New Guardian team member openly incited Israel to murder Alice Walker and others

Joshua Treviño Flickr

In a sad sign of its deterioration, The Guardian has hired a new contributor who openly called on the Israeli army to kill Americans sailing to Gaza, including Pulitzer prize-winning author Alice Walker and Kindertransport refugee Hedy Epstein.

In a statement on its website the newspaper says:

Today the Guardian announced the addition of Josh Treviño to their editorial team. Formerly of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Treviño will be the newest Correspondent for the Guardian’s growing US politics team through his column “On Politics & Persuasion” which launches on Monday, August 20.

“We are pleased to have Josh join the Guardian,” said Janine Gibson, editor-in-chief of the Guardian US. “He brings an important perspective our readers look for on issues concerning US politics,” added Gibson.

Calls for murder

Apparently, one of those “perspectives” is that those who disagree with Treviño should be brutally murdered.

In June 2011, as several dozen Americans, including Walker and Epstein attempted to set sail from Greece to Gaza, to break Israel’s blockade along with boats from other countries, Treviño tweeted, “Dear IDF: If you end up shooting any Americans on the new Gaza flotilla – well, most Americans are cool with that. Including me.”

“IDF” is Israel’s initialism for the Israeli army. At the time, the Israeli army was itself inciting against Walker and other Americans, calling them a “threat to Israel.” Treviño’s initial call to murder was directed at journalist Joseph Dana, before Treviño asserted that Israel would be right to kill all flotilla passengers.

Treviño, who served on the advisory board of the extreme anti-Palestinian group Act for Israel, also endorsed a call to “sink the flotilla” likening it to a “Nazi convoy” and the Americans on board to “Al Qaeda.”

When challenged about his apparent call on Israel to kill fellow Americans, Treviño doubled down, affirming “Sure, if they adhere to our enemies. Flotilla participants do.”

Guardian expansion in US

The Guardian has long held a reputation as a progressive and reputable publication. However the laundering of someone who regards murder as an acceptable form of dealing with people whose opinions he rejects, suggests the once venerable newspaper has abandoned any such pretense.

The Guardian which is suffering massive financial losses is currently undertaking a risky expansion into the US market and perhaps hopes sensationalism, racism and calls to murder will help it find favor with American audiences.

It also shows that calling for violence against opponents is no bar to advancement in the “liberal” Guardian, as long as the victims are standing in solidarity with Palestinians.

Update 18 August 2012: The Guardian responds

I wrote to the Guardian asking for a response to this post as well as other questions. I included their responses in an analysis I wrote for Al Jazeera that was published today: “What’s gone wrong at The Guardian?





i wrote to the guardian and everyone else should too. this is disgusting. if he's allowed to write for them, what's next? glenn beck to balance monbiot? we can live without the guardian, if necessary, a lot easier than living with the guardian with him as a columnist.


I am shocked at this as the Guardian has mostly but not necessarily always presented decent journalism and has mostly resisted pandering to extreme views.

But all is not lost. The website has a "comment is free" section, and they invite ideas for discussion. Understanding their reasoning for appointing such an extremist and highlighting his views will be a good idea to propose.

And we can only hope that his appointment is short-lived, particularly when he vents his extreme views in their publication.


I've watched The Guardian coverage for two decades. They certainly have endorsed extreme views, certainly those incompatible with a leftist perspective.

To wit, substantial support for Israeli crimes.
Support of the 'rebels' in Libya and now Syria.
Smears of Julian Assange.
Support for the Lib Dems in the last UK elections (which they have refused to apologize for, while continually describing the coalition as disastrous).
Allowing Alastair Campbell, a potential war criminal, to write for them and continually plugging his diaries.

There is very little that is genuinely left-wing in the Guardian once one moves beyond its rhetoric.


'I am shocked at this as the Guardian has mostly but not necessarily always presented decent journalism and has mostly resisted pandering to extreme views.'

That was years ago. Now the Guardian Editorial Management is composed of extreme radical lefties who hate: The US of A, Israel, the West, English speaking countries, white countries capitalism, .........

The 'love' brown people, people who have been colonised, people who refuse to move to a capitalist system, people who oppose the US of A, people who want to destroy Israel, people who want to reinstate The Soviet Union.


The Guardian is employing somebody who praised the Israeli attacks on the Gaza flotilla. They also have a former IDF soldier writing pro-Israel stuff for them.

They have also taken the West's line on Libya and now Syria.

You basically are an uninformed person (American, by any chance?) who has not read the Guardian in any meaningful way.

Go ahead and link to some articles if you can.


the word I missed out in my haste was "comparatively". It has mostly but not necessarily always presented comparatively decent journalism when viewed alongside most other media in the UK. Or elsewhere for that matter. Despite not being quite neutral I still think it has mostly though not always kept from publishing the more right-wing, racist and Islamophobic views that have become mainstream.

If there is enough protest and backlash to Trevino's appointment, the Guardian may well reconsider his appointment.


The Guardian "Comment is Free" has never been open to anti Zionists.
Furthermore, readers' comments critical of Israel are often removed by the Guardian moderators [including a few of mine].
See a recent example of the removal of a comment relevant to the CiF, but which dared to quote:
"... disregards a third option: neither a two-state solution, nor a single state with an Arab majority, but 'population transfer'. Large-scale ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs would result in a single state in the entire territory, with a large Jewish majority, which is the ultimate aim of all mainstream Zionist parties ..."
On the other hand, violent, abusive, inciting, racist and defamatory comments by Zionists were allowed by the Guardian.


I used to be a regular on CiF's (once frequent) IP threads. I'd often considered giving up, firstly because these discussions are nastily polarised and never get anywhere, but more than that, because of the Guardian's ridiculous moderation policy. Firstly, unlike articles on just about any other subject, I/P articles are closed to comment overnight, indicating that the Graun considered it a 'sensitive' subject (why? The only answer is that the Graun i terrified of the pro-Israel 'monitor' group CiF watch) Secondly, threadsquickly get inundated with streams of GIYUS spammers who would press the 'report abuse' button en masse, thus ensuring perfectly reasonable pro-Palestine posts get deleted, and repeat 'offenders' (like me!) get relegated to the sin bin. Despite all this, I'd still get sucked back in, and then wonder why I bothered.

But the last straw was when, last winter, the Graun published an editorial mollycoddling Zionists, even saying that they would be examining uses of the word 'anti-Zionist' for coded references to anti-Semitism! In other words, any anti-Zionist posters were automatically suspect. That was too much for me, and I haven't posted in Cif I/P threads since, with the one exception, at the time of last winter's prisoner exchange, of asking ME editor Ian Brown why he gave more attention to one 'kidnapped' Israeli tank gunner than he did to 1000 Palestinians. His answer? Because it's easier. Kid you NOT.

The Guardian's 'coverage' of Syria is an absolute sick joke - even Press TV is more subtle in its propaganda. And it has essentially stopped covering Palestine at all, with an almost complete black-out of the recent hunger strikes, for example. I really do think that the New York Times-ification of the Graun is due to that paper wishing to compete in the US market, where criticism of Israel is a no-no. I doubt they'll be successful, however. It's not like the world, or even the US, really needs another 'news'paper cheerleading for Israel.


Outstanding comment. My personal experience confirms what you say


Stop it. Think. Don't argue with a small man with a newspaper (at least presently) to back him up. 'Trev' is a self-made, self-serving vortex. By all means get sucked in if you've nothing better to spend your time on. He's a small flame...let him blow himself out. I imagine Josh is desperate. Look at his face and ask whether he really expects to be taken seriously. Why get agitated by it? Laugh.


He liken the flotila and the plp on it to tht of nazi, makes me laguh as he is the one who sounds like Hitler when calling for them to be killed.


I suggest you read an entire column of his before you all rush to judgement.


in 50 years IT has revealed the truth about zionism israel rothschild, brit government churchill monarchy and subversion this guy needs to catch up with public opinion ...5 billion people detest israel britain usa and NATO


#Joshua Treviño@jstrevino just another coward sat behind a desk with no balls, a big gob and a small under developed brain, these people usually end up getting their just rewards in a very public manner, expect to find him making tea at a local rag soon!


This certainly puts the Guardian in a new light for me; never bought it and never will now.
You know, we (I hope sane minded) 'the People', need a real clean out of our media, banks, political representatives and so called 'class' structure. Perhaps a real revolution is needed.
One thing is for sure, the Human race cannot go on 'Business as usual'. IT IS TOTALLY UNSUSTAINABLE and mankind (who isn't kind at all in fact) will be, 'Hoist by his own petard. He/she has become far too clever for it its own good; why do we pay footballers, CEO's an bankers £millions per year? Why do we drive cars that can do 200mph? Why do we eat out of season vegetables and fruits all year round? Because we can! And, even worse still, we do!!
In the words of Cpl. Fraser, 'We're doomed!'.


Alice refused to have her work translated into Hebrew and sold in Israel. To the increasingly paranoid but diminishing Zionist crowd this translates as anti-semitism, or some other crime worthy of death. Not surprisingly, Dershowitz refers to her Nazi crime of criticizing the STate of Israel. They are all right wing bloat, mere pigs pretending to be human.


From my estimation, none of you have ever actually read (I noted someone saying they'd "watched" the Guardian for a long time, like you might keep an eye on a dangerous wild animal it case it snapped at you) the paper for any length of time. CIF and the Guardian as a whole are both committed to providing as close to a full and balanced coverage or at least a range of opinions on any given topic - unfortunately, plurality and difference of ideas is something heavily embraced by 'liberalism' and this is no exception. Apart from the fact that I personally know one CIF contributor who is a pro-palestine Palestinian and another who is a pro-palestinian Libyan, all articles relating to Israel or Palestine in the main paper are those aimed at the British left - the majority of whom favour Palestine but the paper is not scared of allowing it's writers and contributors to speak their own views not just those of the paper in order to create a truly informed discussion. Last but not least, these comments were made on twitter and the facetious way they were made reflects that...


In its early days, the Manchester Guardian was the newsletter of the Cheetham Hill Jewish community. The iconic Editor, C.P. Scott helped Weizmann draw up the Balfour Declaration, only a few years after Herzl founded Zionism. It's not suprising it's returning to its roots, particularly after the recent Tel Aviv/Jerusalem debacle. Time for all decent people to give it wide berth, or for Trevino to go to The Sun, where his brand of thinking will be appreciated.


Those commenters who believe he is a nut-case and the Guardian has erred in hiring him and that we should ignore him because his views are too hateful and radically should not be naive and wishful.

Recall the selling if the war on Iraq. Most thinking and rational people could see through the hasbara but the Fox News crowd felt it their duty to believe even though outrageous liars like Wolfowitz and Cheney kept repeating the same mantras.

This man is now part if the Zionist cabal whose goals are clear: use the power of the U.S. to fight their wars (check off Iraq--next Syria, then Iran) , continue to use our political system to fund their murderous Occupation of Palestine and attacks/invasions of neighboring countries.


As an American, the reason why I read the Guardian is because I know I will be reading a guaranteed, left wing newspaper. Now Josh Trevino (former Bush speechwriter, btw) is hired at a columnist there?!?!?! I'm not reading it anymore. You have lost a loyal reader, and severely misunderstand your American audience.


It's sickening to see people like this gracing the pages of a well-known publication. Ni sane and civilised person should condone this.


Trevino was not only enthusiastic about Israel murdering activists on the flotilla, but supporters of the flotilla as well.

"My PS3 name is same as my Twitter handle. If you support #flotilla, come find me on MW2 so I can shoot you."

Since the Guardian apparently expresses its 'left-liberal values' by employing white supremacist, bigoted propaganderists to give 'a platform to opinions we may disagree with', perhaps they will offer Pamela Geller or David Duke an appointment next?


This is a sad day for the Guardian's readership. We have been getting the Guardian for over 20 years. If this is the level of correspondent they are hiring then perhaps it is time to look elsewhere for world news. What a disappointment. One can only hope it is a cruel joke....but even then...


‎"Dear US Border Guards: If you end up shooting any Canadians speeding across the border and refusing to go through customs to make sure they aren't smuggling in terrorist weapons, well, most Canadians are cool with that too, including me".


Incredible -- have any of you written to the Guardian for an explanation? I have, but only got one auto reply after the other. Surely the Guardian should release a statement about it ( and I don't mean that creepy 'I didn't mean it reaaaaalllly' editorial from the vile Trevino).

Anyway you look at it, hiring a man that openly calls for the murder of innocent civilians is pretty serious -- and Trevino was not joking. What next? Perhaps the Guardian can offer jobs to the EDL, or the BNP.

But even Griffin and the EDL have not openly agitated for shooting and murder as Trevino has done.
During the London riots, the police were chasing down any hapless over excited teenager that sent messages of encouragement -- yet the Guardian -- UK's leading 'left wing' paper -- employs a man that calls for murder.

You couldn't make it up -- they can add Trevino to the list of Oxford/Cambridge apologists they employ, and the creepy Arronovich and Cohen, both propagandists and cheerleaders for the attack on Iraq and Israeli ambitions.


Joshua Treviño is a fascist right winger, and the Guardian is mainstreaming his ideology.

It's unfortunate that Glenn Greenwald will be writing there, as I enjoy his writing, but I actively avoid the site. I fully expect that he'll feel the jack boot on his neck before long.

The Guardian defines the leftmost PC opinions allowed into the discussion. It's job is to protect Neoliberal capitalism and the status quo by providing a relief valve for centrist liberals- not hardly left.

Recently I ran across a bulgarian site which complained that the Guardian and France 24 was over-censoring hungarian cables. They were able to obtain an unredacted cable. It turned out that the Gruan was protecting the mafia and crooked government ministers, not names of whistleblowers!
Here is that story: (shortly thereafter they became a journalist partner with WL)

The Grauns article doesn't indicate the length of cable censored. The short mask appears like a few words, not full section redactions.

Anyway, the point is that the Graun sucks anyway. I won't be making requests to get rid of a rhetorical black shirt. I want them to fly their right wing freak flag proudly so no one is fooled by them.

Trevino tweets:
Only way the #flotilla story gets better is if it's revealed the IDF drew Muhammed on a bulkhead.

Whether you're for the #flotilla or against it, we can all agree on one thing: its dead are with Rachel Corrie now.

Let me be clear: even if the worst reports of Israeli actions on the #flotilla are true -- and I doubt that -- Israel is still right.


Tried to reply in defense of Trevino but keeps saying comments blocked due to profanity even though I wrote not one profane word.
Clearly Abunimah edits comments in support of Trevino, blocks IP's.


Your comment contained the sentence:

The article by Trevino you condem shows the world is awakening to all the bullshit from “Palestinian activists” who do nothing to help Palestinians when they could ahve had their own territory and life.

The automatic profanity filter operates on new comments prior to any moderation action by humans.


The Guardian is done, finished -- there is no point in reading it. Even the CIF Comment is Free page, which was reasonable about five years ago, is now more reactionary than the comments on the Daily Mail articles. Just like the BBC -- it seems amazing to reflect that ten years or so ago, the BBC was releasing documentaries supporting Mordechai Vannunu, and five years ago, The Guardian was one of the few mainstream papers supporting occupied Palestine.

There really is no future for print journalism -- and the establishment journalists KNOW it, and feel threatened -- take a look at Andrew Marrs contemptuous, arrogant comment on online journalism -- it shows his contempt, and his fear. His class and status can no longer conceal the fact that his 'class of journalist' has now been left behind by far better online writing. I quote Marr on online journos -- "( they are ) inadequate, pimpled and single...spewings and rantings of very drunk people ... citizen journalism strikes me as nothing to do with journalism at all...A lot of bloggers seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy... young men sitting in their mother's basements and ranting... very angry is not going to replace journalism...Most of the blogging is too angry".