Doubting Thomas

A Much Needed Vacation

Good News. I probably won't be updating Doubting Thomas for another 3 months. Because Thomas Friedman is going on vacation.

This is my last column for three months. I'm taking a sabbatical to finish a book about geopolitics, called "The World Is Flat." It is not easy to take a timeout right now. But I want to step back and construct a better framework for myself to explain what's going on out there.

The title of the column is "Timeout for Imagination," so I guess he feels that he needs to recharge his imagination. I hate to kick a guy when he's on vacation. Well, actually I like to kick Thomas Friedman any chance I get.
His problem isn't so much with his lack of imagination it's with his inability to confront reality.
Today's column is a grandiose one. In it, he outlines 3 headlines he'd like to see over the next 3 months.
Thomas's first headline: "Iraq's New Government Quashes Rebellion in Sunni Areas — Without the Help of U.S. Troops — Thanks to Intelligence Provided by Iraqis Themselves."
Here's why:

Too few Iraqis viewed us as legitimate or able to protect them, so they did not want to, or dare to, come forward with actionable intelligence about who was attacking us. As a result, some U.S. forces tried to beat it out of them.

Except ordinary Iraqis have been coming forward: (via Instapundit)

Gen. Dempsey first needed the locations of Sheik al-Sadr's rifle-toting henchmen. Average Iraqis, fed up with the militia's kidnappings and thievery, quickly became spies, as did a few moderate clerics who publicly stayed neutral.

I can't really comment much on his second headline as I'm not expert in energy policy: "President Bush Stuns Electorate — Does His Own Version of Nixon to China and Announces Joint Chinese-American Crash Program for Developing Alternative Energies." In it he writes:

If there was ever a time for big imagination, it is now. What we need is for President Bush to surprise himself and the world and propose a grand China-U.S. Manhattan Project — a crash program to jointly develop clean alternative energies, bringing together China's best scientists and its ability to force pilot projects, with America's best brains, technology and money.

I have a feeling that this is something that will happen even without such a "crash" program. I'm sure that China would be less polluted and less dependent on foreign oil if it adopted many American environmental guidelines. But again this is an area I know little about.

Anyway here's his 3rd headline:"Bush Administration Calls an End to the 'War on Terrorism.' " It's not that Thomas can't acknowledge the nature of our enemy it's just that

I do not want this to be all that America is about in the world anymore, and that is what has happened under this administration. I don't want the rest of my career to be about an America that exports fear, not hope, and ends up importing everyone else's fears as a result...America is so much more than just "Anti-Al-Qaeda Inc." — but our whole identity in the world, and too many aspects of our way of life, are getting contorted around that mission.

But America is so much more that "Anti-Al-Qaeda Inc." How many times a year do we hear that conjoined twins from another country have come here to have the delicate surgery of separation performed? How many international disasters does the U.S. send its emergency personnel to annually? In the Olympic games this summer how many athletes with ethnically diverse surnames will compete as Americans? What percentage of the technical Nobels (sciences and economics) are won by Americans?
Sorry but Thomas is accentuating the negative much too much. I realize that such a view may be popular at the NY Times, the ivory towers of th world or the salons of Europe, but it really requires a narrow and negative view of the U.S. to make such an assertion.
Friedman writes further:

If we're really having a relevant presidential campaign, I'll come back and find the candidates debating, not who is the "toughest" guy — the jungle is full of them — but who can be the toughest guy while preserving the best of what we had and the best of who we are.

The "jungle" as Thomas calls it is not full of the toughest guys. If it were it wouldn't be up to America to lead the fight for the Western world. There are all too many who would rather turn tail and run instead of confronting evil. Clearly Thomas feels that too high a price is being paid by the Bush administration to get that job done. I think that his partisanship is getting the better of him. Kerry may be willing to do what's necessary to fight al-Qaeda and make nice to the rest of the world at the same time, but I doubt it. When I think of recent Democratic foreign policy luminaries the only one who is tough minded enough to support a President Kerry on such an ambitious agenda is Richard Holbrooke. Warren Christopher? Sandy Berger? Madeline Albright? Give me a break. And that's not even taking into account whether he would be able to keep his constituency happy. Even if Kerry was sufficiently determined to fight our enemies as much as possible; I don't think he would have the latitude to do so.
In the end this is less a wish list than a thinly disguised exercise in Bush bashing.

