Thomas Friedman spins another yarn

Thomas Friedman

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman is out with another attack on Israel. And this one’s a doozy.

He slanders Members of Congress and the nefarious “Israel lobby” by writing, “I sure hope that Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.” Elliot Abrams destroys this line of reasoning here.

Mr. Friedman then lists a number of areas of confusion for young, liberal American Jews as might be found at – in his example – the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Allow me to address these poor, confused, afflicted, fictional souls:

“It confuses them to read that Israel’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who met with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia last Wednesday, was quoted as saying that the recent Russian elections were ‘absolutely fair, free and democratic.’ Yes, those elections — the ones that brought thousands of Russian democrats into the streets to protest the fraud. Israel’s foreign minister sided with Putin.”

Did Tom Friedman criticize Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for characterizing the lead-up to Iran’s fraudulent 2009 election as “very vigorous debate and dialogue”? Because that “vigorous debate” was between three candidates hand-picked by Supreme Leader Khamenei. Did Mr. Friedman criticize Secretary Clinton for saying that Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad had “lost his legitimacy” as if he ever had any? So . . . only American top diplomats get to occasionally look like fools by playing by the idiotic rules of international diplomacy? Maybe it’s just that Mr. Friedman agrees with Mrs. Clinton’s politics generally and he does not agree with Mr. Lieberman’s politics – or with Mr. Lieberman’s boss. Nah, it couldn’t be THAT prosaic, could it?

“It confuses them to read that right-wing Jewish settlers attacked an Israeli army base on Tuesday in the West Bank, stoning Israeli soldiers in retaliation for the army removing ‘illegal’ settlements that Jewish extremists establish wherever they want.”

Wow. What would we ever do in this country if strident, fringe political activists (note: that’s three separate links) ever had a violent confrontation with the authorities?  

“It confuses them to read, as the New Israel Fund reports on its Web site, that ‘more than 10 years ago, the ultra-Orthodox community asked Israel’s public bus company, Egged, to provide segregated buses in their neighborhoods. By early 2009, more than 55 such lines were operating around Israel. Typically, women are required to enter through the bus back doors and sit in the back of the bus, as well as dress modestly.’”

As the New Israel Fund exists to make Israel look bad to the outside world, it shouldn’t surprise them. And as those buses only carry the self-selected group that chooses to live in those communities, one has to wonder why it requires such international chest-thumping. That said, on the merits, of course, there are real problems in the ultra-orthodox community and the state of Israel will, in fact, need to address these problems.

“It confuses them to read a Financial Times article from Israel on Monday, that said: ‘In recent weeks, the country has been consumed by an anguished debate over a series of new laws and proposals that many fear are designed to stifle dissent, weaken minority rights, restrict freedom of speech and emasculate the judiciary. They include a law that in effect allows Israeli communities to exclude Arab families; another that imposes penalties on Israelis advocating a boycott of products made in West Bank Jewish settlements; and proposals that would subject the supreme court to greater political oversight.’”

Each of those charges is entirely false and misleading. The law does NOT “impose penalties on Israelis advocating” boycott. It allows Israelis to sue for damages. It’s called tortious interference and we have the same laws here in the U.S. The law does “subject the supreme court to greater political oversight” but context is important here. Currently, the Israeli president – a largely ceremonial position with no real political power and no say in legislation – appoints the members of the high court. The new bill would require the Israeli parliament to vote on appointments – just like our Senate does here. So, Mr. Friedman, the only thing confusing people is your ideologically motivated mischaracterization of what Israel is doing.

“And it confuses them to read Gideon Levy, a powerful liberal voice, writing in Haaretz, the Israeli daily, this week that ‘anyone who says this is a matter of a few inconsequential laws is leading others astray. … What we are witnessing is w-a-r. This fall a culture war, no less, broke out in Israel, and it is being waged on many more, and deeper, fronts than are apparent. It is not only the government, as important as that is, that hangs in the balance, but also the very character of the state.’”

Okay . . . only a dwindling minority of Israelis read Gideon Levy. Or Haaretz. And for precisely the reason illustrated by this quote.

“So while Newt is cynically asking who are the Palestinians, he doesn’t even know that more than a few Israelis are asking, ‘Who are we?’”

And this puts the lie to Mr. Friedman’s angst over the future of the State. Israelis are free to ask “who are we?” And they are free to answer. Mr. Friedman may not like the answer, but Israelis even have the right to disagree with the estimable Thomas Friedman, Lord High Protector of the Gray Lady.

Americans have, in our history, had moments where we wonder who we are. Are we a vassal of England or a free country? Are we aligned with Britain or France? Are we a slaveholding nation or a free country? Are we north and south, or one nation? Are we an empire or a world power? (That’s been asked more than once.)? Is our culture one of traditional self-restraint or unfettered self-indulgence? In times of war, how do we deal with those in our open society who disagree with our course of action? (That’s also been asked more than once, and we’ve gotten it dramatically wrong more than once.)

What I can’t stand are self-righteous nags like Thomas Friedman who pay lip-service to the real threats faced by Israel and then criticize every move the Jewish state makes to face those threats – all the time ignoring America’s illustrious history of screwing up the very same decisions. And we didn’t screw them up because we’re bad or evil or anti-democratic. We screwed them up because they’re very very very very hard to get right. Especially with know-it-alls like Thomas Friedman sitting on the sidelines, pen and paper in hand, ready to loudly note the errors, the things that look like they might be errors, and the non-errors that violate his fantasy of how things ought to be in a perfect world.


Author: Stand For Israel | December 14, 2011
Posted in:  Uncategorized


 

What do you think?

  • Grayson
    December 14, 2011
    3:34 pm
     

    As a non-intellectual outsider looking in, I can draw only one conclusion. Mr. Friedman has been reading too much Bradley Burston; Mr. Burston has been reading too much Noam Chomsky; and Mr. Chomsky has been reading too much George Orwell. Not sure if I should file this under self-appointed thought czars or doublespeak trinity.

    Reply to this comment »
  • Louise
    December 14, 2011
    2:51 pm
     

    Thomas Friedman is the one who’s confused. He doesn’t understand his own heritage or who he is himself.

    Reply to this comment »
    • Dan C
      December 15, 2011
      5:24 pm
       

      Agreed. Friedman is a liberal ideologist; and extremists, no matter what their stripe, put the ideology ahead of everything else. Facilitating mass murder is always a noble cause when cloaked in the excuse of the greater eutopian good. Those of us who see this as perhaps a little misguided and confused must just need a lot

      Reply to this comment »
      • Dan C
        December 15, 2011
        5:26 pm
         

        … or maybe not … what’d I do?

        Any-way, you get the idea. Shalom

        Reply to this comment »

Share your comments

First Name:
Last Name: (Remains Private)
Email Address: (Remains Private)
What are your thoughts?
Read our Terms of Agreement


"informing, equipping and mobilizing individuals and churches to support the
State of Israel"

Rabbi's Commentary
Remembering the Terror of 9/11, Confronting the Terror of Today

The attacks on 9/11 were a wake-up call to the dangers of Islamist terrorism, and the swift growth of terrorist groups such as the Islamic State should wake us up to a current threat that demands not just our vigilance, but also our unity.


Read Rabbi Eckstein's message »

Archive

Jan   |   Feb   |   Mar   |   Apr   |   May   |   Jun
Jul   |   Aug   |   Sep   |   Oct   |   Nov   |  
Jan   |   Feb   |   Mar   |   Apr   |   May   |   Jun
Jul   |   Aug   |   Sep   |   Oct   |   Nov   |   Dec
Jan   |   Feb   |   Mar   |   Apr   |   May   |   Jun
Jul   |   Aug   |   Sep   |   Oct   |   Nov   |   Dec
Jan   |   Feb   |   Mar   |   Apr   |   May   |   Jun
Jul   |   Aug   |   Sep   |   Oct   |   Nov   |   Dec