Options

The Importance of Syria

NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
edited July 2006 in A Moving Train
If you have time, Tom Friedman had an outstanding interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press last night. If you are interested, I highly recommend either looking at the video (link posted below) or reading the transcript that I've copied. It was very insightful and eye-opening, as Mr. Friedman just got back from a trip in the Middle East.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&t=s53&g=e10461f7-89e1-415c-aa58-80d1b6f8066e&p=hotvideo_m_edpicks


Transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: Sixteen years ago, Tom Friedman wrote a book called “From Beirut to Jerusalem.” He just went to the region, talked to Israelis, Syrians, and others. He has now returned with some very strong opinions and views as to what must be done to achieve peace in the Middle East. Tom Friedman, right after this station break.
MR. RUSSERT: And we are back, and so is Tom Friedman. Just back from Israel and Syria.
Welcome home.


MR. THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN: Great to be here, Tim. Thanks.


MR. RUSSERT: Tom, let me read from your column on Wednesday and share it with our viewers as well.
“We need to get real on Lebanon. Hezbollah made a reckless mistake in provoking Israel. Shame on Hezbollah for bringing this disaster upon Lebanon by embedding its ‘heroic’ forces amid civilians. ... But Hezbollah’s militia ... can’t be wiped out at a price that Israel, or America’s Arab allies, can sustain - if at all. ... Despite Hezbollah’s bravado, Israel has hurt it and its supporters badly, in a way they will never forget. Point made. It is now time to wind down this war and pull together a deal - a cease-fire, a prisoner exchange, a resumption of the peace effort and an international force to help the Lebanese Army secure the border with Israel - before things spin out of control. Whoever goes for a knockout blow will knock themselves out instead.” That’s what you found.


MR. FRIEDMAN: That’s what I found and that’s what I believe, Tim. Israel didn’t court this war. It was brought on by Hezbollah, I believe partly inspired by Iran to draw attention away from the Security Council action, pending action, to curb Iran’s nuclear program. And partly, I think, by Hezbollah, trying to elevate its importance, a little power play within Lebanese politics.
That said, I think that the Israeli reaction at this point has demonstrated to Hezbollah the huge costs and the recklessness of this action. To press on now—you know, Tim, I think it was Bob Shrum or someone who said about the Iraq war, “It’s all over but the killing.” To go on now is just going to be more killing for no purpose whatsoever.
And I believe, from the Israeli point of view, from the Lebanese point of view, from the regional point of view, the time right now is to shut this thing down, let Hezbollah be able to say, “OK, we held the Israelis back,” let Israel be able to say, “We inflicted a terrible, punishing blow for this reckless action.” Precisely when you have people in that mode, that’s the best time for diplomacy.


MR. RUSSERT: We have noticed a change of opinion throughout the Arab nations. Initially, Egypt and Jordan and Saudi Arabia criticizing Hezbollah. The Israelis thought, perhaps, even winking at them to go-go-go.


MR. FRIEDMAN: Right.


MR. RUSSERT: And now, because of what these leaders are hearing on the Arab street, Mubarak of Egypt and others, have been somewhat critical of the U.S.


MR. FRIEDMAN: Absolutely. You know, I, I was really in the Middle East when this shift happened. When I went out there, you had Saudi Arabia issuing a remarkable statement, first time ever, just blaming Hezbollah for a reckless action in initiating this war, without even the ritual condemnation of Israel. What was that about? That was the Sunni-Arab countries—Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt—looking at this war in pure historical Shiite/Sunni terms. They see this war as the Shiite-Iranians, through Hezbollah, making a power play, basically, not only to dominate Lebanon but to take the Palestinian issue away from the Sunni-Arab world. So that was how they reacted.
But then, as I went around from Jordan to Damascus, one of the things you really feel when you’re in that part of the world, Tim, are all the Arab satellite TV stations—Al-Arabiya, Al Jazeera, they’re on everywhere. They’re the Muzak of the Arab world. And everywhere you turn, you see images of Israeli planes and bombs destroying Arab and Lebanese homes in Lebanon. The impact of that has “inflamed,” as always, the Arab street, and it’s made these regimes—our closest friends—these regimes—Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt—enormously uncomfortable. And you’re now seeing the blowback from that.


MR. RUSSERT: Let’s talk about the Bush administration and a quote from your column on Friday. And here’s what Tom Friedman wrote: “America should be galvanizing the forces of order - Europe, Russia, China and India - into a coalition against these trends. But we can’t. Why? In part, it’s because our president and our secretary of state, although they speak with great moral clarity, have no moral authority. That’s been shattered by their performance in Iraq.
“The world hates George Bush more than any U.S. president in my lifetime. He is radioactive - and so caught up in his own ideological bubble that he is incapable of imagining or forging alternative strategies.” Pretty strong.


MR. FRIEDMAN: It was strong. It’s meant to be strong. Look at the situation we’re now in. You can’t go anywhere in the world right now—and I travel a lot—without getting that feeling from people thrown in your face. Why is that? You know, I’ve been asking myself that a lot. Some of it’s excessive, this dislike, this distaste, this hatred of George Bush. But what’s it about? Whenever you see something that excessive, you know?
And the way I explain it is this way: Foreigners love to make fun of Americans. Our naivete, our crazy thought that every problem has a solution, that silly American notion, that silly American optimism. But you know what, Tim? Deep down, the world really envies that American optimism and naivete. And the world needs that American optimism and naivete.
And so when we go from a country that, historically, has always exported hope to a country that always exports fear, what we do, and what this administration has done, is actually stolen something from people. Whether it’s an African or a European or an Arab or Israeli, it’s that idea of an optimistic America out there. People really need that idea, and the sort of dark nature of the Cheneys and the Bushes and the Rices, this, this sort of relentless pessimism about the world, this exporting of fear, not hope, has really left people feeling that the idea of America has been stolen from them. And I would argue that that is the animating force behind so much of the animus directed at George Bush.


MR. RUSSERT: There’s a debate within the administration, across our country, around the world, about who we should talk to. You feel very strongly that the U.S. should try to pry Syria away from Iran. One country, Syria, which is Sunni and secular, Iran being more Shiite. Is it possible to pry those countries apart? Or is it worth trying?


MR. FRIEDMAN: That’s why I went to Damascus, really to answer that question. Because look at the map. Tim, you’ve got Iran over here, you’ve got Hezbollah over here, and in between, the bridge, both ideological and physical and material, is Syria. Hezbollah can’t do what it does if that Syrian bridge is broken. And I basically went to Damascus to ask that question. What I found were, were, were several things. Number one—but the Syrians are feeling very confident right now because they know the street is with them and they—the regime there knows that the street with them and they’re looking at the Saudis and the Egyptians and the Jordanians and saying, “You guys are—you look awful uncomfortable over there. The street’s with us.” Number one, so they’re feeling confident.

Number two, though, what I really found, Syrian officials stressed to me over and over again, “Our marriage with Iran is a marriage of convenience.” This is a secular Sunni country. It’s got an Alawite regime, but it’s a secular Sunni country, Syria. And being in a car driven by two Shiite radicals—Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, and Nasrallah from, from Lebanon—that’s not so comfortable for the Syrians. Particularly because in this car, Tim, they’re in the back seat and the guys in the front got no brakes. So I think that there is a possibility—I wouldn’t exaggerate this, but I think there is a possibility if we—if we sat down with the Syrians and said, “What do you need? Here’s what we need. Let’s have a rational, long-term dialogue,” not one of these Condi Rice specials of, you know, 20 minutes in the Middle East, “I touched the base and went back,” but a serious, rational dialogue.

Do you know how many times I went with Jim Baker to Syria when he was preparing the Gulf War coalition and the Madrid Peace Conference? I believe it was 15 times. And you know what I remember most about those trips, Tim? That I think on 14 of them, the lead of my story was “Secretary of State James A. Baker III Failed Today.” Failed in his effort to, to draw Syria in. But guess what? On trip 15, he brought the Syrians into the Madrid Peace Conference. Those are the same Syrians, by the way, who were behind the attacks on the Americans in Beirut in 1982. They haven’t changed. This is a tough, brutal and mean regime, but they also can be done business with with the right, I think, administration approach.


MR. RUSSERT: I remember 16 years ago reading “From Beirut to Jerusalem,” still a road map for understanding that area, and you talked extensively about what goes on in the Arab mind, in the Arab heart. And I was reminded of it in your column on Friday you had in The New York Times. You were on a rooftop in Syria talking to young writers, and Tom Friedman wrote this, “There will be no new Middle East - not as long as the New Middle Easterners, like Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister, get gunned down; not as long as Old Middle Easterners, like Nasrallah, use all their wits and resources to start a new Arab-Israeli war rather than build a new Arab university; and not as long as Arab media and intellectuals refuse to speak out clearly against those who encourage their youth to embrace martyrdom with religious zeal rather than meld modernity with Arab culture.” Talk about that meeting on that rooftop.


MR. FRIEDMAN: Well, it was, it was a dinner with a group of Syrian writers arranged by some friends of mine. Say, you know, one woman was saying how she’s just really—believes Israel should be, you know, eliminated, and another Arab journalist was saying how much pride—how much pride he gets by seeing Hezbollah fight the Israelis to a standstill and inflict these casualties. And a third, very interesting, was saying, “This Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, he’s a disaster for us.”
But there are too many people, Tim, outside of Lebanon, in the Arab world, getting their buzz, frankly, off seeing Hezbollah stand up to Israel while Lebanon gets decimated. Lebanon, the first Arab democracy. And I, I real—I have a real problem with that because it’s time for the Arab world to stop getting their buzz, OK, off fighting Israel and to overcome their humiliation that way. It’s time to start building something.

You know, you ever ask yourself, Tim, what’s the second largest Muslim country in the world? It’s India. It’s not Pakistan or Iran. What do we see in India? Just a couple of weeks ago, 350 Indians killed in what is widely suspected an attack by Muslim extremists in Mumbai in a train station. But the Indian reaction was incredibly restrained. Why is that? You know, why don’t Indian Muslims, you know, get their buzz this way? Could it be because the richest man in India is a Muslim software entrepreneur? Could it be because the president of India is a Muslim? Could it be because there’s an Indian Muslim woman on the Indian Supreme Court? Could it be because the leading female movie star in India is a Muslim woman? You know, when people get their dignity from building things rather than confronting other people, it’s amazing what politics flows from that. And I think that’s something the Arab world also needs to be reflecting on now.


MR. RUSSERT: How to convince these young men and women that there’s more to life than trying to destroy Israel?


MR. FRIEDMAN: You know, these are people who, who hate others more than they love their own kids, more than they love their own future. And that’s crazy, and that’s part of the pathology of that part of the world. But one thing I know for sure, you know, what we’re doing right now, what Israel’s doing right now—smashing things in Gaza again, smashing things in Lebanon—I understand it. I understand the anger and the rage. You’re minding your own business, and one day these guys, you know, come across the border. But it’s not working. It’s just not working. You know, Israel destroyed the PLO, and it got Hamas. Now it’s destroying Hamas, and it’s going to get chaos. And you can’t repeat the same thing in Lebanon. And the role of America is to be the guiding light there, not to fly air cover so more of this violence can continue indefinitely. If I thought it was going to work, I, I’d feel different. It’s not going to work. It’s not going to work for them, and it’s not going to work for us, and it’s not going to work for Lebanon or the Palestinians. We’ve got to find another way.

And you know, part of just showing up, Tim, you know, why did I go to Syria? I haven’t been to Syria in a long time. But, you know, listening. If I found one thing as a reporter—worked in the Arab world for 25 years, as a Jewish-American reporter—here’s what I found. I found that listening is a sign of respect. You know, if you just go over and listen to people, and what they have to say, it’s amazing what they’ll allow you to say back. But when you just say, “We’re not going to go to Damascus, we’re not going to listen to the Syrians,” we—you’re never going to get anywhere that way. I’m not guaranteeing you you’re going to get somewhere the other way, but all I know, you sure increase the odds if you sit down and just listen.


MR. RUSSERT: Tom Friedman, we thank you for joining us, and your report on your trip. “From Beirut to Jerusalem,” and also “The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century,” which is now out as well. Thank you for joining us.


MR. FRIEDMAN: Great pleasure, thanks, Tim.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Options
    CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,219
    anyone that believed that Syria leaving Lebanon was a good thing (President Bush)... well, they failed to consider that Syria held Hezbolah in check. Why? Because if these recent attacks were commited while Syria occupied Lebanon, Syria would be held responsible and would be the target of these airstrikes.
    And anyone that thinks that Democracy in Lebanon is a good thing only needs to look as far as Hezbolah rise to legitimate power in that nation's government... (see Hamas in Gaza as a reference).
    There's a reason why Syria was in Lebanon... because we were there and left and because Israel was there and left. So, what is worse... a Lebanon under Syrian rule or a Lebanon run by Hezbollah? Your choice.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Options
    NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    Cosmo wrote:
    anyone that believed that Syria leaving Lebanon was a good thing (President Bush)... well, they failed to consider that Syria held Hezbolah in check. Why? Because if these recent attacks were commited while Syria occupied Lebanon, Syria would be held responsible and would be the target of these airstrikes.
    And anyone that thinks that Democracy in Lebanon is a good thing only needs to look as far as Hezbolah rise to legitimate power in that nation's government... (see Hamas in Gaza as a reference).
    There's a reason why Syria was in Lebanon... because we were there and left and because Israel was there and left. So, what is worse... a Lebanon under Syrian rule or a Lebanon run by Hezbollah? Your choice.

