(Your Voice in a World where Zionism, Steel, and Fire have
turned Justice Mute)

A Debate on Al-Jazeera's Opposite View program between Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush and Thomas Friedman.

English version, partly summarized, of the Arabic transcript on al-Jazeera's website at:

http://www.aljazeera.net/programs/op_direction/articles/2002/10/10-27-1.htm

The translation and summary were done by Muhammad Abu Nasr.

[Please note that Mr. Friedman's interventions have been retranslated from the Arabic transcript]

On the evening of Tuesday, 27 October 2002, the independent satellite television station in Qatar, Al-Jazeera, broadcast its regular program entitled "The Opposite View". The debate that evening concerned American relations with the International Community and was hosted by Dr. Faysal al-Qasim. The two participants in the program were New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush, editor-in-chief of the Free Arab Voice.

Opening Remarks from Dr. Faysal al-Qasem:

Dr. al-Qasim began by introducing the topic. He asked why the gap between America and the rest of the residents of world was widening. He said that the activities of the great and powerful were the biggest thing threatening the world today. He explained that sentiments in the Arab world with regard to America were varied and contradictory and posed questions asked by different sides in the debate. Was American not a great danger? Why does America ignore the rest of the world? Why has it changed into something that resembles the empire of Genghis Khan who sowed death and destruction?

On the other hand, some ask if the danger of America weren't exaggerated. Are those who level accusations against America driven only by hate? And who says that America doesn't care for the international community? Wasn't the U.S. discussing the resolution on Iraq with other states in the United Nations? Indeed aren't the nations of the world falling over themselves trying to build good relations with the United States? Isn't it ridiculous to compare this great democracy with fascist military regimes?

It was questions such as these that he would be posing directly to his guests, the well-known American journalist Thomas Friedman and the Palestinian researcher and writer Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush.

After that, the conversation went as follows:

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: Dr. Alloush, I'll begin with a simple question. Isn't it a great injustice, isn't it wrong to say as many do these days that America has become a fascist dictatorship and the worst fascist dictatorship on earth? Isn't there an offense against the truth in such false charges?

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: The truth is, Dr. Faysal and you dear viewers, that the whole history of the United States bears witness to it being a savage dictatorship since its inception, since it asserted control over the land owned by the American Indians, since it enslaved millions of Africans, since it occupied countries - the occupation of Puerto Rico, the occupation of Hawaii at the end of the 19th century. If we look at the history of the United States before 11 September, we find that it is a natural extension of what has taken place since 11 September.

If you'll allow me, Dr. Faysal, I want to enumerate a few facts here. I have in front of me here a partial list of 130 military interventions undertaken by the United States during the last century. It is compiled from a number of official American sources. If we look for example… of course I will enumerate some of them very quickly. There was the intervention in the Philippines, for example, from 1898 to 1910, where 600,000 Filipinos were killed as they resisted the American occupation. And there are dozens of other examples. If we look at Viet Nam, for example, between the years 1961 and 1975 we are talking about more than two million Vietnamese who were killed in that war. If we look at Latin America, we find dozens of incidents in which the United States intervened to impose by force governments dependent upon it. It even interfered in elections to impose presidents dependent on itself. An example of that is the occupation of Nicaragua for 20 years from 1912 to 1933. Also there was its occupation of Haiti for 19 years, and the occupation of the Dominican Republic for eight years. Of course there are many examples of such bloody interventions, such as the bloody intervention in the seventies in Chile in the coup that took the lives of thousands, and the bloody intervention in Indonesia in 1965 with a death toll of about 700,000. In addition to that, of course, there is the fact that the United States in Viet Nam used Agent Orange, which is recognized as a chemical weapon. This is to say nothing of the nuclear weapons dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima after the ruling council in Japan had inclined to surrender, after it had been inclined to surrender already. Finally, naturally, there are the 1,750,000 Iraqis killed because of the criminal embargo that the US and British governments have imposed on Iraq. And of course let us not forget the unlimited support that the United States of America gives to the Zionist Entity. So, I believe that what has happened after 11 September is nothing but an escalation in the use of means that have been employed for a century, since the United States began to play an international role characterized by savagery and crimes.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: Good. Mr. Friedman, I think you heard, via the translator, what Dr. Alloush has said. To sum up, he describes the United States before the events of 11 September and after that date as the worst dictatorship in terms of savagery in history.

Thomas Friedman: This is something that is very offensive. I don't know why anyone wants to go to school there now? I believe Dr. Alloush obtained his education…

Dr. Ibrahim Alloush [interrupting]: Know your enemy…

Thomas Friedman [resuming]: In . . . for 14 years, that is he spent 14 years studying these things.

Let's look at this a little. I think that millions of people in various parts of the world come to America and love… and aspire to live in America, because… Is America a perfect country? Certainly not. Is it a power that has its national interests that cause it to make moves in various parts of the world? Certainly, yes. I am definitely not here to justify every American intervention in the history of the United States. But is … It is of great concern to us that we did not hear on that list of the American intervention in Kosovo and its attempt to rescue the Muslims in Bosnia and in Kosovo. We didn't hear a mention in that list of the American intervention against Nazi Germany to liberate Europe, we didn't hear about the American intervention in Somalia. Unfortunately this failed, but its motivation was to help the people suffering from hunger and poverty. We also didn't hear mention of the American intervention in Japan. We didn't hear about the Marshall Plan. We didn't hear on that list of the hundreds of millions of dollars given as foreign aid and in world peace efforts. I'm simply saying and without doubt that America is a great power, and it occasionally acts on that basis and does stupid things or harsh things or savage things, but it also does very good things. It must be seen as a torch of hope and freedom and opportunity for millions around the world. There are many like Dr. Alloush in front of me who wanted to study and went to study in the United States, simply because they see it as a land of freedom and hope.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: I want to say that the United States has been pursuing its interests, yes, but what are the interests of the United States? The interests of the United States are domination of natural resources and markets, preventing the rise of any rival power anywhere in the world. Are those same interests legitimate in themselves, before we discuss the legitimacy of intervention in order to pursue those interests? There is no such thing as "legitimate intervention" in pursuance of just any interests.

Let us quickly review the things that Mr. Friedman considered positive things in the history of American interventions around the world.

The American intervention in Kosovo - was that out of love for the Muslims? Whoever believes that, brothers, I mean, is only deceiving himself. I personally heard high military officials in the Pentagon say: we have intervened to pursue our interests. I want to say that whoever believes that the break up of Yugoslavia is something that benefited the Arabs, or the Muslims, must take another look at his reckonings.

As to the history of Nazi Germany and Japan, to be very brief, Doctor Faysal, I want us to remember what happened in the Second World War. America and Britain postponed the landing in Normandy from .. from 1942 to 1944 in order to exhaust the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front. It was only when the Soviet Union was able to strike Nazi Germany and when it began to sweep into Eastern Europe that America intervened in order, I mean, to assert control over the biggest possible area of the theaters of operation. This is the thing that we can look at. The intervention in Europe was not for the sake of liberating Europe; it was for the sake of replacing German hegemony with American hegemony. We know that after the Second World War we had American hegemony there.

As to the Marshall Plan and American foreign aid, of course these are separate. The Marshall Plan was an aspect of the plan to contain Communism. It was an aspect of the Cold War. Therefore it was to attain American interests. Therefore we cannot say - in any way whatsoever - that this plan was the result of the generosity or goodness of the American government. As to American foreign aid in the Arab world, for example, let me illustrate that with a recent example. The resolution that Congress passed recently considering Jerusalem to be the capital of the enemy state ["Israel"] includes a paragraph that I would like the regimes that receive American aid to listen to carefully.

The paragraph says that American foreign aid is linked to the recipient country's recognition of Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the enemy state. This explains to us very well the role of American foreign aid. The United States, Dr. Faysal, I mean, after 11 September, has escalated its aggressiveness. I mean, a qualitative change has taken place from previous history. The qualitative change that has taken place is basically linked or, so that we don't get involved in details, let me quickly say that there are two documents that explain this change. The change is based essentially on intervention justified by … intervention as a preemptive strike and the use of force to change regimes. Both these things violate international law. Therefore in actuality, the United States has changed into the biggest rogue state in the history of human society. Actually, Bush is today becoming a new Hitler just as the German Minister of Justice said.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: Mr. Friedman, you've no doubt heard these accusations. The last thing he mentioned was that America has changed into the biggest rogue state in the world, and he cited what the German Minister of Justice said about the American President, that he is a new Hitler.

Thomas Friedman: I believe… Let me say in general, first, that it is ridiculous and a oversimplification of facts to talk about the United States in this way. I have no desire to . . . to respond to that.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: Are you able to respond, though? Tom. ..Tom …

Thomas Friedman: I have .. have.. have the desire, but I won't waste my time. And our viewers . . our viewers can decide. All of them have visited the United . . . Most of them have visited the United States and have requested entrance visas to America and their children have studied in America, so they … I ask the viewers to decide, is this the America to which their children… to which they sent their children or not? Perhaps it is necessary to take a picture of me and put it here. You can talk about me or level charges and insults and I will respond to you.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: Let him respond then..

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: Please, just a minute.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: Allow me, just one word. Poor manners are not a substitute for a poor argument. That's all I want to say to you.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: Just a minute, OK, OK, just a minute.

Thomas Friedman: So, as regards the German Minister of Culture and her comparison of the American President with Adolf Hitler, I believe she apologized for that because it was clear that it was excessive language and the President of the United States, the United States was not the country that launched a war and killed millions. The President of the United States didn't do that. Was that what your last question was?

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: I, I mean, in fact, I want, I mean, even you described Mr. Alloush's words as a ridiculous caricature of America. They totally contradict the American reality. You won't be wasting time, but I, actually, would like you to respond to such accusations as that. We hear these accusations often in the Arabic media, in the Arabic press, and among many Arabs. I would like you to correct the picture of America that they have, those who bring such charges against you.

Thomas Friedman: Then, of course, I am not a representative of the United States. I represent Tom Friedman of the New York Times newspaper. Everything I say is what I write and I speak about my analysis and my critique of my government. My argument was that if we… We in the United States are going to wage a war against terrorism, a world war, as the President has described it, and if we are to go from Manila to Kabul to Jakarta to the Middle East to wage this war then we must be the best citizens of the world. This was always the framework to which I return and which I use. There were many things that this could imply, but there are two important things related to this part of the world. They are that we cannot say to the world that there is a world war against terrorism and either you are with us or you are against us. And there is an agreement on the environment and the Kyoto Agreement that we are not concerning ourselves with. But this is not the way to win friends and allies in the world.

[News summary]

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: Mr. Friedman, I cut you off for the newsbreak, but you were talking about how America needs to be, and that sort of thing.

Thomas Friedman: The other point I alluded to was that as regards . . . it is related to the subject of Iraq as a whole. I think that it is very necessary for the United States in what it does with regard to Iraq, it is necessary for it to do it under the aegis and with the agreement of the United Nations Security Council. I say that in the belief that it is vitally important that the United States respect international law. The whole world sees whatever the US does, so that it will be a reinforcement of international practices and not . . . and that we should not do something on our own. I am not saying this just because I believe it; I'm saying it because this is what international public opinion is saying. The world is saying we are cowboys and that sort of thing. I spent last month traveling around the United States. I visited 17 cities to promote my book, and I can say to you that the American people feel very generous. Regardless of what the media and opinion polls say, but regarding intervention in Iraq at least two-thirds of world public opinion according to opinion polls want any American intervention to be under the umbrella of the United States, in accordance with international law. [I suspect he meant to say "under the umbrella of the United Nations", but that is not what is written in the Arabic text - translator's note].

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: But Mr. Friedman, I'm sorry to cut you off, I mean, you are speaking now about American society and the American people and American civil society, as if it decided the policies of the White House. There are those who say in fact that the ones who direct American policy now, I mean as I gather from . . . from what a British writer said, is a group of generals, a junta of generals who only understand the language of force, I mean, and the American people is completely left out, completely left out. I mean, American decision-making is only done by a very small group, while the American people have no relationship with what is taking place, so don't talk to us about the American people.

Thomas Friedman: I think that . . . This is a legitimate question and I . . . and sound, and I will say that if there . . . if there is only a number of generals, a small group who are deciding, then we now are in the fourth week of the United States struggling with France and with Russia about Security Council resolutions, if all . . . there were a few generals who alone were giving orders, then why would we go through this effort to gain international support? I think that the President understands two things:

First: it is not because the American people demand that, but he will want to win over the American people. Maybe his generals do not want that. But the only way to win over the American people is to see the international community with the American position and the only way that we can continue in any effort, whether it is inspections or a military operation, is if we have allies in different parts of the world, and the way to achieve that is to work through the United Nations.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: Mr. Alloush, you have heard these statements. Allow me to ask you a very simple question. That is, you are accusing the United States of being the biggest, most savage dictatorship ever. Mr. Friedman is telling you something plainly. If America were a dictator that wanted to impose its hegemony and domination over the world and on the United Nations in particular, why all this clamor and commotion between the US and Russia, on the one hand, and France on the other, and so forth? It would be possible for the United States to act, but the story is now focused entirely under the roof of the United Nations.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: Doctor, the fact that the United States has colonial interests in the world and the fact that the United States behaves in a savage manner where it can do so does not mean that it has absolute power, or that there is no other power on the international stage. I mean, specifically with respect to the point mentioned by Mr. Friedman, I mean, he's asking why spend four weeks trying to convince the United Nations of our attitude? OK, what was the reaction of Colin Powell and Jack Straw immediately after they failed to get the resolution they wanted passed two days ago? They said: this, I mean, We will act on our own. The American position until now has been that the United States, if the Security Council in the end does not go along with America's strategic plans that it will act, the United States will act on its own.

But allow me, I would like to claim, based on some notes from Mr. Friedman's articles that when he says he wants international law and strives to achieve international law.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: Far from being a dictatorship.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: No, just, he's saying that he wants America to work under the umbrella of international law. OK, sir, I would like to remind him of some of the things that he wrote on 4 September 2001, a week before the events of 11 September. Mr. Friedman said: the enemy state - of course, he didn't call it the enemy state, he says "Israel", but I don't recognize "Israel's" right to exist, so I call it the enemy state, is not able to solve its problems, so what is needed is for NATO to take control of the West Bank and Gaza. Where is the United Nations and international law in all this?! I mean, there's also another example. He calls in more than one article, Mr. Friedman, most recently in an article in the New York Times on 20 October 2002 says in it that attaining democracy in the Arab and Islamic countries will be accomplished through a programmed effort to reduce the price of oil in order to deny the regimes, that is the Arab and Islamic oil regimes, their oil incomes. This is in order to produce a level of misery and frustration among millions of people in those countries in order to bring down those regimes. I mean, I am actually surprised at how Mr. Friedman is received in the Gulf States since he has been calling for their overthrow via a program of action to reduce the price of oil? Where is the international law in all this? I mean, our problem with the westerners is that they always speak with more than one tongue. I mean, to be concise, that they are hypocrites. I am not saying this as some sort of personal attack. I am giving you proof. And in the same way, the United States speaks with two tongues. It has one tongue for the international community, it has a tongue for the United Nations, and on the other hand, it has its strategic interests. There are interests. When the United States talks about war against terror, OK, let's see what the "war on terror" really means.

Dr. Faysal, I have found a number of interesting articles in the English edition of Pravda, and actually the one who brought these articles to our attention was one of the editors of the Free Arab Voice publication with which I work. The articles say that Russia has discovered that the American plan for controlling Iraq and the other Gulf states aims in the long run at reducing the price of a barrel of oil to $13 per barrel. Russia's oil industry would be destroyed by an oil price under $14 per barrel, because the cost of extraction is higher for them, so a conflict has arisen between Russia and, that is, the United States. As a result there are now Saudi negotiations with Russia to purchase a very advanced defense umbrella to protect them against the most advanced American aerial weapons. If this really takes place it would be a very positive development in the interests of the Arab Nation.

The Truth about the participation of the American People in political decision making:

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: OK. I'd just like to ask you a question. Mr. Friedman said that about two-thirds of the American people are for going to the United Nations and the Security Council, and for adhering to the rules of the international game, and so forth. He said that talk about a military junta ruling America is empty nonsense and so forth.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: Yes indeed. There isn't . . .

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: The Americans . . . the American People are the ones who decide. It is they who push the Administration in the direction it must take. How do you respond to that?

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: Yes, Dr. Faysal, there isn't . . . I am not saying that there is a military junta. In fact, whoever says there's a military junta doesn't understand the internal situation in America.

Actually what is going on now in the United States is that there are four basic forces that dominate political decision making. There are the conservative hawks in the American Administration. They are the ones who have been laying their plans since they learned that they would be getting into power, and I have . . .

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: Quickly; this . . .

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: I have a document. Yes. I mean, it talks about that. I might come back to that later.

The second ruling group in America is the Jewish lobby, of course.

The third group is the Zionised Christian right wing. And I am not talking here about the Christians in general, of course. I am talking about the Zionised wing in the United States that claims to be Christian. Finally, there are the oil companies and arms manufacturers. Those four groups have research centers, newspapers, and journalists - like Mr. Friedman - to express their interests. These are the ones who control political decision making, actually, and not some group of generals.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: And the American people, what are they? What . . . what is their place in the discussion? A short answer, please.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: Doctor, you ask me big questions and then you tell me to give short answers! I will try, sir.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: No, a short answer . . . No, tell me, do they have a place in the discussion or not? A short answer, please, because I want to . . .

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: The American people are subjected to an effort to keep them ignorant and to brain wash them to the same extent that they try to . . . to subject us to this same effort.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: OK.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: Doctor, doctor, wait. This point . . . let me please . . . there are some who . . . who believe . . . I don't say that America is a democratic state. America is not a democratic state. The American state is a republic, yes, in the sense that it isn't a monarchy or a feudal state. Authority in the state doesn't pass by inheritance from father to son. But if the meaning of democracy is that political decision-making is an expression of people's interests, and that decisions are made with the participation of the people, then this is not true of the United States. In the United States the people elect representatives who are to represent them as Senators or Congressmen or as a president or a governor of one of the states in the country. I mean, anyone running for office needs an enormous sum of money. So he has to pay a very dear price politically and morally in order to arrive in the office he covets.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: OK. OK.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: And finally the media, doctor. There are four or five financial blocs that dominate most of the media. The people, when a law is passed in Congress, the people, except for things on a local level, the people are far removed from the decision making process. So where is the democracy in that?

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: OK. You have heard these remarks, Mr. Friedman, I think you have already responded to them before. I would like to go back to. . .

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: No! Where did he answer? How did he respond?

American Politics and imposing the law of the jungle:

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: OK. Just a minute, maybe he will answer. He talked about . . . about how the American people want these resolutions and so forth. Mr. Friedman, how do you respond to those who say that America is imposing what might be described as the law of the jungle . . . I mean, who say that this is the kind of law that the US is trying to impose now. In such a situation, I mean, it becomes permissible for the Islamic groups or the groups that America describes as terrorist to resort to force, so long as America only settles things by using force, dictatorially, and savagely, as they describe it, then it is everybody's right to resort to force, and America must simply bear the consequences.

Thomas Friedman: It is definitely, and specifically for this reason in answer to this question that I said that we don't want to set any precedent by acting within the United Nations outside the context of the Middle East . . . outside the context of the United Nations.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: But who listens to you? Who listens to you?

Thomas Friedman: It is clear, whether to me or to the American people, that somebody is listening, because despite all the talk about the United States and its behavior as a rogue state in Iraq, until now at least. Perhaps an hour after I leave here we will have attacked Iraq. I don't know. But until now the United States is going through the channels of the United Nations and the Security Council and is struggling with enemies . . . sorry with France or Russia concerning the formulation of resolutions. Yesterday Colin Powell said that we . . . if we can do that we will work through the Security Council, and if Saddam does what we want, there is no reason for him to go. I'm just telling you that what they are doing now, but within minutes, because my friend here changed and distorted two of . . . of the columns that I wrote.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: I'm not your friend.

