Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, January 7, 2009 04:09 PM

  @omooex

  omooex: "His [Friedman's] conclusions... Rather than an actor in a very local struggle for autonomy, Hamas is instead part of a vast "Islamic" war against modernity."

  The word Friedman used was not "Islamic" but Islamist - a key and fundamental distinction that changes the meaning of what Friedman said considerably. And Islamists - including Hamas - are indeed in a war against modernity.

  Friedman was horrendously incorrect with respect to whether we should attack Iraq, but still I find much of his take on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to generally be right on the money, including with respect to this point:

  If you believe, as I do, that the only stable solution is a two-state one, with the Palestinians getting all of the West Bank, Gaza and Arab sectors of East Jerusalem, then you have to hope for the weakening of Hamas.

  Why do supporters of a two-state solution have to hope for the weakening of Hamas? This pretty-much sums it up:

  Hamas’s rocket attacks pose an irreversible threat. They say to Israel: "From Gaza, we can hit southern Israel. If we get the West Bank, we can rocket, and thereby close, Israel’s international airport - anytime, any day, from now to eternity." How many Israelis will risk relinquishing the West Bank, given this new threat?

  A strengthened Hamas means strengthened extremists on both sides. Which isn't to say I support the current Gaza offensive - that may well result in a strengthened Hamas. Let's hope it doesn't, but if history is any guide -- and unfortunately it is -- I'm not optimistic in that regard.

  And so it goes.

  —Publicola Read Publicola's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel