Thursday, April 7, 2011

Roger Cohen's "The Goldstone Chronicles": A New Assault on Common Sense

The following blog entry, which was submitted as an online comment in response to Roger Cohen's op-ed, "The Goldstone Chronicles", was censored by The New York Times:

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Goldstone Chronicles" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/opinion/08iht-edcohen08.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Roger Cohen begins by writing:

"We have a new verb, 'to Goldstone.' Its meaning: To make a finding, and then partially retract it for uncertain motive. Etymology: the strange actions of a respected South African Jewish jurist under intense pressure from Israel, the U.S. Congress and world Jewish groups."

By the same token, I could begin this blog entry by stating:

"We have a new verb, 'to Roger Cohen.'"

I would have no problem providing a definition by observing Cohen's determination that "Iran is not totalitarian"; by noting Cohen's willingness to publish an op-ed called "What Iran's Jews Say", but failing to inform his readership that his interviews were conducted via an Iranian government appointed translator; or by alluding to Cohen's recent declaration concerning "the moral bankruptcy of the West with respect to the Arab world" soon followed by his own volte-face pursuant to which he justified U.S. intervention in Libya in accordance with "American exceptionalism".

The etymology of Cohen's peculiar style of journalism? I couldn't care less, and instead of wasting time on Cohen's motivation and wiring, let's jump to the conclusion of this gem of an op-ed. Cohen writes:

"Israel is celebrating what it calls a vindication. It is preparing to welcome Goldstone. It is demanding nullification of the report, even though Goldstone is only one of its four authors. Meanwhile the facts remain: the 1,400 plus Palestinian dead, the 13 Israelis killed, the devastation, the Hamas rockets — and the need for credible investigation of what all evidence suggests were large-scale, indiscriminate, unlawful Israeli attacks in Gaza, as well as Hamas’ crimes against civilians."

"Meanwhile the facts remain"? Let's talk about the facts. Let's begin by observing that Cohen was not in Gaza during Israel's Operation Cast Lead and has no personal knowledge of what occurred there.

In April 2008, before the war, I suggested that Cohen come to Israel in order to acquaint himself with the facts, i.e. the thousands of mortar shells, rockets and missiles that had been fired from Gaza at civilian targets in southern Israel. Included in the itinerary I proposed to him:

"Visit Sderot, opposite the Gaza strip. I would like you to meet some of the underprivileged families that live there - they cannot afford to move - and their children, who have been living with the rockets for the past five years and the 15 second routine to reach a bomb shelter. Some wet their beds rather than risk a trip to the bathroom."

Cohen's response:

"Thanks, Jeffrey. And will do."

But Cohen never came to Sderot to write about the horrifying rocket attacks upon Israeli civilians. A pity. Instead he ultimately found his way to Tehran, where, over the course of some six months, he sought to promote the image of the barbarous Iranian regime.

Cohen tells us in today's op-ed that the war in Gaza, which he did not witness, left "1,400 plus Palestinian dead", but he does not inform us where he obtained this number or how many of the Palestinian dead were combatants. Cohen also does not acknowledge what Goldstone states in theWashington Post : Hamas now admits that the Israel Defense Forces numbers concerning Palestinian combatants (709) and civilians (295) killed in the operation were accurate.

So, Israel has been telling the truth all along about the number of Palestinian casualties. Apparently this is hard for Cohen to accept, inasmuch as this means that Israel did a remarkable job in controlling civilian casualties, given that Hamas was fighting, i.e. firing rockets and missiles at Israeli civilian targets, from within and alongside civilian buildings and infrastructure.

As stated by British military expert Colonel Richard Kemp in an interview with the BBC (http://zionism-israel.com/issues/Israel_human_rights_kemp_gaza.htm):

"I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza."

Does Cohen know better than Colonel Kemp? He obviously thinks he does.

Cohen also objects to the fact that Palestinian casualties were high, while Israeli casualties were low. This is the same Roger Cohen who in recent days has been urging Obama to be "ruthless" in Libya:

"My condition for going in was ruthlessness. The one unforgivable thing would have been to involve America in looking virtuous from the sky."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/opinion/01iht-edcohen01.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Cohen concludes his latest op-ed with the barb:

"To 'Goldstone': (Colloq.) To sew confusion, hide a secret, create havoc."

And now I ask you, what is it to "Roger Cohen"?

[On Thursday afternoon, an anti-tank missile was fired by Hamas terrorists from the Saja'iya neighborhood in eastern Gaza at an Israeli school bus, critically injuring a 16-year-old. Hamas knew that it was firing on civilians. What does Cohen have to say? Does this outrage also demand "ruthlessness" in return?]

4 comments:

  1. Still no credible explanation why The New York Times refused to publish Goldstone's retraction before he went to the Washington Post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Although the above blog entry, submitted to The New York Times as an online comment, was censored, those darling New York Times "moderators" did post the following filthy anti-Semitic reader's comment:

    "Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is what we are coming to with a powerful minority with absolute control over the mass media, and money control of our own government that runs on money. Just add Goldstone to the number of braves speaking truth to power, that have been made to publicly retract and heal, or else!"

    The comment, no. 17, ultimately was removed, and a very senior NYT editor informed me that "this should never have been posted."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good to hear someone at the NYT acknowledges your existence as someone who challenges writers, like Cohen, who lack integrity.

    "To Roger Cohen" is to create a verb that lacks tense....to carelessly employ inauthentic advocacy at one time, but think nothing of undermining or contradicting that position in another. "To Roger Cohen" is to create an infinitive that denies chronology: flip-flop from one stance to another, forfeit fact and truth in one temporal dimension in order to obfuscate in another.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks, HM.

    Meanwhile, I have sent an e-mail to the new public editor of The New York Times, asking: Does a New York Times op-ed writer have an obligation to state the basis for his "facts", particularly when they are in dispute? Does a New York Times op-ed writer have an obligation to state that the "facts" being cited by him are in dispute? Let's see if Mr. Brisbane has the courtesy and courage to answer me.

    ReplyDelete