Ultrazionists have met the enemy and he is… Tom Friedman!

Israel/Palestine
on 14 Comments

Friday morning funnies. Thomas Friedman goes to Yale and is assailed by Yale Zionist wingrider as an anti-Zionist for backing the ’67 borders. This guy has a big budget for fancy signs. I think it’s the same guy who held up a printed banner when Richard Goldstone went to Yale.

At the conclusion of his talk at Yale University last week, Friedman was faced with a banner which read: “With friends like Chomsky, Soros, Mearsheimer and Thomas Friedman, does Israel need enemies?” The banner was held up by Rabbi Shmully Hecht, the rabbinical advisor to Eliezer, the Jewish Society at Yale. It was meant to express his dissatis…

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

14 Responses

  1. Cliff
    November 4, 2011, 9:12 am

    Zionists cannibalizing each other over who is more Zionist.

  2. Chaos4700
    November 4, 2011, 9:13 am

    Queue the flooding of this blog of distortions and contortions and distractions trying to insist that anti-Zionist are the ones who maintain “fascist” levels of orthodoxy, not Zionists.

  3. mudder
    November 4, 2011, 9:44 am

    Oddly, Friedman would certainly get a warmer reception at Wayne State University. The world is turning upside down.

  4. Kathleen
    November 4, 2011, 9:49 am

    ““With friends like Chomsky, Soros, Mearsheimer and Thomas Friedman, does Israel need enemies?”

    Israel is its own worst enemy. Two state solution disappearing with every inch of the expansion of illegal settlements and illegal housing in E Jerusalem.

    • Real Jew
      November 4, 2011, 10:10 am

      When the curtain finally comes down on the zionists dog and pony show all those expensive lush settlements will be condemned to demolition. Or better yet (hopefully) transferred to their real owners. Let em waste their money. Do they really think that under a final status deal that they will hold on to every settlement they build

  5. Citizen
    November 4, 2011, 10:03 am

    Shmully told Friedman he was a schmuck because he wants Israel to give up its settlements rightly done in a legitimate administration of Gaza, and because Friedman disliked Israel’s defensive war on Gaza: link to israelnationalnews.com

  6. gloriousbach
    November 4, 2011, 10:53 am

    Speaking of NYT columnists — Ethan Bronner spoke last night at George Washington University to a group of students at the Middle East Institute. He opened by stating his credo as a journalist that his “goal” was to find the “grey” areas in these controversial Middle East issues, to avoid reducing complexities to “black and white.” The words “goal” and “black and white”were a leitmotiv throughout his talk. The session was filmed but I don’t have access to a transcript yet, so am relying on memory.

    He illustrated his approach with polarities such as “fence” vs. “barrier,” “terrorist” vs. “freedom fighter” and so forth. The references to actualities in the Middle East were general and limited and in search of the grey. Aside from “I met so-and-so” or “I was at Tahrir Square,” there was almost nothing substantive that couldn’t have been gleaned by a reading across the net.

    At the end, an audience member revisited his opening journalist imagery of “black-white-grey.” He was asked something like: “Is your view that the fullest truth is assumed to be in the grey area? is that your personal understanding of journalism or is it the policy of the New York Times? What if the truth is not grey?”

    He answered that the views he expressed at the outset regarding his “goal” for the “grey” as a journalist were his own and not NYT policy. He then added: “If I found the truth in the black,” he would not hesitate report that. I don’t recall a single example from the session where he identified something he found as “black” or “white.” To my ear, issues were all framed in a dualistic breakdown leaving the faux grey as the assumed truthful position.

    If Bronner had opened with any statement along the lines of: “My goal as a journalist is to present as full an account of TRUTH as possible, period,” I might have respected his approach. But constant resort to: “they-say-this and the-others-say-that” led to egregious sins of omissions — for example, about “when” Palestinians began insisting that Israel stop building settlements, and stating that there is no reliable government structure working for Palestinians and leaving out why that might be. Again, until I can get the transcript, that wording comes close to exact but the structuring of his views left this audience member yearning for a reporter to say: TRUTH, as far as I can determine it, is my goal. Period, no color schemes.

    • Avi_G.
      November 4, 2011, 7:23 pm

      Underlying Bronner’s ….. ‘philosophy’ (For a lack of a better word) is the same logic that pervades the Establishment narrative, that there are always two sides to the truth. Those are the origins of the faux balance on Israel-related matters in the mainstream press.

      Thanks for sharing this information.

      As an aside, I truly feel sorry for the students who took several loans to attend GW University and ended up listening to someone like Bronner about his ‘philosophy’ on journalism.

  7. pabelmont
    November 4, 2011, 11:07 am

    And to think that some people attack universities because they permit pro-Palestine political agitation to occur.

    This rabbi is not a professor, I suppose, but the Jewish students are likely to be more washed in the poison of his fulminations than they could ever be in the lectures of a Massad-like professor (whose course they had voluntarily taken) and who is committed to truth rather than to agitprop.

  8. kalithea
    November 4, 2011, 1:16 pm

    Right now I can think of nothing more gratifying than the spectacle of Zionists hitting each other over the head. Each is deserving of the other, and both be damned.

    It’s delicious!

  9. kalithea
    November 4, 2011, 2:53 pm

    Ahhhhhh…Zionists…what’s to love?

    link to haaretz.com

    Absolutely…NOTHING.

  10. Pixel
    November 4, 2011, 3:32 pm

    Mearsheimer? Mearsheimer isn’t even Jewish.

  11. mudder
    November 4, 2011, 4:00 pm

    Stephen Walt summarized Friedman two days ago on his blog:
    >>You know that an idea is catching on when Tom Friedman gets behind it. He’s been a reliable weathervane for some time (a cheerleader for U.S.-led globalization in the 1990s, backing the Iraq War in 2002 and then reversing course when it went south, supporting escalation in Afghanistan with his fingers firmly crossed, and lecturing Americans on their recent failings once that became fashionable, too). <<

    Let's hope that Friedman's recent attempts to distance himself from the Likud right reliably show which direction the wind is blowing.

  12. pabelmont
    November 4, 2011, 4:08 pm

    Israel its own worst enemy?

    Well, the world (IMO) is not seeking to delegitimize Israel (in its pre-1967 territory), and complaints about settlements being illegal, and complaints about war-crimes, and other complaints about occupation, and complaints about Israel’s refusal to negotiate for peace in good faith — well, all these complaints paint SOMETHING as illegitimate, but I think it is not Israel per se .

    However, Zionist Israelis may see things differently. for many of them, the essence of Zionism is that Israel (and no other state whatever) should occupy all of Palestine west of River Jordan. People (such as Bibi) taking this view take each and every one of the above complaints as a delegitimization of Zionism and, hence, in their view, of Israel.

    So, yes, who one sees as Israel’s worst enemy depends on who’s doing the seeing. Pro-Palestinian folks tend to see Israel as its own worst enemy. Arch-Zionists see everyone as an enemy who seeks creation of a Palestinian State inside old Palestine. (It’d be OK on the moon!)

    Glad to clear that up.

Leave a Reply