A comment on partisanship

[Lithos]

It's been on my mind for sometime to talk about some of the partisanship here in the forum. I realize this does not apply to everyone, but there are enough for me to raise this up publicly as opposed to individually.

One item which has bothered both Undergroundrailroad and myself is how personal the posts and commentary have become. It seems like the goal is not discussing I/P events, but rather to paint another poster as an extreme bigot, right-winger or terrorist supporter. Thankfully it is not as overt as it was 5 years ago, but it still is present in the form of innuendo's at what amounts to an unhealthy level. To say this annoys both UGRR and myself is an understatement. We also consider it a form of disruption.

At a high level, I will share this about people who we've banned. While we've banned our share of people who seem to repeat notions found uniquely in hateful places and groups, most people of note were banned for disruptive behavior or repeating behaviors we've asked them not to do on repeated occasions.

The takeaway is this, think before you post- please do not spend time arbitrarily trying to parse subliminal meaning from people's words and making assumptions as a result. Jumping in with both feet can easily throw up as much mud on yourself as the person you are commenting about. Making something more inflammatory is likely to draw as much, if not more attention, your way than the original post.

Please remember, this type of BBS style communication is well noted for being imprecise and inefficient. Add to that, a fair number of posters here are outside of the US where English may not be their first language and you should have a case for being extra patient, not impatient.

Lithos
DU Moderator

[azurnoir]

1. thank you

on edit-the I/P forum gets so heated that sometimes what gets lost is that some of the people that condemn Israel's military actions do indeed support Israel, similar to condemning the actions of our own country does not mean we hate America

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Is this open for comment/discussion or just a statement?

I know you didn't lock this because I am typing a response, but I was curious as to the intention of the post. Also, can I suggest that it is time to re-visit the I/P forum rules. Thanks.

[Lithos]

3. It can be a dialogue

What do you feel is missing from the I/P forum rules?

Lithos

[Behind the Aegis]

6. Some suggestions.

First, thanks for the opportunity to discuss this. The rules have been in place for three and a half years, and I felt it was time to give them a "once over." Second, I will make suggestions, but I hope others do the same or if they disagree with my suggestions, explain why.

Suggestion 1: Delete posts that complain or whine about posts that get placed in I/P after it has been placed here. It is one thing for posters to complain about things getting sent here while it is in another forum, but once it is here, complaining about its placement is nothing more than "noise" and disruptive. This, of course would be reliant on your (you and UGRR) ability to distinguish what was posted after a move. Do y'all know when a post is moved, and can thereby tell which posts were made after a post was moved?

Suggestion 2: Delete charges of anti-Semitism charges. EG: "Well, I guess if I dare question the mighty Israeli army I'll be accused of anti-Semitism." or "I guess I am an anti-Semite because I disagree with Israel." It is already against the rules to claim someone is a bigot and one of the reasons is because it stifles discussion. Pre-accusations (I can't think of another word) do the exact same thing.

Suggestion 3: If you or UGRR are going to allow a thread to remain open, despite its violations of the I/P rules, due to your discretion, could you please just place a post in the thread (or edit the OP) stating the thread is being allowed to stay open, and possibly why? I know that I and a few others have posted things outside of the rules, but we ask permission first and usually include said permission in the OP. I also know that sometimes people ask questions (good ones) that get sent to I/P and really do deserved to be discussed.

Suggestion 4: Many may not like this, but, why not have thread starting posts just be the article? No comments, no editorializing throughout the post, just the article. If the person wishes to editorialize, then s/he can be the thread's first poster (in most cases). OR have the OP with a VERY distinct line between the article and the poster's comments.

Suggestion 5: Re-work/word this rule:

Please exercise extreme caution and sensitivity when using the words "anti-Semitism" or "Zionism." There is a wide range of opinion on the meaning of these words. If you must use them, please make sure your intended meaning is clear.

Is there really a wide range of opinions on the meaning of "anti-Semitism?" I don't believe there is. There may be a wide range of opinions on what is or isn't anti-Semitic, but I think the definition is pretty clear (with a few exceptions, and personally, I'd like to see the revisionist definitions of anti-Semitism deleted).

Suggestion 6: Add to this rule:

Do not compare Middle East regional leaders and parties to Hitler or the Nazis. Use of these terms is considered inflammatory and should be avoided.

Just as I wasn't allowed to use the term "Judenreined" because of its Nazi implications, calling the West Bank or Gaza "concentration camps" or comparing them to the Warsaw Ghetto, really wouldn't be any different.

Suggestion 7: Under the "Proper use of certain words" setting, perhaps include the words, "genocide," and "ethnic cleansing."

Suggestion 8: Clarify this rule:

Do not call other members of this message board "terror apologist," "Palestinian apologist," "Israeli apologist," "Nazi," "Fascist," "Sharonist," "Likudist", etc.

What I would suggest is "calling out" other members (either by 'group' or name). EG: "Let's see the Israeli warhawks justify this." or "I am sure the pro-Palestinian posters will be able to dismiss this or blame it on Israel."

Finally, on the subject of civility, I feel there needs to be more talk on this topic. If a poster doesn't reply to another's question, then the one asking the question can surely ask if his/her question is going to be answered, but others jumping in with "~~" or "what? no response?" is counter-productive. This is not to say that in a sub-thread, a poster can't respond to someone who has posted and is involved in another discussion in that sub-thread.

More finally (:)), for those of us who have been here awhile, if we get a post deleted, can we have an explanation if we ask for it? I know that you do this sometimes, however, more often than not, I can guess why a post of mine has been deleted, but there have been a few occasions where I was non-plussed. I know that mods can't answer ever request, but as this is a "specialty" forum, and some of us have been here awhile, it may help in future responses.

That's all for now. What do you think? If some of the suggestions just are reasonable or enforceable, that's fine. I just wanted to point out some issues I have seen that are distracting to civil discussion.

Thanks.

(Oh...is there any way to add "anti-Semitism" to the dictionary?!?)

[Lithos]

7. I will answer this tonight

You posted a bit more detail than I anticipated. It deserves time and attention that I won't have until then.

L-

[Behind the Aegis]

9. DO IT NOW!

:rofl:

I am kidding. I was hoping you'd take time to read and digest, possibly discuss with UGRR (maybe Skinner), so I wasn't expecting anything for, honestly, at least a day. Take your time.

[Lurking Dem]

10. BtA!!!

:spank:

You keep that up and Lithos is apt to reply with "42!" :+

[Lithos]

20. How about Now?

Let me answer what I can now.

Suggestion 1: Delete posts that complain or whine about posts that get placed in I/P after it has been placed here. It is one thing for posters to complain about things getting sent here while it is in another forum, but once it is here, complaining about its placement is nothing more than "noise" and disruptive. This, of course would be reliant on your (you and UGRR) ability to distinguish what was posted after a move. Do y'all know when a post is moved, and can thereby tell which posts were made after a post was moved?

For the most part we know or can figure it out. We do make an effort to do this already though we do sometimes let an occasional grumble come through.

Suggestion 2: Delete charges of anti-Semitism charges. EG: "Well, I guess if I dare question the mighty Israeli army I'll be accused of anti-Semitism." or "I guess I am an anti-Semite because I disagree with Israel." It is already against the rules to claim someone is a bigot and one of the reasons is because it stifles discussion. Pre-accusations (I can't think of another word) do the exact same thing.

Already covered:

Do not post accusations of anti-Semitism, racism, bigotry, personal attacks, plagerism, duplicate threads or any other rules violation. This includes claims against yourself or other people. Such posts add nothing to the discussion and often create more problems than the original rules violation. Use the "Alert" button instead, the moderators will deal with the post as soon as they are able.

though I may expand out the meaning here to make it clearer.

Suggestion 3: If you or UGRR are going to allow a thread to remain open, despite its violations of the I/P rules, due to your discretion, could you please just place a post in the thread (or edit the OP) stating the thread is being allowed to stay open, and possibly why? I know that I and a few others have posted things outside of the rules, but we ask permission first and usually include said permission in the OP. I also know that sometimes people ask questions (good ones) that get sent to I/P and really do deserved to be discussed.

I usually make a post in the thread stating that it is an exception and why.

Suggestion 4: Many may not like this, but, why not have thread starting posts just be the article? No comments, no editorializing throughout the post, just the article. If the person wishes to editorialize, then s/he can be the thread's first poster (in most cases). OR have the OP with a VERY distinct line between the article and the poster's comments.

Posting the news article, then saving comment for the first post is fine by me. That also follows with the original spirit of the rule to create a baseline for people to respond to.

Suggestion 5: Re-work/word this rule:

Please exercise extreme caution and sensitivity when using the words "anti-Semitism" or "Zionism." There is a wide range of opinion on the meaning of these words. If you must use them, please make sure your intended meaning is clear.


Is there really a wide range of opinions on the meaning of "anti-Semitism?" I don't believe there is. There may be a wide range of opinions on what is or isn't anti-Semitic, but I think the definition is pretty clear (with a few exceptions, and personally, I'd like to see the revisionist definitions of anti-Semitism deleted).

Yes and no. Outside of those few who claim anti-Semitism means hatred of any one of Semitic origin (see note below), there is no disagreement as to what anti-Semitism is at a base level. However, the issue becomes much greater and cloudier when you are talking about anti-Semitic memes, the history of anti-Semitism and if something is or is not anti-Semitic. That said, I may change this to "meaning and use".

(Note below). Statements saying that Arabs cannot be "anti-Semitic" as Arabs are Semites and thus cannot be against themselves, is of course incorrect and if I remember correctly a modern semantic wordplay originated by people associated with promoting some of the original Holocaust Denial statements. If we think the poster is ignorant, then we will post a correction in reply; if we think they are not ignorant, they do not remain.

Suggestion 6: Add to this rule:

Do not compare Middle East regional leaders and parties to Hitler or the Nazis. Use of these terms is considered inflammatory and should be avoided.

Just as I wasn't allowed to use the term "Judenreined" because of its Nazi implications, calling the West Bank or Gaza "concentration camps" or comparing them to the Warsaw Ghetto, really wouldn't be any different.

I could see the "Warsaw Ghetto", though a generic use would I think be allowed as it has entered into the common vocabulary. (Think Elvis Presley's song "In the Ghetto").

Concentration camp, yes, I do agree.

Suggestion 7: Under the "Proper use of certain words" setting, perhaps include the words, "genocide," and "ethnic cleansing."

I think this is already covered here:

Inflammatory material that adds nothing to the debate is likely to be locked or deleted.

Suggestion 8: Clarify this rule:

Do not call other members of this message board "terror apologist," "Palestinian apologist," "Israeli apologist," "Nazi," "Fascist," "Sharonist," "Likudist", etc.

What I would suggest is "calling out" other members (either by 'group' or name). EG: "Let's see the Israeli warhawks justify this." or "I am sure the pro-Palestinian posters will be able to dismiss this or blame it on Israel."

Already covered:

Do not make over-sweeping or stereotypical generalizations of any group or individual. This includes making statements, either overtly or subtly, which are Anti-Semitic or Anti-Muslim.

Finally, on the subject of civility, I feel there needs to be more talk on this topic. If a poster doesn't reply to another's question, then the one asking the question can surely ask if his/her question is going to be answered, but others jumping in with "~~" or "what? no response?" is counter-productive. This is not to say that in a sub-thread, a poster can't respond to someone who has posted and is involved in another discussion in that sub-thread.

I consider this calling someone out and it is part of the DU rules.

More finally ( :)), for those of us who have been here awhile, if we get a post deleted, can we have an explanation if we ask for it? I know that you do this sometimes, however, more often than not, I can guess why a post of mine has been deleted, but there have been a few occasions where I was non-plussed. I know that mods can't answer ever request, but as this is a "specialty" forum, and some of us have been here awhile, it may help in future responses.

We used to do this, but given time constraints here and on the 9/11 forum, we frankly got tired of sending what essentially amounted to form letters. That said, I do try and post the note to people who are new to the forum.

For the record, this is one of the feature requests we've made to Skinner and Elad.

That's all for now. What do you think? If some of the suggestions just are reasonable or enforceable, that's fine. I just wanted to point out some issues I have seen that are distracting to civil discussion.

The feedback is good. The original intent of the I/P guidelines was to impose a framework where people would be forced to become more thoughtful about their posting. To that end, I think it works fine without imposing too much overhead or burden on the user.

Truthfully there is nothing stopping any user here from self-imposing a more rigid framework on themselves. In the end, all my powers are all after the fact, only you all have the power to change what happens before the fact which is of course a more fundamental control.

Lithos
DU Moderator

[Behind the Aegis]

29. Thank you for the detailed response. It is much appreciated.

I only have a few areas of concern.

I could see the "Warsaw Ghetto", though a generic use would I think be allowed as it has entered into the common vocabulary. (Think Elvis Presley's song "In the Ghetto").

Concentration camp, yes, I do agree.

I do not agree that "Warsaw Ghetto" has entered into our language as anything other than what it is. The word 'ghetto', however, has, such is your example. Therefore, I feel saying Gaza is like a ghetto would be acceptable. But, saying it is like the "Warsaw Ghetto" is inflammatory, false propaganda. As i read my response, I am wondering if that is also what you were saying.

I can appreciate that you feel suggestion seven is already reflected in the rule about "inflammatory posts," however, I see the words "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" tossed about in a very reckless manner. Both words are very powerful and can be used in such a way that the hyperbole itself becomes the discussion, as opposed to the original post.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues.

[Lithos]

30. Ghetto

Using the phrase "ghetto" I think is allowable as it is most definitely in today's vocabulary. To use a specific phrase out of history, such as "Warsaw Ghetto" which is tied heavily to WW II and the Nazi final solution would not be.

Lithos

[richards1052]

84. 'Anti-Semitism' is a misused term as well

"Is there really a wide range of opinions on the meaning of "anti-Semitism?" I don't believe there is. There may be a wide range of opinions on what is or isn't anti-Semitic..."

If there "may be a wide range of opinions on what is anti-Semitic" then there surely is also a wide range of opinions on what constitutes anti-Semitism. Unless perhaps I'm not understanding what your intent was in making this statement. If someone can accuse Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Tony Judt of being "anti-Semitites" then we surely aren't agreeing on what constitutes anti-Semitism. I believe there are terms on both sides of this debate that are deeply exploited & misused. The hardline pro-Israel folks tend to abuse the term by including people within it who, in my opinion aren't anti-Semites. In just the same way, anti-Zionists tend to use strident, derivsive references to Israel that also leave me non-plussed.

To be clear, I'm not necessarily talking about people in this forum since I'm relatively new here. This is based on my 4 yr experience blogging about I-P peace.

[pelsar]

4. i am part of the "making it personal"...

and it is a specific goal of mine. If you've noticed i have kept hammering away with questions that are not always answered...and yes it can get a bit personal and annoying, But there is a reason for it...it makes one a bit more responsable for ones statements. For those that take the time to answer, they are then forced to go beyond the simplistic, superficial "talking points' and get to down to what they actually mean and what the real implications are.(and thats tricky stuff)

and then we can see not just contradictions but the differences between "ivory tower values" and when they're actually applied. And its also far more interesting and telling.

True its not always successul, as many are not always willing to go that far, and it does consequently make some of the discussions a bit more rough and personal....but change doesnt come easy.

and there has been an impovement. In the past the poster just ignored my questions (disappeared), now there are some answers and i was rather pleased to see others also demanding answers to questions (on both sides of the line). I do believe its a far healthier way of having a discussion.

[undergroundrailroad]

5. I agree pelsar. Thank you for your comments. (/t)

[shaayecanaan]

109. I havent been here long...

but one thing that irks me is the habit of several posters to appoint themselves arbiters of specific issues or questions and demand that other posters supply them with sufficient evidence to convince them.

You do this, I notice msmcghee does as well. In her case, I can probably put it down to her not having as much rhetorical ability as some of the other posters. I'm not sure what it is in your instance. It does not really annoy me as I wouldnt know either of you from a can of paint, but I find the assumption that anyone cares whether they meet your standards or not to be rather portentous.

I think you'll find that the reason people tend to dismiss or ignore your posts is because they perceive the futility of trying to address you. You ask someone to give you sufficient evidence to persuade you, knowing full well that notwithstanding the quality of such evidence you're unlikely to be so persuaded. Its a bit much to ask to be regarded as an umpire if you're one of the players as well.

Basically, if you think someone is full of shit, then back it up. No one is going to do that work for you. Cheers.

[msmcghee]

125. Since I am mentioned here . .

. . let me make it clear to you. I ask for convincing evidence when people like you make an absolute claim - such as "Israel targets civilians". If you make the claim - you should back it up. If your evidence is weak then you shouldn't make the claim - or you shouldn't complain when someone points out the weakness of your claim based on "circumstantial" evidence.

Another possibility is to make a less accusatory claim. For example, "There seem to be a lot of Palestinain civilian deaths in these operations for them all to be incidental." That kind of leaves the question open to discussion - but still makes your point.

[Tom Joad]

8. I would like to hear from the moderators their view of ethnic cleansing, and

if that is in sync with "actively seeking a peaceful and respectful settlement "

It seems to me that even suggesting ethnic cleansing of either Jews or Palestinians would fall very far outside that guideline. Even while saying it is to be used as a "last resort".

I admit my displeasure at seeing that suggested, and remaining, on the forum is a cause of concern.

[msmcghee]

12. One last time Tom . .

I said that if Israel were to adopt a policy of stricter anti-terror enforcement near the border with the WB - hoping that one benefit from that would be to induce the more violent elements to relocate away from the border areas - as an alternative to more violent clashes with those militants near the border that would likely kill more innocent civilians on both sides - that it would be understandable (why they might see that as a better outcome).

It is way over the line to equate that carefully explained scenario as my support for ethnic cleansing.

I was speculating about what might be going on in the Israelis minds. I did not say that I think Israel would be justified in a policy of ethnic cleansing on the WB - and I would not support Israel if that was their policy. I do not consider legal actions that as one effect of many might encourage extremists to move away from Israel's border area an example of ethnic cleansing. I would tend to call that saving Palestinian lives.

I wasn't trying to justify anything. I was speculating about IDF motives, intentions and policies. I only made the comment that it's plausible that someone in their position would see it that way.

No matter what I said before on this or how I said it - this is what I was trying to say. Feel free to criticize my opinion - but you are wrong to say that I support ethnic cleansing.

[Lithos]

21. Tom

Please don't bring this up. You've also been accused in similar circumstances due to the semantics of how things were posted.

Lithos
DU Moderator

[msmcghee]

11. Since you're accepting suggestions . .

. . something that I find extremely frustrating is the tendency during a discussion for some here to take anything someone says about a complex topic that has many possible meanings in different contexts - and take those comments in a way that makes them out to be a bigot, a racist, or a supporter of genocide or the commonly used meaning for ethnic cleansing - if there's any possible way their post can be interpreted to do so.

I think it should be against the rules to suggest someone here is in those categories. Such accusations are damaging and inflammatory and I would think already against the rules - but they seem to continue as a constant refrain from some posters.

If anyone suspects that a person does advocate such terrible things they can politely ask for a clarification.

If a new poster does not respond to the request for clarification or if anyone responds in a way that clearly puts them into one of those categories - then the alert button is available. Anyone who falls into those categories would probably out themselves and be banned long before they could become a longtime poster.

Another suggestion. A useful way to reveal a weakness in someone's argument is to ask specific questions. A variation is to pose a dilemma - a choice between two alternatives.

The respondent can either answer or can refuse to answer or can claim that the choice is not valid and explain why. It's between the two members to work that out. There are many false premises stated and false questions posed in this forum - as one would expect on such a volatile topic - and it's not always easy or even possible to determine for sure which ones are valid or not. That's what we're here to work out.

Questions based on a false premise are just another type of false statement. Unless the question is posed solely to enflame the debate I don't think a moderator should become the arbiter of what is and what is not a "false dichotomy" or "fair question" and delete someone's post for posing it. When you do that you are taking sides. (Although I have no problem with you posting your comments in the open as a participant - perhaps explaining why it is a false dichotomy, for example.)

As long as we avoid the insults and inflammatory comments (over which I'd like to see stricter enforcement) I think you should let us debate who is right and wrong about both our premises and our questions to each other.

[bemildred]

13. About questions ...

You cannot simply demand that someone else answer any question that takes your fancy. There are many reasons for this, I will list only these:

1.) It can take a great deal more work to answer a question well than it does to pose it, you can't just demand someone do that. Everyone is familiar with the young child that asks questions as a way to demand attention. You can ask, but it is not owed to you. If someone chooses to answer a question from you, they are doing you a favor, and it means nothing one way or another if they choose - for any of a number of reasons - not to.

2.) Asking questions is too often used as a cheap way to put the ball in the other court. State YOUR case, say what you think, or read carefully what someone else HAS said and respond to it in some meaningful way. If you respond to someone else, don't just change the subject to something you find more convenient, respond to what THEY said, and THEN bring up something you think is related. Many times when I decide not to respond to something, it is because it seems to me that I have ALREADY gone to some trouble to express myself and been completely or largely ignored. There is no point in banging your head on a wall. Another case is where someone has presumed to know a great deal about what I think, without asking, and then demanded that I defend myself for holding the opinions they have projected onto me. This is a game that one can never win, and so the only sensible approach is not to play.

3.) Some questions are "loaded", they include premises or ideas that one may not agree with or accept, this is the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" sort of thing. This sort of thing I consider "cheating" in terms of discussion, and I will almost always ignore such. If the question is peppered with loaded terminology and pejorative terms, if may be presumed to fall in this class. Answering such questions is a waste of time, since it is not really a question, but a way to smuggle ones preferred point of view into the debate without having to defend it.

-- B

[msmcghee]

15. I agree with much of your post.

But I don't think this falls under the heading of what the moderators should be concerned with.

It seems more a question of intellectually honest debate as opposed to the opposite. Asking and being willing to answer tough question are certainly part of intellectually honest debate. Don't you think?

No matter what kinds of questions are asked - the respondent can ignore them, can answer them - or can show why they are unrealistic or based on a false premise and why they choose not to answer them (which would discredit the questioner if it was accurate).

It's also the case IMO that many questions go unanswered because the person says they are not interested in that subject, they don't like the attitude of the questioner or the questioner's opinions on another topic, or the questioner is bigoted, or they say they already answered that question but the questioner wasn't paying attention - and in many cases those are just attempts to avoid answering a tough question.

But I think that all becomes apparent or not - to whoever is following the thread - and people will make their judgments. I don't think this has anything to do with what the moderators should be concerned with. They should keep it civil IMO - and we should take care of the rest. Just my 2 cents.

[bemildred]

16. Paragraphs in order:

1.) I am not addressing the mods.

2.) No, I don't think. Asking and being willing to answer honest questions is part of honest debate. Whether they are "tough", in someones opinion, or not, has nothing to do with it. Honesty and "toughness" have nothing in particular to do with each other, in fact they are is some part contrary to each other. What you call "toughness" I consider to be rhetorical tricks.

3.) True.

4.) And in many cases they are accurate criticisms, and the failure to attend to them is yet another example of inattention to what others have to say.

5.) Again, I am not addressing the mods, they do not need instruction from me. The subject of unanswered questions came up in several posts, so it seemed like a reasonable place to state my views on that matter. I tried to do so in such a way as not to mention anyone in particular, but apparently such tact was wasted.

[pelsar]

18. this one is for me...the unanswered questions....

It can take a great deal more work to answer a question well than it does to pose it
so?...it takes a lot more time to address: false claims of genocide, ethnic cleansing, nonviolent protests, "need westbank/lebanon to steal water" than it does to make the statement.

and yes i think a detailed explaination/links are "owed" when such statements are made......it should be the "culture here."

and sometimes as in real life such questions lead to other questions that do "veer" off the main topic....thats quite natural. At that point it seems to me the posters have the choice of continuing or not, simply with a "I'm not interested in continuing"

some questions are loaded
that is because many of the situations are "loaded".....thats what happens in real life out here. Both the palestinians and us know a certain set of events follow one another, like clock work and we all know what each side is going to do....Here at the I/P israel then gets criticized for those actions. My bringing them up is no more "loaded' than what happens in real life. Understandably its creates moral value decisions that are not comfortable but that is precisly why i bring them up....and dont get answered (though there has been a few that have answered some)

i've noticed that usually i get one or two questions before it ends...the reasons are varied: already answered, etc....but i see it differently....it takes a few questions and answers before one gets to the real moral decision that are being made in the field: morality vs intl law or applying real definitions. Unfortunatly few(none) really want to go there. If it were one or two posters i would take them as the exception, however it appears to be far more wide spread than that. Again in a real life conversation few discussions are only allowed "two questions".

Since many here have not been out there in the environment, it seems to me those who are really interested in understanding at least one of the sides, attempting to answer questions that some of us actually face, would be of interest.

[bemildred]

19. You do raise valid questions about the realities of the situation.

You do not have any right to demand that other posters resolve them for you, they are difficult problems. If you simply want to point out that people think about the problem in ways that are too simplistic, that is good. If you think you win some argument because they do not answer your question to your satisfaction, that is not correct.

Edit: FWIW, I was not specifically addressing you, or anyone, and I would not want you to stop asking your questions. I was simply presenting my attitude on these matters, which is that I won't bother unless there is some prospect of saying what I want to say and being heard, with a reasonable amount of effort. Not agreement, just being understood correctly.

[Lithos]

22. This is a good discussion chain

Thanks!

[pelsar]

24. the "pointing out of the problem"

i originally tried that assuming that it would then generate a discussion that does actually get into the morality vs intl law vs available options etc....that we, israelis, actually face. I was wrong.

basically i was 100% wrong. Perhaps my posts were read with interests but beyond that not only did they not generate discussion the same accusations would then come up as if my posts were not even written.

let me give an example, which i think is appropriate:
when israel first left gaza and the kassams started, israeli jets would fly over gaza and produce sonic booms as a warning. Obviously this was deemed a war crime etc...yet when i asked for viable options.....no answers....and the accusations would appear again.....to me, something is missing if one can make accusations and then not follow up with some real options/advice and what the consequences of those same "options/advice really is.

thats what happens in "real life" amongst our friends and relatives when we criticize them.....they're next sentence is usually something like: well what would you do"

at that point, some do say "I dont know"....but that too is acceptable to me.

Perhaps i dont have the right to "demand" answers, but i do believe there should be a level of courtesy where if someone doesnt want to answer, then at least the minimum of "i dont want to answer, or not interested in going there etc" would be appropriate.

[bemildred]

27. "I don't know" is a good answer.

People ought to have more respect for it. So is "I don't think there is any answer". Questions don't necessarily have answers. In the case of the Qassams, I don't think there is any answer to that specific problem; the Qassams will go away when the larger issues are resolved, eventually, and not otherwise. That you point it out is a good thing, it explains Israeli feelings on the subject, the man in the street, and substantiates them. Nobody likes, or should be expected to like, having rockets fired at them. But that doesn't mean sonic booms are going to "work", in the sense of stopping the Qassams, or that sonic booms are the sensible response to them. Nobody likes having sonic booms either, it just pisses them off, and makes them more anxious to shoot back some Qassams, as one can easily see, and that ought to be understood too.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. I couldn't agree more...

I was set upon once for saying *I don't know* in response to a question that was demanding I singlehandedly solve that problem. It's pretty ridiculous for anyone to demand that posters here singlehandedly solve the I/P conflict or any part of it, and that's not what I thought the purpose of this forum was. Questions demanding that other posters solve difficult issues, or tell the questioner what will be in the body of peace negotiations is imo pretty pointless and best left to languish unanswered...

[bemildred]

14. About civility ...

I know it helps me a good deal that I do not think that anything we say here makes much difference, or will make much difference, in what comes to pass, there is really not much at stake in our discussions, so we might as well not get upset. It just ruins your day, for nothing. When I find myself getting annoyed, I consider that is a sign that I need to walk away and do something else.

[Lithos]

23. Well said

This is so fundamental to the situation that I probably should add something like this to the I/P guidelines.

L-

[Behind the Aegis]

25. I disagree.

Whereas you think what you write doesn't make much of a difference, I believe it does. It is not on the level of politicians, national leaders, or the international stage, but it does make a difference. If you honestly feel what you say/write makes no difference, then why do it? Perhaps we differ in what is and isn't important, but I feel when I write I am doing to for two reasons, truth and education. At least that is what I feel when I write in I/P. When it comes to other things (do you like the color blue? do you think Xena was a great TV show? do you think grass is prettier in fields or the city?) then, I feel it doesn't amount too much.

I write in I/P, not just for myself, but for others. I challenge the hate, lies, and propaganda. I feel that is important! People read what we write, and rightly or wrongly, they take away impressions on the situation, especially from those of us who have been here for awhile. I have had many a day ruined because of things written here. I have shed many a tear. Yet, I still come back to discuss and fight. Words have power, even words typed here! Though not everything is of the utmost or gravest importance, many things do carry weight.

A pebble tossed in the water creates waves. Those waves reach many shores. To me, it doesn't matter if it is a pebble or a boulder tossed in the lake, I know that both of their aftermaths are just as capable of reaching the shore.

If you honestly feel that you "do not think that anything we say here makes much difference" then why bother?

[bemildred]

26. If you read carefully, you will see that I said:

"makes much difference, or will make much difference, in what comes to pass". It obviously makes a difference to those who participate, but we are not steering the affairs of the World, nor is that in our power. We are here for the pleasure of conversation, of being able to express ourselves, and of being understood, for the pleasure or reasoned debate and discussion, for fellowship, if you like. At least, I am. I'm not really in a position to tell others what they are here for and how to go about it, but I am in a position to say what I am here for, and how I go about it. I think if you allow yourself to think that what we are doing here is "really important", you are bound to go off the deep end.

[pelsar]

50. this place does have an affect....

just a small example: my son. A 16yr old who is part of a socialistic (probably trying to turn him into some kind of commie pinko....) youth group, more interested in helping the down trodden and becoming a world citizen as opposed to becoming part of some nation state.....

started reading some of these posts (especially those originating at zmag....)....his reaction was one of shock, he started asking me why do they hate so much...why do they accuse his friends (and he may be "there soon) of being child killers?....looking to steal the land, the water etc. why are their views so full of lies?

He, brought up in a liberal environment, was pretty surprised at what he read and is now having some trouble comprehending it and i really cant help him with that....needless to say his innocence is now leaving and hes now considering following his dads footsteps in to combat unit.

so this place and especially tom, certainly does have an affect...

[Tom Joad]

51. Me? Why not B'Tselem? Why not the commander that said what

israel was doing in Lebanon was "insane and monstrous"? i think is as strong as anything i posted.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3396093,00.html

Shin Bet uses torture regularly, B'Tselem report says

Human rights organization publishes report saying almost all Palestinian detainees suffer physical, mental abuse during interrogations, despite High Court ruling that limits use of violence against prisoners. Group calls on government to ban torture immediately

Yu seem to be blaming me for the bad news.

I think it would be more helpful if Israel stopped decided never again to drop a million cluster bombs on a civilian population. If Israel decided not to torture. If Israel ended the occupation.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. Is that necessarily a bad thing?

If it's helped your son realise just how many people think that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is evil, that's probably one step towards making him question it himself, which in turn is one more vote towards a possible peaceful solution.

I'm disappointed that he's considering joining a combat unit. I hope he'll have the courage to be a conscientious objector, or similar.

[pelsar]

61. hes a smart kid....

hes very aware of the treatment of the palestenians...its in the news, he gets info from his youth group and his dad.....its his questioning that brought him to read the DU....and thats where he received his shock:

genoicde? baby killers? concentration camps? apartheid.....you name it, his country his dad, his grandparents, uncles has been accused of it. "turning the other cheek" doesnt do if for him....whatever his choice it will be out of conviction not out of weakness nor peer pressure.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

63. I hope you're wrong.

I would like to think better of your son than that he's genuinely aware of the treatment of the Palestinians, and still seriously contemplating joining the IDF.
I hope he's just innaccurately informed.

Of the four accusations you list, two are clearly false (Israeli has never even contemplated genocide or the setting up of concentration camps), one is clearly true (the IDF does kill babies, in small numbers directly and in quite large numbers indirectly); the comparison with apartheid is the only controversial one.

I would say that the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis is non-trivially worse than the treatment of South African blacks by South African whites, but not terribly similar to it, because the Israelis and the Palestinians are separate nations; the South Africans were all one, but I'm less confident of that answer than I am of the other three.

Still, I'm glad that your son has at least been made aware of the possibilty of comparison.


I note that you didn't list "terrorists" among them, which is, I think an accurate description of many of the activities of the IDF, e.g. the recent bombing of civilian targets in Lebanon, and the destruction of Palestinian homes.

Joining the IDF won't (necessarily) make your son a terrorist, but it will make him a member of an organisation that carries out terrorist activities and crimes against humanity, and I hope he's a better man than that.

[pelsar]

64. my son has a question that i cant answer....

why are the palestenians trying to kill him? (he was forbidden to to to shopping malls for a while before the wall).....why are the palestenains trying to kill the citizens of sederot, why did hizballa attack israel for the last 6 years....and why were they trying to kill anybody they could in israel?

why cant the palestenians keep a peace agreement amongst themselves?.......

i try not to influence him with my own views and biases...but i dont have answers for him...do you?

btw you obviously dont agree with these accusations:
Of the four accusations you list, two are clearly false (Israeli has never even contemplated genocide or the setting up of concentration camps),....but for many they are not "clearly false"...as many of the posters on the DU have shown.....and they are part of the influence.

[breakaleg]

65. How about, because we stole their land and they want it back. nt

[pelsar]

66. like i wrote....

hes a smart kid and understands some of the complexities of the conflict and understands that the "black and white, cartoon versions of the conflict arent relevant.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

67. Yes, I do.

:- "The Palestinians" are *not* trying to kill him. Some Palestinian militant factions are trying to kill him.

:- Many of the Palestinians are, at least nominally, in favour of attacks meant to kill him and civilians like him.

:- The number of Palestinians who, if you introduced him to them, and said "there is going to be a rocket attack, would you rather he died in it or not" is far smaller than the number in favour of rocket attacks intended to kill people like him.

:- There are, I think, two main reasons Palestinians support attacks on Israelis.

:- One is that they hope that if they can make the Israelis suffer enough then it will force the Israelis to stop making them suffer.

:- I do not think this will work.

:- The other is that an awful lot of them have already suffered an awful lot at the hands of the Israelis - an order of magnitude more than most Israelis have suffered at the hands of the Palestinians. As such, many of them are - completely justifiably - very, very angry at the Israelis, and - unjustifiably, in my view - want to make the Israelis suffer in revenge.

:- I suspect that they tend to blame Israel, rather than specific Israelis, for their suffering, and as such they regard any Israeli as a target for revenge.

:- This doesn't seem to make peaceful interaction on a personal level between Israelis and Palestinians impossible - once you categorise someone as "Simon the grocer" rather than "an Israeli" it becomes easier to realise that he's not the person you want revenge on, even if you still nominally support attacks on Israelis.

:- On the other hand, Israel is a democracy, and I think that every Israeli who has ever voted for any other than the most pro-peace, pro-concessions candidates in elections, or served in the IDF, is in some measure complicit in the crimes of the Israeli state, although this does not in any way justify attacks against them.

:- The only way to make your son understand why the Palestinians feel the way they do about Israelis is to make him - and yourself - understand what Israel has done to the Palestinians , or - if you can't face changing your views to that extent - what the Palestinians feel Israel has done to them.

:- As to why the Palestinians can't come to a peace agreement among themselves - the Palestinians don't have a functioning state - that's partly their own fault, and partly Israel's. In a situation like that, the people who obtain power are those who want power and are willing to take it by force, and such people are naturally going to fight one another for power.

[msmcghee]

68. I'll stay out of the main part of your discusssion . .

. . with Pelsar, but I did notice this:

:- As to why the Palestinians can't come to a peace agreement among themselves - the Palestinians don't have a functioning state - that's partly their own fault, and partly Israel's. In a situation like that, the people who obtain power are those who want power and are willing to take it by force, and such people are naturally going to fight one another for power.

Maybe you haven't noticed - but every state in the (Arab) Islamic world, and proportional to the amount of Islamic influence in that government, is either,

a) in a state of armed conflict with various factions killing each other to gain power, and or,

b) ruled by a strong-armed autocrat who ruthlessly imprisons, tortures or kills anyone who he thinks is a threat to his power.

You could just as easily have said, "In the Arab ME, the people who obtain power are those who want power and are willing to take it by force, and such people are naturally going to fight one another for power."

The Palestinians* (the Arabs who inhabit this particular region) are notorious for this approach to power and governance and are respected by most Arab states in the region about as much as they respect Israel.

But, go ahead and blame Israel. That's the drill.

* Palestinians in this context means those Arabs inhabiting the WB and Gaza who have enough influence to control whatever level of governance exists at the time and to determine actions external to the WB and Gaza - such as rocket attacks against Israel. I do not mean all Palestinians.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

69. Tell me, what do you think the largest Islamic nation in the world is?

NT

[oberliner]

71. The only Islamic nations in the world are

Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Mauritania.

So I guess the answer is Pakistan?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

72. What definition of "Islamic nation" are you using?

I - somewhat ambiguously, I admit, but not incorrectly - am using it to mean a nation where the majority of the populace is Islamic.

[oberliner]

73. A nation that defines itself as an Islamic Republic

The official names of the countries I cited are all "The Islamic Republic of ... "

I don't think there are any others besides those four.

[sabbat hunter]

177. does indonesia

use islamic republic?

[bemildred]

70. Or

c.) Occupied by foreign armies that ruthlessly imprison, torture or kill anyone they think is a threat to their power.

And I think we need to give credit to Turkey, where the elected government wants more islamic influence, and sections of the population and the military resist that. And Lebanon had a very modern and secular culture too until it became a political football for larger powers. Iraq was pretty secular too, it had a dictator who enforced that, because it was a threat to HIS power, but the US recently removed him and his clique, so it is now likewise moving in the direction or being more islamic.

Since the occupied territories ARE "occupied", it is simply ridiculous to compare them to states that still retain some degree of political autonomy. The Palestinians were once a very secular people too.

[pelsar]

74. interesting...but nothing there

negates what he's learned while looking over my shoulder:

if i were to sum up what your wrote:

many Palestinians want to kill him for various reasons, many unjustifiably and the state of their society/culture is such that when it comes to gaining and retaining power they use violence......

furthermore they take out their frustrations by killing israelis
_________

add that to the usual accusations of genocide, etc by their supporters which many believe (do a search on google: israeli genocide...) and my very socialistic son is very seriously questioning the pacifist viewpoint...its seems to be suicidal

[Donald Ian Rankin]

75. That's not a summary, it's a selection.

I think that most of your summary, somewhat misleadingly phrased, is at least in broad outline true, but that it leaves out the most important points of the issue. If you genuinely think that that's an accurate summary then I would worry about the quality of the information your son is receiving, but I hope it was just intended as selected highlights to make a point.

I have no doubt that there are many accusations of genocide against Israel on the internet; I have seen far, far fewer on DU than I have against the US and UK for what they are doing in Iraq.

Pacifism for Israel in the forseeable future would, I agree, be suicidal - you need to maintain an army capable of defeating Iran, at a minimum. However, there's a whole world of difference between ending the occupation of Palestine and pacifism.

[pelsar]

76. yes it was a selection...

(summary was a poor choice of word on my part) i chose the parts that my son and i had spoken of earlier that put his "universal beliefs of socialism, justice etc in to question......the question is not so much iran as it is the occupation for it is there where the moral problem lies.

ending the occupation by no means guarantees peace....it may infact increase the violence.....and that is the crux of the matter

[Donald Ian Rankin]

77. Continuing the occupation guarantees continued conflict.

I agree that ending the occupation wouldn't guarantee peace, although unlike you I think it would make it highly likely, and I think it most unlikely it would make things any worse for Israel.

But do you disagree with any of these?

:-The occupation can't continue forever
:-The conflict will continue until it ends
:-The longer it goes on for the less chance of peace when it ends

In addition, you haven't even mentioned the moral issue - the Israelis are not the only people whose interests should be considered (although a worrying number of people seem to disagree with that); even if it is against the national interest, Israel has no right to continue the occupation & the collective punishment of the Palestinians, any more than I have a right to steal something from you to stop someone else hurting me.

In fact, though, I don't think that's an issue, though, because as I've said I think it's clearly in Israel's national interest - at least if you don't factor in territorial ambitions, which I think most Israelis do, sadly - to end it now.

[pelsar]

80. is there an "undo" for a failed withdrawal?

I agree that ending the occupation wouldn't guarantee peace, although unlike you I think it would make it highly likely......and if it fails?....it would depend upon the politicians in the PA, in the arab world, as well as the jihadnikims friends.....a scenario like what we see coming out of gaza is definitely a possibility.....and if that would be the result...then what?

the occupation cant last forever, but it can last for a long long time...... (US on indian soil?)

the conflict may or may not continue...its not dependent upon the occupation as you yourself admitted (ending the occupation wont guarantee peace) or as we saw with hizballa attacking israel or as we saw pre 67.

again i disagree, the longer this goes on, the miserable the lives of the Palestinians will be....perhaps eventually they will have had enough and try something other than violence to get what they want. Peace is not dependant upon time, its dependant upon the collective will of the peoples involved and their leadership.

the moral issue you mentioned is precisely the problem.....is it moral to withdraw from the territories and then have kassams landing on jerusalem and eventually have an additional war in the westbank? if that is a possibility then it cannot be ignored. Was it moral to leave gaza and now for the people of sederot to live under the constant firing of kassams (collective punishment?).....is that the morality your talking about?

The Palestinians have the moral right not to be occupied, the israelis have the moral right not to live under constant threats of attack (i.e. in the world of the DU-collective punishment)...which is the greater moral value?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

82. There's no undo either way.

FWIW, I think the Palestinian's right not to be occupied is far greater than the Israeli's right not to be bombed, for two reasons: the first is that the root cause of the problem is Israel's occupation of Palestinian land, and the second and more compelling is that the suffering the Israeli's are inflicting on the Palestinians is immeasurably worse than anything the Palestinians do or could do to the Israelis.

I think that your hope that making the lives of the Palestinians more miserable may make them more willing to make peace is a common one among Israelis and their supporters.

I think it is insane - people don't work like that, and the Palestinians are humans, not animals, despite what many of Israel's supporters thing - morally unjustifiable, and largely responsible for the failure of Israel to achieve anything other than more death on both sides, and continued occupation.

What would be your response to someone expressing the hope that if the Palestinians made the lives of the Israelis miserable enough then they would make peace, and trying to use that to justify more bombings, be?


I fully agree with you that the firing of rockets at civilian targets, as many of the Palestinians are doing or support doing, is completely immoral.

[pelsar]

83. you misunderstand....

making the lives of the palestenians miserable is not a goal, nor will it induce peace...that will be up to their leaders or perhaps a grass roots movement as in intifada I. My comment on the misery in their lives is a direct result of their strategy of using violence...its a failed strategy as a simply time line shows. All the curfews, road blocks, raids etc are not designed to make their lives miserable, they're designed to keep israelis alive.....

peace will come when they decide to change that strategy, its that simple.

_______________

if the root cause if the occupation, then you must be refering to pre 67 (as per hamas)...for the violence did not begin post 67. That being the case, the war will then go on for a long time.

As far as the suffering being inflicted upon the palestenians being immeasurably worse then anything the palestenains could do....one look at gaza and the palestenian society their kassams on israeli communities, their blowing up busses, their attacks on homes and complete disregard for palestenian lives and i shudder to think what they would do if they ever got the upper hand.

___
btw you are the first person in all my time here (on the "palestenian side") to actually take a stand on "moral values"
FWIW, I think the Palestinian's right not to be occupied is far greater than the Israeli's right not to be bombed.

I must say, i found it very refreshing. As difficult as it is to give a value to "morality" it is very much part of this and any conflict. Whether i disagree with you or not is not the issue, just the fact that you can state which are more important and which are less, is simple a realistic aspect of the conflict.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

85. I'm afraid I'm less convinced by the purity of the Israeli government's motives.

I think it's fairly clear that a large part of Israel's policy in dealing with the Palestinians is to deliberately make their lives as miserable as possible, partly in an attempt to make them give up both a) using violence and b) demanding their land back at all, and partly simply because an awful lot of Israelis are so angry at the Palestinians that they hate them and want them to suffer, and so there are lots of votes available for "not being soft on them".

Those policies are *not* purely defensive, they're designed to terrorise the Palestinian population.



I agree that what the Palestinians would do *if they ever got the other hand* would probably be comparable to, or even worse than, what the Israelis are currently doing to them. However, there is no possibility of that happening, and nothing they ever *could* possibly do is, I think.



The root cause of the conflict was the theft of Palestinian land for the foundation of Israel in 1948 - a truly atrocious piece of foreign policy on the part of the British et al, for both moral and practical reasons, but one that it's far too late to justify reversing - it's been aggravated by subsequent further thefts.

Many (not all) Palestinians have grown more or less resigned to the original theft, and Israel has now had that land for long enough to have a right to keep it, but the subesequent thefts still rankle far more, and should still be returned (although if the illegal settlements remain for a few more generations they will, sadly, have a right to continue existing permanently).

[pelsar]

86. Donald...i like your realism...

i've always wondered where the "realistic pro palestenains" were.....it seems we shall agree on events but less on their interpretation.

Whether or not the jews "stole the land" or returned we shall simply disagree, but your point is very well taken....the longer israel retains the land where the settlements are the greater the chances that they will be come a permament part of israel. The "history line" of the palestenains is clear...as the years go by they have less and less land, less security and simply more misery.

I probably wish as much as you, that they could get it together and start protesting as in intifada I. That was a real grass roots protest that woke up the israel to the realization that the occupation had to end. (the army had trouble fillng out its reserve units being sent to gaza and the westbank-made up usually by those on the "left side").

let me correct you: I dont know anybody who hates the palestenains.....and i know lots of people on the right and left side of the iine who actually worked to help them. (our refusnik medic would buy from the palestenians stores, our right wing commander who lived in gaza would use palestenian labor, payed them above the local wages inorder to give them a better living...).

for most of the israelis. however, its nothing more than ambivilance....we simply dont care about the palestenians. We live our lives in our modern hi tech world and in our day to day lives virtually nothing to do with the territories, the lines, the kassams, the curfews etc....we see it on TV, read about them, during some expose here or there, shake our heads at the settlers fanaticism, and then turn the TV off and go out to movie or read some blogs.....

btw the "hate" thing...reminds me of 4 hour conversation i had with a right wing jew, who insisted that the left hates the religious right. Eventually he decided that i cant be 'left" (actually i describe myself as liberal) because i dont hate the right...well i dont hate the palestenians. This guy on the right? he also didnt hate the palestenians...though he did describe them as being scum (dont feel bad, he described my daughter as being a slut)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

88. I would tend to assume that anyone who categorised a group of people as "scum" hated them.

At least in the sense of the word relevant to politics.

As I noted earlier in the context of Palestinian feelings towards Israelis, and is just as relevant the other way round, people are usually much more hostile to a group than to the members of that group they know personally. Buying at a store owned by Abdul, who happens to be a Palestinian, and supporting policies designed to make the Palestinians as a group suffer, do not rule one another out.

There's a reason "some of my best friends are black" is a cliche.

This, incidentally, is why I think the increasing numbers of "faith schools" here in the UK is such a bad thing, but that's a digression.


Getting back to your son, I'd suggest it might be worth his while looking more at the Palestinians and less at their supporters/Israel's opponents.

I don't think that the accusation that a lot of the hostility to Israel is motivated by antisemitism has any validity at all, but I do think that a lot of it is partially (*not* fully, or even mainly) motivated, or at least aggravated, by hostility to the West - the same reason you get so much more protest against America than other nations. Westerner liberals get more angry at Israelis than Palestinians, not because the Israelis aren't "people like us", but because they *are*, and I think that often leads to irrationality.

I freely admit that I care and post more about Israeli human rights abuses than others for roughly that reason, although I *don't* judge them by a different standard (if someone says "Burma/China/African country X/Arab country Y etc is doing worse things than Israel is", my response is "yes, I agree it is, but I'm talking about Israel"). In my case the motivation is at least semi-rational - Israel may conceivably be persuaded to stop by Western pressure, whereas Burma, say, won't be; Israel is receiving massive Western aid and support; there are large numbers of Westerners who defend Israeli abuses, whereas virtually no-one in the West is trying to defend such abuses in most other countries. But there is also an element of the feeling that rich western democracies should be held to higher standards than other nations, which - while I wouldn't rule out the possiblity of a rational justification for existing - I certainly can't justify.



The most compelling way to make the pro-Palestinian case is simply to take a look at what life for the Palestinians has been like for the last 60-100 years, and especially for the last 5 or 10, and what the impact of Israeli actions on it has been.



Another question is "what do you think would happen if the Palestinians did stop resorting to violence?" - how much land do you think Israel would give back? Do you think they'd agree to join sovereignty over Jerusalem, or any kind of compromise on the right of return? Do you think they'd stop settling more land? And if, as I think, the answers to all these are that Israel will take as much as it can get away with, do you think it's reasonable to ask the Palestinians to settle for that, and if not, what policy should they adopt, if not violence.

FWIW, my answer to that would be mass protest and property damage. I don't think it's ever acceptable to kill civilians, but I do think it's perfectly reasonable for the Palestinians to blow up Israeli buildings, infrastructure and holy sites if they give enough warning for them to be evacuated first, and I don't think anything short of that will get them anywhere.

Ghandi was able to liberate India by non-violent means because many of the British were not completely indifferent to Indian suffering. I don't think that's true of most Israelis and Palestinian suffering, sadly, so I think some form of force is the only possibility, but it mustn't be directed at civilians, and only in extreme cases even at soldiers.

[breakaleg]

89. Excellent post. I enjoyed reading it. nt

[pelsar]

92. first the solution....

what do you think would happen if the Palestinians did stop resorting to violence?" - how much land do you think Israel would give back? Do you think they'd agree to join sovereignty over Jerusalem, or any kind of compromise on the right of return?

the answer to that lies in within israeli culture and the history of the years since intifada I. Some background: when intifada I started, the IDF in the westbank and gaza had no idea what to do (for that matter neither did fatah). The result was all kinds of attempts to "quell" the protests. During those attempts a "funny thing happened" to the reserve units..many of the members stopped showing up when called. For an israeli general or politician their worst nightmare is not having the reservists come when called, for they are the heart of israel...its educated middle class (most a bit left in character). Those reservists (including me) felt that we werent defending israel, our families werent in danger in fact we werent really sure just what we were doing there.....and so the pressure began on the govt and olso got going.....

second event: the withdrawl from gaza. Gaza is as holy to the settlers as the westbank, there is no difference. When the withdrawl started the right could only muster about 100,000 to protest. Not much to make an impression and almost no soldier refused the orders to participate. What does that mean?....that the settlers do not control the govt nor the IDF.

you should be asking by now, that if the settlers dont control the govt, and so many israelis dont really want to keep the territories...whats going on? For that i refer to you back to the reservists, whos units today are filled with over 100%. The answer is quite simple, we look at gaza we look at lebanon. Its clear that by giving back the westbank we'll have kassams/mortors on our cities...no two ways about it. The PA/Hamas have no control over their members, that should be obvious by now. Hence we are protecting our families by going to the reserves. We may not like it, but there is little choice.

If the palestenians actually stopped the violence and went the non violent route?...thats the nightmare of every settler. More than half of israel would be cheering them on. The IDF which would be sent to "stop" them, would find themselves in a worse position than intifada I, which had some violence (they would find themselves on the same side as the settlers..not a nice thought). Reservists would stop going, they would influence their kids, kids like mine would be revolted by the TV cameras showing IDF units beating up unarmed sitting protestors.... and far more important....is for the palestenians themselves, they would actually see some gains from the non violent protests. Israelis would actually join them, not the fringe element that now shows up but the center/left that worked with the palestenians during oslo. The settlers who enjoy an indirect support today since we need to be in the westbank to keep the kassams out of our cities, would lose that support..and that would be the beginning of the end of the settlement enterprise.

but far more important for the palestenians themselves, they would see the beginning of the end of their gun culture and perhaps the idea of human rights and non violent protest as a means of effecting change (the non violent protests in gaza during the last weeks only got the protesters killed by the various palestenians forces)

Once us israelis have some confidence in the palestenian society.....jerusalem, compensation, land swaps become peanuts...but it all has to start with them. We broke the cycle, changed the rules, did the dramatic.....we destroyed the settlements of gaza and left.....and all we got were kassams. And the palestenains got themselves a mini civil war. Neither are promising events that give us confidence in doing anything dramatic.

the palestenains have a cultural problem.....its a culture gap between israel, a western democracy vs an arab/muslim regime steeped in tribal loyalties. Israels weakness is the non violent protests.....the macho palestenian culture has little respect for the nonviolent protest (examples being that they've shot their own protestors), and prefers the gun.....the only problem with that strategy is that its been a massive failure for the last 50+ years......what do they say about the definition of insanity? some one who does the samething over and over again and expects a different result.

Its a shame, the nonviolent protests would do both cultures wonders....

__________________

the expectations...i'll make this one a bit short, maybe come back to it later. On one hand i understand the idea that putting the pressure on where it will do the most good. i.e. israel will respond to pressure whereas Burma wont. The problem is that Burma (actually they changed the name...) isnt on israels borders..and thats where the problem really lies.

if the palestenians cant be expected to live up to the same standards as israel in terms of human rights, how does that translate to the palestenian society next to ours? If they can't be expected to have the same basic values as the western society what does that mean in terms of contracts? cease fires, peace agreements? If they dont respond to western pressure, if the left wont put the same pressure on them for their own war crimes (which is pretty obvious they dont), then us israeli once again have little confidence in not just the intl groups that do have this "dual standard" but in the palestenian society that cant/wont reach for the standard.

______

and a final comment....like many here i find in your posts that israel simply "must have palestenain/arab land simply absurd..history and the math shows the opposite:

israel took arab land in all directions: north/south/east and west:

south to egypt, it was returned and there is peace (1)
west to gaza...it was returned and we got kassams (2)
north to lebanon, we got kidnapped soldiers and 6 years of attacks (3)
east to jordan....well they dont want the westbank
syria is still in the undecided stage.

so what do we see: israel returned land in 3 directions (3 out of 4 = 75%).....that blows the Israel must have arab land theory out the window. The only way you can hang on to that theory is via some "the westbank is holier than the others" except that to the settlers gaza was just as holy.....that doesnt leave much for the theory and the math doesnt lie.


in retuning land, one lead to peace two lead to additional attacks. 66% is a losing precentage. Furthermore Egypts border is peaceful because egypt has a strong central govt (this includes syria and jordan) and patrols its borders. The pa is fractured and cant, lebanon until the last war was in the same situation...and the westbank?....it has similar characteristics of both gaza and lebanon and none of egypt, syria and jordan.

retuning the westbank right now will only lead to more vlolence...that should be obvious both internally within the PA and externally with israel. So the question is whats more important....land or lives?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

93. The problem is institutions, not cultures.

The reason it's not feasible to hold the Palestinians to any standard as a group is because they don't have a functioning state. There is an entity, Israel, which does what one man tells it to, but Israel has consistently frustrated all attempts to set up a functioning Palestinian state.

The last chance for true peace in the ME died with Arafat. Israel could reduce the volume of attacks considerably by unilaterally insituting something along the lines of points 1-4 of Ayalon's Statement of Principles, and demanding that the international community do everything in its power to a) set up a Palestinian state and b) both help and demand that state to aquire a monopoly on the use of force within its borders, but that will take a lot of time, and it clearly isn't what most Israelis want.

I'm afraid I think that you underestimate the strength of support for settlements, and especially for sole control of Jerusalem, in Israel (although I'm not terribly confident of that; my belief is based on electoral results, government statements, and the fact that even here on DU a non-trivial number of posters seem to support permanent settlements and control of Jerusalem, but I don't know much about opinion polls or similar in Israel).

I'm afraid I also doubt that the fraction of Israelis who would be disgusted by images of the IDF beating up sitting Palestinians is high enough to achieve much.


Incidentally, the second (apart from the obvious that the Egyptian government had a monopoly on force within its borders) obvious difference between your 1) and your 2) and 3) is that in 1) the entire casus belli was dealt with, whereas in 2) and 3) Israel has continued to occupy the West Bank. A partial withdrawal from the West Bank would undoubtedly lead to more violence.

[Shaktimaan]

94. Just curious...

I have a quick interjection.

obvious difference between your 1) and your 2) and 3) is that in 1) the entire casus belli was dealt with, whereas in 2) and 3) Israel has continued to occupy the West Bank.

Do you believe that violence from Hezbollah is related to (meaning, "dependant upon") the occupation of the West Bank? Were Israel and Palestine to resolve their issues and solidify an actual peace, do you think it would have a substantial influence on Hezbollah's actions?

Great series of posts by the way.

[oberliner]

95. More than half of Jews willing to divide Jerusalem

This may be of interest to you based on your comments about Jerusalem:

Fifty-eight percent of the Jewish public in Israel is willing to make concessions in Jerusalem in the frame of a peace agreement with the Palestinians, a poll conducted by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies revealed on Sunday.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3398946,00.html

[Donald Ian Rankin]

99. It doesn't say how the question was phrased.

My impression is that it was such that anyone who supported any for of concessions with regards to Jerusalem, no matter how minor, would be a "yes", in which case 58% is higher than I'd have expected, but still not terribly high.

I also note that that percentage is falling, and that "Some 92 percent of the respondents said they felt it was important to have a significant Jewish majority in the capital, and 81 percent said agreed that Jerusalem, with a Jewish majority, contributed to Israel's national strength."

Those tend to suggest to me that the concessions envisaged are probably fairly minor.

[Shaktimaan]

100. There's certainly a disparity between

what most Israelis see as an appropriate concession on Jerusalem and what the Palestinians consider to be the minimum. Particularly regarding the Al Aqsa/Temple Mount area of the old city. And honestly, there is no "right" or "just" solution to that chestnut, let alone an easy one. There is no real way to compromise on the issue of who would have jurisdiction over the complex, the closest would be either the system that Israel currently employs or the one suggested by the Saudi's Peace Initiative.

The fact of the matter is that the site is holy to both religions. Extremely so, in fact. The Palestinians understandably won't consider anything other than full control over what they see as one of Islam's touchstone sites. Yet the site is also credited as being the holiest place on earth for the Jews, towards which they traditionally face while praying. The Israelis also have a legitimate concern over issues such as accessibility to the western wall and security, both for themselves as well as for the archaeological remains that reinforce the historical Jewish connection to the site. Arab rule, Palestinian rule in particular, does not have an impressive track record regarding the protection of sites that are holy to the Jews or are of shared religious value, often denying any Jewish connection to shared sites and even attempting to (sometimes successfully) destroy/deface areas held holy by the Jews.

Aside from the religious aspect, the area is also a cultural landmark for both nations, reinforcing the historical connection each has to the land. It's value is uniquely valued by groups as diverse as the Hasidim, Socialist Zionists, Islamic fundamentalists and secular Palestinian nationalists. I think it will prove to be one of the hardest issues to solve in the drive towards a comprehensive peace.

[pelsar]

101. i find this reoccurring in all your posts....

I'm afraid I also doubt that the fraction of Israelis who would be disgusted by images of the IDF beating up sitting Palestinians is high enough to achieve much.

how many college kids do you know, that could take a baton and wack somebody without provocation?.......since that would be the "parallel" to your assertion, that it wouldnt disgust most israelis. All of the israelis in the the combat units are volunteers and an extremely high percentage go on to the universities....(more so the officers). Your assumption seems to be based on some kind of idea that the avg "middle class israeli" (to do some generalizations here) is has somekind of violent streak in him.

(There is one group called Mishmar Havgol, where there probably are exceptions to that....they "wack" jews and arabs alike).

I find a lot of your beliefs without basis: for instance:
I'm afraid I think that you underestimate the strength of support for settlements....

I suspect your going to have a hard time explaining why the removal the settlements in gaza went so smoothly without any massive protests (let me "head you off here from the funny things I've heard: there was no deal with the settlers, there was no increase in tempo with the settlements in the westbank, and the westbank is not "holier" than gaza in the settlers eyes....).

and jerusalem?...more than 58% of the israelis have no problem with sharing it......that is actually higher than the israelis that agreed to olso, which was barely over 50 if i recall. Just the fact that they state it clearly means its negotiable.

but this statement of your really says it all:
A partial withdrawal from the West Bank would undoubtedly lead to more violence.
in this world nobody gets a 100%. There will always be those that complain that its "not fair"...and in the Palestinian world that translates in rockets and bullets. The Palestinians are not going to get 100% of what they want. Its up to their leadership, whenever they get it together to change their "casus belli" and face reality.....but that is Palestinian issue.

to be honest i find the excuses for the Palestinians self defeating....excuses dont make it in this world, not at work, not with school and certainly not with improving one life.

the hamas spokesman said it best:
HAMAS Government spokesman Ghazi Hamad has called on fellow Palestinians to cease blaming the Israeli occupation for their troubles and find a way to stop the thuggery and violence that have shattered their dreams of an independent state.
"The chaos, pointless murders, the plundering of lands, family feuds ... what do all of these have to do with the occupation?"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=FA5F1ZKITDGW1QFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/08/30/wmid130.xml (the guy may want me dead, but i agree with his look on life in this respect)

Even more importantly for the palestenians...gaza is a chance for them to learn how to govern....figure it out if you will before moving on to the westbank. A failed state does not easily resurrect itself. For those who do wish for israel to leave the westbank, have you ever wondered about the risk to the Palestinians (i.e gaza imported in to the westbank?). Once israel leaves the world and in particular the arab world will be happy to wash their hands of the Palestinians. I can just imagine what the backlash would be to the Palestinians (already the black sheep in the arab world) once they have a state, that failed.....

it poses an interesting question: from a Palestinian point of view, from the view of real self rule...is it wise for the IDF to leave now....they do not have a single security apparatus that can take charge, they have multiple ones and they are all armed and fed by foreign govts.... (I believe that is part of arafats legacy).

[breakaleg]

56. So, because your son realizes that not everyone supports

Israel's adventured into the occupied territories, he's now considering going into a combat unit? I would think that this realization would lead a person to investigate why the world feels the way it does.

Instead of "why are their views so full of lies" it should be "why do they feel the way they do?"

[pelsar]

59. the lying part is whats confusing....

the good and the bad arguements of the territories are familar to him......what any "majority thinks" he realized long ago has nothing to do with being right or wrong, hes much smarter than that.

and I cant answer why their are so many lies made up, so many false accusations made......and why those who actually know better dont stand up for the truth as well, even if they support the palestenians.....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

78. Look at it this way.

There are lies being told by all sides. There are also far more subjective statements of questionable truth made than there are outright lies flying around.

As an Israeli, it's pretty much inevitable that he will be exposed to far more anti-Palestinian than anti-Israeli lies.

There is no way to avoid hearing anti-Israeli lies without avoiding hearing a great deal of truth too, and getting a very partial and biased view of the situation.

The best way to make up your mind in such a situation is to hear as much of what is being said as possible.

To be more accurate, the best approach is not simply to take all the statements you hear and weight them evenly, but to look at who's making each one, weight them accordingly to how reliable you consider the source, and even for those positions you reject make a note that there are many people who believe that.

Even if you don't share Hamas's or Kahane's assesment of the conflict, or the view of the Guardian or the Jerusalem Post or Hillary Clinton or me, it's useful to know which people think what.

[pelsar]

81. its the DU that shocked him...

the papers are full stories of politicians saying this or that...in fact he doesnt read much of the newspapers......His liberal upbringing and socialist orientation led him to be curious about the "progressive site" call DU...what kept me so busy.

His shock was similar to mine.....it was unexpected here to read such blatent "fairytales" on what i though would be a "liberal site".....its a far cry from:

http://eustonmanifesto.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=1
___

I agree with you in that having info...no matter where it comes from is always good....i dont agree when people here and other places put an "x" on an article because they disagree with the source or the website its on...(i have a name for that: cyber racism)

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Much of the problem with the innuendos comes with the way questions are asked...

Someone in this thread pointed out that the I/P conflict is a very complex issue. Yet time and time again I see posts where the person being replied to is greeted with a creative rehash of what they said that in no way reflects their stance and the questions go along the lines of 'So you don't agree with me that (insert something here that no-one in their right mind would disagree with)? It's a simple question! YES OR NO!!!!' Or people are given two extreme options to select from and no allowance is given from the asker of the question for anything but those two extreme options to be selected. For such a complex issue, those sort of YES OR NO!!! loaded questions or select one of only two options given are generally only asked not out of a genuine desire to understand someone else's views, but because the question asker has already decided what the views of others are and is determined to use loaded questions to go: 'See! They haven't answered YES OR NO so therefore they haven't answered my question and I will follow them around a bunch of threads telling everyone who is reading the forum that they haven't answered my questions coz they're cowards who can't see the conflict in the same indepth and complex tones that I can! THEY SUPPORT EVIL AND I SUPPORT GOODNESS AND INNOCENCE!!! I WIN I WIN !!!!'

The problem with innuendos and lack of civility is that they're just going to keep on happening unless you and UGRR put yr feet down and delete posts where this stuff manifests itself. All we can do is make sure that we don't fall into the trap of doing it ourselves, and if someone persists in doing it, then the only option is to put them on ignore, which is what I'm going to be doing from this point on....

on edit: As part of the not from America contingent here in the I/P forum, and being someone who speaks a slightly different brand of English than many Americans do, I've come armed with my own translator for anyone who has any trouble understanding what I'm saying ;)

http://www.aussieslang.com/slang/australian-slang-a.asp

[pelsar]

33. acutally its the real environment that "scares" people away

For such a complex issue, those sort of YES OR NO!!! loaded questions or select one of only two options given are generally only asked not out of a genuine desire to understand someone else's views, but because the question asker has already decided what the views of others are and is determined to use loaded questions to go:!

the "loaded questions" that i give are actual REAL scenarios.... When confronted with limited options in the real world, choices made are not always that great, PLUS they all have consequences.

I noticed that many do not want to get near some of the very real environment with the limited options that are place on the players. That is my actual goal, for the posters to leave their "ivory towers' of moral superiority of what l like to call "colonialism" and join the locals with their very real choices or limited options that actual plays out.

so far, no one has actually taken me up on the option to go all the way and make some real conclusions for the consequences of their beliefs....some have come close.....but then, they quickly back away because the choices and their consequences are not very comfortable..... (i dont have another explanation....)

its not a matter of "winning " its a matter of actually making choices that people have to make in the conflict...not the politicans but those involved. Though i do understand why most "wouldnt want to go there, as putting ones values to the test and accepting the consequences is not a comfortable place to go.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. I wasn't referring to yr posts in particular....

...and I don't think this thread is the place to point out to any one person in particular how they could word their questions in a much less confrontational and in yr face sort of way than one that is guaranteed to put all but the most patient person off...

What I will point out is that any sort of attitude that views people who don't see things one particular way as being ivory tower folk who are morally superior gives me a massive clue that an attitude like that isn't going to be behind any sort of genuine desire to understand how other people think, or be behind any particularly constructive discussion...

[Lilith Velkor]

28. I appreciate that

I have a hard time parsing all the innuendo, and I'm American. However, I'm not used to discussing I/P with native speakers of English, for the very reasons you have touched on in your post.

Eh...ya do what ye can. Rock on, Lithos :toast:

[Robson]

79. Written word easy to misunderstand.

Excuse the intrusion. I'm neither a long time poster nor a regular here but I recently got a little taste of the emotions in the forum when I decided to respond to a post that addressed what I thought was an unfair issue about Poland, that didn't seem too controversial at the time. Btw I was not totally without guilt as intensity and emotions do escalate.

The written word is easy to misunderstand when the communication on the personal level such as this forum. It takes a true word smith to get points across as intended without unintended offense.

Posted words are one dimensional only. They lack body language, facial expression, the occasional twinkle in the eye and no intonation or inflection. Smilies help...maybe. When communication is anonymous between strangers and with complete candor, it's easy to put common courtesy in the back seat, unlike in a live person to person communication. If the discussion is on something that is emotional it is very easy to misunderstand or over analyze.

[HamdenRice]

31. Why don't you start a thread like this elsewhere?

You are also a moderator of the 9/11 Forum, and this kind of discussion would be useful there. More and more non Dungeon Dwelling DUers are getting interested in 9/11 research, more prominent people like Paul Thompson and Nicholas Levis (JackRiddler) are posting there, but infrequent visitors there frequently comment that they are turned off by the vitriol, heckling and personal attacks, e.g.,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=559355&mesg_id=561090

You have the opportunity to turn that forum into a valuable resource if you start this kind of discussion there.

[Lithos]

32. It has been on my mind

I would expect to see something like this sometime within the next three weeks.

L-

[Englander]

35. Is this policy still in place?

This policy of attempting to reduce the partisanship, and attempts to reduce the repeated "mind-reading" that goes on?


36. I think breakaleg just let something slip.

He forgot just for a minute and now we get to see the truth.

What he just said is exactly what Israel's enemies will say when and if Israel ends the occupation in Palestine and a treaty is signed.

As soon as the first rockets start flying into Israel - Israel will say wait, we just signed a peace treaty and you agreed to stop the attacks if we end the occupation.

And then the PA (and breakaleg) will say, just like he did just now, "Reward someone for stopping something they should never have done in the first place?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=171513&mesg_id=171809

33. So, if I understand you correctly,

Lebanon is not under any obligation to cease attacking Israel? You consider it wrong for Israel to be "rewarded" with a normalized situation once she remedies the thing (occupation) that supposedly caused the attacks to begin in the first place, right? Even if Israel turns off the faucet, the water keeps on coming because Israel should never have ever opened that damn faucet to begin with.

So then when should Lebanon be expected to cease their hostilities if it isn't when Israel has ceased their own?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=171513&mesg_id=171805

31. So you think that Hezbollah was right in attacking

so as to punish Israel?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=171513&mesg_id=171801

42. Okay, so forget the word "reward." *sheesh*

Do you believe that Israel should have the right to remain free of attacks from Hezbollah following their pullout of Lebanon?
Or do you think that Hezbollah is justified in continuing their attacks?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=171513&mesg_id=171820

[pelsar]

36. actually thats a very good example....

posters clarified with direct questions what each other thought, interpreted and finally understood each other. Neither poster "dissappeard" claimed the question was "already answered"..etc.

i believe that is precisly the type of discussions that should be held, especially in the beginning to clarify ones stand.
_____________________

So, if I understand you correctly,

So you think that Hezbollah was right in attacking so as to punish Israel?
Now, why don't you tell me what you meant.

You'll notice that I'm not discussing, disputing or addressing anything else in your many posts except for the word "reward"
Okay, so forget the word "reward." *sheesh*

Or do you think that Hezbollah is justified in continuing their attacks?
______
direct questions and straight answers......the areas of confusion and misunderstanding cleared up quickly without too much fuss or recriminations.

[msmcghee]

37. Actually, I got up this morning intending . .

. . to apologize for this one:

OK - I'll pretend you don't get it too.

<snip> After the first rockets fly into Israel you'll justify it as why should the PA . . "Reward someone for stopping something they should never have done in the first place?

The reason of course, is that they agreed to, not because anyone considered it a "reward".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=171513&mesg_id=171814

Because I implied that breakaleg was pretending not to understand what was said previously. That does allude to motives and was unnecessarily personal. I do apologize.

The one you picked in your example seems OK to me though. I think breakaleg just let something slip. I could have used a title that didn't compare the post so gently with propaganda - but certainly implying that a post is propaganda is not over any line is it? Describing ideas as propaganda is still addressing his ideas. I think I've had numerous posts described as RW or Israeli talking points and I don't recall any problems or alerts or anything. I can take it.

But I am all for stricter moderation on personal attacks.

I am also for having one thread available for discussions like this - discussions of the way we go about posting in other current threads and our reactions to it. I think this is a great pressure release valve that could serve to reduce personal attacks in the forum. If we think we've been wronged it's good to have a place to say so where our discussion of that will not get deleted - and even where the occasional apology will surface. :thumbsup:

[Shaktimaan]

38. Wait, are you

criticizing the questions I asked Breakaleg as "mind-reading"? Or are you showing my posts as an example of how to seek clarification without doing that?

[Lithos]

40. Depends

If such questions are used to imply "Do you feel justified in beating your wife?", then no. If it follows from the discussion, then yes.

L-

[bemildred]

41. The Blogosphere Risks Putting Off Everyone but Point-Scoring Males

I don't agree with all he says, however, I do think the idea of a slash-dot style ratings system has great merit. It provides incentive/accountability without coercion or a loss of anonymity.

SO YOU’RE at a public meeting on, say, the war in Iraq and the main speaker has just sat down. Someone in the audience rises to declare the speaker is talking crap, but that’s typical of him because he knows nothing and it’s a scandal that he’s paid for the rubbish he turns out. A second man agrees that the speech was trash, but tells the first man he should crawl back under his stone because he never says anything worth listening to. A third man wonders why the speaker didn’t mention Israel, especially given his Zionist-sounding last name.

The first man is now shouting at the second man, insulting him for insulting him first. A woman gets up to make a point about the war in Iraq, but she is rapidly drowned out by a fourth and fifth man now debating Israel and the Palestinians. A sixth man compares the speaker to Hitler and proceeds to read out a 1,500-word article he read somewhere six years ago. If that has an oddly familiar ring, it may be because you’re spending a lot of time online, specifically in the new and still lawless world known as the blogosphere.

---

t present, you can be an irascible, misogynistic anti-Semite online with little or no consequence. But what if that began to affect the rest of your online life? Note how careful people are to be well-regarded on eBay, where money is at stake. Might it not be possible to have a single online identity, one that you cared about, even if it had little connection to your identity in the real world?

Neil Levine, formerly of Clara.net, wonders about a system of comment credits, earned by the ratings of other users. High credit would give you an enhanced standing online, perhaps pushing your comments to the top of any thread. If other users deemed you out of line, your status would fall.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=94884&d=12&m=4&y=2007

[Lithos]

42. That sounds vaguely familiar

The "point-scoring" mentality.

Unfortunately Slashdot style moderation is something I'm confident wouldn't work here given the sharp divisions here. Moderation of such things would be more popularity contests than actual reflections of what is posted.

[bemildred]

43. True.

Although, if you have ever hung out on slashdot, things get pretty heated there too, and usenet long before that. It was started there in reponse to the low signal to noise ratio, and they are happy with it. The beauty of it is that the flame-warriors trash each other, while additional content tends to get rated up. It relies in part on the fact that posters are a small number compared to readers, and the audience controls the ratings. So you tend to get a high rating if the readership finds you useful, not because you are noisy or have a lot of friends. I don't know all the ins and outs, but it has worked very well there, and discussion is passionate. It seemed to me that it might be worth a look.

[Lithos]

45. Yeah, I'm familiar with Slashdot

And digg, etc. Digg I think is better example of something approaching DU's level of new threads. Digg is also an example of a failure, mostly because the a few die hard members will bury stories making it hard for people to read. A small handful of people can easily bury a thread or a post which given the filters makes it extremely unlikely enough other people would find it which creates a case of censorship by mob.

But even so Slashdot sees an awful lot of moderation in that stories are picked by the editorial staff, heavy flamebait items seldom make it online. There may be disagreement, but usually this is over very geeky topics such as the Linux/M$ wars. Even so, the default threshold makes it hard for people to see threads which have been voted down which again makes it easy for a few early partisan readers to essentially kill any response from being read. The Karma system is also a bit over-rated in that a dedicated group of people (think cliques) can really mess up someone just "'cause".

L-

[bemildred]

46. People will always find ways to game the system.

Any system. That does not mean you should not have a system, or that you should not tinker with the one you have. It does look messy, what they do, and I'm not convinced what they do would "work" here, but what we have now has its drawbacks too. Although I'm not unhappy with things here as they are. The noise doesn't bother me much.

[bemildred]

44. This sort of gives the idea, and there is more here if you're interested:

http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml#cm600

They say moderators, but they don't mean what it would mean here.

[pelsar]

47. pushing this back up.....

i think this should be kept near the top..just to keep a discussion going about "the happenings within".

and along those lines......I'm having trouble understanding why posters cant back up their accusations with some kind of information, when asked. Granted there are times when one reacts without thinking and writes something that simply either is not true or cant be 'backed up with info found on the web. It doesnt hurt to then simply explain that in fact it was an emotional response or explain where the info came from. i find the ignoring of the request for more info to be rather "childish" at best.

[Lithos]

48. The difference is this

If someone makes a statement that seems unsupported or which prompts a tangential line of thinking, then by all means you can ask them for more information provided it is not done in an offensive or personal manner. That is fair. However, to follow someone around asking why they won't answer the question, or repeating the question multiple times is considered a form of calling out.

Basically taking it to a personal level is not okay, asking in context for more information is okay.

Lithos
DU Moderator

[pelsar]

49. in principle i agree...

in practice what were seeing is a constant flow accusations where when questioned...there is no answer forth coming.....and soon after that we'll have additional accusations (this is primarily against israel).

the problem with that is that there is no "responsability for those accusations"...i see that as a problem. If all the posters here would feel that no accusation can fly with out some kind of back up (to support it), the discussions would take on a whole different tone.

the question is how to get there?

as a note discussions with "douglas" for instance are far more interesting and informative than with many others and the tone is one of mutal respect.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. A kick and a comment on painting other posters as bigots...

I think it's a good thing to have the post that started this thread hovering round the top of the forum, but having said that, nothing's improved since this was posted.

Today I've been accused of being antisemitic and indulging in racism, all in the space of a few posts. One of the posts was deleted - the other wasn't even though I hit alert on it. Why isn't that sort of behaviour seen as disruptive when it continues on a regular basis from a small number of people in this forum?

[Englander]

57. That's a good question.

Why isn't that sort of behaviour seen as disruptive when it continues on a regular basis from a small number of people in this forum?

Why do the poisonous comments, the rather malicious & false accusations & insulting comments keep
making an appearance, why does such poison appear on a regular basis, here? And why is it that a small
group of people engage in such behaviour, seemingly with impunity? And shouldn't such behaviour be
thought of as disruptive?

[Tom Joad]

58. The impunity of some is really amazing. Deleted post after deleted post

but still they manage to break any rule they please and come back to do it again the next day.

I expect there are some posting where 70%+ of their multi-thousand number of posts have been deleted due to some rule breaking, including vicious attacks on other posters.

It must seem pleasing to the rule-breakers that they get to see their posts up for hours, even if it is eventually deleted. (only to be reposted on personal hate sites)

What good is a rule if it is going to be violated with impunity? What kind of protection do we have if we are going to be subject to libel, and that libelous message is going to remain on the board for hours or days?

[Englander]

62. I cannot see how allowing such impunity is an effective policy.

Accepting that it is self-evident that there is a small group of serial offenders, how does this
situation help in the pursuit of "constructive dialogue" & "civil discussion"? If it is self-evident
that a small group of repeat offenders are effectively allowed to post what they please, regardless
of whether the comments are vicious personal attacks, libelous, patently false accusations, comments
that break multiple rules of this site, or are otherwise disruptive, how does allowing such behaviour
contribute towards the goal of "facilitating rational discourse", or "providing a forum where issues
concerning Israel and Palestine may be discussed openly but intelligently in an atmosphere of mutual
respect for opposing sides."?

[Tom Joad]

53. What is a serious problem here is that those posters who make repeated attacks

against other posters, while specific posts are eventually deleted, are allowed to again post similar attacks again and again.

So a casual visitor to the forum would wonder if it is moderated at all.
There should be some kind of limit to tolerance of posters who make wild and harmful accusations against other members of DU. If they are going to repeat the behavior with impunity, knowing that the worst consequence is only deletion of the particular post... after the offensive post remains up for several hours or most of a day, it makes DU a dangerous place to post.

No one should be allowed to have several such posts deleted in a single day, then be allowed to continue posting.

Doesn't it seem strange that someone who has posted thousands of times-- gets 40% or so of them deleted -- is still allowed to post their poison?

[msmcghee]

54. Self delete

[msmcghee]

87. About deleted posts.

Like most of the regular posters here I sometimes get posts deleted. Inasmuch as this indicates that my post was in violation of one or more of the posting rules for this forum - as understood by one of the mods - I find this frustrating and I suspect the mods do as well.

I also suspect that the mods imagine that I am composing my posts in such a way that I know what rule I am violating but that I'm perhaps trying to cleverly write it in order to violate the rule in spirit yet make it technically borderline - so as to "get away with" the violation.

Just so you know, I am always surprised when one of my posts is deleted. Also, the posts that I worry about - as maybe being too close to the line - are often ignored by the mods - and posts that I was sure didn't come close to a violation are often "disappeared".

This creates the impression that the rules are being enforced in an arbitrary way - sometimes even in a partisan way. That's not good as it creates anger and distrust. I know that moderating any forum must be a difficult, thankless job. But this one is probably far worse than most as far as making difficult calls.

I'd like to offer a few suggestions that could possibly turn the post deletion process into more of a learning experience.

First, the posting rules for I/P need to be carefully re-written to be very clear about the specific lines that DU wants us to respect. For one thing, if it can't be clearly explained so that the line is clear - then perhaps it should not be a rule. Sometimes, it may be OK to allow certain forms of venting, for example - as a pressure relief valve - as long as it can be channeled and not personally directed.

The rules as written now are a good start but they are somewhat ambiguous and can often be interpreted in different ways. My impression is they were written and patched over a period of time to address problems that came up and consequently do not represent any comprehensive look at the matter. They are better than nothing but IMHO someone with experience writing such guidelines should be used to redo them.

Next, the rules should be categorized into a numbered list, with each violation fully described.

Finally, when a post is deleted, instead of the post simply disappearing from our "My DU" list of recent posts - it would be very useful if it could remain there for our reference, prefaced by something like "Deleted, violation of rule 8".

I realize that some posters would use this as a pretext to get into an argument with the mods about the application of the rules in specific instances. But, the mods do not have to respond to any argument unless they choose to (that's the way it is now anyway) - and I think there would be less arguments since we would have some information regarding what went wrong - information that we could use to avoid similar violations in the future.

Also, if the posting violations for each poster are kept as part of the data base - automatic messages could be sent to posters based on the number of particular deletions in a certain period of time - as a warning.

I think most violations are inadvertent and over time - regular posters to the forum would be able to greatly reduce the number of their own posts that get deleted if a system something like this were available.

That's a useful goal that would make everyone's job easier and the discussions here more useful and less rancorous - although maybe that's hoping for too much. ;-)

[Lithos]

96. Deleted posts

It is sometimes difficult given the mechanics for me to let someone know all of the time why a post was deleted though I do make that effort when I think the reason might not have been obvious.

If anyone has a question as to why something was removed, always feel free to post a PM to myself.

As for your suggestion about adding it to your 48 hour posting history along with the reason, I think it's a good one and will forward it to Skinner.

[msmcghee]

98. Thanks. You've pretty much always answered my questions . .

. . eventually.

However, a problem that is probably not so obvious to a moderator is that once a post is deleted, we then have to try to remember what we said.

I sometimes post two or three messages and than go back to working. An hour or two later I may check back for replies and see a deleted post in that thread. Since the post itself is gone, I sometimes don't know if it was my post or someone else's. Remembering what I might have said in it can be nearly impossible.

But that in itself, not even knowing if it was my post, can cause a lot of angst. :thumbsup:

[Violet_Crumble]

102. A suggestion that might help...

However, a problem that is probably not so obvious to a moderator is that once a post is deleted, we then have to try to remember what we said.

I sometimes post two or three messages and than go back to working. An hour or two later I may check back for replies and see a deleted post in that thread. Since the post itself is gone, I sometimes don't know if it was my post or someone else's. Remembering what I might have said in it can be nearly impossible.

What you should do is save yr posts and then go and post them on another board somewhere else. That way you'll never forget what you said :)

[Englander]

103. Sounds like a good idea to me.

That way, all the angst, & the stress caused by trying to remember what has been deleted, just
vanishes. It's a win-win situation. It makes so much sense & is such a sure-fire way to keep angst
at bay, that I'm surprised that the policy of saving posts & posting them at another site hasn't
been thought of & tried already! :)

[LeftishBrit]

90. A lurker's point of view...

I think that there is room for some tightening of the civility rules; but I think that there are other issues involved. I think that the debate IS polarized, and that on DU it becomes more so, because the questions become so framed as "Who is right - the Israelis or the Palestinians?" and this (a) leaves out the possibility of both being right or more likely both wrong; and (b) of looking in a more nuanced way at divisions WITHIN Israel or AMONG the Palestinians. I think most people on the board probably DO in fact have more nuanced views than tend to come out here. I doubt that there are many pro-Israel people here who support the Likud, or many pro-Palestinians here who support Hamas. But because of the way in which the debate is framed, it's difficult for pro-Israel people to say, "Likud and Kadima have proved to be disastrous; everyone should vote Labour" without its being twisted into "Israel is wrong on everything, boooo!!!!; or for pro-Palestinian people to say "Israel must stop what we consider to be an illegal occupation, but Hamas needs to stop its attacks on civilians" without its being twisted into "We surrender and admit that the Palestinians are terrorists". Thus, the debate just gets more and more polarized and tends to deter people who would like a more nuanced discussion.

To briefly give my own biases: I consider myself pro-Israel, but am very anti-Likud, and very anti-Olmert. I think Israel is badly in need of a Labour government. I oppose the settlements. I opposed the war in Lebanon. I consider the 1967 war to have been a necessary defensive war against attack, but think that the subsequent 40 years of occupation have been too long. Ultimately, I think Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders; however, it's not terribly realistic to expect them to do so as long as Hamas and Fatah are having their own civil war and endangering Israel in the process, as well as Hamas' directly anti-Israel activities. I strongly advocate peace negotiations and a two-state solution. I dislike Hamas and Hezbollah, not only because of their actions against Israeli civilians, but because I think they are fundamentally un-progressive. I think that the Palestinians have been very badly treated by Israel AND by the Arab countries AND for the most part by their own leadership. I have no problem with criticisms of Israel or of any country; but think that there is sometimes what might be called 'anti-Israel exceptionalism' where Israel gets singled out for blame for doing things that are accepted or ignored in other countries. I think that there is sometimes undesirable collaboration between Israel and the USA on certain issues, but Israel is *not* controlling America and to imply that it is, is xenophobic or worse. I oppose boycotts of Israel (I rarely advocate boycotting anywhere); however, I think it's less of a threat than is sometimes portrayed on this board, as the people in the UK who advocate it tend to be a noisy, all-talk, no-action minority who are proposing this as an easy gesture, and couldn't run, or even boycott, a whelk stall!

Having stated my own biases: As a pro-Israeli-Left person, I am very interested in what's going on at the moment, and think that it's very crucial whether the Olmert fiasco results ultimately in victory for Labour (hope so!) or the Likud (oh PLEASE not Netanyahu!!!) That's why I have been coming to this board more often than usual recently. However, there seems to be far less discussion of the implications of the current political situation in Israel than of general 'who is right/ who is wrong' between Israel and Palestine. On the other side, especially considering that the divisions between Fatah and Hamas have reached a point of civil war in some places, there seems to be relatively little discussion of the different factions and opinions within Palestine.

There is of course no reason why the discussions here should fit my interests or biases. I'm just saying why some people find this forum a less than congenial place for discussion, and why certain subjects probably don't get posted much, and why it may tend to become increasingly polarized, and the more polarized it is, the more polarized it becomes.

Having said all that, I have found the recent debate between Pelsar and Donald Ian Rankin on this thread very interesting and very civil!

I suspect that I've probably annoyed everybody on all sides by now - so back to lurking, and to posting mainly in other places!

[breakaleg]

91. I don't think your pov annoyed many people at all.

And I would say that I agree with most of what you posted. Interesting really, since many here would consider me a pro-Palestinian poster.

What does pro-Israel mean? Does it mean they support Israel always? Or that pro-Palestinian posters support Palestinians always? Because I know for certain that many of what would be considered pro-Palestinian posters do NOT support Hamas or the acts of violence perpetrated by Palestinians.

[Lithos]

97. The Tyranny of the "or" is extreme...

It's exclusivity clouds people's thinking and and creates unnecessary and often debilitating assumptions and often creates a problem when there was none.

It is often of more practical advantage, especially in politics, to look to solutions with an encompassing "and".

[Violet_Crumble]

104. I hope no-one minds me reviving this thread...

It's about six months on and I don't see all that much in the way of improvement since you first posted this, at least not in this specific area when it comes to one or two posters in this forum...

The takeaway is this, think before you post- please do not spend time arbitrarily trying to parse subliminal meaning from people's words and making assumptions as a result. Jumping in with both feet can easily throw up as much mud on yourself as the person you are commenting about. Making something more inflammatory is likely to draw as much, if not more attention, your way than the original post.

I've just read an exchange between two posters in a very recent thread where one informs the other that even though they've seen the other poster stated their views on something, what they've been saying is all lies because this DUer has decided that their 'reading' between the lines entitles them to make what is an ugly assumption about the other poster....

It's this accusatory *you! you! you!* stuff that surfaces on way too many threads that's still a big problem. It's disheartening to see that one or two posters think that focusing consistantly on other posters is more important than discussing the conflict itself and the issues surrounding it. There are some threads where if all the accusatory nonsense and attacks on other posters were taken out, there'd only be a handful of posts left...

I remember a long time ago someone I have a lot of respect for giving me some tips on how to post in a way that was constructive, and one of the best tips was to avoid personalising things by peppering things with *you* accusations aimed at other posters, and I reckon that tip wouldn't go astray for the poster in the example I just raised...

[bemildred]

105. Oh Vi, now you've done it. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

106. I know....

I figured it'd be a bit less intrusive to find this thread and bring it up here rather than in the thread it happened in :)

[Tom Joad]

107. I have noticed some of these posts. They even capitalize YOU...

I don't get how the occupation is about anyone that posts here.

However, when someone calls me a liar or tells me what i believe (no matter how false that is) i will defend myself.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[subsuelo]

110. I have to concur

Just yesterday I posted this:

subsuelo: I get angry any time children are harmed or even threatened

Doesn't matter which 'side' is doing the attacking -- it's still deplorable and completely inexcusable.

msmcghee followed up a few posts later with this:

msmcghee: I notice that those aggressive acts - the ones that ultimately cause all the violent deaths in this conflict - seem to escape your moral outrage. It's pretty easy to see your MO here which is identical to the Palestinian propaganda.

Ok, what part of "it doesn't matter which side is doing the attacking" is unclear? What part of "deplorable and completely inexcusable" is open to question?

You are right, Violet. I have to wonder what's the point in taking part of discussion if you post one thing in the strongest possible terms, only to have someone spin it into something else entirely.

Definitely frustrating.

[LeftishBrit]

112. But don't you think it happens on both sides?

I think it's based a tendency to assume that people who are on the other 'side' will hold *all* the views that you associate, rightly or wrongly, with that side. Sometimes pro-Israel posters assume that pro-Palestinian posters must accept terrorist actions and targeting of civilians and want Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. And sometimes pro-Palestinian posters assume that pro-Israel posters must support the occupation, favour the Likud, and want a war with Iran.

I was once accused on another forum on DU of 'supporting a war based on lies' because I argued that Israel wasn't responsible for the Iraq war!

For the rest, I think some people have a debating style which does involve demanding that your opponent justify their views. Some people enjoy this and find it educational; some find it intimidating. Again, I don't think it's just on one side here.

[Violet_Crumble]

113. No, it's not happening on both sides in this forum...

I gave SPECIFIC examples of what had been done to me, and what I'd seen done to PM. Sub has also said it's been done to them as well by the same poster. Have you got any examples of any pro-Palestinian posters in this forum doing that to other posters? Y'know, following them from thread to thread to rehash accusations of views they've already said they don't hold? While this might not seem like a problem to you, I bet you'd find it a bit on the irritating side if it was happening to you regularly in this forum. Once or twice I can write off (as it's been done to me by both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian posters), but what we're talking about here is something that's being done on a regular basis to more than one of us...

[LeftishBrit]

121. First of all...

I usually find this forum fairly civil, contrary to its reputation. I have found it very interesting hearing views from all sides, and the reasons for them, and it has made me think. (If you want REAL nastiness, go to the health forum and see how people who support modern medicine constantly get accused of being 'Big Pharma shills'!)

However: I can say that I have seeen false (though probably sincerely-meant) accusations on both sides; and sometimes they've been made repeatedly. I don't really want to get involved in calling out individuals. What I'm more concerned with, is the reasons why such misunderstandings occur. I think there are stereotypes (in the world at large, not just of the forum) of people who hold certain views. E.g. pro-Palestinian = must support Hamas; must be in favour of Islamic theocracy; must want Israel to cease to exist; must think that attacks on civilians are OK; etc. Or pro-Israel = must support the Likud; must want the Occupation to continue indefinitely; must at best not care what happens to Palestinian civilians and at worst support 'genocide'; must be racist against Arabs; etc. Or: doesn't think AIPAC is the root of all evil = must support AIPAC's most right-wing elements, condone Hagee, want war with Iran, and want to bring Armageddon as quickly as possible. However much we try to get away from these stereotypes, they exist, and they can influence our thinking. I have been infuriated by stereotypes sucn as that 'Britain is a fascist police state because they've taken away your guns!' - but I'll admit that until I was on DU I had some sterotypes of my own (e.g. I tended to regard ALL Americans from what are now called 'the red states' as a monolithic bunch of Christian-Righties. I don't any more!)

I think that discussing matters on a board of this nature can be a good way of confronting and overcoming one's own and other people's stereotypes. But it does need to be done with civility and as open a mind as one *can* have on what can be quite emotional issues.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

114. No it does not happen on both sides.

Where do Pro-P's stalk your colleagues around harranguing them?

It's not the disagreement. It's the stalking and the continual misrepresentation of views that is just childish and abusrd.

[breakaleg]

115. That is categorically not true.

I have never seen pro-Palestinian posters defend or support terrorism. Think about that for a moment. What kind of typical western person would support such a thing. It's completely outrageous. Only around here, could someone accuse us of such a thing and get away with it. Frankly, those kinds of things are so outrageous, anyone who makes such an accusation is completely mad and should be banned.

Now, have you seen anyone defend the occupation. Have you seen people say they don't entirely support it but Israel has no choice? That it's not Israel's fault? That they must have a good reason, even though we can't see it, because everything Israel does is for a valid reason? I've seen these things regularly, and much more. When has anyone ever said they want Israel wiped off the map in this forum. NEVER. NOT ONCE.

So, in your example, pro-Israel posters have in fact stated many many times the things they have been accused of. It does not go both ways.

[Vegasaurus]

117. I have seen posters defend the right of resistance

the right to "all of greater Palestine" (that was just posted last week). There are a few really outlandish pro-Palestinian posters, but I am not naming names.

If you think that this is one-sided, you are deluded. It goes more than both ways. I'd be happy for it to stop, but I'd like to see the anti-semitic, anti-Israel's existence, anti-anything Israel does rhetoric cease.

People get upset about calling all Palestinians terrorists, and I completely agree. I'd like to see people cease talking about Israelis as if they warmongering racists. It happens all the damn time here.

[subsuelo]

118. Amazing.

While discussing the specific topic of mis-characterizing other person's positions, you post:

I'd like to see the anti-semitic, anti-Israel's existence, anti-anything Israel does rhetoric cease

A statement, which you, of course, will be able to provide no specific evidence of.

Is this not the very type of annoying innuendo mentioned in Lithos' original post? Just because it wasn't aimed at any one particular person doesn't make the mis-characterization any more valid.

And yes, it is a mis-characterization.

[breakaleg]

138. Show me. I haven't seen anyone here express support for "greater Palestine".

I've seen you mention it many times, and I believe I asked for links several times but none were forthcoming. In fact, I believe I asked you to not make this particular charge again until you saw it posted. And here you are making that same old charge you can't support.

[kayecy]

146. Just for clarification........

I am not sure what you mean by support for "Greater Palestine"......Does that include support for a single, liberal, democratic state for all the inhabitants of Israel/Palestine?

[Vegasaurus]

147. This was posted last week:

The first and second Intifadas in the West Bank and Gaza steered the Palestinian liberation project away from unity with the rest of Palestine. In his second instalment on Israel's historic options, Azmi Bishara argues that there is no reason now why that unity cannot be recaptured

Recaptured? "Unity with the rest of Palestine?

Call a spade a spade.

edited to include link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x206717

[ProgressiveMuslim]

149. I posted that op-ed by Azmi Bishara.

Are you suggesting that I only recognize greater Palestine?

That's a joke!

I do think Bishara is correct in pointing out the PA is merely the localized bureaucratic apparatus of the occupation forces, however.


Some of us, Veggie, actually read other sources, and post ideas to discuss, rather than just chase people around slinging insults and putting words in their mouths.

[LeftishBrit]

122. OK - what about the accusation that Israelis commit GENOCIDE (with the implication that pro-Israelis

must support genocide)?

I have certainly never seen any pro-Israel poster say, "I support genocide!" (I trust they'd be banned if they did; but I certainly haven't seen it.)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

127. It's feasible to discuss whether Israel's atrocities can accurately be called genocide.

That's not what we're talking about. That's a subject about which we disagree and can discuss.

That's not what McGhee does.

[LeftishBrit]

132. That's true - but when it reaches the point...

of actually having an avatar, as someone did at one point, which said "I oppose genocide", it could suggest that some other posters support it.

But I think the I/P forum with all its faults is *usually* more constructive and less nasty than discussions of related issues in forums not specific to the issue. I've come across more anti-semitic *and* Islamophobic comments, *and* links to vile hate-sites ranging from wakeupfromyourslumber to a Kahanist site, elsewhere on DU and other boards where I've posted (I don't mean these things can be seen on a regular basis but they happen.) Maybe the mods here are doing a good job of censoring the worst stuff!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

136. I think your really personazling it if

you regard someone's avatar as an idictment of you personally. I think "I oppose genocide" means exactly that. It doesn't mean "Leftist Brit supports genocide."

But when McGee says "PM supports terrorism" that's something else entirely. It's a direct, clear, unmistakable mis-statement of my views.

It's not "the same thing" at all.

[msmcghee]

140. Did I say that? n/t

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

116. I disagree with those who have responded to you - I think it has happened on both sides

Most recently I was told in a post that "people like me" aren't bothered by the destruction of Palestinian homes, and that I have "not said much about Israel killing Palestinian kids."

Both of these assertions are unfounded.

I've also had things that I've posted taken out of context and presented back to me as a way of suggesting that I held positions that I did not.

In any case, I hope that we can revive the spirit of respectful discussion that has led to a sometimes fascinating exchange of ideas among people with somewhat different perspectives on the conflict but who share a desire to see it resolved peacefully.

[subsuelo]

119. Totally agree with your last sentence

Very well said.

[bemildred]

120. Yah. Name calling can be fun, but it is not an argument.

There are certainly parties on both sides that like to indulge, I've been known to resort to it myself. But mostly I try not to. The fact that the names you want to use are arguably accurate does not let you off the hook in that regard, either. When someone tries to provoke you, the best thing to do is not be provoked.

[LeftishBrit]

123. I agree fully!

'I hope that we can revive the spirit of respectful discussion that has led to a sometimes fascinating exchange of ideas among people with somewhat different perspectives on the conflict but who share a desire to see it resolved peacefully.'

Hear hear!

[subsuelo]

124. I suspect we have all had our positions mischaracterized at some time or another

However.

In the specific example I cited, msmcghee and I were directly responding to each other in the same sub-thread. It wasn't as if my position was mis-characterized by someone else, in another thread, where they possibly just didn't see what I had written elsewhere. You follow what I am saying?

The original post was an article about a rocket attack that threatened the lives of Israeli children. I gave no excuse or justification whatsoever and didn't even hint at giving an explanation or 'understanding', instead I called it "deplorable and completely inexcusable". I ask sensible persons reading this: How could that response possibly be misconstrued as me lacking in moral outrage?

So while am I fairly certain we have all had our views mis-characterized at some time, or have had to re-phrase for clarity, the situation here is a bit different. In this case we're talking about what I see as a kind of disengagement from respectful discussion entirely, where one side gives their view and the other side takes exception to the view and gives their view in turn. No, in this case it's as if my comments were somehow invisible, so completely misrepresented as they were.

Unfortunately I will say that I don't think there is anything a moderator can do about it, short of prohibiting any mention of the person you are responding to whatsoever. So all I ask of others is, please pay attention to what the other side has actually said, and then try and avoid the mis-characterizations. It is, as I said above, very frustrating, and even discouraging.

[msmcghee]

126. You seem to be quite incensed about that example.

Perhaps you were too angry to understand what I was saying and maybe I could have been clearer. Let's try again.

You are always eager to condemn Israeli attacks where Palestinain civilians die and you've written numerous posts accusing Israel of killing them intentionally with virtually no decent evidence to back it up.

While you do make the occasional blanket statement condemning actions where civilians die on either side - you never acknowledge that the Israeli operations are in response to directed attacks against Israeli civilians and are therefore defensive. Israel is forced to either let rockets fall on its cities or go into Gaza and stop them. Israel has no choice. The militants have the choice to stop the rockets any time they wish. They serve no defensive purpose.

For that reason I was pointing out that you don't make the connection that all the civilian deaths on both sides are therefore the result of the Palestinian attacks. That was my point - not that you don't condemn Israel civilian deaths.

[subsuelo]

129. I always condemn both sides

so as not to be misperceived as excusing one side over another.

Civilians are targeted by both sides, and I do not excuse either. I've provided plenty of evidence to back it up, and just because you don't agree or refuse to accept the evidence doesn't mean the evidence is lacking. Again, as I've posted numerous times, the evidence is there for anyone to find, you can go to the conclusions from various human rights groups, or you can read the news reports, the point is the evidence is there.

Besides all this, you posted to me that I lacked in "moral outrage" when I very clearly stated my opposition and anger about the attack and provided no justification for it whatsoever.

I am sorry you have a problem with my deploring the attacks coming from both sides. The main frustration I have is when I say one thing very clearly and specifically, only to find someone completely misrepresenting what I said only a matter of a few posts later. That example I cited wasn't the first time.

[msmcghee]

130. I think it's good to hash these things out. .

. . as long as we can do it civilly. I'm not sure whether the mods would rather we did this type of thing here or in the threads where the discussion is taking place. I'd like to know the mod's opinion on that as I think we're starting to carry on discussions started elsewhere in this thread.

[breakaleg]

150. It is your "opinion" that everything Israel does is for defensive purposes.

Since when is your opinion considered fact? And Israel is NOT "forced" to do anything or attack anyone. That's yet another opinion of yours.

I think the problem comes when you can't differentiate between your very strong (possibly blinding) beliefs and actual facts.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

128. We're not talking about occassional mischaracterization. We're talking about disruptive stalking

and purposeful mischaracterization for reasons that boggle the mind.

For crying out loud, the poster in question accused my inlaws of horrible things simply because they live in Gaza.

To suggest that that kind of behavior goes both ways is insulting and flat out WRONG!

[msmcghee]

131. Responding to your comments in other threads . .

. . where they pop up is not stalking. You brought up the topic, not me.

Asking you to clarify your apparently contradictory statements on this important topic is not disrupting. I would not confront you on this if you did not continue making them. I said nothing in a derogatory or insulting way.

[LeftishBrit]

133. I don't know the thread you're talking about...

Without knowing the details, I would say there should be a rule against discussing people's families or personal lives, unless they bring them up first (and perhaps not even then). I haven't noticed this happening much on either side here. Though I was once accused of insulting a (pro-Israel) poster's family when I had NOT done so.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

137. Long since deleted.

But it was a thread about anti-semitism, and McGee's insinuated that my family was anti-semitic since they weren't working to counter anti-semitic speak in Gaza.

It was pretty ugly.

I still wonder why she wasn't TSd for that.

[msmcghee]

139. I could reveal that in a post that was deleted, you . .

. . advocated for the torture and dismemberment of puppies. But I wouldn't do that because it would be unfair since you'd have no way to prove I was making it up - which I was.

[Violet_Crumble]

145. There's some posts in that thread that weren't deleted...

'From your inside view, does your family feel any regrets that this very base form of antisemitism is so thoroughly embedded in Arab views of the ME conflict?'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=195268#195277

The post that I saw going on about yr family not working to counter anti-semitism in Gaza has been deleted, but the mods keep copies of deleted posts, so it's not like they don't know what was said in that thread...

[Lithos]

141. A very apt statement

I think it's based a tendency to assume that people who are on the other 'side' will hold *all* the views that you associate, rightly or wrongly, with that side. Sometimes pro-Israel posters assume that pro-Palestinian posters must accept terrorist actions and targeting of civilians and want Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. And sometimes pro-Palestinian posters assume that pro-Israel posters must support the occupation, favour the Likud, and want a war with Iran.

Posters, even those with a long history here, often fall into this common trap.

L-

[Violet_Crumble]

142. This 'but it happens on both side' stuff is complete bullshit, Lithos...

Currently in this forum there are two posters who have done this repeatedly to other posters, and I've been subjected to it. There is no-one else doing it.

[Lithos]

143. I disagree

Those which practice are on both sides of the I/P spectra.

I believe it was Einstein who said something like "always simplify, never make simpler". Unfortunately there are those who do make I/P simpler and in this practice often tend to lump people and groups in ways which are convenient to their thinking but which are really nothing more than negative-valued stereotypes. This distinction is all the more sharper when it occurs not as the result of the ignorance of imperfect studies, but as the result of trying to hard in an attempt to make cheap debating points.

L-

[Violet_Crumble]

144. And disagreement should be accompanied by some substance...

Unless these pro-Palestinian posters who go from thread to thread behaving like the one that's been mentioned by me and others have all their posts deleted so quickly that I don't even know they post in this forum, it's not happening in this forum on both sides. If I were to decide to change my posting style and follow the lead of one poster who has repeatedly accused me of saying things I haven't said, then it would be happening on both sides. But what should be really obvious is that this issue of returning to threads to find yrself being accused of stances that you've said clearly you don't hold isn't an issue about *sides*. I don't give a toss whether someone who repeatedly does that is pro-Palestinian, pro-Israeli, or just plain pro-troll - the problem is that someone does it to the extent where quite a few people have complained about it being done to them....

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[subsuelo]

111. I would like to say

The moderation here is very impressive. I think without it I would long ago have either left or ... probably said something to get myself banned! ;)

Thank you for keeping us all in line. It helps.

[azurnoir]

135. I agree with Subsuelo with an exception

there have been accusations hurled at a particular and unique poster on this forum, , repeatedly on the same post and subject matter. This done about a month ago and "discussed" quite throughly, the discussion was deleted as a subthread, while I am sure there was the best of intentions on the part of the moderator the end result was to open the OP up to more of the same, even on this thread without a reference point to say "been there done that".

[ProgressiveMuslim]

151. One thing that we should straighten out: Posting an article does not imply

that the poster necessarily agrees with the OP, or with all points within the OP.

Vegasaurus' comment above (#147), cites my posting of an op-ed by Israeli Arab Azmi Bishara, which she offers as some sort of proof that I believe in "Greater Palestine" (whatever that is). That is not why I posted that piece. Of interest to me was Bishara's description of how the PA has failed in its quest to liberate Palestine.

That hardly means I endorse everything Bishara said (but even if I did, so what).

Clearly, some sources here are off limits, but can we all agree that we post articles because we think they'll make for interesting discussion?

[bemildred]

152. Yeah, an excellent point.

There are posters that seem to object to anything that does not toe a certain propaganda line. Personally I post anything I find interesting, and I post lots of things I disagree with in one degree or another because of what they imply about the situation or that attitudes of various parties and factions and governments. I think one ought to be interested in what is being said or thought by any and all "sides", regardless of what objective merit one thinks it has or does not have. Anyone that wants to stick their head in the sand and keep it there is more than welcome to do so, but they have no right to tell those of us with better nerves what we can read, let alone what we must think because we happen to have read it, or had the temerity to post it to see what others think about it.

I think there is nothing that amuses and annoys me more, at the same time, that having some narrow minded partisan with a dogmatic black-and-white world view tell me that I must be on the dark side because I have read or considered ideas and opinions that they consider taboo.

[Lithos]

153. As a comment

I fully agree with you that posting an article does not automatically imply complete support of the author's position.

That said, given the nature of things here, there is a certain responsibility on the poster to understand what they are posting and to provide a context/framework of what they found interesting in the article and what they disagree with. There is also a responsibility to the reader to ask questions in a non-confrontational manner to ask for clarification.

In the case of Bishara, I would suggest strongly to you that the term "Greater Palestine" likely refers to a Palestine which includes not only the Gaza Strip and West Bank, but also modern day Israel. Given too that the phrase "Greater" is analogous in language to those ultra-nationalists who refer to the establishment of a "Pan-Fenwick" or "Greater Fenwick", then there are connotations of ethnic purity involved. As such, this is an extremely inflammatory stance. A recent example were those in Milosevic's party who referred to a "Greater Serbia", Putin has been accused of trying to revive a Russian Nationalist version of the old Soviet Union with talk of a "Greater Russia". You will find other historical examples, generally extremely-RW in nature.

[bemildred]

155. People who talk about "greater" this or that make me cringe.

And lets not forget "Greater Israel".

[LeftishBrit]

157. Me too...

And I have the same reaction to "Greater Israel" - but I very much doubt that there are any "Greater Israel" supporters on DU.

[bemildred]

160. You never know, but I don't think the density is high.

I have seen statements that gave me pause.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

158. Even so, Bishara's vision is a single democratic state.

Some posters here seem to treat that reasoned position as though he's advocating throwing all the Jews into the sea. It's that piece of the discussion that I have no patience with.

[bemildred]

163. I would hazard that he is not sensitive to how "Greater" sounds in western ears.

And in reading that piece, which I thought was good, that phrase didn't really strike me, as it would in a "Western" mouth, since nationalism is a much-less well-developed phenomena in the Middle East than in the West. There can be advantages to tribal social and political organization.

[Vegasaurus]

159. I have never seen a poster here supporting "greater Israel"

or posting an article supporting that.

[bemildred]

166. I don't think I've ever seen that said here.

I don't expect it would remain long anyway. I have certainly seen the phrase used, here and elsewhere. To be fair, I've seen it used a good deal by "anti-Israel" posters, just I would expect "anti-Palestinian" posters to use it against Mr Bishara.

But in any case, in that post, I didn't say anything was ever posted here, so I have no argument with your claim.

[Lithos]

170. yes

And while I've not seen any poster here support a Greater Israel just like a Greater Palestine, there have been articles posted from authors who have promoted such language or ideas.

L-

[Vegasaurus]

156. I agree

My suggestion is that if someone doesn't agree with the concept of "greater Palestine", that they choose a different article to post.

If the poster doesn't imagine that the term "unity" with all of Palestine (which obviously and clearly means ALL of present day Israel), will cause people to question her, that is a little ludicrous.

People post articles that support their points of view. If an article doesn't, don't post it, or put the caveat that one is only posting it for discussion purposes (knowing that it is inflammatory). But don't post it and then say, "oh, I didn't really mean I agree with that."

[ProgressiveMuslim]

161. Get used to hearing about one state.

Since the 2-state solution is becoming less viable with every new settlement, it will be the only option left.

[Vegasaurus]

162. One state, if it comes to that

doesn't mean a state free of Jews, which is what the "greater Palestine" supporters want.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

165. I read a lot of Palestinian politics.

This is not on my radar as a political option.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

164. I don't necessarily agree with that.

Few people post most of the content on this site, and I think there will be much less offered if every new thread has to be explained and parsed by the poster.

Frankly, sometimes I'm interested in how people to react to particular ideas.

I'm saying out front, I try to post PsOV from Palestine that one doesn't get in the MSM here. Some reflect my opinion, some don't. I think it shuts down conversation to weigh in immediately with my take on things.

I'm not interested in whole new areas of posting guidelines; I'm simply reminding readers and responders that posting an article doesn't imply agreement with it.

[bemildred]

168. I somewhat agree with PM.

I sometimes post as "News" without having any particular point to make.

And sometimes I want to see what others think without muddying the water or provoking a response from some direction I hadn't thought of. I those cases I am looking for polite questions if someone wants to know my mind about something.

I've been here quite a long time now, and I've seen many of these issues chewed over endlessly, and in that sort of case I'm unlikely to try to add something new.

And that seems a fair way to proceed to me.

[Vegasaurus]

171. Fair enough

But I think posters can call bullshit on articles that are so clearly inflammatory ("unity with lands beyond Gaza and the WB", for example). Also to question the posters who claim to support two states, but then post this stuff.

It;s fair game then, is all I am saying. People can post whatever the hell they want, but then shouldn't get all buggy if someone questions them on it.

[bemildred]

173. You can call bullshit on anything you like, who's stopping you? nt

[Vegasaurus]

174. And I always do

:eyes:

[bemildred]

175. Good. Keep up the good work. nt

[LeftishBrit]

154. I agree on this...

I do think there's a tendency to assume that if someone posts an article they agree with the entire article. Which is often not true at all. (I brought this up on another thread.)

Though, as you say, there are certain sources which should not be acceptable.

[msmcghee]

167. OTOH - if someone is making an argument and they . .

. . post a comment that excerpts someone's words from an article to support their position - and they title their comment "Many agree with my position. Read this . . " . .

One could expect that the words they are about to read are words that the member agrees with - at least if there are no exceptions noted by the member.

[LeftishBrit]

169. That would imply they agree with much of it; not necessarily every word

I know that you have posted quite a number of articles where you didn't agree with everything, because you agreed with *some* parts of it (e.g. concerns about Islamism, which you agree with, combined with a generally right-wing agenda, which you don't agree with). While I'm not an OP all that often, I probably have too.

I agree it's probably best to clarify what parts you do and don't agree with. I think the rules for posting an 'OP' sometimes make this more difficult, however.

[msmcghee]

172. Yes, I agree. especially the part about . .

"it's probably best to clarify what parts you do and don't agree with." - and noting that this was not an OP.

And in this instance - my posts in reaction were not to simply to condemn the poster for those words but to ask repeatedly for a clarification and clear statement of just what they agreed with and what they didn't agree with.

[msmcghee]

176. Actually, thinking about this some more, I do disagree with part of it ..

I'd say in an op where the rules are explicit - there is no reason to assume that the poster agrees with the article. There could be many reasons why they post it. I post articles sometimes just because they relate to something that is a hot topic in the I/P that week - regardless of my viewpoint.

(Whoever posts an OP should be aware that readers may be wondering about their agreement or disagreement with the article and should be prepared to explain their motives if that comes up.)

However, we have total editing control over what we post in a comment. If someone is engaged in an argument - defending a point of view - and is responding to another comment, it is reasonable for readers to expect that they agree with the words they explicitly chose to put there to support their POV.

They may have additional reasons for posting those words but IMO it is their responsibility to explain if that's the case. The default should be that they agree with their own words IMO. Otherwise - if we had no expectation that someone actually believed their own comment supporting their POV - then how could we even carry on a conversation.

This is even more obviously true when the poster prefaces their comment with something like, "Here are the words of someone who agrees with me. Read them."

[LeftishBrit]

178. Just a point...

I note that one of the issues that seems to bring up complaints is when people ask repeatedly for clarification of opinions, and especially when this relates to whether they agree with something expressed in an article that they've posted. Those who do it may feel that it's essential to an honest dialogue, and can feel frustrated by a lack of response. Those on the receiving end can feel hounded.

I wonder if a compromise would be to allow people to make such repeated requests for clarification, *but* to have some sort of limit on how long it can go on. Perhaps there could be a time limit (e.g. the subject can't be brought up again more than two weeks after the posted article). Or perhaps there could be a rule that such requests should only be made on the same thread as the posted article, and should not be brought up in other threads. I don't know what the mods and other posters think of this.

[breakaleg]

179. It's also about how it's phrased.

I've been told by some that putting words in my mouth is a "debating tactic". Often though, the question is buried inside a slew of attacks, accusations, sarcasm and general nastiness that is reasonable to either not respond, or not see the question amongst the mess.

[subsuelo]

180. A proposal for increasing civility here

I have a proposal which I believe will go a long way towards increasing civility here. But first, let me copy over from the I/P guidelines the following:

Our goal is to provide a forum where issues concerning Israel and Palestine may be discussed openly but intelligently in an atmosphere of mutual respect for opposing sides.

It's an outstanding goal. I wish we could arrive at that. However, while I believe that Lithos and ugrr are doing an amazing job moderating, there are still some problems. The problems are addressed in Lithos original post here - namely, the issue of how personal the commentary gets towards others. Yet, it continues day after day, despite the moderator here specifically asking us to stop! People keep pushing and pushing the boundary, even after we were specifically asked: please do not spend time arbitrarily trying to parse subliminal meaning from people's words and making assumptions as a result

Question is: how do we solve this issue? I have a proposal that might just solve it, if I may be so bold as to suggest improving on something that I know the moderators and other DU admin here have been working on long before I arrived!

So here is the proposal. How about outright disallowing any personal comments whatsoever towards one another here? And I mean any and all personal comments. Anything that is not on the topic, and has moved in the direction of personal commentary, is not allowed. How about getting rid of personal commentary altogether, since people obviously just refuse to treat others with respect here (not everyone, but some if not most).

Furthermore, how about disallowing any insinuation whatsoever regarding someone else's motives or biases? As an example of how to implement that, may I suggest disallowing use of the word "you" in any comment posted in the forum. That way, the focus will always be on the topic at hand. Even if someone doesn't understand the other and simply wants clarification, they could still post "I'm not following the point about ___", instead of "could you expand on your point about ____". I don't think it's going too far. Too many times there are underlying insinuations about someone's motives, or about their biases, or about the reasons for arriving at the conclusions they have made. Those kinds of insinuations are always disruptive, and they do not promote the kind of atmosphere being strived for here.

To close out my proposal, I ask anyone reading this to take a walk through the last 10 posts in I/P which contain 20 or more responses. Just go through each of those threads with 20 or more (20+ because it indicates where there is a higher likelihood for disagreement) and you'll see what I'm talking about. The personal commentaries, the insinuations, and sometimes outright name calling or attacks (hopefully the more slanderous comments would be removed by now but sometimes some slip through).

After going through those, consider what it might mean to have a rule where personal commentary was completely disallowed here. People would be forced to stick to the topic. If you disagree with someone, fine, state something like "I disagree and here's why" - and that would be it. People would be forced to give only their own opinions, rather than spending their time wondering aloud why someone else holds the views they have, or openly insinuating what someone else really meant.

My own personal experience spending time here is mixed... on the one hand I think the moderation and rules are excellent. Obviously no racist or defamatory type comments are allowed. Plus, it's a board for progressives only. But I have also experienced too many insinuations and mud slinging, for no reason other than someone didn't like my opinion on a topic. It is discouraging to have to battle the personal attacks. I don't come here with the hope of having to defend myself from those attacks. I come here to talk about what's going on in I/P. People obviously bend and bend the rules to the point where it's as if some of those rules just don't exist. I believe my proposal could efficiently counter that. No more commentary whatsoever about the other person. That's the proposal. Thanks for listening.

[Howardx]

181. civility would be improved here

if you didnt let yourself get gamed by websites full of banned posters.