Thank Goodness for Fox News...

Sitting in a hotel room in Chicago, after visiting a sick friend, channel-surfed the cable TV. After a while, I found I could only watch Fox TV coverage of the Lebanon war. The other channels were so anti-Israel, it was unbelievable. Seemed like pure Hezbollah propaganda. Worse than a crime, a blunder to watch CNN. Fox provided a welcome island of sanity amidst the madness on other cable and broadcast networks. I loved their interview with Newt Gingrich about political strategies to wipe out Hezbollah.

"We report, you decide," they say. OK, I've decided. On this one, I'm with Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, Bill O'Reilly and Brit Hume all the way...

Daniel Pipes: Israel Undoing a Decade of Mistakes

Daniel Pipes says that the Lebanon war may turn back the clock in Israeli-Arab relations--and if so, it might be a good thing:

Decades of hard work before 1993 won Israel the wary respect of its enemies. By contrast, episodic displays of muscle have no utility. Should Israel resume the business-as-usual of appeasement and retreat, the present fighting will turn out to be a summer squall, a futile lashing-out. By now, Israel's enemies know they need only hunker down for some days or weeks and things will go back to normal, with the Israeli left in obstructionist mode and the government soon proffering gifts, trucking with terrorists, and yet again in territorial retreat.

Deterrence cannot be reinstated in a week, through a raid, a blockade, or a round of war. It demands unwavering resolve, expressed over decades. For the current operations to achieve anything for Israel beyond emotional palliation, they must presage a profound change in orientation. They must prompt a major rethinking of Israeli foreign policy, a junking of the Oslo and disengagement paradigms in favor of a policy of deterrence leading to victory.

The pattern since 1993 has been consistent: Each disillusionment inspires an orgy of Israeli remorse and reconsideration, followed by a quiet return to appeasement and retreat. I fear that the Gaza and Lebanon operations are focused not on defeating the enemy but on winning the release of one or two soldiers – a strange war goal, one perhaps unprecedented in the history of warfare – suggesting that matters will soon enough revert to form.

In other words, the import of hostilities under way is not what has been destroyed in Lebanon nor what the U.N. Security Council resolves; it is what the Israeli public learns, or fails to learn.

NGOs Join Hezbollah's Attacks

There they go again...

NGO-Monitor reports that international human rights NGOs such as Amnesty International Have turned a blind eye to international law, in order to support Hezbollah against Israel. For example:

AI also failed to mention that Hizbollah's military headquarters are located in southern Beirut, and that the positioning of military/guerrilla installations in residential areas is considered a war crime, as defined by Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Convention, article 51(7), relating to human shields. Hizbollah also store and launch missiles from civilian villages in southern Lebanon, but this is not criticized by AI. The NGO charged that IDF strikes on infrastructure targets constitute "collective punishment", despite the clear military rationale of sealing off air and sea ports, roads and other such targets to prevent the re-supply of arms from Syria and Iran. In contrast, Amnesty failed to condemn Hizbollah's initial aggression or to call for the release of the two abducted Israeli soldiers.

IMHO it might be more honest and "transparent" for AI and other so-called human rights NGOs to call themselves what they have apparently become--NGO terrorist defense counsel. Their special pleading is so obvious, it is embarrassing to any halfway intelligent reader. Their work no longer has much to do with protecting human rights.

Treppenwitz on the Meaning of Israel's Lebanon War

My cousin sent me this link to Treppenwitz, and I think he's on to something...

A difficult lesson

When I was in the Navy, I once witnessed a bar fight in downtown Olongapo (Philippines) that still haunts my dreams. The fight was between a big oafish Marine and a rather soft-spoken, medium sized Latino sailor from my ship.

All evening the Marine had been trying to pick a fight with one of us and had finally set his sights on this diminutive shipmate of mine... figuring him for a safe target. When my friend refused to be goaded into a fight the Marine sucker punched him from behind on the side of the head so hard that blood instantly started to pour from this poor man's mutilated ear.

Everyone present was horrified and was prepared to absolutely murder this Marine, but my shipmate quickly turned on him and began to single-handedly back him towards a corner with a series of stinging jabs and upper cuts that gave more than a hint to a youth spent boxing in a small gym in the Bronx.

Each punch opened a cut on the Marine's startled face and by the time he had been backed completely into the corner he was blubbering for someone to stop the fight. He invoked his split lips and chipped teeth as reasons to stop the fight. He begged us to stop the fight because he could barely see through the river of blood that was pouring out of his split and swollen brows.

Nobody moved. Not one person.

The only sound in the bar was the sickening staccato sound of this sailor's lightning fast fists making contact with new areas of the Marine's head. The only sound I have heard since that was remotely similar was from the first Rocky film when Sylvester Stallone was punching sides of beef in the meat locker.

Finally the Marine's pleading turned to screams.... a high, almost womanly shriek. And still the punches continued relentlessly.

Several people in the bar took a few tentative steps as though they wanted to try to break it up at that point, but hands reached out from the crowd and held them tight. I'm not ashamed to say that mine were two of the hands that held someone back.

You see, in between each blow the sailor had begun chanting a soft cadence: "Say [punch] you [punch] give [punch] up [punch]... say [punch] you [punch]were [punch] wrong [punch]".

He had been repeating it to the Marine almost from the start but we only became aware of it when the typical barroom cheers had died down and we began to be sickened by the sight and sound of the carnage.

This Marine stood there shrieking in the corner of the bar trying futilely to block the carefully timed punches that were cutting his head to tatters... right down to the skull in places. But he refused to say that he gave up... or that he was wrong.

Even in the delirium of his beating he believed in his heart that someone would stop the fight before he had to admit defeat. I'm sure this strategy had served him well in the past and had allowed him to continue on his career as a barroom bully.

Finally, in a wail of agony the Marine shrieked "I give up", and we gently backed the sailor away from him.

I'm sure you can guess why I have shared this story today.

I'm not particularly proud to have been witness to such a bloody spectacle, and the sound of that Marine's woman-like shrieks will haunt me to my grave. But I learned something that evening that Israel had better learn for itself if it is to finally be rid of at least one of its tormentors:

This is one time an Arab aggressor must be allowed to be beaten so badly that every civilized nation will stand in horror, wanting desperately to step in and stop the carnage... but knowing that the fight will only truly be over when one side gives up and finally admits defeat.

Just as every person who had ever rescued that bully from admitting defeat helped create the cowardly brute I saw that evening in the bar, every well-intentioned power that has ever stepped in and negotiated a ceasefire for an Arab aggressor has helped create the monsters we see around us today.

President Lahoud of Lebanon, a big Hezbollah supporter and a close ally of Syria, has been shrieking non-stop to the UN Security Council for the past two days to get them to force Israel into a cease fire.

Clearly he has been reading his autographed copy of 'Military Success for Dummies Arab Despots' by the late Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. Ever since Nasser accidentally discovered the trick in '56, every subsequent Arab leader has stuck to his tried and true formula for military success:

1. Instigate a war.
2. Once the war is well underway and you are in the process of having your ass handed to you... get a few world powers to force your western opponent into a cease fire.
3. Whatever you do, don't surrender or submit to any terms dictated by your enemy. That would ruin everything! All you have to do is wait it out and eventually the world will become sickened at what is being done to your soldiers and civilian population... and will force a truce.
4. Once a truce has been called you can resume your intransigence (which probably caused the conflict in the first place), and even declare victory as your opponent leaves the field of battle.

This tactic has never failed. Not once.

In fact it worked so will for the Egyptians in 1973, that to this day they celebrate the Yom Kippur War - a crushing defeat at the hands of Israel - as a military victory! No kidding... it's a national holiday over there!

President Lahoud has already begun to shriek like a school girl to the UN Security Council to "Stop the violence and arrange a cease-fire, and then after that we'll be ready to discuss all matters."

Uh huh. Forgive me if I find that a tad hard to swallow. He allowed Hezbollah to take over his country. He allowed the regular Lebanese army to provide radar targeting data for the Hezbollah missile that struck the Israeli destroyer. He has turned a blind eye while Iranian and Syrian weapons, advisers and money have poured into his country.

And now that his country is in ruins he wants to call it a draw.

As much as it may sicken the world to stand by and watch it happen, strong hands need to hold back the weak-hearted and let the fight continue until one side finally admits unambiguous defeat.

Newt Gingrich: Help Israel Crush Hezbollah

According to reports, the former Speaker of the House--who was the brilliant strategist of Republican victories in the 1994 election--says this is one battle in a larger war against Islamist extremism, which he characterized as World War III:

Gingrich, speaking on NBC's "Face the Nation," said there's clearly been Iranian involvement in the attacks on Israel.

"The United States should be saying to Syria and Iran, 'South Lebanon is going to be cleared out. We are for Israel and the Lebanese government breaking the back of Hizballah, getting rid of all 10-13,000 missiles - and we will decisively stop any effort by Syria and Iran to intervene.'"

Gingrich listed all the world's trouble spots, including North Korea firing missiles; the bombing in Mumbai, India; a war in Afghanistan, where the terrorists take refuge in Pakistan; the Iran-Syria-Hamas-Hizballah alliance; the war in Iraq and the Saudi Arabia; funded by Saudi Arabia and concerns about various terror groups in Britain, Canada, and the U.S.

"We're in the early stages of what I would describe as a Third World War, and frankly our bureaucracies are not responding fast enough, and we don't have the right attitude about this."

