Friedman doesn’t allow at all for the possibility that Israel is right and Obama wrong. Obama’s deal is not “desirable”. “A careful consideration of the facts” supports Israel’s position, not Obama’s. Rather than blaming Israel he blames the Israel Lobby. What really bugs him, as a mouthpiece for Obama, is that little Israel is thwarting Obama’s plans. T. Belman
“Never have I seen Israel and America’s core Arab allies working more in concert to stymie a major foreign policy initiative of a sitting U.S. president, and never have I seen more lawmakers — Democrats and Republicans — more willing to take Israel’s side against their own president’s,” Friedman wrote in his latest op-ed blog piece.
“I’m certain this comes less from any careful consideration of the facts and more from a growing tendency by many American lawmakers to do whatever the Israel lobby asks them to do in order to garner Jewish votes and campaign donations,” he added.
Friedman does admit that the sanctions have had the desired effect. “I don’t begrudge Israel and the Arabs their skepticism, but we still should not let them stop a deal. If you’re not skeptical about Iran, you’re not paying attention. Iran has lied and cheated its way to the precipice of building a bomb, and without tough economic sanctions — sanctions that President Obama engineered but which Netanyahu and the Arab states played a key role in driving — Iran would not be at the negotiating table,” he wrote.
But still, a deal is necessary – and if there is a war, it will be Israel’s fault, he wrote. “If Israel kills this U.S.-led deal, then the only option is military. How many Americans or NATO allies will go for bombing Iran after Netanyahu has blocked the best effort to explore a credible diplomatic alternative? Not many. That means only Israel will have a military option,” he wrote.
Friedman has written extensively about the “Jewish lobby,” which he claims has a practical stranglehold on Congress. Last December, Friedman spoke out in favor of appointing former U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, because he was not on the “same page” as Israel in many areas. “Hagel is out of the mainstream. That is exactly why his voice would be valuable right now,” Friedman said. Hagel has been quoted as saying, among other things, that “The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here, but I’m a United States senator. I’m not an Israeli senator.”
Friedman has also written that the White House is “disgusted” with Israeli interlocutors, and that Israeli settlers are a “cancer for the Jewish people” and those who “collaborate” in the building of settlements are “enemies of peace” and “enemies of America’s national interest,” among other things.
All this discussion about Friedman brings out something wrong with our society.Idiots such as Friedman, as well as cretin Hollywood stars, receive more time, attention and discussion then Albert Einstein if he were alive today. Shouldn’t we be spending more time on those who have something constructive to offer society then those who pollute it?
@ David Chase:
I glad that you understand. Sorry about your face!!
@ honeybee:
I went to the doctor, he said you need surgery. I said I want a second opinion. He said you’re ugly too.
ebyjeeby Said:
In Texas people are often “hung” for reading the NYT.
David Chase Said:
Yes,, edit edit, think Hennie Youngman!!!!!!!!Darlin
Here in ‘flyover country’ I don’t often read the NYT. And when I do, I don’t often get to the Op-Ed pages. And then when I read Friedman or Dowd, I can’t get past a paragraph or three without getting disgusted. I can see that someone might write that stuff to upset others or be a ‘devil’s advocate’ but that they actually believe it boggles the mind. And I know most of the NYT readership believes it. What D. Chase has said above is beyond obvious. Are some people too busy or indoctrinated to think rationally?
Obama either wants a better legacy or he’s paying back some unknown supporters or he’s a closet mooslime. (Or most or all of the three.)
@ Laura:
Laura, I agree with you. I’d like to make a subtle distinction. I think it’s not just that Friedman would AGREE with that but I believe he would actually WANT that. That difference reflects on his overall objectivity And, BTW, I’m not sure even Obama (the pathological liar-in-chief) even knows that that’s what his next step would be.
Honey, was that better?
Why bother with anything Friedman has to say? He is another one of those anti-Jew Jews that both Jews and the world can do without.
“Never have I seen Israel and America’s core Arab allies working more in concert to stymie a major foreign policy initiative of a sitting U.S. president, and never have I seen more lawmakers — Democrats and Republicans — more willing to take Israel’s side against their own president’s,” Friedman wrote in his latest op-ed blog piece.
Has there ever been an American president more despicable, more dishonest, more willing to betray his countries’ friends, more damaging to his own country and its institutions, more crude and more deserving of hatred and mistrust and more divisive than Barry Barack Hussein Obama?
I’m certain Friedman would actually AGREE with that.
@ David Chase:
You want squeeze the “stuffing” out of Iran until they capitulate, sound good to me. Are you a Southerner?,cause it takes you 10 words when on will due.
Apparently, in Obama’s America it is political incorrect to do the smart thing. That’s his whole legacy.
@ honeybee:
What doesn’t make sense- ratchet up the sanctions to make them give up their nukes. Why would we let the enemy dictate the terms of the result especially when we’re winning.. Now that we see the sanction road can work why do we stop? Don’t you think it’s better to get them to give in to “our” demands and really solve the world’s problem (it’s not just Israel’s) by driving home the sanctions. Why stop before the kill especially when the result will most likely be a peaceful elimination of their nuclear program and not call for a need a military conflict. Obama is so stupid. I even heard him say that if an “early” (in my mind premature) deal now doesn’t work he can always ratchet back the sanctions in 6 months. If you feed a hungry animal it takes time to make them hungry again. By the time that happens Iran will have gotten the bomb. We’ve got them where we want them and we let go? and hope for the best. Sarah Palin is right. Not just America, but Obama, in particular, is hooked on HOPIUM. How many surgeons stop a auccessful operation half-way through and HOPE for the best?
@ honeybee:
I was saying that Friedman is calling for the acceptance of a bad deal and that it would be the Israel’s fault is it doesn’t go through. It should be pointed out to Freidman that a premature bad deal has it’s own bad merits- and THAT’S not Israel’s doing. I think the issue is what would be more effective certainly in the long run. A deal brokererd which essenatially doesn’t do the job, (a “bad” deal) as being pushed by Friedman and, if it doesn’t go through be would attribute the fault to Israel. I just think someone should point out to him that a bad deal should not be accepted because it’s a BAD deal and that the MOST effective way to SOLVE this problem correctly is to actually INCREASE the sanctions or use a military options. Why, I would ask Friedman, would anyone accept any deal that doesn’t achieve that very goal and, if he’s eager for ANY deal just to SEENIMGLY resolve the issue and get Iran off the table. Friedman seems to have the need to preemptively blame Israel simply because it actually puts ideas out there that make sense and would work. Forgetting Friedman for a second, what I really don’t understsand is why the American government doesn’t see the opportunity they have now to actually PREVENT a military action by ratcheting up the sanctions and bring Iran to it’s knees and then sign a REAL deal that really ends Tehran’s nuclear program. THAT would actually prevent the very war Friedman claims we would be walkindg into if we don’t take a lesser deal. I would ask him, is it Israel’s fault if implementing that strategy makes sense? Accepting a pre-mature ‘bad” deal with Iran only makes the need for military action, which Friedman claims to want to prevent ,MORE likely. It amazes me that people like Friedman and even the entire American administration doesn’t understand the logics to that. They should be siding with Israel on that strategy. I’ve come to the conclusion that the sick “f**k-in- chief’s goal, is actually to allow Iran to go nuclear so he can then turn around to Israel and say. “You want Iran to give up it’s nukes- you give up yours also” Someone should point that out to Friedman
David Chase Said:
Read and reread,. still doen’t make sense to me, should have bombem yrs ago
@ honeybee:
Maybe not, but don’t you think that should be argued. (now reread previous comment)
David Chase Said:
Ohhhhhh,Darlin,like that gonna happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ honeybee:
What don’t you understand?
@ David Chase:
Say what????????????/
Of course, Friedman is a first-class schmuck, but has anybody responded or asked simply how a bad deal which doesn’t solve the problem is better than no deal with increased sanctions or an effective military strike which DOES isn’t and that somehow Israel should take the blame for having a firm grasp of the obvious???
bernard ross Said:
You can’t spell any better then I can spell. Ha ha
Most intelligent and unbiased persons would take this as a wake up call. However, Friedmann translates this into everyone is wrong and I am right. the fact is that Friedmann is an anti jew and a paid shill and should not be given any credibility for anything he says by respectable people. If friedmann says it then one should suspend belief. apparently friedmannn is so used to his role he is unable to see, like the emperor, that he has no clothes.
It is not relevant to Friedmann, his writing is governed by his agenda and any appeal to logic would fall on deaf ears. I am sure that money or perks are involved in his whorish behavior.
(BTW my spelling of Friedmann is not an error but an attempt at accuracy of description)
I am often asked why stupidity and not design? Because how else can one explain the Obama administration rushing into a deal with Iran, the outcome of which would be a nuclear war? There is no other explanation but stupidity. Ignorance falls in this category too because only the stupid would fail to educate themselves on the motives that drive their enemies.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.”
http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/against-stupidity-gods-themselves.html
Tommy Friedman is just doing the bidding of his publisher, the Shulzbergers’, who have a long tradition of anti-Zionism going back to the Balfour Declaration. Arthur Shulzberger felt disgust for Jewish Nationhood and wanted Palestine to be an Arab State. So Tommy Friedman is being disingenuous when he says he supports Israel only when it takes suicidal risks.
Laura Said:
Cut him out the herd!!! Pretend his mother isn’t Jewish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Friedman is a “smuck”, always has been, is now, and alway will be. So who cares, Israel doesn’t need his approval!
Thomas Friedman is such an asshole. Would it occur to him that the reason the Arabs are working in concert with Israel to stymie this particular Obama foreign policy initiative, is because it is a really really horrible deal? Do you know of another time when the Saudis publicly agreed with Israel on anything? So you know they must really be in a panic over the prospect of Iran getting nuclear weapons. No, instead Friedman sees it as Congress doing the bidding of the Israel lobby for Jewish votes. It isn’t possible Congress actually sees a grave danger in Obama’s appeasement strategy towards Iran.
Rather anti-Jewish “Jews” such as Thomas Friedman are a cancer for the Jewish people.
Either (1) an easily observable gradual increase of mental disorder, (2) substantial filling of pockets with “donations” from those who would benefit most from his rantings, or (3) both of the above.
Friedman has it exactly opposite of what is the truth, a truth he partially acknowledges: “without tough economic sanctions — sanctions that President Obama engineered but which Netanyahu and the Arab states played a key role in driving — Iran would not be at the negotiating table,”. It’s the tough sanctions that not only brought the Mullahs to the table but will also bring them to their knees if they are left in place. Easing up on the sanctions now will only bring them to the bomb that they so covet, which will leave only the military option and Israel alone to contend with it. It’s so obvious how can any one misread this????????