Roger Cohen, "Israel’s Bloody Status Quo": Sexist!

Roger Cohen does not speak Hebrew or Arabic, and his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Israel’s Bloody Status Quo" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/opinion/roger-cohen-israels-bloody-status-quo.html?ref=opinion&_r=0) is written from London, but why should that prevent him from writing yet another risible opinion piece concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict. After all, he spent the greater part of 2009 informing us from Tehran that Iran is "not totalitarian," while almost entirely ignoring Iran's oppression and murder of women, homosexuals, Kurds, Baha'is, Sunni Muslims and political dissidents.

Today, Cohen would have us know:

"What Israel wants is the status quo (minus Hamas rockets). Israel is the Middle East’s status quo power par excellence. It seeks a calm Gaza under Hamas control, a divided Palestinian movement with Fatah running the West Bank, a vacuous 'peace process' to run down the clock, and continued prosperity. Divide and rule. Hamas is useful to Israel as long as it is quiescent."

Needless to say, Cohen makes certain not to mention that in 2008, when Israeli Prime Minister Olmert offered Palestinian Authority President Abbas an independent state along the 1967 lines with agreed upon land swaps and Palestinian control of east Jerusalem, Abbas refused. Cohen also ignores the fact that several years earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Barak similarly offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and tear down 63 Israeli settlements. In exchange for the settlements that would remain part of Israel, Barak said he would increase the size of Gaza by a third. Barak also agreed to Palestinian control of much of East Jerusalem, which would become Palestine's capital, and Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount. Arafat, however, also refused.

Cohen continues to write concerning the current war between Israel and Hamas:

"None of this is edifying. Much is abhorrent: indiscriminate Hamas rockets on Israel, Israeli killing of Palestinian civilians in 'collateral damage.' Yet I find myself short on moral outrage. It is all so familiar, a recurrent curse. It is a sham fight, and so doubly inexcusable. The Jews and Arabs of the Holy Land are led by men too small to effect change. Shed a tear, shed a thousand, it makes no difference."

What isn't Cohen telling us? First, he makes a point of ignoring the fact that the death toll in Gaza, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters, is less than 200. Needless to say, every civilian casualty is a tragedy, but consider how the US, the UK and Afghan government forces have killed a total of some 6,500 innocent Afghan civilians in recent years (see: http://www.thenation.com/afghanistan-database). Are the US and the UK also "led by men too small to effect change"?

Although approximately 1,000 rockets, missiles and mortar shells have been fired from Gaza at Israeli civilian centers over the past week, the number of casualties in Gaza has remained low because Israel has refrained from attacking Hamas's rocket arsenals, which are located under high-rise apartment buildings. Any attack on such an arsenal would involve a huge number of civilian deaths.

Israel is "led by men too small to effect change"? Cohen fails to observe that Israel's parliament has a higher proportion of women than America's Congress. Is Israel also led by women too small to effect change?

And then there is indeed the small matter of the Hamas charter, which calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis. Seemingly unbeknownst to Cohen, it is difficult to reach a peace arrangement with an enemy that is intent upon genocide.

But heck, why should any of this matter to Roger Cohen, who is far away from the rockets in distant London?

Thomas Friedman, "Israel’s Big Question": The Mustachioed Emperor Has No Clothes

A recent New York Observer article entitled "The Tyranny and Lethargy of the Times Editorial Page" (http://observer.com/2014/02/the-tyranny-and-lethargy-of-the-times-editorial-page/#axzz2su9y1r4t) by Ken Kurson, recently caused something of a sensation by highlighting the dichotomy between the excellent newsroom reporting of the Times versus the irrelevance, stupidity and lack of originality of its editorial page. Regarding Friedman, the article tells us:

"Another Times reporter brought up Mr. Friedman, unsolicited, toward the end of a conversation that was generally positive about the editorial page: 'I never got a note from Andy or anything like that. But I will say, regarding Friedman, there’s the sense that he’s on cruise control now that he’s his own brand. And no one is saying, ‘Hey, did you see the latest Friedman column?’ in the way they’ll talk about ‘Hey, Gail [Collins] was really funny today.’'

Asked if this stirring resentment toward the editorial page might not just be garden variety news vs. edit stuff or even the leanings of a conservative news reporter toward a liberal editorial page, one current Times staffer said, 'It really isn’t about politics, because I land more to the left than I do to the right. I just find it …'

He paused for a long time before continuing and then, unprompted, returned to Mr. Friedman. 'I just think it’s bad, and nobody is acknowledging that they suck, but everybody in the newsroom knows it, and we really are embarrassed by what goes on with Friedman. I mean anybody who knows anything about most of what he’s writing about understands that he’s, like, literally mailing it in from wherever he is on the globe. He’s a travel reporter. A joke. The guy gets $75,000 for speeches and probably charges the paper for his first-class airfare.'"

