Cohen misses the point—again http://blogs.jta.org/ENTRY_PERMALINK_HERE/cohen-misses-the-point-again/ Roger Cohen responds to critics of his Iran column last week, and slams Israel—again. en-us uheilman@jta.org Copyright 2009 2009-03-02T;21:10:00-05:00 Comment by Gareth Porter porter.gareth50@gmail.com You assert as fact that Iran “orchestrates attacks on Jewish community centers” and cite the Buenos Aires bombing of 1994.  I investigated that case in considerable detail in 2006 and 2007 and found that investigators found no evidence linking Iran or Hezbollah to the bombing from 1994 to 2000, as four U.S. officials, including the FBI agent who headed the team sent to assist the Argentine authorities in the investigation, told me in interviews.  Furthermore the Argentine investigation was deeply tainted from the beginning by a corrupt effort at a frame-up Hezbollah and later of police associated with a political rival of the President. In 2000, the government claimed to have identified the Lebanese Hezbollah bomber.  But I explain in detail in my article why that identification was completely unreliable, and was doubted seriously even by the Argentine intelligence official who had been in charge of the case.  The fact that the Argentine government, Israel and the United States have continued to make the accusation in recent years does not make it true.  Although space did not permit to get into the question of who may have been responsible for the bombing, I found abundant evidence to suggest that violently anti-semitic figures from the Argentine security services (militiary, police and intelligence) who had picked out jews for special treatment during the dirty war in Argentina had both the motive and the opportunity to carry out that bombing as well as the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in 1992.  My article on the Buenos Aires bombing and the tainted investigation in Argentina can be found at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080204/porter Gareth Porter Independent investigative journalist and historian You assert as fact that Iran “orchestrates attacks on Jewish community centers” and cite the Buenos Aires bombing of 1994.  I investigated that case in considerable detail in 2006 and 2007 and found that investigators found no evidence linking Iran or Hezbollah to the bombing from 1994 to 2000, as four U.S. officials, including the FBI agent who headed the team sent to assist the Argentine authorities in the investigation, told me in interviews.  Furthermore the Argentine investigation was deeply tainted from the beginning by a corrupt effort at a frame-up Hezbollah and later of police associated with a political rival of the President.

In 2000, the government claimed to have identified the Lebanese Hezbollah bomber.  But I explain in detail in my article why that identification was completely unreliable, and was doubted seriously even by the Argentine intelligence official who had been in charge of the case. 

The fact that the Argentine government, Israel and the United States have continued to make the accusation in recent years does not make it true. 

Although space did not permit to get into the question of who may have been responsible for the bombing, I found abundant evidence to suggest that violently anti-semitic figures from the Argentine security services (militiary, police and intelligence) who had picked out jews for special treatment during the dirty war in Argentina had both the motive and the opportunity to carry out that bombing as well as the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in 1992. 

My article on the Buenos Aires bombing and the tainted investigation in Argentina can be found at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080204/porter

Gareth Porter
Independent investigative journalist and historian

]]> 2012-02-09T;19:12:00-05:00 Comment by Jeffrey Grossman ns_jeffrey@bezeqint.net Roger Cohen’s op-ed, “What Iran’s Jews Say”, now appears online in the Tehran Times: http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=189975 At least part of it. It goes without saying what was omitted from the original NYT op-ed in the Iranian newspaper: “I know, if many Jews left Iran, it was for a reason. Hostility exists. The trumped-up charges of spying for Israel against a group of Shiraz Jews in 1999 showed the regime at its worst. Jews elect one representative to Parliament, but can vote for a Muslim if they prefer. A Muslim, however, cannot vote for a Jew. Among minorities, the Bahai — seven of whom were arrested recently on charges of spying for Israel — have suffered brutally harsh treatment.” This hardly comes as a surprise, despite Mr. Cohen’s contention in “Iran, the Jews and Germany” that Iran is not a totalitarian state. At the bottom of the item, the Tehran Times specifically attributes the article to The New York Times: “(Source: New York Times)” It would be interesting to know whether The New York Times was paid for publication of this abridged version of Cohen’s op-ed in the Tehran Times. Roger Cohen’s op-ed, “What Iran’s Jews Say”, now appears online in the Tehran Times: http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=189975

At least part of it. It goes without saying what was omitted from the original NYT op-ed in the Iranian newspaper:

“I know, if many Jews left Iran, it was for a reason. Hostility exists. The trumped-up charges of spying for Israel against a group of Shiraz Jews in 1999 showed the regime at its worst. Jews elect one representative to Parliament, but can vote for a Muslim if they prefer. A Muslim, however, cannot vote for a Jew.

