The Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times editorial writer, Tom Friedman, says he is “torn” between his wish to have Iran defeated and his unwillingness to see Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump, who he regards as “awful human beings," “strengthened." He worries that a victory over the nation he correctly describes as being “a terrible regime” would benefit the leaders of the two democracies that the mullahs regard as “Satans”.
Being “torn” between flawed democracies with duly elected leaders who Friedman regards as “terrible,” and an unmitigated tyranny ruled by unelected mass murderers is only the most recent manifestation of Friedman’s serious disease, namely Netanyahu and Trump “derangement syndrome.” More than 35 years ago, I began using the term “Israel derangement syndrome” to describe how the brains of otherwise intelligent people like Noam Chomsky become “scrambled” when thinking about Israel. This disease is highly contagious and spreading quickly, especially at the New York Times and other left-wing media. Its primary symptom is the double standard applied invidiously to the nation-state of the Jewish people. What is deemed to be self-defense when practiced by other nations, is called “genocide” when the IDF collaterally kills civilians who are being deliberately used as human shields. This is despite documented evidence that Israel has the best record of any army when it comes to the comparison between combatant and civilian deaths. collaterally kills civilians who are being deliberately used as human shields.
Critics of this insidious double standard derisively call it “what-about-ism”. But comparison is central to a single standard, and a single standard is an essential component of justice. All legal and moral judgements, demands that we ask the question “what about?,” of all the countries that are subject to comparative evaluation. Some are much worse and escape criticism, while Israel is singled out for unfair condemnation.
All criticism of countries should be comparative in our imperfect world, and a single standard is essential to all moral and legal judgments. Being torn between the victory or defeat of wildly non-comparable countries and their leaders is dangerous and wrong. Comparing Israel and the U.S., on the one hand, with Iran, on the other and being “torn” about who should win is like comparing Churchill to Hitler and being torn about who should have won World War II. Churchill was a deeply flawed colonialist, but Hitler was the worst butcher in history. Even if Netanyahu and Trump were both “engaged in anti-Democratic projects" (as Churchill had been) that would not justify being torn about defeating the most dangerous, anti-Democratic and anti-semitic tyranny since Nazi Germany.
By putting them in the same category and being “torn” over who should prevail, Friedman makes Iran seem like just another imperfect nation whose victory – which would entail its acquisition of a nuclear arsenal – would not pose an existential threat to Israel and a growing danger to the United States and its other allies.
Friedman knows better than to make such an immoral comparison, but his BDS and TDS (Bibi and Trump Derangement Syndrome) drives him to exaggerate his criticisms of Israel and America, while understating his criticisms of Iran. This is anti-“what-about-ism” with a sick vengeance.
No one should be torn about the preferred outcome of the Iran conflict. The ideal outcome would be total regime change and the substitution of real democracy for the cruel theocracy that now rules Iran with an iron fist. Short of such a change, Iran must be permanently prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal by removing all its enriched Uranium. The Strait of Hormuz must return to being an international waterway through which all shipping can safely pass. Iran must stop funding terrorist surrogates and must refrain from building and deploying rockets and explosive drones. Anyone who is “torn” about these admirable, peace-promoting goals cannot claim the mantle of morality. If Trump and Netanyahu can bring about these results, or anything close to them, deserves to be praised, even if that also strengthens them.
So keep reading Friedman’s often wise analyses of other issues, but when it comes to Trump and Netanyahu, put on a surgical mask to prevent you from catching his dangerous syndrome.
Alan Dershowitz is professor emeritus at Harvard Law School. His latest book is “Could President Trump Constitutionally Serve a Third Term?”
