Thomas Friedman (The New York Times): A Rude Awakening

[Jack Rabbit]

From The New York Times
Dated Thursday February 5

A Rude Awakening
By Thomas Friedman

ttention Republicans: You may think the results of the Democratic primaries indicate that Americans aren't interested in foreign policy. All they care about are domestic issues, like health care and taxes, and that's what the president should focus on. Maybe. But be careful. You could wake up in November and find that while Mr. Bush focused on the home front, his foreign policy created the "Islamic Republic of Iraq" and the "Islamic Republic of Palestine." Imagine defending those on the campaign trail? Have I got your attention? As they say in the phone commercial, "Can you hear me now?"
I hope we can avoid this worst-case scenario. But it's a real possibility, given the Bush team's failure so far to create a political process that can forge, empower and legitimize a moderate center in Iraq or in Palestine — a center that can counter the rising power of Hamas and Hezbollah among Palestinians and that of the Shiite and Sunni clergy in Iraq . . . .
Since Mr. Sharon is the only moving object, and because he has suddenly found himself under pressure to move — both to change the subject from the corruption scandal closing in on him and his family and to satisfy an Israeli electorate fed up with the bloody status quo — we may have a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. This is apparently part of a broader Sharon plan to unilaterally create an interim Palestinian state in about 50 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza, and leave Israel with the rest.
While Mr. Sharon's decision is in the right direction, it's not all so simple. Why? Because in the past two years, Mr. Sharon has crushed Mr. Arafat's corrupt Palestinian Authority, but failed to lift a finger to empower more responsible Palestinians — like Mahmoud Abbas and Muhammad Dahlan. This has created a power vacuum in Gaza and the West Bank, filled by Hamas, the Islamist militant group. And last week, Mr. Sharon turned over 400 Palestinian prisoners to the Islamist Lebanese militia Hezbollah in a prisoner swap, something he was never ready to do with moderate Palestinian leaders.

Read more.

[roguevalley]

1. So much for objectivity: "I hope we can avoid this worst-case scenario."

[wuushew]

2. What a piece of garbage

Everyday Friedman becomes more and more of a Bush whore

[Sagan]

3. oh, so NOW Friedman criticizes...

You idiot. A bonehead like me was saying these things BEFORE the war you were so aroused about.

[delhurgo]

4. Another excellent, objective article by Friedman. He's one of the best....

...nonpartisan writers working today. An Islamic Iraq definitely would be a "worst case scenario for the Bush admin". But this is something many, including Friedman, warned against at the start of the war. I know he felt it was worth the risk, I had more doubts. I'm not sure I believe, as Bush does, that people by their nature want to be free; I guess were gonna find out. This could be a huge issue in the campaign though since were suppose to be turning over things to the Iraqis beginning in July. If Iraq does turn Islamic as Friedman suggests, it won't just be lack of WMDs that will make the war seem like a big mistake. In fact, this will even be a bigger issue for some.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. I find Friedman interesting

However, I usually don't agree with him.

Concerning the invasion of Iraq, Friedman couldn't have been more wrong. His problem was that he could see a good reason to go to war (ousting a tyrant), entirely forgetting that G. W. Bush, not Tom Friedman, was the man directing foreign policy. As for your remark that Bush believes people by their nature want to be free, it can only be said that if Bush does believe that then he considers it a problem to be overcome. The war wasn't fought for any noble cause. It was and continues to be a colonial misadventure. No one was liberated.

Democracy is not on the table in Iraq. The choice facing the Iraqi people is continued colonial occupation under the Bushies or some combination of civil war and an Iranian-style Islamic Republic. If Iran is any model, don't expect a democratic Iraq; a system where twelve stuffy old men decide who is a good enough Muslim to run for Parliament is not a democracy. Yet that would be better than what Bush has in mind for the Iraqi people and would be more likely to evolve into one than foreign rule for the benefit of western transnational corporations.

Keeping that colonial regime in place is straining our military capabilities when pursuing Osama and his gang should be a higher priority than removing a dictator, even one as brutal and unsavory as Saddam, who was in no way an immanent threat to anyone beyond his own borders. In short, the Iraq invasion was a strategic blunder. That is reason enough to remove Bush from power.

While Friedman has been usually wrong about Iraq, his pronouncements on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are more often worthwhile. The threat of an Islamic Republican Palestine is a real one that did not so great four years ago. Arafat, for all his warts, was a secular leader who would have governed accordingly (pardon the past tense in speaking of Arafat, but it almost reflexive). A Palestinian Islamic Republic would probably be more brutal than an Islamic Republic in Iraq and more of a threat to her neighbors.

Friedman is right her to bemoan the fact that Sharon squandered opportunities to build up secular leaders who could have succeeded Arafat. Sharon was too loathe to deal with Arabs as equals. Now, for years after he is gone, Israel will have to deal with a strong Islamic movement in Palestinian territories, whether it becomes an independent state or not. The leaders of such a movement are less likely to want to compromise or even see common sense. The legacy of Sharon and Arafat will be war.

[number6]

9. I feel the same way ....

"I find Friedman interesting."
"However, I usually don't agree with him."

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde of NYT, you might say
(per Buzzflash)

[sushi]

7. Interesting

that you're not sure you believe, as Bush does, that people by their nature want to be free.

I actually agree with you that not all people want to be free. Well, whatever freedom means. It means different things to different people. Some people prefer to be led and are quite happy for others to decide everything for them. For example, western feminists want women in other countries to be free like them, but I remember reading about women in a harem in the Middle East, who are taken care of their whole lives and like it. They do not envy the freedom of women in the west who "have to work hard and struggle, especially single women, and especially single mothers." They acually pity them.

It all depends on what one is used to, on one's culture. I think it's wrong of Bush to force freedom on other cultures. Do the Iraqis want the puppet of the US kind of freedom Bush has in mind for them?

[sushi]

6. Even if the future Iraqi government

doesn't call itself the "Islamic Republic of Iraq" it will certainly be Islamic, and the US can't complain if this new government won't be a puppet of the US. After all, the war was to bring democracy to Iraq!

Secondly, it will be the Shiites at the top, so the Sunnis and the Kurds are not going to like it. There will be civil war, and Bush will wish he never started this mess.

[GabysPoppy]

8. Not all agree with Mr. Friedman

ZOA Condemns Thomas Friedman Column In N.Y. Times Accusing
Israel & Jews Of "Conspiring" To Manipulate Bush And Cheney

NEW YORK - The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has condemned a column by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times claiming that Israel's leaders are "conspiring" to manipulate President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

In his column on February 5, 2004, Friedman wrote that Israel's Prime Minister "has had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who's ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates, and by political handlers telling the president not to put any pressure on Israel in an election year all conspiring to make sure the president does nothing."

"Friedman's language conjures up disturbing stereotypical images of Jews conspiring to manipulate world leaders and events, and gives comfort to bigots who promote such imagery," said ZOA National President Morton A. Klein.

snip

The ZOA also points out that Friedman's statements are reminiscent of the statement by the first President George Bush, on September 12, 1991, that he was "one lonely little guy" besieged by "some powerful political forces" and "something like a thousand lobbyists on the Hill" (referring to American Jews who were visiting their Congressmen and endorsing U.S. humanitarian loan guarantees for Soviet Jewish refugees relocating to Israel).

At the time, Thomas Friedman characterized President Bush's statement as "a harsh attack" (N.Y. Times, Sept. 21, 1991) and said the President had used "threatening language" (N.Y. Times, Oct. 6, 1991). Friedman noted that "Mr. Bush's remarks provoked a flood of supportive mail to the White House, much of it anti-Semitic" (N.Y. Times, March 2, 1992) He also wrote: "Mr. Bush exacerbated the crisis by striking what many American Jews felt was a low blow with his statements of Sept.12, 1991 that basically implied that there was something disloyal about American supporters of Israel lobbying for the loan guarantees over Mr. Bush's objections." (N.Y. Times, Aug. 16, 1992)

http://www.zoa.org/pressrel2004/20040205b.htm

[Jack Rabbit]

10. This is ridiculous

I have my problems with Friedman, but to compare him to Buchanan is ludicrous. Buchanan is a classic anti-Semite. Friedman is a Jew. Such a comparison is not just wrong; it is insulting.

I agree that Friedman's language makes it sound as though Mr. Bush is an unwilling prisoner to a strange alliance of the Israeli right wing, US neoconservatives and American religious fanatics who see Israel's rise as a precursor to the End of Times. This, of course, is not the case. The truth is that Mr. Bush is willingly compliant with this group.

However, the influence of this alliance is not the point of Friedman's argument. Friedman is making the case that Sharon has missed opportunities to build up responsible Palestinian leaders and that Mr. Bush has done nothing to persuade him to do so.

It is not convincing to selectively quote from a twelve-year-old piece about a remark made by President Bush and compare those to remarks made by the writer of that piece in a completely different context. Friedman was right in 1991 to criticize President Bush for making it sound like he was bravely standing up to lobbyists. The very idea of a Bush showing political courage or standing up to lobbyists is laughable. Today, Friedman has at least a good case to say that Sharon has done nothing to solve and much to aggravate the crisis in the Middle East, while Bush has done little more than stand and the sidelines, make a few noises and let Sharon have his way.

One may disagree with Friedman, but Friedman has nothing for which to apologize. He stated his case and deserves a better critique from those who disagree than this kind of abuse.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aidoneus]

12. Ok, I want to hear this one elaborated..

he's a Jew and a Zionist, and a rabid fan and propagandist for US imperialism....
exactly how is he an "anti-semite" (new model or ancient)?!

don't mistake me, I don't like him and won't try to defend him here on practically any grounds against your charge, but WTF?! that's a new one and pretty far out of right field.. does "not Zionist enough in the right way" = "anti-semite" now? that's about all I can imagine..

[GabysPoppy]

14. Mr. Rabbit

I would suggest reading the ZOA comments again and note the mention of Buchanan's name and statements made by that anti-Semite were made to conjure the notion of imagery only. The fact that Friedman is Jewish is irrelevant. Suggesting that he cannot make anti-semitic statements because he is Jewish is also both wrong and insulting.

Suggesting that *bush is under house arrest by Sharon is very reminiscent of Buchanan's "Amen corner" idiotic statement.

[Jack Rabbit]

19. Mr. Poppy

I stand on what I said.

While I agree that Mr. Friedman has conjured up an image that does not fit the facts, I do not believe he should be subjected to insinuations that he is anti-Semitic. Friedman is a Jew, has a long track of supporting Israel and has never engaged in any sort of JewsRunTheBanksAndTheEconomyAndTheWorld sort of rhetoric in his writings. Even his remarks here are not aimed at Jews holding Bush hostage, but Sharon and pro-Israeli lobbyists, whom Friedman describes as having right wing Christian as well as Jewish elements.

Suggesting that (Friedman) cannot make anti-semitic statements because he is Jewish is also both wrong and insulting.

I would be very careful in accusing Friedman of anti-Semitism. I'm a romantic, which means that such a characterization would have to do with Friedman's inner life as evidenced by his public utterences. While I agree that there are some Jews who strive a to prove their liberation from their Jewishness by bashing Israel and often cross that line, Friedman over the years has not been among them. On the contrary, he has often defended Israel and, even when chiding the actions of Israel's leaders, has never suggested that the world would be a better place if Israel were to cease to exist.

Anti-Semitism -- indeed, all irrational hatred -- is a disease of the soul. Unless you or Mr. Klein can demonstrate some pervasive tendency by Friedman that would convince me that Friedman, in spite of his heritage, has a hatred of Jews and things Jewish, then any suggestions that he is anti-Semitic are out of line. In the absence of that, the worst that can be said of his piece is that he is guilty of using some sloppy language. He may be chided for that more gently than by being compared to an bona fide anti-Semite like Buchanan.

If there is an apology owed to anyone, it is the ZOA to Mr. Friedman.

[La_Serpiente]

13. Here is the letter to the editor in the NY Times

in response to Freidman's column.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/opinion/L07FRIE.html

Re "A Rude Awakening," by Thomas L. Friedman (column, Feb. 5):

Mr. Friedman claims that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel has "had George Bush under house arrest" and has him "surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists"; that Vice President Dick Cheney is "ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates"; and that they, as well as Mr. Bush's "political handlers," are "all conspiring to make sure the president does nothing" to pressure Israel.

Allegations about Israel and its supporters "conspiring" to control the White House conjure up the kind of disturbing stereotypical images of Jews that extremists periodically circulate.

MORTON A. KLEIN
National President, Zionist Organization of America
New York, Feb. 5, 2004

[Darranar]

15. Uh...

"has had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who's ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates, and by political handlers telling the president not to put any pressure on Israel in an election year all conspiring to make sure the president does nothing."

Note that he says "Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists", not "Jews".

It is certainly true that both Democrats and Republicans are stepping carefully on the Israel issue so close to the election. Bush has been saying little in this regard lately, and Howard Dean had to quickly step back in line when he said something that would indicate that he would actually treat people fairly. John Kerry had to quickly clarify himself after he stated something that was interpreted to be anti-Sharon.

I disagree with his statement, though. More accurately, the Bush Administration is not pressuring Sharon because they don't want to. Tom Friedman, however, is a Bush apologist, so of course he must make excuses for Bush whenever Bush does something foolish.

[GabysPoppy]

16. Have you read Friedman on a consistent basis?

He has agreed with the the Iraqi war and very little else.

Does that make him a *bush apologist?

[Lithos]

20. Friedman is a neo-Liberalist

Which is the same type of University of Chicago economics which the RW (and Bush) have endorsed and espoused and which has proven time and time again to generate disastrous results for the common person in whatever country it is practiced on.

L-

[IndianaGreen]

17. "given the Bush team's failure"

Given the fact that Tom Friedman was one of Bush's propagandists that agitated in favor of the criminal war in Iraq, and parroted the Israel's lobby rosy scenario of our troops being welcomed by singing and dancing in the streets, he has no credibility left and neither does the NY Times.

When it comes to the Iraq quagmire, there is plenty of blame to go around!

For Israel Lobby Group, War Is Topic A, Quietly
At Meeting, Jerusalem's Contributions Are Highlighted
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 1, 2003; Page A25

This week's meeting in Washington of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has put a spotlight on the Bush administration's delicate dance with Israel and the Jewish state's friends over the attack on Iraq.

<snip>

"God willing, we're going to have a great victory in Iraq," said AIPAC's Steve Rosen, the moderator.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63578-2003Mar31

[La_Serpiente]

18. Wow

The AIPAC meeting -- attended by about 5,000 people, including half the Senate and a third of the House -- was planned long before it became clear it would coincide with hostilities in Iraq. And organizers tried to play down the emphasis on Iraq, dedicating only one of its 12 "forums" during the conference to the war. "This is not about Iraq," said AIPAC spokesman Josh Block. "This is about going to Congress and lobbying for the Israeli aid package."

I sure would like to know who was on that seating list.

[kalian]

21. I'm sure that you can be creative enough....

;)