Follow by Email

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Thomas Friedman, "Let’s Make a Deal": An Anti-Semitic Friedman Promotes the Sellout

In his most despicable, anti-Semitic op-ed to date entitled "Let’s Make a Deal" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/opinion/friedman-lets-make-a-deal.html?_r=0), Thomas Friedman, Obama's foreign affairs henchman at The New York Times, promotes the bogus anti-Semitic tenets of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" while calling for a deal with Iran. In a desperate effort to condone Obama's forthcoming sellout of Israel in Geneva, Friedman urges that the US sign an agreement with Tehran later this week, which purportedly limits the Islamic Republic's ability to develop nuclear weapons. Friedman writes:

"Never have I seen Israel and America’s core Arab allies working more in concert to stymie a major foreign policy initiative of a sitting U.S. president, and never have I seen more lawmakers — Democrats and Republicans — more willing to take Israel’s side against their own president’s. I’m certain this comes less from any careful consideration of the facts and more from a growing tendency by many American lawmakers to do whatever the Israel lobby asks them to do in order to garner Jewish votes and campaign donations."

Yup, those dastardly Jews are up to their old tricks again! They might just comprise some 2% of the American population, and they vote overwhelmingly Democratic, but everyone knows that their shady money forces Congress to support Israel. Yeah, right.

Friedman continues:

"In the long run, the deal Kerry is trying to forge with Iran is good for us and our allies for four reasons: 1) In return for very limited sanctions relief, the deal is expected to freeze all of Iran’s nuclear bomb-making technologies, roll back some of them and put in place an unprecedented, intrusive inspection regime, while maintaining all the key oil sanctions so Iran will still be hurting aplenty. This way Iran can’t “build a bomb and talk” at the same time (the way Israel builds more settlements while it negotiates with Palestinians). Iran freezes and rolls back part of its program now, while we negotiate a full deal to lift sanctions in return for Iran agreeing to restrictions that make it impossible for it to break out with a nuclear weapon. 2) While, Netanyahu believes more sanctions will get Iran to surrender every piece of its nuclear technology, Iran experts say that is highly unlikely. 3) Iran has already mastered the technology to make a bomb (and polls show that this is very popular with Iranians). There is no way to completely eliminate every piece of Iran’s nuclear technology unless you wipe every brain clean there. 4) The only lasting security lies in an internal transformation in Iran, which can only come with more openness. Kerry’s deal would roll back Iran’s nuclear program, while also strengthening more moderate tendencies in Iran. Maybe that will go nowhere, or maybe it will lead to more internal changes. It’s worth a carefully constructed test."

A response:

  • First of all, John Kerry did not forge this deal. I dare not say more.

  • "[T]he deal is expected to freeze all of Iran’s nuclear bomb-making technologies"? Actually, the deal that Obama initially sought to ram down Israel's throat did not address continued construction of Iran's Arak IR-40 Heavy Water Reactor, designed to produce sufficient plutonium for two atomic bombs each year. It is no wonder that even France could not brook this obscenity, which it labelled a "fool's bargain." Is Iran now willing to forgo continued construction of the Arak facility? Let's wait and see.

  • "While, Netanyahu believes more sanctions will get Iran to surrender every piece of its nuclear technology, Iran experts say that is highly unlikely"? "Iran experts"? For every "Iran expert" that Friedman can find willing to say that additional sanctions will not influence Iran, I can provide an "Iran expert" who says the opposite.

  • "Iran has already mastered the technology to make a bomb"? Yes, this is true owing to Obama's indifference to Iran's technological progress during his first term in office. However, there is a difference between mastering the technology and possessing the plutonium, which Obama was prepared to allow Tehran to produce.

  • "The only lasting security lies in an internal transformation in Iran"? Yes, and when Iranians rose in revolt against the mullahs in 2009, Obama stood on the sidelines as they were gunned down and imprisoned.

How does the Obama pact with Khamenei differ from the Munich Agreement signed by Chamberlain, Daladier, Hitler and Mussolini on September 29, 1938? Simple: Israel, unlike Czechoslovakia, will not allow itself to be annihilated.

Wait and see.

1 comment:

  1. Ah,
    Yes, just yesterday, I saw a "nice" picture of Khameini, Putin and the Chinese guy - all smiles. I have no doubt that Obama is practicing his "flexible" smile to join the club.
    Hard to believe .. It's possible that we have an answer to the question "What did he mean by "being flexible?"
    Looks like treason to me. And unlike Friedman, I am a historian.

    ReplyDelete