Roger Cohen's "Obama Draws the Line": Delusional

Roger Cohen has done it again. In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Obama Draws the Line" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/opinion/21iht-edcohen21.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), Cohen gives full vent to his vivid imagination, while seeking to support Obama's recent speech on the Middle East. As I stated in my prior blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/05/obamas-middle-east-policy-speech-still.html), I agreed with much of what Obama said in his speech, but opposed its timing and the manner in which it was presented, which were sure to alienate Netanyahu, an American ally, on the eve of his visit to Washington. Cohen's op-ed, on the other hand, is delusional.

Cohen:

"The president got 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008. Perhaps those words will cost him some of those votes — although sentiment toward Israel among American Jews is slowly shifting."

Response:

"The American Jewish Committee's Survey of American Jewish Opinion is usually conducted annually to gauge American Jewish attitudes towards Israel. The surveys refute claims disseminated by some in the media that Jewish support for Israel is waning in America. 3 out of 4 respondents felt very close or somewhat close to Israel, a figure slightly up from ten years ago." (http://blog.camera.org/archives/2011/05/poll_reveals_strong_support_fo.html)

Cohen:

"As Obama noted, occupation is 'humiliation.'”

Response:

If occupation is "humiliation", what then are suicide bombings? If occupation is "humiliation", what then are more than 10,000 mortar rounds, rockets and missiles fired from Gaza at Israeli towns and cities, after Israel unilaterally evacuated Gaza? If occupation is "humiliation", what then is the firing of an anti-tank missile by Hamas across the border last month at a yellow Israeli school bus?

Cohen:

"Obama got it right. The essential trade-off is Israeli security for Palestinian sovereignty. Each side must convince the other that peace will provide it.

Israeli security begins with a reconciled Fatah and Hamas committing irrevocably to nonviolence, with Palestinian acquiescence to a nonmilitarized state, and with Palestinian acceptance that a two-state peace ends all territorial claims."

Response:

Here it is, again in full bloom: The equivalent of "Iran is not totalitarian." Sorry, Roger, but the Hamas charter irrevocably binds this organization to violence, i.e. the rejection of a negotiated solution with Israel, a refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist, and a call for the murder of all Jews (not just Israelis). Indeed, Obama did get it right in his speech (http://www.haaretz.com/news/mideast-in-turmoil/full-transcript-of-obama-s-middle-east-speech-1.363035): "In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel - how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognise your right to exist."

Sorry if I don't waste more time on this twaddle.