You almost have to admire Mehdi Hasan’s sheer chutzpah.
The man has accused others—like journalist Peter Savodnik—of committing whataboutism, when in truth, Mehdi Hasan isn’t just guilty of it. He’s the undisputed heavyweight champion of the concept. He’s mastered the art so thoroughly that professors of rhetoric may one day name a logical fallacy after him. And yet, without a shred of irony, here he is accusing someone else of what he’s spent an entire career doing.
To give some context, here’s Hasan—Qatari-funded, Islamist-apologist, professional moral gymnast—calling out Peter Savodnik for “whataboutism.” What had Savodnik said? He simply pointed out the grotesque hypocrisy of those who obsess over Israel while turning a blind eye to genocides, mass slaughters, and brutal repression across China, Sudan, Syria, Burma, Venezuela, and beyond. Hasan’s reply? “Whataboutism, the last refuge of the pro-Israel scoundrel.” Well, Mehdi, let’s see who the pot calling the kettle black really is. Here are just seven examples of Mehdi Hasan’s own whataboutist gems:
Number 1:
After the Charlie Hebdo massacre in 2015, while most of the world stood in horror at the Islamist slaughter of cartoonists, Hasan decided to redirect the conversation. Rather than focus on the atrocity itself, he asked: “Has your publication run cartoons mocking the Holocaust? No? How about caricatures of the 9/11 victims falling from the twin towers?” Yes, in response to jihadist murder, Mehdi’s instinct was to go full “but what about…” the Holocaust. Tu quoque, level: elite.
Number 2:
In a 2013 Oxford Union debate, Mehdi was asked to address violence carried out in the name of Islam. He didn’t. Instead, he snapped back with: “I’m not going to take lessons in antisemitism from someone defending the Judeo-Christian values of a continent that murdered six million Jews.” The motion was “Islam is a peaceful religion,” yet Hasan, without missing a beat, turned it into a lecture on Christian Europe and the Holocaust. A master deflector.
Number 3:
Fast forward to 2022. Russia had just launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. But instead of sticking to that topic, Hasan used his MSNBC platform to say: “At what point do we also offer our support to all people fighting repression and occupation—not just brave Ukrainians?” Then he pointed to Yemen and Palestine, claiming our allies are the real oppressors. What should have been a show of solidarity with Ukraine became another excuse to pivot back to Israel and the West.
Number 4:
In 2023, after Hamas’s mass murder spree on October 7, the world rightly recoiled. But not Mehdi. On air, he compared Israel to Putin’s Russia, claiming “a lot of people around the world see Russia and Israel the same.” No mention of who started the violence. No distinction between democratic Israel and imperialist Russia. Just another lazy moral equivalence, right on cue.
Number 5:
In January 2024, after Israel conducted an airstrike on a Hamas figure in Lebanon, Hasan tweeted: “Wonder how Americans would react if the Cubans sent drones to take out people they consider terrorists in Florida?” This wasn’t analysis. It was pure whataboutism: a hypothetical, inverted scenario designed to blur the moral clarity of what had just happened.
Number 6:
Later that same year, someone on Twitter pressed him to unequivocally condemn Hamas. Rather than just say “yes,” Mehdi fired back with: “Have you condemned Israel? Bombing civilians? Blocking aid? Torturing detainees?” Classic dodge. Instead of answering for Hamas’s barbarity, he launched into a litany of Israeli sins, real or alleged. Anything to avoid accountability.
Number 7;
And finally, in 2024, U.S. Senator J.D. Vance criticised Europe for censoring speech. Hasan’s response? He didn’t defend free speech or critique the EU. He tweeted: “Hey J.D. Vance, have you seen this?”—linking to a story about Trump’s treatment of the press. Because when Europe censors, Mehdi doesn’t stay on topic. He pivots to Trump. Always someone else. Always somewhere else. Always what about…
So the next time Mehdi Hasan throws around the word whataboutism, remember—this is projection, not principle. He doesn’t oppose the tactic; he depends on it. Whether it’s shifting blame, muddying moral waters, or dodging direct questions, whataboutism is Mehdi’s native tongue. And calling others out for it? That’s just camouflage—an attempt to distract from the fact that no one in public life has wielded tu quoque with more shameless precision. In accusing others, he confesses about himself.
Share this post