The petition Ms. Hughes signed about the Israel-Hamas war was published online last week by a group called Writers Against the War on Gaza. The group, which describes itself as “an ad hoc coalition committed to solidarity and the horizon of liberation for the Palestinian people,” denounced what it described as Israel’s “eliminationist assault” on Palestinians as well as the deaths of journalists reporting on the war. It was signed by hundreds of people, including other well-known journalists and authors. “We stand firmly by Gaza’s people,” the letter said.
Are those "other well-known journalists" going to be pressured to resign?
Just 3 days ago, I blogged an article written by Jazmine Hughes. It was about how the gentrification of her Brooklyn neighborhood had motivated her to take up the pastime of picking up litter. She seemed to be saying that white people were bringing the place down.
पोस्ट्स
५४ टिप्पण्या:
Alternative Headline:
Be Fake Like Jake
Practically everyone writing for the NYT is a Dem partisan. Is this now the test? If so, they all need to resign.
Being a journalist at the NYT means you are a Dem shill.
I don't see how you go against Einstein and think you're on the right side of the Palestine issue. His views were involved in it's creation - and he rejected it - right from the beginning. He said, if any trouble comes to Palestine, you know where to put the blame: the British and the Zionists. He couldn't be clearer, and his argument is as eloquent as his theory of relativity. It even encompasses the horror of October 7.
So I can see how, if you DO go against Einstein, it can be said you're bringing down the neighborhood.
"This isn't an open marriage, Jasmine. I expect you to be discreet and keep up appearances."
While I disagree with her stance on the war that has been going on since 1948, and conflicts with terror that have been going on since well before that, I find nothing wrong with her taking her stand for what she believes and signing that petition that no one gives a crap about- except the signees. It is, like so many other statements today, merely some signaling to show themselves on a side they view as 'The Good'.
That the NY Times finds it not proper for one of their staffers to take a pronounced stance on things is laughable. They are known for the stances their staff writers take on things. It is who they are and why they are so widely mocked. She, at least, sounds serious and consistent.
In the opinion battle, Hamas seems to be winning on social media (not surprising given Islamic terrorism’s huge numbers advantage), but they are losing in the real world. I’m pleased to see that, no matter what seems to be happening on twitter, there are still consequences to publicly siding with barbarism.
"other well-known journalists" translates to "trust me"
It's really best that nobody knows.
I totally get why the employer (NYT) would take this stand. However, it is nice seeing where the journalist stands. Even though we unfortunately know where most of them stand without the journalist saying so.
The disconnect on display here - by Hughes and all the other "pro Palestinian" activists - is amazing. Hamas is no friend of the Palestinian people under its control. Hamas leaders are vicious and cynical oppressors who deny civilians basic rights, steal public resources, prevent their evacuation, and use them as human shields.
People seeking "justice" for Palestinians ought to start with Hamas - then continue on to the corrupt Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran, and finally to all the Arab nations that have used them so cynically. Israel has definitely treated Palestinians poorly, but not as badly, or so consistently, as the Arab world itself.
"Pro Palestinian" activists will not honestly acknowledge this larger reality. They are either useful idiots or tacit supporters themselves of the oppression of Palestinians.
I recognized her name, although I couldn't remember in what context you'd posted about her.
I love watching your winnowing process for who deserves the effort of a tag. Sorry, Hughes, but you don't have the longevity or the breadth of interest to warrant the recognition.
Not compatible? I thought it was in the job description.
Benjamin Netanyahu is manipulating America, Christopher Hitchens always thought Zionism is stupid, and Albert Einstein said - if anything bad happens to Palestine - first, blame the British, and then the Israelis, who Einstein called criminal terrorists
HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
just to be Clear..
Rape, and Kidnapping, and murder, and beheading.. THOSE are all JUST FINE, right?
that is; just fine IF you are doing it to The Jews?
I mean, i JUST WANT to be Clear.. *IF* you have a grievance, about your grandfather's house..
