By Ted Belman
The great Thomas Friedman tells Israel to Just Knock it off.
Two rationales he offers shows how off base he is
-
“First – I know this is a crazy, radical idea — when America asks Israel to do something that in no way touches on its vital security but would actually enhance it, there is only one right answer: ‘Yes.’ It is a measure of how spoiled Israel has become that after billions and billions of dollars in US aid and 300,000 settlers already ensconced in the West Bank, Israel feels no compunction about spurning an American request for a longer settlement freeze — the only purpose of which is to help the United States help Israel reach a secure peace with the Palestinians.
Thank you, but what if Israel has different ideas about the kind of peace she wants. Perhaps Israel wants some land in addition to security. Perhaps the land is needed for security. Perhaps Israel isn’t too happy with the demand that they uproot over 100,000 Israels and that Palestine be judenrein. Where have I heard the argument about the billions before?
-
“Israel today really is behaving like a spoiled child. Please spare me the nonsense that President Obama is anti-Israel. At a time when the president has made it one of his top priorities to build a global coalition to stop Iran from making a nuclear weapon, he took the very logical view that if he could advance the peace process in the Middle East it would give him much greater leverage to get the Europeans and UN behind tougher sanctions on Iran…Given what Obama has done, and is trying to do, it is hardly an act of hostility for him to ask Israel to continue its now-expired 10-month partial moratorium on settlement-building in the West Bank in order to take away any excuse from the Palestinians to avoid peace talks.”
What’s he smoking? Obama is going through the motions. Iran will get the bomb and nothing Obama is doing will prevent her. If the Palestrinians want to avoid the talks so much more so will they avoid making concessions.
Regarding adding to the ‘building freeze’:
If Israel etends the building freeze without any Palestinian Arab concessions, then the Palestinian Arabs learn that they can secure advantages with this unilateral strategy. Is this not what they have been doing for decades and has this not been a major impediment to a meaningful peace process ?
A freeze extension is a ‘pro-war’ policy. This what game-theory and experience show us. The Israelis do NOT want more war, so they want to try something else.
A real meaningful peace process treats both sides a grown-ups and requires each to behave respnsibly. The Palestinian Arabs procrastinated for 9 months durng the previous unilateral freeze. That wa destructive behavior. Continuing the freeze unilaterally would not advance the peace process.
PS: Friedman’s editorial was dictated by Obama’s people. That is how the system works and how it is supposed to work. That is democracy in action – the government communicatiing through the 4th estate. Normal stuff.
Remember, all Bibi said was that he’d extend the freeze for two more months in exchange for reccognition. This isn’t about final status, borders, and so on. He’s really giving away nothing permanent, even if Abbas calls his bluff….
…Which he won’t. He can’t. He’s doctrinally incapable of this. Now, I know for a fact that there is a small number of genuinely moderate Moslems who would be willing to do this in the light of day, but they are not to be found anywhere in the PA. Abbas in particular – unlike the singularly duplicitous Arafat – has really painted himself into a corner on this issue (hey, at least the man is honest, by the standards of the PA or Arabs generally). I think we’re safe on this one.
I agree with you up to a point that Thomas Friedman and his ilk are becoming irrelevant. But a lot of influential people still read the NYT, and it influences them. I also personally ignore him (I would never have known about the article posted above if it weren’t for Israpundit), and he and his lot are going down with the Obama ship. But they are not gone yet.
I say your take is a double edged sword. What happens if they do agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish State even if they don’t mean it? It’s a potential trap for us and I wouldn’t count on them behaving consistently as they have. Besides being a well worn tactic, where we keep paying for the same dead horse, once you agree to negation of principles that negate the foundations of our existence we are then always shooting ourselves in the foot. If Y&S our not ours then were are occupiers and it’s only the price of giving it away that is negotiable.
If we have no claim on Y&S (all of it) we have no claim to any other part of the land of Israel.
Watch BB he is about to make another traitorous move. He is close to bringing Livni and Kadima into the coalition.
Who cares what Friedman says? He writes for the ever dwindling choir and for a bankrupt News conglomerate. Even posting one of his op-eds give him more credit than is his due. I ignore him.
There seems to be a correlation that the less people who read them, the more outlandish they must become to get some attention and hoped for relevance. They at least will never again be relevant.
I can’t believe that in all of the above discourse, nobody – least of all Friedman – mentioned the fact that:
Israel offered to extend the freeze if the PA formally recognized Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
Now, if the Palis won’t do this, nothing else matters. Olmert nearly walked out of the Annapolis talks over this issue, but he stayed under extreme pressure from Bush, whom he kinda sorta trusted as “friend of Israel”. Obama has proven he cannot be trusted.
Nothing else matters because if this does not change, then the Palestinians have the perfect cover to renege on any agreement. They can logically claim in the court of world opinion that they could not be held to the terms of an agreement with an “illegitimate” entity. The delegitimization campaign will continue completely independent of any agreement with the PA, of course, in order to soften up opinion for this eventuality. If the PA recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, does so formally, amends their charter, etc., this cuts the legs out from under the delegitimization movement.
In refusing to do this, the PA – even under the “moderate” Fatah banner – reveals that nothing has changed since the PLO was established in 1964. The PA, like their parent organization the PLO, exists for one purpose and one purpose only: to build a Palestinian state on the wreckage of the Jewish state in the Levant. Period.
A real ally, with any belief in the fundamental principles that America is supposed to stand for, would back Israel unequivocally on this recognition issue. I don’t see how it could be brought into sharper relief, the hypocrisy and perfidy of first, the PA, and second, the Obama administration, for not taking Israel’s side in this. Instead, Obama – though on record as supporting the Israeli position – has downplayed this to the maximum extent, and along with their allies in the Saudi-controlled media, continue this massive lie that the “settlements” is the obstacle to peace. What rubbish!
Friedman is nothing but a traitorous, despicable judenrat. Bill, you are far too kind, and waste too much of you intellectual energy, giving him the benefit of the doubt as you do above.
Bibi must stick to the recognition issue absolutely, no matter what.
This is going to get very ugly, but that was true all along, as soon as Obama got elected. We should be surprised by none of this. The fact that Obama’s “generous” offer included a promise (worth nothing) of UNSC vetoes for the next year reveals Obama’s true antipathy towards Israel. If the U.S. were a true ally, since when does such support have an expiration date? This support has never been used as a bargaining chip before. Worst of all, this tells the Palestinians that, as in the case of the 10-month freeze, all they have to do is sit on their hands for another year, concede nothing, and then the U.S. holds that one-year “pass” to Israel’s head like a gun. “OK, we gave you a year to submit, but now we will leave you twisting in the wind before the UN if you don’t agree to all of our demands [“our” meaning the U.S. under Obama and the Palestinians]”.
But Israel is behaving like a “spoiled child”….What an outrage.
If it were within my power to do so, I’d have Friedman literally tarred and feathered for the disgusting turncoat and sellout that he is. No one deserves this more than he.
Ok Ted,I just noticed you posted my comments. Thanks.
Friedman’s premise, that Israel ought to be grateful and do what the US asks illustrates why it is time for Israel to stop accepting American governmental financial assistance. Israel is a first-world economy and now a member of the OECD. Israel’s GDP is on the order of $200 billion which puts it on par with some European nations. The assistance given by the US is just a small fraction of that GDP and should be easily phased out over a limited period. American assistance has been a tool of leverage to get Israel to give up vital land that it needs for its security. Enough is enough. Friedman is right that the payer of the piper legitimately expects to call the tune. Time to stop accepting the payments.
Watch this as it unfolds. This is where the next conflict begins. The end result could be a military confrontation. Arabs, to this point have been too proud to go this route full press, even though it will prove to be a much more effective weapon than violence. By using this tactic, Obama and European leaders will be able to support the Palestinians more openly under a pretense of international justice.
