and medical aid. Bad stuff like killing civilians on purpose. Bad stuff like using kids as human shields.

You want more?

[Donald Johnson]

Okay, in no particular order

1. Scent of Violets, I think that on substance you're mostly right --for instance

"If someone wants to make an analogy about 'firing 20 or 30 bullets into a dense crowd', may I suggest this is the place to do it?"

seems like a very good response to a very poor argument. I also think that while using deaths as a metric for measuring ceasefire violations is somewhat inaccurate, as you and DBN point out, Israel might come out looking even worse.

2. But I see no reason for your cynicism about DBN's sincerity. I disagree with him, but when he says he realizes Israel treats the Palestinians badly, I think he means it.

3. Carleton Wu--In policing politeness violations, it's a good idea not to be guilty yourself. The following statement, for instance, was cheap trash talk--

"Your trash talk is pretty weak, too. But it is your strength, and I understand that we must all play to our strengths."

The truth is, IMO, quite the opposite. Scent of Violets is making very good points, but his animus towards DBN is distracting people from them.

3. I used the term "contemptible filth" to refer to Brett's arguments earlier in this thread and I don't regret it. The subtle, almost vanishingly small distinction, between me and SOV is that I made the comment about his arguments, not about Brett.

In my real life I've got a pretty good friend who has opinions on this subject that would make a buzzard puke. I told him what I thought of his opinions just recently, though without referring to the digestive processes of buzzards. It was at the point where I didn't think watered-down criticisms would work, so I gave him the full treatment and to his credit, we're still friends. (To my credit too, as he said something unpleasant about people with my beliefs.)

[Donald Johnson]

Point 3C is that clearly I can't count.

[Donald Johnson]

I also can't write. I should have said that taking non-fatal actions into account might make Israel look even worse.

[Kevin Donoghue]

It’s odd that although the CIA can produce stuff like this, Chas Freeman can’t keep his job. America puzzles me.

[hilzoy]

"Civil discourse brought to you by ScentOfViolets:

"you are one of those odious types … this tosser … drivel like this … you are a bad-faith shill … you'd best change your behaviour … these scum … you are a wingnut … by virtue of a simple defect, you are unable to comprehend simple statements ... expressly designed to distract and derail and equivocate as long as possible … you look like a dishonest git … you're nothing but a concern troll.""

SOV: d'd'd'd is right. The posting rules require civility. Please respect them. You can trash other people's arguments without insulting them.

[Lamont Cranston]

If I fire twenty or thirty gunshots into a crowded room, and fail to kill anyone, that does not mean that the police are not justified in using lethal force to stop me.

They might be justified in using lethal force to stop you, but they wouldn't be justified in using lethal force on anyone else in the room. That is where Israel goes from "defending itself" to doing "bad things" - collective punishment.

[ScentOfViolets]

My animus towards DBN stems from the fact that I believe he is nothing more than a concern troll - a particularly vile subspecies.

Being the sort of fellow who wants reasons, evidence, cites, that sort of thing, I'll happily oblige and point out that he could not find a single post where he voiced these 'sympathetic' views, nor does his hateful and quite inappropriate analogy (firing rockets is just the same as firing 20 or 30 bullets into a crowded room. Really?) Nor has he bothered to answer any reasons why this sort of measurement of aggression is to be preferred. Nor, for that matter - what a swell guy - has Carleton for all of his blustering and his hypocrisy.

Good job, Carleton.

Oh, and to make it quite clear, I'll repeat what I said earlier: the time has long since past to treat any apologists for Israel has anything but dishonest. No, this is not something upon which 'reasonable people can disagree'. This is just another way to mark time for Israel while it proceeds with it's rather nasty bit of imperialism. If they want me to think they are not being dishonest, the burden of proof is heavily - and I mean heavily - upon them. And quite reasonably so. This isn't 1972 or 1987 or even 2005; like a lot of people, I was once extremely sympathetic towards Israel, probably (like most of my cohort) starting around 1972. But since then, Israel has done very little but squander all goodwill it had thrust upon it. Instead, they are behaving exactly like the U.S. did with regard to the 'Indian Problem'. Their apologists are also remarkably like the apologists of the 19th century, voicing almost exactly the same pretexts for some rather abhorrent behaviour. Does anyone deny in retrospect that the Indians got a very raw deal? Does anyone want to argue today that what happened to our indigenous population was 'mostly their fault'?

Notice btw that even Israel's defenders recognize this: it's getting awfully hard to label anyone who opposes Zionism these days as a 'Jew hater'. No doubt 150 years ago anyone who voiced any opposition to the treatment of the Wampanoag, the Iriquoi, the Seminoles, the Algonquins, etc was labelled by certain parties has 'hating America' too.

I hope that explains my ire. Quite frankly, people like DBN are at the very, very best, deeply unserious people. Their sort needs to be ignored while the grownups do something to put this mess right. As far as it can be, at any rate.

[hilzoy]

SOV: Your beliefs about DBN's character are irrelevant to this blog. Your arguments are not.

[Gary Farber]

"Oh, and to make it quite clear, I'll repeat what I said earlier: the time has long since past to treat any apologists for Israel has anything but dishonest. No, this is not something upon which 'reasonable people can disagree'."

Then there's no point to this thread, or discussion. Just have a nice Two Minute Hate.

"Notice btw that even Israel's defenders recognize this: it's getting awfully hard to label anyone who opposes Zionism these days as a 'Jew hater'."

Or, with many people, there's just no point in having that argument. Especially with people who declare no disagreement is possible.

[Kevin Donoghue]

Re the story I linked to at 10:38 above: I suspect it's a fabrication, having failed to trace it to a reliable source; apologies if so.

[Gary Farber]

"Re the story I linked to at 10:38 above: I suspect it's a fabrication, having failed to trace it to a reliable source; apologies if so."

Press TV:

Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis.

Our global Tehran-based headquarters is staffed with outstanding Iranian and foreign media professionals.

Perhaps a bit of wishful thinking.

[ScentOfViolets]

If I understand you correctly Hilzoy, you are saying that even if my suspicion is correct, and this individual really is just a concern-troll, I still can't say anything about this?

Am I allowed to state that I believe someone falls into this category, and state my reasons why? Because I happen to think motives are relevant to what someone says. As a hypothetical, suppose I was able to prove that DBN is a member of AIPAC. Are you saying that this shouldn't be mentioned?

[ScentOfViolets]

No Gary, that's not what I mean. I suppose I could have phrased it better. I am saying that the presumption is that they should be treated as nothing but dishonest shills until they make a creditable effort to prove otherwise. The burden of proof for this is entirely upon them.

Pretty much how we treat creationists, global warming deniers, etc. There really is a point on certain subjects where this presumption has to be made.

Of course, maybe you do extend this courtesy to, say, holocaust deniers. You treat people who say there were never any death camps as if they are completely open and above-board, and that they have an 'honest disagreement'. Yes?

I'm sure you do. Otherwise, you're not being consistent, are you ;-)

[hilzoy]

SOV: "If I understand you correctly Hilzoy, you are saying that even if my suspicion is correct, and this individual really is just a concern-troll, I still can't say anything about this?"

You do not get to insult other commenters.

Moreover, you're on much more solid ground disputing their arguments, which are right in front of you, than analyzing their psyches, which are largely unknown.

[ScentOfViolets]

I don't think you answered my question. Suppose DBN is in fact an employee of AIPAC.

Are you saying that this should not be mentioned?

Further, if this is indeed the stated policy, I would really, really like it if it were applied equally across the board. Would you please tell Carleton he was out of line?

[Donald Johnson]

SOV, you're losing perspective here. I'd say more, but I have to go.

Your arguments, IMO, are very good ones, and in some cases I'd even sympathize with the desire to expose concern trolls, but I don't think DBN is one at all and though I disagree with Carlton's criticism of you, you don't want this to become one of those threads where two people who mostly agree on a given subject get into a personality driven flame war.

[ScentOfViolets]

I'd also like to point out that Dave of the d's has put a lot of my comments out of context, quite drastically so. So let me put something in by DBN that is not out of context:

Picking the metric that will give you the results you want is not science. It's pseudo-science.

Or how about this, his reply to my original post:

If the Palestinian rockets aren't particularly deadly, it's not for lack of intent.

Even people like me know this.

Not only do I see insults directed at me, I see that these insults were there from the very beginning.

So. In the interests of consistency . . . can we have a few posts - from Hilzoy as well - admonishing DBN for his poor behaviour, posts that tell him that questioning motives or intelligence or plain old-fashioned insults are not to be tolerated?

[Brett Bellmore]

Ok, SofV, I'm having trouble figuring out what you disagree with in those two quotes from the ddddavester. Are you really prepared to defend the notion that Palestinians are launching rockets with explosive warheads into Israel with the intent that they be harmless? They could, after all, be loading them with feather pillows, if they didn't mean to kill anybody.

Just because they're ineffectual mass murderers doesn't make them nice people.

[hilzoy]

SOV: the rules stipulate civility. Civility precludes insults. It does not preclude mentioning facts about someone, supposing those facts are already public. Outing someone as an AIPAC employee would constitute a rules violation, but a different one -- as would someone's disclosing your name, which (as I have no idea what it is) I assume is not itself an insult.

[ScentOfViolets]

Then I would greatly appreciate it if you would tell DBN to keep a civil tongue in his head. The record clearly shows that he, and not I initiated the tone. Also Carelton, manamongst, brett, alec, donald, . . .

[wonkie]

"Just because they're ineffectual mass murderers doesn't make them nice people."

No, it doesn't make the individuals who launched the rockets nice people. It does, however, support the point which I and others have made repeatedly: Palestine is the weaker party in this dispute and the continued existence of Israel is not at stake except asl a long run result of their own policies.

It also undercuts substancially your argument: that Israel is the victim and that Israel would be suicidal to take the first step in initiating a new peace process.

YOu can't have it both ways. Either the Palestinian fighters are competent ennough to seriously threaten Israel's future or they aren't.

All of the evidence, including the evidence that you yourself site, is that they aren't.

Israel, OTOH, has a long hisotry of very effective military action along with an effective blockade and an effective movement to steal Palestiniann homes and farms.

It's a feud and both parties are at fault. However it is the stronger party, the one who is currently beating the shit out of the other who needs to stop first.

At least that's the casse if you care about peace. If you actually want more war, then sure, Isreael should just keep on doing what they are doing. It is easy to see what the result will be: more Palestinians dead, more attempts by Palestinians to fight back, more Plestinains dead, until the rest of the world gets so disgusted with Israel that they become a pariah state hated by everyone including Americans.

[ScentOfViolets]

Going back to the question of 'intent', let's look at this story that I commented on last night. This is from Firedoglake:

Reports from the scene say that Anderson was standing far away from the wall, after the earlier protest, and not near anyone who might have been considered "threatening."

Jonathan Polack, a left-wing [Israeli] activist who is sitting by Anderson's bedside at the hospital, said. . . that the protesters clashed with the soldiers, but noted that "the firing incident took place inside the village and not next to the fence. There were clashes in the earlier hours, but he wasn't part of them. He didn't throw stones and wasn’t standing next to the stone throwers.

"There was really no reason to fire at them. The Dutch girl standing next to him was not hurt. It only injured him, like a bullet."

Seems to me like the intent was pretty obviously to cause grevious harm if not outright death. Seems to me that these sorts of incidents regularly occur, and given the fequency of deaths, the intent is clearly to kill and terrorize.

Oh, "that's different" you say? That there wasn't 'really' any intent to harm or kill? Well, why is this 'different'? The same also applies to any of a number of other actions taken on the part of Israel that result in death. Blockade? Stealing money to punish the Palestinians for electing Hamas? Um, from this side of the pond it sure looks like intent to murder. And in fact, it is an established legal principle that death from negligence does not absolve the relevant party from blame. We even distinguish between negligence and gross negligence:

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not.

gross negligence n. carelessness in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety.

And this is why I am leery of arguments that rely on intent. Particularly when the intent of one party is trotted forth as a counterweight to the much greater factual(demonstrable) harm done by the other. And doubly eversomuchmoreso (did I get the title right?) if all sorts of 'intents' are claimed for one party, but any counterclaims against the other party for intent are waved aside as 'debatable' or 'honest disagreement'.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No, it doesn't make the individuals who launched the rockets nice people."

Nor does it make the organization which supplies them with rockets nice people, which organization is governing Gaza. Nor does it make the people who voted for that government, knowing that they had a policy of murderous attacks on a neighbor, nice people.

Are you trying to pretend the rocket launches are the product of a few unrepresentative eccentrics?

"It also undercuts substancially your argument: that Israel is the victim and that Israel would be suicidal to take the first step in initiating a new peace process."

My argument is not based on the silly notion that Israel is "the" victim. It is based on the idea that, since Israel doesn't desperately NEED a new peace process, they're not going to initiate one without some reason to trust the Palestinians to keep their side of the bargain. And given past behavior, they'd have to be nuts to think the Palestinians would deliver.

Therefore, if there's going to be a new peace process, it's up to the Palestinians to give the Israelis some reason to trust them.

"Either the Palestinian fighters are competent ennough to seriously threaten Israel's future or they aren't."

They aren't well enough equipped to seriously threaten Israel's future so long as they live under a very onerous embargo keeping effective munitions from reaching them. Their lack of competence at manufacturing effective missiles does not mean they couldn't light one off if handed a turnkey system.

I asume you want those sanctions lifted? It WOULD be suicidal of the Israelis to lift them while Hamas is prepared to launch anything they can get Israel's way.

[now_what]

Therefore, if there's going to be a new peace process, it's up to the Palestinians to give the Israelis some reason to trust them.

Therefore, if there's going to be a new peace process, it's up to the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto to give the Germans some reason to trust them.

It WOULD be suicidal of the Israelis to lift them while Hamas is prepared to launch anything they can get Israel's way.

It WOULD be suicidal of the Germans to lift them while the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto are prepared to launch anything they can get Germany's way.

[Carleton Wu]

Okay, Carleton, why don't you suggest what you think is more objective metric, and why you think this is so?

I doubt that any such metric can be constructed. Attempting to weigh how many bulldozed houses equals one rocket attack, or how many suicide bombers justify an air raid on an occupied apartment building is a fool's game. Partisans will choose metrics or thresholds of action that favor their side- thus, Israelis point to rocket attacks while ignoring the blockade of medical supplies, or Palestinians point to causualty counts while ignoring the terror inspired by intetional targeting of civilians. Each side calls actions 'justified' or 'provoked' or 'defensive', and implicitly claims that those acts shouldn't count against their 'score' (so to speak).
Of course, you've already addressed this, with your "way ahead of you son" gag. But I think that you're obviously mistaken, the desire to quantify something does not make it quantifiable, nor does it make a poor but 'best-possible' quantification into a good one.
I wish there were a good way of assessing things, one that everyone accepted, as it might help people move forward. I believe that the Israelis do more harm to the Palestinians than is done to them. I also believe that the Israelis show more restraint than the Palestinians do, compared to their capabilities. And I believe that the Israelis are less cognizant of the damage done to them by their own radicals than the Palestinians, and that in the end the single most critical factor for peace is for the mass of non-fanatical Israelis to come to terms with the influence of their fanatical citizens. But I can't in good faith make up a scoring system that supports my beliefs in any of these matters, even if I can debate them. Again, I wish I had such a system that everyone accepted- it would make it so much easier to move people towards what I think is a path to peace.
While Im at it, Ill wish for a pony too.

[Carleton Wu]

it's getting awfully hard to label anyone who opposes Zionism these days as a 'Jew hater'.

No one has done this here. It's a reprehensible thing that is not uncommon, but there's no reason to think that DBN, or anyone else, would stoop to that. In fact, I suspect that DBN would find it reprehensible as well, but Ill let DBN speak to that.
You do yourself and the debate a great disservice if you assume that everyone who doesn't agree with you can be lumped into a single group, and the behavior of the most odious can be assigned to them all. Im pleased that Brett hasn't accused me of sympathy for suicide bombers, it's the mirror-image of what you're doing here. And it's also reprehensible.

Oh, and to make it quite clear, I'll repeat what I said earlier: the time has long since past to treat any apologists for Israel has anything but dishonest. No, this is not something upon which 'reasonable people can disagree'.

Great- anyone who disagrees with you is by definition dishonest. And not worth debating with.
In principle you've already abandoned debate on the issue. I don't even know what you're doing here, other than spreading your hateful gospel that those who disagree with you are dishonest and unreasonable. I suggest to you that there is nothing to be gained for you in coming here with a completely closed mind.

I am saying that the presumption is that they should be treated as nothing but dishonest shills until they make a creditable effort to prove otherwise.

Is there anythign besides "agreeing with you" that would satisfy this criteria?

[Carleton Wu]

DJ,
Carleton Wu--In policing politeness violations, it's a good idea not to be guilty yourself.

Guilty; I do tend to let things get out of hand. Fortunately, I don't appear to have done too much damage this time. :)

I used the term "contemptible filth" to refer to Brett's arguments earlier in this thread and I don't regret it. The subtle, almost vanishingly small distinction, between me and SOV is that I made the comment about his arguments, not about Brett.

I disagree- I've said some things to Brett as well that weren't polite, and he has to me. But we're still basically talking on point, as you have been. Whereas SOV's post contains about half of a bad point and about 4 and a half paragraphs of ad hominems and accusations of bad faith.
The distinction is huge- 95% argument and 5% insult versus 5% argument and 95% insult. All SOV said in that post was that refusing to quantify is a way for crypto-partisans of Israel to avoid accountability- I call that half of a legitimate point bc it's really an ah hominem disguised as a point.

[John Spragge]

A little perspective: we have seen a lot of concern expressed lately about the girls whom the Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan have forbidden to go to school. And this should concern us. Using force to keep children ignorant belongs to a special category of evil. Many commentators ask why moderate Muslims tolerate this behaviour or allow the Taliban to invoke Islam to justify it.

So what should we think when we read about radical Israeli settlers assaulting Arab children on their way to and from school.

Asking what Muslim and Jewish and Christian moderates do about these things misses the point. In all these cases, moderates do a great deal. Many people do, in fact, stand up for the children with unflinching courage. The question remains, why do the moderates not have more support?

In particular, I expect American aid to Israel will continue for some time. Perhaps, though, the United States government could make their aid conditional on letting human rights monitors into the West Bank and Gaza. As the supporters of Israel never tire of reminding us, Israel embodies democratic values, so Israelis should have no objection to the presence of independent human rights monitoring ad reporting. Likewise, the United States rightly prevents funds raised in the United States from going to groups such as Hamas. Perhaps the American government could also take measures to prevent funds raised in the US from going to the ethnic cleansing at Maon and Maon farm.

[Carleton Wu]

So. In the interests of consistency . . . can we have a few posts - from Hilzoy as well - admonishing DBN for his poor behaviour, posts that tell him that questioning motives or intelligence or plain old-fashioned insults are not to be tolerated?

You think that you're right; well, welcome to the club. Thinking that you're right doesn't justify accusations of bad faith or rudeness here.
Let me draw the line a bit more clearly: it's perfectly acceptable to say that you think someone's argument doesn't make sense. It's Ok to question whether they got your point and illustrate where you think they got it wrong. It's kind of Ok to say that someone's point is wrongheaded or stupid or missing an obviously critical issue, as long as your making a counterargument. It's Ok to offer a moral opinion of someone's position, even a very critical one. It's discouraged to meet ugliness with ugliness, but being second counts for something.
It's not okay to call someone an idiot. It's okay to offer an occasional cute flame, but extended flaming is not ok, and neither is substanceless flaming. It's not ok to question someone's motives without a reason (disagreeing with them is not a reason). It's not Ok to extensively belittle an argument, or to belittle it in place of attempting a refutation. So, questioning someone's reading ability without explaning what you think they misunderstood is out of bounds. Saying 'this is a stupid argument and here's why' is very different than 'you are an idiot' here. Idiosyncratic, but that's the community. Likewise, accusations of bad faith are very much out of line here; the community has found over time that they tend to quickly derail reasoned debate. If you think that DBN's arguments are in bad faith, then you should be able to demonstrate that the arguments themselves are flawed.
By the rules here, you were stepping over the line & DBN wasn't, even if the distinction wasn't clear to you at the time. So a chastisement of DBN isn't likely to be forthcoming.

[wonkie]

"My argument is not based on the silly notion that Israel is "the" victim. It is based on the idea that, since Israel doesn't desperately NEED a new peace process, they're not going to initiate one without some reason to trust the Palestinians to keep their side of the bargain. And given past behavior, they'd have to be nuts to think the Palestinians would deliver."

I'm glad that you don't see Israel as the victim. It would be nice if you would acknowledge that in this conflict they are the stronger party. Because they are.

Palestine, blockade or not, does not have a military capacity strong enough to destroy Israel and Israel has a military which is more than adequate to the task of defending them from Palestine even if the blockade is lifted.

Israel does deperately need a new peace process. They need it because the biggest threat to their future is their current policy.Supporting their current policy in regard to Palestine might be emotionally appealing to someone who sees the Palestinians as stupid vicious people, but that doesn't make it a good policy. YOur point of view is premised on the assumption that if Isreal is mean enough to Palestine long enough they will give in and "become trustworthy."

No conflict has ever been settled that way. Conflicts have been settled by one party killing off the other party or by one party over powering the other party to the extent that they actually control the other party's government, but no conflict has been settled by one party beating the other into trustworthiness. Trust isn't established that way.

The truth is that neither side in this conflict is going to trust the other for a long time.

The issue here should be to think about what it good for Israel in the long run and to think about what to do now to take steps toward that better future. Continuing the action/reaction/reaction/reacgtion cycle doesn't help. Continuing the myth of poor little Israel who is about to be annihilated by the people who have never been able to fight them effectively before isn't helpful. Continuing to put the onus on Palestine to take the first steps when they are the party that has lost the most isn't helpful.

Isn't helpful to Isael, I mean.

The most likely longterm result of Isreal's current choices is that that rest of the world will get disgusted with them, their continued mistreatment of Palestine will fuel terroism and promote those forces ini neighboring countries which wish to annihilate Israel, and lead ultimately to larger and wider war.

If that's the future you want for Israel, then your support for their currrent behavior makes sense.

The other route, to take responsiblity for intitiating peace efforts, to end the blockade, withdraw the settlers and to demonstrate that Israel is trustworhy and committed to a two party solution will be a difficult path but one that could lead to peace. To say that it is suicidal is stupid. It's the other choice-- endless war--that is suicidal.

[ScentOfViolets]

You think that you're right; well, welcome to the club. Thinking that you're right doesn't justify accusations of bad faith or rudeness here.

Chuckle. Here's a flash for you, Carleton: you don't get to decide. And you are far far from blameless. In fact, given the way I've eviscerated your 'arguments', one might wonder if there's a bit of resentment playing out here. Let's analyze this a bit, shall we?

Let me draw the line a bit more clearly: it's perfectly acceptable to say that you think someone's argument doesn't make sense. It's Ok to question whether they got your point and illustrate where you think they got it wrong. It's kind of Ok to say that someone's point is wrongheaded or stupid or missing an obviously critical issue, as long as your making a counterargument. It's Ok to offer a moral opinion of someone's position, even a very critical one. It's discouraged to meet ugliness with ugliness, but being second counts for something. It's not okay to call someone an idiot.

I'm glad you put that in there. Let's rewind on the wayback machine, eh? Here's what DBN said in his very first post:

If the Palestinian rockets aren't particularly deadly, it's not for lack of intent.

Even people like me know this.

So, here we have DBN calling me an idiot, but - strangely - you don't object. Why is that, I wonder? Well, actually, I don't.

So, questioning someone's reading ability without explaning what you think they misunderstood is out of bounds.

That's funny, I thought I did. Let's scroll back. Yep. In fact, I devoted three paragraphs to that very point. I would suggest before you fire off these sorts of missives that you actually go back and read what was written. Carefully.

By the rules here, you were stepping over the line & DBN wasn't, even if the distinction wasn't clear to you at the time. So a chastisement of DBN isn't likely to be forthcoming.

No, by the rules you've just set up, DBN stepped over the line before I ever replied to him. Are we going to see an admission of error from you?

Your other posts show a similar style:

I doubt that any such metric can be constructed. Attempting to weigh how many bulldozed houses equals one rocket attack, or how many suicide bombers justify an air raid on an occupied apartment building is a fool's game. Partisans will choose metrics or thresholds of action that favor their side- thus, Israelis point to rocket attacks while ignoring the blockade of medical supplies, or Palestinians point to causualty counts while ignoring the terror inspired by intetional targeting of civilians. Each side calls actions 'justified' or 'provoked' or 'defensive', and implicitly claims that those acts shouldn't count against their 'score' (so to speak).

Y'know, if you really thought there was no way one could apportion blame, just as a general principle, you really don't have any call to be challenging any specifics of what I posted. That's a copout. And I really, really dislike your accusations here - accusations which show that you either didn't read my post carefully, or did, but choose to act as if you haven't. To show that I am not running afoul of your interpretation of the regs, I'll explain yet again. The point of this metric is that it does not look at intentions. It only looks at consequences. I've explicitly said this about three times now. This is to - what did I say:

But rather than look at all the claims, counter-claims etc, and get bogged down into deliberately extended arguments as to whether three rocket attacks equals one Palestinian child crushed by a bulldozer, the study looked at verifiable results. Which sounds like good science to me - and which tells me you're not much for science.

Or what about here:

Seems to me like the intent was pretty obviously to cause grevious harm if not outright death. Seems to me that these sorts of incidents regularly occur, and given the fequency of deaths, the intent is clearly to kill and terrorize.

Oh, "that's different" you say? That there wasn't 'really' any intent to harm or kill? Well, why is this 'different'? The same also applies to any of a number of other actions taken on the part of Israel that result in death. Blockade? Stealing money to punish the Palestinians for electing Hamas? Um, from this side of the pond it sure looks like intent to murder. And in fact, it is an established legal principle that death from negligence does not absolve the relevant party from blame. We even distinguish between negligence and gross negligence:

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not.

gross negligence n. carelessness in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety.

And this is why I am leery of arguments that rely on intent. Particularly when the intent of one party is trotted forth as a counterweight to the much greater factual(demonstrable) harm done by the other. And doubly eversomuchmoreso (did I get the title right?) if all sorts of 'intents' are claimed for one party, but any counterclaims against the other party for intent are waved aside as 'debatable' or 'honest disagreement'.

So - let me say this again - I deeply, deeply resent that you think I'm picking a particular measurement just to make my 'side' look good.

Considering that you've been going on not looking at people's motives, or intentions, or character, rather ironic, don't you think? You're going to say that balancing out 'psychological warfare' with actual death is just too hard and too tough, and I can't infer anything about someone's character from what they have posted.

But you have no problem with your own deductions in regard to the same. Uh-Huh.

Hilzoy? Could you say something to this person? Tell him that this sort of behaviour is not acceptable?

As for you, Carleton, by your own lights, you owe me an apology. A big one.

Let's see how consistent you really are.

[wonkie]

I've been thinking some more about this weird idea that people can be forced to behave in a trust-engendering way by kicking them when they are down.

After WW1 the Allies followed their defeat of the Germans by destroying their economy. The spiteful, vengeful behavior of the Allies did not cause the Germans to behave in a way that made them more trustworthy in the eyes of the Allies.

On the other hand after the Allies defeated the Germans at the end of WW2, the Allies then helped the Germans get back on their feet: medical supplies to hospitals, reatoration of the economy, assistance of all sorts (while, of course, surpressing any attempts by unreconstructed Nazis to keep on fighting). The result? Lots of trust between Germany and the allied nations.

If Israel decided to take the smarter route--to restore and aide Paliesine--there would be extermists who would keep on fighting. Some of the extremists would be Israeli settlers and some would be Palestinians. However trust and peace are far more likely to result from the second course of action than the first.

[d'd'd'dave]

Tristan Anderson - professional protester

http://www.zmag.org/blog/view/2839
http://www.theglobalreport.org/issues/109/nationalnews.html
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/02/07/16697031.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/12/01/18334412.php

[Brett Bellmore]

""It would be nice if you would acknowledge that in this conflict they are the stronger party."

I'm pretty sure I've already done that, several times.

"Palestine, blockade or not, does not have a military capacity strong enough to destroy Israel and Israel has a military which is more than adequate to the task of defending them from Palestine even if the blockade is lifted."

This is clearly wrong, purely defensive military technology simply isn't up to the task of protecting an area the size of Israel from continuing bombardment from a neighbor. You just can't do that, no matter how strong a military you have. The technology doesn't exist.

And if Israel lifts the blockade, and permits Hamas to continue attacking, the world muslim community will see to it that they get enough military resources to get the job done.

In the face of an opponent determined to inflict damage on you regardless of the cost, you can do two things: Either blockade them to deny them anything to inflict damage with, (The course Israel has chosen.) or utterly destroy that opponent, a course you'd correctly identify as genocide.

Or let them destroy you, which is the course most people complaining about Israel seem to tacitly endorse.

Oh, and I don't think you can force people to act in a trust engendering way by kicking them while they're down. But I don't think you stop kicking them when they're down until they stop reaching for the gun they were shooting at you with when you knocked them down.

[jrudkis]

Wonkie,

That makes sense to me. I think a common thought about the Palestinians is that they would be better off and more effective with a "Ghandi/MLK" approach rather than an armed response.

Maybe so, but the Israelis would also be better off with a Marshall Plan approach rather than a "Bull Connor" approach.

Though non-violence in the Ghandi/MLK style is rare, as is the Marshall Plan.

[Carleton Wu]

given the way I've eviscerated your 'arguments'

Funny, I just asked them and my arguments are feeling pretty unbloodied. Other than the preemptive "son" bit against DBN, but that wasn't an argument, that was you predicting the obvious line of attack against your position and attempting to dismiss it by virtue of pointing it out beforehand. Me, I think that shows that the argument is weak & you should address the weakness rather than preemptively dismissing it, but ymmv.

So, here we have DBN calling me an idiot, but - strangely - you don't object.

Here we have DBN pointing out a flaw in your argument. If you think that makes you look like an idiot- well, Im not going to jump in and say otherwise. But the bar against being called an idiot doesn't protect you from someone pointing out that your argument has a hole in it.
Me, I prefer to think that everyone makes mistakes sometimes or makes illogical leaps sometimes, and pointing this out doesn't imply that the person is an idiot.

Why is that, I wonder? Well, actually, I don't.

Right- despite me saying that the Israelis do more harm to the Palestinians than vice versa, and that the single most important factor to peace is the Israelis divorcing themeselves from their radical elements, Im actually a crypto-Israeli supporter. How else can we explain me not agreeing with you about everything?
Or, I might just think that you're mistaken.

That's funny, I thought I did.

That's funny, I thought I was giving generic examples of bad behavior, not pointing fingers. I did that to avoid escalating, but apparently your persecution complex (or conscience) got the better of you.

No, by the rules you've just set up, DBN stepped over the line before I ever replied to him. Are we going to see an admission of error from you?

Nope. I disgree with you on that point. In fact, I think your position is silly, & repeating it over and over doesn't make it any stronger. DBN is allowed to point out the flaws in your argument, or what DBN thinks are the flaws. The next act is you saying why you don't think they're flaws, not you accusing DBN of secretly being in the Mossad.

The point of this metric is that it does not look at intentions. It only looks at consequences.

It looks at a specific subset of consequences. As I explained, there is no particularly rationale for choosing this subset, other than it is easily isolated from the other consequential actions. But the fact that it is easily isolated does not make it a particularly good metric in and of itself, it must demonstrate its utility apart from being easy to see. This is the drunk looking under the streetlight for his keys because the light is better there.
And, apart from its ease of use, it appears to me to be almost totally useless, as it ignores both genuinely defensive actions that result in death as well as all manner of non-lethal provocations.

So - let me say this again - I deeply, deeply resent that you think I'm picking a particular measurement just to make my 'side' look good.

So Ill get a band-aid and put it on my conscience. Particularly since I didn't say that, you seem to enjoy inferring all manner of hidden motives and attacks instead of making an argument.

Considering that you've been going on not looking at people's motives, or intentions, or character, rather ironic, don't you think? ...But you have no problem with your own deductions in regard to the same. Uh-Huh.

I said that metrics were too easy for anyone to manipulate, and therefore useless. That doesn't question the intent of any particular user of metrics. Anyone can offer metrics, but given the subjective nature of the choice they are never going to be persuasive to anyone who is not already convinced of the position that they're being used to reinforce.
It's not that all users of metrics are necessarily acting in bad faith, it's that anyone acting in bad faith can create a metric, ergo metrics will be useless unless they are so ironclad as to be beyond criticism. And this one is so far from that standard that I don't think it's even useful in a general sense, let alone to convince someone who is somewhat resistant to your position.

As for you, Carleton, by your own lights, you owe me an apology. A big one.
Let's see how consistent you really are.

Im very sorry that you continually see persecution everywhere. I feel very badly for you that you view critiques of your arguments as accusations of personal idiocy. And it is genuinely unfortunate that you believe that anyone who does not agree with you is acting in bad faith.

[Carleton Wu]

Oh, and I don't think you can force people to act in a trust engendering way by kicking them while they're down. But I don't think you stop kicking them when they're down until they stop reaching for the gun they were shooting at you with when you knocked them down.

Once again I believe your mixing arguments- first moral, then practical, and now moral again. That is, you cast the Israelis as the victims in your 'practical' example out of necessity, because your argument cannot stand on practical grounds alone.

So, that leaves you to do what you've avoided all along- defending the obvious Israeli provocations that have nothing to do with defense (eg the settlements) and those that cannot be defended on a practical basis (eg invading Gaza when there was no way such an invasion could produce a practical good effect for Israel).

I would also suggest that your practical scenario has a flaw- the Israelis have the upper hand, and they've not demonstrated much desire to give the Palestinians what they want (ie a genuine state in the West Bank). Is there any reason to think that, absent the pressure of Palestinian attacks, Israel will suddenly take on its radicals and abandon the West Bank? It's clear that this is the primary reason for Israeli occupation of the WB, and a lack of Palestinian attacks isn't going to change this.
It seems much more likely that Palestinian de-escalation would be met by Israel dismissing Palestinian concerns and continuing their giving in to religious extremists by increasing claims in the West Bank.

I guess I see the Palestinians as a people with specific, concrete territorial aspirations and hopes of a state, whereas you see them as a whole as desiring nothing but Israel's destruction, with their desire for a homeland nothing more than a fig leaf. Im not sure that anything can bridge that gap- but your vision is one of eternal conflict, so I hope Im right. I hope *you* hope Im right.

[now_what]

I think a common thought about the Palestinians is that they would be better off and more effective with a "Ghandi/MLK" approach rather than an armed response.

I think a common thought about the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto is that they would be better off and more effective with a "Ghandi/MLK" approach rather than an armed response.

[wonkie]

""It would be nice if you would acknowledge that in this conflict they are the stronger party."

I'm pretty sure I've already done that, several times.

I'm sorry I missed it. I don't see how your argument--that Isreal must wait until Palestine beomce trustworhty-- holds up, though, if you acknowledge that Israel is the stronger party.

This is a hearts and minds type of war. Israel doesnot have the option of killing off the Palestinians. The Palestinians are not willing to be deprived of their homes and livilihoods without a fight. This means that, unless Israelis wish to escalate the violence into a region wide calaminty, they have no choice but to devise ways to live with Palestine and that means get over the spite annd vengefulness, forget retaliation, and make friends. As the stronger, better off party they are the ones who are in the postion to do this. Being generous and fair and helpful to Palestine is the best way to make Palestinians fanatics look like, well, fanatics and marginalize them. Of course it means dealing with pissed off extremist Isreali settlers and Palestinain deadenderrs and that won't be easy. It is easier than endless war, however or a major region wide conflagration.

There is no indication from the histoy of the fighting between Palestinians and Isrealis that Palestians have the ability to wipe out Isreal. Notis there any indication from history that the Isrealis would allow that to happen or that Israel's allies (us) would allow that to happen. So that just doesn't work as an argument for Isreal to continue the blockade and occupation by settler of Palestinian land.

I'm glad that you acknowledgge tht force cannot be used to make people trustworthy. You argume that isreal is only using force to prevent the Palestinians from taking up weapons in the future--well, force can't be used to do that either. Again to use the WW models. At the end of WW1 Germany was forced by military might to give up but came badck years later to fight again. At the end of WW2 Germany was forced by military might to give up and did not years later rise to fight again.

Because of the difference in how they were treated when they could no longer fight.

Rightnow Palestine is in the postion where it is darn hard to fight, but every day of continued abuse at the hands of the Israelis increases the nubmer of Palestinains who will want to fight when they can. That's why Isreal's policy is shortterm emotionally gratifiying but longterm stupid. Israel needs to be thinking about how to stop the fighting, not how to keep a lid on a pot that they, the Israelis, are causing to boil.

[wonkie]

Ishould have written that force ALONE can't be used to prevent the other side from fighting back in the future. Force accompanied by genocide will prevent the other party from fighting back. Or force followed by reconciliation and reconsctuction. Or force followed by mass movement of population as China and Russia have done. But not just force by itself.

[Gary Farber]

"The record clearly shows that he, and not I initiated the tone."

Not so much.

[Donald Johnson]

"Tristan Anderson - professional protester"

Do you think being a "professional protestor" means you have it coming if someone shoots you in the head, dddave? I grew up around people who thought MLK was an outside agitator, a professional protestor who deserved what happened to him and your post brought back memories.

[now_what]

To the person that posted at 9:59 using my name, go to hell. If you have a point to make, make it under your own name. Not under mine.

[liberal japonicus]

I'd point out that faking someone's nick is an immediately bannable offense. I hope it's just someone who dropped in rather than someone who has been previously participating in this conversation...

[hilzoy]

LJ (and now_what): "I'd point out that faking someone's nick is an immediately bannable offense. I hope it's just someone who dropped in rather than someone who has been previously participating in this conversation..."

It is impossible to say, since whoever did it used now_what's IP address and email address.

[d'd'd'dave]

Mr. Johnson

//Do you think being a "professional protestor" means you have it coming if someone shoots you in the head, dddave?//

No. You don't have it coming. His injuries are unfortunate, regrettable, sad, tragic, etc.

However, my mommy taught me that if I hang around angry people who have hatchets*, swords*, sticks*, guns*, and tear gas launchers there is a chance that I might get hurt.

*from Oaxaca in one of my links

[John Spragge]

Three comments:

1) Godwin's Law

I would recommend that, on this above all issues, people avoid flouting Godwin's law. I don't know if the comparisons of Israel to the Germans who reduced the Warsaw Ghetto offends other people, but it offends me.

2) Why "trust" won't help.

Brett, I don't know how often or how many ways I can say this: for a relatively small but very influential minority in both Israel and the United States, this issue has nothing to do with "trust" or confidence or anything else that informs rational politics. If you keep claiming the Palestinians have to make the Israelis "trust" them, you simply convince me that you haven't read or studied the roots of this conflict. All the rhetoric of "Biblical Israel" refers to a belief that when Jewish people take control of territories that include Israel inside the Green Line, the West Bank, and some other parts of the Middle East, one of two things will happen; the Messiah will appear, usher in a reign of peace and vindicate the Jewish people, or the Second Coming of Christ will occur. Note again: this has nothing to do with trust or confidence in any political or military sense. If a Palestinian Ghandi arose, members of the religious settlement movement and their "Christian Zionist" supporters would want him or her gently but firmly escorted across the Jordan River, on the grounds that Palestinians, however good or non-violent, have no business living in the land reserved for Jewish people. If you don't incorporate that in your discussion, your call for non-violence will fall on deaf ears, because it implies a promise (that Israelis will respond to trust-building measures), and we know that at the very least, many Israelis and Americans will work very hard to prevent the Israeli government from ever keeping that promise.

3) Professional protester?

Without protest and agitation for social change, d'd'd'd'ave, we would still live in a world dominated by colonialism and other forms of authoritarianism. The American colonies would belong to England and most African Americans would belong to slave owners. Every right claimed and defended by and for every man, woman, and child on this planet came about because brave people of conscience, or "protesters" made a moral stand, and said no to oppression and yes to justice. Often they stood up alone. It didn't take soldiers to liberate India, but it did take protesters. In the face of a nuclear armed Soviet Union, vast armies sat, impotent, while protesters did the heavy lifting, endured years of jail and psychiatric abuse, and brought down a tyranny. Protesters, "professional" and other wise, deserve the respect of anyone who uses the freedoms won by protest, and that certainly includes people who write in web logs.

