|
CounterPunch
September
3, 2002
New York Times,
Part 2
There He Goes Again:
Friedman Bashes Palestinians
by Kathleen Christison
former
CIA political analyst
New York Times
columnist Thomas Friedman loves to lecture Palestinians. One
might almost think he has some kind of obsession, that Palestinians
are the people he most loves to hate. He probably writes more
of his patronizing "Dear so-and-so" memos to or about
Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat than anyone else. He would protest
that his only beef is with Arafat, not with the Palestinians
as a whole, that he supports the Palestinians' right to a state
and frequently criticizes Israel's occupation of the West Bank
and Gaza, as well as Israeli settlement construction in those
territories. And he does, it's true. The trouble is that Friedman
distorts-he distorts regularly and, given the ready availability
of accurate information on the Palestinians, one must assume
that he distorts deliberately.
The significance of Friedman's distortions
is that they carry immense weight. He is probably the most widely
read opinion columnist in the U.S., certainly on foreign affairs.
He is a best-selling author, a sought-after television commentator,
the poster boy of globalization, and one of the country's most
highly regarded commentators on the Israeli-Palestinian  conflict. He hobnobs with
policymakers; the political bent of the current administration
is not particularly his cup of tea, but he has clearly had good
relationships with key policymakers in past administrations,
including that of George Bush Sr., and his views unquestionably
have an impact on the thinking of policymakers. He is far and
away the author most often mentioned to me by people who assume
I must be an admirer, as having written the gospel on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, either in his regular columns or in his oft-reprinted
and oft-updated book, From Beirut to Jerusalem.
Friedman's most recent and perhaps most
blatant contribution to yellow journalism came on August 18,
in a column deriding the Palestinians. Entitled "Fog of
War," the column's real intent was to urge President Bush
to develop a "clearly focused end, means and rationale"
before he goes to war against Iraq. But on the way to making
this point, Friedman managed to devote fully three-quarters of
the column to his view of Palestinian failings. Urging a clear
focus on Bush is a wise admonition (although one might rather
wish that Friedman had advocated no war at all). But the kick
at the Palestinians was neither a fair and accurate assessment
of the Palestinians nor a particularly illuminating way to launch
into Bush's failings as a strategic planner.
Friedman began by quoting from a Washington
Post article of a few days earlier analyzing a series of
strategy meetings among various Palestinian factions. The Post
lead said the secret talks had been designed to determine the
"ground rules for their uprising against Israel, trying
to agree on such fundamental issues as why they are fighting,
what they need to end the conflict and whether suicide bombings
are a legitimate weapon." Feigning shock, Friedman says
snidely, "Let me repeat that in case you missed it: two
years into the Palestinian uprising, Palestinian factions were
meeting to determine why they are fighting and whether their
means are legitimate." The Palestinians are fools, in other
words, and don't even know what they're fighting for.
Using the Post's simplified lead
to describe the Palestinians' ability to define their objectives
does justice neither to the Post nor to the Palestinians.
The Post article was a lengthy, in-depth analysis of a
Palestinian attempt to unify several factions with divergent
goals and to engage in the kind of strategic reassessment that
is vital for any nation struggling for its existence. Friedman
chose to miss the point both of the article and of the reassessment.
In addition, by repeating the lead in his own words, Friedman
distorted it. What the lead said was that the Palestinians were
studying whether suicide bombings are a legitimate weapon, implying
that bombings are not the only or even necessarily the primary
weapon; what Friedman said it said was that Palestinians were
studying "whether their means are legitimate," implying
that suicide bombings are the only weapon.
This is in fact the clear implication
throughout his column: that Palestinians are only terrorists,
that they use only suicide bombings, that they have no goal in
mind other than killing Jews, that they are not resisting Israeli
occupation but pursuing the extermination of Israel-"death
to Israel," as he puts it. Furthermore, Friedman asserts,
anyone who argues otherwise is simply part of the Palestinians'
"chorus in the Western diplomatic corps and mediatheir apologists
and enablers." Everyone should know that the intifada is
actually "a reckless, pointless, foolish adventure"--chiefly
because "from the moment this uprising began" Friedman
himself told us this (wise man that he is). The Palestinians
couldn't possibly be resisting the occupation because, after
all, two years ago at Camp David Israel and the U.S. gave them
"a credible opening diplomatic offer to end the occupation"--an
offer that, Friedman claims, "would have satisfied the vast
majority of their aspirations for statehood."
This is vintage Friedman. Since the Camp
David summit collapsed, he has been a principal propounder of
the "myth of the generous offer"--the notion that Israel
proposed a nearly perfect deal to end the occupation, grant the
Palestinians a fully sovereign state in the West Bank and Jerusalem,
eliminate Israeli settlements, and give Palestinians half of
Jerusalem. But, he has always claimed, the Palestinians rejected
the offer because, at bottom, they really want to see Israel
destroyed and could not bite the peace bullet. Although Friedman
has always been a harsh critic of Israeli settlements, he has
never made the connection that it is precisely the settlements
and Israel's oppressive occupation--and the clear belief among
Palestinians that these would never end--that cause Palestinian
discontent and finally led to the intifada. Early in the intifada,
he wrote that it was "fatuous nonsense" to think that
Palestinians are "only enraged about settlements.Their grievance
is not just with Israeli settlements, but with Israel. Most Palestinians
still do not accept that the Jews have any authentic right to
be here." He never provides evidence to support this assertion.
To reach this conclusion, Friedman conveniently
ignores, and in his recent column flatly denies, some of the
facts of the situation: the fact, for instance, that the Israeli
offer at Camp David would have annexed to Israel so many settlements
(housing 80% of the 200,000 settlers on the West Bank) and so
much of the settlers' vast road network that the Palestinian
so--called "state" would have been broken into three
almost totally non-contiguous segments, each connected only by
a narrow one- or two-mile-wide neck of land, plus a fourth section
in Gaza--a reality that would have rendered the "state"
non-viable, indefensible and, perhaps most important, perpetually
under Israeli domination.
In answer to a question on this subject
at a panel discussion in Washington a year ago, Friedman flippantly
dismissed the notion that territories can be "almost"
non-contiguous, saying this is like being "almost"
pregnant: you either are or you aren't. In fact, however, when
it is the defensibility of Israeli territory that's at issue,
"almost non-contiguous" is a significant red flag.
Inside its 1967 borders, the central section of Israel in the
area of Tel Aviv is only about ten miles wide, and most Israelis
are firm in their absolute rejection of any agreement that would
require Israel to return to borders that would again leave it
with its old "narrow waist," a waist loudly proclaimed
to be "almost non-contiguous" and thus totally indefensible.
Palestinian indefensibility seems not to concern Friedman.
In his August 18 column, Friedman maintains
that Palestinians "never justified this ruinous war"
and contends that a Palestinian "peace overture to improve
[Israel's] offers would have gotten them so much more and spared
them so much pain." He seems to have forgotten a few things:
that the Palestinians have clearly justified their struggle as
a resistance to the occupation; that the Palestinians' "peace
overture" was and remains the two-state formula that would
recognize an Israeli state inside its 1967 borders in accordance
with UN Security Council Resolution 242 and a Palestinian state
in the West Bank and Gaza; that the Palestinians did continue
to negotiate after Camp David; and that both Israel and the Palestinians
continued to improve on the deal on the table (until Ariel Sharon
and George Bush emerged on the scene and halted all negotiations).
More importantly, Friedman also forgets that the atmosphere in
the aftermath of the Camp David collapse--an atmosphere fostered
by President Bill Clinton, as well as by Israel, and participated
in enthusiastically by Friedman himself--was so poisonously anti-Palestinian
that the Palestinian "street" was given to believe
there was no hope whatsoever of ever ending the occupation.
When Camp David broke up, the U.S. and
Israel, and Thomas Friedman as well, immediately heaped blame
on the Palestinians for not accepting what was widely described
as "the best offer any Israeli would ever make." They
were saying to the Palestinians-who, it's important to remember,
had been enduring Israeli occupation for a third of a century,
including the steady consolidation of Israeli control throughout
the seven years of the so-called peace process-that the "opening
offer" that Friedman now speaks of was all there would ever
be and that the occupation would not end unless Palestinians
signed on to the unacceptable terms dictated by Israel. The day
after the summit disbanded, Friedman wrote a column hailing Israel
and observing that "there is in the U.S. view a level of
Israeli compromise that is right and fair, and beyond which Israel
should not be expected to go. It is not just a bottomless pit
of giveaways." The signal to the Palestinians-from Friedman,
as well as from virtually every Israeli and every U.S. policymaker-was
unmistakable: that Palestinians would never gain their freedom
from Israeli domination. This is the atmosphere in which the
intifada began.
Friedman writes that the first rule of
warfare is "never launch a war that you can't explain to
your people and the world on a bumper sticker" and says
that the Palestinians not only can't explain their goals this
briefly, but don't even know what they are. In fact, however,
despite Friedman's disdain, Palestinians do know what they're
fighting for, do have justice on their side, and could write
that bumper sticker easily. It would read, "It's the occupation,
stupid." This is precisely the message Friedman does not
want to hear.
Kathleen Christison worked for 16 years as a political analyst with
the CIA, dealing first with Vietnam and then with the Middle
East for her last seven years with the Agency before resigning
in 1979. Since leaving the CIA, she has been a free-lance writer,
dealing primarily with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Her
book, "Perceptions
of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy,"
was published by the University of California Press and reissued
in paperback with an update in October 2001. A second book, "The
Wound of Dispossession: Telling the Palestinian Story,"
was published in March 2002. Both Kathy and her husband Bill,
also a former CIA analyst, are regular contributors to the CounterPunch
website.
