Jefferson:
Did you know the good Dr. Elias Akleh has posted other rants that describe conspiracies that are pretty unbelievable? His articles hardly rise to the level of a "World Opinion". Please check out your sources next time you consider bringing to the Post an article from a nut and pass it as world opinion.

Here are a few of his other articles for reference:

http://www.arab2000.net/wnewsDetails.asp?id=27552&cid=25

http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=55&p=16296&s2=30

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=AKL20050324&articleId=457

They say things such as the Iraqi constitution was designed to allow Israeli Jews who emmigrated from Iraq to return and create a Jewish state. He also writes that Americans are responsible for the roadside bombs in Iraq and that Zarquawi doesn't exist but was created by the Americans to maintain their presence in Iraq. Yet another article claims the Americans want to destroy Iran to prevent them from basing oil trading on euros instead of dollars, and the whole nuclear issue is a ploy.

It did not take long for me to find these and determine he does not represent any widespread opinion. He doesn't even live in the Middle East, he lives in the USA.

I have to agree with Sully, to an extent. If you're going to report the views of a ranting maniac, it would be nice if you'd carry a variety of sources that show his views have some credence among, well, anyone. Someone who believes the earth is flat and has millions of followers is news, someone who believes the earth is flat and just has a 3 am talk radio show is not.

What's next, quoting somebody who believes that Jews make Passover matzoh with the blood of Christian babies? I'm sure there's something in the Arab press about that, too.

/sarcasm

I believe that the Washington Post needs to balance Morley's World Opinion views with those of another writer who leans in the opposite direction from Morley. I have no problem with writers having particular biases (as long as they don't pretend otherwise), but true balance is only achieved by having a variety of viewpoints available to readers, and I think the Post has fallen short on this point.

You want someone who will write articles saying Elias Akleh should be taken seriously?

That's not balance. That's foolishness.

Sully, I cited his article because it appeared in the Arab Media Internet Network, a usually serious Palestinian news site. I'm aware of his other writings but thanks for the links.

You want someone who will write articles saying Elias Akleh should be taken seriously?

That's not balance. That's foolishness.

Sully, I cited his article because it appeared in the Arab Media Internet Network, a usually serious Palestinian news site. I'm aware of his other writings but thanks for the links.

Well Jefferson I'm not sure what your saying here. You seem to be aware of Akleh's other crazy writings yet decided this one article of his reflects a valid opinion somewhere in the world because it was posted on AMIN.

That's not journalism.

No, I don't want somebody who will write articles saying Akleh should be taken seriously, and I can't seriously believe that you think I was saying that. I want somebody who will balance your liberal views with his or her own conservative views, so that there is actual balance here, and not a pretense of balance. Is that clear enough for you?

Jefferson - The above comment by "" has real merit. I know you rely on posts for a balance to what you put here, but that's not a good solution to the liberal-bias credibility problem that is so manifest in your column.

Your column actually has a structural problem built into it here, Jefferson. You cite reports only of foreign sources, which is very interesting but which fairly well narrows the focus to US foreign policy. Then you can't cite any domestic sources (eg, Fouad Ajami in the WSJ - fantastic piece today about Jordan) that would give any balance or justification to the policies with a professional voice. How can we reasonably expect foreign sources to flesh-out the motivation of our foreign policies, whether they're flawed or not? Even the UK press fails miserably in this regard. They're out there, Jefferson, but you just totally ignore them because they're in the domestic press. That's why your column is usually only half interesting.

Ahem...the name of this blog is not "Valid Opinion Roundup"; that project has been relegated to the op-ed section.

Jeff is in the business of summarizing what influential opinion sources across the globe BELIEVE...however well-reasoned or informed those beliefs may be. (And if you want domestic balance, let me point you to the "Washingtonpost.com" icon at the top of your screen.)

I, for one, think Elias Akleh's theory is so ridiculous it refutes itself. (I mean, does Jeff really have to come out and say, "by the way, this is nuts"?) But I'll bet my view is shared by a microscopic minority of Palestinians. I doubt the attitudes expressed by c2tbf et al will do much to warm the hearts and minds of the majority.

For this particular conspiracy, there is some history to it.

