"There is an illegal settlement called Migron that is currently under consideration for demolition. If it is not demolished, in my opinion this means that Israel's government cannot enforce the law and accordingly cannot make peace with the Palestinians."That's it. That's everything she has to say but repeats it many times. But I suppose I have less of a problem with her writing as I do with her talking points here. All she ever does is write about the settlements (and how evil Israel is) so that is not a surprise. What is new is her use of "international law," which as a certain notorious Israel hater reminded us is a double edged sword.
For example, she is complaining here about a bunch of people stole land because they think they deserve to have it, and if Israel's government doesn't throw them out with bulldozers and backhoes there is no rule of law and everything is going to crap. But you know what happens Israel does enforce the rule of law toward people who aren't Jews? Endless Huffington Post articles complaining about it! Admittedly none written by Ms. Friedman herself but I don't think she would disagree with Rosenberg or Blumenthal.
Don't get me wrong. If Israel only enforces the rule of law selectively and only toward Bedouins, that's bad. But don't cheer when settlers are punished for "stealing land" but cry when Bedouins are punished for "stealing land." Either stealing land is always wrong or it isn't. And for that matter, if Ms. Friedman is going by Israeli government policy, does that mean that non-outpost settlements are legal and acceptable? I doubt she would agree.
Regardless, it remains funny that even when bombs are going off in Thailand and India and Iran is sticking fuel rods into nuclear reactors, the Huffington Post will always find someone to complain about the settlements. It's as consistent as the tides.