Below are two emails to us from author Joe Gelman about this citation
of his, and the Jewish Tribal Review's reply.
On August 31st I respectfully requested that you remove a quote attributed
to me from your web page (the text of that e-mail can be found below).
I requested that you remove the quote from me because it was taken out
of context completely and thus is used to purposefully mislead and give
credibility to a segment of your e-publication in a dishonest and deceitful
manner. You have not removed my quote and you have failed to respond to
my request to explain your reason. You are hereby notified that legal
action will be taken against you should you fail to respond to this request
within 30 days.
Respectfully, Joe Gelman
Text of previous communication: To Whom It May Concern, I have noticed
in your e-book "When Victims Rule," in Chapter 9 "Jewish Crime," you have
referenced a quote attributed to me. This is the quote: " As Joe Gelman
noted in 1999, "A number of these sin-palace operators are Jewish and
strong supporters of Israel." [GELMAN, p. 15B]. I am asking that you remove
this quote attributed to me from your book because it is mistakenly or
purposefully used out of context and is thus inaccurate, misleading and
dishonest. The quote that you reference comes from an article that appeared
in the Las Vegas Review Journal dated Friday, December 31, 1999. The article
from which you quote me is clearly written from the perspective of how
an Islamic radical bent on an act of terrorism might view Las Vegas as
a tempting target. Your selective quote from my article makes it appear
as if this is my perspective. My article reads: "In the eyes of many,
especially in the devout Islamic world, Las Vegas represents a moral abomination.
As the warped logic might go: If America is the "Great Satan" and Americans
are cultural and capitalist "infidels," then Sin City USA by default represents
something of an epicenter of all that is evil on this earth: A wretchedly
decadent and wicked place where humanity is corrupted by temptations of
flesh and spirit -- a place of illusions and false hope, where scantily
clad cocktail waitresses push free intoxicating drinks on patrons lured
by rigged games of chance, appealing to the twin vices of greed and lust.
In short, a real Sodom and Gomorrah. That so many "infidels" are drawn
to such a place serves to confirm how depraved and corrupting Western
society and culture actually is. The fact that a number of these sin-palace
operators are Jewish and strong supporters of Israel only makes it worse."
Please note that I clearly stated that I view this perspective as "warped
logic," and I reinforce my view later in the article which you can read
in its entirety at http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/1999/Dec-31-Fri-1999/opinion/12651864.html.
Therefore I politely ask that you remove my quote from your book as it
is clearly used in a context that is selective, inaccurate and misleading.
I thank you for your prompt action in this matter.
Sincerely, Joe Gelman
Dear Mr. Gelman:
Thank you for your emails. Sorry for the delay in response, but the Jewish
Tribal Review webmaster has been away for a while, and has just returned.
(Nothing has peen posted at -- or deleted from -- JTR since late May til
this current October week, as you might find after an examination of it).
The aim of the web site is to be as accurate as possible and your response
to our excerpt from your article is appreciated. After some discussion,
however, we think your silly accusation that our intention is to "purposefully
mislead" is somewhat libelous. Here's the way we see it, and here's
what we're going to do:
First, this is what you wrote, and this is how we excerpted it from your
context (about "Islamic radicals") into ours (Las Vegas and
Jewish crime): "... a number of these sin-palace operators are Jewish
and strong supporters of Israel ..." Your original sentence says
this: "The fact that a number of these sin-palace operators are Jewish
and strong supporters of Israel only makes it worse." Now, please
note that you state clearly that it is a FACT (you, the author state this
as your perspective, NOT that this information is really a falsehood proclaimed
by an "Islamic radical"). Please read the paragraph source that
you provide of the sentence in question, again. YOU (not an "Islamic
radical") are stating that it is a FACT that "these sin-palace
operators" "are Jewish" AND are "strong supporters
of Israel." After some discussion at our end, it seems your complaint
can only rest with the modifier you use: "sin-palace." In other
words, the FACT you yourself state is that the Jews who "operate"
many of the Las Vegas establishments are also supporters of Israel. You
apparently (?) ascribe to "Islamic radicals" the notion that
Las Vegas includes "sin palaces." Hence, the grounds for your
complaint (and threat), we can only imagine, is that you don't like the
word "sin-palace," despite the "fact" that 1) you
use the word yourself, and 2) "Sin City" is a common term for
Las Vegas (we think most Americans, when presented the term "Sin
City," would be able to correctly identify which American metropolis
this nomer best represents). Am I correct in understanding that your complaint
to us is that you don't see Las Vegas and its reputation as a center for
gambling, prostitution, the criminal underworld, etc., as in any way representing
"sin?" Am I correct in assuming that this is an accurate expression
of your value system? In other words, we are trying to determine what
exactly in the sentence under discussion does not represent a "fact"
to you, despite the fact that you blatantly introduce the information
in the sentence as "fact" (which makes "it worse"
because "Islamic radicals" will put these facts into their own
context that you don't like, no?) "Facts" don't ever change,
of course; but the perspective does -- which is the essence of critical
inquiry, whether by "Islamic radicals" or not. Anyone has the
right to use any facts you proclaim to buttress their OWN argument).
If we are correct here in our assessment about the specifics of your complaint,
is the following excerpt the one that would make you happy? : "a
number of these ... operators are Jewish and strong supporters of Israel
..." Of course, there may well then be for some a negative connotation
associated with the word "operator," but if you insist upon
controlling to your specifications all uses of your commentary, you invite
quite a surreal scenario, no? Are you implicitly trying to control not
only context, Mr. Gelman (people must apparently agree with you to excerpt
your commentary), but MEANING itself? Must we agree to your assessment
of "Islamic radicals" to quote you about anything, including
Las Vegas, Jews, and Israel? Actually, Sir, it's not really the "sin-palace"
modifier that we were interested in, by quoting you. Your ACCURATE and
FACTUAL commentary about Jewish supporters of Israel at the helm of many
Las Vegas establishments was/is merely a nice capstone for all the information
accumulated in our chapter that included various citations about Jews
and Las Vegas and the very FACTS you mention. We think people can decide
for themselves whether Las Vegas represents "sin" or not, and
they can also decide for themselves what exactly your aim is in defaming
our efforts at the Jewish Tribal Review.
So what are we going to do? In the interests of truth, "facts,"
and accuracy, and further explication of this issue, the Jewish Tribal
Review will soon post this exchange with you (and any future dialogue)
as a link at the excerpt of yours we quote in the "Jewish Crime"
section, and we'll also post all this at our "Letters to the Editor"
section. We think the public can decide what exactly your complaint to
In fact, our basic position is that nothing on the Internet is etched
in stone. That's it's beauty. If we've got information wrong, we want
to set it right. Your complaint to us will be incorporated into the web
site, viewers can examine it, and this kind of exchange with Jewish complainers
is really quite welcome as an important part of the web site itself. Further
commentary and explication about anything you'd like is of course welcome.
We'll post it -- and reply -- in the name of the sharpest of accuracies.
And, oh, by the way. Have you written any critical commentary about "Jewish
radicals" lately? We'd like to see it.