Gingrich said the U.S. ought to be helping the Lebanese government eliminate Hizballah as a military force in south Lebanon.

Hezbollah & Hamas v USA

Daniel Pipes explains the history of Hezbollah & Hamas' war against America, providing some useful history behind current fighting in Lebanon:

Almost without public notice, the two sides have declared war on each other. President George W. Bush stated in June 2003 that "the free world, those who love freedom and peace, must deal harshly with Hamas" and that "Hamas must be dismantled." Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage announced in September 2002 that "Hezbollah may be the A-team of terrorists and maybe Al-Qaeda is actually the B-team. … They have a blood debt to us, which you spoke to; and we're not going to forget it and it's all in good time. … We're going to take them down one at a time."

These ambitious sentiments have been accompanied by a shift in resources. The Washington Post reported in May that the FBI, "Confident that its efforts to track the Al-Qaeda terrorist network in this country are beginning to pay off, … is devoting more resources to the two Middle Eastern groups, which command more widespread support in Arab and Muslim communities" in the United States. The Post article tells about a November 2002 ruling from a secretive three-judge appeals panel that authorized federal agents pursuing criminal prosecutions of terrorist suspects to exploit the previously inaccessible vast backlog of classified wiretaps and intelligence reports from foreign security agencies. This has led to "stepped-up investigations in at least two dozen U.S. cities." The first public result came in February 2003 with the indictment of Sami Al-Arian and seven others. Current investigations are focused on the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and several individuals, including Abdelhaleem Ashqar, Mohamad Hammoud, and Ali Nasrallah.

Today, Hezbollah gave its fullest retort to date, in an interview by its leader Hassan Nasrallah to the Times of London. Nasrallah overtly threatened American interests around the world if the U.S. government does attempt to eradicate Hezbollah. "In such a case Hezbollah has a right to defend its existence, its people and its country through any means and at any time and in any place." To back this up, he noted that "There are many people throughout the world who love Hezbollah, who like Hezbollah and who support Hezbollah," he said. "Some may not sit idly by when seeing a brutal aggression against Lebanon."

Comment: It appears that Hamas and Hezbollah are no longer just Israel's problem but increasingly America's as well. (July 28, 2003)

BTW, from Pipes' article, it looks a little bit like Israel is carrying water for America against Hezbollah--which blew up hundreds of US Marines in Beirut during the Reagan administration. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry:

Hezbollah during the Lebanese war (1982-1990)[edit]

Combat Operations

After emerging during the civil war of the early 1980s as an Iranian-sponsored second resistance movement (besides Amal) for Lebanon's Shia community, Hezbollah focused on expelling Israeli and Western forces from Lebanon. It is the principal suspect[citation needed] in several notable attacks on the American, French and Italian Multinational forces, whose stated purpose was the stabilization of Lebanon: the suicide bombings of the U.S. Embassy, which killed 63, including 17 Americans; of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut (see 1983 Beirut barracks bombing), which killed 241 American servicemen; and of the French multinational force headquarters which killed 58 French troops. Hezbollah has always denied having any involvement with these bombings, although regarding them as justified. [citation needed]

Elements of the group have been "linked" to involvement in kidnapping, detention and interrogation of American and other Western hostages in Lebanon by groups such as Islamic Jihad who claimed the hostage-takings were in retaliation to the detentions, hostage-taking and torture by the Israeli proxy army South Lebanon Army (SLA).
[edit]

Allegations of Hezbollah involvement in terrorism

Using names like the Organization of the Oppressed on Earth and the Revolutionary Justice Organization, Hezbollah is also believed by the United States and some other countries' intelligence agencies to have kidnapped and tortured to death with no clear evidence [11] U.S. Marine Colonel William R. Higgins and the CIA Station Chief in Beirut, William Francis Buckley, and to have kidnapped around 30 other Westerners between 1982 and 1992, including the American journalist Terry Anderson, British journalist John McCarthy, the Archbishop of Canterbury's special envoy Terry Waite and Irish citizen Brian Keenan.[12] Hezbollah was accused by the US government of being responsible for the April 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed 63; of being behind the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, a suicide truck bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines in their barracks in Beirut in October 1983; of bombing the replacement U.S. Embassy in East Beirut on September 20, 1984, killing 20 Lebanese and two American soldiers; and of carrying out the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome.

