a vacillating, spineless bully masquerading as a public intellectual-no wonder Arabs like him so much!

Guess his mind finally became swiss-cheesed enough that he snapped. Now, how quickly do you think this'll be covered up and Friedman will coming out smelling like a rose?

While I enjoy Jewsweek, I pray that a higher profile publication like the Wall Street Journal jumps all over this. My hunch is that James Taranto is already licking his chops for tomorrow's column.

When I saw that title, "Friedman loses it", I thought it would be another post about one of Friedman's personalities repudiating the things that another had said in his column. Their column. Friedmen lose it. From now on I'm referring to that thing in plural form only.
And what a ninny! OMG!!! Need some medication for that hysteria, Friedmen?

FriedmanPOS

feh

tell Schwartz to sue

Pardon my french, f*ck Friedman. Just to think that two years ago I would not miss reading his column.

Zwicker-I'm pretty confident he reads the Lizard King's Bulls, I'm sure we'll see it in tomorrow's BOTW. As for where I'm excited to see it-well, awesomely catty commentator Mark Steyn is sure to have an extra snarky take on it...Taranto is witty but drier. Ooh! I wonder if Gawker will pick this up...heh heh heh
*scurries off to email Choire

#4 above-Of course I meant what ninnies!

evariste -- that's just hilarious! "Friedmen" and "them"

Sums it up so well. For a while, as he started to go off the rails, Friedmen was in a limbo category -- didn't know whether to routinely ignore their stuff (like 95% of columnists) or glance at it. Then one day they said -- I swear they wrote this, unless I dreamed it -- in re the MidEast mood prior to Iraq, that the Arab world '"just wants a smaller Israel."

That settled it for me, obviously.

Well, it's obvious to anyone who follows Friedman's columns that the man is a bit mentally unstable. On the other hand, I can imagine that "Harvey Schwartz, a Manhattan lawyer" might be a person I'd be tempted to push around myself.

I hope the guy not only sues him and the NYT, but in doing so, he calls both Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly about the lawsuit.

It is wonderful to see how, under the scrutiny of weblog pressure, these NYT people simply can't handle it anymore. The paper is really losing it.

In the past week, I think I've seen something like a dozen major screwups by NYT, that were noted between this site, Instapundit, Andrew Sullivan, some other weblogs, and what Mark Levin has mentioned on WABC-AM 770 in NYC.

All of a sudden, the liberal media is exposed to the scrutiny it has imposed on conservatives and Republicans for 50 years, and they simply can't handle it.

It's positively wonderful!

Friedman lost me when he got all schoolgirlish over that bogus Saudi peace plan for Israel last year. After reading now that he's just as much of an insufferable jerk in person as he is on paper, I don't intend to rethink my decision to ignore his columns.

krugman, friedman ... whatever

Well...wasn't that baroque! Nice one!

He's a putz, the biggest!

Man, what's up with the Dimocrats turning into pottymouths all of a sudden?

It's almost as if they realise that, despite their grand self-delusions, they are really in for a self-imposed drubbing in '04 because of their rabid Bush-hatred and idiotic stand on Iraq. They've painted themselves into a corner, and I think the strain of it all is starting to get the better of them. This should be an interesting election cycle.

Maybe the Dimocrats are the cause of the civil war in 2004 which

John Titor, Man from the Future warned us about?

Aren't we jumping in a little quickly in believing what took place? As much I question Friedman's...well, everything he does, I highly doubt he would make such a scene in public (lest he injures his Pulizter-prize winning typing hand).

#10 K.

On the other hand, I can imagine that "Harvey Schwartz, a Manhattan lawyer" might be a person I'd be tempted to push around myself.

LOL

Sideshow Ben, I believe it if it was in Jewsweek-plus, the guy claims to have a photo, and that there were multiple witnesses. That's ballsy if you're making it all up.

#17 Sideshow Ben

Similiarly I highly doubt someone would make it up out of whole cloth. Remember, this supposedly happened in public. Steven Weiss, who wrote the piece, happens to be pretty liberal. In fact he's probably cussing right now at being linked to favorably by LGF. Well, maybe not exactly, but you get the drift.

#15 tomcat
The Putzmeister America.

Fucking Hussein Ibish is on O'Reilly right now. Just FYI.

I loathe Insane Rubbish.

#19 evariste

He didn't have a camera.

Friedman turns around and sees me with my notebook and tape recorder.

The whole article is worth reading, btw. It's very good.

Weiss also has a blog

oops, Weiss' blog is here

K.-doh!

Anyone hear about Friedman's documentary that is going to air this Wednesday on the Discovery Channel at 10pm EST?

I think it is called "The Wall: Straddling the Fence" or something to that effect. Pertaining obviously to the security fence in Israel/Palestine.

50-50 Friedman is an AGENT..for G-d knows who. Thought it was the Saudis but maybe he is a Pan Arab Agent. So he is a "possible" combatant in this thing.

Couple of these so called Journalists are up to their necks in DIRTY Biz and what I think is Treason. Sorry...my alarm bells ring when SOME of these guys and GIRLS (can you say..CHRISTIANE..Amapour?) open their mouths.

A Christiane waanabee is Maria Inahosa of CNN. Watch her "pieces" and see if you dont think something is UP with her. I think she is trying out..auditioning for the job.

K., the doh! was directed at my assumption of a camera, not at your mis-link.

You know, I've been tempted to smack lawyers once or twice myself, but it strikes me as very unwise to actually go ahead and do it - especially Manhattan lawyers:-)

Friedman turns around and sees me with my notebook and tape recorder. Deer in the headlights.

Oh my, the reporter sees he is going to be reported on and nearly wets himself. I believe the Buddhists call that karma.

Imagine what tsk, tsking Tom would do if Sharon - or even an obscure Likudnik - hauled off on a reporter (something I'm sure Ariel often yearns to do) Friedman would put on his halo and write about how the dark heart of Likud revealed itself in a flash, blah, blah, blah.

St. Thomas Friedman. What a putz.

#16 T.Q.C.

Maybe the Dimocrats are the cause of the civil war in 2004 which John Titor, Man from the Future warned us about?

Ah, but if we take Titor's advice to heed, then there will be no reason for him to return to 2001, which means that there will be nobody to warn us, which means the civil war will happen, which means that Titor will have to be sent to 2001 to warn us . . .

Oh, and I have difficulty believing that the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust would result in everyone becoming civic-minded libertarians with good math skills.

Yes, I know he uses the alternate worldline theory to fool the gullible.

#31 Delapore

Yeah, no joke. You gotta wonder how it is that the US government in 2036 could figure out how to build a time machine, but can't figure out how to get a hospital running or how to set up distillation apparati to purify the water.

Sheesh. I could build a distillation apparatus in about an hour from junk lying around the house.

BS"D

Once again I am astounded by the absolute lack of connexion between spelling, and pronunciation in my adopted language (English).

First, I was astounded to realise that Rall is pronounced "quisling" , and then even more surprising was the recognition that "Religion of Peace" actually is pronounced "Blood-thirsty, dune-welling barbarian tur-boons". Now, I realise that "Thomas Freidman" is actually pronounced "Acephalic Kapo fascist lunatic".

Oy, the homework it is going to take to learn the rules & exceptions to the rules of this language ! :-)

JON STEWART CLIP ON THE GENEVA ACCORDS **HILARIOUS**!!

BS"D

Oops, "Dune-dwelling" that is.

Ali Al-beheshti, yeah, we're the ones who welled the dunes for them! So glad to see that you've corrected yourself ;-)

Just some comments regarding the above (I'm commenting as there are 31 comments, doubtless there are more by now -- you guys are too fast for me).
1) Indeed, I did not have a camera. I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure I didn't have my tape recorder running, and either way, it would be useless for picking up the conversation with the other noise being what it was and my being a good two feet away.
2) Please do read the entire article -- as I wrote to Charles, I had the article planned out before he hit the guy, and after he did, I realized that'd probably become the entire story. I still hope what I write beforehand is relevant.
3) I do think that its being published as fact in Jewsweek should count for its credibility. All the same, I tried to get the New York Sun to do a write-up on the story, and they're fact-checking first, which is a great and important thing to do. And I think lots of you should be reading Jewsweek weekly -- if you don't already, I'm sure you'll like it.
4) While James is correct in noting that I am a liberal, it's not correct that that would make me reluctant to report on Friedman. Of course, as a blanket statement, I don't hold back on stories when they'll hurt liberals -- bad liberals make me look stupid (or, in this case, violent) by association, so I have almost more incentive to expose their stupidity thatn I do re conservatives. But in specific to Friedman, I've written about him in the past (the article is linked in the story), and as the rest of the article makes clear, I don't think well of him. Nevertheless, Friedman can't really claim bias when he hit the guy (he could on some of my non-factual, rather opinionated, points).
5) How frickin' cool is blogging, that I can publish a story online and have a discussion about it the same night? If you're interested in Jewish issues, please check out Protocols, which will be celebrating its one-year anniversary this week.

One last thing: While I'd like to, I'm not positive that I'll be able to keep up with all the comments on this thread. Thanks for reading!

#34 mike,

Thanks, that's hilarious.

#37 Steven

That was sort of a joke, but I guess it makes sense that you addressed it.

James -- Of course, liberals like me are humorless.

Steven,

But of course. :)

#32 T.C.Q. (I don't intend to be rude, but I don't trust myself to spell the whole thing correctly.)

Yeah, no joke. You gotta wonder how it is that the US government in 2036 could figure out how to build a time machine, but can't figure out how to get a hospital running or how to set up distillation apparati to purify the water.
Sheesh. I could build a distillation apparatus in about an hour from junk lying around the house.

Maybe all the junk was destroyed in the war. I guess waiting until then WOULD be easier in terms of my energy being expended than actually cleaning the house now.

But at least Titor assures us that the Amish will be alive and well. That almost makes up for the decentralized money system (which is one of many aspects which make his work [entertaining though it may be] seem to me like taking all of the worst aspects of the Articles of Confederation and imposing them on a radioactive Earth).

Oh, and his time machine reminds me of that screenplay Homer Simpson wrote about the killer driving instructor from the future. His best friend is a talking pie and 11 out of the 17 pages are just drawings of the crappy time machine.

... bad liberals

Are there any other kind?

I'm kidding! (Sort of ;-)

Steven: Thanks for dropping by. This conservative goy will certainly check out Jewsweek and Protocols - I do search (mainly in vain) for reasoned arguments from the other side of the aisle.

Hell, if you dislike Friedman, you can't be all bad;-)

#32 T.C.Q. (I don't intend to be rude, but I don't trust myself to spell the whole thing correctly.)

And see, I even screwed up the initials. Go me.

