On it’s face, Richard Cohen’s most recent op-ed for the WaPo looks like a self-hating anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli screed. It’s not really, although it’s inartfully written (very), and some of the conclusions he draws aren’t necessarily correct. I thought, therefore, that I’d give the article a polite fisking to try to tease out the truth behind what he says, and the correct conclusions I think he ought to have drawn:
The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.
[A little known piece of Jewish history is that, in the 1880s, when Jews were beginning to agitate for a homeland, they weren’t necessarily focused exclusively on the Biblical homeland. There were noises about going to Uganda or buying parts of Canada. In retrospect, each of those might have been a better decision in terms of safety and stability. Ultimately, though, the Jews, opted to go back to their historical home — a home in which many Jews still lived with the latters’ ties going back to the Roman era.
[The original Zionist settlers did not steal the land. They got grants from the British and they bought the land from Arab potentates headquarted in Istanbul and in European capitals. From the beginning, though, there was a virulent strain of Arab nationalism that was hostile to the Jews, as well as the problem of the anti-Semitism that is part and parcel of Islam. In addition, the same land magnates who sold land to the early settlers were quite worried that the Democratic principles those settlers brought with them to the Holy Land would infect the normally placid, slave-like fellahin who provided the magnates’ wealth. They therefore stirred up any latent hatred in the fellahin to ensure their loyalty to their distant Arab overlords — and to make sure that, while the overlords sold the land out from under the fellahin, it would be the Jewish buyer, and not the Arab seller, who felt the peasants’ wrath.
[Considering all these factors, which were obvious from the 1880s onward, there was a certain hubris in the Jewish commitment to that particular bit of real estate. Having said that, do I believe Israel is illegitimate or a mistake? Absolutely not. I believe that the Jews bought, were given and fought for this piece of land, that it was recognized by the world at large (both the League of Nations and thed UN), and that they have a 100% right to it. I also believe that, by investing themselves in this geography for religious and historical reasons, they bought themselves a lot of predictable trouble. By the way, if you’re going to castigate Jews for their investment in Israel, it’s time to give most of the U.S. back to the Native Americans (we took it from them); the British (we won it in war); the Spanish (war again and purchase); and the French (purchase). We got our nation in precisely the same way.]
This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the Israeli-Muslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It is why the conflict mutates and festers. It is why Israel is now fighting an organization, Hezbollah, that did not exist 30 years ago and why Hezbollah is being supported by a nation, Iran, that was once a tacit ally of Israel’s. The underlying, subterranean hatred of the Jewish state in the Islamic world just keeps bubbling to the surface. The leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and some other Arab countries may condemn Hezbollah, but I doubt the proverbial man in their street shares that view.
[Although inartfully phrased, I think Cohen is saying that there’s no surprise that, just as the Muslims hated Israel in the 1880s, and just as Muslim leaders used Israel as a scapegoat to steer credulous Muslim peasants from focusing too much on the leaders’ own abuses, Muslims still hate Jews and their leaders still use Israel to distract attention from their ineptitude, cruelty and corruption.]
There is no point in condemning Hezbollah. Zealots are not amenable to reason. And there’s not much point, either, in condemning Hamas. It is a fetid, anti-Semitic outfit whose organizing principle is hatred of Israel. 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.
[Here’s where I part ways with Cohen, and where I think his introduction, although it has a certain historical accuracy, has nothing to do with his ultimate argument. He seems to be saying that Hamas and Hezbollah can’t be condemned for hate because they’re hate-filled, and that Israel should just concede that hate and give up. If Cohen is saying that, he’s basically saying this particular strain of Muslims is comprised of subhuman animals who are incapable of higher thought and emotion. They’re Orcs. If that’s the case, Israel should be destroying them entirely, rather than exercising that damned restraint that keeps being bandied about. The fact that Israel, entirely legally, chose a tough row to hoe doesn’t mean she should lie on her back and give up her belly to pure evil.]
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.
