Roger Cohen's article entitled "Middle East Reality Check" must be one of the most virulently anti-Israel diatribes to have emerged in recent days. Not only is it devoid of objectivity, but it also, on the face of it, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the primary causes that lie behind the Middle East conflict.

Cohen argues for the initiation of diplomatic contacts with Hezbollah and for reaching out to "moderate Hamas elements" on the grounds that they are "a political phenomenon and part and parcel of the national fabric." What he fails to note through a less than understandable oversight is that both of these terrorist organizations are clients of Iran, which trains, finances and arms them and whose Holocaust denying president continues to call for the destruction of Israel.

It should be emphasized that Hezbollah and Hamas are not only a threat to Israel. Aided and abetted by Iran and Syria, Hezbollah has undermined the legitimate authority of the Lebanese government and its army, while Hamas is viewed with alarm by those in Egypt, whose recognize that their country's political stability is threatened by radical Islamic fundamentalism.

Cohen is at least honest enough to admit that "the 1988 Hamas Charter is vile" and even concedes that "perhaps Hamas is sincere in its calls for Israel's disappearance." However, rather than demanding that they rescind their Charter, he would appear to justify their aspirations given that, as he puts it, "Israel in reality has no desire to see a Palestinian state." 

He fails to acknowledge that Israel's repeated attempts to reach an accord with the Palestinians at Camp David and later at Taba failed because of Yassir Arafat's refusal or inability to take what Dennis Ross referred to as the "final step."

If Israel needed to demonstrate her willingness to make concessions, then any reasonable person would view the withdrawal of her forces from her self-proclaimed security zone in southern Lebanon and her decision to carry out the painful evacuation of Israeli citizens from Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip as positive steps towards reaching an accord with her neighbors.

However, as experience has shown, in both cases her enemies chose to take advantage of those demonstrations of goodwill to launch further attacks upon Israel. How can Cohen possibly have any doubt about Hamas's intentions?

He scorns the fact that such leaders as Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni have come to recognize the need for a two-state solution, describing their acceptance of such as "a wondrous political odyssey" while criticizing Israel for not believing that Hamas could follow the same path.

Here Cohen demonstrates his lack of understanding or preparedness to recognize the fact that Hezbollah and Hamas are Islamic fundamentalist movements. Unlike Egypt and Jordan, who were prepared to sign peace agreements with Israel, any hope of reaching a similar accommodation with Hamas and Hezbollah is simply wishful thinking. For them, the Middle East is part of Dar el Islam (Islamic territory) and there is no room for a Jewish state there anymore than there is for churches in Saudi Arabia or, indeed, even for non-Muslims, in the holy city of Mecca.

Of course, the war in Gaza was a tragedy that would never have occurred had Hamas heeded international calls to renounce violence. Those prepared to acknowledge facts would contest Cohen's assertion that Israeli citizens were only the victims of "sporadic Hamas rockets". Where was his voice when missiles were falling on Sederot, whose helpless population had less than 15 seconds to get to a bomb shelter upon hearing the red alert air raid warning?

I share his concern for the tragic loss of human life. However, where is his criticism of Hamas for having purposefully targeted Israel's civilian population and for having used their fellow Palestinians as human shields in their war against Israel?

Of equal concern is his bogus allegation that Israel's military response lacked proportionality. What precisely does that mean? If the thousands of rockets and mortars targeted on Israel's civilian population had been successful in killing and maiming more people, would the Palestinian death count have then been more palatable? The answer is surely no.

There are few if any examples in the annals of warfare in which such extraordinary efforts have been made by an army to avoid civilian casualties. In any event, the purpose of war, which is always a tragedy, is to win – not to be proportional.

All that having been said, the suffering of Gaza's civilian population is real. Hamas and its Iranian backers have used them to advance their own political objectives without concern for the human cost involved. Given her enemies' religious ideology that glorifies death rather than sanctifying and cherishing life, the least that Israel could do was to seek to defend her citizens. After all, Hamas and Hezbollah are not what Cohen wrongly describes as "resistance movements", but are movements dedicated to the liberation of Palestine – and that includes Tel Aviv and Haifa.

Britain's unfortunate decision to reconsider her position on Hezbollah will no doubt be followed, as Cohen would wish, by a rapprochement with Hamas. However, recognition should come with a price tag. These movements should be required to revise their charters and recognize Israel's right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state.

If such a condition is not demanded, then Britain's move will rightly be viewed as one of appeasement and as a concession to religious fundamentalists rather than as a step towards reconciliation.

Rabbi Michael Boyden

Hod Hasharon

Israel