So we have a real election for the Palestinians and they throw out the crooks and thugs that have been stealing them blind for the last 40 years - and that is a bad thing? And now the "revolutionaries" who love to parade and chat have to pick up the garbage and run the state. But now, they are responsible and have to accept the consequences of their actions and (overheated) rhetoric. Seems like a improvement to me.

Both sides are playing the rug market game now - staking out their positions so that they can bargain. "I won't talk to you if you don't change your ways" and "No dealing with the occupiers" Yawn. Give them time and they will find a formula to talk and get things done. It always works that way.

The fundamental point is that the only way that the Middle East is going to change is to empower the people in the region so that they can exercise some control. This has not happened for the last 50 years (or 50 centuries) and now things are starting to change as people realize that they do have a voice. It is not going to happen (as Mr. Cole seems to imply) by the munificent devolution of power from the ruling elite to the unwashed masses. It is happening because the idea of having a democracy is beginning to take hold in the region.

I just get so discouraged when the only perspective in an article seems to be generated by BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). I don’t remember the part where every short term event has to be “positive” to change the system for the better – sometimes you need movement in the opposite direction for a while to find the path through the maze. So now we have the snake devouring the rat, but in the long term maybe that will lead to a situation (to make the long winded analogy) where the crop isn’t eaten in the fields before it is grown. Maybe then we can end up improving the harvest (and the region)

Sometimes change may not be what you want - but that does not mean it can't be good.

There has been a lot of discussion about trying to frame the cartoon issue as "Freedom of Speach" versus "Religious Law" or some variation on this them (Enlightenment viewpoint of self-critism versus Respect for religious sensitivities). These may be side issues or good arguing points, but what this whole controversy is about is just ....Power. Power to intimidate, power to silence, power to dominate. The same as you see in the middle east against choice, against women, against foreign ideas and beliefs.

To summarize and to put things into perspective - This whole issue started when a Danish Newspaper requested cartoonists to draw pictures of Mohammed after the editor found out a woman author could not get anyone to draw pictures in a children's book on the life of Mohammed due to fear. The idea was to show that pictures could be drawn. This was in September. Danish Imams protested and began circulating the pictures in the Middle East with "enhancements" - ie, additional pictures that were not in the publication that were truly offensive - pigs heads on the Prophet and so forth. (All this informaton was presented on a recent (Feb 4) BBC Hardtalk program with the Danish Editor and the Imam in question)

Now we have embassies burned in Damascus and the cartoonists in hiding and people carrying "Behead those who Insult Islam" in London. And lots of Danish Flags burned (so much for respect for Christian symbols too - there is a white cross on that flag)

But back to the point - this whole issue was set up to inflame the Muslim world one more time against "injustice" from the West. To move the "acceptable criticism" point further down the field and to insure that any issue related to middle eastern politics or behavior is a closely intwined with Islam as possible. This muzzles the critics due to fear of a similar outburst and gives the "religious elders" the whip hand in threatening to stir up a similar tempest. And if you protest - why, then you must be anti-Islamic!

Power ....and Submission. This is the great game in the middle east and it is being played out on your TV set. Watch as the debate is shifted to "sensitivity" and "respect" away from "challenge and defend". The question really is, when will someone say "Not Here!"?