Thomas Friedman: he thinks that the Hariri camp in Lebanon is feminist and progressive (or even Marxist?). This is fascinating. Thomas Friedman is now offering labels to the media in the Arab world, although he can't understand a word of what he is watching. He does use the word "shukran" when appearing on Arab media--I have to be fair here. But this is what he said about Hariri TV (the outlet of a Saudi sectarian movement: "focusing particular attention on crushing progressive news outlets like Future TV." So that must mean that Saudi Muftititi is the grand progressive of the Arab world? And do you notice that Friedman conflates the entire Sunnis of the Arab world with...the Saudi regime? Look at this offensive statement about all Sunnis of the Arab world: my mother would be willing to slap him for it. ("The only weaker party is the Sunni Arab world, which is either so drunk on oil it thinks it can buy its way out of any Iranian challenge...") Most Sunnis of the Arab world (like most Shi`ites of the Arab world) are poor and neither are drunk with oil unless this producer of un-cute cliches about the world thinks that ruling dynasties speak for all Arabs). (Incidentally, a colleague from Tunisia was telling me yesterday that the public in the maghrib is not necessarily falling for the sectarian propaganda of Al-Arabiyya and is largely sympathetic to Hizbullah in the Lebanese conflict.) But I knew that Friedman and others were going to cite Hariri Future TV because just yesterday MEMRI put out a release on Hariri TV--I noticed that MEMRI did not refer to the anti-Israeli rhetoric on that TV. Nor did they mention that the same Hariri TV was planning series on the anniversary of An-Nakbah before they were shut down by Hizbnullah and their allies. That would not make it into MEMRI. (Lately, when I see a certain release by MEMRI, I can always predict when it will make it into the columns of uncreative, and lazy journalists, like Friedman). But the label progressive must have come up in conversation with Friedman's adviser on Lebanese affair, Michael Young (formerly Michael Husayn Young), and notice Young's last sentence: it is suspiciously the same as words I have used on this blog. But mere coincidence, I am sure. Instead of the silly words of Thomas Friedman and Young, I refer you to the words of my colleague, Dick Norton, who wrote this in a letter to the editor in the NYT: "I have spent about half of the last two years in the Middle East (Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon) conducting book research. I have been struck by the profound disappointment that United States policy typically evokes among old and young, including ultra-pious and lax Muslims." But I doubt that Friedman or Young even know where or what Bahrain is.

PS Also, neither Friedman, nor his teachers at MEMRI, would have told you that Hariri TV played a big role in inciting public opinion in Lebanon about Danish cartoons, and that led to the violent Salafite demonstration in Beirut that set the Danish embassy on fire, and led also to attacks on Christian homes and churches. Progressive my...potato.