Tell Bradley that there are jobs to be found elsewhere and thus no need to shill for what is not a real paper but an arm of an govt that will soon fall from its own indifference to the people it rules and the western values ift allows itself but denies to its people.

"I happen to like the life here. Indeed, I'm off to Sauth East Asia shortly to try to convince my fiancee that she should move out here with me.

If that makes me insane, then so be it . . . "

I, for one, am curious as to what Mr. Bradley finds so appealing about life in Saudi Arabia, so much so that he wants his fiance to join him there (surely a "hardship posting" for a modern woman, whether Western or Southeast Asian).

Depending on the sponsoring company, compound life in Saudi Arabia cna be very comfortable. The compounds can be more like self contained resorts than neighborhoods that branch from a nearby city. It is akin, though, toliving on a small island. Living in Saudi Arabia very seldom means living with Saudis. The hardship comes more from the decision to take on compound life, not from the fears or reality of dealing with Saudi culture which can, and usually does, reemain entirely separate, except for an occasional shopping trip.

"...to try to convince my fiancee that she should move out here with me."

What does his financee say? Does she know yet that he's going to "try to convince" her to move out to a country where's she's going to be under house arrest, for all intents and purposes?

I think their are women out there who see a romanticism with Arab males and what they perceive as Arab culture, not knowing the true limitations on their freedom in those countries.

They get to play dress-up in exotic "burkahs." And go on exotic Haj's and jihad's not truly appreciating what that means.

I think a lot of women, and men for that matter have this kind of Lawrence of Arabia, Indiana Jones, Casablanca view of the Muslim world as a wonderful mysterious place where, blue eyed westerners can play Islam for a while and wander the markets in their khaki field outfits and find treasure. Boy are they in for a sunday surprise.

Just ask the Roush woman or Sally Field how exotic it really is.

Though I understand the nature and importance of debate, I am still left a little puzzled. A reader commenting on an earler lgf post said how reading the arab news is like reading the Onion, and I couldn't agree more. With that in mind, why are we trading punches with this Bradley guy? Yes yes yes, I realize the intentions (ours anyway) of this kind of information exchange and how it contributes to getting at certain truths, but do we really have any doubts here? I respect dissenting views and those who hold them as it keeps me on my feet, and I usually have something to learn, even when my mind isn't changed. But is this bozo really the best spokesperson for his (or SA's) cause? Arguing with someone like this (or a Chomsky, Fisk, Pilger, Sontag, Said, etc) is like debating a cult devotee. I don't often feel I've been properly exposed to a reasonable, contrary view as much as I feel like I'm running an experiment to tell the difference between foolishness and sheer idiocy. This isn't like debating health care with a Canadian or monarchism with a Brit. This is like talking cosmology with a Ptolemist. I too sympathize, rather than scorn, the likes of Bradley. Unlike Chomsky, I believe Bradley really means what he says and no amount of facts or knowledge is going to deprogram him. Chomsky's limousine liberalism (2 houses, 4 boats, 3 cars!) gives him away too easily. Bradley's writing skills (and mine aren't much better, but no one is paying me) indicates exactly why he is writing for the arab news. HE ISN'T THAT SMART. But hey, a guy's gotta eat. And so do we. Let's look for a better meal and find somebody worth sinking our teeth into.

What people living in the compounds don't realize is that when Saudi goes up for grabs their lives will be on very great danger.

There is too much downside risk to make the upside look good to all but the most myopic.

This is the year 2000 for the Saudi bubble. Everyone knows the valuations are unrealistic. No one knows when the market will collapse.

Faster please.

The problem with the likes of Bradley is that he has a large audience of people who may not be as well-informed as those who contribute to lgf.
Since he is entitled to free speech (in Saudi Arabia, everyone is free to criticize Israel), his message must be vigorously countered. Bradley has a patina of respectibility and therefore must be engaged. To ignore him is to let his message go unchallenged.

Mookie - well put

I suppose I give people too much credit sometimes. They'll read an idiotarian like Bradley and think they've just equiped themselves with some 'good stuff.' Common sense is a rare commodity these days.

Is this guy a native English speaker? I have never before seen the word "south" misspelled as "sauth".

I have a cousin who is an ESL teacher and has taught English all over the globe, including 3 years in Saudi Arabia. I E-mailed him to get his views on SA. His reply was similiar to Jim Burton's post. Life can be rather pleasant inside the western compounds and the pay was far better than English teachers abroad can hope to make anywhere else on the planet. He could afford to take ski vacations in Switzerland, for instance, which doesn't happen when you're teaching English to poor kids in Costa Rica. I should point out that in SA he was teaching the expat's kids, not natives.

He wrote that the community was really a Middle Eastern version of Peyton Place. Within their little enclave, everyone boozed it up and had affairs. He said it was fun at first, but that after a while, he couldn't stand the unreality of the place. The Westerners were so isolated and cut off from the rest of society that they developed their own little hothouse cliques - the British cliques, the American cliques, the cliques of the oil execs and the people making the really big money. And of course, there was the usual cattiness and backbiting and gossip over whether A. was really sleeping with B.that goes on in these sorts of environments.
Sounds a lot like high school to me. I asked him to check out LGF and post so you can get his take on things firsthand.

I, for one, am curious as to what Mr. Bradley finds so appealing about life in Saudi Arabia, so much so that he wants his fiance to join him there

Mark, I will give Mr Bradley the benefit of the doubt and assume he does not subscribe to all the prejudices of the culture there. It's probably the money. Arab News probably had to pony up a nice sum of money in order to get a "legitimate western voice" or two on their masthead to feign balance with the rest of the world.

As for wanting his fiance there, thats obvious. Instead of saying things like "convince my fiancee that she should move out here with me," he wants to take a big step up the "holier-than-thou" ladder and be able to say things like "my fiance lives here with me, and shes not oppressed in any way."

Just to let our readers know, Mr. Bradley tried to post a reply a little while ago, but it was blocked. He was using an account with an IP address that was in a group of Saudi Arabian IPs we banned several months ago when we began receiving threatening messages from an anonymous Saudi moron.

I've emailed Mr. Bradley to ask him to use one of the accounts he used yesterday instead. Stay tuned.

"I happen to like the life here. Indeed, I'm off to Sauth East Asia shortly to try to convince my fiancee that she should move out here with me.

If that makes me insane, then so be it . . . "

Well, maybe Mr Bradley already has some other wives in SA and wants his fiancee to join his harem. If so, does she know about it, or is it a trap? It may be hard to get into SA but it seems that sometimes it is harder to get our of it.

J. Lichty

There is a curious picture that promotes this view called The Sheltering Sky in which, after losing her husband John Malkovitch in Morrocco, Debra Winger joins a Bedouin's harem. There's some irony involving both actores, however. Malkovitch is the one who said he'd like to shoot Robert Fisk and British MP Galloway, while Winger did some time in the Israeli army.

To the original questions to Bradley I would like to add:

o Do you believe Human Rights Watch calls attention to actual human rights abuses by the IDF?

o If so, what do you think of this HRW report:

[Link: www.hrw.org...]

I welcome the opportunity to engage in a real debate, but considering the replies so far I don't hold up much hope.

Joe Katzman's questions are excellent and thought provoking -- indeed, the first posting so far to contain anything other than personal insult -- so we'll give it a go.

I like the fact that you block messages from hostile Saudis but allow personal insults against my loved ones. Now that's the kind of ethical journalism I miss! Are there no depths of hypocrisy to which you will not sink in the hollow name of freedom fo expression?

But just for the record: I have an assistant who filters my email so hate mail does not reach me. I have received literally thousands of such messages since Sept. 11. However, I have never failed to respond to a civil email, however opposed to my views its author may have been. The only hope left for the world after Sept. 11 is cultural dialogue.

And to clear up one other thing before we start: I was partly educated at Darmouth College, Hanover NH (on a scholarship) and I have spent months driving around the US on a number of different trips with American and other friends. I have an extensive range of friends who are American scholars in various fields, and have regularly published work in American publications. So please don't get it into your heads that I somehow hate Americans or America, or that I'm ignorant of what America is about. What I hate -- yes, hate -- is American foreign policy, as do tens of millions of ordinary Americans.

John R. Bradley
News Editor, Arab News
Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

I would like to know Mr. Bradley's response to the treatment of women throughout the Arab world, the insitutionalized sexism, that makes the position of the female sex in their society even worse than blacks in America in 1820. At least African Americans at that time were able to appear in public without masks. This discrimination against women in Islam is so vile, putrid and mentally deranged as to boggle the mind in modern times. It makes the entire religion seem disgusting and Medieval. The recent UN reports of female illiteracy throughout the Arab world are horrendous. Until they correct this OPPRESSION OF ONE HALF THE HUMAN RACE, Islam is a religion beneath contempt.

Quote:
I like the fact that you block messages from hostile Saudis but allow personal insults against my loved ones.

First, I haven't seen any of these personal insults against your loved ones. To which comments are you referring?

I have seen comments expressing concern, and the hope that your fiancee knows what kind of society she'd be joining; a society where women are not allowed to drive, where she might be beaten by the mutaween if a lock of hair escapes from under her scarf, where she is a second class citizen.

As for blocking comments from "hostile Saudis," here are the sort of comments this freak was posting.

--------------------------------
I HAVE BEEN READING UR GARBAGE LATELY,AND I TELL YOU YOU ALL ARE FUCKIN LUCKY I AM NOT ON THE WEST COAST,I WOULD HAV BROUGHT MY CAMELS AND SHOVE THEIR DICKS UP UR ASSHOLES SO BAD U WILL END UP WITH DEFORMED FACES U MOTHERFUCKERS WHITE RACISTS .
U CONTINUE WITH UR GARBAGE AND TRUST ME I WILL GET ALL UR ASSES FUCKED SO BAD U WONT BE ABLE TO WALK NOMORE !!!
I DONT KNOW WHO TAUGHT YOU TO WRITE ANTI ARAB ARTICLES,UR FUCKED UP WEBSITE SUPPOSE TO PRESENT VARIOUS VIEWS AND NOT ANTI ARAB GARBAGE,KEEP UP BUT WATCH OUT FOR UR ASSES YOU MOTHERFUCKERS!

Sheikh.Abdelmonem Addas
--------------------------------

Perhaps now you can understand why it was necessary to ban this person.

I await your response to Mr. Katzman's questions.

Actually, you could have just given a summary. That is indeed disgusting reading. Yes, I agree the poster should have been blocked. We receive emails like that at Arab News -- but from our American audience -- every day. But we don't block just about everyone else as a result. I tried to send you the first posting from a public internet cafe.

John R. Bradley
News Editor, Arab News
Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Jonathan, I don't know which women you're referring to, but nobody I know has any romantic Laurence of Arabia notions.

But then, I don't hang with women who have no self-respect.

That Guardian article was a fascinating read. Women are leading the protests. And being beaten and jailed by the Saudi police for it.

You go, girls!

Quote:
We receive emails like that at Arab News -- but from our American audience -- every day. But we don't block just about everyone else as a result. I tried to send you the first posting from a public internet cafe.

Well, you see, unfortunately the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has implemented proxy servers on all public Internet accounts that use their ISU, in order to watch what their subjects are doing on the Net. Here in the USA, we call this "invasion of privacy." You might have a different name for it.

And this means that most people using the Internet in Saudi Arabia do not have their own unique IP addresses. So I had no choice but to ban the entire block of addresses.

Nice try at turning the tables, though.

I wasn't trying to turn the tables. I was trying to get to the bottom of the matter.

Point taken re your reasons for blocking everyone.

Perhaps, in light of the internet restrictions here and in other parts of the Middle East, you ought to vet messages before you post them -- for everyone's sake. What you are doing now is denying Saudi readers of your website any kind of reply. Small wonder all we get from your posters is a kind of white supremacist rant.

John R. Bradley
News Editor, Arab News
Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Brilliantly said, Charles (about turning the tables). Saudi Arabia is truly a dangerous place to the world at large because they are spending money to export their psychotic vision of society. It's sad to see a man of Bradley's evident intelligence taken in by this. He probably thinks we are all racists. I was in jail fighting for civil rights in the sixties, one of my best friends was shut to death by the Klan. I say this not to toot my own horn, but to signal to him that perhaps people out here are a tad more sophisticated than he thinks, that what we are fighting for is the freedom of all, including the freedom of Arab society from a vestigial belief system conceived when most of humanity thought the world was flat.

I hope you guys are not holding your breath waiting for a sensible response from this partly educated intellectual.

I read Bradley's posting several times. Am I missing something here? He lauds Katzman's questions as "excellent and thought provoking" but doesn't answer one of them. I don't think Katzman was the only person who asked reasonable questions, either.

Instead, Bradley focuses on Charles blocking the URL's of Saudis who have threatened him. Then, in the next paragraph, he says that his assistant filters out hostile E-mails sent to him! Let me see if I get this straight: it's somehow against freedom of expression if Charles blocks hate mail, but fine if Bradley does it. Who's the hypocrite here?

Secondly, I doubt very seriously if "tens of millions" of ordinary Americans hate U.S. foreign policy, although I can see how someone would get that idea hanging around Dartmouth.

And who attacked your girlfriend? What we all wondered about is why a woman would want to live in a country where females are treated worse than dogs are in the U.K. and U.S.A.Your ideas of what constitutes abuse are strange, as your article about psychological "terror" shows. A reporter asks a Saudi girl if she feels oppressed and if she admires bin Laden and this somehow is "terrorism" that drives the girl into a crying jag.

However, we Americans and Israelis are not supposed to take it personally when you compare us to a working class thug with a dangerous Rottweiler. (An analogy, by the way, that reveals more than a little snobbery on your part). This is perhaps the most irritating trait of the left; it's fine to insult us, but if we respond in kind, we're "meanspirited."

I would be interested if you would post again, and perhaps you would be so good as to actually try answering some of Katzman's questions this time around.

Donna, as a man who is frequently on the left on many issues (like national health insurance), I reject your characterization of Bradley as a man of the left. In fact, you could just as easily call him a man of the righ, since he is defending Saudi Arabia, about as rightist a regime as exists in the world.

John R. Bradley,

Do you live in one of the compounds built for westerners? Some of the guys here (who have worked in SA) say the compounds are very nice places to live but the option of living amongst Saudis is really a non-option. Why do you think they believed they couldn't live in the Arab parts of town?

Are you a Christian and can you go to church in SA?

Do you have any Jewish or gay friends? If you do, would you ever consider inviting them to visit you in SA?

Excuse me. Ms. Donna, for taking half an hour to write the damn answers!

By the way, back in the early 1990s (when I was there) Dartmouth College was dominated by right-wing Republicans of the kind who would be massively supportive of US foreign policy, with the reservation that it isn't nearly crazy and immoral enough!

John R. Bradley
News Editor, Arab News
Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

White supremacists?
Mr Bradley, tell me please: how many black, Eastern Asian or Jewish politicians and/or officers can be found in the Saudi government and/or army? How many synagogues, churches and other non-Muslim temples/prayer houses are there in the kingdom? What about the Arab News' affirmative action program? How many black, Christian, Jewish, Eastern Asian citizens of Saudi Arabia work for your newspaper?
Would you say there are some Arab supremacists in the world?
Would you say there is such a thing as Muslim religious intolerance?

Mr. Bradley, as graduate of Dartmouth, I found your posts amusing. Instead of responding to any substantive questions, you restrict yourself to the political ins and outs of one Ivy League college. Better that than actually discussing the reactionary and vicious policies of the country you defend. By the way, you didn't happen to see the transcipts of conversations among the Saudi rulers published in the New Yorker last year? If not, I suggest you look it up.

By the way, I oppose many right wing policies of the US and Israel, not to mention the European Union. But Saudi Arabia is about the worst, right up there with Iraq and Iran and ultimately more dangerous.

Then why don't you actually finish writing the answers instead of hanging around responding to every little post about you?

Rodger Dodger:
Point taken. I'm conservative on most issues (gay rights and the war on drugs are exceptions), but I have liberal friends who are pro-Israel and pro-war on terrorism and I certainly don't put them (or you) in the idiotarian category. Much of the virulent Israel and U.S. haters comes from the left ( I rather doubt that Susan Barney voted for Bush), but that doesn't mean all leftists buy that crap.

As for Mr. Bradley, I await your answers to Katzman's questions with great interest.

I think I know why Mr. Bradley is avoiding the questions.

Answering them could put him in a great deal of trouble with his overseers who, as Charles points out, can easily monitor his missives.

It is so much easier to toss around stock phrases like white supremacists (excuse me, but Arabs are Caucasians, too, are they not?), right-wing blah, blah, blah. Plus these phrases have the added benefit of being very pleasing to the boss men.

I can't help but get the image out of my head of those duplicitous Saudis that interview on American media, dodging questions while accusing us of bias and wondering why we have so many awful stereotypes of them. Sir, not to put to fine a point on it, you are pailing water off a sinking ship. Flee the kingdom now before you get Fisked (or don't, either way).

I'll give this guy his due - he's certainly a glutton for punishment.

NOTE: I am writing this as a personal response in my capacity as News Editor employed by the Jeddah-based Arab News. This posting is not in any way to be taken as an official statement on behalf of Arab News. The person to ask for such a statement is my editor-in-chief, Khaled Al-Maeena.

I will only reply to questions from Joe Katzman, so all you “oh I can’t believe this idiot etc etc” guys please try to give it a rest for a few hours? Or at least try to think of something __interesting__ and __constructive__ to say.

STARTS:

Q: Joe Katzman: What do you see as the core mission of Arab News?

A: John R. Bradley: I would distrust any international publication that had a “core mission”, if by that you mean it is being used as a vehicle to promote crude propaganda.

World events are changing by the hour, if not by the minute; it is the job of any international publication to try and reflect that changing reality, while providing commentary on it.

However, there is a guiding principle at Arab News, defined in its name: to bring to the English-language international media news and commentary that is presented from an Arab perspective.

As Saudi Arabia is the home of the Arab race and the Arabic language, Arab News is excellently-positioned to perform this role.

Q: How does that mission relate to your paper’s envisioned style of coverage of the following issues:

(1) Political liberalization in Saudi Arabia beyond better treatment of non-Saudis?

A: Our print-edition readership (from which our advertising revenue derives; we are a private publication) is about 60 percent educated immigrants from the Indian subcontinent, 30 percent Western expatriates, and 10 percent Saudi. (These figures are current estimates.) Our website gets about 175,000 hits a day, almost exclusively from Americans (or at least people residing in the US). Considering that audience, the job of covering “political liberalization” in Saudi Arabia is largely left to the local Arabic-language media, and we have a daily section “from the local press” consisting of four translated articles from the many Arabic daily newspapers here. Although we do have occasional articles on domestic politics, it is through the “from the local press” section, prominently displayed on page 3, that we cover hard-core domestic political debate. Because our readers are largely immigrant workers we focus, as you correctly observe, more on the need for “better treatment of non-Saudis”, who can face unimaginable exploitation here (as elsewhere in the Gulf).

What is happening in the local press here is, incidentally, quite exciting post 9/11, and I have just finished a series of interviews with all the leading editors-in-chief of Saudi papers and Saudi-based columnists for pan-Arab publications like Al-Hayat. An article will appear in English and Arabic in September, and will address very specifically your frist question.

(2) The Arab-Israeli conflict?

A: It is almost impossible to publish anti-Israeli articles in the American media, print or otherwise (although of course they do sometimes slip through the net, and Harper’s and The Nation are still providing a refuge for dissenters). Arab News tries to provide a counterweight to this fundamental censorship on this specific issue.

We are basically on the side of the Palestinians, because we think they have historically been done a great injustice.

However, that is not to suggest that there is not a wide range of opinions on the nitty gritty of the Palestinian issue, and Palestinian tactics, among our contributors.

(3) Coverage of political Islam in other areas of the Arab world.

A: Please clarify what you mean by “political Islam”. That’s a very vague term.

Q: You said some interesting things in “Why ‘freedom of expression’ is a slippery term”. For instance: “These readers were to be pampered, not challenged; dissension was gradually replaced by conformity. As with British and American politics, every mainstream newspaper editor on both sides of the Atlantic sprinted toward the middle ground. The result was a colossal lowering of standards, a wholesale abandoning of principles.” Please explain the ways in which Arab News challenges, rather than pampers, the conformist majority views of Saudi culture. So far, I can’t see much of that.

A: What are the “conformist majority views of Saudi culture”? Saudi Arabia is a very complex society, and neither the press here nor outside reflects that complexity. I'll be happy to talk about this, but please clarify, if you have some kind of first-hand experience or expertise.

Q: Indeed, catering to racist prejudices via articles by David Duke and Lyndon LaRouche (presented as mainstream American opinion, no less!) certainly strikes me as conformity and pandering to the basest human impulses. Do you view these articles in a different light?

A: I despise anti-Semitism from the very bottom of my heart, as does everyone else on the Arab News team. We regularly emphasize in editorial meetings that Jews are not and never have been “the enemy”. It is the extremes of Zionism we object to. Of course, Zionists are unable to distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism; but, as Edmund White wrote in the introduction to English translation of Jean Genet’s classic “Prisoner of Love”, that’s their problem.

Just for the record: My private tutor at University College London, who taught me how to write literary articles and was a great inspiration for me during my undergraduate years, was Jewish. The present biographer of Henry James, who guided me through a number of Henry James projects, is Jewish. My closest friend at Oxford was Jewish. I could go on. I have Jews to thank for just about everything achievement I’ve ever made, in some small or big way, just as I have Christians and Muslims to thank.

I could never work for Arab News, or any other publication, if I perceived that it had an anti-Jewish agenda, any more than I could work for a pro-Zionist publication like the Wall Street Journal.

Re David Duke. I despise that individual and am sorry one of his articles slipped onto our website edition. When this fact was brought to the editor’s attention, the article was immediately removed. Even the Arab News-hater Taranto reported that fact. Lyndon LaRouche is similarly despicable in my eyes.

We’ll carry on with the final two questions once we’ve exhausted this debate. It’s past midnight here, and in the words of the inimitable Morrissey: “I’m tired and I want to go to bed”.

John R. Bradley
News Editor, Arab News
Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Hey Bradley - what's with you Brits who love kissing Arab arse ?

I like that theory about you being a secret agent. You remind me of several others in the last century. Here's a brief history on a few of them.

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

[Link: www.anitaspages.net...]

Cheerio ol' boy.

Mr. Bradley tries his best to convince us of his legitmacy as a journalist, but alas, it's just not working. We see him for what he is....a lackey for the SA. He knows what is expected of him, so that's what he does. Oh, well, I guess a job's a job.

Rodger:
I characterized Bradley as a leftist because of the epithets he's leveled at us. "Racist," "white supremist" and so forth are favorite insults of the idiotarian left. I figure that if he was a idiotarian right-winger, he'd call us "Jew-lovers" or "Commies." Not that there's much to choose from when you're talking about the dolts on both sides of the political spectum. David Duke and Cynthia McKinney do agree on certain subjects.

As for Bradley, yeah, Melissa I think you're right. Maybe what Bradley should do is come back and tell us what he really thinks once he's off the plantation.

". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.

"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.

An excerpt from the writings of Martin Luther King. To read his entire essay, go here:

[Link: www.messiahnj.org...]

"A: I despise anti-Semitism from the very bottom of my heart, as does everyone else on the Arab News team. We regularly emphasize in editorial meetings that Jews are not and never have been “the enemy”. It is the extremes of Zionism we object to. Of course, Zionists are unable to distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism; but, as Edmund White wrote in the introduction to English translation of Jean Genet’s classic “Prisoner of Love”, that’s their problem."

There is NO difference between being anti-Zionism and anti-Semitic. What exactly are "the extremes of Zionism"? This issue infuriates me.

The entire reply is snobbish.

"A: What are the “conformist majority views of Saudi culture”? Saudi Arabia is a very complex society, and neither the press here nor outside reflects that complexity...."

And other cultures are straight-forward and easy for any simpleton to grasp? Please get him off his high horse.

And... " I'll be happy to talk about this, but please clarify, if you have some kind of first-hand experience or expertise."

What does this mean? That he will only talk to Joe Katzman if he has credentials that Mr. Bradley approves of?

Besides anything, Mr. Bradley skipped over most of Mr. Katzman's questions.

Maybe he's just tired...

I'd also be interested in hearing some thoughts from his Jewish friends. Do they agree that an anti-Zionist is different from an anti-Semite?

This is great:

"It is almost impossible to publish anti-Israeli articles in the American media, print or otherwise (although of course they do sometimes slip through the net, and Harper’s and The Nation are still providing a refuge for dissenters). Arab News tries to provide a counterweight to this fundamental censorship on this specific issue."

Doesn't this guy read the NYT or, for that matter, the op-ed pages of just about any major U.S. paper? Doesn't he watch CNN? The WSJ and the Washington Times are the only papers I can think of whose editorals are consistently pro-Israel.

"However, that is not to suggest that there is not a wide range of opinions on the nitty gritty of the Palestinian issue, and Palestinian tactics, among our contributors."

What are the wide range of opinions on the Palestinian issue in the Arab world? Whether Israelis should be killed one by one by homicide bombers or nuked off the planet? Are Jews pigs or are they monkeys?

"I despise anti-Semitism from the very bottom of my heart, as does everyone else on the Arab News team. (Highly questionable)We regularly emphasize in editorial meetings that Jews are not and never have been “the enemy”. It is the extremes of Zionism we object to."

But he likens the land of the Jews to a vicious Rottweiler. And of course, the extremes of say, Hamas are unobjectable.

But, hey guys, some of his best friends are Jews!

John R. Bradley:

I thank you for taking the time and courage to face the heat on this site.

Unlike Katzman's excellent questions, I have some more direct questions:

(1) If you despise anti-semitism, as does the entire Arab News staff, what is your opinion of the M. Khalil cartoons in the Arab News which are frighteningly anti-semitic to even the most casual observer?

(2) How do you defend/explain the recent "Basmallah" interview on state run Saudi televsion (The interview where the little Saudi girl of the same name was asked what Jews are, to which she responded "pigs and monkey."?) If you are unfamiliar with this incident, here is a link to a posting Charles did regarding the same.

(3) Are homicide bombings by Palestinians, specifically those that target Israeli civilians morally wrong in your opinion? If so, have you criticized them in any of your writings for the Arab news? Please provide links to any articles.

(4) Do you think that the Saudi Government should pay the families of Palestinian homicide bombers?

(5) Are any Arab acts or policies, at least partially to blame for predicament of the Palestinians, or is it all the fault of Israel? If so, what policies of the any Arab governments have contributed to the misery of the Palestinians? Have you written any article acknowledging the same? If so, please provide links.

(6) Do you think Yasser Arafat has done anything wrong? If so, have you ever written any articles critical of him or for that matter Hamas, any other Palestinian "militant" group, any arab government, or any Muslim religious leader? If so, please provide links to the articles.

(7) If you are so against anti-semitism, have you denounced any acts of anti-semitism by Muslim religious leaders in the Muslim world, or any anti-semitic acts occurring in Europe?

(8) Do you agree with all policies of the Saudi governemnt? Have you written any articles critical of any policy of said government? If so, please provide links.

Mr. Bradley -- has the Arab News reported on anti-government protests in Saudi Arabia? If not, why not? Has the Saudi government put pressure on the Arab News regarding those protests?

If you're unaware of them, please read this:

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

Thanks!

Ok, my question for Mr Bradley:

Do you actually read what you write?

"I am writing this as a personal response in my capacity as News Editor employed by the Jeddah-based Arab News. This posting is not in any way to be taken as an official statement on behalf of Arab News. "

What on eart is a "personal response in my capacity as News Editor"? If you are writing in your capacity as News Editor, then you are making an official statement, not a personal statement. It it is not to be taken as an official statement on behalf of your employer, then you are speaking as "John Bradley", not as "the News Editor for Arab News".

"I would distrust any international publication that had a 'core mission', if by that you mean it is being used as a vehicle to promote crude propaganda."

and then later

"We are basically on the side of the Palestinians, because we think they have historically been done a great injustice. "

So it's fine for a news organization to have peripheral missions, where by that I mean being used as a vehicle to promote refined propaganda?

Oh, about "A: It is almost impossible to publish anti-Israeli articles in the American media, print or otherwise", I did a very quick search on the NYT editorials. Are the following articles really pro-israel, or do they simply not exist:

[Link: query.nytimes.com...]

[Link: www.nytimes.com...] (interspersed)

[Link: www.nytimes.com...] (against killing civilians in general, but applies this to Israel as well as Palestinians)
[Link: query.nytimes.com...]

And I searched for about 5 minutes with the keyword "Israel" in the op/ed section.
(Though I guess that you could claim that the New York Times is not mainstream.)

"What are the 'conformist majority views of Saudi culture'?"

Well, how about the idea of sharia? Or are most people in Saudi Arabia against sharia? How about being pro-palestine (or are most people undecided or pro-israel)? What about the view that women should be covered in public?

Are you really going to pretend, John, that there are no common views in the Saudi kingdom?

Re David Duke. I despise that individual and am sorry one of his articles slipped onto our website edition. When this fact was brought to the editor’s attention, the article was immediately removed.

John, do you even read your freakin' website? What kind of editor are you, anyway?

I despise anti-Semitism from the very bottom of my heart, as does everyone else on the Arab News team. We regularly emphasize in editorial meetings that Jews are not and never have been “the enemy”.

So what the hell is this doing on your website? [Link: www.arabnews.com...]

Here's another gem from the Arab News team, which despises anti-Semitism from the bottom of their souls and insists that Jews are not, and never have been, the enemy:

[Link: www.arabnews.com...]

Unlike Arabs, in which there are maybe 30,000 that Immigration can tackle at the borders. What does the US do with a potential fifth column in the US of American born Jewish citizens that number over five and a half million? Of which their split loyalties are American by birth, but Israeli by religious fanaticism.

How can Bush and his administration handle a terror network of Americans of the Jewish religious persuasion that would be a serious fifth column and terror network inside the US? Every American Jewish person is also a dual citizen entitled to Israeli citizenship. How do you deal with that number of five and a half million potential fifth columnists inside the USA? And they are free to travel in and out and smuggle weapons of mass destruction from Israel here.

Over 60,000 Israelis recently paraded in Tel Aviv against the madmen running Israel, that is 2% of the Jewish population of Israel who are against the crazies running their government. Extrapolating that to the US Jewish/Israeli population; that means there are only 110,000 of the 5.5 million Jews born in the US, who would put the interests of the US before the interests of Israel. Frightening thought!

Donna, I must admit from Bradley's idiotic screed he does appear to be an avatar of the more knee-jerk left. What is ironic is that he spews his bile in the defence of a state, Saudi Arabia, which is indeed a monstrosity of the ultra-right, a pure religious fascism governed by misogynistic theist law. Worse than the France of Louis XIV.

This is a futile exercise in nothing more than typing. You will not get someone like this Bradley fellow to give you a straight answer. He's well-versed in slights and dodges of illogic. In a recent link by Charles, a young man (Elliot Mark Davis) had an email exchange with Chomsky and, after acknowledging to Chomsky that Chomksy's wife owns the Audi, Chomsky replied with a vile insinuation that he (Elliot) was a misogynist. It was the non sequitur of non sequiturs but, as Donna V. pointed out, a classic technique.

With Bradley, he comes to a site of well-informed and above-average readers who read about the Saud's anti-semitism, religious intolerance, misogynist society, cultural bigotry, praise for people who blow up, throw grenades at, and shoot defenseless Jews straight from their mouths (MEMRI), and calls us "white supremacists" as a way to cast us all in the same light and thusly eschew anything we have to interject on...anything.

Note how he reacted to sensible questions raised concerning his fiancé: Regulars here asked how she could leave a society where she is his equal to go to a place where she is his property. He wrote that we were attacking his loved ones. Logic and this man were never friends and have long been at war.

Addison, I agree wholeheartedy. He dodged Katzman's questions like a skilled politician and then resorted to name calling.

That is why he needs to be asked direct questions as I have attempted to do in post /littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=3614#c0044 "># 44.

As a lawyer who has spent most of his career cross exmining lying criminals I can tell you that there is no more effective tool than the leading question. When criminals try to answer simple yes or no questions by changing the subject or giving non-responsive answers is when the fun really begins.

Joe Katzman's questions gave this guy way too much wiggle room. That works with an honest broker genuinely interested in seeking the truth. It does not appear that Bradley wants to play by those CONSTRUCTIVE rules. Let us see if he answers my questions, which are much more direct.

Re: those who say Arab News is basically the Onion so who cares.

Here is the problem with Arab News:

here

This is a threaded message board I used to frequent. I know these people. They are, on the whole, reasonable. Typical American. Yet so clueless.

See how they discuss Arab News without a clue that they're basicallyreading al-Stuermer.

So please don't get it into your heads that I somehow hate Americans or America, or that I'm ignorant of what America is about. What I hate -- yes, hate -- is American foreign policy, as do tens of millions of ordinary Americans.

John R. Bradley: may I ask if you hate Israelis or Israel as opposed to hating Israeli foreign policy?

#36 "but, as Edmund White wrote in the introduction to English translation of Jean Genet’s classic “Prisoner of Love”, that’s their problem."

I do hope you don't keep books by Edmund White and, dear Lord, Jean Genet in your SA home. Do you want to have your head separated from your body by a very sharp sword?

Here are some quotes from the lovely Monsieur Genet:

“Repudiating the virtues of your world, criminals hopelessly agree to organize a forbidden universe. They agree to live in it. The air there is nauseating: they can breathe it.”

“Anyone who hasn't experienced the ecstasy of betrayal knows nothing about ecstasy at all.”

"I recognize in thieves, traitors and murderers, in the ruthless and the cunning, a deep beauty—a sunken beauty"

“What we need is hatred. From it our ideas are born.”

And I would love to know what your Saudi hosts think of the really filthy homosex chapters of “Prisoner of Love”.

You are indeed are very complex man living in a complex society.

#55

Correction: There are no hot man-on-man scenes in "Prisoner of Love". That's the rambling book about the Palestinians Genet wrote when he was senile (and fond of being serviced by arab boys).

The steamy stuff is all in the novels. I was thinking of "A Thief's Journal". It's late.

This is perhaps the most disturbing phrase in Bradley's answers:

As Saudi Arabia is the home of the Arab race and the Arabic language, Arab News is excellently-positioned to perform this role.

Am I the only person who hears echos of Nazi race-theory in this? Why is this acceptable? If someone wrote:

As Germany is the home of the German race and the German language, Voelkischer Beobachter is excellently-positioned to perform this role.

Wouldn't we worry about their sanity and good will?

(No offense to living Germans intended.)

Mr. Bradley, you said you dislike American foreign policy. What is your opinion of Saudi foreign policy? What do you think of their funding fundamentalist, anti-government madrassas in Pakistan? What is your opinion of Saudi Arabia's continued funding of al'Qaeda?

Seeing as you live in an Islamist nation, you might want to bone up on what "political Islam" or "Islamism" means. The site [Link: www.danielpipes.com...] is a great start, if you can access it from inside the Saudi firewall.

To J. Lichty:
I'm glad you asked him more questions, but will he answer them?

" I'll be happy to talk about this, but please clarify, if you have some kind of first-hand experience or expertise."

So does that mean he's only taking questions from people with PhD's in Middle Eastern Affairs or those who have visited/lived in SA? Too bad Bernard Lewis isn't posting here. Apparently the rest of us are too dumb to understand the complexities of SA life.

As I recall,several people have posted comments about their experiences in SA. As for the rest of us, we're a bit handicapped by our lack of first hand knowledge about the place. However, the Israeli and Jewish posters wouldn't be allowed into SA and if I went, it's doubtful that I would find out very much about Saudi complexity. I'd have to find a guy to drive me around, for one thing. Nor would I be allowed to visit Mecca.

As Zulubaby has pointed out, there's a snobbish undertone to the entire post. Still, I guess we do have to give Johnny some credit for walking into the lions den.

J Lichty -- great questions. Trouble is, this witness can choose to ignore or avoid whatever he wants to.

Mr. Bradley: if you want to impress me, please answer each of JL's questions. I've tried to ask this as respectfully as possible, and the questions themselves are also civil and straightforward. You've said that you answer all such polite email, whether it's friendly or hostile, and you claim to be engaged in honest inquiry and debate. I'd like to see you prove it by responding directly to JL's questions.

To all that think that he will not answer my questions, we shall just have to wait and see.

He has surprised me thus far with his "courage" for facing his critics and hopefully he will accept this challenge. If not, I guess we have our answer.

I love the defense of "I'm not an anti-Semite! I have Jewish friends" who are primarily academic colleagues. Didn't Mona Baker, of Israeli-firing infamy, use the same logic?

I do not think my questions contained any personal insult. Nevertheless I will ask a different question.

Mr. Bradley, you yourself have acknowledged that conditions in Saudi Arabia can be harsh and/or inequitable for certain individuals (such as foreigners, females, and gays). As an editor of Arab News do you not consider it in part your responsibility to bring these inequities to the attention of the readership of your newspaper? If not, why not? If so what have you done so far, or plan to do in the future, to do so?

I thank you in advance for your reply.

I love the defense of "I'm not an anti-Semite! I have Jewish friends" who are primarily academic colleagues. Didn't Mona Baker, of Israeli-firing infamy, use the same logic?

They all do.

My thoughts on Mr. Bradley's comments can be found here.

I'll try to post a formal response tomorrow.

Mr. Bradley writes:

I despise anti-Semitism from the very bottom of my heart, as does everyone else on the Arab News team. We regularly emphasize in editorial meetings that Jews are not and never have been “the enemy”. It is the extremes of Zionism we object to. Of course, Zionists are unable to distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism; but, as Edmund White wrote in the introduction to English translation of Jean Genet’s classic “Prisoner of Love”, that’s their problem.

The links pointed out by Damian Penny and others certainly put any repudiation of anti-Semitism offered by Mr. Bradley into serious doubt. I suppose, however, that he could distance himself from some of those articles, even though they appear in a paper in which he seems to have a fairly senior position.

What I find interesting is Mr. Bradley's condemnation of Zionism, as he repeats the claim that being anti-Zionist is different from being anti-Semitic.

No doubt this is technically true, and I will even give Mr. Bradley the benefit of the doubt in assuming that he at least has some idea of what Zionism truly is, as opposed to what it is presented as by the looney Left and the Arab thugocracies (as odd an alliance, I must admit, as I have ever heard of). However, that leaves Mr. Bradley in a very interesting position, since, by repudiating Zionism, he ends up stating that Jews may never have their own nation. Combined with his vehement disavowal of any anti-Semitic thoughts, we can thus distill Mr. Bradley's viewpoint into something like this:

Mr. Bradley likes the Jews just fine, as long as don't get all uppity and nationalistic. See, any other nation, tribe, or group fighting for statehood and independence merits support and encouragement, even if their "culture" is clearly deficient in even the most basic ethics, or if indeed their identity as a group is a very recent political fiction. Jews, on the other hand, despite literally thousands of years of coherent culture and history, aren't entitled to anything more than a life of diaspora, where they should feel grateful to have approval from the likes of Mr. Bradley, News Editor, Arab News. In other words, Jews are great, so long as they know their place. (It seems that Mr. Bradley has internalized the concept of dhimmi rather well.)

Mr. Bradley sees no contradiction in denying Jews the right to a sliver of land where their history predates by centuries the birth of Jesus Christ and Mohammed, even as he works to promote the "culture" (ironic quotes are oh-so-fun, aren't they?) of a people who have spent their much shorter history conquering and colonizing lands from North Africa to Western Europe. (Never once, of course, doing any "great injustice" to anyone in the process.) He likewise sees no contradiction throwing out rather absurd accusations of censorship in American media (!), whilst working for a mouthpiece of one of the most repressive and censorship-happy governments on the face of the earth. (And we're talking censorship via long jail terms, mind you!) He is happy to lecture us on our tone and propensity for ad-hominem attacks, all resulting from writing one of the most inept and puerile smear pieces (on James Taranto) that I'd ever had the dubious fortune to read.

It seems that Mr. Bradley's diet is quite deficient in irony.

John,

Thanks for the reply, and hope you got a good night's sleep. More clarifications and questions... I've indicated questions with a (*) symbol.

> "However, there is a guiding principle at Arab News, defined in its
> name: to bring to the English-language international media news and
> commentary that is presented from an Arab perspective."

* Can we then assume articles published in your paper represent the broad range of Arab perspective?

This would seem to be implied by your reply.

-- ANTI-SEMITISM --

> I could never work for Arab News, or any other publication, if I
> perceived that it had an anti-Jewish agenda

Then perhaps you can explain the Arab News articles Damian Penny pointed to, advocating, respectively, the expulsion of Jews from the USA (comment #48) and complaining of a Jewish 5th column in the USA by noting that ALL Jews are dual-citizenship Israelis (comment #49).

If that's so, then anti-Israel really IS "anti-Jew," because your OWN PAPER'S WRITINGS say there's no distinction... a Jew in America, or Poland, or France IS an Israeli, even if she has never even visited the place.

* Does the article Damian references in comment #49 go against the tenets of your paper?

* What about M. Khalil's cartoons in your paper, as noted by J. Lichty in comment #44? Do you believe those cartoons reflect an anti-Jewish agenda?

* And what about this article with the ending that "They [Jews] claim that they are purest of Semites, but the truth is that they are one of the lowest of Semites in terms of civilization and history." Care to comment?

> Lyndon LaRouche is similarly despicable in my eyes.

But you'll publish an article that had previously appeared in LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review, and which quotes LaRouche only as a "Democratic Presidential candidate." Can you see why it might be hard for members of this forum to take your disclaimer of anti-semitism in your paper at face value?

Your Jewish tutor, biography collaborator, Oxford friend... what effect do you think this stuff has? Putting this material in your paper, which you edit, for international distribution - do you think it has no effect on them as Jews? Do you truly believe this lives up to the standard of conduct required of a friend?

Of course, the above questions assume that you were serious about your inability to work for a publication with anti-Jewish leanings. A matter in some question here, which is why J. Lichty's 7th question is also highly relevant:

* "If you are so against anti-semitism, have you or the Arab News publicly denounced any acts of anti-semitism by Muslim religious leaders in the Muslim world, or any anti-semitic acts occurring in Europe?" If so, when?

Looking forward to those answers.

-- ANTI-ISRAEL --

Let's move on now. Like Christopher (comment #46) I'm also a bit confused by another contrast within your reply. On the one hand:

> I would distrust any international publication that had a "core
> mission", if by that you mean it is being used as a vehicle to promote
> crude propaganda.

Yet on the other hand, regarding the Arab-Israel conflict, you complain that anti-Israel articles can't be published in America (?!?) and say:

> ...Arab News tries to provide a counterweight to this fundamental
> censorship on this specific issue.

So you're trying to promote one side. The reason you do it is just your argument as to why it's defensible. In light of your own words, however, you can't now argue that your paper's policy isn't propaganda. Glad we've clarified that. As for:

> It is almost impossible to publish anti-Israeli articles in the American
> media, print or otherwise...

Again, Christopher (comment #46) has raised a good point. In light of his simple demonstration, the only way to make sense of that statement is to assume that the standards in Saudi Arabia are so extreme compared to the West that press coverage provoking Jewish boycotts over here isn't even recognized as "anti-Israel" over there. Surely not an unreasonable conclusion given the frequent examples of Arab government publications with articles praising Hitler (Egypt's Al-Akhbar, among others), telling readers that Jews use childrens' blood in Passover rituals, and recommending that the USA expel all Jews (Al-Riyadh... and as Damian Penny notes in comment #48, you republished that one yourselves).

* This leads into another important question: at what point does an anti-Israel viewpoint extend beyond the pale for you? For instance, is the view that all Jews in Israel should be driven into the sea beyond the pale, or a subject of legitimate debate that you'd be willing to publish?

I'd be very interested in that answer. Especially in light of the Arab News article referenced in comment #49, arguing that all Jews were Israeli citizens.

On a related subject, J. Lichty asked (comment #44):

> 3) Are homicide bombings by Palestinians, specifically those that target
> Israeli civilians morally wrong in your opinion?

Actually, Arab News did run an article by Amir Taheri. There was some debate as to how far that went (see Ideofact for more), but it was there.

Of course, Arab News has also run articles praising suicide bombing - and these are predominant in its coverage. Still, credit where it's due.

-- INTERNAL ARABIAN AFFAIRS --

Let's look at Arabian internal affairs under the House of Saud for a moment.

> Considering that audience, the job of covering "political
> liberalization" in Saudi Arabia is largely left to the local
> Arabic-language media, and we have a daily section "from the local
> press" consisting of four translated articles...

Yes, I noticed the "Kingdom" section of your web site. Not exactly a bastion of fearless reporting, to say the least. Puff pieces on important Saudis, weather reports, and gas industry news. Plus an article warning us that "you really can get hurt in professional wrestling."

I can see why you had to leave the British media behind in order to blaze new trails of fearless journalism like this.

> ...it is through the “from the local press” section, prominently displayed
> on page 3, that we cover hard-core domestic political debate.

"Hard core domestic debate" and "Saudi Arabia" are not often found in the same sentence. But some benefit of the doubt is in order.

* Can you throw out some examples of this "hard core domestic debate" from the past 3 months or so? Can't seem to find that on the web site.

Robert Crawford's question re: the anti-government demonstrations (comment #45) is also well taken. Surely that would qualify as very important news to your core readership of Indo-Pakistani "guests" and Western expatriates, for whom regime stability would be a supremely important issue given their vulnerable status. Any serious journalist would pretty much have to cover something like that.

* Did you cover those demonstrations? If so, where?

-- DISSENT OR CONFORMITY? --

This also leads nicely into my earlier question:

* Please explain the ways in which Arab News challenges, rather than pampers, the conformist majority views of Saudi culture. You replied:

> A: What are the "conformist majority views of Saudi culture"? Saudi
> Arabia is a very complex society, and neither the press here nor outside
> reflects that complexity. I'll be happy to talk about this, but please

With respect, I didn't ask if you reflected that complexity. The USA and UK are also complex, but that didn't stop you from generalizing. You specifically accused British and US papers of kowtowing to prevailing social and political views, creating "a wholesale abandoning of principles." You wrote that this dynamic was an important reason behind your move to Arab News. So... how are you doing on that score? You claim to know more about Saudi society than we do. Fine, I'm taking you at your word.

* On the basis of your knowledge of Saudi society, how does Arab News challenge your readers and provide a voice that goes beyond conformity to the political and social views of Saudi society?

This subject also brings us back to J. Lichty's questions from comment #44. Your views aren't relevant to me, but your paper's actions are because they speak to your journalistic integrity. So...

* Has Arab News written articles critical of any significant policy of the Saudi government? We're talking criticism of the policy itself, not "X should be enforced more". If so, please provide evidence (links, cites) because we can't find them.

* Let's get even more specific now, via another J. Lichty question: "Do you think that the Saudi Government should pay the families of Palestinian homicide bombers?" More to the point, has Arab News ever published an article criticizing this Saudi policy? If you received such an article from a Muslim, would you publish it?

* Finally, are any Arab acts or policies at least partially to blame for predicament of the Palestinians, or is it all the fault of Israel? If the policies of the any Arab governments have contributed to the misery of the Palestinians, have you published any article acknowledging the same? If so, please provide links.

We can suspend discussion of my original Question #5 for the nonce... this should certainly be enough to keep us going for a while. I look forward to your reply - and folks, can we give him a fair chance to answer these before we take this discussion further? "One vs. all" is tough odds, and there's plenty here from all of us to keep him busy.

Joe Katzman:

Can you please submit similar (but modified for obvious reasons) questions to CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, BBC, NBC, CBS, Newsweek, LA Times, NY Times, etc?

Wow. This man is being beaten senseless by Katzman.

Mr Bradley

I have a friend travelling to SA this Fall. Can you recommend a good queer bar?

Two comments:

First, Mr. Bradley writes:

"We are basically on the side of the Palestinians, because we think they have historically been done a great injustice."

How many news organizations can say something like that and get away with it. This statement should be printed as a "non-objectivity warning" with every article concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Mr. Bradley also writes :

"My closest friend at Oxford was Jewish. I could go on. I have Jews to thank for just about everything achievement I’ve ever made, in some small or big way"

Where have I heard that before? Oh, now I remember. It sounds a lot like what you might have heard from the non-Jewish neighbors and acquaintences of my father' family while they sat by and watched them being put on the transport to Dachau.

So many Germans remembered all their Jewish friends after May 7th, 1945. It was really touching.

The state of Israel was formed by the international community as a "life raft" for the Jews, whose population had been decimated by an attempted genocide. It is the homeland of the Jews, and the only country in the world with a population over 2 percent Jews. How can one maintain a stance against the continued existence of Israel without espousing the destruction of the Jews themselves? Martin Luther King Jr. and I can see no difference between anti-zionism, if that means one is against health of the state of Israel, and antisemitism, if that means one is against the health of the jewish people.

this thread is very interesting but ultimately quite useless. mr bradley is simply a prostitute for the SA thugocracy viz the arab news. just like a hooker will never turn down a john (as long as he pays in hard cold cash) if his breath is rank, mr bradley is probably compensated quite well for doing what he does.

i wonder if mr bradley has ever written about his saudi pimps who go to europe and america to drink fine wine, gamble, visit the most expensive whores on fleet street and elsewhere, while forcing on their citizens a form of islam so extreme and brutal that it makes the mullahs of iran appear moderate?

the arab news makes the nazi deir strum paper look like a high school tabloid - the never ending stream of anti-semitism, anti-western and blood libel is so extreme if it was a parody it would be hard to laugh at.

while 'some of my best friends are jewish" bradley defends his bending over at the expense of the civilized world, i wonder how his jewish mentors feel about his chosen vocation as a mouth piece of a country that is arguably more dangerous then any of the other arab states that we are contemplating going to war against?

mr bradley epitomizes the axiom of the banality of evil. you see, he is just doing his job.

Zulubaby, I would love to submit questions to those other outlets (LA Times and Reuters in particular). Right now, Mr. Bradley has been good enough to step in.

RWM, a lot of those excellent questions aren't mine, but come from others. Credit where it's due. And let's see how this evolves before we start assigning points anywhere.

Mr. Bradley, good morning (in Jiddah, good afternoon already). I know typing answers can take a while, so if you want to start with one or two of the questions in comment #66 we can get going again.

Mr. Bradley, what genetic anomaly compelled you to run this in your latest edition:

[Link: www.arabnews.com...]

Why do USA Presidents cover up every Israeli lie, deception and atrocity by classifying the events TOP SECRET and then call Israel our friend? Why? Why? Why is Israel our friend? WHY? WHY? WHY?

The history and declassification of NSA Top Secret reports, shows that every President and Administration for the last forty years has covered up by declaring the information TOP SECRET; that Israel has treated the USA as a whore. We have been their prostitute, screwed with a wall of constant deceit, lies and disinformation.

Why? Why? Why did you print this article? WHY? WHY? WHY?

Damian -- great catch. Amazing to see this line in a paper edited by someone who "despises" antisemitism:

Is it because Israel controls Hollywood movies, Wall Street financial houses, and the majority of the US media publishing?

There's that ol' "Jews control the media" line.

Hi Joe,

The excited little kids just won't shut up so that us adults can have a proper conversation.

If you can find another website that has an invigilator, and which will allow ordinary Saudis to post comments as well, I will be happy to resume this debate.

How am I supposed to answer 74 postings, most containing streams of questions?

littlegreenfootballs reflects the mainstream American media in the way it completely shuts out one side of the debate out while allowing, indeed encouraging, the other to spew forth just about anything without reason or restraint.

And all out of sheer ignorance!

Is this the wonderful democracy I'm supposed to feel nostalgic for?

While I'm not in the habit of hanging out with white trash, this experience has been welcome in as much as it reminded me of the kind of blind intolerance, complete lack of ethics and general stupidity that now largely defines political discussion in the United States.

Yes, we're still pushing for more freedoms over here; but you guys just went and threw yours away. If you would like to reminded of just how low you have sunk as a media culture, have a read of Gerg Palast's

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: An Investigative Reporter Exposes the Truth about Globalization, Corporate Cons, and High Finance Fraudsters

Available of course from www. amazon.com:

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

I'm off for a stroll down Jeddah's fabulous Corniche, the longest in the world and a kind of open air museum peppered with famous, giant-size sculptures. At dusk the largest fountain in the world bursts into life. Ordinary families settle down to have picnics. Polite smiles and hellos from strangers. A completely crime-free environment. Ah! A bit of civilization . . .

Look out for Taranto part two in Friday's Arab News.

John R. Bradley
News Editor, Arab News
Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

In the spirit of reasonable discussion let us hope "Taranto part two," is more than just ad homonym attack.. I greatly enjoy The Best of the Web today, but am willing to consider sensible critical discussion of it. So far that is not what I have seen from Mr. Bradley.

"littlegreenfootballs reflects the mainstream American media in the way it completely shuts out one side of the debate out while allowing, indeed encouraging, the other to spew forth just about anything without reason or restraint."

Classic issue-evading. If Bradley wants an easier ride with softer questions he should debate with Nation or Guardian readers. But he chose to come here.

When some people talk about 'debate', what they mean is: an exchange of views that differ by no more than about 5 degrees in latitude from their own. Anything further away is deemed a lost cause and is dismissed, much as Mr Bradley dismisses the dozens of (mostly reasonable) questions from commenters here. And in so dismissing them, dismisses the debate.

(And what's all this talk of allowing and not allowing certain people to comment? Is he suggesting that all the pro-Saudi, pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist comments have been expunged? Prove it!)

How am I supposed to answer 74 postings, most containing streams of questions?

One at a time.

While I'm not in the habit of hanging out with white trash

Ah. Thanks. Obviously there were no valid questions asked of you. We're all just a bunch of white trash, too ignorant to realize we're living in a tyranny.

Weren't you the one who wanted constructive debate? Weren't you the one who wanted some questions to answer? Didn't you claim to have the information needed to set all us "white trash" straight?

Mr. Bradley, you are a coward.

(And what's all this talk of allowing and not allowing certain people to comment? Is he suggesting that all the pro-Saudi, pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist comments have been expunged? Prove it!)

He's still cheesed because Charles blocked Saudi posters because of the threats he's gotten from them. Considering 15 of 19 of the 9-11 murderers were Saudis, I can understand Charles' concern.

Bradley's a coward.

"White trash"?

Does that pass for politically correct discourse where you come from, Mr. Bradley?

I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that at least some of the comments on lgf come from persons of color. What are you going to call them: "Black trash"?

By the way, since you have referred to me and my comments as "white supremcist rant", you might be surprised to know that I'm a liberal Democrat son of liberal Democrats. I worked for Ted Kennedy in the 1980 Primary campaign. My late mother, when she lived in Boston, worked for JFK in his Senate campaigns in the 50's and for Hubert Humphrey in the 1968 Presidential campaign. I do pro-bono legal work for local environmental and community organizations. I make thoughtful comments with which people often disagree but which cannot honestly be characterized as "rants". I do happen to be white, but the only people I feel superior to are intellectually dishonest and morally challenged people like yourself.

The Saudis don't chop off any body parts for intellectual dishonesty and moral atrophy do they? Lucky you.

"How am I supposed to answer 74 postings, most containing streams of questions?"

how about answering the original questions in original post?

"While I'm not in the habit of hanging out with white trash, this experience has been welcome in as much as it reminded me of the kind of blind intolerance, complete lack of ethics and general stupidity that now largely defines political discussion in the United States."

arrogant, condesending AND a happy employee of the pimps of SA - that's a trifecta if i ever saw one.

have a nice stroll - please if you see any jews in the tolerant land of saud please tell them "shalom".

JB,
As you head to the delights of the Corniche, make sure you get one of the little people -- you know, the Saudi slaves you supposedly write for -- to start your car for you. There have been some nasty car bombs planted under the cars of westerners such as yourself. Wouldn't want you to be deterred in your constitutional.

Bradley writes "Ah! A bit of civilization . . ."

Hmmm...if oppressing women is a part of what you deem "civilization", well, then I want no part of it.

Johnny B.

I believe the little plug for another Taranto rant on Friday will give Arab News another few thousand hits.

I believe that you are not fully gauging American mainstream opinion very well.

We don't like Saudi Arabia very much.

Not because we are racists or ignorant.

But because of the Saudi attempts at discrediting our foreign policy, discounting our legitimate fears of the radical Muslim world (re: 9/11) and demolish a fellow democracy (Israel) into nothing more than a Nazi state.

"A completely crime-free environment. Ah! A bit of civilization . . ."

I bet the US could be crime-free too if we cut off the hands of thieves and beheaded rapists and murderers. Speaking of crime-free, do those car bombings not count as crimes, or are they ok since the victims are Westerners? It's true about the civilization part, the problem is that it's a civilization from the Middle Ages.

Steven Chapman wrote:

And what's all this talk of allowing and not allowing certain people to comment? Is he suggesting that all the pro-Saudi, pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist comments have been expunged?

As Robert mentioned above, I had to block a group of IP addresses from Saudi Arabia after receiving numerous threats. But it's dead obvious that I certainly do not delete pro-Saudi, pro-Palestinian, or anti-Zionist comments.

Mr. Bradley, thank you for your response to my question concerning your views on racism in Saudi Arabia. Your "white trash" comment spoke more volumes on the matter than a lengthy paragraph possibly could.

The offended John R. Bradley writes from crime-free Saudi Arabia:

littlegreenfootballs reflects the mainstream American media in the way it completely shuts out one side of the debate out while allowing, indeed encouraging, the other to spew forth just about anything without reason or restraint.

I know it's getting old, but really:

Pot, kettle, black. When it comes to spreading unadulterated nutball propaganda, Arab News takes a back seat to no one. Stand proud, Mr. Bradley, at your association with such a fine collection of educated, dedicated, ethics-bound writers. Stand proud.

Is this the wonderful democracy I'm supposed to feel nostalgic for?

I hear ya, John. Islamist-nutball dictatorships straight out of the ninth century are so much quieter and less messy.

I'm off for a stroll down Jeddah's fabulous Corniche, the longest in the world and a kind of open air museum peppered with famous, giant-size sculptures. At dusk the largest fountain in the world bursts into life. Ordinary families settle down to have picnics. Polite smiles and hellos from strangers.

