Posted on 12/25/2011 7:02:33 AM PST by SJackson
After a lifetime of studying the left, I have concluded that leftism is a form of moral poison. It causes otherwise decent and kind people who take it into their systems to say and/or do cruel and sometimes evil things.
While not specifically about the left, a major new scholarly book, "Pathological Altruism" (Oxford University Press), explores this phenomenon of people wanting to do good things yet ending up doing bad. It applies to The New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas L. Friedman, who has a deep altruistic urge to bring peace to the Middle East. But because he sees the world through the liberal/left prism, he says morally reprehensible things -- statements that individuals associated with hate-filled, non-altruistic groups and ideologies would make.
In his Dec. 13 column, yet another of his attacks on Israel and its supporters, Friedman wrote: "The standing ovation (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) got in Congress this year was ... bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."
If a non-Jew had written this, he would have been severely condemned for writing something outright anti-Semitic. The notion that Jews manipulate the levers of power in Western societies for their own nefarious ends is probably the most enduring of all the West's Jew-hating myths. It was a staple of Nazi anti-Semitism and is the single most repeated charge of those in the Arab and larger Muslim worlds who seek to annihilate Israel, since its purpose is to convince people that non-Jews who support Israel have been paid off by Jews.
But Friedman, who is a Jew and a liberal, can get away with it -- even though it is so morally repulsive that Jew-haters can now assert they are merely quoting a well-known Jew. Who's going to call him on it? The New York Times?
To his credit, one congressman did condemn Friedman. Rep. Steven R. Rothman (D-N.J.) released this statement: "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 U.S. Mr. Friedman is not only wrong, but he's aiding and abetting a dangerous narrative about the U.S.-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."
Friedman's charge, as Rothman points out, is not only "scurrilous, destructive and harmful" to Israel, but it is also a lie. The Congress of the United States -- including Republicans who have virtually no Jews in their district or state -- supports Israel for the same reasons Harry Truman recognized Israel against the advice of the U.S. State Department, Richard Nixon saved Israel during the 1973 War despite his anger at Jewish liberals, and Dick Cheney vigorously supported Israel despite Wyoming's having almost no Jewish population. They all believed that Israel shares America's moral values, while Israel's enemies (who happen to hate America as well as Israel) do not.
So how does Mr. Friedman, whom I assume is an honorable man and well-intentioned seeker of peace in the Middle East, write something that is equally mendacious and hateful, that abets anti-Semitism and that labels every pro-Israel congressman and senator a political whore?
Because he is a man of the left.
When good people adopt the leftist worldview, they eventually support ideas and say things that are cruel. Thomas Friedman did not write this anti-Semitic libel because he is an anti-Semite. Of course he is not an anti-Semite. He wrote it because he is a leftist.
Leftism poisons everything it influences -- from journalism to the arts to universities to religion to government to male-female relations. And ultimately leftism poisons character. This does not mean that everyone with left-wing views becomes a bad person, and it doesn't mean that everyone with conservative views is a good person. Both judgments are untrue and foolish.
But it does mean that leftism leads to pathologic altruism, i.e., bad things done by people with pure intentions. Just as Mahatma Gandhi's hatred of violence led him to tell the Jews of Europe not to resist Hitler, so too has leftism led decent people who would weep at Israel's destruction to mouth the very same lies about Israel as those who seek its annihilation.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
If a non-Jew had written this, he would have been severely condemned for writing something outright anti-Semitic.
Unless, of course, that non-Jew was a DemocRAT.
Marx is Friedman’s god.
“... moral poison.”
Ain’t no question about it—they and their ideology are totally corrupt by their/its very nature.
Bookmark
The Thomas Friedman who said “Janet Reno for President” after the raid grabbing Elian from his uncle? The Thomas Friedman who envies the political system of the Red Chinese, who can prioritize the high speed rail that transports his fat behind in royal comfort to the airport while allowing the peasantry to eat cardboard? That “morally good” Thomas Friedman?
American liberal Jews are leftists first, Americans second, and Jews third. They speak of the Jews as if in third person because they no longer have any moral or religious connection to them.
Morally superior probably more apt.
Because Mr. Friedman is neither honorable nor well-intentioned. He is a self-hating Jewish liberal and anti-Semite. He's, in Lenin's terminology, a “useful idiot”.
If Friedman ever got what he wants — the destruction of Israel and a second Holocaust — how long does he think he'll survive until the Muslim killers come for him?
You can say the same thing about any liberal. It’s a disease where they feel guilty for their own existence and hate their own culture/race. Despite this, they have absolutely no trouble helping themselves to Society’s goodie bag.
The latest insult is a case of “Same whore, different dress”. This sort of thing has been going on for a long time.
From the article: “...The New York Times​ foreign affairs columnist Thomas L. Friedman, who has a deep altruistic urge to bring peace to the Middle East.”
Friedman is another socialism impaired Jew, what one may accurately dub “an Offen Juden”. As with vastly too many Jews, Friedman follows those deluded Jews who survived the ovens of Nazi Germany and went to Israel (and America) but kept more faith with socialism than the Torah.
Note carefully, that G*d gave specific commands to the Jews regarding how the Canaanites were to be dealt with. The Jews decided they knew better than G*d and did not follow his commandments. Surprise, surprise, surprise - G*d knew more about those Canaanites than the Jews.
Had the Jews followed G*d’s commandments, the MidEast would now have no Arabs.