Friedman is a "travel reporter" and a "joke"? How can this be? Obama reads him!

Well, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Israel’s Big Question" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/opinion/friedman-israels-big-question.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), Friedman declares:

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, not without reason, is asking the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the “nation state of the Jewish people,” confirming that if Israel cedes them a state in the West Bank, there will be two-states-for-two-peoples. But, for Netanyahu to get an answer to that question, he will have to give an answer to a question Israelis have been wrestling with, and avoiding, ever since the 1967 war reconnected them with the heartland of ancient Israel, in the West Bank, known to Jews as Judea and Samaria. And that is:

'What is the nation state of the Jewish people?'

Kerry, by steadily making the answer to that question unavoidable, has set the whole Israeli political system into a roiling debate, with some ministers shrilly attacking Kerry and slamming Netanyahu for even putting the question on the table — as if the status quo were sustainable and just hunky-dory."

Of course, Friedman again makes a point of ignoring the fact that according to none other than Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, Israeli settlements have been built on only some 1.1% of the West Bank (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/erekat-olmert-offered-palestinians-territorial-equivalent-of-west-bank-1.393484). Friedman also makes certain not to mention that in 2008, when Israeli Prime Minister Olmert offered Palestinian Authority President Abbas an independent state along the 1967 lines with agreed upon land swaps and Palestinian control of east Jerusalem, Abbas refused.

Several years earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Barak similarly offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and tear down 63 Israeli settlements. In exchange for the settlements that would remain part of Israel, Barak said he would increase the size of Gaza by a third. Barak also agreed to Palestinian control of much of East Jerusalem, which would become Palestine's capital, and Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount. Arafat, however, also refused.

How does Friedman write an op-ed about Israeli intransigence without mentioning the Barak and Olmert peace proposals?

Friedman is indeed a "joke" and a poor one at that.

Will Israel Evacuate the West Bank?

I received yesterday an excellent comment from "Anonymous" in response to "The New York Times Would 'Prod' Israel", and I would like to answer by way of a blog entry.

Anonymous wrote:

I believe "prod" as in "stimulate or persuade". I agree that acceptance is a pre-requisite, but look at the map of Israel's settlements 20 years ago and today. It makes it hard to argue against the idea that Israel's intention is to take over all of Palestine.

Thank you again, Anonymous. My response:

"Prod" as in "stimulate" or "persuade"? Perhaps. The Times could also have used "urge" or "encourage", but they didn't. Equally informative was the online publication yesterday of op-eds by Cohen and Goldstone, both known for their hostility toward Israel, without contrary opinion. I should note that I was subsequently informed by someone very senior at The Times that this occurred only online and that Cohen was not published in the print version (he only appeared in the International Herald Tribune).

More to the point, however, concerning an Israeli "takeover" of "all of Palestine":

- A majority of Israelis favor the evacuation of the settlements. The Jewish Quarter of the Old City, from which Jews were expelled in 1948, where centuries old synagogues were leveled to the ground in 1948, and home to the Wailing Wall which was off limits to Jews until 1967, is not going to be evacuated. Also, to evacuate the entranceway to Jerusalem is to create a sniper's alley that would isolate the city.

- All of Sinai, including all Israeli settlements, was evacuated by Prime Minister Begin of the Likud in exchange for peace with Egypt.

- Prime Minister Barak offered to evacuate all of Gaza and most of the West Bank (Arafat was offered Israeli land for "settlements" not part of the package) in exchange for peace. Arafat rejected the offer.

- Prime Minister Sharon of the Likud unilaterally evacuated Gaza and all its settlements. "In exchange", thousands of missiles, rockets and mortars were fired at civilian targets in Israel. This resulted in the closure of Israel to Gazan workers.

- Olmert again offered Abbas the West Bank in exchange for peace. Abbas refused.

Is Israel still ready to evacuate the West Bank in exchange for peace? I believe that Netanyahu is prepared to do this. I would note that Mike Oren, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., whom I know, is no right-winger and favors compromise; it is no accident that he was selected as ambassador. But first there must be acceptance by Fatah of Israel's right to exist.

One further word concerning "Palestine": In 1921, 77% of the Palestinian Mandate was given by Churchill to Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who became emir of Transjordan (today Jordan). I am not alluding to this fact in order to justify continued settlement of Jews in the West Bank; I strongly favor evacuation of the West Bank, including exchange of territories as necessary, provided the other side is willing to accept Israel's right to exist. I am saying that a majority of Jordan's population consists of Palestinians, and ultimately this problem will resurface. I still remember "Black September".

But let me take this a step further: I would allow the Arab villages in Israel, which border the Palestinian Authority, to hold referendums and decide whether they prefer to be annexed by the Palestinian Authority. Would they be willing to give up their civil liberties, political parties, prosperity, medical care, social security? I often have coffee with persons living in these villages and can conclusively predict the outcome of the vote.