A Jewish friend who leans right offers a shorthand way to understand how Americans see Israel. Liberals, he says, love Jews and hate Israel, while conservatives reverse the pattern.
It’s a crude calculation, but The New York Times is proving his point about liberals. The nonstop screeds against the Jewish state on its opinion pages have left the field of politics and entered the realm of prejudice, so much so that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is citing its bias in refusing to write an article for the paper.
Times columnists “constantly distort the positions of our government and ignore the steps it has taken to advance peace,” a top Netanyahu aide writes in rejecting an offer from the paper. “They cavalierly defame our country by suggesting that marginal phenomena condemned by Prime Minister Netanyahu, and virtually every Israeli official, somehow reflect government policy or Israeli society as a whole.”
In the rejection letter, first obtained by the Jerusalem Post, the aide says that of the last 20 opinion pieces published by The Times about Israel, 19 were negative.
The latest example it cites was a column last week by Thomas Friedman. The piece was so scurrilous that it alone justifies the boycott.
In the column, Friedman describes himself as a secular American Jew who cares about Israel. But his disdain makes it clear he doesn’t like the country. Worse, he crosses the line that separates opinion from bigotry.
To dismiss the standing ovations members of Congress from both parties gave Netanyahu last May, Friedman resorts to a slur that recalls a staple of anti-Semites.
“That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israeli lobby,” The Times’ columnist declared.
He offers no support or example, as though the Jews-equal-money connection is so obvious it doesn’t require evidence. Such paranoid assertions are routine in crackpot circles, but the appearance in The Times under Friedman’s byline is shocking and will offer aid and comfort to enemies of Israel.
It is also an attack on America, as if our foreign policy is for sale to the highest bidder. Implicit is the charge that no smart and honest American, Jewish or otherwise, could possibly support the conservative policies of Netanyahu or recognize Israel as a vital ally in the war against terror.
Friedman’s list of everything he detests includes the Republican presidential candidates who support Netanyahu, Israel’s domestic politics and its relations with Palestinians.
He sprinkles in the baiting language of “apartheid” and “ethnic-cleansing” that is standard fare in anti-Israel circles from Turtle Bay to Tehran.
The result is a column that inadvertently showcases how liberals think about Israel and virtually every other aspect of modern life: Anybody who doesn’t agree with them is either stupid or corrupt. Only they have legitimate motives and views.
Not surprisingly, Friedman’s prejudices echo those of President Obama, an occasional golfing partner. Perhaps the golf course is where they share their cockamamie views that Israel, rather than Arab violence and deep hatred of Jews, is the impediment to Mid-East peace.
Friedman, naturally, leaves out the facts that don’t fit this view. He never mentions Hamas, a terror group that continues to fire rockets into Israeli towns and vows to eliminate the Jewish state.
Nor does he mention that many Democrats who also stood for Netanyahu last May are at odds with Obama’s policies, including on Iran. They see the president’s one-sided demand for concessions from Israel as putting a bull’s-eye on the country.
Friedman also could have noted the recent special election in New York to replace the disgraced Anthony Weiner.
Thanks to former Mayor Ed Koch, the race became a referendum on Obama’s treatment of Israel, with the result that many Jews and Catholics who usually vote Democratic switched to elect Republican Bob Turner.
I e-mailed Friedman to see if he had second thoughts about his column. I got no response, which I take to mean he has no defense.
Mike and Andy in big chill
Last week was not kind to Mayor Bloomberg but, thanks to his deteriorating relationship with Gov. Cuomo, the worst may be yet to come.
The big setback involved Stanford’s decision to withdraw from the contest to build a new campus on Roosevelt Island. It was a personal blow because the mayor had wooed the university’s president, John Hennessy.
Last May, Bloomberg told me he had played golf with Hennessy and felt a deal was on track. Cornell might now win the prize, which includes $100 million of subsidies. The Ivy League school is a good catch, but not the one the mayor wanted.
Yet it’s a spate of lesser issues that spell trouble with Cuomo, as the governor flexes his muscles.
Openly critical of City Hall’s bid to expand taxi service outside Manhattan, he is throwing up roadblocks to the legislation. In a brassy move onto Bloomberg’s turf, he summoned the city’s taxi head and reportedly was brutal in his rebukes.
There also was a tough tone on the World Trade Center site, with Cuomo saying in a radio interview that a dispute about costs could lead to litigation. Bloomberg, caught off guard, rejected Cuomo’s claim that the Sept. 11 museum owed the Port Authority as much as $300 million.
“We don’t think we owe anything,” the mayor said.
The problem for Bloomberg is that he is nearing the end of his tenure and his already-weak hand in Albany is being eclipsed by Cuomo. The governor, after breaking a campaign pledge not to hike taxes, is regarded as a star in Democratic circles. Even state Republicans, shunned by Bloomberg to become an independent, are lining up with Cuomo.
Moreover, the two don’t like each other, a fact that magnifies policy and political differences.
The real test will be whether they can agree on pension reform and mandate relief that will benefit taxpayers. Both men say they support the ideas.
That’s what they said about the taxi plan and the trade center.
Not to worry . . .
Embarrassed French leaders, their country close to losing its AAA credit rating, are desperate to spin the blow. “It wouldn’t be good news, of course, but it would not be cataclysmic either,” foreign minister Alain Juppé told reporters.
That’s “defining deviancy down” European-style. Everything is OK as long as the world doesn’t end.
Losing coveted title by mere inches
Life continues to be unfair. Guinness World Records names a 24.7 inch Indian woman as the shortest on Earth. She takes the crown from an Illinois woman who is 2 feet, three inches tall.
Imagine that. You stand only 27 inches high and you’re too tall.
Mitt making points with the humorists
Steve Forbes, speaking at David Malpass’ GroPac lunch, got a big laugh when he said this about Mitt Romney’s economic plan: “Romney has 59 points to save the economy. God only needed 10 to save the world.”