
Naive on Iran
Roger Cohen strikes again. Last time we considered this venerated New York Times columnist, Cohen was urging Hillary Clinton to show Israel some tough love.
Now he weighs in with a column describing life for Iran's Jews as hunky dory. While declaring "The Arab Jew has perished. The Persian Jew has fared better," Cohen writes:
A mystery hovers over Iran’s Jews. It’s important to decide what’s more significant: the annihilationist anti-Israel ranting, the Holocaust denial and other Iranian provocations — or the fact of a Jewish community living, working and worshipping in relative tranquillity.
Perhaps I have a bias toward facts over words, but I say the reality of Iranian civility toward Jews tells us more about Iran — its sophistication and culture — than all the inflammatory rhetoric.
That may be because I’m a Jew and have seldom been treated with such consistent warmth as in Iran. Or perhaps I was impressed that the fury over Gaza, trumpeted on posters and Iranian TV, never spilled over into insults or violence toward Jews. Or perhaps it’s because I’m convinced the “Mad Mullah” caricature of Iran and likening of any compromise with it to Munich 1938 — a position popular in some American Jewish circles — is misleading and dangerous.
Cohen draws a different conclusion about Iran's anti-Israel threats:
Double standards don’t work anymore; the Middle East has become too sophisticated. One way to look at Iran’s scurrilous anti-Israel tirades is as a provocation to focus people on Israel’s bomb, its 41-year occupation of the West Bank, its Hamas denial, its repetitive use of overwhelming force. Iranian language can be vile, but any Middle East peace — and engagement with Tehran — will have to take account of these points.
I'll make two limited points here:
1. Cohen says he has a bias for facts over words, but he doesn't seem to consider the possibility that Jews in Iran may be holding back when they talk to him for fear of the regime's long arm. This is a place where 13 Jews from Shiraz were charged with spying for Israel in a trumped-up trial that resulted in multiyear prison sentences for Jewish innocents (which Cohen mentions in passing). This is a community living in fear of a president who never misses an opportunity to talk about the destruction of the Jewish state or argue that the Holocaust is an exagerration.
By all accounts, things have gotten worse for Iran's remaining Jews under the current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There is a reason the vast majority of Iran's Jews have fled since the Islamic revolution of 1979. There is a reason Iran's Jewish emigres from Los Angeles to Tel Aviv, where Iranian Jews can speek freely, advocate taking a harsh line toward the regime in Tehran. There is a reason recent immigrants to Israel from Iran must obscure their faces when talking to the news media. To say that Iran's Jews enjoy tranquility is dangerously naive. Iran is a place where Jews are punished for expressing the fundamental Jewish value of yearning for Zion. It is a place where the specter of random arrest and imprisonment by a fundamentalist Islamic regime always hangs over the community.
The "consistent warmth" with which Cohen, a Jew, was treated in Iran is not indicative of the security of Iranian Jews. Cohen was treated warmly because the Persians have a long tradition of honoring guests, and because the people of Iran have little antipathy toward Jews. But the regime is another animal entirely, and it continues to do all it can to rally the Iranian people -- and Muslims around the world -- against the Jews and the Jewish state.
2. Only Roger Cohen could turn a column from Iran into an opportunity to thump Israel. Absent is discussion of Iran's nuclear program, its support and training of terrorist groups in Lebanon and Gaza, and its threats to its Arab neighbors in the Persian Gulf (In Saturday's Wall Street Journal, the former head of Israel's Missile Defense Organization, Uzi Rubin, finds another cause for concern in Iran's recent launch of its Omid satellite). Instead, "Iran's scurrilousanti-Israel tirades" are an opportunity to focus people on Israel's "Hamas denial" -- a clever but ultimately disgusting alliteration that alludes to some sort of equivalence with Holocaust denial.
This is not the place to defend Israel's targeting of a terrorist group, or a military strategy that seeks to defeat the enemy rather than engaging in some twisted notion of fair play. But surely Iran is not the place for Cohen to level yet another attack on the Jewish state. Don't we have enough anti-Israel rhetoric coming out of Iran already?
Elsewhere on the Times' Op-Ed page, a former newspaper editor from Iran, Ali Reza Eshraghi, argues that the Obama administration should not wait to engage with Tehran until after presidential elections that could result in the end of Ahmadinejad's tenure. Ahmadinejad has been making overtures to the new U.S. president, and Washington would be foolish to ignore them, Eshraghi writes:
Mr. Obama has expressed interest in engaging in dialogue with Iran, and there is no time to waste. Over the next few months he should initiate negotiations without preconditions and establish formal diplomatic ties with Iran. Mr. Ahmadinejad, for all his faults, has taken unprecedented steps to reach out to the United States. Iran’s next leader may not be able to do the same. Mr. Obama must seize the opportunity to shake the Iranian president’s outstretched hand.
5 Comments
Iran,
Israel,
Roger Cohen
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
Uriel makes Good Points - In all countries the people and the leadership are not the same thing. We all hope for the safety of the Jews in Iran. Remember Jews in Germany were part of the fabric of that country and things changed very quickly.
It’s remarkable that a New York Times columnist, whether a regular or a guest columnist, would remark on an issue as important as Iranian Jewry with no more knowledge than the good feeling he got during a visit. The Jewish community in Iran once stood at about 100,000 and has dropped to between 10,000 and 25,000 (depending on estimates) since the fall of the Shah. No small part of the emigration has been caused by world-conspiratorial anti-Semitic remarks by Ayatollah Khomeini--the present regime is simply more repetitive in its anti-Semitism than Khomeini was.
The Jews who remain (I know well through many acquaintances) tend to be the ones who are least knowledgeable about foreign languages, least educated, least attached to Israel, least likely to have relatives abroad, and most connected to property or business that is not easily gotten rid off. They stay despite precariousness of daily existence, in which they can be (and some have been) arrested and imprisoned on accusations of treason and with no due process. In many public settings, Jewish womenfeel compelled to wear the chador, the Iranian version of the burka. Generally protected by Islamic law as long as they accept their dhimmi status, Iran’s remaining Jews have, in effect, acquiesced to second-class status.
Iranian culture requires courtesy to guests, even to guests perceived as enemies. Of course, the courtesy can be genuine, but its outward signs should not be confused with genuine friendship, something that needs years to develop. That a Times writer would be so ignorant of history and so naive about cultures is just astounding. It’s such self-deluding ignorance that has made Jews susceptible to anti-semites’ bloodshed.
G-d help us if these are the such commentators actually influence Jews’ beliefs..
I read Roger Cohen’s article in today’s NY Times and thought “What a ****!”
Please remember the NY Times has never really been pro-Israel. The owning
family headed by Arthur Hays Sulzberger who was a member of the anti-Zionist
American Council for Judaism has been at best lukewarm on the existence of
Israel. Also the NY Times doesn’t have such a good track record on some major
issues. The paper’s Moscow correspondent during the 1930s (the Great Purge
and other events) Walter Duranty wrote that life in the Soviet Union was just hunky-dory and Joseph Stalin was a benevolent and progressive leader. I was
thinking of Duranty when I read Roger Cohen’s screed. And by the way, what
in tarnation are phylacteries? The word tefillin (alternate spelling tephillin)
appear in many dictionaries.
Notice the author’s use of “Hamas denial,” to equate Israel with Holocaust deniers. But the author is in denial about Hamas - please read Article 22 of the Hamas Charter, which blames the Jews for every major crime in history, including blaming the Jews for the French Revolution.
Note also his nonsense about no more “double standards.” The danger with Iran is that they will use their nuclear weapon as a military strategy to neutralize Israel’s, while Israel is surrounded by conventional forces, e.g., they fight a war and they win. In general, military strategy always is to neutralize the other side’s weapons, while you have at least one that the other side cannot neutralize. The author appears to not understand warfare at all.
Also, at the Holocaust conference in Iran a year or two ago, the president there was quoted as saying he doesn’t want to kill all the Jews , but all Jews have to leave the Middle East. How is that a conflict resolution model?
To show I’m even-handed, and to show that Cohen knows nothing, the rejection front in he Muslim world and the Left in Europe and America knows the issue isn’t the 41 years of settlements and occupation. Everything from 1948 is occupied land from their point of view, of course, and every immigrant in history is an occupier. Also, according to all Islamists, the Jews are “imposters,” a standard Islamic line. The people who call themselves Jews aren’t the real Jews anyway, they argue. There are Israelis who agree with this, actually. But Cohen appears to know nothing of the real arguments against Israel - he’s trying to position himself as a moderate when all informed people - whether left, right, secular, Islamist, whatever - must know he just doesn’t know anything. But The New York Times published him! That’s further evidence that The Times is trying to position itself politically, and such op-ed pieces themselves serve the agenda of the paper’s owners. Really, reading Noam Chomsky is more valuable than reading Cohen.
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, you must first be logged in to JTA. If you are not registered, please click here.
Already a JTA member?
Need to know? Get JTA's free e-newsletters!
Share



Martin K
02/23/09 05:45 PM
Good points. One quibble: Cohen isn’t a “venerated” NYT columnist. I don’t even know if he has a regular column in the paper and, if he does, he only got it very recently. I think he’s really an International Herald Tribune columnist.