For some strange reason, Al Jazeera has cult status in some Western circles.
It shouldn't. It should be viewed with contempt.
Here's an updated "greatest hits" list to underscore that point:
2/ To set the stage:
Most recently, a the network accepted an award from Hamas, an antisemitic terror organization known for its suicide bombing attacks on Jewish civilians, for what Hamas viewed as Al Jazeera's excellent coverage.
3/ Al Jazeera once threw a birthday party for Samir Kuntar, a Lebanese terrorist convicted of bludgeoning to death a 4-year-old Israeli girl and shooting her father.
1/ I get the hesitations about describing the Israel-child-killer! narrative as a "blood libel"—a reprise of the medieval habit of fomenting antisemitism by claiming Jews murder Christian kids. That analogy, too, is imperfect, as @NickKristof put it.
But something's rotten here:
2/ There's something rotten, ugly, and mendacious when someone describes Hamas—a group that has just killed children, and that certainly targets Jewish children—as merely "shelling Israel" in the same breath as he characterizes Israel as "killing children."
3/ Hamas, after all, is the group that used its most precise weapon—suicide bombers—to stand in crowds of Israeli children at pizza shops and dance clubs and detonate themselves. With clear intent, it attacks Jewish children.
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.
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