Jews, “Progressives,” and the New York Times
- 02.01.2007 - 6:41 PMThe New York Times took notice yesterday of a pamphlet-sized essay posted on the website of the American Jewish Committee. Written by Alvin Rosenfeld of Indiana University and titled “‘Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism,” the essay describes the mounting assault on Israel by Jews on the Left. Rosenfeld cites, among others, the two Tonys—Kushner and Judt—and Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, each of whom was in turn duly quoted in the Times story as protesting Rosenfeld’s characterization of them. The paper’s reporter, Patricia Cohen, seems to side with them in this dispute, slyly suggesting that the AJC has overstated the problem of anti-Semitism on the Jewish Left. Thereby, she neutralizes or buries the very problem the AJC was trying to expose.
No surprise there. In this matter, as it happens, the Times has long been not merely a reporting agency but a major player. For the past sixty years the newspaper has denied the Arab war against the Jewish state, just as in World War II it denied the German war against the Jewish people. Rather than telling its readers about Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism and describing how it shapes the societies in which it flourishes, rather than documenting the growing infiltration of Europe and America by this same poison, it speaks of anti-Semitism as if it were merely a figment, an occasion for fratricidal conflict among Jews themselves with no objective correlative in the real world. In this internal slugfest of accusation and counter-accusation, the offense itself disappears, and with it any serious discussion of its source, its gravity, or its spread.
Even more than those cited by Alvin Rosenfeld, it is the newspaper of record that has long displaced onto Israel’s moral ledger the misery that Arabs cause themselves. This morning’s edition carries a three-column story about a former Israeli government minister convicted of French-kissing a female soldier. This is evidently what the Times considers news. Not news, evidently, are the dozens of mutual kidnappings and murders committed by Fatah and Hamas. Dead Palestinians appear to interest the Times only insofar as their deaths can be laid at the feet of Israel.
Similarly, real existing anti-Semitism seems to interest the Times far less than does the drama of Jew-against-Jew in which the Times gets to name aggressors and victims. In this offhand, underhanded manner the paper’s editors and reporters abet the anti-Semitic lie that the existence of Israel “explains” the misery and rage of the people yelling for its destruction and for the destruction of all Jews everywhere.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:34 AM
Although anti-Semites criticize Israel, criticizing Israel doesn’t make one anti-Semitic. Neither does recognizing the political influence of the pro-Zionist segment of the organized Jewish community and its allies. These forces regularly use the tactic of tarring as anti-Semitic most criticism of Israel and the pro-Israel positions of the U.S. in recent years.
It’s dirty pool.
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:00 AM
In response to GOM, it is not dirty pool to pin the charge of anti-Semitism on someone who argues that Israel should not exist as a Jewish state, as Tony Judt and other liberal intellectuals are doing with greater frequency. It is, after all, tantamount to saying that some 6 million Israeli Jews do not have the right to exist to one awful degree or another. No one among this crowd would argue that Palestinians do not have the right to their own state or that Pakistan or Bangladesh or Bosnia, let us say, have somehow forfeited their right to exist as Muslim states.
A comment regarding Professor Wisse’s post: is it possible the Times could have contrived a more unflattering photograph of poor Alvin Rosenfeld. He looks like a deranged loner in a Bowery SRO, with a can of soup warming on a steam iron just out of view.
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:48 PM
The discussion in the Times’ article to Richard Cohen is emblematic of the problem the Times has with former fans of the paper like me. Nowhere does the reporter see fit to mention why it is people are upset with Richard Cohen, while giving him plenty of space to defend himself. Among many anti-Israel statements over the years, Cohen’s op-ed during last summer’s war with Hezbollah declaring that Israel’s creation was a “mistake” gives the lie to any possible defense that he’s a friend of Israel. Once I would have thought that this was just bad reporting and editing, but no longer.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:54 PM
“”These forces regularly use the tactic of tarring as anti-Semitic most criticism”"
Yaawwn. Proactive self-victimization is a calling card of the anti-Semite.
The Times exists to correct the thought patterns of its readership. It’s an advertising firm dressed up as an investigative newspaper.