First there's Tom Friedman:
.........."If the status quo is this tolerable for the parties, then I say, let them enjoy it. I just don’t want to subsidize it or anesthetize it anymore. We need to fix America. If and when they get serious, they’ll find us."
Then there's Time's Joe Klein:
"It should start by putting a hold on all economic and military aid to Israel; the aid should not be discontinued, just held, for a nice long review until the Netanyahu government comes to understand that Jerusalem must be the capital of both Israel and Palestine, and that if you actually want peace, you don't build illegal settlement colonies in the Palestinian capital."
When is the last time there were serious discussions like this in the establishment media about cutting off aid to Israel if they refused to cease taking actions that harmed American interests?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For so long, it's been an unchallengeable given that we are required to continue to lavish Israel with aid and diplomatic protection even if they do things that our own government believes (or at least claims to believe) is directly harming the United States. Perhaps Friedman's implicit (if unintended) call for that to change -- and Klein's explicit call that it change -- signals a long-overdue erosion of that taboo.
ReplyDeleteA very good sign.
It always amazes me how Tom Friedman can say absolutely nothing-or at least nothing new, and it is considered earth shattering news and brilliant analysis. I checked the article to see what exactly Friedman proposes, and this is what it said:
ReplyDeleteThe only specific course of action Friedman explicitly advocates to fulfill those principles is that the U.S. cease its efforts to forge a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and stop trying to pressure them into concessions, instead leaving each side to stew in the status quo -- in other words, do exactly that which the Netanyahu government would like most.
Tom Friedman has got to be the world champion at double talk. Part of the reason this-and other problems seem so complicated and unsolvable is that people like Friedman are not only allowed to be a part of the conversation, but they are considered experts.
<span style="">TGIA, this is actually what most Americans probably believe. Aid to Israel should be cut off, and the US should be neutral.
ReplyDeleteIf the Palestinians just ask for this and nothing else, most Americans will probably side with the Palestinian request.
Palestinians cannot expect Americans or the world or the "lovely" good for nothing neighbors to help them against Israel. Palestine should ask everyone else to be neutral, and win their own freedom through their own sacrifice.</span>
Of course, if compassionate foreigners genuinely offer to help (such as TGIA or Molly), Palestine should accept their help. However, Palestine should not <span style="text-decoration: underline;">expect</span> any help from anyone else.
Good point, Joe.
ReplyDeleteJoe, you're right.
ReplyDeleteThere's this post on Mondowiss where his article is discussed and here's a good one:
Friedman’s two unwritten rules are as follows–
1. If Israel bears most of the blame, then Friedman blames them both equally.
2. And if the Israelis and Palestinians are equally to blame, Friedman blames the Palestinians.
Due to circumstances he’s currently employing rule 1. Notice how he sneers at the notion of “criminalizing” the Israeli government. He’s got to sneer at that–he implicitly supported Israel’s actions right after the Gaza War.
(Donald)
<span>Here's the link"
ReplyDeletehttp://mondoweiss.net/2009/11/tom-friedman-seems-to-threaten-cutting-off-israels-aid.html
BTW, notice that Friedman's, (a staunch Zionist) "outburst" came after Abbas declared he's not running in the upcoming elections and NOT after Obama and Hillary made their spectacular U-turn on their promises.</span>