In his New York Timescolumn yesterday, Roger Cohen reflected on his visit to
Sinai
Temple last week, where he came to discuss the outrage over his column on the 25,000 Jews left in
Iran.The column portrayed them living a tranquil life there, upset at the “criminal” state of
Israel rather than the “Death to
Israel” shouts that punctuate life in
Iran.The Iranian media reprinted Cohen’s useful column.
In his new column yesterday, Cohen reiterated his belief that the small contingent of Jews in
Iran proved the regime did not wish to annihilate Jews.Here is how Cohen described the evening at Sinai:
At the invitation of Rabbi David Wolpe of the
Sinai
Temple, I came out to meet [
Iran’s Jewish exiles in
Los Angeles]. The evening was fiery with scant meeting of minds. Exile, expropriation and, in some cases, executions have left bitter feelings among the revolution’s Jewish victims, as they have among the more than two million Muslims who have fled Iran since 1979. Abraham Berookhim gave me a moving account of his escape and his Jewish uncle’s unconscionable 1980 murder by the regime.
Earlier, Sam Kermanian, a leader of the Iranian Jewish community, said I had been used, that
Iran’s Jews are far worse off than they appear, and that my portrayal of them was pernicious as it “leads people to believe
Israel’s enemies are not as real as you may think.”
Cohen’s response was that it was “impossible to know” what Kermanian had just told him:
Just how repressive life is for
Iran’s Jews is impossible to know.
Iran is an un-free society. But this much is clear: the hawks’ case against Iran depends on a vision of an apocalyptic regime — with no sense of its limitations — so frenziedly anti-Semitic that it would accept inevitable nuclear annihilation if it could destroy Israel first.
The presence of these Jews undermines that vision. It blunts the hawks’ case; hence the rage.
In Cohen’s view, the treatment of the Jews still remaining in
Iran “blunts” the case of those who view the Iranian government as an existential threat to
Israel.And he will not accept any amendment to his view from people who know the situation of Iranian Jews much more intimately than he does.They’re “hawks.”
Perhaps Cohen might reconsider his view in light of the response a
Princeton college student posted to his column:
Cohen, the notion of an apocalyptic Islamic regime in
Iran is not incompatible with the idea that Jews might live in
Iran with at least a modicum of rights and freedom. Islam specifically affords Jews rights under the Quran. The key point is that Jews submit to Islamic rule.
During the revolution, as you yourself noted, Jews were brutally executed and their property expropriated. Just because now they are allowed to live within Iranian society does not mean that
Iran is somehow tolerant of Jews worldwide. The point is that the Iranian Jews have submitted to Islamic rule and can therefore be allowed to exist.
Israel, on the other hand, does not submit to Islamic rule, but openly defies it.
Therefore, it is very much in keeping with Islam and the Iranian regime’s rhetoric to annihilate
Israel. I know that and I’ve only taken Islam 101. You should check your premises before you . . . so casually dismiss the apocalyptic rhetoric of
Iran.
In a post at Huffington Post yesterday, Rabbi Wolpe described his Sinai conversation with Cohen, including this colloquy:
I asked “You advocate negotiations with Hamas and Hizbollah, arguing that they can be pragmatic. What if Hamas and Hizbollah had the arms of
Israel, and
Israel had their force of arms. What do you think would happen?” To my amazement, he said he didn’t know. Well, I do. And so does he.
Jeffrey Goldberg has posted the transcript of the above colloquy.
To get a flavor of the Cohen-Wolpe encounter, watch the five-minute video below:
