Guardian

Josh Trevino Guardian gig outs Ali Abunimah’s double standards.


Ali Abunimah’s sanctimonious hissy fit regarding the Guardian’s hiring of Joshua Trevino continues. He is now on his fourth article on the subject – one at Al Jazeera and three on his own electronic Intifada site. 

Abunimah opened his Al Jazeera article of August 18th with these words:

“Something has gone badly wrong at The Guardian. In the name of “robust debate”, the venerable left-leaning liberal newspaper has effectively given its stamp of approval to speech that goes beyond mere hate, speech that clearly crosses the line into incitement to murder unarmed civilians and journalists. What lies behind this worrying development, and what does it tell us about the state of media in general?”

Do Abunimah’s words indeed reveal a specific moral stance from which is derived genuine concern for the health of the media? In order to make a judgment on that, one must also ask what Abunimah would have to say about someone who wrote the following words:

“Isn’t it the time for a popular Palestinian revolution in the form of a third intifada?”

As is well known, over 1,000 Israeli civilians (Jews and Arabs alike) were murdered during the second Intifada – with thousands more injured and often disabled for life. The person who wrote those words is therefore calling for the renewal of attacks upon unarmed civilians of all ages and creeds – in other words; incitement to indiscriminate maiming and murder. 

Surely Ali Abunimah would condemn such a call. According to his words above, he definitely would not approve of that person writing for a “venerable left-leaning liberal newspaper”. 

Or would he

The truth is that – like the signatories of the indignant letter to the Guardian published on August 19th – Ali Abunimah is not really worried by the content (as he chooses to interpret it) of Josh Trevino’s Tweet. What actually concerns Abunimah and his fellow travelers is who is doing the Tweeting. As long as the writer is in their camp, Abunimah et al can blithely contextualise all manner of indiscretions. 

Neither he, nor any others among the now selectively outraged, was anywhere on the horizon when, in January 2011, the Guardian published a letter from UCL professor Ted Honderich which specifically promoted moral justification for Palestinian terrorism against Israelis. 

The absence of any anguished articles on ‘electronic Intifada’ regarding that letter indicates that Abunimah did not consider it enough of a “worrying development” to merit condemnation of either the writer or the newspaper which published it. “The state of the media in general” was apparently not compromised in Abunimah’s view by the justification of indiscriminate murder of civilians in Israel. 

 Ali Abunimah and a whole host of opportunistically outraged objectors to Josh Trevino’s position at the Guardian have demonstrated their double standards with remarkable clarity during the past few days. Their objections are rooted solely in the fact that they perceive Trevino as being in the ‘wrong’ camp – and that remains blatantly obvious no matter how many ‘moral’ decorations they use to try to camouflage their hypocrisy. 

105 replies »

  1. “He is now on his fourth article on the subject”

    Is this your third or fourth article on the subject?

    And you are equating Ali’s posting of an article which calls for a popular revolution against Israel’s brutal occupation with Trevino’s explicit calls for murder…?

    Rather than attacking the messenger, as you like to do, why not engage with the message? You mock Ali for showing “concern for the health of the media”, whilst administering a blog on the same subject?

    So what is your position Adam on the Guardian’s hiring of a pro-murder writer? A good thing? A bad thing? (assuming it is Adam, are posts anonymous here these days?)

      • He tweeted:

        “Dear IDF: If you end up shooting any Americans on the new Gaza flotilla – well, most Americans are cool with that. Including me.”

        That doesn’t seem emotional. Perhaps hard to tell from a tweet.

        He also tweeted that the flotilla was “not morally different from a Nazi convoy” – apparently Nazi analogies are OK from Israel’s supporters, whereas they are “anti-Semitic” when used by its detractors.

        And when explicitly asked if he was “Endorsing killing Americans overseas” he replied – “Sure, if they adhere to our enemies. Flotilla participants do.”

        Now, are we being a little too understanding here?

        Personally, I couldn’t care less who writes for the Guardian as I don’t read it. But the coverage of his employment is certainly interesting.

        • Avremale:
          “He also tweeted that the flotilla was “not morally different from a Nazi convoy” – apparently Nazi analogies are OK from Israel’s supporters, whereas they are “anti-Semitic” when used by its detractors.”

          Hamas aim is to eliminate the Jewish presence in the whole of “their” area.
          Sounds like what the Nazis had in mind.

          • Kind of making my point for me.

            Nazi analogies are fine when used by Israel and its supporters, but anti-Semitic when used by its critics. A good example of the anti-Semitism card.

            • Avremale,

              The Nazi analogy against Israelis or Jews will be fine had they set a goal which is identical to that of the Nazis, or behaved in the same fashion.

              Can you kindly show us an examples?
              Can you identify where are the Israeli race laws?
              Can you clarify to us if all (and the emphasis is on the all), Arabs have been removed from Jewish citys into isolated areas?

              Can you please explain how many Jews now live in Palestinian cities controlled by the Pa or Hamas, and what is the official position of the PA or Hamas regarding this option?

              Now in light of your finding who resembles the Nazis?

              As with regards to casualties or arrested can you please compare the IDF vs PA percentage in population vs the Nazis percentage per population.

              What is the Gaza strip percentage of mortality and mal nutrition comparing to the Warsaw gettho for example.
              I await your detailed answer.

        • dear avram, the shooting of terrorists is not murder…it is self defense

          the flotilla was aligned with the ism and hamas…terrorist orgs

          you and ali and terrorist sympathizers

          suck eggs

      • And let’s be honest, you and I both know what the coverage on CiFWatch would look like if they had caught wind of the Guardian hiring a Muslim writer who had explicitly called for murder. I’m sure a quick sift through CiFWatch’s archives would produce a nice counterpoint.

        They would be going after the writer, not the people criticising the writer.

        • I never argued this point and I reserve some complaints of my own regarding the hiring of this chap, Trevino.
          Saying that, I find Ali to be some piece of work and most certainly the further between the two which will get out of his way to find just peace.

            • Anyone who writes about the Israel-Palestine conflict is biased. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar. Objectivity is something for philosophy grad-students to debate. Here in the real world, everyone has an opinion, a point of view.

              Ali is certainly biased towards his own point of view. I’ve never read Trevino’s work, but he will be just as biased towards his own view.

