Anti-Semitism at the New York Times

[Jack Hays]

Well, I see no reason to continue with this CT thread. Cya.

It's only a conspiracy in the eyes of anti-Semites.

 

[Jack Hays]

Which was them being political and taking a side.

Moral courage is not a side; it's civil society.

 

[Felis Leo]

Once again this is a conflation of the label of anti-semitism with the willingness to publicly level legitimate criticism at the State of Israel for its state policies. They are not the same thing. Ms. Walker's poem was about Israeli military seizure of the Levant and the forcible dislocation of the Palestinian people who had legally lived on that land prior to the creation of the modern State of Israel. Then when she became publicly vocal about that forcible displacement and blamed the State of Israel publicly for how it behaved towards the Palestinians, a "Jewish soul" who had formerly been an old friend of hers then turned against her and labelled her anti-Semetic publicly.

Well, here is my contention Evilroddy: That people who criticize Israel purely for its state policies and not out of a sense of anti-Jewish hatred or general antisemitism are actually a minority. It is my belief that the vast majority of people who hate Israel as a country also hate Jews as a people, which is certainly demonstrated by any reliable statistical metric and opinion polls of Middle Eastern/Muslim-majority countries in which hatred of Jews is taken as a practical article of faith overall. That Mrs. Walker would hate Israel and also retains an animus towards Jews is of no surprise to me.

To try and explain why many Israelis and sympathetic other folks support these policies of conquest and forcible dislocation, she went to the Talmud to explain the mentality which makes such policies unquestioned or at least palatable in one now-dominant version of the Judeo-Christian tradition. How many times have posters here cited the Bible or the Koran to explain Christian or Muslim motivations for what each group does, fair or foul? I will admit that using YouTube videos is a weak justification for an argument but weak argumentation does not equate with anti-semitism. Nor does asking questions about the teachings in the Talmud. We debaters often use questions about the Bible, the Koran and other holy scriptures to get insights into the basic motivations of people of certain faiths; so why is the same analysis off limits if the texts are Jewish texts? There is no reason to label someone who asks disturbing questions about any religion's holy texts (Jewish or otherwise) as being anti-this or anti-that. Questions are good and are healthy because they force us to regularly confront uncomfortable truths about ourselves and our values; questions we might otherwise like to avoid. Socrates warned about living the unexamined life, and the Greeks of Athens eventually forced him to commit suicide for it due to the discomfort which his questions caused the Greeks. Shall we do the same to Ms. Walker for asking questions which are profoundly unpopular today?

The David Icke book on her night-table is just another swipe at Ms. Walker. That one reads a book with odious ideas does not necessarily mean that one subscribes to those ideas. I have books like the Bible, the Christian Apocrypha, the Koran, the Torah but I am not Christian, Muslim or Jewish. I'm just uncertain and agnostic. I have what some would no doubt describe as odious books on my bookshelves like Marx and Engle's "The Communist Manifesto", Hitler's and Hess's "Mein Kampf" or Mao Zhedong's "Guerrilla Warfare" but I am not a revolutionary Fascist-Communist-Maoist. To read a book does not mean the reader endorses the book, only that the reader is now aware of the book's content and some of the ideas of the author.

So the writer Cohen in the OP's cited article is, in my opinion, doing a character assassination job on Ms. Walker because of her publicly stated opposition to the policies of the State of Israel and not because she harbours strong anti-Jewish opinions/convictions and advocates them to the detriment of all Jews everywhere.

Tempest in a Teapot. Except for the harm it is doing to Alice Walker.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

That is certainly an extremely charitable read of Mrs. Walker's words and motivations. I can only hope you extend that same charity to the those of us who are pro-Israel, Evilroddy. But if I may, what could Mrs. Walker do that would make you withdraw this defense and say "I was wrong about Mrs. Walker. Mea Culpa."? Would anything short of her outright stating "I hate Jews" convince you of Walker's subscribing to antisemitism?

Because here is something that I have noticed among most harsh critics of Israel who I do not believe are themselves antisemites: That most critics of Israel will bend over backwards to be charitable and impute only the most pure of motivations to those other folks who despise or criticize Israel. Short of being a member of a Neo-Nazi group or outright endorsing the expulsion and murder of Jews, they almost never impute evil motivations to their allies.

 

[Jack Hays]

Once again this is a conflation of the label of anti-semitism with the willingness to publicly level legitimate criticism at the State of Israel for its state policies. They are not the same thing. Ms. Walker's poem was about Israeli military seizure of the Levant and the forcible dislocation of the Palestinian people who had legally lived on that land prior to the creation of the modern State of Israel. Then when she became publicly vocal about that forcible displacement and blamed the State of Israel publicly for how it behaved towards the Palestinians, a "Jewish soul" who had formerly been an old friend of hers then turned against her and labelled her anti-Semetic publicly.

To try and explain why many Israelis and sympathetic other folks support these policies of conquest and forcible dislocation, she went to the Talmud to explain the mentality which makes such policies unquestioned or at least palatable in one now-dominant version of the Judeo-Christian tradition. How many times have posters here cited the Bible or the Koran to explain Christian or Muslim motivations for what each group does, fair or foul? I will admit that using YouTube videos is a weak justification for an argument but weak argumentation does not equate with anti-semitism. Nor does asking questions about the teachings in the Talmud. We debaters often use questions about the Bible, the Koran and other holy scriptures to get insights into the basic motivations of people of certain faiths; so why is the same analysis off limits if the texts are Jewish texts? There is no reason to label someone who asks disturbing questions about any religion's holy texts (Jewish or otherwise) as being anti-this or anti-that. Questions are good and are healthy because they force us to regularly confront uncomfortable truths about ourselves and our values; questions we might otherwise like to avoid. Socrates warned about living the unexamined life, and the Greeks of Athens eventually forced him to commit suicide for it due to the discomfort which his questions caused the Greeks. Shall we do the same to Ms. Walker for asking questions which are profoundly unpopular today?

The David Icke book on her night-table is just another swipe at Ms. Walker. That one reads a book with odious ideas does not necessarily mean that one subscribes to those ideas. I have books like the Bible, the Christian Apocrypha, the Koran, the Torah but I am not Christian, Muslim or Jewish. I'm just uncertain and agnostic. I have what some would no doubt describe as odious books on my bookshelves like Marx and Engle's "The Communist Manifesto", Hitler's and Hess's "Mein Kampf" or Mao Zhedong's "Guerrilla Warfare" but I am not a revolutionary Fascist-Communist-Maoist. To read a book does not mean the reader endorses the book, only that the reader is now aware of the book's content and some of the ideas of the author.

So the writer Cohen in the OP's cited article is, in my opinion, doing a character assassination job on Ms. Walker because of her publicly stated opposition to the policies of the State of Israel and not because she harbours strong anti-Jewish opinions/convictions and advocates them to the detriment of all Jews everywhere.

Tempest in a Teapot. Except for the harm it is doing to Alice Walker.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

And where do we find the discussion of Israeli policy in this?

Walker’s 2017 poem asked some questions: “Are Goyim (us) meant to be slaves of Jews?” “Are three year old (and a day) girls eligible for marriage and intercourse? Are young boys fair game for rape?”

 

[Bodi]

The ungodly are hateful and wicked. You cannot clean them up. They are pigs in their slop and washing them off to be presented in public does nothing to hide the animosity they harbor in their hearts towards God and humans they don't like.

The Truly Relgious Followers are hateful bigots that hide their digusting immoral treatment of others behind the claim of religious freedom and the Bible...

 

[Black Dog]

The ungodly are hateful and wicked. You cannot clean them up. They are pigs in their slop and washing them off to be presented in public does nothing to hide the animosity they harbor in their hearts towards God and humans they don't like.

