🚨1/ This New York Times piece is wild. Let's go through it.
Firstly, the lede is an emphasis that attacks in Amsterdam were based on antisemitism, yet it cites no evidence of this, but DOES cite evidence of anti-Arab chants.
Firstly, the lede is an emphasis that attacks in Amsterdam were based on antisemitism, yet it cites no evidence of this, but DOES cite evidence of anti-Arab chants.
2/ The claims of antisemitism are based primarily on the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, who tweeted that the attacks were antisemitic. Note - the Dutch Prime Minister didn't call out anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian racism from Maccabi fans.
3/ The piece links to an Amsterdam police statement to talk about the violence - although the police statement doesn't mention anything about antisemitism.
4/ The piece actually mentions video footage of Maccabi fans chanting anti-Arab slogans. The New York Times actually verified this footage. (left)
It doesn't mention antisemitic slogans, on the contrary, it mentions 'anti Israel slogans" (right)
It doesn't mention antisemitic slogans, on the contrary, it mentions 'anti Israel slogans" (right)
5/ There is a lot of sourcing from Israeli sources, including from El Al, Isaac Herzog, Gideon Saar, Netanyahu's office.
6/ TLDR - The headline of this piece attributes violence in Amsterdam to antisemitism yet provides in the text evidence primarily of anti-Arab racism. Seems like incredinly shoddy and biased reporting.
7) nb: this is not saying that antisemitic slogans/acts did not occur - but a piece using it as the headline without evidence (while providing verified evidence of anti Arab racism) is insane
They've *slightly* modified the title
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
