The Flying Imams: Hidden Agenda

Katherine Kersten of the Star Tribune wrote an article earlier this week, Suspicion about imams grows as terror links pile up. Now in her follow-up article she writes The real purpose behind the imam publicity blitz. She quotes from Madhi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation--the American arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, which the Chicago Tribune describes as "the world's most influential Islamic fundamentalist group."

Bray's initial statement about the incident had an all-American, see-you-in-court ring. He demanded "large financial compensation for the imams," adding, "We want US Airways and any other airline displaying this type of behavior against Muslims to be hit where it hurts, the pocketbook."

The report echoed statements made by the imams themselves. Omar Shahin, their spokesman, has portrayed the incident in a way that's consistent with a lawsuit and a public relations offensive. He's called for a Jesse Jackson-style boycott of US Airways, and applied classic civil-rights rhetoric to the incident: "This is prejudice; this is obvious discrimination," the Star Tribune quoted him as saying. "I cannot change the color of my skin," he told Newsweek.

But the report on the Iranian website, which has appeared on a variety of Muslim websites worldwide, had a larger primary focus. After the imams incident, it quoted Bray as saying Muslims want "new, broad-sweeping legislation that will extract even larger financial and civil penalties for any airline that participates in racial and religious profiling."

Support for such legislation is expected from Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, though he has not yet come out with a statement.

As noted in Congressman Conyers and Islam, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan has come out with an End Racial Profiling Act, which--though it claims to be aimed at helping all minorities--makes a special point of 'protecting' Muslims--in spite of the fact that

• Many incidents of anti-Muslim reported by CAIR have been demonstrated to be bogus
• For 2005 the FBI report on bias attacks indicates that 68.5 were anti-Jewish while only 11.1 were anti-Islamic
• From 2004 to 2004 the FBI reports show that incidents of anti-Muslim bias have gone down.

Another ally for such legislation is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called herself a "proud" cosponsor of Conyer's End Racial Profiling Act in 2004.

Kersten describes what limitations the Conyer's bill would impose, and then assesses the effect:

"A law that would compel security professionals to focus on keeping their statistics within certain norms rather than on their mission keeping airline travel safe would have a devastating effect on our ability to ensure airline safety," said Daniel Horan of the Los Angeles Police Department in an interview. He worked at the Los Angeles airport on profiling-related issues for 6 years.

In the conclusion to her article, Kersten looks at the confluence of events that have re-energized Conyer's bill:

The End of Racial Profiling Act has languished until now. What did it need to reinvigorate it? New congressional leadership, and that's coming in January. But it needed something else in this media age: a high-profile incident to jump-start it.

What better than the media circus at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on Nov. 20?

Will the Democratic leadership participate in this?

Instapundit suggests not:

I suspect that the Democrats won't be willing to hop on this bandwagon, as it would make them look weak on terrorism. Once again, though, the absence of major attacks since 9/11 is causing a rise in complacency that some people see as an opportunity.

He may be right. But then again, that has not stopped Democrats from recommending withdrawal from Iraq. In this instance, there is a criticism of Bush wrapped within the protection of individual rights. What is to stop the Democrats as a group to go for this?

Update: Soccer Dad points out the Memeorandum is tracking this story

Technorati Tag: Imams and Conyers and CAIR and Democrats.

"Certified kosher under the supervision of Halal"

Hat Tip Instapundit

The OU, Kof-K, and Star K had better start looking over their shoulder.
Looks like there may be a new hechsher in town:

"Certified kosher under the supervision of Halal"

From Amazon.com Click on image to enlarge

From igormet.com Click on image to enlarge

I'm assuming that it's supposed to read:

Certified kosher and under the supervision of Halal.

But it does sound like it would have interesting possibilities.

Meanwhile, Wikipedia has a list of the similarities and differences between kashrut and halal.

One unlikely comparison between Kashrut and Halal is that it seems there are some 'controversial hechsherim' in Halal as well:

Muslims vary on what is required for food to be considered "halal".

Dhabiĥa Halal

Adherents to this philosophy maintain that in order for food to be considered halal, it must not be a forbidden substance and any meat must have been slaughtered according to traditional guidelines set forth by the Sunnah, known as dhabiĥa. This is the strictest definition of halal.

First type of "Bismillah" Halal

Some believe that the guidelines of dhabiĥa do not necessarily need to be followed and reciting "Bismillah al Raĥman Al Raĥim" (In the name of God the Beneficent the Merciful) immediately preceding consumption renders the meat permissible. People who adhere to this type of halal generally do not partake in the consumption of forbidden substances. Defenders of this method declare that the Quran does not dictate that God's (see Islamic concept of God) name must be taken prior to slaughtering the animal, it merely says in multiple places:

And eat not of that whereon Allah's name hath not been mentioned..Quran 6:121

They also narrate a hadith in which Muhammad states "Mention Allah's name on it and eat..." upon being questioned on how to deal with food that is not verifiably dhabiĥa.

Critics of this method claim that the text of the Quran and the hadith needs to be taken in perspective, and accuse defenders of this method of misinterpreting them.

Second type of "Bismillah" Halal

Adherents to this type of "Bismillah Halal" generally believe that any food, whether or not it is a forbidden substance, becomes halal once "Bismillah al Raĥman Al Raĥim" (In the name of God the Beneficent the Merciful) is recited over the food[verification needed]. Generally, this phrase is recited immediately prior to consumption.

It is believed by many[citation needed] that this method of making food halal does not adhere to Islamic guidelines, largely because it contradicts the Quranic verses on forbidden substances. [emphasis added]

Still, there must be something pretty special about that New Zealand butter.

Technorati Tag: Halal and Kashrut and Kosher.

There's Something Special About Anchor Pure New Zealand Salted Butter

Hat Tip Instapundit

The OU, Kof-K, and Star K had better start looking over their shoulder.
Looks like there may be a new hechsher in town:

"Certified kosher under the supervision of Halal"

From Amazon.com Click on image to enlarge

From igormet.com Click on image to enlarge

I'm assuming that it's supposed to read:

Certified kosher and under the supervision of Halal.

But it does sound like it would have interesting possibilities.

Meanwhile, Wikipedia has a list of the similarities and differences between kashrut and halal.

One unlikely comparison between Kashrut and Halal is that it seems there are some 'controversial hechsherim' in Halal as well:

Muslims vary on what is required for food to be considered "halal".

Dhabiĥa Halal

Adherents to this philosophy maintain that in order for food to be considered halal, it must not be a forbidden substance and any meat must have been slaughtered according to traditional guidelines set forth by the Sunnah, known as dhabiĥa. This is the strictest definition of halal.

First type of "Bismillah" Halal

Some believe that the guidelines of dhabiĥa do not necessarily need to be followed and reciting "Bismillah al Raĥman Al Raĥim" (In the name of God the Beneficent the Merciful) immediately preceding consumption renders the meat permissible. People who adhere to this type of halal generally do not partake in the consumption of forbidden substances. Defenders of this method declare that the Quran does not dictate that God's (see Islamic concept of God) name must be taken prior to slaughtering the animal, it merely says in multiple places:

And eat not of that whereon Allah's name hath not been mentioned..Quran 6:121

They also narrate a hadith in which Muhammad states "Mention Allah's name on it and eat..." upon being questioned on how to deal with food that is not verifiably dhabiĥa.

Critics of this method claim that the text of the Quran and the hadith needs to be taken in perspective, and accuse defenders of this method of misinterpreting them.

Second type of "Bismillah" Halal

Adherents to this type of "Bismillah Halal" generally believe that any food, whether or not it is a forbidden substance, becomes halal once "Bismillah al Raĥman Al Raĥim" (In the name of God the Beneficent the Merciful) is recited over the food[verification needed]. Generally, this phrase is recited immediately prior to consumption.

It is believed by many[citation needed] that this method of making food halal does not adhere to Islamic guidelines, largely because it contradicts the Quranic verses on forbidden substances. [emphasis added]

Still, there must be something pretty special about that New Zealand butter.

Technorati Tag: Halal and Kashrut and Kosher.

Why Did Belgian Authorities Destroy Holocaust Records?

Hat Tip: Instapundit

According to the Brussels Journal, Belgian Authorities Destroy Holocaust Records

The Belgian authorities have destroyed archives and records relating to the persecution and deportation of Jews in Belgium in the 1930s and 1940s. Some of this happened as recently as the late 1990s. This was revealed during hearings in the Belgian Senate last Spring. Though the Senate report dates from 4 May the Belgian press has not yet mentioned the affair. [update 3 Sept.: The Brussels Dutch-language newspaper De Morgen published an article on page 6 of its 14 Dec. 2005 edition, under the title: Archives about Persecution of Jews were Intentionally Destroyed] The Senate report says that “documents about the period 1930-1950 have been destroyed on a massive scale.”

Some suggestions for the destruction of the records is offered.

In Charleroi the archives of both the municipal police as well as the judicial police were completely destroyed in the late 1970s. Before the war Charleroi had a relatively large Jewish community which was all but exterminated during the war, while in Antwerp a significant proportion of the Jews managed to survive. Yet in Belgium no-one is familiar with the extermination of the Walloon Jewry, while Antwerp is regularly blamed for having been a “center of anti-Semitism.” By destroying paper trails people are made to forget that certain events ever took place.

Hugo Vandenberghe, the leader of the Flemish Christian-Democrats, suggested that the destruction of the archives “may have had a political motive.” Senator Vandenberghe referred to the anti-Semitism of the Belgian authorities in the 1930s. The historian Nico Wouters told the Senators during the hearings that even after the war the Belgian authorities continued to arrest German Jews who had survived the holocaust by going into hiding, under the pretext that they were “citizens of a hostile nation.”

Is Ahmadinejad planning on visiting Belgium too?

Technorati Tag: Belgium and Anti-semitism and Holocaust and Jews.

A Possible Tool For Dealing With the Growing Number of Faked Photos

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, aka Instapundit, has an article appearing on TCS Daily, dealing with the growing number of faked photos being foisted upon the unsuspecting consumers of the media.

Reynolds article is noteworthy in particular not only for its mention of the degree of the problem, but also for a potencial developing tool for a possible solution:

the accumulation of episodes of fakery in recent weeks, both sophisticated and crude, leads me to believe that we'll see faked video of professional quality becoming a commonplace political item in the pretty near future.

And this poses a significant problem. In a democratic polity -- or even one that's driven by things like "world opinion" -- faked news poses a real threat to decent decision-making. Worse yet, the likely outcome of widespread fakery will be a tendency on the part of people to simply dismiss news that they don't want to hear. (And we already see enough of that phenomenon as it is).

I wish there were a technical solution to this problem, but that's probably pretty far away. May sent me a link to the Columbia University TrustFoto project, which is aimed at detecting fake still images. So far, it's not very good -- I gave it an obvious fake and got a rather inconclusive response. It's a great idea, and the technology will no doubt improve, but will it ever be good enough to reliably distinguish between genuine and phony images? Not anytime soon, anyway. And identifying phony video is probably even harder.

In the meantime, the most effective tool out there for uncovering the faked photos being used by the media is your friendly neighborhood blog.

Technorati Tag: ReutersGate and Photography.

Two Americans Kidnapped By Palestinian Terrorists

On August 14, Fox News Channel reporter Steve Centanni and freelance cameraman Olaf Wiig were kidnapped in Gaza City by Palestinian terrorists. This really should not be news--because based on past experience, you would think that the whole incident was another case of mistaken identity and they would have been returned by now.

But the Palestinian terrorists who kidnapped them have not yet returned them.

This is not an incident like that of Benjamin Bright-Fishbein, who was kidnapped in Nablus by the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades--and then when they figured out they had kidnapped an American and not an Israeli, he was turned over to Palestinian security forces.

This is much more serious. Remember that in 2 months--October 15 will mark the 3rd anniversary of the murder of 3 Americans by Palestinian Arabs terrorists when they blew up a US diplomatic convoy in Gaza:

John Branchizio, 37, of Texas; John Linde Jr., 30, of Missouri; and Mark Parsons, 31, of New Jersey, all died in Gaza as a direct result of Palestinian terror. They are among the more than 50 American citizens murdered by Palestinian terrorists since the signing of the Oslo accords, and none of their killers have yet to pay for their actions.

Also, October means that once again Bush is due to sign another waiver of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, the congressionally mandated downgrade of the status of the PLO Office in the United States.

The downgrade of the PLO office is required by the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, which has been delayed because of U.S. national security interests.

Maybe now would be an appropriate time to realize how deeply US national security interests--especially the security of her citizens--are served by serving notice upon the Palestinian Arabs that they will be held responsible for their actions: not only the murder of American citizens in the past, but also responsible currently for the safety of Americans such as Centanni and Wiig who enter Palestinian controlled land.

It may also be time to make the U.S. Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 into law.

Little attention has been paid to this kidnapping.
It is time to shine a bright light on this Palestinian act and demand action.

Crossposted at Instapundit.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Palestinians and Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig and Terrorism and Gaza.

Media Fakery Goes Beyond Israel

Writing in the Washington Times, Joel Mowbray notes:

But while the widespread use of Arab locals in covering the Middle East raises many legitimate concerns, the Palestinian propaganda machine has enjoyed tremendous success over the years hoodwinking supposedly sophisticated Western journalists. And Hezbollah appears to have done the same over the past month.

It is easy to forget that Israel actually is not the only victim of faked photos. Glenn Harlan Reynolds reminds us:

We've seen this kind of fakery before, of course, and not just where Israel is concerned. The Boston Globe ran fake rape photos purporting to show U.S. troops raping Iraqi women. The photos turned out to come from a Hungarian porn site. Nor does the fakery stop with photos. Rutten's own L.A. Times ran a nasty piece about Paul Bremer's departure from Iraq, saying that he didn't even give a farewell speech and suggesting that he was afraid to look Iraqis in the eye. In fact, Bremer had given a speech that was nationally televised in Iraq. As columnist John Leo observed in response to this bit of bogosity: "What's new about the press is that so many people who follow it with a critical eye now have an outlet to howl about inaccuracy and partisanship. The big media used to be able to shrug off critics like this. Now they can't."

We've mentioned his recurring parallel between Israel on the one hand and the US in Iraq in a previous post on the problem of the reliance on 'fixers' by the media in both Israel and Iraq.

The media consistently shows itself to be a willing pawn of Islamists and those who oppose Democracy in the region. But which came first, their hatred of Bush and Israel, or their fawning--yet fearful--attitude towards the Islamists?

Technorati Tag: Israel and Media Bias and Iraq and US.

Where Do The Lebanese Stand?

The only reason Hezbollah has lost its popularity in Lebanon is because Israel has withdrawn its armed forces. Lebanese don't like Israelis occupying their land any more than they like Syrians occupying their land.

Michael Totten, On the Rim of a Volcano

So how exactly do the Lebanese feel about Israel and Hizbollah--and to what degree will the Lebanese see Israel as their rescuers?

On the one hand, you have the American trapped in Lebanon who emailed Instapundit that

The Lebanese people seem to be more than turned off by Hizbollah. Their fears are greater, however, that the Lebanese government would turn entirely against Hizbollah. This lies in the fact that they trust the Israelis to hit fewer civilian targets more than they trust a desparate renegade Hizbollah on their soil. There is a lot of fear over another civil war.

On the other hand you have the counter-point to that very same emailer that you have to be

Careful about anecdotes about the Lebanese people being turned off by Hizbollah. There is a 99% chance that this emailer was not talking to Shiites, was not in shiite neighborhoods in Beirut, and was not in the Shiite south of Lebanon. I don’t know this for a fact, but I feel confident that the shiite community by and large is not turned off by Hizbollah. There is no "Lebanese people." That's why civil war is always just under the surface.

Keep in mind Lebanon's responsibility as set forth by the UN. Honest Reporting reminds us of:

UN Security Council Resolution 1559 of September 2004, which referred back to Resolution 425, called "upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon"; "for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias"; and supported "the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory".

Syria eventually complied with 1559 and removed its occupying forces. However, the Lebanese government has not disarmed Hezbollah nor has it sent its armed forces to secure southern Lebanon and the border with Israel.

In addition, Hezbollah is actually part of the Lebanese government, which contains two Hezbollah members in the Cabinet. The Lebanese government, therefore, cannot abstain from responsibility for the actions of a part of its own leadership.

What are other Lebanese saying?

Lebanese Political Journal:

We have no sympathy for Israel's position right now. None.

We have sympathy for the Israeli civilians being hit by Hezbollah bombs, but there is no justification for Israel's action. It's abusive. The United States did not hit civilians or civilian escape routes out of the country like this when invading either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Israel made its statement. We cannot tolerate any more. We understood what they were doing. We understood why they needed to do it. But now, there is no sympathy left. Hezbollah is not a mortal danger to you. It has the potential to be, but we Lebanese have been trying to change that internally, through UN resolutions and peacefully.

The bombing has gone on for too long. It's too fierce. Hezbollah has lost morale. The Shia have lost morale. The Lebanese have lost their country.

This is a fight Israel cannot win. Everyone in Lebanon knows that Hezbollah cannot win, including Hezbollah. There is nothing Israel can do to get the soldiers back through force. But this isn't about soldiers or Israeli defense any more.

You've made this country unliveable for the people fighting to disarm Hezbollah.

Guess what? I'm leaving. Yep. Me.

Where am I going? Syria. Didn't want to, but I have to. The people we marched against are the ones you sent us begging to. The people who assassinated our leaders, kept us from having an operating democracy, and who armed Hezbollah are laughing it up because they've won the game because of you.

In another post, the same blogger writes in To Everyone Who Thinks Israel's Campaign is Just Fine and Dandy:

...We pushed against Hezbollah to disarm the entire time. Some were bigots who made sectarian slurs. We kept our Hezbollah sympathetic friends and worked to changed their minds peacefully, as we know better than anyone outside of Lebanon the strange twists that sectarianism gives to every issue and how a terrorist organization can be the only hope for people who've suffered tremendously. The State Department and the White House understood this, too, which is why they cut the Lebanese government slack in disarming Hezbollah. They knew it was impossible to do immediately on multiple levels.

...We had a National Dialogue in which we were trying to prevent war by making all parties amenable to change. This was after Hezbollah froze the government and kept the country in political limbo for months.

Is this not enough for you? What the hell more were we supposed to do? Honestly, what more?

Jamal's Propaganda Site writes:

Olmert's bet on a sectarian uprising or infighting breaking out and taking care of Hezbollah for them seems less likely to materialize with each passing air raid. We're divided and we hate each other, but one thing that brings all together is the Israeli war machine. Most of us have felt their crimes first hand and memories die hard. Others still hold grudges against Israel for using them and then leaving them out to dry. Hezbollah will have to answer a few questions when all is said and done, but we will not do Israel's dirty work. We're not that dumb.

From Beirut to the Beltway writes about Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's address on Saturday:

Siniora condemned the unjustified Israeli aggression on Lebanon and held Israel responsible for the humanitarian catastrophy. Most importantly, he said the "Lebanese state will not rise if it is the last to know." He reiterated that he did not condone Hizbullah's operation (he did not call Hizbullah resistance). He said "only the state has the right to make war decisions."

With this, Lebanon's prime minister has officially pulled the plug on Hizbullah. Yet his government is weak, which is why he asked for UN help.

Who else could Lebanon turn to? The first step was taken. Hizbullah is illegal in the eyes of the Lebanese cabinet. Next: UN must step in to help the Lebanese government, weakened after decades of Syrian hegemony, to take the country back.

Michael Totten adds:

Israel has a right - nay, a moral obligation - to defend itself and rescue the kidnapped. But what kind of down-the-rabbit-hole war is this, where the guilty parties - the Baath regime in Syria and the Jihad regime in Iran - sleep warm in their beds while Beirut, a libertine city they hate, takes the punishment for them?

...The Middle East was in a holding pattern until two days ago. No one knew what would happen next, what the next big thing would be. Now we know. The democracies suffer and bleed and turn on each other while their enemies, our enemies, sit back and watch. The Baath regime and the Jihad regime rest easy knowing that Israel is too cautious or gutless to take the fight to the source and chooses to hit the country of the Cedar Revolution instead.

Maybe the most accurate description of the situation is the YNet News headline:

Lebanese hate Israel, upset at Nasrallah

Condemnation from Europe is to be expected.

But if those Lebanese opposed to Hizbollah are represented by the sentiments expressed above, then the criticism voiced so far may be nothing compared to the condemnation that may be awaiting Israel down the road in the UN--and it will take it's toll.

Who is to judge whether Israel's response if disproportionate or not?

According to the Wall Street Journal:

Since hostage-taking is universally regarded as an act of war, what "proportionate" action do they propose for Israel?

In the case of Hamas, perhaps Israel could rain indiscriminate artillery fire on Gaza City, surely a proportionate response to the 800 rockets Hamas has fired at Israeli towns in the last year alone. In the case of Hezbollah, it might mean carpet bombing a section of south Beirut, another equally proportionate response to Hezbollah's attacks on civilian Jewish and Israeli targets in Buenos Aires in the early 1990s.

What else can Israel do in response to Hamas and Hizbollah?

Israel's choice is: damned if you do, dead if you don't.


Technorati Tag: Israel and Lebanon and Hizbollah and Hezbollah.

Terrorism and the Media: The Symbiosis

Instapundit has a piece about the symbiotic relationship between the media on the one hand and terrorism on the other. He puts it succinctly:

Terrorism is an information war disguised as a military operation. The press plays a symbiotic role, and isn't willing to address that.

Along these lines, he quotes from a document found in Al-Zarqawi's hideout. After outlining the various ways the US has been successful against the terrorists, the first item listed in the terrorist effort to regroup is:

To improve the image of the resistance in society, increase the number of supporters who are refusing occupation and show the clash of interest between society and the occupation and its collaborators. To use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance. [emphasis added]

The degree to which this ploy has worked is documented by the Washington Post, which Instapundit points to as an example of the symbiotic relationship between the media and the terrorism:

More ink equals more blood, claim two economists who say that newspaper coverage of terrorist incidents leads directly to more attacks.

It's a macabre example of win-win in what economists call a "common-interest game," say Bruno S. Frey of the University of Zurich and Dominic Rohner of Cambridge University.

"Both the media and terrorists benefit from terrorist incidents," their study contends. Terrorists get free publicity for themselves and their cause. The media, meanwhile, make money "as reports of terror attacks increase newspaper sales and the number of television viewers."

...The results, they said, were unequivocal: Coverage caused more attacks, and attacks caused more coverage -- a mutually beneficial spiral of death that they say has increased because of a heightened interest in terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001.

The international media may perhaps be unaware of the consequences of their doting coverage of terrorists when the consequences are not constantly and blatantly laid at their front doorstep, but what can be said of the leftist media in Israel, when the consequences are seen--and felt--on a near daily basis? It's likely more a result of the overall leftist viewpoint of the media, than anything else. Ideology trumps profit: and the results are no better.

In the article, the researchers goes on to suggest the logical step of denying them publicity by not publicly naming the terrorists--even given the exposure to news possible via the Internet, they suggest that since more than one group often claims responsibility, the affect of the publicity would be muted.

I'm not sure what the difference would be, whether multiple claims of responsibility were made publicly or made known over the Internet.

On the other hand, there is an example where terrorist responsibility should be made public: the involvement of Yasir Arafat in the assasination of American Ambassador, Cleo A. Noel Jr., and the charge d'affaires, George C. Moore in March 1973. It is unclear why the US Governement did not make clear Arafat's responsibility.

According to a New York Times article back in April 1986:

Assistant Attorney General John R. Bolton told Congress today that the United States would not seek the indictment of Yasir Arafat, the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in the 1973 killings of two American diplomats in the Sudan.

The department said it had insufficient evidence to prosecute Mr. Arafat in the deaths of the American Ambassador, Cleo A. Noel Jr., and the charge d'affaires, George C. Moore.

Members of Congress had asked the department to study recent evidence that the lawmakers said indicated Mr. Arafat might have taken part in the decision by Palestinian guerrillas to kill the two men.

This is the same controversial and outspoken John Bolton who now represents the US at the UN.

But last month, the following was released by the Office of the Historian:

In the early evening hours of 1 March 1973, eight Black September Organization (BSO) terrorists seized the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum as a diplomatic reception honoring the departing United States Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) was ending. After slightly wounding the United States Ambassador and the Belgian Charge d'Affaires, the terrorists took these officials plus the United States DCM, the Saudi Arabian Ambassador and the Jordanian Charge d'Affaires hostage. In return for the freedom of the hostages, the captors demanded the release of various individuals, mostly Palestinian guerrillas, imprisoned in Jordan, Israel and the United States.

The Khartoum operation was planned and carried out with the full knowledge and personal approval of Yasir Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and the head of Fatah. Fatah representatives based in Khartoum participated in the attack, using a Fatah vehicle to transport the terrorists to the Saudi Arabian Embassy.

The fact that Arafat was directly involved in the assassination is not new knowledge.

Scott Johnson points out in an article in November 2003 and again in a post on Powerline on Thursday that the State Department knew that Arafat was directly involved in the assasination of the two Americans from the beginning. [see also Solomonia on the electronic intercept of Arafat's order]

While writing an article on the topic in 2002, Johnson wrote to the State Department and was informed:

Evidence clearly points to the terrorist group Black September as having committed the assassinations of Amb. Noel and George Moore, and though Black September was a part of the Fatah movement, the linkage between Arafat and this group has never been established. [emphasis added]

Johnson later acquired 27 previously classified cables through the Freedom of Information Act. According to Johnson:

The cables demonstrated that in March 1973 the State Department had promptly concluded that Black September was nothing more than a front for Fatah and that Arafat himself had directed the operation resulting in the assassination of Noel and Moore. Both points are made over and over again in the cables to and from the Secretary of State.

To take one example, in early March the U.S Mission in Vienna reported to Secretary Rogers: "The Black September Organization (BSO) is a cover term for Fatah's terrorist operations executed by Fatah's intelligence organization, Jihaz al-Rasd...For all intents and purposes no significant distinction now can be made between the BSO and Fatah...Fatah leader Yasir Arafat has now been described in recent intelligence as having given approval to the Khartoum operation prior to its inception."

It's all very well for the US to assume to attempt to broker a peace treaty between Rabin and Arafat, but if it had been common knowledge that Arafat--a world terrorist and no freedom fighter--had ordered the murder of US officials, would Clinton and the US been so ready to push Israel into the Oslo Accords?

Update:

Soccer Dad recalls that Lady Margaret Thatcher said it best 20 years ago:

Democratic nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.

Update II:

Thanks to Atlas Shrugs, Bizzy Blog and NewsBusters for linking!

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Terrorism and Arafat and Media Bias and Media and War and Iraq and Black September.

Moslem Apartheid

At a time that it has become popular to call Israel an apartheid state and compare it to South Africa, some apply the term apartheid to Hamas.

Little Green Footballs points to an article in The Jerusalem Post about Hamas in Kalkilya supporting the call to close the local YMCA under the pretense that it is a threat to prosletize the local Moslems. Some YMCA offices have already been burned down. Under the title Apartheid Hamas, LGF writes:

The Hamas charter is quite clear about their intent to establish an Islamic state ruled by shari’a law, and one of the steps toward this goal is the eradication of Christian organizations—like the YMCA.

On a different angle, today on Best of the Web, James Taranto responds to those that claim there is a need to do business with Hamas. Taranto writes:

These warnings about the consequences of refusing to do business with Hamas are reminiscent of the arguments made in the 1980s by opponents of sanctions against South Africa--yet those sanctions surely hastened the end of apartheid. The moral case for sanctions is even stronger in the Palestinian case. Apartheid entailed the subjugation of South African blacks; Hamas seeks the elimination of Israeli Jews.

But accusing Moslems of apartheid is neither new nor limited to Hamas. Back in December 2001, Colbert I. King wrote Saudi Arabia's Apartheid for the Washington Post. He quotes an American official who had just finished a tour of duty in Riyadh:

"One of the (still) untold stories, however, is the cooperation of U.S. and other Western companies in enforcing sexual apartheid in Saudi Arabia. McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Starbucks, and other U.S. firms, for instance, maintain strictly segregated eating zones in their restaurants. The men's sections are typically lavish, comfortable and up to Western standards, whereas the women's or families' sections are often run-down, neglected and, in the case of Starbucks, have no seats. Worse, these firms will bar entrance to Western women who show up without their husbands. My wife and other [U.S. government affiliated] women were regularly forbidden entrance to the local McDonald's unless there was a man with them."

Colbert goes over some anti-apartheid history, writing that after Leon Sullivan joined the board of directors of GM in 1971, he got them to withdraw out of South Africa. His next step was to draft a set of workplace principles in 1977 for US companies to practice, including in South Africa. The first one on the list was: "Non-segregation of the races in all eating, comfort and work facilities."--which obviously is not being followed today in Saudi Arabia. But today, in regards to Saudi Arabia, instead of an uproar there is quiet.

In December 2002, The San Diego Union Tribune carried a story about another kind of separation carried out in Saudi Arabia:

The city of Mecca lies 45 miles east of Jeddah. A few miles before reaching the city, the highway splits.

Green signs overhead direct non-Muslims to steer their cars into the right lanes to take a fork that completely bypasses Mecca. A ring of small mountains surrounds the city, preventing even a distant view of it.

Only Muslims may enter the ring of mountains and the historic and holy city of Mecca. Cars going straight stop at a checkpoint just beyond the signs, where everyone must present documents proving he or she is Muslim. The city of Medina, Islam's second-holiest site, similarly is off-limits to non-Muslims.

John V. Last wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal about this back in August 2003, noting the discrepancy:

This law is something of a singularity among major religions, because it isn't merely the Grand Mosque that is off-limits to nonbelievers, the way, for instance, a Mormon Temple is. It's a city--a major city with hotels, supermarkets, schools and a population of 1.2 million people. (The city of Medina, population 700,000, also forbids non-Muslims.)

...In 1995, incidentally, Saudi money funded the building of an enormous, $50 million mosque in Rome, just a stone's throw from St. Peter's Square.

But how is the media dealing with the situation in Saudi Arabia today? Today it is not a major focus.

The articles above about segregation in Saudi Arabia are from 2001 and 2002. Just as the media today did not publish the Danish cartoons, they are more unlikely to point to issues such as the segregation of women and non-Moslems in Moslem countries--issues which are more likely to be viewed as internal affairs.

Besides, there's always Israel.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Apartheid and Hamas and Islam and Saudi Arabia and Mecca.

Whither the JBlogosphere?

People blog for all sorts of reasons--and more power to them...and to us, since the same of course applies to the JBlogosphere as well. But for those of us who write about current events--on matters Jewish and Israeli--what is our goal?

Through the medium of blogging we expect to:

• share our feelings and frustrations
• share items in the news that may be missed
• critique news items and the people who appear in them
• share our opinions about events in Israel
• open discussion on any number of Jewish issues

But some of us in the US have another goal in blogging, an accomplishment that one occasionally finds in the Blogosphere in general, but not in the JBlogosphere: making the MSM take note and have an impact.

The general Blogosphere has some major victories under its belt:

• making Trent Lott's comments about Strom Thurmond an issue, leading to his resignation as House Speaker
• giving broad exposure to the Swift Boat ads and forcing the MSM to address them, a major blow to Kerry's Presidential campaign
• exposing the Killian documents as forged and forcing the MSM to take note, leading to Dan Rather's early retirement

This in addition to bringing issues of double-standards, hypocrisy, bias, and outright lies to the general public.

We in the JBlogosphere who like to draw attention to the double-standards, hypocrisy, bias, and outright lies found in international relations with and media coverage of Israel--can we ever hope for anything as impressive, or are we limited to preaching to the choir?

The main enemy is the media which sets the agenda and influences public opinion, and even the general Blogosphere does not win every battle against it. Case in point: the Air America scandal (see here and links at bottom of post) has been virtually ignored by the media, though if the issue was a Conservative radio network, one might expect there would be all kinds of coverage.

One could argue that even the successes of the blogosphere need to be taken in context:

• Trent Lott, as a Republican who was attacked by liberal bloggers as well, was an obvious target for the liberal media
• The Swift Boat ads and the Killian documents were issues directly bearing on a Presidential election. Though in both cases the media was reluctant to cover the issues, it was difficult to avoid once the Blogosphere's coverage reached critical mass.

These are exceptions to the general lock that the liberal bias has on the media.

Even with the growing recognition of the Blogosphere, besides the lack of attention to Air America, we still see all kinds of media bias in its coverage of Bush and Iraq as well as domestic issues. But even without being able to dictate what are the headlines that people will see in the press and on TV, the Blogosphere provides a strong alternative source of information for those who are looking for it.

However, regardless of what you think of the potential of the Blogosphere to grow into a force for the MSM to reckon with, and even if the Blogosphere will have growing influence and pressure on the media, it won't help the JBlogopshere.

Why?

First, because no matter how opposed the liberal media is to President Bush in general and US policy in Iraq in particular, when it comes to Israel--Bush and the media are now on the same page.

The media not only supports the Road Map, but after the required perfunctory declarations about Hamas, the media working its way towards supporting the need, if not the obligation, to deal with them.

Secondly, with everything else happening in the world and the pet issues each blogger has, how much attention is really being paid to Israel by the general Blogosphere?

How often does Instapundit cover Israel or has a post about Hamas and its election?

Little Green Footballs is a great exception, but it is still an exception.
Powerline also covers the situation in Israel from time to time--but how many of the big blogs do?

As things stand now:

• The media follows the liberal line in covering Israel.
• The general blogosphere does not cover Israel to the degree it covers other similar issues.
• The general blogosphere occasionally will link to a post in the JBlogosphere, but not often.

If we can barely appear on the Blogosphere radar, how can we expect to get the attention of the general public as a whole, the media, and eventually the elected officials and policy makers?

If Israel is a topic that is not covered by the big blogs in the general blogosphere, what reasonable goals can we set for ourselves, and how do we go about achieving them?

Technorati Tag: Israel and Jews</ a>.

The EU, Reuters, and Fear

Instapundit writes:

MY ADVICE TO CHRISTIANS, JEWS, HINDUS, ETC: Start blowing things up and beheading people. This will gain you enormous solicitude from the powers-that-be

A West Yorkshire head teacher has banned books containing stories about pigs from the classroom in case they offend Muslim children. The literature has been removed from classes for under-sevens at Park Road Junior Infant and Nursery School in Batley.

What the terrorists have gained of course is more than just banned books and no more piggy banks.

Melanie Philips writes about The EU's blood money:

An EU apparatchik has admitted that it pumps money into the Palestinians not because it supports their cause but to prevent Arab and Muslim violence in Europe. The Jerusalem Post reports remarks by the EU Parliamentary President Josep Borrell Fontelles:

‘The EU, which provides the Palestinian Authority with half of the $1 billion in European aid, is not an altruistic player in the Middle East, said Borrell. With its growing Muslim population, Europe is finding that violence in the Middle East leads to unrest within its own borders, he said. "The conflict in the Middle East is dangerous for us. We are not just here, as the good guy who says, please do not fight between you. We need this conflict to be finished because of its impact on life in Europe. "As European society faces the problem of xenophobia, it can destabilize our society," said Borrell explaining that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fuels anti-Semitism, "Islamophobia," and anti-globalization feelings.’

In other words EU support for the Palestinians, which has played quantifiable part in legitimising terror and demonising its Israeli victim, was a kind of blood money, paid to appease a threat which, as is now all too apparent, has merely grown instead.

Of course along similar lines, last year Reuters objected to CanWest's actually calling terrorists...'terrorists'. Honest Reporting quotes the New York Times:

"Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline."

Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations.

"My goal is to protect our reporters and protect our editorial integrity," he said. [emphasis added]

What neither Reuters nor the EU seem to understand is that there are times that protecting your interests can be at the expense of--and not concurrent with--protecting your integrity...and at the expense of encouraging more such attacks.

As Instapundit further notes:

No, I'm not serious about the advice. But they need to think about the incentive that's being created here, or I fear that others will take the lesson. When you reward behavior, you tend to get more of it.

See Without Rhyme or Reason
See It's Not Anti-Semitic If It Rhymes

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Bush's War

President Bush spoke today about the "War on Terror" at the National Endowment for Democracy.

Apparently the speech got a number of favorable reviews in the blogosphere. Instapundit, for one writes about

Bush giving a really first-rate speech on foreign policy and the war to the National Endowment for Democracy. Notable features -- besides its overall clarity -- are the naming of Iran and Syria, and his willingness to talk about a war against Islamic terror, not just generic "terror."

In his speech, Bush mentioned Israel twice in passing. Here is the second reference:

Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.

So according to Bush, the West Bank is an "excuse for violence" and "no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder."

That's all well and good as far as it goes, but Bush is not talking about Palestinian terrorism--he's talking about Islamist terrorism--and since Bush does not connect Palestinian terrorism with Islamist terrorism, he will still be putting pressure on Israel.

Actually, Bush is taking the claim of the Palestinian terrorists ('return the West Bank') and applying it to the Islamist terrorists who in fact proclaim outright that their goal is to destroy Israel. Bush does not mention Palestinian terrorism in his speech.

At the White House web site, if you do a search for "palestinian terrorism" you get 3 hits, none of which include Bush, Cheney, or any White House representative using the term--just the term being used by the the questioner. That's not a scientific survey and may not indicate anything, but I think it may be part of the distinction being made between Palestinian terrorism versus Islamist terrorism as opposed to the equating of Abbas & Company with Iraq's democractic government (which I've mentioned before)--an equation that is patently absurd.

Bottom line, Bush is still buying into the politically correct version of terrorism shared by the world--he may refer to Iran and Syria by name and talk about Islamic terror instead of just terror, but he uses the world "militant" 11 times while using the world "terrorist" 7 times.

In a prepared speech that is supposed to clarify who the enemies of the US are, I think that is odd.

And there is nothing to indicate that Bush is recognizing the mess that is the PA.

Bush is not clarifying, just repackaging.
And putting the same old wine into new bottles isn't making it taste any better.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

When Smiling for the Camera is Not Enough

In my very first blog post, I drew some comparisons of society and politics between Israel and the US which I thought were interesting and ironic.

The very first item on the list was:

The media is liberal and presents news in a way that is slanted against the leader of the country and it's policies.

While they were covering the DC rally against the US presence in Iraq, the MSM came up with the following photo of someone protesting the Abu Ghraib scandal (hat tip to LGF):

That's all fine and good, until of course you take a few steps back and then get the entire picture, courtesty of Getty Images:

Remind you of anything?

Maybe this:

Or this picture from the anti World Trade Organization protest in Cancun:

Honest Reporting points out the following guidelines the New York Times recommends for its journalists:

Photography and Images. Images in our pages that purport to depict reality must be genuine in every way. No people or objects may be added, rearranged, reversed, distorted or removed from a scene (except for the recognized practice of cropping to omit extraneous outer portions). Adjustments of color or gray scale should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction, analogous to the "burning" and "dodging" that formerly took place in darkroom processing of images. Pictures of news situations must not be posed. In the cases of collages, montages, portraits, fashion or home design illustrations, fanciful contrived situations and demonstrations of how a device is used, our intervention should be unmistakable to the reader, and unmistakably free of intent to deceive. Captions and credits should further acknowledge our intervention if the slightest doubt is possible. The design director, a masthead editor or the news desk should be consulted on doubtful cases or proposals for exceptions.[emphasis added]

Does anyone read this stuff?

Just as in Israel we see that terrorists have become "militants" while reporters are now experts on international law and the difference between occupied and disputed territory--now in the US we see comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam and "peace protests" in Washington that we are told should remind us times gone by.

Christopher Hitchens addresses the cynicism--and distortion--in such comparisons by the liberal press. He describes

"International ANSWER," the group run by the "Worker's World" party and fronted by Ramsey Clark, which openly supports Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and the "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Clark himself finding extra time to volunteer as attorney for the génocidaires in Rwanda...the Worker's World Party—Ramsey Clark's core outfit—is the product of a split within the Trotskyist movement. These were the ones who felt that the Trotskyist majority, in 1956, was wrong to denounce the Russian invasion of Hungary. The WWP is the direct, lineal product of that depraved rump.... It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side.

Just like I wrote in my original post, it seems that the US is becoming more and more like Israel all the time.

Update: For a look at how the media itself is manipulated, by the Palestinian Arabas, take a look at Pallywood

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Bush's Call for Freedom: Promise or Threat?

At a dinner this past Wednesday, celebrating "Jewish Life in America," Bush proclaimed:

Our two nations have a lot in common, when you think about it. We were both founded by immigrants escaping religious persecution in other lands. We both have built vibrant democracies. Both our countries are founded on certain basic beliefs, that there is an Almighty God who watches over the affairs of men and values every life. These ties have made us natural allies, and these ties will never be broken. (Applause.)

Earlier today, I met in New York with Prime Minister Sharon and the Ambassador. I admire Prime Minister Sharon. He's a man of courage; he's a man of peace. (Applause.) Once again, I expressed this nation's commitment to defending the security and well-being of Israel. (Applause.) I also assured him that I will not waver when it comes to spreading freedom around the world. I understand -- (applause) -- I understand this, that freedom is not America's gift to the world; freedom is an Almighty God's gift to each man and woman and child in this world. (Applause.) [emphasis mine]

So far, so good. I mean, after all, how can you argue with "I will not waver when it comes to spreading freedom around the world"? Every country deserves to live free from oppression, whether it is the oppression of its own rulers or from other countries.

No argument there.

But, as Instapundit has often noted, democracy is a process, not an event. The election of Abbas was quite an 'event', noted for irregularities and corruption by Jeff Jacoby, Myths and Facts and the Jerusalem Post. But what about the process that follows?

The point was made by the Iraqi Blog Democracy in Iraq:

If they want a new future, they have to start new. I honestly dont know how they can do this, but my hope is that other nations can somehow help them like they have helped us. They should make a peace period with Israelis, maybe Israelis can help them? I dont think this is realistic though honestly, because there is too much hatred between Israeli and Palestinian. (emphasis mine)

But has the US helped the Palestinian Arabs in the same way they have helped Iraq? Sure, the money was (and continues to be) given, but why is it that in Abbas' case, the US is acting so differently in implementing its plan for "spreading freedom around the world".

The US has made a point of being actively involved in advising Iraqis on the steps to take towards developing their constitution and government. So the question is whether in the case of the Palestinian Arabs--who unlike Iraq have no history, background, or experience in running a country--have US advisors accomplished or changed anything, or have the same corrupt resources and infrastructure already in place been used to put together Abbas' government?

Why is it that in Iraq Bush puts Saddam's cronies on playing cards and hunts them down while when it comes to the PA, he encourages Arafat's former cronies to hold positions of power and supports them?

Back in June 2002, Bush called for new Palestinian leadership:

I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts. If the Palestinian people meet these goals, they will be able to reach agreement with Israel and Egypt and Jordan on security and other arrangements for independence.

And when the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbors, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East. (emphasis mine)

Are those leaders uncompromised by terror? Does anyone associate the words 'democracy', 'tolerance', or 'liberty' with the PA?

Freedom is a process, not a steamroller. If in his blind rush to spread democracy Bush is willing to blindly empower a group--led and patrolled by terrorists--that seeks and inculcates the destruction of the very country it is supposed to be living in peace with well, then, Bush's promise not to "waver when it comes to spreading freedom around the world" may very well be not a promise, but a threat: a threat to Israel and everything Bush claims to be trying to achieve.

As Diana West writes in the Washington Times:

The fact that burning synagogues failed even to singe the secretary of state's assessment of diplomatic success and effective statecraft is nothing less than chilling. But maybe it reflects our arrival at a cold, new reality that calls into question administration attitudes toward long-standing American motives and goals in the Middle East.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

A Thought: Pipefish Need Better Hasbara

On Sunday we all went to the Adventure Aquarium in Camden, NJ. When going through one of the exhibits, I noticed a stira between two of the exhibits.

One of them said that the sea horse and the Pipefish are the only two species where the male is the one that gives birth.

Later, at another exhibit, the sign said that only by sea horses is the male able to give birth.

If in a aquarium, which is put together by experts in the field, cannot keep their facts consistent, what hope is there for the media, where people have no real expertise in the history and background of the areas they are sent to cover.

The people who put together the aquarium have no agenda; we can't say the same about the New York Times.

As I was writing this post, I think I figured out the issue. It turns out that pipefish belong to the same family as the seahorse.

Seems like the name 'sea horse' is sometimes used generically to cover other groups.

Kind of like the term 'Palestinian.'

UPDATE

Instapundit has the following from The New York Times

Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.

If people lack a basic awareness of concrete facts, what hope is there that they will understand such things as the difference between "Occupation" and "Disputed Territories" or the history of "Palestine"? The Palestinian Arabs' propaganda works primarily on the gut emotional level, with "facts" thrown in afterwards.

The sort of things that can fit on a bumper sticker.

We are just getting past the point where our hasbara just fits in a small book.

Technorati Tag: Israel

A Tale of Two Democracies

From the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page

Indifferent to Democracy
Why the Arab world roots for American failure in Iraq.
BY MICHAEL YOUNG Friday, August 19, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

As the U.S. stumbles in Iraq, many in the Arab world (but also in the American academic left and isolationist right) have solemnly, at times pleasurably, described the situation as fitting retribution for "neocolonialism." The debate on America's imperial calling, particularly in the Middle East, is surely absorbing; yet from an Arab perspective, particularly that of the region's liberals, far more essential than how a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq might smash the Bush administration's hubris is the misfortune it will visit on Arabs striving for change.

Even assuming that carelessness long ago derailed American democratization ambitions in Iraq, failure will, at the very least, push democracy to a far lower rung of regional priorities. This will be a boon to the security-minded Arab regimes that most feared a regional democratic transformation in the first place. And those of the Iraq war's critics who, legitimately, bemoaned Washington's coddling of Arab dictators (but then refused to endorse the exception to the rule in Iraq) may one day see this or a subsequent administration again prefer the steadiness of tyrants to the wishy-washiness of Arab societies that seem to hate the U.S. far more dependably than they do their own lack of liberty.

Conceptually and politically, the Iraqi situation has shown the Arab world and its intellectuals at their stalemated worse. As an idea, the "neocolonial" paradigm is intriguing, because, rhetorically, it goes back decades to when Arab nationalism was at its peak. In holding to a storyline that the Iraqi conflict reflects an Arab desire for release from American hegemony, Arab critics are resurrecting an intellectual phantom. As Iraqis have fallen back on sect, tribe or ethnic loyalties, they have further demolished the myth of an all-encompassing Arab identity that, everywhere in the region, must dissolve primary identities. What the critics won't admit is that Iraq is yet another graveyard of Arab nationalism, not its avatar.


Glenn Reynolds of instapundit.com is fond of saying that democracy is a process, not an event, and historically a long-term process at that. But considering the differences between the road to democracy by Palestinian Arabs as opposed to the Iraqis--the ongoing corruption that did not die with Arafat, the 'justice' arbitrarily being meted out by members of Fatah, the censorship and intimidation (and recently: kidnapping) of journalists--what is going on now in Abbas' democracy is a sham that indeed is a return to the policy of dealing with a 'strongman' (an odd choice of words when referring to Abbas). And it is all the more ludicrous when the 'strongman' fools no one--except for the West that seems more tolerant and more willing to see the success of democracy in the PA than in Iraq, a West that is cynical of including Baathists in the new government in Iraq, but does not blink at the inclusion of terrorists and gunmen under Abbas.

Again, perhaps the biggest difference in the two experiments is that for the US, their experiment is halfway across the world; for Israel it is in their backyard. And Iraq is just down the block.