After the bombing, The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Israelis staying at the Radisson on Wednesday had been evacuated before the attacks and escorted back home "apparently due to a specific security threat."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bombings10nov10,0,2022733.story?coll=la-home-headlines

>>>Amos N. Guiora, a former senior Israeli counter-terrorism official, said in a phone interview with The Times that sources in Israel had also told him about the pre-attack evacuations.>There is no truth to reports that Israelis staying at the Radisson SAS hotel in Amman on Wednesday were evacuated by Jordanian security forces before the bombing that took place there.<<

When the Jordanian government denied the reports, Haaretz followed up with this:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/643661.html

>>There is no truth to reports that Israelis staying at the Radisson SAS hotel in Amman on Wednesday were evacuated by Jordanian security forces before the bombing that took place there. <<

c2tbf,

A little background on Fouad Ajami:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030428/shatz

Ajami became a disgrace to Arabs.

Is Fouad Ajami really a disgrace to the Arabs, or is it the other way around? How many books are published in the Arab world each year? About 5? It's pretty obvious why a talent like Fouad would want to take residence outside of such an intellectual desert. It would help if you could actually dispute something he has written- I'm not going to go tramping through thenation.com, and I would generally advise against such a waste of time.

Well I am an Arab myself and I am telling you what I think.

Are you trying to tell us Arabs how we should think?

Ajami is from Lebanon, and Lebanon is certainly not known to be an "intellectual desert".

Can you name any Lebanese writer besides Ajami?

Ajami is a war-monger. He has supported this horrible war on Iraq that has killed thousands of innocent civilians, not to mention the dead soldiers (many are just young kids) who are dying for nothing.

This is enough for me to condemn this so-called Arab writer who has for a long time prefered war over peace.

He is not only a disgrace to the Arabs but to humanity, along with the rest of this administration that has carried out this war with impunity.

Karim - There's no need to struggle over this.

If you disagree with Fouad's points about the current blowback into Jordan, then just say so. If you disagree with his assessment of the current repercussions of Jordan's support for Saddam in Gulf War I, then let's hear it.

There's no need to pretend that supporting the formerly Baathist Iraq is a position of "peace." That's ridiculous. Fouad Ajami is the first to decry the loss of innocent lives both before and after April of 2003.

And yes, a poem by Khalil Gibran was read at my wedding, so give that tiny little thought of yours a rest.

If only you understood well the words of Gibran.

Ajami can't fool us by claiming that he decries the loss of innocent lives while condoning and lobbying for the war. That's what ridiculous.

Ajami's comments on Amman's criminal bombings are irrelevant. Ajami who left Lebanon in 1963 acts as if he is the sole representative of the Arabs in America.

Ajami has long joined the Israeli camp in America. Good riddance, we don't need him.

And by the way, Ajami literately means "non-Arab" in Arabic.

There's no need to be racist either. Karim, I wish you made more sense so I could argue with you, but I'll have to save it for another day I guess.

I don't see any particular 'bias', liberal or conservative, in Jefferson's blog. I also don't think he's advocating Akleh's views; he seems to be doing quite the opposite. The notion that anyone who reports the existence of a particular view must also subscribe to or be sympathetic to that view... is a major obstacle to the maintaining of a free press. When you stop listening to other voices, it's like being deaf and blind. And it's just STUPID to be deaf and blind when you're surrounded by foes (and people who'd like to help you).

What I have an issue with is the scarcity of background Jefferson posted for this one. Is Akleh being taken seriously by many people? If he is, then that's important. Or is this just a 'shock' column to show us how crazy-wild the Islamic punditry can be? If so, then it's not important and shouldn't be here.

Mac - Your point is valid, but on those occasions when Mr Morely does chime in, he's generally somewhere between Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn. It tends not to shed a lot of new light on US foreign policy.

c2tbf,

There was nothing racist in what I wrote. Ajami routinely writes racist and bigoted statements against us Arabs, and of course when he does that, he always uses the royal "We Americans". I can't remember the last time Ajami wrote or said "we Arabs". He writes about "The Arabs and their culture" as if they were aliens. But like I said, good riddance.

As to debating this issue with me, well it all depends on how much you know about the Arab world:

1- Do you understand Arabic?

2- What Arab newspapers do you usually read and what Arab media do you usually watch?

3- How many Arab countries have you visited and how long have you lived in the Arab world?

I read and speak English (see it took me years to master the language, quite an investment eh?), I read about American politics from its sources in their native language, and from its newspapers and media outlets. I have also lived in the states for years.

Now if you don't fit the profile I just mentioned, well I am afraid you'd have to debate with an Arab who is just like you from the other side. In other words, someone who needs others (the so-called experts) to tell them what Americans are saying and what their newspapers are printing....often selectively.

Karim - Just do us all a favor and work for democracy in your own country, whichever it may be. I am a staunch supporter of Arab democrats, and that's all you need to know about me.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/21/egypt.elections.ap/index.html

Wait, what exactly is so unbelievable about this conspiracy story?

It is actually not uncommon for high-level officials from one country to be killed by intelligence agencies from another country. And these killings are usually done in a manner that seem confusing to outside observers in order to hide the real perpetrators of the attack. This has been part of the reality of international politics since ancient times. I do not understand why the utter disbelief of some people when someone claims that this was a covert operation.

I am not saying I believe this particular conspiracy theory in its entirety, I am only saying that it must not be rejected outright just because it does not fit with your particular world view. High-level international politics is much deeper and dirtier than most common people's world view and it has always been like that.

1) In fairness to Ajami, many other moderates - Friedman, Zakaria - supported the Iraq war with reservations. He was not alone.

2) Ajami also considers himself an American. He is a citizen, and a resident for the US for 39 years. That gives him as much right as anyone to speak as an American (or in his, an American with expertise in the Arab world). This isn't a gang fight. You can be American and have valid opinions on the Arab world, and vice-versa.

3) Karim it's dangerous using "we" or putting yourself as some sort of self-appointed speaker of the Arab world. We all know the national and ethnic divisions there. It matters a lot whether you're Lebanese or Syrian, Egyptian or Iraqi. These countries have long standing differences. Of course there's always...

4) Anti-Israeli paranoia. As if a massive explosion in western hotels is the best way for Israelis to Eliminate a few low level Pali and Chinese army guys. Good grief. The fact that any portion 300 of millions Arabs continue to believe that Israelis are capable of the most outlandish acts reveals how impotent Arabs really feel they are. Remember the foolish 9/11 theory, which proferred that Israel killed 3000 Americans to re-engage the USA in the middle east. Simply brilliant. (And the Jews went home early, alerted on their Jew only blackberries!)

5) I don't like it when western papers cite this stuff, though, it's MEMRI-esque. These opinions are still on the fringe of Arab society, albeit not as far out as some of ud would like. There are many more responsible and moderate sources.

F

I have Arabs in my family. One factor ignored by the MSM is Arab Pride. They were once a vast, leading civilization. Some educated Arabs feel shame at the continued ignorant, tribal, dirt-floor nature of their existence. Also, some Arabs refuse to admit out of pride that some muslims are murderous thieves, thugs, opportunists, and hypocrites who shame Allah with every motive they have.

It is these embarrased folks who constantly make up alternative lies to divert attention from the truth. Lies like 'the Jews were responsible for 9/11", and now this one - that the Jews are responsible for bombing hotels.

Nice try but it won't fly... look in the mirror and admit the truth. Muslims are murdering children all over the world, encouraged by some murderous Mullahs... and only true Muslims can call them fakes and bring an end to it.

Farid,

Thank you for your comment.

1-) Friedman is not an Arab and neither is Fareed Zakaria.
I hope that calling Friedman a moderate was a joke. Zakaria, while not my favorite commentator, is not so bad.

2-) Well I wish there was some "vice-versa". It is a one way road from the "enlightened" towards the "backwards". When a backward Arab like Ajami "enlighten" himself then his views become relevant.

Seriously, when did American policy makers took our opinions seriously? Today I read that Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera! That's how seriously they take our uncensored opinions.

Al-Jazeera seems to be in dear need of some Ajamization.

3-) There are differences and there is also a common ground among Arabs (including non-Muslims). Al-Jazeera broadcasts the same content to all Arabs.

4-) It is quite unfortunate that some people still blame Israeli for 9/11. I personally do my best to educate people about this. But let's not exaggerate. One of the best selling books in France was a conspiracy theory book denying that no plane hit the Pentagon (Thierry Meyssan in The Frightening Fraud or in French: "11 septembre 2001, L'Effroyable Imposture").

5-) Agreed.

Long Beach:

Try to understand that this is an Arab problem, not necessary a general Muslim problem.

It was not a coincidence that All hijackers were Arab and neither was the fact that Al-Qaeda was led by Arabs.

The Mullah (which is by the way a term that is not used among Arab Muslims) are not responsible for this. Some of their sermons might be extreme but that's not going to make a well-organized clandestine group of well-educated Arabs plan, for long months, for a sophisticated attack like sep-11.

Keep in mind that the Mullahs of Iran have been chanting "Death to America" since 1979 and yet there wasn't a single attack against America from Iran.

Often people fail to recognize the distinction between the things an Arab would find offensive about America, and things which an Arab might regard as intolerable and life threatening.