He's an excellent neuroscientist who think he's cleverer than he actually is.
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
I understand there are more immediate concerns for Israelis, but is there much concern among the general population for how this conflict is viewed by the world at large, and how the way Israel is seen by the world may change drastically after this current 'round' ends?
Or is the moral dilemma seen as one that can only be understood by people who live there and must live under the Iron Dome?
Or is the moral dilemma seen as one that can only be understood by people who live there and must live under the Iron Dome?
To be fair, most scientists do.
Check previous threads on Gaza skirmishes, or the one about the 2006 Lebanon war. Same sets of people take the same sides. Different circumstances mean little. The conflict is about Israel's existence. It's not like Israelis are in a position to say "we're not that popular, so let's just give in". The Iron Dome is irrelevant in this respect. We got the same criticism when we didn't have the system, and when dozens of Israeli civilians were killed by rockets.
Sam Harris is just your archetypal pseudo-intellectual academic who thinks his proficiency in neuroscience translates to just about every other academic discipline.
By the 'same criticism', do you also mean the amount of criticism, and sources of it - are in your view roughly the same this time?
Wouldn't be the first intellectual whose opinion get exagerated coverage. I mean, look at Noam Chomsky for example.
he is educated as a neuroscientist, but acts primarily as ***********. I really like some of his thoughts, but he has also a very one-sided view on the world
I was referring to the sources. These are rarely bothered with facts. I can't really quantify the quantity, but i'm not really bothered with that. There are enough people in Europe, mostly immigrants, who would be thrilled to see Israel vanish from the face of the earth. Why would I care if they march in European capitals? It's a European issue rather than our own, and personally I doubt it would result in an increasing diplomatic pressure on decision-makers here.
The feeling here is that this time Western leadership appear to be more understanding than ever for Israel's right to retaliate to indiscriminate attacks on its civilian population. The EU, and Germany in particular, has been unequivocal about this. Too bad about the disaster that the current US administration's role in this is, but we'll see this through hopefully.
Wouldn't be the first intellectual whose opinion get exagerated coverage. I mean, look at Noam Chomsky for example.
Chomsky is a different kind of beast though - he's the most cited scholar and is considered a pioneer within his academic discipline. He's also been writing and researching on foreign affairs for the best part of 50 years.
Harris is just a lightweight who tries to simplify everything down to his 'one-size-fits-all' interpretation of the world. At least Hitchens was broad-minded enough to reverse some of his opinions.
Wouldn't be the first intellectual whose opinion get exagerated coverage. I mean, look at Noam Chomsky for example.
Chomsky is the worst of the lot. Stick to linguistics.
Everyone is a light weight compared to Hitchens. Harris does make some good points in his article though.
Fair enough disagree with the bulk of his opinions but to see people outright dismissing the intellectual force of Noam Chomsky on a football forum one of the funniest things I've seen in a while And even Hitchens didn't agree with you!
And even Hitchens didn't agree with you!Fair enough disagree with the bulk of his opinions but to see people outright dismissing the intellectual force of Noam Chomsky on a football forum one of the funniest things I've seen in a while
His intellect on philosophy and social issues is a bit underwhelming, compared to the likes of Foucault, who made him look rather small in their TV appearance together in the early 70s. I do admire his work in linguistics though. Harris is more so a *********** and critic of religion than a neuroscientist, and he's actually quite good in his new role.
The one you posted earlier? No, it was pretty much the same simplified nonsense where he ignores the broader pricture. He also managed to squeeze in the same predictable, religion cliches as is tantamount in pretty much everything he writes about.
As for Chomsky being the worst of the lot, well I can imagine why Neo-cons such as yourself may find him irritating, but no one could really discredit his meticulous attention to impartial sources as a means of putting his points across.
But then his academic discipline has nothing to do with what he is being cited about. Being cited and writing a lot could perhaps reflect a bias which is based on his opinions and those who bother providing him with the platform.
Cannot see why his opinion on the ME is any more important than that of your ordinary ME plumber.
If you think I'm a neocon, you have no idea what a neocon is. Chomsky is generally only admired by people who support his political views and loathed by those who oppose them, which is all just a bit tedious and hard to take seriously. He's also a bit expired, much like the ideas of those who seem to worship him. Harris is still a young guy who is in the process of making a name for himself and seems far more relevant on key issues like exposing religion, free will etc.
He's loathed by those who oppose him simply because they find it difficult to demonise him when he assumes a pretty affable demenaour and uses irrefutable sources in his arguments, compared to someone like Galloway who is pretty easy to make fun of and discredit.
You likely don't adhere to the Wolfowitz school of neoconservatism, but your consistent support for military action in the middle East, American exceptionalism and unilateral bellicosity cloaked with the guise of spreading democracy puts you up there with modern democrat neocons like Obama, who simply distinguish themselves from the old timers by assuming a more progressive front on domestic social issues.
Yeah, Hitchens slowly morphed into a neocon apologist in the latter years of his life. Pretty amazing metamorphosis for someone who had once described themselves as a Trotskyist.
Ok RK, I know you're a big Chompsky fan, so I'll abstain from saying unflattering things about him.
Edit. Just read the 2nd part. No I'm not a Wolfowitz neocon. I don't support interventionism in general, as it has come at a great cost to both the US as well as the invaded countries.
Looks like the only reason you find Chomsky "a different kind of beast" is that his opinions match yours then....
I'm more than happy for you to harp on wax lyrical on why you're not a Chomsky fan (I don't even necessarily harmonise with everything he's written) though listing some of the specific views which you disagree with might offer a more productive output for debate.
Not really. Plenty of self-proclaimed 'scholars' match my view - Galloway for example I regard to be a charlatan clown despite the overlap of our sentiments, I'm not a fan of the likes of Salma Yaqub or any of the BDS lieutenants either.
Unlike most self-proclaimed scholars he's seen both sides of the spectrum. He's lived in Israel and he's met Palestinian leaders. He's also been covering foreign affairs for the best part of 50 years.
What endears me to him is his style - he refrains from emotional rhetoric and chooses to focus on meticulous source work, with all this claims and opinions seldom missing an irrefutable source of some sorts.
You'd obviously want to distance yourself from clowns of the Galloway calibre, but downplaying people's arguments just because they were honest enough to change their minds suggests an obvious bias.
I used to get the odd Benni Morris quote in past threads here, before he saw some sense.
I used to get the odd Benni Morris quote in past threads here, before he saw some sense.
You should start a thread in his honor to discuss the greatness of his work, so this one can stay on Israel-Palestine.
What is this referring to?
You were the one to bring Chomsky's name into the discussion, no?
Nope, it was HR.
You're right, not sure why I interpreted his post as being yours.
Anyway back on topic - 110 people thought to have been killed in the last 24 hours in Gaza.
Your comment following the video Fearless had posted appeared to put a person in useful brackets, although you did sound like you valued his previous opinons better.
Both neocons, as was that Hitchens bloke?
Mounting death toll is frightening. What a mess.
Last edited:
Sigh...
Oh Hitchens? He's an intellectual heavyweight that I respect and I actually commend the malleability of his opinions - notably his U turn on torture after voluntarily being waterboarded himself. His views on the Iraq war was what had fouled my opinion of him .
Not really very surprising. His hatred of religion led to him backing the fight against fundamentalism wherever he perceived it, nuance aside.
So the invasion of Iraq was a war against fundamentalism then?
No, but that's an exception. The aggression of his stance and speech was almost always aimed at religious fundamentalism. The video above is a prime example.
I should hasten to add, it's not a very friendly truth for me that I find a level of agreement with Sam Harris on Israel (although not entirely).
Israelis in Tel Aviv chanting, “There’s no school tomorrow, there’s no children left in Gaza! Oleh!”
The unconditional support from the west goes to scum like these lowlifes.
The unconditional support from the west goes to scum like these lowlifes.
Not exactly. Hitchens made reference to Saddam's tolerance/support to Islamic terrorism.
If u have time - all posters - great debate.