In the rigorous world of journalism, credibility is paramount. Yet, Thomas Friedman, a prominent voice for The New York Times, seems to have a recurring pattern of misjudgments, particularly concerning Israel.
One could call it an “obsession.”
If Israeli and American leaders were to shape foreign policy based on Friedman’s recent and past columns – both countries would have been less safe today and peace in the Middle East would have remained an intangible dream. Thankfully, they didn’t.
In his latest op-ed, Friedman expressed his reservations about a potential Saudi-Israel normalization deal. Not surprisingly, it centered on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government as an alleged impediment to the only type of deal that he thinks would not be “shameful.”
Since when has peace become “shameful”?
That isn’t normal.
This is just the latest in a series of questionable stances held by the NYT columnist. Is Friedman’s voice truly the beacon of insight as he has been often portrayed, especially by Israeli media, or is there a deeper pattern of bias at play?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/REUTERS)Consider the evidence: In 2010, Friedman advised Israel to cede the Golan Heights for Syrian peace. A mere year later, the Syrian Civil War erupted, making his advice not just wrong, but potentially disastrous for Israel. This wasn’t a minor oversight; it was a glaring misread of the region’s dynamics.
Then, in 2015, he predicted Netanyahu’s resignation. Yet, Netanyahu led until 2021. This misjudgment wasn’t just about getting a political forecast wrong; it showcased a profound misunderstanding of the Israeli society’s political pulse and the resilience of its leadership.
Furthermore, in 2017, Friedman warned of severe repercussions from the U.S. embassy’s move to Jerusalem. The anticipated fallout? It never materialized. This miscalculation wasn’t just an error in judgment; it was a testament to his consistent underestimation of the region’s complexities.
These aren’t isolated incidents. They paint a picture of a journalist whose views on Israel consistently miss the mark. It begs the question: Is Friedman’s analysis driven by an objective understanding or personal biases? Where does his analysis stop and turn to wishful thinking?
Friedman’s repeated inaccuracies about Israel hint at a deeper lack of understanding
Every journalist has the right to an opinion. But when that opinion consistently errs on one subject, readers must ask why. Friedman’s repeated inaccuracies about Israel hint at a deeper lack of understanding or, worse, a predisposition against the nation and its leadership.
It’s not just about getting predictions wrong; it’s about the potential consequences of those misjudgments. Had Israel followed Friedman’s advice on the Golan Heights, it could have faced dire strategic consequences. When a voice as influential as Friedman’s gets it wrong, the stakes are high.
In the world of journalism, where credibility is currency, Friedman’s track record on Israel is a liability. Readers deserve analysis grounded in facts, not clouded by biases. As the adage goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Given Friedman’s history, it’s time readers approach his columns with a more critical eye.
In sum, while Friedman’s voice resonates in journalism, his repeated missteps on Israel warrant scrutiny. The Saudi-Israel deal, like all geopolitical matters, deserves informed, unbiased analysis. It’s time we demand that from our leading voices.
Jonatan Urich is an advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Comments are closed.