Thomas Friedman: Yes, the man sitting across from me at the table, who is not my friend, distorted two of my columns and I would like to clarify for you viewers what I meant and what I said when I called for NATO to go there. What did I say exactly? I said that there is a horrible war going on between the Israelis and Palestine now with one killing the other, and worse . . . it is the worst that we have seen since the beginning of this conflict. So how can we end it? We must find a way so that someone who is trusted, and the Palestinians don't trust the Israelis and the Israelis don't trust the Palestinians, but someone, a third party that is trusted. Israel must leave Gaza, the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

So what I said was, if the Palestinians agree and if the Israelis agree, we call on the NATO alliance to come to be a dividing line between the two sides.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: You didn't say that. But you didn't say that . . . You didn't say that. . . You didn't say that . . .

Thomas Friedman: I know what I said, I'm sorry . . . I'm sorry . . . if I didn't hear . . . If you don't let me speak, Dr. Faysal . . .

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: He . . . I don't agree. He's lying. He's lying. I read the article. He's lying.

Thomas Friedman: This . . . I know exactly what I said.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: Please . . . Just one second. Just one second. Please. . . . Please.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: Go ahead.

Thomas Friedman: Yes, and only then there . . . I have forgotten my chain of thought. The idea was to come up with a third party to divide the two fighting sides, to work with the Palestinians to establish a Palestinian state. That's what I said. You can. . . whatever his nonsense . . . this is what I said.

With regard to oil, what did I say exactly? What . . . what was the question that was posed? I was asking why . . . We had some time ago a report on development in the Arab world. It came to the conclusion that the Arab world is lagging behind in terms of development in the world. What the report concluded, because the reason there is a lack of freedoms, and a lack of power and authority being given to women, and a lack of modern education. There was a summit conference of twelve countries . . . 22 countries, and there wasn't . . . and not one of them represented a government elected in free democratic elections. I asked "what is the reason?" Because the main reason is when the government can stay in power just by using its financial resources alone, and not by relying on the creative abilities of its people, men and women, and then the organization of the people in a way that respects the rule of law, the freedom of thought, and of scientific research. Then inasmuch as . . . If the leader in this part of the world can rule by using natural resources alone, the Arab people will never become free ever.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: Very good indeed. This is an answer to. . . This is an answer to . . . to Ibrahim Alloush's statement in this connection. But I want to read to you a little something in fact that is not by me . . . I'm sure you know John Bolton, the well-known American official. He said literally, in confirmation of what Alloush is saying, "there is nothing called the United Nations. There is only an international community lead by the United States, the only remaining super power in the world. When the hour of our interests strikes, and when we can bring the others along with us", this is what an American official said.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: Allow me . . .

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: I mean he completely discards the international community, the international family. And in the international community and international family, and in this situation what Ibrahim Alloush said, I mean, it might be true that America has turned into the biggest dictatorship in . . . in the world. This is one aspect . . .

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: Allow me . . . allow me to read a paragraph from his article about the same . . .

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: Just one minute, please . . . Just one minute. No, just one minute, No, one minute. Just a minute. One minute. And I - Mr. Friedman - I don't know if I am taking something that you said wrong, this is something I have taken from a British writer, Mark Steel, he says quoting you, that you say "as to Iraq, we must bomb one of its electric power stations every week", and because of this bold call by Friedman - as the British writer says - Friedman should be taken directly to the Guantanamo prison camp, you should be in the Guantanamo prison camp because of these positions. That is what Mark Steel said.

Thomas Friedman: I absolutely never wrote anything like that. Never. Never.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: This line. . .

Thomas Friedman: Never. What . . . What is the date? I never in my life wrote anything like that. This is completely crazy.

Ibrahim Naji Alloush: I think . . . Allow me, Doctor, he wrote . . . he wrote . . . he wrote worse things. . .

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: Just a minute, I . . . a minute . . . one minute. I want to ask, from the other side, I mean . . . One minute.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: Yes, go ahead.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: I mean, you were making some very big and serious charges.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: I made . . . supported by documents, Doctor, supported by documents.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: A minute . . . A minute . . . A minute . . . A minute, brother, just one minute. Serious charges against the United States. You not only described it as a savage dictatorship and such like, but, I mean, you quoted what the German minister said. The German minister, as Friedman told you, described President Bush, I mean - in error - as a new Hitler, then she resigned . . .

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: It isn't an error. . .

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: OK, I mean how is it possible to justify this kind of talk, or can you explain it. I mean, how?

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: I will justify it to you . . . Just let me . . .

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: Big statements, I mean, statements not based on . . . on facts.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: Just let me answer. Hitler, when he got to power, he got to power in an election. I mean, just like Bush. But Hitler, I mean, began to beat his breast and claim that there are dangers surrounding Germany. The people applauded him. He used the closed, chauvinist mentality in order to mobilize people. Just like that he accomplished two things.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: What?

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: The first thing was that executive power overwhelmed the legislative apparatus. That is what Bush has been doing since the events of 11 September by, I mean, the Combating Terrorism Act, by the USA Patriot Act. These are a combination of things that give new authority to the security apparatus and the executive apparatus - things that weren't dreamed of in the United States. Then as regards foreign affairs, the United States began . . .

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: These are extraordinary times, Dr. Alloush. These are extraordinary times. Any president on earth might resort to such measures. . . .

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: Doctor, the law . . . the law.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: Why is that wrong for America? This is an extraordinary time for America.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: Allow me, Doctor, allow me. America . . .

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: No, this talk does not allow you to . . . to compare Bush with Hitler. I mean this is not justified.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: What I'm saying is that what Bush is doing is similar to how Hitler began. So far he hasn't arrived at what Hitler was to become, but what Bush has begun to do domestically, I mean the executive authority overwhelming the legislative apparatus, after his coming to power in an election, and what he's doing in foreign affairs, his excuse that he will launch preventive strikes at countries that do not pose any danger to him on the grounds that they might become a danger some time in the future, I mean it's like somebody killing a child and saying that he might grow up to be a terrorist some day. This is the logic behind the preventive strike.

Then there is the issue of regime changes. Doctor, international law says that "the use or threat of force, except on the basis of a resolution from the United Nations, is illegal. Based on this, the use of force is allowed only in conditions of self-defense". This means that the threats of the use of force being made by American officials make America actually a bigger rogue state than . . . against the law, and make Iraq's self defense actually a defense of international law. And on this basis I want to say, just, I mean, a few observations - Doctor - just, quickly, I mean, please.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim: Quickly . . . quickly . . . quickly . . . quickly, please.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush: Yes sir, quickly, briefly. Also in one of the articles of Mr. Friedman, along the same lines, the lines that place America first and want to strike out at the allies, he has an article entitled "The end of NATO" and in this article he says, "NATO doesn't exist without America, because the other countries of the alliance send a few hundred soldiers to the areas in the rear during conflicts, then they demand a share of the spoils together with America, the country that made all the sacrifices". What spoils of war is he talking about? I wish he would tell me because it appears that he has mixed these things up here - the spoils of war and international law.

During the rest of the al-Jazeera broadcast, Dr. Ibrahim Alloush and Thomas Friedman responded to comments and questions from viewers.

The first caller, from Kuwait remarked that the United States was neither all good nor all bad. He said that it wasn't the United States that hijacked Arab planes and blew up Arab buildings. He said it was "impermissible" to compare Bush with Hitler. "Hitler fought against the democracies; Bush at the present time is fighting repressive and dictatorial regimes". He went on to say that in his opinion, everyone in the world needed to get aboard the globalization "train". "Ibrahim Alloush's discourse does not prepare us to get aboard that train", he maintained. "We can't prepare ourselves to get aboard the train by fighting with most of the nations that are already on it".

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush responded to these remarks, saying that the others were the ones on the offensive. "They are the ones who come to our countries and try to control our resources and strive to subjugate us by force. They are the ones who bring their plans . . . to redraw the map of the region and rearrange our strategic surroundings". Alloush pointed out that "American military forces are the ones occupying Arab land, it is not Arab military forces that are occupying American land. It is natural when there are occupation forces in Qatar, in Jordan, in Kuwait, for reactions to occur such as the action of the two noble Muslim Arab Kuwaitis, Anas al-Kandari and Jasim al-Hajiri. These two heroes brought Kuwait back to the Arab fold as nothing else has done for more than a decade. This is a natural reaction to the existence of a state of occupation in our countries, whether it is the Zionist occupation or American military bases".

A viewer from New York faxed the al-Jazeera studios to say that no one would be surprised if Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush one day commits a terrorist act. "The terrorist is not born suddenly, but is the process of a psychological formative operation. Mr. Alloush has sufficient self-hate, therefore it is not right, and is inappropriate to hold a dialogue with a person of these characteristics. I believe it is an insult to the Arabs for Mr. Alloush to sit as an interlocutor with a reputable journalist like Thomas Friedman".

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush simply replied saying, "Strike out the word 'terrorist' and put capitulator in its place and send the fax back to the sender".

The next caller offered Dr. Alloush support. There are indeed more images of the US than that painted by Dr. Alloush, the caller from Amman, Jordan, said, and went on: "but the problem is that this variety of images must make us think. How did this American democracy practice slavery? How did it practice discrimination after slavery was abolished? It practiced racial discrimination against the Blacks and others and for dozens of years. When the Civil Rights Movement led by Martin Luther King brought about the end of legal discrimination, it remained widespread nonetheless, especially in the agencies, in particular police departments".

The caller directed a question at Thomas Friedman, "How is democracy mixed at the same time with racism and racial discrimination?" He said that he had a second point to make as well, concerning the US national security strategy announced on 20 September. It declared that America had supreme military force. It provided for US military domination and allowed no competition. The caller said that imposing military rule or domination is exactly what being a dictatorship means, and he said these goals were not something he had made up; they are taken from the United States' own pronouncements. He observed that even Thomas Friedman himself criticizes this US course.

In response, Thomas Friedman referred to Winston Churchill's remark that democracy was a terrible system but better than all others were. He said that American democracy was not perfect, but that it was always being perfected. The US had slavery, then fought the Civil War and eliminated it. The system isn't perfect but "the way to judge it is not by its faults, but by how we deal with the faults and correct them", he said. He referred to the scandal surrounding the bankruptcy of the energy company Enron and noted that the former head of that firm was handcuffed and arrested just a few days before. "This is the rule of law", he said. "Are we perfect? No, but we are always trying to correct our situation. Yes, we had elections with crazy results in Florida, but we are working to do better".

As to the second part of the question, Friedman stated, "I travel in various parts of the world and hear people voice these fears and concerns about the United States because it appears as if it totally goes its own way by itself. And I, as you will see if you read my articles, I don't agree with that. Why don't I agree? Because I believe that we live in a world that calls for integration and harmony. There already is some integration and there is no longer any barrier, however strong, that can assure our isolation. The only thing that can protect us is if people share norms and values".

Moderator Dr. Faysal al-Qasim observed that this was unlikely, inasmuch as even US allies like Germany, France, and Japan oppose US intervention. "If you look at reality, the gap is growing wider between America, on the one hand, and the rest of the world, on the other. America has come to be greatly hated and you yourselves are asking the question, [why?]".

Thomas Friedman responded: "There is no doubt about that. I ask that question too. And I'm concerned because of that question. I'm concerned about the long-term consequences. I know that you are asking about that. But until now what has happened is just that we have ignored and avoided the Kyoto Agreement, and that is a bad thing, and I criticized them for doing that. And, also, we distanced ourselves from the World Criminal Court, and that's something I don't accept at all. We attacked Afghanistan as a direct response to the attack on the United States".

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim observed that the US had pulled out of 14 international agreements, not just two.

Friedman responded, "Yes. And there are others too. If I had a list, I would read it to you. I don't accept that at all, because I don't believe that I will live in security if I remain hidden behind a wall of isolation. I will be secure only if we share accepted norms and values".

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim then made note of a message that had arrived from a viewer on the Internet urging that Dr. Ibrahim Alloush be given a chance to speak.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush responded to the previous discussion by noting that there are documents showing that the United States has strategic plans for this part of the world. He referred to an article from the Boston Globe of 10 September 2002 that spoke of influential think-tanks in the US that were pressing American leaders to redraw the map of the region. The Guardian on 3 September 2002 discussed a document entitled a Clean Break that was written by the American official Richard Perle for "Israeli" Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he came to office in 1996. It also referred to redrawing the strategic surroundings in the region. The Sunday Herald on 15 September 2002 said that US Vice President Dick Cheney, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Under secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz had drawn up a plan to attack Iraq and station US forces in the Arabian Gulf. This was done in January 2000, i.e., just before they took office in the current Bush Administration.

Dr. Alloush said that we've heard that the US is a democracy that corrects its mistakes where there is a track record of 130 military interventions. We see that this approach is continuing. So where is the correction?! It is a democracy like Rome was a democracy - a democracy for the masters who rule the slaves. He compared this situation to that pertaining in "Israel." "If there is a democracy, for example, among the Jews in the Zionist entity, what do I get from that as an occupied Arab? This isn't something that can be listed as a positive feature of the Zionist entity".

A caller from the United Arab Emirates observed that American democracy was for the US but not for the rest of the world's countries and peoples. He observed that the day marked the 58th anniversary of the US fire bombing of the German city of Dresden in the Second World War, a three-day campaign that, he said, left 250,000 dead. The American concept of democracy, he said, was "extremist and arrogant". "Everyone is for freedom. Everyone wants democracy. But what kind of freedom? A committed freedom that aims at spreading the spirit of peaceful tolerance and peaceful coexistence. But the democracy of fleets and aircraft carriers, the democracy of the B-52, that is Washington's democracy as it tries to impose its hegemony with force and domination and imposing the status quo". He said that there were United Nations statistics indicating that the United States had killed 60 million people in various wars since the end of World War II.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim asked Thomas Friedman for his response, in particular to the allegations of the US killing 60 million and the law of the jungle that the US was seeking to impose on the world.

Thomas Friedman was highly skeptical about that death toll figure: "Where he came up with the number 60 million dead I don't know".

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim replied, "Well, that's what he says . . . "

Friedman responded, "I have absolutely no idea. Clearly I can reiterate what I said before. We're not a paradise on earth. We're not a perfect county. But we are good enough if Dr. Ibrahim wanted to stay and live 14 years. He presented an account of the history of America, but he lived there for 14 years and graduated from it with a university degree from this bad place. Why did he want to live there?"

Dr. Ibrahim Alloush responded, "Know your enemy," and Thomas Friedman followed up with, "And why are there many who want to live there? Did it take you 14 years to know your enemy?" He went on in an ironic vein saying that Alloush must have suffered greatly while in America to remain there for so long.

After an urging by Dr. Faysal al-Qasim to "be brief" Dr. Alloush responded by pointing out that, "there are in the United States today three million Arabs and six million Muslims (including the Arabs, of course). Why did they leave their countries? Do you think that they would have left their countries if there were conditions there so that they could find jobs? America's plunder of Arab resources and its colonialism that imposed the regimes that repress the peoples and oppress them - that is what has forced hundreds of thousands and millions of Arabs to emigrate to Europe and America. If you're going to use that against them, this contradicts all that you've been saying about democracy and human rights. But anyway, I want to say that the Arabs who are over there are there because the conditions that they had been in previously compelled them to emigrate. I came back, after I had fulfilled my purpose, and I think that the basic thing is how do you use the knowledge that you have obtained in the United States. I can ask you [Mr. Friedman] the same question: Why are you here though you think that all these regimes are dictatorial and you want to overthrow them by cutting the price of a barrel of oil to $10?"

A caller expressed the view that American actions were motivated solely by pragmatic interests, and that all the talk about doing good and justice and freedom only refers to bringing good, justice, and freedom to Americans.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim asked, over the protests of the caller, "And what's wrong with that? Do you expect America to be a charitable society?" He went on to note that we all know that there is no democracy in international relations.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush observed that then the US should drop all the cover of talk about democracy.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim stated that all countries act out of their own interests, that there was no reason to expect the United States to be any different. He added, "I wish that other countries cared for their people the way America does".

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush repeated that then the US should drop the cover and stop all that prattle about democracy.

The caller then brought the discussion back to the topic of America's violent hand. He said that Mr. Friedman comes over and says 'we're perfecting American democracy', 'we're calling for freedom' and he referred to Friedman as an "extremist Zionist".

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim interrupted and strongly objected saying "I won't allow you to say anything off subject. We don't want to injure; we will remain . . . entirely on politics, please".

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush interjected that Friedman was indeed a Zionist extremist.

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim turned to Friedman for a response to the caller's remarks to the effect that Friedman had claimed that America was correcting its mistakes automatically, that its democracy was being improved, but the caller maintained that this was untrue, and that the United States was in fact becoming more barbaric.

Thomas Friedman responded that it seemed to him that America's distance from the positions of the rest of the world was being greatly exaggerated. He asked why eastern Europeans found their path to free themselves from "Soviet occupation and Communist rule", and why the people of the USSR found a way to free themselves. Instead of looking into those questions, Friedman said, we have conspiracy theories saying that we (Americans) came to plunder and steal resources so that your people will have to come to America after that.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush, intervened, saying "That's a lie".

Friedman continued that all this was "crazy nonsense".

Dr. Alloush pressed his point, however, saying that Friedman "is misrepresenting what I said. He's twisting what I said".

Thomas Friedman continued, "How can the Arab world develop as that courageous report mentions, and as the World Development Report says, when it defined and characterized the problems in the Arab world. I don't think this is the debate . . ."

Dr. Alloush responded, "The problem is the United States".

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim said that a British writer, Adrian Hamilton, had compared President Bush with the brutal Genghis Khan and said that many people would have lived had Genghis Khan never embarked on his conquests, but died a tribal leader in Mongolia. Hamilton said that Bush must be shown his limits before he destroys the world.

Thomas Friedman asked what Bush had done to be compared with Genghis Khan or Hitler.

At this point Dr. Alloush said that Al Jazeera seems to have become "politically occupied", as he wasn't being given the opportunity to speak and was being incessantly interrupted by Dr. al-Qasem. Upon which he was given the chance to speak very briefly.

Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush pointed out then that the United States had committed aggression against Afghanistan and destroyed that country without showing or proving that the Taliban regime was connected with the 11 September 2001 attacks in America. Today the US is threatening to use brutal force against Iraq and is in fact tightening the sanctions on the people of that country, something that kills children and constitutes a war crime, crimes against humanity.

"The United States is the biggest dictatorship and the biggest danger to us", said Dr. Alloush. "I want to ask the United States for a solution to our problems, Mr. Friedman. If you want to have democracy in our countries then take your hands off our countries".

Dr. Alloush continued: "Stop American support for the Zionist entity, and we will be able to solve the problem of the regimes. Stop supporting the regimes and the Zionist entity. Take your hands off".

There was time for one last question and moderator Dr. Faysal al-Qasim conveyed that question from a viewer in Saudi Arabia to Thomas Friedman. Friedman, many months earlier, had interviewed the Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and come away with what became known as Prince Abdullah's Saudi peace initiative that consisted of a full "Israeli" withdrawal to the lines of 4 June 1967 in exchange for Arab acceptance of the Zionist entity. The viewer wanted to know whether Friedman had got anything else in the course of his talk with Crown Prince Abdullah.

Thomas Friedman replied, "You know that I went to Saudia as a newspaper reporter and Crown Prince Abdullah laid out his peace initiative. I believe he was sincere about what he said in my interview with him and what he wanted for the Arab world, and if he wants to do it a second time, I am always ready to listen to him".

Dr. Faysal al-Qasim then concluded the discussion: "Thank you Thomas Friedman. Honored viewers we only have time left to thank our two guests, the Palestinian writer and researcher Dr. Ibrahim Naji Alloush and the famous American journalist Thomas Friedman. We'll met again next Tuesday, and until then this is Faysal al-Qasim in Doha. Good bye".