Mr. Cohen is an ass.

Hmmm. So America was a mistake too? We should curl up and let the terrorists and illegal immigrants destroy us as well?

I bet Mr. Cohen has two affirmative answers to these questions, which should say it all.

However, that's no reason to fire someone. It's a free country, and if he and the WAPO want to publish such drivel, and complain about their dwindling subscriptions, so be it.

Just sit there and wait until the terrorists get bored with killing them?

What a completely ignorant asshole.

That is the most absurd argument I've heard on the subject of subject of Israel. Hunker down? Idiot.

Here's a literate vivisection of the article:

http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/2006/07/18/richard-cohens-article-isnt-as-bad-as-it-first-appears/

Don't let the title fool you.

Mr. Cohen's ignorance of history is abysmal. The Arabs were already murdering Jews in Hebron in 1929, 19 years before there was an Israeli state. Had the Arabs accepted the UN's partition plan in 1948, there would have been two states living in piece. Yet, in his warped thinking, Richard Cohen absolves the Arabs of any responsibility for the current situation. Who chose war in 1948? Certainly not the nascent state of Israel.

Mr. Cohen knows mistakes; just ask his mother.

'spose if we all went to Cohen's house and started throwing stones at it and his family that he'd simply "hunker down"?

Seems worth a try....

What the ^&&^%%%^^& is the racist b&*(&& pretending to know?

Ass$^%$

A summary of Richard Cohen's article (Maybe a bit too blunt for some):

"Why don't you Jews just do everyone a favor ahead and die?"

A summary of Richard Cohen's article (Maybe a bit too blunt for some):

"Why don't you Jews just do everyone a favor and go ahead and die?"

As an Is supporter, I am a little tired of the American Jewish support for the liberal Dems. It is time for them to send a strong message to the Dems at the polls if they care about their compatriots in Israel.
Hope that these non-sense will wake them up sooner.

Mr. Cohen is an ass.

Well, possibly, but he has a point. It does no good to "condemn" people who don't understand that they are acting inappropiately, and it does no good to talk about the condemnation to others who don't care.

To a large degree, diplo-speak is fart-gas. It's why we publically tell Israel to use "restraint" while privately telling them to kick ass; it's why Arafat sent the US a sympathy card after 9-11; it's why France said "we're all Americans today" after ditto.

The only purpose it serves is to hornswoggle the gullible into believing fantasy, such as: that the US enjoyed any more world favor on 9-12 than we did on 9-10 or today.

"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.
"

So in other words hope the bully gets distracted and stops beating the snot out of you while you cower in a fetal position. Ummm no thanks.

The best thing the US can do is just let Isreal go. Even if Syria sticks its nose in just lete Israel pound the snot out of them. I notice noone has suggested that Hezballah simply curl up into a ball while Isreal pounds them. Gee why not?

As long as Iran stays out of it the US should. If we get involved then we have Bush Cowboy diplomacy, we have the US bullying folks, The US being led into war by Bush's lies, his incompetence, his failure at diplomacy, etc etc etc (insert your favorite liberal mime here).

The smartest thing for Bush to do is say "Hey let the UN handle it but we will veto anything that is short of Israel's demands being met or that we dont veiw as a permanent solution to the problem"

Bush should tell the UN that if they want to criticize our statement above then he will respond by pointing out that if the UN had enforced their UN resolution against Hezballah then this wouldnt have happened in the first place.

This will serve to show the world a few things

1. Things are a lot tougher to fix if the US isnt involved.

2. The UN is totally useless and cant solve anything.

3. That it is easy to throw stones at those who attempt to find real solutions rather than just talk about things but it is hard as hell to actually find solutions and no matter the solution you come up with not everyone will be happy.

4. That the UN is trying to protect people who throw rockets indiscriminately at civilians and try to punish those who are simply trying to protect themselves.

If Syria gets involved China and Russia will hem and haw and make some noise about escalation but as long as Iran stays out of it their moaning will just amount to jackasses braying. China and Russia could give a wit about Syria other than the if it causes the US troubles. They will give them moral support but when push comes to shove Syria will be going against Israel by itself and that is a fight they cant win.

