Terrorist Apologism
Dean
Meryl Yourish notes, quite correctly, that I did not repudiate some obscure remarks by Dean's World commenters that have appeared here from time to time over the years. Which is quite true. But she then suggests that I was "ignoring" such things. Hahahaha. Riiiiight. [Eyes roll]. Leave it to Meryl Yourish to try to worm out of her shameful Kahanist apologism with a lame tu quoque response.
Truth: I didn't even remember those obscure remarks by my commenters, but if if a civil, decent person were to have asked I would have said, "I assume those commenters didn't know any better. I certainly didn't at the time. Now that I do know better, however, it's a different story."
For reference, here once again is the terrorist whom Meryl Yourish and others proudly allow to speak for the people of Israel:
I considered linking this video on Dean's World with a minor hat-tip, on the order of "Hey, this is pretty cool" when I first spotted it. But a friend asked if I knew all I should about the terrorist Kahane.
"Terrorist? No way!" Then I researched, and I realized: "Oh sh*t. Yes he was." In fact, he was convicted more than once of terrorist activities by the United States government. When he learned that he was almost certainly going to be indicted again for his ongoing terrorist activities, he finally fled to Israel--where he continued his terrorist activities with pride.
I initially posted a very mild, non-confrontational article about it. Here it is in its entirety. Please read what I wrote carefully and tell me where there was a single ad hominem attack on anyone besides the terrorist thug Meir Kahane and his violent movement.
Later in the day, I sent an even more polite, and utterly non-confrontational, email to Meryl Yourish about it, since it had appeared on her site. I'll happily re-post that email in public by the way. The whole exchange, every word of it. There was nothing in the least bit nasty about it.
The whole exchange from my perspective was, in essence: "Are you sure you want to be associating yourself with this guy? He was not a good guy."
Although I did not say so at the time, I don't think it right that anyone should let an avowed theocrat, an avowed terrorist, and a thug speak for the people of Israel, with little more than a weak "I don't agree with everything BUT..." description of the man.
Let us review:
Kahanists approve of stabbing homosexuals for being homosexuals and still hate homosexuals. And applaud the death of innocents as "holy".
Respected pro-Israel Jewish scholars recognize Kahanism as quasi-fascist and violent criminal terrorist.
Kahane wanted to make it a crime punishable by law for a non-Jewish man to have sex with a Jewish woman
The Anti-Defamation League calls Kahanism terrorism.
So does the US State Department.
So does the Israeli government, especially after the Kahanist murder of Yitzhak Rabin.
The Council on Foreign Relations calls Kahanism terrorism.
The Center for Defense Information calls Kahanism terrorism.
Even David Horowitz's Front Page Magazine declares Kahanism terrorism.
Note, please, that aside from the US State Department, the Center for Defense Intelligence, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Washington Times, I have not named a single source that is not a Jewish source.
Ehud Sprinzak's expose of Kahanism remains the single best source I have found so far on Kahane and his thug followers. These people terrorized not just Arabs or Muslims but also Americans. Christians and even Jews.
For the record: I hereby officially declare that I utterly repudiate Kahanism. I don't believe that any prior positive comments about Kahane that appeared from Dean's World commenters were made with full understanding of his record, and they certainly were not made with my full understanding. But now that I am fully aware (and the rest of us are too), I utterly repudiate them. Are you pro-terrorist or anti-terrorist? If you're pro-terrorist then I want nothing to do with you.
Will Meryl Yourish make make such an unequivocal statement? Just curious.
I get a lot of people who tell me I should let this go. They even tell me that I should stop because I'm being "emotional." You know what? I am emotional: I f*cking hate terrorists. I don't want to reason with them or try to rationalize their behavior. I want the military and law enforcement authorities of free democracies to hunt them down and kill them, or lock them in a dungeon and throw away the key.
Just so you know where I stand.
I still have two questions I am waiting to have answered by Meryl Yourish and her apologists:
1) Do you unequivocally condemn terrorism or do you not?
2) Do you think it's okay for a Jew to murder Christians, Muslims, and even Jews--Americans as well as Arabs--if it's done in the name of Israel?
I await unequivocal answers to these questions which do not involve attacks upon my person, my sex, my motives, my friends, my faith, or my family. Just answer the questions.
I for one have no more olive branches to offer to terrorist apologists. I just want to know who the enemies of terrorism are.
