There is no Sadat

Stop him before he writes again. Roger Cohen’s latest column, Clinton’s Middle East Pirouette, starts off badly:

The sparring between the United States and Israel has begun, and that’s a good thing. Israel’s interests are not served by an uncritical American administration. The Jewish state emerged less secure and less loved from Washington’s post-9/11 Israel-can-do-no-wrong policy.

At the time of 9/11, Israel had been under assault in the course of the so-called “Aqsa intifada” for nearly a year. The Aqsa intifada had resulted from seven years of acting as if Yasser Arafat could do no wrong. It was a period when Arafat and the PA received legitimacy, money, arms and territory and built a terror infrastructure with which to attack Israel. After Arafat rejected Ehud Barak’s offer in 2000, he launched the intifada using the resources he had received, uncritically over the previous seven years. Israel was condemned for fighting back. So at 9/11, Israel was less secure and less loved from President Clinton’s Arafat-can-do-wrong policy. Not as Cohen would have it.

From that start, Cohen goes on to other flights of fancy.

The whole desolate West Bank scene is punctuated with garrison-like settlements on hilltops. If you’re looking for a primer on colonialism, this is not a bad place to start.

Most Israelis never see this, unless they’re in the army. Clinton witnessed it. She was, I understand, troubled by the humiliation around her.

Desolate? Try punctuated with Arab-owned mansions! And let’s not forget, much of that “humiliation” is the result of Israel defending its population against terror.

Cohen’s also impressed by this.

Clinton also indicated an important shift on Hamas, which the State Department calls a terrorist group. While stressing that no funds would flow to Hamas “or any entity controlled by it,” she argued for keeping American options open on a possible Palestinian unity government between the moderate Fatah and Hamas.

So long as a unity government meets three conditions — renounces violence, recognizes Israel’s right to exist and abides by past agreements — the United States would be prepared to deal with it, including on $900 million in proposed aid, Clinton indicated. Washington does business with a Lebanese government in which Hezbollah controls 11 of 30 seats, although Hezbollah is also deemed a terrorist group.

As I would point out when a news article uses such weaselly language. No one “calls” or “deems” Hamas and Hezbollah terror groups. That’s what they are by definition. And while Cohen considers the American shift on Hamas important; it’s important for the wrong reason. Likely what we will see, is that if Hamas and Fatah agree to power sharing, the administration will conclude that Hamas has met the necessary conditions for engagement. Just like Clinton’s husband did in in the 90’s with Arafat. I think that Cohen knows this and that’s why it’s important. The conditions are a fig leaf. If Hamas and Fatah come to terms, the administration will happily accept that as proof of Hamas’s “moderation.”

Such a changed U.S. policy makes a lot more sense than the previous one, which insisted on Hamas itself — rather than any Palestinian unity government — meeting the three conditions. No peace can be made by pretending Hamas does not exist, which is why advancing Palestinian unity must be a U.S. priority.

This sensible shift will anger Israel, although it deals indirectly with Hamas through Egypt. Israel’s de jure stand on Hamas — that it must recognize Israel before any talks begin — is wildly at odds with Israel’s de facto methodology since 1948.

Actually, peace cannot be achieved by pretending that Hamas does not mean what it says. Cohen’s ludicrous formulation here is so patently false, it cannot be simple ignorance. He can’t use ignorance as an excuse when he is so motivated by malevolence towards Israel.

When Israel’s ignored threats – such as the one from Arafat and Fatah starting in 1993 – it assumes great risks. Recognition is a simple thing to demand. If Israel’s enemies cannot acknowledge its right to exist in a straightforward manner, why should we expect them to do anything more difficult that is required for peace?

So it’s a week in which I cheer Clinton, although her reference to “crippling sanctions” against Iran if the proposed rapprochement fails was a mistake. Sanctions haven’t worked and won’t.

Tehran will not come to the table if it sees Obama’s extended hand as just a deceptive prelude to “crippling” measures. My advice to Tehran: watch what Obama says. He’s driving Iran policy.

Let’s see what happened when President Obama reached out unconditionally to Iran. An American journalist was then convicted of espionage (though she had been arrested for purchasing alcohol) and Iran’s President Ahmadinejad led the UN in an orgy of antisemitic declarations. The generous approach proved a boon for Iran’s hardliners. But why does Cohen assume that it’s the United States that must show its good faith towards Iran? Why not require anything of Tehran? Is there any terrorist or tyrant who is not reasonable to Roger Cohen?

Obama’s doing it in a way that means the Israeli-American friction evident in Clinton’s remarks will be a theme of his first year in office. As Lee Hamilton, the president of the Woodrow Wilson Center, told me: “Initiatives are underway that show the United States is going to have some major differences with Israel.”

He also said Netanyahu is “a little more flexible than maybe he’s given credit for.”

Netanyahu as Begin the peacemaker? It’s not impossible. Nor is Obama to Tehran. Provided the president pushes on the two fronts at once.

This is so condescending to defy belief. Begin could make (a cold) peace because he had a Sadat to conclude a deal with. Who does Netanyahu have? Abbas, a Holocaust denier with no power? Meshaal, a terrorist living in Damascus? Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier on the world stage?

And, of course, Cohen’s idea that outreach to Iran is part of a peace strategy is absurd. Here’s Barry Rubin on the topic of Ahmadinejad’s acceptance of a two-state solution.

So in effect Ahmadinejad just said that he would never accept a two-state solution but why put that in clear words when the dumb Westerners can be left to interpret it as they wish.

Roger Cohen, dumb Westerner. I like that.

Israel Matzav addresses the point about “humiliation:”

I moved to Israel in 1991 and I live in Jerusalem not far from the former dividing lines between the eastern and western parts of the city, and between Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. When I moved to Israel – 24 years after Judea and Samaria had been liberated by the IDF – there were no road blocks between Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. The ‘Palestinians’ were free to cross the ‘green line’ at will and many of them did so daily to work at jobs within the ‘green line.’ Many Israelis used to travel to Bethlehem and Ramallah and other cities across the ‘green line’ to hunt for bargains. What changed everything was terrorism that took a new and dangerous turn in Israel during the post-Oslo period. And the first Israeli leader to place roadblocks between Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria was none other than that mythical peacemaker (and ‘friend’ of Clinton’s philandering husband), Yitzchak Rabin.

via memeorandum.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.