I got fired by the Jerusalem Post today (Larry Derfner)

[Violet_Crumble]

I got fired by The Jerusalem Post today. The paper got hundreds of notices of cancellations of subscription after my blog post (“The awful, necessary truth about Palestinian terror”) of Sunday last week; the reason being given for my firing, though, is the substance of the essay, despite the apology I published later. A page-one notice to this effect will be published in the Post tomorrow.

My apology was to have run in the Post yesterday, but a logistical mix-up prevented it. Today the paper ran a column by Isi Liebler titled “Justifying murder – an abomination,” which, like nearly all of the right-wing websites attacking my original essay (I took it down from my blog upon publishing the apology), it gives extremely short shrift to all the things I wrote that show my intent was not to encourage terror, but the opposite

<snip>


What bothers me most is not that I got fired, but that I’m not being given the opportunity to fill in the picture that’s been so distorted in today’s Post column and in right-wing Web commentaries. The parts of the picture being obscured or outright hidden would show that while I misspoke myself harmfully, my intent was not to support, endorse, advocate, encourage or call for terror against Israelis, but to end it. This intent was clear not only in my apology, but in my original essay. By skewing my words so badly, today’s Post column, the Web commentaries and what the Post will publish on page one tomorrow portray a writer announcing that he wants Israelis to get killed, instead of one who’s trying to stop that from happening.

Let me just add that I was told that the “great majority” of the Post staff opposed my firing. I’m truly grateful for the support they showed.


http://israelleft.com/2011/08/29/i-got-fired-by-the-jerusalem-post-today/

[Hawkowl]

1. So no pride and no job...

No dignity in writing something, apologizing for it, and then getting shit canned. If he believed in what he was writing, he shouldn't be whining about it.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. No pride?

He's got far more pride and integrity than most people have. I'm not sure why anyone would think anyone has no pride if they write something on their own blog (note: the article never appeared in JPost), later had second thoughts on realising it could easily be misinterpreted, deleted it from the blog and issued an apology. I didn't agree with either the article or him needing to delete it and apologise, but I agree with the many people on his and other blogs who see the sheer hypocrisy in what JPost did. After all, not too long ago they published an offensive editorial that tried to justify the slaughter of Norwegians, and it's a very safe bet whoever was responsible for that didn't get their marching orders(and unlike Mr Derfner's article, it actually appeared in JPost).

[Mosby]

4. Barry Rubin sort of agrees with you

"An AFP dispatch about the firing of Larry Derfner has been published widely throughout the world. It mentions correctly that I defended Derfner's right to free speech and said he should not have been fired."

Rubin also claims he is a "traditional" (an Obama type) liberal:

"There are two points in the article, however, I would like to challenge. First, is the description of me as "right-wing" and found it surprising that I defended Derfner.

I reject that entirely. There is more of a choice in politics today--I hope--than being either "left-wing" or "right-wing." As I have repeatedly made clear, I am more accurately described as a traditional liberal in American terminology and as a moderate social democrat in European or Israeli terminology. Since I was a parliamentary candidate in the last Israeli election of a social democratic party that might be some clue as to my political views.

By redefining everyone as extreme, the common ground of democracy is being destroyed. I judge each issue on its merits rather than on a preconceived ideological framework. Moreover, the defense of democracy, civil liberties, free speech, and judging someone's work on the basis of merit are important ideas to fight for. Political life should not be reduced to a battle between two extremes that ignore fair play in the search for victory."

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/08/whos-right-wing.html


on edit: personally I think Derfner has lost his fucking mind, and deserved to be shitcanned.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. Why would anyone care what that Islamophobic piece of crap thinks?

Don't worry. I would have been totally shocked if you'd hadn't supported Mr Derfner's sacking for something that wasn't even published in JPost, and was deleted and accompanied with an apology on his blog. Gosh, maybe he could be replaced with Rubin! ;)

[King_David]

11. After a while if a person accuses every

person who is pro-Israel of being Islamaphobic it kind of loses its meaning,as I am sure you have found?

(Last time you accused Gays who were defending their rights and dared critisize Hamas types for being homophobic , as being Islamaphobic. It kind of loses credibility ;) )

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Huh?

I certainly don't accuse everyone who's pro-Israel of being Islamophobic, and that's a totally false claim to make. There are many pro-Israeli posters in this forum who definately aren't the slightest bit Islamophobic...

Sorry, but yr either deliberately distorting what I said about the nasty bigot who said 'I hate Muslims', or have totally forgotten what was said. But now you've brought it up again, how about you try and explain why hating Muslims is defending anyone's rights? It's not, and it really is a repulsive stance to take...

edited to add link to 'exchange' where you claimed that someone saying 'I hate Muslims' wasn't Islamophobia so people can see for themselves what was said

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x358701#358855

Which leads to the question: Seeing you think saying 'I hate Muslims' is anti-homophobic, does that mean that you think everyone who doesn't hate Muslims is homophobic?

[King_David]

18. It is not about hating Muslims

It is about hating those who would want to discriminate and kill you for being Gay.Hamas types.

There are plenty of Muslims that accept absolute full Gay rights up to and including Gay marriage , and that should be the litmus test,without exception.

I already told you Irshad Manji is one. A great role model.


https://www.irshadmanji.com/support

[Violet_Crumble]

20. When someone says 'I hate Muslims', it's not about hating Muslims??

So, if someone were to say 'I hate Jews', there'd be circumstances where you'd pop up and claim 'It is not about hating Jews?' What utter bullshit!

What don't you comprehend about the obvious fact that hating Muslims is bigotry? Attempts to justify outright bigotry like that is revolting..

[King_David]

22. Yes if that were what I was talking about

Its about Zero tolerance for those Hamas and Ahmadinejad type Gay haters.

Since I believe you really do know what I mean ,and it is clear to all,but you keep going off on a completely irrelevant tangent,I will end this conversation here with you.

It is kinda like the way I feel about a Cancun Vacation -"Been there , done that."

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Here's an obvious fact for you. If someone says 'I hate Muslims' they're an outright bigot...

Doesn't matter who it is that says it. And those who try to justify why it's okay for anyone to state that they hate Muslims, Jews, gays, etc is likely just as bad, as they wouldn't be exerting energy trying to defend such ugly statements if they didn't have some level of agreement with the bigoted statement in the first place...


Seeing as how yr the one who started this 'completely irrelevant tangent', maybe you should avoid creating them in the first place? Just a suggestion...

[Mosby]

13. What is it exactly that makes Rubin an Islamophobe?

I don't read much of his stuff lately given his attitude towards Obama.

You don't support Derfner's assertion that Palestinian terrorism against civilians is justified due to the occupation do you?

[Violet_Crumble]

16. A few examples were posted in a recent thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=359919&mesg_id=360109

Do you agree that someone who think someone who thinks Muslims are taking over European society and also claims there's no such thing as Islamophobia is expressing some anti-Muslim ideas?

As for yr question, of course I didn't agree with what he wrote.

[Mosby]

32. I read through what LB posted and think Rubin at times crosses the line

Though he certainly can't be compared to people like Spencer and Geller.

Writing about religious fundamentalism is a risky business where people often end up stereotyping and exaggerating and by doing so descend into bigotry. Just look around DU to see this with posts that relate in some way to x-tian fundamentalism, especially with political figures. I'm not convinced that people always do this on purpose, it's very easy to make a legitimate generalization that devolves into an ugly stereotype. This seems to happen with Rubin's writings on the spread of fundamentalism in Europe but I don't believe that this makes him some kind of raging bigot.


edit spelling

[LeftishBrit]

34. Fair enough but there is a difference between being anti-fundamentalist, or even prejudiced against

religion in general, or Christianity or Islam in particular; and being prepared to jump on a bandwagon of hostility to an ethnic/religious minority group, and especially implying that they are a threat not even just to security, but to *national identity*. The *whole concept* of the need to preserve 'national identity' against a small minority of outsiders is a pretty ugly one.

In Europe, much Islamophobia is really secondary to a much longer-standing and pervasive xenophobia and bigotry against foreigners and immigrants, especially though not exclusively those of a different colour. In Britain, there has been such xenophobia against successive groups of immigrants and their descendants - Irish, Chinese, Jewish, Indian, Afro-Caribbaean, Indian, East Europaean, etc. While some suspicion of immigration is based on somewhat rational economic concerns, it frequently and rapidly degenerates (with the help of our tabloid press) into a much uglier hostility to a convenient scapegoat. Think of the attitudes of Jan Brewer and the Minutemen to Mexicans - this is pretty equivalent. Rubin may well not be a raging bigot himself; but he is ready to give aid and comfort to those who are raging bigots. It may be that he does think of Melanie Phillips and the like as merely criticizing fundamentalism; nevertheless it is his job to find out more about the background to such things before pronouncing on them.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. I agree he's not on the same level as Geller and Spencer...

What they write is more crude, more laden with spittle, venomous hatred, and vitriol. His views on Muslims, though, are bigoted. Unlike the vast majority of DUers, he's a professor, has access to resources that most DUers wouldn't have, and should have the judgement and intelligence to iandventently fall into the trap that some DUers may fall into in the heat of cyber battle. What he's said has been every bit as intentional as the comments Helen Thomas made that she was quite rightly condemned for.

[LeftishBrit]

delete (dupe)

[LeftishBrit]

delete (dupe)

[LeftishBrit]

29. Here is an example from the Rubin Report

And note: this is not about Muslim-majority countries; it is about Muslim immigrants and their descendants in *Europaean* countries. Less than 5% of the population in almost all countries (3% in Britain or instance); virtually non-existent in some - e.g. in Poland, perhaps the most antisemitic country in Europe, Muslims constitute less than 0.1 % of the population.


'What we are seeing today in the West is a definitional struggle: Is the principal danger to European society "Islamophobia" or radical Islamism? If it is "Islamophobia" then it is possible to rationalize a policy ignoring the roots of terrorist attacks and radical forces in the Muslim community while tending to *appease demands for more power, funding, and privileges*. Otherwise, it is claimed, Muslims will be tortured, murdered, expelled, and mistreated.

Even a refusal to limit immigration, promote assimilation, deny special privileges, or ban polygamy can be justified as ways to avoid making Muslims feel "excluded."

Indeed, this is largely what's happening in Europe: *almost anything is justified to ensure that Muslims are happy*.

Yet if the main threat is revolutionary Islamism and *the collapse of national identity, stability, and democracy*, then Europe is in a lot of trouble.

There is also a different way to look at the situation: By following these policies European governments are likely to increase *not only the threat to their own stability, culture, and society from Islamism* but also to increase the likelihood of antagonism toward Muslims. After all, increasing power, demands, extremism, and violence from Islamists is going to echo on the other side far more than would a more moderate strategy in dealing with these immigrants and citizens....

In other words, the Multicultural, Political Correct, criticism-of-Islam-equals-hate-crime approach is the worst possible policy, undermining the host country, radicalizing the Muslim community, and simultaneously stirring up mutual hatreds. There is nothing more likely to create something that might be called "Islamophobia" in the future than kowtowing to fear of *this largely non-existent phenomenon in the present.*'

I have put asterisks around the most worrying quotes. Rubin is not just worrying about security threats from Muslim extremists; he is claiming that Islamophobia *does not exist and that the main or only problem is 'radical Islamism' *within Europe*. He is not just implying that the Europaean countries may be weak in response to a terrorist threat: he is arguing that these countries are allowing Muslims to take over their societies; that they are a threat to *national identity*; that Europaeans are appeasing Muslim immigrants' demands for more 'power, funding and privileges'. It all reminds me VERY much of antisemites' allegations about Jews and 'Zionists' in their countries.

Moreover, he quotes Melanie Phillips approvingly in another article.

I don't know whether he is Islamophobic with regard to all countries, but he has certainly swallowed the vile 'Eurabia' myth hook, line and sinker.

No, I don't agree with Derfner on this topic. I think that violence against civilians, or where civilians are avoidably put at risk, is not justifiable.

[Mosby]

33. Thanks for the info, I replied in post #32

[King_David]

7. I agree 'personally I think Derfner has lost his fucking mind, and deserved to be shitcanned. '

But they should let him defend himself 1st.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Question for you and Mosby...

So, do you also think that the person responsible for the recent editorial that unlike Derfner's post actually was published in JPost has lost their fucking mind and deserves to be shitcanned?

[King_David]

12. no

;)

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Why not? n/t

[azurnoir]

17. do you agree with Leibler's essay's on Palestinians? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Good luck getting any answer to that n/t

[azurnoir]

23. I wish for the poster to answer

if he refuses to answer, but no answer is in itself an answer of sorts

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Good luck with that. It could be a long wait...

:hi:

[King_David]

38. Dunno WTF your on about, but

Never heard of that dude ;)

[azurnoir]

39. yawn n/t

[King_David]

37. Never read them. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Here's one. Do you agree with it?

'Indeed the Jews have faced no such evil since the Nazis. That should not be construed as a racist statement or a primitive demonization of an entire people. It is calling a spade a spade. US President George W. Bush refers to evil states. Our Palestinian neighbors who seek the destruction of the Jewish people represent the essence of evil and barbarism. And now is the time for us to say so to the world at large, loud and clear. We are not suggesting that the Palestinian people are intrinsically or genetically any more evil than the Germans were under Hitler. We are saying that, like the Nazis, the Palestinian leaders have succeeded in indoctrinating their people and transforming them into a society which is inspired by evil.

It is evil when a society extols as heroes those who target civilians at gatherings such as a Pessah Seder, a bar mitzva, or a discotheque.

It is evil when a society sanctions the revival of the ancient custom of child sacrifice.

It is evil when a people bestows the highest level of merit on suicide bombers whose objective is to kill the maximum number of Jews.

It is evil when mothers display themselves on television conveying pride that their children have become "martyrs" and expressing the hope that their younger offspring will follow in the same tradition and also die killing Israelis.

It is evil when the proud parents of "martyrs" are publicly rewarded for sacrificing their children by being provided with $25,000 from Saddam Hussein and lauded for their contribution by Arafat himself.

It is evil when children in kindergarten are taught songs and poems which extol the virtues of killing Jews. When four year-olds are taught at summer camps how to shoot Jews and indoctrinated into accepting as role models the "heroic martyrs" who died in order to kill the "wicked" Jews who "usurped" their land.

One video repeatedly shown on Palestinian television incorporates a children's song with the lyric "How pleasant is the smell of a martyr, how pleasant the smell of the land, the land enriched by the blood, the blood pouring out of a fresh body."

It is evil when an entire religious establishment calls on its faithful to hate Jews because they are Jews; to "have no mercy on the Jews wherever they are, in any country. Fight them wherever they are. Whenever you meet them, kill them because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine." That extract from a Gaza mosque sermon broadcast on Arafat's television station, is typical of the daily diet of Islamic fundamentalist incitement directed against Jews.

And if not evil incarnate, how can one explain or justify the joyous street celebrations that erupt as soon as there is news of Israeli women and children having been blown apart by one of the heroic "shahids"?

How else to view such behavior other than as evidence of a truly evil society?'

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/isreport/oct02/evil.html

[Violet_Crumble]

49. So, 'King David'. Do you agree with what Liebler wrote? n/t

[LeftishBrit]

28. This is probably the only time I'll say it in the next 500 years - but good for Rubin!

I will always give some respect to a person who is prepared to defend free speech for an opponent.

I suddenly realize, though, what may be leading to some confusion about Rubin's views. The phrase 'traditional liberal' is often used in other countries, including Britain and very likely Israel, in a different way from how it's used in America. It does not mean 'similar to Obama'. It often means 'similar to the Liberal Party in Britain in the mid-19th century'; i.e. pro-democracy, against the rule of kings and lords then and totalitarianism now, BUT economically right-wing, against state intervention in the free market, and not necessarily very concerned with social justice.

In the context of a dictatorship, or a 19th-century monarchy where the aristocrats don't want to give the common people the vote, such a view is a giant step forward. But there is a lot more that is needed. Rubin's strong dislike of Obama, his right-wing anti-welfare-state views that come up when he mentions economic issues, and most of all, his support for vile xenophobic right-wingers in Europe, make him generally loathsome in my eyes. But, nevertheless, on *this* occasion - good for him!

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day...

I followed Mosby's link and found his article where he said Larry Derfner shouldn't have been fired, and found one bit I agree wholeheartedly with...

'All too often nowadays the response to disagreement is to try to destroy people on the other side of the argument, to delegitimize them with name-calling and to silence them. That's not the way democratic debate is supposed to work. If you think someone is wrong then answer the substance of the statements being made.'

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/08/larry-derfner-should-be-debated-not.html

Gotta give him some points for that...

[shira]

45. There is no recognizable "Left" when it comes to I/P. Isn't that obvious by now?

Those who are liberal zionists are considered rightwing by "leftists". Now here's a fellow leftist calling the international "left" rightwingers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x361848

That's from someone farther "left" than Derfner who is fed up with the anti-zionist "left", like the Mondoweiss knuckle draggers.

You said yourself someone like Norman Finkelstein is a rightwinger. I happen to agree and in the above article, Yossi Gurvitz also agrees with you.

I'd be interested to see what you regard as left/right when it comes to I/P, especially WRT anti-zionist Mondoweiss views. Can you name a few Palestinian voices who are genuine leftists?

[LeftishBrit]

46. Palestinian left...

I'd say Ghassan Khatib, Sari Nusseibeh, especially Ray Hananiah; and my favourite, the insufficiently well-known blogger Ramzi Sfeir:

http://ramzisfeir.wordpress.com/

This does not mean that I would agree with absolutely everything that they say, but I respect them and consider them left not right.

I do not consider 'liberal Zionists' as right wing. However, anyone who refers to 'bloated welfare states' and 'nationally suicidal multiculturalism' in Europe and buys into the Eurabia myth is on the side of darkness as far as I'm concerned, and I wouldn't care from that point of view if they were members of Meretz in Israel; they support the forces of evil in *my* part of the world. And while I am hardly an isolationist and like to think of myself as a world citizen, nevertheless someone who supports the Right on my turf is my enemy, politically speaking, whatever their views on other issues!

[shira]

47. How about the Mondoweiss crowd? n/t

[LeftishBrit]

48. No.

I've said several times that I don't care for them.

They sometimes come up with something that makes sense; and may have decent motives to begin with. But, just as Rubin, even if he possibly didn't start that way, allows his opposition to fundamentalist Islam to lead him to make common cause with Europaean anti-immigrant bigots, with the supporters of the war in Iraq, and with the anti-Obama economic right-wingers and Palin defenders - so do Mondoweiss allow their opposition to the Israeli right and pro-Israel exceptionalists lead them to make common cause with the anti-Israel exceptionalists; the conspiracy theorists about dual loyalists; the Liberty, etc.; and the paleoconservatives of American Conservative and the like. So not my favourite or frequent read. My favourite I/P blog is Bitter Lemons.

[shira]

50. So it disturbs you when so many DU'ers here spew the Mondoweiss talking points, right? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

51. Hey, seeing you've turned up in this thread, do you agree with Derfner being sacked?

Just thought I'd steer the thread back to what the OP's about...

[shira]

52. Nope. They hired him for a reason and Derfner was just doing his job. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

53. I'm not sure what job you think he was hired to do...

He wasn't doing his job anyway, as the article never appeared at JPost, but on his personal blog...

[shira]

54. Exactly. Derfner did his job for the JPost and what's on his blog is irrelevant. n/t

[Fozzledick]

3. Justifying murder – an abomination

A few days ago, I was alerted to an unprecedented and obscene extension of such behavior, emanating, to my profound regret, from Larry Derfner, a senior professional staff writer for the Jerusalem Post. Only days after Israeli infants and families were brutally murdered by terrorists near Eilat, Derfner publicly stated that the murder of Israeli citizens was a justifiable weapon for Palestinians to employ in order to overcome the “occupation."
...
To avoid any misunderstanding, let me be specific about what Derfner actually said. He asserted that in fighting for their “independence” Palestinian terrorists are “justified” in targeting and deliberately murdering innocent Israeli women and children. He even explicitly said that “whoever the Palestinians were who killed the eight Israelis near Eilat last week, however vile the ideology was, they were justified to attack” and it was the Israeli government that was “to blame for those eight Israeli deaths.” He opined that it was high time for Israelis to appreciate “that terrorism in the face of a rejectionist Israeli government is justified … even to kill Israelis.”

He stated that while he endorsed the right of Palestinians “to use terrorism against us,” he did not wish to see Israelis killed and like Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, he felt that terrorism (while justifiable) can be counterproductive to the Palestinian cause. However Israeli “blindness” was “compelling the Palestinians to engage in terrorism” and by exposing the “unjust” Israeli government as being “to blame for these Israeli deaths,” it would contribute to “ending the occupation.”
...
Presumably in response to massive protests directed against him, Derfner “apologized” a week after his article appeared and deleted it from his website. However, he had the chutzpah to reiterate the justification for terrorism, merely stating that he does not endorse the murder of fellow Israelis. This is neither a retraction nor an apology.

His obscene and callously insensitive remarks are likely to haunt him for the rest of his life.

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=407

[Violet_Crumble]

5. Thanks for posting an example of the ranting of the Right...

While Isi Liebler was long ago someone who's views were palatable, over time he turned into nothing but a right-wing shill and someone who's openly expressed bigoted sentiments about Palestinians and Muslims. Back when John Howard (our own should-be war criminal) was PM, Liebler had this to say about the war in Iraq: 'I think this little guy is going to come out of all this as a real man of history. I think he's been absolutely outstanding.'

And how about this article of Liebler's that appeared in JPost back in 2002:

'Indeed the Jews have faced no such evil since the Nazis. That should not be construed as a racist statement or a primitive demonization of an entire people. It is calling a spade a spade. US President George W. Bush refers to evil states. Our Palestinian neighbors who seek the destruction of the Jewish people represent the essence of evil and barbarism. And now is the time for us to say so to the world at large, loud and clear. We are not suggesting that the Palestinian people are intrinsically or genetically any more evil than the Germans were under Hitler. We are saying that, like the Nazis, the Palestinian leaders have succeeded in indoctrinating their people and transforming them into a society which is inspired by evil.

It is evil when a society extols as heroes those who target civilians at gatherings such as a Pessah Seder, a bar mitzva, or a discotheque.

It is evil when a society sanctions the revival of the ancient custom of child sacrifice.

It is evil when a people bestows the highest level of merit on suicide bombers whose objective is to kill the maximum number of Jews.

It is evil when mothers display themselves on television conveying pride that their children have become "martyrs" and expressing the hope that their younger offspring will follow in the same tradition and also die killing Israelis.

It is evil when the proud parents of "martyrs" are publicly rewarded for sacrificing their children by being provided with $25,000 from Saddam Hussein and lauded for their contribution by Arafat himself.

It is evil when children in kindergarten are taught songs and poems which extol the virtues of killing Jews. When four year-olds are taught at summer camps how to shoot Jews and indoctrinated into accepting as role models the "heroic martyrs" who died in order to kill the "wicked" Jews who "usurped" their land.

One video repeatedly shown on Palestinian television incorporates a children's song with the lyric "How pleasant is the smell of a martyr, how pleasant the smell of the land, the land enriched by the blood, the blood pouring out of a fresh body."

It is evil when an entire religious establishment calls on its faithful to hate Jews because they are Jews; to "have no mercy on the Jews wherever they are, in any country. Fight them wherever they are. Whenever you meet them, kill them because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine." That extract from a Gaza mosque sermon broadcast on Arafat's television station, is typical of the daily diet of Islamic fundamentalist incitement directed against Jews.

And if not evil incarnate, how can one explain or justify the joyous street celebrations that erupt as soon as there is news of Israeli women and children having been blown apart by one of the heroic "shahids"?

How else to view such behavior other than as evidence of a truly evil society?'

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/isreport/oct02/evil.html

There's also a recent display of anti-Muslim sentiment from Liebler that appeared in Jpost where he sounds exactly the same as antisemites in their shared haste to totally minimise bigotry:

'Jews who exaggerate the presence of the phenomenon become leading proponents of the campaign to sanitize and understate Islamic extremism

It is surely high time for Diaspora leaders to stop living in denial and get their act together. Instead of competing with each other in oozing political correctness, they should display some backbone and call a spade a spade.'

<snip>

WHAT MAKES this situation even more bizarre is that over the past months, there has been a concerted campaign claiming that Islamophobia represents the greatest threat to human rights in the world! In the US the controversy over the mosque at Ground Zero, where 3,000 Americans were murdered in the name of Islam, has been twisted into an attempt to deny Muslims equal rights as distinct from not violating the sensitivities of the bereaved families. Not a single mainstream conservative politician has ever denied the right of Muslims to build mosques throughout the US.'

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=189444

Talk about the sheer hypocrisy of Liebler. At least JPost were a bit honest in admitting they sacked Larry Derfner because of cancelled subscriptions, and unlike Liebler didn't lie when discussing the sacking by falsely claiming there's a wide spectrum of political views expressed in the paper. With Larry's sacking, there's only one remaining liberal writer on the staff, so I guess the wide spectrum is from the Right through to the Extreme Right.

[Fozzledick]

8. What an awfully long way to go for an ad hominem diversion

only to come up with so little!

[Violet_Crumble]

9. I think you need to learn the definition of ad hominem before you wield that accusation again...

So Islamophobia and calling Palestinians evil is 'so little' in yr opinion? You really need to go back and reread what was posted and take note that the right-wing bigot you posted an article from was attacking Larry Derfner, in itself a diversion if we use yr logic...

[azurnoir]

19. JPosts firing of Derfner is an act of fear and cowardly at that

truth is hard to hear or read

we 'hear' all of the time on this board about the hatred of Palestinians for Israeli's (Jews) but when one reads the comments on this 'liberal' board the projection involved in these statements becomes more than obvious or it should

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Dimi Reider responds to Derfner's sacking...

For those of you who don't read Israel Reconsidered, Dimi Reider replaced Richard Silverstein as the other contributor to the blog

Despite all that, Derfner came under a not so much a wave of criticism as a sustained barrage of refuse; one characteristically repellent example can be found in the column of his erstwhile colleague Isi Leibler (assuming you haven’t had your lunch yet.) Although Larry’s post didn’t appear in the newspaper, and although he already apologised on the blog and removed the offending text, Larry offered to publish an apology on the Jpost pages as well, after it got “hundreds of notices of cancellations.” Apparently, “a logistical mix-up prevented it.”

Larry’s main thesis – that Palestinian terrorism is bound to Israeli military violence – is about as old as the state, if not older; even Moshe Dayan has said as much. I strongly disagree with the phrasing – I myself wouldn’t use “right” or “justified” anywhere near violence against civilians, be it Palestinians killing Israelis, Soviet Partisans killing German civilians, Algiers guerrila blowing up cafes, or Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin blowing up Arab marketplaces. Still, the dismissal, despite offers to retract and apologise, is an outrage that dwarfs any conceivable damage caused by Larry’s text. Unfortunate phrasing of an unpleasant argument on a third-party forum cannot be a reason for the dismissal of a veteran columnist; but obviously, for the Jerusalem Post it was more than enough of an excuse.

Larry’s dismissal is made all the more obscene by virtue of the light it sheds on the egregious double-standard that once-professional publication now employs in regard to conservative versus liberal opinion; I say that as someone who fondly remembers the fairly conservative op-ed editor of my own time at the Post soliciting op-ed pieces he openly disagreed with. Larry worries his post might end up on some Hamas website. This is yet to occur, and even if it does take place, it’s doubtful it would influence the decision of any young Palestinian whether to become a terrorist or not. By contrast, the writings of Jerusalem Post deputy-editor Caroline Glick were cited in the manic manifesto of Norwegian terrorist Anders Brevik in justification of the bloodbath he executed earlier this summer; unlike Derfner, Glick has yet to be shown the door.

Moreover, right after the Norway carnage the Jerusalem Post published an outlandish editorial suggesting the calculated, murderous rampage of a self-confessed xenophobe was an opportunity for Norway to revisit its immigration policy. The editorial was so beyond the pale the Post only put it up on the website with a disclaimer, and sparked such an outrage in Norway the newspaper had to spend another editorial on an apology; to my knowledge, all of those responsible for this serialised farce kept their jobs. Not so for Derfner.

http://972mag.com/ir5/

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Richard Silverstein's response...

The subtitle of this post should be: “And then there was one.” A year ago or so, the Jerusalem Post fired one its few liberal commentators, Naomi Chazan, when the paper ran a disgusting Im Tirzu ad caricaturing her with a rhino horn bursting forth from her forehead. She threatened to sue the paper and they canned her. That left only Larry Derfner and Gershon Baskin as the remaining progressives. And now there is only a single one left.

I just heard a piece of terrible news, which unfortunately doesn’t shock me. Today, the Jerusalem Post fired one of its only two remaining liberal columnists, Larry Derfner. He’d written a post in his private blog, unassociated with the paper, about the Eilat terror attacks which expressed understanding for the Palestinian impulse to violence against Israel. This so angered the newspaper’s far-right audience that hundreds cancelled their subscriptions in anger. And the Post, being that bastion of free speech and journalistic integrity of course fired him to pacify the baying wolves.

I’d suggest people cancel their subscriptions, but who subscribes to that shmateh, anyway? What, do you do so in order to read the pearls of Shmu Rosner? Or Caroline Glick? Or Isi Liebler? A zoch in vay! Nonetheless, this day should live in infamy. Call it the Pearl Habor Day of an Israeli free press.

