New Trend Magazine (

[Biggest Islamic web site in the U.S.]
P.O. Box 356, Kingsville, MD 21087.
Phone: 410-435-5000.

Disclaimer: Views expressed are not necessarily shared by editorial committee.
Responses (positive or negative) up to 250 words are welcome.
Names will be withheld on request.

With Such Friends Who Needs Enemies!
Mediocre Jewish Journalists Infiltrated Muslim Ranks and Made a Name for Themselves
[Friedman, Jessica Stern, Judith Miller]

Three Jewish Americans who are writers/journalists have made a name for themselves by writing about Islam, Muslims, and the conflict raging in the Muslim world today. These are Thomas Friedman, Jessica Stern and Judith Miller. All three are related either directly to the New York Times [Friedman and Miller] or indirectly as in the case of Stern who came via the National Security Agency. New Trend's series of articles will look at the basic thinking of the three turn by turn. These profiles will then be included in Dr. Kaukab Siddique's forthcoming book RETURN TO PAKISTAN :An AMERICAN MUSLIM LOOKS AT THE POST 9.11 WORLD. [We are still searching for a reputable publisher who will be able to publicize the book.]


On October 9, 2003 Thomas Friedman spoke to a large audience at a church in Washington, DC. The program was aired on C-Span 2 BOOK TV on October 12, 2003. Friedman's self-image is that he counts numerous Arabs and Muslims among his friends. He claims that he wants the Palestinians to have their own state and to live in peace. Above all he considers himself a proponent of "Democracy" in the Middle East. He believes that democracy would be a great blessing for the Arab peoples which they have been denied by their corrupt and dictatorial rulers. With this claim of support for Arab rights and democracy, Friedman, although a Jew and working for the most powerful Jewish-owned newspaper in the U.S., the New York Times, repeatedly visits Islamic communities and institutions in the Middle East, including Al-Azhar, and finds out what the Muslims are thinking.

His columns about the post 9.11 situation have been published in the form of a book which in turn has received high acclaim from the "manufacturers of consent" in America. He does not mind giving advice to Muslims, almost secular "fatwas," in which he teaches Muslims to learn from 9.11 that a bunch of fanatics are trying to take over Islam. The Muslim world must curb these fanatics, he pontificates, so that progress may take place, otherwise there is a dismal future for the Muslims.

My specific analysis of Friedman's "thoughts" is based on his October 9, 2003 presentation in Washington where he was at his best. I see him as a mediocrity, a shallow hack who would be unknown if he were not writing for the New York times.


Friedman emphasizes the need for "democracy" in the Middle East and blames the dictators for the plight of the Arab peoples. Such thinking has a blind spot to it. It ignores the huge fact that dictators and despots like Mubarak of Egypt, King Abdullah of Jordan and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia are supported, funded, armed and protected by the United States. Friedman is blaming the wrong people. He should be opposing the U.S. for imposing tyranny on the Middle East. The call for "democracy" is misleading when the basic opponent of democracy in Muslim lands is the U.S. itself.

Friedman thinks like a colonizer and a racist in his analysis of Iraq (if it can be called analysis). He thinks the U.S. is working for a "free and progressive Iraq." [All words within quotes are his.] The occupation of Iraq for him is creating "a space in the Mid-East for Democracy." A superpower sends its armadas to crush the independence of a sovereign state and occupies the helpless little country by brute force. For Friedman, the search for collaborators and mercenaries [at the rate of $1 billion a week] and the destruction of resistance is helping to create a "space" for democracy.

Friedman's illusions (if not delusions) about Iraq are not very different from those of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. He claims: " Iraq is winnable" because the "vast majority of Iraqis want what we want." Apparently Friedman visits occupied Iraq quite frequently and the collaborators and mercenaries he meets have convinced him that they are clones of the U.S. (which in a sense they are).

The more Friedman visits Iraq, the more he is convinced that the "aspirations" of the "vast majority" of Iraqis are the same as "ours." He is unable to deal with the reality of widespread resistance to U.S. occupation in Iraq. He claims that those fighting the U.S. are merely fighting to retain the "privileges" they had under Saddam. Such a claim indicates Friedman's INABILITY to THINK. Reality has bypassed him. Those who want privileges always make deals with the victors. Those military commanders who wanted to live in luxury and comfort surrendered to the U.S. without firing a shot. Those who were opportunists (see the "deck of cards") negotiated surrenders with the U.S. Opportunists and privileged people don't fight to the death. Even Himmler went for a deal with the allies at the end of World War II. People who fight are the ones who have ideals of freedom, independence, Islamic values, sense of honor. Who would fight for privileges in the hot Iraqi desert against the post powerful military machine in the world!

Mesmerized by his illusion of support from the "vast majority" of Iraqis, he calls for the old "vietnamization of the war" idea: Set up an "Internal Security force" of Iraqis to fight the resistance. Looks like Friedman did not learn anything from Vietnam. Paid "Internal Security" might be good to direct traffic or to fire guns against weak opponents but they are useless against determined Mujahideen forces fighting for the victory of Islam.

A big hole occurs in Friedman's "thoughts" because he conveniently forgets that Iraq was under U.S.-U.N. embargo and sanctions from 1991-2003 which, according to the U.N.'s own statistics, led to the slow death of more than a million Iraqis, mostly children. He tries to blame (very conveniently and predictably) Saddam Hussain for the destruction of Iraq. He blatantly claims that Saddam "drove Iraq into a ditch." Evidence shows that all the achievements of Iraq, industrialization, construction, advanced educational system, came owing to the regime of Saddam. The lights were on in Baghdad even as the U.S. armada started its "shock and awe" campaign. By contrast, the U.S., with $1 billion a month at its disposal, took FIVE and A HALF months to restore the lights to Baghdad.

Finally, Friedman's illusions turn into delusions when he actually claims that U.S. "troops are organizing democracy" in Iraq from the ground up and that Baghdad has a "freely elected city council." How colonial and "white man's burden" type can you get!


Friedman has been most successful in his claims as a supporter of Palestinians. At least some Arabs trust him because he criticizes the excesses of Israel such as the wall being built by the Sharon government. However any scrutiny of Friedman's "thoughts" would reveal that his "support" for Palestine is nothing more than a pretense. Consider these points:

1. He blames Arafat for Sharon's "excesses." The blame is based on the oft-repeated Israeli propaganda gambit that Arafat turned down a great Israeli offer of self-government. Why is that "offer" such a secret? If it was really going to solve the problem, why not make that offer again and make it in public. The "offer which Arafat turned down" is indeed a flimsy excuse for the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people during which all of the West Bank and Gaza have been turned into a concentration camp. Sneakily Friedman tries to justify Sharon's crimes by claiming that the Israelis suffered a "devastating disappointment" because Arafat turned down their generous offer.
2. He claims, like any virulent Israeli, that Arafat has been teaching "jihad" in the mosques while he supports peace when he meets Americans. How absurd is that idea when most people know that Arafat is imprisoned in his own compound. He can't visit any mosques to make speeches. There is NO PALESTINIAN who considers Arafat a religious leader who would be credible as a teacher of Jihad. One look at the Arafat cronies would be enough for an analyst to see that jihad is not an option for Arafat's people. Jihad is coming from the Islamic movement [Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others.] It's laughable to think of Hamas leaders looking for inspiration to Arafat on the subject of Jihad.
3. Friedman states clearly "I strongly believe in Israel's right to exist." In that case, how can he be considered a friend of the Palestinians? A Palestinian would say: You think it's okay for my enemy to occupy my home but you say that my enemy should let me live in my own backyard and let me pick up the garbage and stop any of my people from re-taking my home. Obviously Friedman is an enemy of the Palestinian people but he claims that he is a friend. [That's the old "trojan horse" technique.]

4. Friedman indirectly justifies Sharon's atrocities against the Palestinians by claiming that the "suicide bombings" have driven the Israelis "crazy." The well-thought-out plan of Israeli genocide against the Palestinians is presented by Friedman as a kind of craziness induced by Palestinian resistance attacks.

5. The Muslim rulers can defeat "extremism" by openly coming out and recognizing Israel. Friedman's advice: "Why doesn't the CROWN PRINCE OF SAUDI ARABIA GO TO ISRAEL?" He is looking forward to more Sadats.

6. Do the Palestinian people have the right to fight back? If so, how should they fight back? Isn't there a jointly-enforced Israeli-U.S. embargo on shipment of weapons to the Palestinians? Of course there is, but such considerations would mess up Friedman's view of the world. He refers to the "madness of suicide bombings." Would he have considered it "madness" for Jewish ghetto people in Warsaw to attack Nazi occupiers in comparable circumstances? That would require thought and Friedman is yet to exhibit any such ability.

IN ALL OF FRIEDMAN'S "THOUGHT" there is no vestige of understanding regarding the RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION of the ISLAMIC WORLD. For him it is unimaginable that the Muslim nations want to shape their future according to the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Friedman has the freedom to peddle his far ranging but puerile "thoughts" in the columns of the most powerful newspaper in the U.S. He gets awards for top class journalism. He gets his "thoughts" published in book form. Large numbers of people turn out to listen to him and acclaim his "thoughts."

2003-10-18 Sat 18:19ct