Dar Al-Hayat: Friedman's Problem

[La_Serpiente]

Friedman's Problem

Could the famous New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman be accused of anti-Semitism? I read his articles this month without finding anything controversial in them. They reflected his extensive knowledge, especially in matters of the Middle East, which I follow.

I was surprised to discover that The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) - i.e. required to cover up the crimes of the Israeli government - attacked two of Friedman's articles, which were deemed anti-Semitic, even if the writer did not intend it as such. (There is an Internet list of 700 people, which it considers enemies of Israel, with some being the most decent people).

The writer did not mean that, and his articles are certainly not anti-Semitic. The reason behind the Likudnik anger at this Liberal writer is because he said on February 5, that Ariel Sharon did not release prisoners to help the then Palestinian premier, Mahmoud Abbas. Friedman noted on February 12 that Sharon effectively released prisoners, but the number was restricted to an extent that it had no effect.

The February 12 article created a tumult that has not cool down yet. Friedman said that Sharon did not help Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen), and did not promise him anything concerning the issue of settlements, or easing suffering at checkpoints.

more...

Friedman's Problem

[Zhade]

1. Friedman? Liberal?

Friedman's biggest problem is that he's a complete fucking moron who isn't fit to shine Krugman's shoes. A total hack.

[Aidoneus]

2. yes, Friedman is a "liberal"

he provides a valuable service in putting a "liberal" face to US imperialist tendencies, speaking the same very points to an audience that would be offended by Cheney or Perle. The Times, being an outlet to such an audience, appreciates this service.

[Zhade]

3. Hmm. A neoliberal, then.

I understand Greg Palast thinks very little of this one-note nutjob. Good endorsement, in my book!

[Aidoneus]

4. indeed

it also helps that he's pretty much oblivious to himself.. I don't suppose he has the luxury of being as self-deprecating as I can be, but for all of his occasional viciousness and other tendecies I think it is matched by sincerity.. which may be worse? At least his peers can be dismissed as hypocrites, he seems to geniunely believe his own bullshit as both virtuous and beneficial.

[Zhade]

5. A true believer in evil policies is far worse than a mere opportunist.

NT!