#37-Welcome, Steven! Thanks for popping in and clearing some things up; yeah, how cool is that! :-)
A lot of people (like me!) like to read their blog diet in an RSS aggregator, because it's a lot more efficient. BlogSpot doesn't automatically set those up, unlike most blogging tools; luckily Blogstreet will generate an RSS feed of most blogs, including BlogSpot ones. You can put the link in your sidebar and people can click on it and subscribe to your site, so their RSS aggregator shows it whenever your feed has an update. It's nifty, here's the link to your feed if you want to put it in your sidebar. Most people use the text "Syndicate This Site" or else they use a little orange button with "xml" on it, you'll see it on many blogs. Charles (look at top left pane) simply says "RSS".
Word. Subscribed.

#37 Steven I. Weiss:

Not to worry; that piece made you a star at LGF! :)

#27 Leah:

Christiane must be hearing footsteps; not only is Maria Inahosa breathing down her neck but so's Rahim Brahini. Have you seen her practically hissing when reporting on the US in Iraq or on the Israeli-Pali situation?

As far as Christiane is concerned, I think she has lost favor at CNN; she recently made some snide remarks (she's very anti-US war in Iraq, of course) about Victoria Clarke, the Pentagon spokeswoman. Christiane said something about her being a 'foot soldier for Bush' and without missing a beat Victoria replied: "Better a foot soldier for Bush than a mouthpiece for Al-Qaeda!"

Since then we haven't seen a whole lot of Christiane (mercifully).

Tasty Beverage (#22)

Fucking Hussein Ibish is on O'Reilly right now.

I have to switch channels when Ibish is on. He is just disgusting.

Do not trust the shover robot!

The man has totally derailed. His mind won't let his pen write what his heart tells him to and for the past couple years the man has been in some sort of intellectual pergatory...His leg has been pissed on by the debased culture of death that is Palestine and he still thinks it's raining.

Although I know Christiane Amanpour is Iranian/English, the phrase "French Looking" always pops into my mind ( the way "Easy Lay" did when I saw DrunkGirl Maureen Dowd a while back on C-SPAN).

She may hate America, but apparently she has the hots for Jewish men...(she did marry one).

#52 Ed Moran Abu Blizzard Over:

Yes she did! The lovely and talented Mrs. Rubin knows a good thing when she sees it! ;)

Glad to see you've survived under a snowbank with your keyboard and your sled dog!

Steven Weiss also tells us that Friedman told a story during his speech about a Pali kid who told him in one breath that he was willing to die for Arafat and in the next breath said he wanted to go to school in America.

Well, what the hell was the point of that heartwarming story? That the Pali kid is really a nice boy at heart who loves America? As if there aren't plenty of Muslims going to school here who aren't terrorist sympathizers or actually involved in terrorist activities.

That "nice Pali kid" could end up dying for Arafat anyway - and doing it on the NY subway or in front of a Miami synagogue instead of on the West Bank.

It was 25 here (of the celsius variety). It has been fourteen years since it snowed here, but every winter my optimism blooms anew.

We did have a frost Saturday morning, though.

Ibish was kissing Christian butt without skipping a beat... that crazy Jew from ADL, wanting a secular society... I'm with you Christian America... we need to be educated in each others religion, we share the same values... That guy is selling a load of crap and I'm sure gullible American's are going to believe him, yeah, how much islam has in common with Christians... blah blah blah. The vision I had was in a few years once people are relaxed and not on the look out for terrorists, blammo, the entire nation will be held hostage in a sudden swift swoop. America don't be lulled by these candy coated soothing words by frauds.

It's ironic that Friedman touts the power of the Internet in his performance -- "If you're in government, watch out. The people are a superpower," he says, and again the irony is lost on him. The man doesn't understand that Web blogs are swallowing him alive.

How true.

Kudos Steven. Thanks for dropping by and giving us your perspective.

#57 James, I agree-that's a very insightful gem.

I did see snow several times (including 1996) back when I went to college in Austin, which is less than two hundred miles away, but that extra two hundred miles from the Gulf seems to make all the difference.

I think it was February 1996 (February 21, 1996, now that I google it up) when it hit 99F* (about 37C) in Austin. 2/21/96 is also the earliest date San Antonio, TX has ever hit 100F*. A friend of mine who soon went to work offshore in Louisiana and turned gay ( or at least came out of the closet) went with me to a topless bar along the I-35 service road under the elevated freeway. ( Note, since I have been married, I have been to topless bars twice, both times for bachelor parties for my wife's cousins, and my wife gave me permission to go as long as I didn't look, and I was very good).

We had an ice storm that month, btw, which was cool

* Bergstrom Field, then an Air Force base, now the Austin municipal airport, hit 101F that lovely day, 2/21/96

Teacake: I don't know a single practicing Christian who thinks Christianity and Islam share the same values. Most people dont pay the close attention to politics and the ME as LGFer's do, but you'd have to be blind as 10 bats (i.e.,a member of the media or a PC college professor) not to have noticed by now that the RoP isn't very peaceful. CAIR can sprinkle sugar on sh*t all they like and tie it up in a pretty red bow, but it still stinks.

Bed time, I was sort of not watching the remake of "Battlestar Galactica" here by the computer while my wife was engrossed with "Average Joe" in the bedroom.

I gotta find out if the cheerleader hottie picked the good looking studly guy that lives with Mommy, or the average looking guy who just happens to be a millionaire.

Nah, I don't.

Ed Moran-LOL!

Donna V... Bill O Reily has ibish on the Factor all the time and that is a pretty good sized audience. Guys like ibish will use white guilt in a more clever way. Like a frog being boiled in water slowly, it can't feel the heat and then its boiled alive without knowing what happened. THere are just too many good hearted very trusting and gulible Americans & ibish and his pals know exactly what America wants to hear in the No Spin Zone.

