That @nytimes piece on the hate-filled Hamas supporter Stanley Cohen comes across as a hagiography with a few "To be sure" lines thrown in.
2/ That may feel like an overstatement. The author makes clear, after all, that Cohen defends terrorists. But he's also described in terms meant to appeal to many @nytimes readers. A "freewheeling radical" "raising legal hall" with "audacity" who promoted "Native American rights"
3/ and the author quotes or accepts many of Cohen's assertions without challenge. For example, he references Hamas's "right to armed resistance" against Israel, a phrase Hamas uses to describe attacks against Israeli civilians, in the reporter's own voice.
4/ Cohen is quoted saying he has "always opposed attacks on civilians by anyone for any reason." The absurd claim isn't challenged. But most of all, the human interest piece fails to convey the depths of Cohen's unhinged attitudes. For example:
5/ His frequently frames his support for attacks on Israelis by saying Palestinians can attack Israelis "by any means necessary." First some examples, then we'll see what he means by that.
6/ "Any means necessary"
7/ "Any means necessary"
8/ Any means necessary, wherever they please:
9/ Any means necessary, plus one of many vile Nazi analogies (more below):
So what does he refer to when he says "any means necessary"? Cohen makes clear in this response to a @WarpedMirrorPMB piece about the Tamimi families support for and links to terrorism that it refers to attacks on Israeli children, like the Sbarro bombing:
11/ Here, Bernie Sanders is "despicable" because he denounced Hamas violence:
12/ A couple of his Nazi analogies:
13/ Some illuminating conversation about Jews and Jewish symbols:
14/
15/
16/ Blaming Israel for anti-Semitism:
17/
18/ And naturally, the silly and ahistorical deflection of antisemitism by insisting that Jews aren't Semites:
19/
20/ And I'll close off with some love for, and lies about, Hamas, and general looniness:
21/
22/
23/
24/
25/
