My ‘Times of Israel’ post: In firing Treviño, Guardian’s hypocrisy laid bare


The following was published today at Times of Israel.

The Guardian’s August 15 announcement that Joshua Treviño would be joining its US politics team provoked predictable outrage by some of the most virulent Israel-haters.

One of the first screeds published on the appointment of Treviño was by “one-stater” racist Ali Abunimah, himself a contributor at the Guardian’s “Comment is Free” through June 2009, who wrote a piece for Al Jazeera, as well as several others at his own Electronic Intifada site, to protest the Guardian’s apostasy.

MJ Rosenberg and Richard Silverstein also condemned the appointment.

On August 19, the Guardian published a letter criticizing the appointment of Treviño, by a who’s who of anti-Israel campaigners, chastising the Guardian for employing someone they characterized as holding “extremist views.”

The main complaint of all Treviño’s critics is the now-famous flotilla-related tweet by Treviño in June 2011 – 106 characters which, according to Abunimah and his anti-Zionist friends, represent “incitement to murder:”

The hypocrisy of this group of hardcore Israel-haters and apologists for Islamist extremists — who comically wear the mantle of “anti-racists” — is staggering.

None of these sensitive souls was the least bit bothered by “Comment is Free” publishing, for instance, Azzam Tamimi – who supports suicide bombing against Israelis. Indeed, in 2011, Guardian editors published a letter by a UK professor explicitly endorsing, on ethical grounds, deadly terrorist attacks by Palestinians on Israeli civilians — a decision which was later defended by Guardian readers’ editor Chris Elliott.

Read the rest of the essay, here.

14 comments on “My ‘Times of Israel’ post: In firing Treviño, Guardian’s hypocrisy laid bare

  1. Well done Adam. You supplied the logic that the Guardianistas lack. Those who objected to Trevino’s appointment should search their own consciences or perhaps search for their own consciences before they condemn so freely

    • Much appreciated Margie. It’s clear the even marginally moderate voices at the Guardian (such as Matt Seaton) will invariably lose out to the extremists during such battles.

  2. You have The Rustbucket himself admitting that he has no idea what is happening to and in the Guardian,they are running around in the Guardian like headless chickens,all flustered because someone with different views to theirs is going to write for this shitty rag……..

    Why did he agree in the first to write for this stinking rag……..

    No one does Hypocrisy and Racism better than the Guardian,……..

    • benorr, mayhap it’s the time-honoured attempt to change the institution from within? A very tall order in this case, but not beyond the realms of possibility.

      • They are desperate.

        The Guardian is making a huge loss.
        They are only propped up by their Autotrader business, an online site selling cars.
        Rupert Murdock has announced that he is planning to set up an online site selling cars.
        Call it revenge for the NOTW, but the chances are good he could destroy their business.
        It won’t be long now.

  3. Whatever comes out of the Guardian, it doesn’t improve. The paradox is, that by condemning it, one is in fact speaking up for the right to free speech.

  4. Can someone hand Adam a tissue?

    ““one-stater” racist Ali Abunimah”

    Given that Likud policy (as well as the position of numerous other Zionists) leans towards a single state, one can hardly surmise that supporting a single state makes one a racist. If there’s something else to support this charge, present it.

    And Adam cannot seriously make the charge of hypocrisy against the Guardian without the obvious observation that he too is guilty of hypocrisy. The courtesy, understanding and defense of Trevino posted on CiFWatch is in stark contrast to the criticism (as noted above) of other contributors. Many of whom “just happen to be” Muslim.

    • Is Ben White, a Muslim?
      Is Harriet Sherwood, Muslim?
      Antony Lerman, a Muslim?
      (This, just recently).

      And we’ve already covered your lewd obsession with Likud, and its charter.
      Netanyahu officially acknowledged the two-state formula, not to mention Sharon, in the “Road Map for Peace”(As well as the disengagement plan).
      Netanyahu, in his first term, signed(and implemented) the “Wye Memorandum”, as well as the “Hebron Protocol”.
      Not a single Likud minister today, speaks of extending Israeli rule in the West Bank, indefinitely.

      But I am curious about something else, really: Were you equally as appalled when the Guardian published a screed by Ismail Haniyeh(of Hamas)?
      And since, per your own admission you don’t “read CiF”… What the hell are you still doing here?
      Trolling, as far as I gather, doesn’t pay…

    • Hi Avram. I think you may mean ‘Just happen to call for civilians to be killed’ (Which Treviano never did.). Besides that In am singularly unimpressed by your comments, as most seem to have a strange half-grasp of reality, as if you have no clue about what you are talking. This could be remedied by actually accepting reality even when it has the temerity to disagree with you. I do appreciate this may be hard, and even necessitate counseling
      Good Luck
      MM

  5. Don’t forget they also had a piece written by Hamas. Face the fact, if Hitler were alive and wrote an anti-Israel piece the Guardian would publish it, and defend it to the death (preferably of Israeli’s from their point of view). The Guardian would never espouse Jew-hatred, just promote those who do.

    • Chris McGreal admitted that the Groan had a problem with antisemitism in comments below the line, so it doesn’t stop with the promotion of Jew-hatred

    • Never forget that the target of The Groan and all the radical lunatic delusional left is the United States of America. Israel ever ceasing to exist will a tremendous blow to the US.

      All other left wing social values are discarded as lizzards shed their skin when the true target of the radical lunatic delusional left hones into view.

      This explains their readiness to support any cause, any cause, however evil and against ‘Western Values’ in their recurring attempts to destroy the single most powerful country in the world and the one that guards the freedoms of the Western Liberal Democracies.

      Before the ‘preferred’ single unitary socialist world state, the USA must be destroyed.

      All else is ‘minor details’ and ‘difficult facts’.when the prime thrust of the radical lunatic delusional left is exposed to the light of day.

      One can even postulate a parallel between Iran’s obsessive hate of Israel and The Guardian’s obsessive hate of Israel. BOTH are on a (holy) mission to destroy Israel. Iran because Israel will prevent it extending it’s influence over the Middle East and the radical lunatic delusional left because Israel is a beacon of Western Liberal Democracy in a sea of radical Islam-ism which demonstrates how a democratic society, (non socialist society), can be a miracle state. The nemesis of their dreamed of their ‘single unitary socialist world state’.

  6. Avram is obsessed with rebelling against Adam (note how he criticises Adam personally) and is using CiF Watch to relieve himself of pent up frustration about authority figures. This is transference

    Freud might call it Oedipal rage.

    Others might call it oppositional personality disorder, or at least being oppositional is one of Avram’s residual personality traits.

    Whatever it may be, it certainly isn’t reality-based. He could have an argument with himself in a mirror

    And lose.

    • Mitnaged-

      The oppositional mindset is characteristic of many on the anti-Zionist left, particularly among younger people. This oppositional impulse transcends political discourse. So, for example, if one of the oppositionally afflicted knew that you were pro-Israel, he would be compelled to argue against anything you uttered, just because the urge to oppose you trumps all reason and analysis. If you favored a certain restaurant he would naturally argue why it wasn’t good. If, on the other hand, an anti-Zionist compatriot came along an hour later and touted the same restaurant, Mr. Oppositional would nod his head and express interest in going there. It doesn’t matter what you say, you as his ideological enemy have to be defeated at all costs.

Comments are closed.