Thomas Friedman’s recent column argues that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is deceiving the United States, endangering Jews worldwide, undermining Israeli democracy, and isolating Israel in the Middle East. These claims rely on a familiar narrative that has circulated for years. Unfortunately, much of it rests on oversimplification, selective history, and assumptions that collapse if you just take a moment to look.
The claim that Netanyahu is deceiving the United States
The suggestion that Israel is “playing” the United States by emphasizing the Iranian threat misunderstands the nature of the U.S.–Israel relationship and ignores strategic reality.
Iran’s nuclear ambitions, ballistic missile program, and sponsorship of proxy forces across the region are not inventions of Israeli political messaging. They have been recognized for decades by American administrations of both parties, by European governments, and by many Arab states themselves.
The United States possesses extensive intelligence capabilities and conducts its own independent strategic assessments. Washington’s concern about Iran does not originate with Netanyahu. It reflects a widely shared understanding among security institutions that Iran remains one of the most destabilizing actors in the Middle East.
Highlighting that threat is not deception. It is alignment with the assessment of American and regional security experts.
Claims of “ethnic cleansing” in the West Bank
Accusations that Israel is conducting “ethnic cleansing” in the West Bank are rhetorical escalations, devoid of evidence.
Any serious discussion of the West Bank must begin with the security reality that is often omitted from such accusations. Israeli civilians continue to face shootings, stabbings, and organized attacks originating from militant groups operating in cities such as Jenin and Nablus. Israeli security operations occur within that context of ongoing violence.
Israel has also repeatedly attempted territorial compromise. The Oslo Accords created Palestinian self-governance in major population centers. Later negotiations at Camp David and during the Olmert government offered the possibility of a Palestinian state. Israel even withdrew every soldier and settlement from Gaza in 2005.
At the same time, powerful factions within Palestinian politics-including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad-continue to reject Israel’s right to exist altogether.
Most importantly, the demographic facts contradict the accusation itself. The Palestinian population in the West Bank has grown steadily for decades. Cities and communities continue to expand. A growing population is not consistent with a policy of ethnic cleansing.
Israel and Jewish safety worldwide
Friedman argues that Israel’s policies are making Jews around the world less safe. This claim reverses both history and logic.
Antisemitism existed for centuries before the modern State of Israel. Jewish communities faced persecution across Europe and the Middle East long before Israel was established. Blaming Israel for antisemitism risks confusing cause with excuse.
Jewish safety around the world is strengthened, not weakened, by an Israel that is perceived as strong, capable, and able to defend itself. The existence of a powerful Jewish state changes the calculus for those who might otherwise view Jews everywhere as isolated, vulnerable, and easy to target.
Israel was created in part because Jewish history taught a brutal lesson: without power, Jews were often left exposed to the mercy of others. A strong Israel does not make Jews worldwide less safe. It makes them safer, because it stands as a visible reminder that the Jewish people are no longer defenseless!
Hamas and the October 7 attacks
Another frequent claim is that Netanyahu somehow strengthened Hamas to weaken the Palestinian Authority.
Hamas was founded in 1987 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. It seized control of Gaza in a violent coup against the Palestinian Authority in 2007. Its charter calls explicitly for the destruction of Israel.
More importantly, Hamas’ military capabilities cannot be understood without acknowledging the role of Iran. Tehran has provided funding, weapons, training, and strategic coordination for Hamas and other militant groups across the region. Without that backing, Hamas would not possess the capabilities it demonstrated during the October 7 massacre.
Critics often cite Qatari financial transfers into Gaza as evidence that Israel “supported Hamas.” In reality those transfers were negotiated with international actors and intended to prevent total economic collapse in Gaza. Israel faced an imperfect choice: allow limited economic assistance or risk worsening humanitarian conditions and escalation.
Many of the same voices now criticizing those transfers would almost certainly have condemned Israel had it blocked humanitarian funds entirely.
Judicial reform and Israeli democracy
The debate over judicial reform in Israel is often portrayed abroad as the collapse of Israeli democracy. In reality it reflects a longstanding constitutional dispute within a vibrant democratic system.
Israel does not have a formal written constitution. Over time, the Israeli Supreme Court declared the country’s Basic Laws to function as constitutional authority, granting itself the power to invalidate legislation passed by elected representatives. This so-called “constitutional revolution” occurred without a formal ratification process.
In addition, Israel’s method of selecting Supreme Court justices gives sitting justices significant influence over the appointment of their successors, creating a system that critics argue can perpetuate its own institutional outlook.
The Court has also developed a sweeping “reasonableness doctrine” allowing judges to overturn government decisions based on subjective standards of reasonableness.
Debate over these powers is therefore not an attack on democracy but a debate about how to balance judicial oversight with democratic accountability. Many democracies wrestle with precisely this question.
Investigating the failures of October 7
Israel has historically conducted extensive national inquiries following major security failures. The Agranat Commission after the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the Winograd Commission after the 2006 Lebanon War both examined intelligence and leadership failures in detail.
The expectation that Israel will investigate the events surrounding October 7 is consistent with this tradition.
Such inquiries are typically conducted after active hostilities stabilize. Israel remains engaged in a complex security environment involving Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in the north, and Iranian-backed forces across the region.
The failures that allowed October 7 appear to involve multiple layers of the intelligence and security system. Any serious investigation will examine decisions made across political, intelligence, and military leadership.
The question is therefore not whether Israel will investigate what happened, but when such an inquiry can be conducted responsibly.
Israel and the Arab world
The claim that Israel is becoming isolated from Arab governments is contradicted by recent diplomatic developments.
The Abraham Accords normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states and created cooperation in trade, technology, intelligence, and security. Israel also maintains longstanding peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan.
Shared concerns about Iran’s regional ambitions have brought Israel and several Arab governments into closer alignment than perhaps at any time in the region’s modern history.
In the Middle East, strength and reliability matter. Israel’s demonstrated military and technological capabilities have reinforced its role as a serious strategic actor and partner.
The promise that Palestinian statehood would unlock regional peace
For decades, Western diplomacy has treated Palestinian statehood as the key that would unlock peace across the Middle East.
By now it should be clear that the theory has not worked.
Israel entered Oslo. It accepted land-for-peace formulas. It withdrew every soldier and settler from Gaza. The result was not peace but a Hamas-run enclave backed by Iran and ultimately the horrors of October 7.
Israel has heard the same promise repeatedly: make enough concessions and peace will follow. Been there. Done that. It did not work.
Israel is a tiny country surrounded by a vast Arab and Muslim world. If the region truly wishes to resolve the Palestinian issue, there are options beyond demanding that Israel assume all the risk. Arab states could support a serious regional framework involving Jordan, Egypt, and others to create a viable Palestinian future while guaranteeing Israel’s security.
A durable solution will only emerge from an approach grounded in reality, recognition of Israel’s legitimacy, and accountability for those who continue to reject it.
Conclusion
Israel faces difficult choices in an extraordinarily dangerous region. Reasonable people-including Israelis themselves-can disagree about the best policies.
But describing Israel as a rogue state led by leaders deceiving the United States and endangering Jews worldwide does not illuminate the conflict. It replaces complexity with a familiar narrative that has been repeated for decades.
A serious discussion about Israel’s future-and the region’s future-requires acknowledging both the threats Israel faces and the realities that have shaped the conflict for generations.
Gil Paul
Edison, NJ.
Shit Against the Wall 