I have no offspring in the IDF, just the offspring of friends who I love. I will write about this issue in a future article. Stay tuned, if you are interested.
I think it is partly a question of right or left but, of course, not dichotomously so. As one of the polls showed, 45% of those who self-define as right wing favour a deal. I will see if I can find out more about that because I find that figure hard to believe.
There are some military experts who say we have nearly achieved one of our goals -- just like there are still Nazis in Germany, there is no Nazi control of government. Similarly, we are not seeking to eradicate each and every Hamas terrorist but to prevent further Hamas rule (and I hope also prevent PLO rule).
I won't say anything about the PM.
May your sons and grandsons come home safely after having helped protect our homeland and people.
What kind of deal do you want? A deal with Hamas is cutting off half a finger today, a finger tomorrow, three fingers in a month, and both hands in a year. That's what you'll get.
There is no deal, in case you haven't figured it out yet.
A deal is a carrot in front of a donkey so that it will go ahead and pull the cart.
First, you have to decide: do you want a deal because you want to do the right thing for Israel, or do you want a deal because Netanyahu doesn't want one (which is not a fact), and you think doing what Netanyahu doesn't want is a good idea?
Second, in case you haven't noticed, Hamas is not offering a deal as we understand it. It is setting conditions. If those conditions are met, it will negotiate a deal. And you can trust Hamas (which has pulled off such "deals" before, like the Shalit deal), it will drag it out for years, and the prices will go up every year. And for this, Hamas does not even need to hold live hostages. It is enough for them to hold one live hostage or create the appearance that he is alive.
Hamas's calculation is that in five years (approximately), when they fulfill the "terms of the deal", which will constantly change, everyone will have forgotten about the war and Gaza will be ready for a new attack.
And, by the way, I do not support Netanyahu at all. I simply do not allow my dislike for him to blind me to what is good and what is bad for Israel
First of all, it is important to understand that the Israeli traditional media, just like all the others, have ceased to be a source of information. They are a means of manipulation, and all articles should be approached from this point of view.
Even when they report truthful information, they do not report many facts that allow us to see the whole picture, they replace facts with respondents' opinions, they publish thousands of "information leaks" from "security sources" that look unrealistic and are hard to even believe.
The Haaretz newspaper stands apart, which can hardly be called Israeli anymore. Most likely, it is anti-Israeli. Every time I try to read articles by Haaretz journalists (and I want to know the opinions of all sides), I see obsessive efforts not to convey information and their point of view, but to destroy other points of view through propaganda manipulation.
Considering that the professionalism of Haaretz authors is very high, it is unpleasant for me to see that their qualifications are used in this way.
And this is why I am highly frustrated when non-journalists I respect rely on such pieces as if they are telling the truth -- the subject here is a case in point.
All journalists have a professional deformation. They consider the story they like the most to be the truth.
They are susceptible to manipulation just like other people, and they manipulate, believing that they are telling the truth.
Why do journalists talk about a "deal" and not say that this cannot be considered a deal in the sense in which we understand it?
Let's try to understand what is happening. The mediators persuade Israel to accept Hamas's conditions (it doesn't matter what they are, but they are incredibly unfair and very specific). And after that, Hamas may agree to some actions (which are vaguely stipulated and limited by many conditions that cannot be understood unambiguously).
That is, having fulfilled Hamas's conditions, Israel does not know what it will get, when it will get it, and whether it will get it, because only after Hamas's conditions are fulfilled will negotiations begin.
That is, it is impossible to say that this is a deal for the return of the hostages. There is no guarantee that we will get the hostages under this deal. But we will fulfill Hamas's conditions.
For Hamas, a deal is not some kind of result that they want to get; for them, a deal is a means to continue what they started, it is additional time to put pressure on Israel, to split Israeli society, to prepare Israel’s enemies for a new local war.
I agree with what you write here. At the same time, that is not the point of this article. It was about accepting published poll results without knowing how they asked the questions, how they sampled who to ask, etc. It frustrates me when I see intelligent people I respect parroting the TOI title as if it is fact when I doubt that it is anywhere reliable or valid.
Thank you for demonstrating how to have a critical look at pols and other statistical data. That is enlightening. Concerning a deal or not this always a question at what price - if it is not for total defeat / victory all conflicts end with a deal. I believe that Hamas must be destroyed - but the big question is what comes then? It is not only a matter to win the war, but also to win the peace.
