Back in December, I wrote a rejoinder to a series of LinkedIn posts by one Jack Sigman, who dedicated the series to attacking me and my work on the Palestine conflict. Yet, despite his verbose claims to have somehow debunked my writings, in fact, he failed to identify even a single factual or logical error in anything I’d ever written. I wrote my rejoinder to examine this case study of how Zionists sustain their worldview through willful ignorance.
I alerted Jack to my response to his series of LinkedIn posts, and he subsequently followed up with another attempt. I give him points for effort, but despite trying his best, he still failed to identify even a single factual or logical error in anything I’ve ever written.
And here is the reply I left in the comments there, addressing each of his attempted arguments in turn:
Sigman is here just engaging in the very same ad hominem argumentation I identified in the first place.
1 – 3) Witness how Sigman misrepresents what my response was to his ad hominem arguments. He would have you believe I’m “embarrassed” by his personal attacks. He would have a hard time substantiating that with any evidence.
Here is what I wrote about his initial series of attacks on me: “[Sigman] identifies zero factual or logical errors in anything I wrote in the e-book. Instead, the sole purpose is to prejudice the reader against me and my writings.”
I then listed examples of how Sigman does so.
Now Sigman is doing the exact same thing once again.
3) Note further how he tries to claim my statement that he failed to identify even a single factual error in anything I’d written is incorrect. His evidence? He cites my acknowledement that I’d erred in speaking of “ownership” rather than “possession”.
The problem with that is that he did not identify that error, as anyone can see. This was an error I’d corrected in the article in question, and in fact I pointed it out myself as an example of how Sigman actually had an opportunity to point out an error, BUT INSTEAD DIDN’T IDENTIFY EVEN A SINGLE ONE.
Also note that he claims that my statement about the Arabs being “in possession of approximately 85 percent of the land” is false. He says it’s ” a lie even though Hammond does refer to the Peel commission. Of course, as any scholar of the conflict knows, the Peel Commission was wrong.”
This is hilarious because, as anyone can see, my source for that was not the Peel Commission.
That is, to support his accusation that I lied, Sigman brazenly lies.
4) Sigman denies that he rejects the Palestinian right to self-determination. To see how his denial is untenable, read my original rejoinder.
5) Sigman continues to deny that the British promised the Arabs their independence. He does so simply by repeating the denial that I’d already thoroughly discredited. See my original rejoinder.
This behavior starkly illustrates my point about his WILLFUL ignorance.
6) He says “I could go on” as though he’d actually identified even a single factual or logical error in my writings, yet the fact remains he’s yet to identify even one.
He makes one last attempt to by writing, “My last deals with Resolution 242. Hammond lies when he says the Security Council stated that they meant ALL OF THE LAND captured by Israel had to be returned.”
Of course, it’s Sigman who’s wrong here. Observers are encouraged to read my article “UN Resolution 242’s True Significance vs. Popular Zionist Myth” at Foreign Policy Journal (my “tabloid”, in Sigman’s parlance, though you would be hard pressed to find a “tabloid” containing a scholarly article like this with its examination of the actual relevant documentary record and its 24 endnote references).
Sigman’s saving grace in this post is that this time he was honest enough to provide readers the link to my initial rejoinder. Indeed, observers are encouraged to read it and see how here he is simply demonstrating the exact same willful ignorance (and hypocrisy) I’d originally identified.
I rest my case.