Thursday, December 15, 2011

The NYT's Tom Friedman Joins Obama's Campaign To Delegitimize Israel with American Jews

As I pointed out previously, the Obama Administration is very concerned about its fading support among America's Jews with an election coming up. So they have embarked on a concerted campaign to convince America's Jews that not only is the president the most pro-Israel in history, but that it's those stubborn right wing Jews in Israel who are to blame for the death of the so-called peace process and are the cause all the rampant Muslim anti-semitism rather than President Obama's arrogant, amateurish and deceitful handling of the matter.

Of course, the president and his handlers are using committed foot soldiers who are either Jews or people posing as 'friends' of Israel to do the dirty work. Last week, we saw Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, our Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman, American Jewish Committee chairman Jack Rosen and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton among others fire the opening salvos.

The latest soldier in the cause is the New York Time's Tom Friedman, who put out a column yesterday that represents yet another attempt by an Obama surrogate to delegitimize Israel and fool Jews into pulling the lever for the president.

Friedman used the occasion of the last Republican debate and the support for Israel voiced by the GOP presidential candidates to use the time-honored 'Jewish Lobby' and dual loyalty smears:

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. The real test is what would happen if Bibi tried to speak at, let’s say, the University of Wisconsin. My guess is that many students would boycott him and many Jewish students would stay away, not because they are hostile but because they are confused.

Yes. Tom Friedman is now officially entered in the Mearshimer and Walt Jewish Lobby conspiracy sweepstakes. He's been there for years actually, but it's nice that it's official now.

Actually, If Bibi Netanyahu showed up on campus at a Madison or Berkeley or Columbia, he'd be greeted by howling mobs of Muslims mobilized by CAIR and the MSA along with the usual Leftist cadres and prevented from speaking, while any students Jewish or otherwise who wanted to hear what he had to say would be threatened and intimidated into silence. Which is exactly how Mr. Friedman likes it.

It's a pretty nifty argument he has here. People who actually love and support Israel really don't, and the best way for American Jews to show they support Israel is to vote against them and pull the lever for Obama, the most anti-Israel president in our history:

Newt Gingrich took the Republican competition to grovel for Jewish votes — by outloving Israel — to a new low by suggesting that the Palestinians are an “invented” people and not a real nation entitled to a state.

This was supposed to show that Newt loves Israel more than Mitt Romney, who only told the Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom that he would move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem because “I don’t seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel’s leaders thought that a move of that nature would be helpful to their efforts, then that’s something I’ll be inclined to do. ... I don’t think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process. Instead, we should stand by our ally.”

That’s right. America’s role is to just applaud whatever Israel does, serve as its A.T.M. and shut up. We have no interests of our own. And this guy’s running for president?

This works on two levels. On the one hand, Friedman gets to take a shot at the president's Republican opposition directly for being 'Israel firsters'. That will delight a lot of Friedman's New York audience as well as one group of Americans who give the president the highest approval rating he has - Muslims.

On the other, he gets to slam Israel by mining the rich lode of the 'ungrateful ally' meme voiced by ex-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates upon his leaving the cabinet to return to the rich pastures of Arab financed six figure speaking fees and honorariums he was happily grazing in before he was called out of retirement by George W. Bush.

Friedman's assertion that the US is Israel's ATM is demonstrably ridiculous, considering what the US gets out of the deal. In fact, many analysts estimate that if we cut off all aid to Israel, it would cost us $10 to $15 billion to replace what Israel provides for us now for a mere $3 billion and some good will on our part.They remain one of our most important and valuable allies, and one of the few we have with a significant military quotient.

Those members of Congress from both parties who gave Netanyahu the reception Friedman is so jealous of didn't need to be bribed by any lobby.They respect him as the loyal American ally he remains, in spite of the disrespect and malice he's been shown by the Obama White House.

And never mind that the latest Gallup polls show that the support for our ally Israelis at an all time high, in spite of President Obama and tools like Tom Friedman's best efforts. I suppose Friedman sees them as bribed by the insidious Jewish Lobby as well.

While some people, like the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin consider this a new low, the truth is that Friedman has always been willing to be a sour, egotistical shill for Israel's enemies. In fact, given that the Times itself reported in May of 2011 that Friedman had Obama's ear on Middle East policy and that the president was already known for his malign attitude towards Israel and his amateurish missteps in the region, it might very well be that Friedman was the actual inspiration behind President Obama's attempt to ambush PM Netanyahu on his last trip to America - the one that ended with Netanyahu's tumultuous reception in Congress.

So Friedman's willing recitation of anti-Zionist talking points and slurs is hardly surprising. Especially as this is obviously no coincidence, but part of an ongoing campaign by the White House to try to regain Jewish support for President Obama's re-election.

There's an odor surrounding this kind of unbelievably foul one. And all the expensive soaps and perfumes in the medicine cabinets of Tom Friedman's $10 million dollar Bethesda estate aren't going to wash it clean.

please helps me write more gooder!


B.Poster said...

I agree wuth you in regards to your contempt of Tom Friedman, however, I am a bit puzzled by something. You state that what we get from Israel for 3 billion would cost us 10 to 15 billion to replace what Iarael provides for us for this amount.

