The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman made a rare concession to reality today when he wrote in his column that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was right to voice fears about the outcome of the Arab Spring earlier this year. In another astonishing divergence from his blame-Israel-at-all costs, he even noted that Israel’s refusal to cede more territory to the Palestinians at a time when they are fatally divided between Fatah and Hamas is “understandable” because, as Netanyahu noted in a speech to the Knesset yesterday, the Arab world is moving “backward” and turning into an “Islamic, anti-Western, anti-liberal, anti-Israeli, undemocratic wave.” Giving up more land now is senseless: “We can’t know who will end up with any piece of territory we give up.”
But later on in the piece, Friedman reverted to form by saying the best way for Israel to avert the Arab drift to radicalism was to further empower moderates such as Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. But as we noted here more than a week ago, PA leader Mahmoud Abbas has already conceded that Fayyad will be dumped when Fatah and Hamas conclude their unity pact. The fact that Fayyad’s time has already come and gone is apparently beneath the notice of one of the fixtures on the Times op-ed page.
In fact, Netanyahu and his predecessors have done all they can to help Fayyad during the last several years, as has the United States. Despite the Palestinians’ clear violations of the Oslo Accords by going to the UN, Israel even handed over tax funds this week to Fayyad, as Friedman demanded. But the problem with a thesis that sees “Fayyadism” as the answer to Israel’s problems is that despite all the aid he has gotten, he still has no political traction with his own people.
Fayyad did much during his time in power at the PA to help his people and lay the groundwork for a rational economy. But, contrary to Friedman, his failure has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with a Palestinian political culture that still prizes violence over good governance. Israel would like the moderates to succeed but, as in Egypt, where Islamists appear to have the advantage over liberals, Palestinians don’t seem to have much use for a policy of coexistence. The irrational hatred for Jews and Israel that is on the rise in Egypt may turn out to be an indication that genuine democracy there may not be in the offing. The same dynamic is in place for the Palestinians. After all, even during Fayyad’s term in office, the official Palestinian media has been a font of hate and delegitimization of Israel.
The overwhelming majority of Israelis would love to divest themselves of much of the West Bank. But they rightly refuse to repeat the experience of Gaza, where an Israeli withdrawal led to the creation of a Hamas state that serves as a safe haven for terrorism. Israel can’t create a two-state solution and peace on its own. When Palestinians are willing to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state, no matter where its borders might be drawn, they will find, as was the case in 2000, 2001 and 2008 when Israel offered them statehood, that they can have independence and peace. Rather than blaming Israel for Fayyad’s failure, Friedman and his friends in the Obama administration ought to be advocating for a sea change in Palestinian politics that will make peace possible.
Just as Friedman is right to note that, despite criticism from Israelis, there was nothing Obama could have done to preserve Hosni Mubarak’s dictatorship, so, too, is it foolish to blame Israel for the fate of Fayyad or the growing strength of Hamas. Nothing Obama says or does will keep the Muslim Brotherhood out of power if they have the backing of the majority of Egyptians. He needs to recognize that Israel is just as powerless to change the minds of the Palestinians. The rise of Islamism is a function of the demons of the Arab world, not the fault of Israel or the West.
What Friedman hasn't noticed is that whenever Israel makes a concession, anti-Israel hatred zooms up. It happened when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. It happened in 2005 when Israel gave the Gazans an independent Palestinian state with no strings attached. It happened when Israel tried to negotiate a withdrawal from the West Bank in 2008. As a result, Israel is hated more today than ever before in history.
The way the Israeli -'Palestinian' conflict is rigged, it's a zero sum game. n nAny legitimacy the 'Palestinians' gain comes at Israel's expense. n nThe logic is simple – if Israel concedes something to the ':Palestinian's, that is proof of' 'Palestinian' legitimacy. If the 'Palestinians' are legitimate, then Israel can't be. Unfair, but there it is. When the world doesn't like yo to begin with, that's how it goes. n nThe greatest bit of Judo ever seen was the Arab world's turning the Arab Israeli conflict into the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Over night , David became Goliath, and the Arab Goliath disappeared, replaced with a 'Palestinian' David. Peres, Rabin, and the rest of the old guard Labourites made catastrophic errors in judgement. Letting this group of murderers into the 'west bank' and Gaza after they were expelled form Lebanon was a blunder of the first order, matched only by the blunder of returning Sinai to Egypt. The latter may have been mitigated somewhat had Begin managed to get rid of Gaza at the same time. n nNetanyahu has learned quite a bit. His challenge is waiting out the anti-ZIonist in the White House. n nHeaven help Israel should Obama win a second term. n n
Here is my comment to him in Times: n nIsrael is the luckiest country in the world. Nobody knows how to create more jobs in America, how to save the euro zone, how to maintain reasonable and safe relations with Pakistan, its Army, Government and nuclear arsenal, how to solve America's illegal immigration problem, to decide whether Occupy Wall Street is good of bad, and how to solve a plethora of other difficult problems. On the other hand everybody knows what Israel should do today, tomorrow, in a year next century, and of course what it should have done yesterday. n nThe strategic problems of Israel have not changed much since it was created. If anything they improved somewhat. The recommendation of some State Department officials and the intelligence community to abandon Israel when it seemed that in 1948 it will loose the war, seems inconceivable today. Its population increased from 0.6 million to 7.3. Its per capita GNP grew 20 times or more. It is militarily stronger and safer. n nZhou Enlai may have been too conservative when he stated 150 years after the French Revolution that it is too early to evaluate its outcome, but he was much wiser than those who insist about their ability to predict the outcome of the Arab revolt as if it is a TV reality show. Until the fog of the Arab Spring or Winter clears the best strategy for both the US and Israel is to stick to their own interests. Except in reality shows, wait and see is not necessarily the worst policy. n Recommend Recommended by 66 Reader
At least Tom hasn't written a column pining for a Chinese Communist takeover of the PA. n nhmmm, come to think of it….
Friedman's support of Fayyadism is dishonest. When Abbas made his various attempts to ally with Hamas, Friedman did not write a single column denouncing Abbas' repudiations of Fayyadism. If Fayyadism was that important, wasn't it worth Friedman noting? Fayyadism is another Friedman fad, a cute word or phrase that has no real meaning but can be deployed as a cudgel against Israel for being intransigent. nOf course the other problem is that his comparison of Fayyad to the pro-democracy and pro-Islamist protesters, is that Fayyad has no significant constituency. Fayyad isn't a lifeline to Israel, he is a Palestinian island.
Everybody who really understands the Israel- Palestinian Arab conflict knows thae Friedman has never truly understood the situation. It is scandalous that he is given so much credence by the NY Times and the rest of the media.