Let’s imagine that there are two persons setting together on the same table discussing a matter. The first one doesn’t consider the discussion ethics, and doesn’t offer any evidence on what he is saying. On the other hand, the second person considers very well the discussion ethics which calmness, good tempered, wisdom, and offering evidence are among of them. After a while, the discussion becomes more and more excited, and then he becomes so nervous that he may abuse his partner, while his partner is still calm and polite according to the discussion ethics.

At this point, the first one persists in his ill-manners and becomes so excited that he may hit his partner with the baseball stick, if there is one beside him, while his partner is still calm and persists in the discussion ethics and the good manners. Then the first person hits him again by the stick that sometimes is used in murders and his partner, although he is bleeding now, still persists in the good manners and discussion ethics.

What was mentioned before is a real image of something happens every day, when some one persists in his good manners and ethics and the other one makes no considerations. But it is not the main problem, as the real problem now is that the man of principles always persists in them in spite of the objection of many people. He maybe be abused, and what is really strange that he is innocently devoted to his principles.

 Holding on the principles and the good manners in a time when some people ridicule them and make fun on them is as sort of insanity and disgrace. As holding on your principles and good manners should be conditioned by the holding of the other side by these manners. And if the other side did not consider these manners, it will be acceptable if you gave up your principles. As it is the natural reaction when someone abuses you, you would do the same thing, and if he hits you, you are expected to hit him too.

When Montasir Al-Zayadi, the Iraqi journalist, threw the American president George Bosh with his shoes saying: (this is our good bye kiss for you), people divided into two groups. The majority of them take the side of Al-Zayadi because of what had happened since the American invasion of Iraqi, many crimes were committed beginning with the illegal invasion itself, destruction, killing many people, torture the prisoner in Abo-Gharib prison, and the dislodgment of more than four millions Iraqi citizens, in addition to that the rape of the Iraqi women and recording this on taps as a means to humiliate the Iraqi people. Also we can't deny the millions which were disappeared during the period of the rule of the American governor Braymer, and also the milliards which were spent under the pretense of the imaginary process of reformation of Iraqi. And finally, the jest trial of the Iraqi president Sadam Hussin which ended by his capital sentence without any consideration for rules of law, and also carrying out the sentence in the night of Al-Adha feast ignoring the simplest rules of the human rights. And in spite of everything, Iraq has been presented as the source of terrorism, and the future of the country has an unknown fate.

On the other hand, the minority who opposed the last point of view, the reason of their objection was that whatever happens, one should never give up the ethics of his work. And the ethics of the journalistic work, in their point of view, demand the counter of evidences and discussing them, not dealing with them by shoes.

Of course I'm completely against transgression, and I always call for the discussion ethics as it is the only way to get rid of all transgressions that took place in any kind of work, especially the work in press field. But what is the use of being me insist on working according to these ethics while the others completely ignore them? What is the use of my keeping of the discussion ethics and good manners while the other side is ready to commit any kind of transgression defending his intolerant point of view? Is it fair?

I think it is a sort of foolishness and disgrace to keep you manners in such situation. In the case of transgression, I usually call for seeking a decision from law. And I refuse the theory of revenge which I usually call it one of the social diseases. This includes what is called the adultery crimes in the Arab Islamic countries, when a girl is killed for committing adultery and then the judge commutes the sentence as the murder was committed to prevent the shame of her family.

But in the absence of law, we should resist transgression by every possible way. If an armed thief breaks into your home intending to kill you, what are you going to do? You will kill him before he kills you, and this is called in law: a murder in self-defense.

Then and starting from this point, the throwing of Montaser Al-Zayady's shoes is a patriotic attitude as it expresses his situation against the occupier, whatever this occupier is a soldier or a president. Since the invasion of Iraq was an illegal step which had been taken without the approval of the United Nations, Iraq was invaded by the United States claiming that there are destructive weapons, the thing which was never proved.

This invasion is a real (Ocupation), as the international institutions have proved. And any kind of occupation should be resisted and fought against using every possible means, like the stones in Palestine, by guns like what had happened in Egypt during the English forces occupation, and finally by shoes like the case of Al-Zayady .

37 years were passed since Israel was defeated by the Arab on 6th, October 1973. Since then there is no military encounter between the Arab and Israel, there is only the policy of negotiation. For 37 years, the Arabs are still keeping their principles, while Israel is breaking them all the time by their occupation in Palestine, killing the Palestine citizens, building barriers, colonies, and seizing lands by force, for 37 years and Israel is still deceiving the whole world and we still keep our principles.

There is a proverb which is very common especially for the military colleges’ students, which is: “if any one has transgressed, then every one is equal”. This statement means that if someone of a high military position, higher than you, has transgressed on you, whatever the kind of this transgression was, and then he will be equal with you, which literally means that you can revenge for yourself.

But whatever this statement is true or not, it explains how much it is oppressive to break rules and give up principles, and how much serious the results of such behavior will be.

Sure we call for principles and we really do keep on our principles, but keeping these principles is conditioned with keeping the other side on these principles and ethics. But if the other side broke the rules, also we would do the same thing; An Eye for An Eye.