Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Mets102 Bravely Goes After the Westboro Baptist Church

Mike L.

In a Daily Kos "diary" entitled Nine-Year-Old Teaches Westboro Haters Lesson: G-d Hates No One, a brave fighter for the Jewish people goes after the Westboro Baptist Church.

For those of you who may not know, the Westboro Baptist Church is a tiny hate-filled church in Topeka, Kansas that has made itself infamous for telling the world that "God Hates Fags" and for protesting the funerals of Iraq War soldiers. It is, in truth, one of the most vile, reprehensible, generally insane, and entirely irrelevant organizations in the United States.

To call out the Westboro Baptist Church on a place like Daily Kos is just weak.

Of course, the Westboro Baptist Church is terrible and ridiculous, but everyone knows that, already. Certainly, everyone on the progressive-left knows that this organization is racist and filled with hatred. What bothers me, I think, is that while someone like Mets102 could be highlighting genuine threats he instead chooses the lowest hanging fruit imaginable in order to get a few scratches behind the ear from people who think that Israel is the devil and that the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood (which is to say, the rise of radical Islam) is almost irrelevant.

The message of his diary is, apparently, that "God hates no one."  That's very nice, as far as it goes, but the problem is that it doesn't actually go anywhere.  Of course, God hates no one.  I cannot even imagine a more facile or obvious statement.  It's nothing more than a well-meaning bumper sticker.

He might as well have simply posted this and have done with it:

Mets102 can thus feel good about himself for standing up to racism, while actually do nothing whatsoever about racism. He gets his scratch behind the ear from his fellow ideologues, but raises consciousness not one iota about genuine problems.  And while it may be true that God hates no one, the progressive movement is filled with hatred for all sorts of people.  There is, in fact, no more bigoted political movement of any significance in the west today.

If Mets102 actually cares about racism, then he might care about the genocidal racism that is pointed at his own people from the Arab and Muslim worlds. Jews are a tiny minority within the Middle East and they are surrounded by people comprising 60 or 70 times our number, many of whom use violence against us in order to make us understand that Jewish sovereignty is not welcome on Jewish land.

In this way, Mets102 avoids the real fight, while kidding himself that he is standing up against racism. The truth is that Mets is afraid to fight relevant racism because to do so means personal risk. On a physical level and on a social level, standing up against the foremost racist movement in the world today, which is the vehement racism of radical Islam, means taking personal risk.

Maybe someday Mets will decide to stand up... I hope that he does... but until that time there is little to respect in his reaching for such obviously low hanging fruit.


  1. What are you bored? Now you have to pick a fight with a guy who is far more "Jewish" than you will ever be?

    Hey maybe a few more Republican talking points so you can be a complete hypocrite about your support for them here while drooling over Tel-Aviv soft Porn.

    BTW, did you know that the Israeli Government REFUSES to recognize Gay Marriage. Look it up.

    You know it's good to know the issues.

    Just saying.

    1. As if you do not spout, ad nauseum, talking points yourself, not to mention practicing defamation, mockery, demonization, and arbitrary censorship.

      I agree with this post that taking on Westboro at Daily Kos is 100% fluff.

    2. LOL how fucked up do you have to be when you rip on someone for taking on Westboro Baptists? Apprently it's a whole new class of being messed up. You two are def. the charter members.

    3. I am not ripping anyone, except perhaps you. Your conduct speaks for itself. You frequently misstate what people say, engage in defamation, and demonize others.

      You seem to miss the point that it is easy pickins to take on Westboro, as if diary doing that at Daily Kos is actually taking them on at all.

    4. Hey, mets is more Jewish than I'll ever be, either. OTOH, I'm prosemitic.

  2. I will be short and to the point. Being called out by you, or any other similar right-winger, is a badge of honor. Just curious, do you have any plans for the upcoming holiday?

    1. Are such badges of honor really what matter to you?

      What about for getting mojo and praise for criticizing Westboro at Daily Kos, where Israel is persona non grata? Where should your badge for this be delivered?

      In this case, the fruit was not even low hanging, but on the ground.

      To me, your self awarded badge of honor is frivolous.

    2. No, they don't really matter to me, but they do let me know that I'm doing something right.

    3. Why does it let you know that you are doing something right?

      If they do not matter, then why did you see fit to honor yourself?

      I mean, it's easy to serve red meat in front of a friendly crowd.

      I am no right winger, and in many ways to the left of you, and I do not find it brave act to pick up fruit off the ground.

    4. Oh it is not brave to "serve red meat in front of a friendly crowd"? And you are criticizing Mets for doing this... interesting. Just what do you do here and at other sites. Oh right... the same thing.

      I don't see you at DKos writing diary after diary ripping the Jihad. Oh wait.. It's because you don't.

      But in any case how is that brave? Mike's article says that you all face physical danger for criticizing the Jihad here. Really? From who?

      Where does he say that: On a physical level and on a social level, standing up against the foremost racist movement in the world today, which is the vehement racism of radical Islam, means taking personal risk - oops.

    5. Of course you do not see that. Daily Kos is a hatefest, where too many froth like yourself. It is actually no better than what occurs from the other side.

      That does not mean that it is inappropriate to have the opinion that a diary is ingratiating and without any substance.

      I do not agree with everything said here, and have said so when inclined. Pray tell, where have you ventured into the eye of the storm yourself? Your canard that you were threatened by a quote from Mark Twain was pretty lame.

      The fact is that demeaning Israel and Jews does not produce death threats. People that speak about the totalitarian aspects of Islam, or insult the religion, or try to leave receive such threats. Many cannot venture in public without protection. You can call them haters, but they are exposing the hatred. They understand, often firsthand, the threat from political Islam when it comes to Jews, Christians, other non-believers, women and children. They do not hate Muslims either, so perhaps you might get off the CAIR talking points! They also see how the authoritarian left worships multiculturalism, hates Israel no less, and enables the deniers of universal human rights.

      You can waste your time thinking you make a difference at Daily Kos, but I suggest that is where the real derangement flourishes. I have better things to do than try to reason with the likes the Adalah group.

  3. Ahahahaha... So fighting against racists in the U.S. = bad AND it distracts from the "holy war against teh Arabzez and Mooslims"? LOL.

    Hey exactly what risks do you and the ODS crowd take going against anyone on a blog? Are the jihadis coming to your house or something. What.... some crazed anti-Semites call you names... Hoo Boy you sure are a risk taker. Yesiree Bob...

    1. Fighting racists? Yeah, right out there on the front lines.

      You appear to believe that this really matters. I suppose that is why you get so bent that you have to turn people who challenge your ideas into enemies.

  4. One more thing, are you any more courageous than I am? I did not claim bravery, but that "taking on" Westboro at Daily Kos, or Republicans for that matter is NOT!

    You sure are more prone than I am to engage in name calling and acting as though you are righteous and sane inside the tunnel of ODS you have fashioned to defame people who happen to believe he is not godly.

    1. LOL spoken like a true Republican...

      You are the one claiming I think he is "Godly" not me. LOL... So wait you are not claiming bravery but you are criticizing Mets for a lack of bravery... How Rovian.

    2. In your fantasies. I am not the type of Democrat that spews hatred as you do when communicating with others. I do not practice defamation, or demonizing, as you also do, illustrated by your comment calling me Rovian, and elsewhere calling me worse. It's as if you cannot help yourself. Can you?

      Do you allow your children to read the things you say about others, defamatory and profane, at your blog and elsewhere. Your claim that they have access to your email rings false. No responsible parent would do that.

      As for Obama, you are so far into the tunnel that you cannot see just how much you worship him, so that you respond unreasonably when he is scrutinized and comes up short. I am not the only Democrat that believes he is far from the superhero or visionary, rather than a regular politico, despite the spin being offered by the Establishment and some advocates, many of whom seem to have an authoritarian affinity to impose their own vision on everyone else.

  5. Mets,

    I think that you are a well-meaning guy, but you have to understand that simply calling someone a "right-winger" fails to address the question.

    Ultimately the question is this:

    Why do progressive-left Jews fail to address the Jihad when this political movement is responsible for the failure of peace among Jews and Arabs in the Middle East?

    That is, in fact, the real question.

    Do you disagree?

  6. From Assaf at dKos:

    "As my comment says, among the 4 you name Volley is definitely the good chap who fell into bad company, and is now (not for the first time) paying a personal price for it. The diary on which we are commenting right now is all but an admission of this.

    The other three have all been disgusting jerks and online bullies. Perhaps not in real life, but certainly in their blogging behavior here. I am well aware of their difference in nuance, but that is immaterial.

    If you really want to slice and parse, then I'd say that Paul was the less bigoted of the 3 and the one more interested in the game for the game's sake. However, and perhaps because of this detachment, he had also been (afaik) pretty much the architect of the bullying strategy I've described. The Karl Rove of the "I-corner", if you will.

    I urge Team Shalom et al. again, to leverage this specific unfortunate incident Volley has gone through, and make a clean break with this sickly strategy for good. it does not befit anyone who claims to promote progressive values and democracy."

    Volley, you need to stay away from, ahem, the "bad company," here. You may get cooties or something. Better to get a room with Assaf and solve the I/P problems forevah! I'm glad he was there for you.

    1. Assaf would probably agree, along with Volleyboy1, that little Jewish kids in Israel need to be taught "the Palestinian narrative" as a corrective to actual history.

      Can you imagine the pure stupidity of such a notion?

      VB actually wrote a diary advocating this.

      I still cannot believe it.

      It's as if certain people think, along with Ilan Pappé, that history has no actual basis in fact and therefore pretty much anything can be taught as history.

      We all understand that objectivity is imperfect, is the "noble dream," but this doesn't mean that you simply throw it away and just teach anything that is deemed to be politically expedient.

      And, needless to say, the very last thing in this world that Israel should do is teach little Jewish kids the Palestinian narrative as if it is history.

      The pure stupidity of such a notion is almost too painful to comprehend.

    2. Do you think it would be possible to stop lying for even just one minute about any of this?

      Here is the diary I wrote... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/25/913282/-The-Power-of-Information-A-case-study-in-the-Middle-East

      And here are some paragraphs from it which show your obvious lie:

      So what is to become of this situation. The Israeli government refuses to teach Palestinian perspectives to it's students, the Palestinian governments refuse to teach the Israeli perspective to it's students as well as promote a 200 year old lie. How do people get information they trust?

      These kids in Sha'ar Hanegev are the hope it seems. They understand what they are dealing with and how to build peace in a hostile environment - with better information. Here in America we fight that battle as well, and it is important - in the Middle East they fight wars because neither side understands the other.

      Imagine if they did.

      I wrote a diary advocating the teaching of the Palestinian version of history as a addition to teaching of the Israeli narrative so that people in Israel understand competing narratives. It is how you build bridges.

      Nowhere did I ever write a diary that espoused teaching the Palestinian narrative as a correction to "actual history".

      You know Mike... if you can't make your point without misrepresentation... It probably wasn't worth making in the first place.

      Just a piece of advice.

    3. You seem to have a difficult time comprehending notions around truth.

      You say, "I wrote a diary advocating the teaching of the Palestinian version of history..."

      And I said that you advocate teaching the Palestinian narrative and, yet, somehow, against all reason, you call me a liar.

      How odd.

    4. You say it is important to have better information, yet you and many others offer continual disparagement of those that try to offer different narratives over what is taking place in the USA and elsewhere.

      How does this contribute to understanding?

    5. No Mike... what you said was:

      Assaf would probably agree, along with Volleyboy1, that little Jewish kids in Israel need to be taught "the Palestinian narrative" as a corrective to actual history.

      I notice you forgot that last part (bolded) in your response to me. What a surprise...

      Now, just how is my piece suggesting that the Palestinian narrative a "corrective" to the Israeli narrative..

      Oh, it doesn't suggest that... Ah ok.. nevermind.

    6. oldschool, I know it's tough... but can you stick to the specifics addressed here.

      In my piece did I suggest that the Palestinian narrative should be taught to correct the Israelis narrative? Yes or no? (Hint... no I didn't).

      Let me add to my response to Mike. If you have to misrepresent OR change the subject... probably your point wasn't that strong to begin with.


    7. Why do you initiate with an insult? It is not tough at all to stick with specifics address. That is exactly what I did.

      Your words:

      "...how to build peace in a hostile environment - with better information. Here in America we fight that battle as well, and it is important - in the Middle East they fight wars because neither side understands the other.

      Imagine if they did."

      I did not change the subject, or suggest that you wanted to correct the Israeli narrative. Can you point out where I did that?

      Indeed, you quoted yourself and a huge contradiction appeared. So I decided to raise it. What I suggested, in fact, was that the conduct you exhibit, rejecting and demeaning other narratives and people, is detrimental to obtaining better information and understanding, which seems what you desire.

      In other words, you do not practice what you preach.

    8. LOL you are funny oldschool....

      Now, my response was to Mike's comment. Given the diary I wrote would you say that what I wrote was that Palestinian history was a corrective of the historical narrative?

      Simple question Yes or No?

      If yes, then show me WHERE in that diary I offer that opinion. If no, then I guess you agree that Mike mis-represented my opinion. Pretty straight forward here. Why do you have trouble with that?

    9. Come on. My comment had nothing to do with that. Or am I not allowed to make a comment on a different aspect that is raised? Must I discuss the so-called corrective interpretation because you say so, even when it has nothing to do with the issue?

      The fact is that I addressed your own words in your own diary and point out how you act contrary to those words. They jumped out at me because of the manner that you reject other narratives.

      You are the one trying to change the subject that your conduct fles in the face of your words.

    10. HAHAHAHA the RJC or ECI has NOT taught you well. Generally the rule is when caught red-handed... admit it and move on.

      You are right about one thing. Your comment does have nothing to do with mine even though it is in response to mine. Why? Because you are trying to change the subject away from Mike having been caught in a lie. I get that. He is your friend. You want to support him.

      Still... I came here and commented specific to one thing and one thing only. You responded to that comment trying to change the subject. I will not let you do that.

      This is pretty funny btw... You say:

      You are the one trying to change the subject that your conduct fles in the face of your words

      LOL the issue is whether or not I said one should teach the Palestinian narrative as a "corrective" to the Israeli narrative. THAT is the comment you RESPONDED too. That is the subject. Nothing more, nothing less.

      Had Mike not misrepresented me, I would not have commented in this diary. SO... please stick to the issue that started this. It is not that difficult.

  7. VB, you advocate teaching the "Palestinian version" of history to little Jewish kids in Israel.

    The very notion of it is moronic... and that is no lie.

    1. btw, you do understand, of course, that what you advocate is teaching little Jewish Israeli kids that Israel is a racist, colonialist, imperialist, apartheid state born in sin.

      That is the "Palestinian version" of Israeli history that you have advocated for.

      How can you possibly be this myopic?

    2. Seriously. Does he believe the Palestinian narrative has merit? If not, is it proper to teach a narrative that is false?

    3. Sigh... So you would say there are no competing versions of what happened? Which narrative is the single unvarnished truth? My family has told me things (they were Palmach) that would fit more with the "New historians" than the Leon Uris version that I learned in Hebrew School. My professors at Hebrew U. (depending on political leanings) were all over the map.

      In any case... what is relevant is that to make a lasting peace it is imperative for both sides to understand the others P.O.V. Now, if you goal is NOT peace then no problem.

      The Arabs would say the versions of history that I accept to a degree and that you accept whole heartedly are lies. Wouldn't it help us to understand how they see history? Maybe in your opinion it would not.

      STILL that was not the point of my original comment. You misrepresented what I said. That was my objection. You still haven't backed up your original statement.

    4. Oh, sure, VB.

      There are "competing narratives."

      No doubt about it. There are all sorts of competing narratives around all sorts of historical concerns.

      I just wanted to confirm that you actually do, in fact, advocate for teaching the so-called "Palestinian narrative" to little Jewish kids in Israel.

      And now that this is established we can get back to our regularly scheduled programming!


    5. Yet you constantly reject other narratives and those associated with disparaging remarks.

      As for the narratives themselves, how much accuracy do you find in that offered by the Palestinians? How much for the Israeli narrative? How much time do you actually spend considering the substance and implication of the Palestinian narrative and how it is used? To me, it seems you spend more energy calling those that disagree with the premises of the Palestinian narrative deranged and hateful.

    6. LOL Mike... You got caught misrepresenting something and rather than saying "Whoops, sorry I mistated that" you persist in trying to cover your lie.

      You did not say - "vb says that the Palestinian narrative should be taught in Israeli schools."

