Roger Cohen insinuates Dennis Ross an Israel firster, because he's Jewish

[Yala]

Roger Cohen in The New York Times Magazine writes:

Balance is something this meticulous diplomat prizes. But a recurrent issue with Ross, who embraced the Jewish faith after being raised in a nonreligious home by a Jewish mother and Catholic stepfather, has been whether he is too close to the American Jewish community and Israel to be an honest broker with Iran or Arabs. Miller, after years of working with Ross, concluded in a book that he “had an inherent tendency to see the world of Arab-Israeli politics first from Israel’s vantage point rather than that of the Palestinians.” Another former senior State Department official, who requested anonymity because he didn’t want to jeopardize his relationship with the administration, told me, “Ross’s bad habit is preconsultation with the Israelis.” Ross earned $421,775 from speeches last year, of which more than half came from Israeli and Jewish groups, according to a financial-disclosure statement...

and there's more, too much to go through so read the article in full and get ready to vomit.

Here is Jeffrey Goldberg's translation:

Roger Cohen, Translated

Roger Cohen's piece in The New York Times Magazine yesterday, on the making of Obama's Iran policy, is not easily understood, so I've run it through the Goldblog Insta-Translator. Here's what was spit out:

The Making of an Iran Policy, by Roger Cohen

Iran is going to get the Bomb. This is okay. Iran's government is not nice. They used to be nice, but not anymore. It doesn't matter. Israel wants to stop Iran from getting the Bomb. One thing is clear: Them Jews is crazy. They must be stopped. Dennis Ross works in the American government. But he's Jewish. Is he too Jewish to talk to Iran? Maybe. But he could make the Jews learn to love the Iranian bomb. It remains to be seen.

The End

[Mediocrates]

And Obama agreed that Ross had to removed from that role and put instead in some 'special projects' or whatever the dead-end buzzword is, precisely because he's Jewish and that of course would anger the peaceful peaceloving Persians of peace.

[takeo]

Cohen is Jewish too, so is Emanuel. It's not because he's Jewish, but because he's biased towards Israel. He has that right, but in that case being a peace brooker and negociator is not the right position for him. (nor for anyone who has proven sympathy for palestinians and gets much of his money from speaching for pro-palestinian groups)

[wat0n]

Ummm, please read the paragraph after the one you quoted.

[Yala]

Ummm, please read the paragraph after the one you quoted.

moi? If you are talking to me, and not Takeo, this is the following paragraph:

But Ross has argued in his books that his passion for peace guides him in an evenhanded attempt to pursue every possible diplomatic avenue. “He’s the most intellectually flexible, thoughtful and pragmatic person I have met,” Takeyh told me. “I’ve never had a conversation with him where he says we shouldn’t consider something because it would cross some Israeli red line. That’s just not where we are. The idea that he’s just looking for engagement with Iran to tick some box before moving to harsh measures is just wrong and fraudulent.”

As I said Cohen insinuated this crap about Dennis Ross. He can't come out and say it outright (they never do) but he used the descriptions "Jewish" and "Israeli" interchangeably and deliberately. So Ross speaks to American Jewish audiences. So what? So does Obama, and Bill Clinton, etc. By the way, did Cohen go into the religious background of anyone else mentioned in this article or only went into detail about Ross's Jewish background?

[Yala]

Cohen is Jewish too, so is Emanuel.

So is Noam Chomsky, Hannah Arendt, Karl Marx. What's your point?

It's not because he's Jewish, but because he's biased towards Israel. He has that right, but in that case being a peace brooker and negociator is not the right position for him. (nor for anyone who has proven sympathy for palestinians and gets much of his money from speaching for pro-palestinian groups)

In that case, most European leaders (with the exception of Berlusconi) should also have no role in the Israeli-Palestinian "peace" negotiations since they are so biased towards the Palestinians and often fund them to the tune of billions per year. Ditto goes for the UN.

You never raise an objection when, for example, a completely pro-Palestinian professor or politician is put in charge of a UN investigation against Israel.