Among minorities, the Bahai — seven of whom were arrested recently on charges of spying for Israel — have suffered brutally harsh treatment.”

This hardly comes as a surprise, despite Mr. Cohen’s contention in “Iran, the Jews and Germany” that Iran is not a totalitarian state.

At the bottom of the item, the Tehran Times specifically attributes the article to The New York Times: “(Source: New York Times)”

It would be interesting to know whether The New York Times was paid for publication of this abridged version of Cohen’s op-ed in the Tehran Times.

]]> 2012-02-09T;19:12:00-05:00 Comment by BRUCE trazom8@aol.com To Michael Several, You said:  “This could end today if Israel opened the border to Gaza and allowed goods, such as pasta, in at the same level it was three years ago.” Don’t lose your sympathy for Israel yet.  Hamas was blowing up buses, pizzerias, and discotheques full of civilians and young kids long before the issue of rockets and border closures appeared.  Hamas’ terrorism did not start with the border closures.  In fact, it has nothing to do with it.  Read their charter.  That says it all. ***** To Michael Several,

You said:  “This could end today if Israel opened the border to Gaza and allowed goods, such as pasta, in at the same level it was three years ago.”

Don’t lose your sympathy for Israel yet.  Hamas was blowing up buses, pizzerias, and discotheques full of civilians and young kids long before the issue of rockets and border closures appeared.  Hamas’ terrorism did not start with the border closures.  In fact, it has nothing to do with it.  Read their charter.  That says it all.

*****

]]> 2012-02-09T;19:12:00-05:00 Comment by Michael Several mseveral@sbcglobal.net I just want to make one comment, which pertains to the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel.  This could end today if Israel opened the border to Gaza and allowed goods, such as pasta, in at the same level it was three years ago.  It is unfortunate that an Egyptian brokered agreement concerning the border and the firing of rockets was just about to be accepted when Israel threw in an issue, though important, is irrelevant to the matter at hand.  Tieing the freeing of Gilad Shalit to the situation at hand was misguided.  I’m afraid that since it is obvious to all how the rockets fire can end, which is by opening the border, Israel ceases to have my sympathy. I just want to make one comment, which pertains to the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel.  This could end today if Israel opened the border to Gaza and allowed goods, such as pasta, in at the same level it was three years ago.  It is unfortunate that an Egyptian brokered agreement concerning the border and the firing of rockets was just about to be accepted when Israel threw in an issue, though important, is irrelevant to the matter at hand.  Tieing the freeing of Gilad Shalit to the situation at hand was misguided.  I’m afraid that since it is obvious to all how the rockets fire can end, which is by opening the border, Israel ceases to have my sympathy.

]]> 2012-02-09T;19:12:00-05:00 Comment by Richard Finn ransjfinn@rcn.com Look what I found in Article 7 of the HAMAS Charter: Qu’ran Sura 4-56: “And it shall come to pass that every rock and every tree will shout “Muslim, oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me.  Come slay him!’” I hope that Mr. Cohen has sufficient understanding of what that phrase means. Look what I found in Article 7 of the HAMAS Charter:
Qu’ran Sura 4-56: “And it shall come to pass that every rock and every tree will shout “Muslim, oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me.  Come slay him!’”
I hope that Mr. Cohen has sufficient understanding of what that phrase means.

]]> 2012-02-09T;19:12:00-05:00 Comment by Lee Ann leannsherman@sbcglobal.net Excellent, cogent piece which I will forward to friends and family.  Oh, maybe Roger Cohen is right - we shouldn’t categorize Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorists.  I think we should call them the Mouseketeers.  As Mr. Hellman alluded to, I’d like to see Cohen’s position after a Katusha rocket slams through his bedroom ceiling splashing his loved ones’ body parts across the room.  I think Cohen smoked too much pot in the 60s. Excellent, cogent piece which I will forward to friends and family. 

