‘NYT’ portrays pro-Palestinian activists as ‘strident’ and ‘orthodox’ in article on campus debate

The New York Times ran a long article about the campus debate over Israel that highlighted Zoom’s cancellation of talks by Leila Khaled, because she had participated in two hijackings 50 years ago. Titled, “What Zoom Does to Campus Conflicts Over Israel and Free Speech,” the article placed Palestinian activism outside the normal range of political activism on campus, portraying supporters as leftwing crazies who are opposed by rightwingers– and watch out for the antisemitism!

The article fits into the larger NYT narrative of the Israel/Palestine discourse: People aren’t motivated by oppression or apartheid, it’s a conflict between two equal sides over there.

Reporter John Leland asserted that point of view with a key quote from historian and Columbia journalism prof Todd Gitlin, saying it’s all about political correctness.

“An odd thing has happened on campus…. Hatred of Israel became a bellwether for the orthodox left.” While other nations get less criticism for civil rights abuses, Mr. Gitlin said, “Israel is the demon of demons.”

No doubt, the demand that Israel respect Palestinian human rights has become a litmus test on the left; and the “Jewish democracy” is a demon. But can we talk about why? People are angry about apartheid supported by the U.S. government. This article presents Israeli crimes in an abstract and not visceral way, and treats the harsher claims against Israel as subjective, as if there’s something unhinged about these views. Nerdeen Kiswani at CUNY law school is “a prominent activist who has used strident rhetoric condemning Israel.”

Strident? The New York Times leaves out the fact that a leading Israeli human rights group on January 12 declared Israel to be an “apartheid regime” from river to sea. And the fact that Columbia students affirmed that it was “apartheid” by nearly two-to-one last fall. That is what is motivating people who care about human rights: state persecution on an ethno-religious basis.

No doubt, Israel is singled out. But this is in large part because Israel is showered with praise and benefits by American leaders, from Joe Biden to Andrew Yang; and the Times never talks about that context. People who adopt Gitlin’s view take the orthodox political support and praise for granted— only the orthodox criticism has to be discussed.

Also, notice how everything revolves around Palestinian terror. The article begins by stating that Khaled belonged to an organization on the State Department terror list. It is taken as a fact that Palestinian terrorism occurred, which is true. But when it comes to Israeli apartheid and Israeli cruelty, these are merely a set of charges leveled by “strident” critics.  No mention of Israeli state terror at all.  

The Times repeatedly raises the antisemitism charge. After the Columbia students voted to recommend that the university divest from companies serving Israeli apartheid, the Times notes:

A week later a swastika appeared outside the central library — the fourth appearance of swastikas on campus in 2020. 

Once again the Israel apartheid supporters parade around as victims who get to accuse others of antisemitism and absolutely nowhere at any point in the piece does anyone say that maybe these Israel supporters are the bigots here.

h/t Scott Roth and Donald Johnson.