The
New York Times
Newt,
Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: December
13, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/opinion/friedman-newt-mitt-bibi-and-vladimir.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
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.
Josh Haner/The
New York Times
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?”
A version of this
op-ed appeared in print on December 14, 2011, on page A35 of the New York edition with the
headline: Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir.