Doubting Thomas

Democracy virus

In "The Beirut Tea Party" Thomas starts off well:

The massive pro-Syrian demonstration that the Hezbollah militia mounted on the streets of Beirut on Tuesday underscored just how much all the old slogans and sentiments - anti-Israeli, anti-American, pro-Islamist, sectarian - can be exploited by Syria, Iran and their local proxies to still mobilize popular forces against change. It is also another reminder that the Berlin Wall is falling in the Arab world, but Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa and the Solidarity trade movement are not on the other side, just waiting to jump into the arms of the West. It is a much more divided, complex, confused and, at times, angry group.

He even follows it up with some more promising prose:

What is the right response to this? ...

The spreading virus that "things can change and I can make a difference" is the most important thing happening in the Arab world today. It is symbolized by the Egyptian opposition's motto: "Enough." And everyone is watching everyone else now - and comparing. An Egyptian businesswoman remarked to me, with a real sense of envy, how free and alive and energetic the Lebanese opposition protesters seemed, compared with those in Egypt.

The fact that Hezbollah had to resort to a mass rally, just like the Lebanese democracy movement's, is itself a victory for the democrats. Hezbollah clearly felt that it must prove it is as popular a force as the democratic opposition. But something tells me that those Hezbollah demonstrators who were waving the picture of Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, were uncomfortable. And this is Hezbollah's weak spot: deep down, it and its supporters know that when they raise the pictures of Syria's president, they are raising the question of whose interests they have at heart.

Alas he can't match these excellent observations with similarly inspired recommendations.

If democracy in Lebanon is going to re-emerge in a reasonably stable way, Lebanese democratic forces have to constantly be inviting Hezbollah to join them. After all, Hezbollah represents an important and powerful trend among Lebanon's Shiites, most of whom are patriots eager to see Lebanon independent and united. At the same time, though, the Lebanese democrats need to constantly and loudly ask Hezbollah - and get the U.N. and the European Union to constantly and loudly ask Hezbollah - "Why are you waving the picture of the Syrian president? Whose side are you on?"

Using the Kosovo standard mentioned in a recent Times editorial, it would seem that Hezbollah has forfeited its right for political consideration. We know whose side Hezbollah is on and it disqualifies the organization from joining the party.

President Bush should stay in the background and keep focused on defusing the Arab-Israeli conflict, which will deprive Hezbollah of all its excuses to remain armed. The impact on Hezbollah will be much more powerful if it's the Lebanese democrats and the Saudis and the Europeans who ask Hezbollah over and over, "Do you have a real vision for a modern, progressive and pluralistic Lebanon? If so, why are you waving the picture of the Syrian president?"

Hezbollah's main raison d'etre was purportedly to force Israel from Southern Lebanon. That pretext hasn't existed for nearly five years now. (I'm not going to search, but I can assure that before Israeli withdrew from Lebanon, Thomas boldly predicted that with no pretext Hezbollah would no longer exist.)
The reason that Hezbollah (and other anti-Israel terror organizations) still exist is because many in the West - and Thomas is one - tolerated their violence and declared that the end justified the means. Had there been a concerted international effort decrying those means and declaring that illegitimate means delegitimize the ends maybe Hezbollah, Hamas and Fateh would have been forced to moderate or stand down. Instead they were tolerated and even celebrated ensuring that they would not easily be disarmed.
So yes, Thomas is right to celebrate the stirrings of freedom in the Arab world and to note that the lack of a Lech Walesa in the Arab world presents a difficulty in reaching that goal. However by refusing to take a stand against Hezbollah he is, in effect, authorizing that organization to continue making its mischief.

The pen is mightier than the tank

Yesterday's column "Young, Brave and Muslim" elicited the following e-mail from reader John Primmer:

Today he is cautiously optimistic about the Middle East because many arab youth have sought him out to ask that he keep saying positive things. In other words, if things go well, it will be because he kept writing. Having failed in his Palestinian peace partnership with the Saudi monarchy, he now claims new credibility with the “street.” (Mark Steyn did that one in.) Thomas, like so many other NYT columnists has been an obstruction to administration policies that have been wildly successful, despite that obstruction. Bush may well have been successful earlier had the obstructionists just kept quiet for awhile.

John is correct, the tone of the article is one of pride as if Friedman played a role in all this. And John is also correct in noting the irony here. Friedman, as mouthpiece for Prince Abdullah for the phony "Saudi peace plan" did what he could to prevent the liberation of Iraq and shield the Saudis from scrutiny. And given his expertise in the Middle East, Friedman's avoidance of giving credit to President Bush is all the more blatant when Gail Collins & co. wrote "Mideast Climate Change" that credits the Bush administration for supporting these changes. Too bad that Thomas is too much the partisan to follow suit.