So has Friedman been arrested for assault? That is totally a crime.

ANYONE who missed CLICKING ON THE VIDEO LINK I gave in
#34

I RECOMMEND DOING IT.
YOU DON'T WANT TO MISS THIS ONE, TRUST ME.
JON STEWART MONOLOGUE ON GENEVA

TO WEISS -
I stopped reading Protocols a month or two ago because you guys linked in the upper right to a Jewsweek TOP 50 THINGS ABOUT BEING JEWISH -
which included 2 lists that said

A) "It will be a free for all because you know how Jews line up when there's free loot being passed out"
REFERRING TO THE LATEST ROUND OF HOLOCAUST Reparations.

B) "Elegant Mansions and spacious housing in the Territories" a disgusting elitist comment as in A as well.

I posted about it 3 times at Protocols and wrote an email to Jewsweek about it.
To this day the list still includes those 2 numbers and you guys NEVER REPLIED TO ME nor took down the link to it?

SO WHAT THE F**K IS UP WITH THAT WEISS?

Mike

Ed Moran Abu Gone To Bed To Watch Joe Bloe:

25 C you say? That's 78-80 F in real life isn't it? I'm on Celsius too but I've never gone metric. I'm still living in the 70s.

So you lied! There WAS NO SNOWBANK, no sled dog. You made it all up to get sympathy! [RANT!!]

Abu Booboo, indeed! BTW, do you think your friend turned gay from looking at the topless dancers or from the cold? :-)

Mike -- I haven't responded to you elsewhere, but I'm feeling charitable today.
Since you place in quotes sentences that do not actually exist in the referenced article, I feel your complaint is moot.

BTW: So far, the funniest comment in this thread:
#16 "Man, what's up with the Dimocrats turning into pottymouths all of a sudden?"

Harvey Schwarz should call Freedman out to settle the thing. It would be great to watch Freedman squirm about that.

Someone kindly care to educate me with respect to Friedman?

I don't read him regularly, but I read some of his opinion regarding Iraq ("Because We Could") and thought it compelling. I was about ready to grant the guy some cred, if only because a bunch of idiotarians I know pretty much villify him.

When I looked over his collection of essays about 9/11, it seemed like he got the message pretty clearly.

Now I come over here and see the lizardoid minions villifying him? WTF?

It looks like he's come unglued over the Geneva deal...is that the problem? I know nothing about his views regarding Israel/Palestine.

Please, no flames, just trying to find out the story.

Any volunteers up for going and giving Tommyboy a lesson in conference room ultimate fighting?That coward talks the politics of peace but is filled with hate and disdain.

Just like that peace and love Moby the rock guy who got attacked one night leaving a night club ... he ran after the attacker screaming at the top of his lungs, "I'm gonna kill you!!!" Everything is cosmic cookies in the clouds with these people until their own personal space is threatened or invaded.

#70 JC

I used to read him regularly.
His basic approach to the conflict(s) is that the people in them on both sides are logical and willing to negotiate in return for economic advancement.
If you cut his arguments down, he is really in favor of throwing a lot of money at every problem to win favor from both sides, then imposing a solution on them and paying them off to accept it with more money.
Now, don't get me wrong, this approach can work, but only to a certain point. There are folks who do not simply do not respond to Friendman's solutions. The kind that lie while they negotiate for temporary advantage so they can destroy Israel/America later on. He either ignores them completely or gets frustrated at them then ignores them.
As I learned more and moe about Arab rejectionists, I came to realize that they don't fit into Friedman's plans anywhere because he has no workable solution for them at all.

This was driven home when I saw him speaking in person, and he was asked why he doesnt write about Israel anymore (this was about a year ago, when he was really avoiding the Israel topic). He said it was because he had said a lot of worthwhile things already, and now he was just angry and dissapointed.

In other words, because the conflict does not play by his own rules.

JC #70

I hear you. I, too, was somewhat partial to Friedman while I was a student. Although I find issues with him every now and then, I really have a difficult time villifying (sp?) him the way everyone here does. It's because I don't like villifying him or others -- heck, it's a past time with me -- but I just don't think he's as amoral as he is being portrayed here.

Begun the flame wars have.

Do I think he's arrogant? Yes. Self-serving? Yes. Out of touch with the facts-on-the-ground and all-around elitist? Yes and yes. However, he does make insightful points once in a while, and given who else writes Op-Eds for the Times (with the exception of Brooks and Safire), he ain't THAT bad. Like most other left-leaning writers, I take him a with a heavy heaping of salt and try to find the few redeeming points in his articles. I think people here sometimes get so caught up in rabid anti-Friedman hatred that they dismiss him no matter what he says.

Just my opinion -- on everything else, I think LGF'ers are on top of things. I just have problems with this one.

#73, thanks Josh. That helps.

How about his stance re: Iraq, and the post 9-11 response? Has he done an about face on that? My impression is that he is in favor of a rather aggressive response. Maybe that's changed.

As I said, I was rather stunned to see him be villified both by a crowd of idiotarians and here as well. If he's getting villified on the left, it's ok. But here...well, that gives me some pause.

In the past I've used some of his articles as rather eloquent justification for the war in Iraq.

Josh #73

He said it was because he had said a lot of worthwhile things already, and now he was just angry and dissapointed.

In other words, because the conflict does not play by his own rules.

That's a bit unfair and harsh. I, too, would be frustrated and burned out writing about that topic endlessly. There are times where I've had enough bad news from the region that I take a break just to remind myself that the whole world isn't filled with strife and hatred. Is he proscribed from doing that just b/c he's a journalist? The world doesn't play by my rules, and if I can't comment on it productively, I'll just shut up until I'm ready again.

