A sharp friend makes an interesting observation about Roger Cohen's important op-ed about Iran that appeared in the New York Times on March 1:
It goes very far in challenging the MSM and high establishment gospel that Iran is an irredeemably totalitarian country on a par with Hitler's Germany.
Something curious: Here is another version of the same piece that appeared in the International Herald Tribune. Five paragraphs from the end, where Cohen talks about the Jewish community center bombing in Buenos Aires in 1994, he writes:
Notice the qualification; Cohen treats the Buenos Aires charge as an allegation, and not yet proved. Now look at the Times version of the same paragraph:
The Times version doesn't just remove the qualifying clause, it alters the grammar of the allegation to create an ostensible fact.
I (Weiss) emailed Roger Cohen to ask how the change had come about. He told me that the Times version was actually the first version of the story, but he changed the piece for publication in the IHT. Thereby improving it.
Oh well: There goes my and my friend's theory that the Times editors altered the Iranian claim to make it palatable to the carnivorous American elite!
So why am I even posting about this? Because, as my friend points out, the factual discrepancy here is a loaded one; and the difference between what NYT readers are getting and what IHT readers are getting is--whatever the cause--lamentable. Writes my friend:
The bombing was a key exhibit in the Perle-Frum imperial war blueprint, An End to Evil; they deployed it in chapter 1 to prove that (a) Iran was fanatically anti-Semitic, and (b) Iran had already insulted the U.S. and violated the Monroe Doctrine, by an attack on civilians in our hemisphere:
killing eighty-six people and wounding some three hundred at a Jewish Community
Center in Buenos Aires--and our government did worse than nothing: It opened
negotiations with the murderers. Mullahs and imams incited violence and
slaughter against Christians and Jews--and our government failed to acknowledge
that anything important was occurring."
Perle has repeated this charge in other settings, and has been the keenest of the neoconservative war brokers in pressing the U.S. to bomb Iran. As recently as January 2007, at the Herzliya conference (in a speech reported in Haaretz), Perle did it by assuring his audience that the bombing of Iran would be carried out "if it becomes clear to [Bush] that Iran is set to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities while he is still in office."
Obviously, the more bombing Iran has already done, the more bombing it is likely to do. That is why the chimerical accusation regarding Buenos Aires is important to Perle and why it is important to the New York Times.
It seems possible that Cohen has read Gareth Porter's article in The Nation, later adapted for the Huffington Post, which took pains to examine the charge itself, the motives of those who made it, the part the Mossad may have played, and the lack of any substantial reason for believing that Iran had anything to do with the bombing. Cohen is reading forbidden materials now and arriving at unwelcome conclusions. Skepticism about Buenos Aires can open many paths of further skepticism and rational surmise. (Not only travel has changed his mind.)
Extremely well spotted, PHil, congratulations. I wouldn't necesarily believe Mr Cohen: after all, he knows as well as you do, almost, what the personal career penalties for rocking the mainstream boat can be. On the other hand, I wouldn't actually accuse him of covering for the NYT either. Life's too short.
Personally I deal with these revealing little turns of phrase on my own blog by using a combination of red highlighting, boldface, and italicisation, and I do not follow a strict or consistent rule in doing this – often I go back and add another layer of red highlighting, boldface, or italicisation when I suddenly spot another sub-text lurking.
Amazing how a slight change such as that completely alters the meaning, and the reader's perception.
And to think that most people read things PASSIVELY. Scary.
Surely the Times will print a correction ASAP.
To alter the truth would be antisemetic.
MM. My thoughts exactly. CAMERA seems to be able to get the NYTimes to make a correction, for the author to request a correction should be a no-brainer?
Except that Cohen himself described it as accurate. How does that add to a correction?
Again and again, it is a truth that Iran funds, arms, trains proxy militia that have actively targeted civilians in a sovereign UN member state.
When it changes that behavior, then the benefit of the doubt is decided. Until then, the benefit of the doubt is in the other side of the continental divide.
It is important to address the impact of perception. To intelligent people, the caricature "totalitarian evil empire" is not the story to contest. That's a no brainer.
The story to contest is the support for Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, undertaking gruesome murders of civilians in nail-studded suicide bombings, and rocket shelling of civilians.
Its good to oppose inhumanity in the world.
Good news for Richard Witty. US stays the course, text target Iran. Bad news for the US and the rest of the world.
Steve Clemonts: Israel is Crossing the line
Pat Lang: Clinton, Ross and the Muslims
Ditto: Jim Lobe
Lol, look at Witty. He really does have to fill the air with all those adjectives doesn't he? You're looking more and more desperate these days Witty.
Did Iran commit the attacks or not? What is the evidence? Is it credible? All there seems to be are allegations. The end.
Now back to Witty's rhetoric (because that's all it is, he could care less about the civilians of this conflict, he's just concerned about his 'group' and the ideology):
'gruesome'
'shelling'
'murders'
Tell me Witty. Who supports Hamas's targeting of civilians? The US kills way more innocent people. Israel kills way more innocent people. Both torture and kidnap too. Both lie. Etc. etc.
So if you support Israel, you support their policy? Right down to the massacre in Gaza (nevermind that most American Jews supported the massacre according to the ADL)?
So if you support/love the US, do you support their policy? Right down to, let's say, the illegal/immoral war in Iraq?
You're a moron Witty. You've gotten progressively more moronic lately. Ignoring any evidence that delegitimizes you usual talking points and now spouting this sanctimonious bullshit.
The story to contest is whether or not the use of the word 'terrorism' is anything more than just an ideological bludgeon.
Witty – like many other Zionists – use this sort of terminology because it's the norm. What's NOT the norm is to bring up the far more frequent/brutal/widespread destruction of innocent lives by States or allies.
So the mujahadeen were freedom fighters during the 80s (Rambo III, dedicated to the 'gallant people of Afghanistan') but now they are terrorists. Actually, still may be freedom fighters.. depending on this Iran business.
But that's not even the tip of the iceberg with this word, 'terrorism'. Make no mistake, there ARE terrorists out there, but they aren't secluded to some list the US or Israel draw up.
All powerful countries use terror. In fact, State terror far outweighs terror by groups like Hamas (suicide bombing innocent civilians). Yet, to delegitimize the enemy further (since the more powerful will always have the upperhand in every regard, especially in PR) – you have to bludgeon them with these words.
They become part of a narrative and after a certain point, to deviate from the narrative would appear heretical. It would appear obscene. Like denying the Holocaust (which is another issue entirely, that's become a religion in and of itself, regardless of what your views are on it).
So Witty, like the typical Ziopuke that he is, will regurgitate these establishment buzzwords.
He'll even throw in some choice adjectives for effect!
'Gruesome!'
'Shelling!'
'Nail studded suicide bombings'! ooooooh scary!
I love how he ends with:
"Its good to oppose inhumanity in the world."
Now you're just trolling Witty. I mean, you're just so transparent.
nail-studded suicide bombings, and rocket shelling of civilians
Flechette shells and white phosphorus sound positively humane by comparison…
You are aware that the above statement would be truthfully stated with either the US or Israel filling in the blank, aren't you? So where's the benefit of doubt in those equations? Different standards? Why?
Witty has the worldview where Zionists are Autobots and Arabs are Decepticons.
That's also the extent of his intellectual threshold.
I guess when we support a militia, they are freedom fighters. When 'they' (unspecified since we have so many Enemies of the State) do it, they're supporting terror.
Hey Witty, lay off the freedom fries.
No question, Witty is a a NAZI, for the Jews.
Look, I agree that many of the criticisms of Richard Witty's arguments. He criticizes Hamas much more than the IDF and so on. But you can tear into his arguments without calling him a Nazi or a moron. Not, of course, that everyone above did that.
I get exasperated with his arguments myself, but namecalling doesn't do any good. And even setting aside whether you think it's justifiable to call people names, you ought to consider the possibility that there might be a large number of lurkers present, some of whom might have trouble giving legitimate arguments their proper consideration if those arguments are accompanied by a lot of insults. You might reach fencesitters more effectively if you make your points, but leave out the insults. because the insults only appeal to (some of) the people who already agree with you. And no, this isn't concern trolling, because I mean all this.
Witty has the worldview where Zionists are Autobots and Arabs are Decepticons.
That's also the extent of his intellectual threshold.
Posted by: LD
Hahahha.
Re: Witty
The people who have destroyed America's economy (people based largely in NYC, Chicago, LA, and other large cities) along with the people who are destroying America's foreign policy (based in Wash. DC) are inhuman terrorists.
America is infested with these economic terrorists and political terrorists, and these terrorists are destroying America. When will Americans start to confront the terrorist threat that is destroying it from within?
By the way Witty – how much does the JIDF, the Israeli govt., or other Zionist organization pay you to 'keep tabs' on this website?
The irony of the name-calling posts, is that they are often undertaken in the name of opposing censorship.
Its particularly ironic for the "dissenters" here to accuse me of being one-dimensional.
Personally I would describe you as lacking in any dimensions at all, Richard. You appear to have neither breadth, length, or depth of your own, though sometimes you achieve length, but allowing the trite voices in your head to dictate your comments in extenso.
Phil, knowing a bit about the editorial process (not specifically at the NYT), i would guess that the NYT version is what Roger Cohen originally wrote and no editors questioned, but that when it got sent to the IHT, some editor at IHT thought to add the qualification
You appear to have neither breadth, length, or depth of your own, though sometimes you achieve length
Posted by: Rowan
You guys are on fire tonight.
By the standards that the USA uses to justify drone attacks in Pakistan, the Buenos Aires Jewish Community Center was a command and control center for Zionist propagandization, recruitment and fund-raising.
"…the Buenos Aires Jewish Community Center was a command and control center for Zionist propagandization, recruitment and fund-raising."
Assuming for the sake of discussion that is true, so what? That in no way justifies the bombing, nor does it provide evidence as to who did it.
Hamas hasn't been involved in a suicide bombing for how long now? And yet Richard Witty talks as if it is still a daily occurrence.
And if you insist upon applying the word gruesome to anything Hamas has done, then what word can you apply to Israel's actions, which are far greater in scope, depth, and magnitude.
Shirin: "Hamas hasn't been involved in a suicide bombing for how long now? And yet Richard Witty talks as if it is still a daily occurrence."
I was hopeful when I saw that Hamas had managed to stop the suicide attacks, and had "graduated" to rockets. I reasoned that if Hamas had given people enough hope to quit blowing themselves up, and they were organized sufficiently to fire or not fire rockets at will, it meant that they could be negotiated with and held responsible for keeping their agreements.
Of course, Israel and the US had no interest in "peace" unless they could dictate the terms to a puppet government.
I have often wondered if Israel really prefers suicide bombers. If Hamas does lose control of Gaza, I expect that there will be many desperate and hopeless people who will choose to seek martyrdom by blowing up Israeli civilians.
Shirin, I was simply making a statement of my understanding of US Rules of Engagement since the NATO Yugoslavia War. I was making no judgment whatsoever, but if I get the chance I will put up some discussion from Michael "Palestinians Can Do No Right" Walzer on related issues over at EAAZI.
Thanks for the clarification, Joachim. I was not sure what your point was.
David F., Israel has always considered territorial expansion and regional domination more important than peace. Ben Gurion said it perfectly in February 1948 when he reassured is comrades in Mapai by saying "The war will give us the land. The concepts of 'ours' and 'not ours' are peace concepts, only, and in war they lose their whole meaning".
And the leader of Arab nationalism, Nasser, swore to drive the Jews into the sea, causing a second holocaust.
By those words, it can be proven, using your idiotic logic, that the Arabs have always desired genocide as a just solution.
Berel, Could you cite a reference to such a threat from Jamal Abd-ul-Nasir? I have looked for it but could not find it.
Racist Jewish Zionists invariably project their dark and murderous desires onto non-Jews.
Zionists were already plotting the genocide of the native Palestinian population in the 1880s while Soviet Ashkenazim were up to their eyeballs in mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide by the 1930s.
In my Open Letter to MPAC, I demand that
There really is no value in talking with Jews that do not admit that Zionism is ethnic Ashkenazi Nazism, that the State of Israel routinely engages in terrorism, and that the only just solution consist of the dismantlement of the Zionist state, the eradication of Zionism, trials for Jewish perpetrators of crimes against humanity, repatriation of the native population, and reconveyance of properties to their rightful owners.
Drone Attacks, Buenos Aires JCC
The persecution of the Baha'i minority in Iran no doubt deserved a bit more attention from Cohen. The Baha'is have a written a bold letter to the Iranian Prosecutor General revealing the real causes of this tragic persecution of a peaceful community:
link to news.bahai.org
I guess what Israel needs to do to get respect from Roger and the IHT is to fund and finance bombings of Islamic civilian centers around the world – then, I am sure, Roger will make certain to qualify any Israeli responsibility as "alleged". They should also, to make Roger like them, threaten nuclear genocide against Iran, Syrian, the Golanese and the Eastern Jordanians – completely expel the Palestinians, like the Chinese did to the non-compliant Tibetans (to no real continuing UN uproar) – and then say that folks can talk with Israel's "political wing" – because it is only the "military wing" that is responsible. Israel should also, to gain favor from the Times, ban gays in its military, promote honor killings, jail women who violate strict dress codes, kill journalists who oppose the government, jail anyone who opposes the government, banish or maim atheists and enforce strict Sharia law.
I am also anxiously awaiting Roger's next balanced piece from Iran about how homosexuals feel welcomed by the Iranian people – so welcome that they are often given the honor of being first in the queue for the gallows.