Aside from the political content of what Larry wrote, there is an extremely important issue related to his being fired for writing a blog post. While some may argue that what one writes on a private blog when one is a public figure reflects on one’s employer or career, I reject the notion that a blog post should be the cause of a journalist’s firing unless he’s advocated committing a crime or something of that order.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/08/29/larry-derfner-fired-by-jerusalem-post/

[Violet_Crumble]

30. What JPost management refuses to publish

RIGHT OF REPLY

For your information

By Larry Derfner

Like many right-wing Israeli and Diaspora Jewish media – though not mainstream Israeli and Diaspora Jewish media, from what I’ve seen – the column by Isi Leibler (“Justifying murder – an abomination,” August 29) presents an unfair, unbalanced picture of the post and subsequent apology I wrote on my blog last week.

The original post that appeared Sunday, August 21 on Israel Reconsidered and Facebook was titled “The awful, necessary truth about Palestinian terror.” I removed it upon publishing “Apology” on August 26, but it has been retrieved and circulated widely on the Internet.

In that original 1,000-word post, I did indeed write that because of the occupation, Palestinian terrorism against Israelis is justified “when this country offering the Palestinians no other way to freedom.” I did indeed write: “Whoever the Palestinians were who killed the eight Israelis near Eilat last week, however vile their ideology was, they were justified to attack.”

Yes, to my eternal regret, I wrote that. But I wrote it in a misguided attempt to achieve the highest goal, which I described fully. In that same post, I also expressed my practical approach to terrorism as an Israeli. I spelled out that approach while making my larger point that was brushed off in passing by Leibler and many other commentators. I’m not sure Jerusalem Post readers are aware of it, or sufficiently aware of it, so here is the part of my original post where I conveyed my practical stance on Palestinian terror and the ultimate point of what I was writing.

http://israelleft.com/2011/08/31/what-jpost-management-refuses-to-publish/

[subsuelo]

35. No surprise (that they refuse to publish any apology)

The J.Post knows exactly what is expected of it. They have a role to play, and it has nothing to do with fostering peace

[bemildred]

31. So much for free speech, so much for free thought.

You can't kill ideas by suppressing them.

[Dick Dastardly]

36. How so? This has nothing to do with free speech

He was not censored by the government. He was not subject to criminal prosecution. He was not forbidden to publish his article by the goverment. He is free to publish his article with anyone who would or on his own which he did in fact publish on his website.

The JPost is a commercial enterprise and for good or bad it has a right to decide who and what it wants to publish just as all media does. Freedom of speech does not mean or guarantee freedom from consequences.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. Sorry, it's got a lot to do with it...

No-one mentioned censorship, though censorship certainly isn't confined to just governments. It's about freedom of speech and suppression of ideas. The article he wrote wasn't even published in JPost, it only appeared on his blog. He deleted the post and issued an apology. So JPost fired him for something that never appeared in the paper, published a smear job by Isi Liebler and refused to allow him the right of reply....

The JPost is a commercial enterprise and for good or bad it has a right to decide who and what it wants to publish just as all media does.

He should have stuck to something safe and approved by JPost, like publishing really inappropriate and insensitive articles about the Norway attack. He'd still have a job if he'd done that...

[bemildred]

55. Free speech does not amount to shit unless it applies when people don't like what you have to say.

The tendency to want to shut people up because they say bad things is natural, but it is wrong.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. A Rightist Push Scores Against Press Freedom in Israel (Bradley Burston)

A note to the reader: There will be no objectivity in this. Its subject is a good friend, an army buddy, at that. Its subject is also a newspaper that was my first home as a reporter, an institution of importance and influence.

And a newspaper which has made a terrible mistake.

The Jerusalem Post, which for nearly 80 years has given an astounding range of people a chance to express their views, has fired an exceptional columnist and feature writer, Larry Derfner, over words which never appeared in its pages. Words he had already retracted, words for which he had already publicly apologized.

<snip>

In the end, the firing was not an editorial decision, but an economic one. To the chagrin of its editors and journalists, the management of the Jerusalem Post has caved in to what amounts to a political boycott.

The decision sets an alarming precedent, especially for a paper which has always championed democratic freedoms in Israel, even as many of its rightist commentators have endorsed or excused legislation which would curb those freedoms.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bradley-burston/jerusalem-post-larry-derfner_b_941827.html