AIJAC apologises to me

Bren Carlill apologised to me. It seems strikingly insincere to me – he wants to “apologise unreservedly”, before going on to explain that I was only pretending to be offended anyway. His comments are on the Sensible Jew blog.

First, he explains why he’s right:

Bren Carlill says:

Michael Brull needs to take a chill pill.

I do not and have not compared his opposition to settlements to Nazism. He has repeated this denigration of my character on numerous occasions and in numerous fora.

This fallacy comes from a throwaway line I wrote some time ago – a throwaway line I have subsequently come to regret writing, due to the mileage it has given Brull in his ongoing – as yet futile – quest to gain infamy as the next Loewenstein.

For the record, I wrote (in http://blogs.crikey.com.au/crikey/2009/04/23/israelpalestine-cage-match/#comment-215) a response to a long series of accusations Brull made against me:

“Brull writes: “He also seems to think over 450 000 settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and a military occupation has no relation to the non-existence of a Palestinian state.”

“Darn tootin’! There was no Palestinian state when Israel arrived in the West Bank in 1967! Israel has offered Palestinians a state on numerous occasions since then. The final status agreement, when it is signed, will deal with issues such as troop redeployment and the settlers. The settlers and the soldiers are not the reason there is no Palestinian state. Don’t worry, Michael Brull, the new Palestinian state will be Judenrein enough for you.”

For the record, I do not believe Michael Brull is a Nazi, supports Nazi tactics et cetera ad nauseum. Nor do I believe his opposition to any and all Israeli foreign and domestic policies is akin to or reminiscent of Nazi wants, desires or tactics.

I simply noted and note that Brull wants the West Bank free (rein) of Jews (Juden).

He strangely changed his mind within 24 hours. Interestingly, in commenting on what he said, I wrote “Mr Carlill of course does not consider it at all inappropriate to write such an outrageous and offensive thing about me – even now he only regrets that it may have been counterproductive for attacking me or whatever his goals were”. We can judge for ourselves if this is true of his allegedly unreserved apology.

  1. Bren Carlill says:

    Michael Brull, you are correct.

    Well, at least on one issue. It was inappropriate of me to use the judenrein comment, both when it was used originally, as well as yesterday.

    Attempts at genocide have happened, and probably will happen again. The Holocaust stands out in my and many people’s memories as the very worst example of genocide, because it was organised ‘top-down’ by a competent and supposedly civilised country, using all the industrial technology available to it.

    I have realised that by associating the term ‘judenrein’ with your views on the Arab-Israel conflict, regardless of my intent, the outcome is that some may perceive I am linking your views to Nazi ideas.

    As such, allow me to apologise unreservedly for using the term. I will never use the term again outside of its correct historical context.

    I make three final points. First, as much as this is a mea culpa, I continue to believe your views on the Arab-Israel conflict are blemished by wilful ignorance, and will not hesitate to criticise them in the future, when and where appropriate.

    Second, various anti-Israel critics take great delight in comparing Israeli actions to Nazi actions, despite this being highly inaccurate and highly insulting. That I used the term judenrein inappropriately may, as you pointed out, weaken the arguments of Israel’s supporters that comparing Israel with World War II-era Germany is outrageous. This I also regret.

    Third, your concocted moral outrage when asserting that I have played the man, not the ball, rings hollow given that you have called me ‘vulgar’ and ‘racist,’ among other ad hominem attacks.

This is a very slight victory. Note also Carlill’s unretracted claim that he had no intention of comparing me to the Nazis; it’s just how some might perceive what he wrote. Right, he just felt a sudden urge to speak German, but sadly, he now realises what others might interpret from what he wrote. I mean, this is surely one of the more insincere apologies I’ve yet witnessed (I wouldn’t say received, because it doesn’t appear to be directed at me, given that he doesn’t think I was really offended at all). I except the apologies I’ve witnessed from small children under duress for misbehaviour.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: