Recommending two articles

I don’t often use this space for recommending articles by other writers. You can follow me on Twitter or Facebook for that. But these two bear special mention.

The more recent one is Tom Friedman’s piece in the Times today, “Why Not In Vegas?” where Friedman exposes the pathetic farce that was Mitt Romney’s trip to Israel, a voyage which was not about US interests but about Bibi Netanyahu’s designs on getting his friend in the White House and Romney’s shameless shilling for Sheldon Adelson’s money. It’s the kind of piece we need to see more of from Friedman and others among his cadre.

The second is an outstanding piece by Noam Sheizaf about the awful tactics being used by the National Jewish Democratic Council, which, in attacking Romney as not being pro-Israel enough, sounds more right wing and hawkish than the worst neoconservatives. It’s a classic example of how liberals sell out all of their values when it comes to Israel, and Noam examines it most deftly. Please check it out.

Criticism of ‘False Flag’ piece is misguided and simply wrong

Many of my readers probably saw the recent article in the journal Foreign Policy by Mark Perry entitled “False Flag,” which details an Israeli covert operation to engage a Pakistani terrorist group (Jundallah, a group officially termed “terrorist” by both the US and Iran, a rare point of agreement between the two countries) for attacks on Iran. The Mossad did this by posing as CIA agents, according to Perry, which infuriated then-President George W. Bush. In response the US did…absolutely nothing.

The piece was very important, and certainly controversial. My friends at +972 Magazine published a critique of it here, from a guest blogger named Rafael Frankel. With all due respect to +972, that critique was a very poor one. They graciously agreed to publish my own rebuttal to Frankel’s piece, and you can read that here.

Since Perry’s piece is, as I said, both important and controversial, it certainly should be critiqued. Hopefully it will get the serious treatment it deserves, not the poor and biased examination Frankel gave it.