Mideast Media Sampler 05/16/2011

From an email from DG:

1) 'I am a Fried-man'

Yesterday, Thomas Friedman observed in "I am a man:"

A Libyan friend remarked to me the other day that he was watching Arab satellite TV out of Benghazi, Libya, and a sign held aloft at one demonstration caught his eye. It said in Arabic: “Ana Rajul” — which translates to “I am a man.” If there is one sign that sums up the whole Arab uprising, it’s that one. 

Nothing too offensive about that. Later on he writes:

The Arab people were not offered Chinese autocratic stability: We take your freedom and give you education and a rising standard of living. Their deal was Arab autocratic stability: We take your freedom and feed you the Arab-Israeli conflict, corruption and religious obscurantism. 

Aside from Friedman's perverse infatuation with Chinese totalitarianism, he's arguing now that that the Arab-Israeli conflict was "bread and circuses" for the so-called "Arab street." By keeping alive the 63 year hate against Emanual Goldman and his coreligionists, Arab regimes sought to draw attention away from their own failures and direct their peoples' anger against an external enemy. I don't disagree with that. However, as recently as last weekFriedman was excusing Arab anger against Israel as a consequence of Israel's failure to make peace. So has Friedman changed his mind; or has he just found another cute formulation to explain the Middle East even if it's inconsistent with one of his long held beliefs? Given that Friedman rarely passes up opportunities to criticize Israel gratuitously, I believe the latter is true.

Finally we get to this:

But to embrace the downfall of these dictators — as we must — is to advocate leveling a rotten building with no assurance that it can be rebuilt. That is what happened in Iraq, and it was hugely expensive for us to rebuild a new, and still tenuous, order there. No outsider is going to do that again. 

In other words Arab dictators aren't worth saving at any cost. But is this really correct or is it simply insane?

2) Jeffrey Goldberg vs. the New York Times

Jeffrey Goldberg critiques the reporting of the New York Times on yesterday's "Naqba" protests:

Ethan Bronner is a very smart person, so I'm not sure why he's accepting the Hamas/Assad/Iran line on these protests. Consider: These borders, in particular the Syria-Israel border, have seldom, if ever, seen demonstrations like this. The Syria-Israel border is a notably quiet place; Hafez al-Assad, the late dictator, and his son, Bashar, the current dictator, have kept the border quiet for decades. But now there is widespread revolt in Syria, which threatens not only the Syrian regime, but its ally, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah. So far, Bashar's security forces have slaughtered almost a thousand Syrian citizens. So what would you do if you were a cynical Syrian dictator, or a cynical ally of the cynical Syrian dictator? Change the subject. 

via memeorandum

3) The Saudi spring

Nawaf Obaid in the Washington Post

A tectonic shift has occurred in the U.S.-Saudi relationship. Despite significant pressure from the Obama administration to remain on the sidelines, Saudi leaders sent troops into Manama in March to defend Bahrain’s monarchy and quell the unrest that has shaken that country since February. For more than 60 years, Saudi Arabia has been bound by an unwritten bargain: oil for security. Riyadh has often protested but ultimately acquiesced to what it saw as misguided U.S. policies. But American missteps in the region since Sept. 11, an ill-conceived response to the Arab protest movements and an unconscionable refusal to hold Israel accountable for its illegal settlement building have brought this arrangement to an end. As the Saudis recalibrate the partnership, Riyadh intends to pursue a much more assertive foreign policy, at times conflicting with American interests.

Obaid doesn't just blame President Obama since he cites missteps since 9/11 and the American refusal to adequately condemn Israel, but it does seem that President Obama has apparently pushed the Saudis over the edge.

Previously, Obaid explained why Saudi Arabia will be immune to the dissatisfaction that is affecting other Arab regimes.

Obaid has an interesting history and I have no idea if his op-ed represents official Saudi policy. A few years ago he wrote that Saudi Arabia would send troops in to Iraq to protect the Sunnis if the United States would leave Iraq. He was fired for that op-ed though the New York Times reported that his essay did reflect official Saudi thinking. Back in 1999 he wrote an article explaining Saudi thinking in the Middle East Quarterly.

Technorati Tag: Middle East.