What do you think?
Rate this book
One Jewish State: The Last, Best Hope to Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
THE TERRORIST MASSACRE COMMITTED BY HAMAS AGAINST INNOCENT ISRAELIS ON OCTOBER 7, 2023 BROUGHT GREAT TRAUMA TO THE STATE OF ISRAEL. BUT IT ALSO HAS BROUGHT GREAT CLARITY. It is this clarity that tells us we must try something NEW. It is this clarity that tells us Israel must plan its future on its own and not obsess about what others think. And it is this clarity that compels us to go back to basics—to return to the biblical values and divine covenants that unite the Jewish people.
It is this clarity that has inspired David Friedman, former US Ambassador to Israel and bestselling author of SLEDGEHAMMER, to write and lead a new movement. One of the leading architects of the historic Abraham Accords, David Friedman explains why in these turbulent and dangerous times, the simple phrase of three words—ONE JEWISH STATE—must be the guideline for Israel and the world’s collective future.
Each word of ONE JEWISH STATE is deeply instilled with meaning: ONE: There is only ONE country earmarked for the Jewish people; ONE. There are 49 Muslim countries, and many Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu countries, but only ONE Jewish State.
JEWISH: This Jewish State is exactly that—JEWISH. It is the place where Jewish history was born, where Jewish values were created and where more Jews live than anywhere else. It is situated on the land given to the Jewish people by God in the words of the Holy Bible.
STATE: Israel is not just a place; it is a country with sovereignty over its land and responsibility for its inhabitants. Today that sovereignty has been called into question by the nations of the world and even by some within Israel. But Israel cannot be Jewish without sovereignty over the places that make it Jewish. Friedman proposes a goal and a path, with God’s help, for Israel to have complete sovereignty over all its biblical homeland—in a just manner that brings peace, prosperity, and essential human dignity to ALL of Israel’s inhabitants.
It is this clarity that has inspired David Friedman, former US Ambassador to Israel and bestselling author of SLEDGEHAMMER, to write and lead a new movement. One of the leading architects of the historic Abraham Accords, David Friedman explains why in these turbulent and dangerous times, the simple phrase of three words—ONE JEWISH STATE—must be the guideline for Israel and the world’s collective future.
Each word of ONE JEWISH STATE is deeply instilled with meaning: ONE: There is only ONE country earmarked for the Jewish people; ONE. There are 49 Muslim countries, and many Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu countries, but only ONE Jewish State.
JEWISH: This Jewish State is exactly that—JEWISH. It is the place where Jewish history was born, where Jewish values were created and where more Jews live than anywhere else. It is situated on the land given to the Jewish people by God in the words of the Holy Bible.
STATE: Israel is not just a place; it is a country with sovereignty over its land and responsibility for its inhabitants. Today that sovereignty has been called into question by the nations of the world and even by some within Israel. But Israel cannot be Jewish without sovereignty over the places that make it Jewish. Friedman proposes a goal and a path, with God’s help, for Israel to have complete sovereignty over all its biblical homeland—in a just manner that brings peace, prosperity, and essential human dignity to ALL of Israel’s inhabitants.
256 pages, Hardcover
Published September 3, 2024
109 people are currently reading
167 people want to read
About the author
David Friedman
2 books2 followersAmerican bankruptcy lawyer and the former United States Ambassador to Israel.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
November 19, 2024
Easy to read book with a clear point. Didn’t learn much history that I didn’t know already, but learned a new frame of reference for Judea and Samaria/how it could look under Israeli sovereignty (which was the ultimate goal of the book). Important for all two-state solution idealists to understand why that is an impossible notion.
Friedman presents that Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria is a priority due to religious, historical, and national security factors, and that Judea and Samaria under no circumstances serve as some groundwork for another failed Palestinian state.
Some amazing quotes about the world since 10/7, Jews and their connection to Israel, and the delusion of the Palestinians and their supporters (check out my highlights).
Would give a 4 but rounding to 5 for the boy.
Friedman presents that Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria is a priority due to religious, historical, and national security factors, and that Judea and Samaria under no circumstances serve as some groundwork for another failed Palestinian state.
Some amazing quotes about the world since 10/7, Jews and their connection to Israel, and the delusion of the Palestinians and their supporters (check out my highlights).
Would give a 4 but rounding to 5 for the boy.
September 27, 2024
An aspirational book that I agree with. Israel should declare sovereignty over Judaea & Samaria. A controversial idea, but the right one. David Friedman lays out the rationale from several perspectives: biblical, legal, and societal. There will be many who disagree, seeking a two-state solution. But this approach has the past 75 years screaming that this approach will not work. This became apparent to many after October 7, 2023. And with 11 months of war, any objective observer would conclude that a two-state solution is a fools errand. Friedman speaks of the history of the conflict as well as solutions to resolve this once and for all.
August 12, 2024
A very insightful work promoting the religious right-wing position towards the I/P conflict
In contrast to other reviewers, I did take the time to read the book before deciding on my rating. It would probably have been a 1.5, simply for the effort I went through in order to be able to review it.
I must preface my review with the following: While I am no expert on the conflict between Israel and many of the States and organisations in the Middle East, I am somewhat knowledgeable. I have no solution for the conflict, at least none that is easy. I only know that it will be a long and difficult road and that both sides will need to make concessions in order to be able to live alongside each other. And that is my last point; I fundamentally disagree with Mr Friedman's proposal of a single-state solution.
In summary, in One Jewish State David Friedman proposes exactly what it says on the tin: giving the entire territory, including Judea and Samaria to Israel and not establishing a Palestinian State. Most of the book is a fragmented history of modern Israel and an analysis of Middle Eastern politics, which often gets misinterpreted and leads to many wrong conclusions. The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament to Christians, is used as the guiding proof for his thesis.
Friedman was Ambassador to Israel under Trump, whose campaign he was on in 2016. He is the son of a Conservative Rabbi, a lawyer and has extensive knowledge of Israel, the conflict's history and Torah. He was part of the move of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to West Jerusalem, although this was never referred to as West Jerusalem by Trump or the US government. (This is highly problematic for multiple reasons, but more on that later) The foreword was written my Michael R. Pompeo, who is also party to an illuminating anecdote about Trump's non-position towards the Middle East. Pompeo and Friedman worked closely together during their term in office and clearly continue to meddle in US foreign affairs, just for the opposition.
I would give the following content warning to potential reader, who should not read the book if they only have a basic understanding of the I/P conflict and its history, get a stroke if they read something they do not agree with and/or do not want to read about religious extremism from a Jewish perspective. There is a strong bias and it sometimes borders on Anti-Arab racism, so if you cannot stomach someone with a vastly different opinion, this book is not for you! And if you do not want to give this author your money, definitely do not buy this book.
However, if you are a leftist and would like to understand the far-right in Israel, if you want to learn about religious Zionism and its dangers, if you want to uncritically confirm your belief that Israeli Jews are the only people who should exist on Israeli territory or if you want to understand why religious Zionists view the Free Palestine movement as antisemitic, this book is for you. It also, ironically, highlights why a second Trump administration could be detrimental to any prospects of peace in the Middle East.
Personally, I fundamentally disagree with Mr Friedman on what he proposes in this book. There are several fallacies he fails to take into account (or willfully ignores to bolster his point) and they actually make his thesis untenable. This book contradicts itself upon closer inspection. While it was an infuriating read, it was also very enlightening (thus 1.5 stars instead of 1 or 0) as to how the Israeli government and the religious right in Israel could have come to the place they are at today.
While I appreciate his deep understanding of the history of the conflict, he often draws the exact wrong conclusions from the facts he presents.
A non-exhaustive list of his fallacies with regards to the conflict and his proposal includes:
- merging religion and politics, not just in Israel but in the US
- speaking for Palestinians as an American Jew
- refusing Palestinians the same grace he extends to religious extremists in Israel
- letting his personal history with Palestinian terror colour his views
- racism and Anti-Arab bias: unless Arabs are grateful and of lower status than Jews in Israel, they don't deserve to be there
- complete dismissal of secular Zionism, which shaped the country and continues to grow in significance in light of the dangerous religious extremism from the far right
- failure to do the numbers game (this is a tricky one)
Friedman proposes that Palestinians and Palestinian territories (which he, in agreement with the nation-state law from 2018, a very controversial and harmful piece of legislature) be treated by Israel the same way the US treat Puerto Rico. No legal representation, no votes, no taxation, no benefits. A second-class society. Only that Puerto Ricans don't have to share physical territory with Israel, as the Palestinians would, since Friedman is a strong supporter of settlements in the West Bank, which he calls Judea and Samaria.
But let's start at the start. The whole basis for Friedman's single Jewish state solution is the Bible. In secular Zionist and progressive to moderate circles, this is untenable due to the fact that Palestinians exist. But Friedman goes a long way to use the fact that a Palestinian state has never existed as confirmation for his plan to subjugate the Palestinian people to second-class citizenship. He fails to realise that Arab Israelis, Druze and Christians have managed to integrate themselves and shape Israeli society more or less successfully since 1948 and that they today enjoy equal rights.
On the other hand, he describes the terror Israel has been subjected to since day 1 of its existence, when the surrounding nations invaded.
Therefore, his assumption that Israelis would welcome Palestinians of any background (and this would include Hamas members or sympathisers) into their society as One State is utterly naive. He seems to expect Arabs to merely be grateful citizens of the kind that do not participate in government and would not seek to shape their own destinies, accepting Jewish Israeli domination (this is so problematic I have no words). That would, de facto, create just the two-tier society many in Muslim countries and the West are currently accusing Israel of having (in fact, there is an Israeli Arab party and faction in Knesset). He shows no interest in the Arabs in government and has not done the math. If Palestinians were to be naturalised as Israeli citizens, this would have to include the Palestinian refugees dotted around the globe (for example, the Hadid sisters, as the descendants of Palestinians are automatically counted as refugees). The Palestinians would outnumber the Jews, so even if Friedman would not have them have voting rights, they would be in a great position to take them by force, no matter how quickly the Orthodox community in Israel is growing.
The book is littered with biblical references and historical facts, which Friedman uses to bolster his thesis. That he misses to take into account the reality of secular Israeli Jews and the existing conditions in Israel and the Middle East is not surprising. He is fueled by religious zealotry.
Personally, I think it is a shame that even after having lived in Israel as the US Ambassador, he cannot extend grace to Palestinians, with which he worked when the Jerusalem consulate serving the West Bank was merged with the embassy. He presents himself as an academic and critical thinker but fails to realise that the First Amendment he uses to demonstrate how non-religious but devoted to God the United States are, was drafted by Christian extremists who meant Christian denominations and would probably have kicked out any Muslim or Jew from their religiously free country. It is horrifying to see how he fails to recognise his Anti-Arab racism, belittling Palestinians and refusing them the dignity of free will and agency.
Most dangerously, he fails to connect the Islamic Regime in Iran with the terror surrounding Israel today, instead blaming the entirety of the peoples in for it. He tokenises Palestinians, whom he says would prefer to live in Israel and have jobs and financial wealth in exchange for their independence and democratic rights. He mentions Suni and Shia but fails to recognise the inter-Arab conflicts between the two factions and how that means that Westerners can be perfectly happy in Saudi Arabia but not in Iran under the Regime's authoritarian clutch. It is also a shame that he mentions many valid criticisms of Palestinian attempts at sovereignty, such as UNWRA and the corruption but again does not trace them back to Islamic extremism fuelled and funded by the Iranian Regime. And when, towards the end of the book, he does finally mention the Iranian Regime, it is too late. Not for nothing did he keep them out of the picture. Indoctrination would cease to work if there was a true villain or a realistic explanation for the current conflict and Friedman's entire thesis would collapse.
Friedman tries hard to convince you but if, like me, you don't buy his thesis after two chapters, you will be throwing the offer in the bin by the time you reach the middle of the book. He fails to realise that every single one of his points would compound into the very accusations leveraged at Israel today and make them actually true. Israel is not the only country that can bring Palestinians into the new century. If he believes Palestinians would cede their rights for US protections, he has misunderstood the core of the conflict. How dangerous this would be in a second Trump administration, one can only imagine. Separating children from their Palestinian families (sound familiar?) and claiming not to be for apartheid or a two-tier society is simply outrageous and bigoted. Attempts at snappy chapter headings ("What's Law got to do with it?") cannot mask the outdatedness of this book.
While Friedman correctly maps out the history of Palestinian failure to agree to a two-state solution (and repeated territory cessation by Israel), he lets his religious fundamentalism rule out any future prospects of solving the puzzle, even calling it a 'final solution', a term so wrong in this context that it makes you scream.
He blames settler violence on the far left and has phony chapters on loving the stranger and coexistence.
It is simply fascinating (in a horrific, car-crash sort of way) how he can examine all of the historical evidence and come to such a terrible and terrifying conclusion. The only explanation is religious fundamentalism, his unshakeable belief that the Bible is the one and only truth and mandates a modern Israel on the biblical territory. I think we can (almost) all agree that that is impossible, ignores Palestinian culture and heritage, is outdated and should not be pursued.
I will not get into the logistics of how he proposes to realise this single apartheid state. But a "win-win solution" it is not.
Can I recommend this book? Probably not really. But read for yourself.
I received a free ARC from NetGalley in exchange for this review.
In contrast to other reviewers, I did take the time to read the book before deciding on my rating. It would probably have been a 1.5, simply for the effort I went through in order to be able to review it.
I must preface my review with the following: While I am no expert on the conflict between Israel and many of the States and organisations in the Middle East, I am somewhat knowledgeable. I have no solution for the conflict, at least none that is easy. I only know that it will be a long and difficult road and that both sides will need to make concessions in order to be able to live alongside each other. And that is my last point; I fundamentally disagree with Mr Friedman's proposal of a single-state solution.
In summary, in One Jewish State David Friedman proposes exactly what it says on the tin: giving the entire territory, including Judea and Samaria to Israel and not establishing a Palestinian State. Most of the book is a fragmented history of modern Israel and an analysis of Middle Eastern politics, which often gets misinterpreted and leads to many wrong conclusions. The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament to Christians, is used as the guiding proof for his thesis.
Friedman was Ambassador to Israel under Trump, whose campaign he was on in 2016. He is the son of a Conservative Rabbi, a lawyer and has extensive knowledge of Israel, the conflict's history and Torah. He was part of the move of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to West Jerusalem, although this was never referred to as West Jerusalem by Trump or the US government. (This is highly problematic for multiple reasons, but more on that later) The foreword was written my Michael R. Pompeo, who is also party to an illuminating anecdote about Trump's non-position towards the Middle East. Pompeo and Friedman worked closely together during their term in office and clearly continue to meddle in US foreign affairs, just for the opposition.
I would give the following content warning to potential reader, who should not read the book if they only have a basic understanding of the I/P conflict and its history, get a stroke if they read something they do not agree with and/or do not want to read about religious extremism from a Jewish perspective. There is a strong bias and it sometimes borders on Anti-Arab racism, so if you cannot stomach someone with a vastly different opinion, this book is not for you! And if you do not want to give this author your money, definitely do not buy this book.
However, if you are a leftist and would like to understand the far-right in Israel, if you want to learn about religious Zionism and its dangers, if you want to uncritically confirm your belief that Israeli Jews are the only people who should exist on Israeli territory or if you want to understand why religious Zionists view the Free Palestine movement as antisemitic, this book is for you. It also, ironically, highlights why a second Trump administration could be detrimental to any prospects of peace in the Middle East.
Personally, I fundamentally disagree with Mr Friedman on what he proposes in this book. There are several fallacies he fails to take into account (or willfully ignores to bolster his point) and they actually make his thesis untenable. This book contradicts itself upon closer inspection. While it was an infuriating read, it was also very enlightening (thus 1.5 stars instead of 1 or 0) as to how the Israeli government and the religious right in Israel could have come to the place they are at today.
While I appreciate his deep understanding of the history of the conflict, he often draws the exact wrong conclusions from the facts he presents.
A non-exhaustive list of his fallacies with regards to the conflict and his proposal includes:
- merging religion and politics, not just in Israel but in the US
- speaking for Palestinians as an American Jew
- refusing Palestinians the same grace he extends to religious extremists in Israel
- letting his personal history with Palestinian terror colour his views
- racism and Anti-Arab bias: unless Arabs are grateful and of lower status than Jews in Israel, they don't deserve to be there
- complete dismissal of secular Zionism, which shaped the country and continues to grow in significance in light of the dangerous religious extremism from the far right
- failure to do the numbers game (this is a tricky one)
Friedman proposes that Palestinians and Palestinian territories (which he, in agreement with the nation-state law from 2018, a very controversial and harmful piece of legislature) be treated by Israel the same way the US treat Puerto Rico. No legal representation, no votes, no taxation, no benefits. A second-class society. Only that Puerto Ricans don't have to share physical territory with Israel, as the Palestinians would, since Friedman is a strong supporter of settlements in the West Bank, which he calls Judea and Samaria.
But let's start at the start. The whole basis for Friedman's single Jewish state solution is the Bible. In secular Zionist and progressive to moderate circles, this is untenable due to the fact that Palestinians exist. But Friedman goes a long way to use the fact that a Palestinian state has never existed as confirmation for his plan to subjugate the Palestinian people to second-class citizenship. He fails to realise that Arab Israelis, Druze and Christians have managed to integrate themselves and shape Israeli society more or less successfully since 1948 and that they today enjoy equal rights.
On the other hand, he describes the terror Israel has been subjected to since day 1 of its existence, when the surrounding nations invaded.
Therefore, his assumption that Israelis would welcome Palestinians of any background (and this would include Hamas members or sympathisers) into their society as One State is utterly naive. He seems to expect Arabs to merely be grateful citizens of the kind that do not participate in government and would not seek to shape their own destinies, accepting Jewish Israeli domination (this is so problematic I have no words). That would, de facto, create just the two-tier society many in Muslim countries and the West are currently accusing Israel of having (in fact, there is an Israeli Arab party and faction in Knesset). He shows no interest in the Arabs in government and has not done the math. If Palestinians were to be naturalised as Israeli citizens, this would have to include the Palestinian refugees dotted around the globe (for example, the Hadid sisters, as the descendants of Palestinians are automatically counted as refugees). The Palestinians would outnumber the Jews, so even if Friedman would not have them have voting rights, they would be in a great position to take them by force, no matter how quickly the Orthodox community in Israel is growing.
The book is littered with biblical references and historical facts, which Friedman uses to bolster his thesis. That he misses to take into account the reality of secular Israeli Jews and the existing conditions in Israel and the Middle East is not surprising. He is fueled by religious zealotry.
Personally, I think it is a shame that even after having lived in Israel as the US Ambassador, he cannot extend grace to Palestinians, with which he worked when the Jerusalem consulate serving the West Bank was merged with the embassy. He presents himself as an academic and critical thinker but fails to realise that the First Amendment he uses to demonstrate how non-religious but devoted to God the United States are, was drafted by Christian extremists who meant Christian denominations and would probably have kicked out any Muslim or Jew from their religiously free country. It is horrifying to see how he fails to recognise his Anti-Arab racism, belittling Palestinians and refusing them the dignity of free will and agency.
Most dangerously, he fails to connect the Islamic Regime in Iran with the terror surrounding Israel today, instead blaming the entirety of the peoples in for it. He tokenises Palestinians, whom he says would prefer to live in Israel and have jobs and financial wealth in exchange for their independence and democratic rights. He mentions Suni and Shia but fails to recognise the inter-Arab conflicts between the two factions and how that means that Westerners can be perfectly happy in Saudi Arabia but not in Iran under the Regime's authoritarian clutch. It is also a shame that he mentions many valid criticisms of Palestinian attempts at sovereignty, such as UNWRA and the corruption but again does not trace them back to Islamic extremism fuelled and funded by the Iranian Regime. And when, towards the end of the book, he does finally mention the Iranian Regime, it is too late. Not for nothing did he keep them out of the picture. Indoctrination would cease to work if there was a true villain or a realistic explanation for the current conflict and Friedman's entire thesis would collapse.
Friedman tries hard to convince you but if, like me, you don't buy his thesis after two chapters, you will be throwing the offer in the bin by the time you reach the middle of the book. He fails to realise that every single one of his points would compound into the very accusations leveraged at Israel today and make them actually true. Israel is not the only country that can bring Palestinians into the new century. If he believes Palestinians would cede their rights for US protections, he has misunderstood the core of the conflict. How dangerous this would be in a second Trump administration, one can only imagine. Separating children from their Palestinian families (sound familiar?) and claiming not to be for apartheid or a two-tier society is simply outrageous and bigoted. Attempts at snappy chapter headings ("What's Law got to do with it?") cannot mask the outdatedness of this book.
While Friedman correctly maps out the history of Palestinian failure to agree to a two-state solution (and repeated territory cessation by Israel), he lets his religious fundamentalism rule out any future prospects of solving the puzzle, even calling it a 'final solution', a term so wrong in this context that it makes you scream.
He blames settler violence on the far left and has phony chapters on loving the stranger and coexistence.
It is simply fascinating (in a horrific, car-crash sort of way) how he can examine all of the historical evidence and come to such a terrible and terrifying conclusion. The only explanation is religious fundamentalism, his unshakeable belief that the Bible is the one and only truth and mandates a modern Israel on the biblical territory. I think we can (almost) all agree that that is impossible, ignores Palestinian culture and heritage, is outdated and should not be pursued.
I will not get into the logistics of how he proposes to realise this single apartheid state. But a "win-win solution" it is not.
Can I recommend this book? Probably not really. But read for yourself.
I received a free ARC from NetGalley in exchange for this review.
February 12, 2025
The premise here is that G-d gave Israel to the Jews, and that supersedes any argument the Palestinians have to the land. Even if you don’t accept this premise, Mr. Friedman makes a strong case for a single Jewish state. However, IMO, any chance of this happening is zero, because the Palestinians will see this as total acquiescence to Israel. Mr. Friedman did convince me that the two-state solution is also dead in the water. So, all in all, this book lays out a logical argument for a one state solution, except we have little chance of this happening. Good book for a raucous discussion!
December 8, 2024
ANNEX GAZA, JUDEA, & SUMMARIA: THE SCREAMING RIGHT
Harold Goldmeier teaches international university students at Touro College Jerusalem. He is an award-winning entrepreneur who received the Governor’s Award (Illinois) for family investment programs in the workplace from the Commission on the Status of Women. He was a Research and Teaching Fellow at Harvard, worked for four governors, and recently sold his business in Chicago. He is a managing partner of an investment firm, a business management consultant, and a public speaker on business, social, and public policy issues.
Time is Ripe
The wind is at their backs. Activists screaming for a Greater Israel want the government to annex Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman has published the manifesto.
Gaza is no longer a factor among the existential threats to Israel. According to Jared Kushner, the airstrip sliver of land will be gentrified into Vegas with a seashore. Hezbollah is enervated but police actions similar to America’s war on drug cartels ought to suffice. Iran is all talk until the Trump administration and the women of Iran overthrow their abusers. Houthis are busy getting rich off blackmail payoffs from shipping magnets. Iraq is a political and military mess. Syria barely survives as a viable nation lacking enough military forces to stave off rebel tribes. The Arabian Gulf States are morphing into Middle East Disney theme parks. Democrat Party leaders appear pathetic, the party in tatters, and without a clear message.
This simmering stewpot undergirds the hardihood of Religious Zionists, ultra-nationalists, and Evangelicals to fulfill their dreams to expand the state bigger than the Kingdom of David and Solomon. Imagination has them envisioning Jewish communities from Lebanon’s Latani River to Eilat, from the Mediterranean through Gaza to the eastern border of the Jordan Valley abutting Jordan. Friedman’s screed talks only of Gaza. Unfolding events make anything possible including France enforcing peace in Lebanon, chaos in Syria, Pres-elect Donald Trump filling critical U.S. government positions with politically hard-right thumpers, and few in Israel besides the judiciary willing to challenge Prime Minister Netanyahu.
The Manifesto
Team members responsible for the historic Abraham Accords are visionaries. Former US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman was a key member of the team. They all deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, at the very least. The Abraham Accords is so authentic it survives the October 7 barbaric, genocidal attack by Hamas against Israel, the vicious battles in Lebanon, the Red Sea attacks, and Israel-Iran hostilities. One Jewish State is David Friedman’s manifesto about where the Middle East goes from here.
Friedman calls for an end to the conundrum of the two-state solution. Friedman is convinced that one state, ruled by Jews – Israel – is the only solution to stability and peace in the Middle East. His position is disappointing. It lacks vision. Friedman offers America’s rule over Puerto Rico as the model for a one-state rule by Israel. He gives no quarter to the innate desire for self-determination and national pride driving Palestinians. He and Simpaticos fervently believe that Palestinians lust far more for the blood of the Jews than seek a national homeland. The two-state solution has been a failing talking point from colonial British times through Donald Trump’s 2020 “deal of the century.” A state of its own will train and arm terrorists to erase Israel. Friedman points to a survey claiming that 85% of Palestinians agree with Hamas regarding October 7. He sighs, “Perhaps that says it all.”
In the last chapter, Friedman claims Israel tried living in peace, side-by-side with Gazan Palestinians since 2005; they had local self-rule and economic independence to build a prosperous, peace-loving, Palestinian pearl on the sea. Instead, terrorists took charge: “We cannot repeat the mistake in Gaza.” Only a Jewish-ruled state governing Palestinians can safeguard Israel.
Ambassador Friedman ignores that Israel lives in relative peace with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and the Gulf states. The book would be more relevant if Friedman had researched and exposed why Israeli Druze are patriotic. What are the ingredients for successful coexistence with the Arabs of Abu Ghosh, the African Hebrew Israelites, and Bedouins? How can Israel make the formula work with Palestinians? Israel is home to 97 embassies most established following the Oslo Accords. Attempts at peace have had their blessings. Friedman ignores this peace progress.
In a greater Israel, he argues, Palestinians will be ruled akin to US rule over Puerto Rican islanders. It is his model for coexistence. But it took some 300 years for the Spanish and US colonizers to drive out any notion of self-determination and nationalism. Massacres were helpful. The U.S. government maintains army and air force bases and the National Guard is federalized at will. Puerto Ricans prefer statehood but Americans refuse.
What, Ambassador Friedman, is Israel prepared to do with its Palestinians--massacre, deport, offer citizenship including Israeli passports? Allow free movement and civil rights? Manage the healthcare system, schools, and economy? Provide police for civil order and peace on the streets. We barely do any of these things for Arab-Israeli communities. Is Israel ready to deploy soldiers in Palestinian neighborhoods full-time, forever? Engage in ethnic cleansing? Will peace escape us for another 250 years until self-determination and nationalism are wiped from the Palestinian ethos?
Takeaway
The most egregious shortcoming of One Jewish State is that Friedman ignores that, de facto, one Jewish-ruled state has ruled Judea and Samaria, more or less, for 57 years. Palestinians and world leaders call it “occupation.” Both sides have documented the extent of that rule. A responsible overview is detailed in a May 28, 2024, article for the Council on Foreign Affairs, titled “Who Governs the Palestinians?”
Daniel Gordis tells the story in one of his books about a colleague who is a popular, soft-spoken, and dedicated Palestinian teacher. They were friendly so he asked the colleague’s opinion about the conflict. To paraphrase, she calmly responded that conquerors have come and gone across Palestine for centuries and one day the Jews will be gone, too. Friedman’s vision of one Jewish-ruled state condemns Israel to another 250 years of “occupation.” It is, he asserts, “the last best hope to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” The book lacks the vision Friedman and his colleagues brought to the Abraham Accords. We expected so much more from him.
Harold Goldmeier teaches international university students at Touro College Jerusalem. He is an award-winning entrepreneur who received the Governor’s Award (Illinois) for family investment programs in the workplace from the Commission on the Status of Women. He was a Research and Teaching Fellow at Harvard, worked for four governors, and recently sold his business in Chicago. He is a managing partner of an investment firm, a business management consultant, and a public speaker on business, social, and public policy issues.
Time is Ripe
The wind is at their backs. Activists screaming for a Greater Israel want the government to annex Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman has published the manifesto.
Gaza is no longer a factor among the existential threats to Israel. According to Jared Kushner, the airstrip sliver of land will be gentrified into Vegas with a seashore. Hezbollah is enervated but police actions similar to America’s war on drug cartels ought to suffice. Iran is all talk until the Trump administration and the women of Iran overthrow their abusers. Houthis are busy getting rich off blackmail payoffs from shipping magnets. Iraq is a political and military mess. Syria barely survives as a viable nation lacking enough military forces to stave off rebel tribes. The Arabian Gulf States are morphing into Middle East Disney theme parks. Democrat Party leaders appear pathetic, the party in tatters, and without a clear message.
This simmering stewpot undergirds the hardihood of Religious Zionists, ultra-nationalists, and Evangelicals to fulfill their dreams to expand the state bigger than the Kingdom of David and Solomon. Imagination has them envisioning Jewish communities from Lebanon’s Latani River to Eilat, from the Mediterranean through Gaza to the eastern border of the Jordan Valley abutting Jordan. Friedman’s screed talks only of Gaza. Unfolding events make anything possible including France enforcing peace in Lebanon, chaos in Syria, Pres-elect Donald Trump filling critical U.S. government positions with politically hard-right thumpers, and few in Israel besides the judiciary willing to challenge Prime Minister Netanyahu.
The Manifesto
Team members responsible for the historic Abraham Accords are visionaries. Former US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman was a key member of the team. They all deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, at the very least. The Abraham Accords is so authentic it survives the October 7 barbaric, genocidal attack by Hamas against Israel, the vicious battles in Lebanon, the Red Sea attacks, and Israel-Iran hostilities. One Jewish State is David Friedman’s manifesto about where the Middle East goes from here.
Friedman calls for an end to the conundrum of the two-state solution. Friedman is convinced that one state, ruled by Jews – Israel – is the only solution to stability and peace in the Middle East. His position is disappointing. It lacks vision. Friedman offers America’s rule over Puerto Rico as the model for a one-state rule by Israel. He gives no quarter to the innate desire for self-determination and national pride driving Palestinians. He and Simpaticos fervently believe that Palestinians lust far more for the blood of the Jews than seek a national homeland. The two-state solution has been a failing talking point from colonial British times through Donald Trump’s 2020 “deal of the century.” A state of its own will train and arm terrorists to erase Israel. Friedman points to a survey claiming that 85% of Palestinians agree with Hamas regarding October 7. He sighs, “Perhaps that says it all.”
In the last chapter, Friedman claims Israel tried living in peace, side-by-side with Gazan Palestinians since 2005; they had local self-rule and economic independence to build a prosperous, peace-loving, Palestinian pearl on the sea. Instead, terrorists took charge: “We cannot repeat the mistake in Gaza.” Only a Jewish-ruled state governing Palestinians can safeguard Israel.
Ambassador Friedman ignores that Israel lives in relative peace with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and the Gulf states. The book would be more relevant if Friedman had researched and exposed why Israeli Druze are patriotic. What are the ingredients for successful coexistence with the Arabs of Abu Ghosh, the African Hebrew Israelites, and Bedouins? How can Israel make the formula work with Palestinians? Israel is home to 97 embassies most established following the Oslo Accords. Attempts at peace have had their blessings. Friedman ignores this peace progress.
In a greater Israel, he argues, Palestinians will be ruled akin to US rule over Puerto Rican islanders. It is his model for coexistence. But it took some 300 years for the Spanish and US colonizers to drive out any notion of self-determination and nationalism. Massacres were helpful. The U.S. government maintains army and air force bases and the National Guard is federalized at will. Puerto Ricans prefer statehood but Americans refuse.
What, Ambassador Friedman, is Israel prepared to do with its Palestinians--massacre, deport, offer citizenship including Israeli passports? Allow free movement and civil rights? Manage the healthcare system, schools, and economy? Provide police for civil order and peace on the streets. We barely do any of these things for Arab-Israeli communities. Is Israel ready to deploy soldiers in Palestinian neighborhoods full-time, forever? Engage in ethnic cleansing? Will peace escape us for another 250 years until self-determination and nationalism are wiped from the Palestinian ethos?
Takeaway
The most egregious shortcoming of One Jewish State is that Friedman ignores that, de facto, one Jewish-ruled state has ruled Judea and Samaria, more or less, for 57 years. Palestinians and world leaders call it “occupation.” Both sides have documented the extent of that rule. A responsible overview is detailed in a May 28, 2024, article for the Council on Foreign Affairs, titled “Who Governs the Palestinians?”
Daniel Gordis tells the story in one of his books about a colleague who is a popular, soft-spoken, and dedicated Palestinian teacher. They were friendly so he asked the colleague’s opinion about the conflict. To paraphrase, she calmly responded that conquerors have come and gone across Palestine for centuries and one day the Jews will be gone, too. Friedman’s vision of one Jewish-ruled state condemns Israel to another 250 years of “occupation.” It is, he asserts, “the last best hope to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” The book lacks the vision Friedman and his colleagues brought to the Abraham Accords. We expected so much more from him.
December 1, 2024
I'm a frum Jew who prays for a future in which Israel is at peace with its neighbors, and is a Jewish state, and fills the borders of Eretz Yisrael. And does all of this without resorting to ethnic cleansing or non-democratic governance.
And clearly, Moshiach is needed to meet all of these requirements, because in the real world where the conflict with Palestinians is a real and complicated thing, something's gotta give, at least if you're looking for a solution to apply in the medium-term.
For over a generation, most American policymakers have put the concession point on the stipulation above of "filling the borders of Eretz Yisrael." They've argued that Israel can imagine a future in which it remains a peaceful Jewish democracy, but only if some of the land becomes a second state for the Palestinians.
David Friedman says that reality shows that there's no chance the Palestinians will ever play along peacefully, so this is therefore a bad long-term solution. Enter, instead, Friedman's vision for the Israeli future: a single Jewish state.
I applaud Friedman for taking the time to write out a book-length explanation of how this plan would work, because it has always confused me how it would work. When my husband happened to attend a lecture by Friedman and received a free copy of the book, I was eager to give it a fair hearing with an open mind, as Friedman asks the reader to do.
And here's the kicker: the One Jewish State plan would entail unilaterally annexing all of the West Bank and making millions of Palestinians permanent nonvoting residents.
And somehow Friedman thinks this has more of a prospect of *working* and resulting in a stable peace than granting them independence somewhere far down the line? If the reason for rejecting the two-state solution was that it required relying on too much fantastical thinking, this plan is no better. It relies on a fantastical notion that Israel will settle into stability and peace by becoming an officially undemocratic state, against the wishes of millions of its residents who would be hellbent against it.
And the plan is worse because it would veer Israel dangerously into the claims of its evil antisemitic critics who claim that Israel is an Apartheid state. Right now this claim is slanderously false, because the Palestinians do not live in Israel; they live in territory that Israel has not annexed and considers disputed.
But if Israel were to annex the territory and grant Jews there citizenship, but leave the Palestinians there as nonvoting noncitizens without rights to move....then it would be a dream come true for the world's antisemites.
Friedman claims that annexing the West Bank would be no different from America holding Puerto Rico as a territorial colony, but the differences are stark. For one, Puerto Ricans have open borders to move to America if they wish to, where they pay full taxes and have full voting rights automatically; Friedman's vision for Israel surely does not offer Palestinians free rights to move into Israel proper or to ever vote in Israeli elections. For another, while the Puerto Ricans are uninterested in independence (as shown by a half-dozen Puerto Rican referendums), if they wanted to be independent, it's hard to see the American government insisting on keeping them a colonial territory against their democratic wishes. Friedman's plan surely would not grant independence to a secessionary West Bank Palestinian movement if one were to exist. And you can expect that if Israel annexed the West Bank, the Palestinians would desire independence. Finally, Puerto Rico's entire population is less than 1 percent of the American total; the Palestinian population of the West Bank is somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of Israel's total population.
Therefore, the analogy is a weak one. This is an issue because the what-about-Puerto-Rico defense is Friedman's primary defense against the claim that his One Jewish State model would be akin to Apartheid.
Besides for the main thesis, parts of the book left me doubting the reliability of facts in the book. I'm unsure about what editing this book received, and that's not just because of the San Remo Conference typo, which is clearly a typo. An editor would probably have caught Friedman's lack of knowledge about the origins of the natural rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" within the development of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century political philosophy, and also would have removed Friedman's claim that no country has ever given back territories that they have conquered at the end of wars that start with causes like that of the Six-Day War (America gave back most of Mexico in 1848, for starters). Friedman makes many claims that rely on statistics that are subject to potential debate, and while I am okay with the numbers he provides, these numbers require citations and sources, and Friedman generally does not provide them. An editor would have strengthened the book's argumentation.
Back to the main thesis, Friedman acknowledges that when it comes to Gaza, there is no hope for any short-term political solution that will bring peace to the territory, and instead we should focus on medium-term rebuilding and restoring security, and focus on deradicalizing the next generation.
I'd like to see the same efforts to "plant seeds of deradicalization now, and see what policies will work in a generation" in the West Bank.
Praying that Israel will be a stable and peaceful democratic Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael, whether Moshiach comes speedily or slowly.
And clearly, Moshiach is needed to meet all of these requirements, because in the real world where the conflict with Palestinians is a real and complicated thing, something's gotta give, at least if you're looking for a solution to apply in the medium-term.
For over a generation, most American policymakers have put the concession point on the stipulation above of "filling the borders of Eretz Yisrael." They've argued that Israel can imagine a future in which it remains a peaceful Jewish democracy, but only if some of the land becomes a second state for the Palestinians.
David Friedman says that reality shows that there's no chance the Palestinians will ever play along peacefully, so this is therefore a bad long-term solution. Enter, instead, Friedman's vision for the Israeli future: a single Jewish state.
I applaud Friedman for taking the time to write out a book-length explanation of how this plan would work, because it has always confused me how it would work. When my husband happened to attend a lecture by Friedman and received a free copy of the book, I was eager to give it a fair hearing with an open mind, as Friedman asks the reader to do.
And here's the kicker: the One Jewish State plan would entail unilaterally annexing all of the West Bank and making millions of Palestinians permanent nonvoting residents.
And somehow Friedman thinks this has more of a prospect of *working* and resulting in a stable peace than granting them independence somewhere far down the line? If the reason for rejecting the two-state solution was that it required relying on too much fantastical thinking, this plan is no better. It relies on a fantastical notion that Israel will settle into stability and peace by becoming an officially undemocratic state, against the wishes of millions of its residents who would be hellbent against it.
And the plan is worse because it would veer Israel dangerously into the claims of its evil antisemitic critics who claim that Israel is an Apartheid state. Right now this claim is slanderously false, because the Palestinians do not live in Israel; they live in territory that Israel has not annexed and considers disputed.
But if Israel were to annex the territory and grant Jews there citizenship, but leave the Palestinians there as nonvoting noncitizens without rights to move....then it would be a dream come true for the world's antisemites.
Friedman claims that annexing the West Bank would be no different from America holding Puerto Rico as a territorial colony, but the differences are stark. For one, Puerto Ricans have open borders to move to America if they wish to, where they pay full taxes and have full voting rights automatically; Friedman's vision for Israel surely does not offer Palestinians free rights to move into Israel proper or to ever vote in Israeli elections. For another, while the Puerto Ricans are uninterested in independence (as shown by a half-dozen Puerto Rican referendums), if they wanted to be independent, it's hard to see the American government insisting on keeping them a colonial territory against their democratic wishes. Friedman's plan surely would not grant independence to a secessionary West Bank Palestinian movement if one were to exist. And you can expect that if Israel annexed the West Bank, the Palestinians would desire independence. Finally, Puerto Rico's entire population is less than 1 percent of the American total; the Palestinian population of the West Bank is somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of Israel's total population.
Therefore, the analogy is a weak one. This is an issue because the what-about-Puerto-Rico defense is Friedman's primary defense against the claim that his One Jewish State model would be akin to Apartheid.
Besides for the main thesis, parts of the book left me doubting the reliability of facts in the book. I'm unsure about what editing this book received, and that's not just because of the San Remo Conference typo, which is clearly a typo. An editor would probably have caught Friedman's lack of knowledge about the origins of the natural rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" within the development of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century political philosophy, and also would have removed Friedman's claim that no country has ever given back territories that they have conquered at the end of wars that start with causes like that of the Six-Day War (America gave back most of Mexico in 1848, for starters). Friedman makes many claims that rely on statistics that are subject to potential debate, and while I am okay with the numbers he provides, these numbers require citations and sources, and Friedman generally does not provide them. An editor would have strengthened the book's argumentation.
Back to the main thesis, Friedman acknowledges that when it comes to Gaza, there is no hope for any short-term political solution that will bring peace to the territory, and instead we should focus on medium-term rebuilding and restoring security, and focus on deradicalizing the next generation.
I'd like to see the same efforts to "plant seeds of deradicalization now, and see what policies will work in a generation" in the West Bank.
Praying that Israel will be a stable and peaceful democratic Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael, whether Moshiach comes speedily or slowly.
May 5, 2025
Bold vision from one of the Abraham Accords men on the ground
September 12, 2024
David M. Friedman’s One Jewish State: The Last, Best Hope to Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a bold and controversial take on one of the most challenging political issues of our time. Friedman, who served as the U.S. Ambassador to Israel during the Trump administration, offers a vision that challenges decades of diplomatic efforts focused on a two-state solution. Instead, he argues for the creation of a single Jewish state that would encompass both Israelis and Palestinians.
Friedman’s central thesis is that the two-state solution, long championed by international diplomats, is no longer viable. He points to decades of failed negotiations, rising tensions, and the entrenched divisions between the two sides as evidence that the pursuit of two separate states—one Jewish and one Palestinian—has become an impossible dream. In its place, he proposes a one-state solution that would preserve Israel’s Jewish identity while offering Palestinians citizenship and civil rights within a single political entity.
Throughout the book, Friedman presents his case with a combination of historical analysis and realpolitik. He examines the geopolitical landscape of the region, the demographic realities, and the cultural and religious ties that make separating the two populations difficult, if not impossible. His argument is grounded in the belief that Israel’s security and Jewish identity must remain paramount, but he also insists that the integration of Palestinians into a unified state could provide them with a pathway to greater equality and opportunity.
One of the book’s key strengths is Friedman’s insider perspective. As a diplomat with intimate knowledge of U.S.-Israel relations, he brings a unique viewpoint to the table, offering behind-the-scenes insights into how peace negotiations have faltered over the years. His experience as a key figure in the Abraham Accords—agreements that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states—adds weight to his argument that new, unconventional approaches to the conflict may be more successful than the traditional paradigms.
However, Friedman’s proposal for a single Jewish state is not without controversy. Critics of the idea may argue that it risks undermining Palestinian aspirations for self-determination, and that it may exacerbate existing tensions by integrating two populations with a long history of conflict. Some may also question whether such a state could genuinely offer equal rights to Palestinians while maintaining its Jewish identity, or if it would lead to further inequality and disenfranchisement.
Friedman addresses these concerns by advocating for a carefully structured legal and political framework within the unified state that would protect both the Jewish nature of the country and the rights of Palestinians. He suggests that, over time, such a state could foster greater cooperation, understanding, and peace between the two peoples. Yet, his vision remains deeply polarizing, as it challenges the fundamental premises on which much of the international community has based its approach to the conflict.
One Jewish State is a thought-provoking and often provocative contribution to the ongoing debate about how to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While many readers may find Friedman’s proposal difficult to accept, the book forces a reevaluation of long-held assumptions and invites a deeper discussion of the future of Israel and Palestine.
It is a compelling read for anyone interested in Middle Eastern politics, diplomacy, and the future of peace in the region. Friedman's vision, though controversial, is driven by a desire to break through the stagnation of traditional diplomacy and to offer a new path toward what he sees as a more secure and lasting peace.
Friedman’s central thesis is that the two-state solution, long championed by international diplomats, is no longer viable. He points to decades of failed negotiations, rising tensions, and the entrenched divisions between the two sides as evidence that the pursuit of two separate states—one Jewish and one Palestinian—has become an impossible dream. In its place, he proposes a one-state solution that would preserve Israel’s Jewish identity while offering Palestinians citizenship and civil rights within a single political entity.
Throughout the book, Friedman presents his case with a combination of historical analysis and realpolitik. He examines the geopolitical landscape of the region, the demographic realities, and the cultural and religious ties that make separating the two populations difficult, if not impossible. His argument is grounded in the belief that Israel’s security and Jewish identity must remain paramount, but he also insists that the integration of Palestinians into a unified state could provide them with a pathway to greater equality and opportunity.
One of the book’s key strengths is Friedman’s insider perspective. As a diplomat with intimate knowledge of U.S.-Israel relations, he brings a unique viewpoint to the table, offering behind-the-scenes insights into how peace negotiations have faltered over the years. His experience as a key figure in the Abraham Accords—agreements that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states—adds weight to his argument that new, unconventional approaches to the conflict may be more successful than the traditional paradigms.
However, Friedman’s proposal for a single Jewish state is not without controversy. Critics of the idea may argue that it risks undermining Palestinian aspirations for self-determination, and that it may exacerbate existing tensions by integrating two populations with a long history of conflict. Some may also question whether such a state could genuinely offer equal rights to Palestinians while maintaining its Jewish identity, or if it would lead to further inequality and disenfranchisement.
Friedman addresses these concerns by advocating for a carefully structured legal and political framework within the unified state that would protect both the Jewish nature of the country and the rights of Palestinians. He suggests that, over time, such a state could foster greater cooperation, understanding, and peace between the two peoples. Yet, his vision remains deeply polarizing, as it challenges the fundamental premises on which much of the international community has based its approach to the conflict.
One Jewish State is a thought-provoking and often provocative contribution to the ongoing debate about how to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While many readers may find Friedman’s proposal difficult to accept, the book forces a reevaluation of long-held assumptions and invites a deeper discussion of the future of Israel and Palestine.
It is a compelling read for anyone interested in Middle Eastern politics, diplomacy, and the future of peace in the region. Friedman's vision, though controversial, is driven by a desire to break through the stagnation of traditional diplomacy and to offer a new path toward what he sees as a more secure and lasting peace.
April 20, 2025
This book is approximately 83.3% hate-read, 16.7% looking for solutions. Friedman outrageously whitewashes Israel's crimes in this book, which has no has no footnotes and no index. He is vehemently against the two-state solution, but momentarily said he was for it during his Senate confirmation hearings. He's no less deceptive in this book (not to mention racist). "There has never been a Jewish movement to expel Arabs or any other minority from the land of Israel" (p. 61). 😂😂😂😂
Anyhow, he said that although Israel should retain sovereignty over the entire land between the river and the sea, he wants to create a prosperous life for Palestinians. My economics-mindedness led me to pick up this book.
I'll just talk about the three useful chapters: Puerto Rico, Israeli Arabs, and the Abraham Accords, and avoid ranting about the rest (I'd be here all week if I wanted to debunk the falsehoods).
He uses Puerto Rico as a model for the occupied Palestinian territories. Boricuas don't vote in national elections, but Boricuas live more prosperous lives than they would were they independent. I would add that in recent years, the "wealthy port" (the actual title of the chapter) has become very wealthy as pharmaceutical companies have set up shop.
He uses Israeli Arabs (also known by their correct name, Palestinian citizens of Israel) as exemplars of how Israel treats minorities. They are overrepresented in Israel's higher education system: 17% at Hebrew University, 41% at Haifa University, 22% at Technion. Furthermore, Arab Christian women are even better-educated than Jewish women.
He's helped gotten funding for some startups created by Palestinian citizens of Israel. But they are on average poorer because they don't serve in the military and hence don't receive the same networking opportunities. He slightly misleads with "some [Palestinian citizens of Israel] support a Palestinian state, but almost none want to be part of that state" (p. 131). Actually, about 80% of them support a two-state solution, the highest of any group surveyed. But it's true they'd rather live under Israeli sovereignty than the corrupt PA.
Third, the Abraham Accords, which he helped bring to pass. That's the peace accord between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. He said that the Palestinians shouldn't get "a veto on any Arab country pursuing diplomatic advancements in its nation's best interest" (p. 203).
Concerning the possible peacemaking effects of the accords, he said, "We did hope that the Abraham Accords would open the eyes of many Palestinians with regard to opportunities available within the region once optimism and cooperation replaced hatred and violence" (p. 203). I think it's had an effect on Israelis as well; after the accords were signed, the Knesset allowed an Arab party into the ruling coalition for the first time. That overturned my initial displeasure at the other Arab countries throw Palestinians under the bus.
My reviews on Middle Eastern books get a lot of likes from strangers (although there's no way to know if they read and liked my review or just liked my rating), so let me say something to Palestinians reading.
I know you want justice and not money. But you might want to consider his proposal (I know he's a bunghole). Not all nations have proven good at state-building. But Jews have. You might want to consider taking advantage of their efficient apparatus. Wealth and power are intimately connected. And Palestinians are industrious and highly literate. Combine that with a strong nationalism, once you become wealthy you will be able to make national demands, even without full sovereignty.
This Friedman guy thinks he can buy you off. Ironically, he said he disagreed with Jared Kushner's "Vision for Peace," because it called Palestine and state, even though it wasn't a real state. He said that calling it a state, "would have created a precedent for statehood that the Palestinians would have manipulated with more left-wing governments" (p. 107). In other words, calling it a state would be a loophole for Palestinians to get a real state. Don't tell him, but making Palestinians wealthy would be a loophole for you to some day become powerful.
Anyhow, he said that although Israel should retain sovereignty over the entire land between the river and the sea, he wants to create a prosperous life for Palestinians. My economics-mindedness led me to pick up this book.
I'll just talk about the three useful chapters: Puerto Rico, Israeli Arabs, and the Abraham Accords, and avoid ranting about the rest (I'd be here all week if I wanted to debunk the falsehoods).
He uses Puerto Rico as a model for the occupied Palestinian territories. Boricuas don't vote in national elections, but Boricuas live more prosperous lives than they would were they independent. I would add that in recent years, the "wealthy port" (the actual title of the chapter) has become very wealthy as pharmaceutical companies have set up shop.
He uses Israeli Arabs (also known by their correct name, Palestinian citizens of Israel) as exemplars of how Israel treats minorities. They are overrepresented in Israel's higher education system: 17% at Hebrew University, 41% at Haifa University, 22% at Technion. Furthermore, Arab Christian women are even better-educated than Jewish women.
He's helped gotten funding for some startups created by Palestinian citizens of Israel. But they are on average poorer because they don't serve in the military and hence don't receive the same networking opportunities. He slightly misleads with "some [Palestinian citizens of Israel] support a Palestinian state, but almost none want to be part of that state" (p. 131). Actually, about 80% of them support a two-state solution, the highest of any group surveyed. But it's true they'd rather live under Israeli sovereignty than the corrupt PA.
Third, the Abraham Accords, which he helped bring to pass. That's the peace accord between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. He said that the Palestinians shouldn't get "a veto on any Arab country pursuing diplomatic advancements in its nation's best interest" (p. 203).
Concerning the possible peacemaking effects of the accords, he said, "We did hope that the Abraham Accords would open the eyes of many Palestinians with regard to opportunities available within the region once optimism and cooperation replaced hatred and violence" (p. 203). I think it's had an effect on Israelis as well; after the accords were signed, the Knesset allowed an Arab party into the ruling coalition for the first time. That overturned my initial displeasure at the other Arab countries throw Palestinians under the bus.
My reviews on Middle Eastern books get a lot of likes from strangers (although there's no way to know if they read and liked my review or just liked my rating), so let me say something to Palestinians reading.
I know you want justice and not money. But you might want to consider his proposal (I know he's a bunghole). Not all nations have proven good at state-building. But Jews have. You might want to consider taking advantage of their efficient apparatus. Wealth and power are intimately connected. And Palestinians are industrious and highly literate. Combine that with a strong nationalism, once you become wealthy you will be able to make national demands, even without full sovereignty.
This Friedman guy thinks he can buy you off. Ironically, he said he disagreed with Jared Kushner's "Vision for Peace," because it called Palestine and state, even though it wasn't a real state. He said that calling it a state, "would have created a precedent for statehood that the Palestinians would have manipulated with more left-wing governments" (p. 107). In other words, calling it a state would be a loophole for Palestinians to get a real state. Don't tell him, but making Palestinians wealthy would be a loophole for you to some day become powerful.
July 14, 2025
I have been reading a lot of books on the topic of Israel-Palestine, seeking to analyze a variety of sources and perspectives on the continuing conflict. This book caught my eye, so I brought a copy home. I could already tell from the endorsements and foreword that this one had a very strong bias. That was made even more evident as I read it.
The author's note requested for it to be read with an open mind, which I very much tried to do. Some of the loaded language used, the addition vs. lack of facts/truths from both sides of the conflict, and the convenient choice vs. exclusion of certain biblical verses/teachings made it hard to maintain that open mind. But then I would remember that I'd chosen this book to get yet another perspective, so I kept reading to get the full picture of what Friedman was proposing.
This book was filled with the typical western refrain that does such a good job of rallying for Israel while turning a blind eye to its mistakes and bad behavior. The "plan" was strongly based on biblical notions, which I know is a crux of the Jewish homeland, but I found myself rolling my eyes several times at some of the one-sided arguments based on that line of thinking while considering the perspectives not being represented in this thinking. By chapter 4, I could say with certainty that this book and its ideas were not seeking a viable peace for all; it was more a peace plan for some (the same tune that's always played) and to the others, you'll like it or oh well.
I did finish the book just to confirm my initial thoughts about its content, but I will say that this type of thinking and sharing of the played out one-sided perspectives in favor of one people (and some of the others who "behave") vs. the others who can't and won't fall in line is extremely dangerous. Peace cannot be garnered or maintained with this same old line of thinking. It's going to take a lot of work along with true and uncomfortable (for both parties) honesty and compromise to even to begin to make things better and more peaceful there. This book's ideas and opinions are not going to get the job done. It's the same old argument sung to a more modern tune.
The author's note requested for it to be read with an open mind, which I very much tried to do. Some of the loaded language used, the addition vs. lack of facts/truths from both sides of the conflict, and the convenient choice vs. exclusion of certain biblical verses/teachings made it hard to maintain that open mind. But then I would remember that I'd chosen this book to get yet another perspective, so I kept reading to get the full picture of what Friedman was proposing.
This book was filled with the typical western refrain that does such a good job of rallying for Israel while turning a blind eye to its mistakes and bad behavior. The "plan" was strongly based on biblical notions, which I know is a crux of the Jewish homeland, but I found myself rolling my eyes several times at some of the one-sided arguments based on that line of thinking while considering the perspectives not being represented in this thinking. By chapter 4, I could say with certainty that this book and its ideas were not seeking a viable peace for all; it was more a peace plan for some (the same tune that's always played) and to the others, you'll like it or oh well.
I did finish the book just to confirm my initial thoughts about its content, but I will say that this type of thinking and sharing of the played out one-sided perspectives in favor of one people (and some of the others who "behave") vs. the others who can't and won't fall in line is extremely dangerous. Peace cannot be garnered or maintained with this same old line of thinking. It's going to take a lot of work along with true and uncomfortable (for both parties) honesty and compromise to even to begin to make things better and more peaceful there. This book's ideas and opinions are not going to get the job done. It's the same old argument sung to a more modern tune.
March 3, 2025
This book was rather disappointing. I'm currently doing research on the war between Palestine and Israel. In buying this book I hoped to hear a convincing argument from the Pro-Israel side. However, I was met with a horrible argumentative structure. In that the whole argument is "God said so". Do not get me wrong, I myself am a Catholic. However, this issue does not involve just those of faith, in fact, the majority who would call the shots would have no faith in a God. So the God excuse does not fly with them.
While I do not disagree with every argument structure, the bulk of the arguments are horrendous. As well, the chapters are short and feel incomplete. His arguments feel disjointed, like one chapter starts a point, then the next starts another point, then the one after comes back to the first point. It's disorienting.
As well, there is a lot of important history left out. For what reason I do not know.
For many reasons I thought this book did not work as a structured argument for One Jewish State, and truly I wish it had succeeded in doing so. Good read if you want the Evangelical Christian view on the issue.
While I do not disagree with every argument structure, the bulk of the arguments are horrendous. As well, the chapters are short and feel incomplete. His arguments feel disjointed, like one chapter starts a point, then the next starts another point, then the one after comes back to the first point. It's disorienting.
As well, there is a lot of important history left out. For what reason I do not know.
For many reasons I thought this book did not work as a structured argument for One Jewish State, and truly I wish it had succeeded in doing so. Good read if you want the Evangelical Christian view on the issue.
February 20, 2025
There is no reason David Friedman should have even written such a book. He was a lawyer who had the right client and now The Right has to pretend like he is the leading expert on Israel ("Man of ideas" as Alan Dershowitz said)
The book itself is subpar with this considered. It is poorly written and organized. Riddled with internal contradictions (Hareidis should not use biblical arguments but Friedman should?). Weak arguments that only make sense with a poor understanding of everything (Puerto Rico is perhaps the worst goal for the Gaza Strip). The plans in the book are not well thought out (Even the titular "One Jewish State" is never explained practically). Freidman also admits to accepting a plan that would likely lead to violence because he knew God would stop it.
I should not have finished this book. The arguments are not even interesting, just typical Zionist talking points delivered poorly.
The book itself is subpar with this considered. It is poorly written and organized. Riddled with internal contradictions (Hareidis should not use biblical arguments but Friedman should?). Weak arguments that only make sense with a poor understanding of everything (Puerto Rico is perhaps the worst goal for the Gaza Strip). The plans in the book are not well thought out (Even the titular "One Jewish State" is never explained practically). Freidman also admits to accepting a plan that would likely lead to violence because he knew God would stop it.
I should not have finished this book. The arguments are not even interesting, just typical Zionist talking points delivered poorly.
July 27, 2025
I just read and did not finish One Jewish State: The Last, Best Hope to Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Hardcover) by David Friedman. While the I generally agree with the author's premise that a two-state solution in the Middle East is unworkable, parts of it hark back to The White Man's Burden by Rudyard Kipling. In addition, the book contains numerous factual errors. While minor by themselves the include:
Misstating the date of the independence of Transjordan, now known as Jordan. It is 1922, not 1946;
Misstating the date of the Munich Olympic Massacre. It is September and not July 1972; and
Misstating the location of the U.N. It is on First Avenue and 44th Street, not Second Avenue.
A well-known expert on the region should be careful and not sloppy. One cannot use his stated facts with confidence if an unschooled reader can pick up so many errors in a few short pages.
Misstating the date of the independence of Transjordan, now known as Jordan. It is 1922, not 1946;
Misstating the date of the Munich Olympic Massacre. It is September and not July 1972; and
Misstating the location of the U.N. It is on First Avenue and 44th Street, not Second Avenue.
A well-known expert on the region should be careful and not sloppy. One cannot use his stated facts with confidence if an unschooled reader can pick up so many errors in a few short pages.
May 10, 2025
Four and a half stars. A bold and powerful proposal for a solution to the conflict in Israel. Ambassador Friedman analyzes the political, military and religious situation and proposes a plan whereby Israel assumes control of all of the territory comprising Judea and Samaria, the west bank of the Jordan River. It is a proposal that some might not appreciate, but that does mean that it should not be considered nor taken seriously. The author looks at the history, and political failures that have led to where we are and posits a new plan. I think the weakest arguments are those based on religious or biblical claims. However, that aside, the remaining arguments are very persuasive. He likens the proposal to the US control of Puerto Rico. If one is interested in history, documentation and a bold reassessment with an open mind, this is clearly the book to read.
December 31, 2024
After hearing the author in number of interviews I was very interested in his solutions. They are different than what has been proposed for decades. Ambassador Friedman makes the case why a 'two state' solutions was and never will be the way to solve the conflict. One needs to read the book to best understand what he suggests. He does it by way of comparing the way US governs Puerto Rico and their self-governing process.
April 4, 2025
Good background and argument on the biblical justification for the Jewish people to have sovereignty in Eretz Yisrael. The analogy of the Palestinians to Puerto Ricans was not persuasive, given that Puerto Ricans, unlike Palestinians, had not made it a religious or widespread cultural priority (as emphasized by their leaders and taught in schools and religious institutions) to murder their neighbors and deny their neighbors’ historical connection to their land or rights to self-determination.
September 13, 2024
Finally, some honest answers in an increasingly difficult situation! Primary source documents included in the book! I've also personally fact checked as well! Easy to read and understand! No matter your background or worldview it is a very important book to read and I would go so far as to say it should probably be added to school curriculums!
November 28, 2025
I’m not a Zionist and therefore fundamentally disagree with the premise of this book. Friedmans treatment of the subject at hand is very much so, shaped by his ideological Zionist views. Especially the way he characterizes Palestinians. It seems a lot of this book shows his personal stance and less of a neutral analysis
September 12, 2024
This well written book is very informative with Biblical, historical and contemporary perspectives on Israel and its enemies. David Friedman explains why he supports a one Jewish state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. Recommended.
September 30, 2024
A very good book. Through the torah and its teachings david expones his arguments about the legality of the anexation of Judea and Samaria into Israel.
December 19, 2024
A must read!! The plan highlighted in the book is the only solution for actual peace.
December 20, 2024
Important historical, political, and moral argument about how Israel can move forward.
Friedman isn't biblical scholar and when he tries to be it's pretty cringe, minus one star.
Friedman isn't biblical scholar and when he tries to be it's pretty cringe, minus one star.
January 6, 2025
Loved 5 stars!
March 26, 2025
Great read! God’s will be done!
The author explains, in great detail, the purpose of why a One Jewish State is the only logical and biblical solution.
The author explains, in great detail, the purpose of why a One Jewish State is the only logical and biblical solution.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews