Oh my! Unpleasant news for Thomas Friedman - by Stephen M. Flatow

Does the level of the Kinneret have anything to do with the prospects for peace in the Middle East? He’d like you to think that it does.

Stephen M. Flatow..
JNS.org..
07 September '20..

When I’m not in Israel, I don’t usually pay much attention to its weather. But an item last week about rainfall in the Holy Land caught my eye. It deserves the attention not only of geologists and meteorologists, but those who are concerned about Israel’s political and diplomatic situation as well.

The Israel Water Authority announced that there has been so much rainfall during 2020 that the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) is now at its highest level for this time of the year in nearly three decades. The last time it was this high at the end of August was 1993. “Another surprising phenomenon,” the Authority reported, “is a steady flow in the Dan spring, which has increased slightly.” The Kinneret and the Dan River are two of Israel’s most important sources of water.

Does the level of the Kinneret have anything to do with the prospects for peace in the Middle East? Thomas Friedman would like you to think that it does.

Friedman has been the foreign affairs op-ed columnist for The New York Times since 1995. That means that for the past 25 years, he has enjoyed one of the most prominent and influential platforms in public discourse. Not only are his columns read by movers and shakers around the world, but he is also frequently interviewed on national television and radio shows, and invited to speak at major public forums and events hosted by Jewish organizations that should know better.

I say “that should know better” because in his writings about Israel, Friedman sometimes crosses the line in ways that would earn other pundits pariah status in the Jewish world. In 2004, he wrote that Israel “had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office.” In 2011, Friedman claimed that the standing ovations Israel’s prime minister received in Congress were “bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.” In 2013, he asserted that “many American lawmakers [will] do whatever the Israel lobby asks them to do in order to garner Jewish votes and campaign donations.”

Despite those Pat Buchanan-like sentiments, Friedman has managed to maintain his status as a prominent opinion-shaper.

(Continue to Full Column)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

When experts (and T. Friedman) ignore the truth about the Palestinians - by Jonathan S. Tobin

The latest Middle East peace plan from Thomas Friedman of “The New York Times” ignores the key fact about why such schemes always fail.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
JNS.org..
20 September '18..

When New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman offers up a Middle East peace plan, the world stops and listens. Or at least it used to. The three-time Pulitzer Prize winner has been opining about the region for decades, and the shopworn feel to his advice is beginning to feel about as tired as a prose style that remains as awash in clichés today as it ever was.

In 2002, when Friedman sought to play midwife to a peace initiative from Saudi Arabia, the result was a public-relations coup for the columnist/author, even if it turned out that there was less to the idea than met the eye. But it isn’t likely that his latest set of suggestions for Middle East peace—in which he offers the Palestinians a plan for putting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a pickle—will cause much of a splash. Friedman still writes as if he was uniquely positioned to speak truth to both sides and the world is hanging on his every word.

It isn’t. But that doesn’t mean that his writing is insignificant—and that’s not only because he retains his influential perch at the Times. Friedman has evolved over the years into a pitch-perfect indicator of conventional wisdom. If you want to know what is wrong with the thinking that dominated U.S. foreign policy until the Trump administration—and what the people who believe they will run things again after they hope U.S President Donald Trump is swept out of Washington—then you should read Friedman’s columns.

(Continue to Full Column)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Thomas Friedman's latest on Gaza, again leaves one to wonder how this stuff even gets published - by Martin Sherman

His latest piece is a “masterful” blend of personal bile and bias, liberally laced with logical inconsistencies, factual inaccuracies and even blatant non sequiturs.

Martin Sherman..
JNS.org..
24 May '18..

What if all two million Palestinians of Gaza marched to the Israeli border fence with an olive branch in one hand and a sign in Hebrew and Arabic in the other, saying, “Two states for two peoples: We, the Palestinian people of Gaza, want to sign a peace treaty with the Jewish people—a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed adjustments. – Thomas L. Friedman, Hamas, Netanyahu and Mother Nature, New York Times, May 22, 2018.

… the American conduct of the peace process bears an unhappy resemblance to the custom of treating diseases by placing leeches on the body of the afflicted person: It was based on an inadequate understanding of the pathology it attempted to cure, it did not solve the problem it was intended to fix, and it sometimes made it substantially worse. – Michael Mandelbaum, The Peace Process Is an Obstacle to Peace, Commentary, April 14, 2016.

The really disconcerting thing about The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is that at times, he can actually produce some sensible and insightful articles, as long as he is not writing (or more precisely, ranting) on Israel. Or Donald Trump. Or the Palestinians. Or Barack Obama …

Sadly, however, whenever he makes one of his far-too-frequent forays into any of these “touchy” topics, his journalistic output invariably degenerates into patently partisan pamphleteering.

But even compared to his past inanities, his latest column, “Hamas, Netanyahu and Mother Nature,” is a real doozy—a “masterful” blend of personal bile and bias, liberally laced with logical inconsistencies, factual inaccuracies and even blatant non sequiturs.

(Continue to Full Column)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Can You Imagine? Not Even Tom Friedman Believes NY Times Gaza News Coverage - by Ira Stoll

...So the Times news columns imagine “widespread international anger,” “international censure,” “intensified international attention and censure,” and “the world paying attention.” Friedman, on the other hand, writes that “so few Arabs, so few Europeans, so few anybody, rose to Hamas’s defense. People are fed up with it.” These two depictions of reality, if not flat-out contradictory, are at least in tension with each other.

Ira Stoll..
Algemeiner.com..
23 May '18..

How was the New York Times’ coverage of the Gaza suicide-riots? So off-target that not even the Times’ own Pulitzer Prize-winning op-ed columnist, Thomas Friedman, believed it.

The Times news columns had been insisting that the suicide-riots (to use a term I picked up from a Weekly Standard editorial) were drawing international sympathy and attention to the Palestinian cause. Perhaps this was wishful thinking, or a self-fulfilling prophecy, but, in any event, that was the Times’ story, and it was sticking to it, at least until Friedman came along.

(Continue to Full Column)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Fourteen Flaws in Thomas Friedman’s ‘Israel to American Jews’ NY Times Column - by Ira Stoll

...Friedman’s column was headlined “Israel to American Jews: You Just Don’t Matter.” For 14 reasons, a more accurate headline would have been “Friedman to Facts: You Just Don’t Matter.”

Ira Stoll..
Algemeiner.com..
14 July '17..

The New York Times devotes three columns on the top half of its op-ed page to an article by Thomas Friedman that appears under the headline, “Israel to American Jews: You Just Don’t Matter.”

By my count there are at least 14 different problems with the article, starting with the headline.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Shocking? Thomas Friedman lied about the Saudis? - by Stephen M. Flatow

...Thanks for your honesty, Mr. Shaath. Now we know that while Thomas Friedman and the New York Times were promoting the Saudi peace plan, the Saudis were financing second intifada attacks such as the Passover massacre. They were never interested in peace. Their checkbooks expressed their true feelings about Jews and Israel. An apology from their PR agent, Friedman, is long overdue.

Stephen M. Flatow..
JNS.org..
08 March '17..

For the past 15 years, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has been promoting the so-called “Saudi Initiative,” a plan which he says proves that Saudi Arabia sincerely wants peace with Israel. But this week, a senior Palestinian leader revealed that at the very moment the Saudis were launching that plan, they were financing a major wave of terrorism against Israel.

It’s time for Friedman to publicly admit he was wrong and apologize for the harm he caused to Israel.

It all started Feb. 6, 2002, when Friedman devoted his New York Times column to a memo that he wanted President George W. Bush to send to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and other Arab leaders. The memo would urge the Arabs to recognize Israel in exchange for an Israeli retreat to the pre-1967 armistice lines (including re-dividing Jerusalem).

Friedman then flew to Saudi Arabia, where he was granted a rare interview with Crown Prince Abdullah. And lo and behold, Abdullah proceeded to unveil a “Saudi peace plan” identical to what Friedman had been pushing. Friedman’s Feb. 17, 2002 column then became the vehicle for announcing the Saudi plan. Quite an unusual channel for an international diplomatic announcement!

(Continue to Full Post)

Stephen M. Flatow, a vice president of the Religious Zionists of America, is an attorney in New Jersey. He is the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995.

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Surprise? NY Times’ Tom Friedman Projects His Own Sins Onto Netanyahu - by Ira Stoll

...To use Thomas Friedman’s own mixed metaphors, it’s as if Obama and Kerry are giving their Israeli dog Netanyahu a scrap from the table while they are busy feasting on champagne and caviar with Ayatollah Khamenei. And Thomas Friedman, Obama and Kerry are kicking the dog for its failure to be sufficiently appreciative.

Ira Stoll..
Algemeiner.com..
29 December '16..

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman likens Prime Minister Netanyahu to a “dog” and a “drunk” — and then, with a remarkable lack of self-awareness, faults President-elect Trump’s choice to be ambassador to Israel for insulting other Jews.

Sure enough, in his latest column Friedman writes that “Netanyahu is a leader who is forever dog paddling in the middle of the Rubicon, never ready to cross it.”

That isn’t even good writing. If Friedman wanted to convey the idea that Netanyahu is indecisive, or stuck, he would have done better to have written that Netanyahu is a leader who is forever treading water in the middle of the Rubicon, or forever backfloating in the middle of the Rubicon. That, however, would have avoided the opportunity to describe the elected leader of the Jewish state as a dog, and thus repeat a classic antisemitic trope last seen in the infamous New Yorker article by Lena Dunham, “Dog or Jewish Boyfriend? A Quiz.” As the Anti-Defamation League helpfully pointed out back when that New Yorker screed was published, “The piece is particularly troubling because it evokes memories of the ‘No Jews or Dogs Allowed’ signs from our own early history in this country, and also because, in a much more sinister way, many in the Muslim world today hatefully refer to Jews as ‘dogs.’”

(Continue to Full Article)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Sorry About That. Thomas Friedman’s Ruined Day

(Thomas Friedman obviously not having one of his better days. Oh well, sorry about that. LOTL)

Yisrael Medad..
My Right Word..
18 March '15..







Here is Thomas Friedman today on Netanyahu in a column entitled Go Ahead, Ruin My Day:

race-baiting Israeli Jews to get out and vote because, he said, too many Israeli Arabs were going to the polls

If he would have said “the kibbutznikim are being bused to the polls“, would that be okay?

If Herzog had said “too many ‘settlers’ are voting“?

If Gal-on had said “too many mezuzah-kissers“?

But more.

The fact is that there was/is an Arab list.

Their candidates were 90+% Arab.

Their main language in their electioneering was Arabic.

A major portion of the messages of too many of their candidtates was anti-Zionist and they didn’t even sign an agreement with the far-left Meretz because they were Zionist.

A large Arab vote, like a large Russian vote, or Haredi vote or Sfardi vote hurts Likud.

His was a legitimate political call.

And what did he expect Netanyahu to call them?

Netanyahu's Speech and Friedman’s Recycled Slurs

...It’s true that if Netanyahu or any friend of Israel were to speak at a leftist enclave such as the one in Madison, they would not be cheered. But who, other than Friedman, actually thinks that opinion there is representative of anything but the prejudices of liberal academics. But the truth is, as a poll suggest, most Americans agree with Netanyahu on Iran, not Obama or Friedman. That’s why Friedman’s canard about Congress, Adelson and the “Israel lobby” is a lie. But like Obama’s Iran policy, Friedman is as undaunted by the prospect of repeating untruths about Israel as his newspaper is unashamed about printing them.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
05 March '15..

The Obama administration is determined to treat Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress on Iran as a non-event. As negotiations with Iran continued, the White House and its apologists in both Congress and the press dismissed Netanyahu’s pointed criticisms of the nuclear deal President Obama is offering the Islamist regime and acted as if he hadn’t proposed a sensible alternative to his policy of appeasement and acceptance of Iran as a threshold nuclear power and, in the long run, one with weapons capacity. But that isn’t enough for some of Obama’s partisans in the media who aren’t satisfied merely to see the administration continue on its path to disaster but wish to use this controversy to delegitimize the entire pro-Israel coalition in Washington. Unsurprisingly, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is at the head of the pack in this regard but his column about the speech was a triumph of incoherence and specious arguments even by the debased standards by which he has operated on the Grey Lady’s op-ed page. Worse than that, the speech gave the writer an excuse to recycle anti-Semitic slurs he floated the last time Netanyahu spoke to Congress.

Friedman didn’t claim that Netanyahu misrepresented the facts about the proposed Iran deal or even dispute the danger that an Iranian bomb would represent. His problem is with what is to him an even more dangerous idea: that the security interests of Israel and the United States might overlap. He asserts that a weak deal that might prevent Iran from getting a bomb for ten years would be perfectly adequate as far as defending American security even if, as he seems to be implying, it might not be what is good for Israel or the Arab nations in the region that are every bit as upset with the administration policy as the Jewish state. Demands that Iran give up its nuclear infrastructure, something that President Obama promised in his 2012 foreign policy debate with Mitt Romney would be integral to any deal struck by the United States, are simply unrealistic and therefore must be dismissed even if that’s what most Israelis and Arabs think is necessary for their security.

Friedman’s right about one thing. A nuclear deal with Iran would only work if the regime changed its nature and was ready to “get right with the rest of the world,” as President Obama put it. But though he likes to pose as a tough-minded analyst, he leaves unsaid the fact that no serious person thinks Iran is moderating under its current government. Nor is logical to believe that it would do so if that tyrannical, terror-supporting, anti-Semitic regime were to get the major economic boost and political prestige that would it get from a nuclear deal with the United States.

But by the end of his column, Friedman runs out of ideas or even the energy to try and square his prejudices with the facts and simply lets loose with an anti-Netanyahu rant. He argues that if Netanyahu really wanted support for his position on Iran, he’d make concessions to the Palestinians even though he knows very well that those wouldn’t bring the region one inch closer to peace. In fact, Netanyahu has the tacit support of most of the Arab world for his speech. It’s only the Obama administration and others obsessed with the idea that détente with Iran is possible that didn’t like it.

Perhaps Friedman could please go protect somebody else?

...The President has acknowledged on occasion that he had no strategy for one or another occurrence in the world. But using Friedman and others to hammer home the price the President will extract from those who meddle where they aren't wanted, the outline of his Iran strategy is clear enough

Shoshana Bryen..
Gatestone Institute..
09 February '15..

Thomas Friedman of The New York Times does not want Israel mucking in American policy-making toward Iran, and so counsels Prime Minister Netanyahu to cancel his planned speech to the U.S. Congress. He seems to believe Iran's determined march toward nuclear weapons and genocidal rhetoric about Israel, in fact, has nothing to do with Israel, and that Israel should avoid getting in America's way. But understand that Friedman is only trying to protect Israel.

Personally, I'm still dubious that the U.S. and Iran will reach a deal that will really defuse Iran's nuclear weapons program. Such a failure would be very serious and could end up, one day, with the U.S. deciding it has to use military force to set back Iran's program. We surely don't want Iran to get a bomb that sets off a nuclear arms race in an already unstable Middle East.

But, even if we do use force, success is hardly assured and the blowback unpredictable. That is why it is absolutely not in Israel's interest to give even the slightest appearance of nudging America toward such a military decision. Israel should stay a million miles away from that decision, making clear that it is entirely a U.S. matter. Because, if we do have to strike Iran, plenty of Americans will not be happy. And if it fails, or has costly consequences for us and our military, you can be sure a lot more Americans will not be happy — and some will ask, "How did we get into this mess?" One of the first things they'll dig out will be Netanyahu's speech to Congress.

Why in the world would Israel risk putting itself in that situation?

The short answer is that it is not "entirely a U.S. matter." It is Israel's head on the block, and its Prime Minister is weighing the political fallout of irritating a President who is generally irritated with Israel vs. nuclear fallout. But isn't it sweet of Friedman to want to save Israel from the risk of the wrath of the American people -- who, in his telling, don't appear to be terribly clever.


It is highly unlikely that the Obama administration will strike Iran to preempt an Iranian strike on Israel. Can Friedman imagine how many Americans "will not be happy" if we take military action against a country that hasn't attacked us, but threatens to attack someone else -- anyone else? They will have a point.

"And if it fails…a lot more Americans will not be happy." Is he suggesting that Israel would be responsible for a U.S. military failure over Iran? Or that Americans can be made to blame Israel? Instead of calling that scenario outrageous, Friedman suggests again that Israel subordinate its national security concerns to American politics. If U.S. military action were to fail, the blame should accrue to U.S. strategy, planning and execution, not to Israel's justifiable concern that it is #1 on the "hit list." The American public is likely to understand that, even if the President and Friedman would have it be different.

Maybe this should be put in the context of Friedman's earlier opining on Israeli meddling in American affairs. Just over a year ago he wrote that the Jews have purchased the U.S. Congress, which, in his view, is too stupid or too blinded by Jewish money to carefully consider the facts of Iranian nuclear development:

What Compels Friedman to Spread Anti-Semitic Libels About Netanyahu Speech?

...Anti-Semites need no prompting from Tom Friedman to promote libels against the Jewish state. But by seeking to frame the argument about Netanyahu as one that would justify their ravings, Friedman has crossed a line that no responsible journalist should even approach. Neither Netanyahu nor the pro-Israel community should hesitate to speak up for fear of giving anti-Semites ammunition. The prime minister’s plan to speak may be a tactical blunder but it is the willingness of Friedman to engage in this sort of incitement that is the real disgrace.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
04 February '15..

The stakes are growing in the debate about the wisdom of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision to accept an invitation to address a joint session of Congress about sanctions on Iran. Though the argument can be viewed as just one more spat promoted by an administration with an axe to grind against Netanyahu, with the talk of Democrats, even Vice President Biden, prepared to boycott the event because they see it an as an effort to aid Republican efforts to discredit President Obama’s foreign policy, the potential for real damage is no longer theoretical. But the most troubling development is not the ongoing arguments about whether the prime minister has committed a blunder. Rather, it is the willingness by some to use it to stoke anti-Israel libels. That’s the upshot of the latest column from the New York Times’s Thomas Friedman who claims Netanyahu’s speech will be seen as an attempt to force the U.S. into a war with Iran. That is not only a gross distortion of the truth but also a not-so-subtle effort to plant the seeds of an anti-Semitic libel.

Supporters of the speech, such as Wall Street Journal columnist and COMMENTARY contributor Bret Stephens, argue that Congress needs an “unvarnished account of the choice to which Mr. Obama proposes to put Israel: either accede to continued diplomacy with Iran, and therefore its de facto nuclearization; or strike Iran militarily in defiance of the U.S. and Mr. Obama’s concordat with Tehran.” I don’t disagree, but as I have written in the last two weeks, I think the decision to give the speech was a grave tactical error on Netanyahu’s part. Congress was in no doubt about Israel’s position and the prime minister could have reached out to members in the same way that British Prime Minister David Cameron has used to back up the president. But by parachuting directly into the debate on Iran sanctions that is taking place in Congress, he ran the risk of being seen as trying to upstage the president in a way that was bound to ruffle the feathers of many pro-Israel Democrats, even those that agree with Netanyahu on the issue. The proposed speech also provided Obama with a heaven-sent chance to divert attention from the administration’s indefensible opposition to strengthening their hand in the nuclear talks with Iran. The prime minister’s alleged chutzpah became the focus of the discussion instead of the president’s clear desire for détente with the Islamist regime, dealing sanctions proponents a clear setback.

But Friedman, who is at least smart enough to seem to harbor some doubts about whether Obama’s diplomacy can succeed, isn’t satisfied with asserting that Netanyahu is making the mistake. Instead, he uses this controversy to return to one of his favorite hobbyhorses: the way pro-Israel political donors, such as billionaire Sheldon Adelson, are trying to buy Congress in a way that runs contrary to U.S. interests. Claiming, without backing the charge up with reporting, that Adelson hatched the idea is one thing. He even says someone should have told Netanyahu and Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer “anti-Semites, who claim Israel controls Washington, will have a field day.” The fact that it is Friedman who has floated this charge in the Times when he complained about the ovations Netanyahu earned the last time he addressed Congress is unmentioned in the column.

Even worse, Friedman then goes on to write that if diplomacy fails and the U.S. is forced to use force to address the Iranian threat, the Netanyahu speech will serve as a smoking gun proving that it was Israel that manipulated America into what might prove to be another disastrous war.

Of course, Friedman frames this as helpful advice intended as advocacy for what is in Israel’s best interests. But by raising the specter of anti-Semitism as well as of what must be considered nothing short of a potential blood libel, Friedman is tipping his own hand.

Talking About Democracy, Friedman-Style

...Voltaire is attributed with the saying, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." People like you, Mr. Friedman, will defend to the death our right -- to think like you.

Dror Eydar..
Israel Hayom..
07 April '14..

What remains for Thomas Friedman now that his idols have failed him? The same thing other Jews have done throughout history -- beat on their people's battered chest. Eureka, Friedman declared, I have found the most amazing analogy: Sheldon Adelson and the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have something in common: "They are both trying to destroy Israel. Adelson is doing it by loving Israel to death and Khamenei by hating Israel to death." Lovely, isn't it? Courtesy of the newspaper that caters to people who have long ago stopped thinking of themselves as thinking people.

Friedman does not believe that Iran's leader has "no desire to use a nuclear bomb." How does he know that? It is worth the risk? Let's assume for a moment that he does use a nuclear bomb -- what will you say then? That you were wrong? It is people like you that in the 1930s had lulled the West regarding Hitler's explicit intentions, which were similar to Khamenei's explicit statements now.

It was not long ago, Mr. Friedman, that you stood in Cairo's Tahrir Square and confidently wrote, "Indeed, what makes the uprising here so impressive … is precisely the fact that it is not owned by, and was not inspired by, the Muslim Brotherhood." Well, you're wrong about that (as you were about other things), so what do you know that we don't?

Friedman throws around controversial numbers about the Palestinian population, and no -- we did not deprive them of their independence. They had their chance in 1920, in 1936, in 1947 and in 1949, up until 1967, in 1994 and in 1999, in 2005 and in 2008, during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's second term and even now. We have afforded your darling Palestinians ample chance to agree to end the conflict, put an end to their demands and build their lives, to no avail. As long as Jews like you play devil's advocate to those who hate us, there is no chance that anyone among the Arabs would agree to acknowledge the Jews' right to any part of the historic land of Israel.

As of now, we do not rule the Palestinians. They have their own parliament, two governments (in Ramallah and in Gaza Strip), and, with the help of Allah, a third will be established in Jordan in the coming years (if we stop protecting King Abdullah). They have huge budgets (the majority of which finds its way to private individuals) and an education system (that does not recognize Israel as a legitimate entity). They have a foreign ministry and pursue public diplomacy efforts; they have an automatic majority in the U.N. and enjoy clear sympathy from the Obama administration. And here is the real surprise Mr. Friedman: They are not really interested in a little state to "live in peace alongside Israel." That option has been available to them for the past 100 years.

Look at their adamant refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland. We have been talking about "two states for two people," so what is the problem? That illustrates the depth of the conflict, which people like you refuse to accept. Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state means that someone in the Arab world acknowledges our right -- a right, not just mere recognition -- as Jews, to some part of what the Arab mindset perceives as "an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day." It is only this type of recognition that could stop any future Arab demand after a peace deal is signed, demands regarding Israel's Jewish character as a "racist country" that does not recognize the national rights of the Arab minority living within it (in this argument, as in other noted junctures in history, your paper probably will not side with the Jews). The Palestinians will not pursue an end to the conflict, because every generation has its own Thomas Friedmans, who specializes in blaming the Jews.

According to Friedman, the settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria is "the most active colonial power on the planet today"(!). What do you say to that, Jews? We are the most prominent colonialists on Planet Earth. But wait, doesn't colonialism entail going somewhere you do not belong, or does it also include returning to one's homeland? Your homeland as well, Friedman.

Funny How No One is Asking About the Palestinian Culture of War

...Both Fatah and Hamas continue to educate their peoples in a culture that is not only steeped in hatred of Jews and Israel but in a worldview in which the rejection of Zionism is integral to Palestinian identity. The question Kerry, Friedman, and others who continue to hound Israelis to do what they have already tried several times to do—make peace—should be asking is when will the Palestinians give up their culture of hate and embrace one that would give peace a chance? Both the Hamas education ministry and Erekat show us that that such a decision is nowhere in sight.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
12 February '14..

Almost all of the focus in the mainstream media on the Middle East peace process tends to be on the decision taken by only one of the parties involved in the negotiations. The perennial question from pundits and even veteran kibitzers like the New York Times’s Thomas Friedman is whether or not the Israelis are ready to take risks in order to achieve peace. That was the conceit of his latest column, “Israel’s Big Question,” and if it seemed familiar to readers, it was no accident. Friedman has been writing the same column for decades in which he asks Israelis whether they will leave the West Bank in order to retain both the Jewish and democratic identities of their nation. If they don’t, and Secretary of State John Kerry’s initiative fails, Israel’s doom is, he says, sealed.

There are two problems with his reasoning and they are the same that apply to every other stale Friedman article on the subject that has been published since the Clinton administration. One is that Israel has already tried to trade land for the promise of peace and failed. The Palestinians turned down three offers of statehood in almost all of the West Bank, Gaza, and a share of Jerusalem. And there is every indication that they will turn down a fourth offer of up to 90 percent of the West Bank that is being mulled by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government. Israelis have made the decision to take risks and make peace several times in the last 20 years and seem prepared to do it again if real peace—which means the end of the conflict rather than merely a pause in it—is on the table.

But the part of the equation that Friedman and the rest of the foreign-policy establishment always ignore is whether the Palestinians are ready to make peace. They’ve made it clear they won’t recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn and won’t give up the “right of return” for the 1948 refugees. But Friedman’s assumption—as well as that of many of Israel’s critics—is that if the Israelis are sufficiently forthcoming those problems will disappear. Instead, they should be asking what it is about the political culture of the Palestinians that makes such intransigence not merely possible but inevitable. The answer comes in two separate stories that touch on what it is that both the PA’s negotiators and Hamas believe. Both make for instructive reading for those who treat the question of peace as one that is solely to be decided by the Israelis.

In Gaza, the Hamas government of the strip has apparently rejected the textbooks provided for schools by UNRWA, the United Nations agency that serves Palestinian refugees and their descendants. UNRWA has hired Hamas terrorists as staffers and has been rightly accused of helping to perpetuate the conflict by not seeking to resettle refugees so as to keep them in camps as props in the long Arab war against Israel. But while the textbooks they’ve published for Gaza schools apparently accept the Palestinian narrative of victimization and the illegitimacy of Israel, they are also seeking to encourage non-violence. The Hamas education ministry is particularly angry since the books emphasize the examples of peaceful protests. As the Times of Israel reports, Education Minister Mu’tasim Al-Minawi had the following objections:

One more reason why Friedman’s columns should just be ignored

...Similarly, military parity between the Israelis and Palestinians is a foolish goal, because it cannot be brought about except through ways that would convince the Palestinian leadership that a peace deal isn’t necessary or in their interest. It should be an obvious point–one Friedman’s cab driver could have explained to him–but nonetheless bears repeating to counteract the dangerous, though predictable, misinformation of the New York Times op-ed page.

Seth Mandel..
Commentary Magazine..
29 January '14..

Ridiculing Tom Friedman’s famous habit of letting his cab drivers determine his column ideas is a popular pastime for foreign-policy commentators. But the truth is those columns are generally more sensible than the ones he comes up with all on his own. Today’s piece is a case in point, and it’s a convincing answer to those who say Friedman’s columns should just be ignored.

Getting the Middle East conflict wrong can be dangerous for those, unlike Friedman, who actually have to live with the consequences. So the following sentence should be printed and framed in the office of every aspiring Western diplomat, because it is about as wrong as you can get:

That is, has Israel become so much more powerful than its neighbors that a symmetrical negotiation is impossible, especially when the Palestinians do not seem willing or able to mount another intifada that might force Israel to withdraw?