I agree. The issue of the deal itself/releasing the hostages/ending the war is sufficient for another several articles and beyond the scope of this one.
I cannot express how my heart aches for the loved ones of the hostages or of anyone serving in the IDF. They are in an impossible situation. I have one hard question though. Would you trade your neighbors child/loved one for yours? Your child/loved one comes home and their child/loved one becomes a hostage? Yes, I know that is a brutal question, but you live with a brutal reality. I don’t really expect an answer but it is something to think about. If you reward Hamas for taking hostages and killing Israelis what is to stop them from doing it again? With the response from the brain damaged anti-Israel crowd internationally, Hamas will be emboldened. Can you guarantee your government will be able to stop another attack? You have to stop 100%, they only have to manage 1 or 2 to do serious damage. How many loved ones will die then? How many loved ones will be taken hostage. I guarantee Hamas will be shooting for more than 200 next time. I wish I had the answer to make it all stop, but I don’t. All I can do is stand with Israel and the Jewish community, and try to hold onto some hope.
*Note: I am an American so I fully understand I am not in the same position as those who live this every day.
It is obvious that any poll published might be biased and constructed badly. But there is no real evidenced showing that the poll that was published in the times of Israel was flawed. So does that mean that we shouldn’t use any poll unless we have the raw data? I don’t think so. I personally try to ignore polls from sources who are obviously biased like Haaretz and channel 14.
Times of Israel is no less biased. Channels 12 and 13 are no less biased. Pick your bias. Then watch them all and reach your own conclusions. That's the only way to do it.
This is an excellent example of how to write honestly; sharing your bias and then dissecting the evidence. One question. Why do you say you are not examining the poll about how many Israelis are right versus left and then say that we can say with “certainty” that the poll results are correct. I felt like I was missing something because I don’t live in Israel and/or my brain sometimes has a harder time with details since Oct 7. (I’m a high school librarian and I would possibly use this as an example for students to read)
I would be thrilled if you would consider this article worthy of study by students.
I re-read my article and do not see where I wrote that poll results are "with certainty" correct. What am I missing? I am happy to continue this conversation either here (in case other readers are interested) or in private messages if we have more back-and-forth than is usual for comments under an article. Your choice.
Thank you! I’m fine either way but I’ve never private messaged on substack so I’ll try answering here first. 😅 Checking back it was a survey not poll so although I’m not sure how a survey is different maybe that’s the issue? It was this paragraph:
“Times of Israel published survey results that showed, in rounded figures, that, as of 2022, 62% of the Jewish population self-identified as right-wing, 24% as center of the political map, and 11% as left-wing (total = 97 and not 100). Without examining in depth that survey, we now can say with a certain degree of confidence that:”
There is a difference between "with certainty" and "with a certain degree of confidence." The former implies 100% sure and the latter implies probably or likely but not 100% sure. I would never imply 100% sure because I don't think we can be 100% sure of much at all.
Given your comment, I went back to that section of the article and reworded it to make it clearer. Thanks so much for pointing this out to me. I think the change is an improvement.
I have noticed that once in a while I’ll be sure I read something, reply, and then realize I remembered what I read slightly incorrectly. For my sabbatical, I’m curating my students and my google meet discussions from during virtual school and it’s amazing how off our conversations can be at times. I wonder if my communication skills are that impacted by technology or if they were never as good as I thought, but I never knew because it wasn’t recorded.
Thank you. I’m not sure how interesting it is but my project is definitely time consuming .:) I think it’s important there’s a record of emails, texts, and recordings taken in real time that tells the students stories. It does not make the school look very good so we’ll see what happens.
interesting to know.if the writer has family in the army in Israel
I have 2 sons and 2 grandsons serving on thr north and south...I want a deal many of my friends and acquaintances
IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF RIGHT OR LEFT..
THIS GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED IN ATTAINING ANY OF ITS STATED
OBJECTIVES IN THIS WAR...OUR PRIME MINISTER HAS HIS OWN GOALS IN GAZA AND NOT THE COUNTRY.....AND , BY THE WAY I AM FAR FROM A LEFTY!
I have no offspring in the IDF, just the offspring of friends who I love. I will write about this issue in a future article. Stay tuned, if you are interested.
