Define Terrible...
Edward Said, writing in the Egyptian publication Al-Ahram online, says that "living in the United States at this moment is a terrible experience." Personally, I can think of worse places to be living, like Ramallah, or Cairo, or Jerusalem. Even in my hometown of Oakland, no jewel among the world's cities, I'm pretty sure I'll be able to go to the shopping center today without being blown to bits by a mad suicide bomber, which I count as a distinct perk. I speak from experience: living in the United States at this moment falls well short of "terrible."
That's not what Said is getting at, of course. The terrible experience is that of being subjected to the pro-American tenor of the US media's coverage of foreign affairs, which he caricatures thus:
the average American is drowned in a storm of media pictures and stories almost completely cleansed of anything in foreign affairs but the patriotic line issued by the government.The picture is a startling one. America is fighting the evils of terrorism. America is good, and anyone who objects is evil and anti-American.
As for whether these objectors are "evil," that's a more complicated question. "Objection" can take many forms, and the expression of such dissent in an intelligible way with which those who disagree can engage and which they can attempt to refute is a necessary part of democracy and of a free society. That's not evil. Blowing up random people in public places as a futile attempt at blackmail and as a publicity stunt? Evil. Cheerleading for those who perpetrate such acts of wanton murder, and attempting to excuse them through disingenuous invocations of moral equivalence? Evil also, arguably, though Said is free to do it as much as he wants. I'm sure it plays well in the Egyptian press.
In this post-911 world, America, its government and its people alike, has lost its last shred of patience, tolerance, and sympathy for suicide bombers and those who champion them. It is a profound delusion to imagine that, having been the target of four super-sized suicide bombings, and under the threat of more to come, America would look kindly upon those who continue to perpetrate such crimes, much less reward them with concessions, pressure their targeted enemies to compromise their security, or allow them to arm themselves with even more lethal weapons.
Perhaps because he is writing for a non-Western audience, Said allows himself to be even more cagey than usual on the suicide bombing issue. He proposes new tactics for Palestinian resistance (primarily working with Israeli and international groups who are opposed to various Israeli policies) "of which suicide bombing is simply not a part." At no point does he propose that suicide bombing be halted on moral grounds, nor even on practical grounds, though it would seem that such efforts might have better results if sympathetic Israelis had less reason to worry that a handshake might well detonate an incendiary device. By design or default, what he appears to be proposing, instead, is that these new tactics of conciliation and constructive dialogue be carried on alongside a continued program of suicide bombing. In this context the "new opportunities for Palestinian ingenuity and creativity" that he heralds sound ominous rather than hopeful.
At least Said is honest about the Karine-A shipment:
Words alone are inadequate to explain how an American secretary of state, who presumably has all the facts at his command, can without a trace of irony accuse Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for not doing enough against terror and for buying 50 tons of arms to defend his people, while Israel is supplied with everything that is most lethally sophisticated in the American arsenal at no expense to Israel.