              The issue at hand is not one of bias, it is the fact that Trevino was shown to have been prima facie guilty of incitement to commit murder. Ali hasn’t. That’s the difference. And yet CiFWatch is going after Ali, not Trevino.

              If Trevino had been a Muslim, CiFWatch would have been going after him, not his critics.

              • Avram:

                “The issue at hand is not one of bias, it is the fact that Trevino was shown to have been prima facie guilty of incitement to commit murder. Ali hasn’t. ”

                Is that so?

                What do you call the calling for a third intifada judging by the death toll in the first 2 on both sides?

    • “Avram”, By Golly, are you back?
      Care to spring more hyperbolic, decontextualised quotes, often times, utterly fictitious, to prove the supposed Jewish Zionist control of the Weather and rotation of the Earth?
      :D…
      If you had noticed, the previous threads, BTL, discussed the general mood, leaning against Tervino’s hiring in the first place.
      I raised my objections(for one).
      Now where are yours, to Abuminah’s sanction of a third, and deadly “Intifada”?

      • “I raised my objections(for one).”

        Did Adam raise an objection? Would he have raised an objection had Trevino been a Muslim writer who had called for the murder of Jews?

        • I believe, that the object of this post(as of others, preceding it), was to highlight the blatant hypocrisy, voiced by Abuminah, et al
          There has been no criticism, for instance, of Greenwald(who holds patently conspiracy-fuelled(and likewise, virulently anti-Israel) positions).
          Rather, when the usual suspects are all up-in-arms, they should first question their own conduit.
          And speaking of,
          Where’s your condemnation of Abuminah’s call for the murder of Jews, at large?(via a “third Intifada)

          • So let’s apply the same standard to Adam. Is Adam also guilty of mass hypocrisy by choosing to focus on Trevino’s critics instead of Trevino’s incitement to commit murder?

            • No, because if you had paid attention, this charge was brought in, as a riposte to those vocally denouncing Tervino.(No one here has been cheerleadering Tervino)
              Interestingly, Tervino has been writing for the Guardian since 2011…
              Now don’t you find the rage of the Guardian moral bandwagon, rather a little bit confected?
              I am still waiting for you to declare Abunimah, what he really is – promoter of violence, and strife.

              • “No one here has been cheerleadering Tervino”

                Perhaps, but there has certainly been some apologea going on.

                Adam tried to trivialise Trevino’s incitement to commit murder by saying that critics shouldn’t be concerned since the IDF doesn’t devise “policy based on unsolicited advice from Twitter pundits”.

                He also glosses over Trevino’s incitement by simply describing him as a “pro-Israel writer”, rather than a pro-murder writer.

                In fact, Adam goes so far as to say that the only reason that people are agitated about his incitement to commit murder is because of “their anti-Zionism”. A conspiracy perhaps?

                You will have to show me where Ali has, in your words, called “for the murder of Jews”.

                • “A conspiracy” – on your part certainly.
                  How else would you explain that this outrage has suddenly burst now, even though, Trevino has been there(@ the G.), since 2011?(The “flotilla” departed, if you recall in May. Tervino had columns in Sept. and Oct. of that year… Enough for any “Guardianista” to catch-up)
                  I’m also concerned about your reading comprehension…
                  What is an “Intifada”? – the last one claimed some 1,200 Israeli civilians, women and children among them…
                  That sounds to me, per Abuminah, like wild incitement.
                  No condemnation from you still… every post dishonours you further.
                  I for one, deplore, and categorically reject, condemn harshly, Trevino’s statements.(And obviously Abuminah’s)
                  And I repeat, his addition to the G. is, I find, a dreadful mistake!

                  • So your argument is that people who are just learning about his incitement to commit murder have no right to be agitated about it….because they only just found out…?

                    Personally, I don’t care if Trevino writes for them or not. There are far more sinister problems with the elite media than a “pro-Israel” writer at the Guardian.

                    What I find amusing is that Adam falls foul of his own tests. He refuses to condemn Trevino’s incitement to commit murder, and goes so far as to energetically trivialise it.

                    Again, you will have to show me where Ali called for the murder of Jews.

                    • Apart from the 1000+ Israelis who were murdered let us please not forget the 5000+ Palestinans who died during the second intifada. Should there be another intifada, which I doubt, those calling for one from the safety of their Chicago apartments should think about the overall cost.
                      The again, go ahead, make my day, Ali Abuminah.

                    • “Just learned about it…”
                      “Avram”, it’s a bit early in the day, don’t you think, to play dumb…?
                      He made those abominable comments, over a year ago.
                      Now’s the time, to learn about them?(Even you have to admit that it’s ridiculous)
                      What hasn’t the Guardian issued its own denunciation, back then, as Tervino was writing for them — to distance themselves from his tweet?
                      Though tell us, what is the problem with today’s media elite?
                      Let me guess :D: does it rhyme with “news”, sound like “Juice”, and generally, your favourite topic on earth ;)… Don’t be shy now, “Avram”…
                      As for Abunimah, Please see/continue the convo below…
                      I don’t want to split the threads.

                    • I’d never heard of this guy before this thing kicked off. But then I don’t spend a lot of time with my nose in US or British media.

                      Even if I had heard of him, would I also have read his twitter stream? Unlikely.

                      CifWatch has scored something of an own goal on this one though. By choosing to focus on Trevino’s critics rather than his incitement to commit murder, it loses capability to criticise Guardian appointments.

                      And my issues with the elite media have precisely zero to do with Jews and Israel. As much as we all enjoy a good conspiracy theory, it must pain the nationalist to realise that when it comes to controlling the media, Israel is small fry in that domain.

                    • His outburst was heavily reported, by American/Global liberal-leaning media.
                      You don’t have to read his Twitter account, to learn of his positions.(There’s also a Wikipedia entry, on him)
                      “…[When] it comes to controlling the media, Israel is small fry in that domain.”.
                      Would you mind telling G. Greenwald that?

                    • “Would you mind telling G. Greenwald that?”

                      Sure.

                      Yo, G?? Israel is small fry!! You hear me? SMALL FRY!!

                      Done.

                    • A little less slang, next time.
                      I hear Greenwald is a stickler for grammar…
                      Plus, don’t delude yourself for a second, that we buy your charade about the Media.
                      I know what keeps your awake at night… “Juice” has something to do with it ;).

                    • I’m down with the street. I’ve got like every M.C. Hammer record ever.

                      “I know what keeps your awake at night… “Juice” has something to do with it .”

                      Nothing keeps me awake at night. I have a demanding job working in options trading and lots of young children. When my head hits the pillow – I’m gone.

                    • Do you ever dream about “certain”(wink-wink) shady hands, greasing the palms of Politicians, bribing the press, etc? 😀
                      Lucid dreaming, so it’s called.

                    • Most odd. Israel’s supporters get upset when they feel that Israel/Jews get too much attention. And now they seem to get upset when something isn’t to do with Israel.

                      I had to laugh about Israeli coverage of the Olympics. The creative ways in which the Israeli media tried to make the Olympics about Israel – I mean it was almost belly-achingly-painful to watch.

                      It started with the the standard technique – Olympic committee is anti-Semitic. As the games went on, the Israeli media got more and more desperate to cover it.

                      Articles along the lines of “Israeli coach helps some team with talent from another country win Bronze” – I mean that’s practically an Israeli medal!

                      “Brazilian man who married a Jewish woman wins gold” – another Israeli medal!!

                      Sorry, shouldn’t laugh. It was just amusing.

                      The only thing more amusing has been the ongoing, cringe-worthy coverage on Iran.

                      “We’re going to bomb Iran.”

                      “Don’t be silly”

                      “We are, we’re going to do it”

                      “Please just stop being a fool”

                      “Hold me back…”

                      “You’re being hysterical”

                      “Hand out the gas masks”

                      “Oh please show some self respect, it’s embarrassing.”

                    • Now you see, “Avram”… I was not wrong, was I :D?
                      You live and breathe Israeli media, and defamation thereof.
                      That’s all you really care about…
                      In the midst of your “stock options”, all you have left is the chance to immerse yourself in the events of a foreign country, foreign people, and their affairs…
                      So why don’t you declare empathetically: “I am not obsessed with Israel!”- “I swear!” :D…
                      “Avram”, any more hilarities for us?

                    • Yes, Israelis are very good at controlling the Israeli media. Shocker. An anti-Semitic conspiracy if ever I’ve heard one!!

                      What next? The Italians controlling the Italian media?

                    • Come, come, “Avram”…
                      Is it so hard, per your own tacit admission, to come clean about your adoration, and repetitively perusal of Israeli media?
                      To the extent that you would, only bother yourself with it, and it alone
                      Gosh “Avram”… maybe you need to talk to someone about this, “passion” of yours ;)?

                    • Yes, now what possible reason could I have for reading the Israeli press. Gee, I guess I must be an anti-Semite – it’s the only possible explanation, right…?

                      Your bizarre and baseless claims are becoming increasingly desperate and childish. Now that you have been exposed for defending a hoax, I confess you have ruined the fun for me.

                    • Now, now “Avram”… It’s okay to have a guilty pleasure 😉
                      For most people, it’s chocolate. For you, it’s a foreign country and its press, with which you’re morbidly fascinated, which incidentally, you obscenely loathe…
                      Don’t you find that just a *wee bit suspicious*, eh ;)?
                      (How’s that Burmese press going on? Been readin’ that?
                      Or better yet, Sri Lanka could use some of your right-minded attention, eh?)
                      I’ll leave you to do some thorough introspection…
                      It’s worthwhile :D…
                      P.S.
                      Regarding your baseless attacks on me re Peters, see below.
                      (You’ll be pleasantly surprised, I guarantee you that).

            • Stop avoiding the point. Answer the man.

              Where is YOUR condemnation?

              Put up or for God’s sake shut up!

              • “Avram”

                I had to laugh at your description of Israel’s Olympic coverage.
                “It started with the standard technique-” which, of course, is Noam Chomsky’s “standard technique” to begin some disparaging remarks.
                Are you intentionally trying to sound like Noam Chomsky? You’re a laugh riot!

            • Avram:

              “So let’s apply the same standard to Adam. ”

              Hold your horses sunshine!
              You are conceding that the Guardian is guilty of mass hypocrisy?

              BTW, Adam is running a blog, not a national multimillion news paper that suppose to run according to the British media standards.

              At least we agree that the guardian is shown to be Anti Israeli on many occasions.
              But what about Anti Semitism?

    • “popular revolution ” my , my , the drama of it all.
      On a side note, I’d love to read the FBI’s file on Ali A..
      I dig his appearances at Socialist meetings across the USA. This man clearly has his finger on the pulse of time. I have to assume pinko’s are one of the few groups who will listen to his rubbish.
      Listening to him speak he does remind of some Commie Commisar spreading the faith.

    • “So what is your position Adam on the Guardian’s hiring of a pro-murder writer”

      Trevino is not pro-murder. He was simply expressing his natural contempt for Americans who collaborate with the genocidal Hamas regime.

      In all cultures, collaborators are regarded as the lowest of the low, and that is what the flotilla participants are. I’m sure you’ll be able to see that if you rattle your brains a bit.

  2. From the Abuminah Al-J article:

    “What does distinguish Treviño is his propensity to call for violence.”

    That from a man calling for a third intifada!

    Also:
    “What lies behind this worrying development, and what does it tell us about the state of media in general?”

    “Oh please”, I thought: “not some Zionist conspiracy?”

    Lo and behold – further down in the article:

    A colleague suggested that, by hiring Treviño, The Guardian was returning to its Zionist roots – indeed it had long championed the cause of Israel and Zionist settlement in Palestine.

    !!!!!
    I’ll be reading more Abuminah in future just for its comedy value.

    • You and I know, pretzelberg, that Abunimah’s blindness is typical of the genre. He looks for motes in the eyes of others whilst ignoring the stonking great beam in his own eye

  3. ‘Avram’ (being ‘cough’ honest) is so concerned with people intending to kill that he misses the professional killers completely. Hamas as a Palestinian killing-squad has been trained to hate and butcher from childhood by the telly, at school and in summer camps.

    The flotillards are there to pave the way for these killers of those they disparage, Jews, calling them apes and monkeys.

