Monday, June 8, 2009

Censored, Again, by The New York Times: Is Obama Above Criticism?

Notwithstanding The New York Times' purported policy that online comments to op-eds "are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive", the comment I submitted to Roger Cohen's June 7, 2009 op-ed, "Ask Not for a Great Line", was censored by The Times. Judge for yourself whether or not this comment, albeit critical, was on-topic and not abusive:

And a fawning member of the priestly order of Cohens would have thee know that a new American Idol hath been born, but he be a False Messiah. Or in more mundane words, Roger's right: Obama is indeed a marvelous orator, but the speech in Cairo consisted of half-truths.

No mention by Obama of the 30 million Kurds seeking independence: this would have outraged the Turks, the Syrians, the Iranians and Iraq's "Sunni elite".

No mention by Obama of the Nazi-like persection of Iran's Baha'i: this would have infuriated Iran's Shiite mullahs, who consider the Baha'is apostates. Apostacy, according to pending Iranian legislation, will be punishable by death.

The "intolerable" situation of the Palestinians? No willingness to acknowledge that their situation came about after Arafat rejected Ehud Barak's 2000 Camp David proposal to return to the '67 borders in exchange for peace. And certainly no willingness to observe that their situation was precipitated by daily suicide bombings aimed at Israeli civilians, which resulted in a new border fence, and by incessant rocket and mortar attacks aimed at Israeli civilians, which spawned Operation Cast Lead.

You recall Obama's obeisance to Saudi King Abdullah in London? Well, in Cairo Obama figuratively bowed a second time by lending credence to Abdullah's claim that "a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict would be the 'magic key' to all issues in the region." http:/in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-40143320090607

What Obama didn't tell you is that most wars in this region have absolutely nothing at all to do with Israel. To name just a few in no particular order: The North Yemen Civil War (1962-1970, pitting Egypt against Saudi Arabia); The Libyan-Egyptian War (1977); The Sand War (1963-1964, Morocco against Algeria); Algeria-Morocco border clash (1967); The Polisario War for Independence (1975-1991); The Algerian War Against Islamic Terrorism (1992-1999); The Libyan invasions of Chad (1979 and again in 1981); The Libyan-Sudanese Conflict (1972-1976); The Yemen Civil War (1994); The Hanish Islands Conflict (1995); The Sa'dah Insurgency (2004-2008); The First Gulf War (1990-1991); The Turkish-Syrian Border Incidents (1957); The Syria-Jordan War (1970); The Lebanese Civil War (1975-1991); The Iraq-Iran War (1980-1988); The Dhofar Revolution (1962-1975); The Kurdish Revolts in Iraq (1974, 1983-1988 and 1991); The Shiite Revolt in Iraq (1991); The Baharaini-Qatari Wars (1978, 1982, 1986, 1991); Franco-Tunisian Border Clashes (1957-1962); Muslim Brotherhood Insurrections in Syria (1980 in Aleppo and 1982 in Hamah); Black September (1970-1971 between Jordan and the PLO); Gazan Civil War (2006-2007 between Hamas and Fatah).

Worst of all, Obama, with the able assistance of James Jones, now even has the Israeli peace camp running scared in the knowledge that Israel might soon join the Reverend Wright and Barack's grandma "under the bus", and that's no way to treat a stalwart ally.

Why is Cohen rapturous over a masterpiece of obfuscation, not even written by Obama? Yes, Obama is photogenic and reads well from teleprompters placed on his left and his right, much like television anchorpersons, but is this all it takes to transport Roger into ecstacy? Roger would have us know that this speech "furthered the strategy of an American rapprochement with Islam to isolate 'extremists' (terrorists no longer)." But what about the simple truth? Does it no longer matter?

[The New York Times published on June 8, 2009 an op-ed by Andre Aciman, entitled "The Exodus Obama Forgot to Mention" (www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/opinion/09aciman.html?ref=option). Mr. Aciman's op-ed notes that 800,000 Jews were forced to flee their Middle East homes and abandon all their property in the 20th century, but Obama failed to mention this calamity in his Cairo speech.]

2 comments:

  1. Though it was not your intent, the first line comparing Roger Cohen to an ancient Hebrew priesthood could be perceived easily as ridicule. Ridicule is against the rules if it is felt to be abusive I think. It could be seen as abusive to the ancient Hebrews to compare Roger to their membership. And by extension, Jew could feel offended.

    ReplyDelete