Is Roger Cohen the most naïve columnist writing for The New York Times, or just another example of a foreign policy “realist” gone over the edge? In his latest Sunday column, Cohen provides another rationale for why the United States should deal with both Hezbollah and Hamas, rather than treat them as terrorist organizations.
According to Cohen, both groups are simply political entities, part of what a British Foreign Office spokesman calls part of the “national fabric” in Lebanon, to which Cohen adds Hamas in Gaza. Realist doctrine calls for other nations to accept this as a given, regardless of what policies the groups support, what doctrines they adhere to, and what subversion of the international order they engage in. It does not matter, therefore, that Hezbollah and Hamas see their raison d’être as destroying Israel.
Like others, Cohen says the U.S. should approach the “moderate Hamas elements” and work to engineer “a Hamas-Fatah reconciliation.” Of course, just as he wrote this, Hamas forced the Palestinian Authority to remove Salem Fayyad as prime minister, since the American trained economist is considered too friendly to a two-state solution and has been responsible for economic progress on the West Bank. Fortunately, the State Department and Secretary Clinton do not seem to be taking Roger Cohen’s advice. Clinton is now demanding that the U.S. will only recognize a unity government if Fayyad is reappointed to the position of prime minister.
When Fayyad resigned, PA President Mahmoud Abbas explained that his stepping down would aid negotiations with Hamas, since it would “enhance and support the national dialogue,” which means that only if the PA got rid of its most competent and least corrupt official, would Hamas even talk with Abbas’ government. As Haaretz explained, his resignation was “meant as a confidence-building measure.” That firing such a man is viewed as confidence building says a great deal.
In his editorial, Cohen goes on to say that US conditions for dealing with Hamas are counter-productive. The US as well as the EU demands that Hamas recognize Israel, forswear terrorism and accept previous PA commitments. But Cohen thinks all of this is irrelevant. He simply wants us to ignore the 1988 Hamas charter, which he acknowledges “is vile.” Let’s not get “hung up” on words, he implies.
“Is Roger Cohen the most naïve columnist writing for The New York Times…”
Roger Cohen senses that the number one duty at the New York Times is to placate the desires of Pinch Sulzberger. The dude is probably “earning” a six figure income.
And the day he ceases to indulge the politically correct inclinations of the top guy—is the day he will have to find a new job paying considerably less. His contract almost certainly will not be renewed. The world of the Times revolves around Pinch. This is why the media giant appears to be close to bankruptcy.
IS IT JUST ME OR DOES ANY BODY ELSE THINK ITS WIERD THAT THIS SUPPOSED MUSLIM GROUP HAMAS HAS THE WORD ‘ HAM ‘ IN ITS NAME I MEAN IS’NT THAT FOREBIDDEN?
Re the Baha’i, below is an online comment that I submitted in response to Roger Cohen’s “Iran, the Jews and Germany”, which the NYT “rejected”, notwithstanding their purported policy that “Comments are moderated and generally will be posted is they are on-topic and not abusive”:
“Roger Cohen writes in “Iran, the Jews and Germany”: “One Iranian exile, no lover of the Islamic Republic, wrote to me saying that my account of Iran’s Jews had brought “tears to my eyes” because “you are saying what many of us would like to hear.” Foolish me, I always thought that journalism was more than telling people what they “would like to hear.”
Questions: When you wrote “What Iran’s Jews Say”, with how many Iranian Jews did you speak? Who selected these Jews for you? Did you speak with them via an interpreter? (Fess up, Roger, you don’t speak Farsi.) And when you spoke with them, who was present? (I have met and spoken with many Iranian Jews who fled Iran, and their descriptions of their former life differ in the extreme from your account.)
But more important, Roger, after a month in Iran, what about closure? Your message, as I understand it: “Indulge” Iran and cut them some slack as they pursue their nuclear plans, notwithstanding Khamenei’s potentially apocalyptic intentions; after all, young Iranians like Nikes, and I’m a Jew and was treated royally there. But haven’t you forgotten something? As I see it, there’s still unfinished business, i.e. the Baha’is, Iran’s largest religious minority, whose desperate plight must not be ignored. I think you owe it as a journalist to tell their story.
Yes, I know: Tucked away in a prior op-ed is the single sentence: “Among minorities, the Baha’i — seven of whom were arrested recently on charges of spying for Israel — have suffered brutally harsh treatment.” Is that all you have to say? You didn’t happen to ask to meet with the seven? Why not? Several readers’ online comments requested additional information about the Iranian Baha’i community, but you didn’t oblige, so allow me to assist:
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution “only” 13 Jews have been executed by Iran on the grounds of spying for Israel. In comparison, more than 200 Baha’is have been cruelly butchered during the same period. Why do Jews get “preferred treatment”? Simple: Judaism and Christianity are deemed predecessors to Islam, and both Moses and Christ are legitimate prophets; however, Mohammed is for some Muslims the ultimate and final messenger, whose precepts require no elaboration and tolerate no deviation. Although Judaism and Christianity are “not fully evolved”, they nevertheless paved the way for Islam, and Jews and Christians, although inferior, can on some level be suffered. On the other hand, in the nineteenth century, more than 1,200 years after the death of Mohammed, Bahá’u'lláh, Baha’i’s founder, appeared on the scene in Persia, and the Baha’i faith, which embraces Bahá’u'lláh, as opposed to Mohammed, as God’s latest manifestation, constitutes heresy for Iran’s ayatollahs.
The result: Tens of thousands of Baha’is have been slaughtered in Iran from the time this religion emerged. The most recent murder occurred in July 1998, when Rúhullah Rawhani, a Baha’i businessman and father of four, was executed in Mashad without sentencing and without any semblance of due process.
Concerning the seven imprisoned Baha’is you so casually mentioned in your last op-ed written from Iran, a 22 February 2009 VOA editorial “reflecting the views of the United States Government” (http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/2009-02-23-voa5.cfm) states:
“More than 9 months have passed since 7 leaders of the Baha’i community in Iran were arrested and sent to prison with no access to legal counsel. Now the Iranian government has announced the 7 have been charged with espionage. The move is the latest in decades of repressive measures against the Baha’is, the largest non-Islamic religious minority group in Iran. Those measures include barring Baha’is from attending public universities or working in public agencies, destroying or closing Baha’i places of worship, bulldozing Baha’i cemeteries, legally confiscating Baha’i property, and killing Baha’is with impunity.”
I would also add that among the aspects of the Baha’i faith most rankling to Iran’s Shiite majority is its advocacy of women’s rights. For a personal harrowing account of the depths of brutal oppression experienced by an Iranian Baha’i woman, read an interview with Ms. Mehri Mavaddat (http://info.Bahai.org/article-1-8-3-15.html).
Roger, you would have us know that “Iranian civility toward Jews tells us more about Iran — its sophistication and culture — than all the inflammatory rhetoric.” I suggest you examine Iranian “civility” toward its gentle Baha’i minority before pronouncing judgment. More to the point, go back and try writing an op-ed “What Iran’s Baha’is Say”. I am confident “the consistent warmth” (your description) with which you were received in Iran by this savage theocracy will dissipate with the speed of a uranium enriching centrifuge.”