Thomas Friedman, "Is It Sheldon Adelson’s World?": What About George Soros?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Is It Sheldon Adelson’s World?," Obama acolyte Thomas Friedman attempts to tar and feather Sheldon Adelson, who was present at Netanyahu's recent speech before Congress; however, Friedman chooses to ignore the basic questions any impartial observer would ask after reading his opinion piece. Friedman writes:

"We certainly know that Mr. Adelson does. And when it came to showering that cash on Republican presidential hopefuls and right-wing PACs trying to defeat President Obama (reportedly $150 million in 2012), and on keeping Netanyahu and his Likud party in office, no single billionaire-donor is more influential than Sheldon. No matter what his agenda, it is troubling that one man, with a willingness and ability to give away giant sums, can now tilt Israeli and American politics his way at the same time."

Needless to say, there is no mention of billionaire George Soros and his funding of "progressive" organizations such as J Street and The Brookings Institution, which are busy advocating on behalf of Obama's nuclear development deal with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei.

Friedman continues:

"Israel has much stricter laws on individuals donating to political campaigns, so Adelson got around that in 2007 by founding a free, giveaway newspaper in Israel — Israel Hayom — whose sole purpose is to back Netanyahu, attack his enemies in politics and the media, and enforce a far-right political agenda to prevent any Israeli territorial compromise on the West Bank (which, in time, could undermine Israel as a Jewish democracy).

. . . .

Adelson then bought the most important newspaper of the religious-nationalist right in Israel, Makor Rishon, long considered the main backer of Netanyahu’s biggest right-wing rival, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett. Last March, in an interview with Israel Army Radio after the Makor Rishon sale, Bennett said: 'It saddens me. Israel Hayom is not a newspaper. It is Pravda. It’s the mouthpiece of one person, the prime minister. At every junction point, every point of friction between the national interest and the interest of the prime minister, they chose the side of the prime minister.'"

Hold your horses, Tom! Isn't The New York Times the "mouthpiece" of President Obama? Many, including myself, are of the belief that "At every junction point, every point of friction between the national interest and the interest of the prime minister [president], they chose [The New York Times chooses] the side of the prime minister [president].

Friedman concludes:

"When money in politics gets this big, when it can make elected officials bow and scrape in two different countries at the same time, it is troubling. I’m sure Adelson cares deeply about Israel, but he lacks any sense of limits in how he exercises his extraordinary financial power — power he is using to simultaneously push Israel and America toward eliminating any two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians, toward defunding the Palestinian Authority and toward a confrontation with Iran, not a diplomatic solution. People need to know this."

Well, I believe in a two-state solution, but I also support reimposing a stringent sanctions regime upon Iran. Providing the mullahs with an arsenal of atomic bombs in a decade or less, i.e. the deal being pursued by Obama, is certain to result in a Middle East nuclear war, not necessarily involving Israel. But more to the point, you can't ask Adelson to stop funding the right wing causes dear to his heart, while ignoring the left wing organizations being financed by Soros.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. C'est tout.

Thomas Friedman, "Arsonists and Firefighters": Tom Spews More Rubbish

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Arsonists and Firefighters" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-who-is-setting-the-sectarian-fires-in-the-middle-east.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), subtitled "Who Is Setting the Sectarian Fires in the Middle East?," Thomas Friedman divides the Middle East into "arsonists" and "firefighters," i.e. "bad guys" and "good guys." Among his "bad guys" are Syrian mass murderer Bashar al-Assad and Israeli cabinet ministers Naftali Bennett and Uri Ariel. Specifically with regard to Uri Ariel, Friedman writes:

"Ariel deliberately announced plans to build 700 new housing units for Jews in Arab East Jerusalem — timed to torpedo Secretary of State John Kerry’s shuttle diplomacy. And they did."

Some 700 new homes in Gilo caused the collapse of Kerry's folly? Oh really? As Jonathan Tobin wrote in a Commentary opinion piece entitled "Why Did Kerry Lie About Israeli Blame" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/04/08/why-did-kerry-lie-about-israeli-blame-peace-process-palestinians/):

"Kerry knows very well that the negotiations were doomed once the Palestinians refused to sign on to the framework for future talks he suggested even though it centered them on the 1967 lines that they demand as the basis for borders. Why? Because Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas wouldn’t say the two little words —'Jewish state'—that would make it clear he intended to end the conflict. Since the talks began last year after Abbas insisted on the release of terrorist murderers in order to get them back to the table, the Palestinians haven’t budged an inch on a single issue.

Thus, to blame the collapse on the decision to build apartments in Gilo—a 40-year-old Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem that would not change hands even in the event a peace treaty were ever signed and where Israel has never promised to stop building—is, to put it mildly, a mendacious effort to shift blame away from the side that seized the first pretext to flee talks onto the one that has made concessions in order to get the Palestinians to sit at the table."

Among Friedman's "firefighters" is Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Zarif is a "good guy"? In an editorial entitled "Meaningful Progress With Iran" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinion/sunday/meaningful-progress-with-iran.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0), The New York Times concluded:

"For all this positive momentum, which includes a reciprocal easing of some Western sanctions, many of Iran’s policies remain indefensible, such as the detention of political prisoners, support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and support for Hezbollah. Mr. Zarif failed to address those issues in an article he wrote on Iranian foreign policy in Foreign Affairs magazine. But he firmly committed Iran to 'prudent moderation' and to fostering peace and security. A durable nuclear agreement is an important first step in fulfilling that promise."

Ah yes, "prudent moderation" from Iran, a country that hangs homosexuals, stones to death women accused of adultery, executes poets, and commits atrocities against Baha'is, Kurds, Christians and Sunni Muslims. Apart from failing to distance himself from Bashar al-Assad, has Zarif ever denounced these other abominations?

And then there was Zarif's declaration that pursuant to the six-month nuclear framework deal with the P5+1, Iran "did not agree to dismantle anything" (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/22/politics/iran-us-nuclear/).

In short, would-be Middle-East expert Friedman is again wearing his ignorance on his sleeve.