The most imporant thing Israel does for us is to provide a buffer between us and Isalmic terrorists and the nations who support them who wish us serious harm. Israel receives aid from us but it comes at a heavy price. This aid leads to inceasent meddling in Israel's affairs by American officals who either don't understand the nature of the problem or they are evil.

Without this aid Israel would be much freer to act in ways that better serve its interests. Also, Israel could much better perform its vital role to us a buffer between us and Islamic terrorists and the nations who support them. By eliminatng the aid we get a much more stronger buffer between us and Islamic terrorists and Israel gets a freer hand to act in its interests. Such a move could only strengthen relations between our two countries over the long haul.

In summary, cut off the aid and Israel can better serve its vital role to us as buffer between people who wish us harm. Essentially we save 3 billion dollars and we are more secure. This is far from having to spend money to replace what Israel should be expected to do for us.

While a case could be made that the aid to Israel has been a net benefit over many years to Americans. I don't think the same can be said for Israelis. The aid has been a net minus for Israelis.

Given that in the curent situation both countries would clearly be better served by a significant change in the relationship, why does the aid continue? It undermines Israel's national security and America can't afford it. Also, Isarel would be much better able to serve its role as buffer without the intervention of sinister or idiotic American officials. We'd be much more secure!!

In America, often times powerful people lobby the powers that be for special favors. These favors are often delivered and the interests of these peopple are enriched while the interests of the people on the whole are undermined. This is likely why the aid to Israel continues in its current form, at least from America's perspective. Not knowing how things work in Israel I cannot say for certain but perhaps there is a simillar dynamic at work there.

Rob said...

Poster, I'm afraid you're channeling that idiot Ron Paul again.

Let's review, first of all. We wouldn't be 'saving $3 billion' we'd be losing $7 to $12 billion.

Just replacing the intel, high tech used in joint weapons programs, and facilities use we get form Israel amounts to more in aid then they get from us,of which 80% is spent here and creates American jobs.

Add in the need to find somewhere to lease and build new facilities somewhere in the Eastern Mediterranean to defend the sea lanes between the canal, the Red Sea, the Horn of Africa and the waterways leading from the Persian Gulf and deploy theforces needed to man it and you see where our aid to Israel is exactly what ex-CIA head James Agerton once called it - the best foreign policy bargain the US ever made.

B.Poster said...

I think the case could be made that the relationship is benefical to America. I don't think the relationship under its current format is of net benefit to Israel. As such, it puzzles me somewhat that Israel continues it. I suspect the dynamic of special interests trumping the needs of the majority may be at work here. While America is a GREAT country, this is a flaw it has. Maybe Israel faces the same thing. Not sure but its a theory.

We would not need all of the stuff that Israel supplies if we developed our own resources, built a manufacturing base, and redeployed to defensible positions. By having assets deployed in this manner our own defense is being undermined. Of course if it serves Israel interests they can still supply us with these things.

While we don't agree with all of Dr. Paul's policies and his channeling of the narratives of America's enemies is distasteful, charactarizing him as an idiot is incorret. While Dr. Paul may be going away, there will 4,5, and perhaps many more to replace him. As such, simply tyring to dismiss him with the slur of "idiot" not only will not work but it is inaccurate.

B.Poster said...


I'm with you about the need to defend the sea lanes and the other things you mention in the last paragraph. Certain benefits accrue to us from this. Also, certain benefits accrue to other nations because we do this. The optimal thing would be for the nations of Western Europe to step up and assist us with this by helping defray some of the costs and contributing some of the man power for this. Unfortunately that ain't gonna happen right now.

When media pundits talk about military spending or aid to Israel they tend to only talk about what it costs. They almost never focus on the benefits we are getting from this. As such, the American people aren't getting enough information to make an informed decision about what should be done.

The powers that be need to have a frank conversation with the American people about what we are getting for the 600 billion or so we are spending on the military. If the net benefit to our economy is 1 trillion for this, then we should continue with this and look to cut spending elsewhere. If the net benefit to our economy is 400 billion then we should do one of the following. Look to be more efficient with our military spending, insist the Europeans and other beneficiaries of this spending step up and assist us, or stop this spending all together.

Clearly changes need to be made. The antion is aat or near bankruptcy. If we continue on our current path, we will be unable to have a foreign policy let alone have a military force projection to do things like defend sea lanes or any oth this nature. A good place to begin making changes is to have a frank discussion of the benefits to our current military spending. To only focus on the costs as talking head pundits tend to do is at best misleading and at worst disingenuos.

A bit off topic but while Rick Perry cannot think of three departments of the federal government to eliminate, I can. I'd suggest eliminating the EPA, OSHA, and the National Labor Relations Board. With many of these alphabet soup agencies, the pundits only focus on benefits and what would be lost if these agencies went away. Little is done to focus on how much they cost in terms of monetary expenses and lost opportunities.

Anonymous said...

Tom Friedman is right. Jew money has been lining the pockets of both parties for years. 9/11 only happened because we've been ennabling Nazi Israel to carry out its genocide against the Palestinians. All you Israel Firsters who've been selling America down the river need to be fried. We've had it with you kikey little farts, you and Wall St. parasites hve ruined America. Hitler had it right. Now, let's get 'er done for real.

Rob said...

I let this last one in just to give the members of Joshua's Army a sample of what I normally allow my spam filter usually removes so it doesn't pollute cyberspace.