If Syria uses any chemical weapons they are reported to have it will turn world opinion agianst them even further. And remember the detereent against using WMD is the use of WMD against the original user. And Israel has nukes. I am sure that if they are subject to chemical attacks they will use at least one to show that they wont stand for it. And they will tell the rest of the world to go screw themselves.

"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.
"

So in other words hope the bully gets distracted and stops beating the snot out of you while you cower in a fetal position. Ummm no thanks.

The best thing the US can do is just let Isreal go. Even if Syria sticks its nose in just lete Israel pound the snot out of them. I notice noone has suggested that Hezballah simply curl up into a ball while Isreal pounds them. Gee why not?

As long as Iran stays out of it the US should. If we get involved then we have Bush Cowboy diplomacy, we have the US bullying folks, The US being led into war by Bush's lies, his incompetence, his failure at diplomacy, etc etc etc (insert your favorite liberal mime here).

The smartest thing for Bush to do is say "Hey let the UN handle it but we will veto anything that is short of Israel's demands being met or that we dont veiw as a permanent solution to the problem"

Bush should tell the UN that if they want to criticize our statement above then he will respond by pointing out that if the UN had enforced their UN resolution against Hezballah then this wouldnt have happened in the first place.

This will serve to show the world a few things

1. Things are a lot tougher to fix if the US isnt involved.

2. The UN is totally useless and cant solve anything.

3. That it is easy to throw stones at those who attempt to find real solutions rather than just talk about things but it is hard as hell to actually find solutions and no matter the solution you come up with not everyone will be happy.

4. That the UN is trying to protect people who throw rockets indiscriminately at civilians and try to punish those who are simply trying to protect themselves.

If Syria gets involved China and Russia will hem and haw and make some noise about escalation but as long as Iran stays out of it their moaning will just amount to jackasses braying. China and Russia could give a wit about Syria other than the if it causes the US troubles. They will give them moral support but when push comes to shove Syria will be going against Israel by itself and that is a fight they cant win.

If Syria uses any chemical weapons they are reported to have it will turn world opinion agianst them even further. And remember the detereent against using WMD is the use of WMD against the original user. And Israel has nukes. I am sure that if they are subject to chemical attacks they will use at least one to show that they wont stand for it. And they will tell the rest of the world to go screw themselves.

I think what is happening in the Lebanon now is a massacre supported by US, Britian and Germany. I have the same question put to Mr.Blair to the readers:

"Imagine if Lebanon destroyed every bridge in Israel, blew up the international airport, blockaded the ports, severed every arterial road, ordered people to leave their homes and then bombed them to pieces when they did," Galloway said.

"Do you think any Western leader would utter the words 'Lebanon has a right to defend itself'?" he asked

original article from http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0607196327172442.htm

I bet his next column is a long "poor me" about the mail he receives about this column. He'll focus on the insults he'll undoubtably get and studiously ignore substantive counterpoints.

Like Andrew Sullivan.

Richard Cohen has officially joined the ranks of some other famous Jews in recent history:

Lazar Kaganovich - Stalin's right hand man up to his death
Rudolf Kastner - Zionist leader who refused to help Hungary's Jews escape the Nazis, assuring that 600,000 would be gassed.

Israel should turn Iran into a sheet of glass at it's earliest convenience !!

Posted by: Brett at July 19, 2006 10:52 AM

Another moral equivalence argument.

Do you realize you are stuck in 'third' grade?

Do you realize this forum is for adults?

Imagine, thinking that Israel isn't always right and has a large part in it's problems. Horrors! Can't ever say anything about Holy Israel. Can't ever suggest that maybe it wasn't the greatest idea to plop a country right in the middle east and drive it's inhabitants out! No, if you do you're an anti-semite! It gets so frustrating to see so many people that just don't get it. There's plenty of blame to go around on BOTH sides and the only thing that will stabalize the region is both groups losing their egos and the creation of an economically secure palestinian state. Continuing to pretend that Israel is just this "poor widdle country" being picked on is nonsense. Continuing to pretend that the Arabs in the area don't have valid grievances against Israel is more nonsense.

The Lebanese made a choice: accept and harbor Hezbollah or risk a civil war. Fair enough. But they did so knowing full well that Hezbollah was first, last and always an anti-Israeli terrorist group. Now they are paying the price for their accommodation with the devil. In the long run they would have better off with a civil war, driving the extremist out or to death. Instead the Christians have been driven out for the most part.
The best possible outcome in the long term would be for Israel to invade Lebanon, crush Hezbollah, cripple Syria and expel the remaining Shia/Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Then encourage the Christian Lebanese overseas to come home. Do the Lebanese Christians love Israel? Most emphatically no. Will they want to have good friendly relationship with Israel? Most likely no. But they won't be attacking Israel either.

Israel by far the most accomplished state in the middle east is a mistake? In one year she has contributed more to the advancement of science, medicine and technology than the entire Arab world. Every year for the last 58 years. Israel is not the mistake, the Arab world is the mistake. It is time for the Arabs to quit the Middle East and North Africa and return the land they have stolen in the 1400 years to the indigenous peoples like the Kurds and the Copts among others and return to their Arabian pile of sand.

Cohen thinks that by groveling he will be considered the good Jew and be spared. As if the Islamofacist terrorist bomber makes distinctions between "good" Jews and bad Jews. No doubt he would have been a Kapo in the camps. Hoping to killed last. A complete POS.

It's this type of arrogance that is the reason why nothing will ever change in the middle east until one side is completely destroyed.

andre,
yes, a two state solution would have been nice. too bad arafat rejected it. look, most people know and understand that all sides bear some responsibility. I include the UN and the British in that all sides, btw. But it would be hard to argue that the palestinian/arab side does not bear the larger share of blame, especially for the recent violence.

Andre, grow up. There were nearly a million Jews in the Middle East before Israel existed. Those Jews lived under Arab governments that abused them, restricted their lives and work, made them second class citizens, and barely allowed them to live at all. The creation of Israel was justified for that alone. I do hope you understand the history of the region. Prior to 1920, there were no Arab states in the region. Egypt was the only nominally independent Arab state, and it was under British control until 1922. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq were all created out of provinces of the dismantled Ottoman Empire. They are products of Europeans drawing lines on a map, not of "national" aspriations. These states were created first of all to give the Europeans control over the region, and secondly to give a form of self-determination to the Arab inhabitants of the regions. But what about the Jewish inhabitants of the region? Well, Isreal came along and gave THEM a state. The European diaspora of Jews and the Holocaust are secondary to that. Jews deserve a state in their native region no less than Arabs do. There are 22 Arab states now. We do NOT need a 23rd.

There will not be another Palestinian state. One exists now, Jordan, and it is sufficient to absorb the remaining Arabs living on Jewish land. After this little theatrical production this week, Israel is not going to allow the Arabs to have a state whose borders are 10 miles form TA and Jerusalem. Deal with it.

Can't ever suggest that maybe it wasn't the greatest idea to plop a country right in the middle east and drive it's inhabitants out!

Under what circumstances were the "inhabitants" driven out?

Did the emigrating European Jews bully their way into Palestine? No...

Did the Palestinian Arabs gladly sell land to the emigrating Jews? Largely, yes...

But ... did the "inhabitants" get driven out?

Yes.

So what happened that drove them out?

Could it be ... that those inhabitants got six nations to help them wage a war against the Jews in Israel, which they lost, and which meant that Israel can take land?

Continuing to pretend that Israel is just this "poor widdle country" being picked on is nonsense.

True; they are a rich widdle country being picked on.

Continuing to pretend that the Arabs in the area don't have valid grievances against Israel is more nonsense.

What is nonsense, Andre, is pretending that the Arab grievances are not due almost entirely to their absolutist, fanatical, black-n-white worldview. This was not imposed upon them by Jews, but by themselves.

They started wars; they lost -- usually very very badly. And they're petulantly demanding do-overs. This is not a playground even though the pal-arabs are acting like children, this is the real world.

Talk about arrogance. While we're at it, give East Prussia back to the Germans, and Burgundy back to the Burgundians.

And Scotland back to my ancestors. I'll take the Firth of Forth if you don't mind, just because it's alliterative.

Perhaps Andre can expain why a "Palestinian" State is desirable but not a Kurdish State? Or a Coptic State? Or any number of States in the Middle East and North Africa comprised of the native inhabitants before the Arabs conquered and forcibly converted the local peoples to Islam?

