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.

To talk about what I love – the people and state of Israel

Dr. Mitchell Bard..
Times of Israel..
05 March '13..




I have the best job in the world. I get to talk about what I love – the people and state of Israel.

I could talk all day about Yisrael Hayafah (beautiful Israel) – the fabulous beaches, amazing archeological parks, the stunning scenery, how Israel has made the desert bloom, the Israeli-developed microchips running our laptop computers, the Nobel Prize-winning scientists, and the treatments for deadly diseases developed at Hadassah Hospital.

Unfortunately, the media and Israel’s detractors want to focus on Israel flaws – some real, others imagined. The drumbeat of negativity confuses many Americans, especially young people ignorant about Israel’s history, politics and culture.

I tell students that we’re part of the AIDF – the American Israel Defense Forces. We don’t have to serve in the military or go to terrible places such as Gaza to perform difficult and dangerous jobs to defend the lives of Israeli citizens. But we have an obligation to serve in a different kind of army for Israel – one that educates our peers.

Israeli diplomats have the job of defending government actions; the duty of American supporters is different. We don’t have to agree with every Israel policy, but we do have an obligation to clarify the issues and put them in context. It is possible to have different personal views of settlements or targeted killings, and we should not hesitate to discuss them among other lovers of Israel. This audience understands that criticism is meant to improve the state, as distinguished from the detractors who wish Israel to disappear.

Israel Visit By Obama Not That Big a Deal

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
06 February '13..

There is some debate as to what the announcement that President Obama will be visiting Israel in a few weeks portends. Those on the left, both here and in Israel, ardently hope it is intended to signal a new U.S. push to revive the Middle East peace process during which the president will personally twist the arms of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas. However, the lack of any real preparation for such talks, or signs that there is a ghost of a chance that they might succeed, make such expectations seem highly unrealistic.

There is little doubt that the peace process will be on the agenda when Obama goes to Israel. But the notion that the president will be seeking to implement a set plan to force concessions on the Jewish state or that it, as one hysterical left-wing columnist put it in Haaretz, means the “centrality” of the conflict with the Palestinians will be reaffirmed is pure fantasy. It is far more likely that the main point of it will be reaffirming the U.S.-Israel alliance at a time when conflict with Iran, instability in Egypt and civil war in Syria makes coordination between the two governments more essential than ever. That explanation doesn’t speak to the hopes of leftists who want Obama to hammer Israel or the fears of friends of the Jewish state who believe he plans to use his second term to bring it to its knees. But given the timing of the trip, this more humdrum explanation makes a lot more sense.

Those who either hope or fear Obama intends to get tough with Israel have good reason to think the way they do. The president’s open hostility toward the Netanyahu government has been a keynote of American foreign policy since he took office in 2009. It is no secret that many in the White House and the State Department would like to take another futile crack at reviving talks with the Palestinians. Even more to the point, the president must be itching to end the Jewish charm offensive he had been forced to adopt during his re-election campaign and get back to his previous pattern of ambush and attack when it comes to Israel.

But the idea that the president would parachute into the Middle East and attempt to jump-start a peace process that has been stalled for years by himself without any indication that genuine progress is even a remote possibility gives Obama less credit than he deserves. The president may intensely dislike Netanyahu, but he has no desire to preside over a fiasco or to be seen as a failure so early in his second term.

The drastically changing Mideast and the Israeli constant

Lenny Ben-David
JPost.com
Op-Ed Contributor
21 March '11

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=213201

The warfare conducted against the West and its allies is a war often conducted in secret.

New York Congressman Gary Ackerman and I shared the same podium about 12 years ago when we spoke for the American- Indian lobby (Indian, as in Calcutta). Gary was honored because of his close relationship with the country and its American sons and daughters. I was speaking as a representative of one of the world’s smallest democracies.

That episode describes several factors in Congress’ role in foreign policy. While it is traditionally the bailiwick of the executive branch, Congress and its members often support, encourage, and sometimes seek to shape American policy.

Prior to serving as deputy ambassador in Washington, I worked at AIPAC for 25 years, including 15 years as director of its office in Jerusalem. In that period I witnessed major changes in how Congress involved itself in Middle East policy and how, with congressional encouragement, Israeli-US relations deepened.

Consider the changes in American policy that these items reflect:

• When Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in 1981, the US government imposed an embargo of F-16 jets to Israel. In 2007, when a Syrian reactor was destroyed – allegedly by IAF planes – not a word of disapproval was voiced in the US.

• In 1982, a huge American sale of AWACS aircraft and F-15 add-ons to Saudi Arabia led to a bruising political battle on Capitol Hill. The House voted overwhelmingly to oppose the sale; in the Senate, the sale passed 52-48. Currently, a $60 billion sale of new aircraft to Saudi Arabia is being considered, but there are few words of objection. In the interim, the US and Israeli defense establishments set up an intimate relationship of consultations, cooperation, intelligence sharing and joint exercises.

