The less than a minute affair has become one of the most memorable moment of history, not because it presented a pleasant sight but due to the insult it heaped on Mr. George Bush, the arrogant and brutal invader and destroyer of Iraq. Mr. Bush was addressing a press conference in the heavily fortified green zone of Baghdad when a television journalist, Muntazar al-Zaidi threw his shoe on him. The shoe missed the target, as Mr. Bush ducked and dodged. Before any one could fathom what was happening, when al-Zaidi threw his second shoe at the American president which was off the mark again. Mr. Bush seemed a bit disturbed and the colour of his face changed and darkened for a moment. Then the Iraqi secret agents overpowered him and reportedly broke one of his legs and ribs.
Iraq’s American agents easily overpowered al-Zaidi but can they also erase the symbolic meaning of the occasion which the entire world has watched either on televisions or on countless websites. Can they suppress the reverberating words which al-Zaidi uttered while targeting Mr. Bush with his shoes? Al-Zaidi is reported to have said, while throwing the first shoe at Mr. Bush, that it was the farewell kiss or parting kick to the dog that invaded and destroyed Iraq. And when he targeted Mr. Bush with his second shoe, he said that this was from hundreds of thousands of those who have been orphaned and widowed by the war he had imposed on Iraq.
In Islamic and Eastern traditions guests are not welcome with shoes being thrown at them. But was Mr. Bush really a guest? Surely he was being welcome in Baghdad by those who had come to Iraq in 2003 on American tanks to occupy their own country. But for millions of Iraqis, who have lost kiths and kins as well as their freedom, he is the most hated enemy who carries the blood of innocent children and women on his sleeves. What is wrong if such cruel men, rather brutes, are welcome with shoes by the occupied and oppressed people?
Al-Zaidi, or his action, is symbolic in many ways. He, like millions of Iraqis, did not have the means, especially weapons, to fight against illegal American invasion and occupation of his country. He, therefore, chose to insult the main American culprit by throwing his shoes at him. Al-Zaidi is also a Shiite and by his action, lauded across the Arab world, he has punctured the American propaganda that only the Saddamists or a tiny group of Iraqi Sunnis, opposes the US presence in Iraq. Finally, al-Zaidi is an educated and well-paid Iraqi who, by his action, has shattered the American myth that only the unprivileged Iraqis dislike Mr. Bush.
The so called Islamist Dawah Party to which the American stooge, Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, belongs, has been trying hard to impress upon the world that all was right in Iraq. The Americans, too, have been propagating the same thing. The Shiite religious class, led by Ayatullah Seestani, has been campaigning that the insurgency in Iraq was on the decline. The world media, probably now tired of reporting the routine or daily bloodbath and anti-Americanism, has also been silent about Iraq for a while. But now all these have changed all of a sudden owing to the laudable action of Al-Zaidi. He has told the world that Iraq is an occupied country which needs the world’s attention and support for its liberation and freedom from the cruel American occupation.
Since 9/11 the arrogant American president has behaved in a way as he has the sole right to unleash violence against individuals and countries whom he regards as enemy of the so called free world. He says or decides some thing and thinks that the world must accept it without questioning. There are countries which have problems with other countries but they, unlike America and Israel, do not attack them. Instead they approach the Security Council of the United Nations for punishing countries and individuals being held responsible for unleashing terror against the innocent people. By throwing shoes at Bush al-Zaidi has broken his arrogance. This symbolic method of protest must serve as a reminder to Mr. Obama, who is planning to do to Afghanistan what Bush has done to Iraq, that brutal invasions do not solve any problem and that lack or absence of opposition to occupation does not mean that people have accepted it. If not a military, at least al- Zaidi might stand to protest and heap insult on the mighty and the arrogant that Mr. Bush has been throughout his eight years in White House. His method of protest apart, Zaidi has shown how arrogance can be insulted and humbled. He did all the right things except that he should have thrown the second shoe at Maliki whose collaboration with Bush’s occupation of Iraq is equally sinister.
Iraq’s American agents easily overpowered al-Zaidi but can they also erase the symbolic meaning of the occasion which the entire world has watched either on televisions or on countless websites. Can they suppress the reverberating words which al-Zaidi uttered while targeting Mr. Bush with his shoes? Al-Zaidi is reported to have said, while throwing the first shoe at Mr. Bush, that it was the farewell kiss or parting kick to the dog that invaded and destroyed Iraq. And when he targeted Mr. Bush with his second shoe, he said that this was from hundreds of thousands of those who have been orphaned and widowed by the war he had imposed on Iraq.
In Islamic and Eastern traditions guests are not welcome with shoes being thrown at them. But was Mr. Bush really a guest? Surely he was being welcome in Baghdad by those who had come to Iraq in 2003 on American tanks to occupy their own country. But for millions of Iraqis, who have lost kiths and kins as well as their freedom, he is the most hated enemy who carries the blood of innocent children and women on his sleeves. What is wrong if such cruel men, rather brutes, are welcome with shoes by the occupied and oppressed people?
Al-Zaidi, or his action, is symbolic in many ways. He, like millions of Iraqis, did not have the means, especially weapons, to fight against illegal American invasion and occupation of his country. He, therefore, chose to insult the main American culprit by throwing his shoes at him. Al-Zaidi is also a Shiite and by his action, lauded across the Arab world, he has punctured the American propaganda that only the Saddamists or a tiny group of Iraqi Sunnis, opposes the US presence in Iraq. Finally, al-Zaidi is an educated and well-paid Iraqi who, by his action, has shattered the American myth that only the unprivileged Iraqis dislike Mr. Bush.
The so called Islamist Dawah Party to which the American stooge, Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, belongs, has been trying hard to impress upon the world that all was right in Iraq. The Americans, too, have been propagating the same thing. The Shiite religious class, led by Ayatullah Seestani, has been campaigning that the insurgency in Iraq was on the decline. The world media, probably now tired of reporting the routine or daily bloodbath and anti-Americanism, has also been silent about Iraq for a while. But now all these have changed all of a sudden owing to the laudable action of Al-Zaidi. He has told the world that Iraq is an occupied country which needs the world’s attention and support for its liberation and freedom from the cruel American occupation.
Since 9/11 the arrogant American president has behaved in a way as he has the sole right to unleash violence against individuals and countries whom he regards as enemy of the so called free world. He says or decides some thing and thinks that the world must accept it without questioning. There are countries which have problems with other countries but they, unlike America and Israel, do not attack them. Instead they approach the Security Council of the United Nations for punishing countries and individuals being held responsible for unleashing terror against the innocent people. By throwing shoes at Bush al-Zaidi has broken his arrogance. This symbolic method of protest must serve as a reminder to Mr. Obama, who is planning to do to Afghanistan what Bush has done to Iraq, that brutal invasions do not solve any problem and that lack or absence of opposition to occupation does not mean that people have accepted it. If not a military, at least al- Zaidi might stand to protest and heap insult on the mighty and the arrogant that Mr. Bush has been throughout his eight years in White House. His method of protest apart, Zaidi has shown how arrogance can be insulted and humbled. He did all the right things except that he should have thrown the second shoe at Maliki whose collaboration with Bush’s occupation of Iraq is equally sinister.
[December, 2008]
