Richard Cohen Trots Out Holocaust Over Libya

Richard Cohen Trots Out Holocaust Over Libya

Richard Cohen Trots Out Holocaust Over Libya

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen responds to The Nation‘s editorial stance on Libya by referencing the Holocaust.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Richard Cohen, the Washington Post columnist, has wielded—what else?—the Holocaust against The Nation. Quoting the magazine’s recent editorial stance criticizing the war in Libya, Cohen describes The Nation as exhibiting the “cold heart of liberalism.” Though he admits that “good arguments…can be made in opposition to the Libyan intervention,” Cohen dredges up the 1938 conference in Evian, France, called “to deal with the urgent problem of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany.” He then says: 

“The Evian conference is not much mentioned anymore—although it should never be forgotten. It was a monument to international apathy and indifference, not to mention appalling selfishness—‘as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one,’ said the Australian delegate. Participants convened at the Hotel Royal, a fine resort on Lake Geneva, and resolved only to wring their hands. They had their reasons.

“We heard some of those same sentiments expressed by opponents of US intervention in Libya.”

Cohen immediately follows that with the non sequitur that “I do not liken the situation there to the imminence of the Holocaust.” But that’s precisely what he’s doing. 

Like countless other commentators, and like President Obama, Cohen assumes that the US action in bombing Libya—a war that has itself caused hundreds, if not thousands of deaths among Libyan soldiers and, we must assume, at least some civilians—averted a “bloodbath” caused by Muammar Qaddafi’s forces. However, not only was no Holocaust in the offing but it isn’t even clear whether Qaddafi’s forces are engaged in anything that resembles genocide or mass murder. What’s happening in Libya is a brutal civil war, yes, in which outgunned rebels are battling better-armed troops. 

But, first, it isn’t clear that the rebels couldn’t have repelled the Libyan armed forces in Benghazi even without the US-led attacks. Second, even if Qaddafi’s forces had seized Benghazi, there is no certainty that they’d have massacred anyone, although many of the rebel fighters would have died fighting. But there’s no resisting a good Holocaust analogy, I guess.

Like this blog post? Read it on The Nation’s free iPhone App, NationNow.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read, just one of the many incisive, deeply-reported articles we publish daily. Now more than ever, we need fearless journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media.

Throughout this critical election year and a time of media austerity and renewed campus activism and rising labor organizing, independent journalism that gets to the heart of the matter is more critical than ever before. Donate right now and help us hold the powerful accountable, shine a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug, and build a more just and equitable future.

For nearly 160 years, The Nation has stood for truth, justice, and moral clarity. As a reader-supported publication, we are not beholden to the whims of advertisers or a corporate owner. But it does take financial resources to report on stories that may take weeks or months to properly investigate, thoroughly edit and fact-check articles, and get our stories into the hands of readers.

Donate today and stand with us for a better future. Thank you for being a supporter of independent journalism.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x