Tom Friedman: Need I Say More?

What prompted this posting regarding the man who made famous the metaphorical expression, "The World Is Flat"; namely, Thomas Friedman, is his Op-Ed piece of 6/5/13, Israel Lives The Joseph Story.  Let me begin with his conclusions at the end of his piece.

He writes, "Three reasons (for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict):  1) to reverse the trend of international delegitimization closing in on Israel; 2) to disconnect Israel as much as possible from the regional conflicts around it; and 3) to offer a model (of democratic government)."

His reasoning regarding resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict show the same blindness as his the-world-is-flat story.  In that story, he suggests that the internet and other modern means of global interaction have put all nations on a level playing field.  What Tom fails to see are the formidable mountain ranges of cultural differences that remain.

But, let's get back to his flawed reasoning as to what, in his opinion, makes resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so imperative.

1. Reversing the trend of international delegitimization closing in on Israel.
Anyone following world events knows full well that efforts to delegitimize Israel has very little to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Mocking those who point to anti-Semitism has become increasingly popular.  But, who can deny that for decades Saudi oil money has gone into establishing Islamic organizations, one of whose key messages has been the denigration of Jews.  (The late Senator Fulbright joined in this effort when he became a registered lobbyist for the Saudi government.)

The Swedes who have their hands full with their sizable Muslim immigrant population, nevertheless find time to denigrate Israel which has done a far better job bringing Israeli Christians and Muslims into the Israeli body politic.

And, does anyone think the Irish will ever become friendly to the Jews?  They, who failed to join in the western effort to battle the Nazis in WW II.

Current, and future, efforts to delegitimize Israel have little to do with sympathy for the Palestinians.  If it did, the pathetic Palestinian refugees in their deplorable camps would have been integrated long ago into the various surrounding Islamic nations and indeed also into West Bank communities.  And, what, one must wonder, accounts for western sympathy for Gaza when it rockets Israeli communities?

2. Disconnect Israel as much as possible from the regional conflicts around it.
Impossible, and it has nothing to do with the Palestinians.  Indeed, the Jordanian king retains his throne only because the majority Palestinian population in Jordan does not want Jordan to be seen as the Palestinian nation that it is.

3. Allow Israel to provide a model (to Islamic nations)
A model for whom?  The ever diminishing Christian population in the West Bank makes clear that  Muslims see things differently than Jews.  The best chance that Abbas had to emulate the Israeli model was to have allowed Fayyad to forge ahead with his plans for developing a future Palestinian nation.  What did Abbas do?  He dumped Fayyad.

Tom's comments on Stephen Hawking seem to me to be meant to simply develop a bit of reader interest.  The only thing Tom seems to have to say on this matter can be summed by his quote from the Boston Globe,  "(Hawking's decision to boycott Israel was) a reasonable way to express one's political views.  Observers need not agree with Hawking's position in order to understand and even respect his choice.  The movement that Hawkins has signed on to aims to place pressure on Israel through peaceful means."

Dear Tom, someone ought to let the Boston Globe know that no one is arguing that Hawking's didn't express his political views in a reasonable way.  It's his views on the Palestinian issue that I and many others would take issue with.  What does it mean to "understand" his choice.  What I understand is that a great scientist has been bamboozled by a flawed Palestinian narrative.  It wouldn't be the first time that important men of science have gone astray politically -- not to mention ethically.  Respect his choice?  How, pray tell, is one to respect such foolishness?