NYT: Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir ( THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN ) - Oh No He didn't!!!

[JMS]

Wow. This is refreshing read for an American editorial of Israel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/opinion/friedman-newt-mitt-bibi-and-vladimir.html?_r=2&ref=thomaslfriedman

Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

I have a simple motto when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I love both Israelis and Palestinians, but God save me from some of their American friends — those who want to love them to death, literally.

That thought came to mind last week when 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?

As for Newt, well, let’s see: If the 2.5 million West Bank Palestinians are not a real people entitled to their own state, that must mean Israel is entitled to permanently occupy the West Bank and that must mean — as far as Newt is concerned — that Israel’s choices are: 1) to permanently deprive the West Bank Palestinians of Israeli citizenship and put Israel on the road to apartheid; 2) to evict the West Bank Palestinians through ethnic cleansing and put Israel on the road to the International Criminal Court in the Hague; or 3) to treat the Palestinians in the West Bank as citizens, just like Israeli Arabs, and lay the foundation for Israel to become a binational state. And this is called being “pro-Israel”?

( I could have written that,, In fact I think I have.)

I’d never claim to speak for American Jews, but I’m certain there are many out there like me, who strongly believe in the right of the Jewish people to a state, who understand that Israel lives in a dangerous neighborhood yet remains a democracy, but who are deeply worried about where Israel is going today. My guess is we’re the minority when it comes to secular American Jews. We still care. Many other Jews are just drifting away.

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. (Oh No He Diddn't, can't believe he went there) 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---------- Post added December-16th-2011 at 01:00 PM ----------

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11348365/1/israeli-pm-rejects-ny-times-op-ed-invite.html

Israeli PM Rejects N.Y. Times Op-Ed Invite

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has "respectfully declined" to write an op-ed piece for The New York Times, according to a report.

The Jerusalem Post obtained a copy of the letter that Netanyahu senior adviser Ron Dermer sent the Times, which said the newspaper seemed to publish any piece that attacked Israel.

"Worse, one columnist even stooped to suggesting that the strong expressions of support for Prime Minister Netanyahu during his speech this year to Congress was 'bought and paid for by the Israel lobby,'" Dermer said in the letter.

This referred to columnist Thomas Friedman's Tuesday article in which he said he hoped Netanyahu realized that Congress' standing ovation for the Israeli prime minister wasn't genuine.

"It would seem as if the surest way to get an op-ed published in the New York Times these days, no matter how obscure the writer or the viewpoint, is to attack Israel," Dermer said.

Andrew Rosenthal, the Times editorial page editor, responded to Netanyahu in a brief letter of his own.

"I'm sorry to hear that you're not interested in writing for The New York Times Op-Ed Page. Should you change your mind, please let me know," Rosenthal wrote.

-- Written by Joe Deaux in New York.

[oisn1]

Honestly, I found the parts of the debate that center around Israel to be the most funny. You get to see people that want to lead our nation try to out-brown nose each other with respect to Israel. As Friedman states, it's almost unreal to hear these candidates talk about how they wouldn't do anything without Israel's consent in the Middle East because they are our ally. Did we stay out of Iraq when our European allies didn't want us there? It's confusing to see those guys get applause for making America subservient to the interests of another nation.

[Kilmer17]

I have a broad question.

What do you think is the motivation for people to support Israel in the manner in whcih Friedman claims they do?

What is the benefit?

[@DCGoldPants]

I have a broad question.

What do you think is the motivation for people to support Israel in the manner in whcih Friedman claims they do?

What is the benefit?

That's a good question. As a Jew sometimes I feel like some of these politicians are running for office in Israel.

[TimmySmith]

IMO Non Jewish America in general cannot understand the relationship between Jewish America and Israel. In fact, there are 2 Jewish America's, the non-secular majority, and the secular minority. And they appear not to agree on the correct path for Israel. And let's face it, there is a very unsure future for Israel without the U.S. support. Friedman appeared to want to explore this, but lacked courage to do so, so he brought Newt into the equation.

As far as Newt goes. I am sure his statements were disingenuous and politically motivated, but why should he give a RA on the opinions of the Palestinians? They hold no power.

[Kilmer17]

That's a good question. As a Jew sometimes I feel like some of these politicians are running for office in Israel.

SO what's the benefit? It's not as iff their stances are gathering support within the Jewish electorate in the US.