Am I making sense?

#74 SS Ben,

Do NOT want to start a flame war! I'm not an apologist for him. I'm just interested in how he got on the other side of the LGFers. I can deal with cognitive dissonance on lots of matters, but not with LGF. If it's happening here, I probably missed something.

Sounds like his views on the I/P conflict are a little naive, so it's not too surprising he's run into a buzzsaw here.

Sideshow Ben (#74)

I think people here sometimes get so caught up in rabid anti-Friedman hatred that they dismiss him no matter what he says.

You can throw me into that heap, I don't care, you can call me rabid. I have nothing but contempt for Jews like Friedman. Every time I've had an argument a debate with someone about Israel, his name came up. Every time. The Jew-haters worship him, hang onto his every word, and love to quote him. Him, and Ha'aretz.

While we're on the subject ...

The 'Times' embraces Geneva

When it became clear the Palestinians would not live up to the road map, the paper of record found an alternative

'What is truly momentous" about the Geneva Accord, according to The New York Times, "is that Israelis and Palestinians of good will have... declar[ed] in concrete terms how their conflict can end."

Mike (#66)

What's that about?

From the Who Cares What You Think Dept, King Abdullah sez:

The fence will be catastrophic for everyone ...

Catastrophic for everyone who wants to kill Jews, that is. I'm so sick of this.

He added that the building of the fence will have negative repercussions on Israel's future and on its relations with both the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors.

Oh yes, because as we know, the Palestinians and Arab neighbours are so interested in being friendly with Israel. Are we supposed to believe this phony?

Tom Friedman, lobbying hard for the 2003 Fiskie.

Zulubaby...

I just don't get. I'm as rabidly pro-Israel, pro-Zionist -- and as an Iranian -- anti-Islamicism as anyone here, yet Friedman doesn't set me off like he does you and others. I've heard him speak many times, have read his column, books, etc.

Bottom line: He doesn't hate Israel (i.e., isn't a self-hater), he (occassionally) raps the Arabs and their leaders, he's in favor of the Iraq war, he dislikes the French. Okay, so I he's not in the Likud camp, but can you please tell me why YOU hate him so much? I've read your posts before and respect what you have to say, so I'm curious as to what you really dislike about him (if you care to share it).

Arab-Americans protest award to Peres

Arab-American protesters picketed a dinner honoring former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, calling him a war criminal who is unworthy of such awards.

About 100 people carrying signs with slogans such as "Peres baby killer," "Yes to peace, no to Peres," and "Peres killed my brother" stood on the grass opposite a hotel where Peres, a leader of Israel's opposition Labor Party, and Palestinian peace advocate Sari Nusseibeh were being honored Monday night by Seeds of Peace, a New York-based group that promotes Middle East peace.

Good luck with you "Geneva" friends, Mr Peres. They still hate you for being a Jew.

#68 Steven I. Weiss Feeling "Charitable" Replying to Mwaa

Mike -- I haven't responded to you elsewhere, but I'm feeling charitable today.
Since you place in quotes sentences that do not actually exist in the referenced article, I feel your complaint is moot.

Really is that so?
I only paraphrased it here. However, as you are apparently aware in my comments a while back at Protocols as well as in my Email to Jewsweek I provided EXACT QUOTES and references.
Jewsweek incidentally replied only in a meaningless generic response.

SO HERE IS THE EXACT QUOTE siince you asked for it. And since you nor the clowns at Jewsweek didn't have the common sense nor CLASS to pull the disgustingly ignorant and disrespectful part of the list that smacks of elitism. NOW THE MORLOCKS will surely view it as well here - so you and your pals at Jewsweek should be proud!

I'll let the rest of the peanut gallery here provide their feedback of it -

23. Holocaust restitution: With the decade-long fight for restitution funds pretty much over, it's now time to dole out all the moolah, and the Jewish community is presently figuring out just how do that. The Claims Conference is hoping to have a wide-open discussion on the topic, reaching out to all Jews to have their input included, and when you're talking about serious sums of money that kind of a free-for-all could get hotter than a Jerry Springer house party.

JC, I won't presume to educate you on why anyone here might have trouble with Friedman, but I can summarize my reasons.

He can't shake some obnoxious myths -- such as that the settlements are a big up-front practical obstacle to negotiations or any sort of accommodation between Pals and Israelis, when in fact the issue can be solved as part of a big and final deal (as 2000 showed), and has never figured into Palestinian calculations of whether murdering Israeli civilians was tactically advantageous. He should know better.

As noted by another commenter above, he went "schoolgirlish" over a rather lame Saudi "peace plan" and worst of all his swoon seemed linked to the fact that the Saudis let him "break" the story.

He frequently quotes the silliest anti-US gripes of Europeans (we rejected Kyoto) and Arabs (fill in standard-issue bizarre complaint), as though they are respectable reasons for other nations to free-ride or act in bad faith on unrelated life-and-death security issues.

Not long ago, during the run-up to the Iraq war, he described the Arab position on Israel as simply "wanting a smaller Israel." That's the most ridiculous thing I can recall him saying -- and I haven't read him since he wrote that.

On Iraq itself, he repeatedly suggested that only nation-and-democracy-building effort by the US could morally validate an invasion. He seemed uncomfortable with the sober strategic imperatives that actually drove the US -- for him only social work could redeem something so unseemly as the prudent application of national power in pre-emptive self-defense. Self-regarding moral posturing that was actually morally obtuse.

Friedman seems torn between logic and substance he knows to be correct and silly myths and bits of liberal-internationalist conventional wisdom he can't quite bring himself -- for social or political reasons -- to debunk or leave behind.

And let's not forget the other nice gossipy yenta part of the list that also smacks of ignorance and elitism.
AGAIN YOU SHOULD BE FING PROUD!!

16. Settler mansions: In what may well be a comedy of tragedies, at least it'll be a hot comedy. What are we talking about? Settler mansions, the stylish new digs of Israelis interested in avoiding Israeli zoning laws. Simply enough, they just head for the Judean hills and take up very posh digs in the disputed territories. Palestinians are, as you'd expect, not amused, but we figure if you're going to live in a war zone you might as well do it in style.

NOW what do people here think of Jewsweek now that you have read this?? PLEASE LET STEVEN KNOW since he and his pals at Jewsweek didn't feel the need to remove these for the past 3 months.

Mike

LET ME ADD, that I'm for the most part a good guy who doesn't get too pissed about most things. I know we rant here sometimes about different things but I am being 100% honest when I say the arrogance that these schmucks displayed even after I emailed them, pisses me off like you can not believe. With everything going on right now and morlocks looking for any reason to hate Jooos these assholes leave this shit up on their list. And now Steven just brushes it off again. To me this is a serious and no bullshit kidding around thing.
I say this not as a blogger but as a person that would get right in these assholes face if I met them in person!

Now I'll await Steven's reply since in his prior comment he stated that my quick paraphrase was "NOT EXACT".

Don't hold your breath though.

Mike

#76
Yes, you make sense. I'm not an expert head shrinker or anything, but I got a distinct impression from hearing him speak for 40 minutes or so and then take questions, that he didn't like discussing issues that didn't mesh well with the way he views the world.
Arab rejectionism was anathema to him. He loves talking about the moderate (or so-called moderate) Arabs, and about the potentials for economic growth and openness and educating women in the Arab world. All these things exist, and it's important to note them. My problem is that he tends to ignore the things that don't fit for his vision of the future.

I really liked his stuff shortly after 9-11 and Iraq. He was, from the beginning, in favor of an aggressive stance on Iraq. He was also a dedicated internationalist from the beggining. There are, of course, pros and cons to being internationalist in this situation, but he is a smart guy and argues for it cohesively.

My big problem is the disconnect in his writings between how he expects the problem to be solved and the feelings and words of the people on the ground. It's almost like they don't exist to him.
My other big problem was his fawning praise for the Saudi peace initiative from about 18 months ago, the "you retreat and then you get peace, maybe" plan. Friedman is the only Jew allowed in Saudi Arabia for a reason--he is practically a groupie for the Saudi monarchy and Arab moderate regimes in general.

#82
I keep talking about him because it's important to me...I've read a couple of his books and used to read the column every week, and it was quite influential on me.

Before I started learning more about the I-P and I-A conflict, I had already read "From Beirut to Jerusalem", which is now very dated, but still worth reading imo.
As I learning more, and read more of his columns on Israel, it became more and more apparent that he was trying to fit the conflict into his worldview, instead of describing it as it really is.
I went from agreeing almost completely with Friedman to disagreeing on some vital aspects, just by reading his column and comparing it to the facts on the ground.

The guy is a great writer and very smart, but still trying to force the world to work according to his wishes. Reminds me of the professors who still teach marxism enthusiastically.

And it really doesn't help when anti-Israel folks quote him as a club to beat on Israel with.

#33 Ali

Appreciate your struggles with the language and the resulting insights. It can be difficult. One simple trick is to put the accent on the wrong silaball to see if it makes more sense.

Tom Friedman, Kapo Jew par excellence. Before striking the questioner he should have considered the root causes of the man's questions. /sarcasm

Speaking of Friedman, would somebody please repost the link to that spoof of him that Allahpundit composed? He posted the page as a jpeg, so the text is not googlable.

Anyone think it's a little weird that this story hasn't shown up anywhere else?

93

Where would it show up? Certainly not the NYT

#93 Zionista

It doesn't sound like this was witnessed by any other journalists, and Steven Weiss has kept this under wraps since last week (obviously in anticipation of the Jewsweek story; he didn't want to give up a scoop).

He wrote this on Protocols on December 5:

OK, I just got back from the Geneva Accords event and I did get to ask some, but not all, of your questions. There was some wacky stuff going down at this event; you're not gonna believe what Tom Friedman did. More details to come, as I transcribe.

posted by Steven I. Weiss 12:08 AM

I suppose its somewhat fair to be skeptical at this point, as only one witness has made the claim publically. But do not forget that this doesn't mean it didn't happen. I don't know how Jewseek vets stories but it seems unlikely that they would accept one that was made up out of whole cloth.

#79 Zulubaby

What's that (#66) about Mike?

SEE #84 - #86 and #87

I again now await a response now from Steven Weiss as well as yours and others' opinion as well to the material and my reaction to it as well as Jewsweek and Weiss's LACK of a reaction to my email and the disgusting part of their list that they have left up now for the past few months.

Respectfully,

Mike

#96 Mike

Jewsweek is what it is. I don't care for everything in Jewsweek.

#85 Ice Cold, Josh, others:

Got it.

Thank you...

James I assume you read those quotes in full.
SO TELL ME you say "It is what it is"

Since I'm not sure what "that is" could you seriously please tell me?

Thanks.

Mike

#99 Mike

Jewsweek is what it is. It's a liberal Jewish online magazine. I didn't care for those things you mentioned, but then I don't care for lots of things in Jewsweek. It seemed to me like it was a failed attempt at being edgy or irreverent. But that hardly impacts upon the Friedman story.

