Friday, March 4, 2011

Huffington Post Blogger Comment of the Day

Here's a response to Alison Ramer's article by David Samel, who you may remember as having written two pro-Lebanon articles and trolling Alan Dershowitz's latest blog post:

 So there should never be a Jewish state because that would mean discrimination against non-Jews. And in fact it can't be a democracy either, it only "pretends" to be. This from an ardent defender of Lebanon.

You wouldn't think that discrimination against the rights of the Jewish people would still exist in the mainstream discourse in the 21st century. But here on the Huffington Post, it's just another day.

26 comments:

  1. And there you go again, putting words into the mouth of the poster that he just has not used.

    If you intend to continue with this blog, it really is past time that you learned how to read.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous, keep on defending anti-Semitism.

    Its not going to win you regards from Matt and Zach on here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't think so, Tony Andrews, and to be perfectly frank this tactic of yours is getting a little bit old. Every time someone says something controversial you are always there to tell us that no no no, you're misunderstanding what they said. Except that you only do this for one side of the issue, naturally.

    If you think there is an alternative interpretation for what Mr. Samel said, provide it. If he thinks that I misunderstood him, he is welcome to come here and onto this thread and explain himself. But you aren't his spokesperson. You should both be aware that words have meaning, and when he uses words like "notion of a Jewish state" it is difficult to spin it any other way except as an attack on Israel's very foundation. You can even check out the context if you want more info.

    But this hair-splitting tactic will no longer fly in my eyes. Do not think we forgot when you tried to defend the ReThuggery (and if you read this blog you know his attitude toward Jews) when he referred to another poster as "Melissagoldgrubber." Or when you flipped your shit at Matt because you misunderstood (surprise surprise) what he had said. So you have no right to be lecturing anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am so tired of this argument of marriage in Israel being an issue that is raised over and over. While there is no issue with the fact that Muslim women can only marry Muslim men... period. Yet another example of the typical double standard that is so evident on this and many different topics.

    It is the height of hypocrisy, to constantly bash Israel over situations that may not be perfect, but certainly afford more "human rights" than other ME countries.
    Maybe their own houses are so dirty that they can't see they are made of glass?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think you have done that before - attributing a post to Tony Andrews that he did not make.

    David Samel comments on the qualities of a state. He does not say "there should never be a Jewish state because that would mean discrimination against non-Jews."

    Learn to read.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have no idea if the person who lied about what D. Samel's point was, and then lied again, is Tony Andrews or not. But it sounds a hell of a lot like him, which is unfortunate because tortured misdirection without any factual foundation is headache-inducing. So I'd like to say if that WAS Tony, "good to see you're sticking to your guns" and if it's not "sorry about your lack of ability".

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tony Andrews, perhaps instead of focusing on what he did not say, you should look instead at what he *did* say. Here is but one example:

    "If the two-state solution were implemente­d in the near future ...we would continue to have a Jewish State that openly discrimina­ted..."

    Now if his issue is that there is discrimination in Israel and that was all, there is no reason for them to be discussing it in the context of a one vs two state solution. But as it is made clear by Mr. Samel's comment and Ms. Ramel's responses, they both believe that the only way not to end discrimination is not to make international changes in Israel, but to implement the "one state solution" aka destroying Israel's Jewish character. If all he wanted was for Israel to change his policies, that would have nothing to do with one vs two vs three state solution.

    It sounds like once again you are using the anti-Zionist tactic of "unless he says *exactly* what he means he must have meant something else." This is the same way you can defend every anti-Semitic comment short of "I hate Jews" under the excuse of misinterpretation. For someone who claims to have nothing against Jews, it is pretty telling.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I see you've done it again!

    I notice that you have a go at Anonymous for pointing out that you have (again) alleged that a poster has said something that he has not said, and add that "But you aren't his spokesperson."

    But you have already self-appointed yourself as Mr. Samel's "spokesperson" in the blog you posted and your subsequent comments!

    Quite the pontificating little boy, aren't you?

    You have little, if any, real idea of what is really going on, but never mind.

    What progress are you making in your efforts to take advantage of the opportunity that you have to see the other point of view, by staying with a pro-Palestinian Jewish, or even Palestinian Muslim family, in either the West Bank or Gaza, for a meaningful period of time?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Andrews, you seem to be confused. I did not put words into Mr. Samel's mouth, I interpreted the meaning of what he said. You do know the difference, right? And you are aware that words have meaning?

