.jpg){kind=small}
mini.jpg)
I’ve been writing about David Abitbol’s testosterone-infused rants for some time here mainly because he insists on lying about my views about Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Abitbol is known for his snappy “wit,” his cutting comments, his desire to wield a scalpel (or verbal shiv) against his adversaries. He’s a mean, vicious person. So I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by his latest outrage.
You’ll recall that two white skinheads were arrested a few days ago in the midst of plotting to decapitate 200 black people and Barack Obama. As laid out in the media, the case seemed pretty clear in its motivation. But that wasn’t sexy enough for Abitbol.
He read the following story in Reuters and decided the suspects must be gay:
The men planned to wear white tuxedos and top hats during the assassination attempt, which would have involved driving as fast as they could toward Obama and shooting him from the windows of the car.
The idea that two men would want to wear high fashion accessories during a murder spree means they’re gay, get it? This kind of smarmy hysterical overspeculation is par for the course for the National Enquirer or the tattle tabloids perhaps. But since when does a Jew with liberal pretences engage in homophobic lunacy like this?
Huh?? OK so what do we have here. Two hot young guys from rural Tennessee, who met on the Internet and who planned on being killed together in a blaze of glory, while wearing white tuxedos and top hats. White tuxedos and top hats are usually worn at uh… weddings. That’s right. Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman were queer for each other. When you talk about a love that dare not speaketh it’s name – that goes double if you live in a rural part of a redneck state and all your friends are bad ass racists.
Surely pundits will posit the blame for this on societal racism, but clearly there’s another form of intolerance at play here. Had Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman been simply allowed to consummate their obvious love, had Tennessee been a tolerant state that allowed Gay Marriage, none of this would likely have happened. Instead, the nation is shocked and two young lovers will be separated by prison for years to come.
Yes, this is what passes for wit in the fevered imagination of David Abitbol. What’s particularly distressing about this rant is that Abitbol has his coterie of fans who are willing, like Charles Johnson’s lunatic followers, to follow him to the ends of the earth or homophobic obsession.
Thank God, reader J.D. Edelman injected a note of seriousness into an otherwise ‘mirthful’ comment thread when he wrote the following:
Does ck [Abitbol] think this post is funny? Insightful? Witty? It is none of those.
Apparently ck thinks two sociopaths who connect on the internet must be gay, and even more so because they planned to wear tuxedos–and white ones at that. Did Dylan Kebold and Eric Harris (may their memory be erased) wear long duster coats because they were ranch-hands? Of course not.
ck has taken a situation that is deadly serious, and attempted to inject humor into it. Too bad it ain’t humor and it ain’t funny. ck’s post contributes to anti-gay stereotypes, while managing also to demonize gays.
I’m taking a wild guess when I posit that G-d gave you a brain, ck. Perhaps you might put it to better use than that exhibited by this post.
Abitbol definitely has a brain, but it has an interminable desire to be cute and savage at the expense of some of his fellow human beings. Unfortunately, he’s not capable of putting it to better use. What a waste of grey matter.
Note how Abitbol responds in a holier than thou way that completely ignores the valid criticism levelled at his portrayal of the suspects:
I was merely suggesting that had Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman lived in a more tolerant society, they would have been able to lead healthier lives where their gayness would be a non-issue rather than a matter of shame. Suppressing who you are to the point of emulating those that hate you causes tremendous self loathing, let alone sexual frustration. This manifests itself in disturbing ways and thus it is no surprise that Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman turned out to be complete sociopaths. Now let me be clear here. They are not sociopaths because they are gay. They became sociopaths because they were not allowed to freely express who they were.
…The only people that would read what I wrote and think negatively of homosexuals are the same people…say that fags are all sick and demented.
Think about that before you respond in what seems like a thoughtless manner to what was in fact a very thoughtful post.
Note that Abitbol’s gay slur has become “a very thoughtful post” while Edelman’s actually thoughtful comment has become “thoughtless.”
It’s true that Abitbol sandwiched into his post a comment about represssion of homosexuality. But the fact that the entire post was framed as a satirical dismissal of two gay psycopaths is totally lost on Abitbol. He seems to have no ability to actually step back and see his writing as others (especially homosexuals) see it. For that, he has an impoverished sense of humanity.
And after claiming he was not implying their gayness had anything to do with their crime he injects this nugget of wisdom:
Of course there is no “real” reason to believe that these disturbed individuals are gay. Wearing a black tank top and holding a ginormous phallic symbol while striking a pouty faced pose does not mean you’re gay. Wanting to wear clothes often associated with matrimony with your buddy on what would have been the most noteworthy day of your lives does not mean you’re gay. Wanting to die in a blaze of glory with your buddy does not mean you’re gay. But geez… there’s a reason why Thelma and Louise is a beloved film amongst some in the lesbian crowd. If Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman were in fact gay it would just be so dramatic! I couldn’t resist the drama…
He couldn’t resist it. Yes, that’s the line that so many “creative” people use to justify their savagery in whatever form it might take. I guess Abitbol was just doing what he does best, eviscerating his fellow human beings.
And after the above “cuteness,” he has the chutzpah to follow with this:
Oh my goodness. Y’all so don’t get it…There is no indication that these guys were actually the least bit gay and even if they were, that would still not mean that all gays are sociopaths.
Methinks he doth protest too much. Thanks to a reader who wishes to remain anonymous for bringing this to my attention
Tags: Barack Obama, david abitbol
@mia: As hard as it may be to believe, I’m tired of running around & around about David Abitbol. So pls. feel free to post in other threads on other subjects but let this comment be the last on this particular dead horse subject.
You find David Abitbol cute, so I’m not sure you’re the most objective judge of his work. But even if he has written sporadic sympathetic posts about an Arab here or there doesn’t detract fr. the fact that his views are simply hopeless as far as positing a path by which Israelis and Palestinians might ever live together in peace. As I’ve written before, he is an apologist for continued blood & mayhem despite the fact that he protests that he is a “liberal.” Defending targeted assassinations and bemoaning the fact that much as he’d like to he can’t see a way that Israel can end the Occupation as long as “there is no partner,” etc. etc. The same old liberal apologia for continuing the failed status quo.
I’m simply not going to argue with you about who Abitbol has hurt or smeared or fought with; and whether someone is his bosom buddy or only dislikes him personally but not for political reasons. He has picked fights with numerous individuals, me being one. I know a bully when I see one, and he is one.
And I return to one salient issue which you’ve neglected despite numerous times I’ve raised it. It is simply intellectually dishonest to accuse someone of holding a political position w/o providing a single shred of evidence to support the claim. I find it even more astonishing that you don’t find my views anti-Israel yet concede his right to level such a calumny against me.
I’m also surprised that you take me to task for my descriptions of him while refusing to concede that those words came in response to the most childish insults first uttered by him. Nor have you credited the outrage I felt when he appropriated one of my images. Nor have you credited the fact that he allowed one of his blog authors to manufacture a statement attributed to me which I never said. That’s fine if it doesn’t bother you. But it does me. So I’d rather you not try to talk me out of the feelings I hold toward this individual.
Hard as it may be to believe. There are other more important subjects in life than this man. So let’s get on with them.
Fair enough!