Friedman's 4/3 NYT column

[Seth Ackerman]

Brad DeLong wrote:

> >>  Friedman has actually had reasonably decent politics around the
> >Palestinians,
> >
> >-I challenge you to find one Palestinian or Arab who agrees with the
> >-assessment that Friedman has "reasonably decent politics around the
> >-Palestinians"
> >
> >Friedman supports a two-state solution with the dismantling of Israeli
> >settlements and Palestinians having full sovereignty over the Temple
Mount,
> >exactly the demands of the Palestinians that the Israelis rejected. He
> >denounced Israel for expanding settlements during the Oslo peace process,
> >calling them "greedy, idiotic settlements" or "idiotic rapacious
> >settlements."  He has supported international peacekeepers in the West
Bank
> >to guarantee the peace, something Palestinians have promoted and Israel
has
> >opposed.
> >
> >Yes, Friedman doesn't like suicide bombers but his solution is the
> >dismantling of the settlements and international peacekeeping.
> >
> >How is that not decent politics?
> >
> >-- Nathan Newman
>
> Because he doesn't advocate the destruction of the racist apartheid
> Israeli regime, of course, as all those with "decent"       > politics
do...

What's there to argue about? Friedman has repeatedly berated the
Palestinians for rejecting the Camp David proposal, a bantustan settlement.
Nobody seems to care what that means.

If the Palestinians offered the Israelis an identical deal (we'll recognize
Israel as a series of disconnected autonomous enclaves within an Arab
Islamic state from the river to the sea) Friedman would hysterically accuse
them of outrageous rejectionism.

Apparently he believes Jews should have a sovereign country while
Palestinians should run autonomous bantustans within the Land of Israel. He
may not put it in those terms, but that's the reality of his position. His
criticism of the settlements just shows how deluded he is.

Seth