Scores die in Israeli air strikes

[CptMarvel]

Mt point was that it's a bit pointless to go back in time and figure out population numbers in order to determine how much land one should get. The Jewish population in Egypt by the early first century BC is estimated at ca. one million. Surely large parts of Egypt were 'Jewish'!

I wasn't using the figures as a way of working out how land should be separated, just to show that Palestine was Arabic up until 1948.

Jordan is Palestine debunked: www.danielpipes.org/article/202

 

[Mihajlovic]

The latest of Fisk's fantastic coverage of what is really going on.

He really is fantastic. After spending only one month in Belgrade Mr Fisk managed to give an infallible interpretation of history, culture, mentality and thought processes of the average Serbian (during the Kosovo war).

The man has got serious mental issues and in desperate need of treatment.

 

[utdalltheway]

Should Jordan also end the occupation of Palestine? Or do we not refer to the land west of the Jordan river as Palestine?

I thought that land where Jordan is now was referred to as Trans-Jordan. my bad if not.

 

[vardamir1]

Thank you both and esp vardamir for providing a such well reasoned and succinct synopsis of the facts and history of this dispute. Those who suggest (and I'll assume that its with good intent) that history is best ignored in this instance are either optimistically naive or cannot comprehend the human psyche in this instance.

Great going Vardamir.

we can ignore, and need to ignore, history to a point, when it has no relevance. But when an encroachment process has started in 1947 and is still going on, then we cannot ignore it, it is part of the same process.

and critics would point out that the 1948 and 1967 'land grabs' by Israel happened when they themselves were attacked. True, but it is forbidden by international law to grab land during a war. If it weren't forbidden, Russian borders would go from Trieste to the Baltic coast now.

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

550 Palestinian fighters dead so far. Couple of thousand to go.

 

[vardamir1]

Should Jordan also end the occupation of Palestine? Or do we not refer to the land west of the Jordan river as Palestine?

Jordanians are also Palestinians though? Sure, if Jordan would throw some land into the bargain that would help.

 

[vardamir1]

Your omission of facts is staggering.

What happened to the 1948, 67 & 73 combined Arab attacks????????????

And your Un charter thingy is utter bollocks when it comes to the defensive side ie Israel.


Facts.

I did not omit any facts you claim I have omitted, read my post again. I refer to the attacks.

those attacks are not an excuse to grab land.

if you need it for defense, why build settlements then? The fact you keep building settlements, and have been since 1967, suggests you need this land not for defence, but for expansion.

 

[vardamir1]

UN 242 - what it means in reality


242 does not refer at all the 1949/1967 Lines;
242 mandates negotiation - give and take, rather than give and give;
242 never refers to withdrawal from ALL the territories, which would negate the principle of negotiation;
242 calls for the introduction of a NEW reality of 'secure and recognized borders', which indicates that the OLD reality of the 1949/1967 Lines is neither secure nor recognized.

it's the Palestinians who have had to give and give. First in 1947, then in 1949, then in 1967, and ever since, every time a new Israeli settlement goes up.

text:


The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

 

[Mihajlovic]

I thought that land where Jordan is now was referred to as Trans-Jordan. my bad if not.

If the river Jordan would not have existed, today Jordan would have probably been called Eastern Palestine, who knows. First that part of Palestine was named Trans-Jordan, and again later renamed Jordan. But if we go back to check the territory under the British Mandate it is clear that today's Jordan was 'Palestine'. In fact parts of Syria and Lebanon are referred to as being Palestine as well.

 

[CremboMan]

This thread is great, although I could swear I read it before about 2 years ago.

 

[Sultan]

This thread is great, although I could swear I read it before about 2 years ago.

Welcome buddy.

PS: You're right!

Keep well, and safe.

 

[vardamir1]

He really is fantastic. After spending only one month in Belgrade Mr Fisk managed to give an infallible interpretation of history, culture, mentality and thought processes of the average Serbian (during the Kosovo war).

The man has got serious mental issues and in desperate need of treatment.

you are still failing to address the facts he gives though...


The Marwahin massacre was never excused. The people of the village were ordered to flee, obeyed Israeli orders and were then attacked by an Israeli gunship. The refugees took their children and stood them around the truck in which they were travelling so that Israeli pilots would see they were innocents. Then the Israeli helicopter mowed them down at close range. Only two survived, by playing dead. Israel didn't even apologise.

 

[CremboMan]

Welcome buddy.

PS: You're right!

Keep well, and safe.

Thanks, same goes for you of course.

 

[Mihajlovic]

Jordanians are also Palestinians though? Sure, if Jordan would throw some land into the bargain that would help.

Sure. Jordan is a country with roughly 4 times more people but a territory which is 250 times bigger than the one of Gaza.

 

[Chris H]

your arguments...take any blame for the events of the last sixty years away from those who have committed crimes against their neighbors....I feel like your attitude toward Partition, and also toward Palestine, takes all responsibility for their actions away from those who have suffered any injustice, and I don't accept that.

You have very astutely and accurately detected on the central point upon which we differ. And thanks for putting it so simply.

Thanks for addressing my central point, your seeming assertion that a group that has suffered injustice can be forgiven for any response to that injustice - whether against their oppressor (here you cite Palestinian attacks on Israel) or another group entirely (here you cite Pakistan's actions in Bangladesh). But if this is the case, aren't the true villains in the Middle East nations like Germany, Poland, and Ukraine? After all, it was their persecution of Jews that led them to respond by establishing the state of Israel. The Israelis are blameless - they were wronged, and so they responded the only way they could. Shame on Germany, Poland and Ukraine for forcing the Jews into such action. It's ridiculous of course, but if you're willing to cite Bangladesh as something that must be blamed on Britain, it seems entirely reasonable.

Again, if I interpret you correctly, you seem to be willing to forgive any level of atrocity if it is in response to injustice. By this token, one could say that the extermination of 7 million Israelis, though not right, could be excusable - it's only a couple million more than likely died in Bangladesh. But if enough people in Gaza and their friends in the region believe this to be the case, and I believe this is not incompatible for example with what is outlined in Hamas' charter, would not Israel be right to assume that they really are locked in an all-out war for survival, since as you have stated elsewhere, a two-state solution is not possible? And if this is the case, isn't it then disingenuous to be outraged at the deaths of a few hundred civilians?

I say this not because one shouldn't be upset about the deaths, but because by your arguments, the Israeli offensive seems a)justifiable given the actions of Germany and Poland, which absolve Israel of any responsibility for their actions, and b)justifiable if enough people in the Middle East believe, as you do that any response to injustice is acceptable, including genocide.

 

[vardamir1]

Sure. Jordan is a country with roughly 4 times more people but a territory which is 250 times bigger than the one of Gaza.

I would entirely support a Palestinian state comprising the 'along 1949 ceasefire lines' West Bank, Gaza, and parts of Jordan. The stronger the new Palestinian state is, the more chance it has to survive.

 

[Chris H]

This thread is great, although I could swear I read it before about 2 years ago.

And two years before that, and two years before that, and two...etc.

 

[CptMarvel]

If the river Jordan would not have existed, today Jordan would have probably been called Eastern Palestine, who knows. First that part of Palestine was named Trans-Jordan, and again later renamed Jordan. But if we go back to check the territory under the British Mandate it is clear that today's Jordan was 'Palestine'. In fact parts of Syria and Lebanon are referred to as being Palestine as well.

(5) Legally, the British Mandate for Palestine included all of what is today Israel and Jordan.

True enough - but for only a mere eight months - July 1920 to March 1921. Further, British rule during that time was nominal; London made no effort to control the east bank. And even if one credits the stodgy reasoning that Transjordan was technically part of the Palestine Mandate until 1948, it does not follow that decisions taken by British imperial masters over seventy years ago should bind Israelis and Arabs today. For seven decades, the east and west banks have been separate polities; no amount of legal pedantry can change this reality.

From:http://www.danielpipes.org/article/202

 

[Mihajlovic]

(5) Legally, the British Mandate for Palestine included all of what is today Israel and Jordan.

True enough - but for only a mere eight months - July 1920 to March 1921. Further, British rule during that time was nominal; London made no effort to control the east bank. And even if one credits the stodgy reasoning that Transjordan was technically part of the Palestine Mandate until 1948, it does not follow that decisions taken by British imperial masters over seventy years ago should bind Israelis and Arabs today. For seven decades, the east and west banks have been separate polities; no amount of legal pedantry can change this reality.

From:http://www.danielpipes.org/article/202

If the decisions made seventy years ago are not binding for Arabs nor Israelis, on what basis is anyone ever going to determine how much land each of them should get?

By this logic the descendants of the Ottomans should come back and regain the land they possessed before 1922.

 

[CptMarvel]

By this logic the descendants of the Ottomans should come back and regain the land they possessed before 1922.

They possessed it, but they didn't live there, that area has been predominantly an Arabic area since the 7th century.

 

[Mihajlovic]

They possessed it, but they didn't live there, that area has been predominantly an Arabic area since the 7th century.

... and a predominately Christian and Jewish area before the 7th century, and a predominately Jewish area before the first century, and...

 

[Spoony]

... and a predominately Christian and Jewish area before the 7th century, and a predominately Jewish area before the first century, and...

I'm sure you'll be aware of the Arabisation of the Middle East, during 7th century. Mass conversions from a tribe that originated from the Southern Arabian peninsula. It's clearly more complicated than you're making out.

 

[CptMarvel]

I'm sure you'll be aware of the Arabisation of the Middle East, during 7th century. Mass conversions from a tribe that originated from the Southern Arabian peninsula. It's clearly more complicated than you're making out.

“But all these [different peoples who had come to Canaan] were additions, sprigs grafted onto the parent tree...And that parent tree was Canaanite...[The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin.” Illene Beatty, “Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan.”

 

[Spoony]

“But all these [different peoples who had come to Canaan] were additions, sprigs grafted onto the parent tree...And that parent tree was Canaanite...[The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin.” Illene Beatty, “Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan.”

Yes. They assimilated most of the Middle East and North Africa. Funnily enough, the Persians held their ground, and refused to be completely assimilated. They changed their script, but not their language and generally kept their identity(aside from religion). Otherwise, we'd be calling them Arabs and all, today.

 

[Mihajlovic]

I'm sure you'll be aware of the Arabisation of the Middle East, during 7th century. Mass conversions from a tribe that originated from the Southern Arabian peninsula. It's clearly more complicated than you're making out.

Of course it's much more complicated, we could as well end up talking about the Romanisation, Hellenization, etc. The question is how far back in history must one go in order to justify the amount of land he currently possess?

 

[CptMarvel]

Yes. They assimilated most of the Middle East and North Africa. Funnily enough, the Persians held their ground, and refused to be completely assimilated. They changed their script, but not their language and generally kept their identity(aside from religion). Otherwise, we'd be calling them Arabs and all, today.

I didn't know that, interesting stuff, I thought that the Arabs would have tried to forcefully integrate with them.

I think this was the major weakness of the British Empire, refusing to mix with the locals doomed it from the start.

 

[holyland red]

well that's why you should negotiate with them to stop rocket fire shouldn't you? Until November the 4th, when you made a stupid incursion into their territory there was very little rocket fire right?

you talk as if the rocket fire is happening 'just because they hate Israel'. It isn't, Israeli actions contributed to the situation being what it is now.

There is not much we can negotiate with Hamas about. It does not recognize our right to exist, and thus is not willing to negotiate with Israel anyway. As I have already posted earlier in the thread the "truce" was broken within its first week, only that Israel didn't respond to rocket fire back then and later on during the 6-month truce. As for the "stupid incursion" in November, it targeted a tunnel Hamas was busy digging under the Israeli-Gaza border. With all the respect to the truce that was one thing Israel could not tolerate. Hamas responded to that with rocket fire, and again Israel kept relatively quiet.

The heavy fighting started only after Hamas declared it wouldn't renew the ceasefire, and started bombarding Southern Israel with dozens of rockets.

I think we are both repeating the same arguments, so we better agree to disagree here. I have to admit that despite disagreeing with you on just about every aspect of the crisis, it's refreshing to debate this in a civilised manner with someone who's interested in a peaceful solution that will see both nations live side by side.

 

[Spoony]

Of course it's much more complicated, we could as well end up talking about the Romanisation, Hellenization, etc. The question is how far back in history must one go in order to justify the amount of land he currently possess?

I don;t think you can. The fact is they;re both living in those lands,and a solution should be found where they can both live in peace. Sadly, that's not likely to happen in our lifetime.

 

[Fearless]

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

[/I]

Exactly. The world ALL was omitted on purpose

 

[vardamir1]

Of course it's much more complicated, we could as well end up talking about the Romanisation, Hellenization, etc. The question is how far back in history must one go in order to justify the amount of land he currently possess?

it is a very valid question. The problem with saying 'only the present day counts' is that a country, knowing that 'conqueror is keeper' will just seize land knowing that with your logic it will be allowed to keep it.

the logical step is to go to the last UN partition, which is 1947. However, this is unfair on all the Jews kicked out from other Arab countries, so a partition along the lines of 1949 is more reasonable.

 

[Spoony]

I didn't know that, interesting stuff, I thought that the Arabs would have tried to forcefully integrate with them.

I think this was the major weakness of the British Empire, refusing to mix with the locals doomed it from the start.

I think they tried. Mongols/Turks were probably the best at it, but they didn't assimilate people, rather assimilated themselves into the cultures of the people they ruled over.

 

[vardamir1]

Exactly. The world ALL was omitted on purpose

It was not. If you say 'withdrawal from territorries', that can only mean a complete withdrawal.

 

[AlwaysRedwood]

You wouldn't read them anyway.

Thought you would have appreciated the red colour though.

I mostly don't read what you write because the world has determined you to be unworthy.

 

[Fearless]

It was not. If you say 'withdrawal from territorries', that can only mean a complete withdrawal.

It was.

Prof. Eugene V. Rostow, an author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs (1966-1969):

"Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338... rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to 'secure and recognized borders', which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949."


Arthur J. Goldberg, an author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (1965-1967):

"It calls for respect and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every state in the area. Since Israel never denied the sovereignty of its neighbouring countries, this language obviously requires those countries to acknowledge Israel's sovereignty."
"The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal are the word 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines' the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories, without defining the extent of withdrawal....There is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied by it on, and after, June 5, 1967... On certain aspects, the Resolution is less ambiguous than its withdrawal language. Resolution 242 specifically calls for termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every State in the area. The Resolution also specifically endorses free passage through international waterways...The efforts of the Arab States, strongly supported by the USSR, for a condemnation of Israel as the aggressor and for its withdrawal to the June 5, 1967 lines, failed to command the requisite support..."
- Columbia Journal of International Law, Vol 12 no 2, 1973

Lord Caradon, an author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations (1964-1970):

"We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever."
MacNeil/Lehrer Report - March 30, 1978

 

[Fearless]

I mostly don't read what you write because the world has determined you to be unworthy.

shut up.

 

[CptMarvel]

If the decisions made seventy years ago are not binding for Arabs nor Israelis, on what basis is anyone ever going to determine how much land each of them should get?

Do you mean the temporary decision of British government that Jordan was part of Palestine which Churchill subsequently changed and went back to the more traditional boundary of the River Jordan, or the permanent UN agreement of land partition?

 

[Spoony]

I didn't know that, interesting stuff, I thought that the Arabs would have tried to forcefully integrate with them.

.

They forced Arabic on the locals. . .but Persian culture flourished after Ummayad dynasty. But I've read somewhere the Persians were vehemently opposed to an Arabisation, unlike the pther parts of the Middle East and North Africa.


After the Islamic conquest of the Persian Empire, during the reign of the Ummayad dynasty, the Arab conquerors imposed Arabic as the primary language of the subject peoples throughout their empire. Hajjāj ibn Yusuf was not happy with the prevalence of the Persian language in the divan, ordered the official language of the conquered lands to be replaced by Arabic, sometimes by force.[4]

It is difficult to imagine the Arabs especially Ummayad dynasty not implementing anti-Persian policies in light of such events, writes Zarrinkoub in his famous Two centuries of silence, where he exclusively writes of this topic [5]. Reports of Persian speakers being tortured are also given in Abū al-Faraj al-Isfahāni's al-Aghānī. While no accurate references can be found.

However after the reign of the Umayyads, Iran and its society in particular experienced reigning dynasties who legitimize Persian languages and customs.

There are a number of historians who see the rule of the Umayyads as setting up the "dhimmah" to increase taxes from the dhimmis to benefit the Arab Muslim community financially and by discouraging conversion.[6] Islam was initially associated with the ethnic identity of the Arab and required formal association with an Arab tribe and the adoption of the client status of mawali.[6] Governors lodged complaints with the caliph when he enacted laws that made conversion easier, depriving the provinces of revenues.

 

[AlwaysRedwood]

The Center For Strategic and International Studies.

Tactical Gains, Strategic Defeat?

It is also far from clear that the tactical gains are worth the political and strategic cost to Israel. At least to date, the reporting from within Gaza indicates that each new Israeli air strike or advance on the ground has increased popular support for Hamas and anger against Israel in Gaza. The same is true in the West Bank and the Islamic world. Iran and Hezbollah are capitalizing on the conflict. Anti-American demonstrations over the fighting have taken place in areas as “remote” as Kabul. Even friends of Israel like Turkey see the war as unjust. The Egyptian government comes under greater pressure with every casualty. The US is seen as having done virtually nothing, focusing only on the threat from Hamas, and the President elect is getting as much blame as the President who still serves.

One strong warning of the level of anger in the region comes from Prince Turki al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia. Prince Turki has been the Saudi ambassador in both London and Washington. He has always been a leading voice of moderation. For years he has been a supporter of the Saudi peace process and an advocate of Jewish-Christian-Islamic dialog. Few Arab voices deserve more to be taken seriously, and Prince Turki described the conflict as follows in a speech at the opening of the 6th Gulf Forum on January 6th, “The Bush administration has left you (with) a disgusting legacy and a reckless position towards the massacres and bloodshed of innocents in Gaza…Enough is enough, today we are all Palestinians and we seek martyrdom for God and for Palestine, following those who died in Gaza.” Neither Israel nor the US can gain from a war that produces this reaction from one of the wisest and most moderate voices in the Arab world.

This raises a question that every Israeli and its supporters now needs to ask. What is the strategic purpose behind the present fighting? After two weeks of combat Olmert, Livni, and Barak have still not said a word that indicates that Israel will gain strategic or grand strategic benefits, or tactical benefits much larger than the gains it made from selectively striking key Hamas facilities early in the war. In fact, their silence raises haunting questions about whether they will repeat the same massive failures made by Israel’s top political leadership during the Israeli-Hezbollah War in 2006...If Israel has a credible ceasefire plan that could really secure Gaza, it is not apparent. If Israel has a plan that could credibly destroy and replace Hamas, it is not apparent. If Israel has any plan to help the Gazans and move them back towards peace, it is not apparent. If Israel has any plan to use US or other friendly influence productively, it not apparent.

As we have seen all too clearly from US mistakes, any leader can take a tough stand and claim that tactical gains are a meaningful victory. If this is all that Olmert, Livni, and Barak have for an answer, then they have disgraced themselves and damaged their country and their friends. If there is more, it is time to make such goals public and demonstrate how they can be achieved.

As I heard someone say the other day, "Israel needed to something, but not this."

This is going to be an epic and enormous fail for Israel, much like Iraq was for the US.

I've never really taken sides in the conflict. I think the Palestinians have been treated poorly, but terrorism tends to lead to punishment. And Israel was put there by the West, so they were put in a bad situation. Also, the 1967 war set all this up and that's on the heads of the Arabs.

But this current massacre is beyond words. The killing of hundreds of children is not justifiable. At all. The excuse of killing innocents to save innocents is simply retarded.

I can only speak for myself and how this conflict has changed me. Today, Israel is a monster that deserves nothing but punishment. Israel is now on par with hideous countries like North Korea.

That's how I see it. Today I completely hate Israel. And that's because of what they are doing today.

Congrats.

 

[Fearless]

Do you mean the temporary decision of British government that Jordan was part of Palestine which Churchill subsequently changed and went back to the more traditional boundary of the River Jordan, or the permanent UN agreement of land partition?

Now you begin to understand the depth of the issue.

And how the Arabs have rejected every single idea.

 

[vardamir1]

There is not much we can negotiate with Hamas about. It does not recognize our right to exist, and thus is not willing to negotiate with Israel anyway. As I have already posted earlier in the thread the "truce" was broken within its first week, only that Israel didn't respond to rocket fire back then and later on during the 6-month truce. As for the "stupid incursion" in November, it targeted a tunnel Hamas was busy digging under the Israeli-Gaza border. With all the respect to the truce that was one thing Israel could not tolerate. Hamas responded to that with rocket fire, and again Israel kept relatively quiet.

The heavy fighting started only after Hamas declared it wouldn't renew the ceasefire, and started bombarding Southern Israel with dozens of rockets.

I think we are both repeating the same arguments, so we better agree to disagree here. I have to admit that despite disagreeing with you on just about every aspect of the crisis, it's refreshing to debate this in a civilised manner with someone who's interested in a peaceful solution that will see both nations live side by side.

some Hamas leaders did say that they would in theory welcome a two-state solution, so I fail to see your 'we can't negotiate with Hamas' point here.

I understand that one thing leads to another in here, so the Nov 4th incursion and the blockade were also responses to Hamas actions. But the point here is that blockade, whatever its merits, was causing such suffering and such grevious harm to Gaza (how was restricting international aid agencies hepful to security?) that rocket attacks were the only logical response. So you can't claim that Hamas attacks Israel just out of pure hate (which is what many Israelis want us to believe), you have to accept that certain Israeli actions lead it to attack, just like Hamas actions lead Israel to attack.

But if we accept that Israeli actions lead Hamas to attack, then surely, by the same logic, overtures of peace instead of those of war would have obtained equally good results as the present conflict might, without the deaths of 800 people (250 of them children according to some UK child rights programs).

Bottom line is, I do not buy the Israeli claim that (a) Hamas would attack them whatever Israel does and (b) that Hamas cannot be negotiated with. Since Israel has blockaded Gaza ever since Hamas was elected, and refused to negotiate, both of those doubts are totally justified.