Are Zionists settlers?

Zionists have traditionally seen Israeli Jews as "returned natives"--a people that has reconstituted itself as a nation and returned to its homeland after two millenia starting in the early 1880s. Arabs and their supporters have simply seen them as settlers, no different morally or even conceptually than the white settlers who have settled around the world from Europe since the early 16th century. In this post I will demonstrate that Israel has the characteristics of a modern settler society and then offer my perspective on the returned native vs. settler controversy.

In the summer of 1998 I went to Belfast to examine what was taking place there after the conclusion of the Good Friday Agreement. I was fresh off a tour in the Army in Kosovo and finally had the savings for research and writing. After spending some time in the Linenhall Library's political collection reading up on the history of The Troubles--the period of Northern Ireland history from late 1968 that was then still continuing--I saw many similarities with both Israel and South Africa. I ended up writing my first book, Native vs. Settler, which examined the three conflicts in a range of categories. My book, published in 2000, joined a growing literature that had compared the three conflicts since 1989. Mine was I believe the first to compare all three conflicts on a settler/native basis.

In 2002 after my second book, Indispensable Traitors, was published, I was thinking about what to write about next. I decided to write about Israel's military politicians and I started looking for cases to compare them with. This is how I began researching antebellum America, about which I will write further in my next post. It was not until 2004 that I wrote an article, published in 2005 in The Journal of Conflict Studies in New Brunswick, Canada that I set out systematically to demonstrate that Israeli politics were settler politics. What follows is the essence of that article.

Israeli politics in 2004-05 exhibited six salient features:
1) Because of the proportional representation--list franchise system, Israeli elections result in multiple parties and all governments are coalition governments, most of them weak and unstable.
2) Israel has powerful religious parties that are more akin to the system Islamist parties found in Turkey and Indonesia than to parties found in Western Europe or North America.
3) Former senior military officers have played a major role in electoral politics since at least 1954.
4) Both the Labor Party and the Likud have paramilitary roots to their parties--both have one component party at the time of their formation (1968, 1973) with paramilitary origins.
5) Since the June 1967 Six Day War the territorial question has been the dividing line between parties of the Left and the Right, rather than economic policy. Before 1967 other aspects of the Arab question were the main dividers between the Revisionists/Herut and Mapai.
6) Israel has a legal differentiation in status between Arabs and Jews.

The first two features are the subject of most texts on Israeli politics (at least in English--I own three of them). Traits three through six are traits typical of self-governing or autonomous settler societies such as the United States, Northern Ireland, and South Africa under white rule. It is not a single one of these traits but their combination that makes it possible to speak of Israeli politics as settler politics. Although all three of the above mentioned societies had traits five and six, they either had traits three or four but not both. Thus, Israeli politics are more settlerlike than most settler societies.

Because Israel's multiparty system is so defining of the Israeli political system, comparisons should best be made with settler societies that have a similar party system. Unfortunately, however, most British settler colonies used the first-past-the-post franchise resulting in two- or three-party systems. Only Northern Ireland is a settler society that has a form of proportional representation. Its party system, however, is normally made up of five parties: two unionist British Protestant (settler), two nationalist Irish Catholic (native), and a small liberal non-sectarian party. So normally when examining settler politics in Northern Ireland one is looking at a two-party system. But when the system is put under pressure by pressure from London to reach a solution to the Irish question, a breakdown in unionist unity results. Unionist politics were multipolar from 1973 to 1978 and from the mid-1990s to 2003. Fortunately the latter period was during the peace process and resulted in a weak two-party coalition that can be usefully compared to Israeli governments.

Northern Ireland has five of the six salient features of Israeli politics. It is only missing a major role for former senior military officers. This is because Northern Ireland is a province of the United Kingdom rather than a sovereign entity. Although throughout the 19th and 20th centuries unionists from Ulster contributed greatly to the senior ranks of the British army, they did not go on to serve as politicians after Northern Ireland became autonomous starting in 1922. This is because there is no tradition of former senior officers having a second career in politics as there was in the United States in the 19th century or in South Africa among Afrikaners in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. To make comparisons on this very important feature of Israeli politics we will have to turn to these two societies, and that will be the subject of my next post.

Many Jews for ideological reasons, and many Arabs as well, are incapable of seeing Israeli Jews as both returned natives and settlers--they must be one or the other. About 90-95 percent of Israeli Jews are descended from at least one parent whose ancestors arrived in Palestine/Israel after 1880, most after 1917. After 1917 Palestine was administered first by the British army and then by the Colonial Office. Palestine was de facto a British settler colony with some loose supervision by the League of Nations. The Palestine mandate was run for its first two decades until 1939 primarily for the benefit of the Zionists--to encourage immigrant absorption and Jewish economic development, although adjustments were made periodically to assuage Arab resentment and resistance. During the last decade the mandate was run on a more equal basis as Britain backed away from its commitments to Zionism under the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the League of Nations mandate. This is the period that is largely used by the Zionists to create an anti-colonial mythology.

So are Israeli Jews only settlers? DNA testing has established that they have ties to the Holy Land and are related to the Palestinian population. The only other group of settlers that claims to be returned natives are a few of the Ulster-Scots of Northern Ireland who claim that they are the descendants of the ancient Picts who were driven out of Ireland by the Gaels in about 1,000 AD and then returned some six hundred years later. And this is very much a minority position among unionists raised some 350 years after the original Ulster plantation.

Arabs and anti-Zionists take two different, and contrary, positions on Israelis as returned natives. First, some say that their exile from the land resulted in the Jews losing any political rights to the land as a separate people. Among Arabs and Muslims this is made easier by the belief that Jews cannot be both a religion and a people (or nation) and so are only the former. This ignores the traditional Jewish religious position on this question. The second position is to simply deny any connection to the land. In July 2000 at Camp David Yasir Arafat denied that there had ever been a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. He claimed that the temple had been in Nablus. After all, he was an expert on Judaism. Palestinian children are taught in Palestinian schools that the Jews have no historical link with the land.

So, if the historical connection is irrelevant, why go to great lengths to deny it? This is the question that anti-Zionists must answer.  The League of Nations and the British certainly thought that it was relevant. Americans as a whole continue to believe that it is relevant.

The other question is: Are all settler societies automatically illegitimate? Zionists certainly seem to believe that this is the case, which is one of the prime motives for denouncing any talk of Zionists as settlers. Yet we find settler societies throughout the world: Australia and New Zealand in the Pacific; Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile in South America; Costa Rica in Central America; the United States and Canada in North America. In many other countries in Latin America the descendants of settlers constitute a large minority of the population as in Brazil, Paraguay, Venezuela, and Cuba. All of these countries are considered legitimate.

I believe that by engaging solely in a hasbara campaign on this issue, the Jewish Right is foregoing much valuable analysis that can be used in the struggle for peace. Maybe this is because the Right does not believe in the possibility of peace.

Blog Introduction: Who am I and what this blog is about

This is a blog devoted to discussing foreign affairs and in particular foreign affairs and politics dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Middle East.

The immediate impetus for this blog is that it is a requirement for a journalism degree that I'm pursuing. But I've been considering it for some time as for the last five years I've been a regular contributor to a number of blogs on this subject (APN's The Conversation by Leonard Fein; Dan Fleshler's Realistic Dove; the MeretzUSA blogspot; Michael Lame's Rethink the Middle East; and the Promised Land). I've written several guest blogs at both the Realistic Dove and MeretzUSA.  Although I'm quite aware that one doesn't need qualifications in the blogosphere, I think that I should lay out mine for my readers so that they can judge them for themselves. I have a doctorate and masters degree in International Relations from the University of Southern California and a bachelor's degree in the same subject from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I have had five books published: three dealing with comparative politics comparing and contrasting Israel, Northern Ireland and South Africa; and two with antebellum American politics. Over the last dozen years I've focused on researching conflicts and societies that I believe can cast light on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and on Israeli politics.  I've focused on looking at settler societies--and I'll explain my rationale for doing so in detail in my next post--not in order to delegitimize or stigmatize Israel but rather in order to learn from other conflicts that have already reached a stage that Israel or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have not, and thus learn from them. As a student of history, I believe that it is possible to learn from the past, but that few people rarely do because most people see history as an exercise in self-validation and legitimation rather than as a means of learning. This is because this is the way it is normally taught in school and in popular works.  It is also because much of what we learn from the past is not really very flattering.

The name of my blog comes from a combination of the two reflexive "insults" that the Israeli and Jewish nationalist right use to shutdown any discussion that is outside of their box. The terms are: self-hating Jew and anti-semite. Thus one can either agree with them or be dismissed as either an anti-semite or someone who hates one's own cultural background or ethnicity. Over the years I've been labeled both based on whether the name-callers thought that I was a Jew or a Gentile. Some thirty years ago I was labeled a self-hating Jew by Midge Decter after I wrote a letter in to Commentary magazine disagreeing with an article that attacked Shalom Akshav/Peace Now. More recently I've been called a Jew hater for asserting that Israeli Jews can be most objectively seen as BOTH returned natives and settlers. I'm a Hebrew-speaking gentile who admires Jews for their cultural achievements and learning over the centuries. Also in Italian gentile means nice and kind, and I like to think that that meaning also fits me.

Most of my comparative work has involved comparing Israel to four different societies: South Africa, Northern Ireland, antebellum America and the French Fourth Republic. I wrote my doctoral dissertation on internal settlements in Southern Africa (Namibia, Rhodesia, South Africa) and I conducted doctoral and post-doctoral research in Natal, South Africa in 1988 and 1990. I also served as a volunteer in the Rhodesian Guard Force and Rhodesian Ministry of Internal Affairs leading African troops in the bush war in 1978-79 because I believed then that no good could come from a self-proclaimed Maoist ruling the country. I believe that Robert Mugabe's performance over the last thirty years has more than proven my instincts correct. I conducted research in Belfast, Northern Ireland on The Troubles and on the Northern Ireland peace process during the summer of 1998 and the summer of 1991. I availed myself of the opportunity to collect a small library of books on the sectarian conflict there. When the Northern Ireland peace process collapsed between 2002 and 2006 I took advantage of the opportunity to research Indian-fighter politicians in American history and then anti-slavery parties in antebellum America. Incidentally, the term antebellum America refers to the North as well as the South, and it was mainly the former that I compared Israel to. I have also read about the party system during the French Fourth Republic, but have not published anything on the subject.  During 2010 I researched the process by which Dublin renounced its constitutional claim to Northern Ireland, but I have yet to publish on the subject.

Consider other alternatives to treating depression than psychotropic drugs

"In 1989, Joseph Wesbecker shot and killed eight people and injured 12 others before killing himself at his place of work in Kentucky. Wesbecker had been taking the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant fluoxetine for four weeks before these homicides, and this led to a legal action against the makers of fluoxetine, Eli Lilly.^[66] The case was tried and settled in 1994, and as part of the settlement a number of pharmaceutical company documents about drug-induced activation were released into the public domain. Subsequent legal cases have further raised the possibility of a link between antidepressant use and violence.^[67]

The Prozac Survivors Support Group created a report on 288 individuals who had suffered adverse effects from Fluoxetine during 1991 and 1992. It showed that most of the cases led to violence against self or other individuals. There were 164 cases in the suicide and suicide ideation category, including 34 complete suicides. There were also 133 cases of crime and violence, which featured 14 murders, nine attempted murders, 39 violent actions, 54 violent preoccupations and 17 crimes. The report also showed that 13 individuals had become addicted to Fluoxetine and 14 cases of alcoholism forming or worsening.  quoted from Wikipedia re: Fluoxetine.

^{There is also Columbine, VA Tech, Andrea Yates, Mark David Chapman, etc.  The types of psychosis and mass murders/suicides we are experiencing didn't happen 40 years ago.  Too many people are on (antidepressants) SSRIs, SSNRIs, SRIs, DRIs, NDRIs, SNRIs  and SNDRIs.  Even if you had a successful experience with these class of drugs what about the countless people who have had a severe, aggressive, hostile reaction? You or one of your loved ones may be a victim of someone's psychotic rage. WE ARE ALL AT RISK! Toni S.}

Chris Benoit murdered his wife and child and then hung himself. He was taking Xanax. Here's a portion of the warning on drugs.com.

Suicide

As with other psychotropic medications, the usual precautions with respect to administration of the drug and size of the prescription are indicated for severely depressed patients or those in whom there is reason to expect concealed suicidal ideation or plans. Panic disorder has been associated with primary and secondary major depressive disorders and increased reports of suicide among untreated patients.

Mania

Episodes of hypomania and mania have been reported in association with the use of Xanax in patients with depression.

Actor, Jonathan Brandis, 27 hung himself. 
His friend said,

"There have been rumors that he was on the medication "Accutane"-- a drug that prevents acne. I looked it up and found that it has been linked to 31 suicides among young adults and has been speculated to cause extreme depression as a side-effect". 

The following is an excerpt from http://www.cchrint.org/alternatives/

Dr. Rod says:

July 28, 2010 at 10:31 am

I am a psychologist and work at a large county jail. I am thrilled to find another great resource here for the message I preach to my patients all day, everyday. I could tell you 500 stories about 8 year old kids being diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, patients taking 3, 4, 8 medications, and horrible practitioners who assign these diagnoses and prescriptions again and again and again.

I am so very discouraged with our mental health system. I am disappointed to see that the new DSM committee is stacked with pharamaceutical-backed members and that pharmaceutical companies are not held accountable for the lies, deceit, cover-ups, and outright damage they do to people (what is the disincentive for them when they are fined a few million dollars, which makes no difference to them when they profit billions per year?). I’m angry that the government chooses to take over the banking and auto industries (taking our freedoms in business) and lets these companies run wild and harm people with lies.

On days like today, where I am fighting with my own colleagues to change how our city manages mental illness and treatment of it, I feel like quitting and becoming a garbage man. I try to remember that I am helping patients know the truth one by one. Chances are, I’ll be back to work tomorrow….

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world: Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has!" Margaret Mead

"We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality" Ayn Rand

"My intent is to tell the truth as I know it, realizing what is true for me may be blasphemy for others." Gerry Spence

"Guns don't kill people. People on anti-depressants with guns kill people." Toni S.

The Antidepressant Scandal - Where Is The Outrage?

How Pharmaceutical Companies Are Suppressing Data About The Effectiveness And Safety Of Antidepressant Drugs While The FDA Looks The Other Way

We are being lied to.  Our health and safety are being compromised by dangerous antidepressant drugs and the wealthy corporate giants that peddle them.

Just a few weeks ago, an alarming report was released by the acclaimed New England Journal Of Medicine proving once again that the pharmaceutical industry has entirely too much influence in Washington, D.C. and specifically with the Food and Drug Administration.

For the most part the antidepressant scandal has flown under the radar of most Americans.  Perhaps most people missed the story with so much media attention focused on the heated presidential race.

In short, the report shows the effectiveness of antidepressant drugs has been severely overhyped.  It turns out the pharmaceutical companies that produce antidepressant drugs are publishing the results of only positive clinical trial data in medical journals while suppressing all the negative data.  In cases where negative clinical study data is published, the negative parts are being rewritten to appear positive or simply being omitted altogether.     

This outrageous practice has major implications on our health.  Since doctors rely primarily on this published medical journal data they are getting a skewed view of the effectiveness and safety of antidepressant drugs.  As far as they know, little evidence exists to make them think twice about prescribing antidepressants to their patients.  As a result, many more patients are ending up on frequently ineffective and dangerous antidepressant drugs.

So again… where’s the outrage?

Are we getting so used to the greed and social irresponsibility exhibited by some of our major corporations that we are becoming immune?  Did we already forget the lessons taught by the likes of Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, and Adelphia?

And what is the role of the FDA in all of this?   Don’t our tax dollars ensure they follow their own mission statement to protect us from such activity?

Congress has been well aware of the risks associated with antidepressants for many years but has done very little to address the problem.  Why?  Probably because there’s far too much money involved.  How much money? 

The pharmaceutical industry consistently outspends other economic sectors on Washington lobbying. Drug companies spent $155 million on lobbying between Jan 2005-June 2006[1].  This large cash infusion has been instrumental in keeping us from having access to less expensive drugs from Canada and other foreign countries.  In fact, this money pretty much ensures that nothing interferes with the enormous profits being raked in by the pharmaceutical giants.

It’s not just lobbying that keeps the pharmaceutical companies wealthy.  Their bread and butter is consumer direct advertising.  No surprise there.  You can’t turn on your television anymore without being bombarded by pharmaceutical ads plugging drugs for every ailment from osteoporosis to erectile dysfunction.  No wonder more than half of all Americans are now on prescription medications.  

The goal of these ads?  Simply to get more people to request these drugs from their doctors by name.  That’s why they're pitching us products that we cannot buy without a doctor.  And it’s working.

Did you know that the United States and New Zealand continue to be the only two developed countries that allow the advertising of pharmaceutical drugs directly to consumers?[2]  The resulting corporate-friendly landscape has resulted in a massive overprescribing of pharmaceutical medications.

Which brings us back to the antidepressant scandal.  If the entire drug industry system is set up in favor of big pharmaceutical companies then why should the suppression of negative study data on antidepressant drugs upset us?

Because the antidepressant drug business is huge.  In fact, antidepressants have become the most prescribed drugs in the United States[3].  They’re prescribed more than drugs to treat high blood pressure, high cholesterol, asthma, and even headaches.  Antidepressant drug sales alone have become a $21 billion dollar a year industry.

Antidepressants are also controversial.  Many believe they are dangerous.  A recent case in point is the tragic death of young actor Heath Ledger.  Two different antidepressant drugs were found in his system along with other prescription pharmaceuticals that caused his death.

Several high profile homicidal rages have been blamed on antidepressants. In fact, some of the worst acts of violence in American history are linked to antidepressant drugs.  Both of the Columbine High School shooters in Colorado were taking antidepressant drugs.  So was the lone gunman at Virginia Tech University who killed 32 students.  And more recently, so was the young killer in the mall in Omaha , Nebraska.

Is this coincidental?  Dozens of other well documented, but less known cases exist. Several that ended up in the legal system resulted in a verdict against the pharmaceutical companies.

And how about the link from antidepressants to suicides in kids?  Did you forget about that one?  At least the FDA succumbed to the pressure on that issue and recently ordered drug companies to add strong "black box" warnings to the labels of antidepressants warning against the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children and teens.

Why isn’t the mainstream media talking more about this?

Is the ad revenue from pharmaceutical companies strong enough to muzzle even them?  Or are they just too busy trying to get the latest scoop on Britney Spears’ epic collapse?

What’s the FDA doing about this?  Is the FDA like an old toothless watchdog?  Or are they just incapacitated by the big money that ultimately governs them?  Is the antidepressant scandal just the tip of the iceberg?  What else aren’t we being told?

Some industry critics believe that high ranking officers of giant pharmaceutical companies have more influence with the FDA officials than the agency’s own medical officers.  How else do you explain the censorship and suppression of critical medical information that influences our own doctors prescribing decisions?

Isn’t it time we force our government to do something to stop the blatant misconduct that is affecting the health of our nation?  Is there no limit to what we’ll allow pharmaceutical giants to get away with?  One thing is certain:  until we curtail or reduce the influence of lobbyists in Washington and the big bucks they wield the answer is clearly “no”.

-Bill Burniece

Resources:

[1] Center For Public Integrity

[2] Sourcewatch.org

[3] US Centers For Disease And Control

 

 

Depression kills

I recently renewed a friendship with a college friend, thanks to Facebook.  We hadn't been in contact in over twenty years.  Yesterday, I understand, he died by his own hand, a victim of lifelong depression.

He was not my closest friend, but that was more my fault than his.  I got on nerves in college, and set teeth on edge.  I was depressed, you see, and that made for an unpleasant personality.  My friend Nick, though, didn't allow it to put him off entirely.

I guess I understand now that he understood me better than I did myself.  He recognized in my the struggles he also faced.

The struggles that, at 43, finally did him in.

It scares the crap out of me to think that a man that so many loved, that so many relied on, that so many thought of as happy and kind, should succumb to this disease.  What about the rest of us?  If Nick fell, what can the rest of us hope for?

This is not my best day, so forgive me.

Some days, I have no patience

Waking up on the wrong side of the bed is annoying as hell, and not just to the waker-upper.  When you have no patience with people and you have to interact with others, the peevish, pissy, and pedantic behaviors come out in full force.

