UN apologists: respond to this.

[Ajidica]

I agree with what TF said; which is why the UN should thank God by name that the OAU was even more useless as the OAU never got past the "Dictators deciding where they want to go on holiday" stage.

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. Modern Judaism has undergone significant changes over the intervening two millennia, to the extent that a temporally displaced Jew from 116 BCE wouldn't know what to make of even a "conservative" modern Jewish service.

The Orthodox tradition is, to me, the only authentic one, and the only one that can last. Jewish denominations aren't analogous to Christian denominations; they're really places on a spectrum of what concessions to make to the mainstream culture. Conservative and Reform are modern versions of the Hellenized Jews. Furthermore, if English-descended evangelicals can come to identify with Jewish nationalism and its associated mythology, it's hardly a stretch to assume that the Jews of antiquity could have.

The result though is that you have a group of people reaching back two millennia for a claim to a state with the intent to displace the current occupants.

Zionism wasn't intended to displace the current occupants. There was, even until mid-century, a school of thought which argued that Jewish independence ought to be autonomy within a binational state (focusing on how early Zionists viewed the Arabs is just post hoc reasoning: it simply wasn't obvious at the time what would happen eventually).

Given that the legal status of East Jerusalem and the West Bank is the definition of unclear, by your own definition, the sites associated with Arabic and Muslim heritage cannot rely on the protection of the Israeli government.

Sure. Didn't I just say that I don't trust UNESCO to preserve disputed sites objectively? My point was that they only make politically charged issues worse, and that nonpolitical sites could rely on their host countries for protection.

Either way, a man the Israeli government own investigation of bearing personal responsibility for allowing Phalangist militia into a refugee camp to massacre refugees was later elected Prime Minister sends a pretty clear message that a number of Israeli voters aren't particularly bothered by his association with war crimes.

I don't think so, no. Sharon was the romantic hero of early Israel; he played a huge role in the conquest of Sinai in '67 as well as in stopping the advance of the Egyptian army after it broke through the Israeli line on the Suez (one of Israel's most traumatic moments). Churchill was a trigger-happy imperialist, but I'd wager that plenty of Britons still admire him.

Has the displacement of Arabs, as opposed to simply non-citizens, ever been a point of Israeli policy? Neither are humanitarian, by any means, but it's an important distinction none the less, given that it's the difference between driving a very hard and quite possibly unjust bargain on the one hand, and actual genocide on the other.

That would be ethnic cleansing, not genocide. Of course, ethnic cleansing can sometimes be a perfectly valid action to take- notice how all those democratic, stable countries in Central and Eastern Europe only became that way after their borders started conforming to linguistic lines?

 

[Perfection]

You have to click on the blue hyperlink saying "Here's the full text" in the OP.

Oops! Sorry I missed that. Awesome that you did that. Wish the people who wrote the article would do the same.

I can't see where they actually deny the importance of these sites in Jewish or Christian traditions. They seem to just be denying its status as Israeli territory.

 

[Mouthwash]

Oops! Sorry I missed that. Awesome that you did that. Wish the people who wrote the article would do the same.

I can't see where they actually deny the importance of these sites in Jewish or Christian traditions. They seem to just be denying its status as Israeli territory.

Israel represents Judaism as a culture the same way that the nation-states of China or Iran represent Chinese or Persian culture (it demands that Israel remove the cave of the Patriarchs- as in Abraham and Isaac- from its national heritage list).

It also refers to sites holy to both Judaism and Islam by their Arabic names. Even the Wailing Wall is called the "al-Burak Plaza."

 

[Perfection]

Before I continue I do want to make it clear that I know I'm coming from a place of relative ignorance about the details regarding Israelis and Palestinians. I know I'm stepping into an extremely delicate and difficult situation that has cost the lives of far too many. So take it as a given that I'm humbly asking questions and only making tentative conclusions.

Israel represents Judaism as a culture the same way that the nation-states of China or Iran represent Chinese or Persian culture (it demands that Israel remove the cave of the Patriarchs- as in Abraham and Isaac- from its national heritage list).

Furthermore, it refers to sites holy to both Judaism and Islam by their Arabic names. Even the Wailing Wall is called the "al-Burak Plaza."

I did some cursory googling and I can't seem to find this national heritage list. Are places outside of Israeli and Palestinian territory also listed? It seems if a government is pulling the double duty of being both a national government and a worldwide preserver of a culture that it makes sure whichever hat it's wearing is clearly known.

I can see the naming as a legitimate point of contention but I don't see a denial of its importance to the Jewish people. And it makes some mention of the importance in the opening sections. I will say that it does fail to strongly rebuke a denialist claim.

 

[Ajidica]

The Orthodox tradition is, to me, the only authentic one, and the only one that can last.

I wasn't aware Judaism had a Pope who pronounced whether or not a religious tradition is the "authentic one".

Furthermore, if English-descended evangelicals can come to identify with Jewish nationalism and its associated mythology, it's hardly a stretch to assume that the Jews of antiquity could have.

Not sure where you get the idea I'm English or an evangelical, but whatever. Makes more sense than the guy who thought I was Muslim because of my avatar.

Zionism wasn't intended to displace the current occupants.

So the whole "land without a people for a people without a land" is just a misunderstanding?

In 1914 Chaim Weizmann, later president of the World Zionist Congress and the first president of the state of Israel said: "In its initial stage Zionism was conceived by its pioneers as a movement wholly depending on mechanical factors: there is a country which happens to be called Palestine, a country without a people, and, on the other hand, there exists the Jewish people, and it has no country. What else is necessary, then, than to fit the gem into the ring, to unite this people with this country? The owners of the country [the Ottoman Turks?] must, therefore, be persuaded and convinced that this marriage is advantageous, not only for the [Jewish] people and for the country, but also for themselves".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_land_without_a_people_for_a_people_without_a_land

There was, even until mid-century, a school of thought which argued that Jewish independence ought to be autonomy within a binational state (focusing on how early Zionists viewed the Arabs is just post hoc reasoning: it simply wasn't obvious at the time what would happen eventually).

Fair enough, but that fails to take into account how successive Israeli governments identifying as Zionist have acted toward either an independent Palestinian state or toward devolution in Palestine. Instead, the Israeli government seems to be doing its hardest to prevent an internationally recognized Palestinian state and to prevent a viable devolved Palestinian state operating in conjunction with the Israeli state. (I also find the binational state claim quite thin given the explicit identification of Israel as a Jewish state. Not a state where a bunch of Jews happen to live, but legally Jewish. Until they get as laid back as the Anglicans that's going to cause some problems with people who aren't thrilled about that state of affairs.)

Sure. Didn't I just say that I don't trust UNESCO to preserve disputed sites objectively? My point was that they only make politically charged issues worse, and that nonpolitical sites could rely on their host countries for protection.

If that is what you intended to say, you certainly have a very circular way of going about it.

I don't think so, no. Sharon was the romantic hero of early Israel; he played a huge role in the conquest of Sinai in '67 as well as in stopping the advance of the Egyptian army after it broke through the Israeli line on the Suez (one of Israel's most traumatic moments). Churchill was a trigger-happy imperialist, but I'd wager that plenty of Britons still admire him.

Churchill wasn't found by his own government to bear personal responsibility for allowing the massacre of refugees. Although given your comment on ethnic cleansing in the quote below, I suspect that getting you to say anything negative about Sharon is a futile effort.

That would be ethnic cleansing, not genocide. Of course, ethnic cleansing can sometimes be a perfectly valid action to take- notice how all those democratic, stable countries in Central and Eastern Europe only became that way after their borders started conforming to linguistic lines?

Why is it that the only people I ever hear speaking about ethnic cleansing in a positive light are White Supremacists and Israeli Nationalists?
How come "never again" became "well, sometimes it can be a valid action to take".

 

[timtofly]

Before I continue I do want to make it clear that I know I'm coming from a place of relative ignorance about the details regarding Israelis and Palestinians. I know I'm stepping into an extremely delicate and difficult situation that has cost the lives of far too many. So take it as a given that I'm humbly asking questions and only making tentative conclusions.

I did some cursory googling and I can't seem to find this national heritage list. Are places outside of Israeli and Palestinian territory also listed? It seems if a government is pulling the double duty of being both a national government and a worldwide preserver of a culture that it makes sure whichever hat it's wearing is clearly known.

I can see the naming as a legitimate point of contention but I don't see a denial of its importance to the Jewish people. And it makes some mention of the importance in the opening sections. I will say that it does fail to strongly rebuke a denialist claim.

UNESCO is the arbitrator of National Heritage sites. They have a website.

The naming convention, could be an attempt to set a precedent. Remember that the UN/UNESCO is a complete "governing" body as one unit, without branches of control and oversight.

I wasn't aware Judaism had a Pope who pronounced whether or not a religious tradition is the "authentic one".

They have The Law.

Fair enough, but that fails to take into account how successive Israeli governments identifying as Zionist have acted toward either an independent Palestinian state or toward devolution in Palestine. Instead, the Israeli government seems to be doing its hardest to prevent an internationally recognized Palestinian state and to prevent a viable devolved Palestinian state operating in conjunction with the Israeli state. (I also find the binational state claim quite thin given the explicit identification of Israel as a Jewish state. Not a state where a bunch of Jews happen to live, but legally Jewish. Until they get as laid back as the Anglicans that's going to cause some problems with people who aren't thrilled about that state of affairs.)

The Jews had no choice the first time this happened in history either. Well they could quit, and be left on the "side of the road".

Churchill wasn't found by his own government to bear personal responsibility for allowing the massacre of refugees. Although given your comment on ethnic cleansing in the quote below, I suspect that getting you to say anything negative about Sharon is a futile effort.

Why is it that the only people I ever hear speaking about ethnic cleansing in a positive light are White Supremacists and Israeli Nationalists?
How come "never again" became "well, sometimes it can be a valid action to take".

Not sure where you get the idea I'm English or an evangelical, but whatever. Makes more sense than the guy who thought I was Muslim because of my avatar.

I think that Mouthwash was inferring that English and evangelicals have read the Bible. White Supremacist have also been accused of misusing the Bible.

 

[danjuno]

Is it true Jews are banned from praying on the Mount itself (as opposed to the Wall) due to the presence of the Islamic buildings?

 

[classical_hero]

 

[timtofly]

Is it true Jews are banned from praying on the Mount itself (as opposed to the Wall) due to the presence of the Islamic buildings?

Why would Jews go to a Muslim holy site? There is an open space between the Western Wall and several mosque, and the temple mount itself with the Dome of the Rock in the center of open courtyards. The Jews are allowed on the outside of the Western wall as the closest spot to where the Temple would be. All the buildings currently within the surrounding walls of the Temple proper are of Muslim origin. It is still a walled area, with limited access points. They are not banned from visiting the site, but it may be a tad bit out of nature to pray or worship in another religions holy site. The Dome of the Rock is more a shrine and a place to visit. Muslims are free to visit Peter"s Basilica in Rome, but they may not do it for the same reasons a Christian would.

 

[Agent327]

Not really. As I said, a government that forgets to collect taxes in half the country isn't fulfilling the functions of a government.

While UNESCO has various tasks, collecting taxes isn't one.

But Zionism as we know it (and for most of its history) has as its goal a Jewish state in the land of Israel. If the Revolutionary War was sparked by heavy taxes on tea, does that mean that "American Nationalism" is actually a movement for fairer tea prices?

Another strange comparison. The War of Índependence wasn't sparked by 'heavy taxes on tea' - but Zionism was sparked by the emergent antisemitism in late 19th century nationalism.

This is as much as I've been able to find about this purported phenomenon, and I don't view Schama as a particular great historian, so I'm going to withhold judgment. But none of this refutes the original Jewish presence on the Temple Mount or the tremendous importance it has had to Jews even before its destruction.

That would be another one then. Note this cryptic sentence from that link:

Like its predecessor the Jewish Temple at Elephantine (destroyed in the 4th century BCE), the Temple at Leontopolis was the only Jewish sanctuary outside of Jerusalem wheresacrifices were offered.

While none are mentioned, it follows there were other temples - where no sacrifices were offered.

I'm not sure what your view on Schama as a historian has to do with anything. I mentioned his book as he pointed out a fact - as opposed to the myth of there being only one Temple.

The point of the Temple Mount being a heritage site "held dear" to the Jews as a people group has little to do with the religious and nationalistic straw men, that you are proposing.

I'm not sure who "you" is in this sentence. It can't be me as I didn't propose anything.

As you, seem to be so adamant that there is no authority associated with the point of there being a Temple there.

And here we have a straw man. Perhaps you are addressing yourself?

Perhaps like your insinuation that building a Temple there would make no difference, but may make another religion or authority a little nervous where no nervousness is needed?

Another straw man. But let's continue:

UUNESCO is more about culture and natural sites of historical relevance. Allegedly, it is not about religion and who controls what.

This may explain it?

The resolution reminds me of when the Governor Chris Christie was accused of shutting down a bridge for construction purposes and was accused of using construction as a ruse for something else.

The bigger issue is the fact that the current Leader of UNESCO, has made it her goal to make UNESCO more than just a protector of cultural Heritage Sites. In essence they are doing the same thing they accuse the Israeli government of doing.

They are using the ruse of protecting historical sites to change the policy and effect of how Nations have to deal with political issues outside the scope of a Heritage Site.

Ah. No, I'm afraid we're no closer to what a "UN apologist" is supposed to be. (By the way, UNESCO, like any UN organization, has no powers over nations.)

 

[Perfection]

UNESCO is the arbitrator of National Heritage sites. They have a website.

The naming convention, could be an attempt to set a precedent. Remember that the UN/UNESCO is a complete "governing" body as one unit, without branches of control and oversight.

UNESCO as I understand is the arbitrator of world heritage sites. I'm asking about Israeli National Heritage Sites. I would think those would be different. Am I missing something?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Of course, ethnic cleansing can sometimes be a perfectly valid action to take- notice how all those democratic, stable countries in Central and Eastern Europe only became that way after their borders started conforming to linguistic lines?

Disgusting. I sincerely hope you were being ironic with this statement. Either way it's not funny to joke about ethnic cleansing.

 

[timtofly]

UNESCO as I understand is the arbitrator of world heritage sites. I'm asking about Israeli National Heritage Sites. I would think those would be different. Am I missing something?

National sites are given to the UN for consideration, but many here think the UN has no jurisdiction over local recognition. Seeing as how Jerusalem is split up makes it harder. I doubt the state of Israel is going to recognize a Muslim site any more than the Muslims are not going to recognize another religions site as being needful.

 

[Mouthwash]

I did some cursory googling and I can't seem to find this national heritage list. Are places outside of Israeli and Palestinian territory also listed? It seems if a government is pulling the double duty of being both a national government and a worldwide preserver of a culture that it makes sure whichever hat it's wearing is clearly known.

From the link:

"40. Deeply regrets the Israeli refusal to comply with 185 EX/Decision 15, which requested the Israeli authorities to remove the two Palestinian sites from its national heritage list and calls on the Israeli authorities to act in accordance with that decision"

I can see the naming as a legitimate point of contention but I don't see a denial of its importance to the Jewish people. And it makes some mention of the importance in the opening sections. I will say that it does fail to strongly rebuke a denialist claim.

It doesn't explicitly say as such, but it refers to them solely by their Arabic names. The only concession it makes to obviously Jewish sites like the Western Wall is calling them things like the al-Burak Plaza "Western Wall Plaza." Also, pretty much all of the Israeli construction projects are used with quotations. It's a denial of recognition.

I wasn't aware Judaism had a Pope who pronounced whether or not a religious tradition is the "authentic one".

It's my opinion. I could make plenty of arguments as to why, but the fact is that the Orthodox tradition is the one Jews have followed for thousands of years.

Not sure where you get the idea I'm English or an evangelical, but whatever.

I don't. I was talking about white evangelicals in general.

So the whole "land without a people for a people without a land" is just a misunderstanding?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_land_without_a_people_for_a_people_without_a_land

The Arabs of Palestine were not a 'people' in the sense of having any kind of shared identity. The quote is accurate.

“During the 1948 War, which was universally viewed, from the Jewish side, as a war for survival, although there were expulsions and although an atmosphere of what would later be called ethnic cleansing prevailed during critical months, transfer never became a general or declared Zionist policy. Thus, by war's end, even though much of the country had been "cleansed" of Arabs, other parts of the country-notably central Galilee-were left with substantial Muslim Arab populations, and towns in the heart of the Jewish coastal strip, Haifa and Jaffa, were left with an Arab minority.”
― Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War

Fair enough, but that fails to take into account how successive Israeli governments identifying as Zionist have acted toward either an independent Palestinian state or toward devolution in Palestine. Instead, the Israeli government seems to be doing its hardest to prevent an internationally recognized Palestinian state and to prevent a viable devolved Palestinian state operating in conjunction with the Israeli state.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

(I also find the binational state claim quite thin given the explicit identification of Israel as a Jewish state.)

Binationalism was only taken seriously in the pre-state Yishuv. The notion lost credibility as a result of the 1929 Hebron riots and was almost completely dead by 1948.

If that is what you intended to say, you certainly have a very circular way of going about it.

No, I don't think I do. Please explain to me what you think is circular.

Churchill wasn't found by his own government to bear personal responsibility for allowing the massacre of refugees.

He was, however, an advocate of using poison gas against "uncivilized tribes."

Although given your comment on ethnic cleansing in the quote below, I suspect that getting you to say anything negative about Sharon is a futile effort.

I do not think there is any excuse for killing civilians or POWs, although I can't say to what extent Sharon did these things (if at all).

Why is it that the only people I ever hear speaking about ethnic cleansing in a positive light are White Supremacists and Israeli Nationalists?

Israelis actually have to live with ethnic violence. Europeans, however, are free to sit back and chirp condemnations at the rest of the world (as well as their own ancestors).

How come "never again" became "well, sometimes it can be a valid action to take".

"Never again" refers to the Nazi Holocaust, which was an instance of genocide. Genocide is entirely different from ethnic cleansing.

Is it true Jews are banned from praying on the Mount itself (as opposed to the Wall) due to the presence of the Islamic buildings?

That is correct: the Israeli government prevents them from doing so to prevent violence from breaking out. This is why the notion of "Israel violating religious freedom" by preventing Muslims from entering the site at certain times is so laughable.

Disgusting. I sincerely hope you were being ironic with this statement. Either way it's not funny to joke about ethnic cleansing.

I wasn't. I really can't see what's so objectionable about forcing people to move to a different location in order to prevent a massacre.

 

[Perfection]

From the link:

"40. Deeply regrets the Israeli refusal to comply with 185 EX/Decision 15, which requested the Israeli authorities to remove the two Palestinian sites from its national heritage list and calls on the Israeli authorities to act in accordance with that decision"

I saw that. What I'm looking for is the actual "national heritage list" that UNESCO is referring to.

It doesn't explicitly say as such, but it refers to them solely by their Arabic names. The only concession it makes to obviously Jewish sites like the Western Wall is calling them things like the al-Burak Plaza "Western Wall Plaza." Also, pretty much all of the Israeli construction projects are used with quotations. It's a denial of recognition.

Okay, so I'm going to get all pedantic now but I think the situation merits it.

Are you sure it's a not merely a lack of recognition? I could see it being a sort of hedging between Arab hardliners (who would reject Israeli claims) and moderates (who would be willing to make much more concessions). The resulting document intending to be neutral in regards to Israeli claims, neither supporting or opposing.

 

[timtofly]

I saw that. What I'm looking for is the actual "national heritage list" that UNESCO is referring to.

Okay, so I'm going to get all pedantic now but I think the situation merits it.

Are you sure it's a not merely a lack of recognition? I could see it being a sort of hedging between Arab hardliners (who would reject Israeli claims) and moderates (who would be willing to make much more concessions). The resulting document intending to be neutral in regards to Israeli claims, neither supporting or opposing.

The only two Palestinian Heritage Sites are: Bethlehem and a site located a few kilometres south-west of Jerusalem called Land of Olives and Vines. From a couple of online sites, Israel does not seem to be making any claims on cultural heritage for either of those places.

The only site that is in question is: Old Jerusalem and it's walls. Israel has been carrying out archeological digs in this area, and should be protected in their ability to do so. The only reasoning I can come up with is that Palestinians and Islamist want Israel to stop doing work in this area and turn over control to them. Part of the privilege of it belonging to a certain State, is they control who gets to do what at that site.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

When I was young and frivolous I proposed dusting Jerusalem with plutonium as the only way to get people to stop fighting over it. Whatever your religion you could freely go there and meet your particular god in short order.

Now I am old, and discouraged that still no one has come up with a better plan.

 

[innonimatu]

Disgusting. I sincerely hope you were being ironic with this statement. Either way it's not funny to joke about ethnic cleansing.

It may be disgusting, but he is right. The Sudetenland, Bosnia, the battles between croats and serbs... all those resulted in some form of ethnic cleansing before peace was restored. Some of those ethnic cleansings were blessed by the "international community", some were criticized. The UN itself was founded by a group on countries that had agreed to ethnically cleanse germans from a lot of places in Central Europe, both as retaliation and prevention of future wars because of the example of ethnic cleansing by germans during the war. The two state solution for Israel from the start implicitly had ethnic cleansing also, it must be said.

I would much prefer to see people in conflict-torn countries put stupid differences aside and work together, forge some new kind of nationalism to keep countries united. But that is not easy, and sometimes the better solution is to separate them because not doing so leads to war and massacres instead. Or to permanent instability that reduces the countries to foreign-ruled colonies, strips its people of any control over their fate and locks them in a never-ending internal conflict (in the worst cases, never-ending civil wars). That kind of "peace-keeping" can be worse in the long run that letting them dust it off and rebuild quickly.

Having said all this, Israel's obvious problem is that they have nowhere to "cleanse" the palestinians into. So unless their plan is to go full nazi and cremate them all, they ought to finally get some sense, give them their state, and respect it. Now that years of war have destroyed the better option of a single state (which I favored and saw as possible until a few years ago), and that was Israel's doing.

 

[Mouthwash]

Are you sure it's a not merely a lack of recognition? I could see it being a sort of hedging between Arab hardliners (who would reject Israeli claims) and moderates (who would be willing to make much more concessions). The resulting document intending to be neutral in regards to Israeli claims, neither supporting or opposing.

It isn't asking a tremendous amount for you to actually read anything:

"Firmly deplores the continuous storming of Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif by Israeli right-wing extremists and uniformed forces, and urges Israel, the occupying Power, to take necessary measures to prevent provocative abuses that violate the sanctity and integrity of Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif"

"Deeply decries the continuous Israeli aggressions against civilians including Islamic religious figures and priests, decries the forceful entering into the different mosques and historic buildings inside Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif by different Israeli employees including the so-called “Israeli Antiquities” officials, and arrests and injuries among Muslim worshippers and Jordanian Awqaf guards in Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif by the Israeli forces, and urges Israel, the occupying Power, to end these aggressions and abuses which inflame the tension on the ground and between faiths"

"Deplores the Israeli decision to approve a plan to build a two-line cable car system in East Jerusalem and the so called “Liba House” project in the Old City of Jerusalem as well as the construction of the so called “Kedem Center”, a visitor centre near the southern wall of the Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif, the construction of the Strauss Building and the project of the elevator in Al-Buraq Plaza “Western Wall Plaza” and urges Israel, the occupying Power, to renounce the above-mentioned projects and to stop the construction works in conformity with its obligations under the relevant UNESCO conventions, resolutions and decisions"

"Regrets the visual impact of the separation wall on the site of Bilal Ibn Rabaḥ Mosque/Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem as well as the strict ban on access of Palestinian Christian and Muslim worshippers to the site, and demands the Israeli authorities to restore the original character of the landscape around the site and to lift the ban on access to it"

"Deeply regrets the Israeli refusal to comply with 185 EX/Decision 15, which requested the Israeli authorities to remove the two Palestinian sites from its national heritage list and calls on the Israeli authorities to act in accordance with that decision"

Having said all this, Israel's obvious problem is that they have nowhere to "cleanse" the palestinians into. So unless their plan is to go full nazi and cremate them all, they ought to finally get some sense, give them their state, and respect it. Now that years of war have destroyed the better option of a single state (which I favored and saw as possible until a few years ago), and that was Israel's doing.

Leftist strategy:

1. Declare that your ideal state of affairs is possible/inevitable.

2. When it doesn't come to pass, blame whichever party you liked the least (without altering your previous estimation a whit).

3. Get amnesia and repeat.

I only wish you'd do it without dripping with condescension towards those who have to live with the consequences of your diktats.