The Palestinian Code Of Honor

"St Mark Freeing a Christian Slave" by Tintoretto 1548, Accademia, Venice

 

My friend JoshuaPundit is quite rightly enraged about the meeting that took place between U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the leader of Tanzim, the so called 'military arm' of Abbas' Fatah. He asks: "Anybody remember a certain US president saying, `You're either with the terrorists or with us'?"

Because the Bush Administration wants to look good and curry favor with people like the Saudis and the EU and continue to flush more taxpayer dollars down the Palestinian rathole without actually breaking US law by funding a terrorist government, they are actively working to subvert the Palestinian democracy by supporting Arafat II because he's better at hiding his real agenda - the elimination of Israel.

This kind of hypocrisy is disgusting on every level. Not to mention damaging to our war effort.

So let’s catch up on the background here. As I have said before: The militants from both Fatah and Hamas are hell bent unstoppable on their way to have their prolonged bloodshed. Hamas is in power, Fatah is lurking in the shadows, but make no mistake about it, they are both terrorist organizations, period. Their purpose is the destruction of Israel; to them all Palestinian men are Jihadists, all boys future supplies for the course; women necessary to keep the cycle going. So, don't give me the old toffee about Hamas' charitable work and allegedly incorruptible track record, and Fatah’s wish to legitmize terrorism as their newly elected opposition has. Yeah right.

Arafat's entire life was dedicated to keep the violence going. The West periodically mixed in their pet conspiracies, charging Israel at various stages that it equally wished the violence to continue. Poppycock.

This whole charade is built on logic best illustrated by this statement: "And since Hamas is bad, Abbas must be good." Eh?

Caroline Glick, one of my very favorite no nonsense journalists at The Jerusalem Post, publishes a while back one of her classic 'tell it like it is' op-ed pieces, and bursts that bubble:

Unfortunately, Abbas is a terrorist too.

Abbas has pocketed the money, arms and legitimacy that Olmert, the Bush administration and the EU have given him and proceeded to buck up his terrorist credentials. He appointed Mahmoud Damra, a top Fatah terrorist as the commander of his personal army Force 17. Damra is wanted by Israel for his direct involvement in the murders of scores of Israelis since 2001.

Abbas took the thousands of rifles and millions of rounds of ammunition the US gave him last month and had his security chief Muhammad Dahlan issue a joint call with Hamas for the murder of all Palestinians suspected of assisting Israel in its counter-terror operations.

He has been negotiating a blueprint for war - authored by jailed Fatah mass murderer Marwan Barghouti - with Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and has been touting the document as a peace plan.

And, his Fatah organization is as responsible for Sunday's strike against Israel as Hamas. The Popular Resistance Committees, a Fatah front group that also includes Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists claims to be holding Cpl. Shalit. Fatah has threatened to attack Israel with chemical and biological weapons and to renew shooting attacks on neighborhoods in southern Jerusalem if the IDF launches a major operation in Gaza.

But none of this can be acknowledged because acknowledging that Abbas is a terrorist would mean acknowledging that empowering him means empowering terrorists.

In case of any lingering doubts regarding the true nature of Fatah and their abysmal track record, check out JoshuaPundit link above listing them all.

So what the hell are we doing meeting with terrorists? And when are we going to stop shoving millions of Dollars of tax payers money down the gullets of Palestinian officials so that they can carry on spitting in Israel's face, and calling for its destruction? End this charade now and break up the evil. Stop worrying about public opinion in the West - it's a no-win effort anyway. Kill the cancer dead now, once and for all. And for goodness sake stand by your word of not dealing with terrorists, stop worrying about PC, before we lose our honor as well as our freedom.

Comments

[mac Brachman]

The phrase "low dishonest decade," btw, is of course from W.H. Auden's poem "September 1, 1939," which was widely cited in the aftermath of 9/11 as it was, of course, in homage to a date (the German and Soviet invasion, from opposite directions, of Poland, which automatically meant a state of war as Poland had a defense treaty with both Great Britain and France) when the Western democracies could no longer live in denial and realize that, whatever their internecine differences, they were at war (actual war, not metaphorical or figurative), whether they liked it or not, with single-minded and ruthless forces that wished to destroy them and all they represented. I can provide the full text of this now-more-timely-than-ever poem if anybody on the blog is interested, although it is available with about 2 seconds' research on Google or any other reputable search engine. Shalom, Mac Brachman

[mac Brachman]

Sorry, in the last post in the last sentence I meant to write "the fractious parties of the Western nations [not parties]"... Shalom, Mac Brachman

[mac Brachman]

Ariel: Point well taken; see also Gringoman's posts and replies to me on the other thread. But as far as the law in most jurisdictions is concerned, ephebophilia and pedophilia represent a distinction without a difference; 10-year-olds and 16-year-olds (in most jurisdictions) are both under the age of consent. I guess what my difference with Gringoman is about is that in my opinion it's none of our business what consenting adults (humans; I find the very idea of bestiality disgusting) choose to do behind closed doors, and there is no empirical evidence that perverts of a homosexual bent are more morally depraved than those of a heterosexual bent. Charles Roberts was a heterosexual pedophile, or ephebophile, or something. If he had confined his proclivities to the fantasty realm in his bedroom, and not acted out his aggressions, that would have been fine. As it was, he felt himself aggrieved, and committed an unforgiveable act (I know the Amish, quasi-pacifists that they are, feel differently about this and are on record with the news media as forgiving him for his cold-blooded slaughter of little girls). His sin was murder and perhaps, before that, child abuse (although the female relatives he claimed in his suicide note to his wife to have abused denied that the abuse had occurred), not his orientation. Mark Foley was (is) gay; that is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned, but his harassment, bordering on stalking, of underage pages was the point where, as a libertarian like Alexandra herself would famously say, his personal rights ended and the civil rights of others were violated. This is aside from the issue of the Republican leadership in the U.S. House knowing about this for months or years and choosing to sweep it under the rug. I won't play the partisan game here; leaving aside sexual issues, both Democrats and Republicans behave in a depraved manner when they think only of 1) gaining or holding onto power for its own sake and 2) attacking the other side with every sort of below-the-belt canard they can dream up (see the front page of today's WaPo (Fri. 10/6/06 for more on the current campaign tactics of each side). I think we will look back on the aughts (the decade of 2000-2009, or 2001-2010 if you believe decades go 1 to 0 rather than 0 to 9) as a "low dishonest decade" to paraphrase W.H. Auden's description of the '30s, the decade when evil forces were marshalling for an assault on liberal democracies and human decency and the fractious parties of the Western parties did nothing but bicker and seek narrow, petty, short-term advantages against one another.
Shalom, Mac Brachman

[Ghost Dansing]

"We have made and continue to make remarkable progress in Iraq. We have made ENORMOUS strides toward establishing the ability of that nation to independently secure law and order in MOST areas of that country. Our boys AND the Iraqi's have put their VERY LIVES on the line to accomplish this. I know that GHOST didn't appreciate it, but I figured that that was because it didn't suit his politics, but a blog called Soldiers Dad is up on the real stats of this war."

Hmmm...must have made the wrong turn at Pluto... this isn't Earth anymore Toto!

"I despise the liberal media for hating conservative values more than they love the incredible riches of freedom that we enjoy in this great country. I despise them their tactics and their deplorable lack of humility and lack of gratitude,.."

Liberals love Freedom... it would seem our authoriarian "conservatives" are the ones with the issue with our Liberal Constitution.

http://www.comw.org/pda/0609br18.html

[Kenny]

Never mind, you answered the question on the other thread. Thanks.

[Kenny]

Ariel,

Um, could you be more specific in your antecedents? "I could not allow this to stand" -- what is this "this" to which you're referring. I don't remember any mention of pedophilia other than the discussion over on a different thread about whether or not Mohammed was a pedophile by virtuing of consummating his marriage to Aisha when she was nine years old. Whom are you refuting?

Just curious because I'm not following your train of thought there.

[Ariel]

This is one of the more erudite blogs, so I could not allow this to stand. Foley is not a pedophile by this evidence, creep yes, pedophile no. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent and pubescent children, predominately the former. The attraction to adolescents is called ephebophilia. It is vastly different than pedophilia.

[jess1dering]

You know, I just don't see it. It seems to me that the current administration knows FULL WELL the danger of Islamofascism. It seems to me that they have been expressing that reality steadily , only to be met with accusations of intolerance , fear mongering , politicizing, and the list goes on and on. Anything to make them look klbad,. Alexandra refers to the PC effort as " no win , anyway" and I couldn't agree with her more. It seems to me that this president, who has taken incredibly courageous steps ,ones that fly in the face of political correctness, continues to be treated in a brutally unfair way by the media. He is up against an overwhelming force that distorts and lies and WILL NOT extend credit to him in any way shape or form. And they ARE winning the propaganda war.
We have made and continue to make remarkable progress in Iraq. We have made ENORMOUS strides toward establishing the ability of that nation to independently secure law and order in MOST areas of that country. Our boys AND the Iraqi's have put their VERY LIVES on the line to accomplish this. I know that GHOST didn't appreciate it, but I figured that that was because it didn't suit his politics, but a blog called Soldiers Dad is up on the real stats of this war.
I despise the liberal media for hating conservative values more than they love the incredible riches of freedom that we enjoy in this great country. I despise them their tactics and their deplorable lack of humility and lack of gratitude,

[Red Violin]

In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal Dr. Rice Said:

So one of the things that we have to do is we have to increase our capability to mine resources and intelligence about Iran. And one of the challenges that we have is we haven’t been in the country for 26 years. And you would be surprised what it does to both your diplomatic and intelligence capability to not be in the country. One of the things that we’ve done – you will not believe this. The Department of State did not have an Iran desk, did not have an Iran desk. Why? Because we didn’t have relations with Iran. So why would you have an Iran desk if you didn’t have relations with it? Well, the first thing we did is we created an Iran desk...Read the entire interview.

The Islamic Republic has waged war on America in many ways and fronts except direct military invasion and they have been shouting "Death to America" for 27 years and we haven't had an Iran desk all these years? How is this possible? What part of Death to America, people don't understand?

[Saul Davis]

Alexandra: Thank you for another profound post; interesting coincidence -- I had read the Joshua pundit article before I read your article here. I believe that one of the most significant problems involved in this clear hypocritical behavior by Sec'y Rice and the President is a lack of understanding of what we are dealing with. While there can be, no doubt that there are Muslims who are inherently opposed to Islamists (I would believe that such Muslims generally are those who have been completely modernized and really do not follow the basic tenets of Islam propounded by the Islamists -- although there may be exceptions), it is imperative that we understand the philosophy behind radical Islam, and, more importantly, the manner in which Islamists, and other Muslims behave, think and act.

Is there in fact a firm belief in Islam that there must be a return of the Caliphate? If the answer is yes (which I believe it is) then there is no logical basis for negotiations with, and/or support of those nations and people who hold that belief. Such support is nothing less than cultural suicide, because Western civilization and the freedoms we possess are completely anathema with the concept of the Caliphate.

If that is the case, why are we supporting those who firmly believe that Western Civilization is a cancer that must be eradicated? Why do we support those who believe the United States is the "Great Satan," which they believe must be eradicated at all costs for a Claiphate to be able to come into existence? The answer would appear to be a complete lack of understanding of Muslim/Islamist thinking. There have been many publications and articles on these topics. One that I found to be right on point is a recent article by the rants and raves blogspot. He is someone who has lived in Saudi Arabia, and has traveled and lived in many European countries. He has dealt with Islamists, and has seen first hand how they act and think. I believe that it is worthwhile for all Americans to read his article regarding his experience in Saudi Arabia, and the difference between Westerners and Islamists. The URL is:
http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2006/09/observations-on-arabs.html

After reading that article, the only explanation for Sec'y Rice's conduct here, is that she, and the President, have been sold a "bill of goods" by the Arabists at State. The difficulty is that the consequences of that sale possess ramifications significantly greater than those Sec'y Rice could ever dream of.

[Pastorius]

Alexandra,

A lot of people are familiar with the Hamas Charter and its calls for Jews to be murdered.

But, did you know that the official UN website of the Palestinian Authority, to this day, contains the original PLO Charters (written in 1964 and 1968 respectively) calling for the destruction of the state of Israel?

Here's a link:

http://www.palestine-un.org/plo/frindex.html

[Ghost Dansing]

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 5 — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held talks here today with the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to offer support for efforts to bring stability to the country.

Ms. Rice’s visit came a day after American military and Iraqi government officials said that the Iraqi Interior Ministry had suspended an entire Iraqi police brigade on suspicions that some members may have permitted, or even participated in, death squad killings.

Maliki, as you may recall, is the head of the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad that condemned Israel and failed to address hisballa in the latest war in Lebanon.

Interestingly, Times Magazine wrote: Analysis: As it grapples with the problem of Hizballah in Lebanon, the Bush Administration's hopes of stabilizing Iraq may depend on its ability to entice or force Iraq's own equivalent — the Mehdi Army — to disarm.

So, what's not to like about Dubya's Foreign Policy? What happened to the "...with us or against us..." theory of this Republican Party?

Oh? They can't deliver? Surprise surprise... it was all rhetoric.

Meanwhile:

Washington – The commanding general of multinational forces in Iraq says there has been a noticeable increase in Iran’s support for Iraqi insurgents since January.

Army General George Casey told reporters at the Pentagon June 22 that covert Iranian special forces are adding to the complexity of an unstable security situation in Iraq by providing weapons, roadside bomb technology and training to Shi’ite extremist groups.

Casey returned to Washington from Iraq to brief Defense Department officials and others on Iraq’s progress. Appearing with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the general said Iranian assistance to Iraqi insurgents is “decidedly unhelpful.” He said Iran is using surrogate groups to attack Iraqi, U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and that some of the surrogates are being trained in Iran, while others are receiving training in Lebanon.

http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2006/Jun/23-365669.html

Foreign Policy? What Foreign Policy?

[nofate]

I found this short article by Douglas Farah at the Couterterrorism blog, "The teachings of al Banna and Qutb are clear and unequivocal in their call to rebuild the caliphate and attack unbelievers. This is jihad as warfare, and understood as such from the very beginning.

That is one of the interesting ways people like Tariq Ramadan, Sami al Arian and ohters try to evade responsibility for what they teach and believe. They try to pass off the real interpretation of their texts as figments of the imagination of people in the West who do not grasp the nuances of Islam. But there are no nuances there. Al Suri understood that, which is why he was able to identify the jihadist movements so effectively that led to the creation of al Qaeda and beyond." as I was getting ready to reply.

Then I read the article by Amil Imani. This is a MUST READ. Thank you Red Violin. It covers so much ground so quickly, that it's hard to know where to start. But what I was starting out to get at, is that I am learning that there really are "moderate" muslims out there who really do take the spiritual aspects of Islam to heart. The problem of course is that they are systematically targeted by their fellow islamists for various horrible atrocities for which death may sometimes be a release. This is hard for a midwestern non-world traveler to comprehend, much less understand.
Kenny has seen this firsthand, as has Red Violin and many others, as I am finding out in the Daniel Pipes book I am reading. It's just that it's hard to know if the Muslim you are meeting is moderate or islamist, as I have also learned that they practice deception and fitting into the society they are living in as taught by the Quran. And sheilding themseves within a civilian population is no problem either, witness Lebanon. Also the takeover of Iran through subterfuge, just as Hitler did. I am beginning to fear that that is what is happening in Iraq, and we are not seeing it in time. Daniel Pipes addresses this in his book too, and gives chilling statistics of the hundreds of thousands of dead Muslims in the countries targeted by these islamofascist orginizations, like Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Indonesia, the Phillipines. It is incomprehensible the amount of human suffering these people are willing to create in order to achieve their "idealist caliphate" ends. As Kenny says, What is of primary importance is not the establishment of the voting franchise, but of the safety of the individual citizen from violence and fraud, especially violence or fraud motivated by Islamic fanaticism.
When our government wakes up to the non-PC fact that these people are world wide and bent on taking over, then we may see the pandering to groups like CAIR end and more attention paid to true "moderate" Muslims, like Amil Imani, who have openly risked their lives to denounce the policies and actions of the islamists, based on a more spiritually uplifting interpretaion of the Quran, or sometimes complete renunciation of it. Unfortunately, at this time, we are possibly wasting precious American blood on what may well turn out to be a kick in the head like none we have ever gotten before.
And, as an aside, if this latest dem effort to divide and conquer to bring down GWB succeeds and further leads to their victory in '08, the kick will come even harder. Although Bush has not awakened to what is really going on yet, I still hold out hope that he does have that ability. I'm still hopeful that some of their policy decisions are politically driven, and I'm not quite ready to go with the "chimpy tag" yet. When they started, they were "outside the box", and surprised even the islamists by the aggressive response. But it is time for re-evaluation of strategy and tactics base on an avalanche of new information and intelligence about the characteristics of the enemy we are dealing with.

[Red Violin]

Democracy -- which is an attempt to give individuals political power -- is no solution to the Middle East's problems. Individual political, religious and economic freedom and security, absolutely are.

Dear Kenny: I'm an Iranian ex-pat whose country went through exactly this kind of transformation process you mention leading up to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. But in the end the most fascists element (i.e. Islamists) filled the power vaccum and eliminated and deceived all the progressives intellectuals through extrajudicial executions, torturing and mass kidnapping. The whereabouts of many are still unknown to this date and the families of those who were murdered still don't know where their loved one are buried. The revolution was not about Islam. Those who nurtured the revolution for more than 15 years were mostly progressive and seculars who wanted more freedom and liberty not theocratic tyranny. They were fooled by Khomeini's antics and promises when he stated that he is not interested in running the government and he would only be a spiritual leader and if you remember the first two years after the revolution, Iran had a secular government. Since coming to existence twenty-seven years ago, the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini set the stage for absolute power through creating chaos and crisis. Chaos and crises have emerged as the new policy of the Islamic Republic. At the beginning of the revolution, while Iranian people were getting ready to obliterate Khomeini and his Islamic lackeys, the American hostage crisis and their captivity took place. This was much needed crises for Khomeini and his gang to suppress the Iranian people’s aspirations for greater freedom, while challenging the “Great Satan”, which helped to solidify their position among the poor and most Muslim countries.
This chaos and crises escalated for eight more years as Iraqis launched a surprised attack on Iran . As President select Ahmadinejad himself stated, this war was a blessing from God. This crucial eight year war with Iraq allowed the Islamic Republic to take shape while continuing fabrications, lies, harassment, arrests, murders and intimidation of the Iranian people. If Saddam had not attacked Iran , more than likely, the Islamic regime would have collapsed at its early stages. After all, people did not sacrifice their children so that they could have a tyrannical Islamic cult to rule over them.
After the war, the Islamic Republic continued its brutal purges, killing anyone perceived as opponent. The tyrannical and brutal regime imposed and forced millions of Iranians to run away from their homeland. The war left behind hundreds of thousands of Iranians dead or homeless. Now, the Islamic Republic needed another reason for chaos and crises to continue its mission of creating an Islamic nation. What better choice other than diverting the attention to the most detested nation by the Muslims in the heart of the Arab world, the State of Israel which has been involved in a conflict with the Palestinians for half a century!
When the revolution went sour and her children grew up, the Khomeini’s dream of making Iran a pure form of an Islamic nation collapsed. It simply backfired on the Islamists. The vast majority of the population had already written them off, but the regime refused to leave peacefully. Again, anytime they were on the verge of extinction, they created new or renewed chaos and crises.
Khomeini and his supporters learned from the Stalinist techniques of establishing informers in every neighborhood. This, coupled with fierce punishments for suspected traitors and their families, created a fear among the population that made rebellion difficult. More importantly, it created a group of thugs, torturers and secret policemen who were hated by the population. This hate was good for the leaders of the Islamic regime, for it ensured the loyalty of these henchmen, these foreign thugs.
Ayatollah Khomeini was a harsh and brutal tyrant. His mission was to purge pre-Islamic vestiges and to create a true Islamic nation, something his heir Ayatollah Ali Khamenehi and his loyal disciple President Ahmadinejad dreamed about. With the selection of Mohammad Khatami in August 1997 as the Iranian president, the world and especially European countries started appeasement policies, ignoring all the warning signs by the Iranian oppositions abroad. This gave the Islamic regime eight more precious years to secretly research and development of their Islamic bomb. The regime has emptied out the wealth of the nation in developing the most devastating bomb, the nuclear bomb and the missiles to deliver them while more than 40% of Iranians live below poverty line and they have to import 40% (I think 10 billion a year) gas and jet fuel because despite the revenues being poured into Khameni's bank account, the Islamic Republic has not invested in the technonogy need to refine the crude oil. All the Islami movements in the Arab world including Sunni Islamists movement has been financed and supported for the past 27 years by the IRI in hopes of establishing an Islamic caliphite--according the shia doctrine, if you don't do this, you're not a good or true muslim.

The Iraq war did not have to take place when it did. The war in Iraq has been mismanaged every step of the way and the adminstration is just beginning to realize what they're up against and have done a few things right lately...this utter incompetence and lack of foresight has contributed to Islamization of the region and practically eliminated all the secular and nascent democratic movements taking shape albeit at an incremental pace...I don't have a solution but I know one thing for certain, We can't leave Iraq until we find a solution how to neutralize the Islamic Republic of Iran's influence in the region. I apologize in advance for the long post.

[Olaf]

Alexandra,

I'm not sure that I completely agree that we can break off all relations with everyone in any way associated with terrorism in the middle east, or we'd literally have no one to talk to.

It's not about being PC, but about trying to figure out practical solutions through supporting those elements of these groups which reject terrorism (however small) and attempting to politically alienate those who are directly involved or tacitly sanction terrorism. Having said that, I definitely do see your point; perhaps I'm just naive.

So, don't give me the old toffee about Hamas' charitable work

This is bang on in my opinion. Would the left be so quick to excuse the KKK if they periodically spearheaded a food drive? Probably not.

[Kenny]

>
At this juncture we cannot afford to support and push for democratization of the ME. The region is too unstable and any attempt toward liberalization will result in victory of militant Islam in all secular and moderate arab countries because the Islamists are the only organized political party with resources and ideological foundations to win a democratic election.
>

Red Violin, that is true -- but then the focus should never have been on the "democratization" of the Middle East, but on its liberalization. What is of primary importance is not the establishment of the voting franchise, but of the safety of the individual citizen from violence and fraud, especially violence or fraud motivated by Islamic fanaticism. A country full of people who can vote but who can also be murdered by private militia is not free; a country full of people who cannot vote but who live in safety and with economic freedom, is free, in the only sense that fundamentally matters. The vote is of no value in itself and represents no fundamental human right; its value lies in its proven utility as the generally best available mechanism for maintaining individual human rights once they have been won. Woodrow Wilson, in running around carrying on about "making the world safe for democracy" rather than "making the world safe for free men," was an ass; and Dubya's failure either to make the distinction clear or else to emphasize much more dramatically the "freedom" element of "democracy," is in my mind a very serious failure indeed.

Democracy -- which is an attempt to give individuals political power -- is no solution to the Middle East's problems. Individual political, religious and economic freedom and security, absolutely are. In the long run, of course the individual freedom and security cannot be secure until the political power has been transferred to the hands of a mature democracy, giving the mass of individual citizens the power as well as the freedom and security. But to think the fundamental task is to establish democracy rather than liberty -- or to be sufficiently muddleheaded as to think the two terms are synonymous, rather than the first being merely one of the available means to the end constituted by the second -- is, I repeat, to be an ass.

[Red Violin]

"the final aim of all islamists is the same: 'the construction of a totalitarian, theocratic state.'" And another Muslim anti-islamist: "Moderate fundamentalists do not exist... It's like talking about a moderate Nazi."(my emphasis). Until our leaders learn this, we are still playing the islamists game.

Spot on, nofate. Islam is synonymous with totalitarianism of the deadliest kind because it involves "Religion" and renders logic and independent thinking, and politics subservient, impotent and un-islamic. I think the adminstration realizes the threat on an intellectual level but it's too uncomfortable to contemplate and internalize the magnitude of the conflict and the ensuing ramifications on an emotional level.
....
At this juncture we cannot afford to support and push for democratization of the ME. The region is too unstable and any attempt toward liberalization will result in victory of militant Islam in all secular and moderate arab countries because the Islamists are the only organized political party with resources and ideological foundations to win a democratic election. The playing fields are not level for all parties and factions to have enough time to demonstrate and convince people of other alternatives to Islamic theocracy.

The Islam Conundrum

[Kenny]

Hear, hear. This administration's refusal to speak plainly and openly on behalf of the politically oppressed Arabs who are the very people upon whom the President's whole strategy depends, will I think be the one point more than any other that causes historians to consider that the Chimpy tag was a reasonable approximation of Dubya's true level of intelligence.

Rice continues to fall in my estimation.

My Arab friends tell me that "moderate" Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa generally like the individual Americans they know, and detest terrorists ("when I look in a Christian's eyes, I see life; when I look in a jihadist's eyes, I see death," in one Moroccan Muslim's memorable phrasing). But they by and large detest the American government, for the American government's support of Israel but also for the American government's support of vile and corrupt Arab regimes. A couple of years back, when the Arab world thought Bush was actually serious about the whole democracy thing, there was a relatively widespread sense that perhaps this President might really be serious about it. I have the impression that disillusionment has set back in, precisely because the cowards (I refer to Bush and Rice) absolutely will not speak up for the politically silenced in Egypt and Tunisia and the like. Our refusal to support those oppressed for calling for exactly what we pretend to call for, devastatingly undercuts our attempts to pretend that we are acting out of principle rather than out of sheer self-interest. If we were men and women of principle we would not remain silent.

[nofate]

As usual, our governmental guardians of the faith seem to be at least a step behind. Daniel Pipes, in Militant Islam Reaches America, p. 47, quotes the anti-islamist president of Tunisia: "the final aim of all islamists is the same: 'the construction of a totalitarian, theocratic state.'" And another Muslim anti-islamist: "Moderate fundamentalists do not exist... It's like talking about a moderate Nazi."(my emphasis). Until our leaders learn this, we are still playing the islamists game.