Saturday, April 11, 2009
Roger Cohen is using his space in The New York Times to flog his twin obsessions, Israel and Iran, again: Israel Cries Wolf. The article spans the range from the sadly absurd (that because Israelis have been warning of Iranian nukes for years means they have been lying about it) to the ugly (implying that America is a slave of Israel's). James Taranto has an excellent response in his Best of the Web column: Los Lobos Locos: Aesop's fables prove too deep for an anti-Israel New York Times columnist.
I'm not a Psychologist, or a Psychiatrist (there may, after all, be a chemical imbalance involved), but I did think it might be interesting to explore the mindset a bit.
There's a problem, you see. For those who share our viewpoint, if you take all of the evidence -- the history, the nature of the Iranian regime, their stated goals, their philosophy, their behavior, their expansionist tendencies, the nature of their rhetoric, their actions taken both through internal forces (like the Revolutionary Guards) and through various proxies like Hizballah and Hamas and others, their quest for nuclear weapons -- you take all this together, and you walk it through in your mind to some future point, and the future is, by all indications, a dark one. With any degree of historical literacy at all, it's not hard to imagine where this all is going to lead as a matter of, if not historical inevitability, at least strong future historical-likelihood.
It's a violent, confrontational future. It's dark. And if you look out the windshield with a clear forward view, it's like a wall not so far off in the distance that we're headed inevitably for. It's violence, it's war.
To leftists like Roger Cohen, there's nothing worse. Violence must be avoided at all costs. War must be delayed while there's still any chance of doing so, and there's always a chance of doing so.
You and I may see that wall of violence approaching somewhere on the tracks ahead and we may say, well, better a little violence now than something much worse later. Better a little friction on the way than allow the train to barrel down the tracks unimpeded.
Not so leftists like Cohen. They hope that if we ignore the wall, it will go away. They hope that if we can delay things long enough, some event will intervene before we hit to make the train turn aside, or make the wall disappear. All they need to do is buy time and keep fingers firmly crossed. If they're honest about what a country like Iran is all about, then, in their view, that brings the wall closer, so they can't be honest. After all, what's a worse sin, a little prevaricating for the sake of hope and peace, or having your words added to the risk of war? It's an easy choice for the unscrupulously ideological.
In this sense, Cohen is either dishonest or clueless. Either he really believes the things he says and is caught in a desperate Cassandra act, or he knows and sees what you and I know and see but is willing to lie about it (and sacrifice Israel's future) for the sake of hoping events catch up with and head off inevitability.
Can Cohen really be so clueless as to report, straight, the statements of Iranian Jews? Can he really not understand the unreliability of such testimony by members of a minority community in a totalitarian torture state, where handlers are present and at least one Jew (Habib Elghanian) has been hung for "contacts with Israel and Zionism?" Maybe. Ideology and fear of being the cause of a war (never forget how arrogant these Times columnist are, never forget how influential they think they are) can blind a man to much.
But whatever the psychology, there's no doubt that Cohen's writing muddies the water and makes a clear-headed analysis of events all the more difficult. What's worse, in times like these, to contribute to the view of Jews as warmongers -- the subtext of Cohen's entire run of pieces on the subject -- becomes something worse than just simple-minded.
Thank you.
I have been increasingly upset with the tenor of Cohen's op-eds - and wondering what on earth the NYT is up to here.
I don't have any problem whatsoever with attempts to try and shed some light on Iran. I think few in the West have studied Iran or Persian history and probably tend to stereotype based on the nature of the Iranian government. That is a shame because the culture and history and people of Iran are well-deserving of study and respect.
However, the way to fight ignorance of Iran isn't to demonize the Israelis, and misusing the small presence of Iranian Jews (25,000 out of a population of about 65, 66 million people) to try and claim that the government of Iran is a beacon of tolerance is worse than absurd. The fate of women, dissidents, gays, Ba'hai and trade unionists is a more telling reflection - as is the fact that the majority of the ancient Persian Jewish community has fled Iran since 1979.
Beyond that, the fate of European Jewry looms enormously in the shadow of Cohen's assertions that "Israel cries wolf." People were accusing Jews of "hysteria" in the 1930's and did little to help them, even refusing boatloads of refugees. Some refugee ships were sunk on the high seas, others were returned to Europe. Pogroms erupted even after the Holocaust.
With respect - I think characterizing Cohen as "left" misses the point although I support the desire to avoid violence - however that doesn't explain his noxious comment that the Israelis are somehow "enslaving" the US.
That's just bigotry.
I do think he's English and maybe that's an issue due to historical and contemporary European "problems" with Jews and with the very existence of Israel.
England actively blockaded the Yishuv, drove ships of survivors like Exodus 1947 back to Europe, armed the Arabs and didn't even recognize Israel for nine months. We will never ever be forgiven for incidents like the King David Hotel let alone for humiliating the Empire.
Meanwhile the British did not fight to establish a Palestinian state at any point but supported the Jordanian annexation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank - which had recently been ethnically cleansed down to the last Jew. Indeed it was Britain which put the notorious Mufti in power - guaranteeing both anti-Jewish and internecine Arab violence - so it's a Catch-22 - we simply cannot win.
Meanwhile characterizations of Israel in the British press are appalling and antisemitic cartoons and editorials are common there. Israel is reviled.
One cannot forget Chamberlain, Bevin - there is enormous denial concerning the fact that British and other European Jews - now a truly tiny minority - require 24/7 security and it's dangerous to wear Jewish symbols or clothing.
Antisemitism in Europe is centuries old and virulent. Jews are portrayed in a ghastly light and have been victimized by the millions over a long period of time. This has spread to the Middle East and is now looping back into Europe.
Is it surprising that a Jewish person might internalize a deep sense of shame?
Simultaneously it's hard to argue against the prevailing romantic, Orientalist idealization of Arab and other Islamic cultures - a view at once romantic, idealistic and patronizing.
This double standard demands that Jews are seen to be responsible for everything - yet other groups are regarded as children - incapable of either agency or responsibility - both are a form of bigotry.
Beyond that there is rage at Israel on behalf of the Palestinians - real rage. Some is justified IMO, some not.
It is one thing to support the desire for self-determination of a people dispossessed - another to view them as a modern day collective Jesus with all that entails.
Major media outlets including NYT blamed Israel for the atrocities at Sabra and Shatilla, somehow neglecting to notice that the Israelis didn't commit the crime and there was open war between Palestinians and Lebanese factions and that tens of thousands - some say up to 100,000 Lebanese Christians were killed by the PLO which at the time was occupying Beirut and which not so coincidentally wasn't formed to "liberate" the West Bank and Gaza - and which had also attacked Jordan.
Perhaps latent European sympathy for the Soviet Union, PLO and UAR and Libya's sponsor, enemy of the US, also helped focus hatred and disdain toward Israel. In any case, the people of Israel remain unseen as Israel is portrayed as an inhuman Goliath.
Cohen simply reflects this vision although I think he fears the outcome should war erupt between Israel and Iran and I think if he's trying to head that off he's right - I think it would be a disaster. But that doesn't excuse his verbiage. In a way he's repeating the crime of stereotyping Iran by stereotyping Israel and neglecting the fact that actual human beings live in both states!
Meanwhile the annihilationist threats and antisemitic canards perpetrated by the government of one state, which is actively helping foment violence against the other, cannot simply be ignored nor can they be blamed on the victim.
In any case the roadblocks and other Israeli security devices do inconvenience and harm Palestinians but there doesn't seem to be notice of the causal link between those security measures and the obscene violence of the Intifada - which erupted at a time when there was every hope and desire for peace with the Palestinians.
Nor is it helpful, when reviling Israel for the occupation, to forget Jewish claims to the land let alone righteous security concerns and a long history of war in the region: the fact is enormous rage is focused on an area smaller than most US states, which is senseless in and of itself.
Nor does it help to stereotype all the Jewish residents of the West Bank - forgotten is the fact that Jews lived there for thousands of years until the War of 1948, when they were ethnically cleansed by the Arab Legion.
There is a huge need for balance and historical perspective when discussing these issues and editorials like those in the NYT are simply driving conflict rather than solving problems. Judging from the comment threads they are also encouraging antisemitism here in the US.
The same is obviously true of the British MSM in particular let alone the Middle Eastern press - even rational Arab media outlets lose it on the subject of Israel. We can't solve the problems in the Middle East until we solve the bias in the supposedly responsible press.
Finally whether Iran gets a bomb "on time" or not there is no doubt the Iranian government has been inciting anti-Jewish and anti-American and anti-Israel sentiment and violence and even scares many Arab states and factions. I think that needs to be dealt with soberly and hopefully non-violently - without blaming the Jews for the problem.
The fact remains though that the Jewish people have every reason to believe people when they threaten to annihilate us. Cohen offers no solution to THAT problem.