Tom Friedman's fact-free column includes an antisemitic trope

Yesterday we were treated to another Thomas Friedman column in the New York Times where he repeats his fact-free memes, ignoring reality in the face of his world class expertise in fantasy:

Netanyahu is setting himself up to be a pivotal figure in Jewish history — the leader who burned the bridges to a two-state solution and to the Jewish diaspora at the same time.

... It worked perfectly to deflect the U.S. president from pressing the relevant questions: “Bibi, you win every debate, but meanwhile every day the separation of Israel from the Palestinians grows less likely, putting Israel on a ‘slippery slope toward apartheid,’ as former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak recently warned. Where is your map? What are you going to do with 420,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank? Where is your imagination for how to reverse this trend that will inevitably lead to the end of Israel as a Jewish democratic state?”

 Friedman's favorite newspaper, Haaretz, only last month revealed exactly how far Netanyahu was willing to go for a two-state solution. It answered every question Friedman asks, in detail. It was Abbas who refused both the Israeli and American draft peace frameworks.

But that contradicts what Friedman knows in his heart. So he must ignore evidence and facts.

Note also that Friedman knows that he cannot actually argue with Netanyahu by saying Bibi wins every debate. Obviously, what Friedman knows in his heart is more important than actually being able to argue it effectively.

It gets worse:

I won’t waste much time on Bibi’s deft manipulation of President Trump to shift all the blame onto the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas for the absence of progress in the peace process. Bibi masterfully distracted Trump with a shiny object — a video of extreme statements by Abbas (with no mention of extremist actions by Israeli settlers).

Let's assume that some "settlers" really do perform extreme actions. Friedman is postulating two things that are, simply, stupid:

1) The actual antisemitic and pro-terror statements of the political head of the Palestinians are not as important than the actions of people who are acting against the laws of the State of Israel.

2) Israel must provide a balanced view of itself to the world, showing both its good and bad sides when engaging in diplomacy. This is a unique requirement not demanded of any other nation on the planet.

It's even worse.  Friedman, although obviously not an antisemite, is engaging in antisemitic tropes. This paragraph comes very close to saying that the Jews control the White House. Undoubtedly that was not his intention but there is very little difference between him saying Netanyahu is manipulating Trump and antisemites saying Jews control Washington.

Jews are very sensitive to antisemitism. Yet no one seems to be upset at Friedman's statement here. The ADL is never going to issue a statement against someone they agree with so often. This statement of Friedman's in the most prestigious US newspaper  is arguably far worse than the many topics that engage people's time (like websites that fail to list Israel in their list of countries or retailers that resell anti-Israel T-shirts.)

He gets a pass because he is a superstar  to liberal American Jews and because his statement is as much about Bibi's diplomatic skill as it is about Trump's supposed naivete.

---

---

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Read More

The peerless cluelessness of Thomas Friedman

A reader who commented on my Thomas Friedman article last week at The Algemeiner pointed me to a stupefyingly ludricous passage in Friedman's celebrated book, "From Beirut to Jerusalem," pp 126-127:

Ariel Sharon never sent Yasir Arafat flowers.

Whatever one thinks of the former Israeli general and Defense Minister, Sharon did not play games with his enemies. He killed them. After a few years in Beirut, I came to understand a little why the Jews had a state and the Palestinians didn't. The European Jews who built Israel came out of a culture of sharp edges and right angles. They were cold, hard men who always understood the difference between success and failure, and between words and deeds. Because the Jews were always a nation apart, they developed their own autonomous institutions and had to rely on their own deep tribal sense of solidarity. This gave them a certain single-mindedness of purpose. They would never settle for a substitute homeland; life for them was not just another Mediterranean life cycle or fatalistic shrug.

The single-mindedness of the European Zionists also had a certain ruthless aspect to it. They emerged from ghettos in which they were never invited by the outside world to drink coffee. They were never part of a Middle Eastern kaleidoscope, like Lebanon, where today's enemy could be tomorrow's friend. For the Jews coming out of Europe, today's enemy was tomorrow's enemy. The world was divided into two: the Jews and the goyim, or Gentiles. The Arabs, for the Zionists, fell into two subsets of goyim—agents and enemies. Agents you ordered and enemies you killed.

