Misplaced Pages

maybe of interest

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-drobny/liberalprogressive-anti_b_24666.html

IronDuke

I have replied to you on my talk page. -- Anomicene 20:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Two things, two lists

Hey spunk.

1. The Gill Langley article looks great, I nearly weep whenever I see the well-sourced and written articles like that. Why am I hanging out in List of sexual slurs for goodness sake?
2. As a follow-on List of animal rights groups/List of animal welfare and animal rights groups seem to have a lot of overlap, with really not to much discussion. My "trim and merge, trim and merge" paradigm is kicking in, as well as the desire to cull external links... but I'd like to hear your input first.

brenneman 03:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

Okay for now, though somehow I suspect I haven't seen the end of this. --woggly 06:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Page History Statistics

Check this out: Misplaced Pages Page History Statistics. It is from a neutral source and online -- thus it offers transparency that my tool can't match at the moment. If you check it for "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" you'll find it does agree with the edit count numbers I provided. Of course, this online tool will provide larger numbers for some articles that I reported because I only used the last 10,000 or so edits from users, not their complete edit history. --Ben Houston 18:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Planning to edit New anti-Semitism

I also have been thinking about the general conflict. I have given $1K to Amnesty International, $500 to Oxfam and $350US to Human Rights Watch in the last 3 years. I have also participated in IA letter writing campaigns. I am very opposed to people that incite against Muslims for I view it as a self-fulfilling cycle -- the more one demonizes a group, the less one will listen to their issues, and the worst on can treat them -- this leads to significant resentment, which will cause reactions, which can then be used to further continue the cycle. The end result is mutual polarization -- and both sides comes to justify the use of force against the other. This pissed me off to no end when I see it done. I've had one letter to this effect published in Canada's National Post. I also had a long email exchange with Daniel Pipes in 2001 which he said in an email to me motivated this column of his in the LA Times: -- which was actually better than many of the stuff I was reading in the National Post at the time. I also felt that Israel demonized the Palestinians on many occasions in order to avoid dealing with legitimite human rights issues. I wrote this well recieved essay giving my view: Israel and Its Disastrous Settlement Policy. (It was republished on my personal website for a few years, but when the pullouts seems inevitable I took down the essay since it wasn't that applicable.)

While going over the recent history at Misplaced Pages, I realize now that I actually ran into the most unfair behavior from Elizmr (who I felt was a bully who asserted control over an article in part by accusations of conspiracy theorizing and she then obfusticated criticism, making it difficult to read and unfocused, and then argued that it was addressed in the article), and Armon (who supported Elizmr in a knee jerk fashion). I feel that MEMRI is not a neutral organization that promotes peace, but rather a hard-line Likud-associated organization that engages in selective translation in order to support specific agendas -- and there were many reputable sources to support including this in the article. (You'll note that my problems with MEMRI are the same as my problems with the demonization of Muslims after 9/11 -- I am actually amazingly consistent over time.) I was scared off the MEMRI article at the time, and I was left with a strong feeling that it was unjust -- hench this personal attack: User:Elizmr/BH. (At the time I didn't know I had other recurses to what was going on.) Humus sapiens also showed up to say that Elizmr's behavior was model. (It should be noted that eventually Elizmr stopped doing what she was doing after being scolded by Jimbo Wales on the Juan Cole article.)

It maybe that each side here feels wrongs by the other and this colors future interactions -- just like the primary participants in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is new to me, but I think the dynamic is that there are instigators on both sides that, because they get knee jerk support from others who are less extreme but on same "the side of the fench", end up coloring, from the one perspective, the other as (1) acting in a block (factional), and (2) being unfair. This dynamic, which can become a self-reinforcing cycle, is the same as what I described above in regards to some of the demonizing of Muslims in the near post 9/11 environment.

I also think that the concept of New anti-Semitism is part of the issue. One should always be aware of anti-Semitism and I also don't look to justify anti-Zionism since in my view of human rights, self-determination is a good thing. The core problem with "New anti-Semitism" is that it allows for the delegitimizing of critics of Israel -- it says that criticism of Israel, especially serious criticism, is often disguised anti-Semitism. I posit that "New anti-Semitism" is mostly for domestic consumption (i.e. supporters of Israel.) This is also another self-reinforcing cycle. It allows one to write off critics of Israel's policies -- while at the same time pissing off those critics by impinging their motives and seeming to act above the law. It also does nothing to address the core problems at hand -- it is like someone stuck in a bad situation who instead of getting out of the situation decides to turn to denial, chronic anti-Depressants and valium use.

(Are you aware surveys have shown that the ruling whites of apartheid South Africa felt unjustly discriminated against by the disvestments, various cultural, sport and academic boycotts? No one claims that the boycotts were motivated by a hatred of the Afrikanners though -- although there were very serious debates at the time as to whether the academic boycott was an appropriate measure to take. But with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, these calls are mostly responded to by allegations, by individuals who appear serious, that it is just anti-Semites targeting Israel. It seems clear to me, what can be interpreted as discriminatory by a recipient can in fact be motivated by primarily by human rights concerns.)

I was reading through the article of New anti-Semitism and a bunch of the supporting references Sunday night and I think that many of the citations are not quoted accurately within the article -- the article significantly favors the theory. I can see that as I move toward editing this article, that it could lead to further conflict between you and I -- and I am preparing myself for it and trying to think of the right way to go given the overall context (and which motivated this rambling comment.) I think that the main issue that is going to determine the nature and intensity of the conflict is the degree to which you apply the theory of New anti-Semitism to my actions, which will lead to you either treating me as illigitimate or as someone serious. --Ben Houston 18:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)