Obama Bemoans Strong Bibi

For the record:

In some ways, Bibi is too strong [and] in some ways Abu Mazen is too weak to bring them together and make the kinds of bold decisions that Sadat or Begin or Rabin were willing to make. 

US President Barack Obama to NYTimes' Tom Friedman

^

The Not So Wonderful Tom Friedman (Who's In A Spin)

An excerpt from a Tom Friedman column this week:

The PowerPoint maps that Israeli military briefers use for Sinai, Gaza, Lebanon and Syria today consist of multicolored circles, and inside each are clusters of different armed groups. Israel is like a Petri dish of the new world, with nonstate actors, armed with rockets, dressed as civilians and nested among civilians on four out of its five borders: Sinai, Gaza, Lebanon and Syria.

I understand why all this makes even some moderate Israeli military leaders more wary about any West Bank withdrawal. But the status quo is not neutral. Israel needs to do all it can to avoid turning itself into a kind of forced binational state — with a hostile minority in its belly — by permanently holding onto the West Bank and its 2.5 million Palestinians. 

I added this comment:

If indeed the "status quo is not neutral", and if indeed, Mr. Friedman understands "why all this [Islamic terror groups] makes even some moderate Israeli military leaders more wary about any West Bank withdrawal", then why not assume that the staus quo could move one way and not another?  That to withdraw would be inviting danger, encouraging terror and ultimately, with more narrow and relatively - given the vast technological advances in weaponery since 1967 - indefensible borders, would prove to be silly and, if Friedman insist on this solutiuon, bad advice?
Is this so wonderful?

And that 2.5 million figure?

It's wrong.

My friend Yakov Faitelson:

...The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics' demographic data arrived at its data not through objective scientific inquiry but rather by overstating the size of the Arab population residing in the territories administered by the Palestinian Authority...far from doubling, Arab fertility and natural increase are decreasing following the demographic transition rules.

Careful demographic analysis, however, should lead to a conclusion in stark contrast to the demographic time bomb thesis. The natural increase of the Jewish population in Israel—that is, its yearly birth rate less its yearly death rate—stabilized thirty years ago and, since 2002, has even begun to grow. The natural increase of the total Arab population, comprising both Israeli Arabs and the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza, continues to descend toward convergence with the Jewish population, probably in the latter half of this century.

The data, moreover, point to rising levels of Arab emigration, particularly among young people...

The misuse of demography has been one of the most prominent, yet unexamined, aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many Israelis have so thoroughly absorbed the repeated claims of a diminishing Jewish majority that they do not consider whether their conventional wisdom is false. Before an accurate demographic picture of Israel and the Palestinian territories trickles down to the consciousness of the residents of the region, it must first be understood by Israeli and Palestinian policymakers, academics, and journalists, who need accurate, factual information to do their jobs. The impact on the conflict of such a development would be substantial.

And this from last year.  And a previous discussion.  According to Yoram Ettinger, 

Jews make up 66 percent of the population between the river and the sea. And due to the change in birthrates, this majority is stable. "There is no Arab time bomb, there is a Jewish tailwind," he said.

Friedman's in a spin.

P.S.:-

P.P.S.

My comment is in.


^

Journalism Wisdom

From one of the most over-rated and self-smug journalists around:

I’ve always thought that the most important rule of journalism is: Never try to be smarter than the story.

Tom Friedman
"Daring to Fail"
New York Times
Ausust 8, 2013

^

Wisdom From Tom Friedman

Here is Tom Friedman's latest wisdom:

...the world for the most part would not begrudge Israel keeping its forces on the Jordan River — as will be necessary given the instability beyond — if it ceded most of the West Bank and Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.

Well, I do not know about the "world" but the Pals. would certainly not agree.

That was dumb of Tom, no?

P.S.  Are there "Jewish neighborhoods" of "East Jerusalem"?

Can we retain those?

________________________________________

UPDATE

2) Smacking Friedman down, again

Last week I took issue with Thomas Friedman's Israel lives the Joseph Story.
https://twitter.com/soccerdhg/status/342316938485174272

But I missed a major goof.

And the world for the most part would not begrudge Israel keeping its forces on the Jordan River — as will be necessary given the instability beyond — if it ceded most of the West Bank and Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.

Elder of Ziyon:

Oh, and don't forget Friedman's other "if-then" fallacy here - that the world would allow Israel to keep the Jordan Valley as a buffer if only it would offer the Palestinian Arabs a state. Wasn't that already offered and rejected?

Meryl Yourish:

The bolded phrase contradicts all of the Palestinian statements made about Israel keeping any soldiers in the West Bank. In point of fact, the Palestinians absolutely begrudge Israel a force on the Jordan.

My Right Word:

Well, I do not know about the "world" but the Pals. would certainly not agree.

Friedman loves to pose as someone who understands simple truths that those in power (especially in Israel) fail to appreciate. But here he shows that he hasn't been paying attention to the past twenty years of the peace process. Maybe in 1993 an Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley was an accommodation would have made. It is no longer.

^

No Wonder Tom Friedman Writes As He Does

Thomas Friedman quotes Ehud Barak on the matter of 'political Islam':

"We have to learn to accept it and see both sides of it and try to make it better. I am worried about our tendency to adopt a fatalistic, pessimistic perception of history. Because, once you adopt it, you are relieved from the responsibility to see the better aspects and seize the opportunities" when they arise.

"Better aspects"?

He continues:

If Israel just assumes that it's only a matter of time before the moderate Palestinian leaders in the West Bank fall and Hamas takes over, "why try anything?" added Barak. "And, therefore, you lose sight of the opportunities and the will to seize opportunities. 

What "opportunities"?

... I know that you can't say when leaders raise this kind of pessimism that it is all just invented. It is not all invented, and you would be stupid if you did not look ((at it)) with open eyes. But it is a major risk that you will not notice that you become enslaved by this pessimism in a way that will paralyze you from understanding that you can shape it. 

"Enslaved by pessimism"?

The world is full of risks, but that doesn't mean that you don't have a responsibility to do something about it — within your limits and the limits of realism — and avoid self-fulfilling prophecies that are extremely dangerous here."

No wonder Friedman is mixed up.

Trying to make sense of Barak's logic is a Herculean task.

Besides the fact that it is rationally and practically wrong thinking.

^

Tom Friedman: Netanyahu Worse Than Arab Election-rigging Dictator

Tom Friedman hits on Netanyahu yet again.

In his latest op-ed column, Power With Purpose, he supports Ami Ayalon's "unilateral disengagement", what is now modified and termed - “coordinated” and “constructive” unilateralism. he has to take down Bibi.

So he writes:

He avoided early elections by adding a new centrist coalition partner to his right-wing cabinet, giving him control of 96 of the 120 seats in Parliament. There are Arab dictators who didn’t have majorities that big after rigged elections.

The he adds:

...The U.S. election silences any criticism coming from Washington about Israeli settlements. The Israeli peace camp is dead, and the Arab awakening has most Arab states enfeebled or preoccupied. So Israel gets to build settlements, while the Arabs, Americans, Europeans and Palestinians fund and sustain a lot of the occupation.  No wonder then that for most Israelis, the West Bank could be East Timor. “We see the writing on the wall, but we don’t care,” says the columnist Nahum Barnea of the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot, referring to the fact that Arabs could soon outnumber Jews in areas under Israeli control.    

   


I left this comment there [it's now up]:

TF writes in agreement with the claim that "Arabs could soon outnumber Jews in areas under Israeli control" in Judea & Samaria (or does he include the state of Israel as well?).  In any case, that claim is unproven and all recent demographic data, including population registries, birth rate, fertility rates, et al., all indicate a solid Jewish majority while Arab stats fall.
As for "East Timor", well, why not talk about "East Jordan", i.e., the part of the original Mandate which was to become part of the Jewish national home by decision of international law but was removed?  Why not rejoin the geographical unit and redivide more equitably?  Or have the Hashemite Kingdom serve as the political expression agent for Arabs who, living in Israel, cannot identify with the state's purposes as the Jewish national home?
Another item about that nasty East Timor comparison that TF knows well: unlike Indonesia, Israel did not invade an existing political entity in 1967 one bright morning.  It is the Arabs who term themselves "Palestinians", in their 'inventivity model of nationalism', who rejected all diplomatic efforts at compromise since 1920, who have exclusively used terror and violence, who established first the fedayeen and later the Farah to "liberate" Israel.

But Friedman does understand something:

At the same time, Bibi is prime minister for a reason. He was elected because many Israelis lost faith in the peace process and see chaos all around them.

It's just that Friedman doesn't like democracy besides misunderstanding the Middle East, misrepresenting the issues, providing less-than-factual data and promoting his youthful Breira philosophy.

To finish off, he asks:

Does Bibi have the will?     

  

Friedman has no way but hits on others.

P.S.  I left a second comment:

Oh, and in that comparison between Bibi being worse than Arab dictators who rig elections, TF is purposefully fomenting hatred and deprecation. No wonder we have assaults on Israel's democratic character (& I am thinking of the new Beinartism) if this is the type of rational thinking the NYTimes displays.

^

The New York Times Employs A Fake

David Gerstman quotes Tom Friedman's op-ed of today and then adds:

...Israelis and Palestinians have a greater incentive than ever to create an alternative model in the West Bank — a Singapore — to show that they, together, can give birth to a Palestinian state where Arab Muslims and Christians, men and women, can thrive in a secular, but religiously respectful, free-market, democratic context, next to a Jewish state. This is the best Palestinian leadership with which Israel could hope to partner.





Forget the myth of Muslim/Christian cooperation that Friedman's peddling here. He doesn't even suggest that the Palestinians would tolerate Jews. Implicit here, Friedman admits that the Palestinians do not tolerate Jews, but claims that somehow they'd co-exist next to a Jewish state.

Friedman is so "pragmatic" and such a "realist" that he permits the Pals. to get away with aparthied, racism, and, earlier in the article praising the terrorist Barghouti, even murder.

That's immoral by me.


More here.


Tom Friedman is a fake thinker.


^

Retro Tom Friedman 1987

The Ariel Foundation working on behalf of the "capital of Samaria" has actually fond memories of the New York Times' Tom Friedman:

NY Times: Ariel Journal – One West Bank Plan, Mix Concrete and Yuppies In City of Ariel on March 21, 2012 By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, Special to the New York Times Published: June 02, 1987

Ron Nachman’s critics call him a one-man obstacle to peace. His neighbors just call him Mayor, friend and ”hey, you.” He calls himself a simple pioneer for the Likud bloc, Israel’s large nationalist party.

Mr. Nachman is the Mayor of one of the fastest-growing Israeli towns in the West Bank. With all the discussion these days about an international peace conference on the Middle East, and Israel’s possibly ceding part of the West Bank to Jordan, Mr. Nachman recently invited an American for a tour and what he called ”a dose of reality.”

Whatever foreigners may think of Mr. Nachman’s version of reality, it is widely shared among the 65,000 Jews [today, there are approximately 350,00 Jews residing in Judea and Samaria] in the West Bank, and it will be widely aired in Israel if an international conference is ever held.

The Mayor began his tour by rolling out huge color aerial photographs of Ariel, in the heart of the West Bank about an hour’s drive north of Jerusalem. Brimming with enthusiasm, his voice constantly had to compete with the din of jackhammers and earthmoving equipment outside his door.

”Do you have any idea how big Ariel is?” asked Mr. Nachman, one of the founders of the nine-year-old town. ”It is 12 kilometers wide,” or about seven and a half miles. ”That is almost the same width of the state of Israel at its narrowest point before the 1967 war. Did anyone ever tell you that?” Plan for 100,000 People

Actually, that 7.5-mile span refers to the total area zoned for Ariel’s projected 100,000 residents. Only the core of it is settled now, with 6,000 Jewish residents, 3,000 of them under 18.

On the eastern boundary, though, a high-tech industrial park is rising, and on the western edge an industrial zone employing several thousand people is already in operation. For now, most of Ariel’s residents work in Tel Aviv.

”Everyone is speaking about an international conference and territorial solutions but they don’t know the reality,” Mr. Nachman said in a voice laced with contempt. ”Abba Eban? He’s never been here. Shimon Peres? I think he was here three years ago. Yitzhak Rabin? I don’t know when he was here last.”

”They have no feel for what is happening here,” he said, hopping into his car for a tour. ”Action, action, action, all the time. Peres can speak and speak and speak, but we do.”

How time flies.

^

Dear Mr. Medad - Sincerely, Thomas Friedman

The other day I posted a blog on words of the New York Times' columnist, Thomas Friedman, as reported in Egypt. I also uploaded a slightly altered version at my Jerusalem Post blog, Green-Lined.

It is now updated to include this response of Mr. Friedman:-

Update (2012-01-11 15:03:25):




Dear Mr. Medad:


The quote attributed to me by the Egyptian daily is completely mangled. I was asked by an audience member to give my assessment of the liberal's performance in the Egyptian election. What I actually said, which the reporter, clearly not an English speaker, did not get, was that it was no surprise that the Muslim Brotherhood did so well in this first election because for the last 30 years Mubarak had cleared out all the political space between himself and the Brotherhood so that he was able to come to Washington and say to successive U.S. Presidents that "It is either me or them.'' I said that what the Egyptian elections produced, for the first time, were legitimate, authentic, liberal, secular, nationalist, progressive alternatives to the Muslim Brotherhood and now the Brotherhood would have to compete with such alternatives -- for the first time. I then said, given the fact that the liberals had only four months to organize their parties and that the Brotherhood had been in politics for 83 years, that I thought the liberals had done amazingly well. By the way, there were many cameras filming all of this, so it is easy enough to verify.


I would also note that this is a point I have made many times before in my writings -- in precisely those words -- that what was missing in Arab politics was a legitimate, progressive alternative to both the official parties and the Islamists. I would also note that in my previous NYT column from I Cairo, I wrote: "...the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist Al Nour Party — just crushed the secular liberals, who actually sparked the rebellion here, in the free Egyptian parliamentary elections, winning some 65 percent of the seats. To not be worried about the theocratic, antipluralistic, anti-women’s-rights, xenophobic strands in these Islamist parties is to be recklessly naïve.'' (see below for Barry Rubin's take on it)


On bribery, what I said is exactly what I have written in my own column in the New York Times twice before, "Our Congress has become a forum for legalized bribery,'' which is what I believe and is hardly an original observation. Judging from reports of allegations against senior political figures in Israel that I read about in your own newspaper, Israel's democracy is suffering from the same problem. I was warning Egyptians that uncontrolled money in politics is what can destroy their infant democracy, that it was eroding our own, and that they had to be very vigilant about this.'' I was reacting to reports in the press that money from Qatar and Saudi had flowed to Islamist parties, while the liberals were starved for cash. I made no connection to any particular special interest in America. Finally, my one-hour question and answer session at AUC was not something I was paid for.


Mr. Medad, you asked aloud whether I could have said what I was quoted saying? I am glad you asked it aloud. I just wish you had asked me first before publishing this blog on your site. I am in the phone book.


Sincerely,


Thomas Friedman

So, I am to conclude that

a) I cannot trust the Egyptian media or parts thereof.

b) I can call him up any old time to confirm what is reported that he has said in the press.

c) Congress is an institution - a "forum" - that has been bribed.

d) That despite almost 70% majority for MB & Salafists, Friedman still thinks there exists an "alternative" to them.

e) I have to watch out for Friedman quoting himself - partially. Here what he wrote in full in correcting me:

...To not be worried about the theocratic, antipluralistic, anti-women’s-rights, xenophobic strands in these Islamist parties is to be recklessly naïve. But to assume that the Islamists will not be impacted, or moderated, by the responsibilities of power, by the contending new power centers here and by the priority of the public for jobs and clean government is to miss the dynamism of Egyptian politics today.

Wait.  Is he being recklessly naive to think that of all the fundamentalist Islamic parties in the Middle East, in a country that has already assassinated a leader - Sadat - 30 years ago and gave birth to the Muslim Brotherhood will turn moderate?  That those parties' dynanism will turn to regime building rather than societal domination therough repressive religious instruments of control?  Is that naive or simple wishful-thinking?


Btw, here are exceprts from Barry Rubin's "Friedman Cheers as Egyptians are Enslaved":-

It is distasteful when Western intellectuals, politicians, and journalists who pride themselves on their enlightened humanitarian views watch people abroad fall subject to ruthless forces of dictatorship and dogma. When these same people actually cheer the new tyrannies, put their arms around the shoulders of those who despise them, and tell everyone else that there's nothing to worry about, that's actively disgusting.

Many in the West have so acted toward Egypt during the last year...Thomas Friedman has been one of them but perhaps no one else has been louder and more enthusiastic...Now, Friedman goes all-out to explain that the Muslim Brotherhood isn't radical, isn't a threat, in fact is a good thing, and will only become eve more moderate once it is in power.

In a column entitled, “Watching Elephants Fly,” obviously a reference to seeing something impossible happen, Friedman writes:

“...almost none said they had voted that way for religious reasons.

“Many said they voted for Islamists because they were neighbors, people they knew, while secular liberal candidates had never once visited...practically all of them said they had voted for the Muslim Brotherhood or Salafist candidates because they expected them to deliver better, more honest government — not more mosques or liquor bans.”

My reaction is, “So what?” They voted for an authoritarian, Sharia regime (and let’s remember a hardline interpretation of Sharia, not the interpretation of Sharia offered by New York Times reporters). That's what's important...But there’s even more irony here...There is nothing surprising in their political behavior, except to people like Friedman who predicted last year they would back liberal Westernized Facebook kids.

Once again, Friedman shows a striking inability to think logically...what will be taught in those mosques and how it will direct society. Why is Friedman dishonest?...he must create silly demands for the Islamists so he can claim that the people don't want those things.

...An aspect of Friedman's work that makes it so popular is that he constantly invents simple new theories and catch phrases to explain Middle East politics. After reading his column it is possible to believe that one has easily achieved understanding of the region. Of course, the reason that he must come up with so many theories is that they almost always fail.

Now he has a new, materialistic explanation for why Islamists will become moderate: they need the money...But I heard similar things about Iran in the late 1970s--they'll have to be moderate because they need to sell the oil--and about Yasir Arafat at the start of the peace process in the early 1980s--he'll have to be moderate because the Palestinians he rules will demand garbage collection and decent schools...It is awesome how our political geniuses simply don't learn from history...his shocking enthusiasm for the Brotherhood, summed up in his reported phrase: "The Muslim Brotherhood is a legitimate, authentic, progressive alternative." Mr. Friedman has responded that he was referring to the election and not the Brotherhood itself. That may be but if so this is a very strange formulation. And, of course, Friedman knows who won the election by a landslide, the Brotherhood and Salafists. He certainly didn't say: Great election, too bad about the result. And so he and many others--including the U.S. government--have given not just grudging acceptance but absolute approval to a party with a long history down to the present day of anti-Americanism, antisemitism, and support for terrorism, as well as the desire to transform Egypt into a repressive society and a political dictatorship.

...Western leftist intellectuals cannot understand how a dictatorship can be popular and yet still be a dictatorship that those who believe in democracy and freedom should criticize...

"Authentic." That usually means something arising from one's society and properly fitting into it. But here's a problem. Today, democracy as known in the West is not an "authentic" doctrine for Egyptians. It is seen as an import and doesn't have a strong cultural, intellectual, political, economic, or religious basis..."Progressive." In recent years, “progressive” has become a false flag for extreme left-wing movements in the West. Why did Friedman use that word? Probably because for him it is merely a synonym for the word “good." But it's fascinating that he puts the Muslim Brotherhood in the same category as the ideology of Obama and the dominant American political establishment at present.

So what does this mean? Friedman sees revolutionary Islamism as the proper Middle East counterpart of the Western left...Unfortunately, the Islamists don't reciprocate this love.

Isn’t Friedman aware that real Egyptian democrats are rushing to get visas and leave the country? That many Christians are getting out and the rest are trembling?

Within hours of the Friedman statement, the Free Egyptians Party—the most “authentic” liberal party in Egypt—declared a boycott of the remaining elections, claiming electoral fraud...The real moderates and democrats are in despair, knowing what they will be living under. And Friedman cheers their oppressors and says there is nothing to worry about...In playing these games, Friedman and the U.S. government ignore the mature adult way to handle such issues. A foreign policy professional should say something like this:

The Muslim Brotherhood won elections and clearly enjoys support from many Egyptians. It is now up to the Brotherhood to live up to those hopes and fulfill the promise of true democracy. To do so, the Brotherhood will have to break with past beliefs and policies...

The second thing that disgusts me is Friedman’s attempts to win applause by sucking up to his Egyptian audience. He tells them that the U.S. Congress is profoundly corrupt. Aside from demeaning his own country and civilization, the signal that statement sends is: Hey, democracy doesn’t really work!..."Money will kill your democracy like it did ours," said Friedman. So Egypt is now a democracy but America isn’t?

...I’m almost done but there’s one more thing important for you to know. It’s from a column I wrote a year ago, in the midst of the revolution. The radical blogger, Angry Arab, made fun of Friedman back then. Referring to Friedman as a “Zionist,” the blogger mocked him for claiming that the revolution would produce a moderate pro-American Egypt ready to keep the peace with Israel. Every Arab understood, said Angry Arab, that the exact opposite would happen.

A humorous example of Friedman's lack of self-awareness is the fact that he called his column, “Watching Elephants Fly.” Can many Americans hear that phrase and not think of a certain famous animated film by Walt Disney?

It’s title is most appropriate: Dumbo.

I guess I'll have to give Tom Friedman a call.

^

How Much Did Tom Friedman Receive For That Lecture?

Am I suspecting Tom Friedman, of the New York Times, of being venal?  Of receiving a bribe?

Why would I even suggest that?

Well, for one reason, can we believe a nice Jewish boy, smart, clever and experienced would believe things like what follows, that he said in a lecture Monday at the American University in Cairo (AUC).

...Friedman said that the Islamist sweeping the vote in the latest parliamentary elections was normal and expected.  "For decades, Egyptians were missing the Arab nationalist, and most importantly, an authentic political alternative during Mubarak's rule, now they finally found it represented in the 83-year-old Islamist group of the Muslim Brotherhood," Friedman said. "The Muslim Brotherhood is legitimate, authentic, progressive alternative. Only faced by the four-month old liberals, they had to win," he added.

The lecture comes during his visit to Egypt to reflect on the Egyptian scene amid the historical parliamentary elections and the approaching, long awaited first anniversary of Jan. 25 popular uprising that toppled the country's strongman Hosni Mubarak.

..."We now have a Congress that’s trying to find a legal framework for bribery, this tells you how money ruined our politics," Friedman explained.

The Muslim Brotherhood is "progressive"?  Is that a typo?  Should that not be "regressive"? 

And by "bribery", he wasn't referring to AIPAC ("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."), was he?

Oh, how the might have fallen.

Or did he not say those things?

^

What Is Thomas Friedman Doing?

Doing here:



Well, he's having breakfast at New York’s Loews Regency hotel located on the corner of 61st Street and Park Avenue with Lebanese Ambassador to the United Nations Nawaf Salam.

Read here.

(k/t=ChallahHuAkbar)

^

Tom Friedman: "Scurrilous"

Here, at Z Street:

Washington, DC -- Congressman Steve Rothman (D-NJ) released the following statement on Thomas Friedman's column where he wrote that the "standing ovation [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby" in The New York Times this morning:

Thomas Friedman's defamation against the vast majority of Americans who support the Jewish State of Israel, in his New York Times opinion piece today, is scurrilous, destructive and harmful to Israel and her advocates in the US. Mr. Friedman is not only wrong, but he's aiding and abetting a dangerous narrative about the US-Israel relationship and its American supporters.


I gave Prime Minister Netanyahu a standing ovation, not because of any nefarious lobby, but because it is in America's vital national security interests to support the Jewish State of Israel and it is right for Congress to give a warm welcome to the leader of such a dear and essential ally. Mr. Friedman owes us all an apology.

P.S.  Omri.


P.P.S. EG wrote to me that

to tell the truth, Friedman is himself "bought and paid for". He is well paid by the NYT to write whatever sort of drivel they may need at a particular. His books sell well too, enabling him to live a life style to which most of us would like to become accustomed. He is a true pimp of the pen.

^

Friedman Flunks Out - Again

Tom Friedman is at it again.  "It" being his notorius "Israel-bashing".  In today's column, The Arab Awakening and Israel, he acknowledges that

Israel is facing the biggest erosion of its strategic environment since its founding. It is alienated from its longtime ally Turkey. Its archenemy Iran is suspected of developing a nuclear bomb. The two strongest states on its border — Syria and Egypt — are being convulsed by revolutions. The two weakest states on its border — Gaza and Lebanon — are controlled by Hamas and Hezbollah.

And notes that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued that ceding territory to the Palestinians was unwise at present.  Friedman grasciously acknowledges that

Netanyahu’s analysis of the dangers facing Israel is valid, and things could still get worse.

But still thinks that Netanyahu’s diagnosis is wrong.

Despite  "Israel’s fear of Islamists taking power all around it cannot be dismissed", he still asks Israel to ignore that fear.  After all, he suggests, there is nothing to fear because

...the new politics is just beginning: Islamists will now have to compete with legitimate secular parties.

He asserts:

Netanyahu’s prescription is to do nothing. I understand Israel not ceding territory in this uncertain period to a divided Palestinian movement. What I can’t understand is doing nothing...Israel’s best defense is to strengthen Fayyadism — including giving Palestinian security services more areas of responsibility to increase their legitimacy...Israeli rightists will be tempted to do nothing, to insist the time is not right for risk-taking — and never will be — so Israel needs to occupy the West Bank and its Palestinians forever. That could be the greatest danger of all for Israel: to wake up one day and discover that, in response to the messy and turbulent Arab democratic awakening, the Jewish state sacrificed its own democratic character.

The comment I left there:

Mr. Friedman writes that "I understand Israel not ceding territory in this uncertain period to a divided Palestinian movement. What I can’t understand is doing nothing." and then adds that he cannot understand why "Israel needs to occupy the West Bank and its Palestinians forever."

In the first instance, Israel has not "done nothing", a calumny Friedman insists upon repeating as if he can create a truth out of a lie. The Bar-Ilan speech recognizing (foolish as it was in my opinion) the need for a two-state solution, then recognizing specifically a "Palestinian state", then the construction moratorium and other diplomatic moves - all while the Pals. play at "as if" while not reducing their anti-Israel, anti-Zionist incitement, insufficient security (the Fogel family, for example) and other aspects, not to mention Gaza, hamas and its missiles (btw, Israel yielded up Gaza entirely as well as expelling the Jews from their homes) is not "nothing".

Moreover, the support fro Fayyadism or whatever, while stomping on Netayhau itself becomes an unjust and unfair form of participation by Friedman in the diploamtic process itself - all to Israel's disadvantage. So, while Friedman claims Netanyahu is doing "nothing", he himself is doing much too much in a negative fashion which will not bring peace nor security.

