When I see that the title of one of Glenzilla's posts includes the words "Israel" or "American Jews", I wince. Hard. Not because I hesitate even a second to see what he has to say, of course. Here, here and here are great reads, typically well thought out but cringe-inducing in precisely the same way as the item that came across today.
From whence comes the ... ah, wince, then? Comments, natch.
Israeli government policies are peripheral to Glenn's main interests, as he says, and Israeli public opinions (not to mention the opinions of American Jews) are much more diverse than AIPAC and others would have you believe.
Although the facts of Israel's history, relations with its neighbors and the US, and the Palestinian conflict are complex, any actual discussion always seems to devolve into meaningless shouting.
For some reason, even pointing out the obvious facts constitutes Fighting Words. And on UT, what's coming is the inevitable HOTT moment with thirty three thousand pages of senseless name calling, irrational revisionist history, and non sequiturs to follow. The bridges will be empty of their trolls tonight, for sure.
But h_lance today offered, early on, a more precise look into the future:
...I have a cynical prediction about the comments section for today's column.
It will devolve into a false dichotomy.
There will be a battle between those who howl that legitimate criticism of Israeli policy is anti-Semitism.
There will also be a lot of bigoted posts from "progressives", that rail against conspiracies, make inappropriate analogies between undeniably wrong Israeli policies and great atrocities of history, most of which were far worse in scale and intensity than Israeli policies, and that perhaps will contain coded references to the grossly inhumane idea that Israel should be "destroyed".
Or, as Paul Daniel Ash put it in the very first comment:
Maybe ...we could get the Hitler-baiting out of the way early in the comments thread?
As the afternoon has worn on, PDA's hopes have been dashed and h_lance's prediction has been vindicated ... more or less. As of just about 4pm EST, the 'nuclear option' (pun intended) hasn't been employed or threatened. But then, the night is young ...
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
There are sacred cows and there are sacred cows.
Israel is one of the latter.
Glenn didn't address me in this comment, but I feel like I just got called out anyway. In response to this comment:
Eh, I think I will avoid this letters section whenever Israel is even a minor and remote portion of the discussion.
Glenn writes:
A lot of people feel that way and therefore refrain from writing about Israel-related topics.
I used to feel that way, but realized that that's part of the debate-suppressing framework and I wasn't going to be deterred by it.
The issues are too important, too consequential, to allow the shrill unpleasantness that inevitably follows to dictate silence.
He's right. I don't have a problem debating anyone in person about Israel ... I've been there six times, lived/worked in the Middle East for many years, and read I don't know how many books and articles ... but the heat of the online dialogue just turns me off. So I've tried to steer clear.
But I agree that the issues are too important, so I'm changing my tune.
paraphrasing...
There are sacred cows and there are scared cows. Consider a one state solution, and Israel is one of the latter. I genuinely believe it is only a matter of time.
bystander, really? you don't believe in the two-state solution?
Post a Comment