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.