Tom Friedman's quid pro quo?

There's a rumor going around pro-Israel circles that Tom Friedman was furious at his bosses at the New York Times for allowing Yesha Council Chairman Dani Dayan access to the Times editorial pages. An op-ed appears in Sunday's Times that is so dripping with hatred for traditional Judaism and the Jewish state that one cannot help but wonder whether the Times published it to mollify Friedman, who is, after all, considered one of their top editorial writers (which is a sad comment on the Times' editorial page). The op-ed was written by former Knesset Speaker Avrum Burg, who acquired French citizenship in 2004 (but according to Wikipedia currently lives in Israel).

Mr. Netanyahu’s great political “achievement” has been to make Israel a partisan issue and push American Jews into a corner. He has forced them to make political decisions based on calculations that go against what they perceive to be American interests. The emotional extortion compels Jews to pressure the Obama administration, a government with which they actually share values and worldviews, when those who love Israel should be doing the opposite: helping the American government to intervene and save Israel from itself.

It's not Netanyahu's achievement. It's Barack Obama's and the American Left's. It used to be that support for Israel was a given for both parties.Survey after survey has shown that in the Democratic party support for Israel has dropped significantly. In fact, the party's Left flank is openly hostile to Israel. This confronts at least some American Jews with a dilemma: Support the party that overwhelmingly supports Israel or support the party that supports unrestricted abortions and redistribution of wealth. And for those American Jews to whom Israel really matters, but who still have otherwise 'liberal' views, this poses a dilemma. But not the one that Burg is expounding.

Israel arose as a secular, social democratic country inspired by Western European democracies. With time, however, its core values have become entirely different. Israel today is a religious, capitalist state. Its religiosity is defined by the most extreme Orthodox interpretations. Its capitalism has erased much of the social solidarity of the past, with the exception of a few remaining vestiges of a welfare state.

Much of that is true (although I would vehemently contest the phrase 'most extreme Orthodox interpretations). But it's a function of who has come to live here. Most of those who have come here out of choice rather than necessity are Orthodox Jews. No one else is interested, except of course the non-Jewish Russians who wanted to improve their economic status. And as to capitalism, Burg was fine with capitalism so long as it benefited the Labor party and its cronies. Why can't others benefit as well? Should we go back to the situation where the Histadrut shuts the country down once a week instead of once every six months?

In the early years of statehood, the meaning of the term “Jewish” was national and secular. In the eyes of Israel’s founding fathers, to be a Jew was exactly like being an Italian, Frenchman or American. Over the years, this elusive concept has changed; today, the meaning of “Jewish” in Israel is mainly ethnic and religious.

No, it was never 'national and secular. Here and there, there were people who showed up who wanted to convert, but they would never want to live in Israel as non-Jews. Unless they were Arabs.

The winds of isolation and narrowness are blowing through Israel. Rude and arrogant power brokers, some of whom hold senior positions in government, exclude non-Jews from Israeli public spaces.

Anyone know to whom he's referring?

Graffiti in the streets demonstrates their hidden dreams: a pure Israel with “no Arabs” and “no gentiles.”

Well, that's real authoritative. People who are 'rude and arrogant power brokers' are writing graffiti in the streets? Telling others to write graffiti in the streets? Graffiti represents a country's political ethos? Huh?

But there is another option: an iconic conflict could also present an iconic solution. As in Northern Ireland or South Africa, where citizens no longer spill one another’s blood, it will eventually become clear that many Israelis are not willing to live in an ethnic democracy, not willing to give up on the chance to live in peace, not willing to be passive patriots of a country that expels or purifies itself of its minorities, who are the original inhabitants of the land.

Is this what he learned in Netiv Meir (the local religious Jerusalem high school that he attended) - that the 'Palestinians' are the original inhabitants of the land? His father must be rolling over in his grave. And while I've never compared Israel to South Africa (which I don't believe is quite the utopia he makes it out to be), I have compared it to Northern Ireland and explained why the comparison is totally inappropriate.

Someone please take Avrum Burg off the list of 'pro-Israel' writers and speakers. He's definitely neither of those.

Read the whole thing. If you can stand it.