Discussions on Israel and Palestine

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 

I think it would be good if people could recognize the difference between attack and obstructionism and honest questions and good advice.

I was really hoping to avoid posting posting on this topic. It is awkward, because I like this site and support the vast majority of causes I see here. I also recognize and support the fact that some things are not and do not need to be up for discussion.

It's not my intention to make trouble, obstruct, or tell anyone what they should think. But neither do I like to see someone completely misunderstood when I know that he has a point and that his intentions are helpful. I ran into this exact same same thing on this same issue when I first posted. I didn't say a word in favour of Israel or against fighting their oppression, and still I got called an apologist (and a bunch of other things) and I got shut down with some questions left unanswered – and I am not asking to revive that discussion here.

The main point Yiwah is making isn't specific to Israel and Palestine (in my opinion) It has to do with moderation and tolerance. And tolerance means not jumping all over and demonizing someone who is a friend who has honest questions or advice.

Yiwah used a bit of hyperbolae in making his point. Big deal. From what I have read here you have all used it yourselves and know what it means. That's why it mystifies me that people are picking his words apart instead of addressing what he is really saying. Because I can see that he is actually sticking his neck out to say something helpful and I don't think he deserves this kind of treatment.

Moderation on this issue does not mean caving into Israel and adopting a position between them and the Palestinians. But the notion that there is one definitive position on everything to do with Israel and Palestine is nonsense. Even the staunchest advocates here aren't in complete unanimity. On one of the Libby Davies threads there was disagreement on what she meant, and on the merits adopting a position based on 67 or 48 - including whether one should support a compromise because it is the least contentious way forward.

Another example. I spoke with N.Beltov a few days ago about Margaret Atwood's decision to not honour the boycott. Her decision disapoints me, but I respect it, and I still see her as an ally and an important voice on other political issues. I don't want to speak for N. Beltov, but I believe he feels differently. I respect his opinion, and he was respectful of mine. But it is a another example of moderation on an issue while still supporting the same cause.

Anyway, sorry if I offend or cause trouble for your moderators, but I think you have enough real enemies and real struggles without being so paranoid that you turn your backs on a good friend like Yiwah seems to be. There is no shame in asking an honest question, and there should be no shame about having an honest talk about it either. It does nothing to diminish your work; it can only help make it stronger.

Ayup. Just springboarding off this...

This has always been 'one of those topics', online or in real life, that it seems gets the most ugly, and yes folks, it happens right here on your forum.  In this thread, and in other threads.  Just like it happens in real life, and I'm not even talking about interacting with the right, I'm talking about just in the left.

Now, I think some of you don't see it as ugly, because perhaps you're immune to your own hostility, your demeaning accusations, and your patronising tone.  In fact, I'm sure some of you are even outraged that I'd characterise your responses this way.  Some of the posts just previous to this one are excellent examples of those approaches.  Maybe reading them, the authors think they're being fair, and reasonable.  I disagree with you.

I don't think that other topics get quite this level of response, and I'm sorry, but I don't see the Israel/Palestine issue as being so special and horrendous that it simply removes individuals' abilities to not be douchebags to one another when it comes up.  There are plenty of topics that can get your back up, but I've generally found people are able to discuss them without accusing people of everything including being apologists for the other side.

Maybe I'm wrong though, maybe that kind of behaviour cuts across all topics.

In any case, I specifically brought up this topic, because I actually wanted answers, and this is THE topic, in my mind.  The one that is hardest to discuss.  It was the best example I could come up with, to get you thinking about the way we discuss certain subjects.  To be quite honest, I'm a little disappointed at how few people were able to even understand what I was asking, despite repeated clarifications, much less actually respond. 

If what you understand is, I'm making unfounded accusations about the way people discuss this topic, then again, I disagree with you.  I have already been called an apologist for Israel, many times right in this thread, without having actually discussed Israel/Palestine at all.  Despite repeated clarifications, I have people here saying 'well you're talking about this, rar rar rar I'm going to tear that argument apart...' except no.  That's not what I'm talking about.  I have to assume that continuing to 'not get it' is deliberate on the part of those doing it, out of a belief that I must be hiding my true intent, and my true intent is...well whatever you've convinced yourselves it is.

All of which highlight an approach that is...relentless.  Almost hysterical.

Does everyone do it?  Thank fucking clooney frog on a stick, no.  But the irony of a handful of you trying to disprove my point (that this is a topic that is extremely difficult to discuss without it getting ugly) by...getting ugly (or whatever you want to call it), is pretty delicious.

Is a 'meta thread' seriously that alien?  I apologise if it's not something you're used to doing.  I will not, however, take any responsibility for your own over the top reactions, and concerted efforts to misunderstand what the topic even is.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Quote:

Actually, it's a litany of your deliberate refusal to understand the topic.

...more a litany of your unwillingness to answer questions or address issues others have pointed out about your own 'understanding'.

I'll ask you what I asked Unionist.

What is the topic of this thread?

skdadl wrote:

Yiwah wrote:

 

Nope.  I stand by my statement.  The polarised topic of Israel and Palestine is not justification for being a douchebag.  Sorry. 

And because I believe you'll miss it, "to one another" indicates a reciprocal relationship, in which both (or all) parties are to refrain from engaging in douchebaggery, as said douchebaggery is not justified.

Hope that clarifies things for you.

Oh, you edited and expanded, so I copy in full.

Gosh: you believe that I'll miss "it"? Ummmm, mods? Is that not what is called baiting around here? Yiwah is implying that I can't read or can't understand what I read?

Is that baiting around here?  Please read through this thread and flag the various posts that have been directed my way which have gone much farther, thanks.

skdadl wrote:

And then the embroidering of the sexism. I mean, y'know -- this is all a bit much. Why do you think you have the right to order other babblers around? The voice of the patriarch is heard in the land, eh?

Ah!  So the issue is the term douchebag itself?  I was under the impression you were accusing me of calling someone a douchebag.

In any case, to avoid further bizarre derailment, let's let the moderators deal with whatever it is, and keep the rest of the topic on track?

Thanks Pants.  It's also about how we talk to one another.  I think people get really tired of being called Israeli apologists/trolls/whatever when the topic comes up and there are differences of opinion.  I think Smith_W was able to give good examples of how those differences of opinion can exist and be approached respectfully, so it's clearly possible to relate to one another (even, hopefully, newbies to a forum) without being assholes.

Or is assholes a sexist term too?