I read Ross's book. Did you? He is not biased towards Israel. We, in the pro-Israel community, do not look to Ross as someone who we can depend on or who we think is on our side. His politics are very close to Bill Clinton.

It's not because he's Jewish

Can you explain why Dennis Ross is the only one in the article whose religious affiliation is mentioned?

[wat0n]

moi? If you are talking to me, and not Takeo, this is the following paragraph:



As I said Cohen insinuated this crap about Dennis Ross. He can't come out and say it outright (they never do) but he used the descriptions "Jewish" and "Israeli" interchangeably and deliberately. So Ross speaks to American Jewish audiences. So what? So does Obama, and Bill Clinton, etc. By the way, did Cohen go into the religious background of anyone else mentioned in this article or only went into detail about Ross's Jewish background?

I'll grant him the benefit of doubt. He may also be showing two opposite opinions on Ross...

Anyway, whoever seriously believes that the Ayatollahs are getting nukes only to deter Israel as he has implied on some of his articles is not someone to be taken seriously... So don't think I'm a fan of him.

[Yala]

He may also be showing two opposite opinions on Ross...

Ok, but you didn't answer my question. Did he disclose the religious background of anyone else mentioned in the article, or the religion of their parents?

Did he mention anyone else in the article who speaks before Muslim or Arab groups to the tune of millions per year? We know Clinton practically lived in the Middle East after his presidency giving speeches every third Wed. there. Does that make Hilary biased toward the Arabs?

I'll grant him the benefit of doubt.

Why grant him the benefit of the doubt? He has already proven that he himself is biased, so who is he to judge?

Anyway, whoever seriously believes that the Ayatollahs are getting nukes only to deter Israel as he has implied on some of his articles is not someone to be taken seriously... So don't think I'm a fan of him.

If you remember he wrote some puff pieces on the Islamic Regime right before the elections scandal saying they were not as bad as everyone was making them out to be, and called the regime "pragmatic." He really lost a lot of credibility here in the journalistic arena, as literally a month or 2 later complete chaos and brutality broke out in the streets of Iran.

He also infuriated the Iranian Jewish community by making out like Jews had it just fine and dandy in Iran.

[wat0n]

Ok, but you didn't answer my question. Did he disclose the religious background of anyone else mentioned in the article, or the religion of their parents?

Did he mention anyone else in the article who speaks before Muslim or Arab groups to the tune of millions per year? We know Clinton practically lived in the Middle East after his presidency giving speeches every third Wed. there. Does that make Hilary biased toward the Arabs?



Why grant him the benefit of the doubt? He has already proven that he himself is biased, so who is he to judge?

Again, I'll grant him the benefit of doubt (Yes I was talking to you), I'll let him defend himself (if he wishes, and maybe he will answer all the criticism). He also quoted someone defending Ross...

If you remember he wrote some puff pieces on the Islamic Regime right before the elections scandal saying they were not as bad as everyone was making them out to be, and called the regime "pragmatic." He really lost a lot of credibility here in the journalistic arena, as literally a month or 2 later complete chaos and brutality broke out in the streets of Iran.

He also infuriated the Iranian Jewish community by making out like Jews had it just fine and dandy in Iran.

Yes, though I also remember one article in which he admitted that the regime was repressive and he went on comparing Iran's treatment of its Jewish population with its neighbour. And while it's possibly better (there are Jews in Iran at least), the standard is obviously low... He should compare Iran with the Western world.

But, I'd avoid the confusion between pragmatic and humanitarian (It's the best word I can come up with right now). You can be a pragmatic bastard as well... And I think that the Ayatollahs are pragmatic enough for not going into a nuclear war with Israel when they get a nuke, yet they are still bastards.

[Yala]

Again, I'll grant him the benefit of doubt (Yes I was talking to you), I'll let him defend himself (if he wishes, and maybe he will answer all the criticism).

That's your perogative of course.

