Category: anti-semitism

A pogrom in, of all places, Amsterdam

November 8, 2024 • 9:30 am

Once again Amsterdam is proving itself Europe’s most antisemitic city. Last night a pogrom of Jews began in the city, involving a group of extremist Muslims roaming around a soccer field where an Israeli team was playing. Demanding that people identify themselves, the hooligans then proceeded to beat up anybody with an Israeli passport, or even those who were suspected to be Jews.

This is especially distressing because the Netherlands has a sad history of Jew hating—largely (but not exclusively) on the part of the Nazis. Everyone knows the story of Anne Frank and her family, who were probably betrayed by a Dutch person. They were sent to the dreaded camp of Westerbork, a transit stop from which, between 1942 and 1944, nearly 100,000 Jews, as well as Romani, were sent to death camps elsewhere. The Netherlands lost a huge number of Jews during WWII:  nearly three-quarters of all Dutch Jews perished in the Holocaust.

It’s ironic, then, that Dutch citizens enacted a pogrom on Jews in Amsterdam just last night. And El Al is evacuating Jews back to Israel! From the NYT report:

Israeli commercial planes on Friday were bringing home citizens injured in Amsterdam after bursts of violence tied to a soccer game between a Dutch and an Israeli team that Israeli and Dutch officials described as antisemitic attacks.

The police in Amsterdam said in a statement on Friday that they had begun an investigation into multiple outbreaks of violence, and that 62 people had been arrested. Most of those arrested were later released, the authorities said.

The Dutch police said that the clashes had taken place in several places where people had gathered, some in support of the Israeli team and others to protest its arrival.

A tense atmosphere and street disturbances had been building since Wednesday night and early Thursday, hours before the soccer match. The Amsterdam authorities said at a news conference that people had attacked Israeli fans and chanted anti-Israeli slogans, and that they were investigating whether the attacks were coordinated. They also said that some supporters of the Israeli team had taken a Palestinian flag down from a building. Videos posted to social media and verified by The New York Times show men taking down a Palestinian flag while others nearby hurled anti-Arab chants.

While the exact sequence of events remained unclear, the violence appeared to be the product of two combustible forces in Europe: the unrest that often accompanies gatherings of hard-core soccer fans and tensions over the yearlong Israeli military offensive in Gaza.

Five Israelis who had been hospitalized were later discharged, the Amsterdam authorities said. Some others sustained light injuries, they said.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said that he had spoken with Dick Schoof, his Dutch counterpart. Mr. Schoof said in a statement early Friday that there had been antisemitic attacks on Israelis in Amsterdam, calling them “completely unacceptable.”

He added that the situation had calmed and that he had told Mr. Netanyahu in their phone conversation that the perpetrators would be found and prosecuted.

Gideon Saar, Israel’s newly appointed foreign minister, said he would travel to the Netherlands on Friday to meet with his Dutch counterpart as well as with Israelis and members of the Jewish community.

A spokeswoman for the Israeli airline El Al said that it would “operate on short notice rescue flights” free of charge from Amsterdam to Tel Aviv starting Friday afternoon.

Apparently the IDF had started planning rescue flights of Dutch Jews, but abandoned that plan after El Al said it would rescue the Jews on commercial flights.

Some tweets from one person:

“I’m not Jewish, and he gets punched anyway. The Times of Israel reports that the Amsterdam police stood by and didn’t do anything. WHY?

Click to see the videos on this one, which I can’t embed:

 

As usual, the NYT deliberately misleads the readers (see below):

You may recall that when I visited the Netherlands last May, invited by students to be on a panel at the University of Amsterdam to discuss the incursion of ideology into science, the student group who invited the four of us canceled at the last minute. The reason:  two of us had proven too sympathetic to Israel! That was a shock to me, as I’d never been canceled before when I was talking about science (we weren’t going to mention the war!). But it was a sign of what’s going on in the city. And the students who canceled us weren’t Muslims. Philosopher Maarten Boudry and I, the two “cancelees,” wrote a Quillette piece about our experience. (Boudry had also been canceled the week before at the same university for a different talk, but for the same reason!) But of course our treatment inflicted a psychological blow, not a physical one.

What is to be done? A lot of the trouble in Europe like this comes from Muslim immigrants, but of course most Muslim immigrants don’t go around beating up Jews. Nevertheless, this kind of action is not only racist, but badly hurts the reputation of European countries where it occurs. I don’t know how Europe can vet the young men who cause antisemitic violence, but they should at least adjudicate their behavior quickly, and deport them when they’re guilty. I for one am not overly keen to go back to the Netherlands, though I have good and sympathetic friends there.

Kudos to the King and to the Dutch Prime Minister for decrying this violence and Jew hatred, but decrying is not enough. As the country’s Chief Rabbi said above, the situation has gone too far for words; there must be action taken to stop the brutality and the hatred that causes it (without, of course, abrogating free speech).

h/t: Jez

Wikipedia slips up, calls Provost of Northwestern University an “antisemite”

November 3, 2024 • 8:00 am

Here’s the beginning of Wikipedia’s entry for Kathleen Hagerty, the Provost of Northwestern University here in Evanston, Illinois. It’s a screenshot, and I’ve marked it:

I don’t find any discussion about “antisemite” in the “history” section of the entry, so this description must have been in the original post created in August, 2020.

Now why would this description of Hagerty be added to her entry?  One thing I recall is that Northwestern was one of the few universities to actually bargain and strike a deal with the pro-Palestinian protestors at her school.  I find this from The Minnesota Lawyer (bolding is mine):

The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) has filed a federal Title VI complaint against Northwestern University on behalf of the Young America’s Foundation, which has an active chapter on the university’s campus.

The complaint documents the university’s plan to offer nearly $1.9 million in scholarship funds, faculty positions, and student-organization space to Palestinian students and staff. As a recipient of federal funds, Northwestern University is subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination “on the grounds of race, color, or national origin,” WILL said.

Northwestern University officials have struck a deal with pro-Palestinian protesters who set up an encampment on campus. In exchange for removal of the encampment, Northwestern agreed to provide a facility for Muslim student activities and fundraise for scholarships going to Palestinian undergraduates.

According to WILL attorney Skylar Croy, that deal violates federal law.

“You just can’t go get scholarships based on ethnicity because they rioted it and demanded it,” Croy said.

According to WILL, on April 29, 2024, University officials entered into an agreement with anti-Israel demonstrators occupying a space on campus called Deering Meadow. The officials involved in the agreement are University President Michael Schill, Provost Kathleen Hagerty, and Vice President Susan Davis.

Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the University promised to provide the “full cost of attendance for five Palestinian undergraduates to attend Northwestern for the duration of their undergraduate careers.”

The agreement provides “funding two faculty per year for two years,” with the provision that these faculty will be “Palestinian faculty.”

Additionally, Northwestern University agreed to “provide immediate temporary space for MENA/Muslim students.” MENA is an acronym for “Middle Eastern and North African” individuals.

According to WILL, as a recipient of federal funds, the University is subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination “on the grounds of race, color, or national origin.” By providing nearly $1.9 million in scholarships, two faculty positions, and “immediate temporary space” based on an individual’s status as Palestinian or MENA, the University is intentionally discriminating against non-Palestinian or non-MENA individuals on the grounds of race, color, or national origin.

WILL noted, as the United States Supreme Court recently held in a case applying Title VI, race and national origin may never operate as a “negative” or a “stereotype.” Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. 181, 218 (2023). Discrimination in favor of Palestinians or MENA individuals is, in turn, discrimination against individuals not within those categories and is therefore illegal under federal law.

Did some pro-Israel editor stick “antisemite” in there somehow to reflect this bargain? If so, it’s not in the history of the entry. I don’t find the word in the entry for Northwestern President Michael Shill, and VP Susan Davis doesn’t have a Wikipedia entry.

But I expect that, now that I’ve called attention to it, this noun will be gone by the end of the day. Still, this deal is almost certainly illegal, but that doesn’t warrant such pejorative.

h/t: Peggy

CBS disses its reporter who grilled Ta-Nehisi Coats about his new-anti Israel essay

October 8, 2024 • 9:00 am

UPDATE: Here is a Free Press video discussing their scoop:

CBS journalist Tony Dokoupil interviewed well-known writer and activist Ta-Nehisi Coates, who just came out with a new collection of long essays, the longest of which excoriates Israel. I discussed Hughes’s review a few days ago and wrote this:

Ta-Nehisi Coates, who has the status of a god among activists, has a new book, which is a collection of three essays.  But it’s making news because the longest essay—100 pages—is about the perfidies of Israel (he doesn’t mention terrorism or October 7). While the NYT gave the book a positive review, singling out the anti-Israel stuff for special praise, Coleman Hughes takes the book apart in the Free Press in a review called “The Fantasy World of Ta-Nehisi Coates” (archived here).  Remember, Hughes, like Coats, is black, but he’s a heterodox black along the lines of John McWhorter (though more passionate than McWhorter, I think).

It’s a new book, so I haven’t gotten it but have ordered it via interlibrary loan. The essay at hand (even according to the NYT) is resolutely anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. As Hughes wrote, the book “doesn’t even mention the word Hamas—or Fatah, or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Hezbollah, or Iran—once. In his telling, the threats don’t exist, only the barriers that Israel erects to contain them.”

So Dokoupil interviewed Coates for CBS News, and apparently asked some hard questions about the Israel essay.  You can see them in the video below. And CBS didn’t like that, so it n not only conducterd an internal review, but had a special editorial meeting devoted to obliquely defaming Dokoupil’s journalism.  It’s already in Wikipedia under Dokoupil’s entry:

On September 30, 2024, Dokoupil discussed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with author Ta-Nehisi Coates during the latter’s appearance on CBS Mornings to promote the book The Message. Dokoupil implied that the book “reads like the work of an extremist” and questioned Coates about his view on Israel‘s right to exist.  Following an internal review, a CBS News executive said in October 2024 that Dokoupil had failed to maintain the network’s editorial standards in the interview.

Here’s the interview, embedded in a discussion with three journalists:

Judge for yourself. Given the content of what Coates reportedly wrote, I don’t think Dokoupil’s questions are out of line; they are simply hard journalistic questions, of the kind that were supposed to be asked during the Presidential debates but largely weren’t. But the dung hit the fan after this interview.

And here’s the Free Press article about the kerfuffle: click headline to read or find it archived here.

The background according to the article:

Last week, CBS journalist Tony Dokoupil conducted an interview with the writer Ta-Nehisi Coates whose new book, The Message, includes a one-sided polemic against Israel. Coates himself describes his book as an effort to debunk the complexities journalists invoke to obscure Israel’s occupation. He complained in an interview with New York magazine that the argument that the conflict was “complicated” was “horseshit,” that was how defenders of slavery and segregation described these plagues a century ago. “It’s complicated,” he said, “when you want to take something from somebody.”

So Dokoupil asked him about it.

