In a NY synagogue, Roger Cohen demolishes neoconservative Bret Stephens

by Philip Weiss on November 19, 2009 · 72 comments

It may not be going too far to say that New York Times columnist Roger Cohen fell in love with the people of Iran during his lengthy visits earlier this year. He met noble, intelligent, and independent people, whose civilization affected him "deeply"– as he says it affects anyone who spends time there. Running through clouds of teargas during the political crisis of June, he seems to have made a complete identification with the protesters’ spirit, and have vowed to defend these people against all prejudice in the west.

That is the only conclusion I can make from the impassioned performance that Cohen gave last night at the Park East Synagogue on the Upper East Side of New York. To a crowd of aging Jews–at least it looked that way, the men were all asked to wear yarmulkes, including Cohen, who’d come bareheaded–who were demanding a militant no-brainer to the evening’s question, "Can Iran Be Stopped?" Cohen brought only compassion, and in doing so stomped the callow neoconservative with whom he was pitted. And he was actually applauded for doing so.

It’s nice sometimes to think how far we’ve come in a year, and last night was one of those nights. The evening was sponsored by the friends of Tel Aviv University, whose glossy propaganda about Jewish minds being Israel’s chief export was set out on the pews. Neocon Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal wore the yarmulke he’d come in with and was seated closest to the Israeli flag on the altar, and Jewish Week editor Gary Rosenblatt introduced the discussion by describing Iran as an aggressive spreader of Islam. But Cohen spoke first and promptly dashed Rosenblatt with realist cold-water. Iran may be “media enemy #1,” but the reality is more complex. It’s not a monolithic society. It’s highly-educated and "thirsting" for engagement with the west. The face of Iran is not the mullah with a beard and his finger on the trigger but the “beautiful face” of Neta, who was shot down during the protests last June.

I thought Cohen might lay low in this audience. No, his face flushed as he ran over his assigned five minutes, ignoring Rosenblatt’s officious mumbles, urging us to get past the ”psychosis” of 30 years of bad relations with Iran.

You pretty much could have ended the panel then. For the rest of the night Stephens slung neoconservative cant about Islamofascism at Cohen, and each time Cohen took him on, sometimes interrupting him. Well, no society is monolithic, Stephens said. Actually many societies have been monolithic, Cohen said. North Korea, Iraq under Saddam, Nazi Germany– all monolithic.

After the election crisis– Stephens again– Obama should have refused to deal with the president of Iran and only talked with the Supreme Leader, recognizing his legitimacy not Ahmadinejad’s. “Oh come on Bret,” Cohen said. If Obama had refused to talk to Ahmadinejad that would have done it for any negotiations between us and Iran, and it is essential that we talk to these people.

And when Stephens compared Iran to Nazi Germany, not once but twice, Cohen bridled, and stuffed him. “Bret makes the very tired analogy,” and it gives a “false impression of Iran.” It is not a totalitarian state, it is repressive. But this sort of analogy poisons western minds.

John Mearsheimer has said, what is the point of palavering with bullies, they should be taken on fiercely, and last night Cohen showed the way. Before long Stephens was cowed. Between crowdpleasing spurts of neoconservative religion about using force to stop this regime from getting a bomb, you could see him start deferring to the far more intelligent and subtle man just down the table. At one point Stephens said, "If I may—" and asked a question of Cohen as one, and Stephens made this allowance, who had actually been there.

The political mood that Cohen created in the synagogue was that it would be insane to attack Iran. There is less than a 10 percent chance of it happening, he said. It will destroy Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world. He won’t allow it.

But the strongest impression of the evening was the power of Cohen’s having been there and now bearing witness in a synagogue. Even the neocon gave way. Cohen was politicized on the streets of Tehran, if not radicalized, scales fell from his eyes. He spoke dreamily of what would have happened if Moussavi had doubled down in the first few days, when he had 3 million in the streets and the regime had no idea how to respond. Could they have swept away their leaders in a reprise of the constitutional revolution of 1906–"finally realizing the centennial dream.”

Dreaming with the Iranians, here was the embodiment of a universalist intellectual Jew, expressing profound respect for other cultures. “We’ve been traumatized,” Cohen said. For 444 days back in ‘79-80, Walter Cronkite beamed images of the hostages taken by the Iranian revolutionaries and what did that produce but "poison" and “trauma.” The mirror image holds for the Iranians, who remember the CIA removing Mossadegh in 1953. “There are deep traumas between our countries.”

There was no answer to Cohen. He’d broken the spell. Through Rosenblatt’s inadvertent orchestration, Cohen was given the last word as he was given the first, and the old people who wanted fire and brimstone left disappointed.

Going there. Cohen’s performance was a reminder of how much power our side can get from human interchange: going to the West Bank, going to Gaza. Meeting the Palestinians there and in the U.S. Seeing them too as a deeply civilized people. Roger Cohen has not done that work, he has avoided it, he has respected the orthodoxies. His latest piece on Israel/Palestine forcibly refuses to look at the situation through the eyes of a humiliated, dispossessed people whom he might also find noble if he only extended himself. The traumas and psychoses in Israel/Palestine are larger than those between the U.S. and Iran, and, underwritten by privileged American Jewry, will take a lot more work to do. Of course the synagogues have not invited the Jewish witnesses to talk about it. Someday they will.

Related posts:

  1. Neocon holdovers want NYT to fire Roger Cohen for uttering fair statements about Jews in Iran
  2. Roger Cohen now getting ’self-hater’ label (maybe we should call it a star?)
  3. Roger Cohen, in the streets
  4. Reading the Roger Cohen-Marty Peretz exchange
  5. Neoconservative Found Alive but Delirious in Cave in Lower Manhattan

{ 72 comments }

1 Richard Witty November 19, 2009 at 10:21 am

I believe that you’re wrong about Cohen on Israel/Palestine. I don’t know if he’s been to the West Bank. (From your reports, I’ve been there as long.)

I would be extremely surprised if he has the “no contact” with respectable Palestinians that you infer. I think he rightly sees the world not “ONLY” through Palestinian eyes, but through objective and trans-subjective eyes, the eyes that peace is constructable through.

2 Citizen November 19, 2009 at 10:32 am

What makes you think Cohen has not been to the West Bank?

3 Citizen November 19, 2009 at 10:43 am

Whether or not he’s been there; seems to me he has an objective perspective on the issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/opinion/09cohen.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

4 Citizen November 19, 2009 at 10:27 am

If Israel attacks Iran it will be seen as enabled by the USA. Iran will react itself and via
friendly agencies, the very ones on the USA-Israel terror list especially. US troops and
naval forces will be that much more in harm’s way- the result will be a new, vastly wider model for the “best of intentions” gone astray. Imagine the gas spike at the local pump
in the USA–that alone might even get the average increasingly impoverished American to think twice about something they don’t think much about, that is, American foreign policy.

5 Citizen November 19, 2009 at 10:30 am

PS, we’re still paying at the pump for what our government did to assure Israel victory in 1973. This time around, things might become more obvious to the average American.

6 pineywoodslim November 19, 2009 at 10:40 am

I doubt if Israel or the US, alone or in tandem, will attack Iran. Obama may not know much, but I do think he has the good sense to realize the devastation such an attack would cause to the US diplomatic/military/political/economic position around the world.

Yet even if such an attack occurred, I suspect Iran would be far too savvy to directly respond militarily and attack US or Israeli forces. I think Iran would work its vengeance slowly, indirectly, and over a long period.

7 Citizen November 19, 2009 at 10:48 am

Yes, in any case Iran would retaliate indirectly, as I said, “via
friendly agencies.” Asymmetrically. Further, what Arab nation’s regime could afford
not to publicly support Iran, given the Arab Main Street?

