|
Most peace talks revolve around a return to the '67 borders or some revised version of them that would be accepted by both sides, so in that vain I'm referring to all of the settlements, not just those that are illegal in Israel as well as everywhere else.
And about your suspicion that Israel won't remove the illegal settlement - maybe so, maybe not. Personally I think that the settlers themselves would return to Israel on their own, given that none of them even know Arabic and they would have no chance to integrate into any Palestinian society. Staying means that even if they won't get lynched right away (a very real possibility), all the privileges they used to have at the expense of Palestinians would disappear. Many of them could be tried and sent to jail for various crimes. Even if they don't, their life style would degrade dramatically.
Any sane agreement would include the removal of those settlements. If you don't believe that Israel is capable of sanity... well, that's an opinion, but not one that I can respect very much.No, obviously if the land goes back to Palestine, the settlers leave. I just don't believe that deal will happen, unless Israel is practically forced into it. '
As near as I can tell, much of Israel's political maneuvering over the past couple decades and several administrations has been dedicated to avoiding any real peace deal while looking like they're seeking one. It's actually pretty impressive.
And, even if it were true, only worked due to Palestinian insistence on the matters of the right of return and Jerusalem, and Israel's legitimacy in general. What was considered the latest trick in the deception you describe was Netanyahu's demand that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state. To me, the refusal to accept such a reasonable demand shows that Israel has a right to continue a military occupation in the western bank until that changes. Of course, all those damn settlements have to go.
Also, the prime minister before the current one, Ahud Olmert, seemed pretty serious with his peace talks in the Annapolis summit. It got to the point that right wing parties actually left the coalition in protest of how much ground he seemed to gain. Alas, he turned out to be a corrupt bastard who used his position to gain a trcukload of money not much later, and his removal from the government, combined with the Cast Lead operation in Gaza, pretty much put a stop to that peace initiative.
No error. He's describing the West Bank, not Gaza. He's...I read a piece written by a Danish member of parliament today, which in some ways sums up the situation for the Palestinians.
I've quickly translated it for everyone to read:"It's all the fault of Hamas!" That's something you hear often in these days. Hamas is a terrorist organization - and there's some truth to that. "As long as Hamas rules in Gaza there will be no peaceful solution. The Palestinians must elect moderate leaders - not until then can they live in peace."
Just a hop on over to the West Bank where Fatah - the more moderate Palestinians, rule.
What has Israel done to demonstrate to the Palestinians that moderate leaders make all the difference?
Here 2.7 million Palestinians live clumped together in an area the size of Funen (Danish island). You see, it also needs to house the 500,000 Israeli settlers - and, of course, safety zones, walls and such lovely things. Over the last 20 years more than 15,000 Palestinian homes have been removed to make room for more than 50,000 new Israeli homes. UN reports that boys aged 12-14 are being detained/incarcerated. Israeli military has a massive presence and a frightening wall more than 400 km long cuts through the area. It separates Palestinian villages, cuts people off from their farm land and forces people to subject themselves to military examination and even life threatening delays at check points. In the Danish debate it's not unheard of to describe the situation in the West Bank as apartheid-like conditions.
That politician's statement contains an error which is pretty big. There are no Israeli settlements in Gaza. None. When Israel unilaterally decided to withdraw from Gaza in 2005, they forcefully removed all Jewish settlers.
Even at the height of Jewish settlement in the strip, there were fewer than 7000 Jews living in Gaza, not 500,000.
There certainly are still lots of settlers in the West Bank.
Ah, I got confused then... cause he starts off talking about Gaza and Hamas, then talks about the West Bank to make a point about Hamas in Gaza... I get it... I think.
Sorry. I don't see how accepting Israel being a theocracy and apartheid state and giving up rights and claims against the government that drove them from their homes and cramed them into ghettos and claimed everything of value in both Israel and the West Bank is reasonable.
Perhaps it's a new definition I'm unfamiliar with.
Because you're connecting dots that aren't connected.
The insistence on a Jewish state is one of protection, because in every other country in the Middle-East, Jews have been stripped of their property, deported or murdered, to the point that essentially there are no Jews living in any country in the region except Israel.
Israel took Jewish refugees from every country in the region.
Why not have all those countries take a proportionate number of Palestinian refugees?
And before you jump on me for supporting this (cause I don't really), this is just pointing out what the stumbling block to negotiation is. Israel FEELS like it is constantly under siege, even if it necessarily isn't any more. The only way to get them to lower their guard is to make the region more tolerant and less militant against them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We can't give you all citizenship, because then you could vote out our theocratic state.
We can't let you all return, because you could vote out our theocratic state.
We can't let you have concrete, because you might try to use it to resist the oppression of our theocratic state.
Anyone else beating the -20 spot check to see what the problem is here?
|
|
Sorry. I don't see how accepting Israel being a theocracy and apartheid state and giving up rights and claims against the government that drove them from their homes and cramed them into ghettos and claimed everything of value in both Israel and the West Bank is reasonable.
Perhaps it's a new definition I'm unfamiliar with.
Because you're connecting dots that aren't connected.
The insistence on a Jewish state is one of protection, because in every other country in the Middle-East, Jews have been stripped of their property, deported or murdered, to the point that essentially there are no Jews living in any country in the region except Israel.
Israel took Jewish refugees from every country in the region.
Why not have all those countries take a proportionate number of Palestinian refugees?
Not accurate. Zionism was all about a Jewish state in the first place. They weren't going to have it any other way, honestly.
Krensky - Israel is not a theocracy neither is it an apartheid - while it could be said that in the Western Bank there are apartheid like conditions, it's not officially a part of Israel. Inside Israel, Arabs have at least in theory equal rights to any Jew. That in reality things are different is no surprise. Arabs in Israel are not worse off than Hispanics in the U.S, for example. Not a good place to be, but not an apartheid.
Israel is also not a theocracy. The rule is democratic, mostly, even if separation of state and church are far from perfect. Israel is still not nearly as religious as the Western Bank is, though. Or, for the sake of it, the U.S.
And why is accepting Israel as a Jewish state reasonable? because it is. That simple. It was founded by Jews, for Jews. It has a Jewish majority. It celebrates Jewish holidays and is considered internationally to be the national home for Jews. In fact, you can go back to the U.N vote of 1948 and hear plain and clear that Israel was intended as a national home for Jews. Yes, Israel and the Palestinians have a long and bloody history, and in most of it Israel had the upper hand. However, if peace is to achieved, Palestinians and Jews alike mast look forwards, not backwards. Refusing to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state and giving up the right of return is a way to ensure that Israel will never stop the occupation - and be honest, no country on earth will in such conditions. If you had a man tied up in your cellar, and he promised that the moment you set him free he will do anything within his power to take your home from you, you are not going to release him until he's at the very least willing to promise not to be hostile towards you. Like it or not, Israel is here to stay, and it's not insane enough to give freedom to people who wish to take it back from them.
|
|
The president of the state of Palestine wrote a book about how the Nazi and Zionists were in league with each other.
Didn't know about that one. Wow, that's messed up.
Edit: I'm done with this thread.
I feel like I'm the only who actually tries to look at more than one side of this conflict. I understand there are other people trying to look bigger parts of this, but you guys don't TALK like you are. It makes me really frustrated.
I have to sound like a zionist, because people only seem to want to heap blame on Israel, but I'm far from it and heavily disagree with the very concept.
I'm really, really opposed to the atrocities committed by Israel, but that's all you guys want to talk about. As if nothing else is going wrong over there.
As part of my determined effort to only look at only one side of the conflict, Omar the Arab Trade Union Organizer passed along this Maki press release:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Israel is not a theocracy neither is it an apartheid - while it could be said that in the Western Bank there are apartheid like conditions, it's not officially a part of Israel.
Who knew all south africa had to do to get rid of apartheid was make some zoning changes...
During Pillar of Ash, I was totally down with the apartheid analogy and then I read an article on David Horowitz's site (Marx only knows why) or something and stopped using it. Recently, I ran across a youtube video for the Israeli Apartheid Week that was held earlier this year. In it, they claim they are applying the label according to the UN definition of apartheid. I, again, am too lazy to dig through UN documents and rely on wikipedia where I get
"It defined the crime of apartheid as 'inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.'"
Anyone else got anything?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: I'm done with this thread.
I feel like I'm the only who actually tries to look at more than one side of this conflict. I understand there are other people trying to look bigger parts of this, but you guys don't TALK like you are. It makes me really frustrated.
I have to sound like a zionist, because people only seem to want to heap blame on Israel, but I'm far from it and heavily disagree with the very concept.
I'm really, really opposed to the atrocities committed by Israel, but that's all you guys want to talk about. As if nothing else is going wrong over there.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but Israel has the bigger stick by far here. Add the religious and historical aspects to it along with the adage that god fights on the side with the better artillery and this is an ugly situation for everyone involved. The palastinians are going to look bad whether they want to kill every jew they find or are trying to fight back or even just not get blown up today. I remind you again there is really nowhere for these people to go- Egypt isn't going to let them in, neither is Israel. It's shooting fish in a barrel. Each death galvanizes each side, and each side has impressive propaganda machines that they would believe even if none had died. It's an ugly damn mess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: I'm done with this thread.
I feel like I'm the only who actually tries to look at more than one side of this conflict. I understand there are other people trying to look bigger parts of this, but you guys don't TALK like you are. It makes me really frustrated.
I have to sound like a zionist, because people only seem to want to heap blame on Israel, but I'm far from it and heavily disagree with the very concept.
I'm really, really opposed to the atrocities committed by Israel, but that's all you guys want to talk about. As if nothing else is going wrong over there.
Golden mean fallacy. Just because two people are fighting does not mean that they are both equally responsible.
Or as my mother used to say "It takes two to fight unless one of them is Nick"...
The president of the state of Palestine wrote a book about how the Nazi and Zionists were in league with each other.
That was an interesting page. It led me to this one.
Ah, I got confused then... cause he starts off talking about Gaza and Hamas, then talks about the West Bank to make a point about Hamas in Gaza... I get it... I think.No error. He's describing the West Bank, not Gaza. He's...That politician's statement contains an error which is pretty big. There are no Israeli settlements in Gaza. None. When Israel unilaterally decided to withdraw from Gaza in 2005, they forcefully removed all Jewish settlers.
Even at the height of Jewish settlement in the strip, there were fewer than 7000 Jews living in Gaza, not 500,000.
There certainly are still lots of settlers in the West Bank.
Her actually, my bad for not sourcing it. ;-)
It's written by Mette Gjerskov, a member of the Social Democrats.
I want to link to an interview done by a Danish news show (Deadline) with one of the founding members, Yehuda Shaul, of an Israeli NGO called Breaking the Silence.
I hope the interview is viewable outside Denmark.
After the interview there's an in-studio discussion with a Danish journalist and correspondent who has lived in Israel for more than 20 years. His comments (sorry, that interview is in Danish) mirror what Lord Snow, along with his father, has said: He's never seen things this bad/dark as now and that the whole thing has cast a pall on the whole idea of peace within Israel. Also the fact that there are indeed moderate/left-wing forces in Israel who oppose the occupation, but they are fragmented and can't seem to work together, again as Lord Snow has reported.
A friend posted this link: Hamas
Hypocrisy
A friend posted this link: Hamas
Hypocrisy
The daily show makes a living doing the same with American politicians.
|
|
If you had a man tied up in your cellar, and he promised that the moment you set him free he will do anything within his power to take your home from you, you are not going to release him until he's at the very least willing to promise not to be hostile towards you.Except that he's chained in 'your' cellar because you kicked in the door to his house, shot his kids, knocked him unconscious and put a new flag up in his yard. Why exactly should he not want to take his home back?
But it's immaterial. Both sides are monstrous and have no interest in peace.
Or maybe because you used to be roommates, and then the authorities informed the man you are going to become a permanent reisdent because you had nowhere else to go, and then he tried to kill you. You won the fight and tied him in the cellar.
Seriously, Krensky, the way you talk does you no favors. Israel and the Palestinians have a history of war, where most of the early aggression is attributed to Palestinians. They were also the ones who started the 1948 war. You can't ignore all that and decided that they used to live in peace until the monstrous Jews came and conquered them. By the way, before Israel took the Western Bank in 1967, it used to be part of Jordan, which the Palestinians weren't too happy about either. And the thing is - Jordan doesn't even want those lands back. Since they were taken as part of a military operation, Israel didn't have much of a choice but to continue the occupation, because the resident Palestinians would never promise not to work to destroy Israel once they are released. Things are more complex than you make them out to be.
