Thomas Friedman, "2 for 2, or 2 for 1?": Shameless Twaddle

Rarely have I been so sickened by a Friedman op-ed.

In his latest New York Times column entitled "2 for 2, or 2 for 1?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/opinion/friedman-2-for-2-or-2-for-1.html?_r=1&hp), would-be Middle East expert Friedman places equal blame on Palestinian Authority President Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and US President Obama for the stalemate in the peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians. Friedman begins:

"Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu of Israel, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and President Obama all spoke at the U.N. last week and, honestly, it is hard to decide whose speech was worse. Netanyahu’s read like a pep rally to the Likud Central Committee. Abbas’s read like an address to an Arab League meeting. Obama’s read like an appeal to Jewish voters in Florida."

Friedman would have us believe that Netanyahu’s speech to the UN "read like a pep rally to the Likud Central Committee." Oh, really? Let's look at some of that speech:

"The settlements have to be -- it's an issue that has to be addressed and resolved in the course of negotiations.

. . . .

President Abbas, stop walking around this issue. Recognize the Jewish state, and make peace with us. In such a genuine peace, Israel is prepared to make painful compromises. We believe that the Palestinians should be neither the citizens of Israel nor its subjects. They should live in a free state of their own.

. . . .

The day I came into office, I called for direct negotiations without preconditions. President Abbas didn't respond. I outlined a vision of peace of two states for two peoples. He still didn't respond. I removed hundreds of roadblocks and checkpoints, to ease freedom of movement in the Palestinian areas; this facilitated a fantastic growth in the Palestinian economy. But again -- no response. I took the unprecedented step of freezing new buildings in the settlements for 10 months. No prime minister did that before, ever. [Scattered applause.] Once again -- you applaud, but there was no response. No response.

In the last few weeks, American officials have put forward ideas to restart peace talks. There were things in those ideas about borders that I didn't like. There were things there about the Jewish state that I'm sure the Palestinians didn't like.

But with all my reservations, I was willing to move forward on these American ideas.

. . . .

In two and a half years, we met in Jerusalem only once, even though my door has always been open to you. If you wish, I'll come to Ramallah. Actually, I have a better suggestion. We've both just flown thousands of miles to New York. Now we're in the same city. We're in the same building. So let's meet here today in the United Nations. Who's there to stop us? What is there to stop us? If we genuinely want peace, what is there to stop us from meeting today and beginning peace negotiations?"

Excuse me, Tom, but you would have us believe that this is the voice of intransigence?

Now let's have a look at a single paragraph from Abbas's speech to the UN, which explains in a nutshell why the Palestinian leadership continues to reject any peaceful settlement with Israel:

"I come before you today from the Holy Land, the land of Palestine, the land of divine messages, ascension of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the birthplace of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people in the homeland and in the the Diaspora, to say, after 63 years of suffering of the ongoing Nakba: Enough. It is time for the Palestinian people to gain their freedom and independence."

Or in other words, both Christians and Muslims have deep ties to the Holy Land, but there can be no recognition of the Jews' historical link to the same region.

The reality here is that both Arafat and Abbas have consistently rejected peace with Israel based upon the 1967 lines. Moreover, Abbas is now saying that he will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and that a future Palestinian state will have no Jews within its borders.

Abbas does not want peace, and in the past he has indicated that he is perfectly content with the status quo (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-york-times-editorial-new-chance-for.html) However, Abbas does wish to preserve his authoritarian rule. Elected to serve as the president of the Palestinian Authority until January 2009, Abbas continues in his current position without a mandate.

I have no affinity for the Likud, but I am forced to admit that Netanyahu made a lot of sense in his UN speech. I want a two-state solution, I want the Palestinians to live securely in their own nation structured along the 1967 lines with land swaps acceptable to both parties, but I also wish to see an Israel free from the threat of rocket fire directed at its towns and cities.

I have witnessed from up close too many wars, and I want peace for my children and all in the Middle East; however, Friedman's pretentious pontifical bull (as in papal bull) from his Maryland mansion, safe from missiles, rockets, mortar shells and suicide bombers, makes me ill.