This is…actually…true. And it's actually insane. As a wave of antisemitic assaults makes headlines, Rutgers condemned antisemitism—in a letter condemning all bigotry against all groups including Muslims—but then apologized after complaints from Palestinian students.
Jewish students at Rutgers should be incensed. So should Jews everywhere. So should Muslims and Asians and anyone else who have been targeted with waves of violence. And who hasn't.
Condemning a specific bigotry during a wave of that specific bigotry should be okay.
I'm afraid, though, that many of the Jewish students won't express their outrage. They'll internalize the overall message being sent by @RutgersU's @cjmolloy1 and @FConway11:
That, upon review, they don't really matter. That they can't and shouldn't condemn antisemitism.
And now we're buried under a layer cake of antisemitism:
* There's a wave of antisemitic assaults across the country
* Rutgers apologizes for expressing concern about the antisemitism and all bigotry
* And—please prove me wrong!—mainstream commentators won't criticize Rutgers
And we know—we all know—that something like this apology would never happen in response to a similarly worded letter condemning a wave of anti-Black, anti-Asian, or anti-Muslim violence.
And we know if it did, NPR, the NYT, late night comedians would skewer Rutgers. But Jews.
As noted by @ProfDBernstein, Students for Justice in Palestine demanded the apology for the school's condemnation of antisemitism. And they weren't condemned. They were indulged. By the chancellor and provost of Rutgers. reason.com/volokh/2021/05…
8/ What could possibly go wrong, after all, if people start getting the message—@RutgersU's message—that their violent acts of antisemitism won't even be condemned?
This should be said clearly: The SJP's note is an example of antisemitism.
* To demand someone apologize for condemning antisemitism is antisemitism.
* To protest that attention is being "deflected" to Jews is antisemitism.
* To put scare quotes around "hate" is antisemitism.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ There's a silly talking point, this time promoted in the @nytimes via Nathan Thrall, that says Hamas couldn't *possible* fire rockets at Israel from somewhere sparsely populated.
"There is almost no way to fight from [Gaza] without exposing civilians to danger."
2/ What Thrall means is that "there is almost no way to fight from Gaza's open spaces without exposing Hamas attackers to great danger."
Yes, Gaza's cities are densely populated. They're cities. But Gaza's rural spaces (*very* roughly marked in green) are sparsely populated.
3/ Hamas wants to operate from civilian areas because it's better for Hamas. Not because everywhere in Gaza is packed with civilians.
Hamas *wants to* attack from civilian areas. It doesn't *have to* attack from there.
1/ If you want any authority to lecture us about war crimes, @iamjohnoliver, then
* don't ignore the fact that every rocket Hamas launches is a war crime—you do;
* don't mischaracterize the concept of "proportionality" in war as meaning proportional causalities—it doesn't;
2/
* don't claim “destroying a civilian residence” is proof of a war crime—that's also not how international law works, and if you don't know how it works, don't pretend to.
* don't purport to be combatting both-sides-ism but ignore that one side—Hamas—is targeting civilians.
3/ don't pretend civilian casualties among Palestinians disproves that Israel is targeting militants;
* don't pretend "real estate disputes" don't involve evictions—that's usually what happens when someone chooses not to pay rent, as is the case with the four Palestinian families
(Via someone liking someone screenshotting a Washington Free Beacon piece quoting the Atlantic piece in question.)
This 2014 video of an Al Arabiya journalist in Gaza realizing rockets are being fired from downstairs, was, according to some, the same media-and-Hamas building that was hit yesterday.
Not sure if that's confirmed. Either way, it's informative.
1/ Journalists being angry about something that feels close to home, as with cops who feel angry about something close to home, isn't a legitimate excuse to go professionally rogue.
2/ The IDF gave an explanation for the strike. To ignore it, or worse, effectively deny it, while purporting to describe the army's "real" motivation is journalistic malpractice.
3/ Israeli intelligence has proven once or twice before that it'ss able to correctly ascertain where things are, even things that are very far away. The building in question, a large office complex that also houses media offices, is not very far away.
It is (or it should be) surprising that a former Jerusalem bureau chief for the @nytimes missed the documentary's flagrantly manipulated quote, which prompted a PBS review. jta.org/2021/03/30/uni…
I'm actually just catching up on the details of this, and am pretty stunned by the degree to which the quote in Zinshtein's documentary was spliced and glued together. It's brazen. The word "including" is taken from the top to splice together two faraway passages.