If the Palestinians want to take this whole problem back to where it started — the U.N. — I say let’s do it. But let’s think much bigger and with more imagination.
Thomas Friedman
Thomas Friedman claims that the Obama administration lacks imagination--but he is just being modest: the truth is that Friedman has more than enough imagination for both himself and the entire Obama administration.
In fact, Friedman has a way to resolve the Israel-Palestinian impasse.
To begin with, according to Friedman, you can't blame the White House for this mess:
[T]he actors they’ve had to work with were both lemons — a Palestinian government that was too divided to make any big decisions and an elusive right-wing Israeli government that was strong enough to make big decisions but had no will to do so.This by itself raises some questions:
The Obama team is in a fix. The Palestinian Authority, having lost faith in both Israel and the U.S., is pushing for the United Nations to recognize an independent Palestinian state, within the 1967 lines in the West Bank and Gaza.
1) Following Friedman's logic that inner divisions have prevented Abbas from making any 'big decisions', that would explain why Abbas has never offered any concessions while demanding unilateral Israeli concessions--but if the Palestinian Arabs can't make decisions,what is the point of having negotiations with them to begin with?
2) When Friedman claims that Israel's current government has not made the big decisions, does he mean that the 10-month settlement freeze was not a 'big decision'? Of course not.
Instead, since he faults Israel for not making 'big decisions' while admitting that the Palestinians are too divided to make any decisions on their own, what Friedman really means is: Israel should be making unilateral concessions till Abbas will finally sign on the dotted line.
3) Let's face it: since Friedman already admits that the Palestinians are incapable of making any decisions when it comes to making peace, his claim that Abbas is going to the UN because he has lost faith in the US and Israel is just Friedman's way of providing cover for Abbas.
But in this column, Friedman saves his imagination for a simple way to solve the Mideast crisis:
So why don’t we just update Resolution 181 and take it through the more prestigious Security Council? It could be a simple new U.N. resolution: “This body reaffirms that the area of historic Palestine should be divided into two homes for two peoples — a Palestinian Arab state and a Jewish state. The dividing line should be based on the 1967 borders — with mutually agreed border adjustments and security arrangements for both sides. This body recognizes the Palestinian state as a member of the General Assembly and urges both sides to enter into negotiations to resolve all the other outstanding issues.” Very simple.According to this scenario, the UN is supposed to recognize an actual Palestinian state before it actually has defined borders. Of course, now that Friedman has handed them what they want, it is not clear what incentive the Palestinians have to make any concessions when it comes to land swaps.
Each side would get something vital provided it gives the other what it wants. The Palestinians would gain recognition of statehood and U.N. membership, within provisional boundaries, with Israel and America voting in favor. And the Israelis would get formal U.N. recognition as a Jewish state — with the Palestinians and Arabs voting in favor.
I guess he'll just leave that to the imagination.
Even putting that aside, what Friedman proposes gives Pals what they want--a state--with the agreement of the US and Israel. But in return, what does Israel get? Friedman claims that Israel gets recognition of being a Jewish State--but that recognition is being given by the UN, not by the Palestinians. The Palestinians can just say that all that is affirmed is that the UN recognizes Israel as a Jewish state. Nowhere is it stated that the Pals themselves recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Keep in mind that by having Israel agree to the 1967 lines in this scenario, Friedman is also having Israel put Jerusalem on the chopping block--in exchange for the UN (not the Palestinian) recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
And remember, Friedman is requiring Israel to improve on the 1967 borders of this new Palestinian state by making land swaps--with what Friedman himself admits is a lemon of a Palestinian government that is "too divided to make any big decisions."
Thanks, Tom!
Of course, all of this is happening with Fatah joined at the hip with Hamas--so that a Palestinian state is being created while it is still dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
"Imaginative" does not begin to cover what this suggestion of Friedman's really is
Friedman calls this 'very simple'.
In effect, Tom Friedman is taking Occam's Razor--and asking Israel to cut its throat with it.
 |
| Please try my idea! |
Technorati Tag: Israel and Abbas and Palestine.
3 comments:
No Israeli government is going to take up Tom Friedman's suggestion and cut its own throat.
Haaretz, the Hebrew Palestinian daily, was upset at Netanyahu's description of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as "insoluble." But the fact remains that in life some problems exist to which is there no satisfactory solution.
Friedman doesn't even pretend to offer a proposal that would get the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the Jewish State and to terminate all further claims upon Israel. For him and Haaretz, its an Israeli diktat that makes a peace deal impossible.
So just impose one over Israel's dead body. That's an elegant application of Occam's Razor to the Middle East conflict.
Any partition would lead to an end of claims. This is the crux that Friedman doesn't get. The issue is not the issue.
As Netanyahu told Haaretz's Edgar Keret in Italy last week, its not a question of borders. The conflict is insoluble because the Arabs refuse to accept Israel as the Jewish state. Until they do, a peace agreement is impossible. The core of the conflict is existential. Friedman doesn't get it, anymore than the editors of Haaretz did when they attacked the Prime Minister for his pessimistic reading of peace with the Palestinians. I myself prefer to call it a realist reading - one cannot argue with the facts as they are and to pretend otherwise, as Friedman and Haaretz do, is to engage in wishful thinking.
Post a Comment