“Why leave out that Israel is surrounded by countries that want to eliminate it?”

“Why leave out that Israel deals with terror groups that want to eliminate it?”

“Why not detail anything of the first and second intifada. . . the cafe bombings, the bus bombings, the little kids blown to bits?”

In other words, Tony Dokoupil did his job.

That’s when his troubles began.

One might think that respectfully challenging a source that presents misinformation or a picture so limited that it obscures the truth is what journalism’s all about. That’s exactly what CBS does in the aftermath of school shootings or when covering bans on critical race theory in local school districts.

The article includes the recording of a “confidential” CBS editorial meeting in which the bosses apologized for Dokiupil’s interview (go to the site to hear the “confidential” meeting):

During its editorial meeting on Monday at 9 a.m.—the morning of October 7—the network’s top brass all but apologized for the interview to staff, saying that it did not meet the company’s “editorial standards.” After being introduced by Wendy McMahon, the head of CBS News, Adrienne Roark, who is in charge of news gathering at the network, began her remarks by saying covering a story like October 7 “requires empathy, respect, and a commitment to truth.”

. . . Crawford went on: “Tony prevented a one-sided account from being broadcast on our network that was completely devoid of history or facts. As someone who does a lot of interviews, I’m not sure now how to proceed in challenging viewpoints that are obviously one-sided and devoid of fact and history.”

You can hear Roark hypocritically asserting the claim that CBS asks “tough questions” and “holds people accountable” and reports news without bias.  Other bosses say that the meeting is not about Doloupil’s interview of Coates, but it’s clear that it really is. Why else would they mention this in a meeting? It’s grating to hear Roark and her colleagues reaffirm the unbiased and hard-nosed nature of CBS news at the same time that they dissed the interview.

But Doloupil had his defenders:

Not everyone was buying it. CBS reporter Jan Crawford, who has been the CBS chief legal correspondent since 2009, rushed to Dokoupil’s defense.

“It sounds like we are calling out one of our anchors in a somewhat public setting on this call for failing to meet editorial standards for, I’m not even sure what,” she said. “I thought our commitment was to truth. And when someone comes on our air with a one-sided account of a very complex situation, as Coates himself acknowledges that he has, it’s my understanding that as journalists we are obligated to challenge that worldview so that our viewers can have that access to the truth or a fuller account, a more balanced account. And, to me, that is what Tony did.”

Crawford went on: “Tony prevented a one-sided account from being broadcast on our network that was completely devoid of history or facts. As someone who does a lot of interviews, I’m not sure now how to proceed in challenging viewpoints that are obviously one-sided and devoid of fact and history.”

You can hear Crawford’s remarks on a recording in the article.

All in all, I think Dokoupil’s questions were absolutely fair, hewed to journalistic standards, and drew out Coates’s views, which bespeak a deeply misguided view of both Palestine and Israel.  The Free Press argues that giving a special defense for Coates means that CBS has a double standard for journalism:

The other thing worth noticing is CBS’s double standard. Here was Gayle King on May 26, 2020, after the news broke that George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. “I am speechless. I am really, really speechless about what we’re seeing on television this morning. It feels to me like open season… and that sometimes it’s not a safe place to be in this country for black men,” she said, holding back tears.

In the case of King—on the subjects of wokeism, racism, Black Lives Matter, and gun rights—her “lived experience” is an asset to the newsroom. As it should be. But for Dokoupil, his experience as the father of Jewish children who live in Israel, has no place in an interview with an author sharing his cartoonish indictment of the world’s only Jewish state.

The sad truth is that Coates is not speaking truth to power. He is echoing the new consensus of the powerful. One can find more sophisticated versions of The Message in the course catalogs of Ivy League universities, the editorial pages of leading newspapers, and in the reports of well-funded NGOs.

I agree. Here we have the MSM showing that it’s been ideologically colonized by “progressives”—to the point that asking hard questions of a famous author who dmonizes Israel is deemed worthy of reproof. And I say this not just because the topic was Israel, for it would be equally reprehensible for the MSM to throw softballs at anybody who writes a polemic on a debatable topic that nevertheless goes along with “progrssive” ideology.

Well, listen for yourself and see if Dokoupil was unfair in his questions.

 

Israeli contestants banned from prestigious Youth Computer Olympiad

October 1, 2024 • 11:30 am

Because this is a contest for computer geeks, banning Israeli students is particularly onerous, as they’d done excellently in the past.  As the article below notes, “In the 2024 competition, held in Alexandria, Egypt, four Israeli students participated remotely due to security concerns and won three gold medals and a bronze. The Israeli team placed second overall out of 94 participating countries and more than 350 student competitors.”

But now there’s no chance for Israeli medals because of the ban. And that ban serves no purpose I can see save to further demonize Israel by hurting its young people, and to demonstrate some kind of twisted “virtue” on the part of the organizers.

Now that the American Association of University Professors has dropped its long-standing opposition to academic boycotts (undoubtedly to give the okay to boycotts of Israel, though they won’t say it), others are following suit. A new article in Tablet gives examples of how Jews are being “frozen out” of not just academia, but publishing—and this is largely in America! A wave of anti-semitism is sweeping the world, and it’s not good.

The Times of Israel reports on the latest instance of Jew-banning, and also shows the resilience of those banned young Jews.  Click to read.

Excerpts:

Israel won’t be allowed to participate as a competing nation in the 2025 International Olympiad in Informatics (IOI), a prestigious international competition for high school students, in the first such decision by a global tournament organizer.

The IOI General Assembly voted by a two-thirds majority to “sanction Israel for its role” in the ongoing “humanitarian crisis in Gaza caused by the ongoing conflict,” according to a Tuesday announcement by the IOI.

“Beginning in 2025, Israel will not be recognized as a participating delegation at IOI, but four contestants from Israel may still participate under the IOI flag,” the statement said.

Well isn’t that alternative special? Happily, the Israelis aren’t having it:

Today, the Education Ministry says that Israeli students competing in the olympiad under the IOI flag is “not going to happen.”

“The Israeli team will carry the Israeli flag proudly on the way to many more victories and international achievements… The ministry is examining, in cooperation with the Foreign Ministry, decisive measures on the issue,” the statement says.

The punishment is levied because of the conflict in Gaza. The IOI website says this:

Dear Colleagues and members of the IOI community,

This message is being sent to provide an update on a significant decision of the General Assembly of the IOI.

Members of the community requested that the IOI respond to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza caused by the ongoing conflict. During IOI 2024, the General Assembly debated many options at length. The question about what action to take, if any, was not taken lightly. The result was a vote to sanction Israel for its role in the crisis. Over two thirds of the delegations voted in favour of this action. Specifically, the action means that beginning in 2025, Israel will not be recognized as a participating delegation at IOI, but four contestants from Israel may still participate under the IOI flag.

There will continue to be reflection and debate about the mission of the IOI and its connection to war and other international disputes.Assoc/Prof Sun Teck Tan
President of IOI

Perhaps the IOI should be ideologically neutral instead of taking sides. But if they must take sides, they’re taking the wrong one.

Note that the IOI is sanctioning Israel for its “role in the crisis”, which means for defending itself (Israel isn’t allowed to win a war). If the IOI is doing this because “too many Gazan civilians were killed”, they should realize that “civilians” as reported by the Hamas-controlled Gazan Health Ministry include Hamas terrorists; that Hamas elevated civilian deaths as part of its strategy because dead Gazans mean more world opprobrium towards Israel; and that civilian deaths were elevated because Hamas deliberately embedded itself in civilian areas, schools, and hospitals. Further, the ratio of civilians killed to Hamas fighters killed is among the lowest in the history of modern warfare (it’s getting tiresome to repeat this). And I haven’t even mentioned the hostages. . . .  This isn’t computer science, after all, but simple facts.

If anybody is banned from this competition, it should be Palestine, home of terrorists, genocidal towards Jews, and the territory that started the war. Remember, they’re punishing young Jews that had nothing to do with the war, so, under that philosophy, if anybody should be punished, it should Palestinians. But perhaps they shouldn’t mix politics with computers at all.

The next IOI competition, sans Israelis, is scheduled to be held in Bolivia next year.

A writer gets canceled because she’s a “Zionist”, even though the topic of her event wasn’t Israel or Judaism

September 24, 2024 • 11:45 am

I hate writing about cancellations like this day after day, but I see it as part of my brief to let people know what’s going on.  This time we have writer Elisa Albert canceled—or rather, a panel she was scheduled to be on was canceled—because she was a “Zionist”, even though she wasn’t going to talk about Judaism. (To a very large extent, “Zionist” has become a euphemism for “Jews,” as nearly all Jews in America are Zionists—i.e., support the existence of Israel—and the only anti-Zionists I know who aren’t really anti-Semites are some Orthodox Jews, mostly in Israel.)

But I digress. The Free Press article below (click headline to read, or see it archived here), writer Elisa Albert was canceled because she was a Zionist Jew, even though the panel she was supposed to be on—a discussion of four women’s books at the University of Albany’s New York State Writer’s Festival—wasn’t going to be about Zionism.  This is the kind of cancelation that seems to me to presage a growing wave of anti-Semitism in America.  The story is below:

Excerpts (the author is Joe Nocera, and the subject, Elisa Albert, is in the photo above). Bolding is mine:

For the last seven years, the New York State Writers Institute has held an annual book festival at the University at Albany. It’s where notable authors come together and discuss big ideas like climate change, feminism, and immigration. But this year, the festival, which was held on Saturday, was disrupted because two authors refused to discuss their books with the panel’s moderator. Why? Because she is a “Zionist.”

The Zionist in question was Elisa Albert, a 46-year-old progressive feminist author whose novels—she’s written three of them—are dark comedies about subjects like modern motherhood and fame. She had agreed to moderate the panel months earlier, and she was looking forward to it. “I was going to be like a game-show host,” she told me in a phone interview. “Congenial and respectful. Have some fun in the process.”

But on Thursday afternoon, just as she was preparing to read the books by her fellow panelists, she received an email out of the blue from Mark Koplik, the assistant director of the Writers Institute. “Basically, not to sugar coat this, Aisha Gawad and Lisa Ko don’t want to be on a panel with a ‘Zionist,’ ” he wrote in an email shared with The Free Press. “We’re taken by surprise, and somewhat nonplussed, and want to talk this out.”

Albert was stunned. Though she described herself to me as “a proud Jew” who has been fiercely outspoken since October 7, there had been no hint of trouble in the months leading up to the festival. And the panel’s topic—“Girls Coming of Age”—seemed utterly benign.

But Aisha Abdel Gawad, a Muslim writer in her mid-30s whose novel Between Two Moons was published last year to considerable acclaim, and Lisa Ko, whose first book, The Leavers, was nominated for a National Book Award, were no longer willing to share the stage with a Jew who supports Israel. Unsure how to proceed, Koplik and the institute’s director Paul Grondahl contacted the third writer on the panel, the crime novelist Emily Layden who, according to Albert, told them she was dropping out as well because she wanted to avoid the controversy. (Gawad and Ko did not respond to emails, sent both to them and their literary agents, requesting comment.A request for comment was also emailed to Layden’s publicist, who did not respond.)

At that point the Writers Institute and the University at Albany, which administers the program, had to make a choice: They could publicly condemn the antisemitism displayed by Gawad and Ko and make sure the festival-goers were aware of what had happened. In a series of phone calls Thursday afternoon, Albert says she tried to convince them to do just that. Or they could capitulate to the bigotry by trying to sweep the whole thing under the rug, and listing the cancellation on the festival’s website as the result of “unforeseen circumstances.”

The institute chose the latter course.. . .

Albert suggested that they keep the panel, showing three empty chairs, but director Grondahl said that wouldn’t be fair if attendees were expecting a full panel. I can see the point there, but surely the Institute should have given Albert a chance to speak on her own: she even could have spoken about her cancellation. But it didn’t fly.  The article goes on to discuss the problems currently facing Jewish writers (I simply can’t imagine any adult fiction being written that is sympathetic to Jews or Israel).  The issue was highlighted this year in a NYT op-ed column by James Kirchick, who gives examples of “anti-Zionism” in the literary world. Click below to read, or find it archived here: Kirchick’s thesis is that Jews have a hard time making it in the literary world unless they’re willing to denounce Israel.

There has been some pushback. For one thing, banning someone from a state-sponsored panel because of their religious views is probably illegal:

In addition to failing to uphold its moral responsibility in the face of antisemitism, legal experts told me that the New York State Writers Institute may well have violated the law.

David Schizer, the dean emeritus of Columbia Law School—and the co-head of Columbia’s Task Force on Antisemitism—told me that because the Writers Institute is part of the University at Albany, which is state-funded, it must adhere to laws that outlaw discrimination. And the Department of Education has been clear that boycotting someone because of their religion is in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. “If a university that takes government money says it will not have panels with Jews, that is clearly a problem,” he told me. “That is clearly illegal.”

He added, “If an institution formally condemns the antisemitism and the exclusion of Jews from a panel, that could have gone a long way to mitigate the issue.” The institute could also have let Albert go on by herself, he said. Both options are precisely what Albert said she had asked the directors of the Writers Institute to do, but they refused.

This sentiment was echoed by the head of the whole SUNY system:

On Saturday, as the festival was taking place, King sent an angry email to Albany’s president, Havidán Rodríguez, which Albert obtained and showed to The Free Press. Expressing shock at learning “from media coverage” about the canceled panel, he said the festival should have issued “an unequivocal statement that bigotry and antisemitism are absolutely unacceptable and the panel would proceed with or without these people participating.” He added: “SUNY’s content-neutral commitment to free expression and our fidelity to the protections guaranteed by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have led to a response along the lines the author suggested. As I wrote in a recent public letter and have emphasized to all SUNY campus presidents: Antisemitism is antisemitism whatever ‘code words’ are used, including if ‘Zionist’ is intended to mean the same thing as ‘Jewish.’ ”

King concluded: “I believe the only appropriate response at this point is to ensure that Ms. Albert is afforded the opportunity to have her views expressed to the greatest extent possible, whether that is during the remaining hours of the festival or at a subsequent event held by the Institute.”

As for Albert, she took it like a mensch, though she’s not sure she’ll participate in the Writers festival any more:

. . . But she imagined a different way this could have played out—one in which Gawad and Ko had stayed on the panel instead of walking away.

“Had they been even slightly more evolved thinkers, I can easily imagine a scenario in which they might have chosen to come to Albany with open minds and hearts,” she said. “Perhaps they might have hopped that train to Albany with some awareness that, while the moderator of their panel is a fellow novelist whose lived experience and history and inheritance and education and understanding and fear and trauma and grief and shame are profoundly different from their own, there might still be something—no matter how minor, or how seemingly banal—to learn from me. Perhaps, in my wishful scenario, they might even have found it within themselves to hold space for difference, and to maybe, just maybe, grow ever so slightly in the process. Perhaps, were they just that smallest bit more open-minded, they would have managed to teach me something in turn.

“Anyway,” she concluded, “I’m sorry we won’t have the chance to meet and talk, because it would have been super cool to understand them better. And, dare to dream, I could have offered them some understanding of myself in turn.”

Bravo for Albert, and boos to the hateful Aisha Gawad and Lisa Ko, as well as the cowardly Emily Laden!  I sympathize with Albert even more because my own children’s book, initially met with enthusiasm by a respected editor and a famous illustrator, wasn’t published because the editor wouldn’t dare show it to publishers. The problem: it was a fantasy book about cats in India, and I am not Indian. I had no credibility to write about Indian cats because. . . I was a white man!   (Are there any publishers out there with guts? If so, I have a book to sell!)

Remember, this was a literary festival, and in publishing all points of view are considered by good editors. To cancel a book discussion because one of the authors supports Israel is simply beyond the pale. But these days it seems almost normal. This normalization of anti-Zionism is, frankly, scary.

Here’s a short clip of Albert at that Festival in 2015.  She seems “cool” and funny:

BBC accused of deep bias in its coverage of Gaza/Hamas war (guess which side got demonized more).

