The middle of June brings Father’s Day and the family tends to honor me on that occasion with some books. The first one arrived from our daughter by mail and was Thomas Friedman’s Longitudes & Attitudes. Exploring the World after September 11. After glancing at it I knew that I had to discuss it in these pages. But I had also heard that he has a new one out called The World is Flat so I had to get that one too. I felt a little stingy and thought I’d get a copy from the library but was told that although they have altogether 54 in the Salt Lake County Library system 95 people were on the waiting list. When I mentioned this to Martha and said that I’ll go to amazon.com for it rather than waiting for several months I got a stern: “No!” Then she went to a cupboard and pulled out a brand new copy which she had intended to give me on Sunday. The good wife truly anticipates my every wish. But since she never gives just one book I got another one on Sunday: Collapse. How Societies Chose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond. This particular tome has 575 pages and I haven’t gotten to it yet because I’m still on Mr. Friedman.

Changes in Longitudes reminds, of course, every sailor worth his salt of Jimmy Buffets song, “Changes in Latitudes, Changes in Attitudes” which is in a considerably lighter vein. We like Tom Friedman because he calls the shots as he sees them and is not afraid of offending his Jewish co-religionists by telling them that Israel needs to evacuate the settlements not only in Gaza but also the West Bank, which is the only logical way for any semblance of peace to arise in that part of the world. The book consists actually of some bi-weekly columns he wrote for The New York Times from December 15, 2000 up to July 3, 2002. In order to flesh it out he added some excerpts of his travel diary during those days. He called these 84 pages, “Diary: Travels in a World without Walls” but they add little new information to what is in the columns. I believe that he chose this particular title because it feeds directly into the theme of The World is Flat, which celebrates the Internet society where there are no borders. I’ll deal with this particular notion later; for now we have to address his opinions on the post 9-11 world.

Newspaper columns have to be written several days before publication date and the editorial that appeared under the September 11 dateline was called “Walls.” Friedman was in Jerusalem at the time where Intifada II was in full swing. Although the so-called “security fence” or “wall of separation” that is supposed to keep Palestinians from sending suicide bombers into Israel, was not yet being built, Friedman comments on the many private walls that existed to protect Jewish settlements from snipers and most of all the mental walls which prevent a constructive dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis. He realized that a just solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is imperative if there is ever to be a what one might call “cold peace” in the region and, as mentioned, he even favors Israel’s withdrawal from the territories captured in the 1967 war.

In this connection I was surprised to read that an educated and knowledgeable person, as Friedman obviously is, keeps repeating in some form or another the mantra that: Arafat walked away from the best deal Israel had ever offered at Camp David and answered Israel’s and America’s demonstrable good will with suicide attacks. For instance, in the February 8, 2001 column he wrote about Barak: “He offered Mr. Arafat 94 percent of the West Bank for a Palestinian state, plus territorial compensation for most of the other 6 percent, plus half of Jerusalem, plus restitution and resettlement in Palestine for Palestinian refugees.” If this were true why should anybody, including Arafat reject such an offer? But the offer never existed in this form.

I have presented some of the facts that led to the rejection of the proposal in the article “Palestinian State or Israeli Protectorate?” in April of 2002 on this website. If I, as a private citizen, can get them surely Mr. Friedman with access to infinitely more sources must also have been aware that this “offer” was a propaganda ploy and never meant to be enacted. The information for that essay came from www.mideastweb.org and The Israel-Arab Reader by Laqueur and Rubin.

            I am calling those Camp David “negotiations” a propaganda ploy for two reasons. One of the ground rules was that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.” This statement comes directly from Bill Clinton after the failed talks on July 25, 2000. Under those circumstances the stronger will dictate to the weaker and you get a Versailles of WW I memory. The second reason was Jerusalem. Before Ehud Barak left for Camp David he issued a statement which can also be found in the mentioned Israel-Arab Reader in which he said among other aspects:

            “If there is an agreement, it will only be one that will strengthen the security of Israel, its economy, and its regional and international standing. Otherwise, there will be no agreement.

            If there is an agreement, it will only be one that will comply with the principles to which I committed myself before I was elected, and principles that I have consistently and clearly stressed:

                        --A united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty;

                        --The 1967 borders will be amended [in Israel’s favor]

--The overwhelming majority of the settlers in Judea, Samaria and the     Gaza strip will be in settlement blocs under Israeli sovereignty;

--No foreign army in the entire west of the Jordan River;

--A solution to the problem of refugees outside Israeli sovereign territory.

These are the principles – these and no others.”

 The entire tone of the message was: We are in charge, we will remain in charge and if you don’t like it: tough luck. Under those circumstances why go through this charade unless you want to make political points to blame your adversary. But there is more to the “most generous offer” that emerged from these 14 days of “negotiations.”

1) Israel would have retained its authority over the Jordan valley, control of its water resources and could re-deploy its troops there at any time it felt threatened.

2) The access roads to the settlement blocks would have remained under Israeli control.

3) There would not have been contiguous borders within the proposed Palestinian state, which would have consisted of a series of disconnected municipalities and the same would have applied to Jerusalem. Palestinians would have lived on islands within a Jewish city.

4) Border crossings with Egypt and Jordan although under Palestinian control would be under Israeli supervision.

            5) The Palestinian state would be demilitarized and alliances with other countries would be subject to Israeli approval. Although Israel would accept some refugees from previous wars the rest would have to be absorbed elsewhere.

In essence: The so called Palestinian state would not have had contiguous borders and Arafat would have become mayor of an assortment of disconnected Palestinian municipalities. Even in Jerusalem there would not have been contiguity for the Palestinians because they were only granted some islands in a Jewish city. One may legitimately ask: would any Jew have accepted such a state if it had been offered by the UN in 1947? The answer is obvious!

What is so remarkable about this propaganda ploy is that the Jewish people in Israel and abroad have deluded themselves with the notion that they are granting favors when they propose to adhere partially to international law. This conduct flies in the face of the UN charter which specifically prohibits territorial acquisitions by war. It also disregards the UN Security Council resolution which demanded that Israel withdraw from territories she conquered in 1967 as well as those which repudiated the annexation of East Jerusalem and declared the settlement policies as illegal. It is even more remarkable how well the Jewish leadership has succeeded to convince the majority of the American people, and certainly its political and intellectual leadership to accept their point of view. By waving the twin banners of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust they have effectively silenced public opposition including the media.  

We may now ask why spend all the effort on these 14 days at Camp David when the outcome was doomed from the start? The answer is politics. Barak knew, or should have known that the conditions he had laid out in his speech on July 10, 2000 would be unacceptable not only to the Palestinians but the Arab world at large. “A united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty” is incompatible with peace in the 21^st century. The clock cannot be turned back to David and Solomon or the Maccabees! The sooner the Jewish world realizes this, the better off all of us will be. So why make the demand in the first place? There was an election in the offing and by speaking of “painful concessions,” Barak tried to create a local climate where he would be seen as peacemaker while at the same time taking the wind out of Sharon’s sails who wanted no part of any concessions. It was a smart move and it worked. Knowing that the Arabs had to reject the plan the onus would be shifted from Israel to them.

Why did Arafat go to Camp David? He had no choice. Had he refused outright he would have personally offended Bill Clinton and would have been seen by the whole world as intransigent.

Why did Clinton instigate the talks in the waning days of his Presidency? There were probably mixed motives. Maybe he was genuinely uninformed about how the situation had changed since Jimmy Carter’s Camp David breakthrough, which he may have thought to emulate. With an eye on the Nobel Prize he would surely be remembered for that rather than the Lewinsky affair.

What would have happened had Arafat done the impossible and signed on to the Barak-Clinton dictate? He would have signed his death certificate and he knew it. He would have been murdered by his people, just as Sadat was and there would have been civil war among the Palestinians.

Although the “peace process” was not entirely dead after July 25, 2000 it was dealt its final blow by Sharon who wanted to win the upcoming election. His visit to the Temple Mount, as it is called by Jews, and Haram al Sharif (Noble Sanctuary) by Arabs, was a deliberate provocation and the Arabs swallowed the bait. This incident which led to Intifada II has been downplayed in the American media. Even Friedman makes only one passing reference when it deserves to be discussed in full because this event and not just the rejection of the Camp David talks was the cause of our ongoing troubles. For what happened on September 28, 2000 we cannot rely on the “spin” that has grown up around it but we have to go on the Internet either to CNN.com of September 27 and 28 or the BBC of September 28.

Sharon was explicitly warned on September 27, 2000 that if he were to go through with his intended visit to the Temple Mount the next day, it would be seen as a deliberate provocation not only by the Arabs but also the peace faction within Israel and it would for all practical purposes kill the peace process. But that is precisely what he wanted. He never had any use for the Oslo accords and he was engaged in a power struggle with Netanyahu for the leadership of Likud. In addition, he knew that if the Palestinians reacted the way he expected them to and responded with violence he would defeat Barak in the upcoming election. This is precisely what happened. The BBC report states:

“The violence began after a highly controversial tour of the mosque compound early this morning by hardline Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon. Under heavy guard, Mr. Sharon entered the compound with a right-wing Likud party delegation. He crossed from the west side of the compound to the east and back again, to the sound of enraged protests from demonstrators outside. BBC correspondent Hilary Andersson said the visit was clearly intended to underline the Jewish claim to the city of Jerusalem and its holy sites. . . .  As he left the compound Mr. Sharon denied the visit was a provocation, insisting he had come ‘with a message of peace.’ ‘I came here to the holiest place of the Jewish people in order to see what happens here and really to help the feeling that we are now ready to move forward,’ he said.”

“Move forward” they did. Violence started immediately after Sharon and his party left. The Palestinians hurled stones and whatever else they could pick up; the Israeli police retaliated with tear gas and rubber-coated metal bullets. As they say: The rest is history.

For the election campaign Barak had outlined his idea of the future: Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount compound as the Israeli capital; Al Quds (Arab name for Jerusalem) with undefined geographic borders as the Palestinian capital. This was not good enough for Sharon and Likud. Any deal with the Palestinians had to be negated and as Sharon said in a letter to Madeleine Albright on October 20, 2000: “The united city of Jerusalem, which you are all very familiar with, as well as the Temple Mount, are under full Israeli sovereignty. Neither I, nor any Israeli citizen, need to seek permission from the PA or from any foreign entity to visit there or any other site which is the sovereign territory of the State of the Israel.” That Israeli sovereignty was unilaterally usurped, rather than internationally agreed to, did not play any role in Mr. Sharon’s thinking because he firmly believes in “facts on the ground.” He subsequently assured Mrs. Albright that he remains “fully committed to achieving peace with all our Arab neighbors including the Palestinians” but it must be “based first and foremost on complete negation of violence.” The message to the Palestinians was clear they have to put down whatever arms they have and Israel will dictate the conditions under which they will subsequently live. Small wonder that the more militant factions of the Palestinian society did not agree with this type of peace Sharon had in mind.

The statements cited above come from contemporary documents and yet even Tom Friedman tries to whitewash Sharon’s role in provoking Intifada II. Since al Haram al-Sharif is for Muslims the third holiest site, after Mecca and Medina, and belief has it that the Prophet Muhammad ascended to Paradise from there it is obvious that exclusive Jewish control of the Al Aqsa compound and the Dome of the Rock is unacceptable to Arabs.

Friedman seems to have blinded himself not only to this aspect of history but also to the extent to which American policy is co-responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma. This is exemplified by a fictitious letter from President Bush to the key members of the Arab League which Friedman published on February 6, 2002 under the title: Dear Arab League. As such it represents Friedman’s rather than Bush’s views:

[Bush telling the Arabs] We are just bystanders. You’re the ones with the power to reshape the diplomacy, not me. And here is my advice for how to do it. You have an Arab League summit set for March in Lebanon. I suggest your summit issue one simple resolution: ‘The twenty-two members of the Arab League say to Israel that in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the June 4, 1967 lines – in the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, and on the Golan Heights – we offer full recognition of Israel, diplomatic relations, normalized trade, and security guarantees. Full peace with all twenty-two Arab states for full withdrawal.’ . . .

Sharon was unelectable in Israeli politics. What allowed him to reemerge was Arafat’s rejection of the Barak plan and the Clinton plan, and then the launching of an Intifada with suicide bombings of Israeli pizza parlors. Did Sharon provoke the Palestinians by going to the Temple Mount? You bet. But he wasn’t Prime Minister at the time. Barak was. How could you let Sharon provoke you and lose the best opportunity for a Palestinian state?

In these excerpts the secular Friedman shows that he seems to be unfamiliar not only with America’s complicity in Israel’s political conduct but also the religious sensitivities of Muslims and Jews. The statements “We are just bystanders” and “You’re [the Arabs] the ones with the power” are not grounded in historical facts. America has supported the Jewish state from its inception economically, financially and militarily. We have spent hundreds of billions to equip the Israeli military and to prop up the country’s economy. Between 1972 and 2004 forty-seven resolutions critical of Israel’s conduct have been introduced in the Security Council and the U.S. vetoed each single one of them. This is not the role of a bystander who does not have power.

            The Saudis did put forth a “peace” plan in Beirut a month later but as I discussed in the mentioned April 2002 installment it was doomed to failure. Not only did Sharon reject it out of hand but the  Arabs were not fully committed either and Bush was preoccupied with his forthcoming invasion of Iraq, which in his mind would have solved not only all the Mid-East political problems but also America’s oil shortage. As a result the situation got worse instead of better. Crucial time was lost and America’s resources are bled in a futile Iraq enterprise.

            This brings me to the title of this installment which is taken from Friedman’s first post 9-11 column published on September 13, 2001, which was called “World War III.” The phrase was picked up by Osama bin-Laden later, and this week even President Bush repeated it. In that article Friedman wrote, “Does my country really understand that this is World War III? And if this attack was the Pearl Harbor of World War III, it means that there is a long, long war ahead.” His suggestions as to how to win this war were: 1) we have to “put our best minds to work combating them [the Muslim fanatical terrorists] –the World War III Manhattan Project – in an equally daring, unconventional, and unremitting fashion.” 2) “A country like Syria has to decide: Does it want a Hezbollah embassy in Damascus or an American one? If it wants a U.S. embassy, then it cannot play host to a rogue’s gallery of terrorist groups.” 3) “We need to have a serious and respectful dialogue with the Muslim world and its political leaders about why many of its people are falling behind.” Friedman did not neglect the Palestinian problem but reiterated that “the United States put on the table at Camp David a plan that would have gotten Yasir Arafat much of what he now claims to be fighting for. That U.S. plan may not be sufficient for Palestinians, but to say that the justifiable response to it is suicide terrorism is utterly sick.”

            When one knows that this was written in Jerusalem the emphasis on Hezbollah and Syria is understandable but they had nothing to do with Osama and his grievances which led to 9-11. I would suggest that readers compare Friedman’s analysis with mine which was published on this site in October 2001 under the title “September 11^th.” What I said then is still true today with one exception. I had greater expectations for President Bush’s potential statesmanship and was severely disappointed therein. He has identified with Israel’s desires to the detriment of America’s overriding national interests and it has been downhill for us ever since. This did not have to happen. The Bush administration used the 9-11 tragedy to advance the goals of a small group of neoconservatives and members of what Eisenhower had called the “military-industrial complex” with our Vice-President at its head, seconded by our Secretary of Defense Mr. Rumsfeld. They got us into the hole we are in and instead of trying to get us out they dig it deeper.

            The suggestions Friedman made are reasonable and suicide bombing is not the answer to the Palestinian’s problems. But let us not fall victim to war rhetoric. Europeans know what WW II was like and they have absolutely no interest in igniting or sponsoring a WW III. This is one of the fundamental differences between Europe and America. For America wars have up to now been mostly good business but if we were to fall into what I like to call the “Goebbels trap” namely believing our own propaganda and truly regard the current situation, bad as it is,  as WW III we will sink into real desperate straits. Right now the genuine WW III is still avoidable but it will need unconventional thinking and most of all foresight. Although the spark might come from Israel, especially if there were to be an attempt by Jewish fanatics, aided by Zionist Christians, to destroy  Haram al-Sharif in order to build the third temple, WW III will not be just between Arabs, or Muslims in general, and us. The genuine WWIII will have the U.S. on one side and China with or without Russia on the other. This is the real nightmare of the future and not some suicide bombers even if they were to set off an atomic blast in one of our cities. Just as in the 9-11 situation it is not the act which causes the final disaster but the reaction to it.

            The situation in Iraq as well as in Israel is out of control and is likely to go from bad to worse unless the U.S. changes course, which Bush is unwilling to do. We are being told that it will take years, if not a decade, before the Iraqi army will be ready to fight and win against the insurgency. I beg to differ. They know how to fight but they don’t want to fight for us and that is the difference.  They know how to build their infrastructure. But they don’t want it to be done by Halliburton. That is the crux of the problem and unless Americans realize this we will continue to pour money and resources into this black hole.

            I mentioned unconventional thinking. Serious analysts of the foreign scene already speak of the growing might of China and the problems it is likely to create for the U.S. in the next decades. This is a considerably greater problem than Osama and his gang will ever be and requires rethinking of what America’s role in this new century should really be.  Attempting to create democracies by bombs and tanks will not work and insightful diplomacy is the only chance for averting the real WW III. Unless the CIA succeeds in undermining the Chinese regime, so that the country breaks up again into feuding fiefdoms, China will challenge America’s interests in the Far East. We now have a choice. We can either make the Chinese full fledged partners - with no ifs ands or buts – or we can treat them already as the enemy they might potentially become. If the latter course is pursued we are likely to get WW III the disasters of which will dwarf those of WW II because atomic weapons will in all probability come into play.

The Associated Press reported recently from Singapore that, “Defense Secretary Rumsfeld issued a blunt challenge to China at a regional security conference today, questioning its recent military buildup and saying Beijing must [emphasis mine] provide more political freedom to its citizens.” Rumsfeld said: “‘Since no nation threatens China, one wonders: Why this growing investment?’”  This is merely another example of the arrogance of the Bush team. Who are we to tell a huge country like China what they “must” do? What are we going to do if they aren’t frightened by Mr. Rumsfeld and company? We have proven that we can’t even occupy Iraq successfully so what are we going to do with China? Are we going to cut off trade relationships and ruin our economy, or “nuke” them?  We behave as if we had the power to enforce our will on the world when we are actually a country that is deep in debt to foreigners and have a populace that is highly averse to military adventures. In addition there is the obvious double standard that we regard ourselves as entitled to develop any and all types of atomic weapons for the sake of “our” security, but when others want to emulate our example that’s a no no. This attitude of false pride may well ruin us.

What should be done to avert WW III?

Iraq: to merely “stay the course,” as the President promised us on Tuesday will not work. We can’t “cut and run” either but we can show the Iraqis and the world, including the Chinese and Russians, that we have no ulterior motives in that country and we can engage them, through the Iraqi government, in competitive bidding for the contracts to rebuild the infrastructure of the country. As long as Halliburton and their friends are in charge nobody is going to believe that we are there only for the good of the Iraqis.  Trust in our government is currently sorely lacking and this has to be rebuilt in small steps. When the rest of the world sees us as genuine partners who are willing to share rather than dictate we are giving “peace a chance.”

Israel and Palestine: the situation has now become even more desperate because Abbas will not be able to hold on unless there is some give on Sharon’s part. But Sharon is now hamstrung by his own creation. It was he who was responsible for the settlements which are a millstone around his neck. We have already seen the difficulties that accompany the proposed relocation of a few thousand settlers from Gaza. What is he going to do with the hundreds of thousands he has placed, as housing minister, into the West Bank? The idea of Israel’s peaceful return to the 1967 borders is obsolete. Unless the US and the international community were to enforce and supervise, with fully adequate boots on the ground, the UN resolutions which call for the status quo ante in regard to Israel’s 1967 borders I am afraid that there will be a civil war in that country. Israeli politicians and the Jewish leadership in our country need to recognize the facts of the 20^th century rather than live by biblical myths and legends. The State of Israel arose from a 1947 UN vote and its God Parents were Harry Truman and Joseph Stalin. Israel cannot legitimately remain in the UN and defy its wishes without creating animosity within the world body. If Israel feels that the UN is dominated by anti-Semitism and does not want to play by international rules it can leave that body just as Japan and Germany left the League of Nations in the 1930s and thereby paved the way to WW II.

The Palestinians also need to change their strategy. Targeting civilians with suicide bombers is reprehensible. Their legitimate grievance should be aired by weekly (after Friday prayers) massive peaceful protests which are broadcast throughout the world, hopefully even by CNN and Fox News. This would put the Israeli government on the defensive and eventually achieve the Palestinian’s goals without further massive bloodshed.

America: We need to strengthen, rather than weaken the UN and this is why the Bolton nomination sends the wrong signal. Only by full cooperation of the five members of the Security Council can WW III be avoided and the “War on Terrorism” be brought to a successful conclusion. This is a task for the entire civilized world and we cannot go it alone. WW II was avoidable had America joined the League of Nations and brought its power to bear rather than standing aloof until it was too late. The future of the world depends now on how we handle Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian quandary as well as Russia and China. This is a tall order for any president and it may well be too tall for Mr. Bush. But regardless of who is President as long as AIPAC (American Israel Political Action Committee) retains its marked influence over the executive and legislative branch of our government, as documented in the recent article by Jeffrey Goldberg: “Real Insiders” (The New Yorker, July 4, 2005),  the above suggested changes are not likely to come to pass.

Finally let us return to Tom Friedman and his books. I have mentioned his current one “The World is Flat,” where he deals with the global access we enjoy through the Internet, as well as its consequences. But as George Orwell once said: “some are more equal than others.” While global access is easy for him, the average person has at times serious difficulties getting one’s e-mails answered, let alone to give one’s ideas wider circulation. To expect replies from politicians is hopeless and the same applies when one tries to contact our major media pundits. One might have expected that this would not be a problem among scientists where no ulterior motives should come into play. That this is not the case will be demonstrated in the next installment which will deal with Tutankhamen’s recent CT scans and which continues the “Saga” originally presented here on October 17, 2002.