Cohen cites Lasky’s column from a conservative website, American Thinker, which he writes “tries to prove its name is an oxymoron.” Cohen cannot refrain from taking such a cheap shot, which evidently is easier than to argue with Lasky’s sensible observation that does Cohen not realize “that the Jews he interviews in Iran are conscious of the ayatollahs’ surveillance and would be wary of expressing their true views?”
Cohen is most furious about all his critics who make a comparison between Iran and Nazi Germany. Iran, he writes, “is no Third Reich.” Yes, and Cuba is no Soviet Union or Mao’s China. But in the case of Iran, he thinks it sufficient to present all the ways in which Iran is different than Nazi Germany. They have not annexed any other country’s territory; they have a significant margin of liberty, “even democracy.” The mullahs are not mad, but have “proved malleable.” The forthcoming presidential race between Ahmadinejad and Khatami will be, he writes, a “genuine contest” between two religious leaders with very different viewpoints.
I would like to sentence Cohen to an hour or two with Michael Ledeen’s The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealot’s Quest for Destruction. He just might learn something. (I can see Cohen at the computer right now-”Radosh cites the warmonger neo-conservative Michael Ledeen…”) As Ledeen points out, Khatami is anything but a real reformer, which is why the mullahs allowed him to have some power. Khatami, he points out, was “simply the empty political vessel into which the oppressed Iranian people poured their rage at the regime.” Later, he notes, Khatami authorized “some of the worst human rights violations” taking place in Iran, as well as presided over the acceleration of Iran’s nuclear program.
Well, at least Cohen is right about one thing: The “air you breathe in Iran is not suffocating.” Nor was it in Nazi Germany. The sun also shined in Franco’s Spain, and the beach resorts in Ibiza were as nice then as they are now. The streets in Iran “hum with life,” Cohen writes. We have all seen the films of the Warsaw Ghetto taken by the Nazis in Poland. Right outside the ghetto, the streets were filled with people enjoying themselves, while the Jewish residents were packed in and dying daily.
So Cohen suggests we learn the political lesson: we must not equate “Iran with terror.” In other words, ignore the nuclear arms buildup; ignore the constant threats to obliterate Israel; ignore the Holocaust denial and its implications, and learn the need to view both Hamas and Hezbollah as “broad political movements” that are simply “resisting an Israel over-ready to use crushing force.”
Cohen’s last is more than lamentable. He obviously buys the myth of Israel’s disproportionate response to Hamas in the last round of fighting; its supposed guilt in using force- “crushing force” to defend itself, and therefore is himself somewhat sympathetic to Hamas and Hezbollah’s political vision. No wonder he sees nothing strange in Iranian Jews condemning Israel to him and speaking as proud Iranians, not as Jews. He implies that were he an Iranian Jew, he would likely take the same position.
So Cohen warns us. Do not have a “one-dimensional lens.” That characterization is reserved for those who think that Iran is a real danger to world stability; those who think it is just another power whose leaders are totally rational are the realists we must listen to. And for good balance, he ends by reminding us that “hateful, ultranationalist rhetoric” is no preserve of Iranians. Where else may we find it? You guessed: Israel. What about Avigdor Lieberman, he asks? That reminds me of the old anti-Soviet joke from the 1930′s and 40′s. A fervent anti-Communist goes on a tirade about Stalin’s repressions and murders to an American leftist. The leftist immediately responds: “And what about the lynching of American blacks in the South?”
So here is my suggestion. Let’s continue bombarding Roger Cohen with answers. Obviously they are getting to him. Read his critics whose contributions I have linked to above. They have far the better case. And here’s a suggestion for The New York Times. You got rid of William Kristol. Why not follow up with Roger Cohen?
The usual witch hunt when anyone steps out of line on policy towards Israel. We’ve got rope and there’s plenty of trees. And what makes it worse is the apostate is Jewish. Frankly, the whole reaction to Cohen’s article is totally hysterical. Now they want to start compiling blacklists…….it all reminds one of other occasions when people were not allowed to work…..1933…..1949….Need I go on.
See below my online comment to Roger Cohen’s most recent op-ed, which was “refused” by The New York Times, notwithstanding their purported policy that “Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive”:
Roger Cohen writes in “Iran, the Jews and Germany”: “One Iranian exile, no lover of the Islamic Republic, wrote to me saying that my account of Iran’s Jews had brought “tears to my eyes” because “you are saying what many of us would like to hear.” Foolish me, I always thought that journalism was more than telling people what they “would like to hear.”
Questions: When you wrote “What Iran’s Jews Say”, with how many Iranian Jews did you speak? Who selected these Jews for you? Did you speak with them via an interpreter? (Fess up, Roger, you don’t speak Farsi.) And when you spoke with them, who was present? (I have met and spoken with many Iranian Jews who fled Iran, and their descriptions of their former life differ in the extreme from your account.)