Oh, maybe Roger Cohen is right - we shouldn’t categorize Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorists.  I think we should call them the Mouseketeers. 

As Mr. Hellman alluded to, I’d like to see Cohen’s position after a Katusha rocket slams through his bedroom ceiling splashing his loved ones’ body parts across the room.  I think Cohen smoked too much pot in the 60s.

]]> 2012-02-09T;19:12:00-05:00 Comment by Joseph Spivack spivack@yahoo.com You wrote the following in your post:  “I don’t want to be in the uncomfortable position of defending Lieberman, who has called for drowning Palestinian prisoners in the Dead Sea, among other repugnant measures. “ Please post a link to (or at least cite) the source which published or reported Lieberman’s comment about drowning in the Red Sea. Thanks. You wrote the following in your post:  “I don’t want to be in the uncomfortable position of defending Lieberman, who has called for drowning Palestinian prisoners in the Dead Sea, among other repugnant measures. “

Please post a link to (or at least cite) the source which published or reported Lieberman’s comment about drowning in the Red Sea.

Thanks.

]]> 2012-02-09T;19:12:00-05:00 Comment by Alex Khazanovich khazanovich@cox.net There is no similarity between Lieberman and Ahmadinejad. Lieberman, for all his rhetoric, has shown support for for plenty of dovish government measures, confirming that he is interested in the lasting peace, and not in killing arabs. Many of his current campaign statements are attempting to address the issue of security for the citizens of Israel. Personally, I find some of his statements misguided, while others are right on, such as changing the debate from “land for peace” to “peace for peace”. Taking his statements out of the broad context to me illustrates desperation of Israel’s detractors in trying to find something to denigrate Israel with. However, every Israeli politician thus far, no matter how tough in his words, has been willing to work towards peace with its neighbors. Just think of Begin and Sharon. While Lieberman (and Netanyahu) don’t view the world through the rose-colored glasses, they, too, are willing to work for peace. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, does not want peace, but rather, he wants to destroy Israel. He has not only been consistent in his anti-Israeli vitriol, and hatred of all Jews, but also he has shown much of that in his actions, by arming Hamas and Hisbollah and instigating them to fight Israel, and by channeling the limited resources of his country into building a nuclear weapon, much to the detriment of his country’s economy.  This dogged determination and the constant anti-Israel/anti-Jewish rhetoric consistent with it should make everyone worried, even his fellow Muslims. To compare him to Lieberman is like comparing the bull raging about the china shop and stomping its customers, along with the delicate displays, to the owner of this shop, aiming at the bull with the tranquilizer gun. There is no similarity between Lieberman and Ahmadinejad. Lieberman, for all his rhetoric, has shown support for for plenty of dovish government measures, confirming that he is interested in the lasting peace, and not in killing arabs. Many of his current campaign statements are attempting to address the issue of security for the citizens of Israel. Personally, I find some of his statements misguided, while others are right on, such as changing the debate from “land for peace” to “peace for peace”. Taking his statements out of the broad context to me illustrates desperation of Israel’s detractors in trying to find something to denigrate Israel with. However, every Israeli politician thus far, no matter how tough in his words, has been willing to work towards peace with its neighbors. Just think of Begin and Sharon. While Lieberman (and Netanyahu) don’t view the world through the rose-colored glasses, they, too, are willing to work for peace.
Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, does not want peace, but rather, he wants to destroy Israel. He has not only been consistent in his anti-Israeli vitriol, and hatred of all Jews, but also he has shown much of that in his actions, by arming Hamas and Hisbollah and instigating them to fight Israel, and by channeling the limited resources of his country into building a nuclear weapon, much to the detriment of his country’s economy.  This dogged determination and the constant anti-Israel/anti-Jewish rhetoric consistent with it should make everyone worried, even his fellow Muslims.
To compare him to Lieberman is like comparing the bull raging about the china shop and stomping its customers, along with the delicate displays, to the owner of this shop, aiming at the bull with the tranquilizer gun.

]]> 2012-02-09T;19:12:00-05:00