Monday, August 22, 2011

Roger Cohen Is So...Hilarious

Roger Cohen, the (fill in your favorite adjective) ________ op-ed columnist at the New York Times, quotes from Philip Roth's novel, “Deception”, at the end of another outrageous piece:

To speak up in Britain also means confronting the lingering, voice-lowering anti-Semitism. When Roth’s hero returns to New York, he finds he’s been missing something. His lover, now distant, asks what.


“We’ve got some of them in England, you know.”

“Jews with force, I’m talking about. Jews with appetite. Jews without shame.”

I miss them, too.

That is hillarious. Why?

Because the group of anti-Zionist Jews in Howard Jacobson's novel, "The Finkler Question", have named themselves ASHamed Jews.

Cohen should be ashamed of himself for that.

Cohen, apparently oblivious to his own parody-of-self, proceeds and writes:

Jewish identity is an intricate subject and quest. In America, because I’ve criticized Israel and particularly its self-defeating expansion of settlements in the West Bank, I was, to self-styled “real Jews,” not Jewish enough, or even — join the club — a self-hating Jew. In Britain I find myself exasperated by the muted, muffled way of being a Jew. Get some pride, an inner voice says, speak up!

But of course he is a self-hating Jew or, at the least a Jew who hates some Jews.  He does note

a ferocious anti-Zionism of the left — the kind that has called for academic boycotts of Israel...

but asks

Where then should a Jew in Britain who wants to speak up stand?

and his answer is, after dumping on Melanie Phillips,

The lesson is clear: Jews, with their history, cannot become the systematic oppressors of another people. They must be vociferous in their insistence that continued colonization of Palestinians in the West Bank will increase Israel’s isolation and ultimately its vulnerability.

That — not fanning Islamophobia — is the task before diaspora Jews.

To even compare the two - reconstituting the Jewish national home in the patrimony territory of the Jewish people recognized in international law and a violent, vicious, racist, fanatic phenomenom which ignores the evil inherent in Islamism, is reprehensible, even for a liberal Jew.  That the pinnacle of identity is to deny Jewish nationalism?  To ignore the extreme vulnerability of the state of Israel if Judea and Samaria be surrendered (see: today's news from Gaza after the disengagement.  hint: BOOM!).

That's too much to accept and surely there is no blessing in that approach even from this Cohen.



The Letters-to-the-Editor: On Anti-Semitism and the Mideast

To the Editor:

Re “Jews in a Whisper” (column, Aug. 21):

Roger Cohen’s acute depiction of the perpetuation of British anti-Semitism recalls the description of it in “Trials of the Diaspora,” Anthony Julius’s epic study of the topic.

“It is not Jew-hatred that we must write of,” Mr. Julius concludes, “but Jew-distrust ... it is a story of snub and insult, sly whisper and innuendo, deceit and self-deception.”

But is there not more than a touch of self-deception in Mr. Cohen’s insistence that “the task” — apparently, the only task — of diaspora Jews is to condemn the “colonization of Palestinians in the West Bank”?

Even if one shares, as I do, Mr. Cohen’s concerns about the settlements, I would have thought that if diaspora Jews or others were being assigned tasks vis-à-vis Israel, a prime one would be to respond to the torrent of calumny, one-sided and often false, that is directed at that nation on the basis of supposed standards that are applied to no other nation.

New York, Aug. 21, 2011

The writer, a First Amendment lawyer, has represented The New York Times.

-     -     -     -     -
To the Editor:

When Roger Cohen suggests that the lesson Jews should take from British class consciousness and anti-Semitism is for Israel to end the “colonization” of the West Bank, he mimics the bigotry he is trying to expose. Does Mr. Cohen believe that the British will stop whispering when the Israelis stop building settlements?

Anti-Semitism, like other forms of bigotry, is based not on what people do, but on who they are. To suggest otherwise is to blame the victim and ignore history.

Lincolnshire, Ill., Aug. 21, 2011

The writer is communications director of Joint Action Committee for Political Affairs, a bipartisan political action committee dedicated to, among others, the United States-Israel relationship.

-     -     -     -     -

To the Editor:

Roger Cohen says Jews should know better: “The lesson is clear: Jews, with their history, cannot become the systematic oppressors of another people.” His reference to the plight of the Palestinians is offensive: blaming Israel. He should know better!

In 1993, Israel gave the Palestinians a chance to have their own country with the Oslo Accords. The Palestinians responded with suicide bombings and terror. Israel followed with offers in 2000 and 2008. Palestinians walked away without a counteroffer.

Since Israel won the West Bank from Jordan, the Palestinians’ life expectancy has increased, their infant mortality has been reduced, and their economy has prospered. If any fingers need to be pointed, they should be at the Palestinian leadership.

Potomac, Md., Aug. 21, 2011


Ben Cohen wrote:

...Cohen does not seem willing to connect with anyone who might shake his convictions (a pronounced trait among New York liberals that he must have picked up during his years over here).

Read it all.



Anonymous said...

"The lesson is clear: Jews, with their history, cannot become the systematic oppressors of another people"

Now they are. Shiloh is built on it.
How to rewind, Jews? because there aren't enough of you to make it work.

YMedad said...

Anon: come on out here and say that. No Arabs here ate Shiloh & never were. In Turmos-Ata and Karyut but not at Shiloh. And Shiloh? Was that where there was a Jewish Tabernacle? capital of the tribal federation in pre-monarchic times? site of the Prophet Samuel, the Prophet Achiyah, the High Priest Eli? all proven through archaeology! Oh, that Shiloh not Seilun, styolen from the Jews by conquering Arabs who occupied our country.

YMedad said...

Anon: "parasites" is borderline foulmouthing. try arguing rationally, logically but with a bit of propriety. it wouldn't hurt you.

if the Arabs hadn't tried to use too much poewer, we wouldn't be beyind the Green Line. try directing your suggestions to the other side.

Anonymous said...


an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species known as the host ( or in the case of the settlers, the West Bank) , from the body of which it obtains nutriment (or, in the case of the settlers, free land
2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

Fabian Pascal said...

Comments like those of Anon indicate nonrationality--emotional response because of incapacity for reason.
To cut short the waste of time on such ignoramuses and their ilk ask:

How did Israel come to acquire the WB? Was it illegal?

Who ruled the WB prior to Israel? Was it legal?

Since the WB does not have an economy and cannot even pay its PA 150,000 employee, mostly security forces without jizziya from the West, who exactly is the parasite here?