Op-Ed: "Uncle" Tom and the Protocols of Zion
Ron JagerThe writer (www.ronjager,com) a 25-year veteran of the I.D.F., served as a field mental health officer and Commander of the Central Psychiatric Military Clinic for Reserve Soldiers at Tel-Hashomer. Since retiring from active duty, he provides consultancy services to NGO’s implementing Psycho trauma and Psychoeducation programs to communities in the North and South of Israel and is a strategic advisor to the Director of the Shomron Liaison Office.
Just when we thought that "Uncle" Tom Friedman's column couldn’t get any worse, that even the Times columnist couldn't outdo himself; we got Friedman’s latest foray into Jewish anti-Semitism.
Arrogant and presumptuous, Friedman pretends to explain to us his entire convoluted modern version (Circa, elections 2012) of the Protocols of Zion entitled “Why not in Vegas?” - all this because Mitt Romney dared to visit Israel 90 days before the Presidential election, with Jerusalem as a backdrop for a distinctly pro-Israel fundraising event.
"Uncle" Tom seems to have taken particular umbrage at Romney’s statement designating that “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.” Friedman jeered that “it was all about money – how much Romney would abase himself by saying whatever the Israeli right wanted to hear.” He continues "why didn’t they just do the whole thing in Las Vegas?... I mean, it was all about how big a jackpot of donations Adelson would shower on the Romney campaign in return. Vegas would have been so much more appropriate than Jerusalem... They could have constructed a plastic Wailing Wall and saved so much on gas.”
"Uncle" Tom is extending his mission to write the modern version of the Protocols of Zion that began in earnest when Prime Minister Netanyahu received repeated bipartisan standing ovations during his 2011 address to both Houses of Congress. Then, he claimed that the standing ovations were “bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.” He later retracted that statement.
In his latest column he writes “the main Israel lobby, AIPAC, has made itself the feared arbiter of which lawmakers are ‘pro’ and which are ‘anti-Israel’ and, therefore, who should get donations and who should not – and you have a situation in which there are almost no brakes, no red lights, around Israel coming from America anymore.”
So now its all crystal clear, according to Friedman, the Jews control US foreign policy and America is no more than a banana republic, where elected representatives are willing to sell their nation’s – and hence their constituents’ – interests to the highest bidder and can be bought by conniving Jews who aim to control America and the world.
Never mind that "Uncle" Tom's sole purpose is to denigrate Mitt Romney and bolster support for President Obama. Never mind that members of Congress, as the elected representatives of the American people, have a better feel for the instincts of their electorate, instincts that are reflected in the sentiments Romney conveyed in his Jerusalem address:
“Our two nations are separated by more than 5,000 miles. But for an American abroad, you can’t get much closer to the ideals and convictions of my own country than you do in Israel. We’re part of the great fellowship of democracies."
Romney continued, stating: “We speak the same language of freedom and justice, and the right of every person to live in peace. We serve the same cause and provoke the same hatreds in the same enemies of civilization.” These statements on the part of Mitt Romney express a fundamental kindred spirit that have underpinned the relationship between the two countries – and explain its durability and warmth far better and more accurately than Friedman’s modern version of the Protocols of Zion.
So as we say here in Israel; Nu ? So what explains this latest anti-Semitic rant?
"Uncle" Tom is Obama's main mouthpiece to the Jewish world, and is responsible for keeping the Jews in line. Losing Jewish support in the coming elections is becoming a strategic problem for Obama in many of the swing states. From a high of 78% of Jewish support in 2008, Obama has plummeted to below 60 % and is continuing this downward trend as we get closer to Election Day.
Friedman knows how Jews tick, he also knows their weaknesses. America has provided for Jews unprecedented freedom in all fields of endeavor. Never in history have Jews been able to integrate as in America, yet as the liberal and leftist Jews in Israel have never accepted losing political control in Israel to the right-wing parties, so successfully represented and headed by Netanyahu.
The liberal and leftist Jews of America are unable and unwilling to secede control, influence, and power, enabling conservative and Republican voting Jews to be the major influence on the White House and on how America conducts her foreign policy in the Middle East.
Thomas Friedman's real excuse for writing this latest version of the Protocols of Zion is nothing more than a pathetic effort to keep the White House under exclusive influence of the Jewish Liberal left and he is willing to take us all down with him should he fail.
As he grinds his teeth at a reality that neither he nor his commissar buddies from sleep-away camp can accept, the mainstream of the Jewish people remains steady in its belief that American exceptionalism and Jewish exceptionalism can thrive without any conflict between the two.
We can believe in a peace process, yet understand that most Jews who once enthusiastically backed the peace process have lost interest in chasing after the Palestinian Arabs and begging them to accept a two-state solution. The Palestinian Arabs, having turned down three offers of an independent state in 2000, 2001 and 2008, have been proven unwilling to even accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn.
Friedman does not represent American public opinion, does not represent American Jewish public opinion, and is no longer the most important foreign policy columnist in the world. What he does represent is a dismal attempt by the Liberal left to keep Jews in line and support ideas and policies that are no longer relevant to the changing and dynamic geo-strategic reality in today's global environment.