Saturday, August 31, 2013

Manufacturing  Slanders:

AbuKhalil's readership must be the most gullible, superstitious and conspiratorial-minded on the Internet. How else could he manage to sell them a factoid and its very opposite within the span of hours, and they would consume it without a query?
Prof. AbuKhalil  has been repeatedly insisting on his blog that Israel's concern about chemical weapons being used against its citizens is a lie and a propaganda ploy, presumably aimed at eliciting world sympathy for itself.

"Every few years, the Israeli government resorts to the gas masks propaganda scheme.  I mean, how many times are we supposed to be fooled?  Also, who threatened whom?  It was clear that Israel has been threatening Syria with military intervention and not vice versa.  For record."
If it is a lie and a ploy, then nobody in Israel is in any danger and in any need for a gas mask, right? 

No according to the professor. It seems that only Israeli Jews do not need these gas masks. When it comes to Palestinians, it appears that the prof. is convinced that they do need them
 gas masks in Israel: for Jews only 
From John:  "Just to let you know - regarding gas masks - that i am living in a Palestinian israeli village and have been asking people today if they have a gas mask - Judging by their responses, I think its safe to say that very few of Israel's 20% (mostly living in the north) have one."

One may well wonder: If AbuKhalil knows with such persistent conviction that Israel's gas mask  distribution is for show only, why would he even be concerned about Palestinians not getting gas masks? 

From The Jerusalem we learn that:

"The Israeli government only provides gas masks to legal residents of Israel. Tourist and temporary residents have to privately purchase gas masks.”
They also provided a list of places where people can buy the masks.
According to Home Front Command figures, as of this week only 60 percent of Israelis have gas masks."

It appears that abuKhalil's little incitement tricks are the lies. Israeli citizens and legal residents are eligible for free gas masks, whether they be Jew, Christian or Muslim, whether they be Arabs or Druze, or  Martian. An American Jew  on a visit to Israel is not eligible for a free gas mask.

Saturday, August 24, 2013


This is Prof. AbuKhalil about Martin Luther King:

If Martin Luther King did not exist, the White Man would have invented him.  The funny thing is that when he was alive, he was chased as a communist by the same White Man, before he realized that he could be useful for his cause.
According to AbuKhalil, MLK was an Uncle Tom

The phrase "Uncle Tom" has also become an epithet for a person who is slavish and excessively subservient to perceived authority figures, particularly a black person who behaves in a subservient manner to white people; or any person perceived to be a participant in the oppression of their own group.[1][2]

I was wondering what could have caused this type of overflowing contempt  from the professor of California state University (or whatever). And then it occurred to me that the professor automatically reserves contempt for anybody who is anybody who does not hate Israel. What was it in MLK's
record that might have provoked this animus? Could it be this quote?

 “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!”

And for those who think this MLK's quote was fabricated, they should read the provenance of these words and their veracity, as investigated by a real academic and intellectual:

 In fact, the evening’s significance would only become evident later, after King’s death. For the dinner was attended by Peretz’s senior Harvard colleague, Seymour Martin Lipset, and it was then and there that Lipset heard King rebuke a student who echoed the SNCC line on “Zionists”: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!” Peretz would later assert that King “grasped the identity between anti-Israel politics and anti-semitic ranting.” But it was Lipset who preserved King’s words to that effect, by publishing them soon after they were spoken. (And just to run the contemporary record against memory, I wrote to Peretz, to ask whether the much-quoted exchange did take place at his Cambridge home on that evening almost 45 years ago. His answer: “Absolutely.” I’ve written twice to Andrew Young to ask whether he has any recollection of the episode. I haven’t yet received a response.)


Little more than five months after the Cambridge dinner, King lay dead, felled by an assassin in Memphis. (Peretz delivered a eulogy at the remembrance service in Harvard’s Memorial Church.) There’s plenty of room to debate the meaning of King’s words at the Cambridge dinner, and I’ve only hinted at their context. But the suggestion that King couldn’t possibly have spoken them, because he wasn’t in or near Cambridge when he was supposed to have said them, is now shown to be baseless. Lipset: “Shortly before he was assassinated, Martin Luther King, Jr. was in Boston on a fund-raising mission, and I had the good fortune to attend a dinner which was given for him in Cambridge.” Every particular of this statement is now corroborated by a wealth of detail. We now have a date, an approximate time of day, and a street address for the Cambridge dinner, all attested by contemporary documents.
So will the guardians of Wikiquote redeem this quote from the purgatory of “disputed”? Let’s see if they have the decency to clear an eminent scholar of the suspicion of falsification, suggested by persons whose own sloppy inferences have been exposed as false.

Saturday, August 17, 2013


In 2005, the estimated number ofPalestinians all over World is 10.1 million. 
More than 13m Palestinians in the world by end of 2018

Thursday, August 15, 2013

(because I couldn't find anything that can capture the perverseness of this phenomenon)

The hypocrite from the state university of California posted this sickening video on his website, with a title that implies he is horrified by the cold hearted murder of two Syrian youths by so-called "rebels". My suggestion is not to watch the video, just take a look at the post. It is truly disturbing. 

Try to find on AbuKhalil's blog anything at all that remotely resembles moral outrage when Israeli children are murdered, and in much gorier manner.

Consider AbuKhalil's record for the name "Fogel" on his "News Service". This is what you'll get.. 

If you search for "Itamar", this is what you'll get. Another thinly veiled slander that the murders were actually not perpetrated by Palestinians and only serve as a pretext to harass Palestinians.

It appears, and I am not making any solid propositions here, only impressions, that the professor is indifferent to the horrors visited upon Israeli children by Palestinian terrorists and their facilitators.  What does it mean?

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

AbuKhalil's name is written on the sand

 of Jaffa beach (Israel) and he brags about it, here:

A Palestinian reader sent me this: he wrote my name in Arabic on the sands of the coast of Jaffa. 

Too, too funny for words. Like all bigots, racists and antisemites (self-styled exterminationalist anti-Zionists, too), the professor from California suffers from  a serious and debilitating irony  deficiency.

For ... what is the first thing that happens to a word written on the sand on a beach?

Thursday, August 08, 2013

Following this post on CiF I'm republishing this blogpost:

The Essence of Hatred

I. Remember the surreal  "proportionality " argument taken by some media persons as a convenient dart to throw at Israel when it launched its attack on Gaza in an attempt to stop the barrage of rockets aimed at killing Israelis and Israeli babies? What it boiled down to, was very simple: Not enough Israeli babies were killed by the Gazan rockets. Or, to put it more bluntly, in positive terms, more Israeli babies should have been killed, before those particular media persons could be persuaded that stopping the rockets would be justified.  

II. Prof,. AbuKhalil frowns at the rate of births in Israel.*  He seems to find something suspect and even genocidal in the trend by Israeli families to make babies, and in the Israeli medicare system that goes to a great deal of effort and expense to make sure Israeli babies are born healthy, and that those families who cannot make babies so easily will get a chance to have their babies, despite their biological difficulties (I mean, of course, having relatively easy access to in-vitro fertilization).

How do I know the prof. perceives something suspect and even genocidal in the trend by Israeli families to make babies?

You need to read the entry on his Angry Arab blog, in which he quotes from three articles which discuss the increased birth rate of children in Israel, and the meticulous care by the medical institutions of the state, and labels them: 

Zionism is always racism: the fear of Palestinian babies 

According to the professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and visiting professor at UC, Berkeley,   the increased rate of child bearing levels among Israelis is tantamount to a genocidal instinct towards Palestinians. How else can you explain the fantastic leap from the subject of the articles he quotes to the title he chooses for this entry? Note how he starts with:  Zionism is always racism  before inserting the fear of Palestinian babies. 

AbuKhalil does not wish for the Jewish population of Israel to grow. The joy and optimism that are conveyed through the natural growth of the Jewish population is for him a form of genocidal racism.

III. Now combine that with the media premise that I pointed to in section I, and what do you get?

On the one hand, not enough Israeli babies are killed. On the other hand, too many Israeli babies are born. Both statements are presented as bad propositions. 

Let's see what we get when we take these premises and act on their logic:

More Israeli babies need to be killed.

Less Israeli babies need to be born.

Bottom line: There must be less Israeli (by which both premises imply actually Jewish) babies.

IV: Some tangentially relevant statistics:

In 1933, the world's Jewish population at that time was estimated at 15.3 million. 

Projected number of Jews worldwide for 2020: 13,558,000

80 years since world Jewry numbered more than 15 million, the loss of the six million has not been recovered.

Still, prof. AbuKhalil, who teaches American students at an American university of a good standing laments that Jewish Israelis produce more babies than would suit his perverted moral universe. And still, media persons fancying themselves on the side of universal justice, humanism and equality, lament that not more Jewish Israelis babies were/are killed  before their Jewish-Israeli parents need to take steps to protect them from such genocidal killings.

V. And just for the hell of it, here are some other tangentially relevant statistics:

According to this source, the number of Palestinian Arabs in 1946 was: ~ 1, 221,000 

According to this source, the estimated number of Palestinians all over World by the end of 2005 is 10.1 million.

Less than 50 years after the Palestinian "Nakba", and for all the genocide that Israel is accused by the likes of AbuKhalil and his ilk, to have perpetrated upon these Palestinians, their population worldwide sprang from 1.2 million to possibly 11 millions today.  

And still, the professor from the State University of California bewails the fact that Jewish babies are born in Israel at an unseemly rate.

How do you define the essence of evil?


"If I can send the flower of the German nation into the hell of war without the smallest pity for the shedding of precious German blood, then surely I have the right to remove millions of an inferior race that breeds like vermin."
Adolf Hitler



Wednesday, August 07, 2013

Angry Arab Complains

Monday, August 05, 2013

AbuKhalil reminisces ...

about how he learned Hebrew:

"This reminds me of the time I joined a Hebrew class at the local synagogue in Livermore, California.  The class was not amused at my presence, especially when I once intervened in response to a passing political remark made by the teacher.  I would come to class, and they suddenly all turn quiet."

 Do you wonder?

Friday, August 02, 2013

The Conspiracy Theory Hater 
that cannot resist a conspiracy theory:

Once again, the professor from California manifests how he cannot resist a conspiracy theory, as exemplified in this post. Read it and pay special attention to the brilliance of the mind that provides this advice and information:

Proposition #1:  I can't help but wonder why this self styled think tank set up by former Israeli intelligence officials would want such  access. 

Proposition # 2: Android usually alerts users if the updates have new security permissions (it won't auto update), and that's how I noticed it.

If the Mossad were interested in obtaining access to telephone numbers and such impossibly unobtainable information, don't you think someone in the Mossad would have known what the idiot who provides the "warning", and everyone else who checks in on the highly informative and useful  MEMRI, knows?  But then, AbuKhalil is not too discriminating about who he quotes on his blog. Stupidity is much welcome and commonplace there.

Once again I have to wonder: If the professor does not like conspiracy theories, why does he always offer his own blog and the credibility of his name as a bona fide academic  for all kinds of conspiracy theory nuts and without so much as a whisper that he disapproves of such ideas? It could either be that he secretly believes these theories and is too shy of pronouncing his inclinations boldly for the world to know, or, that he cannot resist a conspiracy theory that harms Israeli Jews (aka "Zionists" in Abukhalilean parlance).

Consider how he justifies his rejection of the historical mega-conspiracy theory of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion:

 "... any activist for Palestine who believes in, or who promotes, the trashy and fabricated and hateful Protocols of the Elders of Zion, should be expelled from the ranks.  Those, aside from their history, provide a free propaganda service to Zionists.  Our position should be categorical in their rejection.  Of course, they are a Western invention, not an Arab or Muslim one."

Note again the rationale:  Not the slander of an entire people, not the historical harm evinced by this infamous document, not the "warrant for genocide", but this:  Promoting the Protocols harms the Palestinian cause, and anyway it is a European fabrication, so why should it matter to Arabs?