Thomas Friedman has written a plethora of articles on the Israeli situation. He has been logically consistent: the most civilized country in the Middle East should rely on others, not itself, for its own defense. The IDF should employ the carrot, not the stick. That country should engage in diplomacy, not warfare. Most importantly, Israel should not focus all that much on its present situation, but, instead, should invest more resources, time, and energy in coming up with a long-term plan for what will occur when hostilities cease.
His latest contribution to this debate, "Why Everything Is Suddenly Spiraling for Israel," consists of more of the same. Stuff and nonsense. Even the word "spiraling" is problematic. Yes, things from the Israel side are "spiraling." Everything is always and forever "spiraling." Friedman's career is "spiraling," as is the stature of his employer, the New York Times. I am spiraling. You are spiraling. But, in what direction are we, they, "spiraling?" That is the key question. Hard on the heels of the explosions of pagers and walkie-talkies, are things spiraling upward or downward for Israel? This Grey Lady columnist says in the latter direction. I say in the former.
Finally, finally, the only democracy in the Middle East has seriously rapped the knuckles of its enemy to the north. The Hezbollah is in more disarray, thanks to the explosions of these handheld devices of theirs, and also, finally, finally, some serious bombing of their military capacity than ever before, at least in recent history. But instead of congratulating Israel for these initiatives, our author is condemning the only Jewish state on the planet. What Israel should do now is pummel them a bit more, quite a bit more, and then invade and wipe out this viper's nest. And, if, at the end of hostilities, Israel occupies quite a bit of Lebanon, so be it. Let that territory go the way of the Golan Heights. Do not allow the Eisenhower of the day to compel them to leave as this former president did for the Sinai Peninsula.
Friedman mentions the "unfolding of an Iranian grand strategy to slowly destroy the Jewish state, weaken America's Arab allies, and undermine US influence in the region – while deterring Israel from ever attacking Iran's nuclear facilities – by using Iranian proxies to bleed Israel to death." No, no, no, the reason Israel has not done to Iranian nuclear facilities what it previously did to those in Iraq is rather due to people like Friedman himself, who has been forever urging caution on Israel, demanding that the US administration curtail weapons shipments to that country, second-guessing them, engaging in Monday morning quarterbacking. If there is one legitimate criticism of Israel, apart from not fighting back more vociferously, it is that it did not develop a weapons industry of its own and instead relied upon fair-weather friends (and bitter enemies, too) such as in the Democratic Party in the US.
Friedman taxes Israel for having "resurrected their judicial coup attempt to crush the Israeli Supreme Court." Crush? Yes, indeed. The Likud party is valiantly attempting to convert their judicial system into one that is more closely aligned with that of the United States. In my country, when a Supreme Court judge retires or passes away, other divisions of government (the executive, congress) choose his replacement. In Israel, when this occurs, the other judges make this determination. Thus, the philosophical tenor of the Israeli Supreme Court never changes. Voters have no say in its makeup, even indirectly, as in the US. For those who favor democracy, this incestuous system should indeed be "crushed."
Friedman is particularly incensed that Israel is not "planning an exit strategy." Did the Allies spend much time doing any such thing in the midst of World War II? Not to my recollection. And no supporter of this side of that conflagration ever criticized them for his lacuna. Well, then, why "waste time" reforming a totalitarian Supreme Court during wartime? The latter is crucial in the conduct of defense of the country, the former is simply not. First, let us conquer the enemy. What to do then will depend intimately, in any case, on how that episode ends.
Then, there is the constant refrain that the "Political interests of the prime minister and the messianic ideological interests of his coalition" are to blame. His coalition partners are urging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to take a firmer stand and ignore public opinion and the views of the "Arab street," which is all to the good. As for this prime ministers political interests, this is a disgraceful calumny. No jury of his peers would ever place this war hero in prison. If Friedman et al. are so worried about this, why do they not urge a pardon for him so that he cannot take this possible jailing into account? That would obviate the scurrilous and unjustified claim that "Bibi has prioritized his personal political security over Israel's national security." I now claim, with equal justification, that Friedman is in the pay of Iran, following their orders to annihilate Israel (I don't for a moment believe that; this is only a reduction).
The solution offered by this scholar is a "ring of peace" to be comprised of "the Palestinian Authority and Saudi Arabia" and presumably other Arab countries. This is truly a weak reed. Yes, the Donald Trump Abraham Accords was a good step in the direction of making peace with neighboring nations, but to rely on them for the very survival of the country is ludicrous. Should the US rely on Canada and Mexico for its defense or on its own armed might?
I must give credit where credit is due: Friedman does indeed mention the "ultimatums" continually imposed upon Israel by the US. But he favors these and wishes for more of them. Is this the sort of interaction to be utilized by one ally upon another? Is Israel an out-of-control teenager in need of discipline, or is it a sovereign nation? To ask this is to answer it from the perspective of this quarter.
Friedman objects to Bibi "playing footsie" with Trump. Why ever should he not? When Netanyahu addressed the US Congress, he received many standing ovations, mostly from Republicans. Many of the Democrats were too busy with other important obligations to even attend. That is, many of them are part of the BDS movement. Meanwhile, Trump moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, was instrumental in the promotion of the Abraham Accords, and is a true friend of Israel. It is a shonda that so many Jews vote the way they do.
Friedman takes strong exception to "Israel's settler occupation over Palestinians in the West Bank," which is being done "increasingly violently." First of all, there is no "West Bank." Rather, there is Judea and Samaria. Secondly, these territories properly belong to the Jews, not the present occupants. Third, who started the violence? Which group engaged in pogroms against the other? This author ought to read up a bit on the history of that area.
Friedman properly castigates past Israeli practice of "Clear, leave, come back, clear again the same place, leave again, come back and clear again." This is sometimes known as "mowing the lawn." But this time, matters are very different. This time, thanks to the prime minister of Israel, they are determined to end these incursions, these rockets, these suicide bombings, once and for all. This time, Israel wishes to conquer its enemies, not administer slaps on the wrist, hoping for peace. And Friedman's reaction? I will let the reader answer that one.
Friedman properly bewails, "Four young Israeli soldiers killed … battling Hamas in Gaza." But why are so many members of the IDF dying? It is, to a great degree, because the Israeli military takes herculean steps to safeguard the lives of Palestinian civilians. It is a difficult task when Hamas places rocket and drone launchers in the midst of hospitals, Mosques, schools, and residential areas. No military in the entire history of warfare does more to reduce enemy collateral damage, and none gets blamed more for so doing.
Then, there is his continual support for a "two-state solution." What about applying this to a "two-state solution" for Nazi Germany? Why shouldn't they have had a state of their own after World War II? Couldn't we trust them to behave better after they were conquered and presumably learned their lesson? The Hamas constitution calls for the death of all Jews. They are very popular among the Gazans. These are the very people who will comprise that second state. Hey, I know where we should have located that second Nazi state. Right near wherever it is that Friedman lives. I have another idea. Do you want a two-state solution between the river and the sea? Fine. Let us have two different Jewish states. One for the leftie, pinko socialists, who love the Supreme Court just as it is, and one for sensible Israelis. My prediction: the former will end up like East Germany and North Korea, the other like West Germany and South Korea. Unless that is, the woke Israeli country comes to its senses.
In conclusion, no truer words were ever written that these by Friedman: "The Jewish state of Israel is in grave, grave danger today." And the fault? A too timid IDF (due to a totally warranted fear of supposed allies pulling the rug from under its feet), as well as the undermining of justice by this author himself, and the lack of a domestic munitions industry in Israel.
