Roger Cohen Lights It Up at The Times

As we know from Ryan Lizza's profile of Rahm Emanuel in The New Yorker, the Obama White House has been reading New York Times columnist Paul Krugman closely in recent weeks. One can only hope someone in the administration has been paying similarly close attention to of one of Krugman's colleagues at the Times, Roger Cohen.

Cohen, who writes mostly about foreign affairs, is no radical. Two years ago, he wrote a column chiding the left for turning the word "neocon" into a pejorative, the fault for which lay with Moveon.Org and Matthew Yglesias, not Richard Perle or William Kristol. But Cohen has been striking a different note lately, most recently yesterday, when he published a superb editorial about Britain's decision to open a direct channel of communication to Hezbollah. Cohen praised the move and challenged the Obama administration to follow suit, both with the militant Lebanese group and with Hamas. As Cohen put it:

Of course it's desirable that Hamas recognize Israel before negotiations. But is it essential? No. What is essential is that it renounces violence, in tandem with Israel, and the inculcation of hatred that feeds the violence. Speaking of violence, it's worth recalling what Israel did in Gaza in response to sporadic Hamas rockets. It killed upward of 1,300 people, many of them women and children; caused damage estimated at $1.9 billion; and destroyed thousands of Gaza homes. It continues a radicalizing blockade on 1.5 million people squeezed into a narrow strip of land.

Naturally, Cohen will get attacked for this. He was already criticized in some quarters last week for daring to suggest that Iran, although an un-free society with a "brutal apparatus of repression," is not Nazi Germany, and actually treats its Jewish minority better than many Arab states. But Cohen's columns on Iran also drew plenty of defenders, not only liberals like, yes, Matthew Yglesias but also thinking conservatives such as Andrew Sullivan. Cohen's work over the past month has been bracing. It remains to be seen whether it's been getting the attention it deserves in places like the State Department and the White House.

Comments (38)

1. Well, obviously Roger Cohen and Andrew Sullivan are now "pacifist liberals who want the terr'urrists to win!"

   Obviously.

   Posted by Mask at 03/10/2009 @ 09:17am

2. "Roger Cohen Lights It Up at The Times"

   What ever the articles says...the NYT had better find a way to come up with readers or it will be LIGHTS OUT for the whole place there...

   Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 09:21am

3. Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 09:21am

   But what's your assessment of the actual subject of this article?

   Posted by Mask at 03/10/2009 @ 09:54am

4. The column by Cohen is a piece of garbage and absolute nonsense. It is riddled with distortions, lies, and false assumptions.

   Moshe Dayan the late Israeli General had the best response to Roger Cohen's column. When the US admonished Israel for responding to terrorist attacks from Lebanon he stated "What do you want us to do die quietly!"

   That pretty much sums up what many here on the left prescribe for Israel, even if indirectly.

   There was no mention in Cohen's piece that Hezbollah and Hamas exist, no because of the Arabs in Lebannon and Israel. They exist solely because Iran created, funds them, and arms them.

   Posted by antisocialist at 03/10/2009 @ 10:59am

5. Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 09:21am...

   Ad Hominem.

   The dither brains are now trying to put their 'enemies' on the defensive... using anything they can get their hands on... in order to disrupt, discourage, defer... and bully. Bear in mind that we are their 'enemies' by virtue of our ability to read, write, think for ourselves, and intelligently attempt find common solutions that indisputably benefit the American people in our daily lives.

   Problems arise, however... and we are rapidly coming to terms with this disgraceful and America-hating regression... which, as a national trend, is unsustainable... turns daily life into 'marching orders' that digress from humane motivations... eradicates the privacy that remarkable innovative creativity requires... and elevates the 'will to control' above the well-being of our experiment in democracy.

   They want to go backwards into the future... so... we're going to 'let' them go!

   ...without us.

   Allow them to have their 'tantrums'... like trees falling in an unpopulated wilderness... It will do them some good.

   Thing is... they STILL don't get that it was their ideologies and their generally provincial and authoritarian outlook... that have realized this very outcome.

   "Unacceptable" is a nice word for it.

   Posted by ttr at 03/10/2009 @ 11:00am

6. Posted by antisocialist at 03/10/2009 @ 10:59am

   And YOU want Israel to re-take Gaza and the West Bank and tell the Palestinians to either become Israelis or move back to Jordan where the League of Nations said they belong.

   So who's nuttier...you or Cohen? (a die-hard neo-con who supported the Iraq War by the way and endorsed McCain!)

   Posted by Mask at 03/10/2009 @ 11:08am

7. by Mask at 03/10/2009 @ 11:08am...

   Sometimes you feel like a nut... sometimes you don't.

   Posted by ttr at 03/10/2009 @ 11:14am

8. "the NYT had better find a way to come up with readers or it will be LIGHTS OUT for the whole place there..."

   not just the NYT, bro, but all papers.

   Posted by darladoon at 03/10/2009 @ 11:15am

9. I thought Cohen's piece was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise airless void when I read it. He is probably the first mainstream American mass media editorialist in paper like the NYT to actually point out that Israel's festival of butchery in Gaza was simply morally wrong and shameful.

   Posted by syfriendly at 03/10/2009 @ 11:18am

10. I applaud this site for letting everyone spew their vitriol with such slapdash ferocity. A WORD TO THE WISE: If your intent is to persuade, you may want to avoid using epithets like liberal pacifists garbage absolute nonsense "Absolute nonsense" about Middle East matters? Are there any absolutes in this corner of tragic misery in the world? Write like you want The Nation to contact you and invite you to write a 500-word piece for them. Otherwise, only people like me will bother to look at your product, which I do for amusement, like the idle glances on bathroom walls as I wash my hands.

    Posted by mwoldin at 03/10/2009 @ 11:48am

11. So who's nuttier...you or Cohen? (a die-hard neo-con who supported the Iraq War by the way and endorsed McCain!)

    Posted by Mask at 03/10/2009 @ 11:08am

    Cohen, who may have endorsed McCain, but he is no conservative. He's a liberal European journalist who has been soundly rebuked for his disinformation campaign on the status of Iranian Jews.

    http://tinyurl.com/d6gara

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/10/2009 @ 12:04pm

12. Eyal Press quotes Roger Cohen as saying "......Of course it's desirable that Hamas recognize Israel before negotiations. But is it essential? No. What is essential is that it renounces violence, in tandem with Israel, and the inculcation of hatred that feeds the violence. ....."

    As they say, been there done that.

    At one point, the murderer and terrorist Arafat made an official statement conceding or saying or agreeing or recognizing Israel's right to exist.

    In English.

    In Arabic, through the back door, if you will, the message went out loud and clear - to keep on with jihad and intafada to destroy Israel.

    As they say, been there done that.

    It didn't work.

    Now what, given that the goal of the Arabic people, including Palestinian people, is that there be no Israel. This has always been the goal, and it remains the goal, and no world effort has been put towards stopping that as the goal.

    That is the issue that has to be dealt with first, before any other.

    The world is going in the opposite direction. The U.N. is sponsoring another one of those Durban conferences against racism. The last one turned into a bash Israel conference.

    The difference this time is Canada will not be there - Canada is boycotting this and wants no part of it.

    Frosty Zoom, your country is a great country.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/10/2009 @ 12:22pm

13. One can sometimes cross party lines with single issue, but different parties have different philosophies and general agreement on major issues are rare.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 03/10/2009 @ 12:35pm

14. Posted by antisocialist at 03/10/2009 @ 12:04pm

    Read Cohen's endorsement of McCain and tell me how "liberal" he sounded?

    A quote from it- "I still believe Iraq's freedom outweighs its terrible price. So does McCain."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/opinion/17cohen.html

    Posted by Mask at 03/10/2009 @ 12:39pm

15. Now what, given that the goal of the Arabic people, including Palestinian people, is that there be no Israel. This has always been the goal, and it remains the goal, and no world effort has been put towards stopping that as the goal.------Posted by sjchermak at 03/10/2009 @ 12:22pm

    So, SJCHER....there can NEVER be a negotiated peace, can there?

    (Hint- backpedal or go full bore nutty now)

    Posted by Mask at 03/10/2009 @ 12:40pm

16. Read Cohen's endorsement of McCain and tell me how "liberal" he sounded?

    A quote from it- "I still believe Iraq's freedom outweighs its terrible price. So does McCain."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/opinion/17cohen.html

    Posted by Mask at 03/10/2009 @ 12:39pm

    Meaningless. Hitchens supported the war in Iraq and no one will ever accuse him of being a conservative.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/10/2009 @ 12:51pm

17. Agree wholly with Eyal Press. Cohen has always been worth a read, but for long I thought his "Globalist" blog would have been better titled "The Hegemonist," as his essays always made US preeminence both predicate and outcome of every policy issue.

    I was wholly impressed however by his Iran article, which in the first place put aside the usual stereotypical cant about Iran (examples of which have been usefully recreated above by some of the usual "useful idiots"), insisting instead on proceeding from the actual situation inside Iran.

    But more impressive, I thought, was the underlying premise of Cohen's piece -- that America, far from being a passive victim of the world's bad guys, instead plays a dynamic role in creating & reinforcing the world we want to see. Nowhere is this more true than in Iran, where reformist forces have long had to contend not merely with Khamenei's reactionary theocratic establishment and its thugs, but also with US policies that seemed designed to keep Khamenei and company in control.

    In proposing a sharp break with these policies, Cohen's piece moreover suggested a trenchant critique of all the nonsense generated in recent years by America's (and for that matter Israel's) "war on terror."

    Posted by jra9151 at 03/10/2009 @ 12:55pm

18. <i>Posted by mwoldin at 03/10/2009 @ 11:48am </i>

    Hmm...I think this is a very interesting and useful perspective. It really can be too easy for us to get too caught up in our incendiary certainty to actually try and persuade the people who disagree with us, rather than just trying to score points that are acknowledged only by those we agree with anyway. That was probably a bit of a run-on, but I believe you get the idea.

    Posted by Thrawn at 03/10/2009 @ 12:56pm

19. How can Hamas "recognize" Israel when no one knows what Israel considers Israel ? Is it the 1848 agreed upon Israel ? Pre-1967 Israel ? Does Israel include Jerusalem ? West Bank ? And what about The Wall ? Does this "Israel " agree that there are homes in Israel that still belong to the Palestinians that were ethnically cleaned out ?

    The UN has defined Israel . Hamas will recognize that one. It is a totally different issue as to whether the Jews have a RIGHT to own Israel. I am certain that the American Indian Native tribes do not agree that the USA had a RIGHT to take their land.

    Posted by Workrelease at 03/10/2009 @ 1:04pm

20. US intelligence chief Dennis Blair warned Tuesday it will be "difficult" to convince Iran to give up its suspected quest for nuclear weapons through diplomatic means.

    His comments, in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, came as US President Barack Obama wrestled with how to convince the Islamic republic from halting what the West views as a secret nuclear weapons drive.

    "Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon" because of difficulties in acquiring or producing the fissile material necessary, but could obtain enough as early as 2010, Blair said.

    But the agencies cannot "rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad or will acquire in the future a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon."

    Iran will probably be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon at some point in the 2010-2015 timeframe, although the State Department's intelligence service sets the early date at 2013 "because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems," he said.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/10/2009 @ 1:18pm

21. Posted by antisocialist at 03/10/2009 @ 12:51pm

    But this is about foreign policy, not domestic. And Cohen was a committed neo-con to "bringing democracy and peace" to Iraq.

    Now, he's "off the reservation"...as is (and I didn't forget) ANDREW SULLIVAN.

    Sullivan a big lib, Larry?

    Posted by Mask at 03/10/2009 @ 1:19pm

22. Now, he's "off the reservation"...as is (and I didn't forget) ANDREW SULLIVAN.

    Sullivan a big lib, Larry?

    Posted by Mask at 03/10/2009 @ 1:19pm

    Anyone who knows anything about Andrew Sullivan, knows that he is liberal on some issues (especially domestic issues), and more conservative on foreign policy issues. But he is not really considered a conservative by conservatives that I know of.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/10/2009 @ 1:35pm

23. Posted by ttr at 03/10/2009 @ 11:00am

    So this is what fetal alcohol syndrome looks like..

    Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 1:44pm

24. Mask,

    You ask if there will never be a negotiated peace, and say I need to backpedal or go nutty.

    There could be a negotiated peace if somebody finds a way to make the Arab world/Palestinians knock the crap off that they have been pulling for over 60 years now.

    Nobody has found that way yet.

    In many places, such as with libs on The Nation website, with Mr. Peanut Jimmy Carter, at the U.N., etc. - this is not recognized as the problem and thus that answer is not being sought.

    In it's place, at best it is said that if Israel were to just swap enough land for peace then peace will be possible. At worse, crap such as what Syfriendly and Crip Think offer pops up.

    I don't claim to have an easy answer to this, and I am not saying peace is not possible, I am just identifying what the real issue is.

    I wish I had an easy answer, I do not.

    I also know you don't either, and any suggestion you may make (assuming you make the standard lib suggestions) would likely speed Israel towards the day it no longer exists - which is not acceptable.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/10/2009 @ 1:58pm

25. Posted by sjchermak at 03/10/2009 @ 1:58pm

    See, that's what's so funny, SJCHER.

    I think you DO have an "easy answer"...as easy as it was for you to say "Never trust them A-rabs, they ALL want Israel wiped off the map!"

    You're just scared of actually SAYING it outloud, because you know it would sound bloodthirsty and just plain stupid.

    But that unspoken answer is the only logical extension of what you fling out with such abandon on the situation in the Middle East.

    Posted by Mask at 03/10/2009 @ 2:08pm

26. YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 1:44pm...

    Quite the opposite in my case... Actually... it seems like you're finally discovering the joys of self-deprecating humor...;^)

    Refreshing... isn't it?

    Posted by ttr at 03/10/2009 @ 2:09pm

27. Posted by sjchermak at 03/10/2009 @ 12:22pm

    Regarding the "goal of the Arabs", Egypt is neutralized (and ineffective), Syria (also ineffective) begging for peace if a litttle land-return can rstore teir self-esteem, Jordan neutralized long ago, Saudis firmly on the side of their U.S. cohorts...

    The Arabs offered Israel a Peace Initiative with full diplomatic rights, recognition, and comprehensive peace. Nevertheless, the Israel-as-eternal-victim patholgy bubbles up, right on que.

    Iran fomenting Hamas? One needs to jam on the blinders to forget that Israel helped foster Hamas.

    Durban Conference on anti-racism:

    "The difference...is that Canada is boycotting this and wants no part of it. "

    Canada has boycotted the conference since 2001, when the Israeli lobby gained a degree of influence over Canadian foreign policy almost commeasurate with that of AIPAC here.

    Cohen compared to Hitchens? Hitchens, though articulate, is a male Anne Coulter and relies on his contrarinism to weasel his way onto the talk-show circuit.

    Cohen's present thinking on Iran and America's role in provoking or expanding problems (we're the firefighters who try gasoline a few times before seeng if water might work) is indeed refreshing.

    Although I don't believe he has discarded his neo-conservative boosterism in its entirety, reason and reality seem to be chipping away at it. A good thing.

    Posted by kryptos at 03/10/2009 @ 2:14pm

28. BTW...

    "But he is not really considered a conservative by conservatives that I know of."----Posted by antisocialist at 03/10/2009 @ 1:35pm

    What about Newt Gingrich?

    Posted by Mask at 03/10/2009 @ 2:20pm

29. I agree w/ the Nation that Roger Cohen's NYT op-ed yesterday was superb (especially considering the source), a rare breath of fresh air in the mainstream media, and I emailed him to that effect early this AM. I encourage others to do the same. This once, let's preempt the naysayers.

    Cohen will probably catch much flak for his temerity, but I noted w/ some surprise that, of the top 10 'best' reader responses selected by the NYT editors this morning, all - as in 100% - were highly positive. Could we be turning a corner in public opinion, finally?

    Concerning the Obama administration's continued insistence (repeated as recently as this afternoon's press briefing) that prior recognition of Israel's right to exist is a precondition for any US contact w/ Hamas, I agree w/ Cohen and a Nation commentor (above) that this is a transparent excuse to avoid engagement. Especially since we require no similar prior recognition from Israel of the Palestinians' right to an independent, sovereign state on its side of the pre-1967 borders or any prior agreement by Israel to negotiate w/ Palestinians' duely elected representives. Mutual recognition, mutually agreed borders, and peace should be the intended results of our engagement, not preconditional concessions to be required only from one side.

    Posted by caliber1 at 03/10/2009 @ 3:19pm

30. Suppose someone were to write: "Now what, given that the goal of the Jewish people, including Israeli people, is that there be no Palestinians. This has always been the goal, and it remains the goal, and no world effort has been put towards stopping that as the goal."

    Then that person would quite obviously be a bigot. For one thing, no large ethnic group of people is ever of a single unified mind on political matters. For another, I personally know of counterexamples.

    If instead that person wrote:

    "Now what, given that the goal of the Arabic people, including Palestinian people, is that there be no Israel. This has always been the goal, and it remains the goal, and no world effort has been put towards stopping that as the goal." Posted by sjchermak at 03/10/2009 @ 12:22pm .

    sjchermak is quite obviously a bigot for the identical reasons.

    Lawrence, KS

    Posted by dburress at 03/10/2009 @ 6:04pm

31. dburress,

    Or - the other option - I obviously am not a bigot.

    You know full well that the Israelis or other Jewish people not living in Israel do NOT have a goal that there be no Palestinians.

    You know full well this is the case.

    Syfriendly or Crip Think may post in and tell you it is, practically foaming at the mouth in front of their computers as they do so.

    But it is not, and you know it.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/10/2009 @ 7:03pm

32. "But he is not really considered a conservative by conservatives that I know of."----Posted by antisocialist at 03/10/2009 @ 1:35pm

    What about Newt Gingrich?

    Posted by Mask at 03/10/2009 @ 2:20pm

    Gingrich is a conservative but not a rabid one. He is someone who likes to "work across the aisle" with people like the Clintons for example.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/10/2009 @ 8:09pm

33. There was no mention in Cohen's piece that Hezbollah and Hamas exist, no because of the Arabs in Lebannon and Israel. They exist solely because Iran created, funds them, and arms them.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/10/2009 @ 10:59a

    are you sure that's why they exist?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/11/2009 @ 12:03am

34. Even on The Nation's website, this commentary has brought out a pack of right-wing Zionist extremists. Some of them claim Cohen as one of their own on the basis of his column about McCain in January 2008. The column is favorable, but it's not an endorsement. In fact, Cohen states in the last paragraph, "McCain's not my choice for president." Cohen's not my choice for Middle East guide either, but his recent columns have been most welcome and sensible.

    Posted by dapope at 03/11/2009 @ 12:09am

35. Mark these words: The conservatives will ultimately define our way out of this mess.

    Cohen observes:

    "One view of Israel's continued expansion of settlements, Gaza blockade, West Bank walling-in and wanton recourse to high-tech force would be that it's designed precisely to bludgeon, undermine and humiliate the Palestinian people until their dreams of statehood and dignity evaporate."

    This is a man in touch with humanity.

    We will have peace.

    Posted by pdcarey at 03/11/2009 @ 12:28am

36. IDF officers have been forbidden to travel outside of Israel because they face war crimes charges in (currently) 6 western European countries.

    Any country that uses white phosphorus bombs - bombs which are totally indiscriminate and burn straight through human flesh including bone, any country that shoots children with white flags trying to run from the conflict in the back of the head, any country that forces people into buildings and then bombs and pushes those buildings down on the women and children inside is a country that is totally depraved and morally bankrupt.

    Any country that financially supports these actions, such as the US, is equally so. Neither group is worthy of the term human. This is sheer unvarnished evil.

    Supporters can write all the words they want to in defense of these monsters, but it means nothing. The behavior speaks for itself.

    Posted by ccrider27 at 03/11/2009 @ 06:22am

37. You know full well that the Israelis or other Jewish people not living in Israel do NOT have a goal that there be no Palestinians.

    You know full well this is the case.

    So, please explain why it is that Israel allows settlers to continue gobbling up land on the West Bank and in Jerusalem to build settlements, thus establishing facts on the ground. Please explain why they have built a wall around Palestinian population centers, effectively suffocating the Palestinians and dividing them from their agricultural lands. Please explain why Israel did not allow foreign journalists into Gaza during its reign of bombing.

    Israel controls the water, electricity, customs, taxes on goods which it may or may not allow into or out of the occupied territories. Life for the average Palestinian citizen is hell and has been for decades. Long before the cease-fire which began last June, Israel had prevented foods, medicines, materials of daily life, etc., from entering Gaza, either by land or sea.

    In 2005, just prior to the evacuation of Jewish settlers from Gaza, 3 Israeli progressives: Uri Davis, Ilan Pappe and Tamar Yaron, expressed their concern that the evacuation was designed to keep the settlers out of harm's way pending a potential intensified mass attack by Israel on the Palestinian inhabitants. They quoted General Dan Halutz, formerly Commander of the Israeli Air Force, as having said after authorizing the bombing of a civilian Gaza City, that he "sleeps well and that the only thing he feels when dropping a bomb is a slight bump of the aircraft."

    Posted by DiMAndrews at 03/11/2009 @ 2:50pm

38. "tell the Palestinians to either become Israelis or move back to Jordan where the League of Nations said they belong."

    as in:

    "Upon instructions from my Government, I have the honour to communicate to Your Excellency, the text of the memorandum which a group of national and Islamic leaders in Arab Jerusalem have sent to the Israel occupying authorities.

    In this memorandum the leaders declared their rejection of the annexation of Arab Jerusalem, and their adherence to the Jordanian unity." ("Letter dated 3 August 1967 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General", found at http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/ this form won't let me post the whole URL)?

    Posted by gzuckier at 03/16/2009 @ 11:28pm