Thomas L. Friedman, famous New York Times editorialist, does not much like Trump’s plan for Gaza. A skilled wordsmith, he dismisses it, writing, “How short a distance it is between out-of-the-box thinking and out-of-your-mind thinking.”

However, the former is correct. This plan is creative, unique, and incisive, and kills several “boids” (as we say in Brooklyn) with one rock.

For one thing, it will safeguard Israel. Under an American Riviera on the Mediterranean, there will be no more rockets launched in an eastward direction; no more leaping out of tunnels (a new tourist attraction!) to unleash suicide bombers. For another, the Palestinians have a history of trying to topple the governments who are kind enough to take them in — e.g., King Hussein. Friendly amendment coming up: If these marauders can be sent to Iran, not Egypt or Jordan, they may well do so there. Surely, there is no government that deserves to be overthrown more than the mullahs of that country. Doing so might well obviate the need for nuclear war. Third, if any people deserve some sort of punishment, loss of their homes, etc., it is these Gazans, who have overwhelmingly supported the evil depredations of that terrorist group, Hamas.

But Mr. Friedman is having none of this. What is his substantive critique? Mostly, he confines himself to name-calling: “single most idiotic and dangerous Middle East ‘peace’ initiative”; only “a collection of bobblehead dolls” support this plan; “is a recipe for chaos at home and abroad”; “this juvenile Mar-a-Gaza proposal.” My, oh my.

Is there anything at all of substance? Yes, a little bit: “It will destabilize the demographic balance in Jordan between East Bankers and Palestinians, destabilize Egypt, and destabilize Israel.” But if we substitute Iran for Jordan and Egypt, destabilization is all to the good! Destabilization of Israel? The very opposite is the case. No longer will the Jewish state be subject every few weeks or months to minor attacks, and every few years to major ones.

Next on Friedman’s list is this: “I am confident that many soldiers, outside of those on the far right, will refuse to be part of any operation that could be compared with the rounding up and transferring of Jews from their homes during World War II.”

But there is all the world of difference between the two. The only thing the Jews in Germany were “guilty” of was contributing to that country’s economy, to that country’s universities, to that country’s medical system, etc. To say the least, the Palestinians’ “contribution” was just about 180 degrees removed from that record. The IDF has a record of expending its soldiers’ lives in an effort to preserve those Gazan civilians who Hamas uses as shields. They have seen their colleagues in the army blown up by the placing of weaponry in schools, hospitals, mosques, etc. They are going to cavil at safeguarding their wives and children by removing this menace on their border? Anyone wanna bet on this?

Next, “Trump will also create a backlash against American embassies and interests across the Arab Muslim world, with many Muslims taking to the streets in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.”

This already occurs each and every time Israel defends itself against the barbarians. Friedman should have added that the U.N. and the ICC and others in that vein will also be mightily miffed. Somehow, I warrant that the Israelis will be able to tolerate this loss in its popularity. They ought to be very much used to this sort of thing by now.

Here, finally, this journalist gets something right: “It would be the single greatest gift Trump could give to Iran to make a comeback in the Middle East by embarrassing all the pro-American Sunni regimes.” It would indeed be a gift beyond price for the Iranian people to have the Palestinians upset their present overlords. Then this country would return from barbarism to civilization. How does it help the average Ali living in Tehran to have his government aid and abet Hamas, Hezb’allah, and Houthis in their attacks on Israel? As recent events have shown, their leader’s policies have rendered Iran vulnerable to Israeli defensive wrath.

Friedman trots out that old saw: “a two-state solution.” I tell you what: I don’t mind that, provided only that this new entity is located in Iran, or maybe Haiti, or on Mars, for all I care — just as long as these bestial murderers are located far, far away from their usual targets in the Middle East. Friedman is incensed since “Netanyahu even said the other day that ‘the Saudis can create a Palestinian state in Saudi Arabia; they have a lot of land over there.’” How can this leader of Israel sink so low as to wish a little geographical distance between these marauders and their Jewish prey?

Last but not least, our scribe relieves himself of this jewel: “If Bibi gets where he is going, every young Jew today will learn what it is to grow up in a world where the Jewish state is a pariah state.”

Hey, wait a sec — the only civilized nation in the Middle East is already a pariah state. And that’s thanks to commentators such as Friedman.

Originally published here.