Tom Friedman normalizes apartheid in the ‘New York Times’ – Mondoweiss

When I hear some Americans talk about Palestine and Israel, I marvel at how effective the campaign to project a fictional image of that region is, even on liberals, progressives, and leftists. Then, if I must, I read Tom Friedmans articles on the matter and despair at how many people think there is even a hint of reality in them.

But on Tuesday, Friedman outdid himself, topping even his fantasy fluff piece on Mohammed bin Salman in 2017. Friedman painted the past year in Israelthe first Netanyahu-free year since 2008as an icon of democracy, where Israeli Jews and Palestinian citizens of Israel danced together under the blue and white flag, in harmony and happiness.

It is a contemptible piece of fiction which erases apartheid, blames Palestinians for their own ongoing oppression, and praises those who would abandon their cousins under occupation. On top of all that, even if not quite as egregious, Friedman displays a comical ignorance of Israeli politics, a bit of knowledge you would think would be a basic qualification for the New York Times leading Israel apologist.

Friedman wastes no time by launching a flawed analogy between Donald Trumps coup attempt and Benjamin Netanyahus various machinations to remain in office. He warns that the win at any cost mentality could tear apart democracy in both the United States and Israel.

Typically, Friedman ignores the fact that both of those countries, though having certain democratic structures, also have significant anti-democratic systemsapartheid in Israels case, and various limitations that resist democracy like the electoral college and the Senate in the United Statesthat maintain various forms of economic, social, racial, gender, and other discriminations.

Worse, Friedman personalizes the anti-democratic forces in both countries. Contrary to his formulation, Trump in the United States and Netanyahu in Israel are symbols of anti-democratic forces, they do not embody them. Indeed, many of those same forces have turned against the strongmen in both cases, as they value the system, not the particular leader.

Here in the United States, we are witnessing a whole array of people testifying and sitting on the January 6th committee who continue to support Trumps policies, they just dont want him. Similarly, while Israels biggest party, Likud, is keeping Netanyahu at its head, he is being challenged from within that party and from outside it by far-right nationalists, including the outgoing Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Justice Minister Gideon Saar, as well as by more conventional rightwing figures like Yair Lapid and Benny Gantz.

None of this registers with Friedman, who fails to see the irony when he describes his dream U.S. governmentone that includes, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Larry Hogan, Lisa Murkowski, Charlie Baker, retired admiral Bill McRaven, Joe Manchin, Amy Klobuchar, Mike Bloomberg, Jim Clyburn and Michelle Lujan Grisham. Its a bipartisan group who all have conservative politics, a union of Never-Trumpers and the farthest right wing of the Democratic party, one that is entirely filled with the wealthy and their servants, whose policies are responsible for most of the mess we have been in economically, politically, socially, and internationally for all of American history.

This center-right paradise, according to Friedman, is what Israel has had for the past year. He lauds the recently-collapsed Bennett-Lapid government for passing the first national budget in three years. This was much less of an accomplishment than Friedman imagines, although it is true that it was not certain that the government could do it. But there hasnt been a budget because there hadnt been a government for three years. It was Israels political chaos that created this dysfunction, and it remained in place because even the Bennett-Lapid coalition was based on just one principle: anyone but Netanyahu. Just like the Democrats here in the United States who run almost entirely on Not being Donald Trump.

Friedman portrays Bennett as less right-wing than Netanyahu, an absurd characterization of Bennett, who is, himself, a religious supporter of settlers who has always held to those far-right beliefs. He made the compromises he was forced to in order to get Netanyahu out of the prime ministers office, nothing more. Its fair to say that Bennett does not share Netanyahus affinity for bribes, and shady deals with media moguls, and the various other acts that have brought indictments down on his head. But Bennett had always attacked Netanyahu from the right before, and his political positions have not changed. He merely made a deal with a variety of parties who had one thing in common: anyone but Netanyahu.

Friedman gives the impression that, with Netanyahu gone, the Israeli government was more reasonable, compromising, even liberal. But this was not at all the case. The government was largely paralyzed while in office, but one thing it could and did do was consistently reinforce the apartheid regime.

But Friedman really gets into gear when he starts talking about the Raam party, headed by Monsour Abbas.

He starts by stating, Perhaps more than anything else, the unity coalition was able to demonstrate that Israeli Jews and Arabs can calmly govern together a historic breakthrough.

While its certainly true that Raam was the first Arab party to be part of an Israeli government coalition, it was hardly an example of Arabs and Jews calmly working as one. As Raam sat in the government, the government passed a law forbidding Palestinian citizens of Israel to marry Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. When it passed, Ayelet Shaked who is well-known for her racism, Naftali Bennetts Interior Minister, and now designated by Bennett to lead their Yamina party tweeted, A Jewish and democratic State 1; A state of all of its citizens 0.

Another Yamina Knesset member, Nir Orbach, quit the government because it included Arabs. So much for calmly governing together.

