Derfner feels that what he stated, *repeatedly*, about the murders of Israeli citizens being "justified" was permissible and even praiseworthy because his intentions were good. What? And how many times does a professional writer have to explain himself again after those explanations have been found unacceptable?

i posted the following on his blog. wonder if it will be published:

By saying that they have the right to kill, even if it is not tactically the smart thing to do, you crosed a line. There is something called human rights, the primary right being the right to life. This right is not dependent on where anyone lives (or where someone else lives), it is not dependent on what his government does, it doesn't matter what the state of negotiations are, none of the above. Your explanations and qualifications not withstanding, you went too far. A civilian is a civilian is a civilian and it doesn't matter if the person is sitting on a bus or in her mother's arms in Hebron.

Here is what I posted on Derfner's blog in response to his blog post about being fired:


Larry,

I, too, disagree with your being fired, because I don't think that it is the appropriate way to respond to a private blog post. However, your blog post was totally "beyond the pale", and you must definitely have lost your moral compass if you can keep on justifying it.

You must realize (as must many extreme right-wingers, and extreme Chareidi Rabbis, and all sorts of other people in the public arena) that you are responsible for your public statements, and that you should have weighed them very carefully before "letting go" with a public statement which included so many indications that it is justified for Palestinians to kill Jews. Even if you meant something else, it is easy to see how people clearly took you to mean that you justify this wanton type of murder.

I don't expect you to understand me any more than the many Rabbis and other public figures to whom I have said this type of thing, but this is what Chazal mean in Pikei Avot (1:11) Chachamim Hizaharu BeDivreichem [Wise men be wary in your statements]. Just as one cannot claim free speech to scream "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, you cannot claim that you have no responsibility for the way your statements have been interpreted, when you so cavalierly used language which certainly seems to indicate what your opponents say you were saying.

I truly believe that you need to search for your conscience, because it is not apparent in any of your remarks about this issue! Good luck in your search (if you have the moral integrity to start it)!

nope, he didn't publish mine or reb lev's piece. big surprise. the author demanding the right of voicing a different opinion only allows those opinions supporting him on his blog.

He should now be indicted and jailed

Since Derfner has not yet seen fit to allow my comment (which I posted here above) on his blog I posted another comment which says:

Gee, Larry,

Your refusal to post my comment about your loss of moral compass and need to search for your conscience does indeed tend to support what I said!

I guess that I should not have wasted time trying to reach out to your moral sensibilities; if they exist they are deeply buried under your political posturing!

Tonight I noticed that Defner finally published my comment to his blog (quoted here on August 29th at 6:19 PM) along with quite a few others opposing his views.

I wonder if my second post (which I did not see on his blog) helped motivate him to do so?