Soccer Dad

Cohen must've got lost

Last year in middle of Israel's wars with terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas, columnist Richard Cohen wrote a column Hunkering down with History in which he argued that Israel was a mistake.

The column attracted a lot of criticism (from here and elsewhere) because it was historically ignorant and was the argument that Israel's enemies made.

Today he takes on Israel's enemies, in the form of British National Union of Journalists, for their boycott of Israeli products, in Why Boycott Israel? (or here).

Cohen wants to know which sins of Israel are so great that they warrant this treatment when

In Iran, the government overturned the convictions of six men who, among other things, killed a young couple because they were walking together in public. In China, local authorities seized about 60 women and forcibly aborted their pregnancies. In Russia, the Putin government expanded its control of the media. In Cuba ... oh, well, you already know. But what you may not know is that given such a vast palate of injustice and depredations, the British National Union of Journalists made a truly original move: It singled out Israel to boycott.

He answers his question well

But some of it, surely, is anti-Semitism itself, a rage at the impudent, pushy Jew and this state created in the midst of the Arab world. Forgotten, conveniently and appallingly, is history itself and the reason for Israel's creation. This does not excuse injustice to Palestinians, it merely explains. But it is an explanation so soaked with the blood of Jews as to seem utterly concocted: It cannot be! But it was.

The British journalists, like the academics before them, dare to tread where an army of goons has gone before. If they do not recognize the ember of anti-Semitism still glowing within them, they ought to park themselves before a mirror and ask why, of all the nations, do they single out Israel for reprimand and obloquy? This business of assigning to Jews a special burden, for seeing in them both more of mankind's bad qualities and less of its good, has a dark and ugly pedigree: the Chosen People, again -- and again in the wrong way.

Unfortunately along the way Cohen must've got lost. As he searches for the reason for the boycott he brings up a number of possibilities that are less than satisfying. Where is the resentment that feeds the British journalists?

Some of it surely comes from the uncritical support that Israel gets from the United States, which to lefties all over the world is a vile state, maybe worthy -- if it were not for jeans, movies and hip-hop -- of a boycott itself.

And what about the rest of the world? The political support is generally uncritical, but from the rest of the world it is relentlessly critical. If not for the United States, Israel would be the South Africa of today.

Some of it no doubt reflects frustration from the efforts of Jewish organizations to suffocate any criticism of Israel and to hurl the epithet "anti-Semite'' at anyone with an odd bent to his thinking.

This echoes a few of his columns from last year that I've responded to previously. The problem is that for the Palestinians (and the Arab/Muslim world in general) there seems to be one set of standards and another for Israel.

Dry Bones Illustrated this very well last week when he noted that the Virginia Tech was judged "... because he didn't believe that he'd be rewarded in heaven with 72 virgins everybody thinks ... he was just crazy." And so it goes. Suicide bombers are justified as a response to occupation. But Qassams are ignored when there is no more occupation.

Saudi Arabia forbids entrance of infidels to its holiest city but the Saudis have a plan for Palestinian independence. Occupation is an incomparable evil and it will be solved by coronating a terrorist. The old guard is corrupt so we'll give Islamists power because they can get the trains running on time.

The narrative of the Middle East to Cohen and those who think like him gives undue importance Israel's sins against the Arabs. They may be sensible enough to realize that the story's bigger than that, but all said, there's a difference in grievances. But as long as occupation is given disproportionate focus, there will be other, like the British journalists who will use it to justify every invective toward the Jewish state.

Cohen really needs to examine his beliefs and see if he is, in some way, encouraging that which he rejects.

UPDATE: Daled Amos puts it succinctly:

Richard Cohen sounds like a literate George Soros: everything that you say is wrong and evil about Israel is true--but that is no reason to boycott her!

NRO's Media Blog focuses only on Cohen's (proper) conclusion. and Israel Matzav mention that he doesn't endorse everything in the essay. However Mere Rhetoric (harsh language) points to one of the non-sequitirs Cohen addressed in reaching his conclusion.

Posted by SoccerDad at April 24, 2007 6:12 AM