    And I'm reasonably sure that I am correct because both you and "Anonymous" have used the exact same tactic: Berating me for "misunderstanding" him yet failing to put forward any alternative interpretation of his remarks. I have made my statement, now make a counterstatement.

    But while I have your attention, here's a question: I asked you once on the boards why you have not put your money where your mouth is and come to Israel to see the situation for youself the way I did. Your answer: "I am now old."

    However, when I made a comment about your blood pressure, you replied that you were in your mid-20s. So why don't you tell me what age you are really. And if you are young, why don't you come over here and do what you demand I do?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I did not tell you, or anyone else, that I am in my mid-20s.

    Yet again, you have misquoted and misinterpreted.

    Your interest in my personal details is not welcome, and none of your business, but you are way off - AGAIN.

    I don't believe that the purpose of your trip is to "see the situation for yourself the way I did" - I believe it is to ingratiate yourself with extreme zionist movements and anti-Palestinian groups, and a rather pathetic attempt to stamp yourself with some kind of "authority".

    There are excellent reasons for my own failure - and I acknowledge that it is a failure - to travel to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza and try to gain a greater level of knowledge and awareness of BOTH sides of the issues.

    You can either take my word for that, or not, but my reasons for that failure are genuine, valid and excellent.

    I am, frankly, jealous of the opportunities that you have, and which I cannot have. Sure as hell, were I in your place, there is nothing that would be capable of preventing me from exploring the "other side" of the issues that interest me, through the means that I have already suggested to you.

    You are "reasonably sure that I am correct" - well, you are not. I have no need of, or wish for, anonymity anywhere, let alone in a fringe blog with scarcely any readers.

    You still have no real idea of what is going on.

    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

    ReplyDelete
  11. Horatio, all I am hearing is an echo, similar to the response I had when I asked you about you and your 'brother's' previous comments on HP about your employment.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Yet again, you have misquoted and misinterpreted."
    -HOW? Explain how I interpreted Mr. Samel's comment incorrectly. Oh wait, you can't. I forgot. Silly me.

    "Your interest in my personal details is not welcome, and none of your business, but you are way off - AGAIN."
    -First hypocritical comment of the thread. You are the one who started inquiries in personal details when you demanded on the HuffPo to know about my employment, on top of more personal insults and attacks. By the way, do you know why I didn't respond? Because you were being a douchebag, not because you were being curious. Be respectful to me, and I'll be respectful to you. That's my only rule.

    "I believe it is to ingratiate yourself with extreme zionist movements..."
    -Now who is projecting and misinterpreting? Second hypocritical comment of the thread.
    Name ONE extreme viewpoint that I have Andrews. Just one. Please. And if you are capable, back it up with proof. But again, I know that you won't, because like most anti-Zionists on the HP, lying is how you make most of your arguments.

    "try to gain a greater level of knowledge and awareness of BOTH sides of the issues."
    -You have proven that you not only have ZERO knowledge or awareness of both sides, but you have no intention of learning about them. You have not made one comment that indicates any kind of understanding about Israel's point of view nor have you criticized the Palestinians even once. If this is not the case, please show me. But you will not, for reasons we have previously discussed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You invited comments about your employment etc., by your announcement, and which I have subsequently commented on:

    Commented Feb 23, 2011 at 15:19:57 in World
    “Why did you say, in your own blog " I'll be working at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs in their social media department­" if "I'm not working for the JCPA"?

    Why has your "brother" said "Due to the arrangemen­­t of his employment there, he's not allowed to leave the country, so he couldn't do that even if he wanted to"?



    Commented Mar 12, 2011 at 13:18:08 in World
    “Murder is a despicable act, no matter who commits it.

    I hope that all of the people who support the Palestinia­ns, as I do, will join me in condemning these murders.



    Commented Mar 10, 2011 at 11:38:38 in World
    “The EU's top diplomat, Lady Catherine Ashton, was visiting the Gaza Strip when militants in the Hamas-rule­­d territory launched the rocket.

    At a Gaza news conference after the attack, Ashton said: "I condemn any kind of violence, we have got to find a peaceful solution to the issues and problems."
    http://www­­.haaretz.­c­om/news/­in­-gaza-e­u-s­-top-d­iplo­mat-c­ondem­ns-d­eadly-­roc­ket-att­ac­k-1.2649­7­8

    and

    The EU Council on Monday condemned continued rocket attacks on Sderot but urged Israel to cease acts of violence and ease the humanitari­­an situation in the Gaza Strip. "The Council expresses its sympathy for the civilian population­­s affected by the violence in Gaza and in Southern Israel. It condemns the continued firing of rockets into Israeli territoryĆ¢­­€¦while recognizin­­g Israel's legitimate right to self-defen­­se, the Council calls for an immediate end to all acts of violence," an official statement said. "[The Council] reiterates its grave concern at the humanitari­­an situation in Gaza and calls for the continuous provision of essential goods and services, including fuel and power supplies," it added.
    http://www­­.jpost.co­m­/Israel/­Ar­ticle.a­spx­?id=90­304

    Gosh, they took me 30 seconds to find”



    Commented Feb 23, 2011 at 23:11:16 in World
    “That is untrue.

    Look at my comment history and you will see that I condemn the rocketry from Gaza, I condemn suicide bombs from anywhere, I condemned the murder of a West Bank Israeli family last year, and I abhor violence by either Israelis or Paletinian­s.

    I am, however, capable of understand­ing.

    My eyes are open.

    But carry right on believing whatever your misconcept­ions have led you to.”


    Commented Feb 17, 2011 at 17:16:10 in World
    “Despite Libislife'­s protestati­ons, you and I both know that those rabbis are real.

    I condemn violence.

    I condemn war, rocketry, shootings, stone-thro­wing and all the other symptomati­c indicators of the problems in Israel/Pal­estine without favour. If you don't think so, then I regard that as your problem and not mine. Sorry if that does not sit well with you.

    And I believe that rabbinical influence actually does influence public opinion, and policy as a result, in Israel.”

    ReplyDelete
  14. You posted a screen grab underneath which you added:

    "So there should never be a Jewish state because that would mean discrimination against non-Jews. And in fact it can't be a democracy either, it only "pretends" to be. This from an ardent defender of Lebanon."

    That is statement which puts words into Mr. Samel's mouth. It is not preceded by "I believe that Mr. Samel infers....." or any other escape clause. YOU PUT WORDS INTO MR. SAMEL'S MOUTH THAT HE DID NOT INCLUDE IN HIS COMMENT.

    In contrast I have expressed, above, my personal BELIEF about a part of the purposes of your merry little trip.

    You still don't know what is really going on, Horatio.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have condemned rocketry, suicide bombings, any and all violence:

    "Commented Feb 17, 2011 at 17:16:10 in World
    “Despite Libislife'­s protestati­ons, you and I both know that those rabbis are real.

    I condemn violence.

    I condemn war, rocketry, shootings, stone-thro­wing and all the other symptomati­c indicators of the problems in Israel/Pal­estine without favour. If you don't think so, then I regard that as your problem and not mine. Sorry if that does not sit well with you.

    And I believe that rabbinical influence actually does influence public opinion, and policy as a result, in Israel.”




    You invited comment about your merry little trip the moment that you preened yourself about it in these columns all that time ago.

    But, hold on, "you demanded on the HuffPo to know about my employment," - you responded that you are NOT employed in Israel, you are "learning Hebrew".
    One of those is mistaken. Are you "employed" or are you "learning Hebrew".



    There is no need for me to demonstrate an understanding of the Israeli points of view while I am supporting Palestinians, now is there?

    Get real. Horatio.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "You have proven that you not only have ZERO knowledge or awareness of both sides, but you have no intention of learning about them."

    Demonstrate the proof that you claim exists, on both points.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It's interesting, but not at all a surprise, that I left you several responses and that only 2 of them have appeared at this time.

    Horatio, your blog needs to "do better".

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Your comment was published."

    would seem to be inaccurate, Horatio.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Aren't we feeling verbiose today, Andrews? Let me try to put my responses slightly more succinctly:

    "You invited comments about your employment etc., by your announcement..."
    -On the blog. Which is where discussions about such a thing remain. You ought to know by now that Matt and I don't discuss blog topics on the Huffington Post, and if you inquire within that framework we aren't going to respond. If you have something to say to me about something I said HERE, then say it HERE. Not on the HuffPo. I don't think that that is that much to ask.

    "Why has your "brother" said "Due to the arrangemen­­t...."
    -It was me, not him. And I was mistaken. I told you that already.

    "“Murder is a despicable act, no matter who commits it...."
    -And all of your other copy and pasted comments are along these lines. Congratulations, you won't defend cold-blooded murder. Most pro-Israel posters won't either. But that doesn't mean your comments aren't indicative of a blind support of the Palestinians. You have yet to prove that you are capable of seeing both sides or understanding both points of view. But more on that later.

    "That is statement which puts words into Mr. Samel's mouth...."
    -No, it is an opinion that interprets what Mr. Samel said. Which, I might add, you still have to provide an alternative interpretation. Anytime you would like to provide one, please do so.
    That being said, if your issue is with my word structure, your opinion is noted.

    "One of those is mistaken. Are you "employed" or are you "learning Hebrew"."
    -At the time you asked me I was learning Hebrew. Now I am employed. And if you call me a "professional propagandist" again, I'll report your ass. You have been duly warned.

    "There is no need for me to demonstrate an understanding of the Israeli points of view while I am supporting Palestinians, now is there?"
    -Nope, but that makes you the biggest hypocrite I have ever met, since you demanded that I work to understand both sides points of view while refusing to do the same yourself. Now that I know you are a hypocrite, your opinions and demands will now be disregarded.

    <"There are excellent reasons for my own failure - and I acknowledge that it is a failure - to travel to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza and try to gain a greater level of knowledge and awareness of BOTH sides of the issues.">
    -Yep, that excellent reason is that you don't want to. Hooray for hypocrisy. Moving on...

    "Demonstrate the proof that you claim exists, on both points."
    -Don't need to. It's obvious. But why don't you show me a post where you understood Israel's point of view, beyond "Palestinian murders are bad."

    "I left you several responses and that only 2 of them have appeared at this time."
    -Yeah, they were caught in Blogger's spam filter. You were posting multiple comments right after each other in the same thread. Aka spamming. Cry me a river, I have now restored your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "On the blog. Which is where discussions about such a thing remain" is a nonsense unless it applies to all such sources, and, by extension, to HP itself. Congratulations, you have just removed the raison d'etre of this little enterprise.
    That you "don't discuss blog topics" on HP might be a choice that you have made or had imposed on you by HP. You have no right to try to impose that on anyone else, and have, in any case, shown the statement to be a lie because you have discussed "blog topics" with me on HP.

    "No, it is an opinion that interprets what Mr. Samel said". This is becoming worn out, but, unless you make clear that the words you have added are "an opinion" or "interpretation" or "whatever", you are putting words into Mr. Samel's mouth. Have you considered that what Mr. Samel actually said might be the "interpretation" that you seek?

    I think you have threatened me previously. Such threats are empty because I really don't care very much if you "report your ass". It may well be that your "success" if you were to get me (for example) banned, would be doing me a favour (it would certainly free up some of my time) though I am unconvinced that it would be doing the same for yourself.

    Whence the hypocrisy you allege?
    I keep supplying you with information, and am sure that I have told you this previously (though my memory may be at fault), I have a great many Jewish friends including Rabbis, and they are among my most valued and trusted acquaintances. We discuss matters Israel frequently and at length (have you ever tried to have a short conversation over matters on which you don't quite see eye to eye with a Rabbi, for example?). I read, and have read, extensively, about matters Israel/Palestine from both perspectives. In short, I have taken great care, and considerable effort, to understand the situation from both perspectives, within the limits of the resources available to any individual who might be in a similar situation to myself (and a damned sight more than most).

    You again assume, in that you think that I don't want to travel to Israel. You are wrong, and I can only repeat that there are excellent reasons for my inability to do exactly that.

    There is not the smallest need for me to show you any posts. The onus is on you to provide the proof that you say exists.
    In an attempt to be helpful, I would point out that your failure to find a comment from me which clearly demonstrates that which you demand is as about as far from demonstrating that I do not understand a Jewish/Israeli point of view as it might be possible to get. In fact it would prove nothing.

    I would cry you a river, but Jordan and Israel have virtually dried it up.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "is a nonsense unless it applies to all such sources.."
    -Well in this case we are discussing personal matters. It's one thing to discuss things like employment, Andrews, it's quite another to use that personal knowledge as a personal attack. But you know what? Fine. Do whatever you want. And we'll see if the Huffington Post moderators feel the same way, okay?

    "Have you considered that what Mr. Samel actually said..."
    -Which was what? Are you saying that he wasn't saying that the existence of a Jewish state leads to discrimination? If not then what was he saying? I have asked you multiple times to provide another interpretation of his comments besides mine, and you have never done so. Put up or shut up time.

    "I think you have threatened me previously..."
    -Stop playing the victim. I have never threatened you and I still haven't. What I said was a mere heads up of the consequences of if you continue to use personal knowledge of mine as a personal attack. And if that leads to you being banned, then it won't be my fault, or Matt's, or BcemxHaHa's. It will be *yours,* and yours alone.

    "In short, I have taken great care, and considerable effort, to understand the situation from both perspectives..."
    -That directly contradicts what you said here:

    <"There is no need for me to demonstrate an understanding of the Israeli points of view while I am supporting Palestinians, now is there?">

    If you do understand the Israeli point of view, you have never demonstrated this, as your own words have proven. That is why there is no posts to indicate that you do. If you would like to provide one, that would be fantastic.

    "You again assume, in that you think that I don't want to travel to Israel."
    -That isn't what I said. What I said was that you don't want to gain a greater awareness of both sides. Which as I said above, your own words prove.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh, and thanks for proving that you have no understanding of both sides yet again:

    "Is that "culture of resistance" disconnected from the undeniable fact that those foreigners, who gave away their land, and the other foreigners who came to live on it, also led them up the garden path with a whole series of promises - which they promptly broke? "

    Foreigners who break promises? That's *real* understanding, Andrews.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "In short, I have taken great care, and considerable effort, to understand the situation from both perspectives..."
    -That directly contradicts what you said here:

    <"There is no need for me to demonstrate an understanding of the Israeli points of view while I am supporting Palestinians, now is there?"

    There is no contradiction there at all.
    There is no need for a nuclear scientist to demonstrate his knowledge of such matters if he might choose to comment on current matters in Japan, for example.



    "<"There are excellent reasons for my own failure - and I acknowledge that it is a failure - to travel to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza and try to gain a greater level of knowledge and awareness of BOTH sides of the issues.">
    -Yep, that excellent reason is that you don't want to."

    If that does not refer to my inability to travel to Israel then I have misunderstood your response, but it could be interpreted either way.


    So, are you suggesting that the British, French, Americans and Russians, along with representatives of the mass immigrants to Palestine made and broke no promises to the extant population. If that is what you are suggesting it is an interesting interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Oh, and by the way, Horatio,

    "if you continue to use personal knowledge of mine as a personal attack."
    Bearing in mind that the comment to which you object appears to have been a reference to "professional propagandist" it would seem that you are saying that interpretation of your employment is correct (repeat - "personal knowledge of mine").


    You are capable of reading. I suggest that you re-read Mr. Samel's comment and put no spin on it.
    He does not say "the existence of a Jewish state leads to discrimination" - does he?
    You interpret.
    If you don't, you can see that he does not say any of the things that you say he says.
    Now, that is the one and only basic comprehension lesson that I am inclined to provide without payment to my favorite charity.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "There is no contradiction there at all. "
    -You can spin if you like, but in the end you have proven very clearly that you are completely on the side of the Palestinians and have not demonstrated any understanding of Israel's point of view. That's the bottom line.

    "If that does not refer to my inability to travel to Israel..."
    -It was referring to the latter part of your comment, i.e. the part where you spoke about trying to gain understanding about both sides. You could do that from home, if you wanted to.

    "So, are you suggesting that the British..."
    -I am saying that the way your comment was phrased indicates a complete adherence to the Palestinian narrative. Which is exactly the proof you wanted me to find vis a vis your lack of understanding of Israel's POV. Thanks for providing it.

    "it would seem that you are saying that interpretation of your employment is correct."
    -Like I said, you can interpret my words any way you choose. I made my position clear at the time.

    "He does not say "the existence of a Jewish state leads to discrimination" - does he?"
    -And like I said five posts again, here's what he does say:

    <<<"If the two-state solution were implemente­d in the near future ...we would continue to have a Jewish State that openly discrimina­ted...">>>

    Yet again, this is in the *context* of a two-state vs one-state solution. He is advocating for a one-state solution, is he not?

    I say again, for the fourth time, where is your alternative interpretation of these words?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Your post ignores several things I have previously pointed out to you - for one example that I have a great many Jewish friends with whom I discuss matters in depth, and that I read extensively on both sides of the issues.

    You confirm your determined obtuseness, that is all.

    In case you want to "interpret" this post, I will spell it out for you:
    1. It is a complete waste of time attempting to penetrate your self-imposed ignorance.
    2. I really don't care if you refuse to communicate with me on this or any other matter, because
    3. This conversation is over.

    ReplyDelete

Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.