Posted on 02/06/2015 5:23:02 AM PST by SJackson
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who has repeatedly claimed that Israel controls Washington, is warning that if Israel's prime minister addresses Congress next month, "anti-Semites will claim Israel controls Washington."
Does Friedman really believe that? Or is he cynically using Jewish fears of anti-Semitism to stir opposition to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?
In an emotion-laden February 4 column, Friedman mustered every argument in his arsenal against the invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress. It would be "churlish," "reckless," and even "dangerous," Friedman thundered. He revealed that he has "polled many of [his] non-Jewish friends…and they don't really like this."
The notion that non-Jews dislike the invitation is one of the major arguments of Friedman's column. He cites it again and again, most notably when he declares that if Israel's prime minister goes ahead with the address, "anti-Semites, who claim Israel controls Washington, will have a field day."
Yet it is Friedman himself who has repeatedly given them that field.
Recall, for example, his New York Times column of February 5, 2004, in which he wrote that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has "had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office…surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who's ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates…"
To make sure that nobody missed the implications of a Zionist conspiracy, Friedman added that Sharon, Jewish lobbyists, Cheney, and unnamed "political handlers" were "all conspiring to make sure the president does nothing [regarding Israel].”
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Duh!
Here we have a man with a disordered mind, worrying about what people with seriously disordered minds, might be thinking. How strange!
We have three separate branches of government. Why would Friedman be concerned about what one of these three branches wants to do?
“Or is he cynically using Jewish fears of anti-Semitism to stir opposition to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?”
That one, and why not? There is no downside for him. It will work, at least to some extent.
Non-Jews do oppose his coming.
They are the activists on our college campuses, the Nation of Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Democrats at the 2012 DNC convention who booed God and Israel, etc. etc.
Tommy is afraid of his team behaving badly in public.
A better question would be, "Why does anyone give a flying crap about anything this vile and demented ignoramus called Thomas Friedman spews forth?"
He must believe it’s best for Jews to keep quiet and hide in the basement. Mustn’t arouse the anti-Semites. After all, this strategy worked so well in the 1930’s.
Friedman is what we call a liberal “house Jew”.
This is of course nuts. The administration has opposed this with everything its got.
And most Jews, most Jews with political influence, and most Jewish money backs the administration.
Most US Jews do not, however, back Israel. That seems to be a permanent split now. Republicans, however, do.
In Friedmans case the argument is US Jew vs Israeli Jew.
” Friedman is what we call a liberal “house Jew”.”
I’ll bet they hate him in Israel too : )
The dems are being their usual hypocritical selves whining about Bibi’s vist when they themselves brought Cameron to speak before congress to support THEIR foreign policy. But even so I still think that Bibi’s gambit could possibly backfire on him. The msm is gonna be all over him and not in a good way either.
And the week before the announcement of the invitation, the WH had Cameron calling Senators one on one. I’d prefer an address, in public, to private phone calls to Senators from a head of state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.