Discussions on Israel and Palestine

KenS wrote:

For what its worth, I don't want to give the impression people cant have the discussion.

Ah.  Well I disagree.  I mean, not on the issue of being capable of having the discussions.  I just don't actually find that in practice you CAN have these discussions.  They get shut down immediately with rhetoric and accusations.

That's my experience.  It may not be shared by others.

KenS wrote:

But I am addressing your expectations. And how can you expect people to park the polarization?

If I can 'park the polarization' when it comes to Aboriginal issues, which affect me deeply, and are basically my life's work, then I don't think it's unreasonable to ask others to do the same.

'Parking the polarization' does not mean taking a morally neutral position.

KenS wrote:

I have these kinds of discussions on the issue with friends and family, because I know the depth of the residual sympathy for Israel and the Zionist project despite how revolted people have become over Israel's actions over the last few years.

I can have these discussions as well with people I am closer to, because they know I'm not an Israeli-apologist, so things don't get tangled up in those questions.  Though I can only think of a few people I personally know who have any 'residual sympathy for Israel and the Zionist project'.  What I can rarely do is have these discussions with people who in most contexts, are perfectly able to address complex, polarised issues. 

I think what you are saying here is that the reason for that is the extremity of the polarisation, which I do see, and understand.  I think that is an underlying cause of the difficult in discussing the issue at all (even discussing DISCUSSING the issue, to remain meta :P).  Personally I don't see it as an insurmountable obstacle.

KenS wrote:

But I frankly see no reason to have this discssion here. I'm listening, or I wouldnt be here now. But I havent heard anything that would change my mind.

I'm not sure if you're clear on what this discussion is, here in this thread.  It isn't actually about Israel and Palestine.  I'm not trying to convince you one way or the other on that.  The discussion is actually about 'the discussion on Israel and Palestine' itself. It's an attempt to look at the way the dialogue happens, not necessarily what's in it.

The box, not the contents.

KenS wrote:

I guess I take the pragmatists approach. Attempts at being moderate on this clusterfuck of issues strongly tend to degenerate into apologia for Israel, which at best is a mourning of the sterile futility of that husk called 'Israeli moderates'. And discussing that is a waste of time.

Your opinion is noted.  I'm going to masticate* it a bit later though, so bear with me.

*Like a ruminant.

Sorry, my mind is distracted with silly puns.

remind wrote:

Hmmm, funny how some wordings sound like my evangelical relatives from AB, who are also Indigenous persons,

I'm always a fan of oblique accusations, myself.  Really moves the discussion forward.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Well, in fact, you didn't deal with it. You skirted it. You made an OP on a left wing site accusing, quite on purpose, that the left is "hysterical" on Palestinian issues and then you, again, quite purposely, infer debates routinely give way to "ZOG". You chose to use language that could be described, and intended to be, provocative, and then you avoid providing any substance to the claims. You abandon your responsibility to the burden of proof. So why don't you say in language as plain as the opening post, that your claim is just not true?

If you have a burning need to feel persecuted or singled out, I really can't help you, I'm sorry.

I explained a number of times why I'm posting these questions on a leftist board.  I ask people's opinions on whether or not the Israel/Palestine situation can be discussed from a moderate stance.  I immediately define moderate as not either/or.  You have (from what I understand of your posts, forgive me if my interpretation is incorrect) apparently stated your opinion that no, that isn't possible.  Israel is always wrong and Palestine is always right.  Is that a correct formulation of your position?

Because that is the attitude I'm referring to, one which I have encountered over and over again on the left.  I am questioning it.  Perhaps it  isn't what it seems.  Perhaps that's just how it looks.  Perhaps that's exactly what it is.

So I ask.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

 

Again, you do not. Rather than answer the question you make another vague generalization about balance, with balance being undefined other than acknowledging mistakes on the side you support (as though defending human rights entails adopting a sectarian position) and then you accuse further: "This thread questions why this issue CAN NOT BE QUESTIONED without raising some sort of confused, paranoid panic."

So where is your example of "confused, paranoid panic"?

My statement about balance was not at all vague.  If you are capable of critiquing the actions of the people or side you support, without feeling as though doing so undermines your overall ideological stance, then this is the kind of moderation I'm discussing. 

I think that's fairly clear.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Three for three. You strike out. You don't answer the question at all. 

