Monday, May 3, 2010

The Banality of Roger Cohen

In an op-ed entitled "The Banality of Good" in today's New York Times, Roger Cohen asks:

"What was it like in the leafy Grunewald neighborhood [of Berlin] to watch your Jewish neighbors — lawyers, businessmen, dentists — trooping head bowed to the nearby train station for transport eastward to extinction?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/opinion/04iht-edcohen.html

Cohen, of course, was born after the Holocaust, yet we can nevertheless ask him, what was it like to sojourn in the Islamic Republic of Iran at a time when Baha'is, Kurds, Sunni Muslims, homosexuals, political dissidents, and journalists were trundled off to prison, torture and/or execution? In this regard, Cohen's op-eds speak for themselves:

• In "The Other Iran" (Feb. 1, 2009), Cohen declared that the "Islamic Revolution has proved resilient in part through flexibility", and "axis-of-evil myopia has led U.S. policy makers to underestimate the social, psychological and political forces for pragmatism, compromise and stability" in Iran.

• In "Reading Khamenei in Tehran" (Feb. 18, 2009), Cohen insisted that "Khamenei sees his primary task as safeguarding a revolution whose core values include . . . social justice."

• In "What Iran's Jews Say" (Feb. 22, 2009), we were told that the "reality of Iranian civility toward Jews tells us more about Iran - its sophistication and culture - than all the inflammatory rhetoric." Cohen failed to inform us that he was speaking with Iranian Jews via an interpreter who was reporting back to the Iranian government. He also failed to inform us of what he later acknowledged at Sinai Temple in LA: the Jews with whom he spoke were exercising self-censorship.

• In "From Tehran to Tel Aviv" (Mar. 22, 2009), Cohen told us that the Iranian "regime's provocative rhetoric masks essential pragmatism" and "the mullahs are anything but mad".

• In "Israel Cries Wolf" (Apr. 8, 2009), Cohen concluded: "What's critical right now is that Obama view Netanyahu's fear-mongering with an appropriate skepticism, rein him in, and pursue his regime-recognizing opening toward Tehran".

• In "Iran Awakens Yet Again" (Jun. 10, 2009), Cohen enthused: "For months now, I've been urging another look at Iran, beyond dangerous demonization of it as a totalitarian state. Seldom has the country looked less like one than in these giddy June days." Cohen described Iran's democracy as "incomplete but vigorous".

• In "Iran's Day of Anguish" (Jun. 14, 2009), Cohen finally backtracked a bit and acknowledged "I erred in underestimating the brutality and cynicism of a regime that understands the uses of ruthlessness."

• In "My Name Is Iran" (Jun. 18, 2009), Cohen labeled Mir-Hossein Moussavi "the reformist of impeccable revolutionary credentials". No mention that as prime minister, Moussavi presided over the execution of thousands of dissidents. No mention that Moussavi defended the taking of hostages at the U.S. embassy in Tehran and backed the fatwa against British author Salman Rushdie.

• In "Children of Tomorrow" (Jun. 22, 2009), Cohen described his meeting with the son of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, whom Cohen called "the establishment's embittered eminence grise". Cohen failed to note that Rafsanjani, a leading backer of the "reformist" Moussavi, is charged by Argentine prosecutors with masterminding the 1994 suicide bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, which resulted in the murder of 85 people and the serious wounding of 151.

• In "Iran's Second Sex" (Jun. 26, 2009) Cohen came full circle and acknowledged that Iranian women's "subjugation became a pillar of the Islamic state," despite his original premise that the Islamic revolution's "core values" include "social justice". Cohen of all people complained that Qom's mullahs "have lots of training in how to say the opposite of what they said before."

In today's op-ed, Cohen would have us know, that "In the quiet Quangels, Fallada has created an immortal symbol of those who fight back against 'the vile beyond all vileness' and so redeem us all." Yet where in all of Cohen's commentary from Iran was there a meaningful analysis of the stoning to death of women convicted of adultery, the hanging of homosexuals, or the savage persecution of Iran's Baha'is?

11 comments:

  1. Terrific comment, and well documented. Keep fighting the good fight against this phony.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for your research. It's important to look beneath the surface.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've had an almost visceral dislike of Roger Cohen since I first started reading his columns last year. A self-hating apologist who uses every opportunity to denigrate Israel and prop up Iran.

    Bravo on your comments. Really excellent work. We need more people like you!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your response to Cohen was simply brilliant. It never ceases to amaze me that intellects of your quality, with great writing skills and a taste for research, are not employed by the mainstream media.

    Instead we get ignorant buffoons like Cohen - paid to be in the privileged position of what is in essence that of 'public educator'.

    Thanks for donating your time for the benefit of readers, and again, well done. (Fyi, I am to the left politically, and an atheist.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you for consistently reminding Cohen (and NY Times readers) about the persecution of Baha'is in Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for your terrific pivot to Iran in order to chip, chip, chip, away at Roger Cohen's credibility. This was HIS pivot to getting on Mearsheimer's "Righteous Jew" list, which only proves that secular post-moderns with a Jewish name will be allowed in Mearsheimer's fractured post-Israel world.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you for the comment. I was waiting for Mr. Cohen to draw a parallel to Iran and it never happened.
    "Quangel is a taciturn man, but a moment comes, at his grotesque trial, when he can no longer contain himself: “It was then that Quangel laughed for the first time since his arrest, the first time in a very long time. He laughed with wholehearted gusto. The preposterous comedy of this gang of criminals branding everyone else as war criminals was suddenly too much for him to take.”
    Now is this any different than what Mahmoud AhmadiNejad pulled at the UN just yesterday. Would it not have been apropos to demonstrate that we have learned nothing from history?
    This vile man projects all the atrocities of this Mullah regime on the rest of the world and punishes all Iranians not just the Jews or Bahais for any resistance and yet the world is simply focusing on the Nuclear issue instead of calling a spade a spade and dealing with this regime like the criminals they are.
    I do not advocate violence. I myself was arrested and put in prison during the aftermath of the elections for simply being an American and participating in the peaceful demonstrations, the same ones MR. Cohen attended too. And to be fair he has written enough articles in the defense of the protesters, but a parallel to Iran’s condition after Ahmadinejads speech would have been apropos.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wish to express my sincere appreciation for all of your comments.

    In case you didn't notice, you might be amused by a sublimely profound online comment, no. 50, to Cohen's NYT op-ed:

    "A Mr. Jeffrey Grossman, whose pulling of quotes from Mr. Cohen's past writing looks suspiciously selective and supports a right leaning view of reality. (always suspicious!)"

    You know, he's right: Every time I look in the mirror, I say to myself, you're one suspicious character!

    But am I right wing? Of course this is relative, but anyone who reads this blog or has read my online responses to Brook's "The Limits of Policy" and the editorial "The Way Out" (nos. 4 and 10, respectively) in today's NYT, knows that I am pro-choice and adamantly opposed to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.

    Yeah, I know, that makes me even more suspicious given my lack of a predetermined mindset. Or perhaps I'm just a right winger in sheep's clothing?

    I'm sure to give it a great deal of thought when I stroll with the dog later tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  9. JG: "lack of a predetermined mindset" is beyond the comprehension of political partisans in America.

    It is also difficult to find an online news site where we can engage in a rational dialog without being attacked for failing a given litmus test.

    I do wonder why you focus on the NYT op-eds. Ease of commenting? I rarely read them anymore, fallout from the clash of derangement syndromes in 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous,

    Yes, ease of commenting and also force of habit. I had open lines of communication with several NYT editors until my recent excommunication.

    Always open to suggestions re whom and what I should be reading. Thanks.

    Jeffrey

    ReplyDelete
  11. no longer Anonymous here. I have no suggestions for "an online news site where we can engage in a rational dialog without being attacked for failing a given litmus test."

    You do a service by commenting at NYT even though most readers do not go past the first page of comments.

    Perhaps Haim Saban will buy Newsweek, and you can blog for him there?
    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/05/10/100510fa_fact_bruck?currentPage=all

    BTW, Malcolm Gladwell on Operation Mincemeat and spycraft is the better read in this issue, but I think Bruck's profile of Saban will get serious echo.

    ReplyDelete