In a Wespeak I wrote in response to Alison Weir’s offensive lecture I referred to her “veiled anti-Semitism.” It appears that some would disagree with me and I have been ordered to validate this statement. I actually agree that I should have expanded upon said statement, so I will do so right now.

When I referred to anti-Semitism in Weir’s presentation I was primarily speaking to her conflation of Jew and Israeli that I noted several times throughout her speech. Not all Jews are Israelis and not all Israelis are Jews and therein, for me, lies the anti-Semitism. I do not, despite accusations to the contrary, associate any criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism; I thought that I made it clear in my first Wespeak that a great deal of such criticism is completely warranted. (If I did not, I will say it here, very plainly and clearly so that there is no misunderstanding. I do not support all of the actions of the Israeli government and think that they must be held accountable for the human rights violations that they perpetuate). I do, however, think that associating criticism of the Israeli government with all Israelis is a gross generalization, and associating that criticism with the Jewish people at large is anti-Semitism. (Additionally some of the quotes that Weir was “accidentally” flashing through during the Q&A were problematic in my opinion).

Of course, in this wonderful free democracy people are welcome to disagree with me, but, again, I would ask for respect from those who are disagreeing with me, rather than an additional personal attack–didn’t Alison Weir insult me enough?

I would like to point out that just as Weir reduced the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to a major-league sports game by comparing it to the Superbowl or World Series, so did a Wespeak from last week reduce anti-Semite to “jerk” or “poopyface” by throwing those terms together. I was not, do not, and will not take the term anti-Semite or anti-Semitism lightly, as I have been accused of. As I noted, it was my Wespeak attacker who actually took the term anti-Semite lightly in his attempt at sarcasm.

Frankly I resent the insinuation that I am disrespecting “the many Jews who truly have suffered over the course of our history” as my family has been the victim of such suffering, most recently when my grandfather’s entire family was murdered in the Holocaust. Even without that personal history, such an accusation is incredibly destructive and deeply offensive. If you question my use of the term “veiled anti-Semitism” please, write a Wespeak challenging me. But don’t try to undermine my moral character. Such attacks “stifle legitimate intellectual discourse” far more than a printed ambiguity.

As one last defense to the allegation that I am intellectually dishonest because I tried to inhibit legitimate discourse, I would like to note that I came to the event in the first place seeking intellectual discourse, and even stayed after Weir’s talk for over an hour engaging in such debate. I found that Alison Weir was intellectually dishonest by presenting her objective opinion as fact and I find that the Wespeak attacking me was intellectually dishonest by demonizing me in my attempt at criticizing something that I genuinely found and find problematic. I respect each individual’s right to hir own opinion, and I “demand” that respect in turn.