Mr. Friedman and the Two Occupations
Press Action
Monday, October 25, 2004
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/spinoza10252004/
By Abu Spinoza
A favorite subject of Thomas Friedman of the New York Times is the alleged irrationality and wickedness of Muslims and Arabs (or anyone else) who oppose Israeli occupation of Palestine and Anglo-American occupation of Iraq.
This time Friedman authoritatively cites Scott Pelley of CBS News: “Many Iraqis have so much distrust for U.S. forces we found they’ve come up with a nickname for our troops. They call American soldiers ‘The Jews,’ as in, ‘Don’t go down that street, the Jews set up a roadblock.’”
I have been following events in Iraq closely but this is really the first time that I have seen it reported that the Iraqis call U.S. soldiers “Jews.” One wonders whether this is indeed a common trend in Iraq, or whether this is just something that Scott Pelley exaggerates. Friedman is not exactly known for his empirical accuracy or understanding of the Middle East. It is possible what Scott Pelley reports is true, but it should be independently verified.
In the same column Friedman complains about split-screen images of Iraq and Palestine in Arab TV news reports. He explains that Arab television stations “deliberately show split-screen images of Israelis bashing Palestinians and U.S. forces bashing the Iraqi insurgents.” But are there any moral or journalistic problems in presenting obvious facts about the two occupations? Or is highlighting the similarities of life under illegal alien rule improper journalism? Actually the two occupations lead to natural comparisons of their similarities and differences.
One should of course guard against any kind of racial slurs, stereotyping, and inaccuracies since most U.S. soldiers are Christians (there are also Muslim and Jewish soldiers as well as soldiers of other faiths). However, the thrust of Friedman’s column is to implicate Muslims and Arabs as haters of Jews, Israelis, and Americans. Friedman’s theory, though, is easily disproved. Any reasonable person, irrespective of their religion and ethnicity, can hate the Israeli and U.S occupations of other people’s lands, without any prejudice against Jews or Israelis or Americans. The sole cause of resistance is the bloody occupation. If Israelis and American occupiers are hated in the Muslim and Arab world, it is not because of their metaphysical or innate dislike of others, but rather that oppressors happen to be Israeli and Americans. Jews in the ghettos and concentration camps hated their oppressors who happened to Germans; likewise, Iraqis and Palestinians happen to hate their oppressors as oppressors, not as Israelis or Americans.
It is interesting to read what Friedman regards as the main problem facing the U.S. occupation. He writes: “communications in Iraq have been so inept since we arrived, many Iraqis still don’t know who America is or why it came.” Only a man of full illusions, self-delusion and utter contempt for the intelligence of his readers can write that communications, rather than ending the occupation, would improve Israel and America’s image. No amount of public relations gimmicks can cause the men and women who live under alien tyranny to love their oppressors.
Abu Spinoza is an international economist.