The Incredible Lightness of Being Thomas Friedman
I donâ€™t want this blog to get obsessed with any one individual, and I fear that weâ€™re moving in that direction with Tom Friedman, the main foreign-policy columnist at the New York Times and named by an insidersâ€™ poll at the National Journal last year as Washingtonâ€™s most influential media personality.
Itâ€™s just that, for someone who exercises such influence, he so often seems to be so completely at sea â€” no rudder, no anchor, no compass even â€” just kind of drifting from wave to wave (or, in the case of globalization, from CEO to CEO). Apart from a generally liberal (with some important exceptions) and interventionist orientation, Friedman is erratic, to say the least, and often incoherent, as many more diligent critics, notably Matt Taibi, have long observed.
But the erratic and incoherent nature of his thinking struck me hard this week while reading his column, â€œHobby or Necessity?â€ published in the Sunday Times, Mar 28. His basic argument is that Palestinian-Israeli peace was a mere â€œpost-cold-war hobbyâ€ for the U.S. while it was a â€œnecessityâ€ for Israel in the 1990â€™s, but that recent events, especially since U.S. troops began fighting wars in the region after 9/11, have resulted in a 180-degree shift for both countries. While Israel now sees peace as a hobby, it has become a â€œnecessityâ€ for Washington. Citing Bidenâ€™s and Gen. Petraeusâ€™ recent statements about the link between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Washingtonâ€™s own security issues throughout the Arab world and beyond â€” a link that, of course, is anathema to Netanyahu, AIPAC, Abe Foxman, etc. â€” Friedman writes:
â€œNow, in the same time period, America went from having only a small symbolic number of soldiers in the Middle East to running two wars there â€” in Iraq and Afghanistan â€” as well as a global struggle against violent Muslim extremists. With U.S. soldiers literally walking the Arab street â€” and, therefore, more in need than ever of Muslim good will to protect themselves and defeat Muslim extremists â€” Israeli-Palestinian peace has gone from being a post-cold-war hobby of U.S. diplomats to being a necessity.
He goes on:
â€œAt a time when the U.S. is trying to galvanize a global coalition to confront Iran, at a time when Iran uses the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict to embarrass pro-U.S. Arabs and extend its influence across the Muslim world, peace would be a strategic asset for America and Israel.â€
Now, as readers of this blog know, I donâ€™t disagree with any of this and think itâ€™s highly useful that a columnist as influential as Tom Friedman is putting this message out to his readers. Rather, my problem is simply this: if Israeli-Palestinian peace is a â€œnecessityâ€ for Washington now, why didnâ€™t he consider it a â€œnecessityâ€ back last November when he was arguing for essentially abandoning mediation efforts and â€œTak[ing] down our â€˜Peace-Processing-Is-Usâ€™ sign and just go home.â€ What precisely has changed about the fundamental situation in the last six months?
This is what Friedman wrote Nov 8 in a column entitled â€œCall White House, Ask for Barackâ€:
â€œLetâ€™s just get out of the picture. Let all these leaders stand in front of their own people and tell them the truth: â€˜My fellow citizens: Nothing is happening; nothing is going to happen. Itâ€™s just you and me and the problem we own.â€™
â€œIndeed, itâ€™s time for us to dust off James Bakerâ€™s line: â€˜When youâ€™re serious, give us a call: 202-456-1414. Ask for Barack. Otherwise, stay out of our lives. We have our own country to fix.â€™â€
Again, the question arises: what has changed between the publication of that column when Friedman clearly did not think an Israeli-Palestinian peace a â€œnecessityâ€ and today? And if the underlying situation â€” wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, â€œa global struggle against violent Muslim extremists,â€ â€œmore in need than ever of Muslim good will to protect ourselvesâ€ â€” is the same as six months ago, why wasnâ€™t Friedman calling for a more aggressive U.S. stance back then?
As I said, itâ€™s like he drifts from wave to wave.
Visit Lobelog.com for the latest news analysis and commentary from Inter Press News Service’s Washington bureau chief Jim Lobe.