The rhythm of life in the Arab world was always different. Men in Arab societies always tended to bend more; life there always moved in ambiguous semicircles, never right angles. The religious symbols of the West are the cross and the Jewish star—both of which are full of sharp, angled turns. The symbol of the Muslim East is the crescent moon—a wide, soft, ambiguous arc. In Arab society there was always some way to cushion failure with rhetoric and enable the worst of enemies to sit down and have coffee together, maybe even send each other bouquets.

This passage is incomprehensibly idiotic on so many levels. Besides the obvious - do I really have to point out how inane his point about religious symbols is? -  Friedman is generalizing his experiences in relatively cosmopolitan and liberal Beirut to the Arab world as a whole.

Sure, Arabs love to have coffee - but the idea that this means they accept compromise with Jews is the exact inversion of the truth.

No one represents Friedman's disgusting characterization of bigoted, menacing, trigger-happy European Jews more than Menachem Begin. You know - the person who traded territory that was double the size of Israel itself for a piece of paper.

The real Arab world is a place where antisemitism is mainstream and where rejectionism of Israel  is absolute even in countries that have "peace treaties" with Israel. It is the Arabs who have announced boycotts of Jews since the 1920s, Arabs who stated the "three no's" of Khartoum, Arabs who accuse even Hamas terrorists of being too pro-Israel.

Even in Friedman's wonderful, tolerant Beirut, we see absolute rejection of anything that tastes remotely Zionist.

It is the Arabs who utterly reject normalization with Israel, and those hardheaded European Jews who want to be accepted in the Middle East. (The Jews from the Arab world tend to be more hawkish, because they understand the mentality of the Arabs a lot better than Friedman does.)

Oh, I think its also a fair bet that moderate, compromising Arafat never sent Ariel Sharon flowers either.

How can anyone take Friedman seriously after reading trash like this?

(h/t Gary)

Read More

NYT's Tom Friedman endorses Abbas' intransigence

Yet more idiocy from Thomas Friedman in the guise of being a concerned observer:

Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu of Israel is always wondering why his nation is losing support and what the world expects of a tiny country surrounded by implacable foes. I can't speak for the world, but I can speak for myself. I have no idea whether Israel has a Palestinian or Syrian partner for a secure peace that Israel can live with. But I know this: With a more democratic and populist Arab world in Israel's future, and with Israel facing the prospect of having a minority of Jews permanently ruling over a majority of Arabs - between Israel and the West Bank, which could lead to Israel being equated with apartheid South Africa all over the world - Israel needs to use every ounce of its creativity to explore ways to securely cede the West Bank to a Palestinian state.

I repeat: It may not be possible. But Netanyahu has not spent his time in office using Israel's creativity to find ways to do such a deal. He has spent his time trying to avoid such a deal - and everyone knows it. No one is fooled.

Israel is in a dangerous situation. For the first time in its history, it has bad relations with all three regional superpowers - Turkey, Iran and Egypt - plus rapidly eroding support in Europe. America is Israel's only friend today. These strains are not all Israel's fault by any means, especially with Iran, but Israel will never improve ties with Egypt, Turkey and Europe without a more serious effort to safely get out of the West Bank.

The only way for Netanyahu to be taken seriously again is if he risks some political capital and actually surprises people. Bibi keeps hinting that he is ready for painful territorial compromises involving settlements. Fine, put a map on the table. Let's see what you're talking about. Or how about removing the illegal West Bank settlements built by renegade settler groups against the will of Israel's government. Either move would force Israel's adversaries to take Bibi seriously and would pressure Palestinians to be equally serious.

Once again, Friedman tries to sound even-handed - he understands Israel's precarious position, he doesn't know if Israel has a peace partner, he knows that the situation is complex and fluid.

Yet he does not ever mention that all of the intransigence is from the Palestinian Authority. He doesn't point out that even the dovish Israeli governments got nowhere with Abbas, even with specific maps and plans.

To Friedman, there is but one goal: Israel caves to Palestinian Arab territorial demands. And if the PA refuses to make a deal, then Israel must give more, and more, and more until they do.

In Friedman's fantasy world, once Israel shows it is "serious," then somehow some magic pressure will appear that will force the PA to respond. Unfortunately this has never happened. In fact, Abbas' position hardened not during Netanyahu's time in office - but during Olmert's!

What is particularly galling is that Friedman, like J-Street, couches his calls for Israel and Israel alone to make concessions as if he is doing it out of love for Israel. This is garbage. If he loves Israel, he needs to wake up and use his bully pulpit to expose the Palestinian Arab intransigence and constant calls to destroy Israel via "return" - a demand that has not changed one bit since 1948. He needs to expose the incitement in Palestinian Arab society. He needs to expose the fact that the PA has not changed its position one bit since 1988 - and brags about it. He needs to point out that previous Israeli creativity to reach a peace agreement was met not with flexibility but with more demands. All of this is well-known, even to a know-it-all like Thomas Friedman.

That's what someone who cares for Israel would do.

UPDATE: The Islamic Jihad newspaper "Palestine Today" loved this column, quoting it extensively. Which is exactly what one would expect them to do with something written by such a concerned friend of Israel, right?

Read More

Tom Friedman's latest stupidity

From Saturday's Thomas Friedman NYT op-ed:

If you look into the different “shop” windows across the Middle East, it is increasingly apparent that the Arab uprisings are bringing to a close the era of “Middle East Wholesale” and ushering in the era of “Middle East Retail.” Everyone is going to have to pay more for their stability.

Let’s start with Israel. For the last 30 years, Israel enjoyed peace with Egypt wholesale — by having peace with just one man, Hosni Mubarak. That sale is over. Today, post-Mubarak, to sustain the peace treaty with Egypt in any kind of stable manner, Israel is going to have to pay retail. It is going to have to make peace with 85 million Egyptians. The days in which one phone call by Israel to Mubarak could shut down any crisis in relations are over.

Friedman has got to seriously stop thinking that he is God's gift to journalism and wake up from his self-congratulatory coma. Only then can we start to hope that he will clear his brain from years of accumulated flotsam and jetsam and start to see what's really going on.

Mubarak did not do Israel's bidding as Egyptian leader, and neither did Sadat. They did America's bidding. They wanted to continue the scam of being considered "moderate" Arab allies of the US and they wanted to continue to receive billions in aid. But they did nothing that Israel wanted them to do.

The proof, as Friedman well knows but purposefully ignores, is the nature of the peace treaty. For three decades, Israel always tried to normalize relations with Egypt, and Egypt always did everything it could to maintain the coldest peace possible. Israeli tourists went to Egypt, Israel tried to do cultural exchanges, Israel pushed for closer economic and scientific ties. Only when the US pressured Egypt did the Egyptian leadership agree, and that didn't happen often.

Now Friedman says that it is Israel that has to try harder?

It gets worse:

Amr Moussa, the outgoing head of the Arab League and the front-runner in polls to succeed Mubarak as president when Egypt holds elections in November, just made that clear in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. Regarding Israel, Moussa said: “Mubarak had a certain policy. It was his own policy, and I don’t think we have to follow this. We want to be a friend of Israel, but it has to have two parties. It is not on Egypt to be a friend. Israel has to be a friend, too.”

Moussa owes a great deal of his popularity in Egypt to his tough approach to Israel. I hope he has a broader vision. It is noteworthy that in the decade he led the Arab League, he spent a great deal of time jousting with Israel and did virtually nothing to either highlight or deal with the conclusions of the 2002 U.N. Arab Human Development Report — produced by a group of Arab scholars led by an Egyptian — that said the Arab people are suffering from three huge deficits: a deficit of freedom, a deficit of knowledge and deficit of women’s empowerment.

The current Israeli government, however, shows little sign of being prepared for peace retail.

After Friedman points out that Amr Moussa is an anti-Israel deologue, Friedman again says that this means that Israel has to try harder! Even though, he himself acknowledges, that Moussa built his career on demonizing Israel.

Friedman later writes:

Alas, though, the main strategy of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas will be to drag Israel into the Arab story — as a way of deflecting attention away from how these anti-democratic regimes are repressing their own people and to further delegitimize Israel...

Yet only two paragraphs earlier, Friedman admitted that Amr Moussa does the exact same thing!

So the likely new Egyptian leadership is no more likely to avoid using Israel as a scapegoat to deflect its own problems than the old one, and it is already showing signs of acting the way that Friedman notes that Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran act.

All these facts are in this very column, yet Friedman cannot connect the dots which add up to:

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

To Friedman, this doesn't mean that the US must redouble its efforts to turn the so-called Arab Spring into a real chance for true freedom and democracy, of governments that are mature enough to face their real problems transparently and tackle them. Not at all. To him, Arab governments acting like teenage bullies must be met with more Israeli concessions, more pandering to the dictators, more effort to please those who cannot ever be pleased.

Three days in a row of inane, idiotic New York Times articles - and I don't even read the paper.

Thanks, David G, for sending me this trash, knowing I cannot resist responding :)

Read More

Thomas Friedman's fantasy - and Egyptian reality

My latest post on NewsRealBlog looks at Thomas Friedman column in today's NYT.

Excerpt:

Friedman has fallen hook, line and sinker for the Arab lie that they give the West that Arabs are only anti-Israel because of the “occupation.” In Egypt, it is pure, old-fashioned Jew-hatred that drives anti-Israel sentiment.

And that Jew-hatred is not state-sponsored. Egypt has worked to publicly give the impression that it treasured its Jewish minority and history. It recently renovated historic synagogues and annually allows Jewish pilgrims to visit the gravesite of Rabbi Yaakov Abuhatzeira every January.

While some of the Egyptian media will sometimes have anti-Semitic articles and TV shows, it does not appear that this is coming from the state — but from the people themselves, including Egypt’s so-called liberal opposition.

Read the whole thing.

(h/t SoccerDad for alerting me to the Friedman article)

Read More

Thomas Friedman's version of "truth"

From Thomas Friedman's column in the NYT:

I’m in Tahrir Square, and of all the amazing things one sees here the one that strikes me most is a bearded man who is galloping up and down, literally screaming himself hoarse, saying: “I feel free! I feel free!”

In a region where the truth and truth-tellers have so long been smothered under the crushing weight of oil, autocracy and religious obscurantism, suddenly the Arab world has a truly free space — a space that Egyptians themselves, not a foreign army, have liberated — and the truth is now gushing out of here like a torrent from a broken hydrant.

...This is not a religious event here, and the Muslim Brotherhood is not running the show. This is an Egyptian event. That is its strength and its weakness — no one is in charge and everyone in the society is here....

You almost never hear the word “Israel,” and the pictures of “martyrs” plastered around the square are something rarely seen in the Arab world — Egyptians who died fighting for their own freedom not against Israel.

I have no doubt that Friedman is reporting what he is seeing and understanding in English, but he was not in Tahrir Square last Friday - when hundreds of thousands prayed together:

It is folly to deny the religious dimension here. Egypt's "seculars" are far more religious than Western secularists.

As far as no mention of Israel, John Rosenthal uncovered - just by doing regular Internet searches - many anti-Israel and anti-semitic messages at the protests:

And just today, the Palestine Times paper discusses some of the Arabic slogans that can be heard in Tahrir Square, including "Leave Mubarak, Tel Aviv is waiting for you!" and "Mubarak is a stooge selling gas to Israel."

One other joke going around the protests is that if you want to get Mubarak to leave, you have to speak Hebrew to him so he understands.

If Friedman wants to report the truth, just parachuting onto the scene for a day and relying on locals to translate is not the way to be a reporter. But his ego is so huge now that he is convinced that his limited perception is representative of what is going on and he fearlessly reports things as true when it is easy to find proof that he is missing large parts of the story.

(h/t SoccerDad)

Read More