8 MRW November 19, 2009 at 12:59 pm

Not to mention China as well. Word is that Hu Jintao demurred on further sanctions against Iran. China gets a huge chunk of their oil from Iran now, and invested in the country. If the US interferes with that, well China has a club called all their loans to us. They could demolish this American life in a nano-second.

Can you imagine? $10/gal gas. The currency worth 20 cents. And Israel, our supposed good friend, has the fucking temerity to waste valuable high-level administration time and human lucre during this financial mess by forcing us to referee its racist separatist dreams and power struggles, and waste time on Iran sanctions and the threat of war; it’s like the out-of-control 11-year-old who should have been disciplined long ago.

9 rustam November 19, 2009 at 10:39 am

Phil,

you spelt Nedas name wrongly (Neda, not Neta) in the end of the 3rd paragraph.

Great reporting.

10 potsherd November 19, 2009 at 11:28 am

It’s telling that the demonization of Iran in this exchange begins with the charge that it is “an aggressive spreader of Islam.”

And is Rosenblatt “an aggressive promoter of Judaism”?

11 Colin Murray November 19, 2009 at 11:37 am

Good catch. Mr. Rosenblatt’s choice of words is unambiguously bigoted.

12 Colin Murray November 19, 2009 at 11:37 am

This is a very well done and hopeful piece. It sure would be nice if we could dodge neocon/neoliberal efforts to drag us into a pointless war with Iran.

13 potsherd November 19, 2009 at 11:57 am

I believe that the best weapon in this war is the phrase “$10/gal gasoline.”

This is what the American people can relate to, this is what will set their alarms ringing. Selfish considerations are always the way to bet.

14 gmeyers November 19, 2009 at 11:55 am

Phil:

You write:

Roger Cohen has not done that work, he has avoided it, he has respected the orthodoxies. His latest piece on Israel/Palestine forcibly refuses to look at the situation through the eyes of a humiliated, dispossessed people whom he might also find noble if he only extended himself.

Should that not have been:

Bret Stephens has not done that work, he has avoided it, he has respected the orthodoxies. His latest piece on Israel/Palestine forcibly refuses to look at the situation through the eyes of a humiliated, dispossessed people whom he might also find noble if he only extended himself.

15 tree November 19, 2009 at 12:48 pm

No, Phil meant Roger Cohen. See this from just a few days ago:

Roger Cohen Times op-ed short on sources, history and logic

(It was written by Ahmed Moor, but I suspect that Phil agreed with many of Ahmed’s points, thus he posted it here.)

16 James November 19, 2009 at 4:28 pm

there seems to be a part of the jewish american community that is trying to take roger cohen down… phil seems mixed on this based on the few posts on cohen here recently… this post now suggests he is taking a multifaceted view of cohen…

17 Mooser November 19, 2009 at 8:15 pm

…., please try and realise where Phil is coming from. It was only a few short years ago he was worrying about the Commie Menace, than it was time to figure out how many people the Clintons killed, and then it was 9-11 and neoconservatism.
Now he is very gingerly feeling his way toward thinking maybe those were not such hot positions. So don’t expect too much, and be glad for how far he has come.
We can’t all be Red Diaper babies, you know. Some of us come from ethically poor backgrounds.

18 Kathleen November 19, 2009 at 12:20 pm

sounds like an interesting evening. Our media’s commitment and complicity in demonizing everything Iran is palpable. Watching the 24/7 coverage of the recent protest in that country had me thinking that the anti invasion of Iraq marches in D.C. and New York, and across the country should have been held in Iran so that we could have received that kind of coverage

That “psychosis” of 30 years of bad relations with Iran, have been held in check by the I lobby and others who clearly have a powerful agenda with demonizing Iran.

19 MRW November 19, 2009 at 12:59 pm

Hey, Phil, great report. Next time, bring a recorder.

20 yonira November 19, 2009 at 1:21 pm

It’s the Iranian regime which is the problem, not the Iranian people. I can’t believe nothing of the sort was mentioned in this post. Journalistic integrity at its best.

