This diavlog was very heartening, on the one hand. But it would be more heartening if it were a foursome, with an Israeli extremist and a Hamas extremist also present, to see if even the slightest change in the thinking of the extremist mindsets could be brought about by Dr. Abuelaish and Mr. Yellin.

Quoting Wonderment: Thanks to both of you for your commitment to building a culture of peace and justice in the region.

Agreed. It has to start somewhere, even if the chances seem remote right now.

I hope people will look at that NYT link that tells Dr. Abuelaish's story. He is really a remarkable human being.

Quoting Wonderment: I hope people will look at that NYT link that tells Dr. Abuelaish's story. He is really a remarkable human being.

I Googled him before listening to this, to get a little background, and came across this as the first link. Also worth a look.

Quoting bjkeefe: I Googled him before listening to this, to get a little background, and came across this as the first link. Also worth a look.

Nice article.

I have no doubt that these two men have the best intentions, and in particular my sympathy with Dr Abu Elaish's Job-like suffering in unbounded. However there are fundamental mistake in their strategic perspective, and denial of the dark, cruel side of human nature. Eric Yellin doesn't understand that the Israelis aren't avoiding an agreement because of fear: appeasing the Israeli fears will not moderate the Israeli position. Rather the Israelis are avoiding an agreement and brutalizing the Gazans because they can... because they have the power and they have massive support from America the world Hegemon. One doesn't need to be a rigid believer in realpolitik to see this. As far as Dr Abu Elaish, he shares a similar naivete about human nature. His insistence that each side recognize the other's humanity is noble but marginal to solving the problem. That recognition of common humanity is the result of a common balance of power. He is confusing cause and effect. So the balance of power needs to change. Either the USA govt. can change its position, or the Palestinian leadership can change its strategy (hopefully using forms of resistance

Quoting eliotc: I have no doubt that these two men have the best intentions, and in particular my sympathy with Dr Abu Elaish's Job-like suffering in unbounded. However there are fundamental mistake in their strategic perspective, and denial of the dark, cruel side of human nature. Eric Yellin doesn't understand that the Israelis aren't avoiding an agreement because of fear: appeasing the Israeli fears will not moderate the Israeli position. Rather the Israelis are avoiding an agreement and brutalizing the Gazans because they can... because they have the power and they have massive support from America the world Hegemon. One doesn't need to be a rigid believer in realpolitik to see this.

As far as Dr Abu Elaish, he shares a similar naivete about human nature. His insistence that each side recognize the other's humanity is noble but marginal to solving the problem. That recognition of common humanity is the result of a common balance of power. He is confusing cause and effect.

So the balance of power needs to change. Either the USA govt. can change its position, or the Palestinian leadership can change its strategy (hopefully using forms of resistance

AemJeff, Regarding your statement "The only simple thing is detecting your dislike of Israelis." That sounds like an ad hominim attack on me. And whether I like or dislike Israelis, Palestinians or both is irrelevant. Please focus on the logic, not the man saying it! Perhaps you could view some old "Firing Line" shows for an example of the Socratic method? And by the way, I think I dislike AemJeff. But I am not intimidated by AemJeff's style of personal insinuation and identity politics. But his style of politics is corrosive and damaging to the USA... I reject it root and branch! Regards, Eliot

Quoting eliotc: AemJeff,

Regarding your statement "The only simple thing is detecting your dislike of Israelis."

That sounds like an ad hominim attack on me. And whether I like or dislike Israelis, Palestinians or both is irrelevant. Please focus on the logic, not the man saying it! Perhaps you could view some old "Firing Line" shows for an example of the Socratic method?

And by the way, I think I dislike AemJeff. But I am not intimidated by AemJeff's style of personal insinuation and identity politics. But his style of politics is corrosive and damaging to the USA... I reject it root and branch!

Regards,

Eliot

I feel like I'm doomed to explain the meaning of ad hominem to people ad infinitum. But, suffice it to say that I've committed no such rhetorical faux pas. However, I present the following as evidence for my assertion:

...
appeasing the Israeli fears will not moderate the Israeli position. Rather the Israelis are avoiding an agreement and brutalizing the Gazans because they can...

I'm glad, btw, that you don't feel "intimidated." I'm sure it's a breakthrough for you, but why are you sharing?

Quoting eliotc: I have no doubt that these two men have the best intentions, and in particular my sympathy with Dr Abu Elaish's Job-like suffering in unbounded. However there are fundamental mistake in their strategic perspective, and denial of the dark, cruel side of human nature. Eric Yellin doesn't understand that the Israelis aren't avoiding an agreement because of fear: appeasing the Israeli fears will not moderate the Israeli position. Rather the Israelis are avoiding an agreement and brutalizing the Gazans because they can... because they have the power and they have massive support from America the world Hegemon. One doesn't need to be a rigid believer in realpolitik to see this.

As far as Dr Abu Elaish, he shares a similar naivete about human nature. His insistence that each side recognize the other's humanity is noble but marginal to solving the problem. That recognition of common humanity is the result of a common balance of power. He is confusing cause and effect.

So the balance of power needs to change. Either the USA govt. can change its position, or the Palestinian leadership can change its strategy (hopefully using forms of resistance

appeasing the Israeli fears will not moderate the Israeli position. Rather the Israelis are avoiding an agreement and brutalizing the Gazans because they can...

Jeff, one can love Israelis sincerely and still come to this conclusion. Some think that the Israel/Palestine impasse is co-dependent (horrid word). You are reacting in the manner of the claymeister at anything regarding RACE. So, yes, it was ad hominem.

Quoting look: Jeff, one can love Israelis sincerely and still come to this conclusion. Some think that the Israel/Palestine impasse is co-dependent (horrid word). You are reacting in the manner of the claymeister at anything regarding RACE. So, yes, it was ad hominem.

Asserting that the Israelis are "brutalizing the Gazans because they can" strikes you as an acceptable thing to say? And further, that complaining about it is ad hominem?
I (obviously) disagree on both counts.

Quoting AemJeff: Asserting that the Israelis are "brutalizing the Gazans because they can" strikes you as an acceptable thing to say? And further, that complaining about it is ad hominem?

Yes and yes. The Israelis are brutalizing themselves, also. And you are attributing hatred to Eliot without evidence. Or are you a mind reader?

Quoting look: Yes and yes. The Israelis are brutalizing themselves, also. And you are attributing hatred to Eliot without evidence. Or are you a mind reader?

The problem is the phrase "because they can," not the verb "to brutalize." It's obviously evident that the Israelis have brutalized the Palestinians. (And vice versa.) Claiming that the Israelis do it arbitrarily is an obscene thing to have said. I'm attributing hatred (not that I've used that word up until now) based on words I have read. The meaning of thise words is not ambiguous. Eliot has every opportunity to defend or retract those words.

Quoting AemJeff: The problem is the phrase "because they can," not the verb "to brutalize." It's obviously evident that the Israelis have brutalized the Palestinians. (And vice versa.) Claiming that the Israelis do it arbitrarily is an obscene thing to have said.

I'm attributing hatred (not that I've used that word up until now) based on words I have read. The meaning of thise words is not ambiguous. Eliot has every opportunity to defend or retract those words.

No, the problem is that you aren't appreciating that there is intense hatred on both sides. Look at Operation Cast Lead (misbegotten name).

Quoting look: No, the problem is that you aren't appreciating that there is intense hatred on both sides. Look at Operation Cast Lead (misbegotten name).

Jeeze, look. I definitely have a feeling for that. My whole involvement in this sort of discussion is premised on the idea that I think both sides are batshit with regard to each other. Everybody is fully invested in the idea that the other side is evil incarnate, and therefore undeserving of any consideration whatsoever. I find it offensive regardless of which side is currently casting stones.

