The definition of the word ‘inferrence’ is: “The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.”

I would translate your statement in toto as: In a court of law, where there is evidence presented about an action, those who make a determination regarding the action, based on the evidence, still are making an inferrence.

OK.

Gellian’s statement: “This seems like an eminently reasonable supposition to me. Only a committed Zionist would naturally suppose otherwise.”

Definition of supposition: an idea that is the starting point for making a case or conducting an investigation. Gellian’s statement is that one’s suppositions are a starting point, s/he’s inclined to agree but understands that whether one does or not reflects bias held by the person considering the situation.

Your ‘not a lawyer’ statement moves us into a courtroom, as others have, where evidence is presented and various issues are argued, and conclusions are drawn; that is the process by which legal judgments are reached.

No one here saw a smoking gun nor was that description included in the four items originally presented.

Your statement regarding a hypothetical “you” in a hypothetical courtroom doesn’t change the nature of Gellian’s statement, although it might be seen as raising once again the issue of prejudice. I’m responding because Gellian’s statement was clear: s/he considered the information given a starting point.

BTW, a smoking gun is circumstantial evidence. If you didn’t see the shooting, you are still inferring an event that you didn’t see, though with very strong circumstantial evidence.

Richard, what planet do you live on? You think AIPAC and Phil are equally powerful?
How often has Phil or his take on issues appeared on TV? Does Phil get an annual dole from
the US taxpayers?

“If its important to you, take the risk.

You’re shifting blame currently.”

Fascinating how YOU “shifted” positions:
My statement, “What’s to fear,” suggested that those who control Holocaust narrative should not fear the elucidation of facts if the facts are true.
You shifted the context to suggest that it is, indeed, risky to seek to bring to light a different narrative on the holocaust. And that is true, one risks imprisonment, one risks being shunned, as you noted elsewhere in this thread; one risks loss of employment, of position, even loss of life for merely bringing to light facts that reveal a narrative that differs from the established version of the holocaust; namely, as I just heard the odious Mike Evans capsulize it, that “Hitler was diabolical and thought Jews were vermin so he had them exterminated.”

I call that the Hitler trap.
As you, Richard, noted elsewhere in this thread,

“In looking at the dynamics of how the history unfolds, I conclude that it is more realistic to describe it dialectically, NOT as an oppression in which one side is only victim.
I conclude that each is both victim and cause, and each only partially within their own control.”

When the holocaust narrative remains only in the Hitler trap, it avoids the other side of the dialectic. In the intensity of hatred ginned up for Hitler, any causal actions on the part of Jews is obscured, and the reality that the German people were victims of, for example, Rothschild’s market manipulations in both the aftermath of the FrancoPrussian war and WWI, is erased from the dialectic, leaving an unbalanced narrative.

“You have a thesis? What is it? That the Jews invoked the holocaust on themselves, or that only 5.6 million Jews were killed, not 6 million, and only 2.6 million were in death camps the remainder was from starvation in slave labor camps? “

First, I reject any other’s attempt to frame my thesis; the frame will be of my composing not yours.
I have hinted at my thesis above: Germans were victims of a series of Jewish economic and political behaviors and attitudes in the periods after the FrancoPrussian war and after WWI that caused Germans to experience oppression and feel resentment. Pushed too far, the oppressed struck back, victimizing their oppressors.

Several days ago I read a link on one of Phil’s articles that explored the notion of Jewish contributions to the causation of what ultimately became the holocaust. It was a dense and meaty writing, but I can’t seem to find it now. If anyone can help me out I’d appreciate it.

Witty writes “It is an irrational and frankly illegal demand.”

What is irrational and illegal about demanding that refugees be allowed to return to their homes? Please explain. I can understand how you think that it is a demand that Israel is unlikely to agree to, but “irrational and illegal”?

When I first posted that you were against the right of return you claimed that I was either a liar or misunderstood you. Do you still think that I misunderstand you? Was I lying? Given your positions on the issue I don’t really understand at all why you would be against the seizure laws. On Tikun Olam you said that the right of return disappeared in 1968, I ask again, what changed?

To be honest I now think that you were even more extreme than I thought. It wasn’t until this past month that you were moved by some anecdotes (I’ll try to leave out jokes about how you don’t think anecdotes of Palestinians lives are useful) to consider allowing the refugees into their homeland even on tourist visas. That’s cold, not only are you a refugee you must never even be allowed back to visit your cemetaries. And you complain about shunning?

Witty, you claim to be of the left but I don’t see any evidence of that. I have never seen you say anything even remotely leftist. But, even if you really are Mr.
Leftist himself, I don’t really care. I care about what you believe, and why. This blog is subtitled “the war of ideas”, ideas are what people come here to discuss, not whether you still have your order of lenin prize or whether you were the secretary of your SDS chapter.

If my friends stopped talking to me I would probably wonder if it was something I said or did. I have to give you credit, you don’t suffer from any self doubt.

Witty writes “The way that Palestinian refugees are treated where they are still actual refugees, is a crime perpetrated by the host countries, not Israel. For example, three generations of individuals born in Lebanon STILL do not have civil rights there.”

Something like “I might have stolen your house and land, but all the red cross gave you was a tent! The nerve of them…”

You are overly personalizing my comments to infer some “assault” on Gellian.

Functionally, this space, like MANY other left-oriented “dialogs”, end up very suppressive of dissent from the unanimous thesis. There is so much emphasis on unity for the mass movement, that complexities of truth from multiple perspectives goes out the window.

It is a great irony that the thesis that Phil originally promoted relative to the Israel Lobby, that they functionally attempt to suppress alternative perspectives, occurs so prominently here, and so regularly among the left (not only among the left, did you see the Barney Frank youtube response at a health care debate?).

I think of progressive politics as a collective means to realize good in the world. The opposition of wrongs is a component of realizing good, but NOT the answer itself.

So, again and again, the first relevant effort is to identify the specific goal(s) of dissent and gain relative consent towards that. It can’t just happen from a stacked room though to get rubber on the road. That would yeild an innaccurate assessment even of dedicated and determined dissent.

Maybe I’m presenting too much territory of questions for you to digest, Margaret, from your dismissive list of my concerns.

I think the reality of the situation requires thinking through what is really effective effort, and towards what end.

The method that I would seek to remedy that institutionally, is to proceed quickly to define consented boundaries, and treaty with Palestine (including law prohibiting active harassment of Israeli civilians).

I regard a state of military law to be repugnant, and should motivate a respectful effort to evolve civilian based law with equal due process for all in each community.

Without any evidence, you judge another person unqualified to serve on a jury.

You make that judgment of a person about whom in fact you know nothing. You are not talking about qualifications to serve on a jury; you are talking about your personal bias, by which you consider yourself fit to judge others as “unqualified” – substandard.

This is your personal judgment about another person’s abilities.

It is a judgment about a future situation, in a set of circumstances different from those you observed. It is not objective; it is not even an accurate reading of what that person said.

The judgments you make are based on your attitude about other people – your suppositions, opinions, conclusions, interpretations, your previous judgments, your beliefs, your bias, your prejudices.

On the basis of your prejudices, you would have, if you had the power to do so, denied Gellian a right and taken from her an opportunity – to serve on a jury.

“You proved my point on the Israeli example, that you bring prejudices to bear”
No, you failed to do so and doing so demonstrated your own bias and prejudices.

You think you know how other people think, but it’s your imagination, you “fill in the blanks” instead of hearing what is said. You call that being skeptical.

You say: “I prefer the mutually positive approach of honoring each community’s concerns and attempting to solve problems.”

And then you make comments like this: “Don’t whine about some conspiracy to prohibit your research. That is just your or others’ laziness.” “You’re shifting blame currently.”
“You misrepresent my understanding…” “You’re either lying about my comment on another blog, or entirely misunderstood.”

Others don’t lie, they don’t misrepresent you and they don’t misunderstand you.

This is how you see yourself, in denial about your behavior:
“I personally am very uncomfortable with the “which side are you on” version of politics. I consider myself more creative, more capable of addressing conflicting inferences than that simplicity.”

You contradict that with almost every comment.
you are not creative
your are not capable
you don’t “know”
you don’t “see clearly”
your assumptions are not what happened
your arguments make no sense
your conclusions are invalid
your interpretations are biased
your judgments are faulty
you are not respectful
you are not accurate
your assertions are untrue

Worst of all: you deny the harm caused by Israel’s policies and actions.

You waste everyone’s time, shred discussions until people are frustrated and give up. You do it on purpose.

You are not a well-intentioned “dialoger”; you’re a troll.

The ‘Witty’ hasbara propaganda mill
mutually respectful
Hezbollah initiated
Hamas initiated
You should engage me in content discussion
you ignored
The primary polarity that we have
bait and switch
A means-end question
I reason
fruitful discussion
appropriate and prospectively successful means.
if you don’t acknowledge
assertion of advocacy
appropriate humane remedy

In looking at the dynamics of how the history unfolds, I conclude that it is more realistic to describe it dialectically, NOT as an oppression in which one side is only victim.

I conclude that each is both victim and cause, and each only partially within their own control.

I consider the description say of Hamas as only victim, or of only vanguard of victims, to be a disrespectful way to refer to them. For example, in seeking to participate in Palestinian politics, they prospectively shifted from resistance to participation. But, that didn’t bear out.