Do you anticipate any controversy?I think what's offensive about people like Waldman is how they enjoy getting on the nerves of those they disagree with and actually want to get them angry instead of happy. Why want people to discuss your book for the wrong reasons? What if it actually got you considered persona non grata when you didn't ask for it, and just 15 minutes of infamy? Which I hope will be the case with Waldman, though whether the American Jewish public will see this as fully legitimate does still remain in question.
I actually think the book won't be too controversial for today's readers. After [Peter] Beinart and so many other eloquent and bombastic arguments for a political change of course, I don't think Harvey's message is as drastic and controversial as it once was.
I think the general American Jewish public aligns with most of the opinions found in this book. Whether they can admit that publicly is another thing. I just hope that the book generates conversation and gets people talking again. If controversy stokes that dialogue, then bring it on!
more from the Jewish Journal:
Waldman capped off his lecture with video of himself kibitzing with the characteristically grumpy “American Splendor” creator, pestering Pekar about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.What this tell is that he supported the "disengagement" full force, regardless of its leading to rocket attacks by the Hamas more easily, and believes that there was actually an Arab/Islamic country called "palestine", and doesn't believe that the Romans coined the name. And most galling about people of Pekar's standing is how they're never concerned with the Islamic mindset, and probably doesn't care about Muhammed's marrying a 9-year-old girl either. Sure, he does mention that the Arab countries in 1948 rejected the partition plan of the UN, but if this is how he's going to go for the most part, then if he's allegedly making a point about that, he deep-sixes it.
“What you do is you stay out of there,” Pekar grumbled. “You don’t go populate it with thousands of people,” opining that occupation was not good for the Jews. “Even [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon realized it.”
And Pekar even goes so far to make the following statement in the book:
whether Muhammed actually existed, it figures if he didn't wonder why Muslims believe theirs.
Here's an extra Jewish Journal review that says:
Pekar may not believe in God and Torah, but he definitely shares the Jewish habit of mind that allows many of us to see both sides of every question. “The Arabs have a legitimate beef,” he insists. “Ben-Gurion admitted it. Dayan admitted it. Sure, the Jews tell everyone that God provided them the land because they are his people. But every ethnic group thinks they are his chosen people.”I guess that means he also supports imposition of Sharia law. I don't think Ben-Gurion ever said such a thing, though Dayan certainly did something to show that he believes Muslims have every right to the Temple Mount. What Pekar didn't consider is that Islam may believe in God, but not in what the Lord really wants, which is leading a non-violent, non-criminal, and responsible life. That's where the Religion of Rape is backwards compared to Judeo-Christianity. I also find it shameful how this kind of propaganda is put in the same league as other Jewish comics contributors from earlier times, especially considering that Will Eisner's last graphic novel, The Plot, has some mention of the Muslim world's anti-semitism.
Predictably, this last work of Pekar's is just what some sites about comics consider worth citing, including the British-based Bleeding Cool, and even Comic Book Resources. They very rarely ever suggest taking a look at something involving a pro-Israel book, if at all. All it's done in the end is tell that Pekar was a very disgraceful man, the kind whom I'm wondering has a tunnelvisioned view of Hasidics per the 1948 Oliver Twist movie, and doesn't make any distinctions between say, Lubavich and Neturei Karta sects. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if he were the kind of man who thinks Hasidics are a problem but never Muslims. For now, I do know that his co-author Waldman is a disgrace for assisting him in cobbling together this galling screed against Israel.