Thomas Friedman, "Israel: Adrift at Sea Alone": With Friends Like Friedman, Who Needs Enemies

Thomas Friedman, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Israel: Adrift at Sea Alone" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/opinion/sunday/friedman-israel-adrift-at-sea-alone.html?ref=opinion), would have us believe that he is deeply disturbed by Israel's future:

"The crumbling of key pillars of Israel’s security — the peace with Egypt, the stability of Syria and the friendship of Turkey and Jordan — coupled with the most diplomatically inept and strategically incompetent government in Israel’s history have put Israel in a very dangerous situation.

This has also left the U.S. government fed up with Israel’s leadership but a hostage to its ineptitude, because the powerful pro-Israel lobby in an election season can force the administration to defend Israel at the U.N., even when it knows Israel is pursuing policies not in its own interest or America’s."

I assume that when Friedman refers to the frustration of the "U.S. government," he is referring to his friend Obama, who hardly comprises the entirety of the U.S. government, although perhaps both Friedman and Obama think he does.

Although Friedman acknowledges that Israel is not to blame for the chaos that envelops Egypt, the mass murder and violent repression of Syria's civilian population, the attempts by Erdogan to fill the Middle East power vacuum created by Obama notwithstanding Turkey's own problems with the Kurds, or the friction between Hamas and Fatah in Gaza and the West Bank, he still holds Netanyahu accountable for failing to respond to any of these problems with a strategy. In particular, Friedman castigates Netanyahu for not "putting a real peace map on the table."

A "real peace map on the table"? I thought this was what Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert offered to Arafat and Abbas, respectively, when they agreed to return to the 1967 lines with land swaps and to share Jerusalem. Unfortunately, neither Arafat nor Abbas was capable of accepting the offers.

No mention by Friedman that Abbas is unwilling to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Also no mention by Friedman of recent declarations by Fatah that a future Palestinian state will allow no Jews within its borders. This is what should truly be worrying Tom.

Indeed, these are dark times for Israel. Israel is facing existential threats from Iran and its proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah. Egypt is teetering on disavowal of its peace treaty with Israel. No one knows what will emerge in Syria after Assad is ultimately forced to leave the country. Rockets and mortar shells continue to be fired at civilian targets in the south of Israel from Gaza.

I make no secret of it: I am no great fan of Netanyahu. On the other hand, there is also no denying the restraint demonstated by the man in the face of repeated rocket attacks from Gaza.

Should Netanyahu repeat the peace offer made by Barak and Olmert? He can do that, but it will be rejected by Abbas. There is a reason why Abbas waited nine months before coming to the negotiating table after Obama arranged a ten-month moratorium on the construction of new Israeli housing in the West Bank. Abbas is not interested in peace. He is, however, interested in holding onto the reins of power and avoiding the fate of fellow despots in nearby Arab countries.

Frankly, Tom, I am not as concerned as you are from your mansion in Maryland with Israel's "deeper global isolation." Israel is going to be hated by its Middle East neighbors and much of Europe no matter what it does. My pressing concern is Israel's physical survival, and although I favor a two-state solution, Israel currently has no partner for peace in either Gaza or the West Bank. And while this ugly reality has escaped your blinkered field of vision, it has not been lost upon the American electorate, which continues to support Israel by an overwhelming majority.