Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism

As if to prove the point of the essay by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, “Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism” published by the American Jewish Committee, that favorite cage liner The New York Times looses its theater critic, Patricia Cohen, to poop on it.

She exposes her colors in her first sentence.

The American Jewish Committee, an ardent defender of Israel, is known for speaking out against anti-Semitism, but this conservative advocacy group has recently stirred up a bitter and emotional debate with a new target: liberal Jews.

Only a left-winged bird of a feather like Patricia Cohen can call the American Jewish Committee “conservative.” And, only the self-deluded can call leftist extremists "liberal."

The American Jewish Committee, founded in 1906 to combat Russia’s pogroms, has stayed true to its mission and roots “to work towards a world in which all peoples were accorded respect and dignity.” Its stances are mainstream Jewish liberalism. For example, from its May 2006 positions paper, the AJC supports $500-million for social and economic development aid for Latin America; comprehensive (enforcement and legalization) immigration reform; John McCain’s restrictions on treatment of enemy combatants; hate crimes protection for race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, or disability; domestic violence protections for women; extension of the Voting Rights Act; opposition to a flag desecration amendment as impinging on free speech; workplace accommodation of all religions’ practices; prolonging Katrina aid; opposition to relaxed IRS standards against politics by houses of worship; opposition to the “nuclear option” by conservatives to terminate filibusters of judicial nominees.

Patricia Cohen’s difficulty distinguishing left from right also extends to her difficulty to distinguish gross war crimes and genocide by the Japanese in World War II from Western colonialism. In her New York Times book review of Winston Groom's history of the pivotal year 1942 in the Pacific, although she admits he “is also the author of 11 other books, including the well-regarded Civil War history 'Shrouds of Glory,’ " she savages his choice of words as too incendiary in describing Japanese atrocities. Then, the roost from which she flies is exposed by her imbalanced moral relativism and factual poverty:

In Groom's account, the Japanese are ''wild-eyed,'' treacherous and unrepentant and their planning for Pearl Harbor ''diabolical.'' Their refusal to surrender is lunatic zealotry while the Americans' intention to fight to the end is heroic. Their imperial designs are part of a ''rapacious'' and cruel plot to ''control most of the world'' and squeeze America to death, while the colonial records of the Allies who already control it are glossed over.

So, what does Patricia Cohen bring to her review of Alvin Rosenfeld’s essay? She devotes most of her report to leftist extremists' self-justifications for attacking Israel. She doesn’t, however, quote Israel critic Tony Judt's inane, “Israel today is bad for the Jews.” She doesn’t reflect on the use by these critics of words like “apartheid,” “racism,” “colonialism,” and “ethnic cleansing” to describe Israel. As Rosenfeld shows:

These descriptors have become part of the standard discourse among “progressive” American Jews, who seem to take for granted that the historical record shows Israel to be an aggressor state guilty of sins comparable to those of Hendrik Verwoerd’s South Africa and Hitler’s Germany.

As Rosenfeld points out:

The true end point of these views is not just to force the Israelis out of the territories they have occupied since 1967, but to force an end to the Jewish state itself.

In an interview for her alma mater, Patricia Cohen says, ““Every story should be understandable for an intelligent general reader who knows nothing about the subject.” Instead, she misleads the ignorant in this story, and anyone who is informed can easily recognize her evident left-wing bias.