For a year I've thought that the best analysis of the peace process is Henry Siegman's fabulous piece in LRB last year saying it has been a "scam" aimed at covering Israel's accession of more territory. Now here is a rival: a piece on Tom Friedman in the latest Tikkun, by Jerry Slater.
The heart of Slater's piece is the idea that Friedman is given to "glib" and derisive commentary about Arafat at Camp David and in the subsequent intifada when an actual and patient scrutiny of the best accounts of Camp David show decisively that Arafat was right not to accept Barak's vague deal. Slater wrote last year about how Times coverage of the situation has hurt American policymaking by depriving our leaders of any sense of what is really going on there. And the importance to Slater of Friedman is that he has done more than anyone else to bolster a mythology: that the Palestinians don't want peace, that they want to destroy the Jewish state, that they walked away from a good offer. This mythology is now absorbed by the educated and influential in the U.S., and it is hobbling statecraft. Friedman has to know better. And so he is guilty of a "moral" irresponsibility.
Some of Slater's excerpts. First, on Camp David:
Thus, if Arafat had accepted Barak’s concept of a “fair and generous” settlement, the Palestinians would have gained only a tiny, impoverished, water-starved Palestinian “state,” divided into at least three different enclaves—in effect, Bantustans separated from each other by Israeli armed forces, roads, and settlements.
On the Palestinian violence:
To be sure, armed revolution must be distinguished from terrorism; attacks on an oppressive state and its military forces may sometimes be legitimate, but attacks on innocent civilians can never be.It has been widely (and conveniently) forgotten, and not only by Thomas Friedman, that in its early stages the Palestinian uprising did not employ terrorism. Indeed, there was very little Palestinian armed violence against anyone in the first few weeks of the intifada, during which hardly any Israelis were killed—although hundreds of Palestinians were shot dead by Israeli police and military units.
Even after the Palestinians turned to violence, Arafat and other Palestinian leaders repeatedly stated that the intifada was not directed against the state or the people of Israel proper (i.e. within its pre-1967 boundaries) but only against the continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
And on Friedman's errors:
Related posts:
{ 28 comments }
"Moral irresponsibility" does not give justice to what Friedman is doing. It is way too soft on him for me.
How doesn't Friedman have a positive action contributing to the ordeal of the palestinians? I'm afraid he is entirely morally responsible for oppressing the palestinian.
Hasn't this been obvious for the last 8 years. It was only after it had been thoroughly established among the Friedmans and other Zionist Americans that "there was no one to talk to" that it seemed clear, to me at least, that the entire Oslo process was a fraud. It seemed the two state negotiations were just a tactical move on the part of Israel to cover the annexation of the West Bank.
Now after all these years there seems to be some realization that Barak and Clinton acted in extreme bad faith. If that is really the case, then perhaps there is a possibility of achieving two states. But it will require explicit recognition that the 2000 Camp David talks were subverted by Barak, Clinton and that Aipac mole Dennis Ross. It will also mean acceptance that the failure was not Arafat's responsibility. I remain skeptical that the two state solution is still possible but if working towards that end is the only game in town, then maybe we should support it. But this time insist that Aipac does not insert their moles into the middle of the process.
Arafat had the right, even the obligation, to reject Barak's multiple offers. To state though that he offered 85-90% of the West Bank, is a bit misleading.
85-90% was an early offer. The number that I remember as summary was in the 94% range.
Arafat's "sin" was not in the rejection, although the game was stacked by the EACH side's precipicing to the last minute. His "sin" was in failing to counterpropose.
And, to threaten and initiate the second intifada (without control of those on the ground), which differed radically from the first (which was violent enough).
Slater's characterization of the second intifada's ramp up of violence is innaccurate. Its a rationalization. The early violence was severe, and unleashed. Slightly restrained, but only slightly.
Many on the left want to think that the intifadas were little more than Gandhieque civil disobedience, because the stone throwers only threw stones. (David and Goliath).
COUNTER-PROPOSAL!!!!
If you wish to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the first place to begin is with what the evidence establishes, not with assertions which disregard well-established evidence.
It would appear that Witty has not read my article–let alone a raft of much more detailed analyses–for he is either unaware of or disregards the evidence and my arguments, and simply reasserts the standard mythology.
I can't simply rewrite the article here, but in brief:
1. No one knows with any precision what Barak was "offering" at Camp David, since nothing is on paper. The best informed assessments put it at 85-90%, not 94%. Read the evidence.
2. The article specifically addresses standard cliche that Arafat made no "counterproposals." He not only agreed to accept less than 25% of Palestine, at Camp David he made further compromises: on the status of the Jewish areas in Arab East Jerusalem, established after the 1967 war, on sovereignty over the Old City of Jersualem, and on the status of the largest Jewish settlements established on Palestinian territory after 1967.
3. Arafat did not threaten to initiate the intifada, nor did he in fact initiate it. Read the article for the evidence.
4. The early violence of the intifada was overwhelmingly that of Israel, not the Palestinians. Yes, the Palestinians threw stones, but no Israelis were killed, whereas hundreds of Palestinians were killed by Israeli shootings. Thus, when the Palestinians did turn to guns and bombs, it was in reaction to the Israeli escalations. Moreover, even this armed uprising for a number of months was not terrorism, for it did not target Israeli non-combatants, except for some extremist settlers, who in a larger sense do not qualify as "innocent civilians." It was only after Sharon came to power and the chances for a legitimate settlement disappeared that the Palestinians resorted to terrorism, which means deliberate attacks on civilians.
Furthermore, Israeli state terrorism against the Palestinians has always far exceeded Palestinian terrorism against the Israelis.
Read the evidence.
5. I know of no serious observer or commentator who regards the intifada as mere "civil disobedience;" indeed, I know of no one at all, serious or not, who makes such an argument. Perhaps you can find someone who did, but if you wish your arguments to be taken as serious ones, address the serious arguments, not the straw men.
It's not true that the second intifada was orchestrated by Arafat in any way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada
and of course wikipedia inclines marginally to the editorial pro-israeli view, as is its wont, but even they admit that the claim that Arafat deliberately triggered the second intifada is an israeli national myth.
Richard,
Read Slater's piece: it devotes plenty of time to Arafat's detailed and constructive counter-proposal.
Tom Friedman is not innocent. He is a deliberate propagandist who abuses his position of trust in the influential American media to mislead and distort the truth for benefit of Israel.
Goebbels was not "morally irresponsible" either. Different era, the same aim: to bamboozle the masses and to paint the enemy as somehow devoid of morals and therefore less human than the rest of us.
RE: The myth of the "generous offer: "…if you frame everything in terms of what Israel wanted, it made huge concessions. However, if you frame things in terms of what Israel was legally entitled to under international law, then Israel made precisely and exactly zero concessions. All the concessions were made by the Palestinians."
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2006/04/yasir_arafats_g.html
Amazing Slater quotes:
One could hardly find a more decisive refutation of the standard mythology than that of Ami Ayalon, who headed the Shin Bet (the Israeli internal security service) during the events of 2000: “Yasser Arafat neither prepared nor triggered the Intifada. The explosion was spontaneous, against Israel, as all hope for the end of occupation disappeared, and against the Palestinian Authority, its corruption, and its impotence. Arafat could not repress it. He can fight neither against the Islamists nor against his own base. The Palestinians would end up hanging him in the public square.” – Ami Ayalon, interview by Le Monde, December 22, 2001, quoted in Haaretz, January 7, 2002.
Avi Dichter, Shin Bet director from 2000 to 2005, confirms Ayalon’s statement, saying that interrogations of Palestinians arrested after the start of the intifada “clarified once and for all that Yasser Arafat was not behind the events, which had erupted spontaneously on the ground.” – Quoted in Ben-Ari, “Arafat Was Not Guilty.”
and one for right now:
It is true that Islamic Jihad continued its largely ineffective rocket attacks on the Israeli border town of Sderot during this period, attacks that Hamas said it deplored but was unable to prevent. It should be noted that even the government of Mahmoud Abbas, whose opposition to terrorism is undeniable, was also unable to prevent the attacks. In March 2007, however, Hamas announced that it would “offer a promise of a total ceasefire with Israel, including a complete halt to Quassam [rocket] fire and suicide bombings,” if Israel agreed to persuade the international community to end its boycott of the Palestinian government. – Avi Issacharoff and Aluf Benn, “Hamas Vows Full Truce If Israel Helps End Boycott,” Haaretz, March 7, 2007.
Jerome,
I get that you are reacting to my comments, but you are in error on the authority of your 85-90%. That is that NOONE knows what percentage of what land was included, except for those that were in the room, and its reported that Barak and Arafat were rarely, if ever, in the room. "The best informed estimates". (Names and citations please, if you wish it to have the authority of "evidence".)
It never got that far.
As "noone was in the room", your assertion of compromises are relative to original positions. Passively relative to a negotiation.
A counter-proposal would be "I hear what you are proposing. These are the characteristics that we need for a solution to be acceptable. I PROPOSE x as fulfilling those characteristics. I understand the characteristics of a solution that you need. This proposal describes an intersection of our two communities' needs."
The initiation of intifada, which from my understanding came with elements "spontaneiously" and elements orchestrated, is a response of "if I don't get what I want, I will make trouble."
And, by "trouble", I mean thrashing all prior progress and agreements, with actions that would make that more permanent than temporary and conditional.
I agree with what I imagine that you would state, that Sharon represented an either/or prospect into the future, and the structure of precipice ("negotiate in the few weeks before Sharon takes power") is a stacked deck.
On Gandhiesque. How many times have you heard, or even presented (I don't know your comments, so forgive me if I project), that the first or second intifada was relatively innocuous IN YOUR TONE, that it was romantic/committed adoloscents merely throwing stones, ala David and Goliath.
Even in this statement, you are enabling the Arafat and Palestinian various leaderships' approach as "innocent" in some way, as victim only.
It is horribly frustrating dealing with the Israeli government, its rationalization that it is not aggressive but merely defensive.
It is ALSO horribly frustrating dealing with the terrorist Palestinians and other Arabs and other Islamics, who are self-appointed "leaders", but exert great and malevolent force and without negotiable conditions.
It is ALSO horribly frustrating dealing with the litmus-left who are also self-appointed leaders, and condemn rather than propose.
As the Palestinian solidarity movement contains both kindly motivated advocates for mutual decency, AND resentful punitive advocates for the removal of Israel and ranging to overt racism towards Jews ethnically, it is difficult for me to add my voice to that stew.
Opinion is only as good as its basis in fact. Amira Haas has another of her "facts only" (no spin) reports about Israeli cruelty in Gaza in today's Ha'aretz. I doubt Friedman even reads these unvarnished truths. Certainly the NYT never, ever publishes them. "Unfair" (cf. Friedman) is much too mild a term for the Israeli and Jewish-American campaign to destroy Palestinian life in their homeland. Here are the observations of an out-spoken witness.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1041345.html
Witty, on what legal and/or moral basis do you assume Israel should have had legitimized/currently has any % of the land in question?
Why aren't the Palestinians entitled to 100% of the land discussed here?
"Witty, on what legal and/or moral basis do you assume Israel should have had legitimized/currently has any % of the land in question?"
What land are you referring? 67 borders or any?
The Freidman view is excellent in many ways. Excellent for its recognition of multiple perspectives as informative. There is no such thing as "fact" in the list of assertions that Friedman or Slater mentioned. They are equally interpretations, from what they heard and read.
Each spun a sliver (or more) beyond what even they assert as fact.
Its IMPORTANT for the left to retain their humility about what they call "fact" as distinct from what is in fact "impression" or "interpretation".
Publication in Tikkun is not sanction. I've corresponded briefly with Michael Lerner and gotten critical responses similar to Slater, and I've read archives of Lerner correspondence with anti-Zionists which resemble my "dialogs" here ("you are complicit").
Witty, look at your posts on this thread before my question. You are
truly a weasel
?
So which land are you referring to?
Witty, the land you refer to here: " I get that you are reacting to my comments, but you are in error on the authority of your 85-90%."
Everyone on this thread knows this. You remind me of a talmud reader, busy spinning selected talmud text, while other jews go
in harm's way in the occupied lands.
Will your son go into the USA military? No. Did you? No. I hope you get your karma. Is your son in the IDF yet?
So, you are a previous poster posting on yet another name?
Slater states "fact" based on "consensus", and then states that as noone was in the room, that "fact" is impossible, as a means to dispute my impression, but failing to acknowledge that a concensus of impressions, is still impression.
94% of what, 85% of what?
Estimates each.
They both acknowledge the implication of absence of real sovereignty for Palestine in either number.
You, and Slater, are willing to savage a critic over a single number? Why?
We each will get our karma.
And, it won't come from my or your judgement of what is our due.
That is one of the significances of any definition of "judgement day", whether Jewish (quite benign, a catharsis more than a judgement), Christian (hell or heaven), or Islamic (hell of heaven), or even Hindu (as in reincarnation).
Reality will reflect. What was the nature of Richard's intention and action, in FACT? Was it to help others, as he claims, or was it to selfishly protect his own? (As if thinking of protecting one's own family while minimally harming others is selfish.)
Why is Friedman taken seriously other than as an apologist for elites in this country? Whatever "theory" he propogates, it will only criticize power after the fact, as in, after Bush had been thorougly discredited by events, the Iraq War, the economy, etc. Friedman always has to catch the next wave–which will of course be Clinton redux. The environment crap is like mother and apple pie, but always within the context of neoliberal economics. We can't just get into alternative energy, we have to "compete." Why? So the rich can get their share, so everything can be incorporated into corporate capitalism.
As far as hoping for anything better from Friedman regarding Israel/Palestine, please!! He will pose as a moderate, of course. He's been to the top of the moderate mountaintop. He's seen–bungling Israelis and Palestinian terrorists.
Everything is a cliche with him: "addiction" to oil. Are we addicted to food? Do we have an overwhelming compulsion for oil that obliterates our other needs, for which we throw away our jobs and families? No, we have to get to our jobs. The oil companies are addicted to profits. That caused them to tear up public transportation systems, and prevent new ones. Can we just buy oil (we don't actually get oil from the ME anyway), and then figure out what to do next? No Friedman has to have an epiphany twice a week. He has to keep advising our leaders and writing letters to them and to foreign leaders, one even in Bush's name, in order to continue to feel like he's on the mountaintop, and we all wait for him to come down and deliver the truth.
But, ironically, leaders don't listen to him, they don't care. What he says has nothing to do with anything. If he actually understood something, he'd be out of work. He's a mouthpiece to try to put a liberal gloss on death, destruction, and the rich getting richer.
DAVID GREEN: "If he actually understood something, he'd be out of work."
**************************************
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair
“You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I’ll tell you what his ’pinions is.”
-Mark Twain
Jerome Slater | November 27, 2008 at 07:43 AM
Good for you.
David Green: Everything is a cliche with him: "addiction" to oil. [...] No Friedman has to have an epiphany twice a week.
Nail on the head. And he's so smug about it.
But I should point out, it's the new car associations that tear up public transportation systems and prevent new ones. An out-of-state new car association spent $42 million here in four years to prevent a public transportation system.
"Why is Friedman taken seriously other than as an apologist for elites in this country?"
Because he speaks a great deal of truth (an interpretation, not presuming to be fact), which you are free to criticize if you like.
We are addicted to oil, and we are addicted to Middle East as source, as the rest of the world doesn't supply enough for our wastefulness.
Its IGNORANT to think that oil is permanently abundant and without current consequences, one of which is odd bedfellows in the Middle East.
Let me tell you about (My Head Is Flat) Friedman.
Several years ago he wrote a column about the change in the US-Egyptian trade deal on their cotton exports.
The gist of the deal was that Egypt wanted to continue it's cotton imports into the US thru their alloted free trade zones. Under the new deal they were forced to accept they would have to stratch some zones and also were 'required' to use a certain percentage (18% if I remember correctly) of "Israeli produced goods" in their cotton clothing production. This is a perfect example of the US Jewish influence and strongarming of other ME country's economies and trade thru the US in order to enrich Israel and a perfect example of the parasitic nature of the jewishIsraelis.
Anyway Freidman was into his 'the World is Flat" mode and wrote a glowing colum about how the Egyptians were so happy with this deal they were 'dancing in the streets'. happyand how wonderful it was Israel and Egypt were doing bizness.
Unfortunately for "I am a liar" Freidman …every other major newpaper in Europe, not to mention the ME papers, were describing the "riots' that had broken out over this deal because something like 20% of the Egyptian cotton workers had lost their jobs in the new deal.
I said it before but I'll repeat it….how can you tell when a zionist or an Israeli is lying?…when they open their mouth…without fail, every time. If there was a Nobel for lying and stealing they would get it.
I look forward to the day when all of America discovers that they have been fed zionist lies thru their press and media for 4 decades.
Friedman should be taken into a dark alley and have every bone in his f****** body broken. Then when he gets out of the hospital
he should be taken to the same dark alley and have every bone in his body broken again.
I recommend this for every zionist.
They are way too stupid to learn the error of their ways any other way.
If you want the real facts on Camp David read Clayton Swisher's "The Truth About Camp David"
BTW his book has the actual deal Afarat was offered. When you see it you will know why Afarat refused.
As did Geronimo. Can't you just see future pulp fiction, romanticizing Palestinians?
If course the PALS will by then be on their reservations, cuddled up in their buggy free blankets–or, are they already there?
Palestinians are in multiple places.
Some in refugee camps in Lebanon and Syria without citizenship, even after living and being born there for 60 years.
Some in MBA programs in New York.
Some in Jerusalem having their homes bulldozed by agents of the Racist State.
Comments on this entry are closed.