Pushed for examples of things he might consider in weighing whether to deny or revoke a student’s visa, Mr. Armstrong testified that calls for limiting military aid to Israel or “denouncing Zionism” could all factor in his agency’s decisions.“In your view, a statement criticizing Israel’s actions in Gaza could be covered depending on the statement, right?” asked Alexandra Conlon, a lawyer representing the organizations behind the lawsuit.“Yes, depending on the statement, it could definitely,” he said. “You say that they’re worse than Hitler with what they’re doing in Gaza? — that would be a statement that, I think, would lead in that direction that you seem to be going, counselor.”Earlier in his testimony, Mr. Armstrong stressed repeatedly that he and his colleagues consider “the totality of the situation,” especially when making a recommendation to the secretary of state.
At one point, Judge William G. Young, who is presiding over the trial, intervened to ask for clarity about how Mr. Armstrong himself determined whether certain statements or actions were antisemitic.“In my opinion, antisemitism is unjustified views, biases or prejudices or actions against Jewish people — or Israel — that are the result of hatred towards them,” he said.Mr. Armstrong did not say that his office had endeavored to deport noncitizens based on criticism of Israel alone. But he indicated that the office regularly took into account commentary that the groups behind the lawsuit have argued is protected by the First Amendment.“In other words, in your understanding, antisemitism includes hatred or prejudice against Israel and Israeli people, right?” Ms. Conlon asked.“Yes,” he replied.“In my understanding, antisemites will sometimes try to hide their views and say they’re not against Jews — they’re just against Israel — which is a farcical argument, in my mind,” he added. “It’s just a dodge.”
Not one example he gave, or definition he offered, says that normal "criticism of Israel" is a factor. He uses hate, prejudice and comparison with Nazis as his criteria.
That's not the only problem with the article.
It implies, as fact, that non-citizens are protected by the First Amendment for deportation issues. This is not true, and is disputed by legal scholars; the Supreme Court has not ruled on this. And the New York Times reported on this in detail in March.
Also, while Mr. Armstrong could not recall any State Department guidance on what antisemitism is, in fact it adopted the IHRA Working Definition in 2016 - which is entirely consistent with what he was saying, and which explicitly says that criticism of Israel that is similar to criticism of any other state is not antisemitism, the exact opposite of the impression that the article seeks to give the reader. (In fact, the State Department adopted a definition with identical language in 2010 before IHRA.)
The article misrepresents the State Department as having an incoherent and undefined policy towards antisemitism, when in fact it has a clearly stated policy.
While the article does not directly violate the New York Times existing ethical standards, these problems indicate that perhaps we should ask more from journalists than to do the bare minimum that still allows articles to be so blatantly biased.
|
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
 |
Buy