Thomas Friedman, "What About US?": Is Thomas Friedman an Anti-Semite?

Do you remember how Thomas Friedman, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/opinion/friedman-newt-mitt-bibi-and-vladimir.html?_r=1&hp), declared that he loves "both Israelis and Palestinians," but then went to great lengths to malign Israel? Claiming at the time that he is "deeply worried about where Israel is going today," Friedman said of Netanyahu's speech before the US Congress:

"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 Israel lobby is paying off Congress? This was tantamount to the bogus anti-Semitic allegations found in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," which informed its readers that the Jews pulled the strings of the world's governments. Catering to Obama, who was antagonized by the warm reception received by Netanyahu, Friedman couldn't bring himself to acknowledge that this ovation stemmed from the fact that Israel is among Americans’ most favored countries (see: http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/9084/popularity_of_israel_in_america_at_all_time_high), and that Israel consistently votes with the US in the UN more than all other countries (see: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/162416.pdf).

Yes, prior to the advent of the Obama administration, Israel was considered an American "ally" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/new-york-times-editorial-iran-nuclear.html).

Today, in a Times op-ed entitled "What About US?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/opinion/friedman-what-about-us.html?_r=0), Friedman is again pandering to Obama and directing more vituperation Israel's way for undermining John Kerry's attempts to reach an accord with Iran. Of course, he tries to avoid reference only to Israeli opposition to such a deal by also noting Saudi Arabia and UAE opposition ("We, America, are not just hired lawyers negotiating a deal for Israel and the Sunni Gulf Arabs"), but it's crystal clear whom Friedman is primarily holding accountable. Friedman writes:

"It goes without saying that the only near-term deal with Iran worth partially lifting sanctions for would be a deal that freezes all the key components of Iran’s nuclear weapons development program, and the only deal worth lifting all sanctions for is one that verifiably restricts Iran’s ability to breakout and build a nuclear bomb.

. . . .

America’s interests today lie in an airtight interim nuclear deal with Iran that also opens the way for addressing a whole set of other issues between Washington and Tehran."

"A deal that freezes all the key components of Iran’s nuclear weapons development program"? But Kerry was willing to sign off on a deal that 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. Even France could not brook this obscenity.

"An airtight interim nuclear deal with Iran"? Obama and Kerry just signed off on a Russian sponsored "airtight" deal with mass murderer Bashar al-Assad (Kerry's "dear friend") for the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles, but were recently informed by American intelligence services that Assad is hiding no small part of this stockpile (see: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/05/first-on-cnn-us-intelligence-suggests-syria-may-hide-some-chemical-weapons/).

Trust Obama that any agreement with Iran will provide "airtight" assurances that Iran will not continue to pursue development of its nuclear weapons development program? Bear in mind that any such deal is being negotiated with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who recently bragged how he had lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran's nuclear weapons development program (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjbrqPK-BBg). Of course, Rouhani would never dare deceive Obama, who is such a nice guy . . .

Over the course of his opinion piece, Friedman refers twice to the need for "détente" with Iran, but does not once remind us of how the Islamic Republic of Iran hangs homosexuals, stones to death women accused of adultery, tortures political dissidents, and oppresses Baha'is (see Elliott Abrams's opinion piece in The Washington Post today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-oppression-of-bahais-continues-in-iran/2013/11/12/4b5dcf34-4b0f-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html?hpid=z3), Kurds, Christians (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/11/06/pastor-saeed-abedini-faces-grave-new-danger/) and Sunnis. Rouhani is going to change all that? Sorry, but as reported by Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-23/spate-of-iran-executions-after-rouhani-election-alarms-un.html), "Iran’s government executed at least 82 people in the weeks after Hassan Rouhani was elected as president in June, according to a United Nations investigator."

What does Friedman's op-ed bring to mind? Back in 1940, The America First Committee (AFC) was established to oppose American entry into World War II, but ultimately was disbanded after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. However, before this movement unravelled, AFC spokesman Charles Lindbergh addressed a rally in Des Moines, Iowa on September 11, 1941, and declared:

"It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race. No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution the Jewish race suffered in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy, both for us and for them.

Instead of agitating for war the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way, for they will be among the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastation. A few farsighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not. Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government."

Does "What about US?" remind you of the arguments made by the America First Committee. It should. And Lindbergh's claim that the Jews controlled "our government"? Almost identical to Friedman's assertion, "That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."

Friedman concludes:

"All this is why the deal the Obama team is trying to forge now that begins to defuse Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and tests whether more is possible, is fundamentally in the U.S. interest."

Ah, yes, the Obama Team, which brought us the Obamacare website, is now seeking to defuse Iran's nuclear capabilities. Good luck to them! Meanwhile, even France couldn't accept the one-sided concessions agreed to by the US, thus scuttling the signing ceremony in Geneva which Kerry had so hoped to attend.

Is Friedman an anti-Semite, or he is "merely" seeking to abet the Obama administration, which is facing mounting criticism from Congress for its willingness to strike this "Peace in our time" agreement with Tehran? (I think this is called intellectual prostitution.)

You decide.

From the America First Committee to "Israel Firsters": Anti-Semitism Again on the Rise

"I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war."

- Charles Lindbergh, speaking at an America First rally, Des Moines, September 11, 1941

More than 70 years ago, the America First Committee was demanding that the United States avoid entry into World War II. Its foremost proponent was Charles Lindbergh, who accused the Roosevelt administration, the Jews and the British of attempting to drag America into the war against Nazi Germany. Although he believed in limiting "Jewish influence," Lindbergh was also kind enough to acknowledge in his diary that "a few Jews of the right type are, I believe, an asset to any country."

Today, as Chuck Hagel's Senate confirmation hearings draw near, the media is rife with claims that "Israel firsters" are opposing his appointment, owing to his reference to a "Jewish lobby" which purportedly has cowed Capitol Hill, and his ambiguous attitude to an armed strike intended to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/13/chuck-hagels-ambiguous-stance-on-dealing-with-iran/).

In short, once again American Jews (at least the "bad" ones among them - not those whom Lindbergh might have considered an asset) are being accused of dual loyalty, pernicious powers and the desire to force another war upon the United States. And as in the past, left and right have discovered common cause.

If you have the time and inclination, have a glimpse at readers' comments in response to Jennifer Rubin's opinion pieces published by The Washington Post. There you will see dozens of references to the "underhanded" behavior of Israel firsters, AIPAC and Zionists.

Is this seething cauldron of hatred tied to economic downturn, also experienced by the US in the 1930s? Probably. Moreover, given that the current recession shows no signs of abating, it may be more than a while before those spouting anti-Zionist conspiracy theories crawl back under their rocks.

Elliott Abrams, "Questioning Hagel": Can American Jews Voice Their Opinions Without Being Called "Jew Firsters"?

More than 60 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" was being labeled the "Jew Deal" by American anti-Semites, and Charles Lindbergh was busy accusing the Jews of trying to drag America into the war against Hitler. Fast forward: Today's anti-Semites are blaming the Jews for America's declining economic fortunes, while claiming that AIPAC, the Zionists and the Israel Firsters are attempting to instigate a war between the US and Iran for Israel's benefit. There is nothing new under the sun.

In an opinion piece published by the National Review entitled "Questioning Hagel" (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337543/questioning-hagel-elliott-abrams), Elliott Abrams begins by telling us that Obama is entitled to choose his own cabinet:

"The primary argument against Hagel’s confirmation seems to be that his policy views are wrong, bad, and even dangerous — and of course contrary to those of whoever is lodging this criticism. Several senators have already said they would vote against Hagel, and others have jumped on the fence and are sitting there until the hearings — due to their policy disagreements with him, often over Iran policy and Israel policy. I completely agree with the typical criticisms of his policy views, but can’t say I find them to be persuasive grounds for opposing his confirmation.

For one thing, the general rule should be that presidents get the policies and the appointees they want. I did not vote for President Obama, but he did win and he does get to make his own policy and choose his subordinates."

Abrams goes on to explain his "own argument against Senator Hagel’s suitability":

"Today most pressure from the organized Jewish community over foreign-policy issues is related to the security of Israel and the Iranian nuclear-weapons program. To be treated with indifference by an elected official is bad enough. To be told by a future nominee for very high office that, 'I’m a United States senator. I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator,' and 'my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States' is insulting and unacceptable. It suggests that Senator Hagel believes such lobbying by American Jews to be illegitimate and offensive, and is indeed evidence of loyalty to another country."

Abrams observes the failure of American Jews, in the years leading up to World War II, to act on behalf of European Jewry. Many of these Jews were concerned with being accused of dual loyalties or of being accused, in today's terminology, of being "Jew firsters." Ultimately, half of Europe's Jews and a third of world Jewry would perish at Hitler's hands.

Abrams then notes that American Jews were subsequently more proactive in standing up for the freedom of Soviet Jewry, notwithstanding renewed claims that such advocacy ran counter to American interests.

Today, when voicing concern over repeated Iranian threats to annihilate Israel and when questioning Chuck Hagel's past conciliatory utterances regarding relations with Tehran, the loyalty of American Jews is again being questioned. As observed by Abrams, Hagel's assertion that he is an American senator, not an Israel senator, has exacerbated this persistent claim that American Jews care more deeply for Israel than the US.

In 2013, can American Jews voice concern over Iranian nuclear weapons development and threats to wipe Israel off the face of the map without being accused of dual loyalty or of being Jew firsters? Perhaps President Obama, who has so adamantly pushed Hagel's nomination ahead, notwithstanding Hagel's positions, which, according to The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defense-secretary/2012/12/18/07e03e20-493c-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html) place him "well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate," would care to weigh in on the topic.

Do you remember how Obama once vowed to heal a divided America? Yeah, right.