Friedman's libel

According to the THE 'LECTRIC LAW LIBRARY(tm) (See www.lectlaw.com) libel is: "Published material meeting three conditions: the material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; the defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and the material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander. (For more details, see http://192.41.4.29/def/l032 )." From http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/ Why do I point this out? Because I've just read the most libelous piece of newspaper op-ed in my entire existence. To quote: (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/opinion/24friedman.html?oref=login&hp) "This brings us to this week's vote in the Israeli Parliament about whether to proceed with Mr. Sharon's plan for a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Mr. Sharon, a man of the right, has finally realized the demographic threat posed by Gaza to Israel and wants to get out. He is being opposed by the Israeli far right - the Jewish Hezbollah. This includes settler rabbis who have urged soldiers to disobey orders and, with winks and nods, have let it be known that if someone were to eliminate Ariel Sharon he would be acting out God's will. In this struggle between Jewish fanatics and Ariel Sharon, we must stand with Mr. Sharon. These settler rabbis are a blot on the Jewish people." Now let me see if I understand this. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. They've attacked and killed innocent people. They've launched attacks into foreign countries. They've threatened even more attacks. They are terrorists. Far right Jews are not terrorists. They are not dedicated to destroying anyone. They are not attacking other countries. They are not launching rockets or kidnapping people. There is no connection between these two groups other than in Friedman's libelous mind. Why did he make this comparison? To demonize anyone that is against his latest love, the Gaza retreat plan. He goes so far as to repeat reports that have been discredited by Israeli secret service about a threat to Sharon's life. He goes so far as to openly accuse 'settler rabbis' of supporting an assassination attempt. I read his 'op-ed' and all I see is demonization and libel. Where does the New York Times come off allowing this type of scare tactics to be published? How can they support such hate mongering. Friedman is just as much a terrorist at Hezbollah is. He seeks to spread fear and distrust of 'right wing Jews', he distributes his poison across the world and has a prestigious platform to do so with. I've heard al quida sermons with less hate against Jews. I've heard Hamas sermons with less hate against Jews. On the other hand, I have heard Friedman rants with more hate against Jews. Why does this hate monger have a podium to speak from? Why does the New York Times still support him. If I was a right wing Jew, I'd sue him. -- Michael Dinowitz House of Fusion http://www.houseoffusion.com Finding technical solutions to the problems you didn't know you had yet

> Michael wrote: > If I was a right wing Jew, I'd sue him. IMO, your lawsuit would be thrown out before it got to court.  Here's the spot in your def'n that would do it: "someone who is identifiable to one or more persons" Mr. Friedman specifically defined the "Israeli far right" as persons who are "settler rabbis who have urged soldiers to disobey orders and, with winks and nods, have let it be known that if someone were to eliminate Ariel Sharon he would be acting out God's will."    This type of person could be called a "terrorist" or a religious extremist which is what Hezbollah is made up of. Legalities aside, I liked Mr. Friedman's piece especially how he gave direct evidence of Mr. Bush's foreign policy actually making America more dangerous rather than safer: "In the face of this plan, the Bush team is silent. This is partly because the Palestinians continue to stick with Arafat as their leader, even though this bum has led them to ruin - so the U.S. has nothing to offer Israel. And it's partly because the Bush team, which is so inept at diplomacy, has never had the energy or creativity to shape a better Palestinian alternative to Arafat.  As a result, the Sharon vision of getting out of Gaza in order to take over the West Bank will probably win by default. If that happens, "Jews, Israel and America" will be bound together more tightly than ever as the enemies of Arabs and Muslims."

> > Michael wrote: > > If I was a right wing Jew, I'd sue him. > > IMO, your lawsuit would be thrown out before it got to court.  Here's > the spot in your def'n that would do it: Yes, in your opinion. But in the legal opinion, I'd have a case. > "someone who is identifiable to one or more persons" So as long as Friedman equates a right winger with Hezbollah, it's enough to fit the criteria. So as long as I identify you as a terrorist sympathiser, you are one. Thanks for letting me know. > Mr. Friedman specifically defined the "Israeli far right" as persons > who are "settler rabbis who have urged soldiers to disobey orders and, > with winks and nods, have let it be known that if someone were to > eliminate Ariel Sharon he would be acting out God's will."    This > type of person could be called a "terrorist" or a religious extremist > which is what Hezbollah is made up of. No. Friedman does NOT describe the Israeli far right as being these people. He says it INCLUDES these people. He's painting more than just settlers with this brush. This does not even address the libel of saying that these people accept and even (under the table) endorse murder. But looking at the last line of your argument, it basically falls down to this: In your mind, any religious extremest is no different than any terrorist. > Legalities aside, I liked Mr. Friedman's piece especially how he gave > direct evidence of Mr. Bush's foreign policy actually making America > more dangerous rather than safer: No, he's giving his opinion on the matter, not his evidence. Friedman is good at giving his opinion without evidence backing it up. It's what he does. And for those (like my wife) who think Friedman is Jewish and this gives him any 'special ground' in the matter, he's not. He's just a blowhard who has a loooong reputation for these types of op-eds.

Just out of curiousity, what is a right wing Jew? Is right and left similar to the "right" here? Is it more extreme one way or the other? My understanding is that even the right in most of Europe is left of the U.S. -Kevin > If I was a right wing Jew, I'd sue him.

In truth, I have no idea. I know that the Left in Israel is basically more socialist, more willing to give up everything with little fight, more willing to trust the Arabs despite the years of evidence. The right want security before peace and don't seem to fast to give up land for that peace unless it's really peace. But this is not the case any more as Sharon (on the right) is trying to pull all Jews out of Gaza in return for nothing. I think that far or extreme right is just a code word used by people like Friedman to signify the religious. His bias against them is well know and shown as was in this latest piece. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Michael wrote: > In truth, I have no idea. This is why in the "legal opinion" you have no case.  To defame someone, that person must be "someone who is identifiable to one or more persons".  Who can you specifically identify as being a "far right Jew"?  Nobody. You're only a "far right Jew" if you identify yourself as one, but nobody could make the argument that they are uniquely identified by the public at large by the term.  Therefore you have no case. I will point out another flaw with your general "it's all the Palestinians fault" argument.  Let's say you're in a bar arguing about this very subject.  You get angry, pull a gun, aim it at the Palestinian and fire.  The Palestinian ducks and the bullet strikes his wife and kills her.  You are criminally charged with 2nd degree murder. In court would it be a valid defense to say, "I wasn't targeting his wife?"  No.  Further the husband could sue you civilly for wrongful death. Granted in the Middle East both parties have let the situation spin out of control such that civil law no longer has jurisdiction, but law is based on a general sense of morality, and that law is still violated when Israel sends a missile into a crowded street to kill a terrorist and also kills innocent bystanders. Did they target civilians?  No.  Did they fire anyway?  Yes.  And morally (just as legally) that's a crime. That doesn't excuse the Palestinian terrorists, but that's the whole problem!  If a Palestinian targets and kills a civilian, it's 1st degree murder.  If an Israeli rocket kills an innocent bystander, it's 2nd degree murder and maybe 1st degree murder.

> > Michael wrote: > > In truth, I have no idea. > > This is why in the "legal opinion" you have no case.  To defame > someone, that person must be "someone who is identifiable to one or > more persons".  Who can you specifically identify as being a "far > right Jew"?  Nobody. If you read and responded on my entire post rather than one sentence, you would see that I explain who Friedman is refering to in his rant. > You're only a "far right Jew" if you identify yourself as one, but > nobody could make the argument that they are uniquely identified by > the public at large by the term.  Therefore you have no case. Not true. Your identified as something just as much by others (moreso) than by yourself. Arafat and Bin Laden identifies themselves as men of peace but the world knows different. > I will point out another flaw with your general "it's all the > Palestinians fault" argument.  Let's say you're in a bar arguing about > this very subject.  You get angry, pull a gun, aim it at the > Palestinian and fire.  The Palestinian ducks and the bullet strikes > his wife and kills her.  You are criminally charged with 2nd degree > murder. Not once have I said it's all the Palestinians fault. I've pointed out Israel's flaws as well. It's you who have been one sided, condeming Israel while only drawing moral equivlents for the Palestinian's actions. And as for your example, it makes no sense. We're not talking about shooting in anger. We're talking about Israel shooting in self defense. BIIIIG difference. > Did they target civilians?  No.  Did they fire anyway?  Yes.  And > morally (just as legally) that's a crime. Yes, they are firing at people shooting at them first. > That doesn't excuse the Palestinian terrorists, but that's the whole > problem!  If a Palestinian targets and kills a civilian, it's 1st > degree murder.  If an Israeli rocket kills an innocent bystander, it's > 2nd degree murder and maybe 1st degree murder. No, it's not even murder in a court of law. It's a mistake when shooting at a armed combatant and missing.