Quoting AemJeff: Jeeze, look. I definitely have a feeling for that. My whole involvement in this sort of discussion is premised on the idea that I think both sides are batshit with regard to each other. Everybody is fully invested in the idea that the other side is evil incarnate, and therefore undeserving of any consideration whatsoever. I find it offensive regardless of which side is currently casting stones.

I'm only saying that Eliot was stating the fact that Israel is in the catbird seat, and unless there's some sort of power shift, it will remain so. So I maintain that the statement you made to him was ad hominem.

Quoting look: I'm only saying that Eliot was stating the fact that Israel is in the catbird seat, and unless there's some sort of power shift, it will remain so. So I maintain that the statement you made to him was ad hominem.

We can go around on this forever, so I'll drop it after this. "Ad hominem" means something specific, and nothing I said in that very short post conforms to the definition. I've posted that definition on site recently, and posted an example of it here tonight. I've already quoted the part of what Eliot said that I have a complaint about. It definitely does not mean "Israel is in the catbird seat, and unless there's some sort of power shift, it will remain so."

Quoting AemJeff: We can go around on this forever, so I'll drop it after this. "Ad hominem" means something specific, and nothing I said in that very short post conforms to the definition. I've posted that definition on site recently, and posted an example of it here tonight. I've already quoted the part of what Eliot said that I have a complaint about. It definitely does not mean "Israel is in the catbird seat, and unless there's some sort of power shift, it will remain so."

So what you said was not ad hominem, but gangland bravado. Not attractive or cool, by my lights, but you and the guys think you're the cat's meow, don't you?

Popcorn_karate, in answer to your question: Yes, I do think the propensity to subjugate others because you can is a universal human characteristic and not somehow specific to Israel!

Quoting look: So what you said was not ad hominem, but gangland bravado. Not attractive or cool, by my lights, but you and the guys think you're the cat's meow, don't you?

look, with all due respect, you've had your time to vent your spleen over the past few days. Two things, now: (a) it's comical for you to get to this point when you seem on hyperalert with regard to ad hominem attacks, and (b) much more importantly, you don't need to play this -- you have plenty of game without it. If you're really concerned about tribalism on this board, please realize that all this hurling of "gangland" and "you guys" stuff does nothing but aggravate it. If that's what you want -- a perpetual battle of Us vs Them -- fine, but then you don't get to complain about it.

Quoting bjkeefe: look, with all due respect, you've had your time to vent your spleen over the past few days. Two things, now: (a) it's comical for you to get to this point when you seem on hyperalert with regard to ad hominem attacks, and (b) much more importantly, you don't need to play this -- you have plenty of game without it.

If you're really concerned about tribalism on this board, please realize that all this hurling of "gangland" and "you guys" stuff does nothing but aggravate it. If that's what you want -- a perpetual battle of Us vs Them -- fine, but then you don't get to complain about it.

If anyone knows about venting spleen, it's the Prince of Petulance. Carry on.

Quoting look: If anyone knows about venting spleen, it's the Prince of Petulance. Carry on.

That's no way to talk about harkin.

Quoting look: I'm only saying that Eliot was stating the fact that Israel is in the catbird seat, and unless there's some sort of power shift, it will remain so. So I maintain that the statement you made to him was ad hominem.

I agree with you that Eliot was stating an obvious truth: Israel is in the catbird's seat. It has all the power on its side, and its power is sustained by the United States. Does that mean I dislike the Israelis, as aemjeff suggests of Eliot? I don't think so. So I agree with you. I would probably regard such a statement addressed to me as ad hominem because it imputes disreputable motives to anyone who states a truth about the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate.

Quoting Francoamerican: I agree with you that Eliot was stating an obvious truth: Israel is in the catbird's seat. It has all the power on its side, and its power is sustained by the United States.

Does that mean I dislike the Israelis, as aemjeff suggests of Eliot? I don't think so. So I agree with you. I would probably regard such a statement addressed to me as ad hominem because it imputes disreputable motives to anyone who states a truth about the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate.

