Updated to highlight self-contradiction. If
a) Israel "controls the movement of goods" and "approves or doesn't approve the entrance of…drugs" into Gaza; and
b) 20,000 doses of vaccine were imported into Gaza; then
c) can't be true that “refuses…to distribute vaccines” to Gaza.
Of course, Israel doesn't control Gaza. It doesn't "acknowledge" it effectively controls Gaza, as the author suggests, and it doesn't, as she claims, control what goes in and out.
These are small falsehoods relative to the big, absurd lie — that Israel's vaccine program uses ethnic criteria — but it all goes to show the complete disregard for the truth, or even for coherency.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Forward's Op-Ed by Sari Bashi might be the most dishonest account if Israel's vaccine program in the mainstream press. camera.org/article/forwar…
2/ How did @jdforward reply to the complaint that the article falsely claims that Israel bases its distribution of the vaccine on ethnicity, and that the ethnic group eligible for the vaccine are the Jews? @rudoren
Here's how:
3/ Editors told me the piece clearly states Israel vaccinates its Arab residents. No, it doesn't.
Worse, *after* the concerns were raised, they added another sentence purporting that Israel only gets vaccines for Jews: "Because I am Jewish, the authorities bought me…vaccine."
1/ Remember last year's letter fiasco in the Guardian? Well, here we go again. Let's take a look at who signed a recent letter in the paper that attacks the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
2/ The letter in question, published by a prominent newspaper, seeks to redefine antisemitism. It is signed by people who:
* Openly charge Jews with disloyalty to their countries
* Say Jews manipulate the world through a “Jewish media machine”
3/ * Accuse Jews with “whining” and “lying” about the Holocaust while behaving worse than the Nazis
* Describe a 1929 anti-Jewish massacre that killed over a hundred Jews as “resistance” by "martyrs"
* And the murderer of a four-year-old Jewish girl as a “martyr”
1/ I'd like to see those defending "river to the sea" as if it means nothing more than "one democratic state" be more forthright in acknowledging what it really means. To both proponents and critics.
2/ Both "river to sea" and "one democratic state" are slogans. The former is chanted more often by people who shake their fist, and latter by those who seek a more refined look, but both describe the same broader idea: Disempowering a historically oppressed people, the Jews.
3/ How is it that "one democratic state" amounts to disempowerment? It sounds so nice!
Because democracy isn't the end being demanded. When you understand that "one democratic state" is a euphemism for "one democratic Jewish-minority state" is the demand, the debate more sense.
1/ Peter, who now embraces the "river/sea/free" rhyme, KNOWS it's tied to, dependent on, and entirely about Palestinians being a majority in the new state he demands.
It's a rhyme about making Jews a minority in a Palestinian state. Period.
2/ And of course, he knows that in the current existent state, Arabs and Jews do have the same rights under the same laws. He knows that by pretending the West Bank and Israel are one state, he can mislead the average reader.
3/ No. Jews don't like the slogan because, whether out of the mouth of Hamas or Tlaib, it means ending Israel, and ending it because a Jewish majority country is unacceptable to them.
Q: In what world does saying "kill the Jews wherever you find them" make you "against Zionism"… and demanding the ethnic cleansing of Jews in a "Palestine from the river to the sea" amount to a "dispute over land and maritime borders"?
1/ A thread on *framing* in NY Times coverage of Israel.
Let's look at yesterday's story on the UAE deal and Arab Israelis, to see how the words "many," "some," etc are funny — capable of rerouting a story into a narrow, preferred frame.
Here's the top of the story:
2/ It's already clear from the hed and dek how the piece is meant to come across.
We have at its heart a story about how Israel's growing relationship with the Arab opens opportunities for Israeli Arabs. But it's clearly framed as, mostly, a story about the "Palestinian cause."
3/ Note that subhead again: "MANY say they are loath to undercut the Palestinian cause."
But when you get to the actual story, "many" quickly becomes "SOME." Here's paragraph 2: