http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/27/policy-reorientation/

Rosner’s Domain: A note to readers: Restrain yourselves

Rosner-reader James Adler has sent me a letter that I’d like to share with the rest of you.

Hi Rosner…

I realize talkback guidelines are sometimes difficult issues, but the talkbacks to your latest entry on the “Israel pressuring crowd” seem especially problematic.  In the following I try very hard to distinguish what I (strongly) disagree with from what is abuse.

Tom in 3 is provocative but not abusive (the phrase ‘mindless zionists Clinton and McCain’ isn’t great, but that kind of language, usually from the right, is on almost every talkback, and I’m leaving it alone). It’s the abuse I worry about. One reader wrote  that “I’m disappointed that the editors published the hate speech and incitement to murder that the cowardly jew hating ‘Tom’ wrote in post number 6.” Cowardly jew hater wrote hate speech and incitement to murder? Believe me, Rosner, I’m not asking about all the talkbacks. Zelig-Israel’s comments in 8 get a pass from me. I’m not being squeamish. But the reader asking “what Ayran Nation cult” he [Tom] belongs to, and calls him an “emasculated girly Nazi,” and “he’d be more at home in the 3rd Reich for Fascist Italy?”  How can this be an argument instead of just plain personal abuse?

What are your staff’s guidelines?

Again, Rosner, I’m not being squeamish. The reader saying Tom is a “Lunatic Fringe” is fine with me.  But a “girly Nazi”? There just seems to be all the difference between the two. Todd Zuckerman is a prolific talkbacker and usually is all right. His 12 this time does seem rather borderline.  I don’t mind (strongly disagree with, but can let pass) his “typical lefty Jewish ‘We must save Israel from itself” jackass.” It’s borderline abuse, but let’s let it go.

But do you allow the President Elect’s picks to be called “court Jews”? Is that criticism of Dennis Ross or abusing Dennis Ross? If it’s not abuse, Rosner, then what is?

And the request to block Tom USA from your blog? Of course just an opinion, and okay for the talkback, and here it’s just my irrelevant amusement at the  double standards and intolerance of differing opinions This reader and others have about what should be blocked from talkbacks and what shouldn’t be .

But: When the reader I reffer to goes on to say that Tom USA, has “death wishes and hatred” with a “trashy mouth,” in addition to wanting him blocked, one again wonders if the line has been crossed into abuse of Tom and abuse of the talkback forum.

And how about “Jew-hating Jews” and that “both Ross and Kurtzer qualify as Kapo.” And even more than that: “If this was 1945 and they were Kapos in a prison camp their fate would be the same as SS guards.” This, about American Jewish officials the President Elect appoints, is appropriate?– Kapos? And comparing them with Nazi concentration camp guards and the SS? Amnon in 19 seems to have an okay argument with Maverick. But then why does he call him a “little boy?”  That is plain abuse.

Again, I’m not being squeamish.  ”If you like terrorists so much, hand over your home to a Comanche or Apache family and get the hell out, OK?” passes muster; it’s an argument, even if one may believe a ridiculous one. But why call him a “little boy?  Why all the name-calling?

And there’s a reader calling the African-American  Obama — “the Chimpanzee.” In your talkbacks can people call black men, including the blacks who are American elected officials, and in positions up to President of the United States, “Chimpanzees?”

Rosner, please:  What in heaven’s name are your guidelines here and those you give your staff? I realize these are sometimes difficult issues, but remain curious about what basic guidelines there are.

I continue to enjoy very much your blogs…

James Adler

My response: James is right. I wasn’t paying enough attention. I ask all readers and talkbackers to remain civil even when the debate is fierce.  A reminder: JPost’s posting policy is here. If you do not have the time to read it all – use common sense. And make sure these rules are followed:

The Participant shall not upload to the Forums, or distribute or otherwise publish on the Forums, any libelous, inflammatory, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, abusive, or otherwise illegal material.

The Participant agrees not to threaten or verbally abuse other Participants, use defamatory language.

The Participant undertakes not to use language that abuses or discriminates on any basis, including without limitation race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual preference, age, region and disability, and such language shall be grounds for immediate and permanent suspension of access to all or part of the Forums, without derogating from any other remedy of Jerusalem Post under this Agreement or under any applicable law.

I’d like to thank James for his letter, and to apologize to him and all other readers for not putting an end to all this earlier. I’m going to be more strict from now on.

Punishing good deeds

Sir, – May I respond to Andrew Carew-Morton? (”May I respond?” Letter, September 5).

The Left is correct that there is a cycle of violence, and that Israel can help end the cycle by stopping settlement-building and withdrawing more or less to the ‘67 borders, keeping (only, but still major) its large adjacent settlement blocs.

But the Right is correct that Israel has already tried most of the Left’s prescriptions – the Oslo Accords, the 2000 Barak peace offer, the Gaza withdrawal, including the settlements; and now there is Israel’s plan to withdraw from most of the West Bank, again including most settlements.

The Palestinians’ response to the Barak offer (including Jerusalem as capital of both countries) was neither acceptance nor a counter-offer, but the second intifada. And their response to the Gaza withdrawal and proposed “convergence” plan involving withdrawal from most of the West Bank was the 2006 Lebanon War and the Katyushas, and Gaza’s Hamastan and Kassams.

The Palestinian response to Israeli actions aimed at ending the cycle of violence has been, in essence: It will let no Israeli good deed go unpunished.

I agree with Carew-Morton that the Palestinians have been wronged, but they have got to get past allowing the feeling of having been wronged to guide the entirety of their political attitudes. They have an understandable human need to preserve an emotional place for their sense of victimhood, but they need to let go of its malignant domination of their every thought and action.

As for Israel, it has both a right and nitty-gritty obligation to defend itself from attacks on its civilians – individuals and families just like you and me and our families. As does every other nation and people.

Israel has, in short, adopted most of the Left’s prescriptions. But the Palestinians have not made any comparable move. It’s now their turn, but I’m afraid they’re too dysfunctional and trapped in their own sterile rage to do their part in helping to end the cycle of violence.

JAMES ADLER