    Abu Nimah was brought up in the USA but I’ve seen no hint of distress from him at the Palestinian disdain for the lives, rights or humanity of Israelis.

  4. Double standards…….They don’t have standards,they don’t have shame,they don’t have compassion for their own very own people who are dying,being slaughtered in almost every Muslim and Arab country,they are too preoccupied too obsessed by a tiny little country,that is everything that they are not………

  5. ‘Avram’ – if you go back to the top of the post you will find that your invectives against Adam are misdirected. He is not the author of this post or the previous ones on the subject. I am. As clearly stated above.

    • So they are. Apologies for attributing the post to Adam. ’twas unintentional. I completely missed an author’s name, hence why I asked about it being anonymous.

  6. You have this Ali Abunimah who is educated,the kind of education he had is questionable but educated never the less,he’s is totally consumed by hate,These Abnimahs breathe hate,their whole lives revolves around hatred and jealousy..
    They never stop complaining,everything is someone else fault,it’s never theirs.They get a free pass from the Guardian,and the rest of the dummies on the Left…….

  7. Avram – maybe a little less rabid foaming at the mouth and faux indignance and little more actually reading of facts will help in preventing your posts becoming the laughing stock they have.

      • How otherwise would you call someone who says this:


        “I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are. There are, in fact, a number of reasons.”

        Take your time, “Avram”

        • Ad hominems don’t stop being ad hominems just because you believe they are true,

          Violation of CiFWatch commenting policy.

          • You know, actually, for once we agree, fully.
            Now, can you please stay just as equally civil, and condemn Abuminah’s rhetoric(re the “Third Intifada”), as lithely as you have(appositely) Trevino’s?

              • I am waiting for you to acknowledge that calling for a “Third Intifada”-while the last one, killed over 1.2K+ innocent Israelis, women and children(scores of Arab-Israelis, too(!)), is a direct act for the killing of Jews, and Israeli citizens in general; and then, do the honourable thing, and excoriate it.
                I was very much hoping for a “reformed Avram”… You’ve shown, just now, great potential…
                Don’t ruin your own ascent, will ya’? 😀

                • You’ll have to excuse me. I do often struggle with such convoluted thought processes. Let me see if I’m on the money:

                  1. A Palestinian blogger by the name of Rana Baker writes an article about the conditions of life imposed on her family by the Zionist conquest and later the Israeli occupation.

                  2. In it, she bemoans the failure of Palestinian political leadership, and the unwillingness of the international community to help.

                  3. At the end of the article, she asks whether it is time for a popular uprising against their occupiers – an “intifada” in Arabic.

                  4. Said article is published on the Electronic Intifada website.

                  5. Ali Abunimah tweets a link to the article along with the article’s title in quotes, as is common practice on Twitter.

                  Now, somewhere along the way you have managed to turn this into “Ali Abunimah calls for murder of Jews”.

                  Would it surprise you to learn that I do not share your analysis?

                  • “Avram”, are you back to foaming at the mouth? — “Zionist conquest” sounds like you’ve missed your Meds. today.
                    Are you saying that Abunimah is not sufficiently discerning, so as to realize that by endorsing an article calling for an “Intifada”(and all your whitewashing can’t erase the thousand + Israelis killed, not to mention, Palestinians), he’s in effect – endorsing it…(See, not so complicated, right?).
                    If Abuminah were not interested in promoting those views, and vicariously, their unfortunate results, he would know HOW NOT to post such links on Twitter; or better yet, rebuke his OWN publication for posting such articles…
                    How about that?

                    • ““Avram”, are you back to foaming at the mouth? — “Zionist conquest” sounds like you’ve missed your Meds. today.”

                      “Zionist conquest” is normally how I would refer to the events of ’47/’48. It’s not intended to be contentious. And you accuse me of whitewashing?

                      So we’ve backtracked from Ali calling for the murder of Jews to tweeting a link to an article that asked whether it was time for an uprising against a brutal occupation.

                      Now that sounds like the kind of article he should be tweeting. Read the article in question. There’s nothing remotely aggressive about it. It’s actually quite sad.

                      Tweeting the article means read it. It doesn’t mean “murder Jews”. That’s dishonest.

                      As to whether Ali thinks there should be an uprising, I don’t know. You’d have to ask him.

                    • “Zionist conquest”, is in fact, “Avram”, the internationally-accepted decision to found a Jewish state.
                      There’s nothing “conquest”-like about it.
                      (Lower your foam, “Avram”).
                      Now, as for dishonesty, you’re a primer.
                      For person convinced, like Abuminah, that “Zionism is the continuation of Holocaust”, I think there’s no doubt, that an “Intifada”, with as many Israeli and Palestinian casualties, is wanted.
                      The question is, do you think anyone would believe your dissemblance? 😉

                    • “Zionist conquest”, is in fact, “Avram”, the internationally-accepted decision to found a Jewish state.”

                      If you’re going to pick an argument with me about the formation of Israel, you will need to up your game significantly.

                      “There’s nothing “conquest”-like about it.
                      (Lower your foam, “Avram”).”

                      A Jewish state, unilaterally declared to exist, on what was predominantly Arab land, in an area of the world that was overwhelmingly non-Jewish, after months of expulsions? Would you like your whitewash in matt or silk?

                      “For person convinced, like Abuminah, that “Zionism is the continuation of Holocaust”, I think there’s no doubt, that an “Intifada”, with as many Israeli and Palestinian casualties, is wanted.”

                      Sounds like you are projecting my friend. Such baseless accusations are embarrassing to read, and they say far more about you than they do about Ali.

                    • So, just to be clear, there never was a Partition plan, voted by the UN, which the Jews accepted, and the Arabs rejected?
                      Or what you’re saying is, even if there was one, it is null and void, due to the alleged reasons you list.
                      I see.
                      So… you’re back to your lying repertory, “Avram”? So soon? Just as we were finally starting to get along?
                      Why don’t you therefore declare all resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, therefore, invalid, by the same token?
                      As for “expulsions” in ’47, ’48(pre-declaration, and those that are documented to be “expulsions” — not your hack Pappe’s assertions or your tabloid JPS’s “assurances”- or mistranslations)…
                      Let’s start off with that.
                      As for Abunimah, don’t insult anyone’s sensibilities here by purporting not to know…
                      If you have read any of his screeds on “EI”, it gives you all the information you need, about him.