Let’s take the second part of that sentence first. The idea that only another intifada can save Israel from itself, and thus save the peace process, is grotesque. Secretary of State John Kerry flirted with this assault on logic and morality in his tirade on Israeli TV. This is a form of blackmail: Israel must agree to the terms of Kerry’s peace deal or there will be bombs in cafes again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

It’s not a surprise Friedman would wade into this territory either; once you’ve accepted the Walt-Mearsheimer conspiracy theories of furtive Jewish domination, as Friedman has, you’ll believe anything. But the first part of the sentence in question should not be overshadowed by the wistful phrasing on the intifada. Because it’s a mistake that warrants correcting.

The plain fact, demonstrated by the history of this conflict in every instance, is that the “symmetrical negotiation” Friedman hopes for would bury the chances for peace. Israel’s neighbors made peace with the Jewish state only when they learned once and for all that they could not destroy her militarily, and they could not isolate her, and thus strangle her economically, from the world.

That’s because Israel was always willing to make peace, as is still the case. The Arab states in the neighborhood were not, because they viewed a peace deal as a strategic defeat, a capitulation to the reality that their dream of annihilating the Jews in their midst was untenable. A peace deal was a consolation prize for them.

Thomas Friedman - There He Goes Again

...It ought to be beyond the pale. It is a gift to anti-Semites everywhere, it will increase anti-Semitism, and it is a vile and baseless insult to the scores of Representatives and Senators who are trying to protect American security as best they know how–but have apparently committed the crime of disagreeing with the great Tom Friedman. I guess one alternative theory, that they are right about the policy issues and he just might possibly be wrong, has not entered his mind.

Elliott Abrams..
Pressure Points..
21 November '13..




Here’s an interesting quote:

Never have I seen Israel and America’s core Arab allies working more in concert to stymie a major foreign policy initiative of a sitting U.S. president, and never have I seen more lawmakers — Democrats and Republicans — more willing to take Israel’s side against their own president’s. I’m certain this comes less from any careful consideration of the facts and more from a growing tendency by many American lawmakers to do whatever the Israel lobby asks them to do in order to garner Jewish votes and campaign donations.

Pat Buchanan? Some other voice of the anti-Semitic fringe? Who after all can be “certain” that there is a “growing tendency” on the part of ”many American lawmakers” to put aside American interests and loyalties and simply do what their Jewish, Zionist paymasters require and demand? Well, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times is “certain,” and here uses language that is the usual fodder of anti-Semitic journals and writers. Indeed you can be sure– or “certain,” to use his terminology–that anti-Semites will be quoting his lines for years on end. (By the way, what evidence does he offer for this astonishing charge? None.)

This is awful stuff. It does not seem to occur to Friedman that those lawmakers simply agree with the Saudis (and many other Arabs) and Israelis that the Obama policy they oppose is dangerous for the United States. They are not “taking Israel’s side against their own president’s” but taking America’s side against a policy they see as foolish and dangerous. Does Friedman think John McCain and Lindsey Graham, two of the key critics of Obama’s Iran policy, are beholden to “the Israel lobby” for their re-election campaigns, for donations, for future promotion? This is nonsense on stilts. To take a single example, when AIPAC worked with the Obama administration to support the President’s plan to strike Syria because his “red line” against using chemical weapons had been broken, it failed to sway members. The votes were not there. Can Friedman explain why? Why did those members of Congress fail “to do whatever the Israel lobby asks them to do in order to garner Jewish votes and campaign donations?” The answer is because they disagreed, as did their constituents, with the President’s policy–despite the pleas of the “Israel lobby” that Friedman thinks all-powerful.

Trying to Smooth Over Tom Friedman's Incredible Blunders

As CAMERA has documented in the past, fact-checking for his column is not Thomas L. Friedman's strong suit. But to make matters worse, The New York Times seems unperturbed by such blatant errors.

SS..
CAMERA Snapshots..
08 August '13..

On August 7, Times columnist Thomas Friedman argued that Israel needed to get on board with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's initiative to restart the peace process to head off increasing isolation of the Jewish state. To bolster his point he cited the alleged cancellation of a performance in Israel by Eric Burdon, former lead singer of the British rock group, the Animals. Friedman quotes the British newspaper, the Independent, as writing,

but now Eric Burdon is not even turning up at all having deciding to withdraw from a planned concert in Israel.

Unfortunately, for Friedman, a week before his piece appeared, Burdon's performance in Israel took place without a hitch. Worse still, he didn't get the alleged quote from the Independent right.

Fayyad’s No. 1 fan at the NY Times performs his own postmortem

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
24 April '13..

The political demise of Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad continues to drive much of the discussion about the dead-in-the-water Middle East peace process in the media. Thus, it’s no surprise that Fayyad’s No. 1 fan at the New York Times would weigh in today on the paper’s op-ed page to perform his own postmortem on the death of “Fayyadism.” Thomas Friedman, who modestly takes credit for coining the term, writes today that there is plenty of blame to go around for his favorite’s failure. He rightly notes that both PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah Party and their Hamas rivals always wanted to get rid of Fayyad–the factor that I wrote last week was the main reason Fayyadism was doomed from the start. But Friedman also puts forward a theory about the American and Israeli responsibility for Fayyad’s failure.

