Friedman's Mirage

"The Mideast’s Ground Zero"
A27 (Op-Ed Column),
Wednesday 1/7/09

The various good points Friedman makes are dwarfed by two disappointing conclusions: Fatah recognizes Israel; Obama's story, on the Arab street, has more appeal than Islamists.

His unnecessary hotel metaphor aside, Friedman cuts right to the heart of the matter with his three struggles of the Middle East, playing out since 1948:

1. Who is going to be the region's superpower?
2. Can the Jews have a state there?
3. Who is going to dominate Arab society? The Islamists or the modernists?

Friedman uses Gaza as a “mini-version” of these three struggles. His exercise, however, is flawed and ultimately ends in knee-deep New York Times narrative: the conflict can be solved with policy shifts; Obama can counter the tide of Middle East hostility.

First, Friedman points to Iran’s “bid for primacy,” without defining what drives it. He correctly points to a civil war between Islamists and modernists, but neglects to point out the how and why of its mass appeal . However, Friedman's biggest error is his handling of Jewish statehood in the Arab-Muslim mind.

He makes a neat distinction between Hamas’ rejection of Israel and Fatah's acceptance of Israel. Fatah “has recognized Israel,” he writes. His conviction that “the only stable solution is a two-state one,” is not unreasonable. Yet this is exactly where he needs to mention that rejection of Israel transcends Arab politics – theocratic to secular. Nevertheless, he continues with just Hamas spoiling the peace process, pointing out Israel’s reluctance for a hasty West Bank pullout: Hamas rockets. Along with this good point, he fairly points out that Israel can and will uproot settlements if peace depended on it. Yet the bigger picture isn't offered readers.

Friedman makes a point that radical Islamic groups have “surfed on a wave of anti-U.S. anger generated by George W. Bush.” Yet he overextends himself. While Bush has served as an icon for radical Islamists, this dismisses the deep-rooted nature, and rise, of Islamism before Bush took office.

Friedman ties this all together by doing another great service for the Times: telling us of the potential Obama has to win Middle East hearts and minds. True, Obama’s “narrative holds appeal” for Arabs, but is this appeal “also a great threat to Islamist radicals”?

When Obama denies Palestinian “rights,” [like the rights to "resist occupation" and "return"], orders missiles shot at the mujahideen in Afghanistan, and keeps American troops on Saudi soil, will the Arab street recall that Obama’s father was a Muslim, proving America's greatness, or the Islamists' argument: Obama is a puppet of the West and the Zionists, who are bent on dominating and humiliating the Muslim world? Which idea has more appeal? Friedman goes beyond optimism.