The Question of Free Speech and mepeace.org dialog

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Neri Bar-On on December 30, 2008 at 1:29pm

Dear Mazin

survive when it excludes a pacifist quaker ?
There many pacifist who do not evaluate the whole influence of their speech expression, some of the expressions are interpreted as anti-Jewish and offensive. In my opinion this can be done by communicating taking responsibility and adjusting the statement from the side of the Pacifist same time we the members and the Administrators need to practice tolerance and deal with statement the are experienced as offensive. mepeace should avoid banning but use it and continue to ask itself if it enable the whole voices to be expressed.

can we demand that every individual here fully identify themselves and where they live?
this is a tight balance, the availability of anonymity enable many to get in and truly check their values as it is also enable "educators" from the Pro-Zionist/Pro-Palestinian camp to join us.


Why could we not demand that every individual agree to minimum standards that all humans shoudl agree to,
As mepeace.org is a multi-political network by definition it connect people who do not agree. some of them will not feel comfortable in mepeace and this is our challenge, but we cannot be multi-political and agreed by all.
The basic demand is human respect for the sensitivity of people who do not see the world as you do. some people see Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a political agenda and claim their right to differ of the ideas of Justice.

I personally would be happy to discuss world view with Nazis or KKK members but this is only my personal taste. I agree that such people can damage the delicate balance we try to create in mepeace.org

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mazin Qumsiyeh on December 30, 2008 at 2:29pm

Dear Neri:

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Onthe first point, I fidn it problematical that perceptiosn taht someone is anti-Jewish would be taken as grounds. Is a perception that someone maybe criminal enough to put that person in jail or is evidence needed. Further there si a double standard taht is obviosu here. For example we have actual evidence that some peopel here do make generalizations that are racist about Palestinians and Muslims in general. They also regularly post material from obviosuly racist websites. This is not perception but facts and even here, tehy are not excluded. This even when their posts are clearly damaging to any kind of civil discussion (e.g. trying to shoot the messenger instead of trying to deal with teh facts of the message).

On the second point of using aliases. You can certainly set up a group of respected individuals to determine if there is a legitimate need to withhld identity. What has happened and is happening is that one individual can and does use more than one identity. They thus can play games by responding to themselves. Crrots and sticks and good cup bad cup games are so obvious. It is interesting that this has and continues to happen only from those who support racism and injustice. I have not seen it from Jews, Muslims, or Christians who support human rights, international law and full equality (no chosenness).

On the third point: you wrote "I personally would be happy to discuss world view with Nazis or KKK members but this is only my personal taste. I agree that such people can damage the delicate balance we try to create in mepeace.org". These are contradictory sentences. And can you really honestly believe you can educate or teach someone who believes in racial (or religious) superiority or uniqueness anything new. Don't they filter all information in teh prism of the self-imposed chains that surround their minds. Don't misunderstand me I do not givee-up on anyone but we should not have them dictate the agenda or the directions (which by now shoudl be obviosu villify and dehumanize their victims to justify in their mind their racist ideologies).

I certainly refuse to stay at a "peace forum" that excludes peace advocates because of perceptions by tribalists while allowing tribalists to post all sorts of bigotted messages. If that is what will continue to happen, what and who would "win" . I am afraid the forum will lose and the bigots would think they won but as usual (just like with the agression on Gaza), ultimatey it strengthens those attacked. I personally know many activists for peace who were leaning Zionist but who got visciously attacked and became life long workers against Zionism. I am afraid I saw this here two. When I first met John Wilmerding and up to a few months ago I was very dissappointed in his defense of two state solution, of so called "Jewish need to have a Jewish state" and other. I think as he partcipated here and have seen the nature of the racism and tribalism that reminded him of his diligent work for civil rights etc (against bigotted whites), I think he was strengthened by the posts and attacks of people like "Paul RETI" and "Ofer" and "Carole Warady". I know he is now focused on more productive ventures than endless arguments with people who do not want to comprehend their self destuctove ways. So maybe it all works for the best.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Neri Bar-On on December 30, 2008 at 3:05pm

Mazin:

On the first point: it is a complex situation and I think that some of the people should be restricted and that as some claim mepeace.org to be too pro-Israeli other claim it to be too pro-Palestinian. while we need to be Pro-Human and pro-Progress it is a sure to fail dance to filter all the pro/anti unbalanced views that I am claimed to have.
What I do as a member that any one who care for mepeace.org can do is send a request to evaluate a comment by clicking this

As moderation is voluntary please be tolerant

second point: you say "continues to happen only from those who support racism and injustice" from my experience all of them claim to be justice advocate and human rights activists (while not all human rights activists are "Trols" many trols justify their actions as human right activists and you are invited to evaluate Mr. Amsterdam latest comments.

third point: I agree we cannot "educate or teach someone who believes in racial (or religious) superiority or uniqueness anything new." my interest is in the field of anthropology where we have to recognize that this phenomena exist and the people behind the icons and the recist world view are Humans in Wolves clothing - as if we dont recognize that we are in danger to end up being racists as they are.

I hope you will find value in my Tribalism: The Voice of the Tribe. as you can understand I am supporting tribalism as a natural healthy phenomena and want to expand it to include us all in the tribe of the humans.

"Ofer" and "Carole Warady" are not active, Paul is continue to confuse us with his wish for peace and aggressive un constrained behavior. Please also note that mepeace is not the only place and there are many other good groups. Hiba said: No one ever said that it is the only place, but we are working on making it the appropriate place for discussing this issue and you are welcome to discuss with us.


There are three other discussion groups .

1) Truth and Justice
Truth and Justice throughout the world
open by a (banned in mepeace ) member John Fisher

I consider Truth and Justice as a "pro-Zionist" group

2) Palestine Israel Crossroads
Dialogue, Meeting & Action for Peace

I consider Palestine Israel Crossroadsas a "non-Zionist" group

open by a (banned in mepeace ) member Eva Ferrero

3) Palestinian Mothers
Women are 50 % of the world, and gave birth to the other half.. we are the world

I consider Palestinian Mothers as a "anti-Zionist" group

open by a إقبال التميمي Iqbal Tamimi. many members of mepeace were banned from there due disagreements.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul RETI on December 31, 2008 at 5:29am

Dear Neri and all

Regarding "aggressive un constrained behavior" see http://www.mepeace.org/xn/detail/661876:Comment:169478,

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Stephanie Chase on December 30, 2008 at 6:40pm

I just have a question in regards to certain members on the website that "were actively claiming the Peace is not possible." --> Is this because they as a citizen would not be able to make a difference because it's the action of the governments? And they see no end to it? They don't believe in peace?! Peace will never happen in our lifetimes?!
I just want to understand
Cheers
Stephanie

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mazin Qumsiyeh on December 30, 2008 at 11:28pm

On a listserve I moderated, I had someone use language like the language of "Amsterdam" and I since it was moderated I did not allow it to be posted for it was racist. Later, I found that the guy is actually a Zionist who impersonated an Arab to villify Arabs and scare the Jews participants on the list.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Stewart Mills on December 31, 2008 at 4:26am

I wondered that myself Mazin. I nearly questioned Amsterdam as to the authenticity of such statements. But didn't do so in the end as regardless it was within reason that people within the community he alleged would think such things. Just as we see it in all communities experiencing war and extreme violence.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Neri Bar-On on December 31, 2008 at 4:33am

this probably happening, but we also had Palestinian from "Palestinian Mothers" network and it is documented here. we have these people in both side of the fence.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Califa on December 31, 2008 at 1:42am

I don't know about what you guys decide, but since yesterday we implement these guidelines:

iPeace prides itself on being a free space for sharing ideas, opinions and information.

But we have and uphold certain standards. We will not allow posting of explicit horror images of war. We don't need to see it to realize that war is horrific.

We understand also that emotions in these days are running high. But we will not tolerate personal attacks between members.

We ask you to help us in keeping the iPeace space civilized and report to one of the admins any violation.

Praying for more peaceful days

david

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul RETI on December 31, 2008 at 5:32am

Aggressive and unconstrained behavior?

Dear All,

Neri describes my behavior above as aggressive and unconstrained. That is your POW and as such I have no issues. I am sure that singling me out that way was simply to give only one such example:

Here is the link to that POW: http://www.mepeace.org/xn/detail/661876:Comment:168747

Questions:

1. Are there others here who exhibit aggressive and unconstrained behavior? If so who?
2. Can your behavior here, Neri, be equally reasonably interpreted as aggressive and unconstrained behavior?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Stewart Mills on December 31, 2008 at 5:20pm

1. Reframing questions to achieve the least harm

Paul, my feeling is this is not the appropriate fora to discuss such questions in the way you have asked them.

The reason is people are being named publicly in a way that may be harmful for all parties.

We can achieve a similar result by framing the questions differently, with less harm.

The simplest way is to leave someones name out of the statement or question. Why not try and focus on the behaviours and not the person?

2. Focus on the issue not the person

I know I am disappointed when members assert or speculate on a charcater or personality flaw or worse impute an anti-group A position instead of focusing on the issues of concern. I find such methods against the spirit and discipline of peace-making. I find such methods miss an opportunity for people to connect and understand each others source of concern, fear or interest.

3. The variety of ways people behave on mepeace

What I can say is that I have experienced on this site a spectrum of behaviours ranging from:

1. Reasoned, empathetic, humanistic centred, sensitive, transformative, compassionate and hopeful responses
2. Reasoned, self-centred, insensitive, pessimistic responses
3. Irrational, self-centred, insensitive, pessimistic responses
4. Irrational, insulting, responses
5. Irrational, defamatory responses
6. Irrational, aggressive, uncontrolled responses
7. Irrational. hate filled, exclusivist dehumanising responses.
8. Reasoned, incitement to violence
9. Irrational incitement to violence

What are people's examples of such behaviours? I can give my perspective, but it is good to hear other perspectives. What are ways we can respond to such behaviour?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul RETI on December 31, 2008 at 7:17pm

I don't really disagree with you Stewart. I was simply responding to what was a comment about me.

Most people just are not as analytical as you are. And most don't have or make the time to respond om a thorough and reasoned way like you do

You may be interested in indicating their support now for the JewishVOICES (NSW) Statement about Gaza = 31 December 2008.

One Palestinian friend who helped to craft the statement noted:

"The aim of this statement is to show that we are all appalled and saddened by the current escalation of the conflict and the bloodshed it inflicts on people on both sides. The statement seeks a middle ground which is the minimum accepted by some groups and the maximum expected by others."

.

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page