But more important, Roger, after a month in Iran, what about closure? Your message, as I understand it: “Indulge” Iran and cut them some slack as they pursue their nuclear plans, notwithstanding Khamenei’s potentially apocalyptic intentions; after all, young Iranians like Nikes, and I’m a Jew and was treated royally there. But haven’t you forgotten something? As I see it, there’s still unfinished business, i.e. the Baha’is, Iran’s largest religious minority, whose desperate plight must not be ignored. I think you owe it as a journalist to tell their story.
Yes, I know: Tucked away in a prior op-ed is the single sentence: “Among minorities, the Baha’i — seven of whom were arrested recently on charges of spying for Israel — have suffered brutally harsh treatment.” Is that all you have to say? You didn’t happen to ask to meet with the seven? Why not? Several readers’ online comments requested additional information about the Iranian Baha’i community, but you didn’t oblige, so allow me to assist:
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution “only” 13 Jews have been executed by Iran on the grounds of spying for Israel. In comparison, more than 200 Baha’is have been cruelly butchered during the same period. Why do Jews get “preferred treatment”? Simple: Judaism and Christianity are deemed predecessors to Islam, and both Moses and Christ are legitimate prophets; however, Mohammed is for some Muslims the ultimate and final messenger, whose precepts require no elaboration and tolerate no deviation. Although Judaism and Christianity are “not fully evolved”, they nevertheless paved the way for Islam, and Jews and Christians, although inferior, can on some level be suffered. On the other hand, in the nineteenth century, more than 1,200 years after the death of Mohammed, Bahá’u'lláh, Baha’i’s founder, appeared on the scene in Persia, and the Baha’i faith, which embraces Bahá’u'lláh, as opposed to Mohammed, as God’s latest manifestation, constitutes heresy for Iran’s ayatollahs.
The result: Tens of thousands of Baha’is have been slaughtered in Iran from the time this religion emerged. The most recent murder occurred in July 1998, when Rúhullah Rawhani, a Baha’i businessman and father of four, was executed in Mashad without sentencing and without any semblance of due process.
Concerning the seven imprisoned Baha’is you so casually mentioned in your last op-ed written from Iran, a 22 February 2009 VOA editorial “reflecting the views of the United States Government” (http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/2009-02-23-voa5.cfm) states:
“More than 9 months have passed since 7 leaders of the Baha’i community in Iran were arrested and sent to prison with no access to legal counsel. Now the Iranian government has announced the 7 have been charged with espionage. The move is the latest in decades of repressive measures against the Baha’is, the largest non-Islamic religious minority group in Iran. Those measures include barring Baha’is from attending public universities or working in public agencies, destroying or closing Baha’i places of worship, bulldozing Baha’i cemeteries, legally confiscating Baha’i property, and killing Baha’is with impunity.” [This does not bring back memories from some 70 years ago?]
I would also add that among the aspects of the Baha’i faith most rankling to Iran’s Shiite majority is its advocacy of women’s rights. For a personal harrowing account of the depths of brutal oppression experienced by an Iranian Baha’i woman, read an interview with Ms. Mehri Mavaddat (http://info.Bahai.org/article-1-8-3-15.html).
Roger, you would have us know that “Iranian civility toward Jews tells us more about Iran — its sophistication and culture — than all the inflammatory rhetoric.” I suggest you examine Iranian “civility” toward its gentle Baha’i minority before pronouncing judgment. More to the point, go back and try writing an op-ed “What Iran’s Baha’is Say”. I am confident “the consistent warmth” (your description) with which you were received in Iran by this savage theocracy will dissipate with the speed of a uranium enriching centrifuge.
How can you talk with a straight about the “myth” of a disproportionate response? One can argue whether it is justified (a strained position to take, to be sure) but it seems that Israel itself would (and did) admit that the response was indeed disproportionate. How much intellectual spelunking does it take to convince yourself that thousands of slain civilians do not disturb the moral equation at play? Ah, sure, let’s see: Qassam rockets, Hamas hides behind civilians, etc. Still, the response is disproportionate and your bargain discount of any notion of “guilt” that should attach to it drastically cheapens any other vaguely moral appeals you make.
Cohen made carefully qualified, very cautious, reserved and considered statements. Maybe that’s why he sounds far more compelling than the hysteria that met each of his articles.
Fire Roger Cohen? Don’t conservatives complain that liberals try to suppress politically incorrect voices.
I don’t think any reasonable person comes away from the Cohen columns thinking life is peachy for Iranian Jews. The first column does offer a glimpse of life for Iranian Jews that few of us see because portrayals of Iran are so dominated by the skewed, nuance-impaired neoconservative view of Middle East politics.
