Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Attacking the Washington Post's Richard Cohen for His Imaginary Stance on Israel

Reported by Janie - July 19, 2006 -

During last night's (7/18) "Special Report with Brit Hume", Hume took part in his new favorite past time - misrepresenting the words of columnists and attacking an opinion, which the writer never actually held to begin with. Last night's victim was The Washington Post's Richard Cohen, who Hume ironically insinuated was an anti-Semite.

During the "Two Minutes of Hate" (AKA "Grapevine") segment, under a banner reading, "Israel 'A Mistake'?", Hume attacked,

"Liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen writes today that the 'greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake.' Cohen blames the creation of Israel for a century of warfare in the Middle East, including the present conflict.

And while he says there's 'no point in condemning Hezbollah... [or] Hamas,' Cohen argues that Israel should exercise restraint — writing that retaking Lebanon and Gaza would lead to world condemnation of 'the inevitable sins of an occupying power.' His solution?

Comment: If you'll notice, Hume makes excellent use of the ellipsis - as he cuts out the entire point of what Cohen was trying to say - and makes it appear as though Cohen is on the side of Hezbollah or Hamas. What Cohen actually wrote was, "There is no point in condemning Hezbollah. Zealots are not amenable to reason. And there's not much point, either, in condemning Hamas. It is a fetid, anti-Semitic outfit whose organizing principle is hatred of Israel."

Sounds as though Cohen and the Republicans are on the same side with their views of Hezbollah and Hamas, but you'd never know that if you're watching Hume's biased "journalism".

Hume finished, "Cohen says Israel should pull back, withdraw from the West Bank, and accept terrorism and rocket attacks, while 'waiting (and hoping) that history will get distracted and move on to something else,' adding, 'It is best for Israel to hunker down.'"

Comment: Cohen never once mentioned that Israel should "accept terrorism". This is a blatant lie. From the article:

"There is, though, a point in cautioning Israel to exercise restraint -- not for the sake of its enemies but for itself. Whatever happens, Israel must not use its military might to win back what it has already chosen to lose: the buffer zone in southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip itself...

All that the critics warned has come true. But worse than what is happening now would be a retaking of those territories. That would put Israel smack back to where it was, subjugating a restless, angry population and having the world look on as it committed the inevitable sins of an occupying power. The smart choice is to pull back to defensible -- but hardly impervious -- borders. That includes getting out of most of the West Bank -- and waiting (and hoping) that history will get distracted and move on to something else. This will take some time, and in the meantime terrorism and rocket attacks will continue."
Hume entirely misrepresented Cohen's article, taking lines out of context and making it appear as though Cohen is against Israel's existence, which is far from the case.

You can read Cohen's article here, and decide for yourself what he is saying, rather than Hume's biased, unbalanced interpretation.