Political Threads About the Israeli/Gaza Conflict

[Anonymous]

I'm curious. It looks like there's one poster (maybe two) who has pretty much taken over all like threads. Maybe I'm wrong but the writing style seems the same.

I even commented that there's no real reason to keep starting new threads every time a Palestinean child is killed in the conflict and that s/he might incorporate their thoughts into similar existing threads. And I would say the same every time an Israeli child or any innocent civilian is killed.

This is a volatile subject and people feel very strongly. My heart breaks for the innocent Palestinean and Israeli people caught up in this quagmire, but I am troubled by the level of anti-semitism in most of the posts. It's a bit frightening and affects of it are already being seen inside our boarders during protests across the country.

As much as I've seen some of the most hateful threads about Obama, this is worse.

Maybe some words of temperate wisdom from you might help quell things a bit. You made one about a thought comment thought you had a differing opinion. I think it changed the tone a bit.

Posts are boiling over IMHO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious. It looks like there's one poster (maybe two) who has pretty much taken over all like threads. Maybe I'm wrong but the writing style seems the same.

I even commented that there's no real reason to keep starting new threads every time a Palestinean child is killed in the conflict and that s/he might incorporate their thoughts into similar existing threads. And I would say the same every time an Israeli child or any innocent civilian is killed.

This is a volatile subject and people feel very strongly. My heart breaks for the innocent Palestinean and Israeli people caught up in this quagmire, but I am troubled by the level of anti-semitism in most of the posts. It's a bit frightening and affects of it are already being seen inside our boarders during protests across the country.

As much as I've seen some of the most hateful threads about Obama, this is worse.

Maybe some words of temperate wisdom from you might help quell things a bit. You made one about a thought comment thought you had a differing opinion. I think it changed the tone a bit.

Posts are boiling over IMHO.

**borders**

[Anonymous]

I just read your comments about starting new threads under the new thread about a death of a child. You took my words and made them into something that were most certainly not meant to be a tit for tat.

Feel free to delete the thread here. You won't be bothered again. Promise.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious. It looks like there's one poster (maybe two) who has pretty much taken over all like threads. Maybe I'm wrong but the writing style seems the same.

I even commented that there's no real reason to keep starting new threads every time a Palestinean child is killed in the conflict and that s/he might incorporate their thoughts into similar existing threads. And I would say the same every time an Israeli child or any innocent civilian is killed.

This is a volatile subject and people feel very strongly. My heart breaks for the innocent Palestinean and Israeli people caught up in this quagmire, but I am troubled by the level of anti-semitism in most of the posts. It's a bit frightening and affects of it are already being seen inside our boarders during protests across the country.

As much as I've seen some of the most hateful threads about Obama, this is worse.

Maybe some words of temperate wisdom from you might help quell things a bit. You made one about a thought comment thought you had a differing opinion. I think it changed the tone a bit.

Posts are boiling over IMHO.

I was going along with you until this point: "I am troubled by the level of anti-semitism in most of the posts". It is clear that you and I will not agree on what is appropriate discourse and what is not. There are multiple posts calling for the widespread killing of Palestinians and/or destruction of Gaza. There is even a thread dedicated to hoping that the Palestinians are taught a "generational lesson". If there are any truly anti-Semitic posts, they are very, very much the minority and eclipsed by the anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab posts. The way to moderate the discourse is to engage in moderate discourse. Describing those with whom you disagree as anti-Semites does nothing lower the temperature.

If you are interested in why I haven't objected to the second thread about the second killing of multiple Palestinian children, it is because the first thread has devolved into a debate about our military and whether it consists of heroes or murderers and due to the fact that the OP of the second thread was trying to address a very specific point that had come up repeatedly in the earlier thread. The current battle in Gaza is complex and has many aspects. It is understandable that it will provoke many threads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... but I am troubled by the level of anti-semitism in most of the posts.

Can you give one single example of this? Criticism of Israel, criticism of its creation and the ensuing after-effects on people, is not anti-Semitic.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I just read your comments about starting new threads under the new thread about a death of a child. You took my words and made them into something that were most certainly not meant to be a tit for tat.

Feel free to delete the thread here. You won't be bothered again. Promise.

Look, if I look up all your previous posts before responding, I get called Orwellian, dictatorial, and a host of other names. So, I don't do that unless you have caused an extra special level of trouble. I have no idea what you have posted before. I do know that the only complaints recently in the Political Forum have been about threads that reflected negatively on Israel. The other poster came right out and said that he had complained about two threads on the same topic. I responded to that poster and it looks like you took that as criticism of you. But, since I was responding to him, my criticism was of him, not you.

[Anonymous]

I read your posts to my liberal husband re: Israel. He said what I feel: that you start with decent analysis, sense than make comments that are not accurate, based on current news sources. Example is the terror tunnels. Another example is negating the importance of the known terrorist tactic of firing rockets from/near civilian areas to deliberately create casualties that they can then exploit through the media. He said all this is well-publicized in mainstream, so he's curious as to the narrowness of your sources.