Fire him? For god’s sake are you serious? He wrote a column you disagree with, on a subject on which you apparently feel there is a limited range of acceptable opinions. This “dish” is a disgrace.
enough with the warmongering please neocons…your times has passed.
Even discounting his gratuitous Israel-bashing every few columns (which teeter dangerously on the border of Jewish self-hatred), Roger Cohen is a pompous ass and not that great of a journalist. The NYT should give him the boot, if it has any self-respect remaining.
Yeah this is ridiculous. It reminds me of the story of a Jewish journalist who traveled to the Palestinian territories to interview and observe the members of the hamas islamist terrorist organization. They pretended not to know that he was Jewish in order to treat him respectfully. It was kind of like a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” system. But that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t gladly hang him from a noose in a 2nd holocaust if they were given the chance. Some people are too easily sucked in by a smiling face without seeing the uglyness behind it. Not that I care what happens at the New York Times anyway. I simply stopped reading their newspapers due to the blatant political bias. I suggest other conservatives do the same.
WELL I GOTTA AGREE HERE, EVERY BODY DEFINATELY KNOWS THAT THESE ARE’NT JEWS, THEY ARE ACTORS HIRED BY IRAN TO PRETEND. IT IS JUST A SHOW PUT ON BY THE WILY AH-MAD-IN-A-HEAD BUT NOT A VERY GOOD ONE.
Cohen is just following the cretinous tradition of tyrant lickspittling established by such luminaries as Walter(Ain’t Stalinism wonderful!) Duranty ,Herbert(Castro is not a communist) Matthews,and Scotty(Mao’s China is dandy) Reston. The ny times and tyranny:like flies and excrement. WHY DOES ANYONE STILL READ THIS RAG?
L.A. Times or N.Y. Times, no difference, my bird still poops on them.
I’m a Con, and I find this article to be ridiculous in so many ways.
First, they didn’t “get rid” of Kristol. His contract expired. The NYT has money problems. I don’t doubt that this played a big part in not renewing his contract.
Second, let them print what they want. Freedom of the press, and all that. You either believe in the Constitution or you don’t. The author’d be screaming to high heaven, if someone were to fire him for content.
Third, the more Leftist crud they print, the worse they do. Soon they’ll be gone. Let the market forces speak. You either believe in the free market, or you don’t. You can’t have it both ways.
Fourth, where else can he print such drivel? Man’s gotta eat.
Guess what? Roger’s op-ed, “What Iran’s Jews Say”, now appears in the Tehran Times: http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=189975
Guess what they omitted from the NYT op-ed:
“I know, if many Jews left Iran, it was for a reason. Hostility exists. The trumped-up charges of spying for Israel against a group of Shiraz Jews in 1999 showed the regime at its worst. Jews elect one representative to Parliament, but can vote for a Muslim if they prefer. A Muslim, however, cannot vote for a Jew.
Among minorities, the Bahai — seven of whom were arrested recently on charges of spying for Israel — have suffered brutally harsh treatment.”
TO: Ron Radash, et al.
RE: Fire Cohen???!?!?
Sheesh!
Why talk such little steps. Especially in light of the treasonous behavior of the NYT over the last 8 years. I mean, telling our enemies, i.e., those who would kill US, our plans to defeat them?
Indeed…..
….the NYT should be seized by the government. It’s assets sold to the highest bidder, it’s owners, management and staff involved in disclosing our war-plans brought to trial for treason and if found guilt, punished harshly.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. -- William Tecumseh Sherman]
P.S. Spying for the enemy is ‘treason’…..
Mr. Radosh, you need to watch your typos. They detract from everything, just the way they do on resumes.
If you had a prospectus from a brokerage house, and it was riddled with mistakes, would you buy into it?
The Nazis had a “show” concentration camp where life was portrayed as ideal. It was called Tereisentstat (pardon the spelling). The Red Cross was shown a concert with lots of treats. I think they were even allowed to interview inmates. As a result, they came away with a glowing report. Months later the entire camp was liquidated. Cohn could learn from history, I’m sure that the Iranians have.
It’s revealing that the trolls here see Mr. Cohen’s article as having something to do with Israel. As far as the hysterics go, Mr. Radosh’s demand that the NYT fire Mr. Cohen is satirical.
This is a theocracy for G*d sakes. Isn’t anyone interested in what islamic law has to say on the matter?
Okay, here goes:
The jews of Iran live in relative peace because they have accepted to live in a state of submission to islam (remember the three choices offered by Mohammad? 1).conversion, 3). submission, or 3). war?). This is the contract of dhimma offered to “People of the Book” (door # 2), but the contract has a down side: the dhimma are only tolerated so long as they show sufficient deference to islam, and that conditional tolerance can be (and often has been) withdrawn at any time. It is an extremely precarious existence in which your well being, your property, your family, your very life are wholly dependent on the good will of your islamic overlords. A dhimmi can never be permitted to have authority over a muslim, become involved with a muslim woman, proselytize on behalf of their faith, criticise Mohammad, islam or the Quran (and because these things are the foundation of the state, ANY manner of political criticism becomes a very risk affair, bordering on blasphemy). Oftentimes, there are extreme restrictions on building or repairing an existing holy place (this is more or less difficult depending on the islamic state involved – I’m not sure about the specific situation in Iran), nor can these people ever be given a postition of true authority over any of the affais of the islamic state. I also think you will find the jews of Iran, although permitted to travel outside Iran in small groups, may not leave the country with their families – this is to prevent immigration and probably also, to insure their good behavior while abroad. Stated another way, Iran keeps hostages. . . . And, as someone has already pointed out, such a covenant of protection, precarious as it is, is only available to People of the Book and other so called “divine religions” (these are the code words they use in Iran). For those who do not qualify for dhimmi status, they simply exist outside the protection of the law. They are not part of the social contract with the state and, in the case of the Bahai, may be killed without penalty.
See “Murder with immpunity” for a very thorough explanation of what this means:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/284idyfu.asp
For some reason the text starts really far down the page, it least it does on my computer. Just scroll down.
Hi Ron,
Excellent column (and you know you have done something good when you raise the ire of Stephen Walt). Thank you for the kind words about my own work on Cohen. Keep up the great work. I read your book on Hollywood last year and highly recommend it to one and all. Still have more of your books to read.
Ed Lasky
From a former inhabitant of the Middle East before the Second Exodus, I will tell you that Cohen understands there is a difference between the treatment of Persian Jews and Arab Jews. We were expelled from Egypt after the creation of the Israeli state. All Arab Jews suffered the same fate. Such was not the case with the Persians. Yes, there may be a dichotomy between Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric to destroy Israel, but he does make a distinction by saying the word “Zionist”. I am Jewish, but so far from being Zionist. I never want to be considered Zionist, and all of Cohen’s critics are non-Sephardic Jews, which means they’ve never lived in the Middle East, and further, they need to check if their elbows are in their physical right places.
Don’t fire Roger Cohen because he doesn’t adhere to the line of rubberstamping Israel’s rhetoric.
You my friend, need to read more.
Hey, Aimee (I didn’t know Kligman was a Sephardic name; learn something new every day), Cohen’s article was not about Israel.
#15MARC MALONE: I agree with your post;Man’s gotta eat,my parrot’s gotta poop(but not on the bare floor).Regards!
Let me remind the Jews that how they were burned alive in the hands of Europeans and how they were treated in the hands of American Christians not so long ago. Don’t be so much proud of the so called civilized world that you live now. I’ve been to Iran and read about its history. No such cases against the Jews ever happened in Persia. So don’t momentarily judge about Iranians. Just see what you did to Gaza recently.
I tend to agree with most of the comments in this article.
I’d like to see Roger Cohen fired not only because of his comments about the topic discussed, but also because of his constant French-bashing.
The Jews and the French united against Roger Cohen!
He was hardly endorsing Iran. The point he was trying to make was that inspite of Iran’s manifest hostility towards Israel, at least they avoid taking it out directly on their Jews. Obviously the Jews there have learned to lay low and not endorse Israel at least publicly. The truth is is that a lot of Jews are not Zionists.
“I know, if many Jews left Iran, it was for a reason. Hostility exists. The trumped-up charges of spying for Israel against a group of Shiraz Jews in 1999 showed the regime at its worst. Jews elect one representative to Parliament, but can vote for a Muslim if they prefer. A Muslim, however, cannot vote for a Jew.”
Please, why does the right feel they have to do a flame thrower attack on anyone who doesn’t endorse the “bomb them flat” foreign policy. After all, Mr. Ledeen for years kept telling us that an enlightened anti-mullah Iran is right around the corner.
I hope you realize how self defeating your purposes are. I feel for your community.
“Now I cannot be accused of being a Roger Cohen basher.” I don’t know how that impression could have come across, what with the title of your piece being “Memo to The New York Times: Fire Roger Cohen!”. Who wrote this?
I have nothing but respect for Roger Cohen …amplified by the hatred towards him shown by war pimps.
“I have nothing but respect for Roger Cohen …amplified by the hatred towards him shown by war pimps.”
It would seem that Roger Cohen is the war pimp here, judging by his aid and comfort to the warmongers in power in Iran. This is the same perversion that had “anti-war” fascists (and communists, while the Hitler-Stalin Pact lasted) in America calling FDR a warmonger.
Would you mind if I repost this on my blog? I just want to give credit where it is due. Have a good one!