Twitter

@SaulStaniforth @gathara @ori_goldberg It's unbelievable that a whole society or most of it is so rotten...

@SaulStaniforth @ori_goldberg Zionists went there specifically to do this, already they are spinning it as anti-Jewish like pogrom even sending special flights to 'rescue' them, it is propaganda, an attempt to stir up antimuslim hatred something Wilders is all too familiar with, Zionism in Europe!

@SaulStaniforth @ori_goldberg How is displacing Palestinians (amongst committing other atrocities) fighting any fight for Europe? If anything it MORE likely to bring Palestinians (and other foreign nationals who feel threatened) to Europe!

I'd argue that today's media coverage of the Amsterdam situation is one of the most transparent and easily refutable cases of false reporting i've ever seen. It took the full force of the internet to get major networks to start reporting it even remotely correctly. Disturbing.

Ook @EenVandaag misbruikt de beelden van @iAnnetnl. Pijnlijke misser.

Ik krijg steeds meer links naar nieuwsplatforms toegestuurd van mensen die mijn video voor Centraal Station uit context plaatsten. Zelfs EenVandaag, die ik hoog heb zitten. @EenVandaag Gelukkig zijn daar RTL, Parool, LBC, New York Times, Channel 5 die mij benaderde om mijn

The violence in Amsterdam last night has been widely described as a pogrom against Jews. This is not only misleading but politically dangerous. A thread.

As a scholar of pogroms, I have been struck by the way the word 'pogrom' has been used over the last year to describe Jewish experiences in the here and now.

In the immediate aftermath of October 7th, there was a 900% increase in search volume for the word ‘pogrom’. In the last 24h, a 650% increase.

The word 'pogrom' evokes histories that are etched in Jewish collective memory. Clearly, many are reaching for it as a way to make sense of recent events. But it is wrong and misleading.

The word pogrom, derived from the Russian verb gromit – to plunder, destroy – passed into common usage in the English language in the early 20th century as news spread of atrocities carried out against Jews in Imperial Russia.

The pogroms were violent acts by sections of the majority population against a racialised minority lacking in rights or state protection. The intention was to keep that minority 'in their place'.

In the Civil War of 1917-1921, more than 100,000 Jews were murdered in what was then the most ferocious wave of antisemitic violence in modern Jewish history. https://t.co/spYKmJHGQ0

There is a wealth of scholarship on pogroms. What are the prevailing definitions? For historian Hans Rogger, pogroms occur in a context in which the mechanisms of long-term structural exploitation of a minority population begin to be relaxed or challenged.

For David Engel, pogroms involve "collective violent applications of force by members of what perpetrators believed to be a higher-ranking ethnic or religious group against members of what they considered a lower-ranking or subaltern group”

Describing the violence in Amsterdam last night as a pogrom is wrongheaded for four reasons. First, from the footage I have seen, Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were attacked not as Jews but as Israelis. The word pogrom, then, is doing the work of conflating antisemitism and anti-Zionism.

Third, describing the violence of last night as a pogrom encourages us to ignore the vast difference between the status of Jews in Europe a century ago and their place in Israel today where they constitute the majority in a state boasting one of the world’s most formidable armies

The analogy of the pogrom leads us to imagine a world populated in perpetuity by beleaguered Jews and their powerful enemies. The reality today is different, as Israel’s devastating war on Gaza shows, a war described by respected scholars of the Holocaust as a genocide.

The word 'pogrom' is not only ill-suited to the task of explaining last night, it does a disservice to Jewish history and prevents us from comprehending the multiple atrocities being carried out in the here and now.

Yeah!

The orchestrated advertiser boycott against X and popular podcasts must end immediately. Conspiracy in restraint of trade is a prosecutable crime.

@pmarca This is an anti capitalist take. Advertisers should be free to advertise wherever they want! If they disagree with the politics or don’t like the owners of x or podcasts - they don’t have to give them their hard earned dollar! Anything else is not a free market

@3YearLetterman @pmarca How does a company deciding where to spend its ad revenue violate that amendment?

@pmarca It is literally a first amendment violation for a corporation to refuse to advertise on a platform

@3YearLetterman Is it constitutionally mandatory in America to advertise at X? In most other countries businesses have a free choice whether to advertise or not and where.

@3YearLetterman @pmarca No it isn’t. It’s only a choice not to do business with that platform. It’s a free market. They are not suppressing speech.

@3YearLetterman @pmarca Yeah. You don't understand the first amendment or anything it does. Happy to help educate you if you care

@pmarca Boycotts are protected speech.

@pmarca If advertisers were smart they'd be coming here in drives because this is where the smartest people are at. Then X would be able to have even higher payouts for its creators

@pmarca If Elon Musk hadn't have bought Twitter, it was a very bleak future for freedom of speech