Trending Topics:

Sacha Baron Cohen settles with Palestinian he slandered as ‘terrorist’

US Politics
on 132 Comments

A good story. In making the movie “Bruno,” Sacha Baron Cohen maligned a Palestinian interview subject by describing him as a “terrorist.” The characterization was pure racism. The Palestinian sued Cohen and David Letterman, on whose show Cohen repeated the charge, and Cohen has folded.

He had claimed free speech– an absurd defense when libel and misrepresentation are at work. From Al Arabiya, thanks to Max:

A Christian and ‘a peace-loving person’ who lives near Bethlehem in the West Bank, Abu Aita has never been a part of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade or participated in any terrorist activity, according to his court complaint papers.

The Palestinian grocer said he agreed to the interview that appeared in ‘Bruno’ thinking that he will be discussing peace activism with a real journalist, the complaint further read…

On Thursday, Abu Aita’s lawyer Peter Drennan said “the case is settled to the mutual satisfaction” of everyone involved.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

132 Responses

  1. gingershot
    gingershot
    July 23, 2012, 12:51 pm

    Sacha Cohen has always struck me as a propaganda arm of Zionism and an expert of the ‘soft sells’ of Islamophobia and Zionism to America

    I hate the guy

    That said – Avigdor Lieberman is the Borat of the West Bank and his fellow settlers the villagers :) Tell me that ain’t true

    Glad to see Cohen get busted for his usual spiel and attempts to smear/humiliate Palestinians

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      July 23, 2012, 3:28 pm

      I don’t like him either. He supports YESHA and after that it wouldn’t matter how funny he was. If he was funny. Taking the piss out of third world countries must be very intellectually demanding.

      sky news covers the story

      • lysias
        lysias
        July 25, 2012, 12:43 pm

        I borrowed Borat from Netflix, but I couldn’t watch more than the first half hour. I didn’t find it one bit funny.

    • LanceThruster
      LanceThruster
      July 23, 2012, 5:38 pm

      Ditto.

      The comic mandate to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable means to punch “up”, not down.

      I’m surprised Kazhakistan (or whatever real country he belittled in his Borat movie) has not held his feet to the fire. I’ll think Cohen is a witty satirist when I see him direct the same barbs at Zionists and/or Israelis.

  2. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    July 23, 2012, 12:55 pm

    Cohens movies are filled with racist attitudes that cultivate Islamophobia.

  3. ColinWright
    ColinWright
    July 23, 2012, 1:21 pm

    The ‘free speech’ argument really was dreadful. It was libel. Pay up.

  4. quercus
    quercus
    July 23, 2012, 1:41 pm

    While I’ve never seen his films, I saw the first 5 minutes of “Borat” to convince me that Mr. Cohen is an essentially talentless individual, who makes himself into caricatures of human beings and whose “humor” consists of mocking different groups. I love good comedies, and some of my favorites, Some Like it Hot, Arsenic and Old Lace, The Odd Couple, present funny situations, and never mock, but then again, they were acted and written by talent, something as I’ve said, Mr. Cohen lacks.

    • MRW
      MRW
      July 23, 2012, 3:39 pm

      Agree. Add the rest of Neil Simon’s work too.

  5. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka
    July 23, 2012, 1:49 pm

    How anybody finds that racist, Cohen, funny is beyond me.

    • marc b.
      marc b.
      July 23, 2012, 2:43 pm

      woody, my son and i made the mistake of paying for ‘borat’. somehow they managed to pack more yucks in the trailer than the entire movie itself, which was putrid. cohen is one of those no-talents inexplicably rewarded with movie deal after movie deal, his schtick being the slandering of the usual suspects, e.g. muslims, ‘the french’, etc.

      • PeaceThroughJustice
        PeaceThroughJustice
        July 23, 2012, 3:09 pm

        “cohen is one of those no-talents inexplicably rewarded with movie deal after movie deal”

        Cohen is well connected. His agent is the CEO of William Morris, Ari Emanuel (brother of Rahm, son of former Irgun officer Benjamin).

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 23, 2012, 3:49 pm

        marc,
        I agree. I found it to be rather tedious.

      • thankgodimatheist
        thankgodimatheist
        July 24, 2012, 6:45 am

        “inexplicably rewarded with movie deal after movie deal,”

        Inexplicably? Not so. I think it can be easily explained. And no, it has nothing to do with any specific talent.

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        July 25, 2012, 5:59 am

        He is rewarded for the propaganda project. Many can accept racism and hate cloaked as comedy. Look at anan’s remark below, “Cohen is very funny. He mocks all sorts of people.”

        Ridicule of others is funny to such minds. That is how the “other” is dehumanized.

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        July 25, 2012, 9:16 am

        He is rewarded for the propaganda project. Many can accept racism and hate cloaked as comedy. Look at anan’s remark below, “Cohen is very funny. He mocks all sorts of people.”

        the perfect point, K. i find that humor at the ‘expense’ of the dominant class is acceptable, as it is subversive, an attempt at creating a more equitable society, and humor at one’s own expense is also acceptable. neither example is part of what cohen does. he apparently isn’t even capable of the mild criticism of his own circumstances that woody allen has made a career of.

  6. YoungMassJew
    YoungMassJew
    July 23, 2012, 2:32 pm

    Yes, Cohen is a major Jewish embarrassment who needs to just stop talking and pulling stunts everywhere. Please go away sir and salvage whatever shed of dignitiy you may have left.

  7. Dan Crowther
    Dan Crowther
    July 23, 2012, 2:36 pm

    I admit, I laughed hard at the Ali G show and Borat, until I got down to thinking about what the guy was doing: depicting any non jew as inherently anti-semitic (with all his throw in lines about “the jews” to get people to react) and all muslims as backward brutes. the dictator is what opened my eyes. F this dude. (except for his shredding of the high fashion crowd, that was great)

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      July 23, 2012, 3:19 pm

      “(except for his shredding of the high fashion crowd, that was great)”

      Let me ask you this, Dan: do you know anyone in the “high fashion crowd”? I ask this because I don’t. And I asked myself why would I think that that bit was insightful in anyway. I don’t know, but I think that the Bruno bit is mocking a strawman.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      July 23, 2012, 3:22 pm

      ding ding ding

    • Mndwss
      Mndwss
      July 23, 2012, 3:36 pm

      Yes. F this dude.

      Maybe he would be funny if he made fun of the royal Saudi dictator family and their American supporters.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 23, 2012, 4:37 pm

        “Maybe he would be funny if he made fun of the royal Saudi dictator family and their American supporters.”

        I don’t know about that, but there’s comedy gold to be mined by making fun of the knee-jerk right-wing support of some diasopra Jews for israel. I guess Cohen’s too busy mocking other people’s ethnicity…

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 23, 2012, 5:24 pm

        “but there’s comedy gold to be mined by making fun of the knee-jerk right-wing support of some diasopra Jews for israel”

        Go’wan Woody, scram! I’m working that side of the street!

