This is what happened in the last two weeks as Israel responded to the Saudi Peace Initiative to recognize Israel in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders. As even the New York Times reported Sharon responded by trying to 'win' a military 'solution' to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "With 20,000 troops in action, Israel is currently engaged in the biggest military offensive in the Palestinian territories since the 1967 war. In less than two weeks it has killed more than 160 Palestinians. Soldiers in full battle dress, riding in tanks and backed by fire from Apache attack helicopters, have ripped their way through large refugee camps. Tanks have torn up roads, missiles have gutted homes and Palestinian Authority offices and troops have rounded up and questioned all male camp residents between the ages of 15 and 45. (NYT, 3/14/2002)."
It is not wise to depend too heavily on the New York Times, a major Yiddish Supremacist think tank and a sancturary for war criminals and their buddy journalists. But here is a bit more of what they reported on the events of the last two weeks: "Some arms caches have been uncovered in these raids and a few suspects arrested, but out of nearly 2,000 Palestinians questioned, the overwhelming majority have been found not to be involved in terrorism and released. Hard-core terrorists from Hamas and other groups appear to have slipped away before the Israeli soldiers entered the camps."
The indiscriminate mayhem unleashed by the Israeli army against crowded refugee camps and Palestinian towns was probably pre-approved by the Bush Administration. This was the deal. Sharon gets to temporarily satiate his blood lust and his promise to murder as many Palestinians as quickly as he can. To back up the Cheney tour of Arab capitals, Bush mugs for the camera and says Sharon is 'not being helpful'. Note he didn't say that killing dozens of Palestinians and an Italian journalist was bad or 'hurtful', just not helpful. Next Zinni is put on a slow train to China from where he is assigned the task of digging a tunnel to Tel Aviv. By the time he arrives, it appears that the Bush administration has put the collar on Sharon. The state department went to the trouble of denying that there was such a deal. Yeah, sure. Why bother denying it, if it wasn't such a plausible scenario?
Which brings me to the insolent work of one Thomas Fraudulent (aka Thomas Friedman). Remember his breaking story on the Saudi peace plan. Well, his new mission is to break the Saudi peace plan.
What follows is proof positive that it is always wise to doubt Thomas Friedman and his publisher, Sulzberger.
Watch this latest Thomas Fraudulent word game. "That jarred my ear. Say that again? "Full peace?" Words are important here. "Full peace" is not what Abdullah offered. He said "full normalization of relations," and there is a difference." (Say That Again? NYT, 3/13/2002).
Towards the bottom of his column, doubting Thomas Friedman, so concerned with words that make a difference writes that "Israel will have to do its part, and withdraw on the basis of the 1967 lines," Now, that jarred many more ear drums. Say that again? "withdraw on the basis of the 1967 lines?". Sharon says Israel has already done that. Words are important for some people, even if they are just a public relations tool for an advocate of repression like Friedman. Crown Prince Abdullah called for "full withdrawal to the 1967 lines" not "withdrawal on the basis of the 1967 lines". My sources in Saudi tell me that Thomas Fraudulent seemed to understand the precision of the Saudi peace initiative. If the Saudis made a mistake in their initiative, it was in giving Friedman legitimacy. He is not a journalist and he does not work for a legitimate newspaper. He is part of one of the most powerful components of the Israeli Lobby, The New York Times publishing company. This Yiddish supremacist organization hires on the basis of fealty to any Israeli government that happens to be in power in Tel Aviv. Every day, they earn their bones, by demonstrating their loyalties to any war criminal thug elected by the Israeli people.
The Israel that Thomas Friedman serves is a country where half the population openly calls for the mass deportation and ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinian people. This is according to the Jaffe Institute of Strategic studies, a think tank which Friedman is very familiar with. If you asked the same question to Sulzberger's crew, you might get an even higher percentage. Since there is no "peace camp" at the brothel of gray ladies on 43rd street.
Someone in Saudi obviously didn't do a background check on Thomas Friedman and the New York Times. I suggest that, in the future, they consider dealing with reputable news organizations. The Independent of London and The Guardian are world class publications whose journalist really care about ethics. While the Saudis might have reservations about the work of Robert Fisk and Susan Goldenberg, they are good and decent journalists who do an excellent balanced job of covering the Middle East. I would also suggest that there are a number of excellent American journalists like Charlie Reese who deserve to be given the spotlight when important Saudi initiatives are leaked to the press. The French paper, Le Monde, would also welcome such an opportunity.
Perhaps the Saudis should be giving interviews to Fisk and Goldenberg about why it was a mistake to give such an important story to Thomas Fraudulent of the New York Times. Friedman doesn't just break stories. He is a one man demolition squad for any hopes of peace.