.....After I read Bob Fox's comment following the previous posting on this blog, I was forced to do some research on what he had to say. Obviously, we had a difference of opinion on the subject of a moment of silence in tribute to the Israeli athletes who were brutally murdered by the Islamic Black September in 1972. I've had many differences with various people whom I've known and respected, on many subjects, and I have never failed to publish their views. Hopefully, they have respected mine; I have been around the block a few times, and my experiences have been very different from those with whom I am in contact, and my life has shaped my views. Insofar as Bob Fox is concerned, I have to admit that I am wrong and that he is right. I have come to this conclusion because I have read several articles taken from different media, and these have convinced me that Jacques Rogge, President of the IOC was a political coward in refusing the moment of silence for the Israelis for fear of offending the enemies of Israel. The following is one of the most vociferous voices:
The IOC has denied requests for an official remembrance of the Munich 11 during the games for fear of offending Arab countries participating in the games. Wednesday, Howard Stern called the IOC members "s**thead cowards": (The little "stars" indicate missing letters, of course.
Aly Raisman of the U.S. won the gold medal in floor exercise.
Photo credit:
Getty Images
"They have never honored the dead that were killed in senseless violence and the Olympic committee said 'no'. And why did they say ‘no’? Because 40 Arab countries threatened to not participate in the Olympics. First of all, f**k those 40 countries. You say: ‘F**k you. You don’t want to be a part of it? Don’t be a part of it. No one gives a s**t about you’. Secondly, why if you’re a country would you not want to say a prayer for people who were shot senselessly at an Olympic event? Regardless of what your background is. You can’t say: ‘Gee, that’s a horrible thing’? No? So you’re saying it’s a good thing...I don’t know what the Olympic committee is. I don’t know who sits on it, but really? What a bunch of s**thead cowards.”
.....Not only have I noted Stern's angry response to Rogge's refusal, but many heads of state and other VIPs including Barack Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Gov. Romney--and the list goes on and on have urged him to have a moment of silence at the opening ceremonies of these Olympics. So, Bob, my good friend and still my student, I bow to your wise comment--you have purloined my wisdom! Israel will never be recognized as a great bastion of Democracy in the Middle East, mostly because Moses took them to the wrong land--there is no oil, just great minds--and where does that get you?
Dear Cuz Ruthie: "Conncinnity"=...a joining of items together skillfully.
ReplyDeleteIf the IOC decided not to have a moment of silence because they feared upsetting other countries, that is an unacceptable reason. However, it shouldn't change one's opinion about whether there should be a moment of silence or not. In other words, if you believe there should be no moment of silence, why would bad reasoning by the IOC on the topic affect your opinion?
ReplyDeleteIf one should find additional information sufficiently convincing to alter one's opinion, then it is up to the individual to make his own decision as to whether or not to change, or to stubbornly refuse to. It was noted by several sources that Rogge was fearful of an Olympic boycott by Arab countries that would seriously affect the games. A moment of silence would be appropriate to remember murdered Olympic athletes--not just Israeli athletes. Thus, to me at least, his decision was a political one and unacceptably fearful and cowardly. And so, JR, why shouldn't "bad reasoning" like that by the IOC affect my opinion?
ReplyDeleteMmm. This is a hard one. Truly, it looks like an issue where everybody has an excellent case. Impressively argued, Bob, Baron, and Joel. And we can ALL congratulate ourselves on being Jewish, which means we can carry on our debates without resorting to suicide bombs and the like, unlike some peoples that I could mention. Love from Corfu, Cuzzin Ruth
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question to me: I agree that Rogge's decision was "a political one and unacceptably fearful and cowardly." In essence, you had agreed with Rogge's decision, but for different, non-cowardly reasons. I still don't see why your decision is changed because someone who agrees with you does so for different reasons than your own.
ReplyDeleteYou had written that you "do not believe that a moment of silence would have been an appropriate opening to cast, even a brief pall, over the Opening Ceremonies...." Why would you no longer believe that simply because some other guy came to the same decision, but for different reasons? It could be interpreted that because some guy is a coward, you believe it's now ok to cast a pall over the ceremonies.
If some guy says he supports the Marlins because they don't have any blacks on the team (I don't know if this is so; it's just an example), would you then no longer be a Marlins fan?
I fully appreciate your questioning my decision to change my opinion about the issue of a moment of silence at the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics, and you do make a good case. But the fact is that I did what I did for reasons that I feel were sufficient, and if you are having a problem with my having done so, do the best you can to live with it.
ReplyDelete