[And its precisely what I predicted, but I put a more positive spin on it. Gaza was already a fetid stinkhole, but Israel had no leverage with it because it was, technically, a part of Israel. By withdrawing unilaterally, Israel deliberately created a nation state, where people could elect leaders, and Israel could deal with those leaders as it would any other hostile nation. I’m sure that Sharon knew that there was a good chance that the people would elect terrorists as their leaders, but Sharon also knew that, for the first time, he’d have a legitimate enemy against which to wage warfare. Gaza is no longer a beleaguered territory; it’s a state among states that has to suffer the consequences of its actions. And as the recent muted reaction from world and Arab leaders demonstrates, Sharon was right.]
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.)
[It’s true. Everytime Israel let world opinion push her around, and conceded something, she didn’t get the peace the world promised. Instead, the Arabs viewed her as weak, and circled like jackals. I don’t blame the Arabs for this. I blame Israel for acting like the kid at high school who does stupid things in a futile effort to become popular.]
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.
[Considering that Cohen has just said Israel showed weakness by pulling back, making her more of a target then ever, he sounds exceptionally stupid here urging her to pull back yet again. It is true that Israel needs to figure out her end goal. Right now, her end goal isn’t entirely clear. Of course, getting her soldiers back is a short term and immediate goal but, beyond that, what? Maybe she just wants to keep Hezbollah weak.
[I was talking to DQ a little while ago and he said he just doesn’t see the point in Israel’s current war, because you can’t defeat terrorists. They’re not a nation, they’re a hydra-headed monster. My response was that, if that’s the case, I may as well go out and buy my burka now. My thinking (and DQ agreed) is that, while we may never win this war, we can’t afford to lose it. Better an indefinite stalemate than to lose to the Islamists. That may be Israel’s thinking too. She can’t win, but she can’t afford to let the other side win. Victory for Israel may simply lie in denying victory to her enemies — and an initiative such as this one certainly throws her enemies (and ours) back for a while.]
In his forthcoming book, “The War of the World,” the admirably readable British historian Niall Ferguson devotes considerable space to the horrific history of the Jews in 19th- and 20th-century Europe. Never mind the Holocaust. In 1905 there were pogroms in 660 different places in Russia, and more than 800 Jews were killed — all this in a period of less than two weeks. This was the reality of life for many of Europe’s Jews.
Little wonder so many of them emigrated to the United States, Canada, Argentina or South Africa. Little wonder others embraced the dream of Zionism and went to Palestine, first a colony of Turkey and later of Britain. They were in effect running for their lives. Most of those who remained — 97.5 percent of Poland’s Jews, for instance — were murdered in the Holocaust.
[All true, but what’s Cohen’s point? All I’d say is that Jews have always known life is dangerous, but that shouldn’t prevent a nation from doing the right thing — which in this case, is a legal return to a historic homeland, to which they gained the right through gift, purchase, and victories in defensive wars.]
Another gifted British historian, Tony Judt, wraps up his recent book “Postwar” with an epilogue on how the sine qua non of the modern civilized state is recognition of the Holocaust. Much of the Islamic world, notably Iran under its Holocaust-denying president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stands outside that circle, refusing to make even a little space for the Jews of Europe and, later, those from the Islamic world. They see Israel not as a mistake but as a crime. Until they change their view, the longest war of the 20th century will persist deep into the 21st. It is best for Israel to hunker down.
[I agree with everything but Cohen’s last sentence. Under the circumstances, it is best for Israel to fight evil with every fibre of her being. And I think the same holds true for America, which should be at Israel’s back in this battle just as Israel has, for 60 years, been at the forefront in the latest battle of Islam’s centuries’ old war against the west.]
UPDATE: Unsurprisingly, the Captain has also taken the time to examine the fallacies underlying Richard Cohen’s article. He does a good job focusing attention on all the legal hoops Israel jumped through to establish a legitimate modern claim to the land, to march in harmony with her historic relationship to that same land.
Bookworm Room (ARCHIVES) 
In his solution to Hunker Down, Cohen is arguing for a two-state solution, although given that the other state will be Hamas, this is no longer viable. Unless they want to get genocidal on what are essentially popular movements, the only answer is peace and to encourage stability in the wider Arab world, essentially the unification of the prior Hashemite areas of influence (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Arabia and yes, parts of Palestine).
The other answer is peace, which is what Hamas should demand – annexation and full Israeli citizenship. Whether they should get that is another matter.
If you can’t defeat terrorists, then, pretty much, what’s the point of anything? You’re right, go buy yourself a burqua right now – and for God’s sake, don’t have children!
Or, keep in mind that “defeat” is in the eye of the beholder. I would posit that if they were all killed, that would indeed constitute a “defeat.”
Is it possible to kill them all? Not really even a tough question, the answer is: yeah, sure it is.
But – NOW come the tough questions: Is it realistic? Does Israel, or anybody – including us – have the stomach for that? Given the current political climate, probably not.
So then come the tough permutations and questions arising from the above: OK, what do we/Israel/anybody do when Iran becomes a nuclear power, and announces: “Israel, start swimming, in one hour a mushroom cloud rises over Tel Aviv.”
At which point Israel/we/anybody will have politically corrected them/ourselves into a position where there becomes no choice, and you have an hour to damn well develop the stomach for it.
Which is where half-assed measures always lead. In humanistic terms it’s brutal to agree that though terrorists can’t be “defeated” – they can indeed be killed. Everybody reacts to that with horror, oh no, can’t do that….. until the terrorists themselves put you in a position where there’s no alternative.
And that, I fear, is the position to which they will ultimately take us. They have not stopped now in 58 years and they aren’t going to. These are not rational beings with which the world is dealing, and people like Chirac and Putin are idiots if they think they’re going to be able to arm them and then control them any better than anyone else has.
If Hizbullah had any brains at all they’d have waited a year, until Iran is nuclear. The fact that they just couldn’t hold onto themselves indicates pretty clearly right there what we’re all dealing with.
It would be far better to run the 3rd and 4th IDs into Tehran right now – but we are unlikely to have the political will at home, or the allies for that.
So, gloomily enough, Israel – or us – will eventually arrive at the sole option left.
You can’t make sense with people who won’t.
Oh, on the issue of giving back lands to the Indians and the British/Spanish – it is one or the other. The Indians, unlike the Palestinians, made treaties instead of uniting and pushing the founding fathers into the sea. They gave away their lands by treaty and failure to attack. They also lived too purely, meaning they were caught flatfooted by disease. We did not wipe them out militarily but rather the symbiotic parasites in our bodies did. Even if our ancestors did not mean to do it, they waged the most effective biological warfare ever to get this colony. What we have left are survivors, some of which have valid land claims, especially regarding mineral rights held in trust by the United States. These lands should be returned and the tenants and prospectors forced to deal with the true owners as equals before the law – which they now are in modern America.
The history you point out is parallel with the Fellahin. If an individual truly owned a plot that was sold out from under them they should be compensated – as Israeli law specifies – although I would not allow return of grandchildren. However, children and original occupants who have not been compensated have a valid claim to whatever olive groves and desert they owned. Even if improved – the legal principal is fairly clear that the owner is the owner (regardless of maxims about possession). If the American taxpayer has a bias for Israel, it should pay for both compensation and for any necessary relocations – and should demand payment from Arab governments to compensate Jews which were displaced from their Arab lands.
There is something about dealing with individual land titles that can be civilizing if done right.
Now, there is the ultimate question on every conservative mind – what about the reestablishment of the Temple? I ask the counter question, as long as Palestinian Muslims and Christians are being persecuted, will God allow this, or will the Coptic Patriarch or Roman Pontiff agree to return the Ark of the Covenant from its resting place in Eritrea? Doubt it.
Cohen should have spent more time considering his position. It was very poorly constructed.
Sometimes you have to retreat, to fight another day. Israel by retreating, drew the Palis and their enemies into a territory that Israel had greater knowledge of. This is akin to Hannibal drawing a Roman Legion across the River Trebia, and then smashing it on both sides, front and back. At least I think it was Trebia, might have been Trasimere. Well.
Hannibal destroyed so many Legions, it is hard to keep track of which names went with which tactics. Hannibal got defeated the usual way brilliant tacticians and strategists are defeated, Hannibal’s logistics were cut. Funny.
I have yet to read the entire opinion article which this piece is about so I’m not sure if I’m qualified to make a comment, but here goes.