Perhaps Andre can tell us if his great great grandfathers land was stolen and he recovered a large part of it, is that stealing?

On 6/6/67 there were Jordanians in the West Bank and Egyptians in Gaza. Time to end the failed "Palestinian" freakshow experiment and revert to the status quo ante.

There will not be another Palestinian state. One exists now, Jordan, and it is sufficient to absorb the remaining Arabs living on Jewish land.

Hahahahaha. And when the Palestinians living in Jordan start behaving in Jordan the way they behave in Gaza and the West Bank, then Jordan will do to them what Jordan did in 1970 -- which is what Israel did to them in '48 and '67.

But isn't it ironic that when the Jordanians decimated the Palestinians in September of 1970, the Palestinians took umbrage, created the "Black September" movement to exact revenge for Jordan obliterating them, and one of the first things Black September did was kill Israelis in Munich?

...because it's all the fault of the Jews. Naturally.

Brett,

Galloway? Islamic Republic News? The bastions of unbiased reporting and editorial.

In reference to what you quoted:

"Imagine if Lebanon destroyed every bridge in Israel, blew up the international airport, blockaded the ports, severed every arterial road, ordered people to leave their homes and then bombed them to pieces when they did," Galloway said.

Correct me of I'm wrong, but did Israel really destroy every bridge, blockage every port, and sever every arterial artery in Lebanon?

As far as ordering people to leave their homes: Context is important isn't it? Israel did not demand people leave their homes, (something apparently Hezbollah has been trying to stop for reasons that we know) Israel strongly suggested through leaflets that maybe it'd be a good idea to evacuate the immediate area because bombing was going to be taking place in the vicinity.

They wouldn't be dealing with these leaflets and this bombing if they didn't allow Hezbollah dig it's claws into Lebanon and flourish. Now they find themselves as unwilling human shields for the terrorists.

As I've heard said, if you sleep with the dogs expect to get fleas.

"Do you think any Western leader would utter the words 'Lebanon has a right to defend itself'?" he asked

Well given my above notes, it's pretty clear that there is no analogy.

Andre said "It's this type of arrogance that is the reason why nothing will ever change in the middle east until one side is completely destroyed."

FINALLY YOU SAY SOMETHING SMART!!!!!!!!!!!

Hezballah wants Israel destroyed. They dont want peace. They dont want a ceasefire. They want ISRAEL DESTROYED. Dont you get it??? Have you ever heard anyone from Hezballah say "we can live in peace with Israel".

Andre go read the poem the Hangman. Who do you think Hezballah will go after if Israel just up and dies? Do you think that they will simply go away or do you think they will go after US??

Stop helping the hangman. Stop being part of the problem. And stop being STUPID. Israel has gave in to every demand over the years except to go find a hole, crawl in and die and it hasnt brought peace yet. Their enemies have shown time and time again they wont stop until Israel is destroyed. Well if I have to choose between Israel suriving or Hezballah I will take Israel. If you love Hezballah so much why dont you go join them and rail against Israel with your buds.

What I know is this. Each side has what they consider to be valid reasons for disliking the other and continuing to engage in violence against the other side. My problem is pretending that Israel is some innocent little country that has never done it's share of dirty deeds. As long as Israel supporters continue to act this way, these actions will continue and more Israelis will die, and more Arabs will die. The SMART way is to concede that BOTH SIDES have sins to atone for and to try to amicably reach a mutual settlement instead of railing on about how Israel is "justified" in whatever actions it takes.

Andre,
I will believe your rhetoric if people like you will go to Israel to be the human shields for the Is women/children against the Hezbollah/Hamas terrorists while the Is negotiate with them about the terms of Is destruction.

Andre:

My problem is pretending that Israel is some innocent little country that has never done it's share of dirty deeds.

I can see where that would be a problem, however, if anyone had said that could you point it out?

America has done it's dirty deeds, just as every other country in the world to date, does this mean they cannot be right?

The SMART way is to concede that BOTH SIDES have sins to atone for and to try to amicably reach a mutual settlement instead of railing on about how Israel is "justified" in whatever actions it takes.

No, that is not the smart way, that is the historical way...and it's never worked. The reason why is, and yes we'll have to repeat it again because it's important: One side (or all sides more precisely) doesn't want an agreement un