21 tree November 19, 2009 at 1:43 pm

Its not even the Iranian regime that is the problem. We are singling out Iran as a candidate for US violence and destruction for doing what is legal and within its rights. That’s the problem.

22 potsherd November 19, 2009 at 2:14 pm

Does Iran have the right to defend itself?

23 yonira November 19, 2009 at 2:39 pm

So Iran signed the non-proliferation act, where is the transparency in their ‘civilian’ nuclear program? Why are they developing missiles which are capable of carrying nuclear weapons?

The regime in Iran is spending billions on their nuclear program, on arming Hezbollah and to a lesser extent Hamas, and also on their defense infrastructure. At the same time they have millions of starving people who have no liberties what so ever. The treatment of Iranians, especially f those who are against the regime, makes the occupation of the WB look like a carnival.

An attack on Iran by either Israel or the US would be a huge mistake, it would create a regional war which will get out of control in no time.

24 potsherd November 19, 2009 at 3:14 pm

If you were being threatened by a nuclear-armed rogue state, wouldn’t you want your country to arm itself? Does Iran have the right to arm itself in self-defense?

25 yonira November 19, 2009 at 3:30 pm

I love an armed rogue state.

But yes, of course they have a right to defend themselves. Now just explain to me how an ICBM is a defensive weapon and you’ll have me sold.

the rogue state of Israel has been under-attack by Iranian proxies for a while now, I think it has gone beyond threats (Lebanon II) and Israel has shown much restraint (against Iran).

26 Chaos4700 November 19, 2009 at 3:31 pm

Your cartoon caricature of Iran aside… everything you say applies diametrically opposite to Israel, its citizens (and those who suffer under apartheid and occupation) and the vast military/intel/lobbyist complex it funnels money into. And on top of all of that, we all know that Israel is a rogue nuclear state. Iran has violated none of its treaty obligations to this point.

27 Chaos4700 November 19, 2009 at 3:32 pm

“the rogue state of Israel has been under-attack by Iranian proxies”

Under attack by Egyptian proxies… by Syrian proxies… by Iraqi proxies… by Iranian proxies…

The wheel just keeps on turning, doesn’t it?

28 James Bradley November 19, 2009 at 3:44 pm

Actually Yonira, Iran spends a small tiny fraction of its budget on arming Hezbollah, and virtually no money at all when it comes to arming Hamas.

Hezbollah derives most of its funds from wealthy Lebanese expatriates living abroad and from its own businesses in Lebanon.

Even the effective fighting force Hezbollah has managed to develop is merely armed with weaponry that can be bought on the black market. The only sophisticated equipment they possess is the 1980’s era Cornet missile.

Hamas on the other hand relies on nothing but rusty AK-47’s and home made rockets with no stabilizers.

There is this common myth that in the event that war should arise between Iran and Israel, Iran will rely on Hezbollah to act as a proxy force for Iran. This is simply unfounded and based on completely anecdotal evidence.

Why? Simply because while Hezbollah may have the ability to defend Lebanon from an Israeli tank invasion, it does not have the man power nor the tools to mount a ground invasion of Israel. Furthermore, in a long and lengthy war, Hezbollah would not be able to maintain a war of attrition against the IDF with its hundreds of thousands of fully trained soldiers. Hezbollah had only 2000 fully trained guerrillas in the 2006 conflict. Even if they have 10,000 now, it would still mean they would be outnumbered 10:1, if not 20:1.

We are also not taking into consideration the simple fact that the Lebanese are still war weary from 2006 (remember, Israel destroyed ALL of Lebanon’s infrastructure, killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians, and destroyed the Lebanese economy), and that Hezbollah has been forced into a position into which it must prove that it has ZERO interest in initiating a war against Israel.

