Thomas Friedman: A Palestinian State

By Oded Faran & Walter Block

Thomas Friedman presenting his key note address at the National Conference on the Creative Economy in Fairfax County, Virginia. Photo by Clp1917 – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Wikipedia

Thomas Friedman has a dream for peace in the Middle East. This would include security and safety for inhabitants of that unhappy corner of the world. For all; no exceptions!

It consists of the creation of a Palestinian state comprised of Gaza, Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. In a word: this would consist of the “Arab Peace Initiative, offering ‘normal relations’ between the Arab states and Israel in return for Israeli withdrawal from all the territories back to the lines of June 4, 1967.” The New York Times editorialist waxes eloquent about this idea: “It was the first and remains the only comprehensive Arab peace overture to Israel approved by the Arab League…” Oh, wait, we almost forgot: this deal also includes “the right of return of the [Palestinian] refugees” to Israel.

According to that old aphorism, “with friends like that, you hardly need enemies.” We say, in like manner of this splendid compromise of the Arab League, “with offers like that, Israel hardly needs to surrender its sovereignty to its enemies.” What, after all, could be better for the Jewish state than being accorded full recognition and legitimacy by all its Arab neighbors on such generous terms. Of course, under these conditions Israel would no longer be a quintessentially Hebrew country. All would live in peace forevermore. Friedman was surprised and delighted that several Arab leaders concurred with this scenario that he himself had dreamed up. One of them, then Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz jokingly accused Friedman of having broken into his desk. The latter denied this “wondering what this Arab leader was talking about.” Came the reply: The reason I “accuse” you of this “… is that this is exactly the idea I had in mind.” What a wonderful meeting of two eminent minds!

There are, however, serious problems with this magnificent scenario: there are two bitter opponents of it: Hamas and Netanyahu. Reports Friedman, the entire deal was derailed by “A suicide bomber [who] killed at least 19 people and injured 172 at a popular seaside hotel… The Palestinian group Hamas, an Islamic fundamentalist group labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department claimed responsibility for the attack.”

Much as we hate to give credit to Hamas for anything, fair is fair. We are grateful to these maniacs for deep sixing this offer. Thanks to them, this horrid deal which would end Israel as Israel never saw the light of day. Mr. Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz kept this speech along Friedmanite lines and refused to publicize it.

Posit the contrary to fact conditional that this offer never went off the rails. What are its defects per se?

Let us consider the flaws under two headings. First the deontological aspect. The word “justice” never appears in this proposal regarding land titles. Nor does any synonym such as fairness, righteousness, or honesty. Never. Not even once. There is no consideration, none at all, as to the rightful ownership of these territories out of which Friedman would carve a Palestine. Not one thought is given as to which group is the rightful owner of the terrain under dispute.

Let us try to make good for this lacuna. The Jews were there first! They were the initial homesteaders of the territories Thomas Friedman and Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz would so blithely award to the Arabs. Hebrews occupied these lands some 3500 years ago, long before the arrival of the Moslems, merely several centuries ago. Yes, they were disposed by a series of conquerors including the Romans, the Ottomans, the British. But that makes no never mind to the situation from the point of view of elemental justice.

For the tip of the iceberg of evidence for this contention, consider the fact that the Al Aqsa Mosque lives above the Jewish Second Temple, and even below that is their First Temple.

Property rights, justice, are concepts alien to the perspective of Thomas Friedman, at least when it concerns the Middle East.

Now consider the practicality of his proposal for a Palestinian state occupying territory properly belonging to the Jews.

The Arabs simply cannot be trusted. They have broken agreements all too many times. They have an inveterate hate for Jews, Israelis. What were the Gazans doing on October 8, the day after the atrocity of October 7? They were dancing in the streets. These are the neighbors that Friedman wishes upon Israel?

Then there is that minor bit about the “right of return” of the Palestinians. Sorry, Friedman, there is no such “right.” Yes, in 1948, some 800,000 Palestinians departed from Israel. This was in response to the orders of the five invading armies. Thus, they were cooperating with the enemy. They were in no danger from the Israelis, as demonstrated by the treatment accorded to the some 20% of the Israeli Arab population who are doctors, professors, lawyers, engineers. They even have their own political parties in the Knesset. If the children and grandchildren of these almost one million Palestinians were “returned” to Israel, that country would lose its Jewish aspect.

By some coincidence, at around that same time, in 1948, roughly the same number of Jews, just under one million, emigrated from the five countries which were in the process of invading Israel. They were not cooperating with Israel against the interests of the Arab counties in which they had been living for generations. Rather, they were running for their lives, away from the pogroms that had heated up with the establishment of Israel. What about their “right of return?” This is a non starter of course, for if they did any such thing, they would be slaughtered. But, at least their property could be returned to them? Friedman vouchsafes us no answer to that query.

Why should Israel have to beg its Arab neighbors for cordial relations? Why should it have to give up a single square inch of its justly owned land to create the Palestine of Friedman and Aziz? Why should the shoe not be on the other foot? Why should not the Arab countries offer some of their own land for peace and good relations with Israel? Friedman is eerily silent on such questions.

The IDF is the fourth most powerful army on the entire planet. It is stronger than the military of all 23 Arab countries put together. Let the latter come begging the only civilized nation in the Middle East for good neighborly relations.

This sort of thing should not be a matter of who is more formidable militarily than whom. No one should have to appeal to anyone else on bended knee for peaceful normal relations. This should be the basic premise of all state interactions. Israel offers its neighbors the olive branch of peace. It never initiates any wars with them. Attacks have been continually thrust upon them, ever since 1948, time after time. Friedman takes no cognizance of this primordial fact. Let him go peddle his servile nostrums elsewhere.

One can readily understand why Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz would support this plan to undermine Israel as a Jewish state. He is no traitor to his people. Unhappily, one has a difficult time making this same claim about Thomas Friedman, a Jew.