[WikiEN-l] No benefit from Abe's case against Civility

Sat Oct 4 09:56:18 UTC 2003

Sv:

Your message expressed some legitimate differences of opinion, which I will 
address shortly. In the mean time, since I’m occupied at the moment with 
some other matters, I suggest rereading “Posting old message - formatted 
this time!” at 
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-October/006966.html, which 
explains why we shouldn’t realistically expect much civility on this issue, 
which clarifies my points to all the concerns you raised.

However, right now I need to deal with the claim that’s flat out false.

You state:

“Yes, you say this because you happen to have some
ethnic sympathies-- That is understandable.”

First, don’t conflate this often-ambiguous collective identity with an 
ethnic one. It is not an ethnic or racial identity, and only a nationality 
within the context of Israeli citizenship. If one were forced to use an 
ethnic identity, you could note that most Jews (although there are converts) 
have Semitic lineage.

Second, you state:

“I encourage you to consult your Faith…”

However, I’m of no faith and this is a rude remark when directed toward 
anyone in general.

Third, you state that I suggest that I “consult my faith” rather than 
“consult[ing]… the history of US-Middle East foreign policy… if [I 
am]looking for metaphorical solutions.”

If you think that I view the RK matter, or for that matter foreign policy in 
the Middle East, because of a “faith” that I don’t have, and this ‘Jewish 
ethnicity’ (which is utterly meaningless- use a dictionary and find out why 
this is a contradiction of terms), you are sadly mistaken; this goes against 
my entire approach to history. Earlier, a number of users were accusing me 
of inserting pro-Saddam biases in articles; now Sv’s accusing me of opposing 
a ban on RK I share his views on US-Middle East foreign policy!

I admit, my normative views of the Israel-Palestinian matter are more 
agnostic, and I refrain from the formulae of criticism and effecting change 
(a role of the social scientists and history first heralded by Marx – and 
one that I admire), and opting for the less provocative one of understanding 
and comparison. It's not that I don't believe that a Marxist revisionist 
framework for interpreting things wouldn't work here- I think that it can to 
an extent, when other matters are considered. But I'm not going to speak as 
a partisan of either side. Nor would I be qualified; I’m not a Mid East 
specialist.

In short, I support RK’s role; I don’t stand by his often-sketchy work.

And if you don’t want RK at your throat on the Middle East articles, just 
wait until your buried under the avalanche that you wanted to create. The 
minute the balance, tone, evidence, and analysis of the articles sees a 
minor, ostensibly trivial shift, just wait for the irate new RKs to flood 
the site in droves, lambasting Wikipedia for a lack of neutrality. They’ll 
start attacking you from every direction and at once, and making your job 
even harder. And you’ll then realize that it would’ve been far better to 
deal with the devil you knew, rather than the new ones you don’t.

_________________________________________________________________
Instant message during games with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE!  
http://msnmessenger-download.com