Thank you Mr. Friedman - for nothing.

^

There Were Times When Tom Knew Yasser

Found here:

That's Tom Friedman with an arch-terrorist circa 1984.

^

The Lambasting of Tom Friedman

Snatches from Jim Newell's piece entitled "What Is the Point of Thomas Friedman?":-

...We're treated to his latest venture into despondent centrist wet-dream fanfic, in which the Mustache of Understanding imagines a world where political parties don't have bases, but still manage to dig deep, treat each other politely, and deal with false problems in bad ways through their own sheer purity of will.

Yeah, he's written another one of his "concept" columns. In this one, he imagines a future Associated Press article which, when printed in real life as an accurate write-up of real events, will signal the end of America's troubles. Until then, however, "we'll be stuck in a world of hurt." Perhaps because we'll still be reading Thomas Friedman columns misdiagnosing everything?

...It's really not hard to write a fantasy story in which everyone in politics decides to get along and fix the country overnight. It's fiction; you just make up whatever! Anyone can do this. Shouldn't the New York Times political columnist's job be to explain how things actually work?

Jim, you should read how he treats the Arab-Israel conflict?

^

Friedman: Squeeze Israel

Tom Friedman is at it again with his What to Do With Lemons - squeeze Israel.  Really:

...the actors they’ve had to work with were both lemons — a Palestinian government that was too divided to make any big decisions and an elusive right-wing Israeli government that was strong enough to make big decisions but had no will to do so. But you know what they say to do with lemons? Make lemonade.

What's Friedman's, er, Obama's, problem?

...The Obama team is in a fix...the U.S. is trying to get the parties to resume peace talks on a comprehensive agreement based on terms laid out by the president in mid-May — two states for two peoples, with the 1967 lines as the starting point, and then whatever land swaps Israelis and Palestinians mutually agree to beyond that...How about a different approach?

...why don’t we just update Resolution 181 and take it through the more prestigious Security Council? It could be a simple new U.N. resolution: “This body reaffirms that the area of historic Palestine should be divided into two homes for two peoples — a Palestinian Arab state and a Jewish state. The dividing line should be based on the 1967 borders — with mutually agreed border adjustments and security arrangements for both sides. This body recognizes the Palestinian state as a member of the General Assembly and urges both sides to enter into negotiations to resolve all the other outstanding issues.” Very simple.

Well, yes, in a way.  But very unjust.  For example, Friedman notes:

...the Palestinians would get negotiations based on the 1967 borders

That is quite not fair.


They had those borders for 19 years but terrorized Israel, killed over 1000 Jewish civilians and triggered the Six Days War. Don't they have to compromise on territory? They were the aggressors. Why do they get the '67 lines a s a starting point? And yes, I know there are "land swaps" but still, the principle is that the cease-fire lines are sacrosanct a la Friedman and that won't do. The Arabs have actually to lose territory, not gain it all back.

All throughout the Mandate period they wanted us to get nothing - and in 1923, they got all of Transjordan removed from the Jewish national home which was some 75% of the total area. Israel with Judea, Samaria and Gaza is less than 25% of what the international law decision of the League of Nations decided would be the Jewish national home.

In 1967 they dreamed of another war of extinction. To hand them back the 1967 lines is immoral, not to mention inviting another war as the borders provide little security (and after all, those lines led the Arabs to believe it was possible to conquer Israel in the first place; with updated shoulder missiles, Tom won't be able to land at Ben-Gurion Airport to see how we are doing all squeezed out).

Friedman suggests Israel be squeezed as a lemon. Tom, that's no way to negotiate and that's not quite diplomatic language.


How would he liked it if his lemons were squeezed?

------------

P.S. My comments appear at the NYT:

here and also here.

P.P.S.    Barry Rubin squeezes Friedman.

^

Where's The "I'm Disgusted With Tom Friedman" Petition?

In today's column, Tom Friedman, again, sought to sabotage, malign and otherwise ridicule Israel, in a baseless and biased fashion, by relaying that, supposedly,

the White House was thoroughly disgusted with its Israeli interlocutors

and that Israel, in the lead-up to Mubarek's resignation was simply

using the opportunity to score propaganda points

His animus to Israel, ever since his Breira days (see p. 28 here and footnote 161: "Friedman and nine other self-described members of the Steering Committee of the Middle East Peace Group affixed their signatures to an open letter entitled "Another Bad Omen," published in The Brandeis Justice on November 12, 1974, which endorsed a Breira statement regarding Yasser Arafat's appearance at the United Nation"), has been documented by many.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Anyone to get up a "I'm Disgusted With Tom Friedman" petition?

