A front-page news article in today's New York Times offers the following characterization of the Friedman-Abdullah plan for Israeli surrender: "The plan would trade normalization of Arab relations with Israel for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, lands it occupied in the 1967 war."
Here's how Times columnist Thomas Friedman described the plan in his February 17, 2002, column: "In return for a total withdrawal by Israel to the June 4, 1967, lines, and the establishment of a Palestinian state, the 22 members of the Arab League would offer Israel full diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees."
The two descriptions of the plan sound similar, but in fact the Times news article significantly distorts the Friedman-Abdullah plan. "A total withdrawal by Israel to the June 4, 1967, lines" means not only an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but also from the Golan Heights and from eastern Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, the Temple Mount, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Smartertimes.com is aware of the subsequent Times op-ed by an American dove claiming that unnamed Saudis had indicated flexibility on the question of the Western Wall. But there has been no official or public statement by the Saudis to that effect. And the Saudis certainly aren't talking publicly about allowing Israel to keep the Golan Heights. By minimizing the territorial concessions by Israel that are involved, the Times news article makes the Friedman-Abdullah plan sound more feasible than it actually is. That escalates the Times pattern of relentlessly hyping the plan.