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
I think this article is a bit of an overreaction-seems like there is more than meets the eye here!
Mr. Silverstein, I’m just curious: What is your problem, indeed – Abitbol or gay slur? Say, if you had freedom to fix one of those two, which one you’d started with?
Savagery? If anyone is savage here it is you – you have attacked an individual with amazing lack of attention to the laws of Lashon Hara. You are the one perpetuating the evil, and the sins. You are spreading rumor, name-calling, false reporting. All things prohibited by the torah in order to make the world a better place – i.e. Tikkun Olam.
But you have no idea about tikkun olam, if you attack a fellow Jew like this.
And if you say “he said mean things about me”, that is no excuse. It doesn’t permit you to speak lashon hora.
Please, Richard, for the sake of God and the Jewish people, stop attacking people, and start making the world better.
Jewlicious is not a tabloid, and your blog should not be a gutter.
“Note how Abitbol responds in a holier than thou way that completely ignores the valid criticism levelled at his portrayal of the suspects”
Sounds like someone else you know, Richard.
@Chofetz Chaim: My friend, my attack does not come out of nowhere. Do a Google search here on his name & you will find myriad scurrilous, mendacious attacks on me from the mouth of this bully. This is NOT lashon hara. This is all based on real previous abuse I received at his hands. And unlike Jesus, I don’t believe in turning my cheek to it nor does the Jewish tradition say I should. He did not say “mean things about me.” He lied about me & did so deliberately & after being told that he mischaracterized my views.
Aren’t you forgetting some halacha about the importance of one’s shem tov? What is the penalty for attempting to destroy another Jew’s good name?
If you need any of it spelled out for you I’ll be happy to do it. But not until you look for it yrself here.
If Jewlicious is not a tabloid, then why did Abitbol accuse two skinheads of being gay when they are not? And why did he think such a stupid conceit would be entertaining?
You can like him if you want. But don’t get all righteous on me in defending him. He gets what he deserves.
@Barnaby Yeh: If you were gay you’d feel differently. I’m not, but I understand the sensitivity of the reader who brought it to my attention, who is.
I have a long history w. Abitbol which you can read about in a number of previous posts I’ve written about him.
@AD: You must be talking about yrself, but I don’t know you…
Anybody who thinks that David Abitbol is a “mean, vicious person” doesn’t know jack shit about David Abitbol — and probably much else.
@Lori: Oh, you mean if someone called you a “whiny bitch,” claimed you hated Israel, & fabricated a claim that skinheads were gay you’d find that person an exemplar of humanity???
I know all too much about Abitbol I’m afraid. As to what else I may or may not know, I know that you’re one of his acolytes & not a very persuasive one at that.
Silverstein,
I’m proud to call myself a friend of CK’s. He’s widely known to be an extremely generous soul, and a smart chap too; I can testify to that. There also hasn’t been a more prominent religious voice in Israel for Gay rights (see his annual posts on the gay pride parade in Israel). I know absolutely nothing about you, or what you see your place in the world to be. I do know that this rant you’ve gone on makes you sound pretty humorless. As for being persuasive — and I won’t extol my own talents on this page — someone ought to persuade you to go on some kind of downer. At least a good cup of Valarian tea or something.
Mr. Silverstein,
Do you always take so long to moderate comments, or just those who have disputed claims you make in your posts? Seriously, dude. That’s not very intellectually honest.
@Lori:
“Widely known” by whom? By you and his acolytes. Does Dan Sieradski consider him a generous soul? Do the other myriad figures he’s engaged in verbal knife fights with use the same terms to describe him? I think not.
And if Abitbol is such a friend of gay people then why did he insult so many of them by calling two skinhead would be assassins gay?
As for your opinion of me, I really could care less. I lost my sense of humor with Abitbol a long time ago–right about the time he said I hated Israel for the 8th or 9th time; or was it the time he stole an image of me and my children, defaced it by eliminating them, & then displayed it at his site w/o my permission? Would you retain yr sense of humor in such circumstance?
@Lori: Oh, my Lord. After only eight hours you expected your comment would be approved? So sorry I couldn’t drop everything just to make you happy.
And why don’t you try cutting out the snark. Or did you take lessons from yr friend Abitbol?
Mr Silversten, I smile when read comments of the readers and your replies. Actually, I probably should feel ignored as I’m the only one whose question you left without attention, but as far as I was indeed just curious, I reserve your right to concentrate on more important things, which you no doubt have. Yet I feel sorry about you, as I sense that your life is poisoned by frustration that radiates from every word you write here. I haven’t read your other posts, but somehow I sense that’s the case with most of your works, yet there you get ignited by outrages of Shmabitol or Drabitbol, as I understand that my good friend Dave aka ck aka Abitbol can not be the only sourse of inspiration of such a prolific writer as you are.
Let me suggest you something, if I may. Stop nurture your hatred to David and spill it all around you. You won’t change the opinion of his friends, forget about it, yet realize that you look rather pathetic in their eyes. I know you can’t care less. Yet there’s another favor you do to David – you act as his PR agent and I bet you volunteer. You justly noted in your confrontation with Lori, there still are people who don’t know about this “mean and vicious person”, but thanks to your efforts there’ll be less and less of those, as life experience and market researches show that crowd prefers bad guys 🙂 You are probably too good to be loved by your friends (sure, you don’t have acolytes, that’s impossible!). In case you have any.
Rabbi Telushkin sad that to keep hatred in your heart is as if let someone you don’t like to live for free in your head. I guess you’ve reserved a Presidential Suite for Dave. To bad he neglects your hospitality, as he indeed doesn’t care. He’s a witty, charming guy for those who see these traits in him or mean and vicious for those who are more comfortable with such version of Dave. Yet it’s the same guy and he’ll be the same, whether you like it or not, until he decides it’s time for him to change. if he decides. Yet his friends will keep loving him, anyway, at least I will for sure, NOT for what he writes or says, but for who he IS. And he IS a generous soul as Lori said, and indeed, Mr. Silverstein “for the sake of God and the Jewish people, stop attacking people, and start making the world better” (Chofetz Chaim’s comment, see above)
It’s a fast paced world, Silverstein; You run a blog not a dry-cleaners. Plus you commented on other sites, and approved other comments made on your site during the lag before you approved mine. Were you waiting to come up with a “snappy” comeback?
Your comment:
“And if Abitbol is such a friend of gay people then why did he insult so many of them by calling two skinhead would be assassins gay?”
Is just silly, and not well thought out. It’s a greater condescension to gay people to their whittle them into this untouchable society, who may never be invoked in any context other than Bravo TV, and gay rights.
CK was clearly being tongue-in-cheek. Either you completely missed that, or you’re purposefully twisting the kavanah of his piece.
What is one of the best ways to defame two skinheads amongst other skinheads? Probably to do exactly what he did. He wasn’t jabbing at LBGT people; he was jabbing at skinheads. Calling someone “gay” is only an insult to people who think that it’s an insult. LBGT people tend to understand this, and use it as a tactic themselves on occasion.
Any high profile figure is going to have people (“detractors”, if you will) who dislike who they are and what they do. Sierasdki (who himself is a good guy) excluded, most people who know him, including the folks at The Jerusalem Post, have similarly positive things to say about CK’s character.
Oh, and I’ll be snarky whenever I judge the situation calls for it 😉
@Dasha:
Sorry, but it’s Abitbol who makes the world a little more bitter, cynical & impoverished by his very existence in the blog world. I will continue pointing that out as long as Abitbol sees fit to attack me and smear my good name. The hate started first from him. I didn’t have a clue who he was till he left his calling card here.
I don’t think you have a monopoly on what’s right for God and the Jewish people, so with[out] yr permission I’ll kindly ignore yr “advice.” I never asked for it and don’t need it.
@Lori:
As far as your comments are concerned, this blog is in the horse & buggy era. I’ll get to approving yr comments when I’m good & ready to do so & not a moment sooner. If you don’t like it no one asked, nor does anyone care frankly.
As for yr claim that my comments about Abitbol’s gay-bashing being “silly,” his gay Jewish readers would beg to differ. I’d sooner trust their perspective on this than yours.
“Tongue in cheek?” To claim 2 skinhead racists out to kill black people were gay when they aren’t is tongue in cheek? Really. You’re breathtaking you really are. I guess I didn’t get the joke nor did those gay readers I mentioned.
