‘Guardian’ sparks uproar by hiring writer who urged murder of flotilla participants

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 45 Comments
trevino pic from EI
New Guardian columnist Joshua Treviño
(from Flickr via the Electronic Intifada)

In case you’ve missed this story: The Guardian, the left-liberal U.K. news outlet that operates the third-most popular news website in the world, last week announced a surprising addition to its editorial team: Joshua Treviño, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush and co-founder of the right-wing RedState.com. Within hours, Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada responded with a post reproducing tweets from last summer in which Treviño declared that it would be “cool” with him if the Israelis shot the participants in the 2011 Gaza Freedom Flotilla, then went on to observe that the flotilla was “not morally different from a Nazi convoy”

Not surprisingly, several participants in that flotilla, including me – and, no doubt, scores of other Guardian readers – immediately protested to Janine Gibson, editor in chief of the Guardian US, who was quoted in the press release about her pleasure at bringing Treviño’s “important perspective” to readers. We acknowledged the Guardian’s desire to present diverse points of view, but questioned the choice of someone whose approach to political debate is to call for gunning down those he disagrees with.

The Guardian brass, who are reportedly counting on expanding their U.S. readership online to stanch the flood of red ink they’ve suffered in recent years, apparently took the issue complaints seriously enough to ask Treviño to respond immediately, even though his column wasn’t scheduled for launch until Monday. The result was a column he called “My 2011 Gaza flotilla tweet: a clarification” – a pathetic piece of posturing in which he acknowledged a “lack of rhetorical integrity” but insisted it was all a misunderstanding: yes, his tweet did leave “the widespread impression … that I actively urged the IDF to shoot Americans, that I welcomed their death, or that I hoped for that outcome,” but “Nothing could be further from the truth.” In fact, he argued, his position was no different from those put forward by Hilary Clinton, who at the time endorsed the Israelis’ “right to defend themselves” (from peaceful, unarmed activists planning to carry only letters and drawings to Gaza, with no intention of entering Israel or its territorial waters) and Rick Perry, who demanded that we be prosecuted. (The response I sent to Gibson about Treviño’s column is at the of this post.)

In her e-mail reply to those of us who had complained about the hiring of Treviño, Gibson said she hoped that his “clarification” would persuade us that “there might be something important to be gained from hearing from him.” It actually had the opposite effect, succeeding only in making clear that he’s a weasel as well as a thug – and that his writing is as lame as his politics are reactionary. The Guardian website was immediately flooded with responses – now approaching 300 – nearly all of them expressing shock at the Guardian’s decision to hire him. Several of the commenters exposed other highlights from Treviño’s career, such as his 2007 proposal that the U.S. occupation forces in Iraq follow the example of the British in the Boer War, in which “a fractious, semi-fanatical culture was slowly ground into submission by … taking their women and children away to concentration camps, by laying waste to the countryside,” and so on. (Treviño has apparently taken this post offline, but blogger Spencer Ackerman reproduced the core of it here.)

Meanwhile, Richard Silverstein chimed in on the controversy at his Tikun Olam site, and Abunimah kept the heat on with a strong column at Al Jazeera. Then came a real stunner: a new post from Abunimah demonstrating that the Guardian had surreptitiously modified its press release about Trevino’s appointment (demoting him from member of their “editorial team” and “Correspondent” to part of their “commentary team” and “commentator”) – and then had the temerity to demand a correction from the Electronic Intifada for quoting the original wording!

The e-mail the Guardian press office sent Abunimah describes Treviño as simply “a freelance writer on contract to write opinion pieces [that] will appear on the Guardian’s Comment is Free section … along with articles from many other freelance writers.” If true, that would suggest that the Guardian has already dropped him from the more important position they originally hired him for. (He had already had several columns published in the Comment is Free section, including one on August 11 – would the Guardian have issued a press release merely to announce that one of the scores of people who freelance for that section would continue to do so?)

More likely, the Guardian is simply hoping that the modified wording will somehow placate angry readers on the left, without costing them the new right-wing readership his hiring was designed to attract. As the sharp-eyed Abunimah observes, the press release still includes a contact at the Guardian for arranging “future bookings with Treviño” – a service it isn’t likely to provide for a mere freelancer.

Whatever the Guardian bosses hoped to accomplish by doctoring their press release, it seems likely that the scheme has backfired – thanks to Abunimah’s diligent detective work, it is only bringing new attention to the controversy and compounding the embarrassment to the Guardian. (Another prominent British publication, the New Statesman, has now picked up on that issue.) And the tide of protest over the hiring of Treviño with any title continues to mount: M.J. Rosenberg add his thoughts here, and the Guardian itself on Sunday posted a letter in which several dozen prominent British academics and activists, including Ilan Pappé, Ghada Karmi, and Ahdaf Soueif express their “shock and dismay.”

If you want to let the Guardian know how you feel about the appointment of Treviño, add a comment to his “clarification” column (registration required but free), and/or write directly to Ms. Gibson at [email protected] and cc her managing editor, Nell Boase, [email protected], and editorial administrator Kylie Lacey at [email protected] Facebook users can also “like” a page entitled “No Incitement to Murder: Treviño off the Guardian.”

Here’s the note I sent Ms Gibson et al. in response to her message pointing me to Treviño’s attempt at self-justification:

Thanks for your response, Janine. I’m glad to see you say you take the issue seriously. Unfortunately, neither your note nor Mr. Treviño’s column in any way persuades me that there’s anything at all, let alone anything important, to be gained from reading his work – or that I should support an outlet that thinks he’s worthy of a position on your team. On the contrary!

A few problems with his column:

a) His claim that he intended only to convey the same position as Hilary Clinton and Rick Perry is transparent, self-serving nonsense. Obviously I disagree with Clinton’s assertion that the flotilla was not necessary or useful, or even that our sailing to Gaza would create a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves. But saying it would be “cool” if they shot us goes way beyond that position – it’s cheering them on, not just to stop us, by force if necessary, but to gun us down on the open sea. As for Rick Perry’s demand that we be prosecuted, that proposal, outrageous as it is, would at least have afforded us a chance to explain and defend ourselves before a court of law and a jury of our peers – Treviño apparently isn’t aware that the U.S. Constitution guarantees those rights, or believes that they should be stripped from people he doesn’t like.

b) Considering that this controversy is serious enough in his eyes or yours to elicit an attempt at self-justification, you’d think he would at least take care to get his facts right. Unfortunately, he doesn’t. He asserts, for example, that our “proclaimed intent was merely to facilitate movement of consumer goods by sea.” I defy him to produce any such proclamation – he can’t because none exists. Certainly our group, U.S. Boat to Gaza, never made any such statement, and I’ll wager that none of the 30-something passengers did, either, in the dozens of op-eds we wrote and media interviews we did before we tried to sail. And our boat, The Audacity of Hope, carried no consumer goods, just letters, cards, and drawings. Why? Because our intent was not “merely to facilitate movement of consumer goods by sea,” but rather to challenge the siege of Gaza in all its forms – not just by sea, but also by land and air, and just of consumer goods, but also, for example, of medical supplies, school books, construction materials to rebuild from the damage caused by Operation Cast Lead and other Israeli attacks, and so on. And not just of imports, but also of exports, so the people of Gaza  might begin to rebuild a self-sustaining economy. And above all to open the borders for the movement of people, so residents of Gaza could have the same right to travel that the rest of the world enjoys.

If Mr. Treviño had made the slightest effort to inform himself before shooting off his mouth, he could easily have discovered all this – a minute or two of Googling and looking at our websites, op-eds, or interviews would have been sufficient.

c) Most important, your message and Treviño’s column seem to suggest that the issue is about one tweet. It’s not. What about his statement that the flotillas was “not morally different from a Nazi convoy”? Or that killing unarmed civilians on a U.S.-registered ship in international waters would be “no different” from killing members of the Wehrmacht or Al Qaeda or “Communist service” (whatever that means)? Treviño conveniently avoids any effort to justify all that. I suppose he’s hoping that few readers will bother to look at the documentary evidence of his worldview. We’ll do our best to make sure plenty of people do.

Face it, Ms. Gibson: you hired a thug (and put out a press release to boast about it!). Get rid of him or live with the consequences.

                Henry

45 Responses

  1. bangpound
    August 20, 2012, 9:37 am

    I was curious about the story of how Treviño was hired by The Guardian, so I listened to a radio show from Saturday where he said it all. link to datechguyblog.com

    The Guardian came to know Treviño through Twitter starting years ago.

    He was invited to speak at Guardian Open Weekend in London in March 2012. link to guardian.co.uk

    He was invited to speak at Guardian US launch event in DC in May. link to guardian.co.uk

    In the interview, he said that shortly after the DC event, they started discussing the possibility of him being a columnist.

    What is so strange then is why he was announced in August and not when he was hired. People are speculating that Trevino was hired to balance Greenwald, but it sounds more likely that Greenwald was hired after Trevino. I wonder if Greenwald knew Trevino was going to be on “the team.”

    • Krauss
      August 20, 2012, 2:00 pm

      And leaving aside all the controversy, let’s assume that Treviño hadn’t written his pro-genicidal screed(or that he hadn’t advocated putting the Iraqi insurgents into concentration camps).

      The problem with the media is the insularity, especially the leftist media.
      What I mean is that he is a neoconservative very popular with the right-wing Commentary crowd. But these are a small clique of people funded by the same group of right-wing donors that make sure Republican pols take pro-Likud positions.

      The Republican party used to be much more nuanced on foreign policy but that was attacked as ‘isolationist’ by the Likudnik neocons.

      However, despite all this, their support from the base has always been shallow and has only been able to attract people by using Islamophobia and basically smear all journalists within the conservative sphere who want an honest debate on I/P as well as the wider Middle East.

      There are many intelligent, considerate conservatives who can provide intelligent commentary without the crazyness. Just take someone like Ross Douthat.

      Or Phil’s friend, Scott McConnell. There are many others.

      The base isn’t the same as the isolated neocon clique. That Ms. Gibson thinks she has to draw from the neocon crowd is because she doens’t know any conservatives, and worse, doesn’t make any attempt. So she assumes the ugly side of the neocon movement, which is the by-far best funded side of the party, despite having no real grassroot base, is the one to draw from. Why? Because those people are the ones who show up at DC cocktail parties.

      There are alternatives out there, NYT’s pick of Douthat was a genius move and proves my point.
      If Guardian were smart, they’d go for Reihan Salam.
      Highly intelligent wonk and a moderate, as well as a typical American feel-good story(I believe he came to America as a child from Bangladesh if I am not mistaken).

      Instead they go for the neocon brutes who have little talent but lots of enthustiastic supporters because they take the exact same positions that the wealthy Likudnik donors want them to take.

      It’s a sign of weakness and lazyness, frankly, of her to pick him.
      It shows she doesn’t really know much about the US political landscape, which after all, is her job. There are genuine – and highly intelligent – conservatives who represent the base much better and who aren’t warmongers.

      That’s a good place to start. But perhaps that’s too much to ask.

      • lysias
        August 21, 2012, 2:27 pm

        Was the decision Ms. Gibson’s, or Alan Rusbridger’s?

  2. NickJOCW
    August 20, 2012, 10:10 am

    Instead, the widespread impression has arisen that I actively urged the IDF to shoot Americans, that I welcomed their death, or that I hoped for that outcome. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    That is not true either. It is also overkill. It may or may not have been his ‘active’ intention to urge all those things but some of them are what he did. Besides, is not summoning Hillary Clinton and Rick Perry to justify your moral principles on a par with a claim of divine empowerment to dislodge and slaughter Palestinians? I doubt he ‘actively’ intended anything. Oops, Mr. Treviño, I fear your slip is showing.

  3. talknic
    August 20, 2012, 10:32 am

    The supporters of the Greater Israel project have had over a century of practice honing their skills of putting people and money in the right places.

  4. American
    August 20, 2012, 10:48 am

    I think the Guardian is aiming at the wrong crowd for US readership.
    The right wing already has major outlets that mostly lean right, the NYT, the WP, the Washington Times, WSJ, etc…
    If there’s a major newspaper that leans left politically or leans away from Israel in the US I haven’t seen it.

    On the other hand.
    Could it be the Guardian sees the controversy over Israel is growing in the US and is therefore getting in on the action to attract readers?
    If they just wanted to present the left -neo right divide they could have picked a plain vanilla “conservative” without a reputation for ‘militant’ pro Israeli remarks instead of someone like Trevino.
    Just wondering.

    • NickJOCW
      August 20, 2012, 11:19 am

      American, I think your second notion is right. The Guardian, being English, has more patience and can always adjust the balance later, which is something the right leaning US outlets can’t. I imagine the Guardian delighted by the brouhaha. I am not familiar with Treviño’s output but if he has this tendency to put his foot in it that might have influenced them to go for him. Patsy?

      • Citizen
        August 20, 2012, 11:25 am

        @ Nick, is that why Obama picked Beiden?

    • Les
      August 20, 2012, 11:28 am

      You forgot to mention NPR and CNN.

  5. American
    August 20, 2012, 11:00 am

    Also on the other hand…….if the Guardian encouraged or let him write his true position as hateful as his tweets are it might be good for Americans to see.
    I would be in favor of front paging some of Bad Rachel’s and Geller’s racist hate screeds in major newspapers for the entire country to see. I think the majority of people would be alarmed and replused by it. Although the down side to that is encouraging the fringe haters.

    • NickJOCW
      August 20, 2012, 2:46 pm

      American, Where is your cynicism? There are many worse careers than outrageous neo-con. They are more than likely in it together. Symbiosis.

      • American
        August 20, 2012, 5:05 pm

        @ Nick

        I got plenty of cynicism. I might be becoming bi-polar though…I still have rare outbreaks of manic hope….or maybe it’s just the last throes of desperation on my part. LOL

      • piotr
        August 21, 2012, 12:50 am

        Worse careers than outrageous neo-cons…

        [thinking hard, really hard] like directors of necrofiliac porn videos? They do not expect anyone to do 1/1000 of what they show…

  6. Citizen
    August 20, 2012, 11:27 am

    @American
    No, the majority of Americans wouldn’t pay attention, same as now.

    • American
      August 20, 2012, 12:38 pm

      @ Citizen

      You might be right. But for the ‘involved” class it might alarm them enough to make the ideological bonfire war even hotter and attract more of the masses attention.

      • Citizen
        August 20, 2012, 5:21 pm

        @ American
        Hope springs eternal, even in my old wheezing heart. I hear you!

  7. Mooser
    August 20, 2012, 11:30 am

    “then went on to observe that the flotilla was “not morally different from a Nazi convoy”

    I’m really fuzzy on military history. What is a “Nazi convoy”, and what is its morality? I thought a “convoy” was a collection of vehicles and people, headed someplace. Hard to understand what he meant by that. He did get the word “Nazi” in there, so I assume its supposed to be bad. But a smart writer like him much have a more specific meaning. Does he mean the soldiers told filthy jokes during the long hours of travel?

  8. Citizen
    August 20, 2012, 11:33 am

    Joshua is not the sort of guy who tweets his truth to the world and leaves his truth open to different views. His Twitter account is protected; he has to OK you before you can even access his truth. If he lets you in the door, and you disagree with him in any way, why you will quickly find yourself banned. Dangerous twit.

  9. Edward Q
    August 20, 2012, 11:53 am

    Treviño sounds as bad as Ann Coulter. I used to read the Guardian website regularly at the time of the Iraq invasion. When I look at it now it seems much more centrist and “establishment”, unfortunately, and not a reliable debunker of official B.S.

  10. Erasmus
    August 20, 2012, 12:36 pm

    For those who also are shocked by this journalistic mis-move of the Guardian Newspaper. This is the Guardians email Address:
    [email protected]

    The following is my letter to the Editor:

    Dear Editor in Chief of the Guardian,

    i herewith take note with disgust and shock of your hiring the above mentioned
    right-wing “Journalist” Mr. Joshua Trevino who has openly called on the Israeli Army to kill participants of the Gaza flotilla during summer 2011.

    Herewith I vigorously protest against this very unfortunate decision of yours.

    Imho, the best thing you could do – after having committed a blunder – to restore your Paper’s credibility and reputation,
    is to revoke this decision publicly, without ifs and buts.

    Yours Sincerely,

  11. Jelperman
    August 20, 2012, 12:43 pm

    Here’s Treviño downplaying the atrocities committed by Apartheid-era South Africa:

    link to jelperman.wordpress.com

  12. Annie Robbins
    August 20, 2012, 1:16 pm

    wow henry, way to go! fantastic. all of this flew right past me during the last few days, not even on my radar. thank you so much for stringing it all together for us! amazing read. and your letter to gibson was a total knockout.

  13. Fredblogs
    August 20, 2012, 2:16 pm

    Self-defense from the violent, armed activists, trying to kill them. Not so much from the unarmed, non-violent ones.

    • Cliff
      August 20, 2012, 2:39 pm

      Whatever you say Cartman. Head-chopping, pedophilia, ethnic cleansing, segregation, colonialism, apartheid, piracy, murder, assassination, kidnapping, organ trafficking, killing American citizens are all acceptable so long as Zionists do it according to you.

      You an anti-Semite/Islamophobe and anti-American/traitor.

    • tear-stained uzi
      August 20, 2012, 3:00 pm

      non sequitur, much?

    • Edward Q
      August 20, 2012, 3:19 pm

      O.K. Fredblogs, you are about as unobjective as one gets. The IDF attacked the flotilla, not the other way around. The “violent, armed activists” did not kill the soldier they captured, whereas the IDF executed some activists. Does the truth matter to you?

    • Bumblebye
      August 20, 2012, 3:23 pm

      Fredfrog
      squatting and pooping on the threads again? There were no “violent, armed activists”, unless you count those in IOF uniforms attacking a peaceful convoy well away from Israeli shores, in international waters. The hundreds of people who were illegally kidnapped by Israel’s uniformed thugs and bullies.

  14. tinywriting
    August 20, 2012, 2:53 pm

    Letter sent to Guardian:

    Dear Ms. Gibson,

    I learn with shock that you have hired the infamous Joshua Trevino to add commentary to your publication.

    Please don’t do this.

    Mr. Trevino is neither a politician or a commentator. He is a gangster who apologizes for the behavior of gangsters. He and his kind are precursors to fascism. He believes that those who disagree with him should be murdered and so he is exactly like those extremists who called vociferously for the murder and expulsion of Jews in Germany in the 1920′s. The statement in which he ‘explains’ his tweet about murdering flotilla participants attempts to obfuscate the plain meaning of english words. Were you under the impression that you were hiring a writer?

    What will Mr. Trevino add to any political debate? What vigorous discussion will he foster? His only contribution will be to inspire outrage at his political gangsterism. The Guardian has come to a sad place when it considers hiring people of Mr. Trevino’s stripe. The Guardian has been my favorite newspaper for a very long time. I promise you that if Mr. Trevino is on your staff that I will never read it again.

    Sincerely Yours,

    Robert H. Consoli
    [email protected]

    • tinywriting
      August 20, 2012, 10:39 pm

      For my pains I received the following reply from a certain “Sam Peleton”

      “Why, I think the flotilla types should be shot as well. These are our enemies and hypocrites the lot of them.

      Better yet, send them to help the Syrian people, that will go over real well with Assad and company.

      כל הכבוד לצה״ל

      Sent from my iPad”

    • Jelperman
      August 21, 2012, 10:44 am

      Nah, gangsters aren’t thin-skinned cowards who hide their Twitter comments like Trevino does.

  15. Philip Munger
    August 20, 2012, 2:59 pm

    Not a good day at The Guardian. Even Wonkette is lambasting the hire of Trevino:

    What he INTENDED to say wasn’t what he said, which was “Dear IDF, if you end up shooting any Americans on the new Gaza Flotilla — well, most Americans are cool with that. Including me” because “they adhere to our enemies.” He MEANT to say that the people on the Free Gaza Flotilla were actively aiding terrorists and therefore DESERVED to be shot because Israel has a right to defend itself. This is entirely different! Also, he focused on rationalizing the killing of a Holocaust survivor and Alice Walker instead of winning the argument, and ok, so that part was his fault but it doesn’t mean he WANTED the IDF to shoot Alice Walker and the Holocaust survivor; just that they were practically BEGGING to be shot by making Israel allow Iran to ship weapons to Hamas after they were done delivering humanitarian aid. Anyway he’s SORRY, ok? Not for his ideas, but for the way he said the ideas, so NOW is it OK with you liberals if he writes for the Guardian?

    link to wonkette.com

  16. Henry Norr
    August 20, 2012, 9:06 pm

    Ali Abunimah has yet another post about Treviño at the Electronic Intifada tonight. This one features a June 3, 2010, tweet from him about Furkan Dogan, the young American the Israelis killed on the Mavi Marmara: “There are some Americans we’re better off without. Furkan Dogan is one of them.”

    Meanwhile, readers of the Guardian website continue to speak out about Treviño in response to his inaugural column (in his new role, whatever it is) today.

  17. thetumta
    August 20, 2012, 9:18 pm

    You will not debate your way to Victory with Likud ethnic Fascists. The end game might be near. I’ve been thinking for sometime if I worked for this particular madman, Herr Bibi, this is exactly what I’d do. “Oh well, I was in over my head, I made a mistake, but it had to be done. We couldn’t have known, but now it’s done.”
    80 million Persians gone and we have their oil. So there is good news for the West. Palestinians? Are you joking?

    Maybe we should be happy they didn’t turn this stolen capability against the East Coast. The Iranians would certainly have been blamed, but Osama the fool was dead and gone. Poor timing.

    Perhaps, they establish an adnausem(museum) in Washington and wine “Never, never again”, yet again. They always say that don’t they?

    The Israeli nuclear tipped cruise missiles will be launched by the 5 German made Dolphins(How’s that for irony?). There is no way Israel can overcome Iran on their own without committing the most exceptional War-Crime in Human history. Just too far down the road to Hell and here, we’re all still debating the details of the Palestinians? Just 10 days too late.

    Hej! Tumta

    P.S. link to original.antiwar.com

    • Jeff D
      August 22, 2012, 1:03 am

      There’s your problem. We always hear “never again!” and naïvely assume it’s a complete statement of intent, when in reality, it’s a fragment.

      The full declaration of Zionist intent is “Never again, to us! But by us, anytime and for any reason we please!”

  18. Kathleen
    August 20, 2012, 9:36 pm

    Went to read Glenn Greenwald today and he is moving over to the Guardian as well. link to salon.com

    Last day at Salon
    By Glenn Greenwald

    After 5 1/2 great years, today is my last day at Salon. As I noted several weeks ago, I’m joining The Guardian, and will start there this Monday, August 20. Beginning on that date, you can find my column here. Thanks to everyone at Salon and to my readers for making my time here so enjoyable.

    he is going to be missed at Salon. Huge draw

    Greenwald on the massacre on the Mavi Marmara
    link to salon.com

  19. W.Jones
    August 20, 2012, 9:43 pm

    I don’t understand the expression on the person’s face in the photo above.

    • Henry Norr
      August 20, 2012, 11:21 pm

      Blood lust? Perhaps the pic was taken as he heard the news about the murders on the Mavi Marmara.

    • Blake
      August 21, 2012, 12:08 am

      Lol. Blood lust indeed. Slightly satanic expression.

    • Citizen
      August 21, 2012, 4:28 am

      Looks like a real twit who just won his simulated war video game, or like the twink newbie receiving his welcome in prison by one of the usual suspect veteran inmates.

    • W.Jones
      August 22, 2012, 4:13 am

      It reminds me of a picture of a cat hissing.

  20. Henry Norr
    August 21, 2012, 5:33 pm

    Yet another post today (Tuesday) from Ali Abunimah (who by the way deserves all the credit for noticing and very effectively exposing the Guardian’s hiring of Treviño): “Guardian offers bizarre new defense for hiring Islamophobic murder-inciter Joshua Treviño.”

  21. traintosiberia
    August 22, 2012, 8:55 am

    Balancing the discussion or presenting the opposite side of the argumnet has been a favorite ploys by various news outlet across the board put into effective use to silence the tension and worries and fear and corrupt the thinkings among the readres or audiences who would have otherwise felt openly uncomfortable with the pro- war -and pro-violence -laden themes supportimg policies of the administaration ( civil,and milityray )of Israel, US,UK and to some extent France.
    But how does one balance?
    Do we want a nun on the air against an apologist justifying the behaviors of Nazis?
    The debate should be among the equals and the equality should address the intrinsic differneces between the evil and the humane. An equal debate between Dick Cheny and say Carter is not possible.One is pure evil and other is not .You want another evil from the otherside of the aisle selling same stuff but to the oppositions. This hack hired by Guardain can only be balanced by a pro-Palestinian street thug from Iraq vanadlizing Chrsitian shrines or murdering Shias or someone from Pakistan justifying the killings of Sikhs in Afghanistan and holding grudges against anything that is Jewish.This is not a debate.It is pure unrestrained adovacy of violence under the guise of choices and freedom and liberty of expresssion. This is not a moral divide .It is pure evil that that shines through the black gnwaing teeth of persons like this one hired by Guardian and by scores of other similar outlet like NY Times, Wa Po, Fox News, Telegrapgh (UK).
    At one level ,if one wants to hear the story of Palestine or Syria or Russia , get someone from similar but opposite positions in governemnt ,legislative body or academia.
    These outlets instead have created their own “balancings voices” out of whole indigenous cloth. these outlets have also created experts like ” Iranain expert, ” Syrian expert” or Iraqi Expert ” or Islaim experts ” whose expertise come from frothing innuendoes and loud voices echoing back and forth in a room unoccupied by reasons , facts or rebuttal.

Leave a Reply