Thomas Friedman – the master of pithy phrase that means nothing and firm believer that there’s always one more Israeli concession that’s necessary for peace in the Middle East – clearly has experienced a different history from the one I did. Based on his column yesterday, You ain’t seen this before, let me try to reconstruct Thomas’s counterfactual history.
Friedman’s history: In 2003, Ariel Sharon won re-election as Prime Minister in a race against former IDF chief of staff, Amnon Lipkin-Shahak former General Amram Mitzna*, promising to withdraw all Israelis – soldiers and civilians from Gaza.
In reality Sharon campaigned against withdrawing from Gaza in contrast from Lipkin-Shahak who supported a withdrawal.
Friedman’s history: In order to build support within his own party, Sharon held a Likud referendum in 2004 on the topic of withdrawal. His arguments carried the day and he received a mandate from Likud to withdraw from Gaza.
In reality the rank and file of Likud rejected Sharon’s arguments and voted against the withdrawal. Though rebuffed at the polls, Sharon decided he would withdraw from Gaza, regardless.
Friedman’s history: So confident was Sharon of the benefits of the withdrawal from Gaza that when chief of staff, Moshe Yaalon warned of the dangers involved, Sharon thanked him for his concerns and extended his term for as traditionally was done for chiefs of staff.
In reality Ya’alon’s warning was not appreciated. Sharon refused to extend his term.
Friedman’s history: After disengagement showed that Israel’s commitment to peace, Fatah, the party now of Mahmoud Abbas, was strengthened and it won Palestinian legislative elections in 2006.
In reality Hamas won those elections. Years of corruption took its toll on Fatah and Hamas claimed credit for forcing Israel from Gaza.
Friedman’s history: Seeing that the way of violence was repudiated, Hamas submitted to Fatah’s rule.
In reality, in 2007 Hamas launched a blood revolt against Fatahand took control of Gaza. Gaza then became a launching pad for rocket attacks against southern Israel, putting hundreds of thousands of Israelis at risk.
Friedman’s history: Hezbollah too, seeing that Israel withdrew from Gaza just as it had from southern Lebanon, put away its weapons and joined the Lebanese government.
In reality, Hezbollah never abandoned its terror. A cross border raid in 2006 led to a war in which northern Israel was targeted by thousands of Hezbollah missiles.
Friedman’s history: Now that violence had been repudiated by Israel’s enemies, Abbas accepted a peace treaty with Olmert in December 2008, calling for an Israeli withdrawal from over 90% of Judea and Samaria.
In reality Abbas refused to accept Olmert’s offer.
Why do I assume that Friedman experienced the history I outlined above? Because of this argument in his column:
Trust me, this is just the throat-clearing and gun-cleaning. Wait until we have a deal. Even if Israel agrees to swap land with the Palestinians so that 80 percent of the Jewish settlers in the West Bank can stay put, it will mean that 60,000 will still have to be removed. It took Israel 55,000 soldiers to remove 8,100 Jewish settlers from Gaza, which was never part of the Land of Israel. Imagine when today’s Israeli Army, where the officer corps is increasingly drawn from religious Zionists who support the settler movement, is called on to remove settlers from the West Bank.
Other than acknowledging the murder Tuesday of four Israelis by Hamas, this is the main obstacle to peace that concerns Friedman. Clearly he never saw Sharon betray his mandate; he never saw Hamas take over Gaza; he never saw Hezbollah take over Lebanon; he never saw Abbas repeat the rejection of peace, following in the footsteps of his mentor Yasser Arafat. Supposedly the residents of Gaza threatened Sharon, but Sharon was never attacked. I realize that it’s easier for Friedman to worry about “settlers” and “religious Zionists.” They make great bogeymen. And believing that “settlers” are the main obstacle to peace, means that Friedman doesn’t need to re-evaluate his assumptions.
The Arab side has demonstrated its disinterest in peace over the past seventeen years, pocketing Israel concessions and refusing to make the slightest accomodation for peace. (The only major exception during this time was King Hussein of Jordan.) Instead of rethinking his positions it’s easier to blame Israelis.
Most of all, Friedman is intellectually lazy, unwilling to reconsider his deeply held belief that there’s always a concession that Israel can make (but didn’t) that would bring peace.
Finally, however easy Friedman thinks peace will be if only Israel makes the necessary concessions read Yaacov Lozowick, Here’s the risk. Yaacov Lozowick may believe many of the same things that Friedman does, but he lives in the real world not in some fantasy world.
*UPDATE: It’s very embarrassing making a mistake, especially in a post deriding someone else’s reading of history. Thanks to commenter David Starr who pointed out that in 2003 Sharon’s rival was former Haifa Mayor Amram Mitzna then the leader of Labor, not former chief of staff Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, who led the ill fated Center Party and ran in 1999.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
“The Arab side has demonstrated its disinterest in peace over the past seventeen years…”
Just a point of English grammar and vocabulary. “Disinterest” means a lack of bias, or neutrality – it is not the word you want to use in this sentence.
The Arab side has demonstrated its lack of interest in peace over the past seventeen years… or, more accurately, their active hostility to peace.
Just to clarify in the 2003 election Sharon’s main rival for Prime Minister was Amram Mitzna and not Lipkin-Shahak.
Elisson – I was searching for a word and decided to go with understatement. True, as you point out, it’s a pretty significant understatement.
David – Thanks for the correction.