Naive on Iran http://blogs.jta.org/ENTRY_PERMALINK_HERE/nai/ Israel endures yet another condemnation from Iran—this time, from Roger Cohen. en-us uheilman@jta.org Copyright 2009 2009-02-23T;16:51:00-05:00 Comment by Albanypark aamidor@gmail.com 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. 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.

]]> 2009-11-19T;22:58:01-05:00 Comment by Murray Aronson operafan101@hotmail.com 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. 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.

]]> 2009-11-19T;22:58:01-05:00 Comment by Ernest Sternberg memorist1@gmail.com 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.. 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..

]]> 2009-11-19T;22:58:01-05:00 Comment by Ira Herson ira@ihug.com.au 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. 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.

]]> 2009-11-19T;22:58:01-05:00 Comment by Martin K mk26@comcast.net 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. 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.

]]> 2009-11-19T;22:58:01-05:00