Tom Friedman of the NYT last night on Nightline explains his
recent Op-ed (opens in new window) where he states that events happening in the Arab world right now are the equivalent of the Berlin Wall falling.
It's good news, bad news time again for the Middle East. The good news is that what you are witnessing in the Arab world is the fall of its Berlin Wall. The old autocratic order is starting to crumble. The bad news is that unlike the Berlin Wall in central Europe, the one in the Arab world is going to fall one bloody brick at a time, and, unfortunately, Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa and the Solidarity trade union are not waiting to jump into our arms on the other side.
<jump>
He talks about these events... the election in Iraq, the murder of former Lebanese leader Rafik Hariri, the vocal opposition to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the Palestinian election, the Israeli withdrawal of Gaza to make his point. Now we all know Friedman was gungho before the invasion of Iraq & many disagreed with him INCLUDING ME. But what do we think about these events now & do we agree with this statement from him?
Something really is going on with the proverbial "Arab street." The automatic assumption that the "Arab street" will always rally to the local king or dictator - if that king or dictator just waves around some bogus threat or insult from "America," "Israel" or "the West" - is no longer valid. Yes, the Iraq invasion probably brought more anti-American terrorists to the surface. But it also certainly brought more pro-democracy advocates to the surface.
Friedman last night stated that we are at a "Tipping Point" right now in the Arab world. Do you believe we're at a "Tipping Point" and if so which way do you think it will tip? My intention here is to start the conversation.
Lastly... Bill Maher last friday night had Senator Biden on Real Time & they briefly touched on this subject. They talked about the election in Iraq & what if, as a result, Iraq becomes a success story? Maher asked Bidey "Hasn't Bush picked the pockets of Dems on this issue? The party of JFK... Aren't the Dems the party that stands for... bear any burden, pay any price?" Bidey responded (I'm paraphrasing now)... that Bush wasn't there in the beginning but he appears to be there now. And that some in his party in congress are still not there. Oh yeah and that some of his Dem colleagues... only because it's Bush, they are not there either. It was an interesting exchange. Thought provoking, aye?