1/ There's a letter circulating "from journalists, to journalists" that calls for abandoning journalistic objectivity in favor of anti-Israel activism.

Most signers are from fringe sites (Jewish Currents, the Intercept, Mondoweiss), but some (!) are mainstream news reporters.
2/ The names in that latter group—the handful from The @BuzzFeed, @washingtonpost, @latimes—should amount to a list of reporters that news organizations promising objective, impartial, and fair reporting should bar from touching anything related to Israel, Hamas, or the conflict.
3/ There's nothing at all noteworthy about journalists from Al Jazeera/AJ+ signing the letter:
4/ Nothing surprising about these people signing it.
5/ Or these people.
6/ Weeeeeeeeee.
But the signatures from news reporters working for news organizations that make promises to readers—promises about adherence to the tenets of ethical journalism—are more troubling. Clearly these reporters shouldn't be covering the Arab-Israeli conflict. Or any dispute, maybe.

• • •

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!


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

9 Jun
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.
Read 21 tweets
7 Jun
I discontinued updating my great, big, endless, partial antisemitism thread. ().

But just as a reminder of what's still happing, the next four tweets are a look at what's come across my Twitter feed today.
Read 5 tweets
3 Jun
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.
Read 5 tweets
28 May
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.


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.
Read 9 tweets
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

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!