And looks from here like you're trying to get in good with this moving, floating "moderate Muslim" concept/community/thing by showing just how darned even-handed you are, which you kind of have a weakness for because you're so sincerely fair-minded.
But you're only emphaszing the opposite. You found the one contemporary Jew who is probably, technically, a terrorist. The guy. The one guy. Him and his handful of loony losers who had no impact on anything and who were condemned by and forbidden from participation in the cause they claimed to represent, and quite unequivocally. You keep hitting the one... Jewish... terrorist. Hey, you're from Detroit -- maybe you can do a post next week on Hank Greenberg. The one Jewish slugger. See? The Jews hit home runs, too! They're no different!
Did you ever hear of the expression, "The exception that proves the rule"?
You've got history with Meryl. From my point of view neither of you are fit to comment upon the other with the expectation of being taken seriously by any but your respective circles of like-minded freinds and readers.
Now, this is Dean's World, so Dean does what he wants and more power to him. These are just my 20-odd cents worth of thoughts on the matter.
Back to lurking.
What is the point of intra-hawksphere blogwars, exactly? To alienate potential friends and allies? To give readers agita? To test the theory of dimishing returns?
Above criticism that nails Dean for pushing a tit-for-tat meme regarding Muslim terrorism assumes context and intent. And even if the charge is correct, it's largely distinct from the posts, which make no equivalence between the prevalance of Jewish terrorism vs. Muslim terrorism.
Just my $.02.
I don't think Dean is going over-the-top so much as I just think he's made his point already. And, again just so nobody misunderstands, Dean writes what he wants on his blog. My only real input on this boils down to "When I see 'Meryl' in the first paragraph, I usually skip the rest. Nothing new to see here."
I do the same when I am at her site and I see 'Dean'.
I'll be quiet now.
The Deanosphere needs to do more to try to befriend our Jewish-feminist friends, even if they sometimes disagree on some things.
Dean failed to denounce comments about Kahane, Meryle promoted comments by Kahane.
And frankly, If I quoted some guy talking about the benefits of charitability and helping the less fortunate (which all of us would agree as good things), I don't think a response of "Dude, I agree charity is a good thing, but don't you think you could have found a better spokesman than the previous Grand Wizard/Dragon/(sumbitch) of the KKK?" is unreasonable.
I certainly wouldn't respond, "But what about the message? After all, it's not like the KKK has any political influence anymore."
It'd be more like:
It has come to my attention that the person I quoted is not the best choice for a spokesman as he's a certified scumbag (links). The message still stands, however, as even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.
The post is not unreasonable, Bill, but Dean posted it already. More than once.
Here's what I think: you guys believe in your guts that a man should just sit around and take it when a woman slanders him. Furthermore, you think that a Jewish terrorist should be cut some slack because he's a Jew after all.
I'm being petulent? Yeah whatever. Those are specific charges. Have the guts to answer the charges forthtrightly and without equivocation, and without questioning my integrity for asking.
Furthermore: show me all the postings you've made on Meryl's blog telling her how she's obsessed with me and is embarrassing herself with her incredibly nasty assaults on my name, my family, and my character.
Not one of you defended me. NOT ONE OF YOU.
Thanks a lot.
The best thing about Dean's World is that I don't have a cheerleading section, I have people who will challenge me on my bullsh*t.
Sorry. Am in a foul mood.
But couldn't at least one of you say Meryl was off the rails at least a little, and that maybe I raised some valid points? Yeesh.
(Shutting up and trying not to whine anymore. It's hard when you're a guy to know what to do when a woman gets in your face. If you defend yourself you're a brute. If you hit back you're evil. If you roll over and take it you're a wimp who admits to his evilness. It's very hard to know how to respond appropriately.)
I wish you two would give it up, but at the end of the day you're my freind and Meryl is just somebody I read- at times with respect, at other times with amusement. As I said earlier in this thread- when I see one of your names in the other's post I just stop reading. It's pointless.
But will someone, please, tell this nasty harridan to stop harassing me, to stop calling me out by name and then abusing me when I respond?
F*ck, this gets old.
You want it to stop, emulate the great ones:
"So, what do you think of me?"
"I don't."
Problem stops.
Mary, I have many friends in the jewosphere and feministosphere, many of whom I support often in public. Come on, you know that. In fact, that's exactly why attacks like this hurt my feelings. If I didn't care then these gratuitous slams against me would not phase me in the least.
But it hurts my feelings (waaah, I'm such a baby) when none of those folks stand up for me even a little. Who, at best, declare themselves neutral.
I don't think I deserve the crap I'm getting. Not this time around anyway.
..and this is 'debate?'
Yet: "Nasty harridan" (issued only tonight as part of a request that she go away and leave me alone) as opposed to "Dean Esmay, hypocrite" and a string of other postings attacking my motives and my character even though I strenuously avoided such things from the beginning.
How would you feel about a headline entitled "Mary Madigan, hypocrite?" Would you like that at all? I certainly didn't. Maybe I am a hypocrite--I probably am in many ways--but did I have that coming? What did I do to deserve that?
When I do my own math on this, it's hard for me not to believe that I'm the aggrieved party. In fact, it's hard for me not to believe that if I respond with any sort of anger or hurt feelings to someone who belittles and scorns me in public by name I will not be automatically labeled the bad guy or at least "equally to blame."
I guess that's my failing.
I really don't think I did anything wrong here. In fact I think I bent over backwards to try to avoid doing anything wrong, and that I got pilloried for it anyway.
Well that's how I see it anyway.
I don't mind that you're Meryl's friend, Mary. I just thought you were my friend too.
I am your friend, and, since I started posting on Dean's World, I've been trying to mediate the resentments that your blogwars and online spats have produced. When I say I post at Dean's world, a LOT of people, online and offline say something like Dean Esmay's a nice guy, and I agree with him about X, but...
Then they go on to describe behavior that's basically some form of bullying.
I've been sort of slow on the uptake here, I'm just starting to realize that this is a consistent pattern. Those scores of people may have been right. The bullying is not an aberrance, it's a consistent theme.
I have discussed related issues with you before, about the effect of abusive behaviour on your audience. Actually, you'd be surprised at the amount of time I've spent trying to figure out ways to downplay that negative aspect of the site. That's one difference between women and men - women do tend to waste a lot of time mulling over problems that aren't really theirs. It's your site.
I have to think the bullying accusation, at least as leveled at me, must have something to do with my anger about Islamophobia, which is genuine. People are not surprised when I become very angry at those who throw around casual bigotry toward other religions, but they get mad at me when I spot bigotry and silliness expressed about this one religion.
In point of fact it all upsets me. I have very specific criticisms of Christianity but I never endorse blanket condemnation of the whole faith. Ditto Judaism. Ditto Islam. Ditto, for that matter, most faiths like Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. I dunno, to me it's just seemed obvious all along: specific disagreements, yes. Specific rejections of doctrines, okay. Massive sweeping indictments of an entire faith tradition, especially one that has millions of people involved? No no no.
I give atheists and agnostics a hard time about that stuff too, but I also don't have much sympathy for those who brand atheism or agnosticism with broad brushes either.
I also get very very angry at cheap political sophistry--calling America evil, branding politicians we didn't vote for as evil, etc. Ditto those who smear the militaries of free democracies.
I'm otherwise struggling to know where the bullying accusation comes from.
Or maybe I am a bully on those causes.
I'm not sure. I guess I'm still thinking about it.
Not as far as I know. Most of the people I talk to offline agree with your opposition to Islamophobia. As far as I know, personalized outbursts of rage are the problem. When that happens, it's no longer a debate.
That's why I try to stay out these sort of things - I'm okay at debating issues, but generally incompetent at stopping fights between friends. Usually, I wind up offending everyone and hurting people's feelings when I'm (misguidedly) trying to help.
I should stop now.
I'd rather people tell me on a case by case basis that they think I'm out of line. It's not impossible; it has modified my behavior on more than one occasion. But when I get accused of being the attacker even when I know I'm not doing it--which was certainly true in this case, since I bent over backwards to avoid offense and was accused of all sorts of nastiness anyway, including a string of false statements about my motives or my character before I had even named anyone in public--it's hard to know what to think or how to react.
I can't be all things to all people. Some things make me angry. Mostly it's what I perceive to be attacks on my friends, or accusing me of believing things that I don't believe, which make me angry.
It's also probably partially a function of the sheer volume of commentary. It's hard to be absolutely patient all the time.
Anyway thanks for trying. You don't need to stop, and neither does anyone else.