[Note: This article was written on June 17th in response to an op-ed column, "Reality Principle," by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times on June 15th. Since then, Palestinian terrorist groups have declared a ceasefire - Hamas' ninth since the 1980's - and Abu Mazen has stated that disarming "Hamas, Jihad and the Palestinian organizations is not an option at all."]

Thomas Friedman's time has passed. When I was in high school, Friedman was "the man." His book, From Beirut to Jerusalem, made the Arab-Israeli conflict accessible to a fresh generation of Middle East junkies and liberal, Diaspora Zionists. A passionate, Jewish-American journalist who empathized with the Palestinian cause, Friedman taught us what was good and bad about Israel. He infused his point of view with personal experiences that were tragic, funny, and insightful, conveying a belief in Zionism with the strong conviction that Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza must end. Nothing terribly original or earth shattering, but compelling reading for us newbies, nonetheless.

When I skim through From Beirut to Jerusalem today, parts of it seem hopelessly naive, given the last ten years' developments. But it's still a decent read, even if one disagrees with some of his conclusions . Friedman's more recent work, however, feels out of touch, despite his connections to Israeli scholars, progressive Arab writers, and Saudi politicians. One is lead to believe that Friedman substitutes facts with a hackneyed, wishful script. He recycles familiar, fundamentalist whitewash and "bad Israel" admonishments, tweaking the language to create the facade of expert perspective.

An analysis of "Reality Principal," his June 15th op-ed, in which Friedman chastised Israeli leaders for a helicopter strike on Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi, shows a distortion of facts to accommodate a predictable anti-Sharon rant that's become ubiquitous on American op-ed pages.

On Hamas, he says, "We're talking about a ragtag terrorist group."

Ragtag? Hamas has a steady flow of money from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Hamas also has a large voice in Palestinian universities. Recently, a boat was retrieved that contained C.D. ROMs and weapons. CAIR has been referred to as a "Hamas Front," and it is widely believed there are Hamas cells in the United States.

It seems that Friedman is deliberately presenting Hamas as an unorganized fringe of inexperienced fanatics. They are not. They are a terrorist organization that is well funded and enjoys popular support in the Arab/Muslim world, with recruitment efforts extending beyond the West Bank and Gaza. (One day after Friedman's op-ed, a Times article by writer Ian Fisher portrayed Hamas as a group better organized than the P.A., enjoying widespread support by Palestinians as an alternative to the current Mazen-Arafat leadership.)

Friedman, again: "Unless what is happening is something else, something I call Palestinian math: Israel kills one Hamas operative and three others volunteer to take his place, in which case what Israel is doing is actually self-destructive."

"Palestinian math?" I call it "Standard Beltway logic," used by New York Times columnists who ts-ts'd at the idea of military action against the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. The same logic is applied by the left when talking about killing almost any Arab terrorists, really; and it's backed by the facile conviction that "You'll just create more terrorists if you kill them." It's the usual appeasement defense - nothing "Palestinian" or "mathematical" about it.

"'Both sides,' notes the Israeli political theorist Yaron Ezrahi, 'have crossed the line where self-defense has turned into self-destruction.'"

How so? It could be argued that it's self-destructive to sit back while Abu Mazen has stated unequivocally that he will not disarm terrorists.

"The question is not whether Israel has a right to kill senior Hamas officials. They are bad guys. The question is whether it's smart for Israelis to do it now."

The only "smart" time to go after terrorists is before they kill more innocent people. Regardless of a European document that imposes a timetable (which Mazen has failed to meet, anyway) for Palestinian statehood, this is about saving human lives, not political expediency. Besides, I can't remember a single military action by Israel that's had world approval, or support from the left, especially since Oslo. It seems there never is a "smart" time for Jews to fight murderers and Islamic fanatics.

"The fact is, the only time Israelis have enjoyed extended periods of peace in the last decade has been when Palestinian security services disciplined their own people, in the heyday of Oslo. Unfortunately, Yasir Arafat proved unwilling to do that consistently."

