The anti-Israel Saga of Tom Friedman et al
The anti-Israel Saga of Tom Friedman et al

by Irwin N. Graulich

Why have self-hating Jews become media stars? Non-Jews who despise
Jews, a la Mel Gibson's daddy, are fascinating news stories. However,
Jews who hate fellow Jews become front page material. If you are born
with a Jewish surname like Chomsky, Beilin or Friedman, the Jewish
people are stuck with you no matter what your practices or beliefs.
Calling Tom Friedman and his "chevra" Jewish, is like calling Charles
Manson an American. Technically, both facts are correct even though
these misguided souls do not uphold the most important values of their
traditions.

Jews who are not rooted in Judaism, generally take up new causes,
making them into radical, quasi-religions like animal rights, feminism,
environmentalism and liberalism. The new "ultimate" compassionate cause
is a Palestinian state "living side by side with Israel." According to
the left's twisted psychology, being even-handed is always right, while
taking a moral position in favor of a tiny Jewish democracy, located in
a sea of totalitarianism, is somehow unbalanced and unfair.

No group has a monopoly on Uncle Toms. In today's p.c. sensitive
environment, winning the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary usually means
that a writer is critical of Israel or America. Similarly, being
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is more often a red flag of a similarly
bizarre world view. Among recent winners who have betrayed their
peoples are (Uncle) Tom Friedman and (Chairman) Yasser Arafat, although
the former is guilty of a double betrayal via America and Israel.

For this honor, The New York Times has chosen to reward their chief
foreign-affairs columnist with a cable tv show. Perhaps Mr. Arafat will
be hosting "Meet The Press" or "Channel One" sometime soon. Thomas L.
Friedman's elite university vocabulary has obsessed on two distinct
terms to describe the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. "Cycle of violence"
and "Occupation" have become the most politically charged and
fraudulent terms for explaining the state of war in the Middle East,
comparable to describing America's battle with the Nazis using similar
terminology.

Once upon a "Times," this newspaper was seriously regarded as the paper
of record for an astute political viewpoint. Today, it has become a
"leftist opinion rag," conveniently sandwiched into an otherwise
exciting daily with truly in depth coverage of world events, along with
terrific science, technology, finance, sports and arts coverage. So
what gives with the op/ed pages?

Throughout a rich history, the incredible liberalism of "The Times" was
successful at fighting the extreme left and right, while maintaining
the difficult balance of centrism. However, after Vietnam, liberals
unfortunately aligned themselves with the left who had correctly
protested the war. At the same time these media elites and professors
stopped fighting the left's other misguided ideologies.

The tragedy of Tom Friedman, The New York Times and essentially the
rest of the liberal media is that they now focused all of their
energies exclusively against the right. A similar version of this
phenomenon occurred in Israel after the successes of the 1967 and 1973
wars, where Israeli liberals simply felt too good and too guilty about
their overwhelming victories.

Tom Friedman is living proof that the Democratic Party of 2004 has
absolutely no resemblance to the party of 30-40 years ago. Henry
Jackson and John Kennedy were great liberal thinkers who believed in
lower taxes and more military spending, among other things. Today,
these two leading Democrats would be considered Reagan right wingers.
Friedman has steered his newspaper to define the world not by good and
bad, or right and wrong. Rather, they divide the world by powerful and
powerless, First World and Third World, rich and poor. A similar
analogy can be used to explain the transformation of the Mapai/Labor
party in Israel.

This self-delusional complex has permitted intellectuals like Friedman,
Peres and Sarid to deny that terrorists are pure evil, and are rather
"misunderstood." If we only "understood" their pain and desperation.
That is why Friedman can interview 3 "terrorists/shahids in waiting" on
a recent show, treating each one with the utmost dignity and respect;
or Peres could have continued negotiations for so many years with a
proven terrorist named Arafat.

The world according to Tom Friedman and his newspaper is supposed to
show deep compassion for Third World nations who have not embraced
modernity and continue to wallow in poverty, fundamentalism,
desperation and a hatred of democracy. Assigning blame for their
pathetic lives to Israel, Jews and Americans is the convenient road for
the amoral left and their third world coconspirators. The Stockholm
Syndrome, where people relate to the causes of their evil kidnappers,
has infected media brains, making the liberal left complicit with
anti-American and antisemitic values.

How much attention was given by the media Friedmans to the stories
where Hutus murdered hundreds of thousands of Tutsis in Rwanda?
Virtually nothing was mentioned because black on black genocide does
not quite matter to the liberal media nearly as much as when the
stronger party is a white Christian American or a Jew; even if their
acts were done in self-defense.

To be very clear, the Palestinian people overwhelmingly (68%) would
like another Holocaust to be brought upon the Jews of Israel. They pray
for Israel, this miniscule Jewish state, to be destroyed. Yet the Tom
Friedman's of the world do not wish to acknowledge this reality because
it is simply too painful. Sometimes truth hurts just like a disease and
is the reason why Friedman has called terrorism "sick" and not evil.
Since his nice Jewish mother probably wanted little Tom to be Dr.
Friedman, he still wishes to fix "sickness" and make it all better.
Since real evil can only be "fixed" through physical destruction or
war, acts for which leftists have visceral reactions, Friedman
conveniently keeps the terminology in the realm of "medicine."

A majority of Americans and Jews understand their unique role in the
world. Unfortunately, Thomas Friedman does not know his own role. He
rationalizes along the lines of Europeans who believe that if we do
enough good things, we will all be loved. Friedman does not realize
that the rest of the world is overwhelmingly wrong, while America and
Israel have been absolutely right in virtually all of their unilateral
actions. However, just like little boys, Tom, Yossi and Shimon do not
care as much about morality, right or wrong. They care most about
winning a popularity contest.

It is the liberal media that has overwhelmingly been saying for the
past few years, "America and Israel must win the hearts and minds of
the Arab and Muslim world." How can you convince them of America's
goodness or Israel's decency, when you cannot convince The New York
Times?


Irwin N. Graulich is a leading motivational speaker on politics,
ethics, religion and Judaism. He is also president of a leading
marketing, branding and communications firm in New York City.


Irwin N. Graulich is a well known motivational speaker on morality, ethics, religion and politics. He is also President and CEO of a leading marketing, branding and communications company in New York City. He can be reached at irwin.graulich@verizon.net

Reprinted by permission.