In the midst of the Israel-Hamas conflict, the decision Tom Friedman presents to us

In his recent column, “Israel has a choice to make: Rafah or Riyadh,” Thomas Friedman of The New York Times presents a stark ultimatum for Israel. The Biden administration demands that Israel choose between launching an operation in Rafah to eliminate the last organized brigades of Hamas or prioritize normalization with Saudi Arabia.

Friedman’s column paints a binary picture, suggesting that Israel must comply with the Biden administration’s wishes to avoid becoming an international pariah. He argues that Israel should focus on creating a path for Palestinian statehood rather than pursuing military action in Rafah.

However, Friedman fails to acknowledge Israel’s previous efforts to achieve peace through offers of a two-state solution. He highlights the need for a political horizon for a two-state solution with non-Hamas-led Palestinians but overlooks the fact that Israel has made significant concessions in the past, only to be met with rejection or silence from Palestinian leaders.

Furthermore, Friedman’s narrative seems to place the blame solely on Israel for the lack of progress towards peace, ignoring the ongoing issues within Palestinian leadership. He fails to address the Palestinian Authority’s support for terrorism, including payments to convicted terrorists and their families, which goes against American laws such as the Taylor Force Act.

Critics of Friedman argue that his longstanding bias against Israel has influenced his perspective on the conflict. They point out his failure to acknowledge Israel’s security concerns and the complexities of the situation in the region. Additionally, they question his emphasis on pressuring Israel to make concessions without holding Palestinian leaders accountable for their actions.

Despite Friedman’s call for Israel to prioritize normalization with Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, critics argue that this approach may not guarantee Israel’s security in the long run. They caution against making unilateral concessions without ensuring concrete commitments from all parties involved.

In conclusion, Friedman’s column has sparked debate and criticism for its one-sided portrayal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While he raises important points about the need for progress towards peace, his analysis overlooks key factors and fails to offer a balanced perspective on the complex realities of the situation. As the debate continues, it remains essential to consider all perspectives and work towards a comprehensive and sustainable solution for lasting peace in the region.