By Oded Faran and Walter E. Block
New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman delivers his latest warning with characteristic certitude: “I’ve spent the past few days traveling from New Delhi to Dubai and Amman, and I have an urgent message to deliver to the Israeli people: I am seeing the increasingly rapid erosion of Israel’s standing among friendly nations, a level of acceptance and legitimacy that was painstakingly built up over decades.”
The irony is staggering. This warning comes from a writer who has perhaps done more than any other journalist on the planet to undermine the worldwide reputation of the only civilized country in the Middle East. Through a relentless series of essays and editorials, Friedman, while ostentatiously positioning himself as a friend of Israel, has been methodically eroding its legitimacy.
Other critics exist, certainly. Al Jazeera’s writers have been more explicitly hostile to the Jewish state. Yet we maintain Friedman has proven more effective in damaging Israel’s standing. Two factors explain his outsized influence. First, he commands a platform unmatched in global journalism, writing for what considers itself the Newspaper of Record. Second, overtly pro-Hamas voices are readily dismissed as propagandists. Friedman’s critiques land differently. His carefully cultivated veneer of balanced support lends his attacks devastating credibility.
Consider his indictment: “I don’t think Israelis fully appreciate the rage that is bubbling up around the world, fueled by social media and TV footage, over the deaths of so many thousands of Palestinian civilians, particularly children, with U.S.-supplied weapons in Israel’s war in Gaza. Hamas has much to answer for in triggering this human tragedy, but Israel and the U.S. are seen as driving events now and getting most of the blame.”
Note the strategic concession: “Hamas has much to answer for.” This is textbook rhetorical positioning. No ineffective critic of Israel would offer such an acknowledgment. The concession exists solely to legitimize the condemnation that follows.
We must acknowledge one truth in Friedman’s analysis: Israel is indeed “getting most of the blame.” What he conveniently omits is his own central role in ensuring this outcome. This resembles the murderer who kills his parents, then pleads for sympathy as an orphan.
“Particularly Palestinian children”? The question demands examination. Who bears responsibility for these tragic deaths? The answer is unambiguous: Hamas, entirely and exclusively. Had Hamas not perpetrated the atrocity of October 7, 2023, these children would be alive. Had Hamas not systematically positioned them as human shields (a tactic even the Nazis refused to employ with German children), they would not have met this fate.
One image captures this reality perfectly: an IDF soldier and a Hamas fighter, rifles aimed at each other. The Israeli stands before a baby carriage marked with a Star of David. The Hamas operative cowers behind a carriage bearing Islamic insignia. When Hamas embeds rocket launchers in hospitals, schools, and residential areas, what outcome should anyone expect? That the IDF would declare its own civilians expendable? The IDF’s mandate is protecting Israeli noncombatants. Friedman’s logic demands Israel surrender to Hamas to spare Palestinian children. Given Hamas’s human shield strategy, capitulation remains the only way to prevent such deaths. This is counsel of suicide, not analysis.
Friedman continues his prosecution: “That such anger is boiling over in the Arab world is obvious, but I heard it over and over again in conversations in India during the past week, from friends, business leaders, an official and journalists both young and old.”
Undoubtedly true. Friedman cultivates such responses. His interlocutors understood precisely what narrative he sought. They obliged.
Undeterred, Friedman escalates: “That many civilian deaths in a relatively short war would be problematic in any context. But when so many civilians die in a retaliatory invasion that was launched by an Israeli government without any political horizon for the morning after, and then, when the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, finally offers a morning-after plan that essentially says to the world that Israel now intends to occupy both the West Bank and Gaza indefinitely, it is no surprise that Israel’s friends will edge away.”
No “political horizon”? Netanyahu’s horizon was crystal clear: victory over Hamas and ensuring “never again” becomes reality rather than hollow promise. Is this not every defensive army’s objective? To compel adversaries to surrender unconditionally? Why should Israel operate under different rules? Friedman’s critique reduces to demanding Israel articulate surrender terms before achieving victory.
He then characterizes “an Israel that is unwilling to consider any political horizon for Palestinian independence on any border.”
We offer Netanyahu’s hypothetical response: I categorically reject Mr. Friedman’s characterization. My government enthusiastically supports establishing a Palestinian state, with one caveat: it must be located at least 1,000 miles from Israel. Currently, 157 nations recognize Palestinian statehood. I would celebrate its establishment in any of them. France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Australia, all vocal advocates for Palestinian sovereignty, could host this state. King Hussein of Jordan welcomed Palestinians. He lived to regret it profoundly. Let these 157 nations demonstrate their commitment by opening their borders. Notably, no Arab neighbor shows enthusiasm for receiving people who celebrated in the streets on October 8, 2023. Egypt has hermetically sealed its border with Gaza.
Then Friedman briefly becomes reasonable: “It felt to me, at least, that the world was ready initially to accept that there were going to be significant civilian casualties if Israel was going to root out Hamas and recover its hostages, because Hamas had embedded itself in tunnels under homes, hospitals, mosques and schools and made no preparations of its own to protect Gazan civilians from the Israeli retaliation it knew it would trigger.”
This paragraph reveals the paradox. Can this lucid analyst be the same man castigating Israel for Palestinian civilian deaths? The contradiction appears irreconcilable. Yet the explanation is straightforward: these measured acknowledgments exist to authenticate the condemnations. A critic who writes such balanced analysis cannot be biased, the reader concludes. This makes his overall assault on Israel devastatingly effective.
Immediately following this reasonable paragraph comes this: “But now we have a toxic combination of thousands of civilian casualties and a Netanyahu peace plan that promises only endless occupation, no matter if the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank transforms itself into a legitimate, effective, broad-based governing body that can take control of both the West Bank and Gaza and be a partner one day for peace.”
The delusion returns. What is this “transformation” fantasy? Why didn’t the Allies permit the Nazis to “transform” into “a legitimate, effective, broad-based governing body” after World War II? Were the Nuremberg Trials a mistake? Friedman’s equivalent in 1945 would have championed a “transformed” Nazi Party. The Nazis would have eagerly “transformed” rather than face justice.
Next comes character assassination masquerading as analysis: “Netanyahu refuses to even consider trying to nurture a new relationship with non-Hamas Palestinians, because to do so would risk his prime minister’s chair, which depends on backing by hard-right Jewish supremacist parties who will never cede an inch of the West Bank. Hard to believe, but Netanyahu is ready to sacrifice Israel’s hard-won international legitimacy for his personal political needs.”
Au contraire. What is hard to believe is that a serious journalist would advance such baseless accusations. Netanyahu sacrificing national security for personal ambition? This constitutes treason. Does Friedman offer evidence? None whatsoever. The accusation stands naked, unsupported by facts.
Were we as unscrupulous as Friedman, we might suggest he maintains his “friend of Israel” pose while systematically undermining the nation to preserve his standing at the New York Times. But we decline to traffic in evidence-free character assassination.
Consider now Friedman’s triumvirate of failures: “Israel is losing on three fronts at once today. It is losing the global narrative that it is fighting a just war. It has no plan to ever get out of Gaza, so it will eventually sink into the sands there with a permanent occupation that will surely complicate relations with all its Arab allies and friends across the globe. And it is losing regionally to Iran and its anti-Israel proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, who are pressuring Israel’s northern, southern and eastern borders.”
On the first “failure”: Friedman would struggle to name anyone more responsible for Israel losing global narrative support than himself. The circularity is breathtaking.
On the second: Israeli patriots (Friedman’s “Jewish Supremacists”) propose a fundamentally different solution. They advocate facilitating Palestinian departure, as Palestinians lack legitimate ownership. John Locke’s homesteading theory establishes clear principles: first occupants who mix labor with land acquire rightful ownership. Jews established this claim 3,500 years ago. Palestinians arrived centuries later. Perhaps Israel erred in abandoning Gaza in 2005.
On the third: Israel is decisively winning against Iran’s proxy network (Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis). It has inflicted devastating losses and will continue neutralizing threats. The path to peace is straightforward: these groups need only cease attacking Israel. They appear constitutionally incapable of choosing this option.
Finally, examine Friedman’s title: “Israel Is Losing Its Greatest Asset: Acceptance.” This claim deserves scrutiny. International acceptance constitutes Israel’s greatest asset? Greater than possessing the world’s fourth most powerful military? Greater than its technological and innovation leadership? Greater than its high-tech industries developing tomorrow’s cutting-edge systems? Greater than its moral resilience, surviving and prospering against overwhelming odds?
The claim is risible.
Friedman’s fundamental error lies in his premise. Israel’s greatest asset has never been the approval of fair-weather friends who abandon principle under pressure. Its true assets are its defensive capabilities, technological superiority, innovative capacity, and the justice of its cause. These remain undiminished regardless of how many nations succumb to propaganda.
Friedman presents Israel with a false choice: security or popularity, survival or acceptance. For any nation confronting existential threats, no choice exists. Israel will choose survival. It will choose to live.
Sources
Friedman, Thomas L. “Israel Is Losing Its Greatest Asset: Acceptance.” The New York Times, February 27, 2024. [Referenced throughout the article as the primary text under critique] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/27/opinion/israel-gaza-peace-thomas-friedman.html
Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. 1689. [Referenced in discussion of homesteading theory and rightful ownership of territory based on first occupation and labor mixing]
Staff, TOI. “Israel Ranks Among 10 Most Powerful Countries in Annual List; 4th Strongest Military.” The Times of Israel, January 2023. [Cited to support claim that Israel possesses the fourth strongest military on the planet] https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-among-10-most-powerful-countries-in-the-world-in-annual-list/
“State of Palestine.” Wikipedia, accessed December 2024. [Referenced regarding the 157 of 193 UN member states that have recognized Palestinian statehood, supporting the hypothetical Netanyahu response about alternative locations for a Palestinian state]
United Nations General Assembly. Various resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 1947-2024. [General context for international diplomatic positioning and recognition of Palestinian statehood claims]
It is surprising that Friedman is still writing these fallacies after so many years. One would have thought that the Mossad could have solved this issue long ago, but alas, he is still at it. In all likelihood, his demise would immediately blamed on the Israeli government and that threat has already made the rounds.
There is a better answer: he should be involved in the Epstein story so that he will be despised for ever. It wouldn’t even matter if it were to be true or not. Simply being painted with the same brush would suffice. As the saying goes, one good turn deserves another.