media white wash of leftist anti-semetism

Whitewashing Leftist and Islamist Jew-hatred
Two professors take to the New York Times to blur the connection between
DEI and the Left's response to Oct.7th. Take note: When a criminal's
identity is omitted, it usually means that we are talking about a Muslim
or an African American perpetrator. Opinion.
Prof.Phyllis Chesler
  Dec 6, 2024, 8:00 AM (GMT+2)
The New York Times
Prof. Phyllis Chesler

    2 minutes

Prof. Phyllis Chesler
Prof. Phyllis CheslerJoan Roth

These days, when one ponders misogyny and antisemitism, one’s mind
should almost immediately turn to Hamas’s “genocidal” and sadistic
rapes, kidnappings, and murders of Israeli women on 10/7. Of Israeli
men, too.

But let’s be clear. Hamas is a Muslim, Islamist, terrorist group funded
by Iran, Qatar, and major Western philanthropists, and covered for by
both the Western intelligentsia and the Western media.

As for the media: Consider the op-ed published in the New York Times on
Dec. 2. It’s written by two professors, Natalia Mehlman Petrzela and
Rachel Schreiber, both of whom teach at the New School. Remember it’s
the school that had the first faculty led anti-Israel/pro Hamas
encampment in Manhattan. The piece is titled “Misogyny and Antisemitism
Are a Toxic Brew.” Good title, important subject, but guess what?

Is Hamas or Iran correctly identified, targeted, focused upon?
Absolutely not.

The co-authors do note, but only in passing, that “antisemitism and
misogyny can be found across the political spectrum” but do not name or
describe any alleged wrong-doers among Democrats, on the American Left,
or in the Muslim world.

Instead, they specifically, and rather shockingly, name President-elect
Trump. “The problem is rampant on the right, as conservatives platform a
Hitler apologist and lionize Donald Trump, a man who has been found
liable for sexual abuse and scapegoated Jews in anticipation of a
possible loss.”

First of all, “conservatives” didn’t platform a Hitler apologist, Tucker
Carlson (inexcusably) did. Last time I looked, Carlson was banished from
the most widely watched conservative cable news channel, Fox.

Secondly, are the Times authors saying that Trump sexually abused Jewish
women? Because they were Jews? Did his Orthodox Jewish daughter have
anything to say about this? Or are they mixing it all up due to the lack
of corroborating evidence and joining Trump’s alleged abuse of
non-Jewish women with statements he made about the Jewish vote? Utterly
incoherent.

Petrzela and Schreiber also describe a rapist in Texas “who put on
Christmas music and raped (a woman) after she disclosed she was Jewish.”

One is meant to assume that the Texas rapist is a Christian.

This is all passing strange. Here’s why.

These co-authors begin their piece this way: “Zio bitch! A young man in
a kaffieyeh and Black Lives Matter T-shirt barked at one of us.”

We are not told the young man’s name, skin-color, or religion. When
something is omitted, it usually means that we are talking about a
Muslim or an African American perpetrator. Courtesy of DEI, even if this
might be an accurate description — it will still be perceived as a
racist or “Islamophobic” statement. One will be fired, cancelled,
ostracized.

Thus, consider the gang-rape of the 12 year-old girl in France, which
the op-ed mentions. Everyone in France knows that the French media and
the French police do not mention race, skin-color, ethnicity, or country
of origin in criminal matters. It was the Jewish community which
informed the public that the girl was a Jew, and that the young rapists
“used antisemitic slurs while they violated her.” Does anyone believe
that White, Catholic Crusaders or white Nazis did this?

Please recall, that the mobs on the “Jew hunt” in Amsterdam were mainly
Muslims whose country of origin was Morocco. One is not allowed to write
this — and frankly, since so many Caucasian Dutch soon supported the
“Jew hunt,” perhaps it matters a bit less.

The silence of feminists globally after 10/7 is something I know a bit
about. The co-authors mention it as well as the “hostility” towards
anyone who tried to break this silence. But what’s this point doing
here? Being de-platformed is not the same as being raped, is it? Are the
feminist censors rapists, or at least rape-collaborators? If so, why not
say so?

Petrzela and Schreiber mention pornography, pogroms, and Jews, and quote
Jean Paul Sartre and Andrea Dworkin who both refer to 20th century
matters. What the Hamas terrorists did on 10/7, in the 21st century was,
in part, influenced by pornography but they also took it a step further,
by video-ing it, proudly sending their crimes to their victims’
families, and turning it loose on the internet.

Finally, the co-authors point out how “intersectionalists” have sought
to redress all forms of bias — except that of antisemitism. White,
Jewish women, in particular, are “soft targets,” and remain unprotected
by academic DEI feminists. The co-authors are right. But they fail to
connect this with the silence of feminists on 10/7. Or to place the
silence in the larger context of Islamist/left-wing Jew-hatred.

I wonder how heavily edited this piece was — or whether the co-authors
themselves are proud of it just as it is.

Phyllis Chesler is an emerita professor of psychology at the City
University of New York and the author of 20 books, including Women and
Madness, The New Antisemitism, and An American Bride in Kabul. She
co-founded the Association for Women in Psychology, the National Women’s
Health Network, and the Jerusalem-based Original Women of the Wall. She
has conducted four studies about honor killing and also published Divrei
Torah.

Reposted from writer's substack, also appeared in the Spectator