I think it is partly a question of right or left but, of course, not dichotomously so. As one of the polls showed, 45% of those who self-define as right wing favour a deal. I will see if I can find out more about that because I find that figure hard to believe.
There are some military experts who say we have nearly achieved one of our goals -- just like there are still Nazis in Germany, there is no Nazi control of government. Similarly, we are not seeking to eradicate each and every Hamas terrorist but to prevent further Hamas rule (and I hope also prevent PLO rule).
I won't say anything about the PM.
May your sons and grandsons come home safely after having helped protect our homeland and people.
What kind of deal do you want? A deal with Hamas is cutting off half a finger today, a finger tomorrow, three fingers in a month, and both hands in a year. That's what you'll get.
There is no deal, in case you haven't figured it out yet.
A deal is a carrot in front of a donkey so that it will go ahead and pull the cart.
First, you have to decide: do you want a deal because you want to do the right thing for Israel, or do you want a deal because Netanyahu doesn't want one (which is not a fact), and you think doing what Netanyahu doesn't want is a good idea?
Second, in case you haven't noticed, Hamas is not offering a deal as we understand it. It is setting conditions. If those conditions are met, it will negotiate a deal. And you can trust Hamas (which has pulled off such "deals" before, like the Shalit deal), it will drag it out for years, and the prices will go up every year. And for this, Hamas does not even need to hold live hostages. It is enough for them to hold one live hostage or create the appearance that he is alive.
Hamas's calculation is that in five years (approximately), when they fulfill the "terms of the deal", which will constantly change, everyone will have forgotten about the war and Gaza will be ready for a new attack.
And, by the way, I do not support Netanyahu at all. I simply do not allow my dislike for him to blind me to what is good and what is bad for Israel
First of all, it is important to understand that the Israeli traditional media, just like all the others, have ceased to be a source of information. They are a means of manipulation, and all articles should be approached from this point of view.
Even when they report truthful information, they do not report many facts that allow us to see the whole picture, they replace facts with respondents' opinions, they publish thousands of "information leaks" from "security sources" that look unrealistic and are hard to even believe.
The Haaretz newspaper stands apart, which can hardly be called Israeli anymore. Most likely, it is anti-Israeli. Every time I try to read articles by Haaretz journalists (and I want to know the opinions of all sides), I see obsessive efforts not to convey information and their point of view, but to destroy other points of view through propaganda manipulation.
Considering that the professionalism of Haaretz authors is very high, it is unpleasant for me to see that their qualifications are used in this way.
And this is why I am highly frustrated when non-journalists I respect rely on such pieces as if they are telling the truth -- the subject here is a case in point.
All journalists have a professional deformation. They consider the story they like the most to be the truth.
They are susceptible to manipulation just like other people, and they manipulate, believing that they are telling the truth.
Why do journalists talk about a "deal" and not say that this cannot be considered a deal in the sense in which we understand it?
Let's try to understand what is happening. The mediators persuade Israel to accept Hamas's conditions (it doesn't matter what they are, but they are incredibly unfair and very specific). And after that, Hamas may agree to some actions (which are vaguely stipulated and limited by many conditions that cannot be understood unambiguously).
That is, having fulfilled Hamas's conditions, Israel does not know what it will get, when it will get it, and whether it will get it, because only after Hamas's conditions are fulfilled will negotiations begin.
That is, it is impossible to say that this is a deal for the return of the hostages. There is no guarantee that we will get the hostages under this deal. But we will fulfill Hamas's conditions.
For Hamas, a deal is not some kind of result that they want to get; for them, a deal is a means to continue what they started, it is additional time to put pressure on Israel, to split Israeli society, to prepare Israel’s enemies for a new local war.
I agree with what you write here. At the same time, that is not the point of this article. It was about accepting published poll results without knowing how they asked the questions, how they sampled who to ask, etc. It frustrates me when I see intelligent people I respect parroting the TOI title as if it is fact when I doubt that it is anywhere reliable or valid.
Thank you for demonstrating how to have a critical look at pols and other statistical data. That is enlightening. Concerning a deal or not this always a question at what price - if it is not for total defeat / victory all conflicts end with a deal. I believe that Hamas must be destroyed - but the big question is what comes then? It is not only a matter to win the war, but also to win the peace.
I agree. The issue of the deal itself/releasing the hostages/ending the war is sufficient for another several articles and beyond the scope of this one.
