GeorgeтАЩs responses are nuanced enough for you to concede that many of them are close to yours and substantiated by a wide range of sources that he shared. I enjoyed the way he lead with data that reinforced his perspective which was stated without personal attacks. And that his points are at the center of the issue being discussed. What is combative about that?
I suppose I'm referring to George's repeated use of sweeping declarative generalizations and apportionment of "blame." See, "one side deserves much more of the blame," "Israelis are to blame," "Israel has never made a serious peace offer." His "data" is therefore not coming from a place of attempting to understand but of serving in support of his judgment.
Your reply came off (to me, and through comment text, to be fair a difficult way to parse motive) as if you were cheering George's conclusions and, specifically, that you appreciated him slamming the door on my offering of an alternate reading with his rebuttal citation (which I discuss below). Your joy therefore rankled, especially as you center your enjoyment on his "data" which is exactly what I sought to complicate and which he more or less swiped aside because he's "not impressed" (though I very much thank him for linking his sources). So I'll ask your pardon if I read something between your single line of appreciation.
Noah, would you disagree that there have been countless historical/political conflicts in which one side was more to blame than the other? And if there have, then one can't rule out a priori that this is one of them. Certainly some well-informed Israelis think (or thought) so: Simha Flapan, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Tanya Reinhart. Assuming that both sides are equally to blame is no more intellectually respectable than assuming that all blame must be on one side or the other. In any case, one shouldn't assume: as you learn more about the history of the conflict, I think (naturally) that you'll come closer to my sweeping, unnuanced view.
I actually stated above why I liked GeorgeтАЩs comments. He substantiated his thinking with information in a very transparent way. It made it easy for me to follow his logic and learn more myself. I donтАЩt know you. So I wasnтАЩt really excited by him тАЬslammingтАЭ you. I enjoyed the way he reinforced his position.
I also donтАЩt think the purpose of the exchange was to deeply understand one side or another. I expect to learn what a personтАЩs stances are and how they got to those set of conclusions. For that reason his critiques of Israel didnтАЩt bother me.
See also a lengthy exchange between Linfield and the reviewer in a subsequent issue of the Nation.
Your responses in this thread are a joy.
I suppose if you like combat rather than nuance and plausible solutions.
GeorgeтАЩs responses are nuanced enough for you to concede that many of them are close to yours and substantiated by a wide range of sources that he shared. I enjoyed the way he lead with data that reinforced his perspective which was stated without personal attacks. And that his points are at the center of the issue being discussed. What is combative about that?
I suppose I'm referring to George's repeated use of sweeping declarative generalizations and apportionment of "blame." See, "one side deserves much more of the blame," "Israelis are to blame," "Israel has never made a serious peace offer." His "data" is therefore not coming from a place of attempting to understand but of serving in support of his judgment.
Your reply came off (to me, and through comment text, to be fair a difficult way to parse motive) as if you were cheering George's conclusions and, specifically, that you appreciated him slamming the door on my offering of an alternate reading with his rebuttal citation (which I discuss below). Your joy therefore rankled, especially as you center your enjoyment on his "data" which is exactly what I sought to complicate and which he more or less swiped aside because he's "not impressed" (though I very much thank him for linking his sources). So I'll ask your pardon if I read something between your single line of appreciation.
Noah, would you disagree that there have been countless historical/political conflicts in which one side was more to blame than the other? And if there have, then one can't rule out a priori that this is one of them. Certainly some well-informed Israelis think (or thought) so: Simha Flapan, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Tanya Reinhart. Assuming that both sides are equally to blame is no more intellectually respectable than assuming that all blame must be on one side or the other. In any case, one shouldn't assume: as you learn more about the history of the conflict, I think (naturally) that you'll come closer to my sweeping, unnuanced view.
I actually stated above why I liked GeorgeтАЩs comments. He substantiated his thinking with information in a very transparent way. It made it easy for me to follow his logic and learn more myself. I donтАЩt know you. So I wasnтАЩt really excited by him тАЬslammingтАЭ you. I enjoyed the way he reinforced his position.
I also donтАЩt think the purpose of the exchange was to deeply understand one side or another. I expect to learn what a personтАЩs stances are and how they got to those set of conclusions. For that reason his critiques of Israel didnтАЩt bother me.
Thank you.