Thomas Friedman rewarded his loyal New York Times readers with a double header today, "two for the price of one," referring to his take on the current Middle East, which "it is impossible to capture... all with one opinion."
So, the famous columnist starts by praising the latest call of Marwan Barhouti, jailed in Israel for "involvement in killing Israelis," for a non-violent resistance to Israel. Then, Friedman goes on to advise the Palestinians to boycott Israel as part of their non-violent struggle, but "accompany every boycott... or rock they throw at Israel" with a map showing how, while doing so, they are ready to accept only 95% of the West Bank and Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and swap the remaining 5% for land inside pre-1967 Israel. Well, in Friedman's world throwing rocks at Israel is non-violent. Rocks, as he should know, are not thrown at states, they are thrown at human beings and they kill human beings. Not in the flashy neighborhoods where Friedman spends his time, but definitely in Israel, as well as in the West Bank. There are organizations and individuals who can provide him with names of such victims. I am skeptical though whether he is really interested in knowing their names.
Then, Friedman moves on to another of his favorite subjects, the "Arab awakening," which he did not predict in his extensive writing about the Middle East, and yet knew, from its very beginning, how it would affect the future there, in particular the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In his writings about these issues, the word "settlements" figures prominently, and the idea is to somehow connect every thing that happens in the Middle East to Israel, or more precisely, to its misdeeds. Friedman is honest enough to admit that the "Arab awakening" may be the outcome of Arab autocratic regimes and their failures, but then there is again Israel, as he tells us that now an Israeli-Palestinian peace is more urgent than ever. This is mainly because of the rise of Islamists in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria.
So, Friedman pontificates to the native Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians that they need "a greater incentive than ever before to create an alternative model in the West Bank -- a Singapore -- to show that they, together, can give birth to a Palestinian state where Arab Muslims and Christians, men and women, can thrive in a secular but religiously respectful, free market, democratic context, next to a Jewish state." No doubt a desirable vision, and according to Friedman one which is necessary and possible, because unlike Asia, the Arabs lack a good regional model to follow, so if they do not have one, here he comes to the rescue to sell us the Singapore model.
Let's deal with the model and the intellectual mindset which is behind it all. First, the "Arab awakening," which Friedman praises so much, led to Islamist victories in democratic elections taking place in Tunisia and Egypt. What does Friedman know that these people do not know about their problems and how to solve them? Then, let us remember that Singapore is indeed a great model for economic development and internal organization, but not exactly for a classic democracy, as the People Action Party (PAP) has been in power for over 50 years, and counting...
Beyond that, Singapore is clearly a religiously respectful state, but the role of religion in public life there is totally different than that which has existed for 14 centuries in the Islamic Middle East. Buddhist and Islamic concepts of religion and state are not exactly compatible, and this is to put it very mildly...
Friedman forgets also that there was a local Middle East model for co-existence, without coercion between Islam and democracy, that of Kemalist Turkey, a model which tragically enough is on the retreat in its birth place, Turkey itself, with the growing domination of the ruling AKP Islamic party there.
Then there is the mindset which leads a pure liberal as Friedman to believe in cultural transplant: just bring Singapore to the Middle East, and all will suddenly look so much nicer and better. Typical Western arrogance of "we know better"; something that is shared by good-hearted liberals, and G-D forbid, neo-cons, who engaged in nation-building in the Middle East, of course along the lines of their brand of Western thinking. The results are well in display in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Last but not least, Singapore has traditionally been very friendly to Israel, having very extensive commercial relations with Israel. They do not engage in boycotts over there, so what do they know that even Friedman does not know?
Guy Ziv: The Jordanian Peace Initiative: A Case of Déjà Vu?
There is one internationally-accepted border of Isreal, it was drawn in 1967.
In short Friedman wants peace and knows a final status agreement will achieve this end. This objective is not the least promoted by this article.
Friedman goes on to advise the Palestinians to boycott Israel as part of their non-violent struggle, but "accompany every boycott... or rock they throw at Israel"
. . . . .
Well, in Friedman's world throwing rocks at Israel is non-violent. Rocks, as he should know, are not thrown at states, they are thrown at human beings and they kill human beings.
Who can take Friedman seriously?
Actually, the Palestinians are supposed to meet with Netanyahu and provide him with a settlement outline, which unfortunately includes a dessation of settlement building to begin negotiations. I think the Palestinians would do better to limit that demand to E. Jerusalem, where the demand is more relevant and vital.
Hmm this is disturbing news. Pehaps Israels paltry arsenal of artillery, fighter bombers, tanks, gunship helicopters, guided bombs, high powered sniper rifles and assault rifles could be beefed up with some good old fashioned american rocks? Why we could increase their yearly 3 billion gist for weapons purchases to include rocks.
Will someone please provide Israel with some rocks before they are wiped off the map by Palestinian children.
you with a textbook on ME history
The fact that the anti-israel crowd thinks this is "non-violent" just shows how morally twisted one has to be to support the palestinians.
Right now any chance of "a Palestinian state where Arab Muslims and Christians, men and women, can thrive in a secular but religiously respectful, free market, democratic context, next to a Jewish state." is a FANTASY.
Early settlers in 1948 and 1949 built the infrastructure in Israel. Not the "palestinians" who claim the land as their own. During WWII, Jews, Christians and Muslims lived side by side under British rule. When England decided to leave and the UN partitioned the land, the "palestinians" rejected it. The countries of Israel and Jordan were created (and by the way, the land that the "palestinians" rejected went to Jordan, not Israel). Every other Middle East country has a Muslim majority, so why shouldn't the tiny strip of Israel have a Jewish majority?
Yeah Saudi Arabis is racist too. And also an "ally" of ours. Why do we keep such shady friends?
And no need to put Palestinians in quotes, they are not an imaginary people. You obviously see them as 2nd rate and reveal exactly the attitude that is at the base of the problem in that region.
The Intl community accepts Isreal, in fact they go beyond Isreali gov itself in that it understands that there is only one internationally-recognized border of Isreal: that drawn in 1967.
the arabs have water tanks on top of the houses so they can fill it sloly... drop by drop- that way the water counter can't fill it and at the end of the month they took 100 galons but pay for 10. but someone have to pay for it so the arab town pay it or don't get water...
Inside Israel the arabs have water from Israel and also do that... and at the end the water company close the tap is the town don't pay the bill.
It is a fact that there is no rain from May to December in Israel. The rooftop containers collect water from January until April for domestic and agricultural use, knowing full well that Merkerot (the National Water Carrrier) can turn off the taps at any moment, for any reason.....