Below are two emails to us from author Joe Gelman about this citation of his, and the Jewish Tribal Review's reply.

Dear Mr.Ladies/Gentlemen,

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 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 us represents.

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.