Media Analysis

‘NYT’ writers slam left for intolerance of dissent– on Israel panel that excludes anti-Zionists and Palestinians

New York Times columnists Bret Stephens and Roger Cohen repeatedly bashed the left for not tolerating dissent at a panel about Israel in New York last week. Cohen called for “unsafe” speech and “open discussions, fierce debate” so as to fend off a “monolithic” McCarthyist “mob” on campuses.

But the panel itself embodied Jewish intolerance of dissent: All three speakers on stage at the Jewish Community Center of Manhattan were ardent Zionists, introduced by a JCC official, Dava Schub, as people who could “articulate our connection to and our commitment to Israel. . . the great Jewish project which should unite us but somehow divides us.”

The panel included one Israel critic, Roger Cohen, to counter two rightwing Zionists, Stephens and the event’s moderator, New York Times editor Bari Weiss.

But if anything was plain after 100 minutes of discussion, it is that liberal Jewish institutions like the JCC need to limit division over Israel. The organization has no room on its stage for those inside the Jewish community (and the U.S.) who do not see the need for a Jewish state. And God forbid a Palestinian would care to open her mouth.

Stephens and Cohen both gave speeches about the intolerance of the left.

Stephens’s tone was angry. He said the “toxic” leftwing concept of intersectionality is anti-Semitic; and that if leftists don’t “check their prejudices at the door . . . it’s us who should want no part of them, ever.” He likened Palestinian leadership to pornography (because he’ll know it when he sees it) and said that when Zionists are criticized by students for defending apartheid, they should say “F.U.” back to the students, and do so with a smile.

Roger Cohen was far more high-minded. “Without civilized disagreement, liberal society dies,” he said; and the absence of dissent in leftwing discourse is McCarthyite.

We human beings contain multitudes. Human beings contain multitudes. [He cites Whitman and Goethe.] But there’s something going on today whereby that’s not allowed any more. People are not complex, they’re not multifaceted, they don’t have internal conflicts, they don’t believe one thing that may not fit exactly with another thing.

But yes, they do believe it! And they believe it because they’re human. That’s what they feel, that’s what they think, that’s what they believe. And this form of trying to impose a kind of monolithic order, where because you think one thing, you have to think another, it’s grotesque. At its worst, at its endpoint, it’s McCarthyite. And we have to be very vigilant about resisting it.

Cohen also was eloquent about the idea that universities are collapsing under the mob-rule of monolithic ideology.

We don’t want safe spaces in universities. That’s the last thing we want. Universities should be profoundly unsafe. That’s where you want to be challenged. That’s where your mind is being formed. It’s a very exciting moment in life. And if all you do is go to  college to feel safe, then you’re missing out on an essential element of what that moment in one’s education should be. At least that’s what I think. So. . . for all the people who want us to be monoliths, who want to shut us down, who want to stop discussion…they’re loud, they make a noise, mob mobilization is very easy these days. . . The answer is to fight back, to speak out, to talk. To try and organize forums where discussions can get pretty animated, even vitriolic…

He also said that all three New York Times staffers on stage believe that “open minds, open discussions, fierce debate, disagreement” are at the “foundation of Jewish ethics and Jewish identity itself.”

But again: there was no open or fierce discussion on stage about that idealistic trend in Jewish life, anti-Zionism and non-Zionism. All the panelists praised the creation of a Jewish state and the marvels of Israeli culture. Stephens said that everyone in Tel Aviv is beautiful, and the nukes are wonderful; and Cohen said, “I’m a Zionist. I support the state of Israel, strongly,” and reiterated his theme that Jews in the west would be unsafe were it not for the “new Jews” of Israel.

The same lack of free speech is evident at the New York Times, which has no anti-Zionist columnists. No, its latest hires are hacks for Israel. (And you think this site is tribal!)

It was a measure of the narrow range of the panel that when Bari Weiss asked the group to name the most important books on Israel, all six books named were by Jewish Zionists.

“Anything by Amos Oz, and Six Days of War [by Michael Oren],” Stephens said.

Like Dreamers by Yossi Klein Halevi. And Matti Friedman’s book Pumpkin Flowers,” Weiss said.

“I think 1948 by Benny Morris is very important. And I think even at this distance, From Beirut to Jerusalem remains a great book,” Roger Cohen said.

To his credit, Roger Cohen also was harshly critical of the occupation and acknowledged the crisis of Zionism.

The occupation is corrupting, ladies and gentlemen, it is corrupting, there is no escaping it. There is simply no escaping it. And we see it, day after day, in Israel. You cannot exercise this kind of power in that kind of way for that many years without it getting inside you. It gets inside you. So I as an American Jew — I can see why many young Jews in this country feel growing unease about what Israel is and especially about what Israel is becoming. That doesn’t mean that America’s castiron strategic support for Israel and the support of the Jewish community for this critical alliance is going to erode at any point that I can see.

P.S. I would urge those looking for books to get two books outside the Zionist lens: In the Land of My Birth, by Reja-e Busailah, about a Jerusalem family’s experience of the birth of Israel, and The Israel Lobby, by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, about that castiron support.)

 

23 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

this reminds me of a quote in an inspiring speech i watched last night by Canadian Dr. Michael Dan.

he was talking about the Two Row Wampum Treaty (google that if you don’t know what it is). the saying was “Nothing about us without us”.

such absurdity to criticize the left for not being inclusive and for being intolerant when they support and represent one of the most exclusionary intolerant nationalistic ideologies in the modern world. zionists talking with zionists in a zionist venue to a zionist audience bemoaning the lack of “civilized debate” w/critics of zionism. grab the violins!

Stephens’s tone was angry. He said the “toxic” leftwing concept of intersectionality is anti-Semitic; and that if leftists don’t “check their prejudices at the door… it’s us who should want no part of them, ever.”

what a novel idea. faster please! because it is quite clear stephen’s (and the whole jcc set up) already “want no part of them”. and the feeling is mutual. why normalize zionsim? what’s the point? they should be isolated.

… But if anything was plain after 100 minutes of discussion, it is that liberal Jewish institutions like the JCC need to limit division over Israel. The organization has no room on its stage for those inside the Jewish community (and the U.S.) who do not see the need for a Jewish state. …

I think the term for this is “foregone conclusion”.

Another Zio-orgy – Cohen using a bit of lube while the others – Weiss and Stephens – prefer to deliver their message dry. I hope they enjoyed screwing themselves for Israel. They will be remembered as racist zealots no different from the Nazi propagandists of yesteryear.

Am i wrong or has it’s gotten to the point where these pathetic cowards only preach to the choir? They must realize no one (except other racists) is buying their form of hatred any more.

For those that don’t know of or want to know more of Bari Weiss or Bret Stephens – see the links below to articles written by the amazing Glen Greenwald of the Intercept.
https://theintercept.com/2017/08/31/nyts-newest-op-ed-hire-bari-weiss-embodies-its-worst-failings-and-its-lack-of-viewpoint-diversity/
https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/listen-wsjs-bret-stephens-secretely-plot-pro-israel-evangelicals-killing-iran-deal/

Cohen states, “We don’t want safe spaces in universities. That’s the last thing we want. Universities should be profoundly unsafe.”

I agree wholeheartedly with Cohen. But what a “safe space” he picked to state it in.

I remember when college students were imbued with the notion universities were the champions of free speech, of the “free play of ideas”–that was in the latter part of the Vietnam Era. In those days the male students carried draft cards. Now we have a volunteer army. How much “safe space” is needed now, and why?