Likud America Media Campaigns Condemn Themselves
American political commentator Thomas Friedman has been subjected to an endless and wicked campaign by Likud America because of his political opinions, especially his objection to the influence of the Jewish-American billionaire Sheldon Adelson in Congress and in American politics itself.
The campaign is a decoration on the chest of Friedman and a condemnation to the Likud America extremists in politics and in the media, such as in Commentary magazine, which attacks Friedman nearly without stopping.
I don't agree with Thomas Friedman on everything he writes, but I respect him because he is moderate. He is thus on the "Jews I can be at peace with" list. The other list includes extremists calling for war, occupation and killing — Likud and the like. Friedman's latest article on the victory of Benjamin Netanyahu was rational and warned of the dangers of Israel's future.
Here is a selection of article titles from a magazine that supported wars killing thousands of Muslims for intentionally fraudulent reasons:
- "Friedman's Adelson Derangement Syndrome and Democracy"
- "Friedman Spreads Anti-Semitic Libels about Netanyahu Speech"
- "Friends, Enemies, and Columnists" (yet another article attacking Friedman and defending Adelson)
- "Friedman's Immoral Intifada"
I stop here to say that real immorality is killing more than 2,000 civilians in 10 years, including 517 children; and that terrorists kill, occupy and condemn those who defend themselves and are not those trying to save human lives.
This article is not a defense of Thomas Friedman, but an assault on those extremists against him. I read editorials in The New York Times and The Washington Post daily, sometimes constantly.
The editorial boards of those two papers include some well-known Likud [supporters], and they campaign for President Abel Fattah al-Sisi and his government under the pretense of defending human rights. Let's review: the Muslim Brotherhood ruled for a year and tried to seize power for three years, labeling all who opposed them as kafirs, and the ruled in Egypt today face a terrorist free from all restrictions. So the supporters of Israel in the two liberal papers, among the most important newspapers in the world, hope that the Muslim Brotherhood returns to power so that the Muslims fight and Israel rests.
Among them all, I like Paul Krugman of The New York Times, the prominent Nobel Prize winning economist. I don't recall ever disagreeing with any of his articles. I read his stuff tenaciously even though I don't know anything about the American or global economy. I find him logical and convincing. His latest article on Israel was quite objective, as was his article "Trillion Dollar Fraudsters."
Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times is of the Friedman variety, and I don't recall ever disagreeing with him, except on the issue of Bahrain, because I insist that the opposition has been duped into taking commands from the Ayatollah in Iran and they don't really want democracy as they say they do, but that the Guardianship of the Jurist is in a country with no natural resources to speak of. Likewise, Maureen Dowd — intelligent and moderate. Also, Gail Collins.
On The Washington Post editorial board is Jackson Diehl; he writes in the Likud spirit. From the Israel camp is Charles Krauthammer, about whom I won't say anything except that I have absolutely no respect for him. If he's not lionizing Israel or attacking their enemies, he's focusing on the Obama administration or Hillary Clinton. The last thing I read by this Likud-loving writer was an article announcing that no peace was possible because Palestinians refuse it. Before that, I read an article of his entitled, "Early Onset Clinton Fatigue." The fatigue felt is for him and not the potential Democratic candidate for president. I am less afraid of the force of right-wing writer Jennifer Rubin. I recently read her article, "Seven reasons why Sen. Marco Rubio is thriving." I'm telling you, Rubio will not be the Republican nominee in the days to come.
At least The Washington Post has David Ignatius and Eugene Robinson. These are both middle-of-the-road moderates searching for the truth. They are compensation to the reader for the likes of Krauthammer, Rubin, Diehl and others. I won't say anymore except that I will continue to read The New York Times and The Washington Post every morning, despite those enemies of peace.
The campaign is a decoration on the chest of Friedman and a condemnation to the Likud America extremists in politics and in the media, such as in Commentary magazine, which attacks Friedman nearly without stopping.
I don't agree with Thomas Friedman on everything he writes, but I respect him because he is moderate. He is thus on the "Jews I can be at peace with" list. The other list includes extremists calling for war, occupation and killing — Likud and the like. Friedman's latest article on the victory of Benjamin Netanyahu was rational and warned of the dangers of Israel's future.
Here is a selection of article titles from a magazine that supported wars killing thousands of Muslims for intentionally fraudulent reasons:
- "Friedman's Adelson Derangement Syndrome and Democracy"
- "Friedman Spreads Anti-Semitic Libels about Netanyahu Speech"
- "Friends, Enemies, and Columnists" (yet another article attacking Friedman and defending Adelson)
- "Friedman's Immoral Intifada"
I stop here to say that real immorality is killing more than 2,000 civilians in 10 years, including 517 children; and that terrorists kill, occupy and condemn those who defend themselves and are not those trying to save human lives.
This article is not a defense of Thomas Friedman, but an assault on those extremists against him. I read editorials in The New York Times and The Washington Post daily, sometimes constantly.
The editorial boards of those two papers include some well-known Likud [supporters], and they campaign for President Abel Fattah al-Sisi and his government under the pretense of defending human rights. Let's review: the Muslim Brotherhood ruled for a year and tried to seize power for three years, labeling all who opposed them as kafirs, and the ruled in Egypt today face a terrorist free from all restrictions. So the supporters of Israel in the two liberal papers, among the most important newspapers in the world, hope that the Muslim Brotherhood returns to power so that the Muslims fight and Israel rests.
Among them all, I like Paul Krugman of The New York Times, the prominent Nobel Prize winning economist. I don't recall ever disagreeing with any of his articles. I read his stuff tenaciously even though I don't know anything about the American or global economy. I find him logical and convincing. His latest article on Israel was quite objective, as was his article "Trillion Dollar Fraudsters."
Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times is of the Friedman variety, and I don't recall ever disagreeing with him, except on the issue of Bahrain, because I insist that the opposition has been duped into taking commands from the Ayatollah in Iran and they don't really want democracy as they say they do, but that the Guardianship of the Jurist is in a country with no natural resources to speak of. Likewise, Maureen Dowd — intelligent and moderate. Also, Gail Collins.
On The Washington Post editorial board is Jackson Diehl; he writes in the Likud spirit. From the Israel camp is Charles Krauthammer, about whom I won't say anything except that I have absolutely no respect for him. If he's not lionizing Israel or attacking their enemies, he's focusing on the Obama administration or Hillary Clinton. The last thing I read by this Likud-loving writer was an article announcing that no peace was possible because Palestinians refuse it. Before that, I read an article of his entitled, "Early Onset Clinton Fatigue." The fatigue felt is for him and not the potential Democratic candidate for president. I am less afraid of the force of right-wing writer Jennifer Rubin. I recently read her article, "Seven reasons why Sen. Marco Rubio is thriving." I'm telling you, Rubio will not be the Republican nominee in the days to come.
At least The Washington Post has David Ignatius and Eugene Robinson. These are both middle-of-the-road moderates searching for the truth. They are compensation to the reader for the likes of Krauthammer, Rubin, Diehl and others. I won't say anymore except that I will continue to read The New York Times and The Washington Post every morning, despite those enemies of peace.