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.
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?
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.
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.
Is this that NYTs writer who’s another leftist gigolo, married to an heiress and living off her money?
Yes, Rothman deserves some credit, since it is somewhat surprising that a Democrat congressman would sharply criticize a well-known New York Times writer on any subject in the Age of Obama.
It should be noted that Rothman himself is in a competitive district and could not help but take notice of the upset victory by a Republican over a Jewish Democrat in NY-9 last September in a district with a large number of Jewish and pro-Israel voters. I'll commend him for his on-target denunciation of Friedman, with the caveat that it could be at least partly be politically calculated.
You might recall when Rothman hesitated at first about following the 'Rat party line on Obamacare, but then acquiesced to Pelosi's command, claiming that his rabbi convinced him to vote for it. Really?
Truth! Friedman should takea long walk off a short pier
Yes.
Friedman is an arrogant ass - his arrogance fueled by two Pulitzers awarded for spouting the party line - who would rather we lived under a Red-Chinese-style dictatorship (benevolent of course!) than our representative republic system. His anti-Semitism flows from his all-knowing wisdom.
Friedman is an arrogant ass - his arrogance fueled by two Pulitzers awarded for spouting the party line - who would rather we lived under a Red-Chinese-style dictatorship (benevolent of course!) than our representative republic system. His anti-Semitism flows from his all-knowing wisdom.