April 12, 2006

The final word here ...

... on Dana Garrett. No, I do not believe he is actually anti-Semitic. This view is reinforced due to my meeting him in person several times in the past. I continue to believe, however, as I mentioned here, that he is quite misguided and unwilling to face up to certain uncomfortable truths regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Dana is also upset that I haven't corrected the record on this post whereby I call him on his providing proof of the 1976 UN Security Resolution that supposedly guarantees Israel a "peace" offer. He has since provided a source. (He could've commented on the post in question himself; I am curious as to why he has not.) Nevertheless, Dana is upset that I have implied anti-Semitism on his part due to him not recognizing certain facts about this resolution. Again, you can read some of the debate here. And although I do not personally believe Dana to be anti-Semitic, again, I continue to question much of what he believes regarding this resolution and the security of Israel. For example, Dana's continued insistence that the PLO and surrounding Arab states agreed to recognize Israel's borders in the 1976 UN resolution without an explicit provision negating the return of the Palestinian refugees (indeed, the resolution mandates the return of Palestinian refugees) means the implications are obvious: the resolution negates itself. Of course the PLO agreed to it. What does it matter if they recognize the borders of what will swiftly cease to become a Jewish state?

I would hope that Dana would likewise make a statement that he believes I, in particular, am not a racist, xenophobe or Islamophobe, as he has implied and denoted here and on his blog. If Dana feels so strongly about being thought of as an anti-Semite -- so much so that he has threatened to reveal my full name and place of employment, and continues to use the legal term "libel" -- it ill-behooves me to see how it is appropriate to utilize similar tactics himself.

I'll leave it to you readers to decide who's out of line. As for me, I hereby disassociate myself from Dana and Delaware Watch utterly and completely. The others here concur.

I do wish Dana continued success in his blogging efforts.

Posted by Hube at April 12, 2006 09:03 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

I would disassociate myself as well, but I have no choice in the matter – I’ve been banned from the blog, and there is currently a full-on struggle session taking place at my expense. For those of you unfamiliar with the Cultural Revolution, a struggle session is a ritual in which someone is singled out as “bad element” by the cadres, and is subjected to a torrent of abuse by the other members of the collective. The target has no way to respond or defend himself. Apparently there’s a zero tolerance policy for anything counter-revolutionary, in other words that calls faulty logic and knee-jerkiness into question.

For example, my statement (on this blog not Dana’s) “…institute a responsible guest worker program, and assume anyone else is either a terrorist or a drug smuggler. Sniper rifles, not walls, are the answer.” has been translated into “shoot all the Mexicans” while the guest worker part of the equation is ignored. The Colossus crowd is now guilty by association for not censoring me.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

-Ronald Reagan

Posted by: G Rex at April 13, 2006 11:37 AM

by Islamophobe you mean not afraid that a majority of them want to kill us, blow us up.....then sorry I think you are one...as for racist I don't know you well enough, but there is a possibility of you being a bigot.

Posted by: donviti at April 13, 2006 12:59 PM

“…institute a responsible guest worker program, and assume anyone else is either a terrorist or a drug smuggler. Sniper rifles, not walls, are the answer.”

Thanks for the context. You are only a somewhat bloodthirsty psychpath - not a full blown bloodthristy psychopath. I feel better.

Posted by: jason at April 13, 2006 02:38 PM

No you simpleton, it would have been bloodthirsty if I'd suggested giving them a 1 minute head start.

Posted by: G Rex at April 13, 2006 02:57 PM

by Islamophobe you mean not afraid that a majority of them want to kill us, blow us up.....then sorry I think you are one

Come on, don -- we've been through this already. Do you notice when *I* post about Islamist nonsense I always use the term "RADICAL Islamist"? And yeah -- I do fear them. Everyone should, as everyone should fear complete nutjobs. I don't mean "fear" in that you stay locked up in your house all the time; just aware that these nuts are around and what they can do. If this makes me an "Islamophobe" -- because I fear completely irrational radical Islamists -- so be it.

as for racist I don't know you well enough, but there is a possibility of you being a bigot.

What a "well thought-out" statement. "You don't know me well enough, but there's a possibility ..." Well, no s*** Sherlock -- I don't you well enough either so I guess there's a possibility that you're a bigot too!

Try not to waste our time, eh don?

Posted by: Hube at April 13, 2006 03:35 PM

Sniper rifles, not walls, are the answer.

I do believe this is certainly an unnecessarily harsh tactic/response, but I'm not surprised how that turned into "shoot all Mexicans."

Posted by: Hube at April 13, 2006 03:37 PM

I should have worded that better as "I'm not suprised how the usual suspects turned that into "shoot all Mexicans."

Posted by: Hube at April 13, 2006 04:37 PM

Do I believe that Dana is consciously, intentionally anti-Semitic? No, i don't.

Do I believe he is functionally anti-Semitic, based upon his pathological hatred of and lies about Israel that undergird his anti-Zionism? Yeah, I do.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at April 13, 2006 09:49 PM

In Dana's defense, it is possible to be anti-Israel without being anti-Semitic. There are plenty of Jews, mainly in the US, who believe that the quasi-militaristic nature of modern Israel is at odds with the Hebrew faith, and that steps that the Israelis have taken to defend themselves have corrupted them as a people. This is the ideological underpinning for the Spielberg film, Munich, by the way.

There you have it, I'm defending the guy who banned me from his blog.

Posted by: G Rex at April 14, 2006 09:32 AM

I totally agree, Rex.

But this whole imbroglio goes beyond being just anti-Israel. It goes to its very survival/existence, IMO, as I've written.

Posted by: Hube at April 14, 2006 09:36 AM

And I'll agree with you that folks can oppose Israel and not be anti-Semitic.

In Dana's case, however, his false statements and angry rhetoric appear to have crossed over to the level of a mental health pathology. And as I state, I do not believe that he is consciously anti-Semitic, and I accept his protestations that he does not believe himself to be. Rather, i beliee that his words cross over the line into the functional equivalent of anti-Semitism.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at April 14, 2006 05:17 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?