Opposition leader Netanyahu: Olmert is incompetent, unfit to lead

[bemildred]

Israel is being led by an unfit and incompetent prime minister, opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday, one day after the release of the Winograd report on the failures of the government and the military during the Second Lebanon War.

Netanyahu's Likud party convened a meeting in Tel Aviv Thursday to discuss the implications of the damning report. Netanyahu spoke at a press conference held after the meeting, saying that Defense Minister Ehud Barak knows that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is unfit to lead, and that the public expects him to fulfill his promise and prevent the current leadership from remaining in power.

"The government is in charge of the military, and it failed miserably, that is the main conclusion in the report, as Winograd said yesterday," Netanyahu added. "The committee concluded 'we assign personal blame to the three captains.' While two of the captains have stepped down, the political echelon and its leader refuse to take responsibility and exhibit personal integrity and leadership ? which is what the decisive majority of the public expects them to do." According to Netanyahu, Israel's citizens are demanding a new and worthy leader, and that will only come about via early elections. He refused to answer reporters' questions at the conclusion of the press conference.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/950047.html

[msmcghee]

1. I do believe a Netanyahu government would have . .

. . handled it better - probably first by making damned sure that Hisb'allah never had a chance to start it.

[bemildred]

2. Netanyahoo appears to me to be significantly dumber than Olmert.

But opinions will vary. And in any case he is right here, so we ought to give him credit for that.

[msmcghee]

3. You continue to believe that things like this have something . .

. . to do with intelligence. I think you're wrong about that - but, not because you are not intelligent. It's because your judgment is guided by strong beliefs that you hold. Those beliefs may or may not have been guided by a careful and intelligent analysis - which I am sure you are capable of. We humans use our intelligence to justify our beliefs far more than to examine them.

And the same is true of Netanyahu and Olmert. They are each guided by their beliefs. Olmert's beliefs seem to include (or seemed to include) the possibility that reasoning with Israel's Arab enemies is possible and a conciliatory attitude toward them will yield positive results. I don't think Netanyahu holds to such unrealistic expectations - and therefore would have been far more ready to confront Hisb'allah long before they had a chance to kidnap and kill any Israelis along the border. I wouldn't call that incompetence on Olmert's part as much as holding to unrealistic beliefs about Israel's enemies - long after there was any objective evidence to support such beliefs. Ultimately though, it was Israelis who voted for him based on those beliefs - and as in all democracies, that's where the errors will be found.

If Netanyahu had been running things I doubt there would have been any Lebanese or Israeli civilians killed as the result of a Hisb'allah provocation and rocket attack. I consider that a far better outcome than what actually occurred.

[bemildred]

4. Yeah, I'm definitely a fanatic, and it warps my thinking. nt

[msmcghee]

5. Having incorrect beliefs about how the brain works . .

. . doesn't make anyone a fanatic IMO. Just incorrect.

But most would agree with you anyway - not me. Most people are certain that their own conclusions are always the result of a careful and objective logical analysis - not a result of their beliefs. They call it "critical thinking" when they do it.

Those who don't share their conclusions are of course, dumb (as in, "Netanyahoo appears to me to be significantly dumber than Olmert.") So, at least you're in the majority. Enjoy it. :thumbsup:

[bemildred]

6. Well, in any case you definitely ought to ignore me.

I'm surprised that, given your deep understanding of my fanatically held belief systems, you would not have figured that out for yourself by now.

[msmcghee]

7. I don't ignore anybody. n/t

[bemildred]

9. Damn. nt

[msmcghee]

13. You've just responded to four of my posts.

You are free to ignore me anytime you wish. That would probably be more productive for you than wishing I would ignore your comments.

As I said I don't ignore any comments. If you don't want me to say anything about them you can send them in the form of PM's to whoever you wish. But, the idea of a public forum is that people post their ideas and others comment on them. That's how it works.

[bemildred]

15. Well, sometimes I do.

Today I'm in a good mood. I even made an (partly) honest answer to one of your posts down below. I suppose now I must be punished for it.

[bemildred]

8. Just to be sure ...

Are you really trying to assert that intelligence has nothing to do with making good or bad decisions? Or, what is it that intelligence has nothing to do with that I am thinking it does?

[msmcghee]

11. I've made this statement several times here . .

. . but it violates most people's beliefs about how their minds work. Therefore they don't understand it or they dismiss it without trying to understand it.

Reason is a weak force in the mind compared to our emotionally held beliefs. Where our strongest beliefs are involved, we will use our reason to defend and justify our conclusions - based on those beliefs - before we will use it to examine them or edit them.

Where strong beliefs dominate - making good or bad decisions will always follow those beliefs - not our reason. Intelligence has little to do with it - except perhaps to justify those beliefs and conclusions to others.

The world is full of millions of examples that prove this. One of my favorite examples is the decision of the US Supreme Court in Bush v Gore. Of the five voting to give the election to Bush, at least a few of them were pretty smart people. They used their intelligence not to examine their undemocratic belief that a Republican should win the election, but to write an opinion that would allow Bush to prevail while still not making them appear totally partisan or ignorant of the law. I'd say they did pretty well considering the impossibility of the task.

Just so you're clear on my intentions, I'm only trying to carry on a reasonable conversation. I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence. I'm saying that in many cases - good or bad decisions are not a result of more or less intelligence.

[bemildred]

14. Kind of a Catch-22, huh?

They don't believe how their minds work, so they can't understand how their minds work, so they give up and their minds don't work?

I would say that you are wrong, it is not necessary for the mind to understand itself to work. You don't know how you walk, but you can walk just fine. You don't know how you see, but you can see just fine. You don't know how you think, but you can think just fine.

I would agree that a lot of "reasoning" is after the fact justification of positions already held, but that is what deductive reason does, you get out in conclusions what you put in as assumptions. That is not any sort of high intelligence. It is just a fancy trick they teach the smarter High School kids. High intelligence is only incidentally rational, reasoning is a minor tool, it is a matter of perception and training, of visualization, of learning to see. It is an accrued skill based on native capacity. It is deeply rooted in language and language skills, words are a major part of what you think with.

[msmcghee]

19. "They don't believe how their minds work, . .

. . so they can't understand how their minds work, so they give up and their minds don't work?

Did I say that? I don't think so.

"I would say that you are wrong, it is not necessary for the mind to understand itself to work. You don't know how you walk, but you can walk just fine. You don't know how you see, but you can see just fine."

I agree. Don't know why you think I wouldn't.

"You don't know how you think, but you can think just fine."

Well, using "you" as humankind, I think the world is full of counter-examples.

"I would agree that a lot of "reasoning" is after the fact justification of positions already held, but that is what deductive reason does, you get out in conclusions what you put in as assumptions."

I'd say the quality of the deductive output depends on putting in objective facts and/or factually supported beliefs. When non-objective inputs are used, the conclusions will always support them.

The problem is that non-objective beliefs, especially if held with strong emotions, will easily crowd out any facts or objective beliefs in the input stream.

[bemildred]

22. And how is it determined whether facts are objective or not?

Who decides? Science works with highly controlled situations, "experiments", and even then it's a tricky business and lots of mistakes and wrong turnings are made. Statistics are only as good as your methodology, and cannot tell you anything about individuals, only about imaginary aggregates. You hypothesize that there is such a thing as "the Palestinian People" and that it has certain attributes (like "opposed to suicide bombing", or "favors suicide bombing") and then you attempt to get a "good sample" from the population so you can talk about "what Palestinians think about suicide bombings". But is that an objective fact or a factoid manufactured by your methodology? How do you know the difference, objectively?

In the real world you have none of that, so how do you decide what objective truth is? What rock of certainty do you build your edifice of reason on?

[bemildred]

24. Isn't all this blather about "objective facts" and "factually supported beliefs"

just a fancy way to try to pull rank? Anybody that disagrees with you is guilty of "non-objective beliefs"? That was the main problem I had with Ayn Rand and all that objectivist blather she spewed out, she assumed that there was only one objective truth and that she was the arbiter of what it was. That puts you in the same position as the Pope. That is "reason" set up as a little tin God instead of the rather ordinary and fallible tool which it is.

[msmcghee]

26. How the brain works. My belief.

Humans make almost all decisions in response to emotional forces that are part of the beliefs we hold. Even facts are beliefs - as in "(I believe) the Earth rotates around the sun". Becoming an adult is populating our minds with a set of working beliefs that help us make good decisions for our survival - actually the survival of our dna. The beliefs in our minds have "emotional forces" that are applied automatically when we consider alternatives and make decisions. The beliefs in our minds will very much be determined by the culture we live in.

Ayn Rand had it way wrong. Reason itself is relatively powerless in the mind. Reason is a tool that we can use - if we put in the mental effort - to edit our beliefs and to increase or decrease the confidence we have in them. But logic is fallible, there's often not enough data, the data is subject to bias to conform to our existing beliefs, etc. So, at least in societies where independent thought is considered virtuous - we use reason to create "provisional" beliefs. After we test them in the real world a few times and they make us feel good - we gain confidence in them (we give them higher emotional strength). This is all subconscious of course. Ayn Rand's thinking on this was primitive but much has been learned about how the brain works in just the last two decades. She had some interesting theories and some of her thinking is still relevant IMO - but not on this topic.

We can test new beliefs we come across with reason - but we first test them to be sure they fit our existing high confidence (high emotion) beliefs. For example, if you believe your god causes disease as a punishment for disobeying your tribe's traditions, you are unlikely to accept a new belief that disease is caused by the infection of malignant bacteria in your body. The new belief violates your strong cultural beliefs. No matter what evidence is provided you will reject it - assuming your cultural beliefs are strong enough. Even to consider such an opposing belief causes physical discomfort. Based on the reactions, it's probably like the physical discomfort some here feel when I use the term "disputed" territories - rather than "occupied".

IMO a good survivor is someone who accepts new beliefs sceptically and uses reason constantly to help edit their existing beliefs. But, I live under very special conditions that have been almost unknown to any previous humans - a Western democracy where such a strategy can be successful. But that's only because I am surrounded by others (hopefully) that hold the same beliefs - which is my tribal culture. I could not easily survive in a non reason-based tribal society using these skills - except perhaps in the role of a strange outsider.

Most of human history has been conducted under the rules of non reason-based tribalism. Such tribalism survives and has such stability because it places very strong emotional beliefs in the minds of its children - beliefs that protect that society and see other societies as inferior, enemies to be distrusted and possibly attacked with fanatical resolve.

Enlightened western democracies are somewhat tribal but go to great lengths to avoid non reason-based tribalism. The state does not promote any religion for example nor allow religion to be promoted in schools. The state does teach multi-culturalism. Tolerance is the central element of enlightened democracies. We're so tolerant we tolerate intolerance - like people screaming at women entering abortion clinics and calling them murderers. Because of our tolerance we are reluctant to disallow intolerant elements. We form institutions like the ACLU to protect them instead. Intolerance is the central element of non reason-based tribal societies.

Thinking about these things raises interesting questions. One I've been considering is where do enlightened societies draw the line on tolerating intolerance. Or, how much intolerance can we tolerate before we actually become a de-facto intolerant society.

Another question is whether a non-tribal state with superior weapons and military organization can survive a war against a highly tribal state with inferior weapons and military organization. I think 9/11 was the opening argument for us. The response to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza may have been a significant argument in Israel's case.

But, disputes and disagreements like we have here in DU - I/P are not about intelligence. They are about beliefs and the emotions we attach to them. We use our intelligence to discredit our opponents' beliefs and they, ours. We use our intelligence to justify and support our own beliefs and they, theirs. That's kind of fun at times but each side holds those beliefs in a very emotional part of our belief system that is part of our identity. We might draw blood occasionally by cleverly questioning someone's intelligence - but it's not likely anyone here will change their fundamental beliefs about this conflict because they were proven wrong about something. At least I haven't seen it yet.

And everything I just wrote are my provisional beliefs subject to further testing.

[bemildred]

27. Isn't "provisional belief" sort of an oxymoron?

I see you at least appreciate the "messiness" of these issues, although I consider many of your premises to be, to put it politely, wrong. But I will get to the point. I would like to ask then, what sort of certainty and stability and guidance a way of thinking has to offer, that is so uncertain, and hence so faith based in itself. Is it not just another invented belief system being used to fend off our fear of the dark, of uncertainty and ambiguity?

The scientific method, at least, provides a methodology to elicit reliable truths about the world, and makes no absolute claims about anything except that value of it's method. It is empirical. It rejects belief in favor of observation. And that is what I favor too. Stop yapping away in your brain and watch. Pay attention.

[msmcghee]

28. I don't think you understand what the scientific method is.

All scientific theories are provisional beliefs. Just like mine.

A scientific theory is subject to repeated tests under controlled conditions. After many tests - if it proves to successfully describe some relationship or phenomena - then scientists gain more confidence in that theory and use it to make predictions about the world.

The way I describe the brain as working is exactly analogous. Every behavior decision we make based on our beliefs is a prediction that our survival will be enhanced - over any alternative behavior choice.

I wondered how long it would take you to start with the insults. It appears that I have justifiable confidence in my theory regarding your ability to have a reasonable discussion. But it was good while it lasted.

[bemildred]

29. Ah, probably not. nt

[breakaleg]

10. Are your conclusions based on "the result of a careful and objective logical analysis"?

Or are you among the masses that are misled by their beliefs as well? Then again, how would you know?

[msmcghee]

12. That's a good question.

If a person is aware of how easily their conclusions can be made to support their strong beliefs - they can guard against it if they try. But it's not easy. It causes indigestion among other discomforts - and could require that they change some of their most cherished beliefs. No-one does that easily including me.

One way to determine which view of reality is the most objective is by reasonable, non-emotional evidence-based discussion.

I'll leave it to you to decide which side in this forum tries to follow that path of discourse - and which side generally refuses to follow any exchanges past the point where they would appear to be wrong about something.

[subsuelo]

16. well I've only been here a matter of months

So far I find that nobody here is ever wrong about anything ;)

[msmcghee]

21. True, but one reason for that is that . .

. . some here will try anything but a reasonable evidence-based discussion. They will divert, set up straw-men, red-herrings, etc. - and of course when those get exposed there are the inevitable insults and accusations of bigotry.

There have been a few good discussions but it takes a real effort on everybody's part.

[Lurking Dem]

17. Dumb?

He's anything but dumb.

That's what makes his political views so dangerous.

[bemildred]

18. OK, he's smart but he would make rotten decisions. nt

[bemildred]

20. See, the thing is I think his political views are dumb.

He seems to live in a sort of cartoon world where being "strong" means talking in a loud voice and strutting around and making threats. When he was in power he didn't appear to have any ideas, to know what to do. So I suppose you could say he is clever in some sense about politics, Israeli politics, but that doesn't get you much if you get power and then don't have any ideas about what needs to be done.

Livni is the only one that looks like a sharp mind, at present, to me, but I'd have to see what she does if she got power to be sure.

[LeftishBrit]

23. ITA !!!

Clever and dangerous.

[Shaktimaan]

25. Really? Have you heard him speak?

He tends to impress American audiences as he has no accent and is not only well versed in the American style of public speaking (offering short concise statements made for sound bites), but tends to make sensible, well-constructed arguments. He went to MIT and Harvard, he certainly isn't dumb. But while plenty of smart people can come off as dumb, he generally doesn't.

Not all of his policies were awful. He did turn Hebron over to the PA.