It is a truism that precision in language has declined in the age of the Internet. Nowhere is this more evident than in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Phrases like “pro-Palestinian advocacy” and “anti-Palestinian racism” have become devoid of meaning. They are increasingly being used in the media, educational, and advocacy worlds to describe speech and conduct that have little, if anything, to do with the plain meaning of the words.
Some use the phrase “pro-Palestinian advocacy” to describe speech denigrating the Jewish people. Or they use the same phrase to whitewash unlawful conduct – such as trespassing, vandalism, or assault and battery.
Provided below are three recent examples of this growing pattern. The future is sure to bring ever more examples of such deceptive language.
- Rupa Marya at Stanford University
A May 15 Stanford Daily article about hunger-striking students reveals that Stanford faculty member Rupa Marya announced that the university intends to fire her. According to the article, Marya claimed “that her firing was a ‘sham’ being used across the country to silence pro-Palestinian advocacy.” She continued: “If standing in opposition to genocide…is a violation of our faculty code of conduct, then that code of conduct must be rewritten.”
What is Marya’s idea of “pro-Palestinian advocacy”? One example: going to social media to “question” whether a first-year medical student “participated in genocide” purely on account of the student’s nationality. She has also publicly called for the vast majority of Jews to be excluded from medical schools, posting on social media: “the presence of Zionism in US medicine should be examined as a structural impediment to health equity. Zionism is a supremacist, racist ideology and we see Zionist doctors justifying the genocide of Palestinians.”
Rupa Marya, who is regularly engaged in deceitful anti-#Israel propaganda, is now harassing and potentially inciting against a first year medical student at @UCSF based on their #Israel|i national origin. pic.twitter.com/CBBY6nB4d3
— Israel in San Francisco (@IsraelinSF) September 21, 2024
Marya is known for promoting outlandish and false claims that discredit academia. For example, she has claimed that “colonialism” and “Jewish supremacy” cause “inflammation.” On her personal blog, she also repeats easily debunkable lies against Israel, such as the claim that “The Lancet…placed the toll of the violence in Gaza…at just over 180,000 people” and the claim that the “International Court of Justice has affirmed there is a plausible case of Israel committing genocide in Gaza.” Of course, the Lancet claimed no such thing, and in any event, that claim has been repeatedly discredited. Furthermore, the presiding president of the International Court of Justice has herself debunked the “plausible case” of “genocide” libel. Students at Stanford deserve better.
- The Hill and New York University’s Commencement Speech
Mark Pinsky’s May 18 screed in The Hill is riddled with unsupported claims, strawman arguments, and righteous indignation. One example: a false claim that New York University withheld the diploma of a student commencement speaker “for denouncing ‘atrocities currently happening in Palestine.’”
In fact, Logan Rozas was not punished for what he said, but rather because he “lied about the speech he was going to deliver and violated the commitment he made to comply with our rules.” Rozas broke viewpoint-neutral university rules. The merits of his incidental opinions have no bearing on the legitimacy of the university imposing consequences over his conduct.
Pinsky appears to believe that freedom of speech operates as a “get out of jail free” card even where the issue is a person’s conduct. As the Supreme Court has explained: “[T]he First Amendment does not prevent restrictions directed at commerce or conduct from imposing incidental burdens on speech. That is why…‘an ordinance against outdoor fires’ might forbid ‘burning a flag’…”
- Arsenal F.C. and “Solidarity” with Palestinians
A May 16 article in The Telegraph tells the story of Mark Bonnick, a former academy kit manager for the soccer/football team Arsenal F.C, who has a strange view of what it means to express “solidarity with Palestine.”
In December 2023, Bonnick was fired by Arsenal. He claims he was “unfairly dismissed for expressing solidarity with Palestine in social media posts” and “for expressing grief and outrage over genocide.” He insists that Arsenal has a problem with “anti-Palestinian racism.”
So how did Bonnick express his solidarity? Mainly by posting about “Jewish supremacy.”
In one post, Bonnick wrote: “It is all about Jewish supremacy and not wanting to share the land.” In another, he wrote: “Hamas offered to release all hostages in October. Zionist Israel refused. Persecution complex.”
It thus seems that Bonnick believes that antisemitism is somehow intrinsic to the Palestinian cause. After all, his version of expressing solidarity with Palestinians is repeating antisemitic tropes. Ironically, this would run afoul of at least one prominent definition of “anti-Palestinian racism,” which includes “defaming Palestinians and their allies with slander such as being inherently antisemitic.”