Doubting Thomas

The anti-Churchill

One of the nice things about blogging about Thomas Friedman, is that sometimes I'm able to outsource my work. Not to India. But to the DC area and Minnesota.
Captain's Quarters sums up Thomas Friedman "Read my Ears" colum nicely:

If Bush gives no public speeches and instead sits while Europeans gripe about American policy, then "pundits" will have no ammunition with which to write clever editorials picking apart Bush's words. Apparently, all European op-ed columnists do is peruse transcripts of Bush speeches for subject matter. Likewise, European politicians would fight over what to say to Bush, even though mouthing off at America has never been a shrinking industry in Europe.

According to Friedman, President Bush shouldn't follow his instincts and principles to do what's best (or what at least what the President thinks is best) for America, rather the president should try to figure out why the Europeans don't like "his" America, and seek to re-make an America that Europeans would like. (Sounds a little like Thomas's whine from last week!)
Then if that wasn't enough, Outside the Beltway did a nice parody of Thomas's device to ascribe profound views to an expert to confirm the sagacity of his own views. Of course in this case the sage was a barfly.

Joe Schmoe, who for all you know is a cab driver from Fairfax, Virginia who I didn't make up to support what I was going to write anyway, told me, "When Friedman went on his sabbatical a while back, I was hoping he'd stay gone. It's just too much work reading three bad columns making the same hackneyed point for every good one. Really, I prefer to read blogs these days."

Ha!
It's hard to add much to these pros, but Friedman is making himself into the anti-Churchill. Daniel Mandel of the Middle East Forum tells this story of WWII:

What would Churchill counsel today for America if it had to stand alone? Here, we do not need to hypothesize. In 1938, at a dinner party, the American ambassador in London, Joseph Kennedy, an appeaser through and through, predicted to Churchill that England would go under. It drew from Churchill an impromptu oration that included these words:

It will then be for you, for the Americans, to preserve and maintain the great heritage of the English-speaking peoples. It will be for you to think imperially, which means to think always of something higher and more vast than one's own national interests.

This counsel is risky, hard to execute, and liable to earn unpopularity. But it remains the indispensable meaning of the Churchill Doctrine today.

(emphasis mine)
But for Thomas unpopularity equals being mistaken. We're just not as smart as those savvy Europeans and UN bureaucrats who fattened themselves on kickbacks from Saddam. We're not worthy. Hmmm. "Thomas's World?"

Thomas "L Qaeda" Friedman

Earlier this week, Powerline made an excellent observation about Thomas L. Friedman:

As we've said before, Friedman is knowledgeable about the Middle East, but his overriding loyalty to the Democratic Party prevents him from drawing the conclusions that flow from his own premises, and thereby being a useful commentator. So, instead of acknowledging that the policy he advocates is the one being pursued by the Bush administration, Friedman takes his obligatory partisan shots at the President, implicitly contradicting the rest of his column:

The Bush team is certainly not fostering all this when it mismanages a war it launched to liberate the people of Iraq. Its performance has been pathetic, and I understand anyone on the right or the left who wants to wash his hands of the whole thing.

Democrats accuse the Bush team of "mismanaging" the Iraqi war in their sleep, but, as usual, Friedman offers no specifics as to wherein the "mismanagement" lies. For a considerable time, the standard liberal criticism was that the administration should not have disbanded the Iraqi army. Knowing what we now know about the number of former Iraqi soldiers who were (and are) committed to preventing the formation of a freely elected government, and knowing that the Iraqi army was dominated by the very Sunni Baathists who are now leading the terrorist "insurgency," no one could now make this argument with a straight face. And almost no one does.

Today's column, "An American in Paris" has little to do with substance, and everything to do with smearing the Bush administration. But what really got me was a statement Friedman repeats approvingly:

"Europeans were convinced that Kerry had won on election night and were telling themselves that they knew all along that Americans were not all that bad - and then suddenly, as the truth emerged, there was a feeling of slow resignation: 'Oh well, we've been dreaming,' " said Dominique Moisi, one of France's top foreign policy analysts. "In fact, real America is moving away from us. We don't share the same values. ... In France it was a very emotional issue. It was as if Americans were voting for the president of France as much as for president of the United States."

The arrogance of the statement reminded of something before the election.

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al-Qa'ida. Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

That is the translation by MEMRI of a communique from Osama bin Laden prior to the American election. While the malign intent of the bin Laden statement is absent from Dominique Moisi's statement, they both reek of the same arrogance. Bin Laden said in essence, "Don't vote for the wrong guy." Moisi's message was "Americans voted for the wrong guy."
But is it fair for me to equate Thomas Friedman with an Islamofascist terrorist? I think so. Consider the set of charges Friedman makes against the Bush administration:

There are Euro-conservatives, but, aside from, maybe, the ruling party in Italy, there is nothing here that quite corresponds to the anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-tax, anti-national-health-care, anti-Kyoto, openly religious, pro-Iraq-war Bush Republican Party.

Never mind the validity of the particulars here, there's a theme: the Republican Party of George W. Bush is heartless and intolerant.
At the end of his screed, Friedman tells us:

Funnily enough, the one country on this side of the ocean that would have elected Mr. Bush is not in Europe, but the Middle East: it's Iran, where many young people apparently hunger for Mr. Bush to remove their despotic leaders, the way he did in Iraq.

An Oxford student who had just returned from research in Iran told me that young Iranians were "loving anything their government hates," such as Mr. Bush, "and hating anything their government loves." Tehran is festooned in "Down With America" graffiti, the student said, but when he tried to take pictures of it, the Iranian students he was with urged him not to. They said it was just put there by their government and was not how most Iranians felt.

Iran, he said, is the ultimate "red state." Go figure.

No doubt the student's intent and Friedman's are not the same. But Friedman uses the quote about Iran being a "red state" because it fits his mindset. Friedman of course means to equate Iran's intolerant Isalmofascist leaders with Bush supporters. The student means, of course, that the subjects of Iran's leaders understand Bush's language of freedom and hope that he will give them that gift.

Hindrocket is right. Friedman cannot be an effective analyst because he is too driven by his need to toe the Democratic party line. And that's the problem, Friedman was a successful reporter because he was (and is) an excellent observer. However he was always too partisan to be a good analyst. (Friedman's fans act as if he is particularly profound. He's not. His views on the Middle East are identical to those of Peace Now. Nothing original at all.) In essence he was rewarded for his reporterial skills by given a job as an analyst. That is the Peter principle. Or perhaps, in this case, the Thomas principle.

The Category Game

There's been a tendency for some to compare the two elections in the Arab world - one the recently concluded election of Mahmoud Abbas as president of the Palestinian Authority; the other the upcoming Iraqi election in about 2 1/2 weeks.
For example, a recent editorial in the Washington Post suggested that the success of the Palestinian election boded well for the positive effect that the Iraqi election would have on the situation in Iraq and. thus, should not be postponed.
In "A Tale of two Elections," Andrew Apostolou finds that for both their flaws Ayad Allawi is a better bet to lead his country to enlightenment than is Mahmoud Abbas.
Thomas Friedman blames it all on Jewish extremists.
Ocean Guy puts his objection succinctly:

If you agree with Friedman that any land outside the Green Line should be Judenrein, then you're part fo the modern and tolerant majority. If you disagree then you're a Theocratic Settler... What a load of crap.

Well, actually Friedman doesn't blame it all on the Jewish extremists, but he adds them to the mix, in "Remapping the Middel East, Maybe" (We could add this to his list of tedentious "Rules for reporting from the Middle East" in his current column:"There is no problem in the Middle East that cannot be blamed on Israeli settlers." Actually that rule applies a lot better than some of his others.)
So how does Thomas work in Israel to this comparison? Easily:

What is happening right now in Iraq, Israel and Palestine is a new Churchillian moment. The contours and contents of these core Middle East regions are up for grabs, only this time these contours are not being redrawn by an imperial pen from above - and will not be. This time they are being shaped by three civilian conflicts bubbling up from below - among Palestinians, Israelis and Iraqis. As the Israeli political theorist Yaron Ezrahi puts it, "Three volcanoes are erupting at the same time. Lava is pouring out of each of them, and we are all waiting to see how it cools and into what forms."

Like the recent tsunami, this sort of tectonic movement of geopolitical plates happens only once a century. This is a remarkable political moment that you don't want to miss or see go badly. But that's what's scary; when borders and states emerge from volcanic activity, anything can happen. What all three of these cases have in common is that they pit theocratic, fascist and messianic forces on one side, claiming to be acting on the will of God or in the name of the primordial aspirations of "the nation," against more moderate, tolerant, democratizing majorities.

I won't argue that there are those among the Jews living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza who could be described as extremists. But to say that anyone who opposes or questions the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza is a member of a "theocratic, fascist and messianic" force is simply wrong. Thomas has two categories "theocratic, fascist and messianic" vs. "moderate, tolerant, democratizing." It's another one of his simplistic formulations that doesn't account for the many shades of grey that are there.
First of all there are those who point to a recent observation of Gen Doron Almog that

We have stopped about 30 percent of hostile actions near the fence and 70 percent inside the territory through offensive actions. In addition to the fence, we must continue to gather intelligence throughout the territories in order to be able to intercept Palestinian terrorists.

In other words an Israeli presence in Gaza is necessary to stop the terrorists on the ground there. Gen Almog actually has experience as the military commander over Israel's southern territory that lends his judgment some credibility. And Thomas is sure that an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza is a good thing based on what experience?
That's point #2. Those of us who are skeptical of an Israeli withdrawal helping the peace process look at the experience in Lebanon. Israel withdrew from Lebanon, much in accord with Friedman's belief that it would bring peace on Israel's northern border and that if Hezbollah violated Israel's north afterwards it wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Well Hezbollah hasn't exactly been shy on Israel's north and Lebanon's army hasn't taken control of that country's south as it was obligated to according to UNSCR 425 and Friedman hasn't complained much. He's simply noted a time or two that Hezbollah hasn't launched any major attacks. But now that Hezbollah no longer has to defend its own turf, it has started playing a greater role in terror against Israel from Judea and Samaria. As noted terrorism expert Matthew Levitt has observed (see I can name drop and confer expert status onto my sources just as well as Thomas can!):

Over the last three years, Hezbollah has steadily intensified its involvement in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, gravitating from the provision of material support and training for Palestinian terrorist groups to the direct recruitment of Palestinian operatives under its own command and control. Among the activities Hizballah¹s Palestinian squads have conducted are arms smuggling, recruitment, attempted suicide bombings, sniper and roadside shooting attacks, preoperational surveillance of Israeli communities and army bases, and planned kidnapping of Israelis.[2] Most recently, according to Israeli intelligence, Hezbollah's Palestinian operatives were responsible for the August 12 suicide bombing in Rosh Ha'ayin that left one person dead and six wounded.[3]

So would Thomas expect Hamas in Gaza to go quiet once Israel left? Or does he believe that Israel absorbing a greater number of rocket attacks is somehow "moderate, tolerant, democratizing?" According an Israeli general, as reported in Ha'aretz an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza will put 46 Israeli communities into rocket range? And in a warning that should make Thomas nostalgic Avi Dichter the head of Israel's internal security agency believes that "If We Leave the Philadelphia Corridor, Southern Israel Will Become Like Southern Lebanon." Given the prescience he displayed in predicting the positive aftermath of Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon, you'd think that Thomas might show a little humility and at least acknowledge that an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza assumes huge risks and that some sober people may object to it on those grounds? Of course humility has never been Thomas's strong point.
A third point to consider is that there are those who are organized against Israel's proposed withdrawal have eschewed violence and stuck to time honored democratic traditions of civil disobedience, protests and getting out the vote. Yes the only popular vote - as opposed to a governmental vote - taken in Israel about the withdrawal rejected it. How is it again that those who oppose the government's plan are fascistic and not democratic?
Nor can it be shown that every or even most of those objecting to the withdrawal are messianic. For example there's Datya Yitzchaki who wrote:

When people decide to uproot us, to destroy and demolish everything we have built within the walls of our lives - the special corners, the memories and the routine, the hours of joy and growing and togetherness - it is our legitimate right, and the right of our children to protest. Moreover, it is one of the basic tenets and supreme values of our right and place in this world - the veritable rock of Zionism's existence.

Are those the words of a wild eyed fanatic?
Thomas's comparison here is just plain stupid and insulting:

The Israeli daily Haaretz also reported that the main council of West Bank and Gaza rabbis issued a statement Thursday urging all Israeli soldiers to openly defy the state and declare their opposition to the disengagement plan, saying: "The order to dismantle settlements goes against the laws of the Torah and human morality. One should not assist this act." The Haaretz columnist Akiva Eldar reported that thousands of Jewish zealots - and Christians, too - are waiting in the United States for the call to join the struggle alongside the settlers in Gaza.

Sound familiar? It should. The week before, the Muslim militant group Ansar al-Sunna in Iraq called for all Iraqi Muslims to boycott Iraq's voting booths, decrying them as "centers of atheism," and added the warning that "the Mujahedeen will be attacking polling stations." Hamas and Islamic Jihad are boycotting today's Palestinian election, just as the main Sunni political movement in Iraq, the Iraqi Islamic Party, has vowed to do there. Osama bin Laden, for his part, declared that the laws of Iraq are "infidel" laws, and "therefore everyone who participates in this election will be considered infidels."

What will Ansar al-Islam do to enforce its beliefs? Hold protests? Or kill a few infidels? That's not what the Rabbinis from Judea and Samaria will do. And it's not what American Jewish and Christian zealots will do either. They will object and they will protest.
Thomas ends up with:

I do not believe that these militant messianists can actually win in Iraq, Israel or Palestine, but they can prevent the majorities in each country from forging any new pragmatic, tolerant power-sharing arrangements - and in the case of Israelis and Palestinians, new borders. Mr. Sharon is the strongest prime minister Israel could have right now, but even he is having problems pulling off this self-amputation of the Gaza Strip.

The contours of the Middle East in the 21st century are at stake here, much as they were in 1922. If the pragmatic forces can dominate in Israel, Iraq and Palestine, it will establish positive examples that will give others in the region the incentive and confidence to try to emulate them. If all three remain roiling volcanoes, slowly devouring themselves, the social contract among Jews that the state of Israel was built upon will start to come unstuck, and Iraq and Palestine will be held up as exhibits A and B for the case that in the Arab world, states can only be stabilized by despotism, never democracy.

Sorry but where's he been for the past eleven+ years. Israel did attempt powersharing and all and how was Israel rewarded? With moderation? Or violence?
There is a conflict in Israel right now. But it is a civil one not a military one. It will be settled one way or another through peaceful means. In Iraq and the PA the bad guys will settle things as they always do with violence. And of course, it's hard to tell who the good guys are in the PA when the leader of the moderates consorts with terrorists, promises to protect them and declares Israel to be the "Zionist enemy."
Crossposted on Israpundit and Doubting Thomas.