Romney's Palestine gaffe today

[JoeTheJuggler]

The question of whether he thinks Palestinian policy means something that all Palestinians agree on is different from the question of whether he's wrong about what the the Palestinian policy actually is. Did you mean to change the subject from the former to the latter? Or are we still talking about the former?

I thought the subject was Romney's sweeping statement that does indeed refer to the attitude of all Palestinians. It sounds like you're the one trying to change the subject to something else.

If Romney was talking only about Hamas, why did he attribute this attitude to "Palestinians"? (And logically, in the absence of any word that limits the comment to a subset--such as "some" or "many" or "a minority of"--it refers to "all Palestinians".)

 

[theprestige]

I thought the subject was Romney's sweeping statement that does indeed refer to the attitude of all Palestinians. It sounds like you're the one trying to change the subject to something else.

If Romney was talking only about Hamas, why did he attribute this attitude to "Palestinians"? (And logically, in the absence of any word that limits the comment to a subset--such as "some" or "many" or "a minority of"--it refers to "all Palestinians".)

Really?

"The Americans want tougher sanctions on Iran, but the Russians oppose such a move."

Am I referring to "all Americans" and "all Russians"?

 

[Tricky]

If you let them fight it out it would take Israel about 1 second to force them to surrender.

Maybe a little longer if they were forbidden to use any weapons they got from the US.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe a little longer if they were forbidden to use any weapons they got from the US.

I wonder what would happen if the US gave the Palestinians weapons parity with Israel? Would mortar and rocket attacks increase, or decrease?

 

[Virus]

AngrySoba thinks Palestinisns are too stupid to vote for the party they want.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Really?

"The Americans want tougher sanctions on Iran, but the Russians oppose such a move."

Am I referring to "all Americans" and "all Russians"?

Americans think abortion should never be permitted, even in cases of rape and incest.

Am I referring to "all Americans" or head-up-ass Republicans?

Same with Palestinians, only Gaza Strip picked Hamas---they do not speak for West Bank.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Really?

"The Americans want tougher sanctions on Iran, but the Russians oppose such a move."

Am I referring to "all Americans" and "all Russians"?

The definite article "the" can indicate that you are talking about specific subsets. (Perhaps it means "The Americans" attending a conference, for example.) It's one of those qualifiers I spoke of. (My list of examples was not meant to be all inclusive. There are many other such words.)

If you remove the context of "the" pointing to a specific subset, then it logically refers to all Americans and all Russians.

This is very basic logic stuff.

"Xs are Ys" is the same as "All Xs are Ys", but not the same as "Some Xs are Ys".

Consider these two different arguments, and whether or not the conclusions are valid:

Xs are Ys.
Ys are Q.
Therefore Xs are Q.

Some Xs are Ys.
Ys are Q.
Therefore Xs are Q.

I think you'll see in the first example, the conclusion logically follows the two premises, but in the second example, it does not.

That's why you should admit at the very least that Romney was painting with too broad a brush.


ETA: And I notice you never did answer my question: If Romney was talking only about Hamas, why did he attribute this attitude to "Palestinians"?

And again, who is changing the subject here? The subject is Romney's statement quoted in the OP. In that statement, Romney uses the term "Palestinians" and not "Hamas".

 

[angrysoba]

AngrySoba thinks Palestinisns are too stupid to vote for the party they want.

Maybe they vote Fatah to stop Hamas getting in. It tends to be thought of as the sensible option in many countries where there are only two viable choices.

Who would you vote for if you were Palestinian?

 

[WildCat]

But as you know, there is a problem with the idea of a settlement freeze.

There's that little problem of the Palestinian belief that all of Israel is an illegal settlement.

 

[WildCat]

Maybe they vote Fatah to stop Hamas getting in. It tends to be thought of as the sensible option in many countries where there are only two viable choices.

Who would you vote for if you were Palestinian?

So would you vote for a genocidal terrorist group if you liked their economic platform?

 

[theprestige]

The definite article "the" can indicate that you are talking about specific subsets. (Perhaps it means "The Americans" attending a conference, for example.) It's one of those qualifiers I spoke of. (My list of examples was not meant to be all inclusive. There are many other such words.)

If you remove the context of "the" pointing to a specific subset, then it logically refers to all Americans and all Russians.

This is very basic logic stuff.

I'm glad we cleared that up:

The Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19637631

(In case you don't recognize that link, it's the one cited in the OP of this thread.)

... That's why you should admit at the very least that Romney was painting with too broad a brush.

Yeah, no, not really. But you should probably admit that Romney wasn't painting with nearly as broad a brush as you thought, and that you've been arguing in bad faith this whole time.

ETA: And I notice you never did answer my question: If Romney was talking only about Hamas, why did he attribute this attitude to "Palestinians"?

The Palestinians, remember?

I didn't answer the question because I thought it was self-evident from my posts. He probably wasn't talking only about Hamas--there's more than one powerful and influential Palestinian faction that has no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, you know. Which is exactly the kind of situation where a broader collective term comes in handy: instead of having to list them out one by one, he can simply refer to them altogether as "the Palestinians".

He doesn't have to list them out by name, any more than I have to list out, "senior State department officials, Congressional leadership, the President's national security advisor, several members of the Cabinet, and the President himself" instead of simply saying, "THE Americans want tougher sanctions on Iran".

And again, who is changing the subject here? The subject is Romney's statement quoted in the OP. In that statement, Romney uses the term the "Palestinians" and not "Hamas".

FTFY.

The subject is your bad-faith interpretation of that statement to mean "all Palestinians", rather than "the Palestinians with the power and influence to pursue peace with Israel (or not, as the case may be, and almost surely is)". I gave Hamas as one example, because I thought that it would be accepted even by you as a group of Palestinians to whom Romney's characterization applies, and to which he could plausibly have been referring.

I'm sure you can understand the idea of giving few examples:

My list of examples was not meant to be all inclusive. There are many other such words.

And many other such groups, too.

 

[angrysoba]

There's that little problem of the Palestinian belief that all of Israel is an illegal settlement.

Are you saying that no Palestinians make a distinction between the West Bank settlements and Israel proper? If not then what is the point of your comment?

So would you vote for a genocidal terrorist group if you liked their economic platform?

No.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe they vote Fatah to stop Hamas getting in. It tends to be thought of as the sensible option in many countries where there are only two viable choices.

Who would you vote for if you were Palestinian?

Why vote? Given the choice between Fatah and Hamas, wouldn't you rather "hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats"?

ETA: Sorry, I know this might be confusing for some of you. "The black flag" is a reference to the pirate flag, also called (the) jolly roger. "Throats" in this context means "the throats of members of Hamas (which I give here as only one example of many).













Source: H. L. Mencken

 

[angrysoba]

Why vote? Given the choice between Fatah and Hamas, wouldn't you rather "hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats"?

ETA: Sorry, I know this might be confusing for some of you. "The black flag" is a reference to the pirate flag, also called (the) jolly roger. "Throats" in this context means "the throats of members of Hamas (which I give here as only one example of many).













Source: H. L. Mencken

Are you putting forward this romantic fantasy in all seriousness?

 

[theprestige]

Are you putting forward this romantic fantasy in all seriousness?

Why not? There seem to be a substantial number of people in Palestine who take the romantic fantasy of firing rockets at Jews extremely seriously.

The fact is, people do revolt against that which they find sufficiently revolting. What fantasies Palestinians choose to indulge or tolerate, and what policies they do and do not find revolting, tends to support Romney's view that they're not particularly interested in peace with Israel.

 

[Giz]

Are you saying that no Palestinians make a distinction between the West Bank settlements and Israel proper? If not then what is the point of your comment?

Not ALL Palestinians. A significant number (a majority by some polls). And it's a number which includes an awful lot of Palestinian leaders.

Are half the folks on this board determined to engage in any sophistry (though mainly just the "ALL" one) rather than engage with what Romney was saying? Is the idea that mainstream Palestinian culture is dysfunctional too hurtful to bear - we must put our head in the sand and comforting rhetorical tricks in our ears?

 

[Virus]

Tell me about the plan to scrap pensions for homicidal terrorists in Israeli prisons. Tell me about all the protests against that.

 

[theprestige]

Not ALL Palestinians. A significant number (a majority by some polls). And it's a number which includes an awful lot of Palestinian leaders.

Are half the folks on this board determined to engage in any sophistry (though mainly just the "ALL" one) rather than engage with what Romney was saying? Is the idea that mainstream Palestinian culture is dysfunctional too hurtful to bear - we must put our head in the sand and comforting rhetorical tricks in our ears?

Actually, I think the animus here isn't so much towards telling the truth about mainstream Palestinian culture (for a change), as it is towards the idea that Romney might actually be right about something.

 

[Giz]

Actually, I think the animus here isn't so much towards telling the truth about mainstream Palestinian culture (for a change), as it is towards the idea that Romney might actually be right about something.

I think it's a perfect storm - a lot of folks can't abide the idea of Romney being correct about something (anything!)... and a lot of the same folks hate being judgmental about foreign cultures.

Still, nothing like a politics thread to reveal the shallowness of "skeptical" thinking.

 

[angrysoba]

Why not? There seem to be a substantial number of people in Palestine who take the romantic fantasy of firing rockets at Jews extremely seriously.

The fact is, people do revolt against that which they find sufficiently revolting. What fantasies Palestinians choose to indulge or tolerate, and what policies they do and do not find revolting, tends to support Romney's view that they're not particularly interested in peace with Israel.

There's plenty of sectarian squabbling and throat-cutting going on in Palestine. So don't worry.

But the idea that people in Palestine, that is to say, your average person with a family and a place in society is going to risk it all to fight against well-armed militia for truth, justice, democracy, gay rights and all the rest is fantasy.

Not ALL Palestinians. A significant number (a majority by some polls). And it's a number which includes an awful lot of Palestinian leaders.

Are half the folks on this board determined to engage in any sophistry (though mainly just the "ALL" one) rather than engage with what Romney was saying? Is the idea that mainstream Palestinian culture is dysfunctional too hurtful to bear - we must put our head in the sand and comforting rhetorical tricks in our ears?

No, mainstream Palestinian culture is about as dysfunctional as a culture gets. But there are some who want to change this and build institutions such as Salam Fayyad. No doubt plenty of other Palestinians also want to live in peace with a two-state solution. Some Palestinians, Hamas for example, revel and thrive in conflict and are quite happy to keep things that way. If Romney said, Hamas have no interest in peace, then I would agree. In a situation in which there is no clear representation for all of the Palestinians then the attempt to lump them all in with Hamas is useful to those who are quite happy to see them all as sub-human scum. Why? Because if they are all violent subhuman scum then why not clear them all out, send them all off to Jordan or somewhere and build settlements on the land?

I think it's a perfect storm - a lot of folks can't abide the idea of Romney being correct about something (anything!)... and a lot of the same folks hate being judgmental about foreign cultures.

Still, nothing like a politics thread to reveal the shallowness of "skeptical" thinking.

You are certainly correct about the last part. But as for the first part, I can certainly be critical and have plenty of negative judgements about many Palestinians. That doesn't bother me at all. However, the word "judgmental" is revealing given that it tends to mean "excessively critical of other people" which seems to be a true description of Romney.