Quit ganging up on me! Is that really how you would interpret such a completely unqualified assertion? Israel brutalizes the Palestinians "because it can?" In other words: regardless of their who their neighbors were, regardless of any circumstances, if they were capable of doing so, they would choose to brutalize them? It sounds identical to accusing them of practicing sadism.

Quoting AemJeff: Quit ganging up on me!

Is that really how you would interpret such a completely unqualified assertion? Israel brutalizes the Palestinians "because it can?"

In other words: regardless of their who their neighbors were, regardless of any circumstances, if they were capable of doing so, they would choose to brutalize them? It sounds identical to accusing them of practicing sadism.

I understood "because it can" in the physical, realpolitik sense: states do whatever they can to defend themselves. I don't deny that the Palestinians provoke Israel---for all the reasons, good and bad, that we all know. But the disproportion between Israel, a powerful state supported by the United States, and the Palestinians, who are not even a state, is too great to be ignored. It seems to me that if Israel were weaker and could not rely on Uncle Sam to support all her actions, she would be readier to negotiate with the Palestinians. Sadism? No, but brutality yes.

Quoting Francoamerican: I understood "because it can" in the physical, realpolitik sense: states do whatever they can to defend themselves. I don't deny that the Palestinians provoke Israel---for all the reasons, good and bad, that we all know. But the disproportion between Israel, a powerful state supported by the United States, and the Palestinians, who are not even a state, is too great to be ignored.

It seems to me that if Israel were weaker and could not rely on Uncle Sam to support all her actions, she would be readier to negotiate with the Palestinians. Sadism? No, but brutality yes.

When stated with such qualifications, I have no particular problem with this point of view. When the Left characterizes the Israelis as unyielding bullies for whom brutality is the only available tool (Godwin squared, if you like), or the right dismisses the Palestinians as little better than animals, "terrorists," unredeemable and deserving of whatever the Israelis want to dish out - each side is engaging in shocking displays of bigotry. I think both sides deserve to be called out when they indulge themselves.

Quoting AemJeff: Jeeze, look. I definitely have a feeling for that. My whole involvement in this sort of discussion is premised on the idea that I think both sides are batshit with regard to each other. Everybody is fully invested in the idea that the other side is evil incarnate, and therefore undeserving of any consideration whatsoever. I find it offensive regardless of which side is currently casting stones.

look in a mirror buddy, you're the only one throwing stones. You let your knee-jerk reaction short circuit your ability to HEAR what others are saying rather than the boogy man in your mind. see eliot's response to my question below - do you still think your reaction is justified?

Quoting AemJeff: The only simple thing is detecting your dislike of Israelis.

"The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker" the only argument you made is that eliot dislikes israelis - i.e. a personal attack that does not address anything he said.

Quoting popcorn_karate: look in a mirror buddy, you're the only one throwing stones. You let your knee-jerk reaction short circuit your ability to HEAR what others are saying rather than the boogy man in your mind.

see eliot's response to my question below - do you still think your reaction is justified?

Yeah, completely. You put words in his mouth, and he said "Yeah! That's right!" Your credibility on this issue is tainted by your own tendency to cast bricks, as far I'm concerned. Take note, I'm as tough on rcocean's RSM posts as I am on this. And I really don't care if that bothers rc, or you.

Quoting popcorn_karate: "The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker"

the only argument you made is that eliot dislikes israelis - i.e. a personal attack that does not address anything he said.

I said nothing about Eliot's argument. I said he was exhibiting a dislike of Israelis, based on the words he chose. And it wasn't a "personal attack." It was an attack on the language he chose. If you want to play this game, you're welcome to do so (though my boredom level is rising.) I'm pretty confident about the stand I've taken.

Quoting AemJeff: I said nothing about Eliot's argument.

exactly, you attacked him instead. thanks for the admission.

Quoting AemJeff: Yeah, completely. You put words in his mouth,

no i asked for clarification before jumping on the worst possible interpretation of his words. obviously, that is not something you are capable of unless your talking to someone already on your "approved" list of interlocutors.

Quoting AemJeff: Your credibility on this issue is tainted by your own tendency to cast bricks, as far I'm concerned.

y/w

Quoting AemJeff: Take note, I'm as tough on rcocean's RSM posts as I am on this.

sorry, i really can't bring myself to care enough to "take note" of any of your other pointless diatribes about your misunderstandings.

Quoting AemJeff: And I really don't care if that bothers rc, or you.

I assure you the feeling is absolutely mutual.

Quoting popcorn_karate: great post!

I thought so too. And dead on accurate.

Quoting look: So what you said was not ad hominem, but gangland bravado. Not attractive or cool, by my lights, but you and the guys think you're the cat's meow, don't you?

Reading this back, I conclude that I just don't understand something. Who do you believe is the "gang" in this case? And why would you think that I believe that getting into the mud on this enhances my attractiveness, or my level of "cool?" In the eyes of whom, exactly?

Quoting AemJeff: Reading this back, I conclude that I just don't understand something. Who do you believe is the "gang" in this case? And why would you think that I believe that getting into the mud on this enhances my attractiveness, or my level of "cool?" In the eyes of whom, exactly?

Jeff: I think I'd add another kind of competitive arguing - with the goal being defined in terms of the quality of the arguments, with winning arguments functioning as a standard of measurement. That's obviously idealized; who says who's won, for instance? But I, for one, find this sort of argument-as-sport highly entertaining; and, to the extent I'm capable, it's the model I hold for my own engagement. But it's also true that playing "dozens" is a deeply entertaining distraction - somewhat more gladiatorial than the above, and maybe a cheaper thrill, ultimately - but nevertheless pretty seductive. There are, of course, more and less artful ways to play that game.

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...&postcount=215 The tone here has become very juvenile compared to the old board. I realize this is due to the angst resulting from an emotionally draining presidential election, but it hasn't improved since the election, it's gotten worse.

Quoting look: http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...&postcount=215

The tone here has become very juvenile compared to the old board. I realize this is due to the angst resulting from an emotionally draining presidential election, but it hasn't improved since the election, it's gotten worse.

I don't get the connection between your two quotes. There's certainly nothing in the latter quote that I didn't say in different form during the diavlog with Bobby. I'm assuming you understand that my assertions upthread are generally viewed antagonistically by many of the people you assume that I'm trying to impress here. (Which ought to be evident from the responses in this thread.) My point of view on Israel has rarely won me friends (from either side), and it's a point of pride to stick to my guns, regardless of that. Which makes your assertion just that much weirder, from my point of view.

Quoting AemJeff: I don't get the connection between your two quotes. There's certainly nothing in the latter quote that I didn't say in different form during the diavlog with Bobby. I'm assuming you understand that my assertions upthread are generally viewed antagonistically by many of the people you assume that I'm trying to impress here. (Which ought to be evident from the responses in this thread.) My point of view on Israel has rarely won me friends (from either side), and it's a point of pride to stick to my guns, regardless of that. Which makes your assertion just that much weirder, from my point of view.

We seem to be on two separate wavelengths, Jeff. Let's leave it there.

Quoting look: We seem to be on two separate wavelengths, Jeff. Let's leave it there.

That's fine.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: I thought so too. And dead on accurate.

Agreed. Jeff, you need not respond because it sounds like you are done with this thread, but many of us feel that Israel has long ceased to be a sympathetic nation. It's hard to be the bad guy when you are surrounded by enemies who want to destroy you, but nonetheless, they've managed to do this quite successfully. As for hating Israel or Israelis, what does this mean? Do you mean that we want them dead? That we want Israel destroyed? That we would shun an Israeli at a party if we met them? That we would disown any relative that would marry an Israeli? I personally want Israel to exist, and even thrive, as a nation, but I think its future and the legacy of its people are being diminished day by day by its brutal policies that breed violence and kill humanity.