Rape, and Kidnapping, and murder, and beheading.. THOSE are all JUST FINE, right?
that is; just fine IF you are doing it to "The Jews"?
Crack MC? rcocean? would there be OTHER property disputes where YOU would advocate this?
That is: OTHER property disputes that DON'T involve "The Jews" ???
Change the word journalist to propagandist and it reads properly.
Notice how cagy they are about the actual text of the letter. It was vicious.
"She and I discussed that her desire to stake out this kind of public position and join in public protests isn’t compatible with being a journalist at The Times..."
Of course it is. She must have been pretty far along the curve.
Another dispatch from our nation's signal corps. Looks like the message is subject to change, so make sure your subscription is up to date. For those who care about the roster and roster moves, this is important stuff.
It takes a lot of time and space to turn a battleship around when you discover it isn't located where the pilot thought it was. The GPS was misaligned for some reason.
How about that.
Look, he made it very clear. She can't stake out THIS KIND of public position. She has the wrong opinions, and so he's cancelling her. Nothing personal.
It will be interesting to see where Hughes goes after the NYT. She's a young black woman who was writing fun-to-read culture pieces.
"I love watching your winnowing process for who deserves the effort of a tag. Sorry, Hughes, but you don't have the longevity or the breadth of interest to warrant the recognition."
I read your comment about 1 minute after adding a "Jazmine Hughes" tag to this post.
I did it when I wrote another post -- the one about drinking alone -- and using her name. That was a third post with her name, so I created a tag and retroactively added it to this post and the post about her from 3 days ago.
I would much rather live in a world where journalists are forthright about their left-wing bias than the phony old world where they pretended (unconvincingly) to be objective.
Crack isn't anti-semitic. He is, however, consistently pro-wronged - in this case, pro-Palestinian. And it has never mattered on his other most-posted subjects whether anything can reasonably be done about the grievance; getting people to acknowledge the grievance seems to be his goal.
Einstein was really smart. He also had some big moral failings. He also was not a historian, and he also said inconsistent things like "Good doesn't play dice with the universe." His stance on British Zionists of the 1940s is meaningless when the people on the other side today play with the heads of the babies they killed.
To be utterly clear, that kind of depravity is 100% on the people doing it. Are they aggrieved? Who the hell cares? Lots of people are aggrieved, but we don't give them a pass to do horrors.
"New York Times Writer Resigns After Signing Letter Protesting the Israel-Gaza War"
I call BS on the misinformation in the headline. The letter didn't "protest the war." It just took sides with the Palestinians against "eliminationist" Israel. The left wants Israel gone and the Jews dead.
How many more such antisemites does the NYT still employ?
I wonder why American blacks are so anti-Israel, when (1) Israel is a multi-racial society, and (2) Arabs have a long and proud history of enslaving people of color. Further, unlike, say, white Progressives, blacks are not at the forefront of protests against China, Saudi Arabia, or other human rights abusers.
This behavior is going to have a much bigger impact on attitudes than the Supreme Court's Affirmative Action decision. Knowing that Jazmine Hughes and most other blacks in the public eye favor terrorists over Jews makes me think that perhaps mass incarcertaion and rampant obesity among Americans who wish me dead are not so bad after all.
Crack and this columnist both show us examples of black anti-Semitism. It has a long history. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton provide other examples.
"It was about how the gentrification of her Brooklyn neighborhood had motivated her to take up the pastime of picking up litter. She seemed to be saying that white people were bringing the place down."
What about Oakland, Baltimore, Detroit, Memphis?
Fucking white people.
"...and Albert Einstein said..."
Eistein was a relatively smart guy, but I wouldn't ask him to install my transmission.
Just like you wouldn't ask me whether you should try chemo or radiation to treat cancer.
Can I assume Silverstein is Jewish? (Does that make me racist?)
If Hughes had signed an identical letter supporting the Islamic Azeris against the Christian Armenians, would Silverstein have forced her out? I somehow doubt he would have.
For the first time on such a scale, we are witnessing the birth of an ideology that seeks to locate itself in a conceptual space above traditional political and economic ideologies, an ideology whose chief identifying feature is that it originates in no particular intellectual process; it is an ideology free of ideas and ideals, but that produces precisely the same effect on our understanding of the world and our analysis of events as the most sophisticated political ideologies.
Our “good reasons” and our “just causes” are praised by the general public without critical examination, while at the same time their “bad reasons” and their “evil intentions” are indiscriminately condemned. Fear authorizes us to forgo all explanations, all understanding, all analysis that might allow us to understand the Other, his world, his hopes. In the new regimen of fear and suspicion, to understand the Other is to justify him; to seek out his reasons is to agree with him. A curious-and dangerous-reductionism that transforms reality into a series of discreet, disconnected facts, and the Other into a series of acts without cause, without history or historic depth, without reason and rationality. Emotion does not understand: it appreciates or condemns; an individual’s “feelings” determine the argument that proceeds from its judgements.
Israeli society is much richer that those that surround it, incomparably better armed than all the Arab countries combined, at the pinnacle of scientific and military technology, a true regional and international economic power; yet it saw itself-and sees itself-as a victim of the destructive intentions of its neighbors, or their age-old opposition, of “Palestinian terrorism,” or, in broader terms, of Muslim extremists. A regional power has become a “victim” of the Other’s “horror”, of his “madness”, of his “hatred,” of his “irrationality,” of his “murderous insanity,” of his “nihilism.” These are but a few of the terms utilized to justify a security policy that accepts-of necessity-violations of the principles of international law or of respect for the lives of civilians and of the innocent, that authorizes “moderate” recourse to torture and adopts distinctive and openly discriminatory legislation toward certain citizens still considered as too “Arab” or too committed as Christians or Muslims. The victim protects, and defends himself. Could anything be more normal? The first tragic consequence of the ideology of fear is to transform all societies and their members into victims.
To overcome the ideology of fear, to loosen the grip of the emotions, requires a demanding critical intelligence, and a sense of the ethics of debate, of receptivity.
From India, to Argentina; from South Africa to the Sahel, Europe and beyond, this is rapidly becoming the defining feature our global security discourse.
Hamas is no friend of the Palestinian people under its control
Palestinians are no friend of the Palestinian people around them. From birth they are all taught one thing: the hate-filled elimination of Israel/Jews, even at the expense of their own good and welfare.
Perhaps NYT management believes that their reporting staff neither votes nor has opinions. Or NYT management wants us to believe such a fiction.
THis is ridiculous. How many NYT's writers have signed Petitions or taken part in political protests and NOT have gotten fired? I bet a lot.
And lets leave aside the absurdity of the NYT's being objective and having journalistic standards.
I don't really care about this reporter resigning, I just object to the dishonesty. Either fire everyone who engages in Politics, or not. Either make it clear what is allowed, or let people do what they want. Have one rule and apply it to everyone.
I don't see why a reporter who engages in political stances OUTSIDE their area of reporting should be fired. And I'm getting more and more upset at the Cancel culture. We need to amend the Civil Rights act to protect people for their political beliefs. We protect sexuality. And we protect Religous beliefs. We should protect for political beliefs.
I would bet every dollar that this reporter could have marched against Trump, and posted about "Hey, I hope Trump rots in Jail for 10 years" and no one would have said anything. But she takes the wrong side in a foreign conflict and she's out.
There's no principle here. Just predjudice.
“So I can see how, if you DO go against Einstein, it can be said you're bringing down the neighborhood”
Einstein thought Stalin was a great man. And as a scientist, the interwar years produced dozens of men who were more accomplished.
That isn’t to take anything away from Einstein but the notion that just shouting his name puts you on the right side of an argument is childish.
“So I can see how, if you DO go against Einstein, it can be said you're bringing down the neighborhood”
Einstein thought Stalin was a great man. And as a scientist, the interwar years produced dozens of men who were more accomplished.
That isn’t to take anything away from Einstein but the notion that just shouting his name puts you on the right side of an argument is childish.
Yancey Ward said...
Can I assume Silverstein is Jewish? (Does that make me racist?)
If Hughes had signed an identical letter supporting the Islamic Azeris against the Christian Armenians, would Silverstein have forced her out? I somehow doubt he would have.
11/4/23, 10:30 AM
Would the Islamic Azeris post their attacks online and have the world's media trumpeting them and warning the Christians not to strike back? Would there be mass rallies held in cities around the world with crowds chanting "Kill the Christians!" at places like Times Square and the Sydney Opera House?
Imagine that Syrian terrorists attacked a concert for peace in Turkey and filmed themselves massacring unarmed Turkish civilians, or that Nigerian paramilitary troops stormed a border crossing with Chad and started livestreaming themselves killing people in Chadian neighborhoods, raping and kidnapping and exulting throughout their rampage, parading prisoners through the streets and beheading hostages. Do you think that there would be any rallies in support of this anywhere in the world? Do you think Amazon would be selling merch celebrating the slaughter, not two weeks after it happened? What would happen to people who, in those hypotheticals, publicly posted their delight and exhilaration at seeing Chadians or Turks getting shot, raped, beheaded, kidnapped and murdered? Would employers of those people brush it off, or would they react punitively? Can you think of even one other case where a terrorist attack was celebrated in cities around the world, or ballyhooed by American politicians?
It's the worldwide reaction to the attacks that is alarming and sickening.
Israeli society is much richer that those that surround it, incomparably better armed than all the Arab countries combined, at the pinnacle of scientific and military technology, a true regional and international economic power; yet it saw itself-and sees itself-as a victim of the destructive intentions of its neighbors
Because it is. And asymmetric warfare is part of the jihadist elementary school curriculum. Look what 20 jihadists pulled off on 9/11, without a single fighter jet or bomb.
And Israel, like all the other democracies and "democracies," attempts to abide by the modern norms of warfare that we all created for ourselves, which is fighting with one foot in a bucket and one hand behind its back - conditions it accepts because it is a modern Enlightenment nation, even though it's surrounded by nations with strong medievalist factions and moderates that don't quite ever get around to squelching those factions.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you think Israel doesn't "understand" the Palestinians, or the historical context for their grievances. I think they understand them perfectly well; they've come to the bargaining table again and again and been rebuffed every time, to the refrain of "from the river to the sea." You're Israel - what do you do with that? The only solution to the land problem is that your entire population... disappears somehow? And we'll just elide the "somehow" because we've seen how the jihadists want to accomplish it and it's pretty icky...
Israel exists. It took what it was given, in land and in aid and in forbearance in the immediate aftermath of WWII, and it made something remarkable. Millions of people, 20% of them not Jewish, live there in freedom and prosperity undreamt of by its neighbors. It's not going away, and it's good that it's not going away - at the very least, it serves as an example of what you can do with almost nothing in the line of natural resources but a whole lot of effective use of human capital.
Just to say it doesn't need to be "afraid" of its neighbors because it's richer and better armed does not take into account what its nearest neighbor is doing with every dollar (figuratively - I don't know what currency they receive stuff in) it's given, or the degree to which its nearest neighbor wants to see it utterly destroyed.
Rich, Rich, Rich. what a bunch of meaningless horseshiit. You must be a law student.
Another thing about this is that she and many other journalists and academics have called Israel's actions "genocidal." That is obiously meant to equate the goal of eliminating Hamas with the Nazi's goal of eliminating Jews. It is also moronic. She should have been fired for not having a grasp of the English language, as that should be a preriquisite for writing for the NYT.
Michael,
I don't disagree, only pointing out that Silverstein's action isn't based on any kind of principle- it was just that it was his own ox getting gored.
Turkey recalls envoy to Israel, 'writes off' Netanyahu
OK, how's this work: Bibi has to die for Jesus to come back, what?
Jamie:
And it has never mattered on his other most-posted subjects whether anything can reasonably be done about the grievance; getting people to acknowledge the grievance seems to be his goal.
Getting people to acknowledge and take into consideration how terribly the grievance affects him. He stated that explicitly yesterday.
Blogger Hubert the Infant said...
I wonder why American blacks are so anti-Israel, when (1) Israel is a multi-racial society, and (2) Arabs have a long and proud history of enslaving people of color. Further, unlike, say, white Progressives, blacks are not at the forefront of protests against China, Saudi Arabia, or other human rights abusers.
My dental hygienist, when I lived in California, was a black woman who grew up in Israel and whose parents still lived there. They were part of the rescued Ethiopian Jews taken to Israel when she was a small child. We had some interesting discussions about race. She was married to a white man and experienced "hate stares" from other black women when she was in public with him.
In order for a two state solution to be viable, both Hamas and Netanyahu have to go. Israel should cede the West Bank to the Palestinian people as a show of goodwill — nothing good comes from the settlements. Over 1.3m Palestinians live in Israel. If you think the land should be exclusively Palestinian, read one history book, please. If you think the land should be exclusively Israeli, read one history book, please.
Hubert-
When they start to redefine plain English words, it's time to disengage from the conversation and either back away or chamber a round.
If Israel had anything near genocidal intent, it would have been obvious decades ago. They have means, motive (in spades), and opportunity. They just are not wired that way, unlike their enemies.
They have redefined "racism"- now it means not recognizing inherent differences between the races.
Male and female no longer are defined by anatomy, but by feelings.
They have literally redefined "literally."
Further discussion is not possible with people who redefine language in the middle of the conversation. Back away before it's too late.
It's not about banning obnoxious politics, it's about the vicious and evil celebration of mass murder.
Yancey, I'm saying that it was principled. The principle of not employing genocide enthusiasts in your company. The open hatred and support for the murder of any peoples by so-called journalists is unprecedented. Is he supposed to take no action because this person has never openly celebrated the murder of Jews before, or hasn't yet called for the extermination of Christians, whites, or Mexicans? No other race gets this extermination rhetoric acted on and cheered on by millions around the world while millions more shrug and other millions see no problem except in a Jew's reaction to it.
Blogger Rich said...
In order for a two state solution to be viable, both Hamas and Netanyahu have to go. Israel should cede the West Bank to the Palestinian people as a show of goodwill — nothing good comes from the settlements.
I would strongly recommend history books for you "Rich." Bill Clinton strong armed the Israelis, not Netanyahu, to offer the best deal the Palestinians could ever hope for. Dennis Ross who was a negotiator said there were investors with billions ready to transform the Palestinian state. Instead, Arafat called for the second intifada.
Hughes isn't being punished for anything she said about the Gaza terror attack or for some anti White racist screed about littering. Hughes is being punished and now fired for breaking the 11th Commandment of state media operations. If you know, you know. If you know but don't say, then you can keep your NYTM gig.
When your boss is a jew you might not want to publicly root for the people who would like to kill him.
By this logic, the Times should refrain entirely from reporting on illegal immigration since they took that $250million bribe/loan from Carlos Slim, who literally made his billions off the backs of illegal immigrants sending cash back to Mexico. Slim is also, or was last time I checked, the Times' biggest shareholder.
I don't care for this particular writer's grubby, underhanded anti-white racism, but it's pretty cynical of the Times to single her out when their editorial staff spends half their time getting huge honoraria to appear at partisan conferences and conventions, and the entire paper sold its credibility regarding reporting on immigration to some sugar daddy billionaire in Mexico. Of course, they would say that those conferences are educational events.
I think every journalist should be linked to a site listing all the money they took in from speeches, etc. And from whom. And every petition they signed while employed. That seems far more transparent. Heck, the Times even reported on other papers being purchased or propped up by billionaires but failed to mention themselves and Carlos Slim anywhere in the article.
@ Michael K: Arafat could never get to yes, he was always asking for “just one more thing”....
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा