We agree, Tom Friedman. Give Trump the Nobel Peace Prize for Gaza
And then what? Hamas remains armed, and it still seeks to destroy Israel.
By Walter E. Block and Oded J.K. Faran
JNS
Mar 15, 2026
This is unusual. There is a rare agreement between the present authors and Thomas L. Friedman on Gaza, in particular, and Israel, in general. All three of us would welcome the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. President Donald Trump for his actions in Gaza. We are even in accord that he should do “the harder parts to come.” We only diverge on what is constituted by the latter.
What are the specifics? What is going on here? The New York Times man starts off strongly, complimenting Trump for “ … a geopolitical bank shot that had to bounce off—and simultaneously win the trust of … ” numerous Middle Eastern participants. We couldn’t have said it any better ourselves.
But then, alas, Friedman goes off the rails. He states: “We are talking about full-scale nation-building in Gaza, which is almost completely destroyed, yet still home to some 2 million uprooted people.” These “uprooted people” were dancing in the streets on Oct. 8, 2023, in celebration, the day after the atrocity committed by their own democratically elected Hamas on over a thousand innocent Israelis.
Even apart from that, it is not at all clear as to why they deserve a nation, chock by jowl with Israel. Some say that God Himself awarded this land to Jews, not Arabs. We are not sufficiently studied in theology to have any opinion whatsoever on any such claim. Rather, we adhere to the John Lockean position that justified land titles should be awarded to those who first homestead to terrain in question. The Hebrews were there some 3,500 years ago, several millennia before the arrival of Friedman’s so-called “uprooted people.”
Yes, it cannot be denied, Trump’s 20-point plan calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state in Gaza. But we are here after justice, not a blind-eyed adherence to a very good, albeit not perfect, plan. In any case, it called for the disarmament of Hamas, which blatantly has not occurred.
Why should Israel, then, be obligated to uphold its assigned role? Our editorialist maintains that “Trump will have to oversee the disarmament of Hamas … .” Please, do let us know when that occurs. In the view of this terrorist organization, that will take place only when a viable Palestinian state in Gaza occurs, when its members will presumably be free to join its national army. Meanwhile, its covenant, even watered down and amended, still calls for the eradication of it is pleased to call the Little Satan. Out of such sentiments do not good neighbors make. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is entirely within his rights to bitterly oppose any such incursion.
Friedman concedes that there is “an Israeli government that is deeply suspicious that Hamas will regroup.” You have heard of the expression “damning with faint praise.” This claim of our world-famous author is the understatement of the century. “Suspicious”? More likely fearful, afraid, infuriated, angered. Were the Jews merely “suspicious” of the Nazis? This man is the master of understatement.
Friedman’s next foray is this: “Trump told his cabinet Thursday with his usual penchant for exaggeration: ‘We ended the war in Gaza, and on a much bigger basis, created peace … hopefully, an everlasting peace in the Middle East.’ I sure hope he does not really believe that, because he will be working on Gaza for the rest of his presidency.”
If justice prevails, none of this will be true. Hamas has had more than enough time to disarm. Instead, they have not only continued to murder Israelis. They have also executed members of Palestinian clans who have had the temerity to attempt to take over some limited government functions in Gaza.
What should now occur is for the Israel Defense Forces to march in and end this all-too-long war that started on Oct. 7, 2023. Then, no one will have to be “working” on this until 2028. Here is a pithy quote that is very apropos: Netanyahu said, “If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.”
This New York Times editorialist waxes eloquent over “… the possibility of a two-state solution under a totally new formula—one that combines Palestinian, Arab and international stewardship over Gaza’s future.”
Sure. Let us place the safety—the very existence—of the Jewish state in the hands of others than the IDF. These international entities can certainly be relied upon to safeguard Israel come hell or high water. Maybe the United States should give up its own military and rely upon its good neighbors, Canada and Mexico, to protect it from its enemies?
Opines Friedman: “… Israelis and Palestinians can no longer resolve their conflict alone. After the Gaza war, there is not a shred of trust left between them. The gears for collaboration are all stripped bare. They will need permanent U.S. and Arab guarantors for peace.”
My, the man sure has a way with a word. “Gears” and all, for goodness sake. The only reason this conflict has not yet been resolved is that Israel has not sufficiently pushed forward in compelling the surrender of Hamas. This is precisely how the Allies “resolved their conflict” with the Axis powers. This is precisely how the 13 colonies “resolved their conflict” with Great Britain. This is precisely how the Northerners “resolved their conflict” with the Southerners in 1865.
Nor can Friedman resist a bit of a salute to moral equivalence. He asserts: “In a region where few leaders do not have blood on their hands or political prisoners in jail (for advocating human rights) … .” This, of course, is a stab in the back at Israel. Netanyahu has “blood on his hands?” Yes, the blood of Hamas murderers. What about the women and children killed in the Gaza Strip? There is collateral damage in all wars. But who started this war on Oct. 7, 2023? Israel? Hamas? The Martians?
We will leave this multiple-choice quiz to Friedman. The damage to Gaza civilians in this case was enhanced by the evil practice of Hamas in using them as shields. They parked their military apparatus in hospitals and schools, something of which even the Nazis were not guilty.
Can we say that every Arab prisoner in an Israeli jail was actually guilty of the crime of which he was accused? No more than this applies to similarly civilized countries in the United States or Europe. But to equate this with Arab practices where murders (limited to Jews, of course) are given awards and pensions to their families, as does Friedman, is logical anathema.
Avers our New York Times man: “Bibi constantly sought to delegitimize the P.A. because he did not want a single moderate Palestinian negotiating body that could represent the Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza. That would immediately have led to global pressure to negotiate a two-state solution.”
He forgets something: the Palestinian Authority is also a terrorist organization. They, too, engage in “pay for slay” policies. We join Friedman; we have nothing against a second state for the Palestinians. Provided, only, that it is located where it can do little violence to Israel: perhaps near Norway somewhere, or in the midst of Australia; perhaps Canada.
In the opinion of Friedman: “ … in pursuing his scorched-earth policy in Gaza, Bibi told the world to get lost, Europe to get lost, Democrats to get lost, liberal American Jews to get lost, Israel’s Arab allies to get lost, even moderate Republicans to get lost.”
No, no, no. The problem with Netanyahu (we do not always support this hero) is that Gaza was not sufficiently “scorched.” The proof of the pudding is that Hamas is still in control. Only when they are forced to surrender and disband will sufficient “scorching” have been achieved. Germany, Italy and Japan at the end of World War II; that should be the goal of the IDF if their country is to be safeguarded. No more of this “resolving conflicts” nonsense. This is a war, not a game.
Friedman does not much like “Trump’s … first Gaza plan—a cockamamie plan to get all the Palestinians out of Gaza and turn it into a new Riviera.”
That was roughly the goal of Israel in 2005 when it banished its own citizens from Gaza. It was characterized more in terms of making that sad corner of the world into a Hong Kong of the Middle East rather than a Riviera. But that is a difference with no real distinction. For all intents and purposes, ever since Hamas conquered the P.A. in 2007, there was in effect a second Palestinian state on the western border of Israel. Did that “country” build houses? Hotels? Desalination plants? Factories? Possibly, schools? Maybe farms? No. They focused on tunnels, out of which came suicide bombers. On terrorism. On rocket launching pads.
We read in this missive: “Trump has established … ‘that there will be no unilateral annexations in Gaza or the West Bank; that an upgraded and reformed Palestinian Authority will be the self-governing body of the Palestinians in the West Bank and, in the future, in Gaza.’”
Friedman is a bit too free with that word “established.” “Suggested” would be far more accurate. As would be “urged,” or recommended,” “supported” or “advised.”
Is Israel, or is it not, a sovereign nation? It is not the 51st state of America. Therefore, Trump, the well-meaning and absolutely the best friend Israel has ever had from the U.S. presidency, cannot “establish” any such thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment