Thank You Thomas Friedman
Thomas Friedman wrote a good column for the New York Times about Britain’s University and College Union decision to call on its members to boycott Israel. Friedman’s main point: the decision, or call, to boycott Israel is based on bias. To be more precise, on anti-Semitism.
As Friedman explains, the situation in Israel is far more complicated than the anti-Zionists like to portray it. Many Israelis believe, according to Friedman, that the decision to occupy Gaza and the West Bank was a (big) mistake. This is why the majority of them supporter Ariel Sharon when he decided to withdraw from Gaza and this is why the Israeli people elected Ehud Olmert to succeed him.
Olmert had plans to withdraw from the West Bank – Olmert wanted to destroy / abandon settlements, because he considers those settlements to be unjust. However, after Israel left Gaza, Palestinian terrorists used Gaza as some kind of base to fire rockets at Israel from, and this on a daily basis.
Meanwhile, Arab Israelis receive degrees on Israeli Universities, not hindered by any discrimination.
Friedman concludes:
If the far-left academics driving this boycott actually cared about Palestinians they would call on every British university to accept 20 Palestinian students on full scholarships to help them with what they need most — building the skills to run a modern state and economy. And they would call on every British university to dispatch visiting professors to every Palestinian university to help upgrade their academic offerings. And they would challenge every Israeli university that already offers Ph.D.’s to Israeli Arabs to do even more. And they would challenge every Arab university the same way.
That’s what people who actually care about Palestinians would do. But just singling out Israeli universities for a boycott, in the face of all the other madness in the Middle East — that’s what anti-Semites would do.
And that is key right here: the hypocrisy from the anti-Semitic left is infuriating.
35 Responses to “Thank You Thomas Friedman”
Take a Friendman unit to write something more meaningful as a personal comment Mike. Poisoning the comment waters ala Bill O’Reilly with the angryman outrage moments at the end of the post is getting mighty tired to read.
Time for some new “talent” in a bad way.
Michael,
Enough with the labelling. Those of us who question Israeli actions are not necessarily anti-Semitic. By designating us so you lower yourself to the level of Bush supporters labelling all those who questioned the war as traitors to America (I realise it is Friedman who articulates the anti-Semitic bs but in linking to it and agreeing with his final point, I presume you are in agreement).
For your information there are literally thousands of Palestinian students studying in UK universities and not by choice. Most have fled their homeland and found asylum in the UK as refugees.
I seriously doubt Mr Friedman’s understanding of the situation in Israel is any deeper than those he criticizes, just different and built on a contrary set of loyalties.
I note also that your own bias precludes you from discussing the thinking behind the unions boycott. That would make you, let me think, anti-balance?
Once againMvdG conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel. This is like hating Anglo-Saxons with criticism of Tony Blair. As Holly says MvdG go educate yourself. Friedman has such a good record on the Iraqis situation, his take on Israel must…
I think that Friedman makes an excellent point by pointing out that the hypocrisy is so overwhelming that those who push for a boycott are – quite simply – anti-Semites. I know that the left does not want to talk about the elephant in their room, but that does not mean that the problem should not be addressed. Read some comment sections of the uberleft blogs and you will see what I mean.
Also – I am not saying that those who criticize Israel’s actions are anti-Semitic. I am saying that those who push for this boycott are.
Interesting to see how you all refuse to see the difference.
The boycott concept goes well beyond criticizing Israel. I criticize Israel concerning the existence of the West Bank settlements and other issues. But I still think the boycott is a foolish idea and more likely to be influenced by at least a tinge of anti-Semitism. If you think that England is free of that pernicious bigotry you aren’t aware of a lot of British history.
Michael,
Because you refuse to discuss the unions reasoning, the accusation of overwhelming hypocrisy is hard to understand and as a result your labelling them anti-Semitic anything but quite simple and much closer to the plain, ordinary insult it obviously is.
[Edited, no personal attacks allowed]
So agreeing with Friedman is now “labeling?” I don’t see what the uproar over this post is supposed to be about.
Truflo, I have edited your post. Please refrain from personal attacks like that. I am not calling any one of you anti-Semitic, so I assume you do not have to speak like that to me.
Anyway back to the issue at hand: their ‘reasoning’ is filled with hypocrisy. That is the problem. As Jim points out, “the boycott concept goes well beyond criticizing Israel.”
This is not about criticizing Israel, this is about singling out Israel, denying that the Palestinians are responsible for their own misdeeds, and I am calling people like that out on their behavior, which is quite clearly fueled by anti-Semitism.
Entropy: the uproar, I fear, is that one is not allowed to address anti-Semitism which has lead to a ludicrous call to boycott Israel.
It’s not politically correct to do that seemingly.
Wait a minute. In one post you call them anti zionist, and antisemetic.
Which is it? Or is it both?
Or, in your mind, is there no distinction between the two?
For what it’s worth, I think the boycott is a stupid idea. But then, they haven’t actually called for a boycott yet so all of this is a bit premature.
And your post is obviously based on your hatred of English academics. Quite clearly you are a racist.
Get it? It’s easy!
I just delve into your mind and magically determine what motivates you.
Davebo (and others),
Before commenting further on this thread, please make sure to read Joe’s post about comments.
Personal attacks are not allowed. No matter what your differences in perspective, you should be able to engage the argument without ever saying “you are a __________” or some such.
And before anyone considers answering this reminder with something similar to “he started it”, let me pre-empt that by saying, “it doesn’t matter who started it”. Perceived misbehavior by a poster or another commenter does not constitute justification for additional incidents.
Michael,
Apologies if you found my final statement insulting. Badly worded as it was, It was merely meant as an observation. And you must admit, your ‘Interesting…’ sign off was just a wee bit pompous.
truflo and rudi, there is no denying the double standard with which Israel is being subjected to. Please give me a logical explanation as to why Israel, above all countries, is being singled out for a boycott, especially when you consider the world is full of repressive dictatorships and gross violators of human rights? How about boycotting Sudan, China, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, I could go on and on. For that matter the Palestinians themselves, given their society is run by a terrorist regime.
The same double standard is practiced by the UN in constantly singling out Israel in resolutions but ignoring the world’s worst human rights violators.
You simply can’t deny a sinister motive in these boycott Israel campaigns. There is no other conclusion to be drawn from such a blatant, hideous double standard applied to Israel other than antisemitism.
Jason,
I thought it was obvious I was being facetious in a sort of “how long have you beaten your wife” kinda way.
Heck, those Brit professors could well be antisemites. And since MVG is certainly a lot closer to them geographically his mind rays may have the range to detect it while mine don’t.
These charges of anti-Semitism from the likes of Michael, Thomas Friedman and AIPAC are all just meant to distract our attention away from the very real pain, suffering and death being visited upon the occupied Palestinians every single day. (Aided by American tax-payer dollars no less)
Michael, instead of calling everyone who disagrees with your position on Israel an anti-Semite, how about you start defending the well documented atrocities commited by the IDF and various over-zealous Israeli settlers.
A final word and then I’ll shut up.
It would be nice to read a post by Michael that tackles those on the right who spew forth hatred of the Palestinian people so foul it would make your soul curl up. Ben Shapiro, for example:
Double standards indeed, Laura.
Michael – I personally think the British Academic boycott is wrong. Not because it is anti-semetic but it is wrong because it is counter productive. Most Israeli academics are NOT Zionists and are relatively impartial when it comes to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
However, I would ask you to refrain from being deliberately provacative. You knew when you wrote this that the word anti-semetism would raise howls of protest. You hide behind the fact that you do not call any specific individual anti-semetic but the casualness with which you use the term implies it’s attachment to any criticism of Israel.
If you look at the US and much of the world, hatred of Muslims for being who they are is a MUCH more prevelent problem than anti-semetism. If you read blogs here in the US you see an incredible amount of vile statements about muslims that would make your stomach turn. I don’t see any statements quite so vile about Jews. Laura criticises people who are critical of Israel more than China, etc. as hypocrites. Are you a hypocrite for criticising anti-semetism when anti-muslim rantings are at least equally bad?
Davebo, I know that was the case, which is why I only posted a “reminder” rather than editing or deleting anything or even calling it a “warning”. Anyway, it is probably best to avoid the “you are a ___________” formulation in any context.
Truflo: taht is of course indeed unacceptable. Let there be no doubt about that. However, I do believe that the Palestinian culture is one which encourages victimization, destruction, and celebrates life instead of death. That’s, sadly, what Palestinians have been confronted with, from the day were born (if you don’t believe me, watch some of the movies at Memri for instance, or just the one about Mickey the terrorist Mouse).
No Chris, it’s not. It has to do with real concern for a very real problem, alive and well in extreme left circles.
Michael,
I never see you offer any serious suggestions to improve the lives of the Palestinians. Which is something that absolutely has to happen before they will abandon extremism.
There has been little to no concilliatory gestures from the Israelis towards the Palestinians. When they withdrew from Gaza, they took even more valuable land in the West Bank.
The net result for the Palestinians has been a worsening of conditions. You somehow think that’s going to breed moderation?
And yet, instead of focusing on the things we can do to make the Palestinians our friends, you want to “starve Gaza”, give weapons to Fatah and now root out anti-Semitism in British academia. What’s next? Maybe there are some Australian teachers unions you can go after.
lol – Chris, what do I suggest in the other post? I am talking about investing in the West Bank bigtime, I am talking about helping those who need medical treatment, etc. Yes, I am also talking about starving Hamas (as a figure of speech), but I also say we should invest much, very much, in the West Bank.
Firebreathing only requires the lack of critical thought Michael.
As a high ranking blogger here at TMV (emphasis on Moderate btw) you should know better than to post things that are from the extreme edges of political spectrum, and blatantly designed to provoke extreme feelings. I’d expect trash like that from LGF, FreeRepublic, or Democratic Underground not TMV.
It seems you go into some kind of alternate personality when it comes to your pet subject (Israel) eventho you have absoloutely nothing invested in it. I take it much less serious and I have a large branch of my family that happens to be Jewish as is my girlfriend. So mellow out, and try to be more thoughtful, because when you are you post good stuff.
The proposed boycott is unfairly biased against Israel, so calling it ‘anti-Israel would be quite correct. IMO, it would have counter productive results. It would result in stopping an exchange of ideas, thus relinquishing the path of influence by reasoning. It would create two acrimonious camps, trading accusations and insults, thus obstrucing the path of seeking long term solutions.
Calling the boycott an act of anti-semitism has the exact same negative result. Now we are no longer talking about the boycott but about who is anti-semitic and who is not.
The trouble is, that since Israel has an intrinsic Jewish identity, the exact demarcation line beween anti-Israel feelings and anti-semitism in a particular case, event or individual may turn out to be illusory.
Does anti-semitism give rise to criticism of Israel?
Does disapprobal of Israel’s actions give rise to anti-semitism?
These are not either/or questions. Both can be true, one can be more true than the other in a specific case, etc. The possibilities and combinations are many, many.
It’s crucial that the boycott be discussed, criticized
and opposed in every wary. The facile ‘anti-semitism’ tag, diverts attention into tangental areas, and dilutes rather than strengthens opposition.
Michael – The Palestinians in the West Bank are NOT looking for an Israeli/US investment in medical facilities, new schools and playgrounds. They are looking for dignity and respect a life of their own. As I am sure you are aware as these “pacification” investments are made, Israel will eat up more and more territory for settlements and the Palestinian “reservations” will continue to shrink.
Meanwhile Israel continues to take, on average, 93 gallons of water/person/day for the settlers from the West Bank aquifers while only allowing 19 gallons/person/day for Palestinians. Hmm – that sure is fair.
Do you have any caomments on these points?
Pyst: are you calling Tom Friedman an extremist?
LMAO
Boycott can be an effective economic tool to literally “vote with our pocketbooks.” Not that I am supporting such a boycott, which I don’t, but if I chose to put pressure on the state of Israel by not buying Israeli products, it does NOT mean that I hate or even mildly dislike Jewish people. It does not make me anti-Semitic. I do not personally hate or dislike white South Africans, but I supported a boycott of South African products in order to pressure that country to change its policies. Let’s make a distinction between political action, including economic boycott, and personal likes or dislikes. There is no shame in how we decide to use our money for furthering what may be political goals or simple expressions of disagreement with a regime. Disliking the regime does not mean disliking the people. Personally, I love Americans, but despise the current administration. I don’t have anything against people who work for the Coca-Cola Company, but I support a boycott of their products because of socially destructive actions by that company.
I’m really tired of the personal barbs here. if through political or economic pressure the Israelis and Palestinians can be made to see that it’s in their best interest to come seriously to the negotiating table, that’s a good thing. It doesn’t mean I’m “for” or “against” either in Israelis or Palestinians. It just means that I want any peaceful pressure possible brought to bear to seek out a peaceful solution to this conflict.
GreenDreams,
It is true that boycotts generally do not necessarily mean bias is at work, but I think we should distinguish against economic boycotts and boycotts against persons.
South Africa was an economic boycott, designed as you said to bring economic pressure to bear.
The proposed British boycott is against academic relationships — in short, against Israeli persons. It does not include a significant economic component designed to bring about pressure against state policy. It is instead just an assumption that any person who is Israeli must be shunned.
I think its fair to criticize a policy based on such an assumption as being intrinsically prejudiced. It is no different from someone suggesting that all Zimbabweans be rejected in their applications to U.S. schools because we don’t like Mugabe’s repressive policies.
No Micahel, I am calling your last comment on the post extremist rhetoric.
Extremist in the fact it was a blanket statement, painting all from that poltical spectrum with bigotry regardless of wether they agreed with Britain’s University and College Union or not.
Which in fact was not being anti-semitic anyways. Lame, yes. Petty, yes. But anti-semitic, no, and you should know the difference instead of throwing bombs like you did with that last statement.
If Friedman is using the same rhetoric then he is going at the subject in an extremist way rhetorically as well, but atleast he’s Jewish so I’d understand that to degree. Disagree with him, and shake my head at his wrong application of the term I would.
Friendman doesn’t have much credibility in my book anyways (see The Friedman unit for my reason).
Friedman’s analyses are a joke.
I am also concerned about the recent rhetoric on this formerly moderate site. Don’t like Hebrew National hotdogs? Then you’re an anti-semite. The true implication of the label has been diluted to the point of absurdity.
Jason said:
“think its fair to criticize a policy based on such an assumption as being intrinsically prejudiced”
Yes, but prejudiced against whom?
The policy is biased against Israel and, by extension, some Israelis.
Using the ‘anti-semitic’ tag implies it’s prejudiced against all Israelis and, even further, against all Jews.
In addition, it leads to the attitude that if someone does not agree with this assessment, that person, too, is anti-semitic.
As a result, those who feel they are unjustly accused feel resentment, resentment against the accusers. The situation becomes ripe for a backlash effect,
I hold the view that people are more likely to be convinced by reason than by the strong-arm tactics of emotional and broad accusations ot “anti-semitism’. Once convinced, not bullied, into agreeing/disagreeing with a policy, such convictions are more likely to stand the test of time, IMO, and are far more valuable assets to seek out.
Well, doma, you will notice that I have never once used the term “anti-semetic” on any post or comment I have ever made on this site. I think I’ve maybe used the term in conversation twice in my entire life. I avoid it as problematic. Even if I did use the term generally, I would avoid applying it to this case because the boycotts are not directed at all Jews, but rather only Israeli Jews (and also Israeli Arabs, which are a non-trivial proportion of Israeli academia). No one is boycotting American Jewish academics, for example.
But I think it is proper to call the academic boycott efforts I have heard of both in the U.S. and in Britain “prejudiced” and even “bigoted” because they make a general condemnation of persons based on no information other than nationality.
Jason,
I was using a quote from your statement to reflect on how it applies to Friedman’s and Michael’s positions and this whole thread.
Your position was not clear at that point.
Now it is.
Laura,
Replace the word “Israel” with “Iraq” and the word “boycott” with “invasion.”
President Bush singled out Iraq for offenses that plenty of other countries are guilty of. Does that means he’s “anti-Iraqi”?
Sometimes, hypocrisy is simply that. There’s no reason to assume that it implies hatred of a certain group of people.
Laura – We cannot do much about oppressive regimes, that is ultimately the responsibility of the population of those countries. The occupation of Palestinian lands is like the whites occupation of South Africa. Peace came to South Africa with Botha, Mandela and reconciliation; Israel and Palestine has none of the three.