I do so love people who aren’t gay telling us what people who ARE gay believe. But aren’t you slumming a bit in doing so?
Why don’t you go back to idol worshipping your “high profile” friend, David Abitbol, over at Jewlicious? You’ll certainly get a lot more strokes over there than you will here.
@Lori:
A veritable lioness you are. Stand clear world while she roars her snark.
“A veritable lioness you are. Stand clear world while she roars her snark.”
Good one. Earnestly. So glad you waited to come up with that seriously “snappy” comeback before approving my comment. I can’t wait till tomorrow when I’ll get to see this one published on your site!
I think we’re done here. Whatever your reasons, you were waiting for CK to write something you could pounce on as a “slur”, so you come to look all the more righteous. Aside from all the established background on CK (he has annually written for Gay rights in Israel, JPost loves and extols him, etc.) you’re clinging the thin thread that CK is somehow a gay-basher. Considering he really is one of the only religious Zionist voices in Israel advocating for gay rights, it’s really a disservice to the gay community to twist this into a “slur”.
I suggest you put aside whatever hurt feelings or misgivings you may have about Dave, and just email him! He’s a very genial guy. I’m sure he’d be more than gracious, you can talk things out, things will get settled, and you might even end up with a new friend! Seriously. That’s how it happened with CK and Kelsey.
@Lori:
Right. I’m about as interested in getting to know this “genial guy” as I am in having root canal.
Ha’aretz recently ran a fairly positive interview with Abitbol. He seems kind of genial (and cute!):
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1037553.html
@mia: Undoubtedly our definitions of what is “cute” or “genial” are radically different. If you find him so “cute” then I can only wonder why you’re here and not at his site. He attracts loyal groupies and other camp followers and so you’d be welcome I’m sure if that’s the sort of thing that interests you.
It’s kind of my job to read a wide variety of Web sites, that’s part of the reason why I am here. This little thing you have with Abitbol is fascinating. Your campaign against him seems like your Achilles heel, the one gaping chink your armor. A Google search on him reveals results that are telling as everything negative comes from you. If he really was as awful as you say he is, surely someone else would join you – but the silence out there is deafening.
I think that I have proven myself to be an overall positive member of your tikun olam community and a loyal reader. The “loyal groupies” comment was quite inappropriate. The article in Ha’aretz was an interesting and balanced critique of the organized Jewish community. There was no evidence of “testosterone.” I can see this as an exception to your otherwise thought provoking writing, but others might see it as something quite different. I’m not criticizing you, just offering friendly advice.
@mia: I appreciate yr generous comments about my blog & my writing. But I assure you Abitbol is not my “Achilles heel.” He is a noxious Jewish weed which springs up every time there’s a heavy rain. It’s my job to point out the weed so that everyone else can enjoy the flowers.
But have you bothered to talk or read up on issues Dan Sieradski or David Kelsey have had? Or the anonymous person who first brought his gay slur post to my attention? Or the blogger at Jewcy whose name I can’t presently remember who e mailed me in a rage at the savaging he took at Abitbol’s hands? Could it be perhaps that you know less than you should before making such generalizations? And could it be that if all of us detest the lad so that there would be many others out there who feel similarly who I don’t even know about? After all, I don’t spend an inordinate amt. of time researching all the people Abitbol may have insulted so deeply that they’d hate his guts, though I’m certain there are many.
Perhaps you’d like to amend yr statement to incorporate all these others?
The word “testosterone” was used by Abitbol,not me, to describe interactions on the internet–he was clearly including himself among those who possess the chemical.
Thanks for the advice but it’s only a bit softer variety of advice than what has been offered here by his fans.
ck and I are friends, even though ck is wrong whenever we disagree.
@DK: He’s wrong whenever he & I disagree and whenever he and Dan Sieradski disagree and whenever he and Mason Lerner disagree. So when is he ever right?
And as for having him as a friend, you can keep him.
When I said Abitbol was your Achilles Heel, what I meant was that while most of your writing is at least thought provoking and fact based, this thing you have with Abitbol stands out as being, at best, misguided.
Your “noxious weed” comment smacked of the same testosterone infused bravado that you accuse him of. I know we already discussed the testosterone issue and you admitted that in the Forward article, Abitbol merely made an observation, and an accurate one at that, about what generally goes on on the Internet.
I spent the last couple of days actually researching what you have said so that I can speak somewhat authoritatively.
David Kelsey already commented stating that he and Abitbol (ck) are friends and in fact the Jewlicious page on Flickr is full of photos of Kelsey and Abitbol hanging out together. Whatever issues they may have had seem to have been resolved amicably and Jewlicious is listed on Kelsey’s blog roll while Tikun Olam isn’t.
Mason Lerner wrote for Jewcy. His interaction with Abitbol occurred as a result of a scathing and mean spirited post he wrote skewering a guy called Noah’s online video project. It was a pretty harsh critique and Abitbol turned the tables on Lerner who then responded forcefully by threatening to physically assault Abitbol and by calling Abitbol gay. You then rose to Lerner’s defense despite Lerner’s own testosterone infused commentary. Lerner subsequently deleted many of his comments and was let go by Jewcy. I have the relevant links but I don’t know if you allow those. Once again, Jewlicious remains on Jewcy’s blog roll, while Tikun Olam isn’t there.
As for Sieradski it’s hard to tell from what’s online, but looking at his old posts on Jewschool, he’s not averse to testosterone fueled blog posting as well. Sieradski pops up on the Jewlicious flickr page – Abitbol and Sieradski were at the Kotel together to read Eichah – and Abitbol took what is probably one of the best photos of Sieradski that I have ever seen. There is also a post on Jewlicious whereby they made up, but things seem to have gone downhill since. Whatever the case may be, it seems that their conflict is personal in nature rather than ideological – Jewlicious and Jewschool continue to list each other in their blog rolls while Tikun Olam is not listed on the Jewschool blog roll. Also it seems that Dan Sieradski expressly distanced himself from you after the posting of an anonymous comment (attributed to you) defending Sieradski against another anonymous comment (attributed to Abitbol).
Now do you see what I mean by an Achilles Heel? Your characterization of Abitbol seems to lack the subtlety and finesse found in your other writing. This post for instance – who else in the Jewish Blogosphere took time out from mourning the Holtzbergs to write about AIDS day? Just Gay slurring Abitbol as far as I can tell. You call Abitbol, amongst other things, a liar when he has said over and over again that he is expressing an honestly held opinion about you being anti-Israel. That doesn’t make him a liar. Like he said, it may make him wrong or stupid but not a liar and yet you continue to call him that. He has a pretty good point you must admit – not that you’re anti-Israel of course, but that he is not in fact a liar.
I hope you take what I wrote in the spirit that it was offered. You should never hesitate to do whatever you feel is the right thing, but try not to let your anger overtake your high standards. As for me I am looking forward to simply reading blogs. This research thing is exhausting and time consuming.
@mia:
David Kelsey seems like a very decent guy. But he makes a living selling advertising for bloggers so it’s his job to be friendly with all of us including Abitbol. David also acknowledged that he has disagreements with Abitbol as I do.
I’m a bit confused about why my blog being in or out of someone’s blogroll has any significance. Until 2 months ago, I never had any contact with David Kelsey whatsover. Blogger usually include a blog in their blogroll after having some sort of contact with the blog & its owner.
Likewise, the fact that Jewlicious is in David Kelsey’s blogroll has little bearing on the determination of whether or not Abitbol’s a schmuck.
Regarding Mason Lerner, I don’t have the same amt of time you do to do back research on all of this, but my recollection was that Abitbol scathingly attacked Mason Lerner for having a “shiksa girlfriend.” I thought the attack was in typically juvenile & bad taste. And yes, Lerner made some sort of vague threat that he wanted to engage in fisticuffs w. Abitbol. I thought that actually played right into Abitbol’s hands. This is what bullies do. They look for the weak spot & hit it hard and hope to draw blood and provoke a fight. The fact that Lerner may’ve said something foolish doesn’t at all mean that Abitbol didn’t deliberately draw blood and provoke it.
As for Jewcy, I guest blogged for Jewcy for a week. I’m not aware that Abitbol has. And my relationship with Jewcy may change quite substantially in the near future. If so, this would render yr presumption that I’m not considered worthy of inclusion in Jewcy’s blogroll moot.
And you know this how? I wouldn’t be so sure. I’m certain there is a personal element in their conflict. But I would strongly doubt there isn’t a political one as well. Abitbol has criticized Sieradski’s politics. So wouldn’t their differences be political as well?
I don’t post “anonymous” comments. So I have no idea what comment you’re referring to.
Dan Sieradski and I have our differences. But the diff. bet. Sieradski & Abitbol is that the former knows how to say he’s sorry (& has done so) when he crosses a line. Abitbol couldn’t give a shit.
When you’re trying to crack a coconut you don’t use a feather. Subtlety & finesse would be lost on Abitbol. A sledge hammer is all that will do.
Since the post I criticized slurred gays I’d think he might want to make amends by writing a post about AIDS day. Sorry, but he doesn’t earn any pts. by noting AIDS day. When he can hold himself back fr. gay bashing to make a snarky point, then I’ll give him those pts.
It most certainly does. Characterizing someone as “anti-Israel” isn’t a personal value judgment. It is a statement that should be able to be quantified & supported with evidence. Abitbol has none. So if I say I support Israel and you call me “anti-Israel” you’re a liar unless you can prove it. He can’t. That’s why he resorts to calling me a “whiny bitch” and other ad hominem attacks which I note you’re conveniently left out of yr account of Abitbol’s apparently sterling character & personality.
As for Abitbol being “wrong and stupid”–those too.
Hi Richard,
Thanks for taking the time to address my comments. Hope you enjoyed your time with the children! I’ll just add a few comments…
David Kelsey is more than just friendly with Abitbol. They are friends as far as I can tell. Abitbol has stayed at Kelsey’s apartment in New York, they socialize together and Kelsey deleted part of a comment you wrote disparaging Abitbol. This despite the fact that they have disagreements.
Inclusion in blogrolls is not definitive of course, but it’s telling. Most bloggers I suspect would not include a blogger they thought was a “schmuck” on their blog rolls. Yet Jewlicious with Abitbol at the helm has more backlinks than just about any other Jewish blog – and the backlinks span the ideological spectrum as far as I can tell.
As far as Mason Lerner goes, Abitbol never attacked him for having a shiksa girlfriend. Your recollection is off and a quick search on Jewcy for “Mason Lerner” will provide you with the post and comments in question. Abitbol used the term shiksa once and in quote marks while repeating Lerner’s own words. Lerner didn’t just say something foolish, he behaved pretty offensively and exhibited exactly the sort of behavior you condemn Abitbol for. You seem to be using the tactic of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” – it hasn’t really helped Israel much and at least in this respect, siding with Lerner weakens your otherwise unimpeachable moral weight.
With respect to Sieradski and Abitbol’s conflict, I felt it was personal rather than ideological because Abitbol seems to be on friendly terms with people on the left. His interview with Devorah and Raed of Bustan was quite warm and sympathetic and he posted about the planned, since canceled, destruction of a Mosque in a Bedouin village. I’m not saying Sieradski and Abitbol don’t have their differences, but the enmity between them does not seem to be just ideological.
Abitbol’s AIDS Day post represents a consistent editorial policy that precedes your post and the criticism he received regarding his “gay slur.” I kind of doubt he wrote it in response to anything – it just seemed like business as usual from a blog and a writer that has championed the right of homosexuals to parade in Jerusalem, applauded pro-gay decisions in the supreme court, and criticized the Arab world’s treatment of homosexuals.
Why can’t it be a personal value judgment? Others have accused you of the same thing. I don’t think they’re right of course, but they can’t all be liars can they? They just disagree with you as vociferously as you disagree with them. This makes me think of Supreme Court Justice Stewart’s ruling with respect to obscenity, where he admitted that he couldn’t adequately describe or quantify it but “I know it when I see it.” Justice Stewart’s opinion has since been quoted extensively for whatever that’s worth. I think that Abitbol sincerely believes that you are anti-Israel and that doesn’t make him a liar, just as you sincerely believe you are a pro-Israel Zionist despite many people disagreeing with that description.
The last thing I would like to conclude with, and this may be the most important part of this whole exercise, regards the ad hominem attacks you talked about.
There’s been a lot of name calling going on but based on my now extensive research, it seems that you have used name calling against Abitbol a lot more often than he has against you. Aren’t you worried that you are becoming that which you loathe?
Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my very well intentioned comments.
@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!