Charlotte Iserbyt: Societies Secrets

[Jan Klimkowski]

Hello Jim,

Hullo Werner.

Regarding Werner Cohn: "...enthusiastically and uncritically" you say is my use of his quotes in a previous response. Granted I could have used another source; when describing the anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism of the New Left. So, I used Cohn. What if I used any other writer, who had the same critique? This should not diminish the point I was making in that response; as it pertains to the new anti-Semitism under the guise of anti-Zionism. As far as Cohn's position on the Gypsies: I do not think he views them as a non-ethnic people; who are only defined by geographic boundries. He does think that the Rom have lived in Europe for centuries. But this does not mean that they are not an ethnic people. Linguistic evidence in all gypsy dialects shows Indic origin. However, the Rom language also shows traces of of Persian, Kurdish and Armenian and Greek. All that aside, my use of Cohn as a reference-in describing anti-Zionism-apparently negates everything that I have said here. Is this so? Or is it something else?

You come over so innocent and humble. You seem to suggest that your use of Werner Cohn is entirely casual, and you could have used lots of similar critics.

Which is patent rubbish.

Werner Cohn is a notorious rent-a-quote critic of American academics, particularly Jewish American academics, who criticize Zionism or the actions of the state of Israel.

Cohn claims Chomsky is a "holocaust denier". See the page on his website here, which is headed:

Partners in Hate

Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers

by Werner Cohn

© Werner Cohn, 1985, 1995
Published by Avukah Press, Cambridge

Here is a 1989 response from Chomsky:

In Cohn's 'crucial source', cited above, Guillaume quotes my statement that 'there are no rational grounds that allow any doubt about the existence of gas chambers.' Thus Cohn is refuted by his own 'crucial source.' In my own writings, from the earliest until the present, the conclusions of standard Holocaust studies are taken simply as established fact, as Cohn knows perfectly well. In the introduction to my first collection of political essays, 20 years ago, I add that we have lost our humanity if we are even willing to enter into debate over the Nazi crimes with those who deny or defend them. The only particle of truth in Cohn's absurd charge is that I never use the phrase 'scientific knowledge' in dealing with any questions of history; my book with Herman, for example, which is neither science nor mere opinion.

(snip)

That Cohn is a pathological liar is demonstrated by the very examples that he selects. Knowing nothing about him, and caring less, I am in no position to comment further on what may lie behind this odd and pathetic behavior.

Sincerely yours,

Noam Chomsky

Werner Cohn as a credible source? Nah.