JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People

03/09/09 12:10 PM

I would gladly recognize Hamas if it were brave enough to subject Roger Cohen to the same procedures it would love to subject Israel.
This self hating Jew would be my prefered object of that king of procedure.

03/09/09 12:40 PM

This man is delusional. The Nazis were also a political party with a more militant wing to it, but by Cohen’s definition the Nazis would have been a legitimate political entity. I think he made Khaleed Meshaal blush with his glowing praise of Hamas.

03/09/09 01:42 PM

“Does this mean the civilized peoples of the world—that is, those of us who don’t make a goal of killing innocent civilians, women and children—ought to engage and compromise with them?”
I think a reasonable answer is:  “If one has confidence in both our power and the correctness of our point of view, we should have nothing to fear by engaging with those whose views we disagree with (and even abhor).” Lack of willingness to engage seems to me ot be a sign of weakness - not a sign of either strength or principle.

“As for the blockade of the strip—Gaza is enemy territory controlled by a radical Islamist group that represses its own population and is bent on Israel’s destruction. Why should Israel open its borders to Gaza or encourage Egypt, Gaza’s other neighbor, to do so?”

Again, the answer lies in seeking a long-term permanent solution to this problem that, like an infection, unless dealt with at its root causes, will continue to fester until it kills the organism that controls it.

03/09/09 03:30 PM

The worst moment in Cohen’s piece was when he said “I have never previously felt so shamed by Israel’s actions.” What standing does he have to be shamed by Israel’s actions? He doesn’t live there and he obviously doesn’t support Israel’s right to defend itself.

Yes, Mr. Cohen is on a tear. He goes to Iran and all he can do is bash Israel and then he keeps on bashing with this bizarre and incoherent column. Really, even the Times should realize that this is not worthy journalism.

--Hillel Wallick, Brooklyn and Jerusalem

03/09/09 04:47 PM

Dear Roger,

I’m sorry, but I had to respond to your article in the New York Times, Middle East Reality Check.  Why do I have the unsettling feeling that you’re the one who needs the reality check?

You say, “The 1988 Hamas Charter is vile...” Vile?  That’s it?  The Hamas Charter calls for genocide and the total destruction of Israel.  I suppose when viewed with your inches-thick rose-colored glasses the Nazi Final Solution was “vile” as well?

“Perhaps Hamas is sincere in its calls for Israel’s disappearance...” Perhaps?  Why perhaps?  It couldn’t be clearer and more forthright.  Has Hamas acted in contradiction of any part of its Charter?  Has there been any sign that Hamas “doesn’t really believe” what’s in the Charter?

“The Obama administration should also look carefully at how to reach moderate Hamas elements...” Roger, who might they be?  I don’t recall hearing about “moderate” people in Hamas.  If anything, Hamas is very disciplined and unbending in their beliefs.  Perhaps you meant the Hamas men who threw their Fatah competitors off the roofs of high buildings.  Perhaps some of them were thrown off only “moderately” high buildings, like from the third or fourth stories?  Perhaps you had a picnic with them, and they assured you that they are really moderate?  The Hamas Charter states plainly that peaceful methods to resolve the conflict are not acceptable, only militant jihad (see Article 13).

“Israel has the right to hit back when attacked, but any response should be proportional and governed by sober political calculation.” Proportional?  The most proportional response would obviously be to fire rockets back to where they came from, rocket for rocket.  That would be an exactly proportional response.  But wait!  That would kill civilians indiscriminately, wouldn’t it?  So a precisely proportional response is really not acceptable, is it?  Roger, a proportional response is exactly what would perpetuate this military conflict.  No one ever wins a war or battle with proportional responses.  When we defeated Nazi Germany, we did not use proportional responses.  In fact, we destroyed whole cities, civilians and all.  When we defeated Japan, we used carpet bombing of the entire country and nuclear weapons.  In both Germany’s and Japan’s case, that approach ended the conflict, and now both countries are at peace with us and with the world.  In order to defeat a fanatical and determined enemy, one must use overwhelming force, specifically way out of proportion.  The problem that has perpetuated the Israel Palestinian conflict is exactly that Israel’s responses have been too proportional.  If they used totally overwhelming force, this entire conflict would most likely have ended a long time ago, and the two entities would have arrived at a form of peace.  You may not understand that, being in your ivory tower, but history has proven that again and again.  The wars that drag on and ultimately kill the most people are the ones in which both sides are “too evenly” matched.  For example, the Iraq-Iran war dragged on for eight years, and millions of people died, or our Civil War.  Hamas’ will to fight must be totally defeated such that their own Charter will be understood by them to be hopelessly unachieveable.

And since you appear to have read the Hamas Charter, then you must realize that this conflict is not about settlements, expansion, Gaza blockade, etc.  It’s about something much more overarching, the Islamic tenet never to give back land that was at any time ruled by Muslims.  “They try to paint Hamas as irrevocably absolutist. Why should Arabs be any less pragmatic than Jews?” Well, the Palestinians were offered a state in the West Bank and Gaza by Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton, but Arafat refused.  Why?  It’s because that would have ended the conflict, and that’s not part of the Arab plan.  The Arab plan is much deeper than that.

“...but then it’s also possible that Israel in reality has no desire to see a Palestinian state.” OK, let’s see, now.  We offered the Palestinians a reasonable compromise in 1999, and the Arab response was the second intifadeh, suicide bombings, missiles, rockets, and ongoing anti-Semitic incitement, continuing to this day with persistent rocket attacks on civilian centers and constant attempts at infiltration of suicide bombers.  We withdrew totally from Gaza, and their response has been constant terrorism.  Hey, I’ve got a great idea!  Let’s keep going by giving them a state of their own in the West Bank!  Since it’s only 9 miles from East Jerusalem to the Mediterranean, essentially all of Israel will be within range of rockets and missiles, and since their Charter calls for our extermination, that will appease them so much that they will set aside their Charter and become peaceful neighbors.  After all, the thing that Arabs respect the most, the thing that most effectively convinces them to become peaceful, is surrender and retreat.  Sounds great!

“West Bank walling-in?” Don’t you have that backwards?  The West Bank is not walled in.  Israel is walled in.  The Palestinian suicide bombers are walled OUT.

Roger, why do I have the haunting feeling that you just don’t get it?

03/10/09 10:54 AM

To Bruce: Beautifully said. It’s too bad Roger probably won’t see what you wrote.