Even Michael Jackson's Rabbi Hates Tom Friedman

Poor, poor Tommy. It seems like everyone wants a piece of him these days. (Call it the Fire Tom Friedman effect.) The left can't stand him. The right can't stop howling about his "I wish we could be China for a day" shtick. Anyone who is the least bit sympathetic to Muslims and Arabs (or at a minimum, doesn't like killing them indiscriminately) finds the mustachioed one quite repugnant. And now Tommy has pissed off Michael Jackson's rabbi!

Meet Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. Maybe you already have. I'd never heard of him before he ripped into Tommy, but apparently he has or had a show on TLC and he's written like 40 books including one called Kosher Sex which he gives observant Jews his blessing to do all the crazy and kinky things they've always wanted to do (provided the lights are out, of course). And best of all, he's been "successfully counseling individuals and couples - most notably the late Michael Jackson and Jon Gosselin - for years"!

Now Shmuley Boteach may very well be the greatest name ever. And with a bio like that, it's very possible that someone is pulling a Nordlinger here. And this off-the-wall introduction to his Tommy piece doesn't do much to quell my suspicions about this Boteach character:

I don't often read Tom Friedman in The New York Times. True, he is one of the most lucid writers in America and his crystal-clear prose help in understanding some of the world's most intractable conflicts.

Tommy lucid? Crystal-clear prose? Sure sounds like Nordlinger. But we at Fire Tom Friedman take all things Tom Friedman very seriously and so we're going to treat Schmuley Boteach as if he's a legitimate celebrity whore/Rabbi. So what's eating Shmuley?

Friedman is, of course, entitled to his view. But he is not entitled to slander Israel. And this past Sunday he did so with relish.

In words that blur the line between commentary and defamation Friedman wrote of the "brutality of Israel's retaliations" against Hezbollah and Hamas, and how Israel "chose to go after them without being deterred by the prospect of civilian casualties." He then crossed a line of common decency when he irresponsibly accused Israel of using "Hama rules" in its war against the twin terror groups. "Hama Rules," he explained, "are named after the Syrian town of Hama, where, in 1982, then-President Hafez el-Assad of Syria put down a Muslim fundamentalist uprising by shelling and then bulldozing their neighborhoods, killing more than 10,000 of his own people."

This is a straightforward blood libel.

Oh no. It can't be. Thomas L. Friedman, Israel's faithful lapdog, has flunked an Israel purity test! And it's not just the good Rabbi who is foaming at the mouth. My "Tom Friedman" Google Alerts are coming fast and furious with everyone from Ruthfully Yours to Soccer Dad excoriating Tommy for the 'Hama rules" comparison.

This just isn't right. Tommy has been so good to the Israel-can-do-no-wrong crowd, putting a reasonable face on their unreasonable views. They can't take away Tommy's lifetime AIPAC membership just like that!

Now I'm no Schmuley Boteach, but maybe I can help mend some fences here. (Although one can't help notice that half of the Rabbi's celebratory clients are divorced and the other half is, among other things, dead.) I know Tommy better than anyone so let me try to clear up what I think is a big misunderstanding.

First, the "Hama Rules" thing. Now I understand why blind Israel backers the phrase and its implied comparison to Assad so offensive; after all, it's not like Israel has ever used a bulldozer in a civilian neighborhood or anything like that. But you need to understand that Tommy really loves rules and these "Hama Rules" are some of his favorites. In fact, he's not shy about letting you know that he coined the phrase "Hama rules," which means, according to Tommy means there are "no rules at all" in the Middle East. Sure he could have just said Israel used an "anything goes" approach which probably would have been less offensive to the Israel zealots. But when given a choice between a simple well-known expression and a trademarked Friedman phrase that requires explanation, Tommy will choose the latter (self-promotion and it kills a paragraph!) every time. No offense meant.

Which brings us to the whole "not deterred by the prospect of civilian casualties" business. It's true that a Friend of Israel is always supposed to insist that Israel does more than any other country in the world to avoid civilian casualties. But what you have to understand is that Tommy didn't, as Rabbi Boteach claimed, "accuse Israel of using "Hama Rules" in its war against Hamas and Hezbollah. Tommy was not accusing; he thinks using Hama Rules -- and showing disregard for civilian life -- is a good thing (provided the civilians are, you know).

Tommy may have been impolitic, but he really wasn't criticizing Israel. Hama Rules is how Tommy lives his life! Or at least how he advices others to deal with those crazy Muslims in the Middle East. Tommy has essentially counseled Hamas Rules in Iraq ("what they needed to see was American boys and girls going from house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, and basically saying: which part of this sentence do you understand? Suck. On. This."); Afghanistan "a new attitude toward the battle" that includes acting "just a little bit crazy" and using "whatever tactics will make the terrorists feel bad, not make us feel good;" and Gaza, where Tommy urged Israel to "educate" Hamas by "inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population."

So please, Israel fanatics, will you take Tommy back? At this point, he's basically got no one else. Besides, if you're going to insist on such purity that even Tom Friedman can be excommunicated, that means no one is safe. Not Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. Not even Soccer Dad.

Fire Tom Friedman.

On Killing Non-Danes and Non-Norwegians

Late last Thursday night, Tommy was bombing. Just like his recent Meet the Press appearance, he seemed remarkably unprepared to discuss current events that he must have known he would be asked about. As David Letterman asked questions after question about L'affaire McChrystal, Tommy responded with a lot of "ums" and a peculiar neck rolling gesture that had the unfortunate effect of emphasizing his resemblance to a walrus. But suddenly, while discussing the General's work "eliminating bad guys" in Iraq, Tommy found his voice.

In that neighborhood, you need warriors. You know, I lived in Beirut during the civil war. Bashir Gemayel, leader of the Phalange militia, used to have a saying. "This is not Denmark. And this is not Norway."

Now when Tommy speaks with confidence in a media interview, you can be bet he's quoting one of his own columns. And sure enough, there's the Bashir Gemayel quote in a post 9/11 column where Tommy beat his chest and channeled his inner-Cheney to argue that the war in Afghanistan was going to require "a new attitude toward the battle" including acting "just a little bit crazy" and unconstrained on the battlefield:

• (P)eople have to see that we are focused, serious and ready to use whatever tactics will make the terrorists feel bad, not make us feel good. As the Lebanese militia leader Bashir Gemayel once said about the Middle East -- before he himself was assassinated -- ''This is not Norway here, and it is not Denmark.''

Fast forward to Sunday's NYT column and Tommy's Sunday morning CNN appearance: Bashir is back, but this time the quote is trotted out to justify Israel's attacks on civilians in Gaza and Lebanon.

In Israel’s case, it found itself confronting enemies in Gaza and Lebanon armed with rockets, but nested among local civilians, and Israel chose to go after them without being deterred by the prospect of civilian casualties. As the Lebanese militia leader Bashir Gemayel was fond of saying — before he himself was blown up — “This is not Denmark here. And it is not Norway.”

Let's put aside the fact that Denmark and Norway keep swapping places in the Gemayal quote and focus on what really matters here: Tommy has used the same quote about an event that took place 28 years ago -- the 1982 Lebanese civil war -- to justify the down and dirty fighting (including killing civilians) of the 1) the United States in Afghanistan; 2) The U.S. in Iraq; 3) Israel in Gaza and 4) Israel in Lebanon (2006). Never mind that these are five unique conflicts spread out over four decades. For Friedman, it's all one long war against the enemies of Israel and the United States (which, of course, are the same). And wars where the majority of people getting killed are non-Israeli Middle Easterners (they are not Norwegians and they are not Danes), are governed by a different set of rules -- i.e. there are none.

To sum up, here's Tommy's views on the Middle East:

1. All non-Israeli countries, people, and situations are interchangeable (because those people are all the same to him). That's how he can argue with a straight face on Charlie Rose that the U.S. was right to invade Iraq because we just needed to attack a Muslim country -- regardless of whether they were involved with the attacks -- after 9/11; and
2. Non-Israeli lives in the Middle East are worth less than Israeli, European and American lives. That's why Tommy's only concern yesterday about civilians death in Gaza and Lebanon was the potential fallout for Israel ("U.N. indictments of generals and political leaders for war crimes and corroding relations with democrats everywhere"), not the fact that the civilians are dead.
   

Now to be fair, there are certainly lots of people who believe both of the above. But they don't appear regularly on the pages of the New York Times or on TV as a Serious Expert on Middle East Affairs. Of course there's a reason we take everything Tommy says about the Middle East so seriously. After all, as he never gets tired of reminding us, he did live in Beirut twenty-eight years ago.

Fire Tom Friedman

The Searing Satire of the National Review's "Jay Nordlinger"

Sometimes, I leave my little Tommy Friedman cocoon and go explore the world beyond the NYT. It's amazing what you'll find. Today, for instance, thanks to the power of hyperlinks, I ended up at"The Corner," which claims to be blog of something called the National Review. National Revue is more like it! What perfectly delicious satire. Remember the first time you watched The Simpsons or read the The Onion? I've got that same giddy feeling right now!

If you've never been there, here's the hilarious premise: A bunch of privileged white people sitting around ostensibly discussing current events but really just whining about how persecuted they are. Hmmm. Maybe that doesn't sound so funny. But it's all about the execution. A typical post will start from a position that could almost seem reasonable and then slowly, almost imperceptibly, through a series of beautiful played riffs, end up at an absurdly paranoid conclusion, thus exposing the inanities of our cultural debates!

Performance Artist
Jay Nordlinger

And what a cast of characters. There's the WASP who aspires to Serious Punditry but keeps tripping over his erotic Sarah Palin fantasies. The former prosecutor who throws off his law school shackles so he can kick some serious Muslim ass. And the mousy lady who turns into a superhero to defend The Institution of Marriage from the evil Gay Agenda. But right now I think my favorite character (I'm pretty sure they're all played by the same guy!) is Jay Nordlinger. Nordlinger! Just that name gives me the giggles. Here's "Nordlinger" knocking the Helen Thomas hysteria out of the park in a post titled A Few Basic Thoughts . . .:

A Few Basic Thoughts . . . occasioned by the Helen Thomas outburst. We owe something to her: She said out loud, in her specially nasty way, what other people think.

Damn that's good. Whining about be victimized by an 89-year-old woman is too ludicrous. That's how "Glen Beck" or one of those other hit-you-over-the-head comedians would have played it. But this isn't just comedy. It's jazz. Or jazzmedy, if you will. So bam. Nordlie flips Thomas from being the oppressor to the messenger for some darkly ominous "other people." And voila - victimhood! And now Nordlinger can embark on a whirlwind send-up of conservatives whiniest hits.

The left is just like the terrorists:

People like Helen Thomas are way to the “left,” if that’s the term, of the official position of the PLO. They are in line with Hamas and Hezbollah — and their patron in Iran.

No, you didn't Nordlinger. You did not use the H-words and the I-word! What's next?

The PLO-niks — Saeb Erekat, Hanan Ashrawi — are now the Uncle Toms of the anti-Israel community. Helen Thomas and the flotilla people are in the cool, fashionable forefront.

This is why I love this Nordlie. He takes the conservative meme that the left is full of vapid, vainglorious celebrities, and by implication, the right is full of principled outsiders, and blows it up by taking it to its logical -- and absurd -- conclusion: Helen Thomas is cool and fashionable.

And she's not only super-cool, she's super-powerful:

They have never resigned themselves to Israel’s existence; they have never resigned themselves to co-existence. People like Helen Thomas make it easier for them not to resign themselves. People like Thomas give them hope — making them think, “Ah, maybe we can actually get rid of them. Not just extract a better deal, but get rid of them altogether!”

Yes! Hamas surely would have recognized Israel's right to exist by now if they hadn't seen Helen Thomas on YouTube. Someone just got Nordlingered and I'm so glad it wasn't me.

It would be helpful to peace in the Middle East if Israel’s enemies could be absolutely sure that Israel is not going anywhere: that it is here to stay. Remember the old gay slogan? “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it”? Israel’s enemies need to know something like that about Israel.

He loses character a bit there, but I don't care because his "Israel is the gay of the Middle East" routine is so good. I want that on a t-shirt, with "Stop Israeli Marriage" on the back.

But as long as they have the feeling that the world — you know: “the world,” as in the New York Times, the U.N., and Bono — is not really committed to the existence of Israel, they will push for Israel’s destruction.

Back in character. You can't skewer conservatives without mocking the paranoia. And Nordlinger has perfectly captured the I-know-the-New-York-Times-is-out-to-get-me-even-though-I-don't-read-it mentality.

With the very right of Israel to exist under assault, now might be a good time to move America’s embassy to the capital of Israel, Jerusalem. I remember something George Shultz said a few years ago: that having our embassy in Tel Aviv makes it seem that we are just “camping out.” A move to Jerusalem would signal: As far as we’re concerned, this state is permanent. It ain’t goin’ anywhere, get used to it.

Hang on, let me find the full Shultz quote. Okay, got it — from June 2003: "Why not move our embassy to West Jerusalem and be done with it? People should do things that say Israel is there to stay."

I absolutely love this. Of course, Nordlinger doesn't need the actual Shultz quote after he described it. But he knows we're in hysterics from his joke about U.S. not demonstrating a long-term commitment to Israel and he's waiting for the laughter to die down. That's right - Nordlinger's comedic timing is so good that he's pausing ("Hang on, let me find the full Shultz quote") in a fuckin' blog post!

There's so much more that's pitch-perfect: Potshots at the Europeans; a riff on how anti-Israel sentiment really equals anti-Semitism; and a last-minute, hilariously gratuitous homage to Ronald Reagan. But he saves the best for last when he brings back Helen Thomas to eviscerate another myth: the conservative blogger/pundit as fearless warrior:

Events large and small — Iran’s nuclear drive, the Helen Thomas outburst — have led me to think about the unthinkable: the loss of Israel. They won’t go without a fight, I feel sure. And I know which side I’m on.

That's right, Israel. If you ever get attacked by an 89-year-old woman, don't worry: Jay Nordlinger has got your back! And, if you're lucky, maybe he'll bring his band of merry pranksters from the National Review with him. You look like you could use the laughs.

Tommy Rules!

It's time for a Tommy quiz!

Which , according to Thomas L. Friedman, is the first rule of warfare:
a) Take the high ground.
b) Never launch a war that you can't explain to your people and the world on a bumper sticker.
c) Never take the lid off a boiling pot unless you also have a strategy for turning down the heat.
d) All of the above.

If you answered "d" (and you probably did -- the first rule of quizzes like this is go with "all of the above"), you are correct. In three different columns, Tommy has declared three different first rules of warfare. One might think that one of them might be the second and one might be third, but let's face it: Nothing sounds as authoritatively folksy as a "first rule." That's why Tommy has treated us to the first rule of holes on four different occasions, as well as the first rule of any Iraq invasion, the first rule of giving money to Israel, and Friedman's first rule of Middle East reporting.

And sometimes it's more than just a first rule - it's a lot of them! There are the three cardinal rules of Middle East diplomacy and a whopping fifteen Middle East rules to live by. I'll stop firing links at you now; you get the point: Tommy really, really likes rules.

So you might think he'd know what one is. But here's what he said yesterday:

Arthur was harmless; some of the others, though, were mendacious, which prompted me to promulgate this rule: I adore the Israelis and Palestinians, but God save me from some of their European and American friends.

That's not a rule. "I like A and B, but not C and D" is not a rule. That's just Tommy stating his preferences. If I had to guess, I think Tommy thinks that because C and D are related to A and B, that makes it a rule. But it doesn't. "I adore the New York Mets, but I think some of their fans are obnoxious morons." Nope - no rule promulgated there.

Am I nitpicking? Perhaps. But I think it's worth noting that Tom Friedman, the man who thinks that nothing is more clever than reducing the complexity of the world to his Freidmanesque rules, doesn't even really understand what a rule is. And yet, when things like the attack on the Mavi Marmara happen, we as a nation, turn to Thomas L. Friedman to explain to us what's really going on in the Middle East.

And what's Tommy's take? The attempts to break the blockade are just a "grandstanding intervention" that diverts "our energies from the only thing that is important: forging a two-state solution." If you live in Gaza -- where 65% of the population is food insecure; where almost 50% of children under 5 are anemic; where the economy has been strangled so you're dependent on aid and less than half of what you need is getting through -- you might not think that calling the world's attention to and ending the blockade is the equivalent of watching American Idol. But then again, if you live in Gaza, Tommy doesn't give a fuck about you (even though he "adores" you).

The blockade, Israel's killing of civilians, investigating the flotilla ambush, conditions in Gaza and anything else he doesn't care about, Tommy labels "the sideshow." What we should be focused on is, let me guess, "the main event." Wrong! For some reason, it's "the ball game." The ball game and the sideshow?

Anyway, the point is Tommy doesn't think you're capable of thinking about more than one thing at once. So if you're allowing yourself to get distracted by little things like civilian deaths and Palestinian suffering, you're not thinking about what Tommy is thinking about! Which is:

The effort by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to build the institutional foundations of a Palestinian state from the ground up — replacing the corrupt, jerry-built structure that Yasir Arafat created and Israel destroyed — is actually making progress. This matters — and must be nurtured.

You see, there are two models of Arab governance. The old Nasserite model, which Hamas still practices, where leaders say: “Judge me by how I resist Israel or America.” And: “First we get a state, then we build the institutions.” The new model, pioneered in the West Bank by Abbas and Fayyad is: “Judge me by how I perform — how I generate investment and employment, deliver services and pick up the garbage. First we build transparent and effective political and security institutions. Then we declare a state. That is what the Zionists did, and it sure worked for them.”

If there's one thing that Tommy loves nearly as much as a rule or a tortured metaphor, it's a binary opposition. The sideshow or the ballgame. The old model of Arab governance or the new.

But there's a problem. Just because Tom Friedman thinks resisting Israel and America is bad and generating investment and delivering services is good, it doesn't logically follow that these two things are mutually exclusive. Take Hamas. One of the main reasons Hamas won the 2006 elections because they were doing a better job of delivering services than the Palestinian Authority. Imagine that, Tommy. Hamas is capable of opposing Israel's existence (bad) and picking up the garbage (good) at the same time. Israel understands this -- that's why they have a blockade in place to undermine the ability of the democratically elected Hamas to govern.

I'm pretty sure even Tom "I don't know what a rule is" Friedman gets this. But he has to pretend that his dislike of Hamas and new-found love for the Palestinian Authority have something to do to with their ability or inability to deliver services to people he pretends to adore. So he can pretend, as he loves to do, to be thinking outside the box, when he's really, as he loves to do, just defending the status quo.

Fire Tom Friedman

The Freedom Flotilla: Is Tom Friedman the Real Victim?

Against my better judgment, I read Tommy's freedom flotilla column yesterday.

As a friend of both Turkey and Israel, it has been agonizing to watch the disastrous clash between Israeli naval commandos and a flotilla of “humanitarian” activists seeking to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

Thanks, Tommy. With all the suffering and death, I hadn't stopped to think about how this was affecting you personally. But you put it in terms I think we all can relate to. I remember when my friend Matt stopped talking to my friend Eddie -- agonizing! You really put all that Muslim whining about "blockades" and "dead" civilians in perspective. (Alternate interpretation: Tommy to Virginia Heffernan: You think you have a lot of friends? Anyone can be friends with people. Tom Friedman is friends with fuckin' countries.)

Personally, I think both Israel and Turkey have gotten out of balance lately, and it is America’s job to help both get back to the center — urgently.

You get that? Tom Friedman is a Serious Centrist and that he blames both sides. No matter how much this column may look like the rantings of a pro-Israeli zealot, it is not.

I’ve long had a soft spot for Turkey. I once even argued that if the European Union wouldn’t admit Turkey, we should invite Turkey to join Nafta. Why? Because historically, Turkey has been good to Israel and I don't give a shit about the Kurds or Armenians.

OK - you caught me. I made that last sentence up. But let's review the math: Ahmadinejad + Genocide Denial = As Ugly as it Gets. Turkey + Genocide Denial = Long Soft Spot.

I have seen Turkey play an important role mediating between Israel and Syria and voting just a month ago in favor of Israel joining the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.

Got it. You like Turkey when they're good to Israel.

Therefore, it has been painful to hear the same Prime Minister Erdogan in recent years publicly lash out with ever-greater vehemence at Israel over its treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza. Many see this as Turkey looking to ingratiate itself with the Muslim world after having been rebuffed by the European Union.

On Tuesday, Tommy offered this theory about Turkey's motives on Imus. But it was just his own theory. Twenty-four hours later, its the collected, conventional wisdom that that's what the Turks are up to. Tommy Friedman is a one-man tipping point. How is Turkey's vote last month in favor of Israel joining the OECD a part of Turkey's grand Muslim world ingratiation scheme? Friedman doesn't say. The important thing is that Prime Minister Erdogan's lashing out with ever-greater vehemence at Israel over its treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza has nothing to do with with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza.

I have no problem with Turkey or humanitarian groups loudly criticizing Israel.

Every time I'm ready to completely write off Thomas L. Friedman, he does something so breathtakingly magnanimous that I'm moved to the brink of tears. Permission granted to criticize Israel!!!

But wait. Apparently there's a set of conditions:

But I have a big problem when people get so agitated by Israel’s actions in Gaza but are unmoved by Syria’s involvement in the murder of the prime minister of Lebanon, by the Iranian regime’s killing of its own citizens demonstrating for the right to have their votes counted, by Muslim suicide bombers murdering nearly 100 Ahmadi Muslims in mosques in Pakistan on Friday and by pro-Hamas gunmen destroying a U.N.-sponsored summer camp in Gaza because it wouldn’t force Islamic fundamentalism down the throats of children.

In order to receive Tommy's blessing to be angry, you have to agree to also be angry about the things Tommy Friedman pretends to be angry about. That's right: Tommy Friedman who proclaimed that the U.S. was right to invade Iraq to send a message after 9/11 even if we got the country wrong and that Israel should try to "educate" Hamas by inflicting heavy pain on the Gaza population is lecturing the Muslim world on what they should be angry about. Sometimes I think I actually hate smug paternalistic Tommy more than I hate overtly racist Tommy. Forty-three rooms in that Bethesda mansion and apparently not one mirror.

There is no question that this flotilla was a setup.

Since Tommy established way back in paragraph one that he's a friend to both sides and therefore an impartial referee, there's no question that there's no question that this flotilla was a setup. No further explanation needed.

Israel’s intelligence failed to fully appreciate who was on board, and Israel’s leaders certainly failed to think more creatively about how to avoid the very violent confrontation that the blockade-busters wanted.

More classic Tommy Centrism. "See, both sides have flaws. The Muslims are morally-depraved, blood-thirsty hypocrites and the Israelis make tactical mistakes." Isn't that always the Serious Centrist analysis of Israel's colossal fuck-ups? (See, e.g., Israel-Lebanon 2006).

It is overwhelmingly in Israel’s interest to bring more diplomatic imagination and energy to ending this Gaza siege. How long is this going to go on? Are we going to have a whole new generation grow up in Gaza with Israel counting how many calories they each get? That surely can’t be in Israel’s interest.

Starving the people of Gaza is bad . . . because it's bad for Israel. Not because the Gazans are starving (65% of the population is food insecure).

And the breathtaking conclusion:

This is a critical moment. Two of America’s best friends are out of balance and infuriatingly at each other’s throats. We have got to move quickly to get them both back to the center before this spins out of control.

Only in America can a Serious Middle East Expert bemoan the fact that things are out of balance in the Middle East and never once mention the great imbalancer in the Middle East: The United States' unconditional support of -- and aid to -- to Israel. And only Tommy Friedman could write a column about the freedom flotilla that literally talked more about his own suffering than that of the Palestinians.

Fire Tom Friedman.