Thomas Friedman, why don't you break up?

However I'm not prepared to defend a state wherein a majority is privileged in law as they are in Israel. Apartheid is the appropriate term, although not of much use when trying to mend fences or make peace treaties. One big problem for me is that the state of Israel--dedicated as it is to Jewish sovereignty over an (increasingly large) part of the Holy Land--has sort of coopted Zionism and a large chuck of Jewish identity along with it. In fact c. 1948 there were many Jews in Palestine, Europe, and the United States who were opposed to the "war of independence."

Umberto Eco wrote a wonderful essay regarding geographic demographics and migration; I believe it's the fifth one in "Five Moral Pieces".

The point is, whether or not you agree with the fundamental philosophy which fostered Zionism, the migration already happened, the people are there now. It's been fifty years since the state was established. To call them Zionists still would be like calling Andrew Jackson a revolutionary and traitor to the British.

Actually, many white farmers in Zimbabwe are leaving for the UK, so it's not inconceivable, although it should be.

(btw. there is no 'white' in that Microdisney album title, but I always add in my head)

his position towards goyim criticizing Israel, however, isn't that far removed from an ipso facto assumption that any non-Jew that criticizes Israel is an anti-Semite. friedman's position seems to be, "if you feel you must criticize Israel, then you should list every other country in the Mideast that abuses human rights." i hope that i don't have to explain precisely why this argument is a classic red herring (i will anyway -- we aren't pissing off Muslim extremists because we turn a blind eye to, say, Syrian human rights abuses; not to mention the fact that it's no excuse that it's no excuse to Israeli human rights abuses that Syria or any other Mideast country also abuses human rights). at any rate, this position isn't much of an improvement on the usual "if you criticize Israel you're an anti-Semite" bullshit.

I haven't noticed the anti-Semite-baiting specifically in Friedman's columns, but that's because I've ignored them lately. That attitude--and the red herring you mention--is certainly prevalent on the op ed pages of American newspapers. The ADL (Anti-Defamation League) is particularly good at couching this lame argument in terms that don't seem as outrageous as they should.

There was a forum at the University of Chicago which was attended by Jews and Palestinians and others, meant to address the very issue you mention--it was called "On the Difference Between Anti-Semitism and Criticism of Israeli Policy." It was largely organized in response to this odious organization (see this page for a glaring series of misrepresentations of Israel-Palestian politics on the U of C campus). Unfortunately in my opinion the event was very poorly organized and degenerated into a screaming match.

There are groups around the country trying to widen the range of acceptable discourse among Jews -- such as Not in My Name. A few prominent local Jews in Chicago have tried to blackball this and other groups, temporarily keeping them from having speakers at certain colleges and synagogues, but in general the trend has been for previously wary congregations to accept speakers from NIMN, Yesh Gvul, etc.

I think it's very promising. The problem you identify still remains, but steps have been taken. The gulf between Jewish and other critics of Israel was once very large; I could sense that from attending both NIMN events and Palestinian-American political events. But increasingly I see dialogue happening, between the Jewish community (and not just the Jewish left) and other critics of Israel.

Sorry to go on so long. It's an issue I feel strongly about. Hopefully the ADL won't come up again, because my skin will boil.

I remember hanging out with Khalidi's daughter when I was little, while my mom and her dad were at political meetings. They had Free Palestine stickers and I remember being taken a little aback, having been given the standard "Palestinians are evil" line in the first few years of Hebrew school. (The racist things that would come out of my Hebrew school teachers' mouths are not fit to print, in some cases.)

yeah, didn't the ADL use to monitor the Christian right? it is sad to see how they've degenerated, and how otherwise-OK folks affiliated with them have been tainted both by the ADL and defending the Likud (Dershowitz comes immediately to mind, but I digress).

it is good that some Jewish people realize that the Christian Right really aren't their friends, or true friends of Israel. the Jesus Freaks only "support" Israel because Israel has to exist (and the Temple has to be rebuilt) for the End Times -- and when that happens, any Jews who don't convert will die (who needs Hitler when Jesus is going to do the dirty work)? the real crime is that these religious fanatic wackos are driving foreign policy.

(n.b.: i agree that the smear job done to Said -- not to mention Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky -- has been truly disgusting. which doesn't mean that i agree 100% with any of the foregoing, but i do dislike the endless character assassinations that they have had to put up with from the Israel-über-alles claque.)

They also have those "diversity workshops" (is it "Teaching Tolerance"?) in high schools--I attended one such--which are totally banal and useless.

Yeah Dershowitz. I used to be a big fan of his, oh well. Safire isn't half as smart as he thinks he is. Friedman I'd like to read but more often than not I just skip over, which is really too bad. It's sad because even with some of my friends I've gotten this 'criticism of israel'=anti-semitism vibe. I was sort of thinking about how this might play into that "Ireland/Italy and America" thread that was going a while back. Obviously in this case there are way more complicated issues in play; the binding tie of religion, the establishment of Israel being a recent historical occurance, etc. I guess what in one case is a romanticization, in another becomes a protectiveness, a defensiveness.

I am not anti-Semitic, in any sense, but I do have difficulties with the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli government, and how such actions are either outright condoned or conveniently overlooked by the U.S. Government. I do think that Apartheid is the correct concept in this situation - and I can see both sides, to some extent. I can understand the anger and frustration of the Palestinians and I can understand the fear of the Israelis. What I cannot understand is why it is that two groups, with damn identical ancestors back in Biblical times, can't grow-up and quit acting like hot-headed adolescents squabbling and going-off half-cocked and all (er, sorry for that wording).

Basically, lots of shitty things have been done on both sides - hell, on all sides if you look at the actions of other countries in support of either side. But at some point we people need to get past this finger-pointing and name-calling and "let's just keep killing each other a fostering a sense of hatred and fear and anger" and say "Okay, here we are. And none of us are remotely happy with the situation. Now what can we do to rectify things so that we can at least live without being in fear 24/7?"

Yes, I know that the Israeli's say that they can't trust Arafat, and I think they're right - he is proving to be fairly ineffectual (though that doesn't mean that he's not trustworthy, just that he's not really helpful right now) and the Palestinian's say they don't trust Sharon, and they're right, too - he should be tried on crimes against humanity for what happened in the camps. So the people need to get new, sane leaders into office and agree that they (the people) will accept and work within a framework of peace.
Right now, though, I think that the two populations are so angry and scared that they cannot see any possible way of rectifing the situation. And that they're not being offered leaders that might be able to get the peace-talks moving, again. And this is horrible, and unacceptable. And I don't know what to suggest doing to make things better.

But I do think about making Jerusalem an "International" city - run by the U.N., with peace-keepers and such - basically "if you two kids can't quit squabbling over this toy (Jerusalem) then we're going to take it away and neither of you can have it until you learn to share." Isn't that what our parents and teachers told us? And didn't it, in most cases, work?

BTW is the "From the sea to the river - Palestine forever" slogan the Muslim Association of Britain had on its banners just a coded way of calling for the destruction of Israel? It disturbed me a bit.

One big problem for me is that the state of Israel--dedicated as it is to Jewish sovereignty over an (increasingly large) part of the Holy Land--has sort of coopted Zionism and a large chuck of Jewish identity along with it.

Safire is such an idiot. He's still apologizing for Tricky Dick's anti-Semitism. We know he got you the speechwritin' job, Bill, but that doesn't make him not an asshole!

Safire is beyond the pale.

Amateurist, if non-Jewish Israelis (and by this I don't mean the Palestinians in the occupied territories, although they support my argument as well) were treated as well as Jewish Israelis, I'd agree with you. Codified or not, there is a major difference between both, which is good enough for me for it to qualify as a non-secular state.

The mistreatment of Arab Israelis has always gone on, but it's gotten much worse since the recent intifada. Which has had the effect of radicalizing the Arab Israeli population. I believe we saw the first such suicide bomber a few months ago.

(Answer: James K. Polk)

(But Mr. Stencil, he has a salad named after him!)

Could you explain what that means? I'm not sure I get it.

The government condoning, as well as paying for, Jewish Israelis building settlements on the land of non-Jewish Israelis or even technically non-Israelis (i.e. those in the "Occupied Territories") seems to be a pretty blatant action based around being non-secular.

(So how does Polk Salad Annie figure into all this?)

The sad problem with the impulse Laura points out is that even then there's so much work to be done: even if we imagine both leaderships at the table in full good faith, it still has to be decided what really constitutes a valid and workable compromise. And it's daunting to think this can even be done, because it's impossible to think of the situation as really having two equal "sides." You have (a) a Palestinian leadership that doesn't even have much authority to make agreements on behalf of its people, as plenty of them are in open opposition to it, and (b) an slanted bargaining table, on which Israel holds 54 cards to begin with, and the only one Palestine holds are the really sad joker of terrorism (which everyone frowns on and affords Israel a "legitimate" right to exercise more of their might) and international sympathy, which is about as helpful as a 2 of spades.

Here's the relevant definition of "secular," from the OED:

Belonging to the world and its affairs as distinguished from the church and religion; civil, lay, temporal. Chiefly used as a negative term, with the meaning non-ecclesiastical, non-religious, or non-sacred.

There is no official church in Israel, the laws aren't based on religious law, religious practice is not mandated in schools, etc. There was always a tension between religious and secular Zionism (see my note on Zionisms upthread) and it was secular Zionism that largely won out in Israel, although there's the possibility that recent events will establish a different course.

By your formulation any chauvinist state, from Zimbabwe to Japan, could be considered non-secular.

Nabisco: don't mean to ignore your post. I wrote mine before it posted.

This doesn't make Israel any less of a secular state but it does make it hard for non-jews, secular jew and any non-orthodox jews with the conviction not to want to be married by an Orthodox Rabbi.

I don't see how def of Jewishness can be construed as national, and not as religious or ethnic (although the latter has probs too - there's obv. big differences between, say, Eastern European Jews and Ethiopian Jews).

what do Muslim and Christian Israelis do if they want to get married?

Legal system: mixture of English common law,
British Mandate regulations, and,
in personal matters, Jewish,
Christian, and Muslim legal
systems; in December 1985, Israel
informed the UN Secretariat that it
would no longer accept compulsory
ICJ jurisdiction

It would appear that muslims and christians can sort that one out for themselves, but it does suggest that for personal matters the Torah takes precedence to a certain extent.

in December 1985, Israel informed the UN Secretariat that it would no longer accept compulsory ICJ jurisdiction.

?

It's code for "Fuck you, we'll invade who we like"

I believe that Jews are not solely a religious grouping, and the first Zionists (first self-identified Zionists, not the messianic return-to-Palestine groups that have always existed no matter how small) believed this as well. In fact it was many religious Jews in E. Europe that were most opposed to Zionism--to the politicization or secularization of Jewish identity.

"Nation" per the OED:

An extensive aggregate of persons, so closely associated with each other by common descent, language, or history, as to form a distinct race or people, usually organized as a separate political state and occupying a definite territory.

Note the "usually." Jews are an instance of a nation without a state.

I'm not trying to assert this as common sense, although I think I may have given that impression. It's a contentious issue.

Zionism \Zi"on*ism\, n. [Zion + -ism.]
Among the Jews, a theory, plan, or movement for colonizing
their own race in Palestine, the land of Zion, or, if that is
impracticable, elsewhere, either for religious or
nationalizing purposes; -- called also {Zion movement}. --
{Zi"on*ist}, n. -- {Zi`on*is"tic}, a.

AOC/MTG

Cruz/Sanders

looooooooooooool

what a fool

Thomas Friedman, professional wise man, dreams things that never were and asks, "why not?"

I haven't actually read the column and don't see any need to, I'm just going to imagine it takes the form of a conversation with a commonsense taxi driver — an aspiring immigrant putting his son through Harvard by driving 23 hours a day and trading in crypto between fares, who just doesn't understand why "those people can't work together for all of us."

Saving a democratic system requires huge political sacrifice, added Levitsky. “It means A.O.C. campaigning for Liz Cheney” and it means Liz Cheney “putting on the shelf” many policy goals she and other Republicans cherish. “But that is what it takes, and if you don’t do it, just look back and see why democracy collapsed in countries like Germany, Spain and Chile. The democratic forces there should have done it, but they didn’t.”

Liz Cheney or facism. Not a choice, but an echo.

When you accidentally click a link to a new piece of his on Putin, shrug and vaguely read it, and then encounter this bit of combined sociopolitical and music criticism:

If you look at his behavior, it seems that Putin is quite frightened today by two subjects: arithmetic and Russian history.

To understand why these subjects frighten him, you need to first consider the atmosphere enveloping him — something neatly captured, as it happens, in lyrics from the song “Everybody Talks” by one of my favorite rock groups, Neon Trees. The key refrain is:

Hey, baby, won’t you look my way?
I can be your new addiction.
Hey, baby, what you got to say?
All you’re giving me is fiction.
I’m a sorry sucker, and this happens all the time.
I find out that everybody talks.
Everybody talks, everybody talks.
It started with a whisper.

One of the biggest lessons I’ve learned as a foreign affairs writer reporting from autocratic countries is that no matter how tightly controlled a place is, no matter how brutal and iron-fisted its dictator, EVERYBODY TALKS.

Tom Friedman has Still Got It pic.twitter.com/LuMI8CBucn

— Keith Harris (@useful_noise) May 7, 2023

does anyone know what year this photo is from

https://i.imgur.com/jjJGUfk.png

Year of the Walrus

I sometimes think about the time a C-suite exec at my then-employer was speaking at a departmental meeting and went on a tangent about something in Friedman's The World is Flat book and I left thinking... wow, I don't know about this exec

and he was gone from the company within the year

I remember Taibbi's classic take-down of that book. I wonder which of them is worse these days though.

I think Friedman's never tried to be unorthodox and if someone's coming to his work and picking up ideas from it, that's... probably an indictment of how well-informed they are

His writing can be terrible but it's just an articulation of things his readers already believe, but haven't written bad articles about

absolute king shit

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFbhdU9XAAAUPFv?format=jpg&name=900x900

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFb_ZW_XUAAndy3?format=jpg&name=small

also says My guess is that the next week or so is likely to be the most important in the Gaza war since Hamas launched it on Oct. 7.

just the least self-aware person in the world

When you have been spewing BS for so long you have no longer have a sense of the stench.

“Is there a better description of Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iraq today?”

I’m no Middle East expert, but I’m gonna go with yes here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/26/opinion/israel-war-rafah-riyadh.html

Friedman's got a great plan folks to solve all Mideast issues if you ignore what happened to Jamal Khashoggi, women and others in Saudi Arabia and those in Yemen (he mentions none of these drawbacks) --

the U.S.-Saudi-Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic-security deal that the administration is close to finalizing the terms of with the Saudi crown prince. It has several components, but the three key U.S.-Saudi ones are: 1) A mutual defense pact between the United States and Saudi Arabia that would take any ambiguity out of what America would do if Iran attacked Saudi Arabia. The United States would come to Riyadh’s defense, and vice versa. 2) Streamlining Saudi access to the most advanced U.S. weapons. 3) A tightly controlled civilian nuclear deal that would allow Saudi Arabia to reprocess its own uranium deposits for use in its own civilian nuclear reactor.

And last, the United States would bring together Israel, Saudi Arabia, other moderate Arab states and key European allies into a single, integrated security architecture to counter Iranian missile threats the way they did on an ad hoc basis when Iran attacked Israel on April 13 in retaliation for an Israeli strike on some senior Iranian military leaders suspected of running operations against Israel, who were meeting at an Iranian diplomatic compound in Syria. This coalition will not come together on any continued basis without Israel getting out of Gaza and committing to work toward Palestinian statehood. There is no way Arab states can be seen to be permanently protecting Israel from Iran if Israel is permanently occupying Gaza and the West Bank. U.S. and Saudi officials also know that without Israel in the deal, the U.S.-Saudi security components are not likely to ever get through Congress.

The Biden team wants to complete the U.S.-Saudi part of the deal so that it can act like the opposition party that Israel does not have

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/26/opinion/israel-war-rafah-riyadh.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nk0.rXgm.WH78ETdBDTbF&smid=url-share

Those renowned Saudi peacemakers.

To be fair, I think he's right the Saudis will have to play a role in any post-Israeli-offensive scenario. But the glib framing of his opening alone is impeachable.

Blinken is over there trying to do some of the above, but Friedman comes across as naive and simplistic about all aspects including the Saudi part

I asked Trump, when you get up in the morning, what do you read? Whom do you talk to? What information sources do you trust?

“Much of it is very basic,” Trump said. “I read the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. I read the Post and the News, not so much for business, just to sort of I live in the city and you know, it’s reporting on the city.” The New York Post covered Trump almost obsessively.

“I rely less on people than I do just this general flow of information,” he said. “I also speak to cabdrivers. I go to cities and say, what do you think of this? That’s how I bought Mar-a-Lago. Talking to a cabdriver and asking him, ‘What’s hot in Florida? What’s the greatest house in Palm Beach?’”

“Oh, the greatest house is Mar-a-Lago,” the cabdriver said.

“I said where is it? Take me over.” Trump then added, “I was in Palm Beach, I was in the Breakers, and I was bored stiff.”

Trump eventually bought Mar-a-Lago for $7 million.

(from an 1989 interview that bob woodward recently found in a storage closet)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/interactive/2024/bob-woodward-trump-interview-1989

if you have no idea how this connects to thomas friedman, then you probably think the world is not flat

TS: cab drivers around the world vs. real Americans in midwestern diners

as to who possesses the deepest of all truths about the universe. it's gotta be one of those 2 demographics right

Cab drivers of the world, unite and tell us anecdotes

I haven't read a Friedman column in forever, for obvious reasons, but I dipped into today's just to see what the headline was referring to. I was rewarded with typically tortured Friedman "word play."

It’s downright scary to watch this close up. President Trump is focused on what teams American transgender athletes can race on, and China is focused on transforming its factories with A.I. so it can outrace all our factories.

Still the king

I dislike the overuse of the word factories. "Transforming its factories... so it can outrace all our factories". That's just clumsy.

It should have been "transforming its factories... so it can leave us in the dust" or "beat us into a distant second place", or something.

My second thought was "does this column begin with Thomas Friedman telling us that he flew first-class on a prestigious airline, thus cementing the fact that he is a major world traveller", and lo and behold... it doesn't. No mention of a flight. But it does make the point that he wrote the piece while on a trip to Shanghai. It even has an implausibly apt quote from someone he met whilst on the trip.

Ultimately it boils down to "I flew to Shanghai and toured an newly-built office complex", which doesn't sound so dramatic. He strikes me as the kind of writer who could easily be replaced by AI, and it would save a fortune in air tickets as well. Does he pay for his own travel? Presumably not, but it's a waste anyway.

I found some of his recent stuff on China useful even if not better as writing than anything else he's done. Just seemed like things no one is really talking about ATM

Ok lol, he's still him

https://i.redd.it/mtedxyv6ttwe1.png

jesus. does he not revise anything? i am baffled by "Trump is for he/him".

a reference to the Trump 2024 ad "Harris is for they/them, Trump is for you."

how many clunkers do you think he proposed as a title before his publishing company settled on "The World is Flat"?

he seems to come up with what he thinks is an interesting turn of phrase in half of his columns, and most of them are as bad or worse than "Waymo Democrats"

Way'mo Betta Blues