To be quite honest, I can't really understand why Friedman is considered to be an "intellect". I consider him a "crap". His book on globalization is crap and 50% of his writings is also crap. The other 50% is just the anticoherent opposit of the first "crappy" 50%. I am sure Netanyahu has 20% higher IQ and 50% better education than Friedman. I sometimes entertain myself of how people like Friedman get this influence on public opinion.
3. And you can add to the last line:Self hatin jew.
Mike Cohen ,
4. Bravo Sherman, Bravo!
Israeli citizen ,
5. Know nothing, Learn Nothing Friedman
From the day Friedman crossed over from Lebanon to Israel with his Golf Clubs, to date (unencumbered by his oversized fat head) Friedman has blasted Israel to the satisfaction of his New York Times editors and their shrinking readership.. This fine article defines many reasons that readers say " Friedman? Friedman? Who is he?" Better to say "What is he?".
6. I think the subject of Friedman has been exausted. Time for
the professional pathologists to take over!
7. who'd want to be praised by the likes of tom friedman?
if he decries me and what i do, it's a badge of pride.
israel (formerly usa
8. He doesn't worth an article. There is a distractive phenomen
in American politics called American Liberal Jews.
tel aviv israel
9. This article is a work of art
Kudos Mr. Sherman!
10. tom friedman
do you think that someday he will look back and realize what kind of a sch---k he was ?
dan kaplan ,
I think this attack against Friedman is unfair. Who ever said that a journalist needs to be consistent, balanced even cogent in his opinions? Not Tom Friedman, and what he says goes, going, gone... better he should stick to the environment starting with cleaning up his own pollution.
12. breath of frsh air
Great article!! Thanks!
13. friedman not 'top' with the 'folks'
his views are outdated elitist fashion disguised as 'intellectual' and 'progressive'...you have the wrong friedman--milton friedman who is dead for years was 'top' and as a conservative is more modern
14. This article just doesn't get it
The only thing thing you need to know about Friedman's views on Israel is that he is channeling Obama who trusts Friedman more than anyone else regarding the ME. Whether his views are logically or factually inconsistent doesn't matter. What matters in this is what Obama is hearing and thinking and Israel better deal with it.
Santa Monica, USA
15. Like going through chicken entrails to tell the future
How did you bear going through so many TF diatribes. Chicken entrails only smell bad.
16. BRILLIANT! but where have you been all this time?
17. If It Looks Like a Duck....
Friedman's point of departure since 1983 has been that Israel is wrong.
It is not his analysis but his psychosis that causes him to write articles like this.
The New York Times, like a parent feeding an obese child candy, publishes this tripe.
18. Dear oh dear....circling the wagons, are we?
It's stunning anyone would call this piece 'brilliant,' or any other such nonsense. Friedman is a columnist and it's his right to change his mind as often as he likes (especially as events change which they did.) Even if he had been wrong in the past (and Sherman merely offers his opinions about various Friedman positions) this does not mean his latest piece is incorrect (no matter how much it hurts the sensitive ears of Israel's far right.) Unless, that is, you believe anyone who has been wrong in the past must therefor be always wrong in the future.
The above should be obvious and points out the first logical fallacy in Sherman's piece.
There's a second problem in that Sherman seems to believe that anyone being critical of a certain Israeli policy (or even a certain Israeli politician) is therefor "hostile to Israel." Mindboggling. So if an Israeli is critical of Bush or Obama (or anything Bush or Obama has done) that person is therefore "hostile to America?"
Thirdly, and most importantly, is his thinking that it's an "obsession" for people to be highly critical of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Wake up! The settlements are the NUMBER ONE REASON why so many people in the world are critical of Israel. Sorry if you don't like this, but it's a fact.
Now, go ahead and attack me with your cliched rationalizations and insults. But keep in mind: the window of opportunity for Israel to make peace with its neighbors is rapidly closing and it's those who have first commented on this article, as well as the author, who are keeping Israel from finding peace with its neighbors.
19. clap clap clap
20. #18 if not a single settlement existed...
The Palestinians would still not make peace and people like you would still find reasons to blame Israel for everything.
There are no settlements in Gaza. Israel removed every last one. How did that improve the situation?
Southpark, CO, USA
21. Friedman is never insightful
Friedman has made a career of climbing on the band wagon of current trends. The rise of India, reusable energy, globalization, are all trends which were well known before Friedman ever wrote about them. He is a facile writer who favor cliches over deep analyst. This goes for his analysis of Israel. Serious people do not take him seriously.
22. KPeace @ 18, I forgot to mention one more thing.
Anyone singling out settlements as obstacle to peace is familiar neither with Israeli-Arab problem now with 60+ years long history of peace negotiations.
23. Great artcle, but we all know...
that if Friedman is criticizing something then something is going right. However, if Friedman likes something, then it must be changed.
24. Thomas Friedman
Friedman is a self-hating Jew. He is one of many. There were times where it was easy to deal with traitors. Pity....
Geirge Brown ,
25. Oh, the joys of cost-free punditry
Like so many members of the Obama administration, Friedman has rarely paid a price for being wrong. When a businessman or investor makes a bad decision, it costs them. So too with a military commander, whose decisions can cost lives. Not so with an "intellectual". However wrong he is, Friedman will have his well-paid position with the Times.
The story is told of a high Israeli official, turning down the "advice" of a US official. "Look," he told him, "In the end you'll go back to Chevy Chase. But we'll have to live with the consequences." Friedman should get over himself and show a little more humility.
Raymond in DC ,
26. why does he whine so much?
is it because he's american? i am not, and from the outside, it does seem to me that in many ways americans are culturally more prone to whining than other cultures i have experienced.
perhaps it makes him and or other whiners feel better about their sometimes inadequate selves?
i have always thought leadership was about taking responsibility and not whining, and still do.
sweeter than honey ,
27. Time for Tom to do a little Soul Searching
Tom should do a little soul searching and what he may realize is that his anti-Israel articles (which he believes from an elitist patronizing perspective is for Israel's own good), is to ingratiate himself with the non-Jewish left wing in and outside the US (look at me, I am a Jew and I can level harsh criticism at Israel). Every article Freidman writes concerning the Middle East, has at least one sentence slamming the settlements in order to present himself as being fair, balanced and left wing politically correct. If Friedman was not a Jew criticizing Israel, he would not receive all of the attention and influence which he does. Roger Cohen from the NY Times is no different
It is easy for Freidman to live in the US and write how Israel should take risks (remember what the withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza produced). He does not have to live with the consequences.
28. Excellent !
The article by Dr. Sherman meir eyes. It is important to distribute promply to any mailing lists
29. KPeace Canada #14: Your critiques of
Martin Sherman's article do not hold water. Let me be brief and explain why: 1) The best predictor of future behaviour and events is past behaviour and events; 2) There is nothing in this article nor in any of Professor Sherman's past articles to suggest that he does not invite criticism of, and lively debate about, Israeli policies and government. 3) As to the "obsession with "settlements", it is you who have made his case when you forcefully indicate that it is the international community which is so concerned about the building and residing in yishuvs in Judea and Samaria. Perhaps, in your determination to critique Mr. Sherman, you have failed to logically reflect on your own position.