Soccer Dad

Little tommy's big plans

Thomas Friedman in 1996

Arafat, belatedly, came to understand that Israel could never keep up the momentum of peace without Palestinians making a 100 percent effort to guarantee Israeli security, and Mr. Peres came to understand that Mr. Arafat could never guarantee security unless the peace process continued its momentum. Because they agreed on the big issues, and had forged a strategic partnership, the little issues never led to massive blowups. The violence that did occur was the Israeli and Palestinian extremes against the Israeli and Palestinian mainstreams.

Thomas Friedman today:

Fayyad is the most interesting new force on the Arab political stage. A former World Bank economist, he is pursuing the exact opposite strategy from Yasir Arafat. Arafat espoused a blend of violence and politics; his plan was to first gain international recognition for a Palestinian state and then build its institutions. Fayyad calls for the opposite -- for a nonviolent struggle, for building noncorrupt transparent institutions and effective police and paramilitary units, which even the Israeli Army says are doing a good job; and then, once they are all up and running, declare a Palestinian state in the West Bank by 2011.

Is Friedman implicitly acknowledging that Arafat never truly gave up terror? All the years when he berated Israel, he never truly acknowledged that Arafat hadn't changed. Now is he acknowledging the truth only to foist another mirage on us.

Fayyad sounds great. Really. Here's more:

The strategy of Fayyad -- and his boss, President Mahmoud Abbas -- is gaining momentum and is in "direct conflict with the network of resistance: Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas," said Gidi Grinstein, the president of the Reut Institute, one of the premier Israeli policy research centers.

That assumes a few things that aren't currently in evidence. One, it assumes that Fayyad has any real power. He doesn't. Part of Arafat's toxic legacy (enable by the likes of Friedman) was to make "resistance" an acceptable response to dissatisfaction with Israel. Consequently the majority of Fatah consists of those who still espouse terror as a way of getting their way with Israel. The other assumption is that Fayyad's institutions will be stable and devoted to peace. Again that's far from assured.

So to conclude, as Friedman does, that encouraging Fayyad will weaken Iranian influence is - like his promotion of Yassser Arafat as essential to the peace process - an illusion based on his own wishful thinking.

I wonder how long it will take him to acknowledge the folly of his ways.