    I think I'll pick the option behind door number three...work towards creating a stable autonomous Lebanon. It's not impossible to alianate Hezbollah. It may be too late, but if the Israeli's would chill the fuck out then you would have an awful lot of Lebonese upset at Hezbollah for being a bunch of dumb-asses and bringing these attacks on the country.

    If you give Hezbollah enough rope, they'll hang themselves.
  • Options
    CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,219
    NCfan wrote:
    I think I'll pick the option behind door number three...work towards creating a stable autonomous Lebanon. It's not impossible to alianate Hezbollah. It may be too late, but if the Israeli's would chill the fuck out then you would have an awful lot of Lebonese upset at Hezbollah for being a bunch of dumb-asses and bringing these attacks on the country.

    If you give Hezbollah enough rope, they'll hang themselves.
    ...
    Well... here's how you get to your option.
    1. Kill everybody in Lebanon.
    2. Replace everyone that was killed in Lebanon with Americans or Europeans.
    3. Hope that no one notices or cares.
    ...
    You forget... Lebanon is where a lot of the terrorist organizations were born. That is why our Marines were in barracks over there in the 80s... to try to stablize it. Israel tried occupation, but found out that didn't work... now, we're supposed to believe that free elections means they stop hating Israel? Who's to say that the Lebananese people are happy to see Israel rocketed... and just not so happy about getting bombed back? Lebanon has a long history of Israel hating and killing Israelis. Shit ain't gonna change for a long, long time.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Options
    sourdoughsourdough Posts: 579
    Actually before 1982 when Israel invaded, Lebanon was known for its cosmopolitan cities, with a strong economy, forward thinking intellectuals and religious tolerance. It was not a breeding ground for hatred and Hezbollah was born only when Israel started massacring and occupying Lebanon. Beirut was known as the Paris of the Middle East and was a truly remarkable city which was full of culture. It was starting to become that way again until this shit happened again.

    The terror attacks into Israel that spurred the 1982 invasion was accomplished by the PLO and they were not harboured by Lebanon, but rather they only existed there because Lebanon's gov't was too weak to remove them. The claim that Israel is the only democracy in the middle east is a myth. Lebanon has been a democracy for a long time.
  • Options
    NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    Well... here's how you get to your option.
    1. Kill everybody in Lebanon.
    2. Replace everyone that was killed in Lebanon with Americans or Europeans.
    3. Hope that no one notices or cares.
    ...
    You forget... Lebanon is where a lot of the terrorist organizations were born. That is why our Marines were in barracks over there in the 80s... to try to stablize it. Israel tried occupation, but found out that didn't work... now, we're supposed to believe that free elections means they stop hating Israel? Who's to say that the Lebananese people are happy to see Israel rocketed... and just not so happy about getting bombed back? Lebanon has a long history of Israel hating and killing Israelis. Shit ain't gonna change for a long, long time.

    I think you're being a bit too temperamental... Nobody is saying that it won't be hard and take generational turnover.

    But if we could start acting responsible,have some serious dialouge and creative foreign policy initiatives - we could foster the change we want to see.


    Don't worry, Bush is on his way out. Pray to god we get somebody in there with real charisma, moral standards and an open mind. I don't think that's too much to ask from a leader in America, but sometimes I don't think we'll ever see that again.

    The system of politics has become so corrupt, you wonder if anyone like that can ever rise to the top?
  • Options
    CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,219
    sourdough wrote:
    Actually before 1982 when Israel invaded, Lebanon was known for its cosmopolitan cities, with a strong economy, forward thinking intellectuals and religious tolerance. It was not a breeding ground for hatred and Hezbollah was born only when Israel started massacring and occupying Lebanon. Beirut was known as the Paris of the Middle East and was a truly remarkable city which was full of culture. It was starting to become that way again until this shit happened again.

    The terror attacks into Israel that spurred the 1982 invasion was accomplished by the PLO and they were not harboured by Lebanon, but rather they only existed there because Lebanon's gov't was too weak to remove them. The claim that Israel is the only democracy in the middle east is a myth. Lebanon has been a democracy for a long time.
    ...
    Thanx for the corrections...
    I remember Beruit as being a Riviera type of resort. Then, the Civil War... that allowed terrorist organizations to exist within their borders. But, that was the 70s. I also remember the Beruit Marine barracks bombing (Hezbollah) in 1981(?)... it was our withdrawal that brought on the Israeli occupation. And Isreal was pretty brutal during their occupation. It's small wonder that there is so much deeply rooted resentment in that place.
    As for a Democracy there... they legitimize Hezbollah by voting them in... Democratically. I think many Americans think that the act of voting equates to happiness and Wal-Marts and stability and love for Israel... because our President tells us so. If that were the case... why are American voter turn-outs in the 30% range?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.