Monday, September 13, 2010

Israeli Rape By Deception Case: One Week Later

It has now been more than a week since information was released which shattered the international media narrative on the two month old Israeli "rape by deception" story. As one of the first bloggers to identify and comment on this story in English - making use of Elizabeth Tsurkov's translation - I've been humbled by the many others who picked up on my insignificant ramblings and shared the message with tens of thousands of their readers. It was my first time in the middle of a story worth linking to, and the blogosphere did not disappoint.

To Yaakov Lozowick, Solomonia, Martin Kramer, Volokh, Bruce S. Levine, Elder of Zion, Backspin, Judeopundit, HuffPo Monitor, CiF Watch, SoccerDad, Yourish, Rungholt, Ben Smith of Politico, Eli Lake of the Washington Times many others... thank you!

Also, thank you to the dozens if not hundreds of you who cross-posted the story to your Twitter and Facebook feeds, left comments on DailyKos and a dozen forums and bulletin boards, emailed it to your friends and sent letters to the editors of news sites demanding retractions. Some of you CC'ed me on those emails, and I read them, even if I didn't respond. Silke seems to have sprinkled my name throughout the internet, including on German language sites, and it was quite a treasure hunt keeping up with her in the traffic stats. Vielen Dank, Silke! Sie sind auch mein Lieber ;)

As many of you know, despite a full week of being bombarded with emails, tweets and links, during which he had ample opportunity to correct the record in light of factual updates to the story, which any responsible blogger would have done, Andrew Sullivan has not retracted his odious remarks, made infamous on this blog:
But it's the visceral emotional core of this that is so offensive. It's about racism, religion and the risk of miscegenation. It's about the deep disgust of some Israeli Jews toward Arabs, upheld by the courts. It's a variant of the racial sexual panics of the Jim Crow South.
Yes, it really is the visceral emotional core of this that is so offensive. What would a reputable blogger - "of no party or creed" - have to gain by continuing to distort the public record and lying to his hundreds of thousands of daily readers, when a simple one line clarification would settle the matter? Do these remarks fit into a pattern of Sullivan's portrayal, reporting and commentary on the Jewish state? What does it say about the man that he cannot accept to have been wrong in his exceptional, vitriolic denunciation of a society he knows so very little about?

In the days and weeks and months and years to come, we will explore these and many other questions pertaining to Andrew Sullivan, for there is nothing so conducive to stiff-necked resolve as the indecent obduracy to reason.

On My Bookshelf