(via LGF) Richard Cohen has an op-ed in today's Washington Post.
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.Better yet:
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.Someone explain to me why anyone in their right mind would think that the "smart choice" is to pull back to borders that are not impervious, while terrorism continues, while "waiting and hoping" that history will "move on to something else"?! Is this not one of the most illogical suggestions in an op-ed you've ever read? I honestly do not understand how the Washington Post, one of the most well-respected newspapers in the country, could allow such drivel in its paper. Forget the anti-Semitic rants that appear throughout this country for a moment - those, at least, try to make a logical argument, even if they usually fail or inject utter hatred or dishonesty into the discussion. But this... this is just astounding in its sheer idiocy.
UPDATE: Life-of-Rubin notes that we are basically at war with the world press, discussing an incredible series of interviews from last night's Larry King Live on CNN. I think that's why the blogs are so important in this war - it makes this last line of Chaim's have a chance at being untrue:
Like I said, we are fighting two wars here. One of them we are losing really badly.
(just wanted to say thanks for posting the link for those war images..baleboosteh, i believe..)
ReplyDeleteTake some courses in international relations and conflict management. It's not as simple as your Touro Education gave you
ReplyDeleteAs stupid as it sounds, Ehud Olmert has the same idea as he does.
ReplyDeletePull out of the west bank and hope that things work out
He's trying to build up a tough guy attitude for himself so that Israelis will trust him, even though he is a slimy git.
Wow, I am shocked at the lengths the media is going to at this point to beat on Israel.
ReplyDeleteRead this
I, too, was a bit astounded at the first quote when I read it this morning. But I don't see what's wrong with this:
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
He may not be right, but it's a perfectly logical position. What he's saying is that terrorism may be preferable to war -- that waiting it out may be preferable to launching a war with 2 or 3 nations. I'm not sure if I agree with him or not, but you can't dismiss the argument as "illogical."
Anon - You're right, it's not. Though I never took a PoliSci course at Touro or Lander, so I wouldn't know.
ReplyDeleteAnon2 - Possibly. And I think it's equally stupid if he does.
JA - Again, true. I originally wrote "dumbest", then thought that was harsh and poor English, so I switched it. Dumbest makes more sense, though.
Anonymous: I MAJORED in IR - and believe me, at no point did I ever learn that running from your enemies is a good way to resolve a conflict.
ReplyDeleteIrina - Heh. :)
ReplyDeleteI don't see why it's "dumb," either, Ezzie. Is it so obvious that full-out war is preferable to terror? What if this really does spark WWIII?
ReplyDeleteI supported pulling out of Lebanon and Gaza. I still think that getting out of Lebanon was smart.
ReplyDeleteI think that Israel should have smacked Hezbollah hard on the way out to make sure that it was clear that it was Israel's choice to leave and not because of Hezbollah, but the past is the past.
I supported the hitnakut from Gaza. I was wrong. It didn't lead to more peace. It didn't buy any political capital from the world.
As of today it didn't accomplish anything that I can see as a positive.
Cohen's idea of getting out and moving into defensible borders sounds like the creation of a new 'Alamo' and we all know how that ended up.
No one wants WW III but this behavior cannot continue and cannot be accepted.
YAWP!
ReplyDeleteJA - If it does, it will be rough. But it might finally affect change in the region - change for the better. I think that wars are sometimes necessary, and I think that when carried out properly, they can be quick with far less bloodshed than in the past. I'm not going to lie and say I'm knee-jerk against the idea of a WWIII - nobody likes war, but war is sometimes necessary.
ReplyDeleteOzzie - I was wondering what happened to the YAWP! :) Great comment. I was wary, but supportive, of the Lebanon pullout; I was against, but understood how it could work, when they pulled out of Gaza. Since neither worked, it's time to try another tack.
Ezzie,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure withdrawal didn't work. Israel has far more leeway to operate, since troops aren't tied up defending Gush katif, or patrolling Southern Lebanon. It's not like they were preventing all Hizbollah attacks when they were in Lebanon.
I think that while Cohen's initial point is beyond stupid, his defense of the convergence plan is likely exactly what Olmert was thinking (altho' I suspect there is little support for it now). Withdraw to defensible borders so you don't waste troops, and any violation of those borders is an act of war. War permits you to bomb the bejeezus out of civilian villages. Responding to terrorism in what is perceived as occupied territories does not.
After reading some other stuff by R. Cohen, it sounds like he is one very confused soul, especially about his own Jewish identity.
ReplyDeleteThere is no Hebrew for 'hunker down'.
ReplyDeleteJDub - Granted, but this is a point I've discussed before: Looking Back.
ReplyDeleteBasically, Israel had the chance to do so a year ago, and didn't. Disengagement COULD have worked, but Israel blew it.
MordyS - True.
ReplyDeleteTzvee - True.
I also studied PoliSci (and not at Touro!), and I agree with Irina.
ReplyDeleteThe world media disgusts me, overall. There's a reason why I'm getting all my news from Jameel, Dave, and OC, rather than "mainstream" news. I'd rather keep my lunch down.
Century of warfare, eh? That is a pretty large amount of years to "round up". Had no idea the modern nation-state of Israel was that old.
ReplyDeleteCE - I'd say maybe he meant things like the Hebron Massacre of 1929, but that of course would mean he's acknowledging Jews lived there before 1948. Or the Jews who didn't come from Europe, but Morocco, Yemen, et al, who make up about half of the country.
ReplyDeleteThe only option for Israel: CRUSH the opposition in the most brutal manner possible. This is war! They can either see the blood of their nation slowly seep into the battlefield over a period of years, or they can wipe out all thoughts in the enemy's mind that they can compete on the battlefield.
ReplyDeleteBlogs are very important, and it is equally important to comment on blogs that spew rhetoric by those who don't understand the conflict.
ReplyDeleteI have actually converted a few people with my logic.
check out "love your enemy" on this syrian blog viarecta.blogspot.com. I'll be damned!
ReplyDeleteAnon1 - Basically agree.
ReplyDeleteBEAJ - I'm hoping we all do, but it's nice to know when you have.
Anon2 - Interesting.
Hallo I absolutely adore your site. You have beautiful graphics I have ever seen.
ReplyDelete»