                    • “So, just to be clear, there never was a Partition plan, voted by the UN, which the Jews accepted, and the Arabs rejected?”

                      What do you think the Partition plan was, out of interest?

                      “As for “expulsions” in ’47, ’48”

                      The expulsions are sufficiently documented by numerous historians, let us not engage in false debate.

                      “If you have read any of his screeds on “EI”, it gives you all the information you need, about him.”

                      I’ve debunked your bizarre claims about Ali Abunimah calling for the murder of Jews. Let’s leave it there before it ruins the fun.

                    • Well your evasion, on the part of those “shadowy” Historians, is telling… it’s Gold, I tell ya’ :D…
                      As for Abuminah, you’ve debunked nothing.
                      Advancing an article vying for another “Intifada”, is essentially supporting it – hence Abuminah’s sanction(like I said), for another “Intifada”. (He could’ve offered his own opinion, say, explicitly rejecting violence – he didn’t).
                      How would you react if someone linked to a D. Duke/”Stormfront” article, in the same manner? (Could also clear him of any association with Duke’s vile ideas?)
                      Keep us amused, “Avram”…

                    • “Well your evasion, on the part of those “shadowy” Historians, is telling… it’s Gold, I tell ya’ …”

                      You are most odd. Morris? Pappe? Khalid? Flapan? Surely they can’t ALL be anti-Semites?

                      Perhaps you would prefer Joan Peters’ hoax?

                      I will debate the finer points with you, but I’m not going to teach you the basics. Nor will I play if you are reaching for the ad hominem.

                      You glossed over the point where I asked you what the Partition Plan was. I asked you for a reason.

                    • Thank you for bringing up Morris:
                      “Morris argues that the 700,000 Palestinians who fled their homes in 1947… He argues that there was no centralized expulsion policy as such…
                      Khalidi is not an “Historian” — we’ve had this discussion before — PLO spokesmen(and his JPS) are hardly worth mentioning.
                      Pappe is a propagandist(like Khalidi) – he lost a libel trial, here in Israel.
                      Falpan was(now deceased) a Zionist… not sure what you would you be doing with him…
                      “Joan Peters’ Hoax”? Would you care to illustrate how it’s a Hoax? And who has alleged that against it?
                      Let me see… hummm… Yup: Khalidi, Pappe, and of course Chomsky-Finkelstein… Quite the crowd you gather… superb.
                      As for the Partition plan, I certainly *don’t* think, that it was the ‘eeeevvvvillll’ “Zionist” lobby who was behind it.
                      Maybe you can enlighten us…

                    • “Morris argues that the 700,000 Palestinians who fled their homes in 1947… He argues that there was no centralized expulsion policy as such…“

                      I like the “as such”.

                      There is a debate within studies of the Shoah between the intentionalists and the functionalists. That is, whether Hitler’s hand was guiding the events, or whether the events were a function of the machine, orchestrated by a much lower level in the bureaucracy.

                      Whether the intentionalists or the functionalists are correct, the horrors of the Shoah are beyond doubt. Similarly, whether there was a single master-plan guiding the Zionist expulsions, or whether they were a function of the machine, with the policy orchestrated at a lower level with a nudge and a wink – the reality is that the expulsions took place.

                      “Khalidi is not an “Historian” — we’ve had this discussion before — PLO spokesmen(and his JPS) are hardly worth mentioning.”

                      Aah yes, I’d forgotten your wonderful skill of discounting sources who you disagree with politically.

                      “Pappe is a propagandist(like Khalidi) – he lost a libel trial, here in Israel.”

                      His works on the ethnic cleansing are pretty good, although I prefer Morris. I disagree with Pappe politically, but unlike you I am able to separate the two issues.

                      “Falpan was(now deceased) a Zionist… not sure what you would you be doing with him…”

                      He’s done some good work detailing some of the expulsions.

                      ““Joan Peters’ Hoax”? Would you care to illustrate how it’s a Hoax? And who has alleged that against it?”

                      Wait a minute…..are you actually suggesting that you believe it isn’t a hoax???

                      So much is clear now. 😀

                      You do realise that Finkelstein went through it line by line, footnote by footnote and showed it to be almost completely fabricated? Not a rogue citation here and there, but almost completely fabricated. But now I understand. It is at last clear to me why you believe what you do.

                      Seriously? You’re not messing with me? This is just too good.

                      Some fun quotes from reviews:

                      “The whole book is written like this: facts are selected or misunderstood, tortuous and flimsy arguments are expressed in violent and repetitive language. This is a ludicrous and worthless book, and the only mildly interesting question it raises is why it comes with praise from two well-known American writers”

                      — Oxford University historian, Albert Hourani, referring to Joan Peters’ citation of Makrizi, who died in 1442, to support her statements about mid-nineteenth century population movements.

                      “This is a startling and disturbing book. It is startling because, despite the author’s professed ignorance of the historiography of the Arab-Israeli conflict and lack of knowledge of Middle Eastern history (pp. 221, 335) coupled with her limitation to sources largely in English (absolutely no Arab sources are used), she engages in the rewriting of history on the basis of little evidence. …The undocumented numbers in her book in no way allow for the wild and exaggerated assertions that she makes or for her conclusion. This book is disturbing because it seems to have been written for purely polemical and political reasons: to prove that Jordan is the Palestinian state. This argument, long current among revisionist Zionists, has regained popularity in Israel and among Jews since the Likud party came to power in Israel in 1977.”

                      — American Historical Review

                      Thank you, you have quite literally made my day.

                      “As for the Partition plan, I certainly *don’t* think, that it was the ‘eeeevvvvillll’ “Zionist” lobby who was behind it.
                      Maybe you can enlighten us…”

                      As I suspected, you have no idea what it is. As I said, you will need to raise your game.

                      I’m still reeling from the fact you had fallen for the Peter’s hoax for so long. You criticise Pappe and Khalidi, then defend Peters???

                      Thank you, again.