He also quoted someone defending Ross...[

But this is what biased journalists with an agenda do. They plant an idea out there in the article and then they also provide the other side as a "balance." Make no mistake about it, he mentioned Ross's Jewish background and those of his parents deliberately, to put it out there. To plant ideas in people's heads that this guy Ross is Jewish and therefore biased towards Israel according to so and so. Oh and I did I mention that he speaks before *gasp* Jewish and Israeli audiences for $$$?

I think it is a slippery slope and if we ignore this kind of crap (which we have been especially since the intifadah) then it will just get worse and worse, and it has been consistently doing just that.

Yes, though I also remember one article in which he admitted that the regime was repressive

This was after the election and the crackdowns which even he couldn't deny or ignore...

and he went on comparing Iran's treatment of its Jewish population with its neighbour. And while it's possibly better (there are Jews in Iran at least), the standard is obviously low... He should compare Iran with the Western world.

But, I'd avoid the confusion between pragmatic and humanitarian (It's the best word I can come up with right now). You can be a pragmatic bastard as well... And I think that the Ayatollahs are pragmatic enough for not going into a nuclear war with Israel when they get a nuke, yet they are still bastards.

Whatever the case, it was a whitewash and why in the world would anyone try to whitewash a brutal regime?

[bararallu]

He whitewashed the mullah regime for a long time. Now faced with heinous facts, he flipped a little. Well he wont be flipping on the Jews, except if it's the bird. The guy is another Finkelstein, it's all good as long as the Zionazis die.

[takeo]

Yala

So is Noam Chomsky, Hannah Arendt, Karl Marx. What's your point?

My point is that he has not been removed because he's Jewish.

In that case, most European leaders (with the exception of Berlusconi) should also have no role in the Israeli-Palestinian "peace" negotiations since they are so biased towards the Palestinians and often fund them to the tune of billions per year. Ditto goes for the UN.

Actually many European politicians sympathise with Israel and are in favor of better economic relations with Israel, and to grant Israel special trade advantages. That's not the same as being biased. But anyway Israel doesn't want Europe to give a prime role in the negociations because it thinks it's being biased in favor of the Palestinians.
It's clear that Ross is a big fan of Israeli foreign policy and gets most of his money from pro Israel groups. Would you accept Greta Duisenberg to become the main negociator between Israeli and palestinians?

You never raise an objection when, for example, a completely pro-Palestinian professor or politician is put in charge of a UN investigation against Israel.

any example?

I read Ross's book. Did you? He is not biased towards Israel. We, in the pro-Israel community, do not look to Ross as someone who we can depend on or who we think is on our side. His politics are very close to Bill Clinton.

Maybe he's not in favor of radical ideas (transfer, etc.) popular among radicals , but he's still very much biased towards Israel, and receives a lot of money from proIsraeli organisations, as Cohen points out. It's according to me one of the reasons why Camp David failed. He first talked the plan trough with Barak, and than presented it as a "take it or leave it" proposal to Arafat.

[Yala]

So I guess nobody can answer me why Ross's Jewish background and the religious background of his parents were the only religious backgrounds mentioned to show Ross's bias towards Israel, or at the very least presented to show a possible bias. I guess it is lost on his defenders that had Cohen mentioned Obama's religious background and that of his parents to prove his bias against Israel then the would've hit the fan in the mainstream media.

[bararallu]

If Cohen followed this pattern, he would have to mention Obamas early childhood, his parents. He would have to mention his own as well. He no doubt subscribes to the school of Journalism informed by deconstructionism and money-power analysis (aka Marxism), as such no writer just writes, he/she pushes polemic. No arbiter just arbitrates, he imposes biases and brandishes agenda, as if res ipsa loquitur... the thing speaks for itself. Actual proof is nesides the point. He levels his astute observations, on feeling and asks us to swallow the not so hidden innuendo.

And as pointed out, he too is caught in the web that he himself creates... there is no escaping this sort of nihilism, it's a sink whole and he should definitely sink. I hope he takes our local Russian Nationalist Socialist with him. With Jews like these I'd rather have Nazis to shoot at.