Actually I was quite clear.  If you don't understand what was said, you might try telling me exactly what about my statement confused you.

If you're confused because you introduced the false premise that I want you to relate to the perspective of 'x', then I can't really help you with your assumptions.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Ah, so I am the problem.

I don't know, is my characterisation of your position correct?  Because if it is, then yes, that kind of rigid absolutism is a problem.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

What part of the question makes you think I am feeling singled out or persecuted?

That part where you apparently refused to understand that I started this thread about the left in general, and not Babble in specific.  You ignored that, and continued to act as though this is indeed the premise (ie. an issue specific to Babble).  If you harbour a persecution complex, I'm simply informing you that I won't be feeding it.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

You are not just asking questions. You are creating premises and making inferences also. You raised ZOG, But you won't admit wrongly.

Admit wrongly to what?  This thread has brought out some excellent examples of those who apparently cannot actually discuss the issue, the META issue of why this is one of those discussions that tends to bring out extremism over all.

Belief in ZOG is not something relegated only to total crackpots, unfortunately.  When people start going on about the Jewish-controlled media/everything else, that's ZOG.  Maybe you call it something else.  I'm going to give you a [url=http://www.workersliberty.org/node/5041]quote[/url] to describe what I'm talking about, which is an attitude you do indeed come across a fair amount in leftists politics:

Quote:

left-wing anti-semites do not only criticise Israel. They condemn it outright and deny its right to exist. They use legitimate criticisms, and utilise our natural sympathy with the Palestinians, not to seek redress, not as arguments against an Israeli government, an Israeli policy, or anything specifically wrong in Israel, but as arguments against the right of Israel to exist at all. Any Israel. Any Jewish state in the area. Any Israel, with any policy, even one in which all the specific causes for justly criticising present-day Israel and for supporting the Palestinians against it have been entirely eliminated.

The root problem, say the left-wing anti-semites, is that Israel exists. The root “crime of Zionism” is that it advocated and brought into existence “the Zionist state of Israel”.

Bitterly, and often justly, criticising specific Israeli policies, actions, and governments, seemingly championing the Palestinians, your left-wing anti-semites seek no specific redress in Israel or from Israel, demanding only that Israel should cease to exist or be put out of existence.

They often oppose measures to alleviate the condition of the Palestinians short of the destruction of Israel. Thus the petitions and chants on demonstrations: “Two states solution, no solution!”

Now if you have never encountered this attitude, that's awesome, I'm glad for you.  But I have.  Many others have.  This is an actual issue within the left, so I bring it up. 

You see, this entire issue is extremely complex.  The terms 'anti-Semite' and 'pro-Zionist' get thrown around a lot, and don't actually accurately define what is happening.  So I ask these questions, about the debate itself.  I want to know what you're experiences have been.  I've described mine in the OP.  My experiences show me that this discussion is one of the most difficult to engage in, and my experiences here have no in any way changed my opinion on that.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

So you say, people are unreasonable, and then you are unreasonable. I guess you prove yourself correct. I did not say Israel is always wrong. I infered the occupation is always wrong.

So my characterisation of your position is not correct.  I'm glad you've clarified.  There is a difference between saying everything Israel does is wrong, versus the occupations is always wrong.  I support the latter position as well.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

If you are suggesting you only view Israel in terms of the occupation, I can't help you with that, but that is not what I said.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

I also do not believe that supporting human rights is taking a sectarian side. Apparently, for you, I must take a side. Who is unreasonable?

Not at all accurate.  I was asking you if you take an all or nothing approach.  It appeared to me that you were.  That is not even remotely the same as telling you that you must take a sectarian side.  In fact, it is the polar opposite of what I have said.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

So, you tell me, when is the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands not wrong?

How odd, I thought you just said that you don't view Israel only in terms of the occupation, but then you phrase your question in these terms.  Did I misunderstand something?

remind wrote:

Yiwah, you were the one who stated "babble bubble" and now you say you were not speaking asbout babble per se, you cannot even keep track of what you wrote and you are inconsistent in the extreme,

Remind, I don't think you are reading things very closely.  If you wish to attack me, it would at least behoove you to pay attention to what I've actually [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/discussions-isreal-and-pa....

Yiwah wrote:

*sigh*

Is it possible to look outside the bubble of Babble?  Can we do that, maybe?  You know, since Babble is generally full of leftists who have experience with other leftists outside of Babble and might be able to bring some insight to this topic in a way that doesn't confine them to only discussing what happens on this particular forum?