Laura. I retrieved everything there was to retrieve.
Friedman continues to reject the truth about the demographics.
Wake up. There are 1.5 million Arabs in Judea and Samaria, not 2.5 as he alleges.
Israel Matzav does a good takedown of Friedman
Is it possible to retrieve the comments I posted this afternoon? Because if I try to repost the same comments, it won’t allow me.
Bill. Regarding my charge that Friendman is shilling for Obama, you dismiss it to quickly. The State Depart often presents leaks and themes through Friedman and others. The Saudi Plan is one example. Here is another US angry at Netanyahu for being a Zionist
I make my claim after years of studying the press and the administration. The administration puts out a message in public or otherwise and the dutiful press joins in with the same message. The relationship is symbiotic. We are supposed to think the journalists are independant but they aren’t.
Another case in point is the recent scandle about the journolist. These journalists conspired to present the same memes and messages.
Israeli spokesmen have frequently suggested that the Obama administration have been consistently supportive of Israel’s needs and security concerns. Why must we all think otherwise? The annual stipend to Israel has never been reduced despite the near collapse of the U.S. economy. Every previous American administation has worked to varying degrees for a reconciliation. Its time for a more reasonable approach.
Ed, unless you tell me what you were lost on in my post which I presume was the one I set about to deconstruct Friedman’s views, I can’t help you out. Please let me know and I will try to explain it further to you.
Bill, Although I frequently disagree with you on certain subject I always thought that you were an intellectual person, but you lost me on your post.
Ted, suggesting Friedman is merely shilling for Obama in the hope more Jews will be convinced by him to support Obama, is way too cynical. Friedman is a respected journalist, has a large following and he does shape opinions.
In my view, Friedman does express his honestly held views. Though I accord him that respect, that does not mean I invariably agree with him. In fact, over the last few years, I have more often disagreed with his views, as I did in my earlier post.
I think it important however, that where there is fundamental disagreement with Friedman or any writer, people should express their disagreement specifically rather then just briefly posting one’s general sense of disagreement.
In any event, to the extent Friedman is an advocate for Obama’s policies, you are an advocate against Obama’s words and policies. I am pretty much on the same page as you on many issues.
Friedman’s views for now, hold far greater sway than ours.
We are both working hard to change that as are many other writers including other contributors to Israpundit.
Ted, I think you missed the thrust of my analysis of Friedman’s article. It was long because I dealt in progressive fashion with each point he was making as he led to his conclusion.
Perhaps you put too much emphasis on my suggestion about assuming Obama has good intentions driving him to do what he does.
If that was it, then you took my words out of context not only from what I posited before, but my words following that suggested assumption.
I know you don’t like or trust Obama from start to finish. You do seem to typically react badly to anyone who gives Obama the benefit of the doubt on any point or uses an assumption as I did, regarding Obama’s intentions.
I simply made the point that even assuming Friedman is correct about Obama’s intentions, it does not assist Friedman’s reasoning used or his conclusion reached.
Crap, my post was lost. Ted are you able to post it?
First of all here is Friedman trying to incite Americans against Israel with this portrayal of Israel as simply taking from America and unwilling to return the favor of American generosity. As has been pointed out repeatedly here and elsewhere, U.S. “aid” to Israel isn’t simply altruistic but are actually loans that the U.S. provides Israel on the condition that Israel purchases from America. Secondly the reason Israel turned down the offer is that Obama has proven he cannot be trusted since he has already not lived up to agreements made with Israel. Notably the 2004 Bush letter and the administration publicly admonishing Israel for building permits for Jewish housing in Jerusalem although the agreed upon freeze was not to include Jerusalem.
What does it say about the moral depravity of Europe and the UN that in order to get them behind stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel needs to be served on a silver platter? Why wouldn’t any sane person want the islamic jihadist regime in Iran to be prevented from acquiring nukes? Why must there be an incentive provided for their cooperation? Doesn’t Europe at least care about its own self-preservation?