As a strong conservative, I respect my liberal husband's views, because he is able to parse through what he digests in the media with impartiality. He feels your comments definitely lean anti-Semitic, and he bases that on the fact that you seem to be denying Hamas's responsibility by stating Israel should not strike back, and then turning it around saying Israel is the one who deliberately wants civilian casualties, despite the fact that it's well-known that Israel warns civilians of impending attacks. Certainly, we agree that if any Israeli soldier has deliberately and wantonly murdered a civilian for no reason, then surely that person should be held responsible. But my husband also pointed out that in a region where civilians often are militants, and children are sent out and encouraged to engage in terrorist acts, a strong case can be made for the Israelis, that it's hard to tell what's what.

The reason you are called Orwellian is because you, in the past, have used information only a moderator/owner of the board has, and linked posts together and used it to garner insults, stating that it's your job to do so. At least admit that you've done this, and that, at the very least, it's really not good practice

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I read your posts to my liberal husband re: Israel. He said what I feel: that you start with decent analysis, sense than make comments that are not accurate, based on current news sources. Example is the terror tunnels. Another example is negating the importance of the known terrorist tactic of firing rockets from/near civilian areas to deliberately create casualties that they can then exploit through the media. He said all this is well-publicized in mainstream, so he's curious as to the narrowness of your sources.

As a strong conservative, I respect my liberal husband's views, because he is able to parse through what he digests in the media with impartiality. He feels your comments definitely lean anti-Semitic, and he bases that on the fact that you seem to be denying Hamas's responsibility by stating Israel should not strike back, and then turning it around saying Israel is the one who deliberately wants civilian casualties, despite the fact that it's well-known that Israel warns civilians of impending attacks. Certainly, we agree that if any Israeli soldier has deliberately and wantonly murdered a civilian for no reason, then surely that person should be held responsible. But my husband also pointed out that in a region where civilians often are militants, and children are sent out and encouraged to engage in terrorist acts, a strong case can be made for the Israelis, that it's hard to tell what's what.

The reason you are called Orwellian is because you, in the past, have used information only a moderator/owner of the board has, and linked posts together and used it to garner insults, stating that it's your job to do so. At least admit that you've done this, and that, at the very least, it's really not good practice

Linda, if you are going to suggest that I am an anti-Semite, or post your husband's suggestion that I am an anti-Semite, please don't hide behind anonymity. If your husband has thoughts that he would like to share with me, he can do it himself. As for you, I would suggest that the Israeli flag included on your Twitter avatar prevents you from being in a position to lecture me about bias.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read your posts to my liberal husband re: Israel. He said what I feel: that you start with decent analysis, sense than make comments that are not accurate, based on current news sources. Example is the terror tunnels. Another example is negating the importance of the known terrorist tactic of firing rockets from/near civilian areas to deliberately create casualties that they can then exploit through the media. He said all this is well-publicized in mainstream, so he's curious as to the narrowness of your sources.

As a strong conservative, I respect my liberal husband's views, because he is able to parse through what he digests in the media with impartiality. He feels your comments definitely lean anti-Semitic, and he bases that on the fact that you seem to be denying Hamas's responsibility by stating Israel should not strike back, and then turning it around saying Israel is the one who deliberately wants civilian casualties, despite the fact that it's well-known that Israel warns civilians of impending attacks. Certainly, we agree that if any Israeli soldier has deliberately and wantonly murdered a civilian for no reason, then surely that person should be held responsible. But my husband also pointed out that in a region where civilians often are militants, and children are sent out and encouraged to engage in terrorist acts, a strong case can be made for the Israelis, that it's hard to tell what's what.

The reason you are called Orwellian is because you, in the past, have used information only a moderator/owner of the board has, and linked posts together and used it to garner insults, stating that it's your job to do so. At least admit that you've done this, and that, at the very least, it's really not good practice

Linda, if you are going to suggest that I am an anti-Semite, or post your husband's suggestion that I am an anti-Semite, please don't hide behind anonymity. If your husband has thoughts that he would like to share with me, he can do it himself. As for you, I would suggest that the Israeli flag included on your Twitter avatar prevents you from being in a position to lecture me about bias.

My suggestion is that you re-read your words and ask yourself if your bias has caused you to dismiss good information. While I have an Israeli flag on my avatar and definitely support Israel in this, I have also unequivocally stated that any Israeli that commits wanton,deliberate, proven murder should be prosecuted. I feel you are giving excuses to a terrorist group that uses known, published tactics to set up their own civilians. When Hamas fired rockets in that alley, they stopped the escape of Palestinians and did so deliberately, knowing Israel had warned them to leave. You have repeatedly stated that Israel should not fire in such circumstances and that's just not acceptable for a myriad of reasons.

In addition, the tunnel situation is not just "to bring in supplies to a people impoverished by Israel as you stated. Again, these have been proven be designed to also wreak terror on the Israeli people.

I brought my husband into the conversation because he is a liberal as well, so I wanted to see how he felt about your words. As I said, some of what you said made sense to both of us. However there is also large parts of your statements that simply ignore known elements of Palestinian tactics, especially when it comes to media coverage. Various news sources such as 60 minutes, Washington Post, etc have covered these, complete with video. To dismiss those, diminishes your opinions.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read your posts to my liberal husband re: Israel. He said what I feel: that you start with decent analysis, sense than make comments that are not accurate, based on current news sources. Example is the terror tunnels. Another example is negating the importance of the known terrorist tactic of firing rockets from/near civilian areas to deliberately create casualties that they can then exploit through the media. He said all this is well-publicized in mainstream, so he's curious as to the narrowness of your sources.

As a strong conservative, I respect my liberal husband's views, because he is able to parse through what he digests in the media with impartiality. He feels your comments definitely lean anti-Semitic, and he bases that on the fact that you seem to be denying Hamas's responsibility by stating Israel should not strike back, and then turning it around saying Israel is the one who deliberately wants civilian casualties, despite the fact that it's well-known that Israel warns civilians of impending attacks. Certainly, we agree that if any Israeli soldier has deliberately and wantonly murdered a civilian for no reason, then surely that person should be held responsible. But my husband also pointed out that in a region where civilians often are militants, and children are sent out and encouraged to engage in terrorist acts, a strong case can be made for the Israelis, that it's hard to tell what's what.

The reason you are called Orwellian is because you, in the past, have used information only a moderator/owner of the board has, and linked posts together and used it to garner insults, stating that it's your job to do so. At least admit that you've done this, and that, at the very least, it's really not good practice

Linda, if you are going to suggest that I am an anti-Semite, or post your husband's suggestion that I am an anti-Semite, please don't hide behind anonymity. If your husband has thoughts that he would like to share with me, he can do it himself. As for you, I would suggest that the Israeli flag included on your Twitter avatar prevents you from being in a position to lecture me about bias.

My suggestion is that you re-read your words and ask yourself if your bias has caused you to dismiss good information. While I have an Israeli flag on my avatar and definitely support Israel in this, I have also unequivocally stated that any Israeli that commits wanton,deliberate, proven murder should be prosecuted. I feel you are giving excuses to a terrorist group that uses known, published tactics to set up their own civilians. When Hamas fired rockets in that alley, they stopped the escape of Palestinians and did so deliberately, knowing Israel had warned them to leave. You have repeatedly stated that Israel should not fire in such circumstances and that's just not acceptable for a myriad of reasons.

In addition, the tunnel situation is not just "to bring in supplies to a people impoverished by Israel as you stated. Again, these have been proven be designed to also wreak terror on the Israeli people.

I brought my husband into the conversation because he is a liberal as well, so I wanted to see how he felt about your words. As I said, some of what you said made sense to both of us. However there is also large parts of your statements that simply ignore known elements of Palestinian tactics, especially when it comes to media coverage. Various news sources such as 60 minutes, Washington Post, etc have covered these, complete with video. To dismiss those, diminishes your opinions.

I never made the statement in bold. You are putting words in my mouth. So, maybe you need to re-read my words rather than me. My position is that Hamas built the tunnels primarily for self-defense. That's why the vast majority are only internal to Gaza and only a portion go into Israel. It is not only my position that Israel must withhold fire if non-combatants would be endangered by it. That is what international law specifies. Israel, as an occupying country, is responsible for the safety of the civilians under occupation. If Israel would give Gaza independence, then that responsibility would fall to the ruling government of Gaza. But, for the moment, Israel is in violation of multiple international laws. But, I assume that you believe that international law is anti-Semitic.

BTW, is is symbolic of your simplistic analysis of the situation that you believe being liberal is meaningful in this conflict. Their are liberals on both sides and there are conservatives on both sides.

[Anonymous]

I have no problem with multiple post on Israel. As you pointed out many posts are discussing different aspects of the conflict. The ant-Semitic charges are false and just a way to end an argument you are losing.

[Anonymous]

Not Linda or whoever she is, but I too am finding it hard to read DCUM with all the posts about Israel/Gaza, and wish they could be condensed into a couple threads. It seems the standard is different here than it is for other threads, and since the moderator has weighed in many times, it is clear why. Still, it is such an inflammatory subject that I don't think it is good for the website to be so overtaken by hatred and disgust and what have you on both sides.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, why did you lock
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/399157.page
?

I know you feel strongly about this, but the title of this thread was neither rude nor inflammatory.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, why did you lock
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/399157.page
?

I know you feel strongly about this, but the title of this thread was neither rude nor inflammatory.

Go look again. I was cleaning it up for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... but I am troubled by the level of anti-semitism in most of the posts.

Can you give one single example of this? Criticism of Israel, criticism of its creation and the ensuing after-effects on people, is not anti-Semitic.

+100000

Israel != Judaism