In the thread of his article, Ben Cohen made it a little bit more clearer what his views on the topic of the Arab/Israeli situation are:
So here we see that he acknowledges that many countries, including Israel, have been "built on theft." So he is not singling Israel out, as his article implied. But I still find it a little bit strange that he considers Israel, simply by existing, to be "an occupying force." Talk about being more Palestinian than the Palestinians!
That being said, it's funny how he demands that Israel recognize "the truth," aka the Palestinian narrative. Someone who is truly committed to peace would ask that both sides acknowledge the history and the truth. The Israelis should acknowledge that they may have crossed the line in defending themselves, while in contrast the Palestinians should admit that they were in fact the aggressors in 1948 and ever since.
Most telling is when Mr. Cohen talks about the 'right to exist' thing. First of all, I find it interesting that though he acknowledges that the Palestinian refusal to acknowledge it is a major sticking point, he attempts to justify it. This contradicts his article in which he claims that it is Israel who is holding all the cards and upon whom the onus is placed. Regardless, stating that the Palestinians are correct in refusing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist is considered by most people (certainly all the US politicians involved) to be an extreme position.
And why does Mr. Cohen blame Israel for asking that the Palestinians accept them when (in Mr. Cohen's view) they never will? Why does not he not blame the Palestinians for making a concession that costs them nothing on the ground and will gain them quite a lot? Because he is placing his own opinions, positions and narrative over what is best for all the people?
I could go on a little bit more about why the Palestinians acknowledging Israel's right to exist is in fact the most important part of solving the conflict, but let me just end with this: Mr. Cohen protests that Israel is continuing to refuse "serious dialogue." What a hypocritical thing to say: There is no serious dialogue in any of his pieces, just a robotic and blind adherence to Palestinian narrative and Palestinian views. He has truly become what he hates, and he doesn't even realize it.