Response to hate mail: Re: Margaret Atwood’s The Shadow Over Israel

First circulated:  2010/06/03

Mr. NV (if that is your real name),

Who are you?
Do I know you?
How did you get my comments?
How did you get my email address?
I know one thing:  You are not on my contact list.

It seems that you are confused.  When people are confused, they lose the ability to focus their attention; they change the subject of discussion; and they talk about the price of meat when the matter at hand is about astronomy.

My interest in matters of injustice around the globe was not the subject of discussion.  Very few people – and that would probably exclude you – would care to know my views regarding the Darfur tragedy, the Rwanda genocide, or any other evil in the world.  The subject of discussion was the change in position of a Canadian cultural icon – Margaret Atwood – after she did her own research and discovered the truth of what the state of Israel does to the Palestinian people.  Your attacking response does not include one word about that subject, which was the core message to my contact list on which you were not even included.

Your aim is obvious; you do not wish to see Israeli war crimes, Israeli piracy on the high seas and Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people occupy centre stage in discussions around the world.  You introduce other tragedies in the world in order to defuse the issue, cover up Israeli misdeeds, and hide its crimes against humanity.  You will go nowhere fast by attacking people who introduce facts and describe events as they happen.  In so doing, you and your arguments become irrelevant.

What do you care if I were a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, or otherwise?  What do you care if I wrote a comment opposing the genocide committed against aboriginal peoples in North America?  If you knew that I financially contributed to humanitarian aid to help people in the Darfur region – which I did and probably more than what you did, if any – would that have changed your reaction to my message?  Or would it have made you look for another human tragedy to which I might not have reacted?  If you can focus a little, think about that, for just a moment…!!!

Your tactic of attacking me is typical of the Zionist approach in responding to any criticism of the state of Israel, its policies, or its actions of ethnic cleansing, occupation, dispossession, economic strangulation, and oppression against the Palestinian people.  Let me give you a free advice:  THIS TACTIC OF ATTEMPTED INTIMIDATION NO LONGER WORKS.  You need to deal with your fear from the truth; you need to learn how to focus on the subject matter of discussion; and you need to stay as far away as you can from dealing with matters of substance through attacking the personalities of people who happened to disagree with your perspective.  In other words, you need to learn the basics of civilized debate and dialogue.

As to your false, uninformed, and hateful accusations against me, there is only one thing to say:  Obviously, you do not know me.  Instead of wasting energy in refuting your accusations, I will wait a little when Margaret Atwood becomes even better informed of Israeli crimes against humanity; and I will wait a little longer when the likes of you will accuse her of being anti-Semitic.  Then, I will be in good company!

Monzer Zimmo
Ottawa, Canada
2010/06/03

Hope is the stuff from which life is made!

The message that provoked the above response follows:

From: NV
Received: 2010/06/03
Subject: RE: The Shadow Over Israel – by Margaret Atwood

Monzer.

The day you start caring about the genocide of muslims in Darfur who are being litterally starved to death with no humanitarian relief convoy in sight, when you admit that those in Gaza have one of the highest obesity rates in the world, when you share with us the menu at Roots retuaruant in Gaza, a 5 star world class establishment, then maybe, and I do mean maybe, you can start talking about how poorly Gazanians are treated. But until then, your hypocracy, especially in light of those who litterally starve to death in Darfur with not a word of complaint from you, is deafening.

Not that I think you are actually interested in the welfare of those truly in needof real relief, but I am including a link to show you of what I speak. Look if you dare. Check out
Where is the ‘flotilla’ for the real starving?

Are you a muslim that cares ofr brother muslims no matter where they are? or are you a Muslim who’s hatred of the jewish state is so deep, that it blinds you to anything or anyone that does not share your desire to wipe out the Jewish people? I am betting on the latter.

N.

Advertisements

About Alcanaanite

Monzer Zimmo, a Palestinian-Canadian living and working in Ottawa, Canada. Monzer is an advocate of resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict through the peaceful creation of a bi-national-democratic state on all the territory of historic Palestine, where Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others live together as equal citizens; be and feel safe, secure, and at home.
This entry was posted in Canada. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Response to hate mail: Re: Margaret Atwood’s The Shadow Over Israel

  1. knowsathingortwo says:

    It would seem that Monzar has conceded the victory to N. After all this time if he hasn’t been able to formulate a compelling rebuttal, it is safe I think to say that he can’t. Well done N!

    • Alcanaanite says:

      To Knowsathingortwo,

      You got it backward; it was N who wrote his/her message of hate first that provoked my response to which he/she never responded.

      I had circulated an email message including an article commenting on a decision made by Margaret Attwood relating to the Palestinian Israeli conflict. N responded to me by email; a message I considered to be a “hate mail”. At that time I responded to her/him immediately upon reading that message of hate. Subsequently, I thought it was appropriate for me to post the exchange between N and myself; thereby giving readers a taste of the type of “dialogue” in which apologists for the state of Israel are interested.

      I never heard from N before that message, and I never heard from him/her since. Using your logic, which is questionable, I guess you might say: “It would seem that N had conceded victory to Monzer. After all this time, if N hasn’t been able to formulate a compelling rebuttal, it is safe to say that he/she cannot.” I, on the other hand, would say that either my response convinced N to change his/her views or she/he is not interested in continuing to communicate with me.

      Monzer

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