I generally can't be fully bothered with Friedman's semi-sentient tripe, but Hinderaker bravely waded in (I hope he wore his hazmat suit) - so here's JH's take:
"Friedman’s thinking on this entire subject is hopelessly confused, as shown by his casual smear of Newt Gingrich:
That thought came to mind last week when Newt Gingrich took the Republican competition to grovel for Jewish votes — by outloving Israel — to a new low by suggesting that the Palestinians are an “invented” people and not a real nation entitled to a state."Stop to consider that for a moment. Gingrich and other Republicans are “grovel[ing] for Jewish votes” by supporting Israel? How much does Friedman know about the demographics of America west of the Hudson? As of 2010, there were 6,190 Jews in Iowa out of a population of more than three million–0.2% of Iowa’s population. How many of those do you suppose are Republican caucus-goers? A few hundred? Then there is New Hampshire, where Jews represent 0.8% of the population; Republican Jews, a smaller proportion still. Or South Carolina, where a little over 11,000 Jews are sprinkled among a population of more than 4.5 million. And finally–I can’t resist this one–ask John Thune what he thinks about Israel. Thune represents South Dakota, home to a grand total of 395 Jews, which rounds to 0.0% of the state’s population."
The "invented people" line sure sticks in some commenters' craws.
Off the top of my head, here are a few legitimate "peoples" (as in "nations," as in "cohesive human communities larger than small groups of clans, uniquely identifiable by shared language, culture, history, governance, and ties to a contiguous land over an extended period of time"*) without their own states right now, more deserving (by a few light-years) than the Palestinians:
Kurds.
Tibetans.
Scots.
Welsh.
French Canadians.
Oh yeah, and the Jews.
Not that I think any of them (other than the Tibetans and the Jews) ought to get states, mind you. That isn't the point. The point is the historicity of each of their claims is vastly superior to that of the Palestinians. Yet it is the historicity of the Palestinian claim, supposedly, that justifies the vilification of Israel and demonization of her people, the domination of the UN agenda year in and year out by the Palestinians, the unending Palestinian terror campaign, and the self-righteous clamoring of left-wingers and anti-Semites around the world for the creation of a new (inevitably hostile, tyrannical, and terror-supporting) Palestinian state on the border of country to whose destruction it is committed.
But people keep gobbling up Friedman's idiotic books. I guess he's another genius, like Obama.
* I popped that off on the spur of the moment. Wasn't hard at all. What's so complicated?
Addendum: CAMERA chimes in (quoting disallowed).
And More - Radosh at PJ Media:
"As an unnamed Democratic aide on the Hill told Rubin, there is 'genuine, bipartisan support for Israel that reflects America’s heartland.' It is the new liberal/left intellectuals in the liberal think tanks that are now leading the charge against Israel. Clearly, Thomas Friedman has become the most important outfront member of this group. It is they, however, who are out of touch with the American people. One must ask them, do they really want Republicans to be the only political party in our country standing firm with Israel?"
And yet more - Tobin at Contentions on Netanyahu's refusal to rebut Friedman on The Times-Dem's op-ed page:
"Netanyahu’s office is only just now noticing something the paper’s readers deduced long ago. The editors of the Times abandoned any semblance of balance on their opinion page many years ago. In terms of American domestic politics and foreign policy that means a preponderance of liberal views with only token and half-hearted opposition by the Times’s house 'conservatives.' However, when it comes to Israel, it means a page in which Israel’s friends are unwelcome while its critics and enemies enjoy a year-round open season on the Jewish state. In the not-so-distant past, writers like A.M. Rosenthal and William Safire would balance the views of the editorial column and the paper’s left-wing columnists, but now there is no one on staff ready to do so."
