There is much to criticize about Tom Friedman but this piece is pure nonsense - just the type of hyper-opinionated BS that passes for reasoned discourse on the knee-jerk, anti-Israel left.

What exactly is wrong with a journalist (columnist, actually, but that's not terribly significant) meeting with military and civilian officials? Isn't that part of their job? Friedman would be derelict in his responsibilities if he did not speak to official sources. On the other hand, ideologues like Cobban apparently find it's unnecessary to hear from some sources before reaching their pre-ordained conclusions, even ridiculous and unfounded ones like the claim that Friedman is a snoop for the IDF.

As for the lecture to the IDF, it would obviously be problematic if Friedman were paid for his lecture. I am quite certain that the NYT has standards governing this, particularly for those who, like Friedman, are on the "lecture circuit." I would imagine those standards preclude them from receiving speaking fees for those they cover. Perhaps Cobban could have done a modicum of research into what those standards are before unleashing her silly attack. Perhaps she could have ascertained whether Friedman was even paid for the lecture. But why bother? Plainly, if the IDF is the enemy, any contact is inherently suspect.

Equally absurd, but indicative of the overall lack of even the most rudimentary journalistic standard, is Cobban's completely unfounded assertion that a real journalist's claim that "most" checkpoints have been removed - an easily verifiable fact that has been widely reported - is factually incorrect. But again, why bother with facts when knee-jerk opinionating is your stock in trade?

To change the subject slightly, the IDF recently published an extensive report on its operation in Gaza. It is a serious document that merits consideration - and probably legitimate criticism - particularly among those who, like Cobban, casually throw around terms like "war crimes." Would a commentator like Cobban even think of reading the document, much less seriously attempting to rebut it? Why should that be necessary when the IDF is concerned?

If you're interested, here's the link.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+and+Islamic+Fundamentalism-/Operation_in_Gaza-Factual_and_Legal_Aspects.htm

what MATT TAIBBI said:

Just when you begin to lose faith in America’s ability to fall for absolutely anything—just when you begin to think we Americans as a race might finally outgrow the lovable credulousness that leads us to fork over our credit card numbers to every half-baked TV pitchman hawking a magic dick-enlarging pill, or a way to make millions on the Internet while sitting at home and pounding doughnuts— along comes Thomas Friedman, porn-stached resident of a positively obscene 114,000 11,400 square foot suburban Maryland mega-monstro-mansion and husband to the heir of one of the largest shopping-mall chains in the world, reinventing himself as an oracle of anti-consumerist conservationism.

Where does a man who needs his own offshore drilling platform just to keep the east wing of his house heated get the balls to write a book chiding America for driving energy inefficient automobiles? Where does a guy whose family bulldozed 2.1 million square feet of pristine Hawaiian wilderness to put a Gap, an Old Navy, a Sears, an Abercrombie and even a motherfucking Foot Locker in paradise get off preaching to the rest of us about the need for a “Green Revolution”?

What amazes me is that Friedman has won 3 Pulitzer's in Journalism. But if you consider that Pulitzer himself is famous for introducing yellow journalism into the newspaper business, it might not be as surprising as you think.

And what about Helena Cobban and MJ Rosenberg? Are they "neutral observers of matters Middle Eastern"?

Someone tell me why anyone should consider this guy a "neutral observer" of matters Middle Eastern?

Since when is a columnist supposed to be a "neutral observer"? A columnist is paid to have opinions. Tom Friedman succeeds as a columnist because he has an opinion on everything, even things he knows little about, such as the Iraq War.

Sadly, as in so many other areas, whether one was right about the war is the only thing that matters to some on the left. How else to explain the contempt with which Friedman is held even to this day by the left? Before the Iraq War, obviously many would disagree with him, but there was nothing like comtempt.

The irony here is that the Israel-Palestine conflict is the one subject which Friedman can unequivocally be considered an expert. He's been studying it for more than 30 years. Furthermore, Friedman is held in the same contempt by the right-wing pro-Israel crowd as he is by the left. They accuse him of anti-Israel bias becuase he is passionately against the occupation of the West Bank. He's probably more "neutral" on this issue than the vast majority of commentators, obviously also very much including Helena Cobban.

The fact is that to knee-jerk leftists like her, to be considered "neutral", you need to have the same reflexive blame-Israel-first bias that she has.

Is there some kind of death panel for journalists? Like, when you get totally irrelevant AND refuse to get rid of your ridiculous mustache they gently take your keyboard away and send you out to just read the news instead of write it?