                    • If you recall, during our little chats, I’ve not once, linked or referred to Peters’ work.
                      I don’t doubt or refute the serious scholarly problems with it, but it’s not a “hoax” to question demographics.
                      (I don’t merely “disagree” with Khalidi, I don’t think a spox for the PLO can hold any academic credibility; the same applies for Pappe. Speaking of which, what of his politics, don’t you like?)
                      See Martin Kramer:

                      …[The] book(writes Karmer) raises overdue questions about the demographic history of Palestine in a way that cannot be ignored, but also referred to “serious weaknesses” in the book, and Peters’ “rummaging through archives and far more balanced historical studies than her own for whatever evidence she can find to back up her thesis”. He goes on to say that “It is specially unfortunate because on the central point of her book, the demographic argument, Peters is probably right…”

                      Or how about Daniel Pipes(or is he off-limits, because you disagree with his politics? :O):

                      “Peters’ historical detective work has produced startling results, which should materially influence the future course of the debate about the Palestinian problem.” He[Pipes] did, however, caution readers that “the author is not a historian or someone practiced in writing on politics, and she tends to let her passions carry her away. As a result, the book suffers from chaotic presentation and an excess of partisanship“…

                      Not a “hoax”… not a perfect manuscript either.
                      It raises a valid point, that needs to be discussed. That, for all your hysteria, you can’t deny.
                      P.S.
                      Nice job on linking the Holocaust, with the Pal. exodus…
                      You must be pretty proud of yourself, aren’t you ;)?

                    • “I don’t doubt or refute the serious scholarly problems with it, but it’s not a “hoax” to question demographics.”

                      Do you need to use some sort of inertial damping field to change direction so quickly?

                      “(I don’t merely “disagree” with Khalidi, I don’t think a spox for the PLO can hold any academic credibility; the same applies for Pappe.”

                      I think that you’re making my point for me. The fact that Khalidi was not part of the PLO doesn’t stop you from using his *politics* to discount his *scholarship*. It’s intellectually feeble.

                      Heidegger was one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century – most people who recognise this don’t agree with his politics (an enthusiastic Nazi).

                      “Speaking of which, what of his politics, don’t you like?”

                      Specifically his support for an academic boycott. Whilst I don’t support BDS, I don’t oppose it either. Whereas I was completely opposed to an academic boycott.

                      Finkelstein’s outing of the Peters hoax was massively important. The book itself only found breathless support in the US, everywhere else, even in Israel it was seen as the ridiculous book that it was.

                      It was massively important because it showed the American intellectual establishment for what it was – “a gang of frauds” as Chomsky put it. The fact that the book didn’t even gain support in Israel shows you how silly it was.

                      I mean seriously, you should read what has been written about it. Every citation that was followed up was either misquoted, distorted or just fabricated. Even Pipes was forced to accept that the book was of no worth, although he still defended the books central thesis in spite of the fabricated evidence for it.

                      Read Finkelstein’s work on it. It’s amazing when juxtaposed against it’s loving reviews it found in US.

                      “Not a “hoax”… not a perfect manuscript either.”

                      It was almost entirely the product of Peters’ mind. A hoax.

                      “It raises a valid point, that needs to be discussed. That, for all your hysteria, you can’t deny.”

                      Massive points about the way the American intellectual establishment operates, lending support to a book that was shown to be nearly entirely fabricated.

                      “Nice job on linking the Holocaust, with the Pal. exodus…
                      You must be pretty proud of yourself, aren’t you ?”

                      I didn’t link them, I compared the intentionalist-functionalist debate in Shoah studies with the parallel arguments in Nakba studies to show that the debates don’t detract from the tragedy.

                    • So, “Avram”, just to be clear:
                      I have never once, nor will I in future, refer to Peters’ work… can we agree on that?
                      Furthermore, demographics can be questioned; right?
                      Now “on to the show”:

                      “The fact that Khalidi was not part of the PLO doesn’t stop you from using his *politics* to discount his *scholarship*. It’s intellectually feeble.

                      Uhmm, poor “Avram”, didn’t you get the memo?:
                      http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31755_Rashid_Khalidi_and_the_PLO
                      http://web.archive.org/web/20081103050743/http://sandbox.blog-city.com/khalidi_of_the_plo.htm
                      So Pipes, Kramer stay. Good to know.
                      Lastly, I agree with you that no academic calisthenics can deny anyone’s tragedy.
                      I reject the following: Linking the Holocaust and the Pal. exodus as equivalent, in either magnitude, suffering, or form.
                      Disavowing any reasons for the Exodus, as well as some(Not all, calm down) complicity by the leaders of the Pal. Arab community, and the surrounding countries…
                      Ask Khalidi how you too can get a gig at the PLO… Pays top dollar :D.

                    • “Uhmm, poor “Avram”, didn’t you get the memo?:”

                      Your standard ad hominem tactic: attack the messenger, not the message. Most people grow out of it in school. Are you still in school?

                      Khalidi expressly denied being involved with the PLO. And in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, you cite a random blogger’s unqualified opinion. Joan Peters would be proud.

                    • “Avram”… surely we’ve gone beyond this? Or haven’t we?
                      The Martin Kramer link(2nd one), gives, not one, not two, but three newspaper snippets(NYT, LA-Times, and others), proving Khalidi’s association with the PLO…
                      If you like, here it is, AGAIN
                      http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/2008/10/khalidi-of-the-plo/
                      And Ron Kemaps, of the JTA, also acknowledges this fact:
                      http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2008/11/03/1000727/so-busted
                      “Kidding aside, Martin is right – the evidence of Rashid Khalidi’s PLO past is now irrefutable. Shahmat to him.”
                      Don’t cry now, “Avram”…
                      You can’t always score, in life ;-).
                      I am sure Mommy will always be there for you. 😀
                      Also, this might be a good time for you to fall back on your usual MO:
                      Where’s the apology for the Begin-Nazis analogies?(I won’t even begin, as I still remain indignant with it, to dissect your crude attempt to segue the Holocaust to the Pal. Exodus).

                    • Apologies, I haven’t given you credit. You have, in fact, cited multiple random bloggers, none of whom provide anything beyond their opinion to convict Khalidi.

                      Is this proof in the “Joan Peters” sense?

                      As an aside, I did like this refreshing admission from Kampeas:

                      “I’ve had a hasbara flacking past and in that capacity I’ve written stuff that had what was, let’s say, a flirtatious relationship with the truth.”

                      If only we could read such admissions from posters here.

                    • “Avram”… now that’s just preposterous…
                      Martin Kramer is a “random blogger”?
                      (A Highly decorated Historian… I wonder what it, therefore, makes Khalidi? What’s the rank, below yours? ;))
                      The NYT, LA-Times, excerpts, are what exactly? Also a product of someone’s imagination…? Boy, you’re on fire today, “Avram” :D.
                      How curious it is, that you’ve missed an important qualifier of Kampeas’:
                      It’s not flacking for the PLO, though.
                      Khalidi wouldn’t like that, would he :D?
                      Finally, if you’re going to lie, “Avram”, do it artistically! 😉
                      Give us, at least a challenge…
                      Now, you’re just sounding like a Khalidi-esque PLO-approved(TM) broken record :D.
                      (But don’t take my word for it, ask the NYT, and the LA-Times, and now, the JTA).
                      Furthermore, about Khalidi’s scholarship:
                      After we had already agreed that the JPS(headed by K) has made some glaring errors in the past, I suggest you read the link provided kindly by Jeff, below, critiquing Khalidi.
                      There’s also an excellent, comprehensive overview of Khalidi’s cumulative, “scholarly”, propaganda efforts here:
                      http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/457/rashid-khalidi-campus-watch-middle-east-studies
                      Read on, “Avram”, it’s very educational :D!

                    • I’m sorry C101, with having defended what is a well known hoax, and failing to answer rudimentary questions about the formation of the very state you enjoy defending, the charade is over. You are laid bare.

                      Instead of admitting it, you try fall back on the standard skill of the ad hominem. Seldom do hasbarists fall so quickly and so spectacularly. Most hasbarists will at least know what the Partition Plan was for example.

                      So what to do with you? Do I let you change the subject from substance to ad hominem every single time that you are shown to be a fraud? Or perhaps it is more fun to watch you have a tantrum, pull out some emoticons or a few ad hominems before you stomp back to your room.

                      I’m off to bed, so I will set you an assignment for next time.

                      Find out what the Partition Plan was, and we can discuss it in the context of the Zionist conquest – no ad hominems allowed though, or no spending money for you.

                      And if you want to go out and play, you will have to admit that the Joan Peters hoax was a hoax. We don’t defend hoaxes here.

                  • Zionist conquest, Arab land – he is full back with his lies of hate.
                    As it is common knowledge that Jews peacefully immigrated to the Osman Empire and then on tp the British mandate, just as Arabs did when the mandate was prospering. and the UN divided peacefully the Osman land between Jews and Arabs, your are disclosed as regular liar.

                • Now you see here, “Avram”, when you so obligingly surrender, you just yank the fun out of exposing you for your callow anti-Semitism entirely… No fair :D(That “emoticon” was expressly for you… since you like them so much).
                  As I have told you time, and time again, I have no links, nor do I recognize the validity of Peters’ work; I support the underlying argument — that when Ottoman censuses show a sudden spike in population(under those conditions) it’s worth investigating.That’s all.
                  I have brought you material evidence, for the Khalidi-PLO line. You’ve been outed, and so you flee(No surprise)…
                  Here’s something to really make you run for the hills: Where’s your long overdue mea culpa for the Begin-Nazi equivocation?(I thought PLO-spokespeople were very adapt at making volte-faces. One that goes by the name of K., made plenty of those ;)).
                  As for the Partition Plan… Tell us “Avram”, have you missed this particular line, from the declaration:
                  “Independent Arab and Jewish States … shall come into existence in Palestine…”
                  Your resistance to one of the states in question, raises serious doubts about the adequacy of your stance… huh?
                  Well, since you’re off to bed, sleep tight, and don’t let the “Lobby/Peters bugs” bite :D…
                  Work on your pitch “Avram”, your lies lack any sort of traction or humorous conveyance… How’s that for an ‘assignment’? 😀
                  (And I am not kidding about that apology:
                  A. You’ve equated Begin with Nazism.
                  B. You’ve sought to trivialize the Holocaust, by your rather mirthful comparison of it to the Pal. Exodus;
                  Recant, and we can move on).

      • I’m not sure that calling Ben White an antisemite qualifies as an “ad hominem” (in the sense that you mean here, at least).

        • Come on, of course it is.

          I’ve never read White’s work, but I know what he has written. I’ve never seen CiFWatch engage in any kind of substantive debate with him, all I’ve seen is mud slinging and name calling.

          • Oh… sure… ;).
            You mean work like:


            “I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are. There are, in fact, a number of reasons.”

            Capital stuff, I tell you… Intellectual genius :|…

            • Yeah Ben White, another New Statesman writer. Adam Levick ‘engages ‘writers’ like White every day with no mud slinging. He takes them apart and shows them for what they are. Giving White a stage here would be obscene. The man is an open anti Semite who walks amongst London’s intelligentsia.

                • Out of context again ‘Avram’ I wrote ‘like’ White. White is beyond the pale. No real need to engage him here. Taking him seriously would mean taking Ali seriously. I do neither, naturally.
                  You are a blast ‘ Avram’, one usually reads you kinda nonsense on EI or 972.
                  What happened? You miss and exit?

              • Excellent point Jeff…
                I’ve already pointed out, to “Avram”, JPS'(Khalidi’s tabloid-publication) mistranslations, and use of very suspect sources, like Pappe, and of course Neve Gordon, whose academic ranking, probably lies somewhere with “Avram” estimation of Israel/Jews :D.

                • Oh yes, C101, but just make sure that YOU don’t introduce Joan Peter’s hoax into the discussion the way YOU did to poor “Avram.” How on earth did YOU think that YOU could put that over on a smart guy like “Avram”. No, he saw YOU coming with that one! : D

  8. The tweet :
    “Dear IDF: If you end up shooting any Americans on the new Gaza flotilla – well, most Americans are cool with that. Including me.”

    This is obviously not a call to murder. Trevino writes ‘if you end up’, this to me means should the situation escalate, as it did on the Marmi Marmara, he would be ,cool’ should some Americans get lunched. Recalling the three hikers who spent a year in an Iranian prison, I know that many Americans had very little sympathy with them. Those who know the USA, know that personal responsibility is held very high in that nation. So if you knowingly end up in a potentially lethal situation you need to take responsibility. This is in stark contrast with Ali’s socialist world view.

    The IDF killed nine people on the Marvi Marmara in clear self defense. I read Trevino in that manner. He meant and wrote that had US citizens created a situation in which they had been shot and killed by the IDF in self defense he would have been cool with that outcome. I second him.

    As a general note, when left wing pseudo freedom fighters coming from the cotton wool packed West/East Bay enter a war zone and challenge special forces soldiers with a clear order, one ought not be surprised if you are shot in the head at close range. Especially when clubbing a soldier over the head with a steel bar.

    This whole story seems to have been hijacked in the classic Left wing m.o..
    There actually is no story other than Ali finding that the Groan lets somebody write a piece which Ali disagrees with. Trevino never endorsed murder. He clearly did not. Where as Ali clearly calls for another Intifada thereby encouraging suicide bombers, snipers and what not.

    Pot kettle black.

    • “This is obviously not a call to murder. Trevino writes ‘if you end up’, this to me means should the situation escalate…he would be ,cool’ should some Americans get lunched.”

      Probably one of the best examples of CiFWatch hypocrisy yet.

      Try to imagine, for a second, if Ali Abunimah had tweeted:

      “Dear flotilla: if you end up killing some Jews, most Arabs are cool with that. Including me”

      Would we be extended such breathless apologea in his defence?

      • “Avram”,
        You are decontextualizing all the time. I see no point in a discussion with you. Your world view does not correspond in any way with reality. Your vile choice of words, Stalin would have been proud of you, gives away someone who lies and distorts for a living. In fact Ali does the same in his public appearances. No wonder you dig him. And in fact most Arabs are cool with murdered Jews. As are you no doubt along with Ali. Nomen est omen.
        For someone who has a tough job and all those kids you read an awful lot about Israel. Being very aware of the nuances in the Israeli press. You are creepy. Like Ali. And like the thugs on the flotillas.

      • Many palestinians take to the streets with sweets when Jews are murdered by their ilk. They celebrate by shooting in the air. Also of course when 9/11 happened. But top killer Arafat had them reigned in for pr reasons.

  9. ‘Avram’,
    You write : ” There is a debate within studies of the Shoah between the intentionalists and the functionalists. That is, whether Hitler’s hand was guiding the events, or whether the events were a function of the machine, orchestrated by a much lower level in the bureaucracy.

    Whether the intentionalists or the functionalists are correct, the horrors of the Shoah are beyond doubt. Similarly, whether there was a single master-plan guiding the Zionist expulsions, or whether they were a function of the machine, with the policy orchestrated at a lower level with a nudge and a wink – the reality is that the expulsions took place.”

    This is simply a lie, again. There is no debate what-so-ever regarding ‘intentionalists and the functionalists’. That the Shoa was planed from Hitler down is simply a fact see Martin Borman, Eichman, Heydrich etc.. And Tens of thousands of people who helped along the way and said as much after the war, never mind the millions of witnesses.

    The thing about the Germans was that everything was written down, from the Wansee Conference to the Cyclon B orders to the railway timetables to the death camps.
    The places where these things are ‘debated’ are in Iran, Aza and various neo Nazi clubs across the globe. That you have the gall to write such BS HERE is proof that you are an anti Semite. And all else follows from that.

    I encourage commentary 101 to stop this absurd discussion. You are groce.

    • “This is simply a lie, again. There is no debate what-so-ever regarding ‘intentionalists and the functionalists’.”

      Notable supporters of the functionalist side of the debate include Raul Hilberg, who penned arguably THE definitive work on the subject of the Jewish Genocide.

      “The places where these things are ‘debated’ are in Iran, Aza and various neo Nazi clubs across the globe. That you have the gall to write such BS HERE is proof that you are an anti Semite. And all else follows from that.”

      Which Iranian Neo-Nazi club was Hilberg a member of?

      Just to enlighten you, Hilberg was an Austrian Jew who fled Europe to escape Nazi persecution.

      So we can add Holocaust studies to the list of things you know nothing about.

      • You are know-nothing, as concerning Marxism, Holocaust studies, logic, rationality and causality.
        The debate is long over about Functionalism versus Intentionalism, which interested Historians and laymans know alike.
        Your wikipedia and google “education” is once more exposed, differently gifted one.

  10. It seems ‘Avram’ is a fan of David Irving. I happen to be a fan of Prof. Eberhard Jaeckel.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eberhard_Jäckel
    I can’t write what I think here. It would get me banned or would reflect badly on Adam’s outstanding work and CifWatch.
    I have to commend Commentary 101 for his stamina in making ‘Avram’ drop his mask. Excellent police work. Chapeau.

  11. I don’t know why you’re so supportive of Trevino. If you look at many of the facts, it makes perfect sense that they hired him. First of all, he absolutely hates Jonathan Pollard, and supports Jonathan Pollard’s anti-Semitic sentence. Trevino has also repeatedly tried to endanger Jews and Christian Israel supporters who are active in an anonymous Jewish pro-Israel effort, even working directly with Hamas supporters and anti-Semitic Christian missionaries in that effort. The guy is no mensch, not a solid Israel supporter, and certainly not worth defending. And if you really think about all the facts (granted, some aren’t necessarily public, but I’m speaking the truth), you’d see how the Guardian’s hiring of Trevino makes perfect sense. He’s weak on Israel and is in bed with Jew haters. His extremist remarks make him a perfect target for Guardian readers. All true Israel supporters should be against him, as he makes us all look insane.

  12. Avram:

    “I had to laugh about Israeli coverage of the Olympics. The creative ways in which the Israeli media tried to make the Olympics about Israel – I mean it was almost belly-achingly-painful to watch.”

    Every country covers mainly itself.
    But when Israel does it it’s odd???

    The thing that was painful was some comentator’s becoming too opinionated and some have terrible jokes.

  13. Avram:
    ““Zionist conquest” is normally how I would refer to the events of ’47/’48.”

    Thank heavens for thos years.
    They brought us the ability to have such great Olympic’s coverage…