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.
Please read the letters.

First:
newbrunswick.rutgers.edu/chancellor/spe…

Second: newbrunswick.rutgers.edu/chancellor/apo…

Can anyone defend this?
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
 

Keep Current with Gilead Ini

Gilead Ini Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GileadIni

26 May
In which Jeet calls @IzaTabaro and @bariweiss liars.

See, Zionists are liars.

Why would anyone want to live with them?
I mean, no one would be so immoderate as to do that, right Jeet?
Read 6 tweets
18 May
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.
Read 6 tweets
17 May
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
Read 10 tweets
16 May
Ouch. 2014 piece by former AP reporter Matti Friedman.

theatlantic.com/international/… Image
(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.
Read 6 tweets
15 May
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.
Read 8 tweets
6 Apr
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. Image
Further details from @dextervanzile here: camera.org/article/docume…
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(