[Gary Farber]

"As for you, Carleton, by your own lights, you owe me an apology. A big one."

Hold your breath.

[Gary Farber]

Gandhi. There's no such person as "Ghandi."

[Brett Bellmore]

"This is a hearts and minds type of war. Israel doesnot have the option of killing off the Palestinians."

They've got it, every bit as much as the Palestinians have the option of continuing to launch home-made rockets into Israel. Both are irrationally self-destructive moves in the long run.

The difference is that you demand that Israel not be irrationally self-destructive, and make excuses for the Palestinians.

I'm not making a moral argument here. I'm pointing out that, when two people are locked in a fight, and one gets the upper hand, they don't relinquish it while their opponent is still foaming at the mouth and trying to bit off their nads.

[John Spragge]

Brett, you keep arguing as though this simply involved an issue of security, despite the mountain of evidence that it doesn't. That argument distorts the facts and condescends to both sides in the conflict: it tells the Israelis that you know they don't really mean that stuff about the Torah, and the Palestinians that they could solve the problem instantly if they would just behave themselves.

Then when we point out the basic problem with your argument, you simply repeat the same talking points. Who do you hope, or expect, to convince this way? Anyone who has done the most cursory research into this conflict knows perfectly well that for many influential Israelis and their supporters, this has nothing to do with trust or confidence. I cannot think what purpose you think you will serve by making the same mistaken claim over and over again, while ignoring all the evidence that refutes it.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Anyone who has done the most cursory research into this conflict knows perfectly well that for many influential Israelis and their supporters, this has nothing to do with trust or confidence."

The same for the Palestinians. You think they really keep attacking Israel because they're pissed off by the sanctions? They do it because they think it's a religious outrage that anybody but Muslims controls one square inch of the middle east. The Palestinians are, as they were meant to be by the governments of the region, the sword of world antisemitism. It's what they're teaching their children to be, instead of farmers and engineers.

But the only hope for peace is that both sides end up setting aside those religious motives for acting. Give up on that, and you might as well throw up your hands.

"and the Palestinians that they could solve the problem instantly if they would just behave themselves."

Instantly? I explicitly said it would take a long while, because they've been behaving like violent maniacs for a long while.

Frankly, I don't have much hope for the area; With the Palestinians are still poisoning the minds of their next generation, that puts peace in the middle east some time around the 2060s, barring a miracle.

[wonkie]

Brett, your arguments are grounded in religious prejudice. I write this with reluctance, but really they are. You stereoptype the Palestinians as if they were unitied in all or most having the same characteristis of the worset among them while denying the reality of and the effecton the situation of Israelis who are religiously motivated,fanatical, full of hate and determined to destroy Palestine.

You are correct that it is very difficult to achieve paece if those who are determined to fight are motivated by religion. You are incorrect in your assumption that the religiously mortivated are on one side or that the presence of the religiously motivated matters in the actions of only one side.

[liberal japonicus]

Actually, Brett, Palestinians were, for the longest time, driven by secular concerns rather than religious. It was Israel that supported religious movements to create a counterweight to the secular Fatah.

In the 1980s, for instance, the Israeli government decided to weaken the secular Fatah movement headed by Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat by promoting the rise of Islamic parties as a counterweight, on the theory that Islamic groups would not have the same nationalistic impulses.

So Fatah's social networks were dismantled by the Israeli government, but it went easy on Islamic charitable networks. This decision fueled the rise of Hamas as a political force, with its network of health clinics and social services that far exceeded the abilities of the often-corrupt Fatah movement.

link

[Brett Bellmore]

"You are incorrect in your assumption that the religiously mortivated are on one side or that the presence of the religiously motivated matters in the actions of only one side."

I'd be incorrect in that assumption were I making it.

BTW, Wonkie, get a spell checker, will ya?

[Donald Johnson]

d'd'd'dave--What John Spragge said. Your mom was right, in a limited way, but people tut-tutted in the same way about the civil rights protestors of the 50's and 60's--some thought that they deserved to be beaten up and killed and others, without going that far, thought the protestors were troublemakers who needlessly invited violence.

I mean, if a firefighter is killed in the line of duty, would your mom say "What do you expect, if you make a career out of rushing into burning buildings?"

[hilzoy]

Brett: " They do it because they think it's a religious outrage that anybody but Muslims controls one square inch of the middle east."

This really is wrong. There are probably some Palestinians who think this, since there are a lot of Palestinians, and they hold all sorts of views. But the main drivers are (a) the thought that this isn't just some land in the Middle East, it's their land, the land their families have lived on for generations, and (b) various things the Israelis have done over the decades. You might think the Israelis were justified in everything they did, and I might disagree, but if (for instance) what we were arguing about was something that had resulted in the death of a child, the outcome of our argument might not matter so much to the person whose child it was. This is, of course, true on both sides.

[liberal japonicus]

Brett, perhaps you missed it, but Wonkie has mentioned that she has poor eyesight.

[Donald Johnson]

Neve Gordan's comment on Israel's restraint--

Link

[Carleton Wu]

They've got it, every bit as much as the Palestinians have the option of continuing to launch home-made rockets into Israel. Both are irrationally self-destructive moves in the long run.
The difference is that you demand that Israel not be irrationally self-destructive, and make excuses for the Palestinians.

Both sides commit low-level violence. Neither side has the incentive to suppress the driving force of the violence on their own side while the other side is letting their violent minority continue to drive violence.
Im not sure why you think that the Israeli ability to commit larger amounts of violence makes it logical for the Palestinians to suppress their minority while the Israelis clearly have no intent of suppressing theirs- one the Palestinians stop their violence, do you really think that the Israelis will give up the West Bank?
I note that you never answered the earlier question- if the Israelis are just defending themselves, why are they continuing to lay a claim to parts of the West Bank, particularly natural resources (eg water) and lines that further subdivide the Palestinians of that area?

I'm not making a moral argument here.

Ok, so now you've gone from moral, to practical, to moral (by basing an analogy on the proposition that the Palestinians started it) and back to practical again. I really wish you could stay in one area rather than running from each area as you lose ground only to return and pretend that that ground hasn't already been covered.
If it's a moral defense, explain the aggressive settlements.
If it's a practical defense, explain how a lack of Palestinian violence is going to compel the Israelis to confront their extremists who believe they have a religious mandate to control the West Bank and more.

I mean, maybe you think that the Palestinians going Gandhi would lead to Israeli suppression of their violent minority and an abandonment of the settlements, etc. But you haven't actually said that, explicitly, and I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, it seems that you're just advocating that the Palestinians lie down to superior force because you don't like them very much.

[wonkie]

I do have lousy eyesight, plus I'm a lousy typist. Also I'm too damn lazy to correct all of the typos, especially since I make mistakes in my corrections. For example, i corrected this eight or nine times.

OK, so Brett, if you are not assuming that the religious fanatics are entirely or mostly on the Palestinian side, then why are you using relgious fanaticism as the basis for blaming Palestine for the continued fighting and while not holding Israel accountable for the fanatics on that side?

It seems like you have a double standard here.

But the bottom line is this: the fighting will continue as long as the feud is thought of in terms of who hit who last and who hit who the most and who can smite the other hard enough to stop the fighting. Been there done that lots of times, doesn't work.Stop thinking about it that way. Try thinking about it this way: what is in the long term best interests of Isreal? SInce they can't kill all of the Palestinians and they can't force them to immigrate and since the friction with Palestine is a huge source of friction with all of the other countries in the Middle East and since smiting the Palestinians doesn't appear to be effective, mayvbe it would be smart for Isreal to change the whole dynamic.

I do think that your arguments on this thread are rooted in prejudice, but I also have to hand it to you for persistance. I'm done now though. Time for me to go argue with someone else about something else.

[243]

I do have lousy eyesight, plus I'm a lousy typist.

Actually I've noticed a definite improvement in your typing/spelling.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I do have lousy eyesight, plus I'm a lousy typist. Also I'm too damn lazy to correct all of the typos, especially since I make mistakes in my corrections. For example, i corrected this eight or nine times."

Well, sorry then; Personally, my vision's atrocious, too, but as a trained typist, my fingers know how to spell even if I didn't have these coke bottles hanging in front of my eyes.

"mayvbe it would be smart for Isreal to change the whole dynamic."

Since Israel is better off with the present dynamic than the Palestinians, maybe it would be even smarter for the Palestinians to change the whole dynamic. Which is the whole of my point. And I'll now stop repeating it.

[John Spragge]

Brett, I find two of the phrases you use to describe the Palestinians, "sword of world anti-semitism" and "behave like violent maniacs" particularly inaccurate and offensive. Arab Muslim culture has, in fact, a far better record of religious tolerance than Europe, and while European colonialist and racist practices have successfully set large parts of the Muslim and Jewish communities at each other's throats, the kind of hatred that led to misery and horror for the Jewish community in Europe did not exist to remotely the same degree in Arab and Muslim society. Accusing the Palestinians of acting as the "sword of world anti-semitism" simply scapegoats them for a primarily European vice.

As for the "violent maniacs" phrase: substantially more Palestinians have died in the recent rounds of fighting than have Israelis. Wherever you put the root of the blame for this conflict (and while neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have clean hands, I would assign the lion's share of the blame to European colonialism and genocide), claiming the Palestinians have behaved more violently or maniacally than Israelis seems to have no basis in the evidence.

As for your repeated contention that Israel somehow needs peace less than the Palestinians, that position seems to me so unrealistic I can hardly find a way to square it with any notion of respect for Israel's long term interests. Unless you believe that current Israeli policies will bring about a miraculous resolution (in which case please say so), you have to deal with the reality that in a very few years, Jewish Israelis will make up fewer than half of the population in the area governed by Israel. Most people identify that transition as the "tipping point" at which Israel must decide whether to abandon their commitment to democracy, embrace the two-state solution and make it work (which requires peace), or accept a single democratic state with a non-Jewish majority. Unless you believe the Israel has no need for democracy or the rule of law, logic and evidence indicates pretty clearly that Israel needs to make peace as soon as possible.

[John Spragge]

Brett, I find two of the phrases you use to describe the Palestinians, "sword of world anti-semitism" and "behave like violent maniacs" particularly inaccurate and offensive. Arab Muslim culture has, in fact, a far better record of religious tolerance than Europe, and while European colonialist and racist practices have successfully set large parts of the Muslim and Jewish communities at each other's throats, the kind of hatred that led to misery and horror for the Jewish community in Europe did not exist to remotely the same degree in Arab and Muslim society. Accusing the Palestinians of acting as the "sword of world anti-semitism" simply scapegoats them for a primarily European vice.

As for the "violent maniacs" phrase: substantially more Palestinians have died in the recent rounds of fighting than have Israelis. Wherever you put the root of the blame for this conflict (and while neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have clean hands, I would assign the lion's share of the blame to European colonialism and genocide), claiming the Palestinians have behaved more violently or maniacally than Israelis seems to have no basis in the evidence.

As for your repeated contention that Israel somehow needs peace less than the Palestinians, that position seems to me so unrealistic I can hardly find a way to square it with any notion of respect for Israel's long term interests. Unless you believe that current Israeli policies will bring about a miraculous resolution (in which case please say so), you have to deal with the reality that in a very few years, Jewish Israelis will make up fewer than half of the population in the area governed by Israel. Most people identify that transition as the "tipping point" at which Israel must decide whether to abandon their commitment to democracy, embrace the two-state solution and make it work (which requires peace), or accept a single democratic state with a non-Jewish majority. Unless you believe the Israel has no need for democracy or the rule of law, logic and evidence indicates pretty clearly that Israel needs to make peace as soon as possible.

[d'd'd'dave]

Mr. Spragge and Mr. Johnson:

// Every right claimed and defended by and for every man, woman, and child on this planet came about because brave people of conscience, or "protesters" made a moral stand, and said no to oppression and yes to justice.//

I highly doubt protest has been the only way civilization has moved forward. Such a notion assumes no one of conscience is working for improvement of civilization by a method other than 'protestation'. This cannot be true. For example, do teachers teach children to read or merely protest against non-reading?

How much useful change is happening here: http://www.protestshooter.com/

Much more heat is being produced than light.

All you have done is redefine 'brave person of conscience' as 'protestor'. IMAO 'protestor' is a very small subset of 'brave persons of conscience'.

[Nell]

for the Palestinians to suppress their minority while the Israelis clearly have no intent of suppressing theirs

It's not even really a minority in Israel anymore: look at the government.

I think the Palestinian people are justified, after the electorally motivated slaughter of December-January, in believing that "there is no one with whom to negotiate".

[Gary Farber]

"Arab Muslim culture has, in fact, a far better record of religious tolerance than Europe"

A few hundred years ago, sure. The last couple of hundred years or so, not so much.

[Gary Farber]

DJ: "Every right claimed and defended by and for every man, woman, and child on this planet came about because brave people of conscience, or 'protesters' made a moral stand, and said no to oppression and yes to justice."

d'd'd'dave: "For example, do teachers teach children to read or merely protest against non-reading?"

I'm wondering which right it is that teaching children to reach creates: can you explain how your claim makes sense, d'd'd'dave, and isn't a non-sequitur? Thanks.

[Gary Farber]

Teaching reading. Sigh.

[John Spragge]

Nobody should have to say this, but the moral aspect of this conflict comes out of its effect on people, not the process of "building confidence" between the adherents of abstract positions or nationalities. Nobody should fire rockets into Sderot, not because doing so will cause Israelis to lose confidence in the peace process, but because people live in Sderot. Little kids go to school in Sderot. Likewise, nobody should blockade Gaza because of the effects that has on the people of Gaza.

[ScentOfViolets]

But the bottom line is this: the fighting will continue as long as the feud is thought of in terms of who hit who last and who hit who the most and who can smite the other hard enough to stop the fighting. Been there done that lots of times, doesn't work.Stop thinking about it that way. Try thinking about it this way: what is in the long term best interests of Isreal? SInce they can't kill all of the Palestinians and they can't force them to immigrate and since the friction with Palestine is a huge source of friction with all of the other countries in the Middle East and since smiting the Palestinians doesn't appear to be effective, mayvbe it would be smart for Isreal to change the whole dynamic.

I don't know about that, not after the last year or so. Apparently people like Carleton believe that the IDF could round up every Palestinian first-born and torch them with white phosphorus, en mass in front of the Knesset . . . and that this incident would be difficult to balance out, 'because Hamas is firing rockets into Israel'. Hard to balance out these sorts of actions, doncha know.

And these are the supposed opponents of Israeli imperialism. Given the lack of effective response against the latest atrocities, I suspect that there is going to be a harder push to starve, burn, and beat the Palestinians either to the death or into fleeing the country. The settlements will continue to increase in size and number, Palestinian property will continue to be seized to fuel this process. And it will all be justified by saying that Israel is 'defending' itself against Palestinian aggression. Since none of the big boys will step in to stop what has clearly become a rogue state, they'll get away with it.

And years later - just like with our own indigenes - the good, God-fearing people of Israel will denounce the actions of their fathers and grandfathers while making zero effort towards any sort of meaningful reparations.

Thanks, Carleton, et al.

[Carleton Wu]

Nell,
I think the Israelis could make the same point about Hamas. But I don't think it's really true; people get angry or frustrated and this results in lashing out. They aren't (I hope) each choosing perpetual violence out of calm deliberation.
Thinking that they have is what leads people like Brett to choose their corresponding hopeless position; I don't think Brett's willing to even consider what the situation actually looks like from a Palestinian POV. And it sounds like you're slipping towards that same view now (although far from there yet).

But Olmert has been pegged by several scandals, and the Israeli moderates have made the same mistake as the liberals did during the extended Reagan era (ie offering a lite version of the right-wingers, leaving the voters to inevitably choose the real thing). Again, I think and hope that that's a temporary condition, and that the morning's view of endless violence in pursuit of a religiously-ordained dominion will make them rethink their choice.

I remember a time in the 90s when Northern Ireland looked to be headed back into a generational cycle of violence, and Israel-Palestine looked to be on the road towards long-term peace. There is always hope- sometimes, the brink of the next cycle of violence is exactly what's needed to show the futility of that next retaliation. Other times, people eagerly take the plunge. But we can always hope.

[Carleton Wu]

I don't know about that, not after the last year or so. Apparently people like Carleton believe that the IDF could round up every Palestinian first-born and torch them with white phosphorus, en mass in front of the Knesset . . . and that this incident would be difficult to balance out...

Yes- the failure to absolutely quantify something means that it's entire subjective and undebatable. Perhaps Christina Aguilera is as good a musician as JS Bach- without a scoring system, how can anyone claim to know the answer? How many "Candyman"s to equal one cantata?

[bc]

I've been reading and not commenting, but comparing lack of total support with the Palestinians with denying the Holocaust (and linking that with lack of total commitment to global warming) brings me out of my shell to quote Salah el-Bardaweel of Hamas (from over the weekend):

Bardaweel said that the Hamas negotiators were surprised when their Fatah counterparts told them that there would be no "unity government" unless it accepted the Oslo Accords and recognized Israel's right to exist.

"This is their way of foiling the talks," he charged. "They set impossible conditions."

Impossible conditions indeed.

How many "Candyman"s to equal one cantata? when Aguilera starts writing one per week like Bach, maybe I'll listen.

[ScentOfViolets]

Sigh. Carleton, in your last coouple of missives towards me you had sunk to cutting out text I had posted so you could make your shots. This combined with your inability to quote yourself accurately and your continuing failure to admit to any mistakes - let alone apologize, makes you, in my estimation, not someone I really care to converse with. Particularly since you've already said:

I doubt that any such metric can be constructed. Attempting to weigh how many bulldozed houses equals one rocket attack, or how many suicide bombers justify an air raid on an occupied apartment building is a fool's game.

Someone who continually contradicts themselves, without regard to what they have previously said solely in order to score points is not someone I really want to waste my time dealing with.

[Gary Farber]

"Thanks, Carleton, et al."

Yeah, Carleton: it's all your fault.

"Sigh. Carleton, in your last coouple of missives towards me you had sunk to cutting out text I had posted so you could make your shots."

Yes, it's not as if we could read your comments. People are obligated to reproduce your entire comment every time they respond.

Come see the oppression inherent in the system.

"...in my estimation, not someone I really care to converse with."

And yet you're not stopping.

"... is not someone I really want to waste my time dealing with."

Quit announcing, and do.

[Carleton Wu]

SOV,
This combined with your inability to quote yourself accurately

Im not sure that I quoted myself at all, let alone inaccurately, in this thread. If I did quote myself Id be surprised if I got it wrong, I usually cut-and-paste to avoid introducing any errors.
Or maybe your just inferring that I cannot quote myself accurately rather than claiming that I've done so- your writing is imprecise on that point. Neither makes much sense to me.

Sigh. Carleton, in your last coouple of missives towards me you had sunk to cutting out text I had posted so you could make your shots.

If you feel that my quooting of you has been misrepresentative of yoour meaning, then please pooint out where that's the case. Oor are you saying that me quooting you at all is bad behavioor? Again, I have no idea what yoou're attempting to coommunicate here.

Someone who continually contradicts themselves, without regard to what they have previously said solely in order to score points is not someone I really want to waste my time dealing with.

Im not sure at all, but I think you're objecting to the words "fool's game" (it'd be easier to tell if you were to explicitly say what you were thinking rather than leaving us to guess). If that's the case, then you *still* don't understand the posting rules. Which isn't surprising since you've apparently not made any serious attempt to do so, as far as I can tell.
It is ok in explaining one's objection to an idea to say that you think it is a bad idea, as I do here. If making a genuine point or presenting an argument, it is acceptable to refer to someone else's logic as "nonsensical", "crazy", etc. It it not inferred that the author is crazy or lacking sense, as even bright people often make elementary mistakes. More bombastic attacks on an argument (eg "completely idiotic") are borderline and may get a warning. Transparently attacking someone via their argument (eg "that argument could only have been constructed by a moron") is clearly out of line.
It is not ok to repeatedly dismiss an idea and toss around insults without explaining your objection, nor is it Ok to attack indivudals. Attacking motives is usually a bad idea without a basis in argument- for example, see my last post to Brett B here where at the end I wonder if his choice of argument is tied to his desired outcomes rather than a good faith belief in that argument. That was close to the line, but since it's the culmination of the argument that his position isn't actually reasonable in and of itself I thought it was Ok. And since the kitten didn't object, I infer that I was right on that point.
The biggest single problem with your series of attacks on DBN was the lack of content. You feel that quantification is necessary, or something like that. Other people disagee with you. Saying that you think they are crypto-Israeli supporters is not acceptable behavior. Devoting paragraphs to how you think their position is stupid and how they can't read (because they aren't all agreeing with you) is not acceptable behavior. Making much fuss along these lines with zero additional argumentation is not acceptable.
In general, things that obstruct reasoned debate are bad. Things that happen in the course of reasoned debate are ok, but you may get a yellow card if you get too hyperbolic. Things that make reasoned debate impossible (eg attacking the motives of anyone who disagrees with you) will get you booted sooner rather than later.
Again, there are some fine lines, and not completely intuitive ones. I wouldn't think badly of someone for missing it the first time through. The tenth time it's explained to them, I do kind of expect them to get it. It's not so complicated as to require extended tutoring in most cases.

If you're not going to take the time to process this, then you won't enjoy your short time on the board, and neither will anyone else.

[Carleton Wu]

SOV,
This combined with your inability to quote yourself accurately

Im not sure that I quoted myself at all, let alone inaccurately, in this thread. If I did quote myself Id be surprised if I got it wrong, I usually cut-and-paste to avoid introducing any errors.
Or maybe your just inferring that I cannot quote myself accurately rather than claiming that I've done so- your writing is imprecise on that point. Neither makes much sense to me.

Sigh. Carleton, in your last coouple of missives towards me you had sunk to cutting out text I had posted so you could make your shots.

If you feel that my quooting of you has been misrepresentative of yoour meaning, then please pooint out where that's the case. Oor are you saying that me quooting you at all is bad behavioor? Again, I have no idea what yoou're attempting to coommunicate here.

Someone who continually contradicts themselves, without regard to what they have previously said solely in order to score points is not someone I really want to waste my time dealing with.

Im not sure at all, but I think you're objecting to the words "fool's game" (it'd be easier to tell if you were to explicitly say what you were thinking rather than leaving us to guess). If that's the case, then you *still* don't understand the posting rules. Which isn't surprising since you've apparently not made any serious attempt to do so, as far as I can tell.
It is ok in explaining one's objection to an idea to say that you think it is a bad idea, as I do here. If making a genuine point or presenting an argument, it is acceptable to refer to someone else's logic as "nonsensical", "crazy", etc. It it not inferred that the author is crazy or lacking sense, as even bright people often make elementary mistakes. More bombastic attacks on an argument (eg "completely idiotic") are borderline and may get a warning. Transparently attacking someone via their argument (eg "that argument could only have been constructed by a moron") is clearly out of line.
It is not ok to repeatedly dismiss an idea and toss around insults without explaining your objection, nor is it Ok to attack indivudals. Attacking motives is usually a bad idea without a basis in argument- for example, see my last post to Brett B here where at the end I wonder if his choice of argument is tied to his desired outcomes rather than a good faith belief in that argument. That was close to the line, but since it's the culmination of the argument that his position isn't actually reasonable in and of itself I thought it was Ok. And since the kitten didn't object, I infer that I was right on that point.
The biggest single problem with your series of attacks on DBN was the lack of content. You feel that quantification is necessary, or something like that. Other people disagee with you. Saying that you think they are crypto-Israeli supporters is not acceptable behavior. Devoting paragraphs to how you think their position is stupid and how they can't read (because they aren't all agreeing with you) is not acceptable behavior. Making much fuss along these lines with zero additional argumentation is not acceptable.
In general, things that obstruct reasoned debate are bad. Things that happen in the course of reasoned debate are ok, but you may get a yellow card if you get too hyperbolic. Things that make reasoned debate impossible (eg attacking the motives of anyone who disagrees with you) will get you booted sooner rather than later.
Again, there are some fine lines, and not completely intuitive ones. I wouldn't think badly of someone for missing it the first time through. The tenth time it's explained to them, I do kind of expect them to get it. It's not so complicated as to require extended tutoring in most cases.

If you're not going to take the time to process this, then you won't enjoy your short time on the board, and neither will anyone else.