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        July 23, 2012, 5:26 pm

        Yeah or the Israeli apartheid system. Come on Sasha equal opportunity. Took Jon Stewart a solid decade to try to be fair in his coverage of atrocities

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      July 23, 2012, 3:46 pm

      depicting any non jew as inherently anti-semitic (with all his throw in lines about “the jews” to get people to react)

      • Dan Crowther
        Dan Crowther
        July 23, 2012, 4:40 pm

        Let me ask you this, Dan: do you know anyone in the “high fashion crowd”?

        Does having slept with a few design majors count? Ha. Yeah, I do “know” some folks who run in those circles, and I’ve also tended bar at some “high society” type spots here in Boston. I guess you can say I’ve been the behind the curtain, as it were.

        It would be kind of hard to defend people who promote the idea of division based on clothing garments. Other art makes a statement of status, sure, but you don’t wear your Picasso around your neck when you go out – the ostentatious nature of fashion is what bothers me.

        Also, Fashion is the only so-called art form that I know that wholesale recycles itself every few years, and at every level. Imagine that, art that doesn’t even pretend to be doing something different. I can appreciate the skill involved in actually making clothes, and I would love to see a revival of local clothiers, but the high fashion world is completely industrialized, with mass production and utter contempt for workers.

        they just trot out stuff from earlier periods, call it new and voila! you can charge 100k for a dress, and its ready to wear alternative for 400. Ask a woman sometime how much she has paid in bridesmaids dresses in her life, its shocking what womens clothing costs, and its because of these clowns. Its unreal what the fashion industry gets away with, from labor practices to consumer abuse, in all its forms. Fashion, high fashion, is to me, deeply distasteful.

      • Dan Crowther
        Dan Crowther
        July 23, 2012, 4:40 pm

        Perfect, Seafoid.

  8. Fredblogs
    Fredblogs
    July 23, 2012, 2:55 pm

    Not a fan of SBC, but 1st Amendment seems like a pretty strong defense under the circumstances. Though the way his lawyers apparently framed the issue, as a newsworthy matter in a documentary is pretty weak.

    Like the Jerry Falwell vs Hustler case described in “The people vs Larry Flint”, this was very clearly not intended to be taken seriously. “In a comedy movie in which people will probably think I am a paid actor, he said I was a terrorist”, just doesn’t seem like a winning case. The settlement was probably pretty low.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      July 23, 2012, 4:27 pm

      Here’s Fred0, defending the Jewish guy, regardless of the facts, yet again. Why am I not surprised?

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        July 23, 2012, 7:50 pm

        I’m not defending him, I’m saying that a lawsuit about what you were called in a comedy movie seems pretty ridiculous to me. What’s next, someone suing the Onion?

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        July 24, 2012, 9:14 am

        fred, see MLE below for the legal distinction between public and private persons. that’s why cohen’s lawyers advised him to settle. a hypothetical: an enterprising commenter writes a wacky comedy about this site, to include the commenter known as ‘fredblogs’. the commenter interviews fred about his experiences at the site and as they form a bond of sorts, they banter on about baseball and other manly topics over a pitcher of lite beer. ultimately the fred character is portrayed in the film as a coprophilic pedophile who worships satan. the audience reaction at screenings is off the charts, especially for the fred bit. several viewers are treated for hyperventilation and exhaustion because they are laughing so hard. no, really. next stop, the local cineplex. what would your reaction be? (i mean after you decided it wouldn’t be wise to beat his brains in with a crow bar.) if it were me, i would sue. loudly.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 24, 2012, 10:15 am

        Fredo, in your zeal to defend the Jewish guy, at all costs and regardless of the facts, you failed to read the article. The article specifically noted that Cohen repeated his slander on television on the David Letterman show. So even if your nonsensical suggestion that because it was a “comedy movie” that Cohen couldn’t slander this man were true, the fact that he repeated it in a place that was not “a comedy movie” (i.e., the David Letterman Show) compounds the slander.

        And is isn’t true that because this was a “comedy movie” that people would not reasonably believe the slander. Cohen whole schtick is to pretend to capure “real people” reacting to this bigoted clown as he clowns around as his characters. The whole idea behind his supposed comedy is for the audience to believe that only he is not who he is portrayed as being. Therefore, when he slanders someone appearing in the film as a terrorist, the reaosnable viewer is lead to believe — by the very nature of Cohen’s alleged jokes — that he is. That is slander.

        Again, why am I not surprised that you’re trying to defend what the Jewish guy did?? Par for the course for you, Fredo.

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        July 24, 2012, 2:12 pm

        I’m well aware of the difference between private and public persons in U.S. defamation law. The main difference is that malice* is necessary for a public figure to win while mere negligence is necessary for a private figure in a matter not of public interest to win. However, the differences aren’t relevant to whether someone is making a joke. Since he knew it wasn’t true, a public figure would have the same shot at winning a defamation case as a private one. The results might be different for an intentional infliction of emotional distress case though.

        *malice in this case meaning knowing that something isn’t true or acting with reckless disregard for whether it is true.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 24, 2012, 2:47 pm

        Can you cite an example of the Onion defaming an actual person who is not a public figure?

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        July 24, 2012, 3:15 pm

        well, fred, alls i can say is 1. i disagree with your summation of the law, and 2. cohen’s team of lawyers advised him to settle the case with the palestinian grocer. presumably they know more about the law than you or i do.

    • Ellen
      Ellen
      July 23, 2012, 5:37 pm

      Fredo, you’d be surprised. It started with the scumbag (who thinks he is a funny man where his pathetic “humor” is at the expense of humiliation of others) mis representing himself as a legitimate reporter.

      That kind of mis representation is the first crime. Then publicly defaming one as a terrorist, and then repeating it as something true (it was not a joke) was the next.

      They should lock him up.

      The schmiel is nothing more than a racist propagandist dressed up in depraved “humor.” Popular culture like that is used to frame perceptions, soften up the public with ridicule as humor which in turn leads to degrading and eventually hate of the other .

      That is how it works. It is not free speech, but hate speech dressed up as SBC.

      And you defend this as 1st Amendment?

      Would it be ok if someone ranted with anti Jewish or anti anyone hate speech guised as humor? And then claim 1st Amendment rights?

      Why do you defend that guy? On what basis?

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        July 24, 2012, 2:21 pm

        Sorry, but lying is not only not a crime, the SCOTUS recently ruled that lying is protected speech.

        Defamation has to be presenting something false as true, which is a hard sell when you are talking about something in a comedy movie where a reasonable person would not believe what was said to be true. Defamation (in the U.S. at least) is a class of torts, not crimes either.

        Mere anti-Semitic speech is also protected by the first amendment. I’m not qualified to defend someone in court, but I support the rights of anti-Semites to say anti-Semitic things as protected speech under the first amendment. It’s easy to support speech you agree with, supporting speech you disagree with and find outrageous is the test of your dedication to the first amendment.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 24, 2012, 3:57 pm

        “Defamation has to be presenting something false as true, which is a hard sell when you are talking about something in a comedy movie where a reasonable person would not believe what was said to be true.”

        Sorry, Fredo. As I noted before, this fool’s act consists of trying to generate comedy by accosting ordinary, normal people by Cohen stupid characters. A reasonable jury very well could find that the assertions about those ordinary, normal people is, in fact, true.

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        July 24, 2012, 5:53 pm

        I think you mean, “intended to be taken as true” rather than “true”. Which is possible (why they settled at all), but unlikely (why I think the settlement was probably small).

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 25, 2012, 9:26 am

        Yes, of course I meant “intended to be taken as true.”

        But more to the point, one need only see the interview on Letterman, where this supposed comedian, Cohen — as himself and not as the character (not that that would make any difference — repeatedly slanders the guy as a terrorist, and talks about how Cohen was afraid for his life, to know that this was probably no small settlement, as Cohen clearly committed the most horrible of slanders.

      • kapok
        kapok
        July 25, 2012, 7:48 pm

        shitty comedy IS a crime.

    • MLE
      MLE
      July 23, 2012, 7:37 pm

      Obviously, you don’t get the idea of freedom of speech.

      People vs. Larry Flynt dealt with a person who makes themselves public figures are allowed to be parodied and cannot sue for damages. Private citizens, however, can sue for damages.

      Secondly, Baron Cohen is known for being deceptive in his requests to interview subjects- he doesn’t state that he is a comedian filming a movie, but simply requests an interview for his project. That is why he us the ability to book some guests who are clearly not aware of the joke.
      He took the footage of one person, and he misrepresented who the person was, and associated him with an organization that he had no connection with. I can’t interview you and then portray you as a member of NAMBLA or the KKK, just for laughs.

      • PeaceThroughJustice
        PeaceThroughJustice
        July 24, 2012, 9:57 am

        Fred, Cohen’s lies were made on the David Letterman Show (and other promotional appearances), not in the movie.
        Seafoid already posted the link–

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        July 24, 2012, 2:26 pm

        No speakers at the moment, was the interview in character or an interview of the actor?

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 24, 2012, 3:58 pm

        “was the interview in character or an interview of the actor?”

        Woudn’t matter. It’s still a tort to commit defamation in the telling of a joke.

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        July 24, 2012, 5:48 pm

        It depends on whether a reasonable person would believe the false statement was a statement of fact or part of the joke based on the context. In this context, a reasonable person wouldn’t believe that the guy was a terrorist based on a comedy saying so.

        Without seeing and hearing the actual Letterman interview I can’t say whether I think that a reasonable person would take it to be true.

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        July 25, 2012, 6:31 am

        For someone who never heard the Letterman interview you sure have a strong opinion of the defamation charge.

        Here you go:

        He states clearly that he was meeting with a terrorist for his shtick.

        And to that, without knowing anything, you repeat assumptions on the relative size of the settlement as “small.”

        I would think that it was worth a lot to Cohen to stop the damage and discredit to his phony career after he severely damaged an individual, his business and his family.

        But we all have no idea, and the size of the monetary settlement is not relevant, despite your attempts to minimize the significance.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 25, 2012, 9:16 am

        This is the nonsense I’m talking about Fredo. In the course of two sentences you take both sides on an issue. First you say that a reasonable person “wouldn’t” believe that the guy that Cohen slandered as a terrorist is one, and then in the very next sentance you say that you “can’t say” whther you think a reasonable person could do so:

        In this context, a reasonable person wouldn’t believe that the guy was a terrorist based on a comedy saying so.

        Without seeing and hearing the actual Letterman interview I can’t say whether I think that a reasonable person would take it to be true.

        But I guess when one is driven to defend anyone who is Jewish, at all costs, regardless of the facts, as you are, one gets tripped up on little things like logical consistency.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 25, 2012, 9:32 am

        “For someone who never heard the Letterman interview you sure have a strong opinion of the defamation charge. ”

        Of course he does. That’s Fredo’s thing: he’ll defend israel or any Jew, regardless of the facts and, indeed, often in the face of the facts. He doesn’t care, he’s looking for any reason to either 1) cast doubt or 2) provide an excuse.

        So of course Fredo is going to leap on the “well, if he was doing the interview in character so of course no one would believe it was intended to be true” argument without actually seeing the interview, because Fredo doesn’t care about truth, he’s just throwing any defense out there he can think of.

        Because the alterntative would be for Fredo to look at this 4-minute long, repeated string of slander by Cohen where he — not in character — repeatedly and at length talks about his victim being a “terrorist” and how Cohen was fearful for his life and other lies, and come up with some other defense, in the face of the damning evidence (because the idea of him simply admitting the truth seems impossible for him.)

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 25, 2012, 11:42 am

        “This is the nonsense I’m talking about Fredo. In the course of two sentences you take both sides on an issue.”

        Wow, is he falling down on the job! Only two? Must be losing his PEP.

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        July 25, 2012, 1:56 pm

        @Woodrow
        Since one opinion was based on statements in a comedy movie and the other lack of an opinion was based on an interview between SBC and DL, which I haven’t seen, there is no contradiction. I take one side based on one statement from SBC in a movie and refuse to take a side based on a second statement from SBC in an interview.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 25, 2012, 4:46 pm

        Oh okay, Fredo, that excuse might be plausible. Tell me if I’ve got this straight:

        1) Because the movie is allegedly a comedy, you can state that it’s not reasonable to believe it was intended to be true and thus continue to defend Cohen.

        2) And since you didn’t see the Letterman, you can still say, “I don’t know whether it’d be reasonable,” and not be forced to condemn the Jewish guy if it turned out that the interview with Letterman was, say, oh, I don’t know, 4 minutes of Cohen, as himself, describing the “ordeal” of how he found this “terrorist” and how he went to meet with him and how Cohen was scared for his life.

        Okay. That’s pretty plausible.

        One thing kind of bothers me though. It’s kind of funny. Here we are, two days after the item was posted and after a number of people posted links to the Letterman spot, where you could see for yourself whether a reasonable person would conclude that Cohen’s statements were intended to be believed as true and that, as a consequence, this innocent man was visciously slandered.

        Yet, even after all this time, you haven’t taken the couple of minutes to watch the video. Why is that?

        The cynic in my would say, “Of course Fredo hasn’t watched the video. If he did, he would have to state that Cohen was liable as charged and couldn’t defend him anymore. But if he simply didn’t watch the video — stick his fingers in his ears — he could have ‘plausible deniability and continue to defend the Jewish guy, on the theory that it’s not knowingly lying about a situation if you are voluntarily ignorant.”

        But that’s just too cynical, right, Fredo?

