Clark Kent –
I agree with many of your factual points in your previous post, responding to a comment by Anonymous. I, for all the reasons you list, find it very difficult to take the position (as I see Anonymous doing) of apologizing for Palestinian terrorism and trying to judge defensive Israeli actions under the guise of terrorism.
I do, however, have two serious problems with your post CK. First, you clearly have forgotten that we all post anonymously. You, me, TST, J-Ice, and PA Metuchen use aliases when we post, which preserves anonymity just as well as calling ourselves “Anonymous.” The tone of your response strikes me as unfairly derisive and ad hominem for a fact of which we are all guilty. Even though all authors on this site know each others’ identity, readers of this page do not.
Second, you say that in this issue of Israel and Palestine you cannot separate your emotions from your intellect and you have clearly written an emotional (and intellectual) response. The problem is your refusal to separate your emotions in response to a disagreeing viewpoint, which even if in many ways apologistic for terrorism, is a valid and thoughtful and common position (see Koufax award-winning blog Informed Comment).
Emotions and the ability to separate them from intellect when having a dialogue with someone of opposing views is crucial to our entire project. How can we suppose to be able to convince the religious Right on issues like abortion, gay marriage, evolution, and stem cell research if we ourselves refuse to put emotions on hold while discussing topics? How can we ask others to put their faith in perspective if we are not willing to do the same?
Most political topics that we discuss are emotional to some degree for everyone. Go to a union hall in Detroit and talk about free trade. Go to a church in Chicago and talk about unemployment. Go to a country club in Aspen and talk about tax structure. People get emotional when you talk about the things that affect their lives. Politics is important because politics deals with our lives. In all areas, politics affects people. That’s why we care about it and that’s why what we do on this blog matters. If we brush aside thoughtful positions on any issue because it makes us emotional, then we won’t have anything to talk about.
Philo
February 26th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
Mr. Anonymous’ posting clearly elicited a passionate response–one that did not attempt to separate emotion from intellect. Whenever you engage in a debate, you are personally invested in the subject at hand. It was not my intention to be derisive, or invective. I agree with you that his position is common and thoughtful; if I did not see a certain degree of validity in Mr. Anonymous’ point, I would not have answered him with such an extensive and ardent posting. However, just because Mr. Anonymous’ perception of the Mideast issue happens to line up with Juan Cole of Informed Comment (and I happen to agree with some of Cole’s commentary, particularly his article in Thursday’s LA Times), it hardly means that I shouldn’t confute his apology for Palestinian terrorists.
Philo, I have not forgotten that we all post anonymously. If you or TST, or anyone, had written that post, I would have addressed you in a similar manner. Furthermore, I understand why you consider my post a personal attack, and there was no disrespect intended to Mr. Anonymous. But in no way did I ignore logic for personal considerations; the two, in this case, were not mutually exclusive. My argument is neither clouded by my personal stake in the matter nor is weakened by my obvious pro-Israel sentiment.
I want to make a point about this blog and the future of The Baltimore Group. We are all so passionate about politics because, as you said, they affect people. Don’t you get passionate about abortion, gay marriage, evolution, etc.? You’re right in that we must be careful not to discount or mock those who disagree with our views. But, that standard that we all must uphold in this forum, and in life, has little to do with becoming emotional in a debate. Passion is the very thing that drives people like us, who are far from the Beltway, to discuss politics in the first place. Without it, this forum becomes sterile. Mr. Anonymous’ posting genuinely intrigued me, and I look forward to his response. The Baltimore Group finally got inside me, finally got my blood boiling. It brought out the kind of impassioned feelings I have about the Middle East. That’s the point of this blog, and that’s what’s going to drive it and sustain it.
Mr. Anonymous clearly upset me on a day when people were killed in a neighborhood that is familiar to me. For me, the Arab-Israeli conflict, is not one that is merely raging thousands of miles from our comfortable shores. For me, it’s not just a cerebral issue that intellectuals mull over and occasionally fight about. I have friends in Tel Aviv and friends in the Israeli Army. Eighteen year old boys and girls, who I know, are required to walk the streets with guns slung over their shoulders. My friend Oded, who is a member of the IDF’s Special Forces, has lost eleven of his best friends in the past months. And, who knows how many more countless young men and women will die, either in nightclubs or on the battlefield? This is not free trade, or unemployment, or tax structure. Obviously, those issues affect people on a daily basis, and I am hardly descrediting what you have to say. While Mr. Anonymous’ posting did not deserve my wrath, it demanded my attention and a rebuttal and all the emotion I could muster.
February 26th, 2005 at 9:59 pm
CK–
Thank you for your explanation. I agree with what you’re saying and I see where you’re coming from. Of course I get passionate about the issues I write about, as all contributors to this blog do. What had made me nervous was that your response was directed to a specific visitor to our site and not a political figure or pundit. That’s why I was defensive. I hope this turns out to be a good lesson for our site in tone, emotion, and dialogue.
Thanks CK and Anon.
Philo