brilliant, logical, reasoned and very forgiving. i think he appreciates that i don't hide - i kept my same handle, which doesn't hide my personna. and after a while, he let me come back. i think he appreciates honest perseverence (unlike the hillary kind). but i cannot truly know his motivations - only that he HAS to be a jew, not an arab. could you imagine a non-jew defending his enemies because of some (i think foolishly wrong-headed) love of honesty fairness and principle? and Arab??? when has an Arab EVER defended a jew - ever. when have YOU! instead you wish me ill in some ill-thought out sentence. listen to yourself - "if only the god of Israel were really the guy you think he is, you'd be in for a world of pain." this could NEVER come out of a Jew's mouth - it's just ill-will noise. as for "slimeballs like this on either side make life hell for the rest of humanity that just wants to live in peace" - you haven't realized the difference between thought, speech and action. you ought to get out of your house once in a while - but then perhaps your handle is actually your HOPE!

That's what's been fired into Israel. And they're the bad guys because they build bomb shelters so that their children aren't killed. None the less since the Hamas have stated point blank a reiteration of the Kartoum conference's "3 No's" - no peace, no recognition, no negotiation, it's hard to see what anyone can do with Hamas.

Have you ever read the Hamas Charter?

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

(I can hardly wait for the Salonistas to tell me the US Constitution is a contract for Genocide and nothing more, too.)

The tragedy is that such mindless, over-the-top bluster works with a public too stupid to exercise reasoned control over our politics.

Hillary's outburst, that she would "obliterate" 70 million Iranians in defense of Israel, should have raised an uproar, and cost her votes--she has no business taking 3 am phone calls, and such comments only inflame the hatred the Muslm world holds for us--but if anything, it helped her candidacy.

This also underscores the complete hold Israel and its US supporters have on our politics--through money and media control, candidates treble at the mention of Israel, and fall all over themselves trying to show that they too kneel to kiss the Israeli ring.

Yup, I was using "quibble" in its ordinary sense, which is how you took it. We could have a much longer discussion about this, which maybe we can pick up in a future thread.

My reservations about "threat", in brief: Caroline Faraj's story sort of demonstrates it. As I said previously, the opportunity for Hamas to agitate in areas where people might be receptive is pretty small. Likewise the opportunity for 'direct action', which has gotten smaller since the hotel attacks of a couple years ago. The security services for one, which are very good, are on it. The window is not non-existent ... but I don't see this as a 'threat' to Abdullah. Ditto in the Gulf states, where one size of monarchy does not fit all, nor the level of dissatisfaction.

Coupling this with ideas about 'the Arab street' makes it a bit more misleading; not so much your coupling as the way the concept is put to use to argue a variety of (western) positions which seem to follow a script ... and don't have any basis for representing 'popular opinion'.

My arguments about the 'Arab street' would probably be different than Electros. It isn't that such a thing doesn't exist, it's that it exists in superabundance relative to how its channeled in the media.

After working in the middle east during much of the 80s, and living and working in the region for the past several years (and having been professionally involved with Arab journalists and personally interested in public opinion), I've seen alot of 'Arab street' that does not go into that description when it gets channeled as Vox Pop by western media (or sometimes Arab or pan-Arab media, due to ownership structures, red lines, etc). Some of that is normal, but alot of it is either ignorant or intentional. The 'street' is so diverse you can get 'it' (which is, as you said, different in different parts of the Arab world, sometimes night and day) to say almost anything you want ... and this is precisely what so many outlets do. Hence my reservation.

(Maybe if we continue this discussion, I would also add some of the cultural, contextual, historical and linguistic barriers that seem to show up in our coverage of MENA ... I wouldn't want to go all Edward Said, some of my observations came via the inter-ocular trauma method ... )

BTW, a good stateside source for views on the Arab media is Marc Lynch's blog, abuaardvark.typepad.com ... also, Jon Alterman at CSIS, who doesn't focus on the media per se, is a smart guy who is sensitive to these kinds of issues. Others if you're interested.

we are better than you. the world needs us. (because we include einsteins). it doesn't need arabs. the three hundred million of them don't include anyone (try it yourself. see if you can come up with someone other than omar sharif, zogby and suicide bombers) -- david sugarman

You are one sick, racist fuck. If it's enemies you want, you are doing well... you just made another one.

In selecting your Presidential candidate, please reflect on the dire consequences of a docile retreat before a relatively small band of Islamic extremists; and, attempt to formulate your own opinion as to the most prudent course of action in the defense of our Nation. It might assist to consider the following scenario: the infiltration of a group of terrorists similar to the Atta cabal with a quantity of weaponized anthrax procured from a rogue state; the acquisition of a single crop-duster aircraft fitted with a dry-agent disseminator; and, the dispersal of that dangerous toxin over an American population center. The loss of American life would be catastrophic. -Or-, is it preferable to pre-empt such fanatics by destroying them on their home turf, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, BEFORE they secure the capacity to threaten our homeland? The latter is in fact a key element in current American strategy. Is it advisable to support any candidate who would reverse course and sacrifice the impressive gains against Islamofacists that young Americans have shed their precious blood to achieve? The fact that we have not experienced another 9/11 is not a by-chance occurrence. Further, it's critical to appreciate the pivotal role that our own border security plays in our "war against terrorism", keeping in mind that "Amnesty" is anathema to border security. A Nation without enforceable borders will not long survive as a Nation. The policies espoused by both Clinton and Obama would grievously damage our Nation's National Security Interests; and, intensify America's vulnerabilities to terrorist activities. As history has repeatedly taught with grim consequences, PEACE is won only THRU STRENGTH; and, NOT THRU the nebulous psychosis of HOPE. Greg Neubeck