Soccer Dad

Thomas friedman deplores the paranoia he feeds

Thomas Friedman's column today, America vs. the narrative is excellent. He minces no words:

Have no doubt: we punched a fist into the Arab/Muslim world after 9/11, partly to send a message of deterrence, but primarily to destroy two tyrannical regimes -- the Taliban and the Baathists -- and to work with Afghans and Iraqis to build a different kind of politics. In the process, we did some stupid and bad things. But for every Abu Ghraib, our soldiers and diplomats perpetrated a million acts of kindness aimed at giving Arabs and Muslims a better chance to succeed with modernity and to elect their own leaders.

The Narrative was concocted by jihadists to obscure that.

It's working. As a Jordanian-born counterterrorism expert, who asked to remain anonymous, said to me: "This narrative is now omnipresent in Arab and Muslim communities in the region and in migrant communities around the world. These communities are bombarded with this narrative in huge doses and on a daily basis. [It says] the West, and right now mostly the U.S. and Israel, is single-handedly and completely responsible for all the grievances of the Arab and the Muslim worlds. Ironically, the vast majority of the media outlets targeting these communities are Arab-government owned -- mostly from the Gulf."

Other than crediting President Obama's Cairo speech at the end Friedman's column is dead on. For an example of the narrative read the words of Iran's supreme leader. What bugs me most about the column though, is that throughout the years, Friedman has done more than his share of feeding this very narrative.

Whether it was his dishonest hawking of the so-called "Saudi peace plan" (especially pay attention to the last two paragraphs, which Friedman included with no comment, allowing them to stand unchallenged) in 2002 or what he wrote explicitly in columns, Friedman has always worked from the premise that the "occupation" is at the heart of all the problems in the Middle East.

A quick search yielded this column, War of ideas Part 4 from January, 2004.

In sum, Israel should withdraw from the territories, not because it is weak, but because it must remain strong; not because Israel is wrong, but because Zionism is a just cause that the occupation is undermining; not because the Arabs would warmly embrace a smaller Israel, but because a smaller Israel, in internationally recognized boundaries, will be much more defensible; not because it will eliminate Islamic or European anti-Semitism, but because it will reduce it by reducing the daily friction; not because it would mean giving into an American whim, but because nothing would strengthen America's influence in the Muslim world, help win the war of ideas and therefore better protect Israel than this.

In sum, Friedman argues that Israel's continued occupation provides a pretext for the Arab/Muslim world to maintain its opposition to Israel. Nowhere does he call upon the Arab/Muslim world to eliminate its official antisemitism. In fact since he allows the occupation and its end to be defined by the Arab/Muslim world, he effectively gives them the means by which to perpetuate the enmity.

I might give Friedman credit for sincerity, but this column - from 2004 - was written prior to Hezbollah's war against Israel. Elsewhere in the column he wrote:

After Israel withdrew from Lebanon, the Hezbollah militia, on the other side, went on hating Israel and harassing the border ? but it never tried to launch an invasion. Why? Hezbollah knew it would have no legitimacy ? in the world or in Lebanon ? for breaching that U.N.-approved border. And if it tried, Israel would be able to use its full military weight to retaliate.

So no, Hezbollah didn't invade Israel - that was never its goal - but it did launch major attacks on Israeli cities with no concern for the "legitimacy" of such attacks. Seeking international legitimacy for its actions was never a consideration for Hezbollah. Even it was, Hezbollah needn't have worried as Israel was condemned more for the collateral damage it caused as it defended its citizens than Hezbollah did for deliberately targeting Israelis. Having a major aspect of his ideology discredited - that an Israeli withdrawal would provide Israel with strategic relief - Friedman never once wrote a column acknowledging his mistake. (He didn't write: "I was wrong. He gave other explanations why his predicted peace never occurred.)

So yes, Friedman is right about the narrative. But he is cynical in not acknowledging his own role in perpetuating it.