Sideshow Ben (#82)

Because I think he's a sellout and I hate the way he kisses Saudi butt, I have little respect for that. I can't stomach these Jews who betray their own people in order to ingratiate themselves to those that hate us.

Mike (#96)

I think it's disgraceful that any Jew would make light of the Holocaust and Steven I. Weiss did just brush it off, you're right. It's not relevant to the piece he wrote about Friedman so I understand if he doesn't feel the need to discuss it here but I still think it's disgusting. There are lots of things to poke fun at the Jews about, it's not necessary to do so about the Holocaust. Very poor taste indeed.

James (95),

I suppose its somewhat fair to be skeptical at this point, as only one witness has made the claim publically. But do not forget that this doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I see. Guilty until proven innocent. If that's the way it's supposed to be, then please remember not to come down so hard on those friendly neighborhood trolls who continue to insist there was a "massacre" at Jenin, that Mohammed al-Dura was actually killed by Israeli troops, that the Clinton-Barak Camp David proposals were bogus, etc. etc.

Consistency is a bitch.

#102 Zionista

I know you shouldn't believe everything you read, but you don't believe anything you read?

I've an idea. I'll email Friedman the link (as if he wouldn't see it otherwise). Let's see if he sues Weiss and Jewsweek for libel.

James,

Our gracious host Charles Foster Johnson headlined this item "Friedman Loses It." Note the absence of any form of the word "alleged." Looks like we're supposed to be very consistent in our selectivity.

Zionista, lemme guess ... you're a Friedman groupie?

#104 Zionista

I'm not Charles, take it up with him. Should Jewsweek have written alleged on Weiss' piece too?

Since, unfortunately, few other blogs have picked up on this story (what's up with that?), I've been able to spend more time here in these comments than I'd expected. I've spent a lot more time on the phone with print journalists interesting in covering the story than in talking with bloggers -- I wonder why that is.
Anyway:
1) Zulubaby -- the comment referenced by Mike did not "make light of the Holocaust," it made light of the fact that a large portion of Holocaust restitution funds were going to be disbursed to the Jewish community as a whole, instead of only Holocaust survivors; hardly a sacred cow.
2) I'm reading that some of you are skeptical, and while I'd like to think my work is so good as to be beyond question (wouldn't we all?), obviously some grains of salt should be taken. The various print publications covering the story are fact-checking the event by talking with myself and Schwartz, and attempting to talk to Friedman (I don't have my hopes up for the latter). For my sake, it'll be a good thing when that gets out. The article is technically part of the next issue, but we put it out there now to advance its credibility and scoop quality.

Steven I. Weiss (#107)

Zulubaby -- the comment referenced by Mike did not "make light of the Holocaust," it made light of the fact that a large portion of Holocaust restitution funds were going to be disbursed to the Jewish community as a whole, instead of only Holocaust survivors; hardly a sacred cow.

I happen to disagree but I'm not involved in Jewsweek and it's not my call. I think it's in very poor taste. The Holocaust is not something to joke about, no matter how far removed. I think you would do well to be more sensitive about it. Just my opinion.

James and Zulu -
RE JEWSWEEK AND WEISS
Look I agree this has nothing to do with the Friedman article whatsoever, which I thought was well written as well. I brought it up because I stopped reading Protocols and Jewsweek because of this.

AND AGAIN, notice the arrogance, snottiness perhaps that Weiss is taking here. Sure I went at him a little bit, but he was condescending almost about it, and instead of replying to me giving a copy of it here, which again I'm sure the morocks are LOVIN, he ignores it and only give a terse response to Zulu who responded to my post.

I don't know the people at Jewsweek nor do I know Weiss, however, look at their response to this. And now Weiss in his article recants how Friedman acted like the tattle tale nerd in high school. Well how would you classify how him and his pals (clowns) at Jewsweek have treated this?

To me its not a matter of paranoia or overreaction, its a matter of class, tact decency. His explanation to Zulu is patent bullshit! and anyone reading it knows it. Further, if he is mocking the fact that he and his pals think that the Reparations have become a "racket" (like his mentor the eminently nerdy annoying Finkelstein who I have seen speak twice) what kind of disgusting and sick way is that to mock it?

NAMELY WHO THE FUCK DOES HE AND HIS PALS THINK THEY ARE?

And what the hell is that kind of cynicism doing in a basic Top 50 List about some famous people who are Jewish.
THE ANSWER -

Him and his pals have this mistaken impression that they are somewhat elitist and can mock the peons and everyone else while sounding "posh" doing so... AREN'T THEY FING COOL?? and even mock people butchered in the Holocaust and the Holocaust itself as well as Israelis, settlers or not, being murdered and the Palis while doing it as well!!

TELL ME ZULU AND JAMES AM I WRONG HERE?? AM I GOING TOO FAR?

YOU TELL ME.

Mike

Mike,

Are you going too far?

I don't know, but do you have a basis for saying that Weiss's "mentor" is that truly abominable antisemite Norman Finkelstein?

I too think that recovered Holocaust funds should go to Holocaust survivors and not organizations and committees that non-Holocaust surviving Jews decide it should go to. I certainly would not have worded it the way Jewsweek did and I am wary about "Jew-money-freestuff" type joking, even if some Jews feel that "we" can say whatever we like about ourselves. But the explanation seems plausible. Does that mean I'm a Finkelstein disciple too?

As for the settlement comment, I did not like it. But as I said, Jewsweek is a liberal Jewish mag and liberal Jews don't tend to hold settlements over the Green Line in high regard. Thus: it is what it is, take it or leave it.

'Elitists'? I think a great many Protocols readers, myself included, agree that some of the writers are too smug and too elitist. Again, it is what it is. No big deal.

Mike, there are so many liberal Jews just like him, it's not unusual or special. There is an arrogance about him, but so what? That is not a bad thing in and of itself. However, I agree, it is in extremely poor taste and as a Jew I do find it offensive. The right thing to do would be to remove that attempt at humour from their website but don't rely on people doing the right thing.

I think you're going too far only in that it's probably not worth the energy. Sorry Steven, I don't know you, you don't need to take this personally, but your "jokes" about the Holocaust are offensive, especially coming from a publication named "Jewsweek". Perhaps you would be taken more seriously if you took the issues more seriously. Nothing hip or cool about making unfunny jokes about the Holocaust.

#111 zb

Just to clarify, Steven Weiss writes for Jewsweek. I don't think he wrote that list which included the pieces Mike is upset about. Mike is criticizing Weiss by his association with Jewsweek, it seems to me.

James (#112)

Thanks. I really don't read Jewsweek very often so I'm not clear on all the details. I think any jokes about the Holocaust are off-limits (especially from Jews!) and that's what I'm criticizing. Beyond that, my introduction to Steven Weiss is through the linked article at the top of this thread so ...

James

Weiss writes for Jewsweek but didn't make that list and as I explained in my first post, Protocols (which he is a major part of) links to that list in the upper right of their website (which is how I came to initially read it) The link is on top of a positive warm feedback opinion by Jewsweek of Protocols. Further, I believe I place commentary feedback at Protocols regarding the list which he chose to snub a few times. I emailed Jewsweek as well which they gave only a generic reply to. Weiss I am guessing does have a relationship with some of the main people at Jewsweek though and he has lamely defended the list here as well.
(Reread that post I copied in 84 again)

Second, my comparison to Finkelstein too far?
Yes probably but his comment is perfect food for Finkelstein and the morlocks because its DISGUSTING! And Finkelstein makes a living mocking the fact he thinks the Jewish world actually profited on the Holocaust which this post actually takes some carefree glee at. I don't buy Weiss's explanation which again is a lame excuse of one.

The list is that is kind of a 'fun/cool' hip list showing some famous people that are Jewish, like Alicia Silverstone and some Jewish influenced latest trends.
So Weiss's explanation that is just an intelligent mocking of the Reparations is bullshit.

The Jewsweek guys are just acting COOL showing how posh they can be talking carefree about the new reparations coming from the Holocaust. And the pardoy is not only ignorant and classless but it not even intelligent in fact its stupid while trying to sound 'insider elitist'. Weiss though eager to defend his friends and affiliation didn't write it so he's likely guessing in his answer or trying to invent a good excuse postwith.

NOTICE THE FURTHER SILENCE OF HIM... A MAN OF MANY WORDS AND WIT NORMALLY

However, a normal person after the fact says "yeah that was really stupid" and removes it. Again, the arrogance. Note, those posing arrogance usually have the least to actually be arrogant about. So while Weiss sits here and aptly mocks Friedman, rightfully so most here would agree, they don't like it when they themselves are criticized, because they can't take it, but also because they actually think they're beyond criticism, similar to Weiss's boy Friedman.

Mike

Eliz. I know who you mean. She isnt going to make Christine's mistakes..She will DO the same thing..but do it with less "in your face" cheerleading for Islam.

Theres another one at MSNBC..from Al Hyatt..I forgot that 'be..yach's" name now. SOB..Bastard..Poison drips out of her mouth. If I remember it and see you somewhere else..Ill remember to tell you her name.

Notice..get a attractive woman to tell your SAD SAD Story. Make sure they are trained to present the Islamic side of things...but with a little sex thrown in. Sex sells...dontcha know.

This ISlamism is a Advertizing CAMPAIN not unlike selling Crest Toothpaste to the American Public.

Elizabeth: I found the womans name..Her name is Raghita Dergham. (think I spelled it wrong) She is a Correspondent from Al Hayat. This creepy woman, sporting about $4000.00 worth of Designer Clothing and Jewelry everytime she appears on TV..spews her hatred for America and the West and Jews and gets payed for it by AMERICAN Cos. He is a wannabe Christine..too.

She comes on MSNBC quite a bit. I did see her on CNN as well...been a long time tho.

She is located in NY.

tommyboy"s mind bedraggled because of swallowing too much arab "humiliation"come--needs an upgrade to the "poverty of dignity" schtick--people in the west couldn't give a flying fuck--alas too many late nights in cairo coffee houses with arab "intellectuals" befogs the mind with taquiyya for the kufr and substitutes access and self regard for insightful policy and reason--he's as serious as neil simon as an analyst--feh!!

Article about this in today's New York Sun.

Harvey Schwartz was WAY out of line.

And Tom Friedman has a history of tempermental behavior at public events like symposiums.

someone (118),

A tabloid. Not even a national tabloid. Tell us when it gets to the Weekly World News.

I can't believe I helped bring this non-issue to 120 posts. Even if Friedman did give a zetz on this reactionary blowhard ("sacrifice Israel on the altar of Iraq," please), it's pathetic to see how those who want to fight the war on terror to the last Israeli have to go around with these goofy chips on their shoulders.

#120 Zionista

If by "tabloid" you mean "National Enquirer-like" as opposed to the tabloid newspaper format, you are mistaken. The New York Sun is a newspaper, not supermarket celebrity gossip.

yeah, well, they said crippen was crazy