Something New

Thomas Friedman is likely as not to quote someone, either a friend or some authority on the subject that he is commenting on. Today Thomas quotes "... An Arab journalist friend living in London" in "Maids vs. Occupiers"
The subject is (the lack) of reform in the Arab world and how to solve it. His sees the need for debate:

So how does one get a healthy reform debate started? "You need a courageous intelligentsia," he said. "You can't have that as long as people feel besieged. The new historians in Israel only emerged during Oslo. When you feel besieged, you will never start a debate with your brother and sister. Now it is the battle against the enemy, be it real or imaginary."

I know it's not a big thing. But Friedman passes himself off as an expert on the Middle East generally and on Israel specifically. He lets the comment about the new historians pass without a challenge. The new historians preceded Oslo. Benny Morris published his first book in 1987. Without disputing Thomas's friend's assessment of the new historians - others do that quite well - it's simply not true that the debate over Israel's founding occurred in a time when Israel was "secure." The new historians came to prominence at least five years before Oslo. In fact the new historians began their rise roughly at the time of the beginning of the first intifada, hardly a time that anyone would call Israel secure.
The "new historians" were possible not because Israel was secure but because Israel was and is an open society. Friedman's friend was simply making excuses for the Arab world. (They can't reform because they're not secure.)
Not only was the timing of the statement wrong, it's reasonably safe to argue that it was the the "new historians" who gave rise to Oslo not the opposite.
It is even probably truthful to say that in initiating Oslo, Yossi Beilin was applying post-Zionist theory. Beilin, though, would never admit this.
Friedman, of course, knows this. But he has a point to make and figures that no one will call him on it. The sloppiness continues.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Doubting Thomas.

Redefining Success

Sometimes when an athlete achieves something beyond what all others have achieved, we say that he has re-defined success. In today's column, "Taking the High Ground" Thomas Friedman has re-defined success.

Israel's Lebanon withdrawal was a great strategic success — for reasons that Israel should be studying now.

For one thing Friedman writes:

With that U.N.-approved pullout, Israel completely reversed its situation: It went from holding the strategic and moral low ground, to holding the strategic and moral high ground.

Whether Israel's presence in Lebanon was moral or not is a matter of debate; what is certain though Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon does not mark a strategic advantage. It is always better from a strategic standpoint to fight on your enemy's territory than on your own.
I would argue from a moral standpoint that a country with an obligation to protect its own citizens first, Israel had a good moral case to be in Lebanon. But Friedman clearly doesn't believe that.
Further Friedman argues:

"Sure," say the critics, "But the Palestinians saw the Israeli withdrawal as a sign of weakness and it triggered their Intifada II." Well, maybe the Palestinians did watch too much Hezbollah TV. Their mistake. But I'll tell you who didn't misread Israel's withdrawal: the people it was directed at — Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria.

Let's see if I get this; 1000 Israelis have been killed because Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon and Friedman just dismisses it with "...maybe the Palestinians did watch too much Hezbollah TV?" Is he agreeing that the claim may be true? Well then how is it a "strategic success?" Friedman's failure to address this claim seriously is irresponsible.
But then the second part of the paragraph compounds his felonies. Oh, but it was success because it was a gesture aimed at Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria and they understood the message. This may have been an argument if Syria ended its occupation of Lebanon; the Lebanese government moved its troops into southern Lebanon and disarmed Hezbollah; and Hezbollah acted strictly as the political and social organization that its apologists like to pretend that it is. None of these things happened.
Then Friedman quotes one of my favorite experts, Shibley Telhami,

"As soon as Israel withdrew from Lebanon to the internationally recognized border, the legitimacy factor shifted from Hezbollah to Israel. This may seem abstract, but it's not."

That's right. And I'll prove how concrete this 'legitimacy factor' is. After Adi Avitan, Omer Suaed and Binyamin Avraham were kidnapped on October 7, 2000, the UN Security Council held an emergency session to condemn Hezbollah's violation of the international border; Kofi Annan devoted his good offices to help Israel recover its soldiers and Thomas Friedman wrote an angry column denouncing Hezbollah's bad faith.
Actually, none of these things happened. In fact the UN, despite possessing videotapes of the abduction, refused to help Israel claiming that it could not take sides. That's right, a terrorist organization had just violated the UN sanctioned border and kidnapped (and killed) three Israeli soldiers and the UN couldn't even rhetorically bring itself to declare Hezbollah's actions illegitimate, or illegal. That "legitimacy factor" is abstract when it comes to Israel.
That leads to a conclusion:

When you have legitimacy on your side, your people, and the world, support you more, and the other side's people, and the world, support them less.

As I've pointed, using the UN as a baseline, the world does not support Israel more because Israel withdrew from Lebanon.
There was, of course, a point to this stroll down memory lane. Because Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was such a success:

If you are going to get out of Gaza unilaterally, get out all the way to the U.N.-blessed international border. Do not do it halfway; otherwise you end up with the worst of all worlds: still embroiled in a guerrilla war, still taking casualties, unable to use your superior firepower and getting blamed for everything. Gaza may be easier than Lebanon, too, because unlike Syria and Hezbollah, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt would not have an interest — after an Israeli pullout — in keeping Gaza boiling. Because that would empower Hamas.

Israel did not get out of Lebanon halfway and since that withdrawal Israel has suffered some 180 attacks resulting in fourteen dead and 60 wounded. The UN (and Thomas Friedman) has (have) remained remarkably silent about these violations of the international border.
It's interesting here, that Friedman undermines one of his earlier points. Remember he wrote that Syria got the point now he writes (implicitly) that Syria and Hezbollah have an interest in keeping the Israeli border with Lebanon "boiling." What message have they received? Ah yes no "serious" attacks against Israel. Was the organized attack that killed Lynne Livne, her daughter Atara and 4 others in March 2002 not serious? Was the killing of Haviv Dodan in August 2003, not serious, even though it indicated the Hezbollah was making efforts at modifying anti-aircraft shells to explode nearer to the ground?
Finally he writes that the result of withdrawing from Gaza will be better than the result of withdrawing from Lebanon, because the PA and Egypt will not want to empower Hamas. Where's he been for the past 10 years? Hamas could not have flourished as it did without the full connivance of the PA. Sure, sometimes the PA acted against Hamas, if enough pressure was brought to bear. But the PA enjoyed the deniability it had vis a vis Hamas. It could allow Hamas to operate unmolested and claim that it couldn't take steps because Hamas was too powerful. Arafat ran a police state. If he wanted to crush Hamas he and Dahlan and Rajoub could have. But they didn't want to. As long as there are those to certify the Arafat and PA kosher because they are not Hamas, Arafat and the PA will allow Hamas to operate freely.
I'd like to focus on two items that show the level of Friedman's hypocrisy.
The first I've already referred to. On October 7, 2000, Hezbollah kidnaped three Israeli soldiers. A quick search of his columns showed that not once did he refer to the kidnaping from the time it occurred until the end of the year. Given the importance Friedman attached to the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon you'd think that he'd at least address this breach. (It was a fetish of his. Friedman in 1999 suggested that then-PM Netanyahu might defeat then-Labor Party leader Ehud Barak by unilaterally withdrawing from Lebanon. He figured that there was no move any Israeli leader could make that would be more popular than withdrawing from Lebanon and that if Bibi had done it, it would have reversed his decline in popularity to the point that he'd be able to retain his position.) Not only didn't he comment on the kidnaping; he didn't criticize the UN for failing to act as an honest broker. Nothing.
In fairness, I would point that in a column "Clinton's Syria Memo" (December 1, 2004) Friedman wrote

Israel unilaterally withdrew all its troops from Lebanon last spring in accordance with U.N. Resolution 425. The Lebanon-Israel boundary line Israel withdrew to was personally certified by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. And the U.N. stated clearly that Shabaa Farms -- this little stretch of frontier at the intersection of the Israeli, Lebanese and Syrian borders -- was part of the Syrian Golan Heights, now occupied by Israel. Therefore, it should not have been returned to Lebanon by Israel, but should be returned to Syria as part of any Israeli-Syrian Golan peace deal.

Despite that U.N. verdict, you have encouraged the Lebanese Shiite militia, Hezbollah, to keep launching raids against Israel at Shabaa Farms, claiming it's Lebanese territory, even though your official maps always showed it as part of Syria.