Polls are not reliable. The outcome is too easily manipulated to produce a credible conclusion.
I cannot express how my heart aches for the loved ones of the hostages or of anyone serving in the IDF. They are in an impossible situation. I have one hard question though. Would you trade your neighbors child/loved one for yours? Your child/loved one comes home and their child/loved one becomes a hostage? Yes, I know that is a brutal question, but you live with a brutal reality. I don’t really expect an answer but it is something to think about. If you reward Hamas for taking hostages and killing Israelis what is to stop them from doing it again? With the response from the brain damaged anti-Israel crowd internationally, Hamas will be emboldened. Can you guarantee your government will be able to stop another attack? You have to stop 100%, they only have to manage 1 or 2 to do serious damage. How many loved ones will die then? How many loved ones will be taken hostage. I guarantee Hamas will be shooting for more than 200 next time. I wish I had the answer to make it all stop, but I don’t. All I can do is stand with Israel and the Jewish community, and try to hold onto some hope.
*Note: I am an American so I fully understand I am not in the same position as those who live this every day.
You ask a very legitimate and reasonable question. It is heartbreaking. Thank you for understanding and being willing to express your thoughts openly.
It is obvious that any poll published might be biased and constructed badly. But there is no real evidenced showing that the poll that was published in the times of Israel was flawed. So does that mean that we shouldn’t use any poll unless we have the raw data? I don’t think so. I personally try to ignore polls from sources who are obviously biased like Haaretz and channel 14.
Times of Israel is no less biased. Channels 12 and 13 are no less biased. Pick your bias. Then watch them all and reach your own conclusions. That's the only way to do it.
I get your point. Still,I don’t really feel comfortable with getting advice from strangers.
No offence intended.
Barak
No offence taken. Didn't intend it to come off as advice but I guess the way I wrote it, it did.
I don’t think they do ! This is propaganda from the regime in America !
I don't know about that -- this was on an Israeli news site that is quoting a supposedly Israeli poll.
This is an excellent example of how to write honestly; sharing your bias and then dissecting the evidence. One question. Why do you say you are not examining the poll about how many Israelis are right versus left and then say that we can say with “certainty” that the poll results are correct. I felt like I was missing something because I don’t live in Israel and/or my brain sometimes has a harder time with details since Oct 7. (I’m a high school librarian and I would possibly use this as an example for students to read)
I would be thrilled if you would consider this article worthy of study by students.
I re-read my article and do not see where I wrote that poll results are "with certainty" correct. What am I missing? I am happy to continue this conversation either here (in case other readers are interested) or in private messages if we have more back-and-forth than is usual for comments under an article. Your choice.
Thank you! I’m fine either way but I’ve never private messaged on substack so I’ll try answering here first. 😅 Checking back it was a survey not poll so although I’m not sure how a survey is different maybe that’s the issue? It was this paragraph:
“Times of Israel published survey results that showed, in rounded figures, that, as of 2022, 62% of the Jewish population self-identified as right-wing, 24% as center of the political map, and 11% as left-wing (total = 97 and not 100). Without examining in depth that survey, we now can say with a certain degree of confidence that:”
There is a difference between "with certainty" and "with a certain degree of confidence." The former implies 100% sure and the latter implies probably or likely but not 100% sure. I would never imply 100% sure because I don't think we can be 100% sure of much at all.
Given your comment, I went back to that section of the article and reworded it to make it clearer. Thanks so much for pointing this out to me. I think the change is an improvement.
I have noticed that once in a while I’ll be sure I read something, reply, and then realize I remembered what I read slightly incorrectly. For my sabbatical, I’m curating my students and my google meet discussions from during virtual school and it’s amazing how off our conversations can be at times. I wonder if my communication skills are that impacted by technology or if they were never as good as I thought, but I never knew because it wasn’t recorded.
I think what you note is a very human condition and not affected by technology but affected by our very own brains.
Interesting project, curating that material, and sounds very time-consuming. You must be a very interesting teacher.
Thank you. I’m not sure how interesting it is but my project is definitely time consuming .:) I think it’s important there’s a record of emails, texts, and recordings taken in real time that tells the students stories. It does not make the school look very good so we’ll see what happens.
I appreciate your critical analyses and keen observation. Thanks for sharing - and your writing ain't bad either! 😉🌼
Thank you. Compliment appreciated.