Israel Matzav

Tom Friedman's dream world

Tom Friedman is so eager to talk about Israel that he turns his op-ed into two opinions on Wednesday, both of which, of course, promote the discredited 'land for peace' paradigm. Here's part of the first one.

I can certainly see the efficacy of nonviolent resistance by Palestinians to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank — on one condition: They accompany any boycotts, sit-ins or hunger strikes with a detailed map of the final two-state settlement they are seeking. Just calling for “an end to occupation” won’t cut it.

Palestinians need to accompany every boycott, hunger strike or rock they throw at Israel with a map delineating how, for peace, they would accept getting back 95 percent of the West Bank and all Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and would swap the other 5 percent for land inside pre-1967 Israel. Such an arrangement would allow some 75 percent of the Jewish settlers to remain in the West Bank, while still giving Palestinians 100 percent of the land back. (For map examples see: the Geneva Parameters or David Makovsky’s at: http://washingtoninstitute.org/pubPDFs/StrategicReport06.pdf.)

By Palestinians engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience in the West Bank with one hand and carrying a map of a reasonable two-state settlement in the other, they will be adopting the only strategy that will end the Israeli occupation: Making Israelis feel morally insecure but strategically secure. The Iron Law of the peace process is that whoever makes the Israeli silent majority feel morally insecure about occupation but strategically secure in Israel wins.

I'm impressed that Friedman has finally reached the point of saying that 'end the occupation' isn't much of a campaign slogan. He's asking the 'Palestinians' to define what 'occupation' means. And yes, he implies that the 'Palestinians' just might mean that 'occupation' includes the '1948 territory.' Of course, Tom doesn't think they mean that.

Unabated, disruptive Palestinian civil disobedience in the West Bank, coupled with a map delineating a deal most Israelis would buy, is precisely what would make Israelis feel morally insecure but strategically secure and revive the Israeli peace camp. It is the only Palestinian strategy Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu fears, but it is one that he is sure Palestinians would never adopt. He thinks it’s not in their culture. Will they surprise him?

I wouldn't bet on it, Tom. Read your own newspaper.

More importantly, Tom, I'd like to know when, if ever, you think Israelis would be justified in giving up on the 'two-state solution.' It ought to be clear by now that the 'Palestinians' don't ever intend to divide this land with us, and that they would view any division as a step on the way to extirpating the Jewish state.

So when is enough enough, Tom? When can we tell the 'Palestinians' that it's too late and that their opportunity is gone? When can Jews stop pretending that Judea and Samaria don't really belong to us - despite all the facts in our favor ranging from biblical promise to liberation in a defensive war - and start settling the 'territories' as we would like? Can we at least give the 'Palestinians' a 'sell by' date and stick to it? You sure haven't done that until now.

Until the 'Palestinians' really feel that they're going to lose their opportunity forever, there is no chance that they will compromise. In fact, the time has come to admit that 'losing it all' would not incentivize the 'Palestinians' to compromise either. There have been too many 'last chances.'

Labels: Tom Friedman, two-state solution

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:19 PM