In his latest op-ed column, Power With Purpose, he supports Ami Ayalon's "unilateral disengagement", what is now modified and termed - “coordinated” and “constructive” unilateralism. he has to take down Bibi.
So he writes:
He avoided early elections by adding a new centrist coalition partner to his right-wing cabinet, giving him control of 96 of the 120 seats in Parliament. There are Arab dictators who didn’t have majorities that big after rigged elections.
The he adds:
...The U.S. election silences any criticism coming from Washington about Israeli settlements. The Israeli peace camp is dead, and the Arab awakening has most Arab states enfeebled or preoccupied. So Israel gets to build settlements, while the Arabs, Americans, Europeans and Palestinians fund and sustain a lot of the occupation. No wonder then that for most Israelis, the West Bank could be East Timor. “We see the writing on the wall, but we don’t care,” says the columnist Nahum Barnea of the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot, referring to the fact that Arabs could soon outnumber Jews in areas under Israeli control.
I left this comment there [it's now up]:
TF writes in agreement with the claim that "Arabs could soon outnumber Jews in areas under Israeli control" in Judea & Samaria (or does he include the state of Israel as well?). In any case, that claim is unproven and all recent demographic data, including population registries, birth rate, fertility rates, et al., all indicate a solid Jewish majority while Arab stats fall.
As for "East Timor", well, why not talk about "East Jordan", i.e., the part of the original Mandate which was to become part of the Jewish national home by decision of international law but was removed? Why not rejoin the geographical unit and redivide more equitably? Or have the Hashemite Kingdom serve as the political expression agent for Arabs who, living in Israel, cannot identify with the state's purposes as the Jewish national home?
Another item about that nasty East Timor comparison that TF knows well: unlike Indonesia, Israel did not invade an existing political entity in 1967 one bright morning. It is the Arabs who term themselves "Palestinians", in their 'inventivity model of nationalism', who rejected all diplomatic efforts at compromise since 1920, who have exclusively used terror and violence, who established first the fedayeen and later the Farah to "liberate" Israel.
But Friedman does understand something:
At the same time, Bibi is prime minister for a reason. He was elected because many Israelis lost faith in the peace process and see chaos all around them.
It's just that Friedman doesn't like democracy besides misunderstanding the Middle East, misrepresenting the issues, providing less-than-factual data and promoting his youthful Breira philosophy.
To finish off, he asks:
Does Bibi have the will?
Friedman has no way but hits on others.
P.S. I left a second comment:
Oh, and in that comparison between Bibi being worse than Arab dictators who rig elections, TF is purposefully fomenting hatred and deprecation. No wonder we have assaults on Israel's democratic character (& I am thinking of the new Beinartism) if this is the type of rational thinking the NYTimes displays.
^
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment