Baloney, Yonah. as a veteran of more marches than I can count, the use of face coverings is one of three things: (1) the protester is young and stupid and wants to look "cool.". that, however, is the very rare exception. (2) people who do not want to be photographed because they feel retaliation by the authorities merely for expressing their views. And in this day of facial recognition software, this is becoming more and more important. that is rare but becoming more numerous. (3) The third, and most numerous, of course, are people who are experienced and who expect to be hit with teargas. This is such a common occurrence at Palestinian protests, & given the barbaric overreliance one such weapons by the Israelis, that I would be surprised that any one marching in protest to anything Israeli government does isn't wearing some face cover.
"This is another in a series of incidents where you impute motives to me that aren’t there, I clarify for you what I meant, and you continue to tell me I meant something else."
I am doing no such thing. I am saying that your initial answer was evasive and promoted by inference a false conclusion, because you're trying to narrow things beyond reason, rather than addressing the larger point, because you think it benefits your side.
"What side did Jodi Rudoren take on the conflict before she went to cover it? "
Well, if Jeffrey Goldberg will vouch for her, then I'd say she wasn't a neutral person. (And being a Hebrew speaker, how can she expect to understand the other side first hand?)
"It’s largely because they’re Jewish that the pro-Palestinian movement doesn’t like them. "
No, as Alison's great article demonstrates, it's because they've only been Jews and bureaus chiefs for the past few decades, because the coverage is pro-Israeli and because, after the fact, they admit that they tilted the reporting as much.
"Weir wrote this before Rudoren wrote a word of reportage."
Yes, and she wrote the article to decry the fact that the pattern appeared to be continuing, and with the hopes (since dashed, I believe) that Rudoren would be different.
"She didn’t bother to mention that Sontag was one of the first American writers to challenge the Israeli narrative regarding the collapse of peace talks in 2000."
Not specifically, no. But she did reference Sontag's work, very fairly, I thought, "It’s interesting to note that the Times’ only other female Jerusalem bureau chief, Deborah Sontag, often provided exemplary coverage; her term seems to have ended early."
"Would you accept this for any other group?"
Define "this"... because if you're saying, "would I accept a decades-long string of assignments that take one side of a conflict" then no, I wouldn't, but you don't seem to care, because you don't want to look at the actual results of what these people are doing.
"Would you argue that African-Americans shouldn’t be assigned to cover inner-city neighborhoods? Would you argue that Arab reporters shouldn’t cover Egypt?"
Neither of these are relevant in any way. I think that these beats should be assigned without regard for the background of the people. But I also would not stick my head in the sand and pretend that if people from the same exact background are, again and again and again assigned to a position, without fail, for decades, that there is no connection between the two. Especially when it is the site of an ethno-religious conflict and that unbroken string of bureau chiefs belongs to one of the ethno-religious blocks.
"I believe the email asked them to contribute to the party."
Your belief is wrong. While he mentions the party, he discusses the individuals at length and notes that they've asked Millstein to reach out and ask for contributions "necessary for their campaign fund."
"For me it is."
Because you're clearly wrong and have an inability to simply admit it and move on.
"I’d have the same response if these were BDS activists and the shoe was on the other foot."
Your history here demonstrates otherwise.
"Administrative convenience? What’s more convenience than giving directly?"
Giving directly means that they would have to reveal personal address information (or they would have to rent a PO Box). Whereas if they have the money sent to Hillel, that does not become an issue. Thus, more convenient.
"I don’t think anyone made that suggestion."
Actually, I think that's a fair way to describe what you're positing that Millstein did here.
"You’ll believe anything he says, no matter how shoddily he puts it together."
LMAO. No. I had no opinion on the matter until I actually read the emails for myself. Alex was scrupulously fair in his reporting.
"OK. In a court of law, the accuser has to produce the original, not the accused."
LMAO. And under the Best Evidence Rule in the common law system, the party claiming a document is fake has the burden to produce evidence to substantiate that claim.
"I think it’s far more disturbing that the BDS movement is trying to censor pro-Israel voices on campus, and makes little secret of it."
Well, since we have all these traitors running around trying to get our public schools to swear allegiance to an alien state, who can blame them??
"Same goes for a donation to a 501(c)(4), which I think is the closest analogy here."
You're crazy. The email said, in essence, send these two money, they need it immediate for their campaign fund.
"Did Alex call Milstein back and confront him with this allegation that he gave Hillel money to avoid giving it directly, like, you know, journalists are supposed to do? "
Pathetic. This isn't about Alex's journalism, it's about the fact that Aved and Millstein appear to be absolute flat-out liars, but because they're pro-Israel Jews, you're defending them, regardless of the facts.
"And if there’s absolutely no bar on his giving the money direct to the party, why would he bother going through Hillel in the first place?"
There could be many reasons, including administrative convenience. But the point is, that the emails simply belie the suggestion that this was some innocent email to donate to Hillel.
"before he makes accusations that he can’t sustain."
LMAO. Oh, he fully sustained these.
"Milstein alleged the email might have been doctored with.'
Then he can produce what he is claiming is the originals. Absent that, I will conclude the alleged doctorer was the "real killer" OJ's been looking for all these years.
"In any event, it should disturb you just a bit that someone made this story by leaking private emails."
I think that an organized campaign to make a public university in the USA have "allegiance to Israel" is much, much more disturbing.
"Which is Bruins United, the party they asked Milstein to support."
No, actually "their cause" was identified in the email as the fact that Oved and Baral were "campaigning to be elected to the student senate." But more to the point, Millstein's not asking them to give to Hillel, he's asking them to give to Oved and Baral, or as Bruins United, (which Millstein lied and said he didn't donate to).
So either way, you were absolutely wrong in claiming that Millstein was only making a request for people to give to Hillel. Further, given the blatentness of the emails, I wonder whether you even bothered to read them, or whether you simply looked to see what Oved and Millstein said about them and them repeated them as gospel.
"I know you think using the term 'money laundering' is ok here, but it really is not. Money laundering is a legal term."
Given Hillel's role in this sordid affair, the euphamism "money laundering" might be legally off, but it is morally and ethically correct.