When I saw Tom Friedman’s recent New York Times article “Only Biden can save Israel Now” I hoped he would mention the struggles of my people, the Palestinian people. But to my credulity, Palestine was only mentioned twice in his article. The people most impacted–the Palestinians–were excluded from the discussion.
Friedman’s article can only be described as a love letter to dehumanizing the Palestinians. His arguments contradict basic human rights, or at least he forgets that those rights are guaranteed for everyone. Friedman’s most astonishing idea is his argument against Israel’s annexation of the West Bank, which hinges on his fear of how Palestinians might affect Jordan’s demographics. He writes, “The Jewish supremacists… plans to annex the West Bank. Such a move could easily destabilize Jordan.” Which in his opinion, cannot happen due to Jordan’s vital role in the fight against ISIS.
Seriously? Is this your fear? Maybe you forgot something? Someone? Or a LOT of people?
And in case you thought this was just a passing concern, Friedman actually reiterated it in a recent interview on the impact of Israel’s judicial overhaul. It’s hard to believe he is unaware of how dehumanizing this is. One can only be left to think he is simply trying to distract the average American reader from the main issue here: Palestinian suffering.
How can Friedman not mention the other possible consequences of Israeli annexation of the West Bank, including those on the Palestinians who live there? These dire consequences would include the destruction of Palestinian homes, livelihoods, and wealth, which doesn’t even begin to consider the basic norms of such a breach of international law. The UN reports that between 28 and 46 percent of Palestinian homes are already at risk of demolition. Imagine what would happen when an extreme Israeli dictatorship that wants to get rid of Palestinians from the West Bank annexes the West Bank in full?
But Friedman expresses no concern for Palestinians; Jordan’s capacity to combat ISIS, a diminished threat, gives him pause. Friedman’s disproportionate focus on the ISIS threat seems an Islamophobic pretext to avoid addressing Palestinian suffering. He is not worried about evicting innocent people from their homes, he is simply concerned about the country that will receive them. So, in his logic, if Palestinians go to another country, then it is not a problem. I mean, why would forcible illegal displacement and dispossession be a problem?
While indirectly bragging about meeting President Biden, he quotes Biden’s opinion on the judicial reforms in Israel and urges “the broadest possible consensus.” My question to both of them is: does this consensus include the Palestinians living in what is essentially a one-state fully controlled by Israel?
Additionally, Friedman still wastes everyone’s time by clinging to the two-state solution. He argues that the current government wants to “dismantle the Oslo peace process,” so Israel can take the unilateral decision to annex the West Bank. I am not sure if you follow the news, Mr. Friedman, but there is no “peace process.” Israel has already been making unilateral decisions to build illegal settlements, demolish houses, and blockade Gaza for years.
Those unilateral actions have been taken not only by Netanyahu’s right-wing governments but also by centrist coalitions in recent years. The claim that this Israeli government only now wants to undermine the Oslo Accords is misleading. They have already done it. The two-state solution has already joined the dodo bird on the extinct species list.
But since we are talking about the peace process, Mr. Friedman, why doesn’t your article mention Gaza at all? As someone advocating for peace, Gaza would seem essential in any discussion due to the humanitarian emergency happening there. But again, the only thing that we, Palestinians, get from you is total silence.
Friedman’s erasure of Palestinians is a disturbing and damaging trend in his work and one that doesn’t seem to be going away any time soon. His latest article, “Biden Is Weighing a Big Middle East Deal” is just more proof. Friedman argues that a potential normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia could involve some relief for Palestinians. But he does not mention how it could alleviate Palestinian suffering. Nor does he acknowledge Gaza at all in the article, a besieged territory that needs addressing in any peace process.
Mr. Friedman, your words matter. You are a columnist for The New York Times. Please, wield that influence responsibly. Excluding us only perpetuates conflict. Your dehumanization of me and my fellow Palestinians is not acceptable. We have had enough injustices. Our voices have been shut out of the discourse too many times. We will not be left out of the equation anymore.
There is no possibility of a two-state solution. It’s a myth told to continue annexation/expulsion. The last thing the Palestinians need is more of the false bullshit hope that emerged from the Oslo Accords. Look at where that got them! What do they need? Answer: human rights.
Friedman is a self-inflated, self-promoting, self-indulgent egotist who believes that he can not only influence history—but even change the earth’s orbit and/or tilt its axis to mitigate climate change.
The entire premise of Friedman’s piece totally ignores the political situation in Israel: the house-of-cards ultra-religious, ultranationalist coalition forged by Netanyahu—for Netanyahu!— to satisfy his lust for power that’s he’s frenzied up to keep himself out of jail. I can’t imagine a single vote in the Knesset for Saudi Arabian relations that could possibly derail the train that’s left the station with its 64 passengers—each one drooling about the promised orgasm waiting at the end of the line.
Who said a Saudi-Israeli deal would be “big deal’? Where’d that come from? Do you think that any one of the MKs in the ruling coalition gives a flying fuck about Saudi Arabia? For what? All they give a shit about is consolidating Judea and Samaria—already in the “Land of Israel” and making sure that no map is ever again drawn with a line (green or otherwise) demarking a distinction between those territories and Israel48. Friedman has to know this. He’s sneaky, but he’s not stupid. The only reason he writes this shit is because he’s still a Zionist, and talking this nonsense advances Zionist goals.
The real giveaway is this asinine statement he wrote: “I’d love to see Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, go on Israeli television and explain to the Israeli people why it is in Israel’s interest to annex the West Bank and its 2.9 million Palestinian inhabitants — forever — rather than normalize ties with Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world.”
The only reason that Friedman gets away with this crap is that he’s writing for an audience, carefully cultivated by the New York Times, to make sure that its readers are kept in virtually total darkness about Holy Land reality. They’ll believe anything that Friedman tells them—no matter how foolish—because as Times readers they’ve been duped into believing that they’re fully-informed by reading “All the news that’s fit to print.”
Friedman has written another article today in the NYT, even more absurd than his usual apologetics. I made the following comment, which has just been OK’d by the moderators (much to my surprise):
“The word Palestinian(s) occurs seventeen time in this article. Nowhere is there any suggestion that they have, or should have, any say in their fate.”
Not to my surprise at all, my previous comment on Friedman’s latest exercise in self-aggrandisement didn’t make it: “Ground Control to Major Tom – What bloody planet are you on?”
“How can Friedman not mention the other possible consequences of Israeli annexation of the West Bank, including those on the Palestinians who live there?” Ethnocentrism in action.
I’m reminded of what Stalin said about his practice of having his political opponents assassinated: “No man, no problem.”
The execrable Friedman is not worth wasting energy over. (Read Belén Fernández’s 2011 wonderful excoriation of this hack, “The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work.”)