Please note that this is entirely consistant with my assertion that I am not speaking about Babble per se.  I await your apology with baited breath.

remind wrote:

BTW FM has quite clearly indicated your hypocrisy lies and I believe you are  concern trolling.

Let's take a look at what you've done here.

You've accused me of being a hypocrite and a liar.

Earlier you also called me a concern troll.  I asked you to clarify the term, which you didn't.  I looked it up.  Apparently this is the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29#Concern_troll]definiti...

Quote:

A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.

So.  You have accused me of lying, of being hypocritical...you have accused me of being inconsistant (based on your own faulty reading of my posts), and you have accused me of having sinister motives.

What you have never done in this thread is participate or contribute in any way, you have simply attacked.

Thank you for providing me with at least one concrete example here on Babble of someone who apparently cannot discuss this issue without: attacking others, claiming they are pro-Zionist or dismissing the question itself as having some sinister ulterior motive(via your concern troll comment).

Because apparently it's really super important that there be at least one real live person here on Babble who does this, otherwise the original question simply will never be answered.

remind wrote:

Chastizing accepted maysie,  should have worded the whole thing better or not bothered.

 

My only excuse is, I was pretty damn angry about the off hand comment regarding the notion that some First Nations loved Residential Schools and feel they got a great education. Perhaps there are some, but I have never met them, and one would think, given the reality of odds are, I would have given the circles of people I move in.

See, you think you understand my arguments, and you think you know what I'm saying, but you most clearly do not.  Perhaps, as Maysie has pointed out, that is because of the new/old dichotomy here, where new posters are looked upon with suspicion.  However, I'm not as willing to absolve the perpetrators of misunderstanding, especially when they apparently go out of their way to mischaracterise what is being said.

I'll address three of these mischaracterisations you continue to hold on to:

yiwah wrote:

If you take the simplistic approach that "Residential schools were all bad", then someone is going to rightfully point out to you that some Aboriginal people received an excellent education in them, were not abused, and actually enjoyed the experience.  This fact of course does not negate the more important issue of Residential schools being deliberately set up as a system intent on cultural destruction and assimilation.  However, the simplistic stance opens you up to these kinds of 'counter-examples' which the other side takes, runs with and goes 'woohoo see!  They're wrong!'

I am an Aboriginal woman, I have lived in Aboriginal communities all my life, and I have worked with Aboriginal issues my entire career.  I have done battle with supporters of the Residential School system, and I have lived and worked intimately with people who attended Residential schools.  I have a very good understanding of the overall system, but also the specific approach used in various schools throughout the country. 

What I have seen done on many occasions, is supporters of Residential Schools will take a specific school as an example, (usually one operating in later decades as well, in the late 80s for example) and parade graduates of that school out as 'proof' that Residential schools were also positive.

I pointed this tactic out.  I also stated how the opposing side can use these anomalous situations to claim they've undermined your position, if indeed the position you've taken is the simplistic one of "ALL RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS WERE BAD" compared with the more nuanced and accurate position "RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS WERE THE PRODUCT OF A SYSTEM WHICH DELIBERATELY FOSTERED CULTURAL DESTRUCTION AND ASSIMILATION".

I have met formers students of Residential schools who did not have a bad experience.  What is sad about the situation is that some of them will use their own experiences to attack those who truly suffered from the more common experience.  Others will simply feel ashamed that they escaped the harsh treatment others did not. 

In any case, I'm a little tired of your attempt to 'out-Aboriginal' me in this context, because I'm fairly certain had you made the barest effort, you could have read what I actually wrote and understood it, instead of bringing your quite ugly assumptions to the forefront.

remind wrote:

If i wanted to listen to borderline, if not outright, evangelical apologist blatherings about Israel, coming from a Aboriginal person, I would listen to it from my extended family, but certainly do not have to here.

Boom, and there you have it.

I have never espoused any of the opinions you are attributing to me here.  Apparently, for you, simply bringing up the topic at all is enough to get me accused of being an apologist for Israel.

Which, once again, is what I was interested in finding out from the outset.

Why do you do this?

How do you justify it?

Do you even see yourself doing it?

You see, I'm interested in the why of the way people approach this topic.  Thankfully Maysie and a few others have been able to understand that.  I wonder if you do now, or if you've made your judgment, and that's that.

As to your bizarre references to my use of the term "babble bubble""

remind wrote:

and did you forget that you actually used the words "babble bubble"? which I note you over looked in your selected quotes of your own words, where you indicated i read you wrong. which i didn't

I actually [url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1156566/remind-wrote-Yiwah-you]quoted[/url] the passage where I used that term.  Did you not see it?  Perhaps you are not actually reading any of my posts?  I can think of no other explanation as to how you could overlook what was specifically quoted to you in the post you are referring to.  I suggest you read it again.

You read me wrong, remind. I've shown you how.  You ignored what I said, and then claimed I didn't address the specific wording at all.  Despite the fact it was quoted for you.

I'm not sure what that is, but it's not something I can't fix for you...you'll have to work on it.

Apologies for what is a HUGE freaking post and wonky scripting at the top.

Maysie wrote:

And Yiwah, I think I'm finally getting where you're coming from. I'm a meta-analysis person, being a sociology kinda gal but you get the meta-meta award.

I don't think it's meta-meta, I'm fairly sure it's still in the realm of the meta.  What people here have no apparently understood, or perhaps did not believe, was that my question was this:

"Let us discuss the way people approach Zionism, Israel, Palestine, Antisemitism and moderation."

I wanted to discuss the way in which we discuss difficult topics(that's why I think it's meta, not meta-meta :D) Of all the difficult topics out there, it has been my experience that the Israel/Palestine debate is the most difficult to engage in, on the left.

(Abortion is a difficult topic, but it's not really a debate within the left, it's more of a discussion between the left and right.  So perhaps I should have been more clear at the outset that I wanted to discuss the way the LEFT talks about difficult topics, amongst ourselves.)

In any case THANK YOU FOR GETTING IT.  I am interested in the opinions of others as to what makes the discussion so difficult to have.  A few posters here have addressed that issue, but it is very difficult to stay on the meta level and not get drawn into the details.  I think others thought the discussion was about Israel/Palestine and couldn't see why I'd avoid the details if that was the case. Anyway.  (Now the preceding section of this post is the meta-meta :P)

On to the meta! (How we discuss Israel/Palestine)

Maysie wrote:

I see your point, and I get it. 

But there are a few huge problems with actualizing what you're suggesting, and I think what you're espousing will never happen. Why?

a. This is online, many babblers will never meet in person or know each other in any way other than our words here to each other. What this means is I only know babblers through their text, and I will "know" babblers (as they will "know" me) better over time. This benefits the longer term babblers and does not serve new babblers well. So, maybe, I could say something like "Yeah Hamas really fucked that situation up" and not be accused of supporting Israel. But I wouldn't bother. Someone new might think, hey it's ok to say stuff like that, and then there'd be some non-fun in the thread.

Alright.  So you think that in an online context, the way we discuss Israel/Palestine is constrained in a certain way because of text-based limitations, lack of intimate knowledge about one another and the particular ‘culture’ that is created by long-time members of a forum. (Please, if during my restatement of any of your positions [which I do to be very clear myself about what I’m addressing] I err in any way, please let me know.)

I agree.

I think that difficult discussions are hard to have face to face, and even harder online for the reasons you’ve mentioned.  I aspire to a way of discussing topics online which would allow us to have these discussions without introducing assumptions which undermine the entire process, but I’ve yet to see it happen.  Those ‘breakthroughs’ I HAVE experienced in ‘real life’ and I think it has something to do with recognising other people’s humanity in a way that is perhaps too difficult to do online.  Some of the other things you mention below, about trolls and right wingers invading the space are other factors which prevent these ‘breakthroughs’.

My aspirations, however, are still based on the idea that it IS possible for posters to take stock of the way they debate, to avoid undermining assumptions, and to attempt to work together for clarity rather than working individually towards the debate ‘win’.  The culture that is often fostered on forums like these appeal to those who like to argue.  I’m absolutely one of them.  However entertaining that can be, however, I think people also have another agenda which is perhaps given lip service but not necessarily worked on as much: actual understanding.

I see the approach as being adversarial, and the best debator scores ‘points’ and eventually ‘wins’.  However satisfying that may be, it is ultimately MORE satisfying to have a debate with someone who finally sees your point, yes?  (I also think it’s satisfying to finally get what someone else is saying, and I’ve had my opinions changed about a fair many subjects online)  I don’t think that can really happen if you just ‘vanquish’ someone.  I don’t think the conversation should be adversarial, I think it needs to be more mutual than that.

I aspire to that, but I also accept what you’ve said about the reality of the situation, a reality I may not like, but nonetheless acknowledge.

Maysie wrote:

b. Polarization happens all the time. In fact, your contention about the word Zionism is the same accusation that used to (still does once in a while) fly at my head about my use of the word "racism". I've been accused fairly regularly of throwing that word around with no basis, bla bla bla. What I've done in response is simply stop engaging, as the "debates" are draining to me. But my learned opinion (ha!) remains the same. But that's me, I've been a volunteer moderator for a number of years before becoming a staff person. If someone wants to use a descriptor like Zionist to describe a person, or an ideology, they are free to do so, and don't need to abide by a standard that you, Yiwah, find more intellectually rigorous. Sorry, but it's true.

I understand that the ‘meta’ debates on the meaning of certain terms, or the tactics we use are draining.  I actually dread seeing new replies on this thread, because it makes me ask myself, “why the fuck am I trying to discuss this when I KNOW that the majority of my time is going to be spent saying, ‘no that’s not what I’m saying’?”

However, I think we need to have the discussions every once in a while.  Call me an optimist but I really do think that our methods and definitions and dynamics evolve over time, via the medium of debate perhaps, or simply as people get to know one another better (online or in real life).  I think of it like revisiting your relationship...how have things changed, how have things stayed the same, what do you think about this now...

But it’s still a major pain in the ass to have those discussions.

I’d be lying if I said I wouldn’t prefer people to use words that had a more settled meaning, but I also realise that isn’t really possible.  Nor, upon reflection, would I want to work with a language so rigid and unadapting to various contexts.  HOWEVER.  Because these terms are NOT settled, I will attempt to figure out how people are using them, and I will attempt to explain to them how I am using them.  Too often, that attempt at communication is shut down by accusations.  I have seen people engage in ‘semantic wanking’ to confuse the issue, and it annoys the hell out of me as well, so I get why people often get their backs up when they think that’s happening. Yet communication is a difficult thing.  Perhaps one of the most difficult things we have to do in our lives, on a continuous basis.  I’d rather look like I’m up to no good, and fight through that immediate assumption in order to get at some sort of understanding, than just keep quiet all the time and wonder ‘why the heck do we seem unable to get our points across to one another?’.

Maysie wrote:

c. Passion and emotion drive most activists, not the cool-headed place of "reason" (which doesn't exist anyways). You think the right isn't fueled by passion (and hatred, which is an emotion)? Oh I almost forgot, at one point didn't you say you're a lawyer?

Neener neener :P  You can’t keep doing legal work and not succumb to despair if you aren’t passionate about what you’re doing.

But you do learn that arguments from passion alone are easy to dismiss.

Maysie wrote:

d. To get into grey areas is something that is not ever done very well on babble on any topic. Many issues are, in fact, more complex than the threads about them represent. Sure, in an ideal world it would be great to hash out the issues in more minute ways here on babble. Hell, I love doing that in my real life. But history has shown us that babble isn't the place for it, in my estimation. The pressure of the outside MSM and corporate media is too great. This space always feel embattled and under siege, with real concern trolls, right wing interlopers and others infringing here. It's exhausting sometimes to have to fight them all the time, which we do. So subtlety falls away. It's a shame, but there it is. 

Thank you, I think this provides good insight.  I’m still really just getting a feel for the culture of this forum, which is substantially different than the culture I’ve experienced elsewhere online.  I can draw a parallel though to real life ‘Aboriginal spaces’ which often feel under siege and cause a great many discussions to fall silent.  It fosters a feeling of suspicion and, to not exaggerate, some fear.  You find that you are simply unwilling to discuss certain things because people are waiting to pounce on your words, take them out of context, or hold you to them (when you are simply trying to think aloud) or use what you’ve said as some sort of proof for the opposing position. 

I’m getting more of a sense of how this forum in particular tries to maintain openness while skewing the parameters of the discussion enough to allow for a sort of protected space where certain things will not be permitted to derail the entire discussion.  I’m not totally convinced by the approach, but I think I don’t quite understand it entirely yet either (and I haven’t really formulated any alternative), and I do see the need for this sort of thing.  It’s an interesting concept, and I hope that I can ask questions about it as I spend time here, and we can have those meta discussions about creating space, without that turning into a bloodbath.