If one wanted to push the analogy, the word is Bantustan.
There are of course differences.
It is not. Jordan is not a concentration camp erected by Israel with the intent of sending all the Arabs to live there. It started as a refugee camp in Jordan from the war, and it still kind of is. Nobody in Israel (except for extremists) is talking about sending Israeli Arabs to the West Bank. So it's honestly a different matter entirely.
Israel and the Palestinians have a history of war, where most of the early aggression is attributed to Palestinians. They were also the ones who started the 1948 war.
Better stated as 'Israel and the Palestinians have a history of war.'
The timeline leading up to 1948 really started back in 1917 when the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem was taken by Allied forces and eventually turned into Mandatory Palestine in 1920. Britain put the Viscount Samuel (a Zionist) in charge and without going into specifics it led to the Black Hand, which led to the Arab uprising, which led to the Israeli insurgency, Aliyah Bet fits in there somewhere as well, which ultimately led to the British withdrawal, which led to the Israeli declaration of independence which then led to the 1948 war.
If you're going to blame a single party for the 1948 war - blame Britain.
Typical. Blame Britian. Even when it's our fault, the cry goes up, 'blame Britain'. Just because we're to blame is no reason to blame Her Imperial Majesty's Green and Pleasant Land.
Hah - keep a stiff upper lip Captain Brittannica, because I put the whole basket of kerfuffles in Pakistan, India, and the Kashmir on your doorstep as well :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not Africa?
For shame, sir, we are far bigger a@~~**~+s than you give us credit for.
Being that Palestine and India were the only areas I'd had the impetus to study up. Fear not, my 'blame Britain' folder is still open and has lots of space ;)
If you see a tribal/ethnic/religious conflict in the world, I suggest you look for an Edwardian postbox in the vicinity. Straight lines on a map are another good indicator it might be our fault.
|
|
Israel and the Palestinians have a history of war, where most of the early aggression is attributed to Palestinians. They were also the ones who started the 1948 war.Better stated as 'Israel and the Palestinians have a history of war.'
The timeline leading up to 1948 really started back in 1917 when the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem was taken by Allied forces and eventually turned into Mandatory Palestine in 1920. Britain put the Viscount Samuel (a Zionist) in charge and without going into specifics it led to the Black Hand, which led to the Arab uprising, which led to the Israeli insurgency, Aliyah Bet fits in there somewhere as well, which ultimately led to the British withdrawal, which led to the Israeli declaration of independence which then led to the 1948 war.
If you're going to blame a single party for the 1948 war - blame Britain.
I like how the Palestinians are always the victims and never carry any responsibility for anything they do. That's called racism, you know.
Lord Snow - Which part of my comment stated that? - and even if it did, how is that racism?
As a statement of fact to appease you - Some of the Palestinians are reprehensible terrorists, and some of the Israelis are completely blameless.
Similarly some of the Israelis are reprehensible terrorists, and some of the Palestinians are completely blameless.
I stand by the comment I made though - that there is a history of war, and that the 1948 war cannot be placed solely at the feet of the Palestinians.
Those who have been around may remember me yelling at a bunch of the participants in this thread and calling them "stooges of imperialism." I am not in the least bit sorry.
You are welcome. For the record, it's about Mali I made you sick (I believe, feel free to correct me if you want).
Seems that there is no good solutions in toppling annoying tyrants : the US invaded and occupied Iraq, and it crumbled down ; France/UK bombed Lybia and stood away from the resulting mess, letting lybians sort it out, and it crumbled down. Meh. Maybe the world is too complicated for simplistic solutions and nice slogans ? Up with Andoren !
Mali seems to be doing quite fine. The heat went to Centrafrique, which is currently a huge warzone with the sole exception of Bangui, the capital.
If you had a man tied up in your cellar, and he promised that the moment you set him free he will do anything within his power to take your home from you, you are not going to release him until he's at the very least willing to promise not to be hostile towards you.Except that he's chained in 'your' cellar because you kicked in the door to his house, shot his kids, knocked him unconscious and put a new flag up in his yard. Why exactly should he not want to take his home back?
