Category: anti-semitism

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.

Doctors Without Borders Accused of violating its own policy of political neutrality to impugn Israel, and my cessation of donations

July 21, 2024 • 9:40 am

A while back I was a big fan of Doctors without Borders (or “MSF”, for “Médecins Sans Frontières”).  It was put in my will to get a big bequest, and when I auctioned of a copy of Why Evolution is True, autographed by many famous scientists and nonbelievers, and illustrated and illuminated by Kelly Houle, every penny of the $10,000+ we got on eBay went to MSF.

Then I heard that the organization was anti-Israel (this was well before October 7 of last year). Checking up on the Internet, I found some confirmation of that claim, including several reports that MSF refused to cooperate with Israeli medical teams working in the same location. This, from the article below, may be what I remember (Rossin is named as “secretary general of MSF in the 1970s”)

Rossin recalled his experience in 2010 on a mission to Uganda when an MSF Holland contingent refused to interact with a fellow Israeli medical NGO team dispatched to help. Rossin remembered it as an episode of “one-way empathy,” where prejudice had poisoned the MSF team’s ability to cooperate with Israel in their shared goal of helping civilians.

(See also here, though MSF denies all these allegations.)

I subsequently wrote MSF asking them if they ever used Israeli doctors in their relief efforts.  I got no reply, even though in the letter I told them I was a donor. Their ignoring me after the dosh I’d given them was, well, uncharitable.

Now I can’t really criticize MSF’s humanitarian efforts: they’ve done a great deal of wonderful medical work during crises all over the world.  No, here I’m pointing out an article in Canada’s National Post that documents a pervasive anti-Israel—a former MSF secretary calls it “antisemitic”—attitude on the part of the organization, an attitude reflected in its refusal to criticize Hamas for the terrorist’s group own blocking or hijacking medical aid and turning Gaza hospitals into terror centers.  In the piece below, quite a few former directors and employees of MSF, not to mention donors, weigh in criticizing the organization on this account.

My own decision, based on what I’ve read over the years, is to stop donating to MSF, and I’ve taken them out of my will, replacing them with other humanitarian organizations (and that is a fair amount of dosh!).  Read the article below for yourself (click on the headline) and decide if you want to support them.  The article is free, and you can also find it archived here.

I’ll simply give a number of quotes from the article. According to its charter, MSF is supposed to be politically neutral and impartial, but former executives, donors, and employees say that when it comes to Israel, that’s not the case.

Former leaders and a major Canadian donor of Doctors Without Borders are distancing themselves from the venerable aid organization after its employees celebrated the October 7 atrocities, gave aid to the Hamas-run Ministry of Health, ran a one-sided social media feed and internally circulated articles accusing Israel of creating Palestinian “death worlds.”

“To be frank, I was very, very, surprised because it’s not the MSF I knew,” Alain Destexhe, the secretary general of the organization, popularly known by its French acronym MSF, from 1991 to 1995, told National Post.

Destexhe said MSF’s messaging throughout the Israel-Hamas war is markedly different than past conflicts.

“We used to make statements, you know, in Bosnia and Rwanda, but not taking sides like this,” he said. “We always took into account the political context, but not to take sides from one group to another. In the Gaza War, I really got the feeling that MSF was totally biased.”

From a donor:

Destexhe wasn’t the only MSF loyalist to have an October 7 wake-up call. One major Canadian Jewish donor told the Post he urged his mother to support the group despite pushback from family members cautioning him against MSF’s reputation of being institutionally biased against Israel.

“I think most people know that they have a history of not being the friendliest towards Israel,” the philanthropist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told the Post.

He said he reassured his mother, following conversations with MSF Canada’s leadership, that the organization was duty-bound to be apolitical and strictly adhere to its mission of providing aid and observation. However, the inconsistencies between their initial promise and their treatment of Israel reached a boiling point in November 2023 when the patron confronted MSF Canada’s executives.

“I will be honest,” the donor told then-executive director Joe Belliveau in an email shared with the Post, “the more I review MSF public communications (Instagram, specifically), the evidence is overwhelming that the MSF stance has a pronounced bias. There is still not one single mention of the 200+ civilian hostages; not one mention of Hamas’ indiscriminate rocket fire into civilian centers, both of which are war crimes and violations of the Geneva conventions,” he wrote in late November.

. . . and a former MSF executive:

The donor’s November 2023 email rattled Byron Sonberg, who’d proudly served as MSF Canada’s treasurer for two years. He’d begun to sense the organization straying from its principle of impartiality, especially after he was copied on the donor’s email chain expressing growing frustration with the group. But the final straw came in mid-February 2024 when he, and hundreds of MSF global leaders, were forwarded an article: “Israeli necropolitics and the pursuit of health justice in Palestine.” [JAC: I found some of that article here; just read the “summary box”]

It was shared by Ruby Gill, president of MSF Canada’s board of directors, to provide “more insight” into the ongoing conflict. It argued that “framing Palestinian violence on October 7 as provocation and Israeli violence as response is ahistoric and indicates indifference to the everyday violence experienced by Palestinians.”

In other words, Israel “had it coming” on October 7. And the article was apparently sent out by MSF!  More:

Hamas receives a single passing reference in the piece, while Israel is cited nearly eighty times to bolster the claim that the Jewish State’s military response is unjustifiable. It accuses Israel of creating “death worlds” for Palestinians. The ideas expressed in the article, and the silence of MSF’s leadership, disturbed Sonberg, a self-described political moderate.

This concentration on Israel and complete neglect of Hamas is distressing in light of the fact that Hamas repeatedly impedes medical efforts in Gaza, including highjacking medical supplies, turning hospitals into terror bases, and even shooting Gazan civilians.

From another former MSM executive:

Richard Rossin, who served as secretary general of MSF in the 1970s and later co-founded Médecins du Monde (Doctors of the World), said that he perceived a tone shift within the organization several decades ago.

“I think it was perceptible around the beginning of the ‘80s,” Rossin told the Post by phone from his home in southern Israel. Antisemitism within MSF “began under the cover of anti-Zionism.”

See the quote from Rossin in the opening paragraphs.

One of the most distressing parts of this narrative is that MSF blamed Israel for the attack on the al-Ahli Hospital on October 17 of last year, an “attack” that did not involved Israel at all, but came from a misfired rocket from Palestinian Islamic Jihad that landed in the hospital’s parking lot, with the casualties greatly exaggerated by Hamas. MSF never retracted its accusation, which has been abandoned by everyone familiar with the evidence, including the Associated Press (no fan of Israel), which summarizes the evidence. (there’s also a telling conversation between two Hamas operatives saying the rocket was “from us).

By comparison, after the al-Ahli Hospital blast on Oct. 17, 2023, MSF rushed to blame Israel.

“We are horrified by the recent Israeli bombing of Ahli Arab Hospital in #Gaza City, which was treating patients and hosting displaced Gazans. Hundreds of people have reportedly been killed. This is a massacre. It is absolutely unacceptable,” MSF International wrote on X on the day of the explosion.

Although the blast was the result of a misfired rocket from Gaza, likely launched by a Palestinian group, MSF never corrected the record. The post, as well as several Instagram posts published by major chapters — including Spain, Canada, Brazil, and France – remain active. No apology or correction has been issued.

To a scientist, refusal to retract an accusation like this is shameful. But that’s MSF. Here’s their tweet, still up on X, but with “context corrections”:

More:

After Hamas invaded and killed over a thousand people, MSF did not release a single post addressing the worst killing of Jews since the Holocaust and it has not called for the return of kidnapped Israelis. Five days after the terrorist attack, the group issued a statement drawing a moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel. [JAC note: I think the link is meant to go to the MSF “X” feed, not to just one post.)

“We are horrified by the brutal mass killing of civilians perpetrated by Hamas, and by the massive attacks on #Gaza now being pursued by Israel,” MSF International wrote on Oct. 12. The remainder of the thread denounced Israel for “indiscriminate violence and the collective punishment of Gaza.” Two days later, the group called on Israel to “show humanity.”

The tone set by MSF International trickled down to its chapters across the globe.

By Oct. 17, MSF Canada wrote, “unconditional humanity needs to be restored in Gaza,” calling Israel’s response “unimaginable” and “inhumane.” The statement made no reference to Hamas or their invasion, which ignited hostilities.Before October 7, several nations facing humanitarian issues were highlighted in MSF Canada’s social feeds – including Malawi, Venezuela, Sudan, Haiti and Burkina Faso – but its coverage following the Hamas attack veered near-exclusively to covering Israel. At one point, in early November 2023, MSF Canada’s Instagram account was blanketed with six red-bolded calls for an immediate ceasefire, something not previously done as part of its advocacy for Sudan or Ukraine.

No calls on Hamas to “show humanity,” not just towards Israel but to civilian Gazans?

Despite the fact that the Gaza Ministry of Health, run by Hamas, is known to exaggerate death tolls, which have been revised strongly downward by even the UN, MSF continued to use them. Another comment from MSF’s former secretary-general:

MSF’s relationship with the Hamas-run Ministry of Health was another major reason why Destexhe lost faith. Their failure to admit “health facilities (are) being used by Hamas and by soldiers,” he told the Post, left him “really sad, and then I became angry.”

More:

MSF International’s Instagram page was comparatively muted in February 2022 following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, calling the situation “extremely worrying.” Within a month, the organization’s focus had quickly shifted to Libyan refugees, midwives in South Sudan, and social workers in the Palestinian Territories.

The messaging inequality was studied by Gerald Steinberg, founder and leader of NGO Monitor, a watchdog organization based in Jerusalem, who combed through MSF’s X feed. He found over a hundred tweets between the Hamas invasion and late November, “not one (solely) mentions Israeli victims.” There were five instances when Israelis were mentioned, but always alongside Palestinians.

Steinberg has grown accustomed to this discrepancy. “MSF is both a humanitarian and advocacy organization, and on Israel and the Palestinians, the partisan dimension is dominant and destructive,” Steinberg told the Post by email. He recalled the group showing similar favouritism during an earlier flare-up in 2009.

Finally, there are further claims in the article that a sizable percentage (a third) of MSF staffers celebrated the October 7 massacre, that some MSF employees have been linked to terror groups, and that MSF had donated to Gaza’s Ministry of Health but refused to respond when asked how MSF ensured that medical supplies weren’t getting hijacked by Hamas.

And a final comment by another former secretary general of MSF:

Rossin, a former secretary general who predated Destexhe, remains pessimistic that MSF can take a more balanced approach to Israel and Gaza moving forward.

“It cannot be fixed,” he said, exasperated. “How can you fix antisemitism, which is not an opinion but a mental disease?”

Although I long ago decided to give no more money to MSF, but divert it to organizations that have a “more balanced approach”, readers may wish to have a look at this article.  I was angered by MSF’s failure to even respond to my email about Israel, despite Kelly Houle and I having given them a substantial lump of money. (I haven’t asked Kelly for her opinion on this article.)

If you’re looking for reputable organizations that do good humanitarian health work without constantly impugning Israel and making unretracted false claims, I’d suggest you do what I did: go to Peter Singer’s list of reputable charities called The Life You Can Save. It shows a number of charities (not all involved with health), all of which have been vetted by Singer’s uncompromising criteria of providing the most assistance for the least money. The second time Kelly and I did an eBay auction of an autographed and illustrated book, my Faith Versus Fact, we deep-sixed MSF and gave all the money to Helen Keller International, a charity that prevents blindness and death in children by giving them inexpensive vitamin A supplements. The charity provides a lot of bang for the buck.

And you can bet that in my rewritten will, the part that goes for children’s health and poverty (the other parts go for wildlife conservation and purchasing lands for reserves) isn’t directed to MSF, but to Singer’s charities.

An open letter to Noa Tishby: the persisting trauma of Jews is not in our genes

July 17, 2024 • 11:00 am

This is an open letter to Noa Tishby because, as a passionate defender of Israel, she made a rather serious mistake about biology, and I tried to contact her about it via her publicist. I don’t know if she got my email, so I’m putting it below lest any Jews (or other people) be led to that we carry genes for inherited trauma.  We almost certainly don’t!

Noa Tishby is an Israeli actress who moved to the U.S. and has largely given up acting to advocate for Israel, in which she’s done an exemplary job. She wrote, for example, a primer for the ignorant called Israel: A Simple Guide to the Most Misunderstood Country on Earth, setting out the background of the conflict between Israel and, well, the rest of the world. I read it, and although I already knew much of the material, many people don’t, as evidenced by the widespread and often willful ignorance among “anti-Zionists.” See the first video below!

Noa’s also got chutzpah, as you can tell from this video. She is not easily fazed or discombobulated, even when faced with arrogant stupidity combined with hatred:

In other words, I’m a fan and admire her resolve.

Her error: In the article below, published in the Jewish magazine Sapir, Tishby describes how nerdy she was when young, and now her “uncoolness” persists in her constant defense of Israel, an unpopular stand in much of the world.  While making this reasonable argument, though, Tishby also made a misguided claim about the “inherited” trauma of Jews. It’s a good article (click to read), but the epigenetics stuff bothered me.

Here’s the part that rankled:

What haunts us, even those of us who have lived through only the most recent pogrom, is the familiarity of even the oldest testimony. “We were awakened by a terrifying noise, we didn’t know what was happening . . . ” two millennia ago in Jerusalem. “We realized they’d broken into our neighbors’ house. . . .  We heard them screaming until silence fell. We thought of escaping into the forest, but everyone who tried to escape found it was impossible” one millennium ago in Cologne. This history has shaped us: “Deep inside I know it,” each survivor says in unison as they stand together at the close of the video. The weight of our past is in our blood.

Perhaps literally. Recent studies suggest that these traumatic stories have become woven into our hereditary fabric through epigenetic change. Epigenetic changes are additions to our DNA that influence the way our genetic code is read by our bodies. Studies show that epigenetic change can occur from traumatic experience, and that these changes can be inherited. The idea is intuitive to us: It’s long been suggested that historical traumas can be psychologically passed down from generation to generation. Epigenetic fear is the biological manifestation of historical traumas alongside our genetic code. A review found that “there is now converging evidence supporting the idea that offspring are affected by parental trauma exposures occurring before their birth, and possibly even prior to their conception.” One study found that “in the absence of their own traumatic exposures, offspring of Holocaust survivors” were more likely to exhibit biological signs associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Other studies have suggested that epigenetic changes can be passed down for many generations.

After the pogrom of October 7 and the global reactions to it, our epigenetic inheritance may have been activated in our veins. As the researcher behind the study of offspring of Holocaust survivors observed, “Epigenetic changes often serve to biologically prepare offspring for an environment similar to that of the parents.”

In this respect, Jews have a built-in mechanism that gives acts of barbarism against us a certain familiarity and triggers an almost automatic response. Though the threats have come from different neighbors — Romans, Germans, Baghdadis — across time and place, they have always been similar enough to inoculate us against being truly surprised.

Here’s another version of it on her Facebook page.

Now if you know anything about epigenetics, a form of inheritance of acquired characteristics, you’ll know two things.  First, in nearly all organisms the acquired trait gets passed on for only a single generation, as the modifications of DNA that cause the trait (in this case trauma), is wiped out as the DNA sheds its modifications when producing gametes for the next generation.  Second, there is no evidence that I know of in mammals (including us) that even if a trauma causes something to be inherited by modifying our DNA, that “something” is not the trauma itself, but whatever developmental change happens to be wrought by environmental effects on the DNA.  In the most famous widespread case of “inherited trauma”, the Dutch case of famine during the “hunger winter” of 1944, what was inherited wasn’t the trauma of not getting enough food, but a number of developmental aberrations that lasted only a single generation:

The Dutch Hunger Winter has proved unique in unexpected ways. Because it started and ended so abruptly, it has served as an unplanned experiment in human health. Pregnant women, it turns out, were uniquely vulnerable, and the children they gave birth to have been influenced by famine throughout their lives.

When they became adults, they ended up a few pounds heavier than average. In middle age, they had higher levels of triglycerides and LDL cholesterol. They also experienced higher rates of such conditions as obesity, diabetes and schizophrenia.

By the time they reached old age, those risks had taken a measurable toll, according to the research of L.H. Lumey, an epidemiologist at Columbia University. In 2013, he and his colleagues reviewed death records of hundreds of thousands of Dutch people born in the mid-1940s.

They found that the people who had been in utero during the famine — known as the Dutch Hunger Winter cohort — died at a higher rate than people born before or afterward. “We found a 10 percent increase in mortality after 68 years,” said Dr. Lumey.

The change lasted only one generation; as far as I know, the grandchildren of survivors don’t show this syndrome. Thus, Ms. Tishby erred when implying that the trauma itself faced by Jews could presumably last for a long time, perhaps generations.  If we are indeed traumatized by centuries of antisemitism, it’s certainly because the trauma comes from the environment (i.e., antisemites), and persists because antisemitism persists. Certainly I didn’t want a famous defender of Israel to popularize misguided biology.

So I sent the letter below a while back to Ms. Tishby. Since I couldn’t find a way to contact her directly, I sent it to her public relations person with a request that it be passed on to Tishby. So far I have no reply, and though I didn’t expect one from Tishby, I have no way to know if she ever got my correction.  Ergo I’m publishing it here in hopes that she’ll see it and the “inherited trauma of antissemitism” business will stop.  Yes, call me a Pecksniff. . .

Dear Ms. Tishby,

I’m writing just to urge you to be a bit cautious about the “epigenetic” aspect of Jewish trauma that you mentioned in your otherwise admirable Sapir article. I’m only writing because I’ve long admired your advocacy of Israel in the face of huge pushback, and don’t want you to fall into the errors of others who have mischaracterized epigenetics.

I am Jewish and also an evolutionary geneticist, and know a great deal about epigenetics: environmentally-induced changes in the DNA that usually occur by attaching a methyl group to various parts of DNA. It’s been known, as you said, that this can be inherited: rarely, the effects of parental trauma can cause inherited change in their offspring, though those changes don’t usually involve a child inheriting the trauma itself of their mothers.

What’s more important is that, because DNA changes are “reset” every generation when sperm or eggs are formed, epigenetic modifications usually disappear after one generation, so they can’t be inherited beyond parent—>offspring.  Further, if they do occur (usually through trauma affecting a mother’s physiology or placenta), what is inherited via methylation is not the trauma itself, but various other effects. The famous “Dutch famine study” from the “hunger winter” during the war didn’t involve inheritance of trauma, but a degradation of the offspring’s health that led to various other diseases. In other words, trauma was not inherited, but caused other effects in the children of the traumatized. And that lasted but a single generation.  There’s simply no evidence in humans that trauma itself can be coded into the genome and passed from parent to offspring.

You also mention that ” Other studies have suggested that epigenetic changes can be passed down for many generations.” But the study you cite involved roundworms, and had nothing to do with either humans or trauma (only one study, not “studies” was linked).

In short, there are no studies showing that parental trauma itself is inherited epigenetically. Instead, the effects of trauma on the physiology or development of offspring can be inherited. But they’re inherited, at most, for only one generation. Ergo, it’s a bit misleading to suggest that “the weight of the past is in our blood—literally.” That would be true only, and only in part, for the one generation of offspring of those experiencing the Holocaust. The rest of the Jews would be unaffected, so it wouldn’t be a general phenomenon.  And it would last only for a single generation at most—and what would be inherited wouldn’t be trauma itself but whatever developmental aberrations devolved upon fetuses developing during their mother’s trauma.

It’s really not necessary to invoke dubious science in support of your cause, for we Jews have suffered environmental trauma generation after generation via antisemitism, and this is due to a continuing culture, not to genes.  I myself have been traumatized by the resurgence of antisemitism after October 7, even though I’m at best a secular Jew. But none of my relatives were in the Holocaust, though they came from Eastern Europe.  My own “trauma” comes from seeing the world buy into the big lies about Israel (genocide, apartheid, “disproportinal” killing of Gazans, etc.)

My suggestion, then, is to stay far away from epigenetics as you promulgate your message. And of course your message is vital and important. As I said, I greatly admire your courage in going out there and speaking the truth, and wanted to let you know that the “truth” about epigenetics isn’t very solid!

Best wishes,
Jerry Coyne
Emeritus professor of Ecology and Evolutino
The University of Chicago

I’ve done what I can, and we’ll see if Ms. Tishby continues to spread the fallacious notion of “trauma literally in our blood” (it would have to be in the white cells, since red blood cells lack nuclei!)