I should charge an editor’s fee for this post. It’s about my post extolling the video that uses the late Rabbi Meir Kahane’s “Open Letter to the World.” I said in that post that even though it was written by Kahane, it was still true, and valid today.
The reason I deserve an editor’s fee? Dean sent me an email with the gist of that post in it because, he said, he didn’t want to start a blogwar. But then he posted about it, but neither linked nor mentioned me by name. I guess in Dean’s mind, if you don’t mention someone by name, it doesn’t count as a public fight, mostly because the person being written about doesn’t have a chance to respond. And you know me: Never willing to argue about anything. Nope. Not me. Nuh-uh.
I thought I’d respond in the way most bloggers do: In a post that mentions Dean by name and links to the post about me. Because I think he owes me an editor’s fee. The post that went up had a much better argument than the email I received. Of course, it’s still wrong, but it’s better written than the first draft.
Without my response to him, he’d be using Al Capone as the comparison figure to Meir Kahane. I pointed out in my email that Capone was a criminal, plain and simple, and had nothing at all in common with Kahane, who did not work for personal gain, but for the survival of his people. Dean’s post uses a much better argument now, substituting Charles Manson and changing the comparison to something that makes a lot more sense, if you ignore the silly logic of it.
Mind you, Dean’s argument is simply confounding to me. He essentially agrees with me that almost everything in the video, which quotes Rabbi Kahane’s words, is true. That is what I said in my update to the post. He then goes on to say that his problems aren’t with the words, but with the man who wrote them. That no man who is (in his words) a “slimeball who founded a terrorist organization” can have said anything that was true or worthwhile. Fruit of the poison tree, I suppose, is what he’s trying to say. But I disagree. The words are valid. The ideas are valid. Other Jews have said them. Hell, I’ve said most of them. Just because Meir Kahane said them does not make them invalid.
Dean prefaces his post with the phrase “I try to avoid blogwars.” (I think Robert Spencer might disagree with that.) Yeah, I mostly do, too, but then, if I’m going to disagree with someone in a post, I’m generally going to quote the person and attribute the quote to the person. There are some times when I just have to lay into someone with a virtual two-by-four. Not that I’m doing that here. I’m just pointing out the facts of the situation. Facts about statements like this:
Both the U.S. State Department and the State of Israel designate Kach and Kahane Chai as terrorists and criminals.
Dean is quoting Wikipedia. When you click on the link, you get this:
The factual accuracy of part of this article is disputed.
The dispute is about The US State Department, Israeli Government, and European Union all consider these groups as terrorist organizations. This article deals with all of these groups.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.
Oops. Better go read the talk part to see if the above is certain.
Then we have this statement:
Indeed, Kach and Kahane Kai were shown to the world to be vile scumbags when Jewish terrorist Baruch Goldstein committed one of the greatest terrorist atrocities of the 1990s.
The fact that Baruch Goldstein was a terrorist is not in dispute. What I dispute is the incident being labeled “one of the greatest terrorist atrocities of the 1990s.”
Update 11/22: In the comments, Dean points out that I dropped the word “Jewish” in the above quote. He is correct. Which makes his statement even more puzzling, as you can count the incidents of Jewish terrorism on the fingers of one hand, possibly two at most. Baruch Goldstein would be just about the only example of Jewish terrorism in the 1990s. As you can see by the list below, there are many, many more examples of Islamic terrorism. [end update]
This is a habit of Dean’s. He takes an atypical incident and inflates it, then uses it as an example when describing similar incidents. He especially seems to like doing this with Judaism. In fact, he has a pretty annoying tendency to bring Judaism into almost every argument about Islam, and it’s never in a complimentary fashion. Because, gee, religious Jews are just like religious Muslims, right? (Well, except for the fact that you can count the number of incidents where religious or extremist Jews attacked Muslims–or others–on the fingers of one hand.)
“One of the greatest terrorist atrocities of the 1990s”? I think not. In fact, I don’t think it even makes the top ten.
1992: March 17: Israeli Embassy bombing by “Islamic Jihad” in Buenos Aires, Argentina; 29 killed, 242 injured.
1993: February 26: World Trade Center bombing kills 6 and injures over 1000 people, by coalition of five groups: Jamaat Al-Fuqra’/Gamaat Islamiya/Hamas/Islamic Jihad/National Islamic Front [10], see FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, Ramzi Yousef.
1993: March 12: Mumbai car bombings in India leave 257 dead with 1,400 others injured.
1994: July 18: Bombing of Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, kills 86 and wounds 300. Generally attributed to Hezbollah acting on behalf of Iran.
1995: March 20: Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway by AUM Shinrikyo cultists kills 12 and injures 6000.
1995: April 19: Oklahoma City bombing kills 168 people, 19 of them children; the most deadly act of domestic terrorism in the United States to date.
1995: June 14—June 19: Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis, 105 civilians and 25 Russian troops were killed.
1996: January: In Kizlyar, 350 Chechen militants took 3,000 hostages in a hospital. The attempt to free them kills 65 civilians and soldiers.
1996: January 31: LTTE carries out Central Bank Bombing in Sri Lanka kills 90 and wounds 1,400.
1996: February 25 – March 4: A series of four suicide bombings in Israel leave 60 dead and 284 wounded within 10 days.
1996: June 25: Khobar Towers bombing — In all, 19 U.S. servicemen and one Saudi were killed and 372 wounded, by Hizballah Al-Hijaz (Saudi Hizballah) with Iranian support, see FBI Most Wanted Terrorists
1996: July 24: LTTE plants bomb on commuter train in Sri Lanka kills 57.
1997: November 17: Luxor Massacre – Islamist gunmen attack tourists in Luxor, Egypt, killing 62 people, most of them European and Japanese vacationers.
1997: December 22: Acteal massacre – 46 killed while praying in Acteal, Chiapas, Mexico. A paramilitary group associated with ex-president Salinas is held responsible.
1998: February 14: 1998 Coimbatore bombings – Bombings by suspected Islamic Jihadi groups on an election rally in Indian city of Coimbatore kill about 60 people.
1998: August 7: U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000, by al-Qaeda, see FBI Most Wanted Terrorists
1998: August 15: Omagh bombing by the so-called “Real IRA” kills 29.
Phew, that was tiring. And those were only the attacks that killed at least 29 people (except for WTC1, the sarin gas, and Khobar Towers incidents, which deserve to be on the list). I think if you changed the phrase to “one of the very few examples of Jewish terrorism,” it’d be a more accurate phrase. But that’s just me.
Now to Dean’s conclusion:
Yeah Kahane might make some valid points now and then. So what? Terrorism is not acceptable. If the the State of Israel–under both conservative and liberal governments–brands Kahane as a terrorist, then so far as I am concerned he is a terrorist. The Israelis are not fools: they know what terrorism is. Intimately.
Actually, Dean, Kahane can’t “make some valid points now and then.” All of the points he made are now then, if you get my drift. Because he was murdered in 1990 by—you guessed it—an Islamic terrorist. Dean’s gripe with me is that I quote a man who, to him, is a terrorist. I agree that he was an extremist. I said that I don’t agree with many of the things he said. What Kahane was not wrong about, however, is the subject of his Open Letter. Kahane’s point was that the world will not protect Jews, in fact, that the world stands by while Jews are killed or actively slaughters Jews, and that we must protect ourselves. That’s why the JDL came into being.
Every single word in his Open Letter to the World was true when he wrote it, and is still true today. Dean is not challenging the points in the letter. He is challenging my approval of the letter itself, and the video made to the words of the letter. I’m not about to change my approval of it because I disagree with much of what he said on other topics. If anyone but Kahane had written the Open Letter, Dean would be agreeing with it unquestioningly.
I simply don’t see the problem, other than Dean’s unfathomable need for me to agree with what he says.
As for this quoting an “anonymous” blogger because you don’t want to have a fight over it—well, a discussion is not a blogwar. You don’t get to have the discussion with me in email, pretend it’s concluded, and then respond to me in public, without my getting my two cents in. Not naming me doesn’t mean I don’t know who you’re talking about.
Now my readers know, too.
Countdown to ad hominem response may commence.
Critique of Rabbi Meir Kahane’s “Open Letter to the World”
Well said Meryl
For an Example of a blogger giving credit click :HERE
[note day of posting]
Aaron
Visit: Bagelblogger
Good job Meryl, glad you are on our side!
Shouldn’t that be “ad feminem,” Meryl?
Yes, we often see that–the claim that Muslims have terrorists and Jews have terrorists so what’s the difference. You see a related assertion, an equivalence between Muslim fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists. Well, I haven’t seen anyone motivated by Christian fundamentalism murdering thousands recently and no, Timothy McVeigh’s motivation was not religious.
There is a substantial and significant difference in the reactions of Jews to Baruch Goldstein and of Palestinians and other terrorists to…well, no point in mentioning how many Arab terrorist actions.
They would be equivalent if, inter alia, Israelis turned out in their thousands to praise Goldstein, named their children after him, and re-named schools in his honor. It would be equivalent if Israeli political leaders praised him and mothers interviewed on tv said that their fondest dream was to raise their children to be like him.
As you point out, Meryl, there have been a few Jewish attacks on Arabs. There have been other attempts but they have been stopped, not fomented, by the Israeli authorities. I do not recall any responsible leader anywhere in Israel expressing anything but disgust at Goldstein’s murder. And the attacks that have occurred have led to apprehension and punishment by the authorities.
These moral equivalences remind me of something in the New Testament about the mote in someone else’s eye and the beam in yours.
And also why Kahane’s followers have established B’nei Elim.
I kind of doubt it, Meryl. He would have found another spurious argument to “demonstrate” that people who object to Islamic Fascist terrorism are racists.
You won’t get the editor’s fee because I wrote the post BEFORE I wrote you. I sent you an abbreviated version.
Nice crack about the ad hominem accusation since I haven’t levelled any at you.
Also nice crack about Robert Spencer, since it was he who initiated with me, repeatedly, not vice versa.
It would have also been nice if you’d noted that I said openly that the Wikipedia article might be questioned but it contains numerous external sources that can be checked.
So, okay, anyway, you want a public disagreement over this. Fine and dandy. I’m busy today but I’ll have more for you over the weekend. Or better yet, I’ll save it for Monday where it’ll be sure to get more readers and you’ll be sure to get more traffic.
Oh, er, by the way, you misquoted me: I said it was one of the greatest JEWISH terrorist atrocities of the 1990s.
Honestly, Meryl, I don’t know whether to spend my time correcting your misrepresentations and mischaracterizations, or just give you a much more detailed response about Kahane. But you’re right about one thing:
I wouldn’t have objected strenuously to the video if it weren’t Kahane that was the source. I don’t actually agree that “every single word” is correct–I have a couple of minor factual disagreements that I’ve already gotten into.
But anyway, will be getting back to you.
Oh, er, one correction to myself:
I thought I called the massacre in question the “greatest jewish terrorist atrocity” but I just checked and I didn’t say it the way I intended.
Score one for you on that. Maybe I should pay you to edit me. Although there’re better ways to get the job…
You didn’t mention Wikipedia in your post, Dean. I am not talking about the comments to the post, but since you brought it up, you defended the Wikipedia entry.
I don’t mischaracterize, Dean. I simply quote.
And here’s the quote:
Kahane isn’t the point of the post. Kahane’s words are the point of the post. Don’t waste your time telling me what an awful person he was.
If you feel that strongly about posting a response, try sticking to the point of my post and explain to me why his words should be ignored, even acknowledging the truth of them, because you think Kahane was a terrorist.
Dear Meryl Yourish:
Virtually everything Dean Esmay has ever written about me or my views is false, including the above.
In fact, I didn’t “initiate” with him. I did make the first contact with him, but this was after some people sent me remarks from him in which he attacked Jihad Watch and positions I had taken. Details here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011460.php
Shortly thereafter he began calling me a traitor, and impugning me as a malicious imbecile, among other things, and it was off to the races.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Dear,Meryl
I am an orthodox Jew(a rather extreme one at that) and regular reader\commenter at Deans world.
I must say that your comment regarding Deans attitude toward Judiasm:”He especially seems to like doing this with Judaism. In fact, he has a pretty annoying tendency to bring Judaism into almost every argument about Islam, and it’s never in a complimentary fashion.”
is completely false.
In fact I have found Dean to be honestly
respectful toward Judiasm generally and toward orthodox Judiasm specifically.
I can attest that in all that I have seen of Deans writing I have seen nothing to indicate that Deans sees in
Judism a parallel to what is known as islamism
Naftali
The worst Jewish terrorist atrocity? Gosh, Dean, that would be out of — how many?
Do you know who Rashi was? Go read his insight on the verse “Noah was a righteous man wholehearted in his generation”. You’ll see the relevance.
It’s a bit like someone criticising your blog by saying it’s the worst blog ever written by a blogger with the initials “DE” whose last name ends with two vowels, whose first name starts with a D and ends with an N, and who was born on whenever it was that your birthday happens to be. It may be accurate, but it doesn’t tell us very much.
The problem with Dean is that he doesn’t know how to have a civilized debate. (I’ve been reading his site daily for over a year, and if there’s one conclusion I’ve reached it’s this. I read his site not because I’m a fan of his writing style (the Methuselah’s Daughter stuff is pretty bad), or because I agree with his political views (I do and I don’t, depends), but mostly because he posts some pretty outrageous stuff and the ensuing conversations it engenders with people who are, by and large, intelligent and know how to debate in a civil manner are very entertaining and even informative). Oh, sure, he makes a pretense now and again at being able to debate someone he fundamentally disagrees with in a civil manner, but that invariably falls by the wayside as Dean goes into full-on “Hate” mode, replete with /spitting and branding people as “traitors.” He also leans toward hypocrisy; How often does he call out Conservative men with words like “c–t” and “anorexic shrew”? Almost never. He’s a misogynist at heart, judging by the way he hates on Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. Doesn’t matter what they espouse, ultimately, because he ends up reducing them to their most common denominator: they’re women, and so he frames his insults toward them in a manner designed explicitly to be most hurtful toward them. Yet, in his posts about Islam and Muslims he’s constantly reassuring his Constant Readers that he is appalled by all race/gender based hate. As I said, he’s a hypocrite.
I shudder to think what would happen if he met Michelle Malkin or Robert Spencer face to face and attempted to engage them in civil debate. Both Malkin and Spencer are above petty name calling and posturing, and both know how to frame cogent and informed arguments without resorting to childish ad hominem attacks and the random expectoration of bodily fluids. Granted, one’s online persona often differs wildly from one’s real persona, so one can only assume Dean would conduct himself with a modicum of maturity, something his blogsite often lacks.
Excuse me???
Well, I see that Mr. Spencer has already replied to this fiction, so I guess I didn’t need to bother. But since I was already working on it, I’ll point out that the evidence is in the archives of Jihad Watch for everyone to see, so go check it out for yourselves. The link Robert provides above is a good starting point, but more followed in a similar vein (e.g., here). None of it, as far as I can tell, was initiated by Mr. Spencer.
Now what was that about misrepresentations and mischaracterizations?
Etienne, Dean and I go waaaaay back.
I know him, and his debating style, very well indeed.
Perhaps the part about specifically Jewish atrocities really is the point (although if Dean forgot to put it in his original post, there’s plenty of room for confusion) of relevance.
In the past twenty years, there’s been virtually zero Jewish terrorism (the only thing which came to mind was the Jew-on-Jew crime of the assassination of Itzhak Rabin). This isn’t the case for all of the twentieth century (I have to imagine that Elie Weisel isn’t exactly a star in the UK), but it is for recent history. The acts committed by Kahane’s followers certainly fall into the category of “terrorism,” and in light of the present situation, that’s precisely why Kahane could be argued to be so bad.
By way of analogy, it would be front-page news if someone in the United States died of bubonic plague, but hardly newsworthy if a family died in a car accident.
I do disagree about ex opere operandi (“from the work of the one doing the working”) as a decisive argument, though.
I was around during the original blow up about Meir Kahane and the Jewish Defense League and I can assure you that the descriptions of him as a terrorist or extremist are wildly overstated. The original Jewish Defense League was no more a terrorist organization than the Guardian Angels (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Angels. Rabbi Kahane was murdered by an Arab terrorist who was freed by a miscarriage of justice so that he could take part in the first bombing of the World Trade Center.
The actions of the leftists in Israel in attacking him (during his lifetime) were actually attempts to advance the agenda of the Peace Now and anti-religious left rather than honest attempts to combat “Jewish terrorism” as they were painted.
I did not follow the actions of the organizations that he founded after his death to the same extent so I am not commenting on the later history. I will point out that one of the ideas that he was vilified for is the one being pushed by the current Israeli government of separation.
HokiePundit –
I don’t think Elie Wiesel thinks of himself as a “star” anywhere, but could you enlighten us as to why that should be particularly true of the UK and what possible connection it could have to Jewish terrorism?
And are you saying that since Kahane had followers who turned out to be terrorists, that this makes him a terrorist?
Getting in a blogfight with Esmay should be a badge of honor for a female blogger. He appears to have a stong misogynistic streak and he espouses the worst sort of moral equivalencies in his postings. I think he gets some sort of sick thrill out of playing devil’s advocate for evil people.
However, you say you go waaaaay back with him so you know all of this already.
dpatten, I’m pretty sure I was the first person Dean ever got into a blogwar with. If not first, certainly one of the first.
I am amused with Esmay’s inability to choose opponents in his own weight class. His recent spats with Robert Spencer are hilarious. It is hilarious watching Esmay run in circles, unable to sit down, unable to discern the reason he has been badly spanked.
LynnB,
Wow, I’m sorry. I read “Dawn” in high school and it somehow escaped me that it wasn’t actually part two of Wiesel’s autobiography. I offer my sincere apology for my intended slur on Wiesel (although he does apparently have a reputation for being conceited).
HP –
Got it. (And FWIW, I always found him to be quite humble when I studied with him years ago in Boston. The mileage of others may vary.)
Etienne’s comments mostly amuse me, because they’re so dishonest and so shallow.
Oh it’s certainly true that Meryl and I go back a long way, on arguments that we need not revisit here. But the idea that I hate or disrespect women? ROFLMAO.
In fact I am very supportive of independent and strong women. I am also a very strong supporter of Israel and the Jewish people. Robert Spencer? Not so much, since his islamophobic reasoning is not much different from Henry Ford’s antisemitic “reasoning.”
I hate women? Yeah that’s why I’ve sponsored and promoted so many female bloggers, and invited so many women to be co-bloggers on Dean’s World, and never told a single one of them what to write or how to write it. LOL. Ask Mary Madigan or Shay or Jane Novak how much I “disrespect women.”
Indeed, just ask why it is that I just spent three years of my life writing a book with a strong, independent woman as the main protagonist.
Meryl decided some years ago that she despised me because I did not agree that women were always victims and men were always abusers in domestic violence situations. Because I had seen female abusers firsthand.
Ah yeah but I hate women. Next up: I hate Jews. No matter what I’ve ever done to support Israel and condemn anti-semites, it won’t matter: I’ve noted one Jewish terrorist.
I love it Etienne, I love it. I hate women. Tell me more.
Want a copy of the novel, Meryl?
As crazy as I must be to make this offer, I think you might actually like it. In fact I’d bet you’d like it a lot.
Dean…… Don’t be that guy. The way your posting here with the multiple posts in a row… and harping on one weird curveball…. Don’t be that guy. It takes away from your intellectual position.
this is especially true as your focusing on a point thats irrelivent (the weird hates women thing) and not focusing on the larger point involved in the thread.
Meryl,
This latest comment is typical Esmay: no acknowledgment of the falsehoods he has written about me — either the one noted above here or the ones he has written elsewhere. Instead, slurs and defamation, with no attempt ever to deal with the substance of what I actually do say.
If Dean Esmay were to attempt to substantiate his Henry Ford slur with actual quotations from my writings, he would immediately find himself unable to do so. But he never even makes the attempt. And then, improbably enough after this relentless slander, ridicule, defamation, and worse, he assumes the moral high ground.
But I am happy to see in this comment thread that people realize what is going on.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Meryl,
You are one of the few bloggers who has learnt how to totally deflate Esmay. Just quote from his misquotes.
He has a long history of mentally unbalanced behavior online, as well as bizarreness. He will write racist posts mocking blacks, then say he is not bigoted, he will support loony anti-AIDS science, and claim he’s pro-science, and he will support Prez Bush no matter what, including the vile Schiavo debacle, and claim he’s a liberal.
But, it’s really fun when he delves into history. I was banned when I pointed out his folly on the Vietnam War, and that his bizarre responses were part of his Tourette’s Syndrome:
http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/007306.html
Look # 19 on the list. The fact is that Esmay has created an echo chamber of a few dozen sycophants and acolytes, and has banned dozens of people who disagree with him, some for far less crimes than merely pointing out his history of Vietnam is balled up.
BTW- good shot on Wikipedia. Esmay is one of the few defenders that has left. I’ve known a few dozen admins on that site who have left it for the new rival, Citizendium, where expertise and factuality actually count.
Like I said, he doesn’t know how to engage in civilized debate. Does he address the fact that he constantly denigrates the women with whom he disagrees, using the harshest misogynistic language? No. Rather, he resorts to the old “I have plenty of black/gay/minority/ friends tactic” except here’s it’s obviously women. Does he address the fact that his discourses inevitably end up mired in /spitting and name calling and hate-filled diatribes and that in any of his “interactions” with people like Malkin and Spencer he hasn’t once been able to hold his own without resorting to peurile insults (or as is more often the case, promising a rebuttal in a few days hence, then when he finally does get around to it more or less shrugging it off and filling his posts with vapid, misleading points because, frankly, most of his readers have probably moved on to other topics)? No, instead he focuses on the more minor of the two points, that I called him out on his apparent misogyny. (I wonder how his wife would react to being called a c–t because he disagreed with her views? Even Ann Coultar, whom he reviles with undisguised disgust, has never once written anything as blatlently hateful as Esmay has about her.)
Here’s a non-sequitur, while I am at it: Dean loves to claim people engage him in “blogwars” because they’re obviously leeching off his magnificent web traffic. Please. Unless someone is making their entire income off the revenue generated by ads, I seriously doubt any self-respecting blogger would try to leech traffic off his or anyone else’s site. It’s simply not worth it. Plus, blogwars usually bring over the most unhinged zealots from the blog supposedly being leeched. Nobody wants that.
Dean, it’s Thanksgiving. Give it a rest for a day. That goes for the rest of you, too.
And no thanks on the novel. I don’t read drafts from anyone other than the members of my writer’s group or my fellow Clarion grads. It’s a very old policy of mine.
By the way, a tip on posting in my comments: Spam Karma looks for people who post comments right after one another, and pushes them into moderation. You might want to slow down, or put your thoughts in one comment.
Okay, holiday’s over, and it’s my turn now.
Dean, regarding your ad hominem crack in the comment above about my seeking more traffic from you: Well, you’re up to a whole 274 referrers as of midnight Nov. 24th. In the same period of time just two days earlier, I received over 3,000 referrers from the Instalink I got. I’m thinking you’re not the go-to guy for referrers here.