Edits on Israel article

My bias on the issue is pretty clear, so denying it would only serve to make me look foolish. I do believe the facts and truths of this conflict are on the side of the Palestinians and their advocates.

I agree it's a highly contentious topic, so the article can never be satisfactory. As such, I do think the policy Blue seems to be putting into place in the article (deleting that which is not cited) is the best way to maintain some level of truth telling.

I would like to suggest that maintaining neutrality in such a conflict essentially offers one's support to Israel, as they are the status quo; however, I imagine most folk in rationalwiki aren't passionate followers of either side, so I can't expect folk who aren't overly interested in this particular topic to become Norman Finkelstein or Noam Chomsky over night.

"I would like to suggest that maintaining neutrality in such a conflict essentially offers one's support to Israel, as they are the status quo" - that would be the bias talking, you see. It's a remarkably easy trap to fall in to. Genuine neutrality is always just that; neutrality. Or apathy. It's possible to overcome it, though that can lead to excessive cynicism.

I personally advocate that both sides are equally wrong (or is that actually wronger than wrong?) and both need to Grow The Fuck Up. This viewpoint is simple, neutral, backed by fact, and snarky to boot. The sheer childishness of the situation itself seems excelled only by those outside the situation chanting for a side as if it was some kind of football match.