The Trouble with Posting
by Latoya Peterson
A response to some of the issues that have cropped up over the last two weeks:
1. Moderators approve every single comment by hand. If we let it through, normally we let it through for a reason. So, take for example, Caro’s comment on the Foo Fighters post. I could have deleted it - see point nine of our comments moderation policy. But I didn’t. Why? Because Caro made a good point. I expected people to focus in on the language used - but some of the things I select for “Quoted” only make it because they amuse me. (Hint: The ones I am amused by are normally the short ones.)
Second example, the comments thread on the President Apostate post. Some concerns were brought to me offline, and I addressed them offline. However, Racialicious exists to explore ideas and create dialogue. This means people will disagree. This means people will get angry. And our comments policy is designed to filter out things that distract from a discussion, not to filter out dissent.
So, generally, I am content to let you all duke out a disagreement in the comments section. And why wouldn’t I? If I deleted every inflammatory statement that was made on this board, 50% of our comments would be lost. In addition to that, the person whose comment I deleted never has to be challenged on that idea, and they are never called to defend that idea under scrutiny, and the other people who are reading and not commenting, who hold that same idea, never see how that point and counterpoint play out.
Celeste, Ms. Four, Abu Sinan, Aaminah, JDsg, F, and P, Sewere, and Joseph all did an excellent job arguing their points, providing examples (and links), pointing out racism used in lines of argument and perceived prejudice on the part of other posters. Were some people stomping really close to our moderating guidelines? Yes. But no more so than the arguments on mixed race identity or black dating. Remember the post on those Hanes ads? The initial disagreements led to people getting involved in the comments who normally don’t speak up. And they contributed to a part of the analysis that was sorely missing - an international perspective from the countries represented.
So, in sum, I am going to filter out bigots, trolls, racists, assholes, and idiots from posting on the site. I delete comments outright every single day and I’ve been banning people left and right from commenting. But in the case of a disagreement, I will leave it to you all to argue your opinions and back up your statements - as well as call people out when you disagree with what they say. After all, what are you worried about? Catching an e-smack?
2. If you have a request to see a certain subject covered here, please send us an email. Unless we host an open thread, please do not leave your requests in the comments for a different post. I will not remember to go back and check there. Also, please note - we generally do not post in accordance with other people’s schedules. We have too many time constraints for that. So while there are lots of great blog days and carnivals we would like to have participated in - I’m thinking of the Carnival of Allies, Blog Against Disabilism Day, Blog for Fair Pay, and Blog for Reproductive Justice - but we just did not have the time or manpower. It doesn’t mean that we will not cover whatever issue is on blogs all around the ’sphere - we will just do it on our time schedule. You will also notice that aside from birthday tributes and the occasional link/video/cross-post, we don’t strictly follow the designated months for APIA/Black/Women’s/Whatever month. We prefer to cover these things all year, rather than stick them into a small window of time.
3. We are doing our best to present for you a wide range of perspectives on a multitude of subjects. However, I need you all to keep in mind that the site is currently run by two people - me and Carmen. And we both have day jobs. We do not blog full time, or write full time, so it takes a considerable amount of time to create this content that you all read in ten minutes. So, if you aren’t seeing a certain perspective, it is probably because we are still in the process of finding contributors that fit the Racialicious voice and are willing to allow us to cross-post (not just link to) their content.
Once we develop those relationships, you will see more posts on that subject. For example, take the discussion of Muslim issues on our site. Six months ago, we didn’t have much coverage at all - now we have something once or twice a week. That is because relationships were developed and we have many different sources we can go to for a Muslim/Muslimah perspective. We’ve had three or four posts about Jews - we are still developing those relationships. And we just started looking at who can cover issues like Palestine in a style that explains the conflict clearly and is engaging and accessible to all our readers. But these things take time. Hopefully, by next year, we’ll have ten or so special correspondents and relationships set up with bloggers from around the world. But it is going to take some time to get to that point.
4. Finally, please understand that you will not agree with every post. This may shock some of you, but I don’t agree with every post that goes up here. And I’m the editor! The point is not to have everyone agree with everything posted on this site. That is impossible. And in fact, posts serve different purposes: some seek to inform, some seek to persuade, some seek to promote awareness or action, and some are just gratuitous posts on Keanu Reeves. So, as long as an argument is made, and made well, I am content to post about it here. This means I will post perspectives that some will not agree with. You can feel free to express your opinion in the comments section. That’s what it is for.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
Ms. Four wrote:
1. A fantastic blog by a Palestinian woman: http://a-mother-from-gaza.blogspot.com/ Her blog is party mommy blog, part political blog… but everything about living in Gaza is political, when your every day life is such a challenge. Anyway, she might have some content that would be great for cross-posting.
2. I did think the tone on the Obama-apostate entry was getting rather bullying… especially given that the bullies seemed, to me, to be the white men. For the record (for everyone else), I was not one of the folks complaining off-site. I keep my complaining public!
3. You know, I keep hearing all this talk about Keanu Reeves… but seeing nothing. I demand Keanu!
Posted 19 May 2008 at 11:50 am ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:
I’ve been to Gaza before. Nice beaches, like in Netanya.
Regarding the topic, I think you just have to keep an open mind and be thick skinned.
Posted 19 May 2008 at 12:16 pm ¶
f wrote:
Maybe you will need a few viewpoints on Palestine? People are so passionate about it, that a number of different views probably are more reflective of the debate surrounding it.
Posted 19 May 2008 at 12:29 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
@ Ms. Four–yeah, the Keanu posts are rare because the man rarely appears in films nowadays.:-D Here’s the last post, dated last month. Hopefully, this will tide you (and the rest of us) over…sigh.
http://www.racialicious.com/2008/04/11/gratuitous-keanu-reeves-photo/
Enjoy
Posted 19 May 2008 at 12:43 pm ¶
Celeste wrote:
Duly noted
Posted 19 May 2008 at 12:53 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
“I did think the tone on the Obama-apostate entry was getting rather bullying… especially given that the bullies seemed, to me, to be the white men. For the record (for everyone else), I was not one of the folks complaining off-site. I keep my complaining public!”
Sigh. I thought I was finished with this days ago…
Right back at ya.
Muslims in America, whether they are Black, white or covered in candy sprinkles have a perspective that is unique because of their position as designated bad guys of the 21st century. It is an “other” identity that crosses and complicates race and ethnicity…discounting the arguments of Muslim posters because of their race is…well, the nicest thing I can say about it is “intellectually dishonest.” The matrix of “other-ed” identities at play in conversations between African-American Christians and white Muslims is fascinating. And a rich jumping off point for lots of different reasons…if you let it. But pretending that race is the most important vector in that equation…as a way of shutting it down…requires a willful disregard for contemporary politics. You have been paying attention to the last seven and half years of the Bush presidency right? Refusing to acknowledge that complicated intersection on a thread devoted to discussing exactly that (!) is…silly. And more than a little creepy. Are we really picking this moment in history to play “my oppression is bigger than your oppression?”
Oh, and I’m a big old A-rab. More white-ish than “white.” More of a peach really. It’s an ambiguous position too: I have been called “Nigger” (to my face!) and (in a particularly Jefferson’s sort of encounter) “Honky.” How many people can say that?
I’m not a Muslim though. My family is Catholic, like a lot of the Lebs that came over at the beginning of the last century. But Islamophobia and Orientalism are close cousins and I am the Toucan Sam of that particular bowl of Fruit Loops.
So here I am…stuck in the middle with you.
Posted 19 May 2008 at 1:49 pm ¶
Treacle wrote:
Groovy.
Posted 19 May 2008 at 2:05 pm ¶
Matt wrote:
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is HARD to do right. So much of the debate -so many of the ‘talking points from both sides- are just just plain racist.
I’ve tried to blog about antisemitism without overly devoting myself to Israel, and found that I couldn’t ignore it entirely. So I try not to appeal to racism, and hope I do a good job of that. I think there are a few other places on the web where the Jewish perspective is well represented without appeal to anti-Palestinian racism, but only a few such places. On the other hand, I’m not aware of any places where the Palestinians are represented without at least occasionally invoking antisemitism.
There’s a forum called mepeace.org. Recently, a well known antisemite invaded the space. I can’t begin to tell you how pissed I was.
I’d like to be part of discussions on the matter, but there has to be a serious attempt to use the same sort of oppression theory to attack racism directed at both groups - not a double standard that doesn’t recognize antisemitism.
Posted 19 May 2008 at 2:06 pm ¶
Ms. Four wrote:
Joseph, your sighing is SOOO condescending. Do you want to have a conversation or not?
I wasn’t pretending anything was the “most important vector.” What I struggle with is hearing some American Muslims, white or of color, insist here on Racialicious that my perception of racism in Egypt is wrong because I just don’t understand what I’m seeing and hearing. This from people who have hardly spent any time here, and I’m going to guess, have not talked to dark-skinned anyones who have spent time here. And this seems particularly absurd given that many Egyptians are very aware of the racism here.
