FRIEDMAN TAKES A NON-MUDDLED POSITION!

Prof Gordon has recommended the first 3 columns of Friedman's "War of Ideas" series to his PS129 students through his list-server. I wonder if he'll bother with this one.

In sum, Israel should withdraw from the territories, not because it is weak, but because it must remain strong; not because Israel is wrong, but because Zionism is a just cause that the occupation is undermining; not because the Arabs would warmly embrace a smaller Israel, but because a smaller Israel, in internationally recognized boundaries, will be much more defensible; not because it will eliminate Islamic or European anti-Semitism, but because it will reduce it by reducing the daily friction; not because it would mean giving into an American whim, but because nothing would strengthen America's influence in the Muslim world, help win the war of ideas and therefore better protect Israel than this.

The Bush team rightly speaks of bringing justice to Iraq. It rightly denounces Palestinian suicide madness. But it says nothing about the injustice of the Israeli land grab in the West Bank. The Bush team destroyed the Iraqi regime in three weeks and has not persuaded Israel to give up one settlement in three years. To think America can practice that sort of hypocrisy and win the war of ideas in the Arab-Muslim world is a truly dangerous fantasy.

I've had many discussions with friends, students, colleagues and others about the future of Israel, and some of those discussions were more memorable than others. Over time my position has evolved, but there is a central truth that is blindly accepted and never questioned in the media, particularly here in America lately: The equating of being "pro-Israel" and supporting an aggressive Likudnik Sharonist policy of continued and increased settlements as well as the continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. This is not only wrong, but it's also very similar to the war of issue-framing that is ongoing in American political discourse (for example, the right wing's ownership of "Christian values" and "Family values").

The strongest position Israel can have is one where they aren't in a state of constant antagonization of their neighbors by virtue of their geographically aggressive policy. If Israel pulled out and found itself behind internationally-legitimate borders, in addition to the Hezbollah-related consequences outlined by Friedman, there would be a growing disconnect in the adjacent Arab countries between the long-standing distaste for Israel for who they are, and opinion on Israel's policy choices.

Friedman really hits the nail right on the head here.