Tough Love For Israel Means Always Having To Say You're Sorry (Updated)

Roger Cohen of The New York Times offers an op-ed this morning, urging Try Tough Love, Hillary with Israel when she assumes the post of Secretary of State. Cohen refers to an interview Olmert gave to Yedioth Ahronoth, later translated for The New York Review of Books, where he condemns Israel's policies.

Cohen writes:

Those policies have been encouraged by the Bush administration, whose war on terror was embraced by the Israeli government as a means to frame Israel’s confrontation with the Palestinians as part of the same struggle. No matter that Al Qaeda and the Palestinian national movement are distinct. The facile conflation got Bush in lock step with whatever Israel did.

Talk about facile conflation: Al Qaeda and the Palestinian national movement may be distinct, but Al Qaeda and Hamas--not so much. 

And let's not forget Fatah. 

For that matter, let's not forget that those Kassam rockets being fired at Israel from Gaza did so when before the Hamas-Fatah split when Abbas was in charge. 

And while we are at it, let's not forget Abbas himself, whom Cohen implies Olmert has let down as a peace partner--after countless 'confidence building measures'. That would be the same Abbas that Joel Mowbray noted in an article in March made a number of un-peace partner statements:

(1) "In an interview with Jordanian newspaper Al-Dastur last week, Mr. Abbas spoke with pride of violence he had waged in his past, suggested that terrorism could start anew in the future, and essentially backed away from repeated statements that he “recognizes” Israel's right to exist. "

(2) "Appearing much less careful than when speaking in English, Mr. Abbas last week told the Arabic-language Al-Dastur, “I was honored to be the one to shoot the first bullet in 1965,” the year his organization, Fatah, initiated terrorism against Israel. (Transcript provided by PMW.) The renowned “moderate” Palestinian leader then explained his pride in “having taught resistance to many in this area and around the world ... including Hezbollah, who were trained in [PLO] camps.”

At least Mr. Abbas stated an opposition to terrorism, noting, “Now we are against armed conflict.” His reasoning, though, is what troubles Congress: “because we are unable.” Possibly hinting at a shift in strategies, he immediately added, “In the future stages, things may be different.”"

(3) "Most concerning to Congress, however, was a statement that at first blush might seem relatively innocuous. Discussing the question of whether or not Hamas must “recognize” Israel, Mr. Abbas explained, “I don't demand that the Hamas movement recognize Israel. I only demanded of the [Palestinian] national unity government that would work opposite Israel in recognition of it.”"

(4) "Defending his “recognition” of Israel on TV network Al-Arabiya in October 2006, he explained that it was more a practical reality than a meaningful political position. He cited as an example the need for the PA to get $500 million from Israel: “The Palestinian finance minister has to come to an agreement with the Israeli finance minister about the transfer of the money. So how can he make an agreement with him if [the PA finance minister] does not recognize him? So I do not demand of Hamas nor any other to recognize Israel. But from the government that works with Israelis in day to day life, yes.”"

Perhaps Cohen will note in point (2) the not-so-facile conflation between Hezbollah and Abbas' PLO. Does Cohen expect Israel to continue making unilateral concessions towards peace, or does he really think that there has been a bi-lateral give and take going on? He doesn't say.

All that Mr. Cohen does is toss in the obligatory nod to Palestinian obligations:

For that, Palestinians must also compromise, especially on the right of return, and they must renounce terrorism. Return must essentially mean return to a new and viable Palestinian state.

So much for the Palestinian Arabs. No doubt Cohen is waiting for the appearance in The New York Review of Books of Abbas' own mea culpa. Both Cohen--and Abbas--should only live so long.

As Jonathan Tobin, Executive Editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent notes in response to Nicholas Kristof's similarly entitled Tough Love For Israel?:

For the "tough love" crowd, only Israel has the ability to engender peace. Palestinian intentions, and their culture of terror and hatred for Israel and Jews, are mere details to be ignored.

If only these people cared as much for Israel's life as they claim to care for her soul.

UPDATE: Emanuele Ottolenghi addresses Cohen's op-ed this way:

The thing is that, like Olmert, Cohen apparently believes that because Israel will inevitably win all wars, its national security is actually not at stake. But the question Olmert should have asked–the question one should always ask–is ‘”What if Israel were to lose? Even just once?” Once the answer to that question is formulated in detail, one begins to realize that Israel is not such a bully, that militarism is not its most distinctive trait, and that the risks Cohen would want Israel to take are not things a friend should ask of a friend. They are terms of surrender–the one thing Israel has never agreed to do and that people like Cohen continue to fault it for.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Roger Cohen.