So I guess sometimes I see what SEEMS like a knee-jerk defensive about any country with majority Muslim population. My concerns aren’t about religion, but race. I know these issues are often all tangled up together, but sometimes they aren’t. (For example, the treatment of southern Sudanese refugees here in Cairo is terrible! And many of these refugees are Muslim.)
I also had issues with the notion that because Muslims face discrimination in some sub-Saharan African countries that aren’t predominantly Muslim, that that means somehow Muslims in majority Muslim countries are exempt from being racist themselves. As if one offsets the other. Why can’t both situations be bad?
Joseph, you mentioned Muslims as the bad guys of the 21st century. I agree this is a major issue. But we shouldn’t dismiss generations of racism.
My point was never to dismiss Islamophobia, or comments about it, which is very real. But to dismissed because I’m a white American in a Muslim country is similarly intellectually dishonest.
On another note: Latoya, reading the comments about Israel/Palestine reminded me of indeed how tough an issue this is… and does this really play out in pop culture? Here in Egypt, Israel is referred to the as the “Occupied Territories,” and if people dare utter the word “Israel,” they often look around first to make sure no one else is listening. Seriously. I never really understood the depth of the hatred til I lived here.
Having said all that… here’s an interesting one: there’s been a film, an Egyptian film, circulating around film festivals. It’s about an Egyptian band who ends up somehow in Israel. Something like that. The organizers of a major film festival here in Cairo refused to screen it even though it was Egyptian-made, and, from what I understand, not particularly sympathetic to Israelis.
I’ll try to track down details if you are interested.
Posted 19 May 2008 at 2:58 pm ¶
Ms. Four wrote:
Whoops! It’s an Israeli film about an Egyptian band. It’s called The Band’s Visit.
Here’s the info from IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1032856/
Here’s the info from an Egyptian newspaper:
http://www.dailystaregypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=13432
And, from another perspective, here’s some info with links from a blog about Jewish refugees:
http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2007/10/israeli-film-on-egyptian-band-banned-in.html
Posted 19 May 2008 at 3:29 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Ms. Four
You are right…you’d left the thread before the really wearying stuff kicked in and I shouldn’t have responded to you as if you were part of that conversation when you weren’t. My sigh was inspired by your “rather” and “especially” which seemed like a backhanded attempt to revive an argument that, as far as I am concerned, was finished. I do want to have a conversation:
I think your perspective is interesting–of course racism exists in the Middle East/North Africa (MENA). But your comments don’t exist in a vacuum and when you generalize based on your experience it is heard through all of the anti-Muslim/anti-Arab cultural noise of the west, whether that is what you intend or not. Does that help to explain my defensiveness? And my fatigue?
Of course race is (and always has been) incredibly important. And I am not saying it should be set aside in favor of a new set of criteria (on a site called Racialicious!)–at all. But, like gender, class and sexual identity, there are disconnections and overlaps that are difficult to understand, but worth exploring.
@ f and Matt: I can already see the potential problems with discussing Palestine here just based on what has been said so far. I’d rather see Racialicious avoid this topic than deal with it in a way that just stages the divide.
Posted 19 May 2008 at 4:23 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
I can already see the potential problems with discussing Palestine here just based on what has been said so far. I’d rather see Racialicious avoid this topic than deal with it in a way that just stages the divide.
My sentiments exactly.
Posted 19 May 2008 at 4:27 pm ¶
leah wrote:
what would people say if america (or germany) declared itself an ethno-nationalist state for white christians? what about if someone claimed that the native americans did not suffer an ethnic cleansing, or that they didn’t exist at all, or that they deserved it?
any serious anti-racist would be expected to call these things out as racist. however, when it’s ethno-nationalism and ethnic cleansing in israel/palestine, it somehow becomes a more “complex” issue that need ‘both sides of the issue’ to be represented (or, must be avoided in the discussion altogether!). and while criticizing the above examples would not make one anti-white, somehow, criticizing the israeli government is anti-semitic.
Posted 19 May 2008 at 4:49 pm ¶
Chica Dificil wrote:
I rarely comment on blog sites. It never seems worth it. But after following this blog for several weeks and seeing that folks were actually participating in real discourse I felt motivated and inspired to comment! Being aware of the policy helped me to be more thoughtful about what I write. Except I don’t always spell check!
R-e-S-p-E-c-T for the comment moderation policy!
Posted 19 May 2008 at 5:14 pm ¶
Shannon wrote:
This is what I enjoy about this blog.
“This means I will post perspectives that some will not agree with. You can feel free to express your opinion in the comments section. That’s what it is for.”
Posted 19 May 2008 at 5:15 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
Leah,
I agree with you. But–speaking only for myself here–it is not a conversation I am willing to have anymore unless the opportunity exists for real human rights discourse. It is too painful for me otherwise.
I don’t think this is the right forum for that discussion.
Posted 19 May 2008 at 5:52 pm ¶
Kali wrote:
Latoya
You are doing a stupendous job with this blog. I like the content and the sharp, intelligent commentary. I also love the attitude in your post on posting! You go girl!!
Posted 19 May 2008 at 8:31 pm ¶
Matt wrote:
Latoya, like I said, I’ve found it’s impossible to really address antisemitism without discussing Israel/Palestine. But, with that said, it is an incredibly hard thing to get a grip on, and I can respect that you’d rather stay away from it. Sometimes, I want to avoid it, too.
Leah, please understand that there’s a lot you assume there that I disagree with. For starters, you’re not criticizing the Israeli government, as if you only wanted an end to the occupation of the West Bank — you’re criticizing the nature of Israel as an attempt to address the consequences of Diaspora and seem to be suggesting a return to Diaspora. I’d appreciate if you would try to think about what the Jewish Diaspora meant, and how you’d have gone about addressing it. Especially, but not exclusively, in those desperate moments after the Holocaust when the Brits were running “displaced persons” camps that they admitted were hardly better than the concentration camps they replaced. If you take that seriously, I think the Israeli/Palestinian conflict really will become a lot more complex for you.
Posted 19 May 2008 at 9:31 pm ¶
Cat wrote:
Thank you, Latoya and Carmen for your hard work to post on this blog and moderate comments especially since you both have day jobs, we really appreciate it.
I hope one day to be knowledgeable enough to stop lurking around here and really participate in the discussion.
Posted 19 May 2008 at 9:50 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Matt/Joseph/Leah -
Hmm, I don’t think I was clear enough with which part of Joseph’s comment I agreed with. It was not the sentiment of avoiding the topic - it was the desire to avoid covering the topic in a way that “restages the divide.”
Let me illustrate - last year, I was very disappointed by how dating discussions played out on this site, especially conversations that arose dealing with the black community. The last conversation that even went that way was six months ago. The last discussion of black dating was well over a year ago. And you will have to ask Carmen when the last post on Asian dating went up, because I can’t really remember one in the last year and a half or so.
But these issues have to be discussed. I was just sick of reading the same old tired ass discussions rehashed over and over. So we did some research. Thought about our audience. Waited to see how commenters were responding to other items.
I posted an open thread about a six weeks ago asking what people wanted to read about and how we should cover IR dating and relationships. About three weeks ago, I started the conversation, with a soft post. Our guest contributors have also posted things that are increasing in their level of discussion. In a few weeks, I’ll start posting the heavy stuff. And then, after all this, a few months from now, hopefully we can have a conversation about dating, race, and gender without having the comment thread go to shit.
With each post, I go through and read critically, trying to think of where people will take offense, if they will understand, how they will engage, and what they will respond to. I send back posts for round after round of edits. And finally, when I am satisfied that the subject of the piece is fully fleshed out and ready, then I put it on the blog.
And that is the process for interracial dating posts.
And that topic is 1000 times easier to cover than Palestine.
So, it doesn’t mean we won’t do cover the topic, it means we are going to cover it the Racialicious way.
1. Will our readers understand? Is this information accessible to them? This site serves everyone from 6th graders to established academics. We are trying to make sure everyone can at least grasp the topic and follow the discussion.
2. Does the post see both points of view? We don’t always do this with topics that are well established and well understood. But with so many people who do not understand the Israel/Palestine conflict (or where Palestine is, or why Israel was created in the first place) we need to capture what is going on and present it in a way that it is not intimidating.
3. We need to build. Just like with posts on class or on the IMF or on statutory rape, some subjects need to be built slowly over time. Digest that bit and then move the conversation forward.
4. What kind of conversation will this post provide? We are not interested in having the same kinds of conversations that happen every where else. We want to move the dialouge forward, and the piece must reflect that sentiment.
When we get to a point where I am comfortable that most of the blog can follow along with just a link back or two to a foundation post, then we can move on to heavier conversations.
But I am not going to rush post on something this important, just to fit into someone else’s blog schedule. And we are going to cover the conflict from multiple angles and incorporate multiple viewpoints.
Our commenters are smart enough to make up their own minds, and to debate and discuss these issues with each other.
I may lead discussions, but I don’t need to lead people to conclusions.
Hope that clarifies.
Posted 19 May 2008 at 10:13 pm ¶
jvansteppes wrote:
Johnny Utah?
I’ll never get this Keanu Reeves thing…
Posted 19 May 2008 at 10:54 pm ¶
dramelyrique wrote:
This is a technical question. Whenever I try to post a comment, Wordress goes to a page where it tells me that I am posting too quickly except I am not. It does this every time I try to comment. I either have to refresh the page (with the post and comment) several times or close the page and open it in another window. Is there anything I can do to fix this?
PS- I also emailed you a while back about manga translation but I sent it to your non-racialicious address and I’m not sure it went through.
Posted 19 May 2008 at 11:32 pm ¶
leah wrote:
latoya, thanks for taking the time to offer an explanation regarding your strategy regarding generating a fruitful conversation. certainly, i can respect that, and also appreciate the thoughtfulness and time put into this site. obviously i’d deal with the issue very differently, but there’s plenty of room for a diversity of discussions on the world wide web.
matt, when i talk of the lack of complexity of the issue, it’s the farthest thing from my intention to undermine the suffering that jewish people have faced. what i find offensive, however, is when that oppression is used to justify the oppression of another people (the palestinians), or is used as a way to needlessly complicate the issue as a means to avoid dealing with what is essentially a non-complicated issue (the human rights of the palestinians and the inherent racism of ANY form of ethno-nationalism). two wrongs never make a right. and what i’ve learned from jewish history is that what’s been bad for us (ethno-nationalism) probably isn’t good for anyone else to be subjected to either.
Posted 20 May 2008 at 2:05 am ¶
Adrianna wrote:
Racialicious rocks because you guys challenge me. Keep up the fantastic work.I would love to see more inter ethnic conflicts covered. Racism within religion. I’m also Happy that Latoya said that she doesn’t agree with everything that is posted here. That what makes Racialicious! Racialious! To each own it’s tastes.
Posted 20 May 2008 at 3:17 am ¶
Matt wrote:
Leah, I think you misunderstand Diaspora. And Zionism as a reaction to it.
Posted 20 May 2008 at 9:59 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Matt -
Please don’t assume that people misunderstand or don’t know something.
Diaspora is one thing. Critiquing the way Israel was created and how it is currently maintained does not mean she misunderstands the history - it means she takes a different view.
Posted 20 May 2008 at 10:08 am ¶
Matt wrote:
A fair point, Latoya. I had wanted to avoid a fight, so I said less than I might have. In doing so, I realize I came across as less respectful than I had intended to be.
But the claim is made that “two wrongs do not make a right.” In such a statement, one wrong is meant to be the creation of Israel. It isn’t clear if the other is meant to refer to the Holocaust or Diaspora. Usually, people mean the Holocaust, but in Zionism, the Holocaust is understood in relation to Diaspora. So usually when people make such a claim, they’re disguising a misunderstanding.
Talk about Israel as an ethno-nationalist state (”what’s been bad for us [Jews]”) makes an implicit equation with Nazi Germany, but most Zionists think of Israel as an “ethno-nationalist” state like France. Or Italy. After all, France is French and Italy is Italian, so why can’t there be one nation on Earth that’s Jewish? I’m among many Zionists who desire an increasingly multicultural Israel to come about from a Jewish Israel. And who try to recognize both the failings and successes in Israel at establishing such a state.
This “two wrongs” argument is the same argument used against affirmative action, of course. In that case, I think we can see that AA isn’t “a wrong.” I don’t see the creation of Israel as “a wrong” meant to right another wrong, either. Diaspora has been theorized as a peculiar (extreme?) form of colonialism. National liberation movements aren’t generally seen as a wrong to combat that other wrong, colonialism. We wouldn’t have called on India to accept British colonial rule in the name of multiculturalism! But because Jews were denied even their own homeland, from which to evict the colonizers, it is hard for people to see Zionism as a national liberation movement.
Posted 20 May 2008 at 10:37 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Hmmm…
Matt, do you think it is possible to agree with the idea of Israel as an independent nation state, but to not agree with what tactics were used to create said nation state?
That is where I see a some of the friction around this conflict begin. I know there are many people who object to Israel as a state, period. But, there is also a great number of people who are fine with Israel remaining free and independent - the problem is that this agreement was enacted and enforced without any input from the people who were already on that land - a land that is also considered their holy land and their homeland. And that maintaining the safety of that nation state has cost untold amounts to human lives.
The idea that the land there rightfully belonged to the Jews to begin with…well, that’s a whole other topic, and one that I am not qualified to get into.
Posted 20 May 2008 at 10:54 am ¶
Matt wrote:
I think it’s perfectly fine to be critical of right-wing currents within Zionism, but that is different from being critical of Zionism. (It’s like claiming that you’re only opposed to black supremacism when you’re opposed to all civil rights movements. ) Too often, the entire blame for the entire conflict is placed on Israel, supposing that the Palestinians had no role, no agency. That’s a misreading of history. And many of the people who aren’t opposed to the existence of Israel per se, still use that reasoning to blame Israel for its “original sin” to misread everything since.
“The idea that the land there rightfully belonged to the Jews to begin with” is not something I brought up or claimed.
Posted 20 May 2008 at 11:15 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Okay, Matt, I’ll need you to explain then.
1. What was the role, from your perspective (or any source perspectives you have) that Palestine played in the creation of Israel?
and 2.
You did not claim that the land rightfully belonged to Jews, but becomes confusing when looking at the definition of diaspora. If the Jews did not believe they had a right to the land they were scattered from back in Babylon, why didn’t they carve out a portion of Germany as the site for modern day Israel? And if the Jews wanted to establish a homeland, why would they do so on land that belonged to the people living in Palestine? If one is exiled from a land they believe to be rightfully theirs, do they not take a sense of ownership?
If you have a blogpost that explains some of these ideas, feel free to point me there.
Posted 20 May 2008 at 11:31 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
Latoya,
I appreciate very much your posts clarifying the Racialicious approach to this topic. I had a moment of panic about approaching Palestine on this fotum but you have already addressed some of my big fears.
I am impressed by the work you do here every day.
Thank you.
Posted 20 May 2008 at 12:43 pm ¶
Matt wrote:
You know the Palestinians explicitly and repeatedly rejected compromise and, in response to Israel’s Declaration of Independence, started a war with the express goal of committing genocide against the Jews, right? The historical debates always hinge on who committed the “original sin.” If the Jews committed the first sin, it is said, then the Palestinians were justified in starting the 1948 war. But some Jews try to label that war as the first sin, so that the brutalities committed against the Palestinians are justified. I think it’s a faulty framework to go looking for that original sin, wherein one side is to blame. Instead, I think each side contributed to the situation (including how the other side saw the conflict). The Palestinians were not saints and the Jews were not colonial powers. Even as today, the Palestinians include people like Sari Nusseibeh and groups like Hamas. In an article I read recently, Nusseibeh offered a thought experiment. He asked his mother:
Just suppose, he asked [his mother] during a visit, that in the early years of the century an elderly and learned Jewish gentleman from Europe had come to her father to consult with him on an urgent matter. “And suppose this gentleman told him that an unimaginable catastrophe was about to befall the Jews of Europe. And suppose he threw in that, as an Abrahamic cousin with historic ties to Palestine, he wanted to prevent the coming genocide by seeking permission for his people to return to the shared homeland, to provide them with safety and refuge. What did she think he would have said?” he asked her. “Would he have permitted a wholesale return of the Jewish people to Palestine?”
Her reply was surprising. Nusseibeh had braced himself for a string of conditions and clauses and caveats, and in so many words, a resounding “No.” Instead she responded straightaway with a wave of her hand, “How can you even ask such a question? He NEVER would have refused them refuge.”
I don’t think any of us would have refused such a thing. I’m not sure any of us could accept any other answer as even potentially moral. Yet the Palestinian people of the time committed acts of terrorism against the Jews and the British, and won severe restrictions on Jewish immigration that made it much harder for many to escape the Holocaust.
By saying, “not here,” the Palestinians played the same role as the rest of the world in turning their backs on Jewish oppression in order to preserve the privileges they did have.
As for your second question, how could you justify giving self-determination to the Jews strictly on those terms? Is that even self-determination? By offering part of Germany, you’re still connecting Zionism to the Holocaust in a way that I think is excessive. Germany wasn’t responsible for the Diaspora.
It wasn’t any connection to the historical land of Israel that was ever used to justify Zionism, but the connection was what made that place uniquely pragmatic. Jews always maintained connections, some living in Jerusalem and Hebron continuously since Biblical times. Others merely praying, “Next year in Jerusalem.” How could you rally such people to go to Venezuela? Anyway, half of Israel’s Jews are from the Middle East –ethnic cleansing as collective punishment for Zionism– making the point kind of moot.
Posted 20 May 2008 at 12:49 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Matt -
Before we continue, let me make clear that I am (1) secular, without much of a religious background at all, so I am fairly ignorant of a lot of these concepts and conflicts that revolve around religion. So, I am approaching this conversation from a secular view point. If I am missing some kind of link between the politics surrounding Israel and religious tensions or religious prejudice, please make me aware of them because I probably do not know.
Now, back to the discussion.
1. It was my understanding that Palestine has rejected compromise because Israel will not select a firm border for the country. From what you have read, is that correct?
2. From the example you site, it appears that no one would have refused such a request. However, from what I have read, there was no request made to Palestine to accommodate Jews and share in the formation of Israel - they were forced off their land. Is that a correct summation of what happened? (Others following this thread, feel free to weigh in.) So, wouldn’t these acts of terrorism be a response to a forced position? Where the establishment of a Jewish state took on a colonalist taint when other governments got involved and forced the hand of Palestine?
3. If Germany was not responsible for the Dispora, were the Palestinians? Why were they forced to leave to create this new state for Jews? I understand that land is rarely empty but I don’t understand why the displacement of people already on this land was an option to begin with.
Posted 20 May 2008 at 1:05 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
“You know the Palestinians explicitly and repeatedly rejected compromise and, in response to Israel’s Declaration of Independence, started a war with the express goal of committing genocide against the Jews, right?”
No.
That is not true. I’m sorry.
No.
Using the word “genocide” in this way is a gross distortion of history and, like automatically equating Anti-Zionism to Anti-Jewish sentiment, is a rhetorical strategy designed to end conversations about Israel, not further understanding.
The Palestinian people just want their houses back. The end. Doesn’t matter who lives in them now. Happens to be Jews. Big whoop. Could have been anybody. Wouldn’t make a difference. It is true though that there is a rhetorical habit among Arabs and Persians in the Middle East to refer to “the Jews” when what they really mean is “the Israelis” and I have often thought that bit of awkward translation is the source of this mythology. But..no.
Do some Palestinians say “Man, I hate the Jews!” Sure, but…can you blame them? If it had been Egypt that petitioned the English to annex Palestine on their behalf thereby forcing the Palestinians into Diaspora they’d be saying “Man, those Egyptians SUCK.” That sentiment–a reaction to what was done to them–is NOT the same thing as the “anti-Semitism” of the Nazis who believed Jews were inferior simply because they were Jews. THAT is the definition of the “anti-Semitism” that was the justification for the Jewish Holocaust. And that is not what the Palestinians have ever agitated for.
The Jewish genocide was committed in Europe.
“Anti-semitism” was invented in Europe.
Arabs/Muslims had absolutely nothing to do with the Jewish Holocaust. Nothing. Nada. In fact, if there had been a significant Arab minority in Germany we’d have been standing next to each other in the gas chambers. can you doubt it?
So, no: There is no “Palestinian genocide of the Jews” the idea is laughable. The Palestinians do not even have access to their own water! They have to buy back their own water from Israel–and yet they are somehow gathered in underground bunkers planning the mass extermination of Jews all over the planet? You cannot possibly believe that is true. It is too ridiculous. Even if they wanted to–and outside of wanting their land back from Jews there is absolutely no evidence that they do–but lets imagine for a second you are right: How exactly are they going to do it? By throwing rocks? Let’s face it, that hasn’t worked so well thus far. The rock-throwing… It’s just not that efficient.
Posted 20 May 2008 at 1:51 pm ¶
Matt wrote:
Latoya, I was raised in a fairly secular, strongly assimilated household. I’m aware of some religious issues, enough that I’m aware of the need to be sensitive to them, but the religion I practice today is Zen Buddhism. Never had a bar mitzvah or went to Hebrew school. But the Zionism involved in the creation of Israel was always a secular Zionism. Religion entered into it only because the early Zionists recognized that many Jews were religious. With that in mind:
1. The compromises I was talking about were before the creation of Israel. The Yishuv (pre-state Israel, which had democratic institutions to ensure they could speak with one voice) made clear that they would accept any compromise. They knew they were in no position to make demands. The Palestinian leadership made clear that they would not accept any. Further, they held to a viewpoint adopted from Nazi propaganda (the Nazis were anxious to prevent the creation of Israel, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem became a Nazi) that a Zionist state would be a staging ground for world domination. You still see that view reflected in the Hamas charter. (That leadership was, in standard British colonial fashion, elevated to promote a somewhat extremist position. Had the Brits chosen different representatives to listen to, who knows what difference that might have made.)
Today, Palestinian opinion is varied, and I try not to talk about “Palestine” as a single voice. Yet I think it’s fair to say that a fragile majority want compromise with Israel, but attach clauses that make it difficult to achieve. Both sides do that, I think. There have been a lot of peace initiatives that have failed for a variety of reasons. Both sides, I think share blame. I’m willing to place a greater responsibility on Israel, as the stronger power, to create the conditions for peace, but it’s hard for me to say they’ve been especially bad in that role.
2. The history of violence in the conflict goes back a long way. If you try to trace it to its beginning, there were acts of terrorism on both sides (going back to the 1800s), justified in response to other acts of terrorism, so confusing you get dizzy. What I think you’re talking about occurred during the war of 1948 (and gets related in a historiography that, for example, ignores the 1929 Hebron pogrom in which 67 Jews were murdered). Much of our current understanding is based on the work of Benny Morris, but he complains that his work is misread and abused. (See here.)
There were acts of ethnic cleansing and massacres. But there’s also a lot of propaganda that uses the actual events to paint a perverted picture. Neither side were saints, but neither should either side be expected to be. Personally, I think the debates over history are most often an impediment to moving forward. History becomes a way of justifying modern atrocities.
3. No, the Palestinians were not responsible for the Diaspora. The Romans were. The Palestinians, though, were “beneficiaries,” in that they could lay claim to the area. I think, though, that it’s more important to realize that a failure to find the people responsible for the Diaspora isn’t reason enough to allow it to continue. You ask, “Why were they forced to leave..?” There’s a lot of debate over exactly what happened, as I’ve already noted. But I think “forced” suggests that there was a uniform reason stemming from an intentionality. There wasn’t. In Haifa, the Jewish leaders begged the Palestinians to stay, to no avail.
Can I also suggest that getting caught up in debates like this is one way the history of the Diaspora is still with us, haunting Jews who want peace with their neighbors.
Posted 20 May 2008 at 1:58 pm ¶
Matt wrote:
Joseph, many Palestinians have had genocidal aims. And many other Arabs as well. Past and present. In the 1948 war –I guess the context got lost, but Latoya had asked about the Palestinians’ role in the creation of Israel– it seemed likely to everyone that that would be what happened. Again in 1967. Today, it seems laughable that the Palestinians could actually succeed. But it’s insulting to deny that any Palestinian has such an intention when the Hamas Charter still says:
“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.”
Benny Morris (he pops up so much, in part, because his book, Righteous Victims is so integral to the anti-Zionist historiography) had a good article about that recently on HNN.
Posted 20 May 2008 at 2:25 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
Joe has made some spot on comments, both in regards to Palestine and also in regards to some of the issues in the comments section.
I dont really like getting into it about Palestine. I am really tired, exhausted of the subject. I have dealt with it and been involved with it, on one level or another, for some twenty years.
You get to the point where you have the arguments, and any possible varient, memorised. I can give the pro-Israeli argument better than most Zionists.
I have a hard time often discussing this issue with Westerners, especially Americans, who take a reflexively pro Israeli stance without even the most basic facts about Israel, Palestine, or history.
99.99% of them have never been to the Middle East, and if they have, they have been to exclusively Israeli cities and locations and more often than not were part of a right wing, pro-Israeli Christian tour set up and run to fundraise and support Israel.
None of the pro-Israeli propaganda I have read in this comments thread is new, nor is the response to it, and neither is anything I could add.
Personally, I am COMPLETELY against any state set up for the benefit of one religion. As a Muslim I dont care if it is Saudi Arabia or Israel.
No state should be set up that is for the active benefit of one group over another group and it doesnt matter what is used to seperate people, race, religion, sect, nationality, tribe, ethnicity.
Any state set up to promote one set of citizens over another cannot exist without active discrimination, so whether it is apartheid South Africa, Israel or Saudi Arabia, I will oppose it.
Posted 20 May 2008 at 2:28 pm ¶
Keren wrote:
Latoya, are you deleting past comments that violate the policy?
I’m just asking because I want to draw your attention to the comments made by ‘Orville’ on this thread:
http://www.racialicious.com/2008/03/25/damned-if-you-do-jews-in-the-spotlight-stereotypes-and-identity-intro/
All of which are ignorant and anti-semitic (or anti-Jewish, whatever you want to call it)
Posted 20 May 2008 at 6:12 pm ¶
Matt wrote:
Came across this, and I think it’s very relevant to some stuff here.
Gorny demonstrates that in their deliberations, the Zionist leaders were capable of considering a wide range of different ideas. The idea of “transfer” — which was considered impractical but not “morally illegitimate” in the 1920s, having recently been implemented in Turkey and Greece — coexisted with utopian ideas of shared states and confederations.
So the early Zionist leaders were neither demons nor saints. Just human. It’s so difficult to get people to acknowledge that both sides were (and are) human.
Posted 21 May 2008 at 3:03 pm ¶