Evidently, Jamin Hubner and O. Palmer Robertson share a similar view regarding Israel on some points. Hubner seems to think that consistency demands that if he (Hubner) is a "dupe for the jihadists" and is "supporting Arabs with unsound arguments," then the same must be true of Robertson.
There's a fundamental flaw in Hubner's reasoning. Hubner has some "main points" in mind, and he thinks that Robertson shares his opinion on those main points. Perhaps Robertson does. Yet it wasn't the "main points" with respect to which "dupe for the jihadists" and "supporting Arabs with unsound arguments" were used.
In fact, Hubner himself had complained that his critics were not addressing his main points. So, one might think he would realize that it doesn't resuscitate his use of bad sources and bad arguments to find someone who agrees with the points he was trying to make.
Let me try to simplify the point for Hubner: if you argue Man is mortal; Socrates is an ox; therefore Socrates is mortal, you have reasoned fallaciously and from an untrue premise. If you come along and say "Einstein agrees with me that Socrates is mortal," that does not revitalize either your claim that Socrates is an ox, or your fallacious reasoning. Consistency doesn't demand that we criticize Einstein, because Einstein didn't reach his conclusion the same way you did. Capisce?
Analogously, using a source that is a shill for Hamas is still using a bad source and using an invalid argument that supports Arab claims is still supporting Arabs with unsound arguments, whether or not O. Palmer Robertson thinks that “Never can the promise of the land be properly claimed by those who fail to exercise true faith and faithfulness in the Redeemer provided by the Lord of the Covenant.”
So, when Hubner asks, in his article: "…But, for some reason I don’t suspect Robertson and those who endorsed
his book (RC Sproul, Robert Reymond, Richard B. Gaffin) will earn any
terrorist associations, titles of mockery or titles of supporting any
particular race (e.g. Arabs) for saying the same things I’ve said. I
wonder why?" The reasons may be several: they don't actually say the same thing, they don't say it the same way, and they don't have the same emotional reaction to criticism of their arguments and sources.