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        July 26, 2012, 1:04 pm

        I told you, I have no speakers here, so I can’t watch the video now. Admittedly, I forgot to watch it when I was at a computer with speakers. For the sake of argument, if your description is correct, it sounds like the DL interview was libel, also assuming it was possible to identify who he was speaking about from the interview alone, and if it was clear that he wasn’t joking. But, as I said, only if your description is correct, which given your bias, may or may not be true. I’ll try to remember to watch it next time I’m at a computer with speakers.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        July 26, 2012, 1:14 pm

        No one cares. Cohen lost. He lost for a reason. You are a Zionist. You’ve defended pedophilia and head-chopping so long as its a Zionist Jew wielding the instrument of destruction.

        Your opinion is the only one that’s biased here. Lol

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 26, 2012, 2:06 pm

        Still trying to come with ways to defend the Jewish guy. You never disappoint, Fredo. Regular like Ol’ Faithful.

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        July 26, 2012, 2:07 pm

        Fredo,

        But, as I said, only if your description is correct, which given your bias, may or may not be true.

        You are funny.

        Why don’t you just wait until you get it together to watch and listen to something you have such strong opinions on and before once again attempting to diminish a valid point in your endless efforts to defend Cohen’s disgusting racism and disregard of others.

        No, to do that would mean to face truth.

        You just do not give up!

      • anan
        anan
        July 26, 2012, 3:58 pm

        WoodyTanaka, everyone should be defended, including Jewish guys.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 26, 2012, 5:02 pm

        “WoodyTanaka, everyone should be defended, including Jewish guys.”

        Whether someone is Jewish is irrelevant to the question of whether they should be defended. That’s the issue. And our man Fredo has a very interest tendency to find new and interesting ways of defending the position of israel and/or Jewish people at issue, even when the facts demonstrate that those he is defending did wrong.

        And sometimes he goes to absurd lengths to concoct anything to put a positive spin on the situation, as here: Cohen talks at length for 4 minutes on David Letterman, slandering this innocent guy repeatedly as being a terrorist. (Fredo’s first line of defense was that Cohen wasn’t liable because it was a comedy movie) He doesn’t do it in character (Fredo’s next line of defense). So after being called on the fact that he’s not even watched the interview, he suggests that maybe Cohen committed a “libel.” But EVEN NOW, he’s still not done trying to come up with ways to defend Cohen, adding that he would only conclude that Cohen committed a libel, “assuming it was possible to identify who he was speaking about from the interview alone, and if it was clear that he wasn’t joking.”

        Obviously neither of these latest attempts at defenses are meritorious as the conversation in the interview clearly references the man wrongly portrayed in the film as a terrorist, and it is clear that although the supposed comedian, Cohen, attempts what I assume were intended to be jokes, the slander of his victim is clear and unassailable. But I expect that Fredo will either come up with some outlandish attempt to defend Cohen or try to pretend it never happened. (If he had the character, he would watch the video, and come back here and say, “Wow, that was some slander. It was clear and vile. I hope Cohen had to pay an arm and a leg and I hope it teaches him not to be such a vile racist bigot in the future.” But I doubt Fredo has the character to do that.)

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 30, 2012, 2:08 pm

        “(If he had the character, he would watch the video, and come back here and say, “Wow, that was some slander. It was clear and vile. I hope Cohen had to pay an arm and a leg and I hope it teaches him not to be such a vile racist bigot in the future.” But I doubt Fredo has the character to do that.)”

        Well, I guess I was right.

  9. justicewillprevail
    justicewillprevail
    July 23, 2012, 3:13 pm

    Take poor, vulnerable people and rip the piss out of them. Yeah, hilarious.

  10. ColinWright
    ColinWright
    July 23, 2012, 3:14 pm

    Cohen’s pretty funny. The relentless attacks on Muslims are a bit much, though. Think what the reaction would be if he took out after any other group this way.

    • marc b.
      marc b.
      July 23, 2012, 4:30 pm

      Think what the reaction would be if he took out after any other group this way.

      but colin, his movie characters are insulting to women, ‘the french’, depict americans as emotionally and intellectually retarded, and … and … ad infinitum. i have no problem with raunchy humor (‘bad santa’ and the first ‘harold and kumar’ are hilarious, imo) but cohen is one more no talent smart ass making stupid jokes primarily at the expense of easy targets. he is the comic equivalent of rancid high fructose corn syrup. nothing good can come of him.

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        July 23, 2012, 7:53 pm

        I don’t know if nothing good can come of him. That clip of him on a helicopter tour with the American tourists freaking out and wrongly thinking two Arab looking guys were talking about terrorism when they were talking about fireworks was pretty funny. Most of his humor is pretty lame though.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 23, 2012, 8:05 pm

        That’s what I said. He’s pretty funny.

        What can I say? I think a bear lunging out of an ice cream truck is really funny. That thing where he got the two New York feminists to argue with him about whether ‘woman’s brain is size of squirrel’ was great.

        Anyway, it’s ironic that I find myself defending him. Normally, I’m on the other side of this. Every says how great he is and I qualify the praise.

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        July 24, 2012, 9:21 am

        That thing where he got the two New York feminists to argue with him about whether ‘woman’s brain is size of squirrel’ was great.

        yes, thus proving that women’s brains are the size of a squirrel’s. and i don’t believe for a moment that the reactions in many cases aren’t pre-scripted. if i recall correctly, in one of the borat scenes where cohen and another man (a ‘real’ person, not an actor) are driving in a car, it’s clear that the scenes through the car windows are computer generated, or however it is they add fake backgrounds.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 24, 2012, 2:50 pm

        Yeah. Good stuff, huh?

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      July 23, 2012, 5:27 pm

      Uh like the Aipac crowd, Israel’s apartheid system Come on Sasha you chicken shit.

  11. seafoid
    seafoid
    July 23, 2012, 3:37 pm

    Sash, for all his innate Hebrew genius, couldn’t hold the hasbara together …

    http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/focus-u-s-a/norman-finkelstein-bids-farewell-to-israel-bashing-1.422684

    Norman Finkelstein bids farewell to Israel bashing
    ‘It’s become too easy,’ says Norman Finkelstein, talking about his new and surprisingly optimistic book.

    Finkelstein’s book is suprisingly optimistic about the chances of settling the confict, and about changing the debate, even among American Jewry. The tide of public opinion is turning against Israel, he says, and once support for Israeli policy becomes widely unacceptable in the United States, the “self-designated voices for Israel,” as he calls them, will quickly drop out. Meanwhile, American Jewish college students are having their eyes opened.

    “The academic research on Israel is no longer the footnoted “Exodus,” and younger Jews, when they go to college, are walking away with very different picture of Israel,” he said. “And the American Jewish community that for a long time was a huge obstacle to resolving the conflict is breaking up. If you put forth a reasonable and principled goal, I think a resolution is possible. We might be entering the endgame, but one that might take a long time.”

    • AllenBee
      AllenBee
      July 23, 2012, 4:27 pm

      ““The academic research on Israel is no longer the footnoted “Exodus,” and younger Jews, when they go to college, are walking away with very different picture of Israel,” “

      deep irony.
      The Israel studies programs that megamillionaires (like Bronfman) have planted in universities all over the US will end up being the undoing of the zionist project.

      Hell, Bronfman could have saved his money. A careful reading of Edwin Black’s “Transfer Agreement” slaughters a whole herd of sacred cows.

    • American
      American
      July 23, 2012, 11:33 pm

      If Finkelstein is optimistic then he’s totally lost it. Palestine doesn’t have time left for a Jewish awakening’ end game that might take a long time.’

  12. ColinWright
    ColinWright
    July 23, 2012, 4:22 pm

    “‘It’s become too easy,’ says Norman Finkelstein, talking about his new and surprisingly optimistic book…”

    This makes me think less of Finkelstein. So it was never about the injustice of the situation at all? It was always about getting attention for Norm by advancing a wildly unpopular but eminently defensible argument?

    What’s next? He’s off to India to point out how they should just eat their cows?

    It is hard not to notice that he has lost interest in the anti-Zionist cause at precisely the point where he can no longer be an iconoclast by continuing to promote it.

    It’s profoundly selfish. He’s essentially saying ‘who cares if this misery goes on for twenty years longer than it has to? It’s starting to bore me.’

    He could wake up and realize it’s not all about him.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      July 23, 2012, 5:29 pm

      “It was always about getting attention for Norm by advancing a wildly unpopular but eminently defensible argument?” That would be some twisted way to get attention. Lose jobs, tenure, money, pension and be attacked for decades. That does not make sense.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 24, 2012, 2:52 pm

        I could see it — maybe I share enough of the same traits to recognize the compulsion.

        Look at the Colorado shooter. People will do anything for attention.

    • chinese box
      chinese box
      July 23, 2012, 7:14 pm

      “This makes me think less of Finkelstein. So it was never about the injustice of the situation at all? It was always about getting attention for Norm by advancing a wildly unpopular but eminently defensible argument?”

      Unfortunately, I think you’re onto something. Although if true, it’s kind of mind-boggling that he torpedoed his own career and reputation (in some people’s eyes, anyway) just to be gadfly for a few years on behalf of a cause that he’s not really committed to. It’s hard to see how he’s gained financially or otherwise from his stance. If his goal was to gain access to “respected” media and Sunday talk shows it would make more sense to take the safer Tom Friedman/Beinart route.

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        July 24, 2012, 9:25 am

        If his goal was to gain access to “respected” media and Sunday talk shows it would make more sense to take the safer Tom Friedman/Beinart route.

        i don’t know if this is the case or not, but there may be more currency playing the ‘reformed’ self-hater. and even if finkelstein is insincere, i still would not put him in the same category as that half-wit friedman. finkelstein is a brilliant guy, regardless of what he devolves into.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 24, 2012, 2:58 pm

        “…and even if finkelstein is insincere, i still would not put him in the same category as that half-wit friedman. finkelstein is a brilliant guy, regardless of what he devolves into.”

        I’m not saying Finkelstein is insincere so much as speculating that he is blindly egotistical.

        We all, of course, care not only about the outside world, but also about ourselves. I’m immediately suspicious of anyone who pretends otherwise.

        …but presumably one does have some authentic concern for the professed object of one’s attention as well as for oneself. I’d be happy to acquire a modicum of fame as a dauntless castigator of Zionism. However, given a choice between Zionism sticking around long enough for me to do that and Zionism just going away, I’d promptly plump for the latter.

        Finkelstein’s switch suggests that in his case, this has been mainly about Finkelstein all along.

  13. ColinWright
    ColinWright
    July 23, 2012, 4:31 pm

    This is telling. From the Haaretz link above:

    ” …Loyal to his tradition of combativeness, Finkelstein takes on not only Michael Oren, Jeffrey Goldberg, Benny Morris and others, but also Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer’s book on the Israel lobby.

    “I accept that the lobby is very influential and shapes [U.S.] policy on Israel-Palestine. But when Walt and Mearsheimer start generalizing about the influence of the lobby on Iraq, Iran policy and elsewhere – that’s where I think they get it wrong. I just can’t find any evidence for it.” …”

    That’s self-deception. He can’t see that the Israel lobby has exerted any influence on US policy towards Iraq and Iran?

    That’s more than self-deception. It’s just a remarkably stupid thing to say. In fact, the remark is so spectacularly indefensible I don’t even see the need to tear it apart.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      July 23, 2012, 5:32 pm

      Evidence? Just look at the Project for a New American Century website. Read Lt Col Karen Kwiatowski’s take on what she witnessed in the Pentagon and the Office of Special plans. Wolfowitz, Feith, influence on the invasion of Iraq. Incredibly bright people can be blind in areas of their choosing

    • jewishgoyim
      jewishgoyim
      July 23, 2012, 7:41 pm

      “I just can’t find any evidence for it.”

      I’d be curious to know what Finkelstein thinks of the “Clean Break Report” and the fact that many of its authors were part of the Bush administration. “Can’t find any evidence?” How about “Bill Kristol” as “exhibit two”? Who is Finkelstein kidding?

      Finkelstein is dishonest because I’m quite certain he knows better. As to why he would be such a turncoat at this particular point in time, I have no idea. The fact is: he is.

      “Can’t find any evidence” is a bold face lie.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 24, 2012, 3:12 pm

        ““Can’t find any evidence” is a bold face lie.”

        Either that or it’s evidence of a previously undemonstrated capacity for self-deception.

    • Nevada Ned
      Nevada Ned
      July 23, 2012, 11:58 pm

      I have read Finkelstein’s book, Knowing Too Much.
      How much influence has the Israel Lobby had on US policy towards Iraq and Iran?

      The public US polity towards Iraq is: promote freedom and democracy.
      The real US policy towards Iraq is: invade and occupy the country, try to bring the oil fields under US control.

      You can try to make a case for the Second Persian Gulf War (2003-present) being influenced by the Israel Lobby. But what about the First Persian Gulf War (1992)?
      The First Persian Gulf was similar to the Second. And nobody argues that the Israel Lobby caused the First Persian Gulf War. President George HW Bush (#41) had a famously frosty relationship with US Jewry and with the Israel Lobby.

      About Iran: now the US is itching to carry out regime change, oust the Iranian mullahs, and get back to the good old days, as they were under Shah. Is US policy influenced by the Israel Lobby?
      Consider that in 1953 the CIA carried a coup in Iran and ousted a moderate reformist Iranian government, and installed the Shah, the US-supported dictator.
      The US is trying to do now what it did successfully back in 1953: install a US-friendly regime in Iran.
      Back in 1953, the Lobby wasn’t as powerful as it is today. And I don’t know anyone who thinks that the 1953 CIA coup (operation Ajax) was caused by the Israel Lobby.

      And in conclusion: the Israel Lobby is a well-organized and effective lobby. But even if the Israel Lobby weren’t there, US policy towards Iran and Iraq probably would be about the same.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 24, 2012, 3:02 pm

        “…And in conclusion: the Israel Lobby is a well-organized and effective lobby. But even if the Israel Lobby weren’t there, US policy towards Iran and Iraq probably would be about the same…”

        I disagree completely. In particular, this current run-up to war with Iran is blatantly a product of the Israel lobby’s influence. One has to be really determined to ignore the obvious not to see that.

      • anan
        anan
        July 24, 2012, 3:36 pm

        ColinWright, another brilliant comment.

        America and Iran are natural allies. Both countries are on the same side regarding Takfiri, Al Qaeda/Taliban linked networks, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and the Gulf extremists. Iran/Turkey/US are natural allies.

        Iran needs to be allowed to join the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan as soon as possible, and be allowed to send embedded advisors to help the ANSF.

        The anti Iranian agenda of some is against American interests.

        But here is the funny thing. The Jewish people have had no better friend over the last 2600 years than Iran. Iran and Israel are natural ancient allies. The ancient friendship needs to be rekindled.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 25, 2012, 4:02 am

        “…But here is the funny thing. The Jewish people have had no better friend over the last 2600 years than Iran. Iran and Israel are natural ancient allies. The ancient friendship needs to be rekindled.”

        I’d say it’s a bit late in the day for that thought. It might have been more doable about five murdered scientists ago.

        Here’s a hint. Don’t bomb them. That won’t improve matters either.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 24, 2012, 3:10 pm

        “…The US is trying to do now what it did successfully back in 1953: install a US-friendly regime in Iran…”

        Now you see, that’s just not true. I see little or no evidence that we have any particular interest in promoting regime change. I do see a compulsion to threaten them with violence if they don’t abandon their nuclear program — and I see those threats as primarily an attempt to appease Israel. If Israel suddenly discovered she had no problem with the Iranian nuclear program, it’s possible we would continue to attempt to hamper it. However, I have a difficult time imagining us continuing to publicly threaten air strikes.

      • anan
        anan
        July 24, 2012, 3:31 pm

        America and the world should support the greens. Why the US and the world has not collaboratively done this since the 1980s is strange.

  14. ritzl
    ritzl
    July 23, 2012, 6:53 pm

    I wonder if the US is a party to this settlement in that Abu Aita is removed from any and all no-fly and other such lists.

    All it takes is a j’accuse to get on them. I suspect Abu Aita has been damaged far beyond what could be reasonably embraced in civil settlement.

  15. American
    American
    July 23, 2012, 11:28 pm

    I found Cohen sleazy and repulsive the few times I saw him and couldn’t see how or why he ever got in front of the public. He was basically dirty looking in his appearance and unintelligible in his babbles.
    Glad he had to pay up something for his mouth.

  16. anan
    anan
    July 24, 2012, 3:29 pm

    Cohen is very funny. He mocks all sorts of people. He is rude. And often over the top.

    Anti Jewish hatred is widespread in Europe, Latin America, the former USSR and even parts of America, let alone muslim countries.

    67% of all hate crimes against religion in the US in 2010 were against Jewish people. And even that is an improvement from the past.

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-victims

    There is denial among Americans about the extent of anti Jewish anger and prejudice in America. :-(

    Sadly the world is far from being a place where people are “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” :-(

    • mig
      mig
      July 25, 2012, 5:27 am

      anan :

      67% of all hate crimes against religion in the US in 2010 were against Jewish people.

      Ahha, so lets now just for a argument sake look this FBI data, and from where they collect this data.

      Resources
      – Shepard/Byrd Act Brochure
      – Justice Department Civil Rights Division
      – Justice Department Community Relations Service
      – Southern Poverty Law Center
      – Anti-Defamation League
      – Federal Civil Rights Statutes

      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/

      • mig
        mig
        July 25, 2012, 5:40 am
      • marc b.
        marc b.
        July 25, 2012, 9:30 am

        yes, i wonder too, mig. the numbers on anti-muslim incidents don’t seem to jibe. (i would think it probable that muslims are less likely to report incidents.) i would also want a clear definition of what constitutes an anti-semitic incident as recorded by, say, the ADL. i will assume until proven otherwise that the ADL and others have happily incorporated criticism of israel into their definitions of anti-semitism.

      • PeaceThroughJustice
        PeaceThroughJustice
        July 25, 2012, 11:49 am

        marc b.: “i would also want a clear definition of what constitutes an anti-semitic incident as recorded by, say, the ADL.”

        I always think of the hilarious episode in “Defamation” when Yoav Shamir visits the the ADL offices to learn more about the wave of antisemitism. “We’re flooded everyday with these things from all over the country. It’s a very big problem.” But then he talks to the staffer managing the database of incidents and it turns out they’re almost all workers’ complaints at not being allowed to take off Jewish holidays.

        “Defamation”

        (starts around 13:00)

    • American
      American
      July 25, 2012, 10:43 am

      ”67% of all hate crimes against religion in the US in 2010 were against Jewish people. And even that is an improvement from the past.””…anan

      Dear Stupid,
      Do you not know how to read the chart?
      Can you not do simple math?
      We have been through this chart a dozen times here already.

      There were 7,699 Hate Crimes TOTAL.
      Broken down by:
      Race——3,725 (mostly against Blacks- 2,566)
      Religion—-1,409 (which is where Jews are listed at 922
      Sex Orientation—-1,470
      Ethnic—1,040
      The Disabled—46

      922 incidents against Jews or Jewish property comes to a tad under 12% of ALL hate crimes committed. If a Jews reports a hate incident it goes under religion and only under religion.

  17. ColinWright
    ColinWright
    July 25, 2012, 4:05 am

    “…67% of all hate crimes against religion in the US in 2010 were against Jewish people. And even that is an improvement from the past…”

    Anyone who can’t recognize what a bogus statistic that is has a serious problem. Just for starters, I have relatively close contacts with an inner-city Hispanic community. Hispanics are routinely targeted and attacked by Blacks for being Hispanic. By ‘targeted’ I mean shot through the head and killed, incidentally — not treated to a rude remark.

    Then to approach the figures from a different direction, if Jews, who make up 2% of the US population, are victims of 67% of the hate crime, then that means that they are roughly one hundred times as likely to be a victim of a hate crime as a randomly selected member of the population. (assume 1000 total individuals, 20 Jews, 9 total hate crimes, of which 6 are aimed at Jews, and do the math).

    That in turn implies that Jews are subjected to bigotry one hundred times as intense as that aimed at discernible racial and ethnic groups on the average. And if you think that’s actually the case, you’re kidding yourself.

    I’m perfectly aware this 67% figure is an FBI statistic. However, if the FBI declared that the average American was fourteen feet tall, I wouldn’t believe that either. The 67% figure is utter crap.

  18. ColinWright
    ColinWright
    July 25, 2012, 4:20 am

    Jews could well be victims of hate crimes more often than whites in general are, may or may not be victims of hate crimes more than Blacks are, probably aren’t victims of hate crimes as often as Hispanics are, certainly aren’t victims of hate crimes as often as Asians are, and I doubt very much are victims of hate crimes as often as Muslims are.

    It’s possible I’m marginally wrong there at some point. However, to repeat, that 67% figure is just transparently crap.

    • American
      American
      July 25, 2012, 10:47 am

      Read the chart. Do the math.
      Out of 7,699 total reported hate crimes Jews were 12% (922).

  19. ColinWright
    ColinWright
    July 25, 2012, 4:25 am

    I imagine that ‘67%’ figure comes from how often synagogues are defaced as opposed to churches, mosques, graveyards defaced, etc. (Of course, mosques probably often take good care to not even be publicly identifiable.) No doubt the number has some kind of statistical source.

    However, a ‘hate crime’ is fairly obviously any crime in which a victim is targeted for his race or ethnicity when he wouldn’t have been targeted if he hadn’t been of that race or ethnicity.

    Such crimes may be more difficult to isolate and count — but they are what hate crimes are. And given that definition, the ‘67%’ figure is obvious nonsense.

    • anan
      anan
      July 25, 2012, 7:02 am

      ColinWright, the FBI statistics are accurate. No doubt your defensive reaction is because you are a patriotic American and are horrified by the thought that your countrymen could be this bad. I get that.

      But for love of country, accept that your beloved country has this very serious problem. The first step to solving a problem is acknowledging it.

      Review the FBI data further on your own over the next couple months. The FBI breaks it down every which way. Look over the data for multiple different years. Ask your friends in law enforcement and the FBI about it.

      Anecdotes do not make a trend. But personally, I have observed more bigotry against Jewish people than I have against any other group of people. It is extremely intense in many parts of America. Including academia, among atheists, among some blue collar workers, and truth be told among some Christian Americans. :-(

      Take your time to absorb this.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 25, 2012, 10:23 am

        “It is extremely intense in many parts of America. Including… , among atheists,”

        Oh, bullshit. Atheists don’t like the Jewish religion any more or less than we like any religion, but that doesn’t make us antisemites. We oppose the theology/ideology/ideas, not the people.

        And truth be told, Judaism is often treated with kid gloves among atheists and get nowhere near the vitriol that Islam gets or even what Christianity gets.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 25, 2012, 5:23 pm

        “And truth be told, Judaism is often treated with kid gloves among atheists and get nowhere near the vitriol that Islam gets or even what Christianity gets.”

        To be fair, that’s because while on the one hand we have a rather recent example of where unrestrained hostility towards Judaism leads, on the other it’s been quite a while since Christians have been conspicuously persecuted, and of course at the moment expressions of hostility toward Islam are quite legitimate in most circles.

        …no doubt after we top Hitler and incinerate fifty million or so Muslims, we’ll feel as hesitant about vilifying Islam as we do about vilifying Judaism.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 25, 2012, 3:46 pm

        “ColinWright, the FBI statistics are accurate. No doubt your defensive reaction is because you are a patriotic American and are horrified by the thought that your countrymen could be this bad. I get that.”

        You have reached the point where you are impervious to common sense. ‘67% of all hate crimes directed at Jews’ would be the sort of statistic one would pull from Germany in 1934 or possibly the Rhine Valley in 1095.

        Drawn from contemporary America, it is simply an example of bad statistics.

        “Take your time to absorb this.”

        Try going back and absorbing what I said in my posts.

  20. marc b.
    marc b.
    July 25, 2012, 10:02 am

    I have observed more bigotry against Jewish people than I have against any other group of people.

    yes, that’s what happens when you stare at your navel, anan. funny that you observe the primacy of such bigotry as muslims are targeted for surveillance by the federal, state and local police due to their religion, pulled aside at airports for ‘random’ security checks, and can’t build a house of worship without a shit storm of hate publicly directed at them, because, well, all muslims are terrorists and what to impose sharia law in the US. funny that you observe ‘more bigotry against jewish people’ when there are greater numbers of blacks, homosexuals and others subjected to incidents of hate crimes according to the statistics you cite.

    It is extremely intense in many parts of America. Including academia . . .

    oh you slay me, anan baron cohen. poor martin kramer under siege at harvard for proposing the extermination of palestinians. if that isn’t an example of anti-jewish bigotry, i don’t know what is. maybe cohen’s next project after ‘the dictator’ could be ‘the academic’. a perfect vehicle for illustrating how his brilliance is under irrational, jealous attack by lesser beings. he could ask a couple of muslim professors on camera when was it that they stopped murdering jews. funny stuff.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      July 25, 2012, 11:22 am

      “I have observed more bigotry against Jewish people than I have against any other group of people.”

      In spite of the fact that Britain outlawed slavery, the United States fought a bloody Civil War which ended slavery here?
      Of course, all those “voter ID” laws are clearly aimed at Jews…. And what about that go…guy in Florida who shot the Jewish teenager just for walking around? And what is it with all the (I don’t know the name for this stuff)” :-( ” and “:-)” crap? Is he 12?

      But America certainly has gone downhill, all those “hate crimes” and no dead Jews? That’s not the kind of efficiency I expect from Americans, the people who can make almost any tree bear strange fruit.

      How long is this going to go on? I think “anan” owes us an explanation. He may not be witty, but who is he?

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        July 25, 2012, 12:31 pm

        He may not be witty, but who is he?

        witty undergoing regression therapy? but really, mooser, how can you deny the primacy of anan’s suffering? even if their prejudices (no, that’s too weak a word, their hatreds) aren’t overtly expressed, anan can see clearly into the hearts of american closet anti-semites. and so what if he sometimes reports these superhero x-ray insights as ‘incidents’ of anti-semitism to the ADL as if something concrete had occurred? it’s quite a burden, this gift, but *world-weary sigh*, g-d specially built him this way, so who’s to argue?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 25, 2012, 5:45 pm

        I’m not at all sure “anan” is a Zionist. He seems to me more like a common, everyday, equal-opportunity opportunist.

        Maybe, if he gave us a clue, a little information, less of his stuff would seem like a string of non-sequiturs.

    • anan
      anan
      July 25, 2012, 11:31 am

      Anti Jewish bigotry is often hid behind politically correct masks and fake smiles in Europe, Latin America and America. You would be surprised how often anti Jewish things are said when no Jewish person is present.

      Not referring to constructive criticism of Israel.

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        July 25, 2012, 1:10 pm

        Not referring to constructive criticism of Israel.

        as surprising as it may seem, i wasn’t talking about you or your impressions of what constitute ‘constructive criticism of israel.’ i was referring to the federal statistics you disingenuously cite as proof of pervasive anti-semitisim in america. i’ll ask the question again: if the statistics compiled by the feds incorporates investigations and reports from the ADL et al., i would to know how the ADL et al. compile, analyze and report their data on incidents of anti-semitism.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 25, 2012, 3:16 pm

        “You would be surprised how often anti Jewish things are said when no Jewish person is present.”

        Another words, they are afraid to say them in front of a Jew? Whoopee! Call me back when they are ready to confront me face-to-face.

        And anyway, fair is fair, anan. You ought to hear what I say about them non-Jews when they’re not around! I rip ’em up one side a down the other!

        And don’t forget, anan, Israel is the “Jewish State” Criticising Jews is not bigotry, it is simply constructive criticism of the people of the Jewish State. You should know that.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 25, 2012, 3:26 pm

        “Anti Jewish bigotry is often hid behind politically correct masks and fake smiles “

        I’m telling you anan, it’s not fair. When I think about how welcoming, how inclusive, how eager to integrate and even reparate African-Americans, Hispanic, Asians and many other groups, it just doesn’t seem fair that they reserve all that animus for Jews, does it?
        You people here don’t know what it’s like. Those “fake smiles” hurt worse than being dragged to death behind a pick-up truck!

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 26, 2012, 4:08 am

        “Anti Jewish bigotry is often hid behind politically correct masks and fake smiles in Europe, Latin America and America. You would be surprised how often anti Jewish things are said when no Jewish person is present…”

        Mm. Well, this may shock you, but I can’t recall hearing anyone making a reference that was in any way anti-semitic until I was twenty. Specifically, NYU was referred to as ‘NY Jew.’ It perhaps proves my point that I can still remember it clearly.

        Really. No foolin.’ At least in my Klavern, we did not immediately all start talking about the Jews as soon as they left.

        Here’s an even more alarming thought than your theory that the world is teeming with closet anti-semites.

        Perhaps we just didn’t care. After all, I find it distinctly improbable that I would be involved in this conversation if it wasn’t for Israel.

    • ColinWright
      ColinWright
      July 25, 2012, 3:49 pm

      “I have observed more bigotry against Jewish people than I have against any other group of people.

      yes, that’s what happens when you stare at your navel, anan…”

      Yeah. Funnily enough, I have observed more bigotry aimed at me as well.

      I suspect my perspective is subjective, though.

  21. Theo
    Theo
    July 25, 2012, 11:23 am

    Cohen is funny for a shortest time, before you realize how brainless his acting is.
    Reminds me of the Marx brothers, hitting and showing eachother althrough a movie, entertainment that can be enjoyed by a publicum of low human insticts and even lower IQ.
    I have seen his very first movie, saying never again.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      July 25, 2012, 11:38 am

      “Reminds me of the Marx brothers, hitting and showing eachother althrough a movie,”

      Please, cite us an example? Just one? Or is your pitiful resentment of Jews causing you to mix up the Marx boys with the Three Gentile Stooges?

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        July 25, 2012, 12:47 pm

        Cohen is funny for a shortest time . . . Reminds me of the Marx brothers

        i didn’t get that part either, theo. i haven’t watched them in a while, but i used to find the marx bros. a real hoot. but then again, alot of laughs had to do with the bros. subverting the then-dominant class. dipsh*t cohen making fun of palestinians and peasants and then hiding behind the collective skirt of his legal team is funny in a different way.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 25, 2012, 3:19 pm

        ” alot of laughs had to do with the bros. subverting the then-dominant class.”

        Ahh, no wonder Theo dislikes them so. He takes it as a personal insult.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 25, 2012, 3:42 pm

        “Please, cite us an example? Just one? Or is your pitiful resentment of Jews causing you to mix up the Marx boys with the Three Gentile Stooges?”

        I’m overwhelmingly tempted to go and check — just on the offhand that the Three Stooges or at least their scriptwriter was Jewish.

        We could have an ‘unedifying entertainment figure’ war. ‘Oh yeah — what about Barry Manilow?’

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        July 25, 2012, 5:09 pm

        that the Three Stooges or at least their scriptwriter was Jewish.

        colin, that’s just mooser’s sense of humor. the three stooges were all jewish. if the entertainment industry interests you, the ‘history’ of the stooges is some pretty interesting, seamy stuff, with their original manager, ted healy, having a ‘heart attack’ and/or being beaten to death by wallace beery (actor), albert brocolli (producer) and pat dicicco (brocolli’s cousin and mobster), depending on who you talk to.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 25, 2012, 5:37 pm

        Gee, being sort of a failed comic myself, I would guess, if I didn’t know, that the Marx Brother’s material was born in vaudiville, polished and perfected for Broadway, and then put in movies. While there were probably many writers employed at different times, their unique material was mostly self-developed, based on audience reaction.
        About the Stooges, I know very little. My Mom (aleha ha-shalom) believed their antics were bad for children, and I promised her I would never watch them. The thought that I was breaking a sacred promise would rob me of any hilarity or enjoyment their capers might induce.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 25, 2012, 6:10 pm

        “I’m overwhelmingly tempted to go and check — just on the offhand that the Three Stooges or at least their scriptwriter was Jewish.”

        All the Stooges except Curly Joe were Jewish.

      • lysias
        lysias
        July 25, 2012, 6:38 pm

        pat dicicco (brocolli’s cousin and mobster)

        So the creator of the James Bond movies was related to a mobster?

        Maybe that explains it.

      • MRW
        MRW
        July 25, 2012, 7:06 pm

        Curly’s wife was Jewish. His widow (don’t know which one) lived across from my aunt. I knew her, used her swimming pool, and she reigned supreme with me as a kid because she was “Curly’s wife.”

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        July 26, 2012, 8:03 am

        All the Stooges except Curly Joe were Jewish.

        only a closet anti-gentile would make such a comparison. curly joe was the opposite of funny.

      • proudzionist777
        proudzionist777
        July 26, 2012, 9:39 am

        @Mooser

        Its apparent that you’re a failed comic.

      • MRW
        MRW
        July 25, 2012, 7:20 pm

        Mooser, Theo is not American. How can you expect him to find American humor funny?

        As I said below, maybe the British find Cohen funny. I don’t.

    • MRW
      MRW
      July 25, 2012, 7:09 pm

      Groucho Marx was a comic genius in the US, and widely recognized among Americans as that. SB Cohen does not have his wit, timing, or sophistication to my ear. Maybe the Brits find him hysterical.

      Theo, it’s probably an American humor thing difference. Americans have trouble appreciating another country’s humor too.

      • kapok
        kapok
        July 25, 2012, 7:49 pm

        Groucho Marx AKA Jewish culture, which died on the boat to Israel.

  22. eljay
    eljay
    July 25, 2012, 11:57 am

    >> Reminds me of the Marx brothers, hitting and showing eachother althrough a movie …

    The Three Stooges, maybe. The Marx Brothers was more about clever writing than just nyuks and yoinks.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      July 25, 2012, 3:21 pm

      Eljay, we are fighting for the Marx Brother’s honor, which is more than they ever did!

  23. eljay
    eljay
    July 26, 2012, 9:09 am

    >> Eljay, we are fighting for the Marx Brother’s honor, which is more than they ever did!

    Yeah, you’d think that, at the very least, they would have charged critics of their brand of comedy with anti-Semitism… ;-)

Leave a Reply