Other CounterPunch articles by Bill and
Kathleen Christison:
Bill Christison: Disastrous Foreign
Policies
of the US Part 3: What Can We Do About It?,
July 8, 2002
Kathleen Christison: The Story of
Resolution 242, How the US Sold Out the Palestinians,
June 28, 2002
Kathleen Christison:
Israel
and Ethics, May 11, 2002
Bill Christison: The Disastrous Foreign
Policies of the United States,
May 10, 2002
Kathleen Christison: Before There
Was Terrorism, May 2, 2002
Bill
Christison: Oil and the Middle East, April
6, 2002
Bill
Christison:
Why
the War on Terror Won't Work,
March 5, 2002
Today's Features
Uri Avnery
The Return
of the Dinosaurs
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
Weekend Features
William Blum
Cuban Political
Prisoners in the US
Dave Marsh
No Surrender:
Springsteen's The Rising
Gavin Keeney
Return to the Charterhouse of Parma
David Vest
Porkland:
Confronting Republicans & Police in Portland
Ralph Nader
The Highway
Lobby
M. Shahid Alam
CNN Reporting
(poem)
Neve Gordon
Sharon's
Subjugation Strategy
Dr. Susan Block
The Gangbang
Asthete
The Sexual Life of Catherine M.
Kurt Nimmo
Clueless
at the State Dept.
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
New Print
Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- War Talk As White Noise:
Anything to Get Harken and Halliburton
Out of the Headlines;
- First Hilliard, Then
McKinney: Jewish
Groups Target Blacks Brave Enough to Talk About Justice in the
Middle East; Intimidation
is the Name of the Game; Smearing
"Insane" McKinney As Muslims' Pawn;
- The Missing Terrorist?
Calling Scotland
Yard: "Where's Atif?"
- They Never Booed Dylan!:
Tape Transcript Shows
Famed Newport Folkfest Dissing of Electric Dylan Not True. The Catcalls were for Peter
Yarrow!
- New Shame from the Liffey
Shrike
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now! Or Call Toll Free 1-800-840-3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
September
3, 2002
Uri Avnery
The Return
of the Dinosaurs
September
2, 2002
Francis Boyle
Flashback:
US War Crimes During the Gulf War
Lou Cohan
Confessions
of a Downloader
Philip Farruggio
Labor
Day Antidote to Apathy
William Blum
Cuban Political
Prisoners
in the US
September
1, 2002
Dave Marsh
No Surrender:
Springsteen's The Rising
August 31,
2002
Gavin Keeney
Return to the
Charterhouse of Parma
David Vest
Porkland:
Confronting Republicans & Police in Portland
Ralph Nader
The Highway
Lobby
M. Shahid
Alam
CNN Reporting
(poem)
Neve Gordon
Sharon's
Subjugation Strategy
Dr. Susan
Block
The Gangbang
Asthete
The Sexual Life
of Catherine M.
Kurt Nimmo
Clueless
at the State Dept.
August 30,
2002
Alexander
Cockburn
American
Journal:
Hitchens, Kissinger, Springsteen, Haggard & Elvis
August 29,
2002
Chris Floyd
The Secret
Sharers:
The CIA and the Murder of Frank Olson
August 28,
2002
William Ring
War on Iraq:
The Brightest Scenario
August 27,
2002
Sam Bahour
The Violence
of Curfew
Wenonah Hauter
From Johannesburg:
Pacts with the Devil: Public-Private Partnerships and the Global
Environment
Jerre Skog
Wanted:
"Our Kind of Guy"
in Iraq!
Uri Avnery
Letter
to a Pilot
August 26,
2002
Sami Al-Arian
Fighting
for the Right of
Dissent and Due Process
Ruebner /
Turaani
What
is Israel Hiding?
Norman Madarasz
Brazil
and the IMF:
Democracy and Emerging Market Liberalism
Robert Fisk
War Crimes:
Reporters Aren't Prosecutors
Douglas Valentine
Phoenix,
CIA and Maj. Gen. Bruce Lawlor: From Vietnam
to Homeland Security
August 24
/ 25, 2002
Susan Davis
Proverbial
Wisdom:
Of Clogs and Enron
Falk / Krieger
No War
Against Iraq
Ceylon Mooney
Fasting
for Iraq
Jonathon
Wright
Police
Brutality in Atlanta
Ralph Nader
Congress's
Pay Raise Scam
Jeffrey St.
Clair
Chainsaw
George
Alexander
Cockburn
Alterman
Cheapens Holocaust
August 23,
2002
Dave Marsh
Selling
Out?
Anthony Gancarski
Super-Duper:
Oil, al-Qaeda and a West African Adventure
William Hughes
Lieberman's
Conflict
of Interest?
Kurt Nimmo
The Lapdog
Conversion of CNN:
They Didn't Want to "Criticize" a Popular War
Sean Donahue
Hardline
in Colombia
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|