Of what the Israel-Palestine conflict is ultimately about:
If you believe, as I do, that the only stable solution is a two-state one, with the Palestinians getting all of the West Bank, Gaza and Arab sectors of East Jerusalem, then you have to hope for the weakening of Hamas.It would be refreshing, though, if he would spend a column or two explaining why he reached that conclusion and how such a two state solution might be implemented, rather than treating it as a throw-away line. I recognize that it's easier to write a column that preaches of the threat of Iran, Hamas rejectionism and radical Islam. But how many people aren't already in that choir?
You mean, could we expect Friedman to write something like this? No, to be that critical of Israel it seems you need to have spent some real time there, and perhaps even have seen for yourself (from the Israeli side of a gun) how the occupation works.
ReplyDeleteNo, I wouldn't actually want a Friedman piece that angry, as it clouds the message and may cause you to distort the facts in the opposite direction. (Although I guess that works for Krauthammer?) But Friedman knows the facts, and for the most part he's too much of a coward to share them with his audience.
". . . to be that critical of Israel it seems you need to have spent some real time there . . . "
ReplyDeleteNot really, you just can't be blinded by bigotry or utterly ignorant. I'll leave it up to you to decide into which camp Friedman and his fellows fall.
CWD