Thomas Friedman, "Give Chuck a Chance": Friedman Is Far Worse Than "Disgusting"

In 2006 Chuck Hagel was one of 12 Senators who wouldn't ask the EU to declare Hezbollah, Iran's surrogate in Lebanon, a terrorist organization. Hezbollah was responsible for the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing, which killed 241 American soldiers. In 1984, Hezbollah also kidnapped and tortured to death William Francis Buckley, who is buried in Arlington National Cemetery. And then there was also Hezbollah's bombing, at the behest of Iran, of the Jewish community center building in Buenos Aires in 1994, which killed 85 people and injured hundreds.

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Give Chuck a Chance" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/opinion/friedman-give-chuck-a-chance.html?_r=0), Thomas Friedman advocates on behalf of the appointment of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Friedman writes:

"I find the opposition to him falling into two baskets: the disgusting and the philosophical. It is vital to look at both to appreciate why Hagel would be a good fit for Defense at this time.

The disgusting is the fact that because Hagel once described the Israel lobby as the 'Jewish lobby' (it also contains some Christians). And because he has rather bluntly stated that his job as a U.S. senator was not to take orders from the Israel lobby but to advance U.S. interests, he is smeared as an Israel-hater at best and an anti-Semite at worst. If ever Israel needed a U.S. defense secretary who was committed to Israel’s survival, as Hagel has repeatedly stated — but who was convinced that ensuring that survival didn’t mean having America go along with Israel’s self-destructive drift into settling the West Bank and obviating a two-state solution — it is now."

Although Friedman and I both spent much time during 1983 in Lebanon, Friedman conveniently forgets to mention in his opinion piece the Beirut Barracks Bombing, Hezbollah or Hagel's refusal to ask the EU to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Hagel is an appropriate choice for Secretary of Defense? The US servicemen who fell victim to Hezbollah will roll over in their graves if Obama proceeds with this nomination.

How could Friedman forget Hezbollah's involvement in the Beirut Barracks Bombing and Hagel's 2006 position regarding this heinous organization? I suppose you should also be asking how Friedman earlier this month falsely declared that Israel's planned E1 settlements "would sever any possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/12/second-open-letter-to-margaret-sullivan.html).

It is no accident that even The Washington Post opposes the appointment of Hagel as Secretary of Defense (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defense-secretary/2012/12/18/07e03e20-493c-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html):

"Mr. Hagel’s stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him."

With respect to Iran's nuclear development program, J. Dana Stuster examines Hagel's 2008 book, "America: Our Next Chapter" in a December 14, 2012 Foreign Policy article (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/14/chuck_hagel_wants_to_be_dwight_eisenhower):

"'Isolating nations is risky,' he writes. 'It turns them inward, and makes their citizens susceptible to the most demagogic fear mongering.' The answer, he says, is engagement. 'Distasteful as we may find that country's rulers, the absence of any formal governmental relations with Iran ensures that we will continue to conduct this delicate international relationship through the press and speeches, as well as through surrogates and third parties, on issues of vital strategic importance to our national interests. Such a course can only result in diplomatic blind spots that will lead to misunderstandings, miscalculation, and, ultimately, conflict.'

So Hagel supports direct negotiations with Iran. He laments the lack of diplomatic ties and toys with the idea of a consulate in Tehran. He also reflects fondly on meetings he had with Iranian ambassadors to the United Nations in New York.

Hagel even flirts with the idea that an Iranian bomb wouldn't be the end of the world. '[T]he genie of nuclear armaments is already out of the bottle, no matter what Iran does. In this imperfect world, sovereign nation-states possessing nuclear weapons capability (as opposed to stateless terrorist groups) will often respond with some degree of responsible, or at least sane, behavior. These governments, however hostile they may be toward us, have some appreciation of the horrific results of a nuclear war and the consequences they would suffer.'"

When it acquires its first nuclear weapon, Iran will "respond with some degree of responsible, or at least sane, behavior"? And for that reason, the US and Israel should ignore almost daily declarations out of Iran, calling for Israel's annihilation? Given how Iran hangs homosexuals, stones to death women, and oppresses its Baha'i, Kurdish and Sunni minorities, I don't share Hagel's blithe optimism concerning Tehran's future conduct. Nor do the Saudis.

America's ally, Israel? Those who read this blog know that I support a two-state solution along the 1967 lines with necessary land swaps, but first there needs to be a Palestinian leader willing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Friedman, by chance, also fails to mention that existing Israeli settlements are are built on less than two percent of the total territory of the West Bank.

Friedman lumps those who oppose Hagel's nomination into "two baskets: the disgusting and the philosophical." I believe that there are more than two adjectives that best describe Friedman's opinion pieces, including abominable, odious, abhorrent, contemptible, fetid, invidious, nauseating and sycophantic.

Enough said.