ATTN: We're Returning To Our Previous Middle East Conflict Rules

[EarlG]

Several years ago we decided to create a special forum for the discussion of issues involving Israel and Palestine because the topic was so difficult to discuss and the posters on both sides of the issue were so intractable in their beliefs and so willing to toss out red-hot rhetoric that it was ruining the message board for everyone else.

For the past month we have relaxed the rules to allow discussion of the conflict involving Israel and Hezbollah in the General Discussion forum. Two weeks ago we instituted temporary guidelines in an attempt to keep the peace in General Discussion, but since the news coming out of the region seems to indicate that things are calming down, the admins feel that this is an appropriate time to return to our previous rules.

HOW WE WILL BE HANDLING DISCUSSION OF THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT FROM THIS POINT FORWARD

• Discussions involving Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Hamas, et al. must once again take place in the Israel/Palestine forum and must abide by the rules of that forum.


• Discussions of the Middle East conflict may take place in the Latest Breaking News forum providing that they abide by the rules of that forum.

Please don't send us complaints that the subject has been "banished" to the "basement." If you are truly interested in discussing this subject in a civil fashion, you can get to the Israel/Palestine forum with two clicks of your mouse. If you are logged in, you can add the Israel/Palestine forum to your "My Forums" listing by simply clicking here.

Thank you once again for your patience and understanding.

[NMDemDist2]

1. thanks EarlG, K&N n/t

[MercutioATC]

2. A question...

Is there an appropriate place to post I/P threads that aren't based on an article that's less than three weeks old?

If somebody wishes to have a general historical discussion of Israeli or Palestinian issues, is there a place at DU to do that?

[The Magistrate]

6. Just About Every Discussion Of The Matter, Sir

Whatever the initiating pretext, tends to spiral down to the history and underlying issues of the thing....

Further, there is a ready supply of fresh commentary on the historical question, produced at varying levels of accuracy, of course....

[MercutioATC]

9. So, that's a "no"?

I wasn't attempting to make a statement, I was honestly asking a question.

Is there a place at DU to discuss issues having to do with Israel or Palestine that aren't based on an article that's less than three weeks old?

[EarlG]

13. The Magistrate explained it well

The short answer is no. Sorry.

[MercutioATC]

16. Not a problem. I was just asking.

Thanks.

[The Sower]

39. No pictures either.

Tis a shame.

[azurnoir]

27. Maybe discussions of current events

should be kept in the here and now? After the past month most DUer's know the history, if only in broad terms.
On edit I am guilty too.

[Lithos]

18. If I may, there is a way

The rules mention this, but few actually have taken advantage of it which honestly has surprised us. You can approach Undergroundrailroad or myself with a request to post a question that does not have a recent article or op-ed associated. Why we prefer people to vet them through us first is that we are primarily interested in preventing well trod flamebait from being posted.

So, if it is a real question and if you can phrase it in a way which promotes a respectful debate/exchange, then we're likely to approve/allow it. However, recognize there are some questions/issues which are so "hot" that it is unlikely anyone can create an environment where it won't fall apart. Also, we'll never allow posts which are so inflammatory in their language/position that they're a sure bet to cause problems.

Lithos

[EarlG]

19. Oops, my mistake

:hi:

[izzybeans]

3. Can you rename the I/P forum to reflect the broader conflict?

It seems the title is too narrow, IMO.

[Generic Other]

4. What about amnesty for those banned over the threads in GD?

Having never participated in the I/P threads, I was not prepared for the onslaught of antisemitic accusations, etc. I was shocked to see so many longtime DUers banned over the arguments from the I/P forum that suddenly ripped through GD. Any chance for a general pardon for the likes of Distressed American or Ben Burch?

[LostinVA]

5. I'd like to second that

It was awful suddenly having accusations of "anti semitic," etc. slagged at you for no reason. Vicious and disturbing and unrelenting for WEEKS.

[asthmaticeog]

8. Pardons for what?

The personal attacks, the bigotry or the stalking? Any of those is bannable in any DU forum at any time, I don't see what's so special about this particular time and place, or those particular banned members.

[Magrittes Pipe]

10. Exactly.

:thumbsup:

[EarlG]

12. That's not going to happen

To be clear, long term members like DistressedAmerican and benburch don't get "banned over the threads in GD." They get banned because they are unable to control themselves even after repeated requests from the moderators to follow the rules. The vast majority of DU members have demonstrated that they are more than capable of following the rules most of the time. Long termers who get banned are repeat offenders who show no indication that they intend to improve their behavior. And just to be clear: DistressedAmerican and benburch weren't banned for anything relating to the I/P issue.

[Generic Other]

21. Fair enough. I really don't know the facts only what I observed

I do think certain GD threads pushed DA over the edge. He seemed very upset, and understandably, by the events of the past few weeks.

I feel a great sense of loss over seeing old DU friends and allies that have contributed so much to this site being banned.

It's almost like the tombstones are for real. Sorry. I am getting maudlin.

I know you try very hard to maintain order around here. And I respect that. I just miss my friends.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jacobin]

7. Great. That'll make more room for the Jonbenetafest

:evilgrin:

[angstlessk]

11. I suggested a GD-Pop News forum for just such banal subjects. n/t

[Bretttido]

14. Great Idea, I second!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

42. Question - is it pronounced

BAY - nal
or
bah - nahl ?

[Catchawave]

25. LOL.....the "hide thread" linky is my friend !

:hi:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

30. That's too easy.

More fun to bitch 'n' moan.

[G_j]

15. boo

:thumbsdown:
(too bad adults cannot talk about one of the most crucial current events on the world stage without losing control)

too me this represents a clear failure on our part

[bigtree]

17. I want to express my appreciation for the admins. understanding

in allowing a more open discussion of the issues and events surrounding the conflict. Although there were many expressions that were over the edge, the openness of the debate allowed a myriad of views which, I think, helped bring balance to the discussions.

Once again, I would like to sincerely thank DU and all of the participants in the debates for their insight and their willingness to engage in dialogue on this important conflict in that important region of our world.

[kentuck]

20. I think you underestimate DUers...

To say they have to comment in LBN on reports by the M$N? As if they are the only people worthy of commenting on??

[Jacobin]

22. WWIII is about to erupt from the events in the Middle East

and we are consigning that discussion to a niche forum?

Syria, Iran, Iraq and PNAC all involve Israel. And using countries as proxies in the widening war is the plan.

Good way to make the board irrelevant.

:thumbsdown:

[kentuck]

23. I agree, but...

that would require that "moderators' monitor those threads a little closer and keep the flames under control. In my opinion, those that step out of bounds should be sent to their room for 3 or 4 hours to cool off. But, the purpose should not be to punish people.

[Hardrada]

26. I never look at niche forums

so I guess all these problems in the ME will just vanish from my mind!

[welshTerrier2]

28. i'm very concerned about this too

i think the admins used perfect judgment bringing the Israeli-Hezbollah war up to GD status when the last conflict got rolling ... and i appreciate, when the focus is constrained solely to Israel-Palestine, or maybe even Israel-Lebanon, tucking it away in a sub-forum if that keeps the issue from causing whatever problems the admins were correcting when they first did this ...

but when the issue becomes the US using Israel as a client state to perhaps attack Iran or when "theater of war" geo-politics is the issue, it's unimaginable not to push the discussions to Main St. ... i recently posted an article by Sy Hersh that talked about how the neocons gave Israel the go-ahead to attack Hezbollah because they believed Hezbollah was trained by the Iranians and that would give them some insight to Iranian weaponry and how missiles would be hidden in underground bunkers ...

we can't just take posts that mention Israel in a regional, broader context and call them "I/P posts" ... my take is the sub-forum is a good idea but i think it needs to have a somewhat narrower definition ...

we're on the brink of war with Iran and it is not likely it won't involve most of the other countries in the region ... let's hope i'm dead wrong about that ...

[IndianaGreen]

24. I wish to express my congratulations to all the mods

for an outstanding job during this difficult period. Way to get your ears wet, guys! Start your mod tour just as a war breaks out.

Kudos to all.

:applause:

[scarletwoman]

29. Sure, 2 clicks - but it's still a restricted area - no votes allowed.

So it's all well and good to say that those interested in discussions having to do with the Middle East which include Israel as a component of said discussion (that appears to be the criteria, am I correct?) must hie themselves to I/P. What seems to be overlooked is that there is a crucial difference between GD and I/P -- I/P threads cannot be recommended for the "Greatest" page.

That means that once a post has fallen off the "Latest" page, its visibility will never rise again to catch the possible interest of general DU browsers arriving later.

The unfolding situation in the Middle East is THE geostrategic crisis of our time -- it not only merits serious analysis, wide discussion and monitoring on an ongoing basis, it ought to be incumbent upon all concerned citizens to pay heed, educate themselves and prepare to resist in all possible ways any further wars of agression initiated by the U.S.

I submit that there is a very new situation on the ground that differs greatly from the time when the original I/P forum was created.

I am not altogether in disagreement in regard to giving these matters a distinct forum -- in fact, it might be an improvement to free Middle Eastern posts from the GD clutter of Jon Benet and Jon Stewart.

Therefore, I would like to propose that the I/P forum be renamed the "Middle East forum" and that the voting lock be removed. You would have the segregation that you deem necessary, while allowing the opporunity for meritorious discussions in that forum to be seen by a wider range of DUers for whom the discussion may prove thought-provoking and educational.

sw

[G_j]

32. in agreement

(thanks sw)

"The unfolding situation in the Middle East is THE geostrategic crisis of our time -- it not only merits serious analysis, wide discussion and monitoring on an ongoing basis, it ought to be incumbent upon all concerned citizens to pay heed, educate themselves and prepare to resist in all possible ways any further wars of agression initiated by the U.S."
<snip>

"I would like to propose that the I/P forum be renamed the "Middle East forum" and that the voting lock be removed. You would have the segregation that you deem necessary, while allowing the opporunity for meritorious discussions in that forum to be seen by a wider range of DUers for whom the discussion may prove thought-provoking and educational."

