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.

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.

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!!!!

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.

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.