The New York Times (NYT) posted 2 of the 3 comments i made to the following article:
The comment that was suppressed was the first i made, so there is no chance that it came in late and the NYT didn't have time to consider it. In the comment i merely draw attention to the fact that Mr Tom Friedman had said in the past in the pages of the NYT something along the lines of what Ms Ilhan Omar said, and my guess is that the NYT wanted to be spared allegations from the more hawkish part of pro-Israel activists that it (the NYT) is giving ammo to (alleged) Antisemites by publishing views such as the one that Mr Friedman had expressed in 2011. Or maybe it didn't want to make Ms Michelle Goldberg sound hypocritical when she was condemning Ms Omar's statement as Antisemitic. Anyway, here is my NYT comment that never saw the light of day:
"If i say "the Israel lobby is buying and paying for some of US's decisions concerning the Middle East (ME)", how different is what i am saying from what New York Times columnist Tom Friedman said in 2011? (this is what he said:"[the] standing ovation [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby").
Given that Mr Friedman is a supporter of Israel and not someone who is willing to engage in Antisemitic (a/s) speech acts, isn't it rational to both believe that there is pro-Israel influence on US policy with regard to the ME and to also use the same expressions that Mr Friedman used? Ms Goldberg suggests that her problem is with the phrasing of Ms Omar's tweet (a phrasing that was no more provocative than Mr Friedman's phrasing). But then why doesn't Ms Goldberg suggest a way that critics of this particular aspect of the relation between Israel and the US can use to make their case in a non-a/s way?
Surely, critics of the (not just monetary) influence that pro-Israel activism has on US policy in the ME should be able to voice their concerns about the damage done to Palestinians due to US ME policy , and they should also be able to offer causal explanations for this policy, because causes hint to policy solutions. They can't do so if their speech is deemed a/s no matter how they phrase it.
Or is it that Jewish sensitivities take precedence over Palestinian interests?"
My other two comments were along the same lines, except they made no mention of Mr Tom Friedman's past dictum, so they were allowed -- or so i guess. Here they are:
Regarding the conspiracy theory that the Pittsburgh shooter was disseminating online a few hours before the attack, namely that the Jews are bringing Muslims in the US in order to cause white people to become extinct, the Gatestone Institute is replete with articles suggestive of precisely this conspiracy theory. The aim obviously is to generate a sense of imminent danger and the attendant fear and outrage so as to mobilize into action, sooner or later. I already posted a link from Gatestone above, where the language makes plain the intentions of the author to generate a sense of threat in the minds of white Westerners (“Islam is creeping in, Europe is becoming Islamized, Europe’s survival crisis”), but I would like to post two more links whose vocabulary in the titles is very suggestive of the fact that Gatestone is also trying to appeal to white supremacists and mobilize them against Muslims:
“Europe: The Great White Death?”
“Are Jihadists Taking over Europe?”
The memes are clear: whites are endangered by Muslims, so something must be done. But professor Dershowitz did not imagine that this sort of rhetoric can make some from the audience turn first against the Jews, who are seen as the promoters of this supposedly dangerous for whites state of affairs.
And numerous others Israel lovers are now warning the Jewish Diaspora against Corbyn, instead of turning their attention to the number one culprit of endangering Diapora Jews, i.e. the anti-Muslim pro-Israel activism propagated by the Gatestone Institute and similar sites and think tanks -- Gatestone’s raison d'être is (a specific orientation of) pro-Israel activism, never mind its stated purposes.
Instead of Corbyn, Jewish Diaspora should be looking for professor Dershowitz to do some explaining for his enabling role.
P.S. if you see Annie’s video below (min 6:00) where the Ambassador of Israel is nonchalantly and self-righteously smearing a sweetheart like Corbyn as an anti-Semite, you might get an idea why some people get so agitated against Israel – it is Israel’s defenders that sometimes create hostility against Israel. And it should be kept in mind that Corbyn is very popular. Gratuitously smearing him for the sake of Israel’s glory (not even for the sake of Israel’s security, which is guaranteed anyway) is the most unwise thing that Diaspora leaders could do.