Oren Spills the Beans

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
27 June '10

When last we heard from Michael Oren, he was giving an odd interview — suggesting that everything was just swell between the U.S. and Israel and decrying the “partisan” Republicans, who have stuck by the Jewish state while Democratic support has nosedived. Now, word comes that he was far more candid in private. Haaretz reports:

Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, painted a dark picture of U.S.-Israeli relations during a briefing at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem last week. Israeli diplomats say Oren described the current situation as a “tectonic rift” in which Israel and the United States are like continents drifting apart. … Five Israeli diplomats, some of whom took part in the briefing or were informed about the details, said Oren described relations between the two countries in bleak terms. Oren, however, has denied making such statements. …

Oren noted that contrary to Obama’s predecessors – George W. Bush and Bill Clinton — the current president is not motivated by historical-ideological sentiments toward Israel but by cold interests and considerations. He added that his access as Israel’s ambassador to senior administration officials and close advisers of the president is good. But Obama has very tight control over his immediate environment, and it is hard to influence him.

“This is a one-man show,” Oren is quoted as saying.

While certainly less “diplomatic,” these remarks have the benefit of candor and accuracy. As for the flotilla incident, Oren reportedly said: “Even our close friends came out against us. … Only after some time, when video from the ship arrived and was aired by the American media, did public opinion begin to shift in Israel’s favor.”

One can sympathize with Oren. His job is to try, under the most difficult circumstances with a president more hostile to Israel than any other since the 1948, to keep the relationship between the two countries from rupturing. And yet, he is neither deluded nor dishonest, so he concedes — he thought, privately — that Obama is pulling the relationship apart, replacing a robust alliance based on shared values, interests, and, yes, affection with an arms-length, if not antagonistic, one, in which Israel is treated as an encumbrance to Obama’s foreign-policy objectives.

(Read full post)

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.
.

The Origins of the U.S.-Israel Relationship: Truman and the Jewish State

Allis Radosh and Ronald Radosh
The Washington Institute
for Near East Policy
30 April '10

As Israel marks its sixty-second birthday in 2010, U.S.-Israeli relations currently face the sort of tension that has periodically bedeviled the two allies. Indeed, from the very founding of Israel, the concept of creating a Jewish state was widely popular among the American people but deeply controversial among the policymaking elite. As President Truman himself admitted, no issue was "more controversial or more complex than the problem of Israel."

Listen to Audio

The Washington Institute honored Allis and Ronald Radosh, winners of the 2009 Washington Institute Book Prize for A Safe Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel, at a special Policy Forum on April 30, 2010, where they discussed the origins of the U.S.-Israel relationship and the evolution of the Truman administration's policy toward the idea of a Jewish state.

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.
.

A New Low

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
13 March '10

It is hard to imagine that U.S.-Israeli relations could have reached this point. But they have. The Washington Post aptly described where we stand: “Ties Plunge To A New Low.” In short, “relations with Israel have been strained almost since the start of the Obama administration. Now they have plunged to their lowest ebb since the administration of George H.W. Bush.” And there is no improvement in sight. After the public and private scolding by the vice president over the building of housing units in Jerusalem, Hillary Clinton continued the hollering, this time in a conversation with Bibi Netanyahu that was eagerly relayed to the media:

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley described the nearly 45-minute phone conversation in unusually undiplomatic terms, signaling that the close allies are facing their deepest crisis in two decades after the embarrassment suffered by Vice President Biden this week when Israel announced during his visit that it plans to build 1,600 housing units in a disputed area of Jerusalem.

Clinton called Netanyahu “to make clear the United States considered the announcement a deeply negative signal about Israel’s approach to the bilateral relationship and counter to the spirit of the vice president’s trip,” Crowley said. Clinton, he said, emphasized that “this action had undermined trust and confidence in the peace process and in America’s interests.”

As the Post points out, the relationship has been rocky from the get-go. (”From the start of his tenure, President Obama identified a Middle East peace deal as critical to U.S. national security, but his efforts have been hampered by the administration’s missteps and the deep mistrust between the Israelis and the Palestinians.”) Actually, it is the mistrust between Israel and the U.S. that is at the nub of the problem. We hear that the Obami intend to use this incident to pressure Israel to “something that could restore confidence in the process and to restore confidence in the relationship with the United States.” And it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Obami are escalating the fight — making relations more tense and strained — to achieve their misguided objective, namely to extract some sort of unilateral concessions they imagine would pick the lock on the moribund “peace process.”

(Read full post)
.