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.

"The Irresponsibility of Thomas Friedman"

http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0811/frontpage/irresponsible

There are only a limited number of conclusions to be drawn from Mr. Friedman's continued employent and respect as a feature of the NYT and popular pontificater in the M$M, after a documented history of being an idiot and a liar.

1. Because he is Jewish, working for a Jewish-owned newspaper, and towing the American (powerful)-Jewry party line (i.e., Israel can do no wrong).

2. Because he is a CIA plant, created to brainwash Americans into believing bullshit. (It's called a disinformation campaign.)

OR

3. The journalists, politicos, and intellectual elite of this country really are fucking morons. (Which is not that much of a stretch, given the recent economic crash. Condi Rice graduated from Stanford, you know, and Ann Coulter got a law degree from U of Mich.; Bill O'Reilly graduated from the JFK School of Government. What does that tell you?) Watch morning cable news, and you tell me the collective IQ of our chattering class.

In other words, either he is a plant designed to specifically lie and misinform the American public, or he is a moron among morons.

Take your pick.

"And Islamists - including Hamas - are indeed in a war against modernity."

This is like saying the North Vietnamese were in a war against capitalism. Like Friedman, you misinterpret the ideology of Hamas as the basis for Hamas' struggle. Though Hamas does subscribe to many of the Islamist platforms [and the word itself is up for some debate, unless you can find it in a dictionary for me. My assumption is that it really does mean Islamic to Friedman given his racist writings and views]. Home grown movements like Hamas differ substantially from rootless trans-national movements such as Al Q'aeda. Hamas has priorities and objectives, and are obviously focused on objectives, not just battle with the West. The difference has been most recently on display in Hamas' pro-Democratic, pro-peace negotiation platform. Islamism, when used by the likes of Friedman, is an immutable appellation, used in the same way that previous American administration's used "communism'. Even Nixon learned that such simple-minded cookie cutter words were good for the military industrial complex, but ultimately bad for domestic security and foreign policy.

All that having been said, you seem to share Friedman's fundamental disconnect from reality, which ignores the very real impact of settlement building, and of Israel's continued control of every aspect of Palestinian life in the West Bank and in Gaza, though less obviously (especially to people like yourself, who allow Friedman to direct their view of Arab history and current events). Certainly, Hamas has committed its share of antagonistic military activities, and against civilians. But Israel is more than a match for Hamas any day, at least in the eyes of Palestinians. Palestinians are continuously radicalized in each generation by Israel's exceptionalist bloody offensives and actions--first occupation; then self-serving land grabs in the form of peace talks; increased settlement building; dispossession of Jerusalemite Palestinians; the daily, grinding loss of life caused by the daily IDF occupation; and horrendous offensives causing vast amounts of Palestinian blood shed which seem to occur every two years nowadays. Each generation remembers these, though people like yourself and Friedman forget quite easily; each new generation experiences their own, such as Cast Lead.

In short, you don't know jack about that which you are speaking.

omooex: "Like Friedman, you misinterpret the ideology of Hamas as the basis for Hamas' struggle."

I don't know where you get that incorrect assumption, but you are nonetheless wrong.

omooex: "the word itself is up for some debate,.. My assumption is that it really does mean Islamic to Friedman"

Whether your assumption is correct here or not, quoted Friedman inaccurately: he did not say "Islamic," he said "Islamist." Your quote there is is thus incorrect and misleading.

omooex: "you seem to share Friedman's fundamental disconnect from reality, which ignores the very real impact of settlement building, and of Israel's continued control of every aspect of Palestinian life in the West Bank and in Gaza"

Wrong again, and on two levels:

1: I do not ignore the very real impact of settlement building, and of Israel's continued control of every aspect of Palestinian life in the West Bank and in Gaza. I am in fact a strong critic of the Israeli settlements because I am fully aware of how much and why they undermine the peace process. To that end I strongly support and advocate for U.S. withholding "aid" to Israel until Israel, at minimum. stops settlement expansion.

2: Friedman too does not ignore the very real impact of settlement building, and how it undermines the peace process and the likelihood of a two-state solution. And if you were more familiar with Friedman's writings then you too would be well aware of that fact.