It is believed that Hezbollah had a hand in the terrorist attacks in Argentina in 1990 and 1994: the Israeli Embassy Attack in Buenos Aires and the AMIA Bombing, respectively.[13]

Another View of "Another Russia"

Sergei Roy's Intelligent.Ru has this interesting account of an American-sponsored [National Endowment for Democracy paid the bill] meeting of opposition forces in Moscow:

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006
From: Sergei Roy
Subject: Another Russia

Ambassadors in a Zoo

A “forum of oppositionist forces,” pegged to the
upcoming G8 summit, opened Tuesday in Moscow with
a series of scandals as grotesque as the
gathering itself, comprising a variety of
individuals whom the Political Journal referred
to as “political microbes.” Seeing that
microbes, though often deadly, are not notorious
for the amount of noise they make or any
particular hooliganism they indulge in, I would
rather opt for the Lunatic Fringe Zoo or some
such description of the “forum.” Their
self-appellation is “Another Russia,” though they
might just as well call themselves “Anti-Russia” and be done with it.

Most conspicuous at that jamboree were Eduard
Limonov’s National Bolsheviks, for they were
entrusted with the rare privilege of organizing
the forum’s security. In their enthusiasm they
started revising the lists of accredited
journalists, and threw out a couple of lady
journalists they for some reason took a dislike
to. While they were thus engaged, two young
gentlemen sporting clean-shaven heads infiltrated
the auditorium, scattered anti-Orangist leaflets,
yelled “Up the Empire!” at the speaker on the
podium (who happened to be Her Majesty’s
Ambassador to Moscow Anthony Brenton), and
completed their exploits with a poke at
ex-Premier Kasyanov’s face (eyewitnesses of the
episode report, with visible chagrin, that the
punch did not connect as solidly as it might have
done). An unseemly scuffle followed as the
Limonov security detail overpowered the attacker and carried him outside.

Well, one can sympathize with the Limonov
kids. Their Führer promised them they would jump
off helicopters, shoot their AKs from the hip,
hurl hand-grenades at the enemy ­ and all they
have been hurling to date at various public
figures has been raw eggs and the occasional
packet of cream. The scuffle with Dugin’s
“Eurasians” was at least more
physical. Interestingly, on this occasion the
National Bolsheviks refrained from yelling their
most endearing slogan “Stalin­Beria­GULAG!” One
wonders why. Perhaps they feared Mr. Brenton
might misunderstand them ­ or understand them too well…

The extreme left, bright-red flank was
represented at the “forum” by Viktor Anpilov,
leader of the Working Russia movement. It would
be interesting to find out, though, if there is
much to the “movement” besides the leader. In
the ‘90s Anpilov’s babushkas made striking
pictures on TV as they marched through downtown
Moscow with empty pans on their heads, which they
banged with spoons most noisily. Some people
said that heads might be employed to better
purpose, but the pictures, I repeat, were
TV-worthy, no question about that. In the Putin
years, though, those empty pans have been filled,
the old age pensions are increasing and almost
catching up with inflation, and Mr. Anpilov is
now only intermittently employed, invariably
treating his listeners to Hitler-like yells and
gestures and facial expressions to
match. Another Russia, indeed… Whenever I see
that mug on TV, I recall October 1993 and the
aftermath of the red putsch, when that worthy was
bodily dragged out of a haystack where he was
hiding in fear that the democrats would do to him
what he had fervently intended to do to them. He
has risen high in the world since then, to be
greeted, along with others, by HMA Brenton so
warmly as a true representative of “Russia’s real civil society”…

Other members of “Russia’s real civil society”
included representatives of that curiously named
organization AKM ­ Avangard Krasnoi Molodyozhi
(Vanguard of Red Youth). The acronym AKM is
clearly intended to coincide with that of
Assault-rifle Kalashnikov Modernized. It would
again be interesting to learn if Ambassador
Brenton got that message ­ and if he did not,
what was he doing being an ambassador to
Russia? Another interesting question to ask
would be this: How would Her Majesty’s
government react if some foreign-funded
organizations called a similar gathering in the
UK ­ and greeted attending Real IRA members as
true representatives of real British civil society…

And it is a fact that the gathering at the
Renaissance-Moscow Hotel was fully funded by
foreign structures ­ Soros’s Open Society and the
National Endowment for Democracy (of the latter,
the Wikipedia says: “Although administered by a
private organization, its funding comes almost
entirely from a governmental appropriation by
Congress.”) And that is the only feature that
all members of the assembled zoo share: red,
black, pink, orange ­ they are mere tools in the
hands of foreign forces hostile to
Russia. Unable to find any other political
agents willing to jeopardize their relations with
the electorate by figuring too obviously as
puppets in foreign hands, these Russophobes
scavenged around the lunatic fringes of the
political arena ­ and naturally came up with a bunch of real weirdos.

You would have to seek high and low among these
members of the “real Russian civil society” to
discover a single individual elected by the
people. I haven’t. The electoral potential of
the zoo members is so close to a flat zero as to
be indistinguishable from it. Garry Kasparov’s
electoral potential would have to be counted in
millionths of a percentage point. Misha “Two
Percent” Kasyanov will be beside himself with
glee if he gets anything like two percent come
2008 ­ not in kickbacks, as in his
prime-ministerial past, but in votes. Unelected
and unelectable, that’s what they all are.

People with any claim to political respectability
with the Russian electorate have boycotted the
gathering. All of them ­ Zyuganov’s Communist
Party, the Union of Right Forces, Yavlinsky’s
Yabloko, all of them. Valeria Novodvorskaya,
that venerable and prominent member of the
Russian demshiza, the “democratic psychos,” went
so far as to picket the zoo carrying the plackard
that said, “Do not attend the councils of the impure!”

Well, foreign ambassadors did not heed that
plea. Apart from Mr. Brenton I have mentioned
before, mixing with the zoo inmates were observed
Canada’s Ambassador to Moscow Christopher
Westdal, the prominent US diplomat Ambassador
Richard C. Holbrooke, Assistant Secretary of
State Daniel Fried, and smaller fry. What price
diplomatic tact, you might ask ­ but you would ask in vain.

A Canadian journalist asked President Putin, in
one of the series of interviews he was granting
in the run-up to the G8, what he thought of the
“counter-summit,” apparently referring to the
“Another Russia” gathering. For once, the
redoubtable interviewee Putin was stumped ­ he
clearly did not understand what the hell she was
talking about. The lady prompted him that it had
even been attended by foreign ambassadors. The
president deadpanned: “Well, if they wish to
interfere in another country’s affairs, God help them.”

I somehow do not think that even He will help them. Not in today’s Russia.

More about this meeting on Konstantin's Russian Blog...

Lebanon War: It's Iran, Stupid...

I know nothing that I don't read in the papers or see on TV, but that won't stop me from saying something....

My guess is that the G-8 summitteers are jaw-jawing about Iran right now. From the press accounts, it looks like a strange alliance of Israel and her Arab neighbors against Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran. If things heat up, this could be the beginning of a new "Persian war." Or, maybe not.

The Newshour with Jim Lehrer had a very intersting discussion of this angle last night:

RICHARD HAASS, President, Council on Foreign Relations: Well, what we've seen, Margaret, is a significant deterioration of the security situation in the region that comes against the backdrop, as you know, first of all, of the growing Iranian nuclear challenge.

It comes against the backdrop of years of a deteriorating stability in Iraq. It comes against the backdrop of Israeli exchanges with Hamas, given the situation in Gaza. So it's not as though this is creating a problem; rather, it's exacerbating the problem.

And one of the common threads here, I think, you have to say is Iran. Here it is, six years after the Israelis left Lebanon unilaterally, and they don't enjoy security there. Hezbollah enjoys significant support from Syria, and in particular though from Iran.

And we have a situation where the Lebanese government is either unable or unwilling to fulfill the obligations of a sovereign state, which is not to allow acts of violence to be committed against a neighbor.

So Israel has taken this action. It's unlikely to resolve the situation, but it's one of those awful or frustrating moments, I expect, for Prime Minister Olmert where he knows, if he does these things, it is unlikely to resolve Israel's security dilemma, but he also knows that he must do these things, not simply for domestic political reasons, but to send a message to the region that Israel will not stand idly by if it is attacked...

...MARGARET WARNER: And what about -- briefly, do you think Israel would be tempted to strike Iran?

THEODORE KATTOUF: Well, certainly, Israel would be tempted to strike Iran, because it's an existential question. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's made it very clear it thinks Israel shouldn't exist. The Israelis will certainly have to be thinking about what their military options are, vis-a-vis Iran.

Mayakovsky's Daughter: Putin is Right

Writing in USA Today, Patricia Thompson argues that America should give Putin a break:

President Vladimir Putin is the right man for the right job at this point in Russian history. He has a comprehensive vision for taking the country forward.

His actions and Russia's uneven efforts at self-sufficiency may draw the ire of the Western — particularly the American — press. But much is also wrong with American policy toward Russia.

How could we expect democracy, as we understand it, to take root in a country with a long-standing heritage, from czarist to Stalinist times, of hierarchical top-down planning and autocracy? Was it reasonable to expect Russia to morph suddenly into a participatory democracy?

It takes years of exposure to the notion, and a lot of practice, to be a comfortable citizen of a democratic state with a shared concept of the "common good." Let's be honest. Are we always successful in our own efforts?

Perhaps it is time to recognize that we may sometimes seem to speak with a "forked tongue" when we talk of freedom of the press, transparency and other high-sounding objectives to masses of people who regret losing the security of their past.

The Worst President Ever

The uncle of someone I know passed away last Sunday at the age of 81. He was a WWII Navy veteran of the Pacific theatre, who spent his career teaching around the world for the Department of Defense school system. He loved to travel, and was in England, his favorite country, where he suddenly collapsed and died on his 81st birthday. He had lived through the Great Depression, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War. He loved his wife, raised his children through ups and downs, provided for his grandchildren, and took care of his brother. He volunteered as a prison visitor, worked with autistic children, and went to Bible study at his church. He led an exemplary life. He was a great American.

I'll never forget one conversation we had. A couple of years ago, he suddenly said to me, out of the blue:

"George Bush is the worst President this country has ever had."

"Worse than Hoover?"

"Worse than Hoover."

"Worse than Nixon?"

"Worse than Nixon."

"Worse than LBJ?"

"Worse than LBJ."

"Worse than Carter?"

"Worse than Carter."

"Worse than Reagan?"

"Worse than Reagan."

"Worse than his father?"

"Much worse than his father. I told you, he's the worst President this country has ever had."

Lebanon War Spreads

Haaretz reports Israel has bombed Lebanese military bases, and imposed an embargo.

Coming Soon to Public Broadcasting . . .

The Current Pipeline is a treasure-trove of informtion on upcoming programs that represent your tax dollars at work. Here are some listings that stand out:

Stand Up: Muslim-American Comics Come of Age (w.t.)
Producing organization: Azimuth Media. Episodes: 1 x 60. Status: fundraising. Major funder: CPB. Producer/director: Glenn Baker. Co-director: Omar Naim. Co-producer/writer: Lauren Cardillo. Contact: Glenn Baker, glenn@azimuthmedia.org, 202-797-5265. Showcases Arab- and Muslim-American comedians in the wake of 9/11 and chronicles their struggle to enter the American comic mainstream. A project backed by CPB’s America at the Crossroads Initiative.

Islam and African-America
Producing organization: Chamba Mediaworks Inc. Episodes: 1 x 90. Status: R&D, scripting, fundraising. Budget: $721,000. Major funder: CPB. Producer/director: St.Clair Bourne. Supervising producer: Michelle Gahee. Co-producer/co-writer: Tom Miller. Writer/story editor: Lou Potter. Script consultant: Robert Gardner. Contact: St.Clair Bourne, chambanotes@earthlink.net. Probes the reactions of the African-American community to the events of 9/11, as well as the past and present relationship between African-Americans and Muslims, both immigrant and domestic. A project backed by CPB’s America at the Crossroads Initiative. Web: www.chambamedia.com.

Muslim Spain: Three Faiths in One Land (w.t.)
Producing organization: Unity Productions Foundation, Gardner Films. Episodes: 2 x 60. Status: production. Executive producers: Alex Kronemer, Michael Wolfe. Director: Rob Gardner. Contact: Alex Kronemer, alexatupf.tv. Explores the eight centuries (700-1492) during which Muslims, Jews and Christians formed a society in Western Europe that influenced and enriched the world. Planned outreach includes interfaith dialogue, public screenings, topical symposia.

American General: Benedict Arnold
Producing organizations: Talon Films, WETA and Essex Television Group. Episodes: 1 x 120. Status: fundraising. WETA executive producers: Dalton Delan, Karen Kenton. Producers: Anthony Vertucci, Tom Mercer, Steve Lettieri. Director: Chris Stearns. Contact: Dewey Blanton, dblantonatweta.com. Examines the complicated life of one of America’s most notorious and misunderstood figures, a man whose name is synonymous with treason who nevertheless contributed mightily to the winning of the Revolution.

Herbert Hoover: Tragedy and Triumph (w.t.)
Producing organization: Stamats Communications Inc. Presenting station: Iowa PTV. Episodes: 1 x 60. Status: fundraising. Exexutive producers: Tom Hedges, Stevie Ballard. Manager of local productions: Wayne Bruns. Contact: Wayne Bruns, 515-242-3100. A new look at Hoover, examining his life, work and presidency.

WWJD 2.1: What Would Jesus Do ...in the 21st Century?
Producing station: KTWU, Topeka, Kan. Distributor: APT. Episodes: 6 x 30. Status: production. Budget: $250,000. Major funder: Shumaker Family Foundation. Executive producer: Eugene Williams. Series producer: Dave Kendall. Contact: Kevin Goodman, kevin.goodmanatwashburn.edu. Tracing the origins of the question "What Would Jesus Do?" to an 1896 publication titled In His Steps, this series brings the question into the 21st century. Religious scholars and theologians consider how the basic ethical issues raised by such a question may be perceived in light of changing cultural landscapes and worldviews.

As Jack Paar used to say, I kid you not...

War in Lebanon

Yahoo! News has the story.

BTW, In 2005, President Bush hailed Lebanon's democracy as a bulwark against terrorism:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Pointing to progress from Lebanon to Afghanistan, President Bush on Tuesday defended his campaign to spread democracy, saying it can help stop terrorism around the world.