But it's immaterial. Both sides are monstrous and have no interest in peace.
Or maybe because you used to be roommates, and then the authorities informed the man you are going to become a permanent reisdent because you had nowhere else to go, and then he tried to kill you. You won the fight and tied him in the cellar.
Seriously, Krensky, the way you talk does you no favors. Israel and the Palestinians have a history of war, where most of the early aggression is attributed to Palestinians. They were also the ones who started the 1948 war. You can't ignore all that and decided that they used to live in peace until the monstrous Jews came and conquered them. By the way, before Israel took the Western Bank in 1967, it used to be part of Jordan, which the Palestinians weren't too happy about either. And the thing is - Jordan doesn't even want those lands back. Since they were taken as part of a military operation, Israel didn't have much of a choice but to continue the occupation, because the resident Palestinians would never promise not to work to destroy Israel once they are released. Things are more complex than you make them out to be.
It is not. Jordan is not a concentration camp erected by Israel with the intent of sending all the Arabs to live there. It started as a refugee camp in Jordan from the war, and it still kind of is. Nobody in Israel (except...If one wanted to push the analogy, the word is Bantustan.
There are of course differences.
Hm. Interesting.
Ceasefire seems to have ended while I slept. Each side is blaming the other for the first shot fired, with Israel saying there was a suicide bomber who popped out of a hole and/or a soldier has been kidnapped, and Palestine saying that a tank operator went nuts and started firing, possibly without permission.
|
|
1)Lord Snow - Which part of my comment stated that? - and even if it did, how is that racism?
2)I stand by the comment I made though - that there is a history of war, and that the 1948 war cannot be placed solely at the feet of the Palestinians.
1) This part:
If you're going to blame a single party for the 1948 war - blame Britain.
And it's racism to always present Palestinian as helpless victims who don't have a chioce except to behave like they do, because then what you're doing is demanding less of them than you do of everyone else. As if they are capable of less.
Let's take the kind of reasoning you used and apply it elsewhere:
You see, by the end of world war 1 Germany suffered a humiliating defeat in battle. The allied forces that fought against it converged together to force unacceptable terms on the German people - they were forced to become democratic against their will. Their national pride was wracked almost beyond repair. Their economy later plunged as a result, too. They didn't have the freedom to rebuild their own army. Their sovereignty was basically minimal. Can anyone really blame them for reverting to violence and lashing out against their oppressors?
If you can see the problem with THAT argument, surely you'll see the problem with yours.
2) That is not the comment you made at all. You replied to me attributing the lion's share of early aggression between Jews and Arabs to the Arabs by saying that it's inaccurate, and that most blame should be on the British. I completely agree that the 1948 is not solely the responsibility of the Palestinians. However, some in this thread attempted to present things as if the Jews stormed into the lands of the Palestinians, killing and murdering and conquering, when the truth is that in the earlier stages it was more like a war between tribes than anything else, and in the 1948 it was a war for survival is far as the Jews were concerned. Like it or not, in those circumstances banishing as many Palestinians as possible as far away from you as possible is... understandable. Not forgivable, but understandable. Like the Hamas aggression that many here support.
I'm sorry to disagree with you here, Lord Snow- Britain holds responsibility for a lot of this. If not Britain, then generic old white guys drawing maps and proclaiming this land is their land, that land is the other's, etc.
I don't think jews popped an alchemic tincture and went all cannibal invader on the Palestinians.
Those who have been around may remember me yelling at a bunch of the participants in this thread and calling them "stooges of imperialism." I am not in the least bit sorry.You are welcome. For the record, it's about Mali I made you sick (I believe, feel free to correct me if you want).
Seems that there is no good solutions in toppling annoying tyrants : the US invaded and occupied Iraq, and it crumbled down ; France/UK bombed Lybia and stood away from the resulting mess, letting lybians sort it out, and it crumbled down. Meh. Maybe the world is too complicated for simplistic solutions and nice slogans ? Up with Andoren !
Mali seems to be doing quite fine. The heat went to Centrafrique, which is currently a huge warzone with the sole exception of Bangui, the capital.