-I agree, G_j

[KoKo]

35. Allowing votes would seem a good idea...but still how could one control

votes going for one view of an article over the other given that some of us might have more definite opinions that some others about an article. Would it just be folks who all approve of one article rating it up while another article would be left to languish? :shrug:

[G_j]

44. if I understand what you are saying

isn't that a similar dilemma that exists in all forums that allow voting?

[Pale Blue Dot]

31. Are threads about the Mid West still OK?

Or will they be banished to the "Illinois" forum? :D

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. We can discuss important "issues" like Jon Benet but not the ME?

Pathetic.

Denying that the wars in Palestine and Lebanon have a major impact on the whole region and the world by relegating them to the basement because they're "difficult to discuss" is pathetic. The United States is heavily involved in the ME and is affected by the conflicts in the region.

How do the admins plan to seperate American involvement in the region from the "too controversial" Israeli/Palestinian/Hezbullah/Lebanon/Syrian/Iranian conflict?

[KoKo]

34. It's fine about "I/P" going back to that Forum..but can you move Jon Benet

to the lounge please? :shrug:

[mantis49]

51. I second that.

n/t

[Zhade]

36. Does that still apply, now that Israel has broken the cease-fire...

...and the situation may escalate once again?

If the situation does become more volatile, at what point will discussion of the conflict in Lebanon be allowed in GD? It's too important an issue to hide away.

I'm just asking because it looks like it might not be over, with UN envoys saying the raid was a breach of the cease-fire.

[Zhade]

40. Any answer? Or are the mods discussing it, at least?

NT!

[Skinner]

41. No, we're not letting discussions back in GD at this time.

NT!

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FlavaKreemSnak]

43. What about Iran or other Middle Eastern countries?

And also Syria? Or are we supposed to divide it up, like if we want to talk about us attacking Iran and Syria can we do it in the regular one, and if we want to talk about Israel attacking them we have to do it in the Israel one? I guess if it is a joint attack maybe you will make a special one just for it because it will probably be on the news a lot. I mean the regular news like CNN etc because you know the Lebanon news hasn't quieted down as much in countries where they don't know a lot about JonBenet, even though CNN international did break in the other night when they had the guy in the airport.

[MADem]

45. I think you may want to rename the forum, then

It is offensive to those who have a deep familiarity with the Middle East region, not just the Arab world but the southwest Asian end as well, to have their issues lumped in with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Not every issue that happens in the ME, including those involving Hizb'Allah, are focused around that Jewish/Palestinian Two State argument, and by shoving anything to do with people "from that end of the world" into it, it really appears (though I am sure it is not your intent) that you are tossing a whole bunch of disparate cultures and concerns into a single bucket in a rather cavalier fashion.

If you don't want to rename the forum, then perhaps add a ME/SWA forum. Requiring people to discuss Hiz'bAllah's relationship with the Grand Council of Ayatullahs in I/P appears ignorant, particularly since Palestinian shi'ites aren't a common feature, historic Metawalis excepted.

It's like forcing Mexican and Canadian issues into a United States forum because they're geographically near one another.

[LynneSin]

46. Hey, did you make the draft yesterday

I fell asleep when I got home from work

:cry:

[dogday]

47. And the sign says long haired freaky people

need not apply.....


Follow the rules everyone......

[Zhade]

48. I find this a shameful stance for DU to take.

Cowardly, too - but I'm not calling the mods themselves cowards. Just the policy.

Especially when the conflagration erupts and we're having to follow WWIII by sneaking into a forum where voting isn't allowed.

A poor decision.

[chimpymustgo]

50. Have to agree. What is the shame in discussion? What is being protected?

MANY topics are hot and divisive on this board. Why does this one get the clamp down? What about black/white racism? Why not put that one in a basement, and not allow votes for the Greatest Page?

Seriously - why is this discussion - which is driving America's foreign policy, and guzzling our tax dollars - verboten? The neocons have dusted off the old Iraq script, and are whining for war with Iran. AND WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT OPENLY?

World War 3 appears just around the corner - AND WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT OPENLY?

What is the reason?

[question everything]

52. The comments on this thread alone justify the policy

The posters are not interested in discussing the Middle East, or Israel, or Lebanon and Syria. Rather, they want to push their bias against Israel as the "tool of the neo-cons" or other terms.

[Purveyor]

49. Disgusting policy and just what is it you "fear", may I ask? n/t

[Redneck Socialist]

53. Yea! Thank you. n/t