breakdown of oslo? that's presented within the framework of oslo. he's criticizing arafat for the breakdown of the frame work for colonial dependance. that's the bantustan solution. saying a "viable palestinian state" goes back to "they can call it whatever they want" as long as it fits into the camp david view of a bantustan solution.
> but his basic
>analysis has condemned the settlements for years and he supports most of the
>Palestinians demands, even if he doesn't like Arafat's approach to the
>negotiations.
>
>Friedman does not support a bantustan solution but has clearly said the
>Palestinians need a real viable state encompassing the full West Bank & Gaza
>(athough he supports some land being transferred from pre-1967 Israel in
>exchange for some of the Jersualem suburbs that now extend into the West
>Bank). But here is what he said in a column last year (august 24, 2001)
>
>"No one can criticize Israel for retaliating in the harshest manner for
>suicide bombs in restaurants; no country in the world would behave
>otherwise. But the idea that there is a tipping point, where enough military
>pressure on the Palestinians will get them to say "uncle" and willingly
>accept some mini-mini-state in the West Bank, is utter fantasy. Five million
>Jews cannot sustain a military solution against five million Palestinians
>and 95 million Arabs. If Israel keeps all the settlements and the Arab areas
>around them, demographically it will become an apartheid state or a
>non-Jewish state...If Israel uprooted only some settlements and put up a
>wall, it would leave behind a chopped-up Palestinian mini-state that would
>be totally non-viable."
>
much of this is double speak. he's just repeating the labor dove view. which not coincidentally is the exact same line washington supports. he's going to say whatever just to make it appear the U.S. is working for peace. you may trust someone that says "iran is practicaly begging us to come in and remove their government" but i'm not going to.
~M.E.