Basically, the thesis that Hezbollah is Irans proxy is a joke. Hezbollah’s value to the Iranian regime is in the context of the cold war between the Saudi-Jordanian-Egyptian Western backed so called “moderates” and those nations and groups that support Iran.

Hezbollah is shown as an example of what Iran can do for people in the region if they pick up the standard of “resistance (Muqawma)” against what they see as western imperial designs for the region. In a sense Hezbollah to the Iranians is one of the many things that Iran uses to garner sympathy and popularity from the Arab and Muslim world. That’s all Hezbollah is to Iran, its not a fighting proxy for the Iranians, its merely a show case of what Iran can do for people who feel oppressed.

29 yonira November 19, 2009 at 4:05 pm

Chaos,

Which treaty obligations are your referring to? because you are wrong on both sides, but please clarify what you mean?

Also Hezbollah is the proxy that I was talking about….. Wait, i forgot my audience, Israeli started Lebanon 2. Israel was the ones who went over their border, fired Katyushas at themselves, and then killed their own soldiers. Those pesky Israelis……

30 yonira November 19, 2009 at 4:13 pm

James,

Thanks for your response. I agree with a lot of what your saying, with Hezbollah’s true abilities, but it still wreaked havoc on Northern Israel during Lebanon 2 using WWII technology. I find it hard to believe that this was supplied by anyone but Iran. I am all ears if you have another idea on who the suppliers are.

Also if Israel or the US were to strike Iran, what do you believe Iran’s response would be?

31 wondering jew November 19, 2009 at 4:27 pm

potsherd- Was Iran defending itself when it blew up the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires and the Jewish center in Buenos Aires?

James- Honest question here, for I know little about Hezbollah’s arms- where did they get their missiles before the last war and where do they get their missiles today and didn’t Israel intercept a ship which was sending weapons from Iran to Hezbollah?

32 potsherd November 19, 2009 at 4:50 pm

yonira – according to Israel, retaliation is a form of defense. Iran’s best defense is a strong ability to retaliate against any Israeli attack. Israel gets away with repeatead attacks against Lebanon and Syria because they are not able to defend themselves. And Hezbollah, despite Israeli propagand, is essentially a defensive organization.

WJ – you disappoint me, dragging up the old deflection tactic to avoid the real, current issue.

33 Cliff November 19, 2009 at 5:11 pm

WJ – provide some proof that Iran carried out that attack pls.

34 tree November 19, 2009 at 5:20 pm

But yes, of course they have a right to defend themselves. Now just explain to me how an ICBM is a defensive weapon and you’ll have me sold.

You are aware that Israel already possesses ICBM capability and nuclear weapons, right? Do you consider Israeli ICBMs defensive weapons? Yes? Then apply the same logic to Iran and you’ll understand how they can be defensive. No? Then, ask yourself rationally why is Israel allowed a weapon that Iran is not?

35 tree November 19, 2009 at 5:40 pm

For WJ and Cliff, from The Nation in January 2008:

Bush’s Iran/Argentina Terror Frame-Up

36 yonira November 19, 2009 at 6:58 pm

Potsherd,

Hezbollah single handedly started Lebanon 2, was this defensive in nature?

James Bradley,

Israel with the help of Taskforce 151 captured the Francop off the coast of Cyprus. The ship was plump full of WWII era weapons destined for Beirut, Tripoli, or Tartous (Syria) depending on what you read. Why would Iran be sending WWII era arms to anyone but Hezbollah?

Again, not trying to call you out, you sound like a level headed dude who is pretty smart, so please by all means, educate me. (Chaos no need for your input on this one :) )

37 potsherd November 19, 2009 at 7:19 pm

yonira – why shouldn’t Iran send arms to Hezbollah? The US sends arms to Israel.

As for Lebanon II, Hezbollah’s act, while provocative, was no more than the sort of raid that Israel had been carrying on against Lebanon, on Lebanese soil. Both sides have kidnapped individuals from the other side as hostages to use as “bargaining chips” for the release of prisoners and hostages already taken.

It was Israel who decided to make a fullbore war out of it.

38 seeingformyself November 19, 2009 at 1:57 pm

Right you are Mr Weiss! Being There (in Iran, Palestine or Gaza)…Going There (to Iran, Palestine or Gaza) is an eyeopening experience. These visits are the keys to unlocking the doors to peace. Going to Israel? If you’re on a Birthright trip, one sponsored by AIPAC or other such journeys…forget it! The keys to peace won’t even exist!

Can’t make the trip to Palestine or Israel? Try contact with those who have: listening to their presentations, especially those that are personal accounts, rather than those filled with statistics; viewing their photos; reading their articles, blogs, books; watching their films and videos. It’s difficult, if not impossible, for your “view” of I/P not to move towards the Palestinians. Education does wonders…it beats propaganda, which stands on feet of clay.

Zionists might be immune to absorbing what they see and hear, rejecting the educational experience. But who knows, even Witty might benefit from getting off his high horse and making a trip to Gaza or the West Bank.

And Mr. Witty, should you go to the west bank…no using settler roads, whizzing through check points with yellow license plates, using lines designated for privileged Israelis, Americans and others…experience it as Palestinians must. Day after day after day! I believe even you would find the experience humiliating. That’s what its designed to be!

Who knows, I might even go along with you to witness the transformation.

39 Todd November 19, 2009 at 3:32 pm

The “privileged American Jewry” that Phil mentioned has quite a bit of fence-mending to do at home, also.

40 Chaos4700 November 19, 2009 at 3:46 pm

Todd, if the Madoffs of the US are going to blithely screw over other Jews, I daresay expecting them to care about the American citizenry as a whole is a bit much to hope for.

41 Todd November 19, 2009 at 4:01 pm

When Phil mentions “priveleged American Jewry,” doe he only mean those in finance?

42 Les November 19, 2009 at 4:24 pm

Keep in mind that the cartoon image of the Middle Eastern mullah, without distinction between Arab and Persian, is a racist one. The character with the swarthy complexion, angry scowling expression, ragged beard, and big hooked nose is a familiar one borrowed from an earlier age. The original was dressed as an Eastern European Jew during the time of World War I. Our media reminds us that there is nothing wrong with using racist anti-Semitic images provided they make clear who the (current) bad guy is. This is a reminder that racial stereotypes are a useful educational tool when trying to make clear the complexities of the Middle East. Even a child, Jewish or not, can understand.

43 Call Me Ishmael November 20, 2009 at 3:28 am

Thanks for this observation, Les.

44 Elliot November 19, 2009 at 4:27 pm

“Of course the synagogues have not invited the Jewish witnesses to talk about it”

Phil,
While you’re right that Conservative synagogues are overwhelmingly in line with the Israel lobby, you neglected to point out the many Reform and other synagogues that have hosted- and do so regularly – Palestinian and Jewish witnesses who have lived, or have been to, the West Bank.

45 Mooser November 19, 2009 at 8:20 pm

“Reform and other synagogues”

They don’t count. Not real Jews, everybody knows that.

46 Elliot November 20, 2009 at 12:27 am

The latest figures show that “Reform and other” affiliated Jews = 1% of the US population against 0.7% for Orthos and Conservative.
Mooser, are you saying that Phil Weiss is speaking from the Zionist position that Reform are not real Jews?

Pro-peace and justice activity on Israel/Palestine is going in in synagogues across the country including witnesses from the West Bank. Of course, it’s a minority, but it’s a solid one with consistent – and growing – justice and peace activity.

47 MRW November 19, 2009 at 6:10 pm

WJ…and Cliff…from this site about all the false flag operations carried out by Intel groups around the world: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/12366690/Alleged-Use-of-False-Flag-Attacks-by-Intelligence-Agencies
This old saw you cite, WJ, has been debunked everywhere except Israel and the RJC, et al.