According to this line of argument, which is rapidly being incorporated into the catechism of Israel-bashers, the cutoff of U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority by Congress as well as the withholding of various revenues by the Israelis precipitated Fayyad’s end. In this telling, without the cash to keep the Palestinian economy afloat, Fayyad’s reform agenda and administration rapidly collapsed, allowing his enemies to force him out. This narrative holds that it was these cuts, which were implemented to punish the PA for its decision to go to the United Nations to pursue independence rather than to negotiate for it in peace talks, were counterproductive and ultimately responsible for the exit of the only Palestinian leader who could be said to care about his people or peace.

But while this way of looking at things is convenient for those who always prefer to blame the Israelis and the pro-Israel community in the United States for everything that happens in the Middle East, it is completely illogical.

As even Friedman admits, Fayyad was adamantly opposed to the PA’s UN gambit that was nothing more than a way to evade peace talks since Abbas was unable and/or unwilling to ever make a deal with the Israelis. By placing the full force of U.S. policy on the same side as Fayyad, the Obama administration, Congress and Israel were backing up the PA prime minister, not undermining him. The PA remains completely dependent on foreign aid from the West, and using this leverage was the only way for President Obama and the Israelis to convey to Abbas that he should listen to Fayyad rather than make a grand gesture at the UN that would do nothing for the Palestinian people.

Why the so-called “Peace Process” isn’t a factor in the Israeli election.

Daniel Greenfield..
frontpagemag.com..
21 January '13..

Thomas Friedman, among many other columnists, is complaining that the so-called “Peace Process” isn’t a factor in the Israeli election. Neither is perpetual motion, the infinite money tree or anything else that doesn’t exist.

“Meanwhile, with a few exceptions, the dome and wall have so insulated the Israeli left and center from the effects of the Israeli occupation that their main candidates for the Jan. 22 elections — including those from Yitzhak Rabin’s old Labor Party — are not even offering peace ideas but simply conceding the right’s dominance on that issue and focusing on bringing down housing prices and school class sizes.”

Thomas Friedman, as usual, is wrong about everything.

1. Israel just went through a conflict which hit far harder and deeper inside the country than before. It has been a long time since Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were actually under fire. If anything the Israeli left is less motivated to push a peace program after that.

2. The Israeli left focused on social issues due to the advice of Clinton operative Stanley Greenberg. If Friedman wants to complain to anyone about the Labor Party’s focus on social issues, he can talk to his own buddies. Furthermore the social issues approach has worked to some extent. The Labor Party would be doing much worse on a peace platform.

3. What exactly is Friedman proposing?

Multiple columnists are complaining about a lack of “creative” peace solutions. What are those solutions exactly? More concessions and more negotiations?

Rock-Throwing Again, and Again - Where's the Coverage?

SC..
CAMERA Snapshots..
17 January '13..






When you think about throwing rocks, what comes to mind? Lazy summer afternoons skipping stones in a pond?

How about this?

On January 16, an Israeli child was injured when Palestinian Arabs heaved a rock through the windshield of the car he was riding in.

Last month, an Arab teenager hurled a rock through the windshield of a car and nearly killed a baby when it crashed a few inches from the infant. In 2011, Asher Palmer and his infant son Yonatan were killed when their car overturned after being pelted with boulders.

In the pages of The New York Times, Tom Friedman recommended that West Bank Arabs engage in rock-throwing as part of “nonviolent opposition”. Nick Kristof related how Palestinians are taking up “noviolent peaceful resistance” of the type “inspired by the work of Mahatma Gandhi and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.” though, he reported, they sometimes define “nonviolence to include stone-throwing.”

(Continue)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook.

.

Friendly advice to American ‘experts’: listen to ordinary Israelis first

Fresnozionism.org..
27 December '12..

I am not one who thinks that only Israelis have the right to comment about Israel. After all, I’m an American and I write about it all the time. But I do think that foreigners should at least pay attention to what Israelis think when forming their opinions, and even more so when proposing ‘solutions’. After all, Israelis are the ones who suffer the consequences of outside meddling.

Can there be a worse example than Thomas L. Friedman of the NY Times? Recently he wrote,

Israel’s friends need to understand that the center-left in Israel is dying. The Israeli election in January will bring to power Israeli rightists who never spoke at your local Israel Bonds dinner. These are people who want to annex the West Bank. Bibi Netanyahu is a dove in this crowd. The only thing standing between Israel and national suicide any more is America and its willingness to tell Israel the truth. [emphasis in original]

It’s hard to imagine a more arrogant attitude! For Friedman’s information, Israel is a democracy, and if right-wing politicians are elected, it is — gasp — because Israelis voted for them. And probably the single most important issue driving votes today — not the only issue, by any means, but the most important — is security.