Palestinian statehood

[LawBeefaroni]

That's asymmetrical warfare at it's most cold and calculated.

For every technological/training/manpower advantage Israel has, Hamas will seek to offset it in any way possible. It is reprehensible to use human shields (willing or otherwise) but as long as the tactic works, it will remain in the arsenal.

It will take some highly surgical or exotic non-lethal weaponry to overcome the effectiveness of human shields in Gaza.

OK, when we're saying that human shields are very effective and that they work we realize that they really aren't and don't right? In fact, it seems like they're less human shields and more human sacrifices.

Yes, Israel is trying to limit the civilian casualties as much as reasonably possible, but that doesn't mean that if they're being fired upon from a civilian building they will never respond and allow it to keep firing. Such a building becomes a legitimate military target.

What it is effective is in terms of PR in terms of first impressions and shallow looks at the conflict.

They're effective in that the IDF hasn't rolled across Gaza with tanks following artillery bombardment and taken out every single Hamas fighter. Israel has had to stay their hand throughout the conflict to avoid civilian casualties and civilian property damage.

Yes, human shields don't always work as "shields" but when they fail in that capacity, they often work as propaganda.

[Isgrimnur]

One of the main tenets of warfare is to attack the desire of the enemy population and government to continue to wage war. If the outcry from the citizens and the international community becomes strong enough, or it poses a risk to the economic and political lives of the aggressor, using human shields does work.

And there are plenty of people that don't look past the first impressions and shallow looks of the conflict. Plenty of people in this world have no problems becoming politically active while remaining almost completely uninformed or locked into self-reinforcing biased reporting.

[LawBeefaroni]

It is reprehensible to use human shields (willing or otherwise) but as long as the tactic works, it will remain in the arsenal.

It will take some highly surgical or exotic non-lethal weaponry to overcome the effectiveness of human shields in Gaza.

I disagree. The only thing that's going to overcome the effectiveness of human shields in Gaza is for the human shields in Gaza to start directing some of their anger, frustration and violence toward the people (Hamas) using them as human shields instead of at the people (Israel) that are trying - but sometimes failing - to avoid hitting them.

Yes, and that's the political solution we're all hoping/waiting for. But short of that, it will take a new military solution.

[El Guapo]

It is reprehensible to use human shields (willing or otherwise) but as long as the tactic works, it will remain in the arsenal.

It will take some highly surgical or exotic non-lethal weaponry to overcome the effectiveness of human shields in Gaza.

I disagree. The only thing that's going to overcome the effectiveness of human shields in Gaza is for the human shields in Gaza to start directing some of their anger, frustration and violence toward the people (Hamas) using them as human shields instead of at the people (Israel) that are trying - but sometimes failing - to avoid hitting them.

Yes, and that's the political solution we're all hoping/waiting for. But short of that, it will take a new military solution.

Bear in mind that even if the people in Gaza *do* (now or in the future) want to direct anger at Hamas over their tactics, they're not exactly free to do so without risk of harm to themselves and their families.

[Defiant]

They're effective in that the IDF hasn't rolled across Gaza with tanks following artillery bombardment and taken out every single Hamas fighter. Israel has had to stay their hand throughout the conflict to avoid civilian casualties and civilian property damage.

Err, Israel did roll it's tanks into Gaza. And plenty of civilian property in buildings used by Hamas were destroyed.

But while limiting civilian casualties was no doubt a factor in limiting the scope of their ground operations, I'm skeptical that human shields were the reason. While I am not a military expert, you would have more access to non-lethal and surgical weapons on the ground. You would also be better able to, you know, look inside a building than rely solely on technology to determine whether an area was vacant of civilians.

Some of the possible reasons I can think of that they didn't expand the scope:

1) They wanted to target Hamas's infrastructure (tunnels, rockets) to carry out attacks, rather than target Hamas.
2) It would have taken a lot of time (months/years) to go through methodically and effectively take out every single Hamas soldier. Consider that the battle of Jenin - It took two weeks to go through a single district in a city that itself is 1/10 the size of Gaza.
3) Being on the ground (especially for a long period of time) leads to greater risk of an operation escalating and going out of the control of the military leaders (eg, if a soldier is kidnap, or there's a really bad battle)
4) While the percentage of civilian deaths might be smaller (even if things didn't escalate), the total number might be larger overall.

[Holman]

Bear in mind that even if the people in Gaza *do* (now or in the future) want to direct anger at Hamas over their tactics, they're not exactly free to do so without risk of harm to themselves and their families.

There's also the fact that people who are invaded tend to rally behind their institutions even when their incompetence brought it upon them. Gazans aren't going to look at their dead neighbors and friends and family members and blame Hamas instead of Israel.

Economic failure can make people think "Our leaders suck," but enemy bullets never do.

[Defiant]

One thing that's presumably helping in the PR battle is that more reporters are saying different things when they leave Gaza:

This report is being aired on NDTV and published on ndtv.com after our team left the Gaza strip - Hamas has not taken very kindly to any reporting of its rockets being fired. But just as we reported the devastating consequences of Israel's offensive on Gaza's civilians, it is equally important to report on how Hamas places those very civilians at risk by firing rockets deep from the heart of civilian zones.

NDTV Exclusive: How Hamas Assembles and Fires Rockets

[Defiant]

Bear in mind that even if the people in Gaza *do* (now or in the future) want to direct anger at Hamas over their tactics, they're not exactly free to do so without risk of harm to themselves and their families.

There's also the fact that people who are invaded tend to rally behind their institutions even when their incompetence brought it upon them. Gazans aren't going to look at their dead neighbors and friends and family members and blame Hamas instead of Israel.

Economic failure can make people think "Our leaders suck," but enemy bullets never do.

It may prop up Hamas in the short term, but if history shows us, unless Hamas has something to show for this, it probably won't gain in the long term.
For example:

Support for firing rockets from Gaza into Israel has dropped sharply, from 74% in December 2012, to 38% now, survey conducted by Jerusalem Media and Communications Center shows; 80% back non-violent "resistance" against Israel.

Poll for April 2013

There was a recent poll from a couple of months back that showed that Hamas had far, far less public support compared to Fatah.

[LawBeefaroni]

They're effective in that the IDF hasn't rolled across Gaza with tanks following artillery bombardment and taken out every single Hamas fighter. Israel has had to stay their hand throughout the conflict to avoid civilian casualties and civilian property damage.

Err, Israel did roll it's tanks into Gaza. And plenty of civilian property in buildings used by Hamas were destroyed.

But while limiting civilian casualties was no doubt a factor in limiting the scope of their ground operations, I'm skeptical that human shields were the reason. While I am not a military expert, you would have more access to non-lethal and surgical weapons on the ground. You would also be better able to, you know, look inside a building than rely solely on technology to determine whether an area was vacant of civilians.

Some of the possible reasons I can think of that they didn't expand the scope:

1) They wanted to target Hamas's infrastructure (tunnels, rockets) to carry out attacks, rather than target Hamas.
2) It would have taken a lot of time (months/years) to go through methodically and effectively take out every single Hamas soldier. Consider that the battle of Jenin - It took two weeks to go through a single district in a city that itself is 1/10 the size of Gaza.
3) Being on the ground (especially for a long period of time) leads to greater risk of an operation escalating and going out of the control of the military leaders (eg, if a soldier is kidnap, or there's a really bad battle)
4) While the percentage of civilian deaths might be smaller (even if things didn't escalate), the total number might be larger overall.

The use of human shields severely hampers operations. They are not the sole factor, but they are a large reason why the IDF cannot operate utilizing full advantage of their vastly superior training and equipment.

Why would it 1) take so long? They have to deal with civilians. Why is there 2) greater risk? They can't clear out entire swaths of the city and have to fight surrounded by civilians, any one of whom may be a Hamas fighter.

The fact that Gaza is a crowded, functioning city (the Gaza Strip has a population density over 10 times that of Israel's - it's even higher than Chicago) makes it basically one giant human shield.


And when I say "roll tanks" I mean proper tank warfare, not close infantry support and engineering duty just over the border. I mean an unrelenting push putting HESH or XM102 rounds on every single muzzle flash you see or think you see. They haven't done this because they still view Gaza City as a city with civilians to be protected, not a battleground. It's why Hamas fights from there.

[AWS260]

It may prop up Hamas in the short term, but if history shows us, unless Hamas has something to show for this, it probably won't gain in the long term.

At which point it will provoke another mini-war with Israel, sacrificing the lives of more Gazans in order to bolster its popular support.

[Defiant]

Why would it 1) take so long? They have to deal with civilians.

Sure. They also have to deal with ambushes and booby traps and methodically searching house to house and dealing with potential attacks.

Why is there 2) greater risk? They can't clear out entire swaths of the city and have to fight surrounded by civilians, any one of whom may be a Hamas fighter.

Err, and the fact that they would be going into an area where Hamas would have much better access to fighting them, killing and kidnapping them. The city could be completely empty of civilians and it would still be true.

The fact that Gaza is a crowded, functioning city (the Gaza Strip has a population density over 10 times that of Israel's - it's even higher than Chicago) makes it basically one giant human shield.

Sure, there are civilians - that's urban warfare - something Israel has experience with But working on the ground means you have access to use non-leathal weapons, can better identify civilians vs combatants, etc. Those very things that are necessary to making human shields less effective.

[LawBeefaroni]

Err, and the fact that they would be going into an area where Hamas would have much better access to fighting them, killing and kidnapping them. The city could be completely empty of civilians and it would still be true.

If the city were completely empty of civilians, they could just bomb it and mop up later. You don't risk close quarters if you don't have to. With civilians you don't want to kill, you kind of have to risk close quarters because there's no other way to clear buildings and blocks. You can't just blow them up. So having civilians present does matter. Unless you're Russia and the city is Grozny (not to single out Russia, there are examples worldwide).

[Defiant]

Err, and the fact that they would be going into an area where Hamas would have much better access to fighting them, killing and kidnapping them. The city could be completely empty of civilians and it would still be true.

If the city were completely empty of civilians, they could just bomb it and mop up later. You don't risk close quarters if you don't have to. With civilians you don't want to kill, you kind of have to risk close quarters because there's no other way to clear buildings and blocks. You can't just blow them up. So having civilians present does matter.

Err, sure, but I consider civilians within the combat zone not the same thing as Hamas using human shields (eg, picking a very crowded area to shoot from, using civilian buildings, forcing civilians to stay, etc.)

(Although bombing doesn't entirely work if they're hiding in tunnels and underground shelter as a lot of them have been, in which case bombing may not be effective if you want to take out all of Hamas.)

[Defiant]

Before/After satellite images

[LawBeefaroni]

Err, sure, but I consider civilians within the combat zone not the same thing as Hamas using human shields (eg, picking a very crowded area to shoot from, using civilian buildings, forcing civilians to stay, etc.)

Living and hiding among civilians while actively engaging in hostilities falls under the category of using human shields IMO. It's not just surrounding a building with civilians and launching some rockets from the roof.

(Although bombing doesn't entirely work if they're hiding in tunnels and underground shelter as a lot of them have been, in which case bombing may not be effective if you want to take out all of Hamas.)

Well, yeah, but once you've razed most of the city it's easy to get at the tunnels.

[LawBeefaroni]

Before/After satellite images

Those are neighborhoods, but sure, several buildings were bombed. We already knew that.

This is wholesale bombardment:

Spoiler:

Before:


After:


Keep in mind, this wasn't 1943, this the 1990s.

[Defiant]

Before/After satellite images

Those are neighborhoods, but sure, several buildings were bombed. We already knew that.

Err, posting the link wasn't really related to any argument.

[Isgrimnur]

UK minister resigns

Foreign Office minister Baroness Warsi has resigned from the government, saying its policy on the crisis in Gaza is "morally indefensible".

She wrote on her Twitter feed that she was leaving with "deep regret".

Lady Warsi, who was previously chairman of the Conservative Party, became the first female Muslim cabinet minister when David Cameron took office in 2010.

The prime minister said he "regretted" that she had not discussed her decision to quit with him before announcing it.

Labour backed Lady Warsi's comments, but Chancellor George Osborne called her resignation "disappointing and frankly unnecessary".

She was born in the UK and is of Pakistani heritage. Reading her wiki page makes it clear that you can't pigeonhole her with regard to religious, social, or geopolitical issues.

[GreenGoo]

So what is the UK's policy on the crisis in Gaza? If it was morally reprehensible indefensible I would figure I would have heard of it by now.

[Isgrimnur]

Mr Cameron's letter of reply says he is "sorry" she has resigned, adding: "I realise that this must not have been an easy decision for you to make and very much regret that we were not able to speak about your decision beforehand."

It continues: "I understand your strength of feeling on the current crisis in the Middle East - the situation in Gaza is intolerable." But he says: "Our policy has always been consistently clear: we support a negotiated two state solution as the only way to resolve this conflict once and for all and to allow Israelis and Palestinians to live safely in peace."
...
On Monday the prime minister said United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had been right to speak out against an Israeli attack near a UN-run school in Gaza. But he would not say if he agreed that it had been "a moral outrage and a criminal act".

He said: "Hamas displays no regard for human life and must cease firing rockets into Israel and digging tunnels to facilitate the murder of civilians. But sustainable security for Israel cannot be achieved simply by permanent blockade, aerial bombardment and periodic ground incursion."

[GreenGoo]

Ah.

That's intolerable.

[Defiant]

Experts Warn Situation In Gaza Will Get Worse Before It Gets Much Worse

[Defiant]

Civilian or Not? New Fight in Tallying the Dead From the Gaza Conflict:

By Tuesday, this is what they had come up with: 1,865 “martyrs” from “Israeli aggression” since July 6: 429 under age 18, 79 over 60, 243 women. The Palestinian Ministry of Health does not categorize victims as civilian or combatant, but others do: The United Nations — which had a lower death toll, 1,814 — said that at least 72 percent were civilians, while two Gaza-based groups put the percentage at 82 (Al Mezan Center for Human Rights) and 84 (the Palestinian Center for Human Rights).

Israel has a very different assessment. The military says it took the lives of 900 “terrorists,” but it did not provide specifics beyond the 368 cases listed in 28 entries on its blog. Politicians have been saying that 47 percent of the dead were fighters, citing a study by an Israeli counterterrorism group that is impressive in its documentation, using photographs and Internet tributes, but analyzes only the first 152 casualties, when the assault was exclusively from the air.

It seems unlikely that there will ever be a definitive breakdown both sides accept: Israel contends that some of the casualties were caused by errant Hamas rockets or mortars. Human rights groups acknowledge that people killed by Hamas as collaborators and people who died naturally, or perhaps through domestic violence, are most likely counted as well.

Then there is the question of who counts as a “combatant.”

There are uniformed men actively firing weapons. But Hamas also has political figures, members of its security service and employees of its ministries. In some eyes, anyone affiliated with the organization, which professes a goal of destroying Israel, is a combatant.

The Times analysis, looking at 1,431 names, shows that the population most likely to be militants, men ages 20 to 29, is also the most overrepresented in the death toll: They are 9 percent of Gaza’s 1.7 million residents, but 34 percent of those killed whose ages were provided. At the same time, women and children under 15, the least likely to be legitimate targets, were the most underrepresented, making up 71 percent of the population and 33 percent of the known-age casualties.

[GreenGoo]

Holy fucking shit.

I know it's important to those treating this as something that can be won by keeping score, but does it really matter if 500 people were civilians or 1,500 were civilians? Is there some number (besides zero) that would remove criticism of Israel? No there isn't. Even zero would not stop the criticism, so trying to categorize victims and squabbling over exact numbers seems completely useless.

40 thousand ISIS troops have ransacked Iraq. They are currently starving thousands of religious minorities to death in the mountains. Convert or die they say. But Israel is the greatest threat to the middle east because they may or may not have killed X or Y number of civilians, and we need to put all this emphasis and focus and energy into figuring out what the exact number and classifications are for the dead?

We get it. You (the world you) don't like Israel, and killing civilians is bad, even in self defense. But come on, a little perspective, context and reality check is in order.

[El Guapo]

My latest pet peeve is there are a couple people on my FB feed who intermittently post a body count. A la: "Israeli dead - X number. Palestinian dead - Y number." Presumably they think that this is actual analysis.

Relatedly, I also find it a bit odd when people will concede that Israel has a reasonable basis for military action (i.e. rockets being fired into their territory) but say that Israel's actual military actions are wildly disproportionate based on the casualty total. How exactly did you, Mr. Liberal Arts major, come up with the number of casualties that is reasonably acceptable for a military operation in the Gaza Strip, and consequently how are you so certain that it has been exceeded?

It's totally reasonable to raise the question, I just don't get being so *certain* that the military strategy that Israel has chosen is disproportionate based on a casualty number with no further analysis or point of comparison.

[Pyperkub]

The problem for Israel is that they are the only (perceived) Adult in the room and end up with the lion's share of the responsibility/blame for what's going on.

Netanyahu is also not a very sympathetic figure... in fact, he's kind of dick. He's still the most responsible leader in the region.

[Isgrimnur]

Apparently, when they have no skin in the game, they want there to be more equity. When the casualty totals are 30:1 between two other players, that's not playing fair. But if it's their country's operations, there's no level of lopsidedness that's not acceptable.

[El Guapo]

I enjoy the implicit corollary that military operations where you take higher casualties are by definition more ethical. That General Pyrrhus was super ethical, for example.

[Rip]

I enjoy the implicit corollary that military operations where you take higher casualties are by definition more ethical. That General Pyrrhus was super ethical, for example.

Yea, that kinda makes Hitler one of the most ethical leaders in modern history.

[Defiant]

"[IDF] soldiers and commanders must limit their use of weapons and tactics that lead to the harm and unnecessary loss of people and civilian facilities."

That's according to... Hamas

[LawBeefaroni]

"[IDF] soldiers and commanders must limit their use of weapons and tactics that lead to the harm and unnecessary loss of people and civilian facilities."

That's according to... Hamas

From the Hamas manual as touched on here.

[Isgrimnur]

I enjoy the implicit corollary that military operations where you take higher casualties are by definition more ethical. That General Pyrrhus was super ethical, for example.

Yea, that kinda makes Hitler one of the most ethical leaders in modern history.

You're failing to calculate for the unnecessary civilian casualties mucking up the calculus indelibly against him.

[Kurth]

Exhibit 1 supporting Israel's judgment that it cannot hope to achieve a lasting peace based on a two state solution by negotiating with Hamas:

Blood libel: the myth that fuels anti-Semitism
(CNN) – Last week a video of Hamas spokesman Osama Hamdan emerged in which he claimed that Jews use the blood of non-Jewish children to make matzo for Passover.

The translation of Hamdan’s interview with the Lebanese television station Al-Quds on July 28 reports him as saying:

"We all remember how the Jews used to slaughter Christians, in order to mix their blood in their holy matzos. This is not a figment of imagination or something taken from a film. It is a fact, acknowledged by their own books and by historical evidence. It happened everywhere, here and there."

When confronted about his statements by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Monday, Hamdan did not retract his claim or distance himself from the blood libel slur. His only defense was that he “has Jewish friends.”

Watch the video if you get a chance. It's as bad as the Hamas representative who refused to condemn the killings of the three kidnapped Israelis. These guys really don't even try to hide what villains they are. It's all out there for the world to see.

[Defiant]

"[IDF] soldiers and commanders must limit their use of weapons and tactics that lead to the harm and unnecessary loss of people and civilian facilities."

That's according to... Hamas

From the Hamas manual as touched on here.

Missed that.

Still, between their normal views and this statement... Talk about cognitive dissonance.

[Pyperkub]

My latest pet peeve is there are a couple people on my FB feed who intermittently post a body count. A la: "Israeli dead - X number. Palestinian dead - Y number." Presumably they think that this is actual analysis.

Interesting: Israel, Gaza, War & Data – The Art of Personalizing Propaganda:

While war rages on the ground in Gaza and across Israeli skies, there’s an all-out information war unraveling in social networked spaces.

Israelis and their proponents are likely to see IDF videos such as this one detailing arms and tunnels found within mosques passed around in their social media feeds, while Palestinian groups are likely to pass around images displaying the sheer destruction caused by IDF forces to Gazan mosques. One side sees videos of rockets intercepted in the Tel-Aviv skies, and other sees the lethal aftermath of a missile attack on a Gazan neighborhood.
The better we get at modeling user preferences, the more accurately we construct recommendation engines that fully capture user attention. In a way, we are building personalized propaganda engines that feeds users content which makes them feel good and throws away the uncomfortable bits.

We used to be able to hold media accountable for misinforming the public. Now we only have ourselves to blame.

Of course, followers of politics in the US are no strangers to this method of only listening to sources telling the message you want to hear...

[GreenGoo]

The problem for Israel is that they are the only (perceived) Adult in the room and end up with the lion's share of the responsibility/blame for what's going on.

Netanyahu is also not a very sympathetic figure... in fact, he's kind of dick. He's still the most responsible leader in the region.

This has been the only thing I could come up with. Well that, or the entire world really, really hates jews. I can't bring myself to believe the latter, so I just assume no one likes to see those in power picking on those with no power. Which is true. But simply ignoring the fact that if attacks on Israelis stopped then all this death would go away is insanely narrow visioned.

[GreenGoo]

I enjoy the implicit corollary that military operations where you take higher casualties are by definition more ethical. That General Pyrrhus was super ethical, for example.

Yea, that kinda makes Hitler one of the most ethical leaders in modern history.

You're failing to calculate for the unnecessary civilian casualties mucking up the calculus indelibly against him.

He just needs the right accountant to classify more as combatants. Problem solved.

[GreenGoo]

Watch the video if you get a chance. It's as bad as the Hamas representative who refused to condemn the killings of the three kidnapped Israelis. These guys really don't even try to hide what villains they are. It's all out there for the world to see.

And then we get to hear how Senior Foreign Office Minister quits because of the indefensible policy of supporting a 2 state solution.

It's starting to make me want to pull my hair out.

I feel like I can't give the violations, accidents and deaths caused by the IDF the concern they deserve, because the entire world seems to ignore the entire set of facts to criticize Israel unilaterally. It's not that I don't agree that civilian deaths are a tragedy, it's that I can't agree that they are the only meaningful data in this conflict (parse that sentence ).

These guys (Hamas) are absolute bastards of the lowest form, but, but, jews! Also, civilians (that we intentionally put in harms way)!

[Defiant]

My latest pet peeve is there are a couple people on my FB feed who intermittently post a body count. A la: "Israeli dead - X number. Palestinian dead - Y number." Presumably they think that this is actual analysis.

Interesting: Israel, Gaza, War & Data – The Art of Personalizing Propaganda:

While war rages on the ground in Gaza and across Israeli skies, there’s an all-out information war unraveling in social networked spaces.

Israelis and their proponents are likely to see IDF videos such as this one detailing arms and tunnels found within mosques passed around in their social media feeds, while Palestinian groups are likely to pass around images displaying the sheer destruction caused by IDF forces to Gazan mosques. One side sees videos of rockets intercepted in the Tel-Aviv skies, and other sees the lethal aftermath of a missile attack on a Gazan neighborhood.
The better we get at modeling user preferences, the more accurately we construct recommendation engines that fully capture user attention. In a way, we are building personalized propaganda engines that feeds users content which makes them feel good and throws away the uncomfortable bits.

We used to be able to hold media accountable for misinforming the public. Now we only have ourselves to blame.

Of course, followers of politics in the US are no strangers to this method of only listening to sources telling the message you want to hear...

This has been around for years - take a look at the book The Filter Bubble for more information in the echo chamber that the internet is becoming.

[Pyperkub]

My latest pet peeve is there are a couple people on my FB feed who intermittently post a body count. A la: "Israeli dead - X number. Palestinian dead - Y number." Presumably they think that this is actual analysis.

Interesting: Israel, Gaza, War & Data – The Art of Personalizing Propaganda:

While war rages on the ground in Gaza and across Israeli skies, there’s an all-out information war unraveling in social networked spaces.

Israelis and their proponents are likely to see IDF videos such as this one detailing arms and tunnels found within mosques passed around in their social media feeds, while Palestinian groups are likely to pass around images displaying the sheer destruction caused by IDF forces to Gazan mosques. One side sees videos of rockets intercepted in the Tel-Aviv skies, and other sees the lethal aftermath of a missile attack on a Gazan neighborhood.
The better we get at modeling user preferences, the more accurately we construct recommendation engines that fully capture user attention. In a way, we are building personalized propaganda engines that feeds users content which makes them feel good and throws away the uncomfortable bits.

We used to be able to hold media accountable for misinforming the public. Now we only have ourselves to blame.

Of course, followers of politics in the US are no strangers to this method of only listening to sources telling the message you want to hear...

This has been around for years - take a look at the book The Filter Bubble for more information in the echo chamber that the internet is becoming.

Yeah - it's tough to recognize it even when you are trying to avoid it. Lately when I fire up Memeorandum with the memeorandum colors plugin, the conversations tend to be all red or all blue, and it's only the extremely rare story which gets discussion from both colors.