Thomas L. Friedman: Only Biden and M.B.S. Can Redirect the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Summary of Original Article

Read the original article at https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/13/opinion/israel-hamas-gaza.html

The article discusses the potential for President Biden and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (M.B.S.) to reshape the Israeli-Palestinian conflict towards a two-state solution.

It suggests that key regional interests align for the creation of a Palestinian state that can coexist peacefully with Israel.

The author, Thomas L. Friedman, argues that the failure to progress towards this solution would result in Israel becoming a global pariah, especially in the Arab world, and would also complicate America’s Middle East strategy.

The article recalls historical attempts at peace, like the Arab Peace Initiative, and criticizes both Hamas and Netanyahu for their roles in hindering a two-state solution.

Friedman concludes by urging Biden and M.B.S. to take bold actions to revive the two-state discourse and presents a vision of a reformed Palestinian Authority as a credible peace partner.

Argument Analysis

The original content shows a bias towards supporting Israel through a variety of tactics:

• Appeal to Authority: The article leverages the reputation of Thomas L. Friedman, a well-known journalist and author, to lend credibility to its arguments.

• False Dilemma: It presents the situation as a binary choice where Israel must either progress towards a two-state solution or become a global pariah.

• Cherry Picking: The article selectively mentions historical events and proposals favorable to the Israeli perspective while largely ignoring Palestinian narratives and grievances.

• Appeal to Emotion: Language that evokes fear of Israel's isolation and the potential complications for U.S. strategy in the Middle East is used to elicit an emotional response.

• Loaded Question: The framing of the conflict's resolution as contingent on the actions of Biden and M.B.S. implies that the solution is within their power, which might oversimplify the agency of the involved parties.

• Slippery Slope: There is an implication that failing to act now may lead to a cascade of negative consequences, which pressures the reader to agree with the proposed solution.

• Confirmation Bias: The narrative is structured to reinforce the pre-existing pro-Israel views of the author and likely, his readership.

The article's perspective and language choices should be carefully considered for their potential to shape readers' understanding of the conflict in a way that favors one side.