I don't get it ...
Look at this post by Prof. AbuKhalil. Read the title he gives to this entry and then click on the link to read the whole article, authored by Bilal Y. Saab and Andrew J. Tabler.
Here is a synopsis of the main idea in the article:
After almost two years of bloodletting in Syria, there is little chance that negotiations of the kind UN peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi has been urging would end the conflict. More likely, they would prolong it. And worse, they would perpetuate Bashar al-Assad’s favorite strategy of fanning fears of rebel sectarianism and extremism to dissuade the world from intervening against him.Here is the title the prof. gave this analysis: "Zionist hoodlums don't want peace in Syria, damn it"
I ask you: Where is the "Zionist" angle in this article? Why is Bilal Y. Saab defined by AbuKhalil as a "Zionist hoodlum"? Where is the rejection of "peace" in the article? And why is the Prof. who teaches American students in a Californian university using "Zionist" as a demonizing adjective?
I keep looking at what this so-called academic writes on a daily basis, while he is assigned with the teaching young impressionable minds the foundational principles of good thinking, critical analysis and ethics, and I just don't get it. I really don't.
Later: Another baffling entry from the professor, blaming a report in the New York Times of distorting a story: