I know he does not like comparisons to Hitler and the 30′s, but I wonder were he commenting then, he would have joined those who argued that once the Nazis got into the Weimar government, they would be responsible, and that one had to ignore the vile “words” Hitler used in tomes like Mein Kampf.
But Cohen blames Hamas’ ideology and terroristic acts on Israel. He simply disregards the defensive wars Israel has been forced to fight and their fruitless attempts to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians. To Cohen, all Israel has done was meant instead to “bludgeon, undermine and humiliate the Palestinian people until their dreams of statehood and dignity evaporate.”
I guess Cohen forgets that when Israel left Gaza in 2005, and gave the Palestinians houses and greenhouses, they promptly destroyed them all. Then they sought to use the land they gained as a base from which to attack Israel. And oh yes, as for violence, “sporadic” Hamas attacks led Israel to go on a killing spree, “harming women and children,” etc. By “sporadic” is Cohen referring to the 8,000 plus rockets that rained down on southern Israel after they pulled out of Gaza? Cohen sounds like a skilled Hamas propagandist, especially when he attacks Israel for continuing a “radicalizing blockade.”
I’m sure Cohen sees himself as a real friend of Israel, telling it hard truths it doesn’t want to hear. Roger, Israelis have heard these arguments before. They have read Walt and Mearsheimer. It is not surprising that the once strong Peace Now group hardly exists, that the left-wing Meretz is in shambles, and that even Labor has less support than ever. The peacenik Israelis learned the hard way that their country has real enemies. Now with friends like Roger Cohen, they don’t need enemies.
Roger Cohen may persist in living in his fantasy world in which appeasement will lead to a moderated Hamas, instead of encouraging it to be more aggressive. He writes “I have never previously felt so ashamed by Israel’s actions.” Some of us have never been so ashamed of an American Jewish writer as we are of Roger Cohen.
Roger Cohen’s misguided and ill-conceived op-eds show the need for The New York Times to quickly appoint an additional op-ed writer whose perspective is grounded in reality. The Washington Post has plenty of writers who take Cohen’s approach, but it balances them with Michael Gerson, Robert Kagan, Charles Krauthammer and others. Can’t the once proud old grey lady do the same?
Addendum: Here is new evidence for what circles like Cohen. Today, writing on The Nation website, Eyal Press (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/415860?rel=emailNation) waxes ecstatic about Cohen, and expresses his hope that his columns “get the attention it deserves in places like the State Department and the White House.” That is why it is important to not let up on Cohen, and keep exposing his myopia.
“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.”