“Duss's and Klein's criticism consists mostly of ad hominem attacks and a defense of Tutu based primarily, if not entirely, on the fact that he's...well...Desmond Tutu.”
No: Marty Peretz claimed that Desmond Tutu, in a speech last Saturday, “actually threatened Israel -- and not just the State but the whole People.” I responded that this was not true, that it was not a remotely defensible interpretation of anything Tutu said, and linked to Tutu’s remarks (PDF) as proof. If calling Marty Peretz a a liar and a defamer because he lied about and defamed Desmond Tutu qualifies as “an ad hominem attack,” well, then you can bill me.
As for my defense of "Tutu for being Tutu," I suggested neither that he was perfect, nor above reproach. I merely meant (and, frankly, I think this was clear) that the man's career-long commitment to non-violence and reconciliation might serve as something of a rebuttal to the idea that he might suddenly transform into a snarling, violence-threatening anti-Semite one fall afternoon in Boston. That is, I think Desmond Tutu has earned the benefit of the doubt. Conversely, Marty Peretz, who screams “Israel-basher!” every time someone cuts him off in traffic, has not, in my view.
Finally, Kirchick asserts that Tutu “unwittingly slanders the history of the anti-apartheid movement... by comparing it to Palestinian nationalism.” While I realize that Kirchick’s generally dim view of Arabs and Palestinians prohibits him from understanding Palestinian nationalism as anything other than an expression of Jew-hatred, and while I think it’s adorably precocious of him to attempt to instruct Desmond Tutu as to “the history of the anti-apartheid movement,” I feel I’m on safe ground here deferring to Tutu on whether or not the comparison is an appropriate one.
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)