• Everyone is a lot stupider all of a sudden
• Nobody knows how to do things the right way
• Friends are too cloying, close, and getting in your business
• Friends are too distant, ignoring you when you need them
• Let's not even talk about politicians

Shouldn't come as any surprise that loss of patience can be a symptom of depression.  Like most symptoms, however, this one doesn't seem abnormal when you're suffering from it.  That guy really did complain about his cappuccino being "too light" when he obviously should have ordered a latte if he wanted a lot of steamed milk.  The woman laughing at every joke your best friend tells is obviously flirting with him and he is being a complete idiot by paying attention to her.  Obama just doesn't get it about [fill in the blank].  It's all quite reasonable as it's happening.

Patience is a virtue, and a hard-earned one at that.  On days like these, no one seems to deserve it, but look out for warning signs that it's more about you than them:

• Rolling your eyes at a remark (even if you only think about rolling them)
• Interrupting someone because you already know what they're going to say and they shouldn't waste their breath
• Yelling at another driver in traffic
• Yelling at another driver when you're the passenger
• Noticing how rude or stupid that person was and really wanting to say something

If you've done anything like that or similar three times in the past hour, consider taking some time away from people.  You're getting rubbed the wrong way and you're probably doing the same to them, and it's not fair to any of you.  Smoke a cigarette if you're still addicted, meditate, go for a walk . . . just get away, break the pattern, and don't get sucked into choking the living crap out of that bastard who so desperately needs it.

Motivational problems in kids: clue about depression to come?

Motivational problems in kids are probably an indicator of what may happen in the future.  I don't have access to any of the studies on motivation and depression in kids that are out there, but I can share an anecdote.

In the fifth grade, I was ready to resume my place as one of the smart kids.  I'd spent a year with a teacher who hated children so deeply that I have carried a dislike of tenure ever since, but this year I had a teacher whom I respected, and who liked me.

We were given a science assignment, the specifics I can't recall but my excitement over it I remember clearly.  I actually took my teacher aside and asked him if there was a maximum word count, because I was afraid I would write too much.

Something happened, though, and it didn't turn out quite like I expected.  I lost interest in the project, and I did the fifth-grade equivalent of "phoning it in."  It was so poor, in fact, that my teacher took me out in the hall to talk to me about it.  "You asked me for a maximum word count," he said, his disappointment showing in his every word, "but this is a minimum of a minimum!  How can I accept this from you?"

I didn't have an answer for him.  Sure, I had problems with a bully and a few kids who made fun of me from time to time, but that was nothing new.  Family life wasn't perfect but the parents weren't beating us or preparing for a divorce.  I had been hit, and hit hard, with a lack of motivation, and I had no clue why.

I can't fault my teacher or parents for not recognizing it in the 1970s, but I was showing early depressive symptoms.  Not every child is lazy if they don't do the work, and not every child is suffering from vision problems (which I first got corrected in fifth grade, as a matter of fact) or reading disabilities.  Some of them are having troubles which are completely beyond their comprehension.

The fact that "depression" means both "sad" and "serious condition affecting the brain" only adds to the confusion, making it more of a challenge for parents and teachers to tell the difference.

I recently had the pleasure of reviewing Little Voice Mastery, and it was a very different read than most of my business book reviews. Although author Blair Singer is focused on helping people improve the bottom line, hit sales goals, and the like, this book has some real meat in it for the depressed person.

For example: on page 126, in the middle of a series of very specific techniques Singer suggests for quelling the nagging, doubting voices that echo in all of our heads, he offers a technique for shiftly one's mood quickly. It's a role play, and it will almost make anyone feeling depressed additionally feel stupid, but that's the little voice of the depression talking, so pay attention to me, not it.

In essence, the technique is one of having a dialogue with oneself, just asking questions about mood until one gets an answer. It's surprising how easy it is to get the subconscious to own up to how it feels if you just ask it a direct question or two. After you've identified your real mood (and we all know that sometimes the anger or sadness is masking something else), the exercise helps you pick another mood and try it out.

Emotions do really follow our direction. If you feel powerless to change, it's not because you're not capable - it's because that damned depression has convinced that you're impotent. Instead of dwelling on it, try a role play out. Just walk through the steps and follow the instructions carefully, so you have no choice but to succeed. You may be surprised that it was easier than you expected.