The settlements haven’t prevented peace with the Palestinians either. Since the year 2000, Israel has three times offered to dismantle the settlements and withdraw from the territories (though with land swaps). Once again, peace hasn’t broken out – but that’s because even now, after more than 20 years of diplomacy, the Palestinians still have never articulated terms for a final peace treaty. We know what the Palestinians are opposed to – namely, every compromise ever proposed – but we still don’t what they are for.
Nevertheless, despite all the above, I am prepared to concede that an honest reporter, albeit a very shortsighted one, might still conclude that the settlements are the great obstacle to peace.
What I cannot concede is the honesty of a reporter who ignores fundamental facts.
Here are the facts Friedman carefully omits: Ever since Yasir Arafat agreed to the concept of land swaps at Camp David, the idea that Israel will retain sovereignty over certain settlement blocs has been the bedrock assumption of all peacemaking. In recent years, more than 90 percent of settlement building has been in the settlement blocs. How does building in the settlement blocs prevent peace, if Israel will ultimately hold on to this land? Friedman doesn’t say.
The wild figures of 350,000-600,000 settlers needing to be moved are patently false. According to a recent piece in Foreign Affairs, there are only about 43,000 registered voters living outside the settlement blocs. Many of these are young adults who, unlike heads of households, will not need to be compensated. But even if we count every registered voter, they still constitute less than one half of one percent of Israel’s population.
* * * * *
It tells you something about the state of America’s liberal-intellectual complex that Friedman’s career has soared to such dizzying heights. From Beirut to Jerusalem won the National Book Award, despite the distortions cited above and others.
The National Book Award is essentially a popularity contest. It’s not as if someone reads all the books and decides which one is best. Conservative commentators have long argued that the Oscars, the Nobel Prize for Literature and other awards are little more than vehicles for liberals to pat each other on the back. I don’t know that I would agree with such a sweeping indictment. But In Friedman’s case, it certainly seems to be a case of seeing only the facts they come to see.
