A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews.

 
Olmert and Friedman

In Thursday's New York Times, Thomas Friedman wrote, "the biggest political fallout from the Iraq war has not been in the Arab world. It's been in Israel."

According to Friedman, "by destroying Saddam's regime and the real strategic threat posed to Israel by Iraq, the Bush team has taken away one of the strongest security arguments from Israeli hawks: that Israel needs to keep the West Bank, or at least troops on the Jordan River, as a buffer in case Iraq again tries to come through Jordan to strike Israel, as it has done before." As a result, Friedman writes, Ehud Olmert now argues that "Israel should consider unilaterally dismantling settlements and withdrawing from most of the territories."

Friedman is wrong that Israel no longer needs to retain the Jordan Valley, but he's entitled to his opinion. However, his use of Olmert as evidence of "political fallout" in Israel as a result of Saddam's fall is quite interesting. While Olmert still has offered few details on his plan - including in his speech today at the Herzilya Conference - he has indicated that any withdrawal would not pertain to the settlement blocs around Jerusalem, in Gush Etzion, or in Western Samaria (including Ariel). Olmert also envisions permanently retaining the Jordan Valley, which is almost entirely empty and can therefore be annexed to Israel without affecting the demographic balance.

The entire premise of Friedman's column is therefore either illogical or dishonest. Friedman's point is that as a direct result of the war in Iraq, Israelis generally, and Olmert particularly, are calling for withdrawal from the territories, including the Jordan Valley. Yet Olmert would keep the Jordan Valley. Either Friedman is simply ignorant, in which case he should no longer be cited as a Middle East pundit, or he simply ignores the facts to advance his agenda.
posted on 12/16/2003