Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
Moshe Aryeh Friedman, a senior Neturei Karta member, who passionately kissed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will now be forced to look for a woman who will agree to kiss him, as his wife has decided to leave him following his participation in the Holocaust denial conference which took place in Tehran about a month ago.
The participation of six Neturei Karta leaders in the Holocaust denial conference in Tehran continues to stirr up emotions in the ultra-Orthodox community.
Friedman, who lives in Vienna, is the harshest person among the Neturei Karta representatives who arrived in Iran, and was even photographed kissing the Iranian president. He also stayed in Iran for another two weeks after his friends left, visiting universities across the country in order to speak against the State of Israel .
The ‘Ultra-Orthodox Voice’ service reported that when Friedman finally returned to Vienna he found out that his wife, following her parents’ advice, had fled to the Satmar community in Williamsburg, New York City. There she approached rabbis and asked them to help her divorce her husband due to his misdeeds.
I would have thought that Friedman’s wife would have been well aware of hubby’s choice hobbies of Holocaust denial and Israel bashing. Could it be that said misdeeds entail Kissy Friedman and Gorilla boy delving into tiger-hyena territory?
14 thoughts on “Sealed with a Kiss”
I can’t stop laughing at that graphic! They make a lovely couple, don’t they?
Nice one Dave.
We should always rejoice in the personal misfortune of those we disagree with.
I just took a look at your blog and can see why you would leave an obnoxious comment here.
By the way, there is a huge difference between those who disagree with you, and those who deny the Holocaust. Given that he denies the huge misfortune of 6 million Jews, I can crack a smile at his personal misfortune.
But perhaps this is beyond you.
It’s interesting that you describe my perfectly polite post as “obnoxious”, but I guess that just confirms my initial assessment of your post -intolerence of different opinions.
From what I’ve been able to find on him, he doesn’t deny the Holocaust (calling it an historical event) but says that Zionists abuse it for their own ends. So your joy at his personal mis-fortune doesn’t look any better than it did before.
If you think your initial post was polite, then you have serious perception problems.
Regarding your assertion that Friedman doesn’t deny the holocaust, I find it hard to believe that someone with a blog, and the ability to google could not find the evidence. And I quote:
Of course, I think you do know the truth, but it is you who are the dishonest reporter.
Having had extensive experience with partisan pro-Israel sites, I’m immediately suspicious when extravagant claims are made on the basis of tiny fragments of a quote. Nine times out of ten, my suspicions prove well founded.
Take your “a succesful fiction” fragment. You claim it is “evidence” of Holocaust denial. I had Googled and found the same fragment reproduced in many different sites. If it really was a statement that showed Holocaust denial, then why not show a larger section, why do they all use the same 3 word quote? Surely he must have said somethig like “The Holocaust is a successful fiction”. So why cut it down to 3 words??
I found much longer qoutes attributed to Friedman which cast serious doubt on your preferred understanding. Friedman claims that members of his family died in the Holocaust, a very strange claim for a Holocaust denier to make, don’t you think? And that his main problem is what he perceives as Zionists using the death of his family members to pursue their own political agenda. He also has questioned some of the statistics associated with the Holocaust.
But then, it’s much easier to just attribute to people who disagree with you, the most extreme and easily debunked opinions, using fragments of their words to slander them, and then take pleasure in their personal tragedies while hiding behind the false accusations you made to excuse your pleasure.
But having kept a close eye on ‘Honest’Reporting, none of this surprises me.
PS. If you think I’ve made factual errros on my blog, please come along and point them out to me.
I’m very happy to engage people on the question of factual accuracy and honesty with regard to ‘Honest’Reporting. So far I’ve had a total of zero successful challanges.
Oh Puuullleaze! You are grasping at straws with your attempted defence of Friedman. Here is a man who went to a Holocaust Denial conference, expressed that the Holocaust is a fiction, and then tried to backtrack. Ha’aretz has what I think is the most logical explanation:
I would say it is extremely likely he is a Holocaust denier, certainly more likely than your poor excuse for an explanation .Just like I would say it is extremely likely that you have an agenda, and are not as intellectually honest as you are trying to portray yourself.
No thanks, not interested in visiting your blog again.
You’ve dodged all the questions. How could someone who claims to have lost relatives in the Holocaust be a Holocaust denier?
And I take it you can’t find any references to anything but the 3 word fragment of a quote either? Strange, huh?
And I’m not trying to “defend” Friedman, just pointing out the extemely flimsy nature of the “evidence’ with which you are only to happy to hang him with. The grasping at straws is being done by those interested in vilifying the man based on very little.
That you now down grade your judgement to say it’s “extremely likely” he’s a Holocaust denier is a pretty lame fudge of the issue – you seem to accept that the case is weak, but refuse to let go of the charge.
If you dig up the whole quote and Friedman actaully did say that “the Holocaust is a successful fiction” then I’ll join in the condemnation. Until then, it’s looks and smells like amateur hour at propaganda central.
Hmm, let’s simplify it for you.
Evidence suggesting Holocaust denial = attending conference on Holocaust denial + Meeting with Holocaust deniers at said conference + quote denying Holocaust.
vs
Evidence suggesting no Holocaust denial = claiming to have lost relatives in Holocaust + all you have is a 3 word quote?
I would say your position is the lame one.
Given the strong circumstantial evidence that he is a Holocaust denier, it is up to you to bring strong evidence that he is not. And you, quite simply, have not done so.
The only thing that smells here is your agenda in defending Friedman.
Guilt by association is a pretty poor arguement Dave.
You’ve gone from stating it as a fact, to it being “extremely likely” and now it’s just “circumstantial”.
I’ll give you credit for being at least open to rational debate.
However, your approach flies in the face of the tradational evidence-based approach. You’re quite happy with “circumstantial” evidence to find him guilty as accused, but demand “strong evidence” to discount the accusation. As unreasonable as that is, his acknowledgement the Holocaust happended would qualify, I would have thought.
It seems that this is all really about a kiss.
If you paid any attention, Mikey, guilt by association forms part of an argument which is far stronger than the argument to the contrary. And we are not talking of standards of evidence to convict him, but rather to form an opinion on his conduct.
Alas, you and I know that your view on Friedman has nothing to do with a real belief on your part that he does not deny the Holocaust. You just happen to like him because he shares your anti-Israel views.
Guilt by association is the weakest form of argumentation. If you’re saying that you are dealing with pure opinion, devoid of factual content, that would be fair enough, but you want to bring in alleged factual details (the 3 word fragment) to support you. If you had just said Friedman went to the Holocaust meeting in Iran, therefore you don’t like him or his actions, you would be on far firmer ground.
“Alas, you and I know that your view on Friedman has nothing to do with a real belief on your part that he does not deny the Holocaust. You just happen to like him because he shares your anti-Israel views.”
I don’t have a “real belief that he does not deny the Holocaust”. If I did I’d be adopting your illogical reasoning. I simply don’t know, and the material presented to support the assertion, fails.
“anti-israel views” – Another assertion devoid of factual content, unless you subscribe to a totalitarian point of view, in which case those who fail to think correctly can be so labelled, eg anti-Soviet, anti-American etc
The guy attended a Holocaust denial conference.
You surely cannot be that daft.
Consider this the final word on the topic. You will not be getting any more attention on this blog.
Comments are closed.