This statement is so untrue it's mind-boggling. Yasir Arafat didn't prove unwilling to "discipline" terrorists "consistently." He proved unwilling to discipline terrorists at all. I would like Friedman to provide a single link to a credible source that shows an "extended period" during Oslo when "crack downs" by Palestinian "security services" (which William Safire showed were actually working with terrorists - providing them with Orthodox habiliments, etc.) didn't result in temporary incarcerations, house arrests, or half-assed firefights staged for western journalists.

"Mahmoud Abbas...is ready to rebuild the Palestinian security services, and, in the context of an interim peace settlement, corral Hamas."

"Corral" Hamas? What does that mean? Abbas has made it very clear that he has no intention of doing anything more than talking to Hamas. In response, Hamas has maintained that it intends to destroy Israel. Meanwhile, the road map is unequivocal: it calls for "disarmament" - not "talks of a possible, temporary, cease-fire conditional on whether or not Israel targets terrorists that are blowing up children in busses." "Corral" is Friedman's colorful word for "promise to discuss with." And to "corral" is unacceptable.

"The smart thing is to say to Mr. Abbas: 'How can we help you crack down on Hamas? We don't want Israel to own Hamas's demise. Palestinians have to root out this cancer within their own society. If Israelis try to do it, it will only metastasize.'"

Again, Abbas has made it very clear he will not disarm Hamas. And Hamas has made it crystal clear they are committed to destroying Israel. And what makes Friedman think that a crackdown on Hamas by a "moderate" Palestinian like Mazen won't cause the "cancer" to "metastasize" the same amount if Israel roots them out? After all, according to various media sources, Mazen enjoys virtually no support and has been called a traitor by Arafat. If Palestinians like Mazen do "crack down on Hamas," the result will be a civil war much bloodier than the targeted strikes Israel is now implementing. A war in which extremists' opponents will be smeared as "Zionist puppets" - hardly a brand most Palestinians will fight for, given the rampant anti-Semitism in the P.A.-controlled media.

"'Of course Israel is entitled to pursue its mortal enemies, just as America does, but it cannot do it with reckless abandon,' notes Mr. Ezrahi."

Targeted strikes at cars or Hamas weapons facilities are not reckless abandon. A suicide bomber blowing up a bus in Jerusalem is reckless abandon.

"America will never have to live with Mr. bin Laden's children...Israel will have to live with the Palestinians, after the war. They are right next door and always will be."

Tom, I've got news for you: America is living with bin Laden supporters. There are tens of thousands of them right here, in Saudi financed mosques and schools. Only, your buddies in the establishment cry "racism" whenever this is mentioned. True, we're not surrounded by bin Landen's "children," but they are a growing threat, nonetheless. And if we alter OUR policy of hunting terrorists to satisfy THEM, we're in big trouble.

And here is a fact, also, one you wouldn't dare mention on your page: Israel really doesn't "have to live" with anything. Because if the Palestinians continue to prove unreliable partners in peace, there will be an all out war; and it will be one that Israel will not lose.

"The fact is, Ariel Sharon's two years of using the Israeli Army alone to fight terrorism have not made Israelis more secure."

Neither did Oslo's seven years, Tom. And "the fact is," less suicide bombers have gotten through to Israel then before Operation Defensive Shield, when they were blowing themselves up daily as Israel stayed its hand.

"He needs a Palestinian partner, and he has to operate and negotiate in a way that will nurture one. And the people who get that the best are Israelis. In a Yediot Ahronot poll released Friday, two-thirds of Israelis were critical of Mr. Sharon's tactic of targeted assassinations of Hamas officials and said they wanted Mr. Abbas to be given a chance to establish his authority."

I'd like to see the results of that same poll taken a month from now. Sorry, those numbers came out on the tail end of a bombing that killed almost 20 Israelis, one that the Western press falsely linked to the attempt on the life of a senior Hamas leader the day before. One can mold the results of any poll, given a certain sample population, timing, etc.

And it wasn't two thirds of the population, anyway.

"But surely Israel has more to gain in the long term by giving Mr. Abbas every chance to prove otherwise, and to empower him to do so, rather than killing one more Hamas 'senior official,' who will only be replaced by three others."

AGAIN with Abbas, when he has CLEARLY STATED that he won't take action (this one rebuttal can be used to nullify 80% of what Friedman asserts in this editorial).

It is not Israel's responsibility to diaper Abu Mazen (or any of the Palestinians, for that matter). He's a big boy, and he's got the C.I.A. training a police force in counter-terrorist tactics. It is Israel's responsibility to defend its citizens, based on realistic steps taken to achieve a solution to the conflict. Israel has lifted curfews, allowed Palestinians back into the country to work, released terrorists from jails, and taken down some settlements. Abbas has offered the Israelis nothing but talk.

"Because if the two sides cannot emerge from this dead end, then you can forget about a two-state solution, which is what both Hamas's followers and the extremist Jewish settlers want."

Friedman is taking it to extremes by bringing up the settlers. I suspect most mainstream Israelis are more distrusting of a Palestinian state than ever before, settlers or not. To claim that an aggressive policy of defending the nation is simply to placate "extremist" settlers, when Jews in Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv are being blown to bits, is just a lie.

Thomas Friedman is living in a dream world. I've kept nearly all of his op-eds since September 11th, and I'm always shocked at how often he contradicts himself. First he writes that only Palestinians can decide whether Arafat should go, then he says on T.V. that Arafat must go. He writes an op-ed excoriating France and the U.N. Security Council, then slams Bush for bypassing that same noxious club to attack Iraq. He opines that Israel must show the Palestinians that "terrorism doesn't pay," then joins the media mafia and upbraids Sharon for doing just that. He writes that Palestinians "chose" suicide bombings, then claims that Israel's targeting of the masterminds behind those despicable acts is "self-destructive."

Why so much waffling? Why the sparks of moral clarity surrounded by the trite "bad Likud" admonishments? Why the persistent and outdated view that Palestinian nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism are separate? Why the belief that Palestinians would choose peace if it weren't for the settlements? Why should Israel show unconditional support of a holocaust-denying "moderate" who says that violence is "not in our interest" but won't stop the violence? Why the willful delusions that have Friedman trapped in an Oslo time warp?

The answer seems more obvious with each piece: Thomas Friedman wants to be liked. He's the Bill Clinton of Middle-East punditry, preferring to stay in the loop and be the establishment's objective, anti-"Likudnik" Yid. Sure, he'll take a tough stance and assert himself once in awhile, railing against Arab anti-Semitism and Saudi dissembling. But he won't risk alienating his audience, those "informed" news junkies who devour his books on subways and take the Times's anti-Israel coverage as dogma.

Friedman was once a figurehead and teacher for my generation of hopeful, liberal, wide-eyed, two-state solution American Zionists. No more. We've witnessed September 11th , and have access to the ceaseless, seething hatred of Jews that's the norm in the Arab media. We've seen the P.A.'s relentless, anti-Semitic brainwashing of Palestinian children. We've comprehended the efforts of the "new" Israeli left to demonize Zionism at every opportunity. We've noticed how, in the anti-Semitic doublespeak of the Western media, "militants" - never terrorists - murder Jews. We've listened to other pundits: Pipes, Kramer, even Peretz, who say what they believe, despite it costing them appearances on NPR. We've matured, we've studied, we've grown up. Friedman has wallowed in the Grey Lady's op-eds: towing her editorial line, ignoring undeniable truths, garnering Pulitzers, and promoting Thomas Friedman.

David Sobel is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, New York.

_________________________End of Story___________________________

 

Home

Featured Stories

Did You Know?

Readers' Blog-Eds

Background Information

News On The Web