stock here, name of Cohen almost for sure a jew. Bing!!!
Stanley Cohen was born in 1950 and raised in Port Chester, New York, in an Orthodox Jewish family. He attended Hebrew schools and had a bar mitzvah.
The Forward
He later described himself as a “non-religious spiritual Jew.”
Ethnicity/race: He is Jewish by upbringing/heritage (Orthodox background).
The Forward
His political affiliation: He is not widely identified with a mainstream U.S. political party; his self-description emphasizes radical defense work.
Professional role: He is an attorney, and describes himself as an advocate for clients “the government would like to silence or put in jail.”
istanleycohen.org
+1
🧑💼 Major Activism & Legal Work
Cohen has represented high-profile and highly controversial clients: members/leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, a relative of Osama bin Laden, and detainees at Guantánamo Bay.
Wikipedia
+1
He has written opinion pieces for Al Jazeera and appears regularly in Middle-East forums, criticizing Israeli policy and U.S. foreign-aid policy toward Israel.
Al Jazeera
+1
Example: In 2014 Cohen pleaded guilty to tax charges—specifically obstructing the IRS and failing to file required returns; he was sentenced to 18 months in prison.
Wikipedia
+1
⚠️ Controversies & Criticisms
His legal defense of clients tied to designated terrorist organizations has drawn significant backlash and accusations of being a “terrorist mouthpiece.”
Wikipedia
His writings and public comments include vehement criticism of Israeli policies; some of those critics allege he uses provocative language about Zionism and Israel.
The Forward
His tax conviction impacted his law license.
Wikipedia
🔍 Why He’s Noted in Context
Cohen is particularly relevant when analyzing:
U.S. legal-defense strategy for unpopular/terror-linked clients
U.S.–Middle East political criticisms and activism around Palestine/Israel
The intersection of U.S. civil-liberties law (defense of “unpopular” defendants) and global human-rights/terror-law concerns
—————————–
To prevent an abusive Judiciary, why shouldn’t the unliked and outliers have excellent defense attorneys?
✅ The Good
- Cohen has represented clients and groups that are deeply unpopular or marginalised and says he does this intentionally: “I will not take a major case unless I identify with the client’s politics and like them.” Wikipedia+1
- He writes regularly for outlets like Al Jazeera, contributing opinion pieces on human-rights issues, media freedom, and Palestine/Israel which raise perspectives often under-represented in mainstream U.S. coverage. For example: “The lone wolf of Gaza” (Oct 2016) and “BDS is a war Israel can’t win” (July 2016). Al Jazeera+2Al Jazeera+2
- He brings attention to legal and human-rights cases that might otherwise receive no defence at all—his willingness to take ‘difficult’ clients means they have representation.
- His background: born in 1950, raised in an Orthodox Jewish family (Port Chester, NY), attended Hebrew school, though he says he ceased practicing at age 14. The Forward+1
⚠️ The Bad
- Cohen’s defence of clients tied to groups designated as terrorist organisations has drawn heavy criticism. He has represented, among others, a relative of Osama bin Laden, and members of Hamas and Hezbollah. Wikipedia+1
- While that defence work aligns with his civil-liberties ethos, critics argue that it also gives legitimacy or platform to extremely controversial actors. For example, the Forward described his clients and said: “the Jewish attorney as a ‘traitor’ and an ‘enemy of Jews, Israel and America.’” The Forward
- In 2014 he pleaded guilty to obstructing the IRS and failing to file returns (relating to millions of dollars allegedly unreported). He was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison. Wikipedia+1
- After his conviction, he lost his law license (or at least it was suspended) and this damages his credibility from a legal-practitioner standpoint. Wikipedia+1
😬 The Ugly
- Some of his writings are extremely provocative and polarising. For instance: in his Al Jazeera piece “Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle” (July 2017) he wrote: “It’s time for Israel to accept that as an occupied people, Palestinians have a right to resist — in every way possible.” Al Jazeera+1 Such phrasing has triggered accusations of supporting or normalising violence.
- The nature of his clientele and public statements means he is often labelled (by detractors) as a “terrorist mouthpiece”. That stigma complicates how his advocacy work is received and can overshadow legitimate legal-rights issues he raises. Wikipedia+1
- His tax conviction and questions about professionalism (“he’s a lousy businessman,” as one court memo reportedly said) cast a shadow over his legal practice and raise concerns about his judgement in financial/ethical matters. amNewYork
🔍 My Assessment
- Cohen is undeniably a bold and non-mainstream figure. He brings attention to clients and issues others avoid. That’s admirable from a civil-liberties vantage.
- However, his approach is highly adversarial, and his willingness to align with (and defend) very controversial actors means his work is not purely within “accepted” human-rights frameworks. There are significant risks (reputational, moral, strategic) attached.
- For an audience/article: his story is a rich source of tension—claiming the mantle of human-rights lawyer while operating at the edge (or outside) of traditional boundaries of legitimacy.
- If you use his writings/opinions, it’s wise to contextualize them: note which views are mainstream, which are controversial, and how critics respond.