The Truly Relgious Followers are hateful bigots that hide their digusting immoral treatment of others behind the claim of religious freedom and the Bible...

Hmmm... Both these comments are true to a certain extent. Problem is which one is worse? I am going to be honest here and say zealotry no matter the reason is bad.

 

[Evilroddy]

And where do we find the discussion of Israeli policy in this?

Walker’s 2017 poem asked some questions: “Are Goyim (us) meant to be slaves of Jews?” “Are three year old (and a day) girls eligible for marriage and intercourse? Are young boys fair game for rape?”

Jack Hayes:

The Cohen opinion piece and Alice walker's Poem both deal with Israeli policy towards Palestinians and their allies. The first half of Ms. Walker's poem is about Israeli foreign policy and military policy towards the Palestinians since 1967. You cited the poem, I read it several times and then I responded based on the content of the poem and the Cohen article.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Jack Hays]

Jack Hayes:

The Cohen opinion piece and Alice walker's Poem both deal with Israeli policy towards Palestinians and their allies. The first half of Ms. Walker's poem is about Israeli foreign policy and military policy towards the Palestinians since 1967. You cited the poem, I read it several times and then I responded based on the content of the poem and the Cohen article.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Your post is a sad falsehood. Cohen's column has nothing to do with Israeli policy. Whatever else Walker's poem concerns, it includes red meat gratuitous anti-Semitism.

Walker’s 2017 poem asked some questions: “Are Goyim (us) meant to be slaves of Jews?” “Are three year old (and a day) girls eligible for marriage and intercourse? Are young boys fair game for rape?”

 

[Evilroddy]

Well, here is my contention Evilroddy: That people who criticize Israel purely for its state policies and not out of a sense of anti-Jewish hatred or general antisemitism are actually a minority. It is my belief that the vast majority of people who hate Israel as a country also hate Jews as a people, which is certainly demonstrated by any reliable statistical metric and opinion polls of Middle Eastern/Muslim-majority countries in which hatred of Jews is taken as a practical article of faith overall. That Mrs. Walker would hate Israel and also retains an animus towards Jews is of no surprise to me.

Your perception may be born out of your own biases and not those of others. Yes, there are many anti-Semites and some try to mask their prejudice and bigotry behind a facade of "legitimate criticism" of Israel but my experience is that such persons show their hand very quickly and are seen for the anti-Semites they are. Far more critics of Israel including for example many American Jews are not anti-Semitic but are very upset at the State of Israel for its militarism, its flaunting of international law and its continued land theft forced dislocation and oppression of the Palestinian people who lived on those lands legally before the arrival of the Israeli armed forces.

These same critics are often also angry at certain allied states like the USA which enable Israel to continue its internationally abusive behaviour. A good example is Israel's possession of nuclear weapons since approximately 1966-67. If any other Middle Eastern country was even suspected of possessing such weapons and the means to deliver them in anger, then that country would be in for international pariah status, sanctions and boycotts, blockades and possibly would be targetted for military action and/or regime change. However that is not the case with Israel. Because of American complicity the State of Israel is shielded from international sanction and can continue its policy of strategic ambiguity with respect to its nuclear arsenal. Another example is assassination. When most countries are caught assassinating people at home or abroad there are significant consequences for the assassinating state but when Israel does the killing it seems to get a pass on responsibility for the extrajudicial killings it commits, even when it's agents are caught red-handed in person or on security recordings. When Russia, Iran or Saudi Arabia do these things they are punished and sanctioned by the international community but when Israel kills extrajudicially and assassinates there are little or no real consequences for such actions because of the shielding offered by America, Canada, and some European states.

That is certainly an extremely charitable read of Mrs. Walker's words and motivations. I can only hope you extend that same charity to the those of us who are pro-Israel, Evilroddy. But if I may, what could Mrs. Walker do that would make you withdraw this defense and say "I was wrong about Mrs. Walker. Mea Culpa."? Would anything short of her outright stating "I hate Jews" convince you of Walker's subscribing to antisemitism?

Ms. Walker's comments did not meet the level of anti-semitism in my opinion. She was criticising Israeli policy and she was searching for an explanation why the State of Israel can so often get away with behaviours which would be vigorously punished internationally if done by other states. Her chosen explanation was rooted in Talmudic scripture although she presented no convincing case to back up her assertion in her poem. Thus she is guilty of poor and ineffective argumentation but that does not rise to the level of anti-semitism in my opinion.

As to equal charity to the pro-Israel advocates, I extend them equal latitude but when they cross the line into justifying land-theft, ghettoisation, violent oppression and militarism, my latitude ends; just as it does when anti-Israel advocates try to justify violent terrorism by force of arms. I'm more charitable with those who support an electronic or digital intifada or who support a global BDS movement, if their motives are based in forcing responsible change on Israel and are not born out of anti-Semitic bias and bigotry.

Continued next post.

 

[Evilroddy]

Because here is something that I have noticed among most harsh critics of Israel who I do not believe are themselves antisemites: That most critics of Israel will bend over backwards to be charitable and impute only the most pure of motivations to those other folks who despise or criticize Israel. Short of being a member of a Neo-Nazi group or outright endorsing the expulsion and murder of Jews, they almost never impute evil motivations to their allies.

When one voice utters hateful speech which advocates violence against others, that is reprehensible and potentially dangerous. It must be condemned and stopped by effective counter argument to show all that the hate-speech is bigotry and xenophobia or religious intolerance. But when a state marshals its whole resources to do the same as Israel has done with respect to the Palestinian people who once shared the land which Israel now holds, that is profoundly dangerous and must be opposed with vigour and focus by people of conscience no matter what creed or ideology they subscribe to. An entire state can do much more damage than individuals if it embraces violence and bigotry against a selected group of people and therefore the response by people of conscience must be greater. Because of that state-powered force-multiplier in effect, I will often oppose pro-Israel advocates on certain issues almost immediately, but in areas outside of that realm I am quite pro-Israel and welcome the improvements which the State of Israel has brought to its corner of the Levant over the last 70+'years. So unless we are talking about Israeli militarism, militant Zionism, mowing the lawn in Gaza or Israeli land-theft in the West Bank, I am willing not only to be charitable to pro-Israeli advocates but to vigorously agree with them on benign matters which are pro-Israel.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

Your post is a sad falsehood. Cohen's column has nothing to do with Israeli policy. Whatever else Walker's poem concerns, it includes red meat gratuitous anti-Semitism.

Walker’s 2017 poem asked some questions: “Are Goyim (us) meant to be slaves of Jews?” “Are three year old (and a day) girls eligible for marriage and intercourse? Are young boys fair game for rape?”

Jack Hayes:

Did you read the first half of the poem which you cited? It's all about the Israeli seizure and occupation of the OPT since 1967 and Israeli policy towards the Palestinian people.

What sad falsehoods have I posted in this thread? Please back up you allegation with proof or you're just whining because someone disagrees with your position and is willing to make the effort to refute that position.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Jack Hays]

Jack Hayes:

Did you read the first half of the poem which you cited? It's all about the Israeli seizure and occupation of the OPT since 1967 and Israeli policy towards the Palestinian people.

What sad falsehoods have I posted in this thread? Please back up you allegation with proof or you're just whining because someone disagrees with your position and is willing to make the effort to refute that position.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

The first half of the poem does not matter in the slightest, and certainly cannot be used to justify the vile anti-Semitic passages quoted by Cohen. So the first sad falsehood is claiming the objectionable aspect of the poem is its criticism of Israeli policy.
The second sad falsehood is your claim that Cohen was writing to defend Israeli policy. I see you have (wisely) abandoned that claim.

 

[marke]

The Truly Relgious Followers are hateful bigots that hide their digusting immoral treatment of others behind the claim of religious freedom and the Bible...

"What disgusting immoral treatment" of others are you talking about? Calling Dr. Ford a liar and scoundrel for lying about Kavanaugh and herself?

 

[truthatallcost]

From the OP link:

". . . Walker, who last year posted the poem “It Is Our (Frightful) Duty To Study The Talmud” on her blog, is beyond mere accusation. She’s the genuine anti-Semitic article. Apparently informed by her odd reading of the ancient Jewish text, Walker’s 2017 poem asked some questions: “Are Goyim (us) meant to be slaves of Jews?” “Are three year old (and a day) girls eligible for marriage and intercourse? Are young boys fair game for rape?”. . . "

Have you read the passages of the Talmud that Walker is referring to?

 

[Jack Hays]

Have you read the passages of the Talmud that Walker is referring to?

I have not read the Talmud at all.

 

[Evilroddy]

The first half of the poem does not matter in the slightest, and certainly cannot be used to justify the vile anti-Semitic passages quoted by Cohen. So the first sad falsehood is claiming the objectionable aspect of the poem is its criticism of Israeli policy.
The second sad falsehood is your claim that Cohen was writing to defend Israeli policy. I see you have (wisely) abandoned that claim.

Jack Hayes:

First let me clarify that I was wrong about the Cohen article and Israeli policy. When he talked about Israel-haters (as opposed to anti-Semites the policy criticism was implied in my mind but he never explicitly stated that. So I retract my comment that Mr. Cohen was talking about Israeli policy.

However that is not the case with Alice Walkers poem which explicitly speaks to Israeli policies in the OPTs.

The first half of the Walker poem does indeed matter as it sets the stage for her asking the question (an I paraphrase here), 'What mind-set in Israel, Canada, Europe and America allows the abusive policies of the State of Israel towards the Palestinian people to be perpetuated when similar behaviour by other states against targetted people is not accepted by the international community?' Her answer is the notion of a Chosen People who are excepted and removed from judgement by others since those others are not the Chosen People's peers but rather agents of a divine will. This idea plus some cherry-picking of inconvenient quotes from the books of the Talmud makes up her case. While the passages referenced by her in her inflammatory/provocative questions and partially quoted by Cohen do exist in the books of the Talmud, the contextual analysis of those passages does not support her thesis. So again, bad argumentation, yes, but anti-semitism, not in my opinion. And to claim otherwise while admitting that you have never read any of the books of the Talmud weakens your assertions and your case fatally as you are prejudging her without checking her sources. Also sloppy argumentation.

This is the allegedly anti-Semitic quote from the NYT "By the Book" interview in its entirety:

“And the Truth Shall Set You Free,” by David Icke. In Icke’s books there is the whole of existence, on this planet and several others, to think about. A curious person’s dream come true.

What exactly is anti-Semitic in this small quote above? Nothing. If only mentioning that you have read a David Icke book makes you an anti-Semite then is someone who read Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain or watched the film Birth of a Nation a racist because they have been exposed to racist ideas? No.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Hari Seldon]

NYT's owner is Jewish, the editorial staff is mostly Jewish, and it's OP-ED columns are written mostly by Jews. I'm all for legitimate criticism of NYT, after all they once welcomed Leon Trotsky to breach America's shores, and would do so again if he were alive. They're about as New York City Jewish as it gets.

The "expert" on all thing Jewish has a problem with the NYT. Also apparently an expert on what NYC Jewish is. From California no less. I for one am shocked.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Jamming NYT's for not acting as the thought cop here goes to show how far we have already traveled towards UTOPIA.

They did nothing wrong in the original interview.

I am forced to agree with Hawkeye. Walker is the anti-Semite. Probably good to highlight that fact.

 

[zimmer]

NYT's owner is Jewish, the editorial staff is mostly Jewish, and it's OP-ED columns are written mostly by Jews. I'm all for legitimate criticism of NYT, after all they once welcomed Leon Trotsky to breach America's shores, and would do so again if he were alive. They're about as New York City Jewish as it gets.

The Holocaust denying NYT?

 

[Hawkeye10]

I am forced to agree with Hawkeye. Walker is the anti-Semite. Probably good to highlight that fact.

You failed to follow what I believe.

I think this is likely your fault.

 

[Jack Hays]

Jack Hayes:

First let me clarify that I was wrong about the Cohen article and Israeli policy. When he talked about Israel-haters (as opposed to anti-Semites the policy criticism was implied in my mind but he never explicitly stated that. So I retract my comment that Mr. Cohen was talking about Israeli policy.

However that is not the case with Alice Walkers poem which explicitly speaks to Israeli policies in the OPTs.

The first half of the Walker poem does indeed matter as it sets the stage for her asking the question (an I paraphrase here), 'What mind-set in Israel, Canada, Europe and America allows the abusive policies of the State of Israel towards the Palestinian people to be perpetuated when similar behaviour by other states against targetted people is not accepted by the international community?' Her answer is the notion of a Chosen People who are excepted and removed from judgement by others since those others are not the Chosen People's peers but rather agents of a divine will. This idea plus some cherry-picking of inconvenient quotes from the books of the Talmud makes up her case. While the passages referenced by her in her inflammatory/provocative questions and partially quoted by Cohen do exist in the books of the Talmud, the contextual analysis of those passages does not support her thesis. So again, bad argumentation, yes, but anti-semitism, not in my opinion. And to claim otherwise while admitting that you have never read any of the books of the Talmud weakens your assertions and your case fatally as you are prejudging her without checking her sources. Also sloppy argumentation.

This is the allegedly anti-Semitic quote from the NYT "By the Book" interview in its entirety:



What exactly is anti-Semitic in this small quote above? Nothing. If only mentioning that you have read a David Icke book makes you an anti-Semite then is someone who read Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain or watched the film Birth of a Nation a racist because they have been exposed to racist ideas? No.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Not reading the Talmud does nothing to or for my case either way.
You missed Cohen's point.

". . . The tone of Paul’s response is appalling. She surely does not mean to, but she manages to treat anti-Semitism as just another point of view — not a hatred with a unique and appalling pedigree that has led to unending slaughter, including the murder of 6 million, pogroms in Kielce in Poland (1946), York in England (1190) and the lynching of Leo Frank in Georgia (1915). What’s lacking from the Times is appropriate shock at Alice Walker’s bigotry and its own refusal to admit a mistake. An apology would be fit to print."

 

[Harshaw]

Well, I see no reason to continue with this CT thread. Cya.

This is astonishing. He quoted unmitigated anti-Semitic statements from Walker's poem -- plain, vile, blood libel of the type which has been passed around for centuries -- clear, unambiguous statements of Jew-hating, which are Jew-hating in ANY context, and you call it a "conspiracy theory" that she's an anti-Semite and bolt from the discussion.

Why do you not wish to believe it?

Never mind that she endorsed the book by Ickes. Not just merely had it on her nightstand, or was reading it simply to be informed about "the other side." She freely endorsed it.

 

[Hari Seldon]

You failed to follow what I believe.

I think this is likely your fault.

I fail to understand your cryptic posts as usual. Apparently it doesn't matter if I agree with you or not. I'm sure you were better.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[truthatallcost]

The "expert" on all thing Jewish has a problem with the NYT. Also apparently an expert on what NYC Jewish is. From California no less. I for one am shocked.

I think most of the mindset can be summed up with this Tweet from NYT Correspondent Dana Goldstein, who proposes adopting an ersatz outward physical appearance in order to blend in with the host country, while not really embracing it's history, people, or culture.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Goldstein

 

[truthatallcost]

The Holocaust denying NYT?

When did they deny the holocaust?