Thomas Friedman served up the familiar regurgitation of blaming Jews for the scourge of antisemitism in his latest for The New York Times, “Netanyahu Plays Trump and American Jews for Fools — Again.” Or, as journalist Lahav Harkov noted, essentially “the same column he’s been writing for 30 years.” Eight months ago, he wrote a column, “This Israeli Government Is a Danger to Jews Everywhere.” Originality is not Friedman’s strong suit.
Friedman has been unable to depart from his evergreen thesis that the prime minister of Israel, if he does not do exactly what Friedman believes he should be doing, is a danger to Jews. As no one would claim Vladimir Putin’s actions threaten the security of Russians worldwide, one need not be a Netanyahu fan to understand that this double standard is antisemitic.
In support of this wild proposition and boldly stupid statement, Friedman quoted none other than disgraced former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in an opinion piece the former leader wrote for Israel’s notoriously left-wing newspaper, Haaretz. According to the Free Beacon’s tally, this was the fourth column in which Friedman both quoted or mentioned Olmert while neglecting to tell readers the former leader was convicted of bribery nearly 12 years ago.
Historically, Friedman’s contempt isn’t just for Netanyahu. He has blasted other prime ministers before. As JNS detailed, in 1974, Friedman denounced Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in his college for opposing the PLO’s Yasser Arafat’s appearance at the U.N. One could forgive a college student for having a bad take and believing that a Jewish rally outside the UN would “reinforce Jewish anxiety and contribute to Israel’s further isolation,” or even for having the naïve belief that Rabin should negotiate with the Palestinian terror chief despite terrorists having massacred 22 Israeli children and others months prior.
Over 50 years later, however, Friedman should not get a pass for continuing – let alone ratcheting up – this nonsense. In his Nov. 9, 2023, column, “I Have Never Been to This Israel Before,” he suggested that one month after 1200 people had been massacred by Hamas and another approximately 250 were being held hostage, Israel needed to engage in wartime diplomatic initiatives with the Palestinians in the West Bank “and hopefully in a post-Hamas Gaza” regarding a two-state solution. In Friedman’s La La Land, terrorists are simply misunderstood. Hamas had just massacred 1,200 people and taken another 250 taken hostage. Friedman was suggesting that Israel’s first priority should be to reward the hostage-takers. With ideas like this, who can take anything Friedman says seriously?
Friedman notably ignored any mention of the provisions contained in the PA’s recently released draft Palestinian constitution – which circulated prior to the release of his column – including that it ignored Jewish ties to Jerusalem; formalized the “pay-for-slay” program incentivizing terror; designated Islam the official religion of the state (relying on Sharia principles) and included protections for Christians – with no mention of Jews. How can Friedman tell readers with a straight face that this is an entity interested in a two-state solution when it seeks to constitutionally mandate financial rewards for acts of terrorism?
Friedman’s hatred of Netanyahu and his insistence that Israel negotiate with a partner who has rejected peace every time it was offered are two frequent elements in his columns. Another is accusing Israel of isolating itself.
Friedman argues if only Netanyahu would engage in negotiations for a two-state solution, then there would be peace in the MidEast! If ONLY!
A state has been offered to Palestinians no less than 8 times. All offers were rejected by Palestinian leadership!
Where’s the peace? https://t.co/e7NuZ1yU5R
— Darcie Grunblatt (@D_Grunblatt) February 18, 2026
The Free Beacon tallied four prognostications by Friedman of apartheid in Israel at least as early as 2002, in addition to 2011, 2012 and 2014, to which we would add another in 2000. Israel is not an apartheid state. Friedman does not get to wordsmith his way out of this – he is playing footsie with a hateful libel designed to appeal to those who get gratification over a Jew slandering Israel.
Friedman also prognosticated that Jewish parents and grandparents will soon be watching their children learn how it feels to be Jewish where Israel is a “pariah,” the fourth time he has used this word for Israel according to the Free Beacon.
How does Friedman prove Israel’s isolation? By citing a poll commissioned by the Middle East Understanding Policy Project (MEUPP), an organization run by anti-Israel activists including Margaret DeReus and Diana Buttu. He also referenced remarks by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a supporter of boycotting Israel. Does anyone expect those sources to support Israel? (In a 2013 column, Friedman wrote that Israel was so isolated that the singer Eric Burdon was boycotting Israel. Burdon had initially cancelled his Israel concert due to vicious intimidation but changed his mind and performed in Israel, a few days before Friedman wrote his column.)
Other indicators suggest Israel isn’t as isolated as Friedman and his sources want to believe. Immigration from North America to Israel reached a four-year high in 2025. Friedman also ignores the the massive tech investments in Israel, successful Israeli start-ups and acquisitions, and the unprecedented strength of the shekel at present. While yes, Israel has faced some diplomatic challenges and it has not been all smooth sailing, Friedman is clearly allergic to seeing anything positive about the Jewish state.
Believing that Israel is isolated is central to Friedman’s thesis that Netanyahu is a bigger danger to Israel (and Jews worldwide) than Iran. As John Podhoretz observed, “Thomas Friedman just said . . . Jews are the greatest threat to Jews. Welcome to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 2026.” In an attempt to sound less vile, Friedman pointed to internal political disagreements and claimed that somehow they are more significant than Iran’s conventional and unconventional weapons and state-sponsored antisemitism and terror.
Friedman, who promotes himself as an expert on the global economy, says little about how Israeli innovation has benefitted the world even in the wake of the worst terror attack on its soil. Two weeks ago, The Washington Post reported on how other nations are buying technology that Israeli companies developed or perfected during the war with Hamas. Contrary to Friedman’s assertion, Israel’s “isolation” isn’t chasing away international customers.
The only way to reach his conclusions is for Friedman to ignore virtually anything positive about Israel, including how it responded to the terror of Oct. 7, 2023, and subsequent war with Iran’s proxies. Friedman doesn’t write his columns out of concern that Israel could be isolated, but seemingly to express his hope that it will be.