Thomas Friedman, "What Does Morsi Mean for Israel?": Stretching the Boundaries of Dim-Wittedness

Today, writing from his Maryland mansion about Egypt and Israel, Thomas Friedman pompously declares in his New York Times op-ed entitled "What Does Morsi Mean for Israel?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/opinion/what-does-morsi-mean-for-israel.html):

"I truly appreciate the anxiety Israelis feel at seeing their neighborhood imploding. But it is also striking that a people for whom the Exodus story of liberation is so central — and who for so long argued that peace will happen only when the Arabs become democratic — failed to believe that the liberation narrative might one day resonate with the people of Egypt and now proclaim that the problem with the Arabs is that they are becoming democratic."

Ah, yes, the Arabs are becoming "democratic." Of course, it never occurred to Friedman that "democracy" means one thing for Americans, and quite something else for Egyptians. Again, have a look at the results of a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in December 2010 (http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/):

"At least three-quarters of Muslims in Egypt . . . say they would favor making each of the following the law in their countries: stoning people who commit adultery, whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion."

According to this report, 95% of Egyptian Muslims also believe it is "good" that Islam plays a large role in politics.

Friedman would have us believe that this is all part and parcel of Egypt's "liberation narrative," when in fact it sounds more reminiscent of the Dark Ages.

Tom goes on to say:

"Sorry, naïveté is thinking that because it was so convenient for Israel to have peace with one dictator, Mubarak, rather than 80 million Egyptians, that this dictator — or some other general — would and could stay at the helm in Egypt forever. Talk about naïve."

Actually, "naïveté" is believing that Israel can do anything to curry favor with an Egyptian Muslim majority that would destroy the rights of individuals, Christians and women and welcome the annihilation of Israel.

Question for you, Tom: In furtherance of Arab "democracy," would you also advocate that the US immediately demand the abdication of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? Is it only Israel that seeks to maintain stability by way of its relationships with autocratic regimes such as that of Mubarak? "Talk about naïve" . . .

As always, thanks for your invaluable advice, Tom. It will take us far.