Roger Cohen's "Modern Folly, Ancient Wisdom"

After a comment that I recently submitted in response to a Maureen Dowd op-ed was not posted by the NYT's "moderators" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-york-times-removes-anti-semitic.html and http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/06/maureen-dowds-their-dangerous-swagger.html), I was told by a senior editor of the Times that although he would have posted this comment, it "reads to me more like an insult than anything else," and further stated:

"By the way, I deeply resent your casual use of the word censored. If we do not post a comment we are not committing censorship. A newspaper chooses every day what to print and what not to print. It is not censorship by any definition I have ever seen. We do not pretend or intend to publish every comment we get on any article we get on every article we publish.

* * * *

But I return to my earlier point, which is that we have never said that we were giving our readers unrestricted access to our website. Quite the contrary."

My response in relevant part:

"Obviously, if the policy of the Times is to pick and choose freely according to the whim of your 'moderators', I agree: this is not censorship. If you state that comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, yet your 'moderators' do not abide by this policy and are prone - at least from what I have seen - to reject dissenting opinion, I believe this is indeed a form of censorship, but I have no problem calling this 'rejection'."

"Censorship" or "rejection"? Honestly, I couldn't care less. However, whereas the senior editor "resented" my use of the word "censor", I am deeply offended by the ongoing posting of anti-Semitic comments, purportedly "moderated", in response to New York Times editorials, op-eds and articles (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/06/if-you-were-revolted-by-helen-thomas.html ).

Moreover, I am distressed by that fact that the Times editorial pages have completely ignored the recent outburst of anti-Semitism from Helen Thomas. Although the pundits of the Times are quick to jump on anything of this kind directly at other minorities, for whatever reason there has been a deafening silence from the Times concerning Thomas.

In an op-ed in today's online Times entitled "Modern Folly, Ancient Wisdom" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/opinion/11iht-edcohen.html?hp), Roger Cohen takes the position that the real threat Israel faces today is not destruction but de-legitimization. My comment in response to Cohen's op-ed, if the Times "moderators" deign to post it:

Cohen writes, "Several factors have nudged the country rightward: religious-settler extremism; obliviousness to the Palestinian plight now concealed behind walls; Russian-imported strands of Arab-baiting intolerance." Absent from Cohen's list are suicide bombings that have claimed the lives of some 1,000 Israeli civilians; more than 10,000 mortar rockets, missiles and mortar shells fired at civilian targets by Hamas in recent years; and some 40,000 missiles, including highly accurate M-600s, sent to Hezbollah by Iran and Syria subsequent to 2006 and aimed at Israel's cities.

Cohen further states, "What Israel in turn must realize — before it is too late — is that the real threat it faces today is not one of destruction but of de-legitimization." Here, Cohen again ignores the missile threat from Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, posing an existential threat to Israel greater than that which existed in 1967 or 1973, and the calls for Israel's elimination by Iran and its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Will Israel ever be "legitimate" in the eyes of the world, even within the 1967 borders, as offered by Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert? Probably not. As recently observed by Burak Bekdil in an article entitled "Why is Palestine ‘a second Cyprus’ for Turks?" in the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet, Turks did not protest the deaths of 300,000 Muslims in Darfur and did not care when Chinese police were using disproportionate force against their ethnic kin, the Uighurs. Mr. Burak further asked: "How many Turks protested when there was civil war in Algeria? How many volunteered for humanitarian aid missions for Sudan? Why were the protests too thin during the Serbian atrocities against Muslim Bosnians? What makes nine Gaza martyrs more sacred than all the other martyrs?" He concluded: "Subconsciously (and sadly) the Muslim-Turkish thinking tolerates it if Muslims kill Muslims; does not tolerate it but does not turn the world upside down when Christians kill Muslims; pragmatically ignores it when too-powerful Christians kill Muslims; but is programmed to turn the world upside down when Jews kill Muslims."

In the U.S., Helen Thomas recently declared that Israel's Jews should go "home" to Germany and Poland. (She did not suggest that they go "home" to Morocco, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Yemen, from where a majority of Israel's Jews were forcefully evicted without their belongings.) But notwithstanding the headlines generated by this outburst of blind hatred, why was this not also addressed by Cohen's op-ed of today's date? Why has it been studiously ignored by Friedman, Krugman, Rich and Brooks? If the reemergence of anti-Semitism throughout the world cannot be forthrightly addressed on the editorial page of The New York Times, I have doubts whether Israel in whatever shape or form can ever realize "legitimization" in the eyes of a hateful world.

If You Were Revolted by Helen Thomas, Have a Look at The New York Times

If you were revolted by the vile utterances of Helen Thomas, who resigned yesterday, have a look at the following chain of events involving The New York Times. As those who are familiar with this blog know, in the past I took the Times to task for posting rabidly anti-Semitic comments, approved by the Times "moderators", in response to their editorial content, and in fact, certain comments were ultimately, albeit belatedly, removed (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-letter-no-2-to-clark-hoyt-public.html). The problem, however, persists.

In response to Robert Mackey's New York Times "Lede" article, "Israelis Explain, and Mock, Flotilla Crisis" (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/israelis-explain-and-mock-flotilla-clash/), the following comment, no. 24 written by "farmboy", was posted by the Times moderators and states in relevant part:

"Israel lies all the time, and as I understand it lies are not considered sinful by the Orthodox if they serve to advance the cause of the chosen people."

Outraged by the comment, which is anti-Semitic and inflammatory in the extreme - bear in mind that Senator Joe Lieberman is also an Orthodox Jew - and given Mackey's claim in his own comment to the column that "if a comment seems to add little to the thread, or is inflammatory, attacks other readers, the author or The Times, it will not be posted," I sent my own comment:

"Is it your contention that comment no. 24 from 'farmboy' is not racist, vulgar and inflammatory?"

Needless to say, my comment was censored.

Undeterred, I sent an e-mail to Andrew Rosenthal, editorial page editor of the Times, requesting his response. Mr. Rosenthal did not get back to me.

And when Mr. Rosenthal didn't respond, I sent an e-mail to the public editor of the Times, requesting his feedback. Lo and behold, yesterday I received the following reply from a member of the public editor's staff:

"Thank you for writing. It's good to hear from you again. Since you send these over the weekend, let's give Mr. Rosenthal a couple of more days to respond.

Mr. Mackey does not moderate the comments on his blog - the Website staff does.

In my view, since this comment addresses Israel and not Jewish people, I think I would have approved it, though I would have thought about it for awhile. I am loath to approve comments that say someone lied. But, I take this as criticism, of the government of Israel, and that, in my mind is fair game. But, I can see how it can be read as Anti-Semitic and as a slight against Jewish people themselves, so I would have taken care with it.

I hope this helps."

In effect, the public editors office is saying that it would err on the side of anti-Semitism. My answer:

"[T]he comment . . . says that "lies are not considered sinful by the Orthodox [i.e. Orthodox Jews - there is no "Orthodox" Israel or "Orthodox" Israeli government] if they serve to advance the cause of the chosen people [i.e. the Jews]."

As I understand it, your position is that it is acceptable for 'moderated' comments in the Times to label all Orthodox Jews as ready to lie if such lies advance their own interests. Please correct me if I am wrong. Tell me: Would it be acceptable to say that all Catholics are ready to lie if such lies advance the interests of the Pope? Not a chance!

This is vulgar, anti-Semitic, abusive and inflammatory in the extreme, and if this is deemed to fall within the realm of the norms of The New York Times, it deserves to be disseminated to all of your readership so as to enable them to decide whether they should be subscribing to or placing advertisements in the Times.

I await your earliest possible response."

And then I heard back from Andrew Rosenthal:

"I have not gotten involved in this exchange because it involves a newsroom feature, The Lede, and is therefore beyond the range of my responsibility."

I am now waiting to learn from the public editor as to who is "responsible" for posting anti-Semitic comments at the Times, but meanwhile I am also distraught by Andrew Rosenthal's decision to ignore this problem by stating that it is someone else's responsibility. If the issue involved slurs against African Americans, would he also take the position that it is someone else's job?

I wish Mr. Rosenthal would consider what his father, former executive editor of the Times, once wrote:

"After the Nazis' slaughter of Jews was fully exposed at war's end, Iphigene Ochs Sulzberger, the influential daughter, wife and mother of Times publishers, changed her mind about the need for a Jewish state and helped her husband, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, accept the idea of Israel and befriend its leaders. Later, led by their son, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, and their grandson Arthur Sulzberger Jr., The Times shed its sensitivity about its Jewish roots, allowed Jews to ascend to the editor's chair and warmly supported Israel in many editorials.

And to this day the failure of America's media to fasten upon Hitler's mad atrocities stirs the conscience of succeeding generations of reporters and editors. It has made them acutely alert to ethnic barbarities in far-off places like Uganda, Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo. It leaves them obviously resolved that in the face of genocide, journalism shall not have failed in vain."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/news/150th-anniversary-1851-2001-turning-away-from-the-holocaust.html?pagewanted=3

When the Times states that comments are "moderated", yet permits anti-Semitism, it thereby informs its readership that anti-Semitism is not abusive and falls within accepted norms.

The employees of the Times are not nearing their 90th birthdays and cannot plead "senility" in their defense. Regrettably, it appears that the Times not only lacks sensitivity to Jews, but has now made them "fair game" on its once respected pages.

Helen Thomas and "Everybody Hates the Jews"

There has been a stir of late over a satirical music video, “We Con the World” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDQ1O7tBEV8), which suggests that among the "peace activists" aboard the Gaza flotilla there were persons linked to Hamas and al-Qaeda, as was indeed the case as we are slowly learning from the Israel Defense Forces (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-five-gaza-flotilla-activists-linked-to-hamas-al-qaida-1.294546).

But rather than focus attention on this new satirical musical video, I would like to take you back some 40 years to a musical ditty, "National Brotherhood Week", written by Tom Lehrer, which even today maintains its relevance. Have a listen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY), and pay close attention to one stanza in particular:

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Muslims,
And everybody hates the Jews.

Indeed, nothing has changed since 1967, when Lehrer recorded this tune.

I wish I could say that I am shocked by the repugnant anti-Semitic utterances of Helen Thomas, who stated that Israelis should leave Israel and return to Poland and Germany (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcQdWBqt14), but Thomas is not the only highly visible journalist harboring these views.

I wish I could say that I am shocked by the failure of Obama to repudiate this horrific utterance by a member of the White House Press Corps, but then Obama remained silent for 20 years while Reverend Wright let loose similar obscenities.

I wish I could say that I am shocked by the ongoing failure of The New York Times to to take Thomas to task on its editorial page, but then why should we expect anything different from the Times, which posts "moderated" anti-Semitic comments in response to its editorial content (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-letter-no-2-to-clark-hoyt-public.html and more recently http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/06/anti-semitism-again-in-lede-at-new-york.html).

Is there a glimmer of hope or sanity? Yes, and surprisingly it comes from an op-ed entitled "Why is Palestine ‘a second Cyprus’ for Turks?", written by Burak Bekdil for the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=why-is-palestine-8216a-second-cyprus8217-for-turks-2010-06-03). The op-ed states in relevant part:

"Istanbul’s new governor, Hüseyin Avni Mutlu, has said, “He is perfectly confident every Turkish Jew was as safe as Muslims” and that “we are certain no Turkish Jew feels threatened.”

I have an idea! Should the esteemed governor agree, we can put his “confidence” to a little test.

I suggest having the governor disguise himself perfectly as an Orthodox Jew and let him have a solo stroll on İstiklal Avenue. If he can manage to safely reach halfway on İstiklal, I’ll confess I know nothing “about my own people.”

If I am right, the government will have to find a new governor for Istanbul. If that’ too cruel, I could suggest the governor tour around Taksim in a civilian car bearing the Star of David, like millions around Turkey do with the Palestinian flag. If we go for the car experiment rather than the stroll at least the governor can have enough time to speed away.

But why do the Turks have the “Palestine fetish” even though most of them can’t point the Palestinian territories out on a map? Why did they not raise a finger when, for instance, the mullahs killed dissident Iranian Muslims? Why did the Turks not raise a finger when non-Muslim occupying forces killed a million Iraqi Muslims? Why did we not hear one single Turkish voice protesting the deaths of 300,000 Muslims in Darfur? Where were all these Turkish protestors when Israel was bombing Lebanon or when the Chinese police were using disproportionate force against their ethnic kin, the Uighurs?

How many Turks protested when there was civil war in Algeria? How many volunteered for humanitarian aid missions for Sudan? Why were the protests too thin during the Serbian atrocities against Muslim Bosnians? What makes nine Gaza martyrs more sacred than all the other martyrs?

* * * *

Subconsciously (and sadly) the Muslim-Turkish thinking tolerates it if Muslims kill Muslims; does not tolerate it but does not turn the world upside down when Christians kill Muslims; pragmatically ignores it when too-powerful Christians kill Muslims; but is programmed to turn the world upside down when Jews kill Muslims."

According to some reports, Turkey's extremely narcissistic prime minister Erdogan is now considering the possibility of accompanying a new Gaza flotilla, and not to be outdone, Iran's supreme leader Khamenei is offering to send the naval wing of the Revolutionary Guard to safeguard the next shipment of aid to Gaza.

We must wait and see if either Turkey or Iran, unhindered by Obama, succeeds in igniting the next Middle East war.

[Note the seeming inconsistency in the Hürriyet op-ed, which says that Turks only care if Jews kills Muslims, but observes Turkish apathy "when Israel was bombing Lebanon". I understand this to mean that Turks, who are Sunnis, are indifferent to the death of "heretic" Shiite Muslims.]