NY Times’ Thomas Friedman so loves Russian revolution that he wishes it on Israel

By Lev Tsitrin

“When I think about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address on Wednesday to a joint meeting of Congress, the first thing that comes to mind is the famous dictum “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen”” — is how Thomas Friedman opens his op-ed titled “Netanyahu Looks Like a Small Leader at a Historic Moment”

Mr. Friedman than proceeds to shill for Biden/Harris-advocated course of action in which “within weeks, decades happen” — winding down the war without defeating Hamas (so Harris could earn anti-Israel votes), and establishing an official normalization with the Saudis at the small price of — per sharply to-the-left Haaretz quoting a retired colonel Lior Lotan — “risks that the defense establishment can tolerate.”

I am sure Israeli defense establishment can tolerate plenty. For years, it tolerated the build-up of Gaza tunnel infrastructure. And  the accumulation of a huge arsenal of Hamas weapons smuggled through them. And the resulting rocket salvos from Gaza — which could be neutralized by the Iron Dome. And the abduction of an Israeli soldier into Gaza — that could be solved by releasing over a 1,000 Hamas murderers. All this was tolerable.

Yet on October 7, the accumulation of the “tolerable” turned into the intolerable — the brutal murder, rape, and abduction of many hundreds of Israelis. Or maybe, this has become “tolerable” too, if the return to the status quo ante with Hamas’ power over Gazans intact, in exchange for live hostages, and the remains of dead ones, is being seriously contemplated?

Yet consequences really do matter. Mr. Friedman did not name the author of the “famous dictum” with which he approvingly opened his column — so let’s put the cards on the table. It was Lenin; the exciting “weeks where decades happen” referred to a Russian revolution which resulted in decades of unspeakable suffering and misery — of purges, gulags, starvation in man-made famine called “hladomor,” that between them killed tens of millions. Add to this the copycat revolutions in Germany — all complete with Hitler’s murder of six million Jews, and the WW2 that killed around fifty million — and, in China, Mao’s “cultural revolution” adding a similar number of victims of the “weeks where decades happen.”

So, Mr. Friedman (and the New York Times‘ op-ed editors who publish him), the question is not that of “Will Bibi, once again, be just a small man in a big time or surprise everyone and be a big man in a big time?” The question is, what is the consequence of being a “big man” — and letting Hamas get back on its feet?

Yes, Mr. Friedman, your great hero Lenin was a “big man.” So was Hitler, so was Mao, so was Khomeini, so was bin Laden. Which strongly suggest that being “big” isn’t enough — big decisions can result in colossal human suffering. Netanyahu should not — and so far, does not — act “big.” He should act realistically, soberly assessing the reality. And despite Mr. Friedman’s eloquence (plus obfuscation and twisting of facts), the reality of Palestinian visceral desire to destroy Israel — that is propped by the arms and money flowing from the nuclear-threshold Iran of the ayatollahs, makes letting Hamas to survive a catastrophic mistake that would lead to a huge disaster. The “Oslo process” that promised peace but brought suicide bombings and intifada — should have already taught the lesson.

So, Lenin and his revolutionary ilk — Hitler, Mao, and the rest — should be a warning to us, rather than the object of emulation. That the New York Times and Thomas Friedman do not understand this is surprising — but after all, all they care is making the Democrats win, come what may. Netanyahu’s priorities should be different, with the total destruction of Hamas at the top.

Mr. Friedman — an irresponsible scribbler of drivel — can afford to be filled with the destructive, and self-destructive Leninist ardor. Netanyahu — a leader of a nation that faces enemies bent on its destruction — cannot.