So he acknowledged that Israel observed the international standards but he never condemns Hezbollah or Syria for violating those standards except in general terms.
The second item is related. On March 6, 2002, Serge Schmemann reported that Syria had agreed to back the Friedman publicized, Saudi "peace plan." What Schmemann left out of the article was that Abdullah at the behest of Bashar Assad included the line that Israel was responsible for "...the liberation of the remaining occupied territories in South Lebanon..." This, of course, refers to Shabaa farms and, of course, made a mockery of the peace plan. Did Thomas Friedman write a column and criticize his pal Abdullah for changing the terms of his initiative midstream? No. In fact a month and a half later this is what Friedman wrote in "What Day Is It?" (April 24, 2002):

I'm glad the crown prince has put forward a peace plan. It can only help create possibilities, and those who say it is only p.r. don't know what they're talking about.

But what happened when Syria insisted that Shebaa farms was part of Lebanon? Friedman, after promoting the Abdullah "peace plan," should have been the first to point that by including an obligation for an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, Assad and Abdullah were making a mockery of Israel's adherence to the international boundary. Where is the "legitimacy factor" that Israel earned by withdrawing from Lebanon?
This, in fact, is the biggest problem with Israel making peace with its enemies. Will the enemies accept any deal that Israel makes with them? Or will they keep on changing the terms? Will Israel be making peace on a stable playing field or will the goalposts keep on getting moved?
Friedman (and the media generally) does play a role in all this. How are Israeli concessions to be viewed - as a step toward peace that must be matched by the Palestinians (and others in the Arab world) or as a good thing by themselves to be pocketed regardless of whatever new demands of Israel are made or changed? Until now the latter view has held sway and it begs the question what exactly does Israel have to gain by peace agreements? Is there anyone who will say that Israel has made significant concessions and deserves to have its enemies offer some tangible form of recognition - if not non-belligerence - in return?
It is clear that Thomas Friedman does not really believe in peace in the Middle East; he just insists that Israel divest itself of land regardless of consequences. He has shown himself remarkably disinterested in the change of behavior of the Arabs towards Israel. Friedman has no road map to peace and no recipe for success. He is simply a pundit who loves the sound of his own words while trying to be profound.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Doubting Thomas.

Educate Me.

On Thursday, Thomas Friedman wrote a column arguing that America needed an energy policy that is not dependent on Saudi Arabia reforming its educational system and ridding it of its "culture of death."
I'm not sure how easy it is to change America's habits or to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Certainly drilling in Alaska will help but that's not an option that Friedman suggests.
His sole purpose here is to excoriate the Bush administration for not doing more. He ends with these thoughts:

Well, what would you call a Bush energy policy that keeps America dependent on a medieval monarchy with a king who has lost most of his faculties, where there is virtually no transparency about what's happening, where corruption is rampant, where we have asked all Americans to leave and where the education system is so narrow that its own people are decrying it as a factory for extremism? Now that's what I'd call naïve. I'd also call it reckless and dangerous.

If only Friedman listened to his own words. Well, he didn't so let me rewrite those thoughts a little differently:
"What would you call a Friedman peace plan that leaves Israel at the mercy of a medieval monarchy with a king who has lost most of his faculties, where there is virtually no transparency about what's happening, where corruption is rampant, where , where we have asked all Americans to leave and where the education system is so narrow that its own people are decrying it as a factory for extremism? Now that's what I'd call naïve. I'd also call it reckless and dangerous."
Let's go back to the beginning of the article, though:

Surely the most chilling aspect of the latest terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia against foreigners at the Khobar oil center was in reports from the scene about how the Saudi militants tried to kill or capture only the non-Muslims, and let Muslims and Arabs go. The Associated Press quoted a Lebanese woman, Orora Naoufal, who was taken hostage in her apartment, as saying that the gunmen released her when they learned of her nationality. They told her they were interested in harming only "infidels" and Westerners.

Now where would the terrorists have learned such intolerance and discrimination? Answer: in the Saudi public school system and religious curriculum."

I'd love Friedman to explain how he expects peace between Israel and the Palestinians when the Palestinian education system is every bit as vile.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Doubting Thomas.