^

It's Not The Process of Peace, Tom

In response to Tom Friedman's Reality Check piece (of), a letter writer writes:

Thomas L. Friedman has put into words what I have long felt. I am 58 years old, and for most of my adult life I have been hopefully following the Middle East peace process, from the Oslo accords to the Camp David negotiations to the road map, ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

Well, your problem is that you should following the terror process, the denial of Jewish nationalism process, the refusal to make peace process that all factor into whther Israel can make peace and why it has been forced to make claims for its security.

The next letter writer gets it well:

Thomas L. Friedman asserts that Israelis “don’t get it.” As an American and an Israeli, let me assure Mr. Friedman that Israelis do get it. Sadly, we get it all too well.

For more than 43 years, every offer, every compromise has been met with a resounding “no” by the Palestinians. Had Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, accepted the offer made by Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister, this discussion would not be necessary.

Had Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, accepted the offer of Ehud Barak, the Israeli leader, at Camp David, this discussion would not be necessary.

See, Tom, if you don't hate Israel, if you aren't a Jew who feels too uncomfortable, you can get it.

And as for uncomfortable Jews, here's Ori Nir, Spokesman, Americans for Peace Now:-

The remedy for the parties’ intransigence is not walking away from the peace process, as Mr. Friedman suggests, but the opposite: aggressive treatment in the form of American muscle.

Under real American pressure, Israeli and Palestinian leaders will have little choice but to cooperate with an initiative that serves America’s regional and global policies.

Isn't that just like a pacifist group to urge aggressive pressure?

Only Jews could do that to other Jews.


^

Shame on Tom Friedman

Shame on Tom, for his latest rant, Reality Check, which includes these choice frothings:

The failed attempt by the U.S. to bribe Israel with a $3 billion security assistance package, diplomatic cover and advanced F-35 fighter aircraft — if Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu would simply agree to a 90-day settlements freeze to resume talks with the Palestinians — has been enormously clarifying...Oil is to Saudi Arabia what unconditional American aid and affection are to Israel — ...At a time of nearly 10 percent unemployment in America, we have the Israelis and the Palestinians sitting over there with their arms folded, waiting for more U.S. assurances or money to persuade them...They just don’t get it: we’re not their grandfather’s America anymore.

...Israel, when America, a country that has lavished billions on you over the last 50 years and taken up your defense in countless international forums, asks you to halt settlements for three months to get peace talks going, there is only one right answer, and it is not “How much?” It is: “Yes, whatever you want, because you’re our only true friend in the world.”

...Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, what are you thinking? Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister, offered you a great two-state deal, including East Jerusalem — and you let it fritter away.

...It’s all a fraud. America must get out of the way so Israelis and Palestinians can see clearly, without any obstructions, what reckless choices their leaders are making.

And his center piece:-

At a time of nearly 10 percent unemployment in America, we have the Israelis and the Palestinians sitting over there with their arms folded, waiting for more U.S. assurances or money to persuade them to do what is manifestly in their own interest: negotiate a two-state deal. Shame on them, and shame us.

This is an unfair presentation of the mechanics of the negotiations and the positions of the sides. And it ignites, or arther provides fuel, for antisemitism.

Have fun, Tom.



UPDATE

Read Marc.
^

Two Responses to Tom Friedman: One Sensible & One Antisemitic

Here is Gerald Weisfogel of Piscataway, N.J. being rational. cogent and sensible:

To the Editor:

In “Just Knock It Off” (column, Oct. 20), Thomas L. Friedman acknowledges that Israel has enemies that want to wipe it off the map and that he does not know whether Israel’s proposed peace partner, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, has the will or guts to actually make peace.

Yet he chides Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, for not extending the settlement freeze, an act that would have likely threatened his government’s stability and would not have been supported by the majority of Israelis.

Let’s not forget that Mr. Netanyahu said he would extend the freeze for one simple quid pro quo — acknowledgment by the Palestinians that Israel is a Jewish state. Had this been agreed to, there likely would have been overwhelming sentiment in Israel to continue with the freeze and negotiations.

The Palestinian failure to accept Israel as a Jewish state just perpetuates the belief among Israelis that the ultimate goal of its neighbors is still its destruction. With that mind-set, a continued settlement freeze makes no sense.

•

And here is Richard D. Hyman of Alamo, Calif. who plays the money angle which is always the underline of the antisemitic approach to the Middle East:

To the Editor:

Israel is behaving not just like a spoiled child, as Thomas L. Friedman says, but also like one who has run away from home but still has full use of the family credit card.

Could there be a clearer message from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s obstinacy regarding settlements that Israel is not interested in peace under any reasonable terms?

^