I Love Thomas Friedman's Real Palestinian Revolution

Maybe it's unfair for me to be picking on the little guy, but it's just too much fun. 

One of Friedman's ongoing themes is the importance of realizing capitalism in order to be deserving of human rights; that is to say, until and unless a society is "free" -- in the economic sense of the term he gives it -- then that society is less deserving of respect and even safety (similar to what we hear on the Bernard Lewis Right: attacking non-democratic nations is okay, because somehow the government gets conflated with the governed, a morally absurd platform that holds people responsible for government that is by definition not responsible to them.)

Friedman likes to bring this "perspective" to Palestinians; namely, that Palestine, once it becomes sufficiently business-friendly, will become deserving of independence.  In the meantime, as the essay below explains, Palestinians cannot have freedom, because apparently they have been building what Friedman actually describes as "a garbage yard" in place of an actual society.  I'm not even kidding, as much as I wish I was.  Thought experiment: Can you imagine if Thomas Friedman were alive during the American Revolution?  Can you guess whose side he would not be on?  Can you imagine what quick work Jefferson or Paine would make of his supposed love of freedom and location of humanity in big business-friendly economic policy? 

Recently, Friedman has taken to uncritically championing the West Bank government of Mahmoud Abbas in order to take attention away from the Gaza-based Hamas government (itself elected, with an unclear relationship to a PLO/Fatah government whose mandate has been dubiously extended) as well as what is actually happening in the region, in terms of events and popular impressions.  A deflection on the order of Dr. House, who at least lives in reality.  Friedman writes in his recent op-ed, "The Real Palestinian Revolution", (as opposed to the Non-Real Palestinian Revolution?):

The expansion of the Al-Quds Index is part of a broader set of changes initiated in the West Bank in the last few years under the leadership of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the former World Bank economist who has unleashed a real Palestinian “revolution.”

Thomas Friedman has a man crush on Fayyad, because he gets turned on by unchecked globalization and crude capitalism.  This is needless to say different from democracy, which demands the equal worth and social participation of all persons in a society, as against capitalism's need to realize profit against all barriers -- unless, of course, corporations really are individuals in more than a basic legal sense, in which case small individuals lose to big individuals.

It is a revolution based on building Palestinian capacity and institutions not just resisting Israeli occupation, on the theory that if the Palestinians can build a real economy, a professional security force and an effective, transparent government bureaucracy it will eventually become impossible for Israel to deny the Palestinians a state in the West Bank and Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.

Thomas Friedman has, on June 29, 2010, removed Gaza from Palestine.  Well then.

Meeting in his Ramallah office two weeks ago, I found Fayyad upbeat.

If the Palestinian Prime Minister is upbeat, then things must be swell.  Read on, though.  What could the next sentence possibly mean?

The economist-turned-politician seems more comfortable mixing with his constituents in the West Bank, where he has quietly built his popularity by delivering water wells, new schools — so there are no more double shifts — and a waste-water treatment facility.

"More comfortable" than...?  Does Tom not know the difference between comparatives and superlatives?  A: He does not.  Did you also notice the sensuousness that seeped in with that "economist-turned-politician" -- can you guess which of the two is more attractive?

Back to making fun: "More comfortable" than Thomas Friedman was with Palestinians, since he prefers to chat up strangers in the Istanbul Airport?  More comfortable than Fayyad felt last week, when he had indigestion?  Maybe Fayyad is more comfortable meeting his constituents in the West Bank than in Gaza which 1) isn't part of Palestine-to-be but 2) nevertheless is composed of many Palestinians who did not vote for his government and are upset at many of the decisions he has taken? 

Maybe Fayyad just prefers to be around other people rather than the stomach-cramping horror that churned within him when he looked up from his desk to see Thomas Friedman strolling confidently through the door.  You can just imagine that scene, can't you?  You know Salam's desperately gesturing for someone to get rid of Friedman, but nobody wants to actually have to talk to him.  Imagine.

The most senior Israeli military people told me the new security force that Fayyad has built is the real deal — real enough that Israel has taken down most of the checkpoints inside the West Bank. So internal commerce and investment are starting to flow, and even some Gazans are moving there.

There are once more many things wrong with this. 

Preemptively, "the most senior".  The normal human English way of saying this would be "senior Israeli military officers"; "the most senior" is not far removed in retardedness from "seniorest," and "Israeli military people" strikes one as the product of a mind that has never acquainted itself with a dictionary.  "Last week, Haroon met with the most important Muslim people."  Friedman is that Manimal contestant from last night's Wipeout, and the English langauge is the course.

Back to making more fun.

Firstly, we are relying on one military to tell us about another "security force", and in fact about what it does more generally, without asking or interviewing anyone else.  Really?  I mean, what's going on in this man's head that he has such a deep and abiding personal opposition to real (as against non-real) investigative journalism?  Perhaps Friedman should try engaging the American military, which has a far better understanding of the region than he, the ultimate airport journalist, does.  (And perhaps we should invade Ghana to avenge our loss.)

Secondly, the whole subtext of the argument is that Palestinians have never developed a business-friendly, pro-growth society, as if they are operating in an unrestricted environment and have simply made "bad" choices with no outside constraints.  ("Internal commerce" is "flow[ing]" -- why were things so constipated before?)  Friedman paints us a world in which Fayyad, Prime Minister of the most educated people in the Arab world, must tell these same people the importance of digging wells and building schools.  Those goofy Palestinians are finally getting down to digging wells because, like Mel Gibson's pained character in Signs, they've discovered the unbelievably fortuitous importance of water.  That is not so far removed from Friedman walking into a suburban South Asian American dinner party and suggesting SAT prep courses. 

Thirdly, we never know why some Gazans are moving "there", how they are even getting out of Gaza, who they are, how many they are (some can be 5,000 or 5, can't it?), or what conditions exist in Gaza that they are leaving behind.  We get the same odd unclarity -- for a journalist, this is really unacceptable -- when Friedman tells us that "some Arabs" dump on Fayyad, without explaining what it is about Fayyad that they dump on and what their grievances with him are: 

For those Arabs who have fallen in love with the idea of Palestinians as permanent victims, forever engaged in a heroic “armed struggle” to recover Palestine and Arab dignity, Fayyad’s methodical state-building is inauthentic. Some Arabs — shamefully — dump on it, and only the United Arab Emirates has offered real financial help.

Why is "armed struggle" in quotes?  What does he mean to say?  Why can't he just come out and say it?  And if Friedman's speaking of Arab states, most are too poor to offer much help; wealthier states like Saudi Arabia do support Fatah's government and oppose Hamas' (broadly speaking.)  Qatar has tried to give aid to Palestinians, in Gaza in one specific instance, but they were not allowed to by reason of the blockade as it existed prior to the flotilla incident.

Fourthly, Friedman's worldview cannot be bothered to engage with the actual world:

Children living in the poorest parts of the West Bank face significantly worse conditions than their counterparts in Gaza, a study conducted by an international youth charity has found.

The report by Save the Children UK, due to be released on Wednesday, says that families forced from their homes in the West Bank are suffering the effects of grinding poverty, often lacking food, medicine and humanitarian assistance.

...

The report says that for many Palestinians, international humanitarian assistance is far harder to access in the West Bank than in Gaza, with almost half the households surveyed in Area C reporting that they had no access to foreign aid assistance.

Save the Children warned that with the blockade of Gaza dominating headlines in recent months, the international community risked forgetting the fate of the poorest communities in the West Bank.

Yes, you read it here.  Thomas Friedman and "methodical state-building" vs. Save the Children doing the most serious investigating of some people who are before growing up. 

Keep on writing, Tom.  Some of us need easy inspiration.

Comments

[The Message]

We know you wrote for and read the Message. When you least expect it, it shall be revealed.

[Haroon Moghul]

Amazingly, I also know that I wrote for The Message, because I wrote for it -- hence there's no real sense of expectation, nor of revelation. I wrote for The Message years ago, when I was in high school.

[Ryan Mahoney]

Excellent response

[Shakir]

Salam alaykum,

Re: "Can you imagine if Thomas Friedman were alive during the American Revolution? Can you guess whose side he would not be on? Can you imagine what quick work Jefferson or Paine would make of his supposed love of freedom and location of humanity in big business-friendly economic policy?"

It's a side issue, but I think we have to ask ourselves - do mainstream Americans care, or find relevance (? inspired guidance), in such hypotheticals?

[The Message]

Let me guess, your subversive Islamist views have changed?