I’m having trouble pinpointing Richard Cohen’s exact point in this column. He seems to be saying that Israel is in a perilous position just because it Is, and it Is where it is, so its best recourse if it wants to survive as a nation is to hunker down and stop being so aggressive to the neighbors. Israel, he says, should have noticed by now that aggression comes back to bite it.
If he’s saying what I think he’s saying I agree, generally, but his reasoning is murky, and righties don’t seem to have gotten past the first paragraph:
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.
Righties, who have below-average reading comprehension skills at best, have variously interpreted this column, thus: Cohen says Israel should curl up and die; Richard Cohen wants Israel to be bombed out of existence; Cohen is a Jew who hates Jews; Richard Cohen is stupid; Richard Cohen is ignorant; etc.
A couple of months ago Mr. Cohen complained that liberals were mean to him. I’d hate to see the emails he’s getting from righties now.
See also Matt Yglesias:
“Israel itself is a mistake . . . 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” is a bit too quick and easy. … The “mistake” here would be Arab rejection of the UN partition plan which, at the time, I’m sure looked to them like a really clever piece preventative security gambit but obviously turned out to be a total fiasco. The lesson would be something about not pushing things too far, not rejecting reasonable favorable compromise proposals, not doing things with giant downside risk, etc.
Yes, that’s closer to it, I think. Whether that’s what Richard Cohen had in mind is hard to say, however.
For once, I disagree with Yglesias almost completely.
a) He makes the point that Jews in Europe were being persecuted, which they were, so they had good reason to go to Israel. IIRC, when the idea of a Jewish Homeland was gaining steam in late 19th early 20th century, several locations were considered, including one in South America, and one that Stalin tried his best to create in Russia. I can see why they wouldn’t want to trust Stalin, and why they decided only Israel itself would do, but in retrospect, I do think it was a mistake. They should have chosen a different location.
b) The Partition Plan, at the time it was presented, looked like an insanely bad deal to the Palestinians. And it was. It was by NO means a “reasonable favorable compromise proposal”. Rejecting it was not gamesmanship or luck-pushing on the part of the Palestinians, it was simply a really, really bad deal for them. In retrospect, they should have accepted it, absolutely.
So … I agree with Yglesias that rejection of the Paertition Plan was a mistake, but I disagree with him that it was MORE of a mistake than siting the Jewish Homeland in Israel was. In both cases, the motivations of the people who made the mistake are perfectly, completely understandable and reasonable … and woul have had a profoundly positive impact on the history of the region if the mistake had not been made.
-me
(went away to read the Cohen column before actually posting this, and I actually agree with almost everything Cohen says. It will be rough on the Israeli people, but the best thing Israel could possibly do is NOT respond to violence with violence — long term, that’s the best strategy to gain security for Israel — short term, it’ll hurt so much I doubt any politician under a democracy could implement any such policy)
Ian — FYI, one of the nice doggie’s reading-impaired commenters attributed your comments to me. I would have added a correction, but the nice doggie requires registration to comment.
Given the significance of Jerusalem and the Temple to Judaism, I suspect the Jews would not have been satisfied with any other homeland. Keeping it doesn’t seem to be getting any easier for them, though.
Dammit, apologies Maha … I created a throw-away e-m,ail account just to log in ,,,
should be here, unless they delete it
I agree with you that the jews would probably not have accepted any other homeland. Doesn’t make it any less a mistake, IMHO.
-me
Richard Cohen is right on target. How could the western powers carve out a separatist jewish state that has consistently brought in outside european jewish immigrants, displaced palestinians with an equal right to the land and pursued a land grabbing settlement expansion in the name of security, without expecting strife?
They deserve any attacks that they receive.
60% of Israel’s population is not European. 700,000 Jews were made into refugees in1948, the same number as the original Palestinian refugees. The mistake that you and Richard Cohen make is that Israel is not a bunch of European refugees, but Jews from all over. Anyway, there is an Israel, curling up and dieing is not an option. You lefties need to come up with something better.
60% of Israel’s population is not European.
I believe Mr. Cohen was talking about 1948, not now.
The mistake that you and Richard Cohen make is that Israel is not a bunch of European refugees, but Jews from all over.
I know that, and I strongly suspect Richard COHEN (wink; nudge) does, also.
Anyway, there is an Israel, curling up and dieing is not an option. You lefties need to come up with something better.
Neither Richard Cohen (with whom, please note, I often disagree) nor I have suggested Israel should curl up and die. You righties need to learn to read. Oh, and think.