March 17, 1992: Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires Is Bombed, Hezbollah and Iran Accused Despite Lack of Evidence

Rescue workers in the wreckage of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. [Source: Reuters / Corbis] Twenty-nine people are killed in the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The bombing levels the three-story building. Argentina, the US, and Israel will later accuse Hezbollah and its backer Iran, but provide little evidence.

According to most media accounts and the US State Department’s annual report on terrorism, the bombing was the work of a Hezbollah suicide bomber who drove a truck into the building. (Los Angeles Times 5/8/1992; State 4/30/1993; Fox News 10/5/2007)

However, a technical report ordered by Argentina’s Supreme Court will find that the bomb was placed inside the building: “Court official Guillermo Lopez said that the investigation had ascertained that the explosives had been located on the first floor of the diplomatic headquarters. ‘The engineers established, with 99 percent certainty, the exact location where the explosives were and the quantity that was used.’” That conclusion is angrily rejected by Israel. (NotiSur 8/16/1996) The case remains unsolved. (Ha’aretz 3/17/2008) [Emphasis mine]

48 MRW November 19, 2009 at 6:26 pm

More:

Salbuchi – False Flag Attacks in Argentina: AMIA and Israeli Embassy Bldgs – Part 2 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbi10oawsHM

49 yonira November 19, 2009 at 6:46 pm

Uggghhh, more conspiracies, blame it on the Jews, blame it on Mossad. I suppose you are a truther too huh? MRW? or was Israel behind that also.

50 MRW November 19, 2009 at 7:00 pm

I know the difference between a conspiracy and a con, yonira. You’re probably going to squeal bloody murder conspiracy over Channel 4’s British israel Lobby documentary.

And you know what, sweetheart? Jews are not unilaterally blameless. In anything. Deal with it. As for the Mossad, read Ostrovsky.

51 yonira November 19, 2009 at 7:18 pm

I’ve read Ostrovsky, and I know enjoyed it. So in your opinion Beunos Aires was a false flag operation by Jewish elements?

52 MRW November 19, 2009 at 7:37 pm

Yonira,

In my opinion, it is false to lay this at that feet of the Iranians without proof. Cui bono? What possible reason would Iran have to bomb a podunk embassy across three waters and near the South Pole? Iran has not attacked another country for over 300 years, and it’s going to start in the land of tango?

53 yonira November 19, 2009 at 6:48 pm
54 MRW November 19, 2009 at 7:03 pm

I’ll stick with the Argentinian Supreme Court findings, thank you.

55 tree November 19, 2009 at 8:06 pm

All of the vague allegations made by the prosecutor in the interview you posted are debunked by Gareth Porter’s report in The Nation from 2008 that I posted above.
I suggest you read it.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080204/porter

56 Mooser November 19, 2009 at 8:24 pm

I think yonira is going to turn out to be a real anti-Zionist resource! She is so good at first of all, making Zionists appear to be repellent, bigoted and ignorant people, and second, she brings up all the stuff that anti-Zionists are begging to refute! What would we do without her?

Thanks, Yoyo.

57 Call Me Ishmael November 20, 2009 at 3:06 am

Mooser, you needed a straight woman for your comedy routine. Witty’s part of the act was growing stale. You know, even Jerry Lewis ditched Dino – or was it the other way around?

58 Citizen November 20, 2009 at 9:16 am

CMI, it was the other way around according to a cable channel special I watched recently.

59 Les November 19, 2009 at 7:05 pm

If ethnic cleansing and occupation were bad for Judaism, the rabbis would say so.

60 Mooser November 19, 2009 at 8:28 pm

Les, that’s the great thing about Judaism! There’s no list of members, no objective standard, even confessional standards, for membership, so a Zionist can ask a couple of his friends the questions, get the answer he wants, and then say “All Jews think this, or that. Nobody knowd what all Jews think, cause nobody knows who “all the Jews” are.

So, did Witty ever substantiate his statement that all Jews should take death over conversion?

61 Citizen November 20, 2009 at 9:19 am

So, Mooser, you disagree with the Goldhagen thesis? You would have protested
Morganthau’s recipe for post WW2 Germany–which was the controlling POV on Germans until 1950–and under German American Ike?

62 MRW November 19, 2009 at 8:35 pm

Which, of course, is the big diff between Judaism & Christianity, and Islam. The Jews and Christians always have a priestcraft dictating the barnyard chairs, seating arrangements, and who can do what,and say what, to which animal and themselves. Islam did away with the priestcraft or clergy, even though palinated Americans think mullahs are church or mosque holy guys; they’re not: they’re scholars. And Ayatollah means Big Kahuna Scholar.

63 silencenolonger November 19, 2009 at 9:19 pm

Bravo Mr Cohen, may you inspire many, and maybe still Israel will cease to be a pariah, scorned by the world for its pretension. Come join the rest of humanity, we can help you get over your delusions

64 silencenolonger November 19, 2009 at 9:50 pm

Is the belief that the world is out to get Israel, preached by politicians and repeated in the media..a form of mass mental illness.

65 Call Me Ishmael November 20, 2009 at 3:18 am

Well, I think we can say that Israelis’ belief that the world is out to get them – a belief stoked by Israeli politicians and media – is a form of mass paranoia. This paranoia is also encouraged by the Israel Lobby and its allies in America.

66 Call Me Ishmael November 20, 2009 at 3:36 am

“Well, no society is monolithic, Stephens said. Actually many societies have been monolithic, Cohen said. North Korea, Iraq under Saddam, Nazi Germany– all monolithic.”

Actually, no. No human society comprised of tens of millions of people is monolithic. Stephens scores a point on that one. Still, it was apparently a route.

67 Call Me Ishmael November 20, 2009 at 3:52 am

“To a crowd of aging Jews–at least it looked that way, the men were all asked to wear yarmulkes, including Cohen, who’d come bareheaded …”

What does wearing a yarmulke at a public event signify? At the entrance path to my daughter’s outdoor Reform wedding, someone set a box of maroon yarmulkes. I asked my soon-to-be son-in-law if he thought I, along with other male wedding party and guests, should wear one if not Jewish. He said it would be a nice gesture to his family and the presiding rabbis. I have the little skullcap tucked away to this day as a keepsake. But I have no idea what wearing it meant to anyone.

68 Citizen November 20, 2009 at 9:27 am

Although I’m not Jewish, I’ve run into that box of yarmlkes at the entrance to various
events. I never wore one–perhaps it’s because as a person raised Roman Catholic, a former Altar Boy, I also rebelled from that institution? Hell, I would never even wear a lapel flag charm. Then again, I’m not running for political or ideological anything. What’s the proper symbol for an individual who is a humanist?

69 Chaos4700 November 20, 2009 at 9:40 am

A smile, I dare say.

70 yonira November 20, 2009 at 3:00 pm

Ishmael, how did your son-in-law’s family take the marriage, I know when my father married my shiksa mother they didn’t talk to her until they had my sister (like 4 years into their marriage)

71 Call Me Ishmael November 20, 2009 at 4:36 pm

We got along famously from the start. Residents of Japan, his Jewish father was a professor at Tokyo University and his Japanese stepmother was a concert pianist and classical singer, steeped in German classical traditions. (I deeply enjoyed long conversations with each of them.) His many Jewish cousins from the Northeast were visibly surprised that someone like me from deep fly-over country could be so liberal-minded and would fondly remember the Brooklyn Dodgers as MY baseball team and would still be mourning their leaving Brooklyn.

72 yonira November 21, 2009 at 12:59 am

That is very cool, sounds like a very interesting dynamic.

What are their opinions on the I/P issue?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post: Protesters to baseball commish: “Don’t rent to racists, it’s an error, Just say no to settler terror.”

Next post: Sullivan unbound, takes on colleague Goldberg for reflecting ‘Israeli consensus’ not American one