Tweeting for Khader: Octavia Nasr’s latest terrorist crush


Following the death of the Lebanese Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, one of the original spiritual guides of Hezbollah, CNN senior Middle East affairs editor Octavia Nasr Tweeted the following.

Despite an attempt at an apology, Nasr was subsequently fired by the network, which released a statement noting that Nasr’s “credibility…as senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs has been compromised going forward.”  You think?!

Just to be clear, the Hezbollah leader Nasr was Tweeting support for was an unequivocal supporter of suicide bombing against Israeli civilians, had issued a fatawa justifying the suicide bombing which attacked the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, and was a Holocaust revisionist.

A year or so after the incident, during an interview with Asharq Al-Awssat (an Arabic international newspaper based in London), Nasr blamed, yes, the “Zionist lobby” for her dismissal, a narrative echoed by the Guardian’s Brian Whitaker in a CiF column he wrote shortly after Nasr was fired.

Yet, the brave Octavia Nasr, clearly undeterred by the powerful Zionist forces aligned against her, recently Tweeted support for her latest terrorist crush – Islamic Jihad leader Khader Adnan.

Then, CiF Watch commented:

Nasr’s reply:

Another Tweet to us by Nasr, declaring the conversation over:

Our reply:

Then there was this:

Who did she block? After noticing that she was no longer listed as someone we were following, I tried to follow her, only to find this:

After being axed by CNN for a pro-Hezbollah Tweet, no doubt Ms. Nasr is a wee bit sensitive about being called out again for shilling on behalf of a terrorist.

Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are worthy of her sympathy,  but CiF Watch is evidently a hate site.

If Octavia Nasr didn’t exist the “Zionist lobby” would SO have to invent her. 

40 comments on “Tweeting for Khader: Octavia Nasr’s latest terrorist crush

  1. Pingback: Octavia Nasr: Tweeting for Khader « Simon Studio Analysis

    • Levick is at it again: criticizing a woman journalist who had the successful career in international journalism he dreamt of. That’s the sad reality of life: some will work for CNN, some will work for… CIF. We feel for him.

        • Keeping a man in prison for ten weeks without pressing any charges is apalling. Levick knows it, but he’s too ashamed to comment on this denial of justice that makes Israel mores so difficult to understand for the average American Jewish citizen. It’s not the kind of thing Levick wants people to know… which he why he goes in denial.

            • “Somehow, that doesn’t register with you.

              Why?” TGIAI

              I´m tempted to give a short answer to that, but I´ll refrain, for otherwise it might be taken as offensive to “hannah”´s sensitivities. After all, Jew-haters are human too, right?

      • Try again, “hannah”, this sistah-BS won´t stick. In the West women have rights and duties and are perfectly capable of making their choices and facing the consequences. While you live under your mental burqa.

  2. The eagerness with which people who consider themselves respectable are willing to shill for terrorists because they oppose Israel is a lesson that the antisemitism of the past is alive, well & kicking.

    • “The eagerness with which people who consider themselves respectable are willing to shill for terrorists…”

      There it is. That’s the nub of the matter. “Respectable.” For anyone wondering why anti-Zionism should be such a concern, it’s all rolled up in that word. “Respectable.”

      From the 18th to the 20th century, once the classic “Christ-killers” accusation had become old-fashioned, respectable Jew-haters turned to pseudoscientific racial theory for their basis of calling for the extermination of the Jews.

      And today, now that both “Christ-killers” and “Jews are a subhuman race” are condemned, there is a different way for respectable Jew-haters: Call for Jewish blood-payment for the Original Sin™ of “dispossessing the ‘Palestinians’.” Anti-Zionism is so respectable that its proponents do not actually call for or condone the murder of Jews by the Islamic imperialists. How dare you attribute such barbarity to them, those [g|G]uardians of humanitarian values? No way. All they do is give out some pondering… some Socratic questions… some Honderichian wondering… some hints of sympathy… some suggestions, just suggestions… that Jewish body parts dispersed to all the winds by the fires of the Islamic suicide-murderers might be “comeuppance.”

      Yes, it’s respectable.

      • “From the 18th to the 20th century, once the classic “Christ-killers” accusation had become old-fashioned, respectable Jew-haters turned to pseudoscientific racial theory for their basis of calling for the extermination of the Jews.”

        Here’s a pop-quiz: Three quotes that are clearly biological antisemitism as ziontruth described above (Hopefully you agree, otherwise we have no point of departure). Who spouted these utterances?

        a. “Just try to rescind the legal equality of the Jews. (Only their legal equality exists, anyway. What a misunderstood doctrine for the men from the beerhall!) What would be the consequences of that? Immediately all Jews, not only the poor ones as hitherto, but the rich ones as well, would join the Socialist Party with all their resources. They would plunge to their moneybags the way a Roman plunged unto his sword.”

        b. “For that reason we do not believe in spiritual assimilation. It is inconceivable, from the physical point of view, that a Jew born to a family of pure Jewish blood … can become adapted to the spiritual outlooks of a German or a Frenchman … He maybe wholly imbued with that German fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish … The spiritual assimilation of peoples whose blood is different is impossible” …

        c. ““On the train I met Bialik […] From some aspects he is very naïve, becoming enthusiastic very easily and yet, as I have heard, he is a good businessman. From the racial point of view, he is a Jewish-Slavic mixture, and that explain perhaps that he is at one and the same time both poet and merchant”

        Answers: Herzl, Jabotinsky and Ruppin. These comments are clearly antisemitic. If they were written about Jews by gentiles, they could not be taken as anything but. This brings me to the point: In all the anti-Zionism = antisemitism screeds, there is no mention of how many leading Zionists held views that were copied wholesale from the very antisemitism the movement was supposed to be against. This should be an indication that you can oppose Zionism and not be antisemitic. In fact, opposing zionism and antisemitism at the same time is necessary to be against racism in general.

        These quotes are also an indication that while Zionism is supposed to be against antisemitism, it really isn’t. Although Zionists and antisemites had different answers to the Jewish question, they both saw it as a valid question. This makes Zionism itself a synonym for antisemitism.

        • andrew racist, You must think that Muslims killing Muslims in Assads Syria demonstrates that Islam is the Religion of Peace.

          Or the Talibans dynamiting of the Buddahs of Bamiyan Afghanistan demonstrates the Islam respects other religions.

          Or honor killing of girls demonstrates that Islam respects women.

        • Here, this andrew r(acist) is the perfect date for prof doo-doo. I hope they´ll get together to form a big pile of turd.

          I wonder why those people that claim to hate this blog keep posting here. Can only be attention-starving masochism.

        • “Three quotes … Who spouted these utterances?”

          I fear for my blood pressure from the amount of salt I’ll have to take for your quotes and your attributions of them. The anti-Zionists, this I know, are quite at liberty with such things, like their fictitious quote of Ariel Sharon saying “We control the U.S. and they know it.”

          The first quote is almost certainly a fiction. The second and third, if true, only mark them as men of their time. The view that Jews are not meant to assimilate into non-Jewish society is basic Jewish orthodoxy, though the idea that this is a genetic matter is the 19th-century pseudoscience that most men of that time indulged in.

          “…you can oppose Zionism and not be antisemitic.”

          In intention, yes; in actuality, no. One’s motive may not be Jew-hatred, but his very being anti-Zionist makes him an accessory to Jew-hatred. You aid and abet the genocidal maniacs of Hamas. Enough said.

          “In fact, opposing zionism and antisemitism at the same time is necessary to be against racism in general.”

          Keep your Marxist hobbyhorse of “racism” to yourself—an obsession you share, if in reverse, with the scum at Stormfront (oh, the irony). A Zionist is a nationalist, Zionism being Jewish nationalism, nothing to do with race. Especially as the Jewish nation is a nation whose membership is defined by two criteria one of which is irracial (the ability to join by Orthodox conversion).

          “Although Zionists and antisemites had different answers to the Jewish question, they both saw it as a valid question.”

          If by “Jewish question” you mean how to solve the problem of an increasingly hellish life in the Diaspora, then that is so; I would think there is a difference between the solution of setting up a state and the “solution” of extermination, yet you somehow think there is an equivalence. Speaking of which, anti-Zionists too ponder the Jewish question, even if they don’t explicitly call it that, and it is their answer that quite so often sounds eerily similar to that of the classical Jew-haters…

          • “The first quote is almost certainly a fiction.”

            Herzl Complete Diaries vol. I p. 121.

            “The second and third, if true, only mark them as men of their time. The view that Jews are not meant to assimilate into non-Jewish society is basic Jewish orthodoxy, though the idea that this is a genetic matter is the 19th-century pseudoscience that most men of that time indulged in.”

            No disagreements there. This is where Zionism came from. Garbage in, garbage out. The Ruppin quote is in Etan Bloom’s thesis on him.

            http://www.tau.ac.il/tarbut/tezot/bloom/EtanBloom-PhD-ArthurRuppin.pdf

            (See p. 123 of the text or 135 of the pdf)

            As for Jabotinksy, that quote is from Marxist Lenni Brenner’s book, also online, named for his article the Iron Wall. His source is ‘Israel Among the Nations’ by Zohar, ed.

            “In intention, yes; in actuality, no. One’s motive may not be Jew-hatred, but his very being anti-Zionist makes him an accessory to Jew-hatred. You aid and abet the genocidal maniacs of Hamas. Enough said.”

            And if you were anti-communist before 1945, you aided and abetted the genocidal maniacs of the NSDAP. And if you were anti-fascist from June 1941 on, you aided and abetted Stalin. And if you were pro-civil rights during the 1950’s, you aided and abetted the USSR. See where this is going?

            “Keep your Marxist hobbyhorse of “racism” to yourself”

            Funny that you think the Herzl quote is fake. He exploited the fear of socialism to the hilt in meeting with European leaders.

            “A Zionist is a nationalist, Zionism being Jewish nationalism, nothing to do with race. Especially as the Jewish nation is a nation whose membership is defined by two criteria one of which is irracial (the ability to join by Orthodox conversion).”

            If you bother to read Bloom’s thesis on Ruppin linked above, you’ll learn his intricate racial theories were part and partial of his Zionism. And this wasn’t limited to him. The earliest Yemenite immigrants to the moshavim were treated like dirt. Intra-Jewish racism is a component of Zionism.

            “I would think there is a difference between the solution of setting up a state and the “solution” of extermination, yet you somehow think there is an equivalence”

            That’s not what I said at all, though I did expect this much as a rebuttal. Some Zionist leaders – Ruppin of course, and also Max Nordau, had a fatalistic attitude to extermination. They believed the best specimens of Jews should be moved into Palestine, and only the fit would deserve to create the Jewish state. For all they cared, the unfit could move to America or die out in Europe. And Ruppin did expect Mideastern Jews to die out naturally. But at no point did the leadership of settlement in Palestine expect to save the Jews of Europe en masse through a Jewish state. They expected to create a whole new Jewish community that would replace the embarrassment in the Pale.

            It seems disingenuous to place the history as a choice between a Jewish state and extermination when the Zionist movement was actively working in Palestine for 50 years by 1933 and extermination happened all the same. There may or may not have been other ways to save the Jews of Europe; clearly the lengthy process of creating a Jewish state in Palestine was not a mechanism for doing so.

            • “This is where Zionism came from.”

              Zionism comes from the Bible; only renewed from the 17th century onward, not created from scratch. Portraying Zionism as European colonialism is revisionist, much like Holocaust Denial.

              “Garbage in, garbage out.”

              This thread is not the place for you to talk about yourself.

              “If you bother to read Bloom’s thesis on Ruppin linked above,…”

              I don’t care what academics say about the matter. Most of academe is under Marxist hegemony, so their opinion counts as much as a North Korean political writer’s on South Korea. As unbiased as that.

              “The earliest Yemenite immigrants to the moshavim were treated like dirt. Intra-Jewish racism is a component of Zionism.”

              It would not follow, even if true, from the treatment of the Yemenites that Zionism is racist. Assuming it to be true—though I have no reason to believe anything you write—it would only speak of the people in the moshavim, not of Zionism itself.

              But I have no reason to believe your thesis, even if you cite academics; for I know only too well, from keeping track of American politics, that you Marxists like to overblow instances of racial discrimination, or cook them from scratch if there aren’t any, in order to further your nefarious agenda. “Divide and conquer,” that’s your playbook.

              “…the Zionist movement was actively working in Palestine for 50 years by 1933 and extermination happened all the same.”

              Looks like somebody forgot about the British government’s White Papers forbidding Jewish aliyah. But that’s OK, I’ll forgive you, as it shows the depth of your historical knowledge for all to see. Not to mention the classical Jew-hating ploy of blaming the Jews for their own troubles.

              “There may or may not have been other ways to save the Jews of Europe; clearly the lengthy process of creating a Jewish state in Palestine was not a mechanism for doing so.”

              Please don’t pretend to care about the Jewish people. No matter what false analogies you may level, the facts on the ground are that you aid and abet those who would finish Hitler’s work. You might also wish to disabuse yourself that Marxism and Nazism were opposites; no, but they were only rivals, vying for world hegemony (as is Islam) and hating each other, not because of a diametrically opposed worldview, but because of being competitors for the same turf.

              Kindly go back to the trashcan of history you crawled out of, anti-Zionist scum.

              • “that you Marxists like to overblow instances of racial discrimination or cook them from scratch if there aren’t any”

                Paying someone a lower salary than Europeans and forcing them to sleep in a barn away from the settlement they work at is not racial discrimination. And even if it is, Gershon Shafir made it up. Very thorough job of covering your ass.

                “But that’s OK, I’ll forgive you, as it shows the depth of your historical knowledge for all to see.”

                See, in order to get historical knowledge, you have to read academics. That’s how I know the Palestine Office under Ruppin’s direction, back when there was no White Paper, rejected Jews who tried to enter Palestine and even sent back those who were sick. (In the thesis you won’t read, natch). And if you grow up for ten minutes, you might realize Etan Bloom and Gershon Shafir are not Marxists and not anti-Zionist. Maybe they have no problem supporting a Jewish state while covering the historical baggage.

                And if Zionism is so justified, Jews should be able to learn these concrete historical facts without turning against it. You’re the North Korean political writer of this exchange.

                “Kindly go back to the trashcan of history you crawled out of, anti-Zionist scum.”

                Woah, it’s almost like you moderate this blog, and stuff.

                • “Paying someone a lower salary than Europeans and forcing them to sleep in a barn away from the settlement they work at is not racial discrimination.”

                  Naturally you failed to understand what I said. I’ll try again, though I’m not hopeful:

                  It would be racial discrimination, but 1) I’m not convinced it did, because academics are not a credible source (they’re Marxists just like you), and 2) Even had it happened, it would not be a testimony to anything about Zionism itself, only to the moshav people you allege to have done it.

                  “See, in order to get historical knowledge, you have to read academics.”

                  No, from them you get a Marxist propagandist’s view of history. Unless you’re talking of academics from before the Marxist takeover of academe worldwide, but that was over 50 years ago.

                  “That’s how I know the Palestine Office under Ruppin’s direction, back when there was no White Paper, rejected Jews who tried to enter Palestine and even sent back those who were sick.”

                  Shafir said so, therefore it must be true. Gotcha.

                  “…Etan Bloom and Gershon Shafir are not Marxists and not anti-Zionist.”

                  You mean they disavowed those labels. Many of the “New Historians” protested they were not Marxists, not anti-Zionists, yada yada… yet their writings are virtually indistinguishable from those of historians who are.

                  “And if Zionism is so justified, Jews should be able to learn these concrete historical facts without turning against it.”

                  Please. You wouldn’t be quoting these “facts” if you didn’t believe they undermined Zionism. All your posts on CiFwatch have been anti-Zionist screeds.

                  “Woah, it’s almost like you moderate this blog, and stuff.”

                  It’s not about this blog. I want anti-Zionism gone.

                • “Even had it happened, it would not be a testimony to anything about Zionism itself, only to the moshav people you allege to have done it.”

                  This approach is somewhat workable. You really should have expanded on it. But you just had to have your anti-Marxist diatribe in the bargain. That indicates you don’t want people discussing intra-Jewish racism in Zionist history “even had it happened.” That’s very interesting.

                  “No, from them you get a Marxist propagandist’s view of history. Unless you’re talking of academics from before the Marxist takeover of academe worldwide, but that was over 50 years ago.”

                  In academia, you have to cite your sources. And a primary source is something that was left by the subject in question. Ruppin’s diary translated and published by Alex Bein is the original source of that quote. Shafir cited the details from Nitza Druyan’s Hebrew work on the subject though he also used material from the CZA. You can trace through the works to the original documents they cite and look these up yourself, unless you think everything in the CZA is a Marxist conspiracy.

                  http://www.zionistarchives.org.il/ZA/pMainE.aspx

                  It’s hard to believe this even has to be explained to you. Anybody who went to public school should know what a bibliography is.

                  “Naturally you failed to understand what I said.”

                  Oh ho, you have no leverage to be condescending for someone who’s never heard of a footnote or a bibliography. You can’t stand Marxist propaganda, do the work of debunking these academics using their own sources, though we both know you will only end up doing the same work they did all over again to find the same information.

                • “And if Zionism is so justified, Jews should be able to learn these concrete historical facts without turning against it.” andy r(acist)

                  Israel is Zionism´s justificaton: it´s the realization of self-determination of the Jewish people. here´s no further need of justification. And nobody needs your approval for anything. So, find yourself another hobby. I suggest you try to dismantle the UK.

          • “…you can oppose Zionism and not be antisemitic.” andy r(acist)

            No you can´t. Unless you are against the self-determination of each and every people on earth. What have you been doing to dismantle your own country? Well, move your lazy fat ass and do something about it. If and when you succeed, come back and we´ll discuss the next steps.

            But, meanwhile, find a hobby, an occupation or a shrink.

        • Here’s a pop-quiz, for you, andy r(acist): which people of Europe has a central role in Christian supersessionist mythology, was vilified because of that, pogromized, scape-goated, expelled, used by princelets and finally exterminated, even after assimilating and giving lasting contributions to European culture, philosophy, mathematics, physics, music, literature, finance, technology?

          And please, don´t come with no sh*t about “palestinian” genocide and other such crap.

      • And history repeats. In the 19th century, with the decline of Christianity´s influence in Europe, the new secularized Jew-haters had to invent a “respectable” pseudo-scientific substitute; thus Wilhelm Marr, a GERMAN SOCIALIST journalist coined the word ‘anti-Semitism’.
        (this was in the 1870´s, when the so-called “Judenfrage” hysterical diatribes was already an old debate, started by the LEFT).
        After the Shoa, it was once again necessary to find a new venue for the old hatred. So, here comes anti-Zionism. Again, the LEFT once again is the champion in spreading the hatred.

        (BTW, supposedly enlightened Jew-haters, like Voltaire, Kant, Eisenmenger, Marx, Dühring, Marr, Drummont, etc, etc, etc, while claiming to be “objective” and “rational” were in fact just recycling and adapting the old Christian anti-Jewish mythologies. This is made clear in Hyam McCobby´s “Anti-Semitism and Modernity” and Jacob Katz´s
        “From prejudice to destruction”.)

  3. It would be good if Ms Nasr were to tweet about this:

    The White House
    Office of the Press Secretary

    For Immediate Release February 23, 2012 Statement by the Press Secretary on the Case of Iranian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani
    The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms reports that Iranian authorities’ reaffirmed a death sentence for Iranian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani for the sole reason of his refusal to recant his Christian faith. This action is yet another shocking breach of Iran’s international obligations, its own constitution, and stated religious values. The United States stands in solidarity with Pastor Nadarkhani, his family, and all those who seek to practice their religion without fear of persecution—a fundamental and universal human right. The trial and sentencing process for Pastor Nadarkhani demonstrates the Iranian government’s total disregard for religious freedom, and further demonstrates Iran’s continuing violation of the universal rights of its citizens. The United States calls upon the Iranian authorities to immediately lift the sentence, release Pastor Nadarkhani, and demonstrate a commitment to basic, universal human rights, including freedom of religion. The United States renews its calls for people of conscience and governments around the world to reach out to Iranian authorities and demand Pastor Nadarkhani’s immediate release.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/23/statement-press-secretary-case-iranian-pastor-youcef-nadarkhani

    What do you think the chances are?

        • Since leaving CNN, Nasr has been making a living participating to conferences for which she must be paid three or four times what she used to earn at CNN. Meanwhile, you’re still reduced to post coments on CIF that no one reads. Life is so unfair…

            • Nasr lives the good life while you’re busy posting comments on a website that claims to have about 100 readers. Tells it all.

              • “Tells it all.” Hannothing

                In any case, you waste *our* time posting your inanities in this blog that you claim to despise. Makes sense, in your twisted self-centered universe.

          • “Since leaving CNN, Nasr has been making a living participating to conferences for which she must be paid three or four times what she used to earn at CNN.”

            How do you know this Hannah?
            Have you seen Nasr’s wage slips, or her Income Tax returns?
            Or are you just ‘blowing smoke’ ?

            • If you were a foreign correspondent based in the Middle-East, you’d meet Nasr at more or less every international conference organized on Middle-East politics and journalists, and you would know that people speaking in such conferences are paid ten times what a CIF writer does in a year.

              • So Hannah, your point is that the richer you are, the more correct your opinions are? Right. Thanks for clearing that up.

                • What I see is a bunch of losers criticizing a successful woman because her success reminds them that they have not achieved anything. That’s life: some will lead an exciting life and work in international journalism, others will rfail and express their frustration on mini websites like CIF.

                • So, Hannah. Your stance is:

                  1. If you receive a high salary, you are immune from criticism.
                  2. If you are a woman, you are immune from criticism.
                  3. Anyone who criticizes a woman, particularly one with a high salary, must be a “loser”.
                  4. Anyone who doesn’t have a job in “international journalism” is green with jealousy because they, obviously, don’t have an “exciting life”.

                  Good arguments. You win.

              • Hannah my questions are clear.
                Have you seen Nasr’s wage slips, or her Income Tax returns?
                The answer is simple enough, Yes or No.

                Cut the waffle about what Foreign Correspondents based in the Middle East, or anywhere else, may or may not know.

      • “Tells it all.” hannothing

        Hey, “Hannah”, don´t you have any other expression for a punch line? That one is getting old.

  4. you know you are a jewhater nazi lover hezzboliar c**t when even the Crescent News Network can’t excuse your jewhate hidden under layers of semantic wordplay ala Mear-slimer

Comments are closed.