This line from Roger Cohen’s latest op-ed - on his views on how to save Israel (and we recall how he tried to save Iranian Jewry) - which contains a lovely put-down of US President Barack Obama is worth highlighting:

"The rapid White House-to-wipe-out course of Middle Eastern diplomacy..."

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.


That is a geast quotation. He continues, however, and returns to form, asserting:


"Palestine can’t get born if the land for it keeps eroding..."

Wait just a second, there. Wasn’t that the very process Israel was forced to undergo for thirty years? Wasn’t losing land the path to Israel’s independence, unfortunately? What''s good for Israel is not good enough for Arabs? Let''s recall Mandate-era history:-

First, the 1919 borders of the Jewish National Home, proposed by moderate Chaim Weitzmann to the Versailles Peace Conference, were truncated.

Then in 1922, we lost TransJordan and a refugee from Saudi Arabia eventually managed to become a king.

In 1937, there was this partition plan, (no) thanks to the Peel Commision.

In 1938, there was another partition plan, named after Woodhead. (and here and here).  And yet another.

In 1944, Churchill was mulling another.

And in 1947, the UN recommended another.

None of which the Arabs accepted. Not one. For them, land wasn’t a factor unless we Jews got nothing.

During 90 years of conflict, territorial compromise has always been proposed as a solution but it has never worked.  No compromise was amenable to the Arabs. They rejected all the suggestions and border configurations.  Territorial compromise wasn''t and still isn’t the essence of this disingenuous nationalism called "Palestinianism."  For it is the negativism of Zionism.  If not for the Jews, would there be a "Palestinian Arab"?

And Cohen continues with examples of questionable punditry:


    "Netanyahu’s push for up-front Palestinian recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state” is a non-starter. The Palestine Liberation Organization has recognized Israel; it’s not going to get into the state’s nature. In reality the “Jewish state” opening gambit is an attempt to settle the Palestinian refugee issue ahead of discussion of other final-status questions like borders. That can’t work."


Mr. Cohen, if I may address you directly, but that''s the whole point.  If Israel doesn''t make that  a condition, there will be no Israel.  That''s a Pal. gambit to eradicate Israel demographically. You favor that?

You then state:


    "If there is enough momentum by the second half of next year to suggest Palestinian statehood is a train leaving the station, a majority of Palestinians in Gaza will board it. Then peace becomes a political dilemma for Hamas."


That, Mr. Cohen, is wrong. Gaza is Iranian, basically. They will not go along.  It will not be a political dilemma because politics doesn’t interest them. Religion does. In fact, they think they have a state already and now want to enlarge it for otherwise, why can’t Hamas and Fatah make up and be friends, if not “Palestinians”?

And finally, he says:

    "There will be no Palestinian state without East Jerusalem as its capital."


To echo Mahmoud Abbas, they can call what they want, but Jerusalem will not be divided and no Arab missile team will get to sit on the hills surrounding Israel’s capital.


Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this blog article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or viewpoint of The Jerusalem Post. Blog authors are NOT employees, freelance or salaried, of The Jerusalem Post.

Think others should know about this? Please share