Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen has written one of the worst columns I have read in a long time. Carl at Israel Matzav has done an outstanding job of fisking this column and presenting the problems with it.
Other bloggers who have commented on this include:
Updated at 9:00 PM PST
Little Green Footballs
Soccer Dad
It is hard to read this and not wonder if Cohen has spent any time learning about the history of the land or if his education is limited to the historical narrative that the Arab nations are trying to present.
Cohen says:
There is, though, a point in cautioning Israel to exercise restraint — not for the sake of its enemies but for itself. Whatever happens, Israel must not use its military might to win back what it has already chosen to lose: the buffer zone in southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip itself.
Hard-line critics of Ariel Sharon, the now-comatose Israeli leader who initiated the pullout from Gaza, always said this would happen: Gaza would become a terrorist haven. They said that the moderate Palestinian Authority would not be able to control the militants and that Gaza would be used to fire rockets into Israel and to launch terrorist raids. This is precisely what has happened.
It is also true, as some critics warned, that Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon was seen by its enemies — and claimed by Hezbollah — as a defeat for the mighty Jewish state. Hezbollah took credit for this, as well it should. Its persistent attacks bled Israel. In the end, Israel got out and the United Nations promised it a secure border. The Lebanese army would see to that. (And the check is in the mail.)
All that the critics warned has come true. But worse than what is happening now would be a retaking of those territories. That would put Israel smack back to where it was, subjugating a restless, angry population and having the world look on as it committed the inevitable sins of an occupying power. The smart choice is to pull back to defensible — but hardly impervious — borders. That includes getting out of most of the West Bank — and waiting (and hoping) that history will get distracted and move on to something else. This will take some time, and in the meantime terrorism and rocket attacks will continue.
In short Cohen agrees that the critics of the withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza were correct and that these moves were seen as weakness by Hezbollah, Hamas and company. Cohen also admits that UN peacekeeping troops are not the answer.
His solution is to withdraw again to what he calls defensible borders. Isn’t the definition of insanity continuing to do the same thing over and over again with the hope that it will yield different results.
This is not a case of the third time being the trick, at least not when human life is on the line. The answer is not to fall back and beg for mercy. Cohen should spend a little more time reviewing the history of the land and less in acceptance of whomever’s voice is loudest.
July 19, 2006 at 12:34 am |
History Itself…
Richard Cohen argues that Israel is a mistake and should behave that way and hunker down and let the terrorists keep hitting it.
The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an hones…
July 19, 2006 at 10:31 am |
Actually the column just happens to be a clear and concise opinion that you don’t agree with. It’s not bad journalism. The territory of Israel and all the issues surrounding it have been mishandled from the start. Unfortunately this conflict will most likely never be resolved. “His solution is to withdraw again to what he calls defensible borders. Isn’t the definition of insanity continuing to do the same thing over and over again with the hope that it will yield different results.” Definition of insanity or not, the “same thing” or tactic rather has been applied repeatedly by Israel, and repeatedly without success.
“This is not a case of the third time being the trick, at least not when human life is on the line. The answer is not to fall back and beg for mercy.” So when human life is on the line just go ahead and sacrifice it? That obviously has not been working either. “Cohen should spend a little more time reviewing the history of the land and less in acceptance of whomever’s voice is loudest.” The history again obviously has been reviewed -you’re applying selective, not factual history- because the same tired conflict continues.
July 19, 2006 at 10:50 am |
Actually Joan I am not. May I suggest that you spend some time looking at Kesher Talk’s review and or Carl’s post and you will see that Cohen blew it.
It is not a question of opinion. It is factually inaccurate.
You said The history again obviously has been reviewed -you’re applying selective, not factual history- because the same tired conflict continues.
Could you please provide me with examples.
July 19, 2006 at 11:34 am |
Why are you so certain “Kesher talk’s Review” is chalk full of facts? This is hardly an unbiased source. History, and different perceptions of history, are perhaps the most important factors in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Accounts of history, interpreting history in different ways, ETC. are used to justify claims and to negate claims, to vilify the enemy and to glorify “our own” side. Dozens of accounts have been written. Most of the accounts on the Web are intended to convince rather than to inform. Why would I be convinced by either linked articles that Cohen “blew it”?
July 19, 2006 at 11:47 am |
Kesher talk’s Review “(And on the subject of made-up nations: Winston Churchill knew Saudi Arabia was a mistake. Don’t blame the Brits for letting Jews finally have tiny Israel back after they had repeatedly returned and gotten slaughtered and exiled again and again for 2000 years. Blame the Brits for giving Arabia to the Wahabis, arguably the mistake which has shaped the last 100 years more than any other.)” (This is a good example of the above mentioned) This particular post (on K.Talk’s) is more of an emotional outburst, than a scholarly review of history in an objective delivery to dismantle the “facts” in the Cohen article.
July 19, 2006 at 11:55 am |
“It is exactly the same deep rage and humiliation felt by the former slaveowners in the post-Civil War South toward their former slaves, and toward the Northerners who enabled freed blacks to walk among their former owners. Why anyone wants to defend this attitude is beyond me.” Again this more emotional. Disagreeing or questioning Israel’s current stance or the issues concerning territory and the like, does not make a bigot, racist, an anti-semite, etc. Once more, the opposing side claims similar sentiments, of feeling enslaved and persecuted.
July 19, 2006 at 2:05 pm |
Why are you so certain “Kesher talk’s Review” is chalk full of facts? This is hardly an unbiased source.
You have to look at the links. I can tell that you took a cursory look but I can’t determine if you actually read the post.
There are links in it from Fordham University, Science Daily, are some of the scholarly sources cited there.
Cohen blows it early and often. His suggestion that Israel is populated by European Jews ignores the Jews who never left and the Jews who legally purchased land from Arab owners.
He acknowledges that the withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza served to embolden the opposition and incited more attacks. And from this he extrapolates the idea that continuing to withdraw will help. Look at this paragraph:
The smart choice is to pull back to defensible — but hardly impervious — borders. That includes getting out of most of the West Bank — and waiting (and hoping) that history will get distracted and move on to something else. This will take some time, and in the meantime terrorism and rocket attacks will continue.”
Is he serious. Does he really hope that Hezbollah/Hamas will become distracted and they’ll suddenly forget about Israel. The charters of both groups call for the destruction of Israel and neither group shows any inclination to change that.
That is a huge risk.
The reality is that many of the current Arab nations are products of the 20th century. They were carved out and created. Why should they be treated differently.
Cohen’s mistakes are ignoring historical realities and
offering solutions that have proven at best to be problematic.
You said The history again obviously has been reviewed -you’re applying selective, not factual history- because the same tired conflict continues.
You still haven’t provided any examples.
July 19, 2006 at 2:32 pm |
Indeed it is. The definition of insanity for Israel is believing that you can invade Lebanon & bring it to heel making it a subservient vassal state (that was in 1982); and then assaulting that same country unmercifully & considering reinvading it (that would be 2006) and believing that you’ll attain the result you failed to attain in 1982. That’s a very good definition of insanity.
July 20, 2006 at 2:11 am |
Have you done research regarding what percentage of Jews currently in Israel are European vs. “those who never left” ?
“The reality is that many of the current Arab nations are products of the 20th century. They were carved out and created. Why should they be treated differently.”
-Define “treatment” ? ( Are we venturing down the old eye for an eye path here?)
July 20, 2006 at 2:22 am |
And yes I read K’s entire post, this is a reactionary statement not an essay
outlining historical facts.
July 20, 2006 at 2:31 am |
Do you consider this a fact ? “God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham.”
This is a good place to begin and a fundamental tension. Obviously among varying world religions there will be no unanimous support for this “fact”.
July 20, 2006 at 5:30 am |
Joan,
You must not be interested in a dialogue because you really haven’t answered any questions. You talk about facts but refuse to use numbers and question those that I introduce.
If that is how you want to play, fine, but it is not going anywhere so what is the point. Let me know if you choose to really engage otherwise I can see that you are not interested in communicating.
June 19, 2008 at 8:57 pm |
[...] writes about politicians who are just playing to their base at NJDC. Ozy and SoccerDad have the best roundups of the disaster that was the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen last week. Michael writes about [...]