I’ve repeatedly mentioned that Rule #6 in my commenting rules is “The blogger will not participate in the commenting” — my reasons mainly boiling down to: I really don’t want to get into fights in my own home. Some of my subject matter is contentious, and honestly, I argue about it enough IRL.
Exceptions to rule #6 are occasionally made, though, for small things — pointing a commenter to an explanatory post, for instance — and today, I took the opportunity to explain my philosophy, in the comments to Why two states.
You’ll find the entirety of that comment below, but here’s the bottom-line: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in no small part the story of millions of people failing to listen to each other or treat each other with basic human decency. I am not willing to add to the destructive grind of noise on my own blog.
‘Nuff said.
Here’s my latest exception to Rule #6:
A comment was left on this post today reading: “Which Israeli’s and Arabs are you speaking to? I have seen no evidence to suggest your assumption correct. Tel Aviv is not the majority opinion of Israel and both Fatah and Hamas officially call for a Palestinian State in place of Israel.”
All first comments require my approval to appear on the site, and I didn’t approve this one — but I’ll use it as an example, and explain why it wasn’t approved.
In my commenting rules, you’ll see I place a very high premium on good manners. Speaking to each other as we would like to be spoken to, bottom line. This comment wasn’t terrifically rude (the commenter didn’t call me names, for instance, was only somewhat snide, etc), and as someone who’s been threatened with physical harm for her opinions, honestly, I’ve seen and weathered worse.
But the greatest rudeness here lies in either not bothering to read the post, or simply ignoring it. The commenter says “I have seen no evidence…” — well, lift your eyes to the post. There’s your evidence. In percentage form.
(I would also argue that if you think that Fatah is still calling for a Palestinian state to replace Israel, you have read little or no history since about 1977. Click here for just one example of the party’s acceptance of a two-state solution).
I’ll be honest: I don’t like being told I’m wrong. I don’t know many who do.
But if you come here to tell me I’m wrong and are polite about it, if you come here to tell me I’m wrong and don’t just wish away my research with a wave of your hand, countering (perhaps) with your own research — well then, have at it. The conversation can continue. One look at my Israel/Palestine posts will show that I certainly have approved comments from people who disagree with me. Some repeatedly.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in no small part the story of millions of people failing to listen to each other or treat each other with basic human decency. I am not willing to add to the destructive grind of noise on my own blog.
Emily L. Hauser - In My Head 
NefariousNewt
/ July 9, 2010As with any conflict, the Israel-Palestine problem will be solved when the following occurs:
1) Acceptance: both sides must accept that the other is not going away
2) Tolerance: both sides must understand that they are different people with different cultures
3) Discovery: both sides must realize that they have much in common, including a desire to live where they are, rule themselves as they wish, and a respect for the holiness of the land, as well as the more obvious fact that they are all human
4) Compromise: both sides must see that they can co-exist within the same framework, as independent entities, without creating conflict and more importantly, are stronger united than divided.
Therein lies the road-map to peace.
emz
/ August 7, 2012this kinda looks like you r describing amarriage no offense ;p
dmf
/ July 9, 2010on a more civil note: http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R201007080931
dmf
/ July 11, 2010