Vladimir Putin on Chechnya

The Russian president spoke recently with French television about the history of the Chechen conflict:

QUESTION: Russia was long criticised over Chechnya and the situation in the republic. Now we know that Shamil Basayev has been killed. You have said that the military operations in Chechnya are now over. The outcome of these operations is 300,000 dead, including around 80,000 Chechen civilians. Was this military operation justified? What responsibility does Russia bear for it? Was it possible to carry out an operation of this kind without violating the rights and interests of citizens? Was it necessary, for example, to bomb Grozny in order to fight the terrorists?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Unfortunately, any conflict involving heavy arms causes deaths, including among the civilian population. I want to remind you that Russia gave Chechnya what amounted practically to independence in 1995, but what did we end up with as a result? Overnight this republic was taken over by extremist groups from all around the world. Overnight. Not only did the people who came to power there spare little thought for the interests of their citizens, they gave their interests no thought at all, pursuing instead their goal to create a fundamentalist state reaching from the Caspian to the Black Sea. This certainly has nothing to do whatsoever with the interests of the Chechen people. This circumstance, and the attempts to introduce extremist currents of Islam from abroad, turned against the people who tried to pursue these goals, because the majority of Chechen citizens realised that without Russia they would have no guarantee of real independence. This was exactly the way things turned out. It was for precisely this reason that the first President of Chechnya, Akhmat Kadyrov, who was later killed by terrorists, came to me. He came to me with these very ideas.

When we decided to hold a referendum on a constitution for Chechnya, a constitution that states expressly that Chechnya is an integral part of the Russian Federation, many had doubts as to the wisdom of this step and as to how the Chechens would vote. But I remind you that more than 80 percent voted to maintain Chechnya within the Russian Federation. This is a question of principle for me. It was settled in the most democratic way possible and in the presence of those who had the greatest interest in seeing it resolved in democratic fashion. As you know, observers from the League of Arab Nations and from the Organisation of the Islamic Conference were present during the referendum on the constitution and during the presidential election. They were present at almost all the polling stations and they have no doubts that the voting was conducted in the most democratic fashion.

Yes, there are victims, of course. Unfortunately, this is unavoidable. But it was not us who began the war in 1999. Back then, international terrorist groups launched an attack on Dagestan, also a Muslim republic, from Chechen territory, and the Muslims of Dagestan, together with a large part of the Chechen population, fought back against these terrorists, and only later did our regular armed forces come to their aid. Only later. We had no choice but to take this action. I think that any country would rise to the defence of its territorial integrity, because in this case we were not just trying to stamp out a hotbed of terrorism in the North Caucasus and in Chechnya in particular. For us it was clear that if we allowed the creation of a fundamentalist state from the Caspian to the Black Sea, this would spill over into other parts of Russia where Muslims are a large part of the population. This was a question of the survival of the Russian Federation itself, of our statehood, and I think that all of our actions were justified.

An Open Letter to the Mumbai Bombers

From The Times of India:

Dear Terrorist,

Even if you are not reading this we don't care. Time and again you tried to disturb us and disrupt our life -- killing innocent civilians by planting bombs in trains, buses and cars. You have tried hard to bring death and destruction, cause panic and fear and create communal disharmony but every time you were disgustingly unsuccessful. Do you know how we pass our life in Mumbai? How much it takes for us to earn that single rupee? If you wanted to give us a shock then we are sorry to say that you failed miserably in your ulterior motives. Better look elsewhere, not here.

We are not Hindus and Muslims or Gujaratis and Marathis or Punjabis and Bengalis. Nor do we distinguish ourselves as owners or workers, government employees or private employees. WE ARE MUMBAIKERS (Bombay-ites, if you like). We will not allow you to disrupt our life like this. On the last few occasions when you struck (including the 11 deadly blasts in a single day killing over 250 people and injuring 500 plus in 1993), we went to work the next day in full strength. This time too we cleared everything within a few hours and were back to normal - the vendors serving their next order, businessmen finalizing the next deals and the office workers rushing to catch the next train. Yes, the same train you targeted.

Fathom this: Within three hours of the blasts, long queues of blood-donating volunteers were seen outside various hospitals, where most of the injured were admitted. By midnight, the hospital had to issue a notification that blood banks were full and they didn't require any more blood. The next day, attendance at schools and offices is close to 100%, trains & buses are packed to the brim, the crowds are back. The city has simply dusted itself off and moved on - perhaps with greater vigour.


We are Mumbaikars and we live like brothers in times like this. So, do not dare to threaten us with your crackers. The spirit of Mumbai is very strong and can not be harmed. (Please forward this to others. U never know, by chance it may come to hands of a terrorist in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq and he can then read this message which is especially meant for him!!!)


With Love,

From the people of Mumbai

Kyrgyzstan Democracy Watch

America's one-time best friend in Central Asia, site of the "Tulip Revolution", has decided to expel two American diplomats, according to Registan.net:

The BBC, AP, and RIA Novosti are all reporting that Kyrgyzstan has ordered two US diplomats to leave the country for “inappropriate” contacts with leaders of NGOs. There is, as can be seen in the BBC’s report, some confusion over what is going on.

The news agency AP quoted an unnamed Kyrgyz official as saying the expulsions were down to “inappropriate” contacts with NGOs, and the US embassy used the same word in its statement, which referred only to “reports” of the expulsion.

AP also quoted Tursunbek Akun, head of the official Human Rights Commission, as saying: “A decision has been taken, but the diplomats remain in the country.”

But the local news agency 24.kg said “reliable sources” said two US citizens had been deported. It quoted one as saying that the expulsion was due to “gross interference in the internal affairs of the sovereign Kyrgyz Republic”.

Ukraine Democracy Watch

From the New York Times:

MOSCOW, July 11 — With parliamentary debate in Ukraine reduced to insults and fistfights, supporters of President Viktor A. Yushchenko today called on him to dissolve the Parliament and hold a new election in a desperate effort to block his opposition rival from becoming the country’s new prime minister.

The request came more than three months after elections in March resulted in a splintered Parliament, with no one party controlling a majority of seats. And it raised the chances that the political turmoil that has followed will deepen, threatening Mr. Yushchenko’s vision of a democratic Ukraine more entwined in Europe.

Georgia Democracy Watch

Georgia's English-language newspaper, The Messenger, reports that it's not really all roses after the "Rose revolution":

"Millions of euros of development money remain at risk from the country's crippling levels of corruption, thus the EBRD must take a strong stance to encourage the independent assessment of privatization and public procurement in Georgia," Bankwatch says.

The NGO notes that the introduction of democracy and the rule of law remain an issue of concern in Georgia. "Unfortunately, since the 'Rose Revolution', the structure of government and the administration has changed substantially. The constitutional amendments have breached one of the fundamental principles of democratic constitutionalism, namely the horizontal distribution of power, or the system of checks and balances," it says. As a result, the organization notes Georgia's state apparatus is "misbalanced and prone to political crisis."

Polish Democracy Watch

First, the president of Poland appoints his brother as prime minister. Now, he wants to criminally prosecute German newspapers that made fun of him...

'Potato' comment irks ruling Polish twins

WARSAW, Poland, July 11 (UPI) -- The twin brothers who now dominate Polish politics have shown themselves to be thin-skinned with their reaction to a column in a German newspaper.

Die Tageszeitung used the headline "Poland's New Potato" to make fun of President Lech Kaczynski, Der Spiegel magazine reported. The column especially ridiculed Kaczynski's presumed dislike of Germany, saying that all he knows of the country is "the spittoon in the men's toilet at Frankfurt airport."

The column, if anything, seems to have increased Kaczynski's Germanophobia, the magazine said. His brother, Jaroslav, who becomes prime minister in a few days, demanded that Germany go after the offending newspaper.

"An insult to a head of state is a crime and there must be consequences," he said.

The German government has refused to do so, saying only that the country has a free press. Newspapers on both sides of the border have been having a field day, with one Polish newspaper asking if the prime minister-to-be is going to seek the extradition of the offending columnist.

What Does Russia Want? by Leon Aron

Originally published in Kommersant:

Russia's foreign policy nowadays is undeniably pragmatic, it is clearly a policy aspiring for the status of bona fide Realpolitik. Maneuvering instead of having the hands tied with abstract principles ("Western civilization," "human rights," "freedom"). Making an emphasis on bilateral relations instead of joining "ideological" alliances. Long-term results are less important than establishment of contacts and the dividends they bring right here and now. Russia is using the tactic known in the business community as asset leveraging (a best efficient placement of assets). An emphasis is being made on the spheres of "comparative advantages" be it nuclear technologies, conventional military hardware, or power industry.

Moscow's "new course" is particularly visible in the situation with Iran. It is this situation that soured Moscow's relations with Washington worse than anything else had. This situation around Iran is being used to promote the same mega-objective, namely a return to the international arena in the capacity of a world power and key player. Hence Russia's tactic in the talks: stall for time delaying "the moment of truth" and defending the status quo to up the price of the "goods" (Russian support).

It may have been all right by Washington were it not for the specific time and circumstances (after all, it got used to France's diplomacy). As things stand, however, it is certainly not all right. The United States is bent on promotion of freedom and democracy as central components of national security and on "advancing democracy" as a key instrument of its maintenance. Russia is obsessed with post-Soviet and post-Imperial restoration that comes down to economic and political recentralization and Realpolitik in foreign affairs. The values are so different that Russia and America are drifting in opposite directions.