Ailes Apologizes to Foxman; Controversy Is Over; ADL director eagerly accepts grudging ‘I’m sorry’

[BurtWorm]

(How many times has Abraham Foxman forgiven a lefty or Democrat when they apologize for demeaning the Holocaust? I know this is not a big issue at all, and perhaps my impression is wrong, but I don't recall Foxman being as kind to anyone he's criticized the way he practically apologized to Roger Ailes.)

This is from Marc Tracy of The Tablet:


http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/50983/ailes-apologizes-to-foxman-controversy-is-over/

It doesn’t matter that Fox News head Roger Ailes called NPR “Nazis.” Why? Because he apologized to Abraham Foxman! Per a press release we got:

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has accepted an apology from Roger Ailes, Chairman and CEO of Fox News Channel, for his use of the expression "Nazi attitudes" in an interview to describe officials at National Public Radio.

In a letter to Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, Mr. Ailes wrote that he was sorry for using the term "Nazi" in an interview with The Daily Beast. "I was of course ad-libbing and should not have chosen that word," he wrote, "but I was angry at the time because of NPR's willingness to censor Juan Williams for not being liberal enough."

(Actually, not to nit-pick, but Ailes did more than "use the expression 'Nazi attitudes'"—he actually said of NPR, "They are, of course, Nazis.")

My parents used to tell me that when you apologize but add a "but," you are basically negating the apology. Oh well: "I welcome Roger Ailes's apology, which is as sincere as it is heartfelt," Foxman said. (As it happens, I too believe that Ailes's apology was exactly as sincere as it was heartfelt.)

...

[otohara]

1. Sincere and Heartfelt - MY ASS

what I don't get is why The ADL gave an award to Rupert Murdoch who spreads lies, propaganda and hate - like the real Hitler did.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Passive-aggressive attack on the ADL.

How unsurprising. :eyes:

[BurtWorm]

3. What's passive about it?

:shrug:

Are you talking about me or Marc Tracy? (I know you're not talking about Ailes.)

[Behind the Aegis]

6. The author.

I guess Foxman should have told him to "Fuck off and die!" as that would have been an appropriate response. It is just another stupid "hit piece" on the ADL, when they are really attacking Foxman.

[Puregonzo1188]

9. What information in the OP is factually inaccurate?

[Behind the Aegis]

10. Did I say anything was factually inaccurate? The answer you would be looking for is "no."

[Matariki]

4. Ailes OWES an apology to NPR. And to thinking America.

[Puregonzo1188]

5. ADL has increasingly become a fairly rightwing group. They opposed the Islamic Community Center,

filed an amici brief on behalf of the government in Holder V. Humanitarian Law (putting them at odds with the ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch, and Carter Center) and spend their time condemning antiwar groups for having the audacity to hold Israel accountable for its human rights violations. Hell, they used to list the entire "anti-globalization movement" as an anti-Israel group on their website, listing such shocking facts as "many of them are vegetarians." They seem to have removed that from their website, but if you read some of the stuff on the antiwar groups it reads just like something McCarthy would have written--they spend as much, if not more time, labeling groups or people as Marxist-Leninist or anti capitalist as they do anti-Israel or anti-semetic. I mean I kind of understand why--red baiting is still seen as viable way to smear your opponents.

I'm not really surprised they're forgiving Roger Ailes given that it gets increasing more difficult to tell the ADL apart from Frontpage.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Puregonzo1188]

8. Would you care telling me which of the specific points I made were untrue?

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Do you understand what a "strawman" is?

[Puregonzo1188]

13. Yes, I do. Do you?

Because I stated my opinion of why I disliked the ADL, then cited several, factual, irrefutable examples of positions they've taken on recent issues, as well as, their general style of argumentation. You responded not by disagreeing with me, but by calling me "pathetic" and "laughable." In fact, all you've done in this thread is personally attack people who have the audacity to offer criticisms of an organization I am assuming you are fond of (please correct me if I'm wrong). You've essentially conceded the OP is entirely factual, as is my post, and instead opted for personal attacks.

I have not attacked you personally, nor have I done anything other than express an opinion and explain it using information you do not deny is factual. You could have disagreed and I would gladly have civilly discussed and debated the issue with you. Perhaps you disagree with some of the ADL's actions, but still believe they are an overall good organization. After Citizens United, many people here on DU attacked the ACLU quite vehemently. My response was not to attack them personally (though I do have some personal reasons for being defensive of the ACLU), but explained that while I disagreed with the position they took in this instance, I did not believe it nullified the 90+ years of good work they had done, such as, consistently defend the 1st Amendment, their involvement with expanding procedural due process rights, or their challenging of the War on Terror polices. You could have done something similar, explaining why you think the ADL is a worthwhile and redeemable organization. Perhaps I would have changed my mind, perhaps you would have changed your's, or maybe we would have both walked away agreeing to disagree but richer for the exchange.

Of course, you instead chose to attack the OP, and attack me, adding nothing of substance to the discussion.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. Spin, spin, spin.

I didn't call you "pathetic" and "laughable." But, don't let facts stop you. Your post was as I said a "misrepresentation." Remember that word being used? You are the one engaged in personal attacks by claiming I am doing something I have not done. Your post is nothing but a "I'm being victimized for my opinion" when in fact, it was an "attack" on your position. YOU have made it personal, not me.

[Puregonzo1188]

16. I apologize if I misunderstood your intentions, now would you care please to back up your

original assertion that I have "misrepresented" the ADL--something you have yet to do?

[Behind the Aegis]

17. The ADL has done more than make missteps.

It has been involved in numerous positive actions defending the rights of Jews, gays, the disabled, immigrants, and yes, even Arabs and Muslims. They often defend groups that others will not. They were well involved in the Civil Rights movement and helped make much progress in the treatment of African-Americans in the US. Whereas they may hold unpopular positions, many focus on those and act as if all the good the ADL has done is a side thing, unimportant and irrelevant. To some, it is as if the ADL is akin to the Klan and all the good they have done is relegated to "picking up trash on the side of a highway."

[Puregonzo1188]

18. Thank you. I appreciate your response. But aren't there other groups, like say

the ACLU, that have also been involved in similar struggles for civil rights without some of the baggage? Don't you think their over politicized support for Israel has made them somewhat inconsistent in their defense of those rights, such as, leading them to oppose recognizing the Armenian Genocide? Aren't there groups that don't so clearly and obviously politicize when they will or will not stand up for civil rights that may be more deserving of our support?

[Behind the Aegis]

19. So what if they what you term to be "baggage?"

I support the ALCU, as well. I also know the ADL also has different pressures and concerns than the ALCU.

"Don't you think their over politicized support for Israel has made them somewhat inconsistent in their defense of those rights, such as, leading them to oppose recognizing the Armenian Genocide?"

I suggest you actually read up on that remark. It was politics in play. The ADL has "flipped" a few times on that, and, in some cases, it came directly to the pronouncement of Foxman, not the group as a whole.

This "hit piece" crap against the ADL has become all too familiar here and among self-proclaimed "liberals and progressives."

[Puregonzo1188]

20. I'm aware that is politics in the play and not an actual belief that the Armenian Genocide

did not happen that led them to lobby Congress not recognize it as such.

Shouldn't genocide not be an issues of politics for a civil rights group? What if say someone suggested the US not recognize the Holocaust as such in order to foster better relations with Iran, I think most people would be outraged and a lot less quick to forgive.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. Do you know how politics work?

They recognized the genocide but not the resolution. It caused a great rift in the group and among its supporters. Given the strain in the Turkish government, there was, in their eyes (the ADL) of reprisal against Jews in Turkey and elsewhere. It is sad they gave into that type of blackmail, often directed at us Jews and not others, but it is what it is. You acted as if the ADL denied the Armenian genocide; it is good to see you know that isn't true. So, it wasn't just to "foster better relations with Turkey" as you suggest, but an attempt to keep a backlash happening against Jews in Turkey and, likely, here.

[jonnyblitz]

12. they also accused Jimmy Carter of being an anti-semite. nt

[Puregonzo1188]

14. As well as lobbied against Congress recognizing the Armenian genocide.

Their positions from the early '80s on opposition to nuclear power and the electoral polices as being instances of "the real anti-semitism" also strike me as troubling.
In the same publication, Nathan Perlutter, writing in an official capacity as national director of the ADL, said "nowadays war is getting a bad name and peace too favorable a press."

The ADL has more than a few isolated missteps here or there, they've been consistently engaging in pretty audacious rightwing smears for awhile. Which is why it's no surprise they're so buddy-buddy with Fox News--accepting Roger Ailes apology so quickly, giving Rupert Murdoch an award, listing Glenn Beck as an ally of Israel, not revoking those credentials in light of his outrageous smears of George Soros, etc.