As is widely known, Daily Kos is host to debates on the subject of Mideast politics, and there more specifically on the vexed issues surrounding Israel and that country's occupation and administration of territories captured in the 1967 war. Hunter has asked the various regular participants in these debates to devise a mechanism that would ensure that they become substantive, a credit to this site rather than a discredit.
Let me start by saying that my opinions are colored by the fact that I take part in these debates, and to the extent that I do, that my views are firmly pro-Israel. This inherent bias should be mentioned at the outset, and I invite those of other views to offer corrections in the comments to my perceptions offered here as a needed and entirely welcome corrective.
At the heart of the rancor we see here is this: any discussion of Israel and Palestine involves two mutually exclusive and irreconcilable moral absolutes. On the one hand, there is the clear moral imperative, arising out of two thousand years of persecution culminating in the Holocaust, of supporting a Jewish state that can serve as the impregnable refuge of the Jewish nation. On the other, there is the equally compelling absolute that permanent, or semi-permanent, occupation and colonization are horrors to the post-colonial West. We as Westerners - and even the most ardent anti-Imperialist, like Chomsky, argues from the perspective of the Occident - abhor the idea that any nation is qualified to rule over another; and yet, for various reasons of varying weight, that is precisely what Israel is doing.
The most apt comparison for this debate isn't any issue of foreign policy, such as the conflict over Ulster/Northern Ireland; it is the domestic debate over choice and forced pregnancy, in which you can also see two mutually irreconcilable views founded upon moral imperatives - life yonder, individual autonomy here. I'm surprised that no participant in these debates, to the best of my knowledge, has ever noticed this structural and ideological parallel.
It is the absolute refusal by some of the participants in these debates to recognize that the other argues from a moral perspective as well that produces the vitriol; after all, if you are arguing what seems to you a clearly moral point, anyone contradicting you must by definition be opposed to it, and perhaps to the idea of morality itself, and this, ladies and gentlemen, simply cannot stand.
Hence, vitriol, hence, the idea that ends justify the rhetorical means, which seems to be the driving force behind the odious oft-banned troll, Shergald. Put yourself in his shoes for a moment; there he is, possessed of a great shining truth, as he sees it, and infuriatingly enough, the mere articulation of this truth - again, as he sees it - has resulted in his exclusion from this forum. Of course, the truth cannot, must not be allowed to be, hidden, and therefore, he returns again and again. This may surprise some, but I do not believe that Shergald is acting from deliberate malice; he perceives himself as a prophet in the wilderness, struggling against forces seeking to silence him. There is no psychological mystery here, and I'd posit that there is also no way, short of bringing law enforcement into the matter, of deterring him. If anyone has ideas on how to deter those of a messianic bent, I welcome them out of intellectual curiosity alone.
For those who remain, I would suggest a good start is simply this: recognize that those who do not share your views are not evil, that they are in fact as moral as you are, but arguing from a different perspective. Simply put, realize that you, gentle reader, may perhaps be wrong; I ask myself this as a matter of routine. If that recognition were to spread more broadly, it could go a long way towards resolving the chief issue of contention, which is the mutual acrimony this debate generates.
At the same time, I would suggest to the caucus for whom criticism of Israel is their penultimate objective to realize a simple fact: you are not arguing in a historical vacuum. Not all criticism of Israel qualifies as anti-Semitism, but some does. It is an oft-repeated trope in these diaries that there are false accusations of anti-Semitism; I would merely note that while this is no doubt accurate, and that some accusations are made in the heat of the moment, this is not nearly as common as some might suppose. Please note that the pro-Israel caucus also operates under a burden, and that is simply not to let its defense of the Jewish state slip into the many rank clichés obtaining in the West about Arabs and Muslims. Both sides have an affirmative duty to be familiar with, and to oppose, those on their own side who would make use of hateful stereotype, and with the stereotypes themselves. There is a strategic advantage for defenders in Israel in this, as the very term 'Anti-Semite' has attached to it the stench of the gas chambers and of history's greatest crime, while anti-Arabism carries merely the considerably lesser odium of Michelle Malkin, lesser only by virtue of the contrast with the death factories; but realize, my fellow Kossacks, that your words have meaning larger than themselves. This is the burden of our history.
As something of a tangent, let me also simply note this: there are Jews on both sides of this debate. That this should surprise anyone mystifies me. Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, of a piece with contemporaneous movements of Italians, Poles, Germans and others; of a piece with the Palestinian nationalist movement, in fact. The intellectual history of nationalism tells us that it is never beyond controversy even in nations that inhabit contiguous pieces of territory; that Jews, with a violent, painful history scattered across the continents, should provide an exception to this rule is not logically tenable. I would suggest, as a friendly Gentile with an interest in the history of ideas, that one need be a Jewish nationalist to be a Jew as little as Goethe needed to be a German nationalist - he was not - in order to be German. Given that the Jewish nation has not been organized in a state for two millenia, and today still has a significant diaspora, it would be entirely surprising for this state to be the subject of universal agreement.
Equally, we should not be surprised that there are now American Palestinians here arguing their perspective; I'm thinking specifically of Kossack Umkahlil, of whom, very frankly, I have a very mixed opinion. My observation with regard to this phenomenon is very simple: it repeats what we have historically seen in this country with other immigrant nationalities. The Irish came here, and brought their nationalism and hatred of Britain and its Empire, proceeding to agitate in a way that complicated American foreign policy for a century; the Italians came, making it quite convenient for FDR when it was Mussolini who declared war; so did the Poles, the Germans, and so on, all carrying with them across the Atlantic their prejudices and ancient, carefully nursed hatreds. I find Umkahlil's writings deeply troubling, but as others have pointed out, there is nothing about them that is not, in a sense, completely in line with an age-old American tradition predating even our independence. Her claim on this community, which I am fully intent to honor, is this: to be taken seriously as a participant in the debate, because whatever the particulars of her arrival here, she argues from within a tradition that is completely American in its roots, no matter what one may think of her precise opinions. We have seen all of this before.
So let's talk about proposed remedies. On that subject, please check out Another American's excellent diary, here, which proposes a number of them.
My suggestions are simple, and have been laid out in some measure in a previous diary, The Protocols of the Daily Kos.
Let me start by saying that an I/P subject ban, perhaps not a permanent one, is to me within the range of acceptable remedies. We are clearly at a point where adversaries have become enemies, and that is not good for anyone concerned, let alone for the larger mission of this site, which remains the election of Progressive Democrats. I'm still unsure as to whether that's the best possible remedy, and would suggest that such a ban not be instituted quite as yet, because the community is still, I believe, capable of redeeming these discussions. I write this because I believe we still retain that ability.
I would also suggest that the depredations of Shergald must not be allowed to form the basis for a ban. We cannot let one individual dictate the terms and the nature of debate on this site. It is clear that this would be an injustice to those of like views, and while I would find this to be of a certain convenience, given that I roundly detest some of those views, it would also be manifestly unfair, and a capitulation to the thuggery of one individual. It would be frankly odious to give Shergald, driven onward by what is clearly a pathology, this kind of power.
What I would call for instead is this: we know that the community policing mechanism we have works elsewhere, with the diaries dedicated to the Presidential contest providing, perhaps, the exception to the rule. This example in and of itself also provides a crucial hint that it is passion, not necessarily even the subject matter to which it attaches itself, that is the underlying cause of the problem. We can solve this, all of us together, if we realize simply that our opponents in many or most cases argue in good faith. If you assume otherwise - and I know, for example, that I am presently a chief object of detestation by the anti-Israel caucus, and not entirely without cause - the burden of proof is on you.
Make a conscious effort to think twice before you uprate. Think before you post. Be aware that some terms are by their very nature inflammatory - Zionist tool here, Apartheid, genocide there - and police yourself and others of like views. Recognize that the other is not the enemy. Occasionally, step away from the computer. There are some charges - fascist here, terrorist enabler there - you should never consider worthy of mojo. There are some diaries that you should decry, and let me state for the record that most of these, if not all, come from the anti-Israel side of the debate; I welcome your correction in the comments if that perception is flawed.
I think we have one last chance to get this right; clearly, Hunter and other admins have had it. I do not want it to be said that Kossacks must be physically stopped from debating a given issue. Extend one another some good will. Realize that you may, in fact, be wrong in your views. I find the humility produced by this assumption, however much I may fail to employ it uniformly myself, to be helpful.
In closing, at the end of the day, we're all on the larger and same side. We're, at least most of us, American Democrats; there are exceptions, many of whom drive, in my opinion, a disproportionate share of the rancor. There is actually room in the party platform for both supporters of Israel and supporters of the Palestinians. In that room for discussion, I believe we can be fruitful, provided we check some of our worst impulses at the door. A good first step, I suggest, is to realize that we all have these worst impulses; god alone knows that I do. A good second step is equally simple: make your writings and commentary relevant to the American political and policy process. This is, after all, an American site about politics and policy.
And now, I'm off to study telecom legislation; I'll make sure to check in, of course. The original tags are Meta, Abortion, Israel, Palestine, Nationalism, Ideas.