Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

For some fun on a lazy Sunday, read the comments (comment 5,  comment 6, comment 7) by the poster from Bangladesh claiming to be both ‘Steve Johnson’ and ‘Abul Hashem’ in response to my post on Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. Also, read my response explaining the fraud.

Enjoy.

I received another email from Rabbi Sue Levy. I wanted once again to share our continuing conversation with the reader. I thank Rabbi Levy for the opportunity to engage her in discussion about Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.

Rabbi Levy’s email is below followed by my response:

Dear Mr. Rahman,

 

It’s obvious to me that no words of mine will persuade you of Shoaib Choudhury’s goodness and that no word’s of your’s will persuade me of the contrary, so we won’t accomplish anything by continuing our conversation about him.

 

I do want to make you aware of one point. The people who support Shoaib come from a broad spectrum of opinion about Israel and everything else. I don’t agree with Sheikh Palazzi in his position about Israel and the Palestinians. In the Jewish community, we have our liberals and our fundamentalists. Those of us who are liberals do not take every word of Torah as God’s revealed word, and we do not operate from an assumption that God gave us the land of Israel. We do believe that it is our homeland, since Jews have been there continuously for more than three thousand years. Having said that, the huge majority of us believe in a two-state solution to the conflict with our Palestinian brothers and sisters, and we believe in peace with justice for all sides.

 

Those among us who are fundamentalists certainly believe that God gave us the Land of Israel, but there is nothing in the Torah which forbids us from sharing what is our’s or even from giving something away that was given to us by God, since the Torah is given to us, ultimately, as a roadmap toward a more peaceful time. There are many maps and many paths, and I hope you will understand that I am making no comparison with a rather dubious political plan by the same name.

 

I am a member of a group called Rabbis for Human Rights. Our work in Israel includes proactive efforts to assist innocent Palestinians who are victimized by our Jewish brothers and sisters. Our members have stood in front of bulldozers in an attempt to keep them from destroying Palestinian homes and have gone into the olive groves with Palestinians to help them harvest their crops safely in place where Israeli "settlers" might have harmed them.

 

All this has become much more difficult since Hamas has come to power. I don’t know any Israeli or any Jew in his or her right mind who would consent to giving an inch of land to someone whose sworn purpose is to destroy you. I would advocate negotiations toward a peaceful settlement, even one that includes making concessions about land for a Palestinian state, if the Palestinians could provide Israel with an honest and sincere bargaining partner. This is not likely to happen while Hamas is in power, and I find that very sad. Would you negotiate with a suicide bomber? Would you negotiate with a government that is using the "peace" process as a way of buying time so that it can strengthen and attack again?

 

I don’t espouse genocide, and to say that all of Shoaib Choudhury’s supports do is neither honest nor fair. It is reasonable to say that there are some Muslims who believe that the Qur’an states that Allah has given the Land of Israel to the Jewish people, and that some of them draw conclusions from that upon which neither you nor I agree. And, it is correct to say that at least one of these people, Imam Palazzi, supports Shoaib Choudhury.

 

Shoaib for his part, has taken no position regarding Israel at all, except that the government of Bangladesh should recognize Israel and establish diplomatic and trade relations with it. His editorial policy is to publish articles by people who express many opinions in the hope that the people of Bangladesh will have the opportunity to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

 

All this is quite apart from any other discussions we have had about him. It is something that I wanted to clarify, while still understanding that we will disagree on many things regarding Choudhury.

 

I’m saddened that you and others find it necessary to hold onto so much bitterness. The divisions in Bangladesh run very deep. A lot of what happens in your home country comes from people who seem to believe that it is still 1971 when, I believe, it would be healthier for Bangladeshis to move on and look to the needs of the future without reliving the past. Shoaib is not my only friend in Bangladesh, but he is the only one who has become a "public figure." In the course of the friendships I have made, I have come to care very much about your homeland, and it is hard for me to watch what people with either greed or grudges or both are doing to each other. I hope for a better time for all of us.

 

Assalamu Alaykum,

 

Sue Levy

Dear Rabbi Levy,

 

Thank you once again for your response.

 

You stated in your email that we will not accomplish anything by continuing our conversation. On the contrary, I think we have accomplished a great deal. We have both expressed our views on the matter in open debate to , I hope, the benefit of the reader. As you will recall, we began this conversation with a request from you that I retract my original post and that I apologize as well. I remain prepared to correct any errors of fact in my original post if I am provided with credible news account to the contrary. I hope you will understand that I will not be persuaded by opinions of Mr. Choudhury’s supporters unless those opinions are backed up by credible news reports.

 

I want to thank you for making it clear that you do not agree with Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi’s views regarding the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. I also applaud your work with Rabbis for Human Rights in your effort to defend the human rights of both Israelis and Palestinians. I firmly believe the only path to peace in Israel and Palestine is through reconciliation and dialogue. I am heartened that you both share those views and champion efforts to make that happen.

 

You said in your email that it was unfair and dishonest to say that all of Mr. Choudhury’s supporters espouse genocide. Specifically, you said the following:

I don’t espouse genocide, and to say that all of Shoaib Choudhury’s supports do is neither honest nor fair. It is reasonable to say that there are some Muslims who believe that the Qur’an states that Allah has given the Land of Israel to the Jewish people, and that some of them draw conclusions from that upon which neither you nor I agree. And, it is correct to say that at least one of these people, Imam Palazzi, supports Shoaib Choudhury.

I want to note that I did not accuse anyone of espousing genocide. I did however say that the Islam-Israel Fellowship, of which Mr. Choudhury and Dr. Benkin are advisory board members and Sheikh Palazzi is the co-founder, espouses the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. To support my statement, I cited some of the many commentaries written by this group and available on their web site. I also did not state, and certainly did not mean to imply, that all of Mr. Choudhury’s supporters espouse ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. If I left you with that impression, I want to clarify that it was not my intention. Specifically, I do not think I ever suggested that you were a member of Islam-Israel Fellowship or that you subscribed to their views about the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

 

I will reiterate what I have said before. Both Mr. Choudhury and Dr. Benkin belong to the Islam-Israel Fellowship, along with Sheikh Palazzi. Many of the contributors on Mr. Choudhury’s Weekly Blitz are members of Islam-Israel Fellowship. Given the extreme views of Islam-Israel Fellowship, to suggest that Mr. Choudhury is somehow unaware of them while choosing to remain on their advisory board once again stretches credulity. I should further note that the one person who seems to be the source of almost all "reporting" on Mr. Choudhury is Dr. Benkin, who is not only associated with Islam-Israel Fellowship, but has written numerous articles expressing views that are consistent with the group.

 

You stated the following in your email:

I’m saddened that you and others find it necessary to hold onto so much bitterness. The divisions in Bangladesh run very deep. A lot of what happens in your home country comes from people who seem to believe that it is still 1971 when, I believe, it would be healthier for Bangladeshis to move on and look to the needs of the future without reliving the past.

I have to confess that your comments both sadden and disturb me a great deal. Bangladeshis are not "reliving the past" by remembering the genocide of 1971. The events of 1971 are a very important part of Bengali national identity and largely define the foundations of Bangladesh today. We are not prepared to "move on" and somehow forget the most concentrated act of genocide in the 20th century, where up to 3 million Bengalis were massacred in the name of religious extremism. Any suggestion to "move on" is an insult to me as a Bengali, to the memory of my parents, to the memory of my relatives who lost their lives, to the hundreds of thousands of women and girls who were raped, to the millions who were slaughtered, and to the Bengalis who survived the horrors and live with the scars today. 1971 is important to Bangladeshis just as the Holocaust is important to the Jews. We remember 1971 so as not to repeat it, in the same way the world remembers the Holocaust so the unimaginable savagery is never visited upon this Earth again.

 

The memory of 1971 is especially important in the post 9/11 world. In 1971 Bangladesh fought for the ideal of a secular state against the tyranny of religious extremism. Bangladesh is proud of its founding as a Muslim majority state with a secular parliamentary democracy. While our fellow Hindu brothers and sisters were being slaughtered by the Pakistani army, Muslims and Hindus in Bangladesh came together to resist the atrocities and ultimately drive the perpetrators out. We stood up in 1971 as one nation united by our common humanity and not divided by the false seduction of religious extremism. The independence of Bangladesh was a triumph of secularism over religious bigotry.

 

Since 1971 there have been extremist forces that have re-entered Bangladesh who continue to try to subvert the secular nature of Bangladeshi society. It is the memory of 1971 that reinvigorates the desire of the Bengali nation to resist all forms of extremism. So, no, we will not "move on" nor will we ever forget.

 

You also stated in your email:

Shoaib is not my only friend in Bangladesh, but he is the only one who has become a "public figure." In the course of the friendships I have made, I have come to care very much about your homeland, and it is hard for me to watch what people with either greed or grudges or both are doing to each other.

With due respect, Rabbi Levy, while I do not question your caring for Bangladesh, I do question your knowledge of the political landscape in Bangladesh. In a post dated January 23, 2007 defending Mr. Choudhury, you wrote the following:

This is taking place against a background of governmental and social instability in Bangladesh. A new interim "caretaker" government has taken control of the country after many weeks of violent demonstrations, strikes and unrest fomented by the Awami League, a coalition of parties which has most recently been in the minority in the Bangladeshi Parliament. These groups represent the radical Islamist faction whose goal it is to see a Taliban-like government take control of the country with the Islamic Shari’ah (religious law) as the law of the land. The interim government is working to meet one of their demands by correcting some large discrepancies in the lists of registered voters. It seems apparent that these radicals will win many more seats in the parliament than they have had before when elections are held in the late spring. It is, indeed, possible that they will win a majority. Al Queda is making incursions into the country, and an international group of journalists has made a statement that Bangladesh is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists who are often imprisoned and sometimes executed. [Emphasis added by me.]

I am concerned that you are propagating patently false information about Bangladesh and those that come to read your posts will, because of the respect they hold for you, believe your words. You asserted in your post that the Awami League represent "the radical Islamist faction" who want to see a "Taliban-like" government and impost "Shari’ah" law in Bangladesh. It might surprise you to learn that the Awami League is the leading secular party in Bangladesh. It was the Awami League that led the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971 under the banner of secular democracy. If the Awami League were to come to power, and they have held power in Bangladesh numerous times before, hell is likely to freeze over before you see a "Taliban-like" government in Bangladesh.

 

The immediate past government in Bangladesh, led by the BNP, had within its ruling coalition, the Jamaat-e-Islami  - the leading Islamist party in Bangladesh. If any party would want to bring "Taliban-like" government to Bangladesh, it would be the Jamaat-e-Islami, not the secular Awami League. Fortunately, though Jamaat-e-Islami, like other small parties in a parliamentary democracy, can form coalitions with the major parties to form a government, they do not have a following large enough to actually control a government in Bangladesh. I will take this opportunity to again point out that Mr. Choudhury, the person you defend, was intimately connected to the Jamaat-e-Islami. Yet, in your post, you state falsely that the Awami League is a "radical Islamist faction", which as should become obvious to you is quite the opposite of the truth.. Once again you do a disservice to the truth and to Bangladesh by propagating false and misleading information.

 

I would like to conclude by asking you to continue to visit my blog and engage me and my readers in open dialogue.

 

Shalom,

 

Mashuqur Rahman

 

Rabbi Sue Levi, a contributor to the Weekly Blitz, has sent an email in response to our email conversation regarding Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. Her email and my response are below:

Dear Mash,

I want to clarify three things about Shoaib Choudhury and then I’ll drop the subject on this blog.

First, you proclaimed that, by definition, Shoaib is/was an Islamist because he worked for one year at Inqilab. I wasn’t acquainted with him at the time, so I asked him about that employment. He told me that many people with families to support will take employment in places the might not otherwise choose. He took the position, even though he was aware of their Islamist religious beliefs and politics, and got out of there as soon as he was able. He was never in agreement with their policies while he was employed there.

Second, the internet has made this a very small world. Shoaib’s newspaper, Weekly Blitz, is read in many Arab countries where the ruling powers need to discredit him when he writes favorably about Israel and interfaith understanding and when he writes unfavorable about radical Islam which is becoming more and more prevelant in Bangladesh. Saudi Arabia is the primary perpetrator of the smear tactics against him. Their government, often speaking through their embassies abroad, have also been involved in this effort. Their most egregrious charge is that he is an Israeli espionage agent. If you think about this, espionage agents do their work covertly. They don’t go out and publish newspapers supporting the country they are supposedly working for. This is a baseless and malicious charge emanating from Saudi Arabia.

And finally, there is no hope for due process for Shoaib Choudhury or for anyone else in Bangladesh. In their legal system the accused individual is not permitted to bring defense witnesses or evidence in his or her defense. The only think a defense attorney can do is to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution. And, there is no jury. A judge makes a unilateral decision after the witnesses have been heard, but all the witnesses are there to condemn him. In Shoaib Choudhury’s case, the judge made a written statement that he sees no reason to acquit him long before a single witness was heard. So, there is no such thing as due process in Bangladesh. If there were, I would agree with the many writers here who have called for it.

I would like to suggest that your readers spend some time reading Shoaib’s newspaper online to think about it for themselves. www.weeklyblitz.net

Shoaib returns to court this Thursday, March 8th.

I want to thank you for allowing me to defend him. It is the only placewhere that will happen.

Rabbi Sue Levy
Houston, Texas, USA

My response is below:

Dear Rabbi Levi,

Thank you again for your email. I wanted to respond to the three issues you raised in your email.

You stated in your email that Mr. Choudhury took the job at the Islamist daily, Inqilab, because he needed to support his family. You further stated that he did not support their policies while he worked there. I should point out that Mr. Choudhury was also the managing director of Inqilab Television, the would-be on-air mouthpiece of the Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami party. According to Mr. Choudhury’s own words, he was a 30% owner of Inqilab Television and had a $1 million stake in the venture. Clearly, he was aware that Inqilab Television, the namesake of the newspaper, was also an Islamist mouthpiece when he became managing director and a 30% owner of the venture. It stretches credulity to suggest that he took the job at Inqilab newspaper simply to support his family, yet had $1 million to invest in the Islamist television venture. Mr. Choudhury clearly was a major partner in the Islamist venture according to his own words. A person usually does not invest $1 million in an Islamist mouthpiece if that person does not subscribe to its politics.

You also stated that Saudi Arabia is the "primary perpetrator of the smear tactics against him". In your previous email you had also made similar allegations, without citing any sources, against the Bangladesh Embassy in Washington - I am glad to see that you have not repeated that allegation. First, I would ask you once again to provide some proof of your allegations. Please provide some credible news account of the Saudi involvement that you claim. Second, I should point out that if indeed Saudi Arabia is orchestrating a smear campaign, as you allege, they are clearly doing a very poor job. A simple Google search on Mr. Choudhury will show that almost every single article that is returned is written by Dr. Benkin or others connected with him. All these articles portray falsely that Mr. Choudhury is a moderate Muslim who is being persecuted for his attempts at inter-faith dialogue - it is the same story repeated over and over again by the same people. If the Saudis are trying to influence the debate, they are doing a very poor job indeed. On the contrary, the picture that clearly emerges is an orchestrated campaign by Mr. Choudhury’s friends to portray Mr. Choudhury as a martyr, unfairly tar Bangladesh’s image to an uninformed reader, and leave the impression that Mr. Choudhury is being persecuted when in fact he is out on bail, enjoys the freedom to publish and express himself freely, and is being accorded due process. It is also no accident that these friends of Mr. Choudhury all seem to be connected to the Islam-Israel Fellowship, a group who advocates the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

Finally, you stated in your email that "there is no hope for due process for Shoaib Choudhury or for anyone else in Bangladesh." You also claimed "In their legal system the accused individual is not permitted to bring defense witnesses or evidence in his or her defense. The only think a defense attorney can do is to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution." I am afraid that you are grossly misinformed about the Bangladesh legal system. I fear that those who have explained the Bangladesh legal system to you have either intentionally or unintentionally misled you.

I should tell you that my wife was a practicing criminal defense lawyer in Bangladesh before we were married. She and her law partners have brought many defense witnesses into court during the course of legal proceedings. Any suggestion that the defense is not permitted to bring their own witnesses is patently false. You also mentioned that there is no jury system in Bangladesh. While it is true that there is no jury system in Bangladesh, it is not unusual in the world not to have a jury system. In fact, the world’s largest democracy, India, does not have a jury system. Japan did not have a jury system until 2004. The majority of criminal cases in England are heard without a jury. There are pros and cons to a jury system, but to suggest that judicial systems such as Bangladesh that do not have a jury system are devoid of due process is simply uninformed.

The Bangladeshi judicial system has a long and rich history - it is based primarily on British law and to a lesser extent, Islamic and Hindu legal systems that predated the advent of the British system. The Bangladesh Constitution grants the writ of habeas corpus, something that Alberto Gonzales has claimed the United States Constitution does not do. The Bangladesh Constitution, in articles 26 to 47, guarantees the right to hear charges against the accused, the right to challenge one’s detention, equal protection under the law, and the fundamental rights to speech, thought, conscience, religion, assembly, movement, and association, among other enumerated rights. