Jewish-British academic Tony Judt published an essay in 2003 that garnered some attention. Championing himself as a brave intellectual pioneer, he promotes the idea of a “binational” state in the Land of Israel, one in which all Jews and all Arabs and all others live under the same polity. Judt is ashamed of Israel, so he says: “The depressing truth is that Israel today is bad for the Jews.” And so, disillusioned by the Zionist ideal, he turns from idealism to what would politely be called “wishful thinking.” (I also highly recommend Leon Wieseltier’s response to Judt.)
Jewish-British journalist Roger Cohen is also ashamed of Israel. And he also engages in wishful thinking when discussing Israel. Take his assessment of Hamas and Hizballah: “But the equating of Iran with terror today is simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah have evolved into broad political movements widely seen as resisting an Israel over-ready to use crushing force.” If we follow any of the definitions given by the UN, for example, then, yes — Hamas and Hizballah are terrorist organizations.
But Cohen has always seemed to assume the most benign of intentions on the part of Iran and its proxies. Here is an excerpt of a conversation he had with Los Angeles Rabbi David Wolpe last month:
Wolpe: Let’s say Hezbollah had the firepower of Israel and Israel had the firepower of Hezbollah. Let’s say Hamas had the firepower of Israel and Israel had rockets … What do you think would happen to Israel were the balance of power reversed? And the reason I’m asking that is because Iran is pursuing means by which they could actually in the end be more powerful than Israel so it’s not just hypothetical. If Iran gets several nuclear bombs, they have much more territory and they could be more powerful than Israel. What would happen if Hamas and Hezbollah — which are Iran’s proxies — had that power tomorrow?
Cohen: I don’t know what would happen.
Of course he does. No one who is intelligent enough to write for The New York Times can claim ignorance on this. But Cohen cannot answer truthfully because to do so would be to admit that Hamas’ motives in talking about “ceasefires” are less than angelic. It would be to admit that Hamas and Hizballah are not interested in this or that hilltop, but in murder.
Keep this facade in mind when reading his latest NYT column.
