This past Wednesday, The New Yorker Union, a group representing the employees of the far left-wing magazine The New Yorker, issues a statement quoting a saying that is commonly used by the enemies of Israel by calling for the destruction of the state and the possible genocide of the Jewish people: “From the river to the sea.”
The New Yorker Union stated in a tweet: “Solidarity with Palestinians from the river to the sea who went on a 24-hour strike today for dignity and liberation.”
The New Yorker Union (@newyorkerunion) expresses “solidarity” with Palestinians by quoting a phrase—“from the river to the sea”—commonly understood as a war cry for Israel’s destruction. [They later deleted it with a mea culpa.] pic.twitter.com/u6L5MmgaA0
— John-Paul Pagano (@johnpaulpagano) May 19, 2021
Later on, The New Yorker Union issued a statement in apology, stating, “We stand in solidarity with the Palestinians who went on strike for dignity and rights. We’ve removed our original post, which used a phrase with connotations that distracted from our intended message of solidarity. Solidarity is important—and so is accountability. We apologize.”
Solidarity is important—and so is accountability. We apologize.
— The New Yorker Union (@newyorkerunion) May 19, 2021
However, both the original tweet and the follow-up apology tweet with a display of “accountability” only seemed to cause an even stronger backlash from critics.
“The New Yorker Union deleted its call for war and genocide and replaced it with a statement of solidarity with those pursuing war and genocide. Important distinction,” stated Noah Pollack, the executive director of the Alliance Initiative.
The New Yorker Union deleted its call for war and genocide and replaced it with a statement of solidarity with those pursuing war and genocide. Important distinction. https://t.co/fnPYSVCdba
— Noah Pollak (@NoahPollak) May 20, 2021
Another critic, National Review’s David Harsanyi, chimed in with his tweet stating: “Oh, the slogan about pushing the Jews into the sea distracted from your solidarity message?”
Oh, the slogan about pushing the Jews into the sea distracted from your solidarity message? https://t.co/q4yglDqsSy
— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) May 19, 2021
The New Yorker magazine itself has previously shown its anti-Israel bias once before. Back in 2018, it allowed the running of a headline that stated “Israel Kills Dozens of Unarmed Protesters in Gaza as Jared Kushner Speaks of Peace, in Jerusalem.”
The outlet CAMERA chimed in, “As the article itself notes, however, the IDF stated that ‘the rioters are hurling firebombs and explosive devices at the security fence and at IDF troops and are burning tires, throwing rocks and launching flaming objects with the intention of igniting fires in Israeli territory and harming IDF troops.'”
“While many other of the ‘protestors’ may have been unarmed, it’s unclear how the New Yorker knows whether those killed were armed or unarmed,” CAMERA continued on saying. “The IDF follows rules of engagement and does not fire indiscriminately. It seems far more likely, then, that of the tens of thousands of protestors/rioters/those trying to breach the fence, most of the approximately 60 who were killed were the ones who were armed.”.
Back in February, CAMERA stated that The New Yorker magazine had written an article about the anti-Israel group B’Tselem. CAMERA wrote:
Masha Gessen’s piece in the New Yorker is essentially an uncritical summary of B’Tselem’s report, which is titled, “A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid.” …
Gessen uncritically quotes B’Tselem Executive Director Hagai El-Ad saying, on a zoom call, “the international community has … silently communicated that permanent subjugation of Palestinians was O.K. as long as it wasn’t spelled out in law …. The discourse has been untethered from reality, and this undermines the possibility of change.” But it is El-Ad and Gessen who are untethered from reality – Israel has offered Palestinians their independence in 2000, 2001, and 2008. It is the Palestinians that rejected those opportunities, and who walked away from negotiations again in 2014.
Gessen also ignores the intifadas and numerous terror attacks that necessitate some of the security measures about which Gessen and B’Tselem complain.