I was really, really sad to see how many folks think we have to avoid discussing such an important (yes, especially to me, it's close to my heart) topic where I feel progressive voices are desparately needed, and how quickly they jumped into "this is not the place, you'll end up with a flame war, you'll see" mode. For example, one of the first comments went something like "no no no please no" with no detail. I asked why, and the poster replied,
Keep watching this thread. It will become painfully obvious.
Well, I did, and it didn't. The negative comments were from folks in fear of flamers, not actual flames or crazies on either side. It makes me feel silenced, censored. It just makes me sad in my heart. Anyhow, I have read thru the comments carefully, and wanted to put some of the results back out there.
First, the stats (these are, of course, subjective and not a scientific analysis!), and then some great quotes.
Total # of comments: 124.
Total # of "flame" type posts: zero
Total # of anti-Semitic posts: zero
Total # of tips in the tip jar: 23
Total # of people who said that because the topic incites negative passion, we shouldn't be talking about it here: 20
Total # of posters who wanted to keep discussing the issue who were disrespectful or rude in their tone: zero
Total # of comments claiming that there are people who come to dKos only to criticize Israel and flame the threads: 5
Total # of comments by one-topic-only dKos members who posted to criticize Israel and flame the thread: zero
Total # of specific discussions (yes, intense, but mostly interesting and insightful) of the I/P situation that sprouted in the comments: 4
See, we CAN do it! I know we can. We are intelligent enough to tell the difference between diaries/comments that are meant to educate vs. those that are meant to inflame, and between genuine posters and trolls. I hope we can keep the discussion alive. Here are some of the comments that made me hopeful:
If the discussion is left only to a few very committed people on each side, it's not surprising that it often degenerates into a shouting match. If, however, the subject attracted many from the 'mainstream' of the site, these voices would become far easier to ignore (if that's what you wanted to do).
I think there's probably about 10-12 commenters who are unwilling to have a serious discussion about I/P. Now, are you really saying that the effort of just ignoring obviously abusive/incendiary comments outweighs the importance of discussing things like this?
by heathlander
...there are some basic positions that are no-brainers, for example being opposed to settlement expansion and being opposed to Israel's violent destruction. It's no more complex than what to do with the coal industry or persuading Democratic Congress to grow a friggin spine. Not everybody agrees with what we would want them to do if they had said spine, but, like with the Israel-Palestine conflict, there are enough things people do agree on that we can pretty much all get behind criticizing them on things like FISA.
The other factor that I think plays a big role, which unfortunately a lot of critics of Israeli policy are guilty of, is exaggerating the consequences that will afflict anyone in American politics who dares to take the wrong side on this issue. I think that is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy, and a cycle that could be broken, and what a coup that would be if it were broken on this site!
by bicycle Hussein paladin
...as the greatest President (in my lifetime, so far) once said:
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." John Fitzgerald Kennedy, The We Choose to go to the Moon Speech, 1962.
My italics.
Not because they are easy, but because they are hard. If we can reach the moon, I think we can discuss this issue. And do it with the best of our energies and skills.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, 1759
by Prav duh
and I'll leave you with:
It would be great if this site could help not so much start a dialogue, but find a dialogue that appears to be rational from multiple points of view. To that end, maybe it comes down to someone here finding a way to establish that any rational dialogue must be part of a non-zero sum game - it cannot be a part of the self-defeating zero-sum game it's in now.
That should be easy, right? ;-)
OK gang, get busy!
by Teknocore