At a recent press conference journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi threw his shoes at President George Bush. Bush adroitly dodged the projectiles and the shoe thrower was promptly wrestled to the ground and arrested. Given Bush’s lack of popularity at home and abroad, it is hardly surprising that there is considerable support for Muntadhar al-Zaidi and many Iraqis are calling for his release.
To me, shoe throwing seems like an immature way of expressing one’s views-a tantrum more than anything else. However, it is important to consider the cultural context: in Arab culture the throwing of a shoe is a form of insult. The intent is, apparently, not to do damage (though that would presumably be a bonus) but to express contempt. Perhaps it is on par with throwing rotten fruit at people to show dislike. Whatever the case, what is more important is whether Muntadhar al-Zaidi acted rightly or wrongly.
On one hand, Muntadhar al-Zaidi did attempt to give a “farewell kiss” to a “dog” by hurling his shoes at Bush. In addition to being an attempt at a physical attack, this action was also unprofessional. Muntadhar al-Zaidi is a journalist and presumably is subject to the professional ethics of journalism. These ethics certainly seem to include acting in a professional manner and keeping one’s own views in check. As such, Muntadhar al-Zaidi seems to have clearly violated the standards of his profession. These facts would certainly seem to support the claim that Muntadhar al-Zaidi acted wrongly.
On the other hand, the shoe throwing can be defended. First, the Bush administration bears a great deal of responsibility for the horrors that have occurred in Iraq since the American invasion. In reply to the obvious counterpoint: yes, Saddam was a very bad man and did very bad things. It is good that he is dead. But, the fact that the invasion got rid of him does not serve to offset all the evil that has followed for the people of Iraq. As such, it could be argued that Muntadhar al-Zaidi showed remarkable restraint in merely throwing shoes at Bush. Bush, many would argue, deserves much worse.
Second, there is a point when professional ethics and the requirements of professional behavior can rightly be set aside. Typically, this is when a more significant moral concern overrides a specific aspect of the professional ethics or requirements for professional behavior. In this case, it could be argued that Muntadhar al-Zaidi was right to set aside the restraints imposed as professional and act as an individual who believes that Bush has done a great wrong to his country and his people.
While Muntadhar al-Zaidi did commit a crime, I think it should be treated as an act of protest rather than an attempt to actually harm Bush. After all, a shoe is hardly a lethal weapon and Muntadhar al-Zaidi’s intent seems quite clear. Of course, it can be argued that attacking someone with an ineffective weapon is still an attack and hence Muntadhar al-Zaidi should be taken to task for this. Obviously enough, George Bush should also be taken to task for what his administration did to Iraq.
Three cheers for Muntadhar al-Zaidi and his shoes.
If Bush weren’t president of the most powerful country in the world and had invaded a country under false pretexts, he would probably be sitting in the Hague in the same chair as did Milosevic.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/390174?rel=hp_picks
Some comments on the subject.
I would throw my shoes at Bush as a form of protest. The man has caused so much suffering through his destructive policies and outlandish lies. I cannot think of many people responsible for more death and pain than Bush is.
Frankly, I have little sympathy for Bush at the moment. On the latter response: I agree. He has caused much suffering. But that doesn’t mean he should too suffer, physically. One is obviously hurt if they feel they must hurt another. And they end up hurting themselves even more. I say not physically because he seems not to respect himself very much, and is therefore, already suffering. It doesn’t seem very big. It wasn’t a bomb- and it sounds a bit foolish: Someone threw shoes at Bush. Was it unethical to throw shoes at someone? Yes, he could have done worse, on par, he could have done better.
Appealing to professional ethics isn’t terribly persuasive to me, in general. To imply that professionals have a different set of ethics than everyone else is kind of odd. Journalism is particularly problematic for me, since there is the policy of non-interference and such. But I don’t really want to argue about professional ethics.
I just wanted to put al-Zaidi’s actions into perspective… If I read correctly, he was kidnapped and tortured by insurgents, his family were killed in insurgent attacks, and both of these events can be directly attributed to President Bush’s actions. So the fact that al-Zaidi ONLY threw his shoes at President Bush could in some way be construed as remarkable restraint.
I’m slightly amused at the way in which all commentators (yourselves included) feel the need to point out that shoe throwing is an insult in Arabic culture. This is necessary because in American culture, shoe throwing is a sign of mild affection.
I find it appalling that anyone would consider it morally sound if a man threw his shoes at another person for any reason. It is a clear sign of a wholly uncivilized person. Would each of the other commenters consider it morally justified to throw a shoe at Ahmadinejad though he is providing supplies and funds to those who kill Americans? I would not despite my revulsion towards the man. I hope that al-Zaidi is prosecuted to the full extent of Iraqi law.
Honestly, I would love for the United States to withdraw all troops and support for Iraq and see what happens. In that respect we should leave the Middle East completely and let them destroy themselves.
Bush’s response to the shoe was surprising. He dodged artfully, sprang up with eyes as open as a squirrel’s on guard, his expression was all play and anticipation for the next shoe. If he could have slipped his off easily I’m sure he would have slam dunked it. His interview with the reporter Candy Crowley of CNN was charming and gentle and he even held her hand. He seemed sincere and kind to me. I’m more convinced than ever that the elephant in the oval room was Cheney, the enemy of his own country as well as the world, an evil man beyone imagination. If Bush had been the man out hunting with Cheney, he would have dodged the bullet. Unfortunately he didn’t dodge when advised by Cheney.
John Berry,
Quite the sense of humor you have there.. at least I believe you were being satirical. Were you, at least in the first paragraph?
If not, please define for us what your version of “uncivilized” is, and perhaps do so using the examples already provided (i.e.,al-Zaidi’s shoe throwing; and George Bush’s war that has killed hundreds of thousands, maimed countless, and displaced millions).
Thanks,
Kevin
Not a lame duck unlike that of Ronald ‘star wars’ Reagan – ‘honey, I forgot to duck’.
“it could be argued that Muntadhar al-Zaidi was right to set aside the restraints imposed as professional and act as an individual who believes that Bush has done a great wrong to his country and his people”
But al-Zaidi has no right to act on behalf of the ‘people’ of Iraq, 50% of whom still support the US-led invasion and a substantial majority of whom want US troops to stay in the country for the foreseeable future. He has no constiuency, so his act is just petulant self-aggrandisement
John,
By what you seem to be suggesting, Bush has a “right” to act on behalf of the “people” of the U.S…many of whom would disagree strongly with such a suggestion.
Anyway, I believe al-Zaidi was a bit more specific than you give credit for…he further categorized WHICH Iraqi people he was speaking about: “This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq.”
If those people had a voice, or if those who knew them and had survived had a voice, I believe it a reasonable assumption to say that they would support al-Zaidi’s farewell kiss.
-Kevin
Actually, he has gotten a significant amount of popular support which would seem to indicate that he has a constituency.
If 50% still support the invasion, then that would seem to indicate that 50% do not support it. Perhaps those people make up his constituency.
I am not debating whether or not Bush was morally justified with respect to the invasion of Iraq. I will leave that judgement to history. What I am speaking of is the fact that throwing a shoe at the face of a world leader or anyone else is in no way justifiable unless that individual’s life was in immediate danger. There are alternative methods available to evince one’s disapproval of another that does not involve violating another’s rights. Again, as a caveat, I am not debating that Bush violated the rights of other, I am discussing al-Zaidi.
I disagree that it is morally justifiable to initiate the use of force without an immediate threat.
Curious here , if he went in as a reporter and became a shoe thrower, wonder what it was Bush said that tipped him over the edge.
John,
It is interesting that you’ll leave the moral judgment of George Bush to “history” (while perhaps ignoring who the history-writers are), but you’ll very quickly leap to a judgment of al-Zaidi. Why reserve your moral judgment only for those who fail to meet your god-granted or constituent-granted authority? Curious.
Certainly there are other methods to display disapproval. There are also more severe ways to do so, but al-Zaidi’s was physically harmless and symbolically enormous. If choosing to communicate a message, it seems al-Zaidi’s choice was both immensely strong and also victim-less. Win-win.
Lastly, I would be cautious with phrase “use of force,” for I doubt it applies to al-Zaidi’s action.
John, I’m curious. If al-Zaidi had thrown a rotten egg, would that be okay in your book? Now given the tight security measures that surround Bush, reporters cannot bring rotten eggs or tomatoes into his presence. How about throwing a sweaty pair of socks?
“By what you seem to be suggesting, Bush has a “right” to act on behalf of the “people” of the U.S…many of whom would disagree strongly with such a suggestion.”
He has by dint of being elected. That is pretty much what democracy means. Furthernmore, in Iraq, he is present as a guest of a government elected by the people of Iraq. Mr al-Zaidi has been elected by no-one.
“Anyway, I believe al-Zaidi was a bit more specific than you give credit for…he further categorized WHICH Iraqi people he was speaking about: “This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq.””
None of whom asked Mr al-Zaidi to speak for them (amny, of course, can’t). Those widows have a vote and elected a government that asked Mt Bush to come to Iraq. We can safely assume, I think, that widows and orphans are represented in both the 50% who support the invasion as well as the 50% who oppose it. Mr al-Zaidi insults the memory of the dead when he claims to be able to speak for them without thweir consent. He insults all the widows and orphans who do not support his views and for whom he claims the right to speak without any mandate from them.
Kevin, in an attempt to put an end to this continuous argument against Bush and to clarify why I did not pronounce my moral judgement here I will explain my position. I do not support Bush, I am not a member of his constituents because I do not think that he is representative of my beliefs. I do not think that the United States should be in Iraq nor an any other location within the Middle East. The people who live there should be left to their own devices to manage or destroy their respective countries as they see fit. Now, back to the discussion.
If I were to throw a shoe at your face or at the face of anyone you know or support, would you consider that I am using force against you. From my perspective, if anyone threw a shoe at by face, whether or not they were successful, they deserve whatever happens to them. For that matter, the throwing of anything thing at anybody with cannot be justified. Instances of horseplay are not included in that statement.
I am no supporter of Bush and wonder how he can continue to face his God. However the protest by al-Zaidi was unprofessional, ignorant, and puts Iraqis in a bad light. He was ignorant in apparently not knowing that throwing shoes has little or no substantial meaning in western civilization. I would like to have seen Bush throw them back saying something like “I believe these are yours”. A dignified approach by such a protester would go much further than the act of an uncivilized hooligan.
An aggressive attitude, personal abuse, and the use of foul language can only serve to the detriment of whatever point one wishes to make. This accordingly distances the writer/speaker from any serious enquiry or discussion. This is exactly what al-Zaidi did. rather than using his expertise and journalistic voice to demolish Bush’s highly questionable arguments and win the respect of those present. Surely this is preferable to being manhandled to the floor and dragged from the room. Thus yet again in this sad country we see violence and abuse generating yet more of the same. The onus on Bush, if it be in his power, is now to intervene on behalf of al-Zaidi with a view to his immediate release with no further charges pending.
al zaidi is a brave man. because he’s the only one in this world can do that. he threw his shoes to president bush. to know more about al zaidi, visit alzaidi.org
thank you.