Effective solidarity? Martin Iqbal on Palestine Place.
[mp3j track="http://www.deliberation.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/martiniqbal.mp3"]
In this excerpt from 28/06 edition of Mask of Zion, Martin Iqbal talks about his visits to Palestine Place, and the events which resulted in The exclusion of Ken O’Keefe
In the rest of the show, Jonathon Azaziah examines the efficacy of the Palestinian Solidarity Movement, and reflects on the different groupings with the movement that seek to exclude Gilad Atzmon.
experience
Roy, why are you always so keen to celebrate anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers in the Palestine solidarity movement? Are you intentionally trying to give the zionists ammo?
What a clever anagram of ‘libertine’ you made with your nick! With skills like that no wonder you sussed out Roy.
I am glad to see your post and I hope you stay a while. We have had Pal Sol defenders here before but this is a disorganized place: we don’t remember where we put them and they get lost or they are not sturdy enough and fall between the cracks. That is why we never get to hear enough about anti-semites and holocaust deniers. ..oops, I forgot to capitalize it. So tells us!
“What a clever anagram of ‘libertine’ you made with your nick!”
Surely, Tribe Line would be more fitting
“Surely, Tribe Line would be more fitting
”
or trib line.
Can you define your terms please?
I’m really not fussed what the Zionists think. They’re up to their necks in a racist supremacist ideology that causes real pain and suffering. Their angst pales by comparison. In any case, they devote their time to fighting antisemitism and similar thought crimes so that we don’t have to.
IIRC the line Jonathon Azaziah took was that by pandering to the Zionists, the effectiveness of the solidarity is diluted to the point of being ineffectual.
@bert
“Roy…Are you intentionally trying to give the zionists ammo?”
Nah, he isn’t giving the zio’s anything, except the platter of shit they deserve. Roy is well informed and knows what the zio’s have and do with their ammo – remember this berty?
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/01yL1XT9oPbN2/350x.jpg
.
http://actsoftheapostasy.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/guns-and-ammo-art.jpg
bert liine
cool! “twice blessed” is back!
btw, tb, your zip is down.
@AT
“anti-semites and holocaust deniers. ..oops, I forgot to capitalize it.”
Fear not, that’s already been taken care of…
http://syiarislam.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/holywood1.jpg
Great cartoon
anti-Semitism: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti-Semitism
Holocaust denial: sections 8.1 through 8.5 here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2000/115.html (also see sections 13.92 through 13.96).
So, if I’m reading you right, Roy, your position is that is by definition impossible for someone to be too anti-Semitic to be a positive contributor to Palestinian solidarity, and that no one should ever be no-platformed from Palestinian solidarity for anti-Semitism. If David Irving had showed up at Palestine Place wearing an ‘I am anti-zionist’ ribbon on his lapel, would you personally have set up a microphone for him?
‘I’m really not fussed what the Zionists think.’ – but not all Jews are zionists, correct? You have no problem letting your comrades, in the name of Palestinian solidarity, sling anti-Semitic rubbish at Jews who are not zionists then?
Accepting the definition you link that an anti-semite is one who harbors hostility towards Jews, and making the safe assumption that Palestinians are therefore anti-semites, I think the wisest thing to do would be to purge Palestine Place of Palestinians.
You make sense. The only part I didn’t get was “too anti-Semitic”—how much do you guys allow before it is over the top?
“discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews”
Can you remind me what you mean by Jews here please. And then please be so kind as to provide an example of the anti-semitism or holocaust denial that I ‘celebrate’.
Thanks
It promises to be instructive, if nothing else.
Jews: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Jews
Roy, at this point it simply looks like youre dissembling, lest you have to wrestle with the actual issue of anti-Semitism rather than play the word games you apparently prefer.
To repeat the question you are evading: “So, if I’m reading you right, Roy, your position is that is by definition impossible for someone to be too anti-Semitic to be a positive contributor to Palestinian solidarity, and that no one should ever be no-platformed from Palestinian solidarity for anti-Semitism. If David Irving had showed up at Palestine Place wearing an ‘I am anti-zionist’ ribbon on his lapel, would you personally have set up a microphone for him?”
Please incidentally try to refrain from the ‘I can’t answer your question because you refused to answer the later question I tried to deflect your question with’ tack.
You may also want to address this part you have evaded: “‘I’m really not fussed what the Zionists think.’ – but not all Jews are zionists, correct? You have no problem letting your comrades, in the name of Palestinian solidarity, sling anti-Semitic rubbish at Jews who are not zionists then?”
No of course not all Jews are Zionists but all Jewish activists. Zionist or otherwise, are supremacists. Is that okay for you?
‘all Jewish activists, Zionist or otherwise, are supremacists’
Do you agree with that, Roy?
Why ask Roy? I said it. why not ask me?
wWll, I’ll answer anyway. Yes I do agree with that.
Do you agree with that, Roy? ‘all Jewish activists, Zionist or otherwise, are supremacists’ – a touch overbroad for you, or are you completely on board with it?
No bert – about the only all xxx are generalisation that is true is that All Coppers Are bastards.
So its an absurd statement.
some of the most ammusing comedy routines are when swishy gays trying to be threatening or “headmaster stern” are ridiculed.
Well it depends on what you mean by ‘anti-Semitic.
If you mean hating all Jews simply because they are Jews – well, in a lifetime of searching, I’ve yet to come across that.
But if you mean opposing Jewish power (as presently constituted) then yes, you can’t get too much of it.
Well it depends on what you mean by ‘anti-Semitic.’
See above, where I link to the commonly held definition.
Very disappointing to see so many people trying to dictionary-game away such simple questions.
I see, you mean the first – “prejudice or hostlity towards Jews” (I assume that means all Jews)
Well in that case I don’t think you’ll find any of that here. After all, I’m a Jew and I don’t get any of that.
Ah, yes, even Göbbels had his favorite Jew didn’t he, and therefore by your facile redefinition he couldn’t have been an anti-Semite because he didn’t hate ‘all Jews’.
Oh no, Dr Goebels was indeed an anti-Semite. Trouble is, he had a hard time finding Jews who were not acting as supremacists – or at least keeing their supremacism under control.
This is something I try to do and you should try to do it as well.
1.
one of a scattered group of people that traces its descent from the Biblical Hebrews or from postexilic adherents of Judaism; Israelite.
2.
a person whose religion is Judaism.
3.
a subject of the ancient kingdom of Judah.
I think the first definition has pretty much been debunked esp by Shlomo Sand. I haven’t heard anyone discriminating against the religion and there are probably no survivors of the third definition.
So I have to admit that I am failing to see any “discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews”, therefore really can’t be celebrating it!
” If David Irving had showed up at Palestine Place wearing an ‘I am anti-zionist’ ribbon on his lapel, would you personally have set up a microphone for him?””
Probably not – as being there meant unity with the aims – and I disagree with the whole bit about ‘colonisation of all Arab lands occupied since 1967′, cos I reckon the other land belongs to the people who were driven from it as well. In any case I don’t see why he would have needed a microphone, nor why I would set one up for him.
If you can explain the link between Jews and Palestinian solidarity, and offer concrete examples of “discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews” or indeed Holocaust denial then maybe we have something to talk about.
I’m too old and jaded to feel any need to jump through the hoops of someone who is anonymously demanding answers from me. So maybe you can explain why I should play along with your demands as well.
I lived with censorship, and I find the authoritarian impulse in this censorship cult quite distasteful.
At the end of the day I will think what I want to think, and read what I want to read, and associate with whom I wish to associate. And I will not be bothered by those who try to suggest what it is I should be thinking.
“At the end of the day I will think what I want to think, and read what I want to read, and associate with whom I wish to associate. And I will not be bothered by those who try to suggest what it is I should be thinking…..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3T5WFG3zcA
Nice one Roy
Roy – the question about Irving is a matter of principle, not a practical one. As such, it’s a fair question. The organizers excluded Ken O’Keefe, and they would exclude Irving. Others would include the former, but not the latter. But why? What are the criteria for contributing to Palestine solidarity? ‘Never having challenged the official account of “the” holocaust’ should not be one of them!
Jay
I wasn’t asked if I would exclude him. I was asked if I would have personally set up a microphone for him.
As I said it was an implausible scenario.
“If David Irving had showed up at Palestine Place wearing an ‘I am anti-zionist’ ribbon on his lapel, would you personally have set up a microphone for him?”
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I would set up a mike for David. Why not? Why would you exclude any anti-Zionist? What would your criteria be?
“If David Irving had showed up at Palestine Place wearing an ‘I am anti-zionist’ ribbon on his lapel, would you personally have set up a microphone for him?”
I notice that Roy ‘forgot’ to address this question.
I wonder why.
Roy, do step up. Would you, personally, set up a microphone for David Irving?
bert liine
are you david irving? or are you just in love with him?
Well, for the time being, I’ll address the question.
Yes, I’d be perfectly happy to facilitate David Irving to address any Palestinian Solidarity gathertintg.
As someone who has successfully battled, and also suffered from Jewish power, I’m sure he would have a lot to say.
Particularly useful would be his likely association of the struggle for Palestine with the world-wide struggle against abusive Jewish power.
David Irving doesn’t have much to say about Palestine. However, he does have quite a bit to say about World War II:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Dresden/Apocalypse_2007.pdf
Two days ago, a memorial was unveiled to Bomber Command. The British press was full of praise for the airmen who died in WWII. Little was said about their victims, mostly women and children.
The idea that the Allied side was morally superior to the Nazis is an important part of the dominant ideology. Zionism is the main beneficiary of this narrative today. David Irving helps us deconstruct it.
bert liine, you go on and on abou anti semitism but I very much doubt that you have a drop of semitic blood in your body. You would be far more comfortable and better suited to come up with a term that would both silence your opponents without being a lie.
palestine place – isn’t that where harry’s place sends its less than pure lily white members?
one of the most amusing things about harry’s place is that the term “harry’s place” is a euphamism used by gays to denote the local gay bar. instead of naming the establishment by name, they use the generic term “harry’s place”. this is a hold over from the days when homosexuality was underground and illegal, gay bars were a no no, and gays didn’t want the uninitiated knowing the name of the local gay pick-up place – for obvious reasons.
apparently harry’s place is carrying on the tradition.
Fascinating. I love the deliberation tangents
Dear bert liine
What I find noteworthy about individuals such as you is not your Zionist and pro-Jewish views. As regular commentatorts on this site will I hope testify, I have no quarrel with that at all – in fact, I sometimes even share them.
No, what is particularly interesting is the inquisitorial way you try to get people to say things that you think will be somehow incriminating.
But the joke is that you’re on deLiberation and here, none of those things are incriminating.
But there’s a bigger joke bert liine, and that is that if you’ll just open your eyes a touch you may notice that the whole world is now beginning to say those things.
‘But there’s a bigger joke bert liine, and that is that if you’ll just open your eyes a touch you may notice that the whole world is now beginning to say those things.’
Yes, I am certain that is what you told yourself, as you paced the walks outside the January PSC meeting in which the anti-Semitic faction overwhelmingly and unambiguously got the boot. The Holocaust denial segment of the Palestinian justice movement is the future, as long as by ‘future’ you actually mean ‘past’.
Paul Eisen
“No, what is particularly interesting is the inquisitorial way you try to get people to say things that you think will be somehow incriminating.”
that is a common zionazi tactic. i noticed it extensively practiced at the guardian’s old talkboard by both the judeo-supremacists pretending to be antizionist (greenstain types) and the foamed and frothed american neocon knuckle-draggers. it was the remarkable simularity of behaviour by these two supposedly disparate groups in things like that, along with they way they would reinforce each other, that clued me into the fact that these were both working for the same causes.
Who_me
You refer to the ‘pretend anti-Zionist Greenstein types’ but Tony Greenstain is indeed an anti-Zionist in that he is completely, utterly and genuinely opposed to the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine. So why do you say he is pretending to be an anti-Zionist?
The way I see it is that Zionism is not their preferred form of Jewish supremacism, and the Zionist/anti-Zionist conflict is really an internal Jewish squabble about who is going to run the show.
This is why I find Gilad’s use of the term ‘AZZ’ term confusing and also diverting.
Paul Eisen
“Tony Greenstain is indeed an anti-Zionist in that he is completely, utterly and genuinely opposed to the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine. So why do you say he is pretending to be an anti-Zionist?”
after my experiences with that sort, i learned to ignore what they claimed were their views, and looked at their behaviour patterns, instead. greenstain behaves like he works for israel. his words may be anti-israel, but what he does supports israel more than it hurts it. when the words and actions oppose, actions speak louder than words. but even what greenstain says tends to defend israel, in an oblique manner. such as his claim that israel is an american colony and his attempts to frame those who think otherwise as antisemites (that was a common theme of the hasbara at the old guardian talkboard – which greenstain was a part of, btw). the way a such view defends israel is that it takes the blame for israeli behaviour off israelis and puts it on someone else (americans, in this case, though this blame shifting tactic is also commonly used for shifting blame in other things where israel comes up). it’s a patsy creation tactic, and those like greenstain, who lead, rather than follow, know this very well.
and when israel was connected to human organ trafficking, greenstain was one of the first to denounce those who exposed these israeli crimes as antisemitic, and he then claimed such israeli crimes didn’t exist.
i forgot to mention another important aspect of the israeli blame shifting tactic, and this is perhaps the most important aspect of it. by shifting the blame on to patsies, israel can continue on much as before. when things get too hot, the usa gets the blame, and therefore “the fix”. israel is left intact, and they simply adjust their outside support network in other countries to take up the slack losing american, or some american, support might create.
Thanks. I’d never seen it like that before. how conscious do you think they are of their real motives?
One other point:
Could it not be that they support Israeli interests but only when they coincide with overall Jewish interests? For example, saying that the Israel lobby runs American foreign policy buys into the “Jews run the world” theme and the organ trafficking accusation smacks of the old ‘blood libel’
Paul Eisen
“Could it not be that they support Israeli interests but only when they coincide with overall Jewish interests? For example, saying that the Israel lobby runs American foreign policy buys into the “Jews run the world” theme and the organ trafficking accusation smacks of the old ‘blood libel’”
just about everything israelis do, from child torture to genocidal policies to threatening iran with nuclear weapons, is detrimental to the jewish among goyim. on the other hand, just about everything jp does seems to help israel. where does one draw a line that separates jp interests from israeli interests? they seem one and the same every time i do a little research. greenstain criticises some israeli acts and slanders those who criticise other israeli acts. since all of these acts can be contrued (easily) to hurt the jewish image, what makes greenstain critical of some of them, and duplitiously defensive of others?
i just checked his hasbara blog and about syria, he he’s trying to convince people israel is not involved in the terrorist ops working to regime change syria. his hasbara claims israel wants to keep assad in place for really bottom of the barrel scraping absurd reasons that don’t even remotely seem plausible. but it’s all he’s got, so he has to go with it no matter how absurd. it’s total bs intended to get scruteny off israel and on to its proxies. to protect israel. syria has little value to the west. to greater israel, it is a major thorn in their side and they’ve wanted to take down syria for a long time.
assuming greenstain hates israel and wants to see israel ended, he would then not then be covering up israeli involvement in the terrorism towards syria, but instead exposing it out. he has no problem exposing israeli barbarity towards palestinians, has no choice there if he wants to remain credible even with the dim. so he can avoid that. but he can avoid connecting israel to the terrorism in syria, so he does. he did the same with libya.
this is what i’ve noticed about this crowd over the years. they blame israel for things they can avoid blaming israel for, to stay credible in their acting role as “the zionist opposition”, but those things israel does that they can attribute to others, they do that instead. even though if they exposed the acts as israeli, this would further their stated “goal” of knocking israel down. it’s always 1 step forward and 2 steps back with these people.
“they blame israel for things they can avoid blaming israel for”
they blame israel for things they can’t avoid blaming israel for
another typo:
“so he can avoid that.”
so he can’t avoid that.
Agree completely
“he’s trying to convince people israel is not involved in the terrorist ops working to regime change syria”
Another overwhelming argument from a regular deliberation.info commentator. The rigorous reasoning, the careful formulation of hypotheses, the honest, but unsuccessful, attempt at falsification!
Obviously, Israel is involved in the ‘terrorist ops’ working to ‘regime change’ Syria. How could anyone doubt it? Or rather, anyone who doubts it is either a Zionist agent, a hasbara troll, or an idiot.