Dear Comrade le Couard, I wasn't referring to Mali, nor you, because, until now, you hadn't participated in this thread.
But, yes, I yelled about that, too.
Again, not a weapons systems kinda nerd, but I guess crazy left-wing Israelis aren't the only ones saying Iron Dome is overrated:
Iron Dome or Iron Sieve? Evidence Questions Effectiveness of U.S.-Funded Israeli Missile Shield
Beats me.
Anyway, I was bopping around the Communist Party of Israel's website and they have one of those bloggy things where there is a subject index with all the words in a column and you click, say, "Conscientious Objector" or "Histradut" and one of them said "Arab-Bedoiun". And I remembered "Bedoiun" being one of the categories in the IDF refuseniks article I posted above.
"Huh," I said. "Wassup?" asked Omar the Arab Trade Union Organizer. "Well, I thought I knew what 'Bedoiun' meant, but what does it mean in the Israeli context?" "You don't know about the Bedouin?" "No." "Basically, they sold out the rest of the Palestinians a long, long time ago. Like there's been Bedouin IDF generals or something. And they got shiznit on."
Haven't yet found an article laying out the whole history, so maybe Comrade Omar is biased, but I did wonder if the experience of the Bedouin might have some lessons for American apologists for Zionism who indignantly demand to know whether there is any faction of the Palestinians who recognize working with Israel as a better option.
That is not the comment you made at all. You replied to me attributing the lion's share of early aggression between Jews and Arabs to the Arabs by saying that it's inaccurate, and that most blame should be on the British.
Technically what I said was that if you were going to blame one party - blame the British. In honesty I think you need to blame at least four parties - that is Israel, the Arab League (inclusive of the Palestinians), the British and the US.
And I actually agree in theorycrafting with what you've put up re: the circumstances post WWI contributing heavily to the rise of Nazi Germany. I think that there are many in the history world who would agree that the Treaty of Versailles laid down the fertile ground from which Nazi Germany would grow.
Lastly for clarity - I think that both the common Israeli and common Palestinian are helpless victims.
I, of course, disagree with the Righteous Rabbi about the murderous, rapacious administration of Barack "Turns out I'm really good at killing people" Obama, but I might as well link Mr. Siegman's Politico article.
Lastly for clarity - I think that both the common Israeli and common Palestinian are helpless victims.
Comrade workers of Israel and Palestine!
You are not helpless victims!
You have the power to explode this Zionist garrison state from within, sparking off international proletarian socialist revolution throughout the region and freeing the various peoples of the Middle East from the rule of the murderous mullahs, sinister sheiks, callous colonels and, um, (I can't think of an adjective that starts with "Z") Zionists!
For workers revolution!
Arab, Beta, Ashkenazi, Druze
You have nothing but your chains to lose!
Muslim, Jewish, Black, White,
Same Struggle, Same Fight,
Workers of the world, unite!
You have the power to explode this Zionist garrison state from within, sparking off international proletarian socialist revolution throughout the region and freeing the various peoples of the Middle East from the rule of the murderous mullahs, sinister sheiks, callous colonels and, um, (I can't think of an adjective that starts with "Z") Zionists!
Zealous.
More seriously, can we keep the hard to convince people of need to change to the thing that absolutely NEEDS to change? In this case the basic humanity of the Palestinians. Tying an unpopular idea to another one just makes it harder for either to happen.
Zealous ain't bad.
I came up with another verse, but I need something else:
Mizrahi, ______, Bedouin,
There's a whole f#$!ing world to win!
For what it's worth . . . .
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For every child or parent someone kills, there is someone who will never forgive, whatever is done. Everyone is a child of someone. Most are parents as well. The hatred doesn't end for at least a generation. Hatred kills, one way or another. Jews know all too well what it is like to never give up, and how tenacious that stubbornness can be. Thousands of years of persecution did not shake the jews' resolve to survive through the most awful situations - why would the Palestinians be different?
War is stupid. It destroys you, whether you win or lose. Sometimes, the only choices you have, like them or not, are giving up or becoming a giant army camp.
That said, Lord Snow, you have held up class in this thread. Kudos.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth . . . .
I like the other article on that website wherein the author relates how he was scammed out of $40,000 because he suffers from a variety of mental disorders and is gullible.