NYT's Friedman: Netanyahu's Standing Ovation in Congress 'Bought and Paid for by the Israel Lobby'
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who poses as a tough friend of Israel, offensively referred to the “Israel lobby” in his Wednesday column “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir."
After bashing Newt Gingrich for suggesting the Palestinians are an “invented” people, Friedman reiterated the usual talking points in support of a Palestinian state, but with a hostile and paranoid twist.
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 real test is what would happen if Bibi tried to speak at, let’s say, the University of Wisconsin. My guess is that many students would boycott him and many Jewish students would stay away, not because they are hostile but because they are confused.
“Israel lobby” is considered a derogatory term, especially the way Friedman used it to suggest political corruption. (A Google search of the term brings up as the first match an article by the authors of the notoriously anti-Israel book “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” not a favorable sign.)
Elliot Abrams, blogging at the Council on Foreign Relations, hopes Friedman withdraws the line and apologizes: “He owes an apology to hundreds of members of Congress who spoke for their constituents when they applauded Mr. Netanyahu, and to the millions of Americans Jews and Christians whom they faithfully represent.”
Rep. Steven Rothman, a New Jersey Democrat, also demanded an apology:
Thomas Friedman's defamation against the vast majority of Americans who support the Jewish State of Israel, in his New York Times opinion piece today, is scurrilous, destructive and harmful to Israel and her advocates in the US. Mr. Friedman is not only wrong, but he's aiding and abetting a dangerous narrative about the US-Israel relationship and its American supporters.
I gave Prime Minister Netanyahu a standing ovation, not because of any nefarious lobby, but because it is in America's vital national security interests to support the Jewish State of Israel and it is right for Congress to give a warm welcome to the leader of such a dear and essential ally. Mr. Friedman owes us all an apology.
After his burst of offensiveness, Friedman strung together some obscure stories from Israel, including this one, apparently one of many stories that would offend...Jewish students at the University of Wisconsin (don't ask):
It confuses them to read, as the New Israel Fund reports on its Web site, that “more than 10 years ago, the ultra-Orthodox community asked Israel’s public bus company, Egged, to provide segregated buses in their neighborhoods. By early 2009, more than 55 such lines were operating around Israel. Typically, women are required to enter through the bus back doors and sit in the back of the bus, as well as ‘dress modestly.’ ”
As if much harsher kinds of repression of women aren’t an everyday occurrence in other Middle Eastern countries.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
There is an Israeli lobby
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:26am.
Whether one agrees with Friedman or not, there is no question that the Israeli lobby has a powerful clout inside the Beltway. Most of the Hill-dwellers tremble at the prospect of a hostile Israeli lobby, because it can reward or punish them at election time.
AIPAC is one of the principal arms of the Israeli lobby, and it has been influencing US Middle East policy for decades.
...and with good reason to
Submitted by vrwc13 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 11:11am.
"because it can reward or punish them at election time"
... you can take that two ways: yours, meaning political election time...
and God's:
And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. Gen 12:3
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
There's also an Arab lobby,
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 1:08pm.
There's also an Arab lobby, backed up by a lot of oil wealth
http://www.amazon.com/Arab-Lobby-Invisible-Undermines-Interests/dp/00617...
People should realize that in Washington, wherever there's a lobby, there's another lobby working against its interests. For every corporate lobby, there's a union lobby; for every animal rights lobby, there's a agriculture lobby; for every oil interest lobby, there's an environmental lobby; for every gay rights lobby, there's an evangelical lobby.
In the end, none of them have the power to determine policy (that's the public), just the ability to shape the arguments.
Really?
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 1:50pm.
Then, am I understanding you to mean that lobbyists merely inform our elected officials? That billions of dollars of lobbyist money into political campaigns merely shape the arguments?
Did the American taxpayer ever want a US tax code that is so large, one needs a fork lift to move it?
Did the American taxpayer want GE to get off with paying no Federal income taxes while small businesses pay through the nose?
Sure, Senators and Representatives must vote Yes or No on these, but do you really think the lobbyists merely inform them?
Needless to say, I don't.
Shaping the arguments is
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:07pm.
Shaping the arguments is corruption in itself; it means that arguments that have money behind them get heard the loudest. It also helps select the candidates that are running, because they reflect those arguments.
However, the way this corruption works isn't that the lobby with the most money always wins out, because it buys the most Congressmen. If that were true, the Employee Free Choice Act ("card check") would have never passed the Democratic Congress, since Democrats take more money from corporations than unions just like Republicans. Unions have a lot of influence in government even though they're outspent by corporations. The pro-Palestine side has a lot of influence even though AIPAC is a strong lobby.
What we see in government generally isn't quid-pro-quo deals, its a little more complex.
Anyway, if you doubt the American public has strongly supported Israel for the past 50 years ....
I think we're in general agreement
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:37pm.
Lobbyists don't always have their way. And as you noted with the Card Check, some issues are too complex for some lobbyists to overcome.
The lobbyists know their battlespace, and they target the legislators they think are most sympathetic and/or pliable. A Representative from a conservative district is not likely to take $$$ from the unions to support Card Check, because his district will react negatively.
It's not so much the big issues, but the smaller ones -- the things that get written into legislation that the media pays little or no attention to, and so the public is largely unaware. The prinicpal vehicle for this kind of lobbying influence is the tax code, and to an equal or lesser extent, the budget.
That's how GE and other get away with what they do.
Democrat's vocal support of
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:50pm.
Democrat's vocal support of unions though is in part is due to the fact that they need union money to make up the gap in corporation contributions, because even though both parties get corporate contributions, Democrats get less. The same corporation will often contribute to both candidates in a race, just for the purpose of buying the ear of the potential Congressman, but will contribute to one less than another. This is an example of how a smaller lobby can form a "wedge".
And the way the game is played, a candidate who doesn't speak to the interest of his party's lobbies has less of a chance of getting nominated, because the party machine will run candidates against him to make sure he loses the race.
In all, I think money's influence in politics is why we're so polarized as a country. Sure, once in office, politicians form compromises, but they all run to one side or another in the election campaign.
redfish...I believe the power of lobbies and special interest
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 3:36pm.
In the end, none of them have the power to determine policy (that's the public), just the ability to shape the arguments.
groups often goes beyond the mere shaping of policy arguments to include the drafting of self-benefiting legislation for introduction even at state and local levels, and generally outside the glare of public scrutiny.
Here is a lefty take on the practice from 2002, although I am sure similar exposes can be found in the conservative journals. There is precious little moral high ground for either side of the aisle to stake a claim.
Jer
Yes they help draft
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 3:51pm.
Yes they help draft legislation that fits the arguments they're promoting.
Excellent points, Jer
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 4:49pm.
The fact that our legislators pass bills that were written by the groups that benefit them is one of the major afflictions of the current system. That's why K Street employs so many lawyers; they script the bills.
How Ironic
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:38am.
This screed written by a writter who is bought and paid for by George Soros.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Funny
Submitted by dliston on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:42am.
Funny when Pat Buchanan said this it was blatant anti-semitism.
Friedman is a feckless
Submitted by Gat New York on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 11:05am.
Friedman is a feckless capitulator who has voiced anti-Israel sentiment for a long time to curry favor with his far left elist cronies who are anti-Semitic.
Hey friedman
Submitted by NVRAT on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 11:07am.
Just like you are bought and paid for by the Obama Administration...Right?
Friedman is a disgrace......
Submitted by Herbster on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 12:59pm.
If Friedman was an honest man, he would say the his true religion is not Judaism, but liberalism. He is what I call and "Ashamed Jew," ashamed of his heritage and takes every opportunity to denigrate and belittle his heritage in order to curry favor with the leftist/elitists/anti-semitic/anti Israel/pro-palestinian/anti-american "Progressives" (Formerly known as communists.)
Netanyahu is the exact opposite of the current occupant of the White House. Netanyahu is a leader who does what is best for his country, not what is best for the 6:00 propaganda called "News."
First Corinthians states: "For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?" Would we hear an uncertain sound from Mr. Netanyahu? No. Would we hear an uncertain sound from the current White House occupant? Always. Friedman has no understanding of real leadership and when confronted with it, goes into full denial mode.
Remember the scene in the Godfather movie where Marlon Brando is in his car having just left a "Meet" with the heads of the other families? Robert Duvall mentions the name of Barzini and the Godfather turns to him and says, "Barzini is a PIMP!" If I was in in a car and someone mentioned Thomas Friedman, my response would be the same.
UW Madison students...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 5:21pm.
would boycott him? That's where we're supposed to get our moral compass? From Moscow in Madison?
friedman's a moron
Submitted by michiganruth on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 7:53pm.
the only good thing about our coming subjugation to a worldwide Islamic caliphate is that Tommy Friedman will be subjugated right along with us! he'll be whining "but I was a GOOD Jew!" as they drag him off to the gas chambers.
American Jew, LOL!
Submitted by billwhit1357 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:49am.
Just as I come from French and English decendents, I consider myself American and that is how I view the Jewish population in America, as Americans, not as Jews. They don't face the same problems and dangers as the Jews living in Israel. Just as Thomas Friedman is an American of Jewish background, which makes him a Liberal Puke American and not really a Jew! Just the mention of the NYT brings up thoughts of AntiAmericanism and Pure Liberalism and is not worth buying or reading, so are the ramblings of American Jews when talking about Israeli Leaders or anything to do with Israel, they are just talking out their backsides!.