So, in reaction to Ben Kerstein’s takedown of Glenn Greenwald’s anti-Israel tropes, Greenwald responded with nothing more than empty, and meaningless contempt. I mean, is it really possible to call comments referring to Kerstein as “a standard-issue, Israel-devoted neocon smear artist whose self-selected slogan is ‘Bostonian by birth, Israeli by choice’” (emphasis Greenwald’s), a reference to his article as being “filled to the brim with trite neocon attacks that once worked to deter free debate but are now pitiable in their impotence,” and the statement that “[m]ost of this is self-refuting, and more than that, gratifying. I view the increasingly unhinged attacks by the worst neocon elements to be a vindication of what I’m doing. I see them as pernicious and destructive, and genuinely welcome their contempt” an actual substantive reply to the charges Kerstein so devastatingly leveled? This reads more like something one would encounter at a playground.
Of course, the most significant effect of Greenwald’s “reply” is that it brought out readers like, oh, say, this guy. And of course, attempts were made to lodge similar replies in the comments section to Kerstein’s post. Here at the New Ledger, we are rather proud of being anti-anti-Semitic, so we deleted those comments, but obviously, Salon has different standards.
I try not to swear when I write blog posts, and this is the closest I will come to swearing, but the following must be said: Greenwald is not responsible for attracting anti-Semites to his blog, just as s*** is not responsible for attracting flies. But the fact that s*** does attract flies tells you something about s***. To be fair, of course, I suppose it is worth noting that it could be Greenwald behind these comments. Wouldn’t surprise me.