Tom Friedman, Defamer of Israel

(Washington, D.C.): On 4 April 1995, the New York
Times published a letter to the editor written by
the national director of the Anti-Defamation League of
the B’nai B’rith (ADL), Abraham Foxman. This letter was
representative of the valuable work done by the ADL —
documenting and challenging the activities of those who
unfairly attack the government of Israel, its policies
and motivations or otherwise exhibit anti-Semitic
behavior.

In this case, the focus of Mr. Foxman’s concerns was Times
columnist Anthony Lewis. His letter says, in part:

“Replete with stale rhetoric and
platitudes that blame Israel for current obstacles
[to peace between Israelis and Palestinians, Mr.
Lewis’] columns downplay…the
Palestinian-based factors that have led to the delay
in further implementation of Palestinian self-rule.
Mr. Lewis pays only lip-service to Islamic extremist
terrorism, which has claimed more than 120 lives
[N.B. the number has risen sharply since this letter
was published] since September 1993 and has made
Israelis justifiably fear for their personal safety
and security.

“It is the heinous actions of the young Hamas
suicide bombers who are inculcated with an ideology
of violence and martyrdom that is to blame for delays
in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Although Mr.
Lewis acknowledges some failings of the Palestinian
Authority — human rights abuses, the Palestinian
leader Yasir Arafat’s autocratic style, his refusal
to provide an accounting of how he will use
international funds and his lack of resolve in
reining in Islamic militants — Mr. Lewis
still assigns Israel the primary responsibility for
the deterioration of the peace process.

“For Mr. Lewis, Israel always seems
to be the party most deserving of blame. It is
unfortunate that the bold risks Israel is taking for
peace and the cost in human life it is paying have
not much affected his assessment of the situation in
the region.” (Emphasis added
throughout.)

Would the ADL Honor Anthony Lewis?

Such pointed criticism is well-deserved in Tony Lewis’
case. It is to the ADL’s credit that it has held
accountable not only this prominent columnist but others
who display Lewis’ cavalier disregard for Israel’s
legitimate security concerns.

Amazingly, however, this Sunday evening, the
Anti-Defamation League will make the keynote speaker at
its annual awards banquet in Los Angeles one of Tony
Lewis’ fellow columnists and his peer when it comes to
writing diatribes against Israel — Thomas
Friedman. Indeed, Abe Foxman’s passages
quoted above would have been equally accurate had Tom
Friedman’s name appeared in lieu of that of Anthony Lewis.

In fact, since his days as a Brandeis
University student activist in Breira, the
Middle East “peace group,” Tom Friedman has
repeatedly expressed sympathy for Israel’s enemies and
intolerance for Israeli efforts to contend with them.
For example, even at the height of the PLO’s
terrorism in the early 1970s, he urged that Arafat’s
organization be made a negotiating partner, minimized its
role in terrorist acts against Israel and implicitly
endorsed its goal of self-determination (a euphemism for
Palestinian statehood). In particular, as a Mideast
reporter for the New York Times, as an author of
books like From Beirut to Jerusalem, and as a
columnist for the Times‘ op.ed. page, Friedman
has made no secret of what might be called his
“Blame Israel First” attitude.

Notably, Tom Friedman has regularly urged Washington
to use coercive techniques to extract concessions deemed
unwise by Israel’s elected government. He has been, for
example, credited by former Secretary of State James
Baker with inspiring the latter’s high profile — and
contemptuous — dressing-down of Israel in the course of
1990 congressional testimony to the effect that Yitzhak
Shamir should call him “when you’re serious about
peace.” Friedman expressed a similar sentiment when
he wrote on 20 November 1996:

“The next Secretary [of State] will certainly
need to have a Bakeresque taste for knuckle-breaking,
strategic leaking and other diplomatic contact
sports…to promote the peace process with an Israeli
government preoccupied with looking for ways to move
forward without political costs and without making
the really tough choices vis a vis the
Palestinians.”

Other quotes over the past decade document Friedman’s
proclivity to defame Israel and exculpate its
adversaries. These include: accusing Israel of
“demonizing” the Palestinian Arabs (Jerusalem
Post, 20 March 1985); declaring that he
“identif[ies] very strongly with the yearnings of
the Palestinians to national self-determination….”
(Moment Magazine, 1 June 1985); decrying
Israel’s “megalomania” (Detroit Jewish News,
5 June 1988); asserting that Israel’s refusal to release
700 terrorists as demanded by the perpetrators of the
1985 hijacking of a TWA jet “certainly
contributed” to the hijacking (Commentary,
January 1990); denouncing Israel’s retaliation for
Hezbollah terror campaigns in northern Israel as “so
out of proportion, its apology so lacking, its effect on
Lebanon so devastating…” (New York Times,
15 May 1996); and devoting an entire New York Times
column in May 1996 to equating Candidate Netanyahu to the
Russian presidential candidate who advocated the
restoration of Soviet communism.

Perhaps most extraordinary of all is Tom Friedman’s
willingness to associate himself publicly with Arab
extremists, their apologists and agenda. Notably, in June
1996, Friedman addressed and chaired a panel of a
conference sponsored by the American Committee on
Jerusalem — an Arab-American organization
“dedicated solely to educating the American public
and policy-makers on the Palestinian and Arab viewpoints
and perspectives on Jerusalem.” The Committee has as
its objective promoting the establishment of Jerusalem as
the capital of a Palestinian Arab state.

Glass Houses

The prospect of a persistent defamer of Israel being
honored by the Anti-Defamation League has understandably
prompted an outcry from many in the American Jewish
community, including the former chairman of ADL, the
widely respected New York attorney Kenneth Bialkin. Most
vocal in expressing concern about the inappropriateness
of legitimizing (to say nothing of enriching with
speaking fees) an individual with Tom Friedman’s views
have been the Zionist Organization of America
(ZOA) and its national president, Morton Klein.

In a letter to Mr. Foxman dated 21 November 1996, Mr.
Klein and two of his colleagues on behalf of the ZOA
“respectfully urge[d ADL] to consider canceling the
planned appearance of Thomas Friedman at your Los Angeles
dinner” in light of Friedman’s “long and
troubling record of one-sided journalistic attacks on
Israel.” Such a request not only seems
appropriate in light of that record. It is also entirely
consistent with the role played by responsible
organizations in a democratic society to hold public
figures accountable for their actions and, where
necessary, to promote substantive debate by so doing.
This is a role which not only the Zionist Organization of
America and the Center for Security Policy are committed
to perform. It is also a role central to the
Anti-Defamation League’s charter and one which it has
generally been unsurpassed in fulfilling.

Particularly in light of the latter point, Mr.
Foxman’s response to the ZOA request has been nothing
short of astounding. In a letter dated 25 November, he
defended Friedman as “a columnist whose opinions are
always expressed within the context of support for the
State of Israel.” Surely, Anthony Lewis would make
the same claim about his opinions.

Worse yet, Mr. Foxman proceeded publicly to denounce
Mr. Klein as “an attack dog of the thought
police,” urging that Mr. Klein be “expelled
from the organized Jewish world.” Mr. Foxman even
declared to the Jewish Forward on 29 November
1996 that “I am going after Mort Klein because I
think this kind of behavior should be ostracized in the
[American Jewish] community….If you want to get in the
gutter, do it in another community, not in ours.”

The Bottom Line

Abe Foxman’s defense of Tom Friedman is an error of
judgment. Honoring Friedman at a major ADL function is
regrettable in the extreme. Mr. Foxman’s intemperate
remarks about a fellow member of the Conference of
Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Morton
Klein, reflect badly on him and the ADL.

The suggestion that someone who is doing
nothing more than presenting information about the views,
writings and actions of an influential figure — views
that can reasonably be described as hostile to Israel —
is “an attack dog of the thought police” can
only redound to the detriment of the valuable work
regularly performed by the Anti-Defamation League.

It behooves the ADL at every turn to protect the
rights of participants in a free and democratic society
like ours to record, challenge and debate other
participants’ stances. So long as this is done without
police powers of enforcement, there should be no
confusion of such activities with those of a
“thought police.” And no one who
treasures American freedoms and democracy should try to
intimidate their intellectual adversaries by labelling
them “thought police.”

The Anti-Defamation League clearly has the legal
right to invite and pay Tom Friedman to speak —
and no one is advocating that the police infringe on
ADL’s (or Friedman’s) First Amendment rights. But ZOA
equally has the right to criticize Friedman for his
writings and ADL for honoring him. Furthermore, the issue
of rights aside, ZOA has the better of the argument on
the merits.

– 30 –