Berl Falbaum
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, Abdul El-Sayed apologized, the headlines blared. The media in Michigan was afire and Democrats could not wait to embrace his repentance.
Well, I apologize for looking at his apology with the proverbial grain of salt. Could this, to any degree, result from trying to attract the Jewish vote? Is this about damage control? Nay! I hereby apologize for my cold, unfeeling cynicism.
Throughout my career covering politics, I have always viewed these apologies — whether from the left or right — with suspicion, particularly when issued during a campaign.
More important, I also considered impromptu remarks (like El-Sayed’s that led to the apology) more meaningful than position papers or text of speeches which are sanitized by staff wearing hazmat suits.
What’s more, it only took El-Sayed almost six months and 12,723 staff meetings to tell us that he’s sorry. It reminds me of Brenda Lee’s 1960 hit song, “I’m Sorry,” in which she pleads: “Please accept my apology. But politics (I replaced “love” with “politics”) is blind and I was too blind to see.”
Some background for those who forgot the episode that brought about El-Sayed’s remorse. In March, a man rammed his truck into Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, a man who authorities said, after their investigation had ties to Hezbollah.
El-Sayed’s reaction in an interview: “Hurt people hurt people.”
Now, having scrutinized “political apologies” over the years, I was always intrigued by the language which was generally the same, i.e. “I take personal responsibility for …” or “If some find my remarks offensive, I apologize.”
Obviously, if someone makes disparaging comments, they need to take responsibility and stating that you regret that some may find your opinions painful, is not apologizing. You regret causing pain not the political views. Sadly, the apologizers are never held to account.
Did El-Sayed straddle the political high wire as well? You judge. Here is a summary of his apology:
“I made a mistake. If my statement caused pain, I’m sorry. It was not what I intended to do. My comments might have been misconstrued to be justifying [indeed, they might] something I did not intend to justify.”
He only meant to “offer context” but now was not the time. The time probably will come after the November election.
I think that “apology” speaks for itself. But as long as El-Sayed is in a mea culpa mood, he might offer apologies for the following (this is just a partial list):
• Not acknowledging that Israel has a right to exist. (Incidentally, the question itself reflects and anti-Jew, anti-Israel animus. It is never posed for any of the other 194 countries in the world, including such freedom-loving, democracies as North Korea, Iraq, Iran, China, Russia, etc.)
• For accepting $115,000 from former and present officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which has been designated a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates, a Muslim country. Some of the officials have been tied to Hamas. Besides apologizing, he might return the money.
• Accusing Israel of genocide, a blood libel.
• Partnering and partying with Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, while refusing to repudiate Piker’s anti-Jew, anti-Israel demagoguery.
• Calling Israel a “blood thirsty” country, and describing Israel as “evil” as Hamas.
• For calling Israel a “rogue” state.
If El-Sayed begins apologizing immediately for just some of his offenses, he might get them all in before the election.
Along the way, he also told us how pleased he was living in Bloomfield Hills with so many Jewish friends. “I’m really honored for what I learned and got to share with my Jewish sisters and brothers. But they are not the same as AIPAC and Israel.”
Let’s try that for another minority: “I like blacks in Detroit but they are not the same as in Africa or the NAACP.”
A word about AIPAC: Much was made of the fact that AIPAC spent $30 million in the campaign to defeat El-Sayed. That is a campaign finance issue and one that needs to — and should be — addressed by Congress. There have been
numerous Senate and House campaigns that dwarf that total. Moreover, the expenditure was not illegal nor did the money come from a designated terrorist organization. We can be confident, if El-Sayed had such funds in his campaign war chest, he would not hesitate to spend it.
He also has asked for forgiveness, and I hope I will be forgiven for not forgiving.
I’ll conclude with an El-Sayed-type apology: I am sorry if my analysis caused him any pain.
Well, I apologize for looking at his apology with the proverbial grain of salt. Could this, to any degree, result from trying to attract the Jewish vote? Is this about damage control? Nay! I hereby apologize for my cold, unfeeling cynicism.
Throughout my career covering politics, I have always viewed these apologies — whether from the left or right — with suspicion, particularly when issued during a campaign.
More important, I also considered impromptu remarks (like El-Sayed’s that led to the apology) more meaningful than position papers or text of speeches which are sanitized by staff wearing hazmat suits.
What’s more, it only took El-Sayed almost six months and 12,723 staff meetings to tell us that he’s sorry. It reminds me of Brenda Lee’s 1960 hit song, “I’m Sorry,” in which she pleads: “Please accept my apology. But politics (I replaced “love” with “politics”) is blind and I was too blind to see.”
Some background for those who forgot the episode that brought about El-Sayed’s remorse. In March, a man rammed his truck into Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, a man who authorities said, after their investigation had ties to Hezbollah.
El-Sayed’s reaction in an interview: “Hurt people hurt people.”
Now, having scrutinized “political apologies” over the years, I was always intrigued by the language which was generally the same, i.e. “I take personal responsibility for …” or “If some find my remarks offensive, I apologize.”
Obviously, if someone makes disparaging comments, they need to take responsibility and stating that you regret that some may find your opinions painful, is not apologizing. You regret causing pain not the political views. Sadly, the apologizers are never held to account.
Did El-Sayed straddle the political high wire as well? You judge. Here is a summary of his apology:
“I made a mistake. If my statement caused pain, I’m sorry. It was not what I intended to do. My comments might have been misconstrued to be justifying [indeed, they might] something I did not intend to justify.”
He only meant to “offer context” but now was not the time. The time probably will come after the November election.
I think that “apology” speaks for itself. But as long as El-Sayed is in a mea culpa mood, he might offer apologies for the following (this is just a partial list):
• Not acknowledging that Israel has a right to exist. (Incidentally, the question itself reflects and anti-Jew, anti-Israel animus. It is never posed for any of the other 194 countries in the world, including such freedom-loving, democracies as North Korea, Iraq, Iran, China, Russia, etc.)
• For accepting $115,000 from former and present officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which has been designated a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates, a Muslim country. Some of the officials have been tied to Hamas. Besides apologizing, he might return the money.
• Accusing Israel of genocide, a blood libel.
• Partnering and partying with Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, while refusing to repudiate Piker’s anti-Jew, anti-Israel demagoguery.
• Calling Israel a “blood thirsty” country, and describing Israel as “evil” as Hamas.
• For calling Israel a “rogue” state.
If El-Sayed begins apologizing immediately for just some of his offenses, he might get them all in before the election.
Along the way, he also told us how pleased he was living in Bloomfield Hills with so many Jewish friends. “I’m really honored for what I learned and got to share with my Jewish sisters and brothers. But they are not the same as AIPAC and Israel.”
Let’s try that for another minority: “I like blacks in Detroit but they are not the same as in Africa or the NAACP.”
A word about AIPAC: Much was made of the fact that AIPAC spent $30 million in the campaign to defeat El-Sayed. That is a campaign finance issue and one that needs to — and should be — addressed by Congress. There have been
numerous Senate and House campaigns that dwarf that total. Moreover, the expenditure was not illegal nor did the money come from a designated terrorist organization. We can be confident, if El-Sayed had such funds in his campaign war chest, he would not hesitate to spend it.
He also has asked for forgiveness, and I hope I will be forgiven for not forgiving.
I’ll conclude with an El-Sayed-type apology: I am sorry if my analysis caused him any pain.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