But this doesnt trouble Friedman, who dismisses the larger Joint Lista coalition party consisting of two Palestinian parties and the Palestinian-Jewish-Communist party, Hadashas irrelevant, although it is their significant success in the Knesset that, given all other parties unwillingness to work with them, is a key factor in the political paralysis that has gripped Israeli elections for years. The Joint List has six seats, Raam has four. Seems relevant.

Nothing changed for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza with Raam in government. The siege on Gaza was as tight as ever, and if anything, Bennett was more aggressive even than Netanyahu on the West Bank, especially in East Jerusalem, with a significant rise in Israeli aggression at the al-Aqsa Mosque compound, regular raids, pushing forward with evictions in areas like Sheikh Jarrah and Masafer Yatta. And, of course, there was the recent murder of Shireen Abu Akleh.

Friedman praises Mansour Abbas and Raam for sitting in the government with Bennett and other right-wing leaders from the center-right Lapid to the much farther right Gideon Saar. Friedman writes, Abbas basically told the other Israeli Arab parties to take a hike. He would play in the center of Israeli politics. Although some members of his base resisted, Abbas drew support from many Israeli Arabs fed up with the corruption and drift within the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the brutality and incompetence of Hamas in Gaza. They wanted to focus on their lives in Israel.

This is a fictional account. Raam, Abbas party, is a very conservative one. It gets support from the religious and most conservative parts of the Palestinian community inside Israel, especially among Bedouin. The dire conditions they often face within Israel naturally causes them to focus more the situation of Palestinian citizens of Israel, although they are still concerned about Israeli actions against Palestinians under occupation and are particularly sensitive to Israels behavior regarding religious sites in Jerusalem.

Abbas didnt really change that. What he did was depart from his always uneasy alliance with the more left-wing tendencies in the Joint List (of which Raam was once a member). It was the desperation of the Zionist parties that led to Raam being invited into the government, and even being courted by Netanyahu to support his bloc (though not as a full partner).

Abbas joined a government that was harshly cracking down on Palestinians, and simply stayed silent, with the exception of his response to Israels attack on Muslim worshippers at al-Aqsa Mosque. That was too much for even Abbas to ignore, and he paused Raams participation in the government for a brief period.

This was not a grand compromise. Raam was able to win some additional funding for Arab municipalities, including recognition of three Bedouin villages (which means they can now get municipal services) and the upgrading of a Druze town to city status. But these came at the price of Raams silence in the face of expanding apartheid. Friedman naturally loves this.

In fact, Friedman wrote, Abbas drew support from many Israeli Arabs fed up with the corruption and drift within the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the brutality and incompetence of Hamas in Gaza. Again, this is fictional. Abbas himself may have little concern about Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, but his constituents, even if they are more focused than others on their own situation within Israel, remain very concerned and many have been critical of Raams silence.

The discomfort that much of the Bennett-Lapid coalition had with sitting with even this accommodating Arab party was one of the main reasons the weak coalition was living on borrowed time from the beginning. A unique set of circumstancesthe even division between pro- and anti-Netanyahu blocs, the ability to unify a disparate set of parties around ousting Netanyahu and nothing else, the ongoing isolation of the Joint Listcreated a situation where a desperate Israeli group, after three years of futile elections, brought in an Arab party. It was unprecedented, but given the instability Raams presence caused, probably didnt set a precedent, as Friedman imagines.

Friedmans fantasy normalized Israeli apartheid in typical fashion: by pretending it isnt there. He contends that democracy is on the ballot in both the U.S. and Israel, and the way forward is to elect center-right coalitions that do nothing but maintain a status quo that is based on discrimination, racism, inequality, and elitism. Otherwise, he warns, the far right is the only alternative.

Its a false choice. In Israel, the reality is that, when it comes to the Palestinians and Israels apartheid system, the mainstream supports these policies. As we just saw with Bennett and Lapid, getting rid of the authoritarian leaves the government paralyzed except for reinforcing apartheid, which is broadly supported. In the U.S., the majority supports racial justice, greater economic equality and opportunity, womens rights, and many other things that are disappearing even under Democratic leadership.

Friedmans center-right coalitions are his favored groups not because they promote liberal democracy, but because theyre immoderate, conservative coalitions that support regressive policies. They just do it without the blatantly autocratic leaders they just shed.

Over the last year, weve made a conscious commitment to our readers and the entire Palestinian freedom movement:to build a newsroom for all of Palestine.

As we welcome our two new Palestine-based staff, Faris Giacaman and Mariam Barghouti, will you contribute to make sure Mondoweiss can back their work 100%?

Between now and July 3rd, a generous donor has pledged to match all gifts, up to $50,000.

This summer fundraising campaign is going to make a huge difference in how we cover the next big uprisings, the place of Palestinian rights in U.S. politics, and the grassroots movement building an unstoppable campaign for justice.

Go here to read the rest:

Tom Friedman normalizes apartheid in the 'New York Times' - Mondoweiss