The sort of comments Richard Cohen made in that article is pretty much his modus operandi. He's a Democratic columnist who mainly criticizes Democrats. So he's a self-hating Democrat too. When he actually brings himself to criticize Republicans harshly in a pragraph, he follows it up with a much longer diatribe about the Democrats inability to stop the Republicans from ruining the country. It's just his shtick. I'm sure he rationalizes it somehow by thinking he's being fair to both sides or sommething,

But teal liberals in America think his columns are basically worthless. He's the epitome of what's wrong with Washington beltway liberals. They so don't want to offend the powers-that -be lest they no longer get invited to the "in crowd" beltway parties.

But anyway, nobody of any intelligence who reads his column regularly takes him seriously. What's even worse is the the Washington Post publishes his worthless stuff, but like Richard, the Editors at the Post want to go to those same parties.

Here's my letter to the author, re: the New York Magazine article:

Sir,

I respect your attempt to grapple with the complexities of the Middle East, but what you've proposed as "truths" don't come close to being true at all.

The Richard Cohen article opened a Pandora's box of misconceptions. First, the very idea that Israel was "carved out of Arab land in 1947" belies the fact that the Yishuv was already well-established long before then, though it hadn't been named as such. Secondly, Jewish people have lived continuously in Israel for thousands of years, oddly enough, their presence on the West Bank - in Hebron and Jerusalem - terminated only after the war of 1948 by the Jordanians.

Third, the majority of Israelis today are of Middle Eastern descent themselves, as the Arab world emptied itself of its Jews in the wake of the 1948 war. It would be wise of you, if you're not already aware of their story, to acquaint yourself with the history of the Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews who were ALSO made refugees - 900,000 people at least - the ancient Jewish communities of the Arab world now nearly deserted. Here's a link to a site about their little-known history:

http://www.jimena-justice.org/

In view of this history, comparing the Jewish people of Israel to white people displacing Native Americans is absurd. The people of Israel ARE the Native Americans and we should respect them as such: indigenous. Those who would portray them as colonials, or try to frame their nation as an apartheid or racist or imperialist project, are in fact both historically inaccurate as well as profoundly ignorant. And such characterizations are being used to perpetrate the myth that Israel is somehow illegitimate and deserves her endless suffering, deserves indeed to be attacked, dismantled and destroyed - for such is the goal of her enemies.

There have been many mistakes made by mankind, but the creation of Israel wasn't one of them. The mistake is believing that we can sweep certain hard truths under the rug indefinitely, in the name of diplomacy, political correctness, or just plain denial: bigotry, violence, and xenophobia are rampant in the Middle East - and this long preceded the birth of Israel. Bigotry, violence and xenophobia create and fuel conflicts everywhere but in this part of the world, people are forgiven for exhibiting these disgusting characteristics when it comes to Israel.

And that, my friend, is a truly inconvenient truth.

Sincerely,
Sophia Gates

John, you've written excellent instructions for the honest, fair, and EFFECTIVE style of argument that I have been teaching my Rhetoric students for many years. I'm going to include it in my syllabus this fall.

I'm sorry. I meant to address that last comment to Judith. Blame my traditional morning headache for the absent-mindedness.

John,
Wouldn't
But anyway, nobody of any intelligence who reads his column regularly ...

be more to the point without the 'who'? :-)

Judith,
I had a hand flailing moment when I read the following in a comment on Plubliuspundit

More critically, not even Jews in Israel have a right to free speech, freedom of assembly or a variety of basic rights.

What cynic doesn't mention is that the comment (on consitutiuonal rights) continues

"More critically, not even Jews in Israel have a right to free speech, freedom of assembly or a variety of basic rights. For the most part they get them and the Supreme Court does a fairly good job of this, but there is no liberal constitution."

And according to the CIA act book, Israel has "no formal constitution; some of the functions of a constitution are filled by the Declaration of Establishment (1948), the Basic Laws of the parliament (Knesset), and the Israeli citizenship law". Which I believe was the point being made (by, incdentally, a supporter of Israel against a pro-Palestinian commenter).

SO cynic can keep his hands still.

Britain doesn't have a formal constitution either. Do you think you have a right to free speech, freedom of assembly or a variety of basic rights?

(Or adjust the question to whatever is applicable for Scotland - is it totally a separate country now, or is it still within the British system in some way?)

Judith, Scotland is still within the UK (it's got roughly the same autonomy as an American state).

We (UK or Scotland) don't have a Bill Of Rights, though the idea of writing one comes up quite often. Strictly speaking we don't have guaranteed rights to any of those things, and if the freedoms you mention come under attack it's up to the courts to sort it out. European law does give some guarantees so by kicking things up through the court system one can reach the rarified air of guaranteed rights.

But you're being unnecessarily touchy, surely? All "Joseph" was saying - in a comment IIRC about degrees of democracy in the region - was that although Israel didn't have guaranteed freedoms they were protected by the courts, exactly as they are in Britain.

I'm a big fan of the US Constitution and I'm sure your system is better, but that doesn't mean that ours or Israel's are lacking in anything significant. I was about to say we probably generate more fees for lawyers, but on second thoughts.....

Rob,
If the Supreme court guarantees the Israeli his rights then it is law.
This is more effective than a formal document which a supreme court may not always follow.
Then again it also depends on what is meant by a "liberal" constitution in some people's minds. Licentiousness bordering on anarchy?