Maysie wrote:

Second: while babble is an interesting slice of the Canadian left, it by no means represents the official or unofficial Canadian left, which varies immensely by region and by issue. What I'm saying is, babble is what it is, but to engage "the left" on the issue of Israel's occupation of West Bank and Gaza (see, my pov is now clear) one would get a huge myriad of responses. Some, yes are locked down on one side or the other, but many are in the mushy middle. There ain't much of a mushy middle on babble.

My reason for posing the question here was that I do see a variety of leftist perspectives, and I was looking for people to draw on their own experiences working with other leftists in the real world.  I’m not looking for a single answer, I want that myriad of responses.

Another thing that perhaps is not clear is...I’m not approaching this meta discussion with a thesis, or with a solution.  I find it troublesome, and while I can sit down by myself and think, ‘what are the roadblocks to having these discussions on the left’, I think better when I can access other points of view.  Some people have already provided their point of view, and it’s given me a lot to think about.

Maysie wrote:

Third: The left has no obligation to be balanced, imo. That's why we're the left.

Okay, so here’s a bit of my argument, restated...if we accept that being on the left means taking certain positions, then we know the playing field isn’t over there in the centre anyway, right?  So balanced cannot mean taking the centre. 

I don’t want anyone to take the centre.  I don’t want people to go, ‘well maybe being pro-choice is too extreme’.  No.  I think ‘balance’ has to mean something else in these kinds of situations, where we’re over on the left, and the centre is bullshit.

So in this context, I think balanced means the ability to see the holes in your argument or position (and this is my lawyer training, but seeing them from the point of view of your opponent on the right who is going to try to exploit those ‘holes’).  Once you see them, you can deal with them.  Usually they aren’t actually holes in your argument at all, but they are things you need to think about, factor into your worldview and your position, and be prepared to discuss.  It’s a way of staying one step ahead of the people trying to invalidate your position.

I brought up the idea of balance, because I think it’s something young activists in particular need to learn.  There are tried and true tactics used by the right to make leftist positions look poorly thought out and not well understood by those who hold them.  Some of those are just media tactics...cutting out nuanced opinions in favour of finding the least coherent person in the group, etc.  But some of them are ‘poking holes in the argument’ tactics which can be used in all sorts of contexts.  Older leftists are often aware of these tactics, and can smoothly respond to them...so I suppose it’s very much an issue of experience.

A lot of what I do, these days, is try to find those ‘open spots’ in my arguments in preparation for the inevitable attempt to exploit them.  Amusingly enough, I’ve found one of the best places to do this is among leftists, who will swarm all over you with a much better understanding of the issues than you can find on the right.  Trial by fire, amongst the more-informed left :P

Maysie wrote:

In conclusion, I don't think you're going to get the meta-meta discussion you were hoping for. And this issue is a hot-button issue, so whatever abstract ideas you imagine can be debated just isn't going to happen. Perhaps this affirms your original thesis, but I still think it's possible to engage in a flawed community (as babble is, since no community is perfect and ideal) and move ideas and issues forward. As I've said, I've learned tons on babble over the years, and still do. I've changed my positions on issues. But that's me, I'm an optimist.

The meta (how we discuss Israel/Palestine) and the meta-meta (how we discuss any difficult topic)...and we just did have that discussion.  Thank you.

Unionist wrote:

Has it ever occurred to you that: 1. I don't think you're lying. 2. I don't think you have a hidden agenda.

 

3. I understand your point and your aim perfectly well. 

4. I don't agree with your point or your aim. 5. Some others here, no less intelligent and experienced than I, are trying to tell you the same thing.

See, you say things like the bolded above and then:

Unionist wrote:

 You want to frame our consistent support for the struggle of the Palestinian people as "extremism"? Fill your boots. You want to create a caricature of that consistent support as being some irrational screaming and denouncing and dehumanizing of anyone that raises the slightest voice that differs from us? Go right ahead. Just don't ask us to confuse your carefully constructed frame with any kind of reality. And don't expect anyone to dilute their principled positions for the sake of winning your approval of the tone of our discussions.

Which  highlights that no, you don't understand my point, or my aim.