Is Tom Friedman an Anti-Semite?
Friedman’s suggested approach is for Israel to concede to pretty much every Palestinian demand in every negotiating process.
April 9, 2014 - 10:58 pm
Read a collection of Tom Friedman columns and after a short while, they begin to sound very familiar. Much like his fellow Times columnist, Paul Krugman, Friedman almost never has anything new to say, so he goes back to the old standbys every few weeks spitting out pretty much the same venom directed at those who have not adopted his worldview. Krugman thinks more government spending and higher taxes on the wealthy are what are needed to solve every problem (the disappearance of the Republican Party would also help). In many of his columns, Krugman sounds almost needy, as he demands credit for all the “insights” he has offered the world in his columns (“I was right and they were wrong about austerity, deficits, inflation, interest rates and the size of the stimulus package!”).
Friedman thinks the world is primarily threatened by global warming and Israeli settlements. Friedman seems unconcerned, though, with his own global warming footprint, as he regularly flies first class around the globe, and relaxes in his “modest” Maryland home. Conserving and living modestly are for the masses, not Times writers who married into enormous family money.
Friedman would be a good choice to be the new CEO of Mozilla, except that he knows nothing about the business. Of course ignorance of a subject has never stopped him from opining about various subjects in his columns. Friedman is not a demographer, but he states as fact in his latest column that there are 2.7 million Palestinians in the West Bank , thereby supporting his thesis that Israel needs to get out of the area to preserve its Jewish character. Some Israeli demographers think that 2.7 million number may be overstated by a million or more — hardly surprising when the higher estimate is based on earlier self serving numbers offered up by the Palestinian Authority and happily lapped up by Times columnists and reporters, who seem unaware that the figure has even been challenged.
Friedman’s intolerance for those who do not agree with him, is amply demonstrated in his April 5th column on Sheldon Adelson. Friedman’s scathing personal attacks on Adelson, would insure that he would fit in nicely with the new totalitarians running the show at places like Mozilla and OkCupid or Chicago’s City Hall — all of whom have been busy purging those who do not fit the accepted script for today’s progressives.
As those at the Passover Seder might say about Friedman: “Dayenu (it would have been enough for us).” But Friedman’s April 5th column in the New York Times reveals something far more noxious than mere ignorance, though the column demonstrates plenty of that as well. Change Friedman’s name to Friedreich, or maybe Pat Buchanan, and print Friedman’s latest piece on some paleo-conservative website, and the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center would be all over it, attacking the author’s virulent Jew hatred. In short, Friedman has shown quite clearly, and not just with this column, that he is an anti-Semite, and should be considered as such when he next opens his mouth or types a column.
Buchanan has earned his page on the ADL website with gems such as this:
“Even if his veto of the (loan) guarantees is overridden, he (President George H.W. Bush) will have won high marks for his courage, and exposed congress for what it has become, a Parliament of Whores incapable of standing up for U.S. national interests, if AIPAC is on the other end of the line.” (Syndicated column, December 18, 1991)