/* Google Analytics Code asynchronous */

Thursday, February 18, 2010

What's that?


Let me just opine again, talking to the wind, this time, that when you go about making statements concerning the IP conflict, one should really, really, really take the time to be careful with both language, with construction, and with argumentation, leaving as little as possible to the wolves.

Accordingly, despite that being a very high standard, both of these are headed in the wrong direction, IMHO:

Andrew Sullivan:

I do believe that the Gaza war was worse than a mistake. It was, in many respects, along with the blockade, a pre-meditated crime.

Do you intend to argue that or have proof of it? If not, how can one let a bare assertion like that, as if it were somehow self-evident, stand? In the future, do "take the time to respond fully", no?

Jeffrey Goldberg:

It will be very dangerous for Israel to engineer this pull-back, but it will be, over time, fatal for it to stay in the West Bank.

Whatever can that mean? Conflict without end is bad for everyone, not just Israel, yes? Why is it uniquely fatal to Israel? Is it NOT fatal for the Palestinians? Is Israel at a permanent strategic disadvantage? Does "fatal" mean an end to the state of Israel? A loss of international support? Whatever can this mean...