The article cannot be defended as criticism of Israel since it focuses on history predating the Jewish state. Adam Kredo explained that Massad argued "that “all the good Jews”—i.e., those who opposed the creation of Israel—“were killed in the Holocaust.” Massad argued in his 4,000-word piece that the state of Israel is the chief proprietor of anti-Semitism and that so-called Zionists colluded with and courted the Nazis and other anti-Semites in order to spur Israel’s creation. These types of anti-Semitic theories are typically propagated by Holocaust deniers and other various anti-Semites."
Though the condemnation was not universal Ali Abunimah and Glenn Greenwald rushed to Massad's defense like a cavalry charge (with a ton of horses***). Ali produced an anti-Semitic tweet alleging Jewish media control: "Joseph Massad's article, banned by Al Jazeera at Zionist behest." Though since Glenn is the focus of this article Abunimah will receive as little attention as possible, which should be the general policy toward him anway.
Both base their articles around the contrived claim that Massad was 'censored' because Al-Jazeera chose to remove it. To describe an outlet exercising its right to withdraw material as 'censorship' is a hyperbolic insult to real censorship. If someone were to write an article advocating eugenics any outlet that published and then removed the piece would be engaging in its rights not infringing on free speech since the author would be free to submit it to some other outlet.
Censorship is state control of media, a private company altering its content does not fit that definition just as ejecting partying teens from your home is not violation of freedom of assembly. Greenwald and Abuminah do not apply their warped misunderstanding of censorship to people outside their political orientation. Abuminah called for and celebrated the removal of Joshua Trevino because Josh said he didn't care if the IDF shot pro-Palestinian activists. (Apparently he's a monster for feeling the same way about pro-Palestinian civilians as Ali and Glenn feel about Israeli civilians). Glenn condemned Joshua; if Massad was 'censored' then so was Trevino. The comparisons clearly confirms that the charge of censorship is a lie designed to defend Massad and his bigotry.
Al-Jazeera's decision to yank the article was not philo-Semitic, they probably feared that it would cause problems with their launch in the west. AJ airs holocaust deniers like Yusuf Al-Qaradawi and publishes cartoons that would be right at home in Tsarist pamphlets. They've published Massad's Jew hatred before, they were happy to publish a vile racist article he wrote about Jewish refugees. To Greenwald and Abuninah publishing anti-Semitism is a-okay as they've praised AJ in the past. Yet they believe removing Jew hatred is a crime which they condemn unlike attacks on Jewish civilians who don't rank as high as an effete anti-Semite with identity issues and tenure.
Free speech is often distorted to defend extremism. For example Glenn claimed he defended neo-nazi Stephen Hale because of his love for the first amendment (there are no laws that violate white supremacists' free speech). In reality reality Hale was charged with conspiracy and Glenn explained out of court that contempt for victims of a shooting spree motivated him. The pseudo-intellectual battle cry of 'academic freedom' is really just an infantile demand to be free from criticism.
Glenn's article begins by arguing that Massad was basically correct. According to Greenwald Massad "highlighted the shared goal between the early Zionist movement and Europe's anti-Jewish bigots (namely, the removal of Jews from the continent), detailed the cooperation between German Nazis and Zionists to facilitate the departure of Jews out of Europe...highlighted the extensive disagreements among Jews themselves over the wisdom and justness of Zionism (large numbers of European Jews were insistent that they did not want to, and should not have to, leave their homelands for a distant land that was not theirs)." He made it clear that he agrees with a Massad on twitter where he defended his use of the Shoah denying Abbas as a source: "they both share the same view on this specific Zionist/Nazi cooperation. That Abbas has other views Massad doesn't is separate"
Joseph didn't devise his argument, the narrative of Zionist-Nazi collaboration was invented by Stalin. According to Nati Cantorovich "the accusation of collaboration between Zionism and Nazism" was a staple of "Soviet anti-Zionist propaganda." Per Anders Rudling wrote that "allegations of Nazi-Zionist collaboration have Soviet and Stalinist roots." Dr. Jacob Gewirtz explained that the Soviets twisted the fact that "Jews were forced to deal with the malevolent authorities of the third reich in an attempt to escape...Nazi persecution" into an "odious charge of Nazi collaboration." Massad and Greenwald are repeating lies told by the biggest Nazi collaborators in history.
Predictably Glenn bemoans "who have spent years casually smearing as anti-semites those who criticize Israel - instantly and vehemently denounced Massad's arguments." The words 'casually smearing as anti-Semites' are hyperlinked to a mondoweiss page, the same outlet that publishes neo-nazi Jack Ross and supports terrorism against Israeli civilians. The tedious claim that Massad's vile rant is merely legit criticism of Israel is a false denial of racism as the subject matter predates Israel.
He complains that a "blogger for the Jerusalem Post claimed that "Massad's writings on Israel can easily be confused with material from the neo-Nazi 'White Pride World Wide' hate site Stormfront."" He doesn't offer any evidence whatsoever that the blogger was incorrect. The extremist tactic of whining about smears is a product of a manchild mentality and inability to take criticism, it amounts to "its not true because I say it isn't."
Glenn claims that writers critical of Israel risk "greater venom and personalized attacks (and a greater risk of losing one's job) than opining on any of these matters." Israel is one of the most criticized states in modern discourse, that wouldn't be the case if Greenwald was accurate. Venom and personalized attacks? Glenn wrote an article describing a man as an "effete sociopath." Countless anti-Semites remain employed just look at Massad himself. After the article was published he took to twitter to claim he is "opposed to retractions simply because it's controversial or produced offense - sets bad message." He tweeted "kudos to Al Jazeera: posts an editor's note acknowledging its errors, re-publishes the Massad Op-Ed."
Then he rambles on about the energy he put into pestering Al-Jazeera. Glenn explains that he does " not agree with the decision to delete" articles. "For one thing, it's a futile gesture: in the internet age, everything published is permanent. For another, it's contrary to the journalistic ethos: although it would have been appropriate to decide in the first instance not to publish it, once a decision is made to publish something, it should not be removed merely because it provokes controversy or even offense." If thats true why didn't he object to his newspaper firing Trevino for provoking offense?
He argues that he is not "expressing any views here on the merit of Massad's arguments because that's irrelevant to the issue of Al Jazeera's conduct. " Untrue as the article began by endorsing Massad's chief arguments. Glenn pats himself on the back about he has "spent years, both as a lawyer and then a writer, objecting to the suppression of all sorts of views which I find repellent, from anti-gay and anti-Muslim bigotry to Ann Coulter and Ezra Levant's bile to Mohammed cartoons to advocacy of violence. I am a firm believer that, for multiple reasons, it is far preferable to air and then debunk even the most offensive ideas than it is to suppress them."
Aside from how he is proud of defending a neo-nazi out of contempt for his victims, the aticle makes no sense. Offensive ideas already have been debunked and refusing to publish them is not suppression. A media outlet's purpose is to report facts not serve as open forum for vile nonsense, though I can understand how someone could arrive at the opposite conclusion by looking at comment is free content. Besides he shot himself in the foot as his argument places Massad's article in the category of a "offensive" alongside homophobia and Islamophobia.
Next he claims that "offending people is a necessary part of journalism and the fact that something produces offense is not evidence that it is invalid. Having media outlets afraid to publish opinions which offend people is a menacing state of affairs that nobody should want." Untrue, to be sure publishing controversial material is part of journalism but Greenwald is presenting offensive racist content as legitimate journalism.
Greenwald praises Massad as a "provocative and controversial intellectual" further confirming that he is defend Joseph's Jew hatred not defending some warped idea of free speech. In the piece he links to an article that states that the "idea that removing an editorial after six days constitutes censorship is ludicrous. Trying to ban Harry Potter because it indoctrinates Wicca is censorship. Al-Jazeera removing an editorial off its own website after running it for six days is not censorship. The piece is still on other websites and enjoyed wide dissemination" his own source can be used against him.
He repeats himself by arguing that if "you find the views of Professor Massad and the Palestinian president offensive, then you should want those views debated, not silenced. The solution is to debunk them, not suppress them, since they're not going anywhere." They already have been debunked and removing an op-ed for a few days isn't suppression. Next he details the politics behind AJ.
Glenn describes "offending and alienating powerful people" as "the hallmark of good journalism" by that reasoning the american free press is the best media outlet ever. He bemoans that the "silent deletion of Massad's Op-Ed" is "alarming and disappointing: it signals that the network is being driven by exactly the corrupting fears that preclude meaningful, independent journalism." So he believes Massad's efforts to breath fresh life into Stalinist anti-Semitism is "meaningful independent journalism" further proof of his support for Joey's anti-Semitism.
He tweeted about AJ prolifically and angrily unlike his response to other issues sure he's refused to condemn Baathist Syria but if a feudal state's media mouthpiece eliminates a racist article he goes to war: thats cliquishness bordering on suprecism. He began by linking to Ali's defense of Massad, then endorsed a cache of Massad's article without criticism and told people to read it. He tweeted Ali's article again, quipping that "if you only want to publish things that don't upset anyone, please don't go into journalism." That means he thinks an anti-Semitic rant that is patently untrue and on par with stormont material is legitimate journalism. Next he tweeted "yeah, some commenters complain: you only write about bad things. I tell them I'm going to write next about my favorite color." That means he thinks that anyone offended at naked racism are just oversensitive who should just man up, one of the most racist defenses of racism.
He tweeted that "they should just go ahead and make Jeffrey Goldberg their editor: make it official" an article promotes an evil ancient hatred and Glenn finds whats actually bad: a middle aged Jewish journo. The tweet suggests that by removing the piece AJ was caving in and selling out to nefarious Jewish forces which defended by claiming that AJ "censored in response" to Goldberg' objections but Glenn tweeted that he doesn't know why AJ pulled the article.
CIFwatch previously established that Greenwald column is a safe space for anti-Semitism, a poster named Mona is a prominent example as she posted an anti-Semitic distortion of the Torah from a neo-ratzi website. In a twitter conversation with Greenwald she defended Massad and endorsed the article. Mona described the article as " fact-packed journalism" that "infuriates the right people." Glenn had no objection he only assured her that he was "going to write about this - waiting for comment from AJE." I thought she was just a fan but the two are actually buddies as Mona tweeted about her correspondence with him. She tweets about him so much her feed resembles Humanbeing151's videos about P Diddy.
Glenn defended himself by claiming that he's only opposed to 'censorship' which is untrue as AJ did not violate Massad's rights. Greenwald made it clear that he considers the Massad's mangled mewling to be legitimate journalism. He linked to Ali's article multiple times which praises Massad for pulling "the rug from under Zionists and Israel lobbyists by demonstrating that they are the anti-Semites." Greenwald tweeted that "an article isn't awful just because people supporting Israel are angered by it" meaning he does not think the article is anti-Semitic or objectionable. The only conclusion to draw from his own words is that he supports and shares Massad's anti-Semitism.
Look up "horse's ass" in the dictionary and you'll see Glenn Greenwald's picture.
ReplyDelete