Gibson Says Being Called Anti-Semitic Led Him To Be Anti-Semitic

The BBC reports,

Gibson’s 2004 depiction of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion had been attacked by Jewish leaders, who said it could incite hatred towards Jews.
He told US TV’s Good Morning America he was “ashamed” of what he said.
“I was subjected to a pretty brutal public beating. I thought I’d dealt with that stuff,” he said.
“But the human heart can bear the scars of resentment, and it will come out when you are overwrought and you take a few drinks,” he told ABC interviewer Diane Sawyer.

Awww, the poor baby. He really is a victim, isn’t he? Cue violins and lame excuses.
In related news, I have no idea WTF Foxman is thinking, but at least Gibson had his priorities straight through the whole ordeal.

9 thoughts on “Gibson Says Being Called Anti-Semitic Led Him To Be Anti-Semitic

  1. Face it folks. Gibson was smeared with the accusaion that his movie would fuel anti-Semitism. The year it came out, the rabbi at the Reform shul I attended for Kol Nidrei gave his sermon about how the movie would fuel Arab and Muslim hatred of Jews. These were talking points distributed widely….
    And it hasn’t come to pass. So yes, he was unfairly maligned. And yes, someone should have apologized. Not for saying the movie wasn’t anti-Semitic (it was) but for being wrong on the prediction that it would have certain consequences, which have never come to pass.

  2. why don’t we just cut the bullshit and say that xtianity is, traditionally, though not universally, a religion that sponsors our elimination.
    Sure we all have nice xtian friends. But if you think over a thousand years of indoctrinated hate has just dissappeared in the last 60 years, you’re naive.
    The only reason people don’t admit this is because they want the neo-Crusaders to help further the aims of right wing Zionist islamophobia.

  3. And why the hell is Gibson owed an apology because someone inaccurately predicted that his anti-Semitic screed would inspire violent expressions of Jew-hatred? In what way does the inaccuracy of such predictions defame or unfairly malign Gibson? The only “accusations” against Gibson are that his movie is anti-Semitic, that he’s an anti-Semite, and that he’s the spawn of an inveterate Jew-hater; all demonstrably true.

  4. I heard Mel being accused not only of making a movie with anti-Semitic overtones, but ALSO of the movie representing a real danger to Jews around the world. Maybe Foxman doesn’t need to get on bended knee for him; but shouldn’t there be SOME recognition that the hysterical Jew-fenders among us went overboard and need to admit thier error? After all, it’s the same people who silenced tony judt and suppress an open discussion of the occupation.

  5. The movie didn’t fuel anti-semitism because it was already there. Had there not been a media blitz about it, it would have been a different story, but we jumped the gun so the Christians didn’t have to. I bet you that if there hadn’t been an outcry about the movie, there WOULD have been an rise an anti-semitism, however you gauge that. Until schools teach that there were Marrano Jews on board with Columbus in 1492, that pogroms were happeneing until WW11, and about all the contributions they made in the world, we will always be the bad guy. When the only “education” given to goyim are movies such as ‘The Passion’ and plays such as ‘The merchant of Venice’, what do you expect?

  6. http://newamericanliberalism.org/_wsn/page6.html
    Fred Siegel, “Revisiting the 1930s with Tony Judt” 10.15.06
    “Judt, far more critical of those critiquing Islamism than of Islamism itself, accused Hirsi Ali of being an “enlightenment fundamentalist” whose dogmatism easily slid into “xenophobia.” “Universalism and integration,” Judt asserted, are at odds. Hirsi Ali flicked away his comments as a search for “red herrings.” And Bolkestein later noted that the responses to the criticism of Islam are usually reproaches, not arguments. Then, turning to Judt, he asked, “give me the reasons why Islam is not inferior?” He got no answer.
    But Judt did question Hirsi Ali’s belief that Christians and Jews were more tolerant than Muslims. He noted, for instance, that the Polish Prime Minister, a devout Catholic, had complained to German Chancellor Merkel about an article that had appeared in a German newspaper. At bottom, Judt’s argument comes down to a matter of proportions. In the 1930s, critics of Stalinism were answered by noting Southern lynchings — as if the two, ugly as each was, were equivalent. “

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.