Tom Friedman Claims US Will ‘Reassess’ Relationship With Israel, But What’s The Alternative?

NEW YORK (VINnews) — New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is convinced that the US has begun to “reassess” its relationship with Israel. Friedman has some basis for his claim. The US continues to snub the current Israeli government, with President Biden refusing to meet with its senior members and labelling it “one of the most extreme” Israeli cabinets he’s seen. US ambassador Nides has said that America is working to prevent Israel from “going off the rails”.

Yet despite these belligerent statements and the cold shoulder from the administration, it is clear that the US needs Israel just as much, and maybe more, than Israel is beholden to America. However bad a democracy Israel could become with judicial reforms, and this is still a hotly debatable issue, it in no way will resemble the rogue states surrounding it in the Middle East. The PA daily spouts anti-Zionist and anti-semitic tropes, actively lauding brutal terrorism and even paying terrorists families for their outrages. Jordan’s human rights record leaves much to be desired, Lebanon is falling apart amid ethnic rivalries and Iranian-funded terrorist entities, Saudi Arabia routinely flouts human rights and maintains the Islamic Sharia laws strictly. Iraq is a nightmare of fiefdoms ruled by warlords, with no viable political future. The UAE and other Gulf States, while beacons of cooperation, are not known for their democratic awareness. Demonstrations such as those taking place in Israel are a pipe dream for all Arab states.

With Iran poised to reach nuclear capability, the US simply has to cooperate at every level with Israel, whatever criticism it may have for the Israeli political model. Yet Friedman doesn’t even understand the rules of engagement in Israel. It takes hubris and a lot of ignorance for him to claim that Netanyahu is risking civil war (he even capitalized for emphasis) just to stay in power “with a group of ciphers and ultranationalists”

Netanyahu backtracked significantly on the judicial reforms, but that does not mean that none of them can pass. The current bill on cancelling  “reasonability” checks on the government was proposed by none other than Aharon Barak, former Supreme Court justice, in 2019. That the bill has led to mass demonstrations is testimony to the fact that protesters don’t care about which aspect of the reforms is being discussed, they simply want to bring down the government- a government which after 5 elections finally has an 8-man majority to promote its agenda.

For Friedman, as for David Horowitz of Times of Israel, the courts are always “reasonable” while the goverment is “bent on doing the unreasonable”. Maybe the opposite is true? Maybe the court arrogated to itself unreasonable powers, maybe it’s decisions on key issues were unreasonable in the extreme? Friedman must know that the court is almost exclusively composed and controlled by ultra-liberals and political doves. He must realize that Israeli society is far more conservative and religious than its judges might wish and far more determined to maintain its claim on Judea and Samaria.

The majority of Israel does not wish to self-immolate by creating a terror state in the region, which would be ruled by the same Hamas which routinely fires missiles at Israeli cities. If the US still dreams of a two-state solution, perhaps it should grant Indians their own state which it confiscated from them not so long ago with far less claim to the territory than Israel has after five wars which threatened its existence.

Even Friedman’s feeble attempt to compare Israel’s judicial reforms to the US amending its constitution fails miserably. Israel has no constitution and for very good reason. Ben-Gurion didn’t mention democracy in the Declaration of Independence but he did mention Jewish – no less than 13 times. In order to maintain Israel’s Jewishness, its democratic values may not be in consonance with general constitutions. The law of return allows just Jews to gain citizenship, while marriage and divorce stay under religious control. These are the keys to maintaining a Jewish state, not the cosmopolitan mess that Friedman envisages.

Israel needs to maintain checks and balances, needs a robust court system, but first and foremost it needs to have a government which can govern. The judicial reforms are not “crumbling society” as Ehud Barak maintains, although they have exposed deep flaws in the moral fiber and patriotism of many Israelis, who babyishly believe that only their views on political constructs must be adopted.

A government which can govern can also build where it wishes, deport who it wishes and protect whoever it wishes. The need for such government is existential: In the past the court refused even to allow cutting of trees near a road for security reasons, and has adopted a double standard against settlers on every occasion, exposing them and Israeli society to murderous elements in a spurious attempt to “protect” human rights while endangering the rights of others.

For Friedman it is hard to hear that “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people.” He just cannot accept that there is a new sheriff around, at least for the next four years, and the Palestinian interests – which basically promote Israel’s demise – will not be advanced in the near future. Like it or lump it, the US – and the gulf states- will still have to maintain their strategic alliances with Israel and respect its right to forge its own version of democratic values, which can enable it to survive in a region where too much liberalism could endanger its very future.