September 12, 2024 • 11:45 am

It’s hard to tell which mainstream media outlet is the most biased against Israel when covering the war, but if I had to choose it would be two British sites: the Guardian and the BBC.  Now, an article in the Torygraph (shown below) reports on a new analysis of the Beeb’s behavior in just the four months following the Hamas massacre of October 7. The report concludes that the outlet violated its own guidelines for impartiality over 1,500 times in just those four months. The Torygraph report is echoed in another report in the Times of Israel, which you can read for free pieces by clicking on the second headline below. But it’s sufficient to read the first piece, as it’s longer and more comprehensive.

You can read the Torygraph piece by clicking below, but if it’s paywalled, you can find it archived here. The whole report on the BBC, called “The Asserson Report,” is here, and if you want to judge its veracity, go have a look, though the pdf is 200 pages long.

The breaches of impartiality, which show a pattern of excoriating Israel and downplaying Hamas’s terrorism, involve not only biased reporting (see bar graph below) but also the use of biased reporters and material on the BBC’s Arabic channel. The main analysis involves reporting analyzed by AI for the use of certain words, like “genocide,” but it goes beyond that.

An except:

The BBC breached its own editorial guidelines more than 1,500 times during the height of the Israel-Hamas war, a damning report has found.

The report revealed a “deeply worrying pattern of bias” against Israel, according to its authors who analysed four months of the BBC’s output across television, radio, online news, podcasts and social media.

The research, led by British lawyer Trevor Asserson, also found that Israel was associated with genocide more than 14 times more than Hamas in the corporation’s coverage of the conflict.

On Saturday, Danny Cohen, a former BBC executive, warned that there was now an “institutional crisis” at the national broadcaster and called for an independent inquiry into its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war.

. . . .The Asserson report analysed the BBC’s coverage during a four-month period beginning Oct 7, 2023 – the day Hamas carried out a brutal massacre in southern Israel, killing around 1,200 people and taking another 251 into Gaza as hostages.

A team of around 20 lawyers and 20 data scientists contributed to the research, which used artificial intelligence to analyse nine million words of BBC output.

Researchers identified a total of 1,553 breaches of the BBC’s editorial guidelines, which included impartiality, accuracy, editorial values and public interest.

“The findings reveal a deeply worrying pattern of bias and multiple breaches by the BBC of its own editorial guidelines on impartiality, fairness and establishing the truth,” the report said.

It also found that the BBC repeatedly downplayed Hamas terrorism while presenting Israel as a militaristic and aggressive nation.

It claimed that some journalists used by the BBC in its coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict have previously shown sympathy for Hamas and even celebrated its acts of terror.

The report claims that a number of BBC reporters have shown extreme hostility to Israel, including BBC Arabic contributor Mayssaa Abdul Khalek, who is said to have called for “death to Israel” and defended a journalist who tweeted: “Sir Hitler, rise, there are a few people that need to be burned.”

. . . the report’s analysis of BBC coverage found that Israel was associated with war crimes four times more than Hamas (127 versus 30), with genocide 14 times more (283 versus 19) and with breaching international law six times more (167 versus 27).

Here’s a figure showing the disproportionality in the BBC’s coverage of Israel vs. Hamas.  Given that Hamas has explicitly endorsed genocide and commits far more war crimes and violations of international law than does Israel, the longer blue bars are a palpable indication of bias in reporting:

The Torygraph article goes on in this vein, and of course reports that Jewish groups are extremely concerned, as are some politicians—even former Labour party members (e.g., Lord Austin of Dudley, now an independent) and Tories like Julia Lopez, the shadow culture secretary, and Sir Oliver Dowden, the shadow deputy prime minister.

One matter of concern is the Beeb’s dogged reluctance to label Hamas as a “terrorist group”. The Times of Israel says this:

The report found that, though the BBC said in October that it would describe Hamas “where possible” as a “proscribed terrorist organization,” Hamas’s designation as a listed terror group was only noted 3.2 percent of the time.

The BBC, of course, disses the Asserson report:

A BBC spokesman said: “We have serious questions about the methodology of this report, particularly its heavy reliance on AI to analyse impartiality, and its interpretation of the BBC’s editorial guidelines. We don’t think coverage can be assessed solely by counting particular words divorced from context.

Well, the bar graph above clearly shows there’s something worth investigating, and if you’ve actually read the BBC on the war, as I have, you’ll see that yes, they’re clearly biased against Israel. For example, the BBC was one of the first to jump the gun when a misfired Islamic Jihad missile hit the parking lot of Al-Ahli hospital, blaming the “hit” on Israel. The reporting journalist, international editor Jeremy Bowen, wouldn’t apologize (though I think the BBC did).

The BBC also had to apologize when Israel sent Arabic-speaking doctors and others into Al-Shifa hospital to help evacuate the patients. That was a gesture of humanity, but the Beeb (and Reuters) said, wrongly, that the IDF was targeting Arabic speakers and medical personnel in the hospital.  These are two cases I remember, but I’m sure the report gives more. At any rate, read the report  if you’re concerned. The BBC apparently repeatedly jumped the gun, and in a way that falsely accused Israel.

A bit more:

The report identifies 11 cases where it claims BBC Arabic’s coverage of the war has featured reporters who have previously made public statements in support of terrorism and specifically Hamas, without viewers being informed of this.

The report accuses Mr Bowen, one of the BBC’s most respected journalists, of bias against Israel, in breach of the corporation’s editorial guidelines.

Mr Bowen, who is taking part in a BBC Masterclass on “reporting war impartially” next week, is accused in the report of “excusing Hamas terrorist activities” and of “stressing the callousness of Israelis”.

These are not just words, but incidents.  The article concludes with more incidents involving both Bowen and Lyse Doucet, the BBC’s chief international correspondent, who’s accused of downplaying the October 7 massacre

Well, the results are no surprise to me, but the fact that a 200-page report on bias in a major media outlet was even created is surprising. I haven’t looked at whether the Beeb itself has reported it, but they should. It’s news, Jake.

The Times of Israel report (click headline below) largely echoes the Torygraph, but there are a few items quoted in the report that the ToI mentions (one is above) but the British paper doesn’t.

“Sir Hitler, rise” indeed!

I wonder what a study of the New York Times or Washington Post would show. . .

Tablet on Wikipedia’s “Jewish problem”

July 30, 2024 • 10:00 am

Wikipedia is my go-to site for checking facts quickly, as it is for many. But I’ve seen enough wonky stuff on it that I wouldn’t trust it on controversial matters, and that’s the topic of this post.  (I have long wanted to go through its “Evolution” page to check for accuracy, but I’ve never gotten around to it.)

Tablet is a pretty reliable source, and in this piece, Izabella Tabarovsky argues that Wikipedia has distorted facts and material about Judaism and Israel, all in a way hostile to Israel—and the truth.  Even Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, claims that the site’s new leadership (yes, there are authorities above the editors) are “clowns” and that its vaunted neutrality is a sham.

Tabarovsky is identified this way:

Izabella Tabarovsky is a scholar of antizionism and contemporary left antisemitism. She is a Senior Fellow with the Z3 Institute for Jewish Priorities and a Research Fellow with the London Centre for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and ISGAP.

Click the headline to read:

The thesis:

Wikipedia’s key principles are codified in “five pillars,” which include writing from a neutral point of view and using reliable sources to document key arguments. Another pillar urges editors to treat each other with respect and seek consensus on contentious topics. Disputes are resolved by volunteer administrators and can be escalated all the way to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (aka Wikipedia’s “Supreme Court”). Punishment can include bans varying in severity and length of time.

Today, Jewish people and the Jewish story are under an unprecedented global assault, and Wikipedia is being used as a weapon in this war.

. . .Wikipedia also prides itself on radical transparency: Every edit can be seen by everyone on a specially designated page.

Closer to home, what’s clear is that Wikipedia’s articles are now badly distorted, feeding billions of people—and large-language models that regularly train on the site, such as ChatGPT—with inaccurate research and dangerously skewed narratives about Jews, Jewish history, Israel, Zionism, and contemporary threats to Jewish lives.

The first sign of the problem to Tablet:

In June, a group of Wikipedia editors and administrators rated the Anti-Defamation League as “generally unreliable” on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and “roughly reliable” on antisemitism “when Israel and Zionism are not concerned.” They also evaluated the ADL’s database of hate symbols, deeming it as “reliable for the existence of a symbol and for straightforward facts about it, but not reliable for more complex details, such as symbols’ history.”

The anonymous editors, with unknown backgrounds or academic credentials, accused the ADL of “conflating” anti-Zionism with antisemitism and relying on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which, they claimed, brands all criticism of Israel as antisemitic and stifles pro-Palestinian speech. They also accused the ADL of “smearing” Students for Justice in Palestine by calling on universities to investigate whether the group provided material support to Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization.

You can read the linked articles, and also the Wikipedia article on the Anti-Defamation League, which beefs that the ADL conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism, a claim that no longer carries much water for me. (It’s a pity that the Munk Debate on this issue, in which Douglas Murray and Natasha Hausdorff, taking the side of equivalence, trouncedtheir opponents, is no longer free online, though bits of it are; see here and here.)

Apparently the Wikipedia editors who are most persistent on matters Jewish in Wikipedia are those who are anti-Israel, and have simply worn down their opponents. Especially in foreign-language articles, which have some influence, the errors persist for years and years. For example:

In 2004, a spokesperson for the Polish branch of Wikimedia Foundation created an article in English describing an extermination camp in Warsaw, where the Nazis gassed 212,000 Poles. The story—a fiction—remained on the site for 15 years before the Israeli newspaper Haaretz revealed the problem in 2019. By then, the article had been translated into multiple languages, and its claims incorporated into multiple other Wikipedia articles. An estimated half a million people got exposed to the lie.

Last year two historians published a bombshell paper demonstrating how a group of ideologically driven editors spent years systematically distorting Polish Jewish history across multiple Wikipedia articles to align it with far-right Polish nationalist preferences. [JAC: It is now against the law in Poland to argue that the Poles helped the Nazis experminate the Jews, even though that’s true.] Working in concert, the group falsified evidence, promoted marginal self-published sources, created fake references, and advanced antisemitic stereotypes. It whitewashed “the role of Polish society in the Holocaust,” “minimize[d] Polish antisemitism, exaggerate[d] the Poles’ role in saving Jews,” blamed Jews for the Holocaust, and generally steered “Wikipedia’s narrative on Holocaust history away from sound, evidence-driven research, toward a skewed version of events,” wrote the authors, Jan Grabowski and Shira Klein.

Wikipedia’s mechanisms proved entirely inadequate in the face of this motivated, organized assault. Working “as a monolith,” the group manipulated the procedures, coordinated edits, and rallied to each other’s support when challenged. Users seeking to correct the group’s edits found themselves outnumbered and outmaneuvered. “Challenging the distortionists takes a monumental amount of time, more than most people can invest in a voluntary hobby,” wrote Grabowski and Klein. The distortionists exhausted their opponents with endless debates, aggressive “battleground behavior,” rudeness, and “mass deletions,” leading some to simply give up on editing the topic. Volunteer administrators called upon to resolve conflicts were unqualified to adjudicate content issues and unwilling to invest the hours required to sort through sources.

. . . . The most incomprehensible part about this is that it took Wikimedia Foundation 14 years from the time the first complaints began to surface to do something about it.

Tabarovsky also argues that the “reliable” sources for matters Judaic on Wikipedia are liberal sources known for being anti-Israel, including the NYT, BBC, The New Yorker, and The Guardian. Those are in fact the very sources that I consider most dubious on Israel news.  Conservative Sources like the New York Post and Fox News are rated unreliable, though often news that makes Israel looks bad (like the false claim that an Israeli strike demolished Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza) are loudly promoted by these organs of the MSM. More:

This ranking tells us what kind of slant we can expect in Wikipedia’s articles about Israel, Zionism, and anti-Zionist antisemitism. In the wake of Oct. 7, “generally reliable” sources have trafficked in disinformation, as when The New York Times splashed the Al Ahli hospital bombing hoax over its front page, helping spark violent anti-Jewish riots across the world; or when The New Yorker legitimized Holocaust inversion—a long-running staple of anti-Zionist propaganda originating in the 1960s USSR. Conservative outlets, on the other hand, have produced reporting that tells Israel’s side of the story and have looked far more critically at the anti-Israel campus protests. The “generally unreliable” Washington Free Beacon has arguably produced the most extensive reporting on the protests. Wikipedia editors, however, are warned against using the Beacon as a source, which is why of the 353 references accompanying Wikipedia’s article on the pro-Palestinian campus protests, the overwhelming majority is to liberal and far-left sources plus Al Jazeera.

Here’s how it works: as we know, among “progressive” Leftists, which are the most anti-Israel group in politics save groups like the Black Muslims, it is the loudest and most persistent group who triumphs. One example:

One-sided sources are just one among a host of problems in Wikipedia articles related to Oct. 7 and the war that followed. In a World Jewish Congress report released in March, Dr. Shlomit Aharoni Nir documents numerous ways in which relevant Wikipedia entries have become de facto anti-Israel propaganda. From biased framing to omissions of key facts to stressing anti-Israel examples while ignoring the Israeli side of the story, to promoting fringe academic perspectives on Zionism—Wikipedia’s editors and administrators have actively worked to subvert the site’s neutrality policy on this topic. As in other instances, conflicts and bullying behavior predominate, with Israeli editors describing uniquely “hostile and disrespectful” treatment. Israeli users, who are most knowledgeable about the Oct. 7 events, often found themselves locked out of editing key articles, which were open for editing only to users who’d made over 500 edits. Several editors told Aharoni Nir that there were a number of activists who operated anonymously and were “responsible for the anti-Israel tone.”

Among some of the most troubling instances Aharoni Nir documented were calls for deletions of crucial articles. These included articles describing individual massacres on Oct. 7, such as those at Netiv HaAsara, Nir Yitzhak, Yakhini, and other kibbutzim and moshavim, as well as articles describing Hamas beheadings. Some of the calls succeeded. So did the call to erase the article about Nazism in Palestinian society (a “documented historical and sociological phenomenon,” notes Aharoni Nir). By contrast, the article normalizing equations between Israel and Nazi Germany—a propagandistic concept that has been weaponized against Jews for decades––remains on the site. Meanwhile, Wikipedia’s Arabic site openly abandoned the principle of neutrality last December when it temporarily went dark in solidarity with the Palestinians, then added the Palestinian flag to its logo and posted a pro-Palestinian statement at the top. Israel’s Wikipedia community protested. Wikimedia Foundation—you guessed it—did nothing.

There are other subtle distortions in articles about Israel, including the one about the Six-Day War in 1967.  As Malgorzata noted,

“There is not a word about the threats from both Egyptian and Syrian authorities and media about obliterating Israel. The falsification is very subtly done – as if Israel didn’t have a genuine reason to launch a preemptive  strike.”

There’s a lot more to read and, in the end, Tabarovsky argues that one of the world’s most-consulted sources of information is biased to the extend that it’s turning itself “into the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.”

Maybe I should have a look at Wikipedia’s “evolution” article, though I’m pretty sure that it hasn’t been ideologically captured by creationists or IDers. There are enough pro-science editors out there to prevent any gross distortions from happening.  But do be aware of Wikipedia’s coverage of things about Israel.

***********

UPDATE:  Oops, I made the mistake of looking at the Evolution article in Wikipedia and found this right at the beginning:

Evolution by natural selection is established by observable facts about living organisms: (1) more offspring are often produced than can possibly survive; (2) traits vary among individuals with respect to their morphology, physiology, and behaviour; (3) different traits confer different rates of survival and reproduction (differential fitness); and (4) traits can be passed from generation to generation (heritability of fitness).[7] In successive generations, members of a population are therefore more likely to be replaced by the offspring of parents with favourable characteristics for that environment.

This is a hypothesis that doesn’t really establish the fact of natural selection, but suggests its likelihood. To establish natural selection’s existence, you must document it empirically. Also, the fact that “more oftfspring are often produced than can possibly survive” is, as pointed out by Ronald Fisher, more a result of natural selection than an observation that leads one to conclude that natural selection must occur. (You have a lot of kids because there are many things going after them.) I wouldn’t have begun that article using this as evidence for evolution by natural selection. Further, evolution can occur by means other than natural selection, including genetic drift (which they do mention) and meiotic drive (which they don’t). Overall, however, the article looks pretty good, and of course every evolutionist will have a beef that their favorite topics aren’t covered properly.