But only male strangers, right, Mr. Bradley? After all, wouldn't want women saying hello to a stranger. Might make them debauched and adulterous.

Personally, after work today, I plan to go bike-riding along the large lakefront near my home, where instead of looking at statues, I'll be looking at people also having picnics, living their lives -- men and women, all in charge of their own destinies, choosing what to wear, say, eat, and drink, without a bunch of retrograde mullahs and their mutawa'in schoolmarms-with-nightsticks. But hey, to each his own -- I'm sure that living in a place without all those uppity Jews, openly-practicing Christians, and women in charge of something other than a kitchen, appeals to some. It's amazing how people don't let their purportedly "liberal" Left-wing credentials stand in the way of speaking for "cultures" so intolerant, they make Inquisition Spain look like modern-day San Francisco.

By the way, when you ask your significant other to join you in the Saudi paradise, do be sure to tell her that (a) she will have to remain at home unless you go out with her, and (b) she will not be able to leave the country without your permission. Not telling you how to run your life or anything, but it would seem that for a man of such stellar ethics as you, it would be of some importance to let someone know that she will be a prisoner in her house, with you as the warden. Just sayin', is all.

A completely crime-free environment.

Sure, if you just ignore the actions of the Islamists, or their supporters in the government, or indeed the government itself. But hey! -- cutting off a few hands is a small price to pay to reduce thievery, isn't it!

Ah! A bit of civilization . . .

Yep. Attending beheadings optional.

Have a nice life. Just look out for the anti-infidel snipers. Because I doubt they'll give a rip about your post as News Editor.

Rational questions for an irrational asshole, how silly!

What a clown, Bradley is. He's allegedy an editor, so why didn't he go through the posts, see that there were common themes therin and use his judgement on who to answer?

I think we know the answer. He's a bullying type afraid of a fight where he can't cheat.

As a native speaker of English, I can't help but gasp when I read the Arab News. Anti-Semitic libels and false accusations aside, the worst crime being committed by the Arab News is the relentless, varied, diverse, and comprehensive brutalization of the English language. Read this fantastic article on the Israeli-American relationship (a real winner!) and you'll understand what I mean. So, Mr. Bradley, I hereby offer my services as the next Copy Editor for your distinguished publication. I won't comment on your newspaper's impotence when it comes to objectivity or consistency. Rather, I'll just make sure that nobody butchers the tongue of the American Global Hegemon in your paper. I'm not a Dartmouth grad, but I'm sure I can do a better job than you.

You can reach me at kaiser@dublin.com.

Anxiously awaiting your response,
Justin.

BTW, I think his description of Dartmouth as being dominated by 'right wingers' because there was a frequently attacked conservative student publication there. I guess Bradley finds open distribution of opposing ideas terrifying.

The idea of any East Coast liberal arts college being dominated by "right wingers" is an absurdity that only an editor of Arab News could utter without laughing.

Well, anything that falls short of not advocating the destruction of Israel must surely be "right wing".

Actually, that Bradley turns out to be a far, far lefty explains a lot about Arab News. I'd noticed a while ago that anything Arab News wants to attack is labeled "right-wing" -- and now I know why.

Well, their target audience is people who tend to have an anti-American or antisemitic worldview. In the case of the former specifically, those are people who are not "right wing", at least in America. I don't think Arab News' constant harping on the evils of America are going to win the hearts of many "right wingers", but people who tend anyway to think American foreign policy is something to hate ala Bradley himself, eat this sort of thing up. Another type of target is the person who thinks that by definition an alternate viewpoint is better. That by definition if its not part of the "mainstream media" it's better. They feel as if they're reading some secret truths that CNN "doesn't want us to know".

I doubt very much if Bradley who whores himself to one of the most oppressive, misogynist and racist regimes on earth is a leftie in the possible positive senses; do you think he's commited to social justice? Or is he just commited to antisemitism and the fun he must have in those Saudi "compounds" for Westerners?

do you think he's commited to social justice?

I think he believes he is.

Unfortunately, he defines "social justice" in a way most people would find abhorrent. Look at the people who attacked Jews at SFSU and the ones who post antisemitic posters around Berkeley -- they're no different than John R. Bradley.

That Bradley has been revealed as a left wing extremist is a bit of a surprise, but it makes the vicious ad hominem, rabid anti-semitism, and brazen lies of his publication make sense. Such are the daily tools of the far Left.

His employment in the arab world only seems incoherent, as there has long been a fringe overlap of the extreme Left and Islamic national socialism.

The Arab News says that

The Beltway Boys are ignorant hayseeds!

Don't worry. They don't only criticize Americans and Israelis. Al-Jazeera, a television station of which I'm not very fond, is the only independent Arab TV station in the Middle East. It should "control itself:"

[Link: www.arabnews.com...]

How am I supposed to answer 74 postings, most containing streams of questions?

littlegreenfootballs reflects the mainstream American media in the way it completely shuts out one side of the debate out while allowing, indeed encouraging, the other to spew forth just about anything without reason or restraint.

Well, Mr Bradley, which is it? How can you be "shut out" of a debate when most of the posts are asking you questions. Asking for you to speak is hardly telling you to shut up...

And all out of sheer ignorance!

Yes, we all know that the ignorant are open-minded and curious and therefore ask lots of questions (this is sarcasm). Have you thought that maybe the reason people think a certain way is because nobody has been able to convince them that they are wrong. I know that I can admit that I am wrong, and my views can be changed, but it takes a little more than some guy who spent "some time at Dartmouth" to say "trust me, I'm right".

Oh well, it seems that you have taken your ball and gone home. The door here is always open to dissent, and if you cared to look around, you would have found some very good discussions.

If you ever become a vertibrate, please come back.

That's Dr. White Trash to you, buddy. As a long-time member of the white trash race (and the proud possesor of a PhD), I'm getting pretty fed up with our culture being bashed. We may whop our women-folk around a bit, but permanent damage is a no-no, and they whop back (sometimes with implements). We at least let them go out in public without covering up (hardly at all, in many cases) as should be obvious to anyone who's seen their makeup, their Daisy Dukes, high-heel strap sandals, and tube tops.

In addition, I am largely unaware of any pro-Zionists among my white trash family or friends, maybe because most of them don't have a clue about just what Zionism is. They also tend to confuse Jews with Amish and others who wear beards, headcoverings, and black clothing as a matter of religious practice.

Finally, we've got a lot of better things to do with our time (drinkin', dippin', cussin', leerin', fishin', and huntin' mostly) to get into a hissy fight with a semi-coherent, Ayrab arse-likkin', apologist for medieval thought, possibly Brit twit.

For all my white trash people, let's give it a rest. As we would say, arguin' with an educated idiot is a lot like mud-wrestlin' a hog: you're both going to get filthy, but only one of you is gonna like it.

I like that theory about you being a secret agent. You remind me of several others in the last century.

http...

According to Mary Lovell in her biography of explorer Sir Richard Burton, the custom of 'short, easily dissolved' marriages referred to in this link about Lawrence of Arabia was actually a way to whitewash the practice of prostitution to bring it in line with the Koran's restrictions on sex outside of marriage.

Here is the message I sent to Lonely Planet re: the use of Mr. Bradley's material on Saudi Arabia:

Dear Sir or Madam:

I wish to call your attention to an individual named John R. Bradley. He claims to have written an upcoming piece for one of your guides on Saudi Arabia. As you may know, Mr. Bradley is news editor for the Arab News, a Saudi-based English-language online newspaper. The Arab News puts out a steady stream of vicious anti-semitic propaganda (often of a genocidal nature) and runs articles by white supremacists and holocaust deniers. In addition, as the included link makes clear, Mr. Bradley, by virtue of his position at the Arab News and residence in Jeddah, is totally in thrall to the governing dictatorship of the country. Given all this, I wonder how Mr. Bradley's contribution to your normally trustworthy guides can possibly be credible? I ask that you consider whether or not you folks can afford to have your credibility damaged by relying on material written by people like Mr. Bradley.

For more on this sorry individual's activities, beliefs, and mindset, please see this link:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Or simply go to the Arab News's website--it's self-evident.

Thanks for your consideration of this matter.

Hal Goldman

The Jewish lobby in this thread has gone overboard.

Katz and others are sytematically diminishing solid arguments with emotional over-reaction.

Bradley is a bigot.

Challenging him on matters of substance is merely enhanceing his standing with his masters, our friends the Saudis.

Anyone with a grain of savy can see through his Arab News rants for what they are.

I say attack Bradley on his credentials, his motivation and the agenda he is promoting.

A spell at Dartmouth College studying what? driving around America for a couple months and now as the News Editor of the Arab News he's qualified to make sweeping statements on American foreign policy and all things American. Please!

Is Bradley motivated by principal or self interest or emulating Fisk and Pilcher to enhance his career through anti-Americanism and anti-semitism?

Has Bradley stooped below Fisk and Pilcher by selling himself to the Arab News or is he just another creep in search of a cause?

I merely cite Fisk and Pilcher as symbols of the anti-American syndrome. Bradley has some ways to go before he can equal the infamy of those two scumbags.

The Jewish lobby in this thread has gone overboard.

And with that starting line, you've lost 99.99999% of your audience.

Interesting assumption concerning the race of the people posting here; nobody knows what my race is (the last time I checked, "Jew" was not a race, unless you're a Nazi), and it's irrelevant and none of anyone's business.

And, despite the Arabs' attempt for propaganda purposes to portray themselves as being in solidarity with the world's people of color while falsely accusing Israel of "racism," the fact is that the Arabs, as Semites, are considered Caucasian (for whatever that's worth, given the basic uselessness of racial categories).

The fact also is that the Arabs are STILL engaging in chattel slavery of non-Muslim Blacks in The Sudan. Last time I looked, the Israelis weren't raiding Black villages, burning them down, slaughtering all the men and enslaving (and sexually abusing) the women and children.

[BTW, regarding the disgusting letter which Charles posted to demonstrate the kind of hate mail he's gotten, isn't it interesting how people from one of the most sexually repressive cultures on the face of the earth who self-righteously criticize the "licentious" West, seem to talk obsessively about "unnatural" sex acts?]

The fact also is that Jews are not allowed to enter Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. government won't even send Jewish personnel there in deference to Saudi sensibilities. So who's "racist"?

The fact is that the Saudi royalty give out copies of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to visitors.

The fact is that the Saudis have been engaged for years in aggressively exporting their extreme version of Wahhabi Islam, busily creating a fifth column in the U.S. and elsewhere.

The fact is that the Saudis have paid protection money to terrorists while turning a blind eye to their horrific acts against innocent civilians.

The fact is that the Saudis have paid blood money to the families of suicide bombers.

But we know all of this already, don't we? My question is why in the world we haven't already declared Saudi Arabia a serious threat to our country and Saudis personae non grata. What more do we need to force us to pull our collective head out of the Arabian desert sand? IMO, the Saudis are just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya put together.

"A completely crime-free environment. Ah! A bit of civilization . . ."

That's because all members of the Saudi ruling class are spending their summer vacation in Switzerland.
If you want a crime-free environment, do as the Saudis: turn some criminals into princes, give the others a country to play in (Afghanistan) and, obviously, employ guys like Bradley to discuss all this openly in your free press.

The Jewish lobby in this thread has gone overboard.

Another winner.

>>>I'm off for a stroll down Jeddah's fabulous Corniche, the longest in the world and a kind of open air museum peppered with famous, giant-size sculptures. At dusk the largest fountain in the world bursts into life. Ordinary families settle down to have picnics. Polite smiles and hellos from strangers. A completely crime-free environment. Ah! A bit of civilization . .

The ball is in your court, Mr. Bradley.

It ain't between his legs! ^_^

James W.,

"The ball is in your court, Mr. Bradley.

It ain't between his legs! ^_^"

Please, when discussing Saudi Arabia, the removal of body parts is no laughing matter.

I am a Jew and I have been to Saudi Arabia for business and have many Saudi Friends. The reality is somewhere inbetween what the paranoid freaks and Mr. Bradley are saying. Saudi Arabia is a place with a lot of strange things going on, a lot of ignorance, and a lot of anti-semitism. However the flip side is that most of this comes from ignorance and being closed off to the outside world. When I met people there and they found out I was both a Jew and Israeli, they had a lot of questions. I was doing business there and money makes the world go 'round. But I can say honestly that I was a lot more afraid when I visited Poland and E. Germany than when I was in Saudi Arabia. Obviously I didn't meet the nutbals in the shadows, but what I saw and what I see in my Saudi friends are people just like me... in Los Angeles we all get along pretty well, especially when there is business involved.

Those of you on this thread who are foaming at the mouth are, to me, just as ignorant as the Saudis who hate Jews. you know why they hate them? Because they've never met one in their life. That country is pretty messed up and most Saudis I know think it is headed for downfall eventually. Corruption is the name of the game and that is never good for long term prospects. Mr. Bradley may see it through rose-colored glasses because Saudis are some of the best hosts in the world and they pay very well. But in some ways he is closer to the reality than those of you bringing up Dachau. Saudi Arabia is not German, and in my opinion Israelis have a lot more in common with them than they do with the Eastern Europeans and Russians. Those are the true anti-semites. Anyway my opinion is business-related, not politics. I know I am not talking about the bad side of Saudi Arabia, but this only comes out because I read people saying Jews are not allowed to go there, they are all antisemetic, and comparing this to the Nazis. No, this is not right. Anyway great site, it is a good resource and it is good to see people challenging Arab News, which by the way I don't read but from the little I have seen, it is the definition of the word "rag". So kudos to actually taking it on, but some of you are just as off as the editor of that rag.

I beg to differ Mr. Pink.

The Saudis aid & abet every Islamic terrorist organization in existence, who would love to see you & your fellow Jews brutally exterminated. The Wall St Journal's James Taranto quoted Dennis Prager a while back, who argued that Islamists ARE WORSE than the Nazis.

[Link: www.opinionjournal.com...]

Worse Than the Nazis?
Writing for Jewish World Review, Dennis Prager argues that Islamic anti-Semitism is worse than Nazism:

We Jews have reasons to worry because the last time a civilization declared such hatred against Jews, what ensued was the most organized and monumental evil in history, the Holocaust. We hoped that Nazi-type hatred would never reappear. But it has. In fact, in two ways, Arab/Muslim anti-Semitism is more frightening.

First, while both Nazi and the Arab/Muslim anti-Semites have used closed societies with their controlled press to promote horrific lies about Jews, the Nazis hid their murder of Jews from the German public. They did not have confidence that enough Germans would support the murder of Jewish men, women and children. The Arab/Muslim anti-Semites, however, have no such problem. Those who kill Jews in Israel are public celebrities. . . .

The second more frightening aspect of Arab/Muslim Jew-hatred is that many of these haters do not value their own lives. Nazis did.

Saudi Arabia is a place with a lot of strange things going on, a lot of ignorance, and a lot of anti-semitism. However the flip side is that most of this comes from ignorance and being closed off to the outside world.

So fucking what. That's not the flipside, it doesn't cancel anything out. Saudi Arabia is dangerous, it is the incubator and financier of international terrorist groups and that must be dealt with as it is.

You dismissed Saudi Arabia as "strange". Maybe. The Taliban were also strange. Harmless nuts -- to us. So what if they were a bunch of 12th century barbarians harvesting clitorises and chopping off hands. That was there and that was their problem.

But then it turned out that beneath their harmless strangeness and the fact that they were literally on the other side of the world they were not in fact harmless nutjobs. They were harbouring the mastermind of an international terrorist organisation that had the means and the will to wage war against the United States.

Similarly I beg to differ with your attempt to poo poo away Saudi Arabia. We cannot ignore what they've been up to.

I am fully prepared to agree with your assesment that many Saudi citizens, perhaps the overwhelming majority, are not the enemies of civilization. But the Saudi regime certainly is an enemy of the United States and Israel.

in Los Angeles we all get along pretty well, especially when there is business involved.

There you have it, Ze'ev. The fact that they are liars and greedy opportunists doesn't diminish their dangerousness.

Ze'ev, I was glad to read something from someone who actually had objective first hand knowledge of SA, thanks, and please post more.

However, a brief historical perusal of the genocides of the last century shows a repeating pattern: when the killers came, whether they were Waffen SS or Hutu Interhamwe, their victim's neigbors stepped aside and let them be taken. Fear? Cowardice? Or a kind of ethnic hatred, a madness that bubbles to the surface at such times?

In Bosnia, the muslims lived side by side with serbs, they intermarried, they did business, in peace, for 60 years. Then one day their leaders gave the word, and they began to kill each other.

As a jew Ze'ev, I'd be less than confident about the smiles of your arab friends, even when "business is involved."

In word and deed, a large segment of the Saudi ruling class (and in a tyrannical place like S.A., it truly is a ruling class) has declared itself to be an enemy of the United States, and have been so bold as to act upon that status in such a manner as to result in the murder of several thousand American citizens. A large segment of the Japanese ruling class once did the same. The outcome, of course, was horrific beyond imagination for the Japanese population as a whole, and particularly for those Japanese rulers who either were hung by the neck, or chose to disembowel themselves rather than endure such a fate. Let it be clear; the only reason Saudi society has not suffered a similar fate to the Japanese is that the Saudis, in the their idiotic backwardness, lack the technological and industrial base to be a threat on par with the Japanese circa 1941, and as a result the U.S. has not yet perceived the need to react in as ruthless a manner as it did 60 years ago. The perceived lower requirement for a pitiless, ruthless, response, however, should not be taken by the Saudi ruling class, which Mr. Bradly so enthusiastically serves, as a sign that they are safe. No, their demise is coming, for the American people will not forever put off dealing with those entities which put in motion the events that ulitimately resulted in the murder of thousands of American civilians. If Mr. Bush does not prosecute this war effectively, the people of the United States will install someone who does, and God forgive the Arab fascists if they successfully employ a weapon of mass destruction against a democratic, technological collossus like the U.S.. The response will make Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, and yes, Nagasaki and Hiroshima seem like minor affairs. There will be very little left of the crypto-fascist monumental architecture with which Mr. Bradley has become so enamored. Please do take this post as a wish for such an outcome: many innocents would face hideous slaughter, and titanic slaughter does has a horrible effect on the slaughterers as well. Let it be simply said that it is most of all in the interest of the Saudi ruling class to radically reform as quickly as possible, or to meekly, quietly, permenently, retire to their Swiss bank accounts and chalets. One way or another, a firestorm approaches, and it is only a question of how massive it will be, and how many it consumes.

I propose to Mr. Pink that the "ignorance" he speaks of in Saudi Arabia is carefully cultivated by the ruling class, for purposes which I hardly think I need to outline here. Some people find such ignorance, at most, a charming cultural "quirk," and don't really worry about it as long as it doesn't interfere with whatever business they are conducting; or they use it to contrast with the supposed prejudices of the people complaining about the effects of this cultural ignorance.

re. #113

"But I can say honestly that I was a lot more afraid when I visited Poland and E. Germany than when I was in Saudi Arabia."

Mr. Pink,

At the time you visited E.Germany and Poland,
both countries were under the soviet yoke with the cold war still going on. I can agree that at that time the "police state implementation" in E.Europe was more suffocating and menacing than in SA, and every visitor was considered a potential spy.
But the antisemitism was much more suppressed in E.Europe than in SA and there was minimal chance to suffer ill consequences for just being a Jew.

Few questions:
1. You did not enter SA on your Israeli passport, did you?
2. I also doubt very much that SA authorities knew that you were Jewish. Did the know?
3. And exactly of what were you afraid more in Poland than in SA?

Well, that ends that. Those who predicted that faced with serious questioning, Mr. Bradley would elect not to participate... were right.

For the record, Mr. Bradley was not asked to respond to 74 different posts. He was asked to respond to ONE, post #66, as per his earlier statement in post #36 that he "would only take questions from Joe Katzman." When crunch time came, however, he fled. Perhaps we underestimated the quality of his fit with the House of Saud.

I must say I'm disappointed, but can't say I'm surprised. As for his reference to Arabia under the House of Saud as:

"Ah! A bit of civilization..."

This is obviously some new definition of "civilization" with which I was not previously acquainted.

We now return you to your eegularly scheduled blogging...

Mr. E,

The link to one of the articles in #89 is titled, "Watching US news with deep shame"
and is written By a Correspondent! - I love that.

One of the links you posted has obviously been removed. I'm curious to know what it was.

And Jeffrey Steinberg writes for Arab News? I find that strange, to say the very least. I mean, there may be leftie Jews and all, but to write for Arab News? I wonder if he actually lives there (in SA, I mean).

And did you see Kahil's cartoon?

123 comments! Is this an LGF record in a single post?

"123 comments! Is this an LGF record in a single post? "

No. The thread a couple of days ago on the Saleh Shehada bombing went longer.

Bradley wrote:

We regularly emphasize in editorial meetings that Jews are not and never have been “the enemy”. It is the extremes of Zionism we object to."

Posters here have questioned the sincerity of the distinction between "Jews" and "the extremes of Zionism," but these posters missed a larger point. Namely: why on earth would the ArabNews editors need to "regularly emphasize" this?

If they weren't anti-Semites, wouldn't it go without saying? You don't think the editors of the Washington Post sit around saying, "By the way, don't forget that we don't hate Hispanic people," do you?

The fact that the ArabNews crew feel the need not only to say it, but to "regularly" say it, speaks for itself.

Justin: "I'm not a Dartmouth grad..."

By the way, regarding Dartmouth, let's be clear: Bradley did not graduate. I'm looking at my "2001 Dartmouth Alumni Directory" right now: no John R. Bradley.

"123 comments! Is this an LGF record in a single post? "

"No. The thread a couple of days ago on the Saleh Shehada bombing went longer."

Actually, the post about the Dying to Live campaign has 314 comments.

I'll say it again.

The "Jewish" lobby here has gone overboard.

Bradley has left the self appointed inquisitor Katzman ranting and raving in the dust!

As for Ze'evi Pink...Fink or whoever...amazing how anyone could fall for such a piece of contrived crap.

"but what I saw and what I see in my Saudi friends are people just like me."

Yeah, right!

But Marek #120 saw through it.

The glue that bonds us to Saudi Arabia is oil.

Saudi Arabia is a time bomb waiting to explode.

Beneath the elite who spend $millions crafting the image they present to the outside world there is a smoldering cauldren of discontent and hatred.

Hatred of the oppresive regime, hatred of the US and hatred of Israel.

This hatred is preached daily by by their twisted clergy. Translation of their anti-American sermons and calling for the destruction of Israel are readily available.

No surprise that 15 of the 19 who brought down the twin towers were Saudis, OBL is a Saudi...and how do you think OBL finances his terrorist activities.

Over a 1000 mosques have been opened in the US over the past 15 years, all of them paid for by Saudi Arabia. The same has happened in Europe.

There is not one single church or synagoge in Saudi Arabia. It is an offence to openly practice a religion other than their special brand of Islam.

The ailing "King" Faud is in a hospital in Switzerland where banks are getting nervous about handling their mind boggling $billions.

Why? Because when the evil house of Saud finally collapses the fundamentalists who will replace them will seek repatriation of the $billions they have stashed away all over the world.

Banks don't want to deal with this kind of stuff anymore. They don't want to go though the same grinder they had to after the demise of Marcos and Mobuto etc who stole petty cash compared to the house of Saud.

In his "axis of evil" speach president Bush omitted to name Saudi Arabia and we all know why!

It is a matter of urgency that we find alternative sources of energy before this cesspool erupts.

Back to Bradley.

Debating self serving mercenaries like Bradley who has sold his soul to the devil, is a waste of time.

Of course he will say I really don't hate America, I don't hate the Jews...but I have to say it because of the money and my position as news editor of the Arab News!

Anyway, he has to live with himself and hopefully someday will reflect on his current despicable dishonesty.

Juan:

"Bradley has left the self appointed inquisitor Katzman ranting and raving in the dust!"

Hardly ranting and raving. Joe Katzman's questions were valid and reasonable, as were those asked by other posters. If anything, Bradley had a massive speed wobble while attempting to answer any of Joe Katzman's questions. He called everyone here "white trash" and some other nice compliments and ran away like a girl.

Joe Katzman didn't appoint himself as the "inquisitor" - Charles did, and it's his website so he can.

I agree with you about Bradley selling his soul to the devil, and having to live with himself for doing so. For someone with his arrogance because he took some courses at Dartmouth, he couldn't hold up his side of the 'constructive debate' that he called for. Joe Katzman, on the other hand, was a gentleman.

zulubaby,

I'll give you Katzman's #66 was a "gentlemanly" rant. OK.

"Joe Katzman didn't appoint himself as the "inquisitor" - Charles did, and it's his website so he can."

Sorry, I missed that first post by Charles.

But "inquistor" Katzman was. He did a fine job but I say he in particular went overboard.

If he'd taken it step by step he might've had better luck drawing Bradley out. Instead, Bradley dodged the questions and went off the air.

I suspect he was totally overwhelmed by with the shear volume of rhetoric, he admitted as much.

He wrote: "Look out for Taranto part two in Friday's Arab News."

I wonder if the debate here will flair up again if he keeps to his word?

He'd be wise not to, there's an army out here waiting to take him apart!

We'll see, maybe he's a masochist or a wannabe white martyr!

Oh, it will flair up again alright!

I have a feeling Bradley's article on Friday will be less about Taranto, and more about LGF :-)

We'll see what the pompous airbag has in store for us...

Juan writes:

I suspect [Bradley] was totally overwhelmed by with the shear volume of rhetoric, he admitted as much.

Probably. That's why his browser has scroll bars and a "find" function. A brilliant, accomplished journalist such as the illustrious Mr. Bradley would surely not be intimidated at having to skim, right?

He wrote: "Look out for Taranto part two in Friday's Arab News." I wonder if the debate here will flair up again if he keeps to his word?

You mean, are we going to laugh at him again? I plan to. Though the joke isn't as funny the second time around.

One question for Juan - Are you, by chance, Juan Pablo, from SF and Penn? You have a similar style of writing and thinking, so I figured it might not be impossible.

Regardless, you should be ashamed of yourself - the Jewish lobby is a canard if I've ever heard one. I'm Jewish and contributing to LGF - so am I now a part of the Jewish lobby? Are you a part of the Hispanic lobby ?

What if I'm half-Moroccan - am I part of the Moroccan lobby?

Just because Jewish people are contributing on this blog doesn't make their opinions less valid. Just like I don't discount your opinion just for being Hispanic, you shouldn't discount mine just because I'm Jewish.

WRT Mr. Bradley, I completely fail to see why he has not posted. He invited a discussion and has refused to answer any questions.

Unless he enjoys the punishment (perhaps the martyrdom culture is wearing off on him)...

But seriously, if Mr. Bradley were a serious interlocutor, it would be a non-issue. He would have spent an hour or two and managed to answer maybe 3-5 questions, and then come back the next day to do the same.

G. Enough

Here's a sample of the work of this "brilliant accomplished journalist"

[Link: www.arabnews.com...]

It's a litany of sycophancy and patronage I defy you to top!

Laughter is your choice if he shows up on Friday, me I'm assembling a cyber cross!

Ariel # 134

Am I Juan Pablo de SF y Penn? Naw, Yo soy Don Quixoti, el hombre de La Mancha!

Are you Ariel Sharon?

"Just because Jewish people are contributing on this blog doesn't make their opinions less valid."

I agree 100%. Lighten up on the semantics Ariel and stay on message, ie Bradley.

"WRT Mr. Bradley, I completely fail to see why he has not posted."

I'll tell you why. He's a coward who was overwhelmed by the response to his intelectual dishonesty. He also made a fatal mistake by entraping himself at LGF.

Got it?

#136

stay on message, ie Bradley.

You're the one who introduced a new idea ie. the Jewish lobby.

So why don't you answer Ariel's reasonable and logical conclusion:

Are you a part of the Hispanic lobby ?

Sorry it takes me so long to respond, i do not normally use the computer. some people asked me questions, well, here are the answers:

I entered SA on my US passport. They did know I was Jewish, many Jews have visited Saudi Arabia, just ask around in the oil business (not my business) and you will find many Jews who have done business in Saudi Arabia. I beleive even politicians from America and Israel have visited.

When i visit Poland and Russia I have seen skinheads, seen many swastikas on the walls, anti-Jewish graffitti. This scares me. In Saudi Arabia things are very controlled, people are civilized and want to maybe argue but not stomp on you! OK we all know that Saudi has many terrorists and murderers, but these are not people that I would come in contact with, and there is nothing to be afraid of on the steets or in private homes.

Many of you are making, I think, the point that hatred of Jews in Saudi Arabia is bottled up and not on the surface. That is probably true, only once in 2 visits there did I ever hear a word against Jews to my face, and this man was spoken against by his colleagues. Remember that I was doing business and business makes the world go round. The more business we do together, the less problems we have. That is my philosophy. The goal is to make friends, do business, whatever. There are people who want to kill Jews all over this country, all over Europe, all over the world. Will they ever go away? I don't know.

In Los Angeles Israelis and Saudis can get a long fine because there are no politics. You must take me for a fool as someone who can't tell where someone's heart is. All my Saudi friends in America could not care what religion I am or even the fact that I am right-wing on the Israeli perspective or that I support Bibi. We don't discuss Israel except for once a year when we insult each other for being barbarians. So what? I can yell at them they can yell at me, what does it hurt? Like I said before, money makes the world go around. I will not be going back to Saudi Arabia given the "current situation" and maybe not ever. But my only reason to post in this forum was to support you guys and give my perspective, which is basically that the smart people in the world are not racist, and the rest don't matter. They are for the military to deal with, not me.

For Juan,

Are you a member of the Hispanic lobby?

I'm curious. (#136)

i do think that there is a vital difference between being anti-zionist and anti-semetic.

the arabs are a semetic people - so are the jews.

i support the right of the jews to have a safe and secure state.

i also support the right of palestinians to have their own state that is safe and secure.

but i cannot support a situation where the freedom for a particular people is dependant on the oppression of another.

i would have hoped that the jews who have endured millenia of oppression by the christian west, would not end up being oppressors themselves.

to me, 'zionism' is understood as being an ideology (based on what is being practised), which privileges jews above all others - that gentiles have no place in an israel that is jewish.

can such a position be supported if it was practised in europe or america?

as for the arguement that only the jews have a right to be in israel since they were there 'first' and are the 'original' peoples. can't anyone see that this is the arguement that is used by right-wing nationalist xenophobes everywhere?

and for those of you who have such strong opinions about the 'role' of islam in oppressing women and minorities - i recommend Karen Armstrong's books on Islam and Muhammad. read, and then tell me what you think.

we should not confuse and judge a particular religion based on the way it has been hijacked by a minority vs. the larger intent of that faith.

this should apply to all faiths - but don't you think that there is some measure of being unfair here? afterall, we never call anyone catholic/protestant/orthodox fundamental terrorists when we refer to the Croatian/IRA/Unionists/Serbian. Somehow, we are able to differentiate between the 'activists' and their 'faith' when we look at the broader 'Christian' faiths but not so when we look at Islam.

another point - the palestinians are not monolithic - neither are the arabs. there are palestinians and arabs who are christian.

and the palestinian cause is a nationalist cause, and has support from palestinian and arabs, both christian and muslim.

the cause has taken on religious tones and now 'led' by the 'religious based' parties partly because the secular movements have not been able to meet the aspirations of the masses.

just wanted to add to the point by ze'ev,
i am sure that there are probably as many murderers and potential terrorists in the USA as there are in SA - but we don't generalise an entire country based on the behaviour of a few! that would be most unfair.

every society is complex - there are probably just as many points of view on everything in SA just as there are in Israel and the US etc. and i do think it is true that people only hate other people if they are ignorant and have never met any real life examples.

in this - the best thing SA can do is to open up to mass tourism! so that we get to meet real life saudis and they get to meet real life foreigners too! good and bad.

Lin #140

You make some very good points and on principal you are absolutely right.

However, reality tells a different story.

Riyadh Kingdom of Saudi Arabia TV1 in Arabic, official television station of the Saudi Government, on Friday 26 July 2002 at 0936 GMT carries a 14-minute live sermon from the holy mosque in Mecca.

Shaykh Usamah Bin-Abdallah Khayyat delivers the sermon. He begins by praising God, the messenger, and his companions, calling on Muslims to abide by the religious duties and to worship and obey God. He devotes the first part of his sermon to warning Muslims against arrogance.

In the second part of the sermon, the imam prays to God: "O God, strengthen Islam and Muslims. O God, protect the religion; destroy the enemies of Islam, the tyrants, and the corrupt; close the Muslims' ranks; and give wisdom to their leaders." He goes on: "O God extend your support to the mujahidin everywhere. O God, help them score victory in Palestine, Khashmir, and Chechnya. O God, destroy the tyrant Jews and their supporters for they are within your power."

juan,

am going off home now - but:

i think we have to recognise that religion has always been used to justify political causes, and this will sadly continue to be the case.

as for the imam's message - i do suspect that
even in SA, the pulpit ends up voicing the internal political tensions within the SA establishment that has been commented on.

and i am sure that different imams will have different sermons based on their own allegiances etc.

shall we judge the entire country based on one
sermon when we know that there is probably alot of intrigue going on?

let us reflect on whether there are really no christians pastors who also give extreme sermons?

shall that be used as a basis for judging the whole faith?

i have muslim friends who will tell you that this iman has gone against the meaning of islam.

what needs to be done, is to show support for those saudis who are trying to change things in their country.

but we have to recognise that they are also in the unenviable position of stuggling for change to a system that caused the outrage of the fire at the girls' school while not being seen as 'lackeys' of the West, which will be a label that will be used by those radicals who oppose change and a normalisation of SA society. If the reformers are labelled as such, they will be discredited.

voicing broad generalizations that condemn the entire people and religion does not help.

historical point -

during the second world war, it was the muslims of bosnia-herzegovina who resisted the deportation of the jews.

and after iberia was reconquered by the catholic monarchs - the jews (and muslims) were expelled and where did they go to? to the Maghreb and to Bosnia - whose muslim rulers welcomed them as people of the book.

do remember that the conflict between jews and muslims is much younger than that between christians and jews and christians and muslims.

the current animosity resulted from the creation of israel in a hurried manner which displaced palestnian arabs who were have made their home in the levant.

lets work to change the tragedy of the last 50 years - let it not be a repeat of the bad blood between christianity and judaism.

another point - what has the us done to demonstrate to the arabs who are just as oppressed by their rulers that the us wants them too to enjoy the liberty and democracy that the us is meant to be a symbol of?

not much it seems, but worse, it also seems to be that the us is propping up the tyrant rulers who use the israel/palestine issue to distract their people from the real issues of a just society in their own countries.

i think that the world will be even more dangerous if iraq or SA collapses. that kind of anarcy, how can it be dealt with?

Lin #142

I agree with much of what you say but again I say the reality tells a different story.

The iman I cited is broadcasting from the holy mosque in Mecca! Can't go higher that that.

But you know they're all doing it.

Iraq: "O God, destroy the Jews and Americans for they are within your power."
[Link: www.imra.org.il...]

Jordan: "O God, destroy the Jews and the aggressors."
[Link: www.imra.org.il...]

Yemen: "O God, destroy the Jews and their supporters. O God, destroy the Christians and their supporters for they are within your power."
[Link: www.imra.org.il...]

What a mess.

Lin #140

You wrote:
to me, 'zionism' is understood as being an ideology (based on what is being practised), which privileges jews above all others - that gentiles have no place in an israel that is jewish.

There aren't many Zionists who claim this. In fact, about 20% of the Israeli population is Arab. And there are a number of Christian immigrants in Israel as well (non-Arab Christian). There are Knesset members (the Israeli parliament) who are Arab.

In fact, the Palestinians are the ones who make the reverse argument. They say that the West Bank and Gaza must be Judenrein.

You also wrote:
i do think that there is a vital difference between being anti-zionist and anti-semetic.

the arabs are a semetic people - so are the jews.

While the Arabs are semites, the term Anti-Semitism in its common English usage refers to being anti Jewish. Martin Luther King Jr said "anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so...Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land".

If you are anti-Zionist, Lin, you are anti-Semitic.

You also make statements as to the supposed complexity of the Arab societies. When I was in Morocco (one of the most moderate Arab states) with my Moroccan mother, I was surprised at the unity of opinion that a controlled media produces. Friends who have visited Syria were amazed at how everyone described Assad as "intelligent, strong, and charming" using exactly the same words in exactly the same order.

I wonder whether everyone in the US would use the same words in the same order to describe Bush (whatever those words might be). Somehow, I just don't see it.

You wrote:
the current animosity resulted from the creation of israel in a hurried manner which displaced palestnian arabs who were have made their home in the levant.

Of the 750K Arabs who were in the Israeli territory, >500K left of their own volition. The Arab armies promised them they would be able to return home and reclaim their property as well as that of the Jews.

Your history is all well and good, but obscures the facts - you make it seem as though both sides share the blame. The Arabs attacked in 1948, 56, 67, 73, 89, 2000.

You wrote:
another point - what has the us done to demonstrate to the arabs who are just as oppressed by their rulers that the us wants them too to enjoy the liberty and democracy that the us is meant to be a symbol of?

Why is it the US's responsibility to save these people?

A better question than yours is: Why is it that every other part of the world has gradually democratized (esp in the last 20 years) while the Arab world has not? Why is it that they do not have the internal pressures that other non-Arab countries do?

You wrote:
and the palestinian cause is a nationalist cause, and has support from palestinian and arabs, both christian and muslim.

There's a great front-page Washington Times article about why the Palestinian Christian population in Bethlehem has decreased from about 75% to about 2% ever since the Tunisian occupation (that's Arafat, btw). Their Muslim tormentors raped their women, harassed their stores, etc. While there can be no doubt that the Arabs support the Palestinians, I doubt the Christians are as supportive of the Muslims as you think.

While we're on the topic of the Palestinians, I have a couple of questions for you. Prior to 1945, can you describe the differences in Palestinian literature from Jordanian, Syrian, or Iraqi literature? Or the art? Or the type of Arabic spoken?

Did you know that >70% of historical Palestine is now the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan?

i do think that there is a vital difference between being anti-zionist and anti-semetic.

the arabs are a semetic people - so are the jews.

Hold on one second, Hoss.

The term "anti-Semite" has a very specific definition. It was coined by a man who hated Jews -- Wilhelm Mahr, in 1879 -- to describe his ideology of Judenhass -- Jew hatred. Only in an Orwellian world can one argue that "anti-Semitic" somehow includes hatred of Arabs or that Arabs can't be anti-Semites" because of a shared language grouping.

You do know that the word "Semite" describes people who speak a group of languages, called Semitic -- and this includes black Ethiopeans, right? Of course you don't. But now you do. A "Semite" is not a racial grouping, it's a language grouping.

It has become more and more common to now refer to "antisemitism" without the hyphen for precisely this reason; Arab antisemites or other enemies of the Jewish people have argued rather disingenuously that they can't hate Jews since "we're also Semites".

Well, yes you can.

to me, 'zionism' is understood as being an ideology (based on what is being practised), which privileges jews above all others - that gentiles have no place in an israel that is jewish.

Well good for you. To me 'love' is understand as the tendency to to humiliate and beat the person you love.

Well, not really.

But you see, "to you" is not what Zionism is.

Zionism is Jewish nationalism, plain and simple. While there are those who actually are opposed to any nationalism, most anti-Zionists are not opposed to, for example, Palestinian nationalism or American nationalism. Only Jewish nationalism. And that, sir, is antisemitic.

FYI a signifigant percentage of Israel's population are gentile citizens with full enfranchisement. Foreign born gentiles can and do become naturalized Israeli citizens just like Italians or Palestinians can become naturalized American citizens.

Lin writes: "i am sure that there are probably as many murderers and potential terrorists in the USA as there are in SA - but we don't generalise an entire country based on the behaviour of a few! that would be most unfair."

Lin, most of the "potential" and very real terrorists in the U.S. have been....dare I say?...Saudis! And much of the world does, in fact, generalize our entire country by watching television, films, and CNN.

Lin also writes: "and for those of you who have such strong opinions about the 'role' of islam in oppressing women and minorities - i recommend Karen Armstrong's books on Islam and Muhammad. read, and then tell me what you think."

Another dodge, an old one. First we have to read "books" by one Karen Armstrong, inhale her perspective, and only THEN may we answer you. That gives you a year or two at least. There are dozens of Internet sites where Islamic apologists tell us how misunderstood their rules and laws are. I've read them. They are not, on the whole, convincing. They are a justification for totalitarian fundamentalism. If you want to live as an Orthodox person of any religion, then you make that choice, fine. But the Islamics don't stop there. They make their religion the Law of the Land. Get it? It's a theocracy. There is no church-state separation. The very concept is anathema to them.

In order to clearly see what Islam does to its women we only have to look, read, and listen to any number of current sources. Women are treated like second-class citizens. They are only allowed the barest amount of education (where they are, indeed, allowed at all). They must be covered, to varying degrees, whenever they are in public. They cannot vote. If they are raped, they are blamed for the rape. If an unmarried woman is raped or is found to be pregnant, she is the one who is punished, sometimes by stoning to death (look up Sharia).

I am just going to go ahead and say it: Once, very long ago, Islam practiced a modified kind of tolerance and had a remarkably advanced society for that time. But that was then, and even then they were rapacious and brutal in the oppression of people whom they (continuously) conquered and colonized in the name of Allah the Merciful. That was a thousand years ago. Today Islam is the most reactionary, brutal, vicious and repressive religion in the world.

Lin writes: "but i cannot support a situation where the freedom for a particular people is dependant on the oppression of another."

This leftist canard has now passed into the language as a mantra. It's utterly false. Israel's freedom does not depend upon the oppression of Palestinians, as your post suggests, but on the willingness of the Arab/Islamic world to allow Israel to exist in peace and security within her own borders. To that end, Israel has been forced to fight at least six wars. This latest "intifada" began after Arafat refused to accept the overwhelmingly generous offer made by Ehud Barak and President Clinton in the summer of 2000. If you think Arafat was justified in his refusal, not only to even negotiate but also to withold the truth of what he was offered from the Palestinian people, then I suggest you do some homework (no, you don't have to read several books by someone first, just a paragraph in Foreign Policy Magazine)

[Link: www.foreignpolicy.com...]

And this may be your least perspicacious comment of all: "...and i do think it is true that people only hate other people if they are ignorant and have never met any real life examples."

Lin, many Saudis have lived in and/or visited the U.S. Many U.S. citizens have met and/or worked amongst Saudis both in the U.S. and in SA. Meeting people and getting all chummy in order to understand and be friendly with them has been shown, in the starkest of terms, to be a complete myth, wishful thinking at its most dangerous. These people went to school here! They have friends in the U.S. Haven't met any real life examples? Come on, Lin. Wake up! They hate us, not because they don't know us, they hate us because we're...us!

And your final smiley-face can't we-all-just-get-along confection of the day: "the best thing SA can do is to open up to mass tourism! so that we get to meet real life saudis and they get to meet real life foreigners too! good and bad."

Wow! What a GREAT idea? And where should all these tourists go? Mecca? Oops. Can't go there. Too bad. To the beach? Yeah, don't forget your abaya, though; and Hijaab warns that one bit of ankle, there goes your foot.

And how, pray, shall we convince the eminent princes of the realm to "open to mass tourism?" This is the country which elevates and supports Wahabism, the most fundamentalist and reactionary form of Islam imaginable. Tourists are what the Wahabi do not want in Saudi Arabia.

Every argument I see on these boards that tries to convince me of the essential liberality and tolerance of Arab/Islamic religion and society ultimately fails because the actions of the Islamics speak otherwise. These are not tolerant, liberal people, and Islam is not a tolerant "religion of peace."

ekw, to build on one of your comments:
They make their religion the Law of the Land

The word shari'a is really interesting - it means the Law (with a capital L). In Arabic, there is no difference between the Law, Holy Law, and the law - all are shari'a.

I would be a little more moderate than you and say that there is tolerance in Islam, just not in Arab Islam. The Turks are Muslims, but are quite moderate (probably because they're democratic). Indian Muslims are moderate (they also live in a democracy).

But there is no arguing that the Arab countries are not tolerant.

I did try and convey that with reference to "Arab/Islamic religion" in the last paragraph. When I said "These are not tolerant, liberal people, and Islam is not a tolerant 'religion of peace,'" "these" refers to the modifier "Arab/Islamic" above it.

However, I would like to respectfully disagree on the issue of Arab Islamist intolerance alone (though they do seem to be the model for all other forms). Iran is a good example of a non-Arabic people who are as intolerant and brutish as their Arab Islamic brothers. The Farsi/Persian Iranians willingly and gladly embraced fundamentalist Islam as a backlash to the liberalization program which had been engendered by the late Shah. The invasion of East Timor (90% Roman Catholic) by Indonesia (88% Muslim) may not have been seen as an Islamic takeover, but a good deal of murder and rape by Muslim "militias" against principally Christian targets in east Timor took place before a deal was brokered and Indonesia gave East Timor its independence.

Perhaps the reason there is "tolerance" in Turkey or in Malaysia or India at the present time is because the fundamentalists have not yet gained control. Many years ago I spent four months in Kashmir and India. In Kashmir, at that time, the Muslims were, indeed, tolerant. Worshipping either as a Hindu or a Christian was not prohibited nor was there any threatening governmental stance against foreigners who were not Muslims.

Today, however, I would, if I had the temerity to even go to Kashmir again, be very circumspect in my actions, particularly in the practice of religion. All it takes is for the fundamentalists to capture a country (Afghanistan) and the direst of Islamic influences become the norm. My point is that the people don't have to be Arab Islamists. I believe it's Islamic fundamentalism that is at the root of all these horrors. Perhaps it is as you say, Arab Islamic in origin, but it appears to me that Islam lends itself, independent of ethnicity, very well to the silencing of all other ideas and the destruction of those who promote, or even utter, such ideas. This seems to be, after 1500 years of history, where Islam is headed.

Hypocrisy Update

Substitute "White, Euro-American" for all "jew" or "jewish" or "faith" references below, then explain why jews should not be viewed as the cosmic level hypocrites that they are. The "diversity" cesspool is wonderful for everyone else -- but NOT WE JEWS, they say, oh no, we're special. We must preserve ourselves. You types are not worth preserving, but WE ARE.

Why is it somehow acceptable for a jew to say that, but if White men and women say it about their own racial group, jews, by far the biggest "diversity" hucksters REGARDING EVERYONE ELSE BUT THEMSELVES, start puling on about "White Racism ?"

Yeah, I know. Laughably shameless hypocrisy.

ONE STANDARD FOR JEWS, ANOTHER STANDARD FOR EVERYONE ELSE.

Mark Konrad

* * * * * *

Prospect of marriage can lead away from interfaith dating

Many are concerned about losing members through inter-marriage

By HELEN T. GRAY
Knight Ridder Newspapers

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Miri Hoch's Jewish parents never told her she had to date a Jew, but she knew they weren't thrilled when she started dating a Catholic.

"They respected my right to make my own choices," said Hoch, who lives in Prairie Village, Kan. "And they knew I would grow up and come around."

She did, and as she grew older, it became more important for her to date men within her faith. Now at age 25, Hoch is engaged to Jeffrey Spiegel, 31, of Overland Park, Kan., who also was committed to marrying someone Jewish.

Ann Pavlich, a devoted Catholic, tells a similar story. She had dated non-Catholics but always felt something important was missing -- a common faith.

"As you get older, you start thinking about what type of home life you want and how important it is to raise your children in the faith," said Pavlich, 30, of Mission, Kan.

Pavlich is now dating a practicing Catholic. Both come from large Catholic families, love the traditions and practices of their faith and attend Mass together.

In a society that emphasizes diversity and tolerance, many people from various faiths are saying no to interreligious dating. They love their faith and want to marry within it. To them, it makes sense to date members of their religion. ["Many people from those various faiths" are not so diverse and tolerant, then, it seems. Rather a self contradicting series of statements.]

For Jews, it's a matter survival, some say.

The leadership council of Judaism's Conservative movement has strongly condemned intermarriage and urged Jews to marry other Jews.

The majority of Jews who intermarry cease to practice Jewish traditions and often do not provide a Jewish education or experience to their children, said a 1995 statement from the leadership council. The result: "Over 70 percent of children of intermarried couples are not being raised as Jews, thus further diminishing the Jewish people."

"We must continue to articulate that it is important for Jews to marry other Jews to continue the ancient and historic mission of Judaism," the Conservative leadership said. "... Our young people and their families must comprehend the direct relationship between interdating and intermarriage."

[And what of the "historic mission" and destiny of the White Euro-American ? That is far more important to us than any more jewish tikkun olam (nation and culture wrecking) the jews would prefer we stand idly by and not interfere with. Well, that ain't gonna happen . . .]

Youth groups in all of the Jewish movements have programs that address [and just what does "address" mean ? Stridently or subtly argue against ? Would that be Racism ? Religious Elitism, perhaps ? Doesn't that violate the very spirit of "Diversity ?"] interdating and intermarriage, said Rabbi Joel Meyers of New York, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Assembly (of Conservative Rabbis).

"This is a serious concern, a serious problem," Meyers said.

Fifty-one percent of Jews intermarry, according to a 2000 national survey of Jewish identification, conducted through the graduate center of City University of New York. The figure has changed little from 52 percent in a 1990 survey.

Throughout American culture, studies show a decrease in ethnicity and an increase in personal choice, Meyers said. This has a [suicidal, from a perspective of jewish self interest and perpetuation] bearing on interdating and intermarriage.

[Why is the above accepted as a "jewish" concern, yet when the word "White" is substituted, the whining about "Racism" begins, and particularly FROM jews ?]

(Cont'd at website)

[Link: www.staugustine.com...]

Charles,

What is this piece of shit doing on this site again?

Mark, did you enjoy the Nazi convention?

ekw #149,

I think Islam in a democratic context is more peaceful - thus the sectarian warfare in Indonesia, Chechnya, etc.

While I think the ruling class in Iran is intolerant, I'm not so sure about the rest. From what I've heard, there have been many pro-democracy types who've been repeatedly jailed for trying to print newspapers; each time they are freed they just start right up. Of course, it's hard to hear that underneath the Ayatollahs and their intolerance. But I believe that Iran will have a revolution from below.

Probably the catalyst will be a free Iraq.

Just read recently that Saudi Arabia won't even allow a non-Moslem to be buried within her borders (and this was in the Arab-hugging NY Times!)

BTW, any student of history knows there were huge Jewish tribes in Mecca and Medina long before anyone heard of Mohamed... Gee, I wonder what became of them?

Hebrew University is one of the oases of hope in the Arab/Israeli world, a place where scholars from both traditions share their thought as was done in the middles ages. The bombing there is a nasty blow at such friendship and dialogue between Muslims and Jews, a crime aimed at the heart of our civilization.

I have one question for Bradley who seems to take on the title as educator of Saudi and Arab culture to the Wester.

What does Bradley think of these imans and preachers of Muslim mosques in Saudi Arabia (even some grand mosque) preaching on TV and pray that Allah should kill all the Jews, and Americans too as a matter of fact, for they are within his power?

What kind of religion would condone such prayers anyway? What kind of religion would pray for the wholesale murders of different people?

Could Bradley educate the rest of the world regarding this? Furthermore, as a human being, what does Bradley feel about this? As Arab News editor, has Bradley condemn such irreligious behavior? Has Arab News had the courage to "counter-balance" and condemn such insiduous preaching?

RE: Lin, #140

Bit long and a bit late, but I wrote it and, by Jove, I'm going to post it.

"i recommend Karen Armstrong's books on Islam and Muhammad. read, and then tell me what you think."

"we should not confuse and judge a particular religion based on the way it has been hijacked by a minority vs. the larger intent of that faith."

If I were inclined to think Christianity is superior to Islam, perhaps I would benefit by being enlightened through the writings of Karen Armstrong. However, since I bear no such inclination toward triumphalism, becoming versed in the beauty and richness of Islam doesn’t rate very high on my priority meter right now.

An investigation of almost any belief system or culture reveals a commonality that almost any open-minded person can relate to. However, your assertion that we should not judge an entire religion based on the distortions of a few really bears no relevance to the discussion about militant Islam and anti-Semitism (please, no semantic debates about Arabs being Semitic) in Arabic society, precisely because such a discussion focuses the debate on those adhering to the distortion. Instead, I would argue that glossing over the militant aspects of religious dogma instead of critically exploring the extent to which militant thought influences the population and national policy is the much more close-minded approach.

I have become increasingly convinced Saudi Arabia deserves our focus as much as, if not more than, Iraq – not through reading anti-Muslim propaganda in the “Jewish-run” American press, but through reading the mindless, anti-American rants at ArabNews.com, a site purportedly designed to provide the Arab perspective for western consumption and counter anti-Muslim propaganda.

The contention that “we are able to differentiate between ‘activists’ and their ‘faith’ when we look at the broader ‘Christian’ faiths but not so when we look at Islam” simply repeats the rhetoric from Islamic lobby in the US and abroad, and has no foundation in fact. Pundits, the media and the public in the US readily apply religious labels to activists. Regardless, the discussion in this case on the dangers militant Islam poses to western society is completely appropriate, and, as I mentioned above, narrow in focus.

"and the palestinian cause is a nationalist cause, and has support from palestinian and arabs, both christian and muslim. the cause has taken on religious tones and now 'led' by the 'religious based' parties partly because the secular movements have not been able to meet the aspirations of the masses."

Simply incorrect. The Palestinian "cause" has always had a religious basis, because it has been incited and supported by Muslim Arabs driven by their hatred of the Jewish State, if not individual Jews themselves. Its current iteration as a nationalist cause evolved over decades and as a result of the utter failure of its original goal: the obliteration of Israel. The Palestinians were not fighting for political autonomy from Israel fifty years ago, but for absorption into Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Further, the goal of eliminating Israel remains prevalent in Palestinian rhetoric.

The Palestinians have been the pawns of the Arab world since the inception of Israel, so don’t be fooled by the purported philanthropic concern the regimes in the Middle East profess for their “Arab brothers”.

"i am sure that there are probably as many murderers and potential terrorists in the USA as there are in SA - but we don't generalise an entire country based on the behaviour of a few! that would be most unfair."

I am sure you are correct, and Arabs are quick to point out the number of murders in the US in response to any criticism of their idyllic society. Certainly, attacking nations simply because terrorist groups exist within their borders or because their citizens provide financial support to terrorist organizations would be the ultimate hypocrisy. Numerous groups within the US would meet any reasonable definition of a terrorist organization and have the potential to commit terrorist acts. Further, otherwise law-abiding American citizens have long provided financial support to domestic and international terrorist organizations.

However, your contention bears no relevance to debate on how the US should address threats to its sovereignty by a foreign power.

I have no doubt many Arabs are stellar individuals. I have no beef with Islam, and I respect the national sovereignty of the nations in the region and their choice to establish theocracies, so long as they don’t attempt to subvert the sovereignty of other nations. Even if I chaff at idea of basing government policy and law on religious dogma, respect for national sovereignty necessarily provides the foundation for international policy. However, the right of a nation to defend itself and preserve its sovereignty follows as the logical extension of this concept, and we cannot ignore the threat Saudi Arabia, with its government sanctioned anti-American hate-filled rhetoric and financial support of terrorist groups, poses to our nation.

"every society is complex - there are probably just as many points of view on everything in SA just as there are in Israel and the US etc. and i do think it is true that people only hate other people if they are ignorant and have never met any real life examples."

I don’t disagree with your underlying philosophy, but do take issue with what is at heart a specious and dangerous assertion. My respect for other cultures ends when that culture threatens my own way of life. We cannot allow cultural sensitivity to blind us to the very real dangers posed by militant Islam or allow political correctness to prevent us from acting against it.

Beyond recognizing the threat of militant Islam and terrorist groups, we need to recognize and respond to the wider threat posed by the corrupt regimes in the Middle East, particularly in Saudi Arabia. This response needs to be forceful and imminent. We need not sound the trumpets and rush off to war, but we cannot afford to remain simply satisfied with the status quo.

Why are the vast majority of refugees in Europe, Asia, and Australia of Muslim extraction ?

Muslims are fleeing Islamic countries for Western democracies (including Israel) There are no queues to enter Saudi Arabia. In short, Islam has failed as a system of government, and any half intelligent Muslim wants to flee.

Mr.Bradley, why are the vast majority of refugees in Europe, Asia, and Australia of Muslim extraction ?

Muslims are fleeing Islamic countries for Western democracies (including Israel) There are no queues to enter Saudi Arabia. In short, Islam has failed as a system of government, and any half intelligent Muslim wants to flee.

There are anti-Zionist Jews; some say a true Jewish State can't exist before the Messiah comes, and some think Zionism is a bad idea because it legitimizes those who would expel Jews from the countries where they have lived for centuries, and some are anti-religious. (Have I missed anybody?) Are non-Jews allowed to agree with one or more of these groups without being anti-Jewish?

Do Jews have more right to a state of their own than, say, Kurds or Chechens?

If so, is it necessary that that state be on the east shore of the Mediterranean, or is Zionism satisfied if (as someone facetiously suggested) an uninhabited part of Baja California is made an independent Jewish state?

...
I was amused at someone's careless use of the phrase ``second-class citizen'' to describe the status of the future Mrs Bradley in Arabia. Citizen? Anyway, I wonder what sort of wedding they'll have, and where.

...
Apart from those quibbles, great job everyone, go get 'em.

keep it up john
i dont know why some ignorants people r trying to act like they know everything..they r just babbling too much here with out any knowledge.
okay let me c ohhh someone is asking here about the democracy in saudi arabia ha..why dont u ask ur self who is supporting the dictators in middle east??
and the other one is talking about the anti-semitism lol
i think he needs to educate him self more than that because he didnt know that the arab and the hebrews r the sons of abraham so how come they r anti-semitism?? loooooooool
u need to rethink about it my friend..ooops look to this one he is asking about the homosexual rights in SA hahahaha damn u r too funny.okay just send ur son to my room to suck my**** u know to suck what lol after that we will talk about the queer rightsin SA .. omg lol
i g2g now
oh b4 i go..john u dont have to waste ur time with some remnants lol
c ya