      You said: Assaf would probably agree, along with Volleyboy1, that little Jewish kids in Israel need to be taught "the Palestinian narrative" as a corrective to actual history.

      That is a very different comment. Had you left out the corrective part I would not have said "boo!" but no... you had to go with an attempt to portray me as something I am not. You lied. Plain and simple.

      The fact that you simply can't admit you lied is sort of pathetic. The evidence is right there to see. Your cheer squad here may support you in the threads but you cannot tell me that they don't see the misrepresentation.

      Sorry man. But you are gonna have to do better to possibly equate me to anti-Zionists.

    7. oldschool you are going to have to do better as well. As much as you try to shift the comments away from Mike's misrepresentation you still can't do it.

      This one is not that hard. But watching you try to twist away from it is pretty entertaining.

      SO... for the third or fourth time. Did I offer in that diary or in those threads that the Palestinian Narrative should be taught as a "corrective" to the Israeli Narrative. That was my whole reason for commenting here. That is the only thing I care about. I was misrepresented.

      Will you set the record straight and tell the truth or will you continue to try to divert?

    8. Volleyboy1 wrote the following:

      I wrote a diary advocating the teaching of the Palestinian version of history as a addition to teaching of the Israeli narrative...

      And that is all, for the moment, that I am trying to establish.

    9. Yes you might be trying to establish that... But that was not your original claim. Now if you want to issue a correction and admit you misrepresented my P.O.V. then we can discuss that. But let's clear up the misconceptions first. Shall we?

      Why do you keep only using partial quotes? Is it because you know that the full quote destroys the point you want to make. Here is the full quote:

      I wrote a diary advocating the teaching of the Palestinian version of history as a addition to teaching of the Israeli narrative so that people in Israel understand competing narratives. It is how you build bridges.

      Nowhere did I ever write a diary that espoused teaching the Palestinian narrative as a correction to "actual history".

      As I said Mike, if you have to misrepresent to make your point then maybe it is not worth making.

    10. I have to do better? Pardon me, but I am doing fine. You seem bent on avoidance, however.

      What were you referring to by the words you wrote, as follows:

      "...how to build peace in a hostile environment - with better information. Here in America we fight that battle as well, and it is important - in the Middle East they fight wars because neither side understands the other.

      Imagine if they did."

      How does that conform to the manner in which you reject other narratives yourself, calling others deranged haters in the process? Does that lead to better information or understanding?

      Why are you fixated anyway on the matter of a corrective to history, when it has NOTHING to do with any of my comments? Can you point to one comment I made about corrective actions?

      I did not try to shift away from your argument with Mike, but addressed an entirely separate issue that shows how your words differ from your deeds.

      It is strange, to me, that you insist I must address what you want. Are you capable only to discuss one matter to the exclusion of all others? Or perhaps it is because you cannot explain the clear disconnect that I raised between your desire that we understand each other compared with your own rejectionism.

    11. LOL... no matter how much you write. No matter how much you try to distract.. You still can't do it.

      But let's explain it slowly... That way maybe you can understand. Follow this if you can.

      Mike wrote an article in which he stated that I (vb1) wanted to see the Palestinian Narrative taught as a "corrective" to the Israeli Narrative.

      I stated that this is a misrepresentation and that No, I did not say this at all. That was my comment. I pulled in context to show just how wrong this was.

      Then, you replied with a complete non-sequitor trying to change the issue AWAY from Mike's obvious lie/misrepresentation to something that you wanted to discuss.

      Let me give you an example:

      Mike: Vb1 wants to end all fossil fuel vehicles because he hates cars.

      Vb1: Mike, that is ridiculous, I want cars to become hybrid or electric so we can save the environment

      Oldschool: How come you want everyone to ride in boats when you drive a car.

      See.. my comment was to Mike. Your comment was a complete non-sequitor. And a pathetic one at that (like the example). I did not come here to address your opinions of my shortcomings of a human being.

      Mike misrepresented / lied about something I said, I came to respond to that misrepresentation / lie. Just because you want to distract from your friends being caught in a lie doesn't mean I am going to play your game. I care about one thing. Setting the record straight. That's pretty much it. You care about one thing. Defending your friends lie at all costs. I get that.

      I don't particularly care what your issue is. I really don't. You responded to my response. Now, either you agree that Mike's representation of my comment is false or you think it is true. That is what we are discussing. Not prices of bowling balls in Outer Katmandu, Not the state of street musicians in Argentina, Not whether the Republicans are complete Douchenozzles or only sort of douchenozzles. We are talking about Mike's misrepresentation.

      If you think he is telling the truth, back that up citing full quotes and context from the diary. If you think he is not telling the truth then you should either stay out of the conversation or admit that and urge him to tell the truth. Pretty freakin' simple.

      Question for you... Given your twisting here; do you have to screw your pants on the morning just to get into them? (Tip o'the ole Kippah to Hunter S. Thompson R.I.P.)

    12. YOU are talking about what Mike said. I am not. I am NOT required to because of your manipulative needs. You do not get to decide for me what I can say or how I may participate in any conversation, even if you believe you have that right.

      Anyway, your assertion that I tried to distract from what Mike said is 100% false. Nor am I trying to defend anyone, at any cost. What an idiotic thing to say! That is how you seem to think. It explains the manner in which you communicate. How ironic, when one considers your clarion call for better information and more understanding, then belittle others and try to shut them down unless they comply with your demands. Yes, it's all about you, at least in your own mind.

      In fact, YOUR words stuck out like a sore thumb, which is why, after reading them, I decided to comment. Obviously, you do not care about my issue. How insightful that remark is, in relation to your other words and deeds, to reveal hypocrisy.

      My comment was not a non-sequitur whatsoever. That could only be so if I was discussing the issue you are fixated on. I have explained several times that I was not. Indeed, your response is a non-sequitur. I know you do not want to address the issue, and that is your choice. No wonder. I may screw my pants on, but your pants are down!

    13. Your comment is a complete non-sequitor. It has absolutely nothing to do with my response to Mike. Nothing whatsoever.

      Again... for all to see... Mike wrote a comment in his article.

      I responded to that point and too that point only. You, seeing your friend caught in a lie tried to change the subject. I knowing this Rovian tactic, caught you and called you out on it.

      You keep trying to bluster and detract. BUT... in the end you can't. General internet protocol is that if you respond to my comment then you address the subject matter of that comment. You won't because you realize that your friend did the wrong thing.

      It's ok oldschool.. but I will remind you of one old internet adage about Holes. When you find yourself in one.... Quit Digging.

      Oh and Karl would really not be proud. You should have quit while you were behind.

    14. You are too wrapped in trying to control everything that you do not realize that you have already buried yourself.

      I did not try to say that it had anything to do with your response to Mike.

      That said, you quoted your words from the diary, and the disconnect became apparent.

      Jewish school kids should be taught to see different side, but you treat other sides with contempt.

      It's obvious that you practice a double standard!

    15. One more thing:

      General intent protocol? What planet are you on?

      Aside from the fact that the language WAS in your comment. They are YOUR OWN WORDS. That is indisputable FACT.

      Your need to engage in name calling shows how juvenile you are.

    16. Heh... should have been "General internet protocol". I like to think I live on Earth. What planet do you live on? Do people there always speak in non-sequitors?

      Again... Your desperate twisting to cover for your friend is noble. And hey... I give you credit, believe me. Knowing you support a lie and still failing to admit it, though you are busted time and time again for that support speaks to a certain tenacity. BUT....

      I wrote a comment in response to Mike. YOU... responded with a complete non-sequitor trying to show up my perceived shortcomings. Very Rovian of you (so you can pat yourself on the back for a good copy of the master himself). However, unlike the MSM, I will not allow you to distract from the point.

      Now, for the upteenth time do you or do you not agree with Mike when he said that I said the Palestinian narrative should be taught as a "corrective" to the Israeli narrative. If so, please provide examples from the diary I wrote. If not, then why the hell did you waste our time with your constant obfuscation?

      That was all I really came into clear up. Your weird desire to engage in character assasination rather than own up the fact that your good buddy made a statement about me that was false has been sad and pathetic.

    17. That you must try and control everything, including internet protocol, is simply wild.

    18. Oh, and according to your first comment you "wrote a diary advocating the teaching of the Palestinian version of history as a addition to teaching of the Israeli narrative so that people in Israel understand competing narratives. It is how you build bridges."

      I commented how ironic it is how intolerant you are to competing narratives.

      And you wet your pants with some dumb argument about whether you "espoused teaching the Palestinian narrative as a correction to 'actual history.'" A non-issue, certainly not worth all the energy you put into it.

      The fact remains that you practice a double standard, exactly as I said, even if I breach what matters most to you, internet protocol. Good to see you have your priorities straight!

    19. Buck up and deal? Is that more "General Internet Protocol"? Do you have even a clue how foolish you sound with these remarks?

  8. AHAHAHAHA nice try Mike.... So now kids in High School are "little Kids"... I bet they would disagree with you there. ROFL.

    Mike, you crack me up. You are like a parody of Im Tirtzu. But back to the original question....

    You claimed that I said that I wanted to see the Palestinian Narrative taught as a "corrective" to the Israeli Narrative - can you or can you not support that. I will be glad to accept your apology if you can "man up" and do the right thing (which is admit you lied and say "sorry"). Granted I would be surprised but hey miracles do happen.

    As too your claim. Heh... I guess when does Snidely Whiplash jump out and tie Nell to the train tracks. You boil their narrative down to one sentence that totally cartoonizes what happened. Has your time at Mondoweiss deadened your brain that much?

    SO... nice try at diversion but I'm sorry - you failed. Mazel tov yoter b'Pa'am haba... You are such an expert in Israel - figure out what I just said. ;-)

  9. "You are completely right downsouth and I am done with him and his hate site."

    "And yes from here on in I will be ignoring his blog........ But yeah - I am done with the hate site. I don't really need to see a site that is so very hateful on a regular basis. I will leave that for the Republicans and their supporters that frequent that place."

    Volley.....read your own words.

    1. So I guess standing up for people telling the truth is a bad thing...

      But... Doodad you are right... I did write that. I should have stuck to it. I just don't like being lied about. Silly me.

  10. Isn't it "Sheer...." not "Shear"? I think Shear Genius is a hair salon.

    So, will you admit that I NEVER said that the Palestinian Narrative should be taught as a "corrective" to the Israeli Narrative? Can we agree on that.

    As to your comment... Why not teach Israeli kids what the Palestinians believe? Why not expose them to what they say? These kids have to go into the Territories and run check points, Carry out Night Raids, make life and death determinations in dealing with the local population. Don't you think that these soldiers should understand the Population they occupy?

    Of course teaching them your cartoon version would not really be the way to do it. You do know there were competitors to the al-Huessani's right? You have heard of the Nussessibeh clan? You do know that NOT all the Arabs sided with the Nazi's. Jordan's Arab Legion was trained and allied to the Brits. in WWII.

    How about we get on with what I really said.

    Mike, I am curious. Why did you start this in the first place? You knew I would respond to your misrepresentation. Here is what I don't get. Why would you do that? What good does it do you? Does misrepresenting / lying about me fill you with that much joy?

    Oh btw, did you figure out what I said to you in Hebrew.

  11. I find it fascinating that you think that I am somehow misrepresenting your idea, when all I am doing is trying to clarify it and understand it.

    You said this:

    I wrote a diary advocating the teaching of the Palestinian version of history as a addition to teaching of the Israeli narrative so that people in Israel understand competing narratives. It is how you build bridges.

    And, needless to say, if you do not want the Palestinian narrative taught as a corrective to the regular curriculum, then why do you want it taught at all?

    You seem to think that the idea of "corrective" means replacement of. It doesn't. What it means is fixing something that is in need of correction.

    But I honestly do not care about the sophistry that you are bringing to this discussion. I want to stay directly on the point and the point is that you honestly think that Israeli high school kids should be taught the Palestinian narrative.

    You can argue why you think this is beneficial, as a "bridge builder," and that is fine. I just want it clear that you honestly want Jewish Israeli high school kids to learn a "competing narrative" of Israeli history that suggests that Israel is a racist, colonialist, imperialist, apartheid state that was born out of the "ethnic cleansing" of the indigenous Palestinian population.

    In any case, "sheer" is correct.

    I also get "then" and "than" confused if I type too fast.

    "Their" and "there" is also sometimes a problem.

    Homophones are not my friend.

  12. I think it is important for Israelis to understand how others see them particularly the Palestinians. It is the first step towards building bridges. IF you notice in that diary, I also said it is important for the Palestinians to learn the Israeli Narrative, including the Holocaust and role that they played in it. That too goes a long way to building bridges.

    I honestly believe your narrative is simplistic and cartoonish. And yes, their narrative does unfairly paint the Israelis in a negative light and is also simplistic and cartoonish and that is why I think they need to learn our narrative.

    Now to my original point. Here is the definition of "corrective":

    Adjective: Designed to correct or counteract something harmful or undesirable.

    Noun:A thing intended to correct or counteract something else.

    I don't think this at all. I think it is important to present viewpoints and make decisions from there. I don't think the Palestinian Narrative "corrects" the Israeli Narrative. SO I believe you mischaracterized my point of view.

    Anyway, I do appreciate your relatively civil answer and while I disagree with your characterization at least you attempted to explain. HENCE, you get my civil response.

  13. Well cancel that "relatively civil" part.

    Dude, you are out of your mind. Completely and totally nuts. We are talking on a whole 'nother plane of crazy. You post that on your front page completely misinterpreting everything and why... because you are bat-shit insane.

    You think, I want people to learn different narratives so I can tell Israelis they are wrong? Are you high when you type this shit? Seriously, how fucked up do you have to be to have that interpretation of what I said? There are not enough drugs in the world that can do that.

  14. LOL Mike... I stand by my statement.. It is your interpretation of it that boggles the mind. How you get from point A to point Z is beyond me. But hey... have at it.

  15. What I cannot figure out is whether you are being dishonest or just plain dumb.

    You made a statement.

    Words have meaning.

    This is what you said:

    I wrote a diary advocating the teaching of the Palestinian version of history as a addition to teaching of the Israeli narrative so that people in Israel understand competing narratives.

    If you honestly stand by those words this can only mean that you actually would like to see Jewish kids in Israel taught the "Palestinian version of history."

    What exactly do you think that the "Palestinian version of history" consists of, VB?

    I have to say, tho, I find you very tiresome, because I do not believe that you are being honest.

    You say "X" and then I say that you say "X" and then you call me a liar.

    It's just flat-out dishonest.

    You're a fraud.

  16. Do people in Israel not understand the competing narratives here?

    To my mind, the Israeli narrative accounts for the Palestinian version of history. Who could not know it? It's plastered everywhere. In Israel, an open society, different narratives can be freely disseminated. Is there doubt that this is true? Can the Jewish narrative be disseminated in any Arab/Muslim society?

    The Israeli narrative rejects the Palestinian because the latter is not factually accurate and premised by the intention to destroy Israel and even Jews. Does anyone dispute that this is the intention?

    What is sought to be gained from a teaching exercise of subject matter that Jews in Israel know full well from experience and current reality? That is what I would most like to know, just what are Israelis not now understanding?

    Israel has a unity government. So far as I know, most Israelis support Netanyahu's policies when it comes to these issues. Is it right to support democracy in Egypt, but not Israel?

  17. The guy is malicious, irrational, and banned.

    Enough is enough of this.

  18. I just think it's more a case of immaturity than anything else, exacerbated by inability to let even small things go.

    He spent so much time arguing with me that my comments did not count because I did not confine myself to what you said, although I raised a separate, independent issue that also came solely from his words.

    He just could not let his teeth let go.

    Not to mention the inclusion of pejoratives.

    I am no angel here, but think both of you would do better by taking a step back.

    On a larger level, gratuitous and overpersonal posts and remarks hurt the blog. I think it's better to argue against the point he makes. Making it so much about him is a distraction.

    This is the problem with the blogosphere from all sides, the way people talk about each other, over and above the issues, that makes a more poisoned environment.

    I would not want to be in VB's position because I think that progressivism as practiced is not compatible with Zionism as practiced, and he tries to walk a tightrope balanced by outmoded concepts. This is in addition to the maturity deficit that makes it very hard to communicate overall.

  19. School,

    this is interesting:

    I think that progressivism as practiced is not compatible with Zionism as practiced...

    This is an interesting notion.

    Tell us why you think so.

  20. It's similar to the issues we have discussed before with respect to Zionism/nationalism/liberty versus progressivism/universalism/equality.