Adam L. Silverman, PhD*
The Washington Post's Ombudsman, in an email exchange with a reader (that the ombudsman has not denied, just refused to comment on), seems to pretty clearly indicate that a clear double standard was in play. If Ms. Rubin had retweeted remarks that had made the same or similar assertions about Jews and/or Israelis, or called for them to killed, then it was quite possible that Ms. Rubin would have been fired. This has led to a number of interesting remarks, from, among others Glenn Greenwald, Dr. Farley at LGM (who gets the hat tip as I saw it there first), and from the King of Snark Tbogg (which is where Farley seems to have found it).
What I find the most interesting about all of this is both the double standard (not that it surprises me that it exists), but that it seems to always be applied to analysts, pundits, commentators, and in some cases elected and appointed officials (often who seem to revolve between being analysts, pundits, and appointed officials) that not only seem to have a consistent track record of being wrong about what they are remarking on, but also get the shield portion of the double standard: they are never hurt by the remarks. It does not seem to matter how wrong they are, how ill informed, how bigoted, they just seem to continuously be rewarded with another fellowship or think tank gig or staff position or column or tv or radio slot. I think that of all the things that future generations, whether of Americans or of other nationalities, conclude about us is that we have willingly become ignorant. Not only would the founders and framers be dismayed by this, but many of the subsequent generations of Americans - elite, notable, or not, as well.
* Adam L. Silverman, PhD is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.