Bill, must you look for the good in Obama. Isn’t it clear that he isn’t working the peace process as a friend of Israel.
It is obvious that Friedman is shilling for Obama. He is tryin to show how wonderful Obama is and how many nice things he is doing for the Israelis.The hope being that Jews will support Obama. Obama wants to curry favour with those American Jews that feel Israel should be more flexible and forthcoming. As we know, there are many of them.
So Friedman isn’t interested to analyzing the situation so much as he is interested in shilling for the president.
Breaking Down Thomas Friedman’s points in his article Just Knock it Off:
There are of course other stubborn facts that operate to raise Israeli security concerns and which keep peace away. More on that in the context of responding to the various train stations Friedman stops at as he proceeds with his train of thought.
One thing of note at this juncture. Given that Friedman is obviously aware of the so called stubborn facts and the others that play a role in these matters, it is puzzling that Friedman would state and accept the obvious stubborn facts and then proceed to leave those facts out of the context of what he proceeds to argue.
Agreeing with all those who tout Friedman as a top flight journalist, since when does a top flight journalist honestly think that his opinion rises to the level of a fact, stubborn or otherwise?
Lets see now.
Obama made the fixing the American economy a top priority. Along with a Democratic congress, he pushed through an almost 800 billion dollar stimulous package for shovel ready jobs that only needed stimulous help to get started, move industry to get busy again on new projects to create jobs that did not exist and bring the unemployment rate down to 8%.
Many jobs were created, but the large majority were government jobs as Obama furthered his expansion of government agenda. Of those jobs, many were part time in the federal census department. Once a census was over, the new census employee was again on the street, but would later be rehired to do another census. That went into the statistics mill as having created 2 new jobs.
Few of the new jobs created in private or public industry were for shovel ready projects.
The unemployment rate went up, not down and now the national average hovers steadily at about 9.6%. That rate is much higher in some states and within the Black/Hispanic communities.
It is noteworthy that not all the stimulous monies were spent. Obama, like many forward thinking politicians held much back, planning to inject the money into the economy in the lead up to the next election where he expects that money will buy him votes.
Obama also made health care reform a top priority. To be sure, America did need health care refore.
Well, the health care reforms Obama put through with the help of a democratic congress that bought democratic congressional votes with various concessions to congress people who held out until they got a pay off, is not exactly what the American people and indeed a number of States, wanted. Already the cracks , some anticipated and some not in the Obama health care law are beginning to surface and are causing even greater consternation as the debate over what kind of health care Americans need, but also can afford heats up.
Obama also seems to have made immigration reform one of his top priorities. We have seen how that has turned out as Obama first set himself against Arizona and now finds there are a number of other States that are pushing back against his policies.
With these realities and thoughts in mind, the fact that Obama has made the threat of Iran gaining nuclear weapons a top priority, does not per se mean that he will be successful. Indeed, Obama is weakly and meekly pushing forward with his stop Iran from getting the bomb agenda and the evidence mounts weekly that he is failing.
Friedman says Obama’s efforts logically would give America greater leverage with the Europeans and the UN. Really? It is not working. There are fundamental reasons and none of them particularly good why the EU has a history of putting their thumbs in America’s eye.
The politics of jealousy and resentment for America’s success accounts in great measure for EU and UN resistance to being more amenable to following America’s lead. As for the UN, the majority of voting members share some of the EU sentiments, but also are antisemitic and anti-Israel. They take it out on America for giving any support to Israel.
Friedman should know this, but he leaves it out of his analysis.
Friedman does have a point here, but again he isolates that point as if it per se identifies a core problem and that a total solution to all the problems is inherent in that one issue. Not so. It is also obvious that the major inarticulated premise of Friedman is that he sees the 2 state solution as the only solution and thus Israel must let go of the West Bank.