...the world for the most part would not begrudge Israel keeping its forces on the Jordan River — as will be necessary given the instability beyond — if it ceded most of the West Bank and Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.Well, I do not know about the "world" but the Pals. would certainly not agree.
That was dumb of Tom, no?
P.S. Are there "Jewish neighborhoods" of "East Jerusalem"?
Can we retain those?
________________________________________
UPDATE
2) Smacking Friedman down, again
Last week I took issue with Thomas Friedman's Israel lives the Joseph Story.
https://twitter.com/soccerdhg/
But I missed a major goof.
And the world for the most part would not begrudge Israel keeping its forces on the Jordan River — as will be necessary given the instability beyond — if it ceded most of the West Bank and Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.Elder of Ziyon:
Oh, and don't forget Friedman's other "if-then" fallacy here - that the world would allow Israel to keep the Jordan Valley as a buffer if only it would offer the Palestinian Arabs a state. Wasn't that already offered and rejected?Meryl Yourish:
The bolded phrase contradicts all of the Palestinian statements made about Israel keeping any soldiers in the West Bank. In point of fact, the Palestinians absolutely begrudge Israel a force on the Jordan.My Right Word:
Well, I do not know about the "world" but the Pals. would certainly not agree.Friedman loves to pose as someone who understands simple truths that those in power (especially in Israel) fail to appreciate. But here he shows that he hasn't been paying attention to the past twenty years of the peace process. Maybe in 1993 an Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley was an accommodation would have made. It is no longer.
^
1 comment:
Tom is dumb. Period.
What's interesting is that although he is never right, he is never called to account for his misreadings, misperceptions, and wrong analyses.
Post a Comment