So why do you think they act that way?

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

And of course now Friedman is being called an anti-semite.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/14/thomas-friedman-anti-semitism-israel-part-two/

Just ridiculous.

[TheLongshot]

And of course now Friedman is being called an anti-semite.

I think that's part of Kilmer17's answer. I think the other part is the view that Israel is a bastion against Islamic extremeism and must be supported no matter what.

To be honest, tho, to get a full answer I'd probably have to ask my friend who is both a policy wonk and a jew. He'd probably have a better answer.

[Larry]

I have a broad question.

What do you think is the motivation for people to support Israel in the manner in whcih Friedman claims they do?

What is the benefit?

Republican politicians? They think it will get them the Jewish vote. (And it plays to their Islamophobic base.)

Ordinary Americans? I think a big part of it is "Muslims Bad".

[Kilmer17]

Well the evidence shows that it DOESNT help get them the Jewish vote, and in fact, may hurt them in that demographic.

It just seems like a dumb thing to do just to do it. There has to be something else going on.

[TimmySmith]

Well the evidence shows that it DOESNT help get them the Jewish vote, and in fact, may hurt them in that demographic.

It just seems like a dumb thing to do just to do it. There has to be something else going on.

Larry cannot help himself. He must condemn the Right and their homophobic tendencies in every post (regardless of the topic).

I think it's obvious that the right considers Israel an ally in the most dangerous spot on the planet. The left, not so much.

[AsburySkinsFan]

And of course now Friedman is being called an anti-semite.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/14/thomas-friedman-anti-semitism-israel-part-two/

Just ridiculous.

Self hating Jew...such a pity......

It is so absolutely pathetic that people would attack him so evilly because he speaks his mind and it doesn't align with the Israeli political narrative or Faux News' narrative or the suck ups that are running for the GOP nomination. And how pathetic is the group that invited every one of the GOP candidates to kiss their rings and refused to invite Ron Paul because he might actually speak against their narrative! Stupid.

[Predicto]

Well the evidence shows that it DOESNT help get them the Jewish vote, and in fact, may hurt them in that demographic.

It just seems like a dumb thing to do just to do it. There has to be something else going on.

I think that fervent support of Israel, no matter what Israel does, has become a proxy for a broader attitude toward foreign policy issues.

I would say neo-con, but that's not exactly right. More like "Support Israel, because it pisses of the anti-Americans at the United Nations" or something like that.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think it's obvious that the right considers Israel an ally in the most dangerous spot on the planet. The left, not so much.

I think it's obvious that you're.................*deep breath*...................thinking is absurd. To call an ally to account for their bad behavior is what friends do, to blindly accept whatever they do and ordain it as holy is what sycophants do.

---------- Post added December-16th-2011 at 03:50 PM ----------

Well the evidence shows that it DOESNT help get them the Jewish vote, and in fact, may hurt them in that demographic.

It just seems like a dumb thing to do just to do it. There has to be something else going on.

There are theological reasons at play here as well with no small number of Conservative Christians.

[Predicto]

I think it's obvious that the right considers Israel an ally in the most dangerous spot on the planet. The left, not so much.

I don't think that is obvious at all. I consider Israel an ally, and I recognise that it is in the most dangerous spot on the planet. Nevertheless, I feel that Israel's intransigence on negotiation and its shameful treatment of the Palestinians is making Israel itself less safe, not more safe. :whoknows:

[Larry]

Larry cannot help himself. He must condemn the Right and their homophobic tendencies in every post (regardless of the topic).

Except, of course, this one.

(Or tens of thousands of others.)

But why let that stop you from making things up?

[Kilmer17]

I think it's obvious that you're.................*deep breath*...................thinking is absurd. To call an ally to account for their bad behavior is what friends do, to blindly accept whatever they do and ordain it as holy is what sycophants do.

---------- Post added December-16th-2011 at 03:50 PM ----------

There are theological reasons at play here as well with no small number of Conservative Christians.

Really? I just dont think that Candidate X is going to support Israel 100 percent no matter what because 15 percent of his base (which btw is going to support him anyway) believes that Christians need the Jews to survive and control Israel to ensure salvation at the end of days.

[Larry]

Well the evidence shows that it DOESNT help get them the Jewish vote, and in fact, may hurt them in that demographic.

It just seems like a dumb thing to do just to do it. There has to be something else going on.

Oh, I think if you're observing that the GOP pandering isn't going to get them the majority of Jewish votes, then I agree with you. They aren't going to vote majority GOP in this election, either.

Still, it wouldn't break the GOP's heart if they could change the votes of some of them.

It also occurs to me that, since I suspect that a big chunk of our aid to Israel is military aid, that there's probably a lot of defense corporations that think maintaining Israel is Good for Business, too.

But if I had to make a completely uninformed guess, I think the biggest part is because it's kind of an icon. It says "look how much I hate them troublemakers over there". (No, not them, all the other ones.)

[Kilmer17]

Oh, I think if you're observing that the GOP pandering isn't going to get them the majority of Jewish votes, then I agree with you. They aren't going to vote majority GOP in this election, either.

Still, it wouldn't break the GOP's heart if they could change the votes of some of them.

It also occurs to me that, since I suspect that a big chunk of our aid to Israel is military aid, that there's probably a lot of defense corporations that think maintaining Israel is Good for Business, too.

But if I had to make a completely uninformed guess, I think the biggest part is because it's kind of an icon. It says "look how much I hate them troublemakers over there". (No, not them, all the other ones.)

Well THAT probably makes the most sense. Its the same reason we dont produce our own energy. Corporations make more money if we buy it from the Saudis.

[techboy]

I think a pretty good guess is that AsburySkinsFan touched upon, "supporting" Israel is a top priority in what I'll call the "Michelle Bachmann Conservative Christian" crowd. Romney (Mormon) and Gingrich (personal history) are probably the candidates most held in suspicion by that demographic, so this is likely an easy way to pander to a group that is important to them vote-wise, even if Jews are not.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I don't think that is obvious at all. I consider Israel an ally, and I recognize that it is in the most dangerous spot on the planet. Nevertheless, I feel that Israel's intransigence on negotiation and its shameful treatment of the Palestinians is making Israel itself less safe, not more safe. :whoknows:

Oh no! If you dare question anything that Israel does, and if you dare challenge their thinking and their actions and if you dare even think about holding them to account for creating an apartheid in their country then you are no friend to Israel! They are allowed to do what ever they want and we are supposed to just keep writing the checks and selling the guns, tanks and jets to them....not to mention nukes, any thing less than that and you're a anti-Semitic terrorist lover!

Except, of course, this one.

(Or tens of thousands of others.)

But why let that stop you from making things up?

Because their party leadership does it too, so if it's good enough for their leadership then why not them too?

[Predicto]

The right isn't trying to get the Jewish vote by catering to Israel. There aren't enough Jewish voters in America to swing an election, except in perhaps 2 or 3 states.

The right is trying to get the 1) evangelical Christian, 2) anti-Muslim, and 3) Don't let those Euroweenies tell US what to Do! groups of voters by catering to Israel. And there are a ton of those three types of voters.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Really? I just dont think that Candidate X is going to support Israel 100 percent no matter what because 15 percent of his base (which btw is going to support him anyway) believes that Christians need the Jews to survive and control Israel to ensure salvation at the end of days.

There's a lot of money that comes from that voting block, and look at Romney he is forced to kiss the ring because if he didn't then that block would drop him like a stone and he'd never have a shot at the nomination. Such is politics...whoring yourself out on a daily basis to a new john screaming.."What's my name #$%@*!!!!"

[TimmySmith]

I don't think that is obvious at all. I consider Israel an ally, and I recognise that it is in the most dangerous spot on the planet. Nevertheless, I feel that Israel's intransigence on negotiation and its shameful treatment of the Palestinians is making Israel itself less safe, not more safe. :whoknows:

The treatment is shameful, no question. And the purpose for that treatment is questionable. It may come down to simple bullying. However, the pragmatist would say that the larger picture takes precedence. Sort of the definition of politics. And Newt is playing it.

[Kilmer17]

The right isn't trying to get the Jewish vote by catering to Israel. There aren't enough Jewish voters in America to swing an election, except in perhaps 2 or 3 states.

The right is trying to get the 1) evangelical Christian, 2) anti-Muslim, and 3) Don't let those Euroweenies tell US what to Do! groups of voters by catering to Israel. And there are a ton of those three types of voters.

But they already overwhelmingly and blindly support the candidate with the R in front of their name.