Sarcastic? Moi?
Your sources of info and your “rigorous reasoning, careful formulation of hypotheses, honest, but unsuccessful, attempt at falsification” on the other hand led to …. what? What conclusion?
Jay Knott
“Another overwhelming argument from a regular deliberation.info commentator. The rigorous reasoning, the careful formulation of hypotheses, the honest, but unsuccessful, attempt at falsification!
Obviously, Israel is involved in the ‘terrorist ops’ working to ‘regime change’ Syria. How could anyone doubt it? Or rather, anyone who doubts it is either a Zionist agent, a hasbara troll, or an idiot.”
if you are no longer capable of carrying on an adult conversation, maybe you should find something else to do.
My sources of info and rigorous reasoning, careful formulation of hypotheses have led to …. what conclusion?
asks Ariadna.
My answer is – they haven’t led to any conclusion. I don’t have enough information to say exactly who’s behind what in Syria.
another place i noticed where this same tactic of trying “to get people to say things that you think will be somehow incriminating.” is used exensively is at mondoweiss. by a strange coincidence, one of the regulars there is montoring this site quite closely:
http://friendfeed.com/mondoweiss-on-friendfeed
the monitoring person is named sean mcbride and is apparently quite close to the mondoweiss editors. he plays a role there as someone anti-zionist and liberal, but that is an act, and he is in actuality, a far right pro-zionist, your basic neo-con extremist. i noticed he frequently used that “incriminating” tactic when i was following mondoweiss.
who_me, you’re right about sean mcbride, I went round and round with him myself
LOL very funny and apt.
You were there were you? You should have stopped by and said hello. In fact you should do that right now instead of hiding behind a silly name.
Yes, I remember it well:
http://www.deliberation.info/from-the-outside-looking-in-the-psc-agm/
“At the end of the day I will think what I want to think, and read what I want to read, and associate with whom I wish to associate. And I will not be bothered by those who try to suggest what it is I should be thinking.”
Oh, no, Ray, I certainly wasn’t under the illusion that I could change your mind; no one who has dealt with you for any significant amount of time believes you have that capacity.
I was actually more interested in the internal question. You know, how is it possible for someone to believe that he is firmly progressive when his views on the Jews are so patently retrogressive, and all but a few cracked anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers on the fringe of the fringe think otherwise – even as the Palestinian justice movement is kicking them out the door.
Unlike the rest here, you have some intelligence and some progressive credibility – based, admittedly, completely in your pre-Atzmon days. But still, that made me curious.
So now I know how you have made your internal peace with the anti-Semitism question: you have simply redefined anti-Semitism out of existence. No more problem! Abracadabra, handy-dandy, hey presto, no more anti-Semitism, pure and total self-absolution. Utterly immoral, of course, and intellectually thoroughly duplicitous, but at least it’s not out of character.
And your reasoning why David Irving would be out of place at Palestine Place? Because he’s too good for them. Priceless!
Because by now you’re too deeply entrenched to ever free yourself, I won’t point you to the entire series of genetic studies which demonstrated how wrong Sand was, and you may therefore continue to cherish his illusion. Of course if you’d had the slightest interest in fully considering the topic, rather than simply swallowing Sand’s position because you thought it was instrumentally useful against zionists, you’d have already started on that project anyway.
show me the genetic study that shows that black falasha jews and jews of anglo/UK stock are of the of the same race. Idiot
“how is it possible for someone to believe that he is firmly progressive when his views on the Jews are so patently retrogressive,”
Yet you aren’t able to list these retrogressive views. I care about Palestine not about some sanctimonious censoring clique of so-called activists that believes it is best to expend energy on splitting support for Palestine and diverting attention away from Palestine and onto the Zionist obsession with antisemitism.
“So now I know how you have made your internal peace with the anti-Semitism question: you have simply redefined anti-Semitism out of existence.”
IIRC it was YOU who defined antisemitism and Jews.
“And your reasoning why David Irving would be out of place at Palestine Place? Because he’s too good for them. Priceless!”
Erm I think you’re reading something that isn’t anything to do with my answer. You raised an implausible scenario – I pointed out to you that I wasn’t likely to be rigging up Irving’s microphone in a joint which demands unity on the idea that the theft of land in 1948 is different to the theft of land in 1969, because I believe that Palestinians have a right to the whole of their homeland, so I wouldn’t be there in the first place. Even if factions of Palestinians are resigned to, or even embrace the pretence of a 2 state solution, I stand in solidarity with those who have never stopped dreaming of returning to Yaffa, Haifa or Deir Yassin. Your scenario turned out to be a complete distraction and a complete waste of time.
Now unless you’re going to spell out the links between Palestine Place and Jews, I think we’re done.
So long and thanks for the fish.
Quite right, Roy, I wasn’t expecting you to produce a coherent answer and you didn’t disappoint me. Sooner or later everyone dealing with you has that ‘if Roy doesn’t get it by now, he never will’ moment. Mine was back in January. I just thought it might be illuminating to see a little more of how just you excuse yourself to yourself when, for example, defending Holocaust deniers or an anti-Semite as abject as Azaziah.
“Quite right, Roy, I wasn’t expecting you to produce a coherent answer and you didn’t disappoint me.”
Quite right, bert, I wasn’t expecting you to produce a coherent answer and you didn’t disappoint me.
another example of how the phonies corrupt the dialog. i’ve been checking mondoweiss to see how they are covering the israeli/jewish zionist attack on syria. at mondoweiss, they usually support israeli-american aggressions outside of palestine. they propagandised the iranian green color revolution, the libyan insurection and have been propagandising the syrian take over attempt. they ran into a problem with their support of ziofascist terrorism in syria, though. their readers, as determined by the comments, were not buying that ziopropaganda. so mondoweiss simply avoided mention of syria. finally, they post an article on syria. and this is where the jewish zionist manipulation shifts into high gear.
mondo already knows their readers are opposed overwhelmingly to the zionist war crimes in syria. there is no way they can overtly propagandise this jewish run terrorism and remain credible as zionist opposition. they had tried a few zionazi support balloons in the past, these got shot down in flames. so that route is out. so they went with no coverage at all. but eventually, the elephant in the room, syria, after all is part of the mideast discussion, and the attack on that country is the major story of the region, had to be addressed. i would imagine their email was screaming “why are you silent?!”.
so being mondoweiss tribal loyalists, they looked far and wide for a suitable story that would satisfy (hopefully hoodwink) their discordant readers, and at the same time not do damage to israel’s war on syria. there wasn’t much out there they could use, but god sent them aide in the person of phyllis bennis, a veteran “soft” hasbara operative.
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/syria-no-to-intervention-no-to-illusions.html
she wrote up an ideal compromise for the covert zionists. it condemned the evil assad and pretended to be against more aggression towards syria. basically, it reinforced the zionazi lies about syria, it pretended “balance” by claiming overt war was not the answer. this is a clever zionazi tactic, common among the jewish zionist “opposition” supposed to satisfy the antiwar types’ skeptisism, while at the same time, it deflates support for this antiwar view.
this is how it works. by being antiwar, on the surface, it suckers those who are antiwar into accepting the basics the piece is designed to distribute. these are that assad is “bad”, therefore he needs to go. the point is not to get people wanting war against assad, but to sap their resolve that such war is intollerable. if assad is “bad”, why defend him? sure the insurgents are bad, too. better not get involved defending either of these “bad” people.
the purpose of such pieces as that by bennis is to demoralise resistance to zionazi policy. who wants to be involved with stopping zionazi policy when they have been convinced the alternative is just as bad or worse? this is the fundamental aspect of leftwing cooptation practiced by the ziofascists. they used it to destroy the left in the economic sphere (they killed the unions using these tactics, for example) and they use it to destroy any opposition to jewish zionazi world power aspirations.
interestingly, that bennis article was correctly sussed out for what it was fairly quickly at the mondoweiss hasbarashoppe. see the comments. so mossad/cia prostitute, phillip “me bum” weiss, made a second effort to “humanise” israel’s terrorists to his progressive suckers:
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/the-truth-of-syrian-opposition-is-lost-in-the-medias-narrative-of-hate.html
by quoting some hasbara from a mossad/cia front site called pulse – whom mondoweiss, being the same, naturally is closely tied to.