I’d like to reply to the man above me, withdrawing to fight in known territory? That’s weak. I’m sure that the Israeli military knows the gaza strip better than almost any part of their own country, plus in your own territory you have your own people vulnerable, PLUS isn’t is better to fight them on their own land? The river and Hannibal is also a bad analogy too, he used the river strategically to cut off escape, nothing to do at all with what Israel is up to today apart from the withdrawing itself. Poor arguement.
I liked the way in which this article was written, it is rare to come across someone who constructively critisizes rather than just singling out a couple errors and dumping the rest of the arguement on the basis of that. That pathetic way of arguing is actually quite abundant, disgusting, and useless.
I didn’t enjoy reading many other articles on this guy’s opinion because they all were quite blatantly written by subjective Jews who just bitched at him for not loving everything Jewish. Very often Jews use the accusation of “anti-semitism” and “self-hating-Jew” to defend themselves when they are devoid of any actual rational arguement and people notice and don’t like it. Just for example, a couple months ago a paper was written at Harvard (I believe) that attempted to report on how deeply involved Jews had become in western media and politics – or the eyes, ears, and decision making of our society – and were using it to their own means. Instead of seeing rational counter-arguements against it, all I saw were Jews shreaking and running around yelling “LIES!”, specifically, one Democratic congressman from New York went so far as to say – and I quote – “It is shameful that a paper like this was written given what happened in the Holocaust.” Everyone who reads that and owns a brain cell thinks to themselves, what the hell is this guy on? What on earth does this paper have to do with the Holocaust? What kind of a man is this that every time he is critisized he runs and crawls under a distant and irrelevant rock? I know for a fact that many people who swim with their heads above the media are acutely aware of this rather unsavoury Jewish trait, and everytime it happens again we notice.
With more direct respect to the article, I think that it is quite useless to make these observations unless we are considering repeating our actions again. Yes, creating Israel where it is today was a mistake with respect to its security and the Arab world, but what is the point in pointing that out? It is a well known point, and at this moment in history it is completely inapplicable! What does he expect to result from his comment? Israel to up roots and move to Canada? Please. I do like, however, seeing Jews contemplating their situation from a less biased and self-examining perspective.
Dear Bookworm,
You’re being much too nice to Richard Cohen. It is simply naive to think that an old lib columnist can just make a mistake in his first sentence: “the most important thing for Israel to realize is that Israel is a mistake.” That’s a signal to Cohen’s Chomksy-type readers that he’s really agrees with them. Then he tacks right, and tries to be reasonable. But he’s basically a politician – that’s what big national columnists are. That’s how they get the big bucks. In his business, as you know, it’s a narrative hook. The idea that he just blundered into this one, and can’t be held responsible for it is absurd.
So Mr. Cohen ends up blaming the fire brigade rather than the fire, in Churchill’s phrase. That’s all very nice if you’re engaged in an intellectual exercise a hundred years later and six thousand miles away. In the middle of a war, with people being killed, and with a clear aggressor who has labeled himself as a genocide aggressor for fifty years, it’s the last word in fashionable self-indulgent preening. The fact that Mr. Cohen is doing this as a result of a pure historical accident — his grandparents moving to the Bronx rather than Minsk or Berlin — makes it all the worse. Had they made a slightly different decision, Mr. Cohen would never have been born, his parents would have perished in concentration camps, or he would now be sitting in an air raid shelter in Tel Aviv.
So I’m afraid you’re taking a bookworm approach to what is a very real killing field for Mr. Cohen’s close relatives. Bookworms are great in the safety of Marin County. If your children were on the line you would have to take Richard Cohen’s enemy propaganda more seriously.
Just found this and thought it may illustrate what I said somewhat:
“At this point, you certainly have the option of labeling me an anti-Semite in a vain effort to ignore everything above. But just for a minute, carefully consider the implications of doing so.
The term “anti-Semitism” is generally used to shut up and shut down anyone who criticises Israel. The latest edition of Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Collegiate Thesaurus apparently includes a definition of anti-Semitism that reads, “opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel”.
Huh?!
Let’s think about this for a minute. I can criticise George W. Bush and the American government all I want. Now, George seems to be – or at least pretends to be – a fundamentalist Christian. But if I call Georgie’s policies murderous and fascist, I won’t be branded “anti-Christian”. So why are so many people immediately shut down when allegations of anti-Semitism are flung their way?
Opposing Fascist Zionism is not the same as opposing Judaism, just as opposing the Neocon Administration isn’t the same as opposing Christianity – or America itself. Much of the world knows that Bush is a lunatic, but they don’t hate Americans or other Christians. How do I know this? Because instead of believing everything I read in the newspapers, I actually TALK to people from around the world and ask them questions! Many Jews are against the policies of Israel’s Zionist leadership in the same way that many Americans are against Bush. Why is it that in the case of any other country, people can separate the warped ideology of a nation’s leaders from the ideology of that nation’s people? Why CAN’T they do the same thing with Israel?”
Many Jews are against
How many? Can you provide specifics?
Nope. I didn’t write it and that is a silly question anyway.
That’s weak. I’m sure that the Israeli military knows the gaza strip better than almost any part of their own country, plus in your own territory you have your own people vulnerable, PLUS isn’t is better to fight them on their own land?
More Israelis speak Arab than Americans, yet they cannot even stabilize a small region the size of a lake. Even compared to the State Department bumbling in Iraq, that’s nothing to be gloating about. And it certainly is not favorable terrain to the Israelis.
plus in your own territory you have your own people vulnerable, PLUS isn’t is better to fight them on their own land?
Fight them where they have closer and more secure logistic trains, while you fight far away from your logistics? This is not exactly better. In addition, their people won’t give you intelligence and won’t collaborate, because Palestinians are executed if they are even suspected of collaborating with Israel. Are Israelis executed for helping terroists and Palestinians? I think not. In your own territory, you have the advantage. Go look up what happened when they tried to push Lee back into the Confederacy in the open days of the war.
You actually have to understand what Sun Tzu means when he says pick the terrain for your battles. Until you do, you cannot locate the specifics of my argument to call bad.
A good commander fights on ground that he has chosen and pre-prepared. It has little to do with rivers blocking off retreat, and everything to do with who is better prepared to take advantage of the Earth. In guerrila war terms, this means taking advantage of popularity amongst the people. Israel has zero popularity amongst Palestinians.
Btw, there is no such thing as fascist zionism, that’s like saying we oppose the propaganda operations of President Bush. No such thing in existence.
You need to bulk up on more military science if you want to argue about logistics, guerrila wars, winning the support of the people, strategic withdrawals, and preparing the field for battle. The reason why Israel must fight in their own territory, not Gaza, is because they cannot obtain any traction in the territory called “perception” without doing so.
Bookworm has already noticed the differences in reactions. This is all due to the fact that Israel withdrew, and Hamas attacked them on Israeli territory. This is about laying traps and stratagems, not about rivers and protecting people. Protecting people is the duty of the elected leaders and the Constitution. Crafting strategems is the job of the military.
Yes, an area the size of a lake. Also one of the most densely populated areas of the world with 1.4 million people living inside it. It’s not just about geography, it’s about offense and defense and so so much more. You seem to be stuck in an old-style warfare mode for some reason, you are ignoring alot of technology which negates things you are trying to make points about. Don’t try to rub me up about military logistics as it’s quite clear to me you really don’t know what you are talking about.
There’s nothing old style about Sun Tzu’s description of choosing the correct ground. No technology has made obsolete what Sun Tzu spoke, for Sun Tzu was refering directly to core principles.
We’ll let people decide who doesn’t know what they are talking about when Edward here said that Israel was better off fighting in Gaza than on their own territory, with safe and secure Israeli logics rather than lines open to Palestinian sabotage and media manipulation.
Maybe you’re confusing America’s power and strategy with Israel.
[…] But I do read the news, sometimes. And political blogs, both right and left. This is what I’m reading today: All I’d say is that Jews have always known life is dangerous, but that shouldn’t prevent a nation from doing the right thing — which in this case, is a legal return to a historic homeland, to which they gained the right through gift, purchase, and victories in defensive wars. Posted in linkage, thinking, so they said […]