May 09, 2003
Savaged by the Star

This blog was just savaged by Antonia Zerbisias of the Toronto Star in an op-ed "Where is the outrage over activist [Rachel Corrie's] death":

Bad enough that Corrie was crushed to death, but now she is being buried again, a victim of media neglect and Blogistani justice. Cruise the net and you'll find many Likudnik hardline blogs, or web logs, and web forums, where Corrie has been crudely excoriated.

On idiotarian.com: "I nominate the Bulldozer for the Nobel Peace Prize! It improved society; and now with blood on its hands, I mean blade, it'll fit in with past recipients such as: Terrorfat, Mandela, Carter." On littlegreenfootballs.com, where she's known as "the flat bitch:'' "How 'bout we all get together at Rachel's grave and stage a vomit-in on it?'' while on usefulwork.com, "I hope that Rachel's parents read this site. I just want to say hi; and that at least you have the knowledge that she died painfully."

First of all, I do not consider myself a "Likudnik", hardline or otherwise. What Zerbisias doesn't also say is that the quote attributed to "usefulwork.com" was from an anonymous reader in the unmoderated comments section, and that I get plenty of equally obnoxious anti-Israel comments that don't reflect my viewpoint either. (and the same applies to little green footballs)

And it looks like Antonia Zerbisias has struck a chord with her own avid fans -- like Holocaust denier David Irving

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 09, 2003 09:52 PM
Comments

I would comment, but I don't want you to be blamed for my opinion.

Posted by: AST on May 10, 2003 09:26 AM

I just look at it as publicity. Good or bad, it doesn't matter. I've never found the media to be very concerned with getting the facts right, so it doesn't surprise me that she would attribute a quote to you that wasn't yours. The quote off of my blog came from a comment too, not from me specifically. Oh well, at least the readership went up, but then agian so did the hate mail. Loons from everywhere came out on this one. The funny thing is, that if you search my blog for Corrie, you will find that I have made a grand total of 2 entries on the subject (prior to the article). Certainly I shouldn't get top billing over the much more productive corrie demything blogs. Like I said, oh well.

Posted by: Dr. Jal Hampson on May 10, 2003 09:29 AM

"The flat bitch." Heh. I'd missed that. That's a good one.

Posted by: Spoons on May 10, 2003 09:30 AM

Azerbis curiously uses this lead in the quote she sttributes to Idiotarian: "Jewish websites gloat about a cruel murder." In ascending order of importance: 1) All murders are "cruel," otherwise they wouldn't be, well, murders. She's given, then, to redundancy. 2) Other than parroting ISM propaganda, what "proof" of murder does she offer? None, of course, because it wasn't murder -- which makes her credentials as a journalist no less suspect than her facility with English. 3) Jewish Websites? Not true, in any meaningful sense. Shark is (I believe) Jewish; the other two (far as I know aren't). Even if they all were, would that make their sites "Jewish"? But it is a very crude reminder of the increasingly hysterical agit-prop put out by useful idiots such as Azerbis.

Posted by: wm. tyroler on May 10, 2003 09:42 AM

To paraphrase 'Top Gun:'

"Mr. and Mrs. Corrie, the IDF regrets to inform you that your daughter is dead because she was stupid."

Posted by: parking_god on May 10, 2003 09:46 AM

if you're bored, you could email (as did i) and alert her of her utter stupidity.

azerbis@thestar.ca

Posted by: jacob on May 10, 2003 09:53 AM

Instapundit it says it could have been a mistake that she misquoted you. What Glenn doesn't know is this woman has posted comments before on Little Green Footballs, so she's obviously familiar with the format. This was a deliberate, malicious slander. It was not a sloppy mistake, it was deliberate. She should be fired.

Posted by: Michael Levy on May 10, 2003 10:55 AM

love the "jewish websites" phrase.

can somebody please explain how one determines whether a website is "jewish"? is it because its technical administrators are jewish? because some of its contributors are jewish? because a significant portion of its readership is jewish? because content is primarily geared towards issues that would, overall, interest persons of jewish descent?

matter of fact, what qualifies as "jewish"? somebody of israeli nationality? somebody who is actively religious? somebody of jewish ethnic descent, independent of his or her opinions or choice of religion?

all of this, of course, doesn't really matter to a person like ms. zerbisias because "jewish," to her & many others of her mindset, is a dirty word; a smear term that automatically detracts from whatever noun it's paired with.

"jewish" websites. "jewish" people. "jewish" icecream. the websites, the people--the icecream--don't matter, it's the "jewishness" that speaks volumes.

anti-semitism is alive & well, it appears.

Posted by: harm d. on May 10, 2003 04:19 PM

I emailed the Star asking if the editors and ombudsman would like to comment, noting that Ms. Zerbisias had a past history of contact with LGF.

I mentioned that it appeared to me that history would seem to imply her motivation was less than pure for the mis-attribution of the comments.

Others might do the same, see if we get a professional response from the Star.

Posted by: Skeej on May 10, 2003 04:36 PM

"can somebody please explain how one determines whether a website is "jewish"?"

The Idiotarian she quoted thinks the little scrolly thing on the right is a mezuzah...since all web sites have one, that's how the Idiotarians can tell the Jews control everything...

Posted by: Smithereen on May 10, 2003 05:54 PM

"can somebody please explain how one determines whether a website is "jewish"? is it because its technical administrators are jewish? because some of its contributors are jewish? because a significant portion of its readership is jewish? ....."

If one of the grandparents of the blogger is Jewish....

Posted by: Yehudit on May 10, 2003 09:40 PM

Why are such vicious and callous names used to describe an American woman killed by an Israeli bulldozer? This is answered by looking at the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in terms of the need for violence on both sides to keep their separate agendas going. Both sides need to murder to achieve what they want. Most people understand this about suicide killers but why is murdering "peace activists" necessary? I have to believe that to not kill Rachel Corrie would have set a dangerous precedent. Can you imagine what would have happened if Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. would have been able to visit this war torn region and had been murdered? Would their deaths have been called suicides too? The murder of those who practice peaceful resistance exposes the very reason for the resistance. Regrettably those who would call Corrie “that flat bitch” are no better than the person at the controls of the bulldozer that killed her. For me, Corrie’s murder was an evil act that I never imagined would have been cheered even by the rabid supporters of an the Israeli state. For them peace is not possible unless their agenda is complete. Nobody has to agree with Corrie’s politics to understand this. What the rest of the world is now asking is “what is the Israeli agenda” that makes it so important to kill innocent people who may belong in jail, but not in a morgue? Isn’t that the question that needs answering?

Posted by: rediscoverer on May 11, 2003 02:12 AM

And what is there about people with an agenda that they just *know* Corrie was killed intentionally?

Gandhi or MLK would certainly not have sacrificed themselves for suicide bombers. Gandhi would certainly have fasted himself to death until his own side would have purified itself first.

Posted by: Solomon on May 11, 2003 07:18 AM

I went and read the article. Either Zerbisias was misquoted in the comments, or the column was changed. The phrase " "Jewish websites gloat about a cruel murder" does not appear anywhere in the article, and the phrase "Likudnik", while certainly suggestive of a Jewish connection, is not a very precise analogue (I am not Jewish, but I'd consider myself Likudnik on issues relating to Israel).

That said, her article is typical of the European view of the conflict (as is her anti-American stance on just about every other issue her columns have discussed). I wonder if she is originally from somewhere in Europe; it would go far in explaining her mindset.

She makes a point ot targetting websites that have a less than charitible view of Corrie, but totally leaves out any mention of the fact that her "murder" has been thoroughly debunked in the 'sphere, both on sites she has mentioned, and others she left out. The fac that Israel has put up with the nutjobs from ISM as long as they have shows that they are on the right side; can you imagine any other country allowing "war protesters" FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY act with impunity in a war zone?

Posted by: Ron on May 11, 2003 08:59 AM

The posted article originally contained a reference to "Jewish weblogs." That's now been changed: it references "Likudnik hardline blogs." Two points. First, by now "neo-con" and "hardline Likud" (but to such minds is there any other type?) is code for "Jewish." Same as, in another era, "bloc votes" and "welfare queens" were code for African-Americans. We're supposed to pretend that such verbiage is merely descriptive, and doesn't suggest an inadmissible bias. Second, the original use of "Jewish weblogs" was too transparent -- it had to be changed in order to maintain the charade of the code. But this sleight-of-hand editing merely makes Zerbisias (and the Star) intellectually dishonest. They can play 3-card monte all they want with their posts, but they've been caught red-handed.

Posted by: wm. tyroler on May 11, 2003 09:43 AM

"For me, Corrie’s murder was an evil act "

That's what makes you wrong. Her death is sad, but it was not murder or evil. Using her loss of life to further the Moooooslum murder machine IS evil. Those that fall for it are just stupid. Plain and simple.

Posted by: Dr. Jal Hampson on May 11, 2003 10:11 AM
New comments may be posted only from the 'Comments' links at the bottom of each entry on the blog home page