Friedman’s “Reality”

Reading columns by Thomas Friedman on the Middle East is a frustrating endeavor. In the American political spectrum, he takes the standard elite-liberal opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is to say one that does not accord well with the historical record and rejects the national aspirations of the Palestinians. His most recent column on the topic shows why.

He begins with this:

The failed attempt by the U.S. to bribe Israel with a $3 billion security assistance package, diplomatic cover and advanced F-35 fighter aircraft — if Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu would simply agree to a 90-day settlements freeze to resume talks with the Palestinians — has been enormously clarifying. It demonstrates just how disconnected from reality both the Israeli and the Palestinian leaderships have become.

America was attempting to bribe Israel with copious amounts of money (on top of the billions US taxpayers already give), offers to reject any UN resolutions seen as “critical” of Israel (as is has already done for the past 35 years), and even more military equipment, all just to get a 90-day settlements freeze. Note that ALL of the settlements are illegal under international law, so the US wasn’t even requesting that Israel refrain from violating it – simply to pause its violations. And what are Friedman’s conclusions from this pathetic attempt? It clarifies how disconnected from reality the Palestinian (and Israeli) leaderships are. He doesn’t bother to explain how Israel’s rejection of this deal and international law clarifies anything about Palestinian leadership, and he generally doesn’t need to in America.

A general assumption in the article is that both sides in the conflict are at fault and are rejecting a two-state deal which is in both of their interests. But anyone who has examined the historical record of rejectionism in this conflict knows that the Palestinian leadership has been in line with the international consensus (i.e., a two-state settlement along the pre-1967 borders) for 35 years, while the US and Israel have flatly rejected it. This goes all the way back to the January 1976 UN Security Council Resolution that called for a two-state settlement along the lines of UN 242, backed by the PLO, all the Arab states, and the USSR, and which was vetoed by the US and opposed by Israel. (America’s rejectionism goes back even further to 1971 when it rejected Sadat’s well documented peace deal.)

The one specific criticism of Palestinian leadership is this:

Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister, offered you a great two-state deal, including East Jerusalem — and you let it fritter away. Now, instead of chasing after Obama and telling him you’ll show up for negotiations anywhere under any conditions that the president asks, you’re also setting your own terms.

It’s difficult to find much documentation about this supposed “great tw0-state deal” that Abbas let “fritter” away. As usual, Chomsky gives a clear explanation of why this distorted view is inaccurate.

Efforts to unearth the plan have so far been unavailing. The only sources detected in an assiduous search by David Peterson are comments by Palestinians in the Arab media that appear to be part of internal conflict about power sharing, not the usual source for Western commentators. Eliot Abrams dates the plan to January 2009 (WP, April 8, citing unspecified press reports, while also falsifying earlier plans for which records exist; June 3 response to query about his sources).

If there were any truth to this tale, one can be confident that it would be trumpeted by Israeli propaganda and its enthusiasts here as a welcome demonstration that Palestinians simply will not accept peace, even the most moderate of them. It is highly dubious on other grounds. For one thing, Olmert was in no position to offer any credible proposal, having announced his resignation as he was facing indictment for serious corruption charges. The alleged plan is also hard to reconcile with the steady ongoing expansion of settlements under Olmert, vitiating even far less forthcoming offers.

And how is “setting your own terms,” another charge against Abbas, supposed to be a criticism when, as already noted, those terms are that Israel temporarily freeze the expanding of illegal settlements, not even a call for a permanent freeze or what international law requires?

As we have seen, Israel has continued to build settlements in occupied territory since the 1967 war, all with US complicity and the support of American taxpayers. Israel’s leaders still refuse to stop building, and the US won’t do anything about but offers carrots and no sticks. It’s hard to negotiate a two-state settlement when one party is actively stealing land that is under consideration (not to mention illegal, as recognized by the entire world, including the US). Until the US ends it monetary and diplomatic support for the continued occupation and settlement of Palestinian lands, there can be no negotiations and peace will be unattainable.