Anyone casually discounting the possibility of the existence of Divine Wisdom need only remember G*d’s insight into the basic nature of those who are now known as Arabs.
I don’t think this writer captured the full degree of anger that Friedman expressed in his column towards Jews and those who support them. He appeared to be very angry about the support that the Republican Presidential candidates were giving to Israel, calling it “groveling” before their Jewish audience.
Friedman’s column reminded me of what used to happen decades ago when people used to come out for equal rights for Blacks - those people were called “nigger lovers.”
Sorry, Mr. Prager, but I no longer subscribe to the theory that leftists are well-intending people who just make the wrong decisions.
They are evil, pure and simple, and their decisions are calculated to produce the greatest harm while granting them the greatest degree of wealth absolute power over the greatest number of human beings, their goal the entire time.
I only need to picture the likes of Barbara Boxer and Maxine Waters to inspire my view.
Arabs aren't Canaanites, they're long gone, though you're correct it not a result of obeying Commandments.
Some, probably most, are. That many on the left embrace evil to produce wealth and particularly power is clear to me, though they don't recognize evil amongst their own. Were Shimon Peres or Ehud Barak receiving the ovation from Congress rather than Bibi, Friedman would be ecstatic. And they would receive applause, but Tom understands it would be a function of their proper views, so no need to bring age old antisemitic conspiracies into the conversation.
All right gang, here it is:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir—Thomas Friedman, NYT, 12/13/2011
“I have a simple motto when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I love both Israelis and Palestinians, but God save me from some of their American friends — those who want to love them to death, literally.
That thought came to mind last week when Newt Gingrich took the Republican competition to grovel for Jewish votes — by outloving Israel — to a new low by suggesting that the Palestinians are an “invented” people and not a real nation entitled to a state.
This was supposed to show that Newt loves Israel more than Mitt Romney, who only told the Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom that he would move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem because “I don’t seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel’s leaders thought that a move of that nature would be helpful to their efforts, then that’s something I’ll be inclined to do. ... I don’t think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process. Instead, we should stand by our ally.”
That’s right. America’s role is to just applaud whatever Israel does, serve as its A.T.M. and shut up. We have no interests of our own. And this guy’s running for president?
As for Newt, well, let’s see: If the 2.5 million West Bank Palestinians are not a real people entitled to their own state, that must mean Israel is entitled to permanently occupy the West Bank and that must mean — as far as Newt is concerned — that Israel’s choices are: 1) to permanently deprive the West Bank Palestinians of Israeli citizenship and put Israel on the road to apartheid; 2) to evict the West Bank Palestinians through ethnic cleansing and put Israel on the road to the International Criminal Court in the Hague; or 3) to treat the Palestinians in the West Bank as citizens, just like Israeli Arabs, and lay the foundation for Israel to become a binational state. And this is called being “pro-Israel”?
I’d never claim to speak for American Jews, but I’m certain there are many out there like me, who strongly believe in the right of the Jewish people to a state, who understand that Israel lives in a dangerous neighborhood yet remains a democracy, but who are deeply worried about where Israel is going today. My guess is we’re the minority when it comes to secular American Jews. We still care. Many other Jews are just drifting away.
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.
It confuses them to read that Israel’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who met with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia last Wednesday, was quoted as saying that the recent Russian elections were “absolutely fair, free and democratic.” Yes, those elections — the ones that brought thousands of Russian democrats into the streets to protest the fraud. Israel’s foreign minister sided with Putin.
It confuses them to read that right-wing Jewish settlers attacked an Israeli army base on Tuesday in the West Bank, stoning Israeli soldiers in retaliation for the army removing “illegal” settlements that Jewish extremists establish wherever they want.
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.’ ”
It confuses them to read a Financial Times article from Israel on Monday, that said: “In recent weeks, the country has been consumed by an anguished debate over a series of new laws and proposals that many fear are designed to stifle dissent, weaken minority rights, restrict freedom of speech and emasculate the judiciary. They include a law that in effect allows Israeli communities to exclude Arab families; another that imposes penalties on Israelis advocating a boycott of products made in West Bank Jewish settlements; and proposals that would subject the supreme court to greater political oversight.”
And it confuses them to read Gideon Levy, a powerful liberal voice, writing in Haaretz, the Israeli daily, this week that “anyone who says this is a matter of a few inconsequential laws is leading others astray. ... What we are witnessing is w-a-r. This fall a culture war, no less, broke out in Israel, and it is being waged on many more, and deeper, fronts than are apparent. It is not only the government, as important as that is, that hangs in the balance, but also the very character of the state.”
So while Newt is cynically asking who are the Palestinians, he doesn’t even know that more than a few Israelis are asking, “Who are we?”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So he cherry-picks a few articles and statements by self-hating Israeli leftys and implies the Israelis are going Nazi on Arabs and liberals, and tries to blow enough hot air into them to make it look like the country is having a national meltdown and strongly implies that American joooz should have a crisis of confidence and backpedal in distaste.
Of course, he states baldly that Newt Gingrich was not speaking out of principle but just groveling for shekels and sets up a set of false choices implying that Newt’s support of Israel must mean he supports anti-Palestinian genocide.
I’ll admit I would like to know more about this supposed Avigdor Lieberman quote supporting Pooty but otherwise I see some mighty thin gruel being presented as evidence of Israel’s slide into barbarism.
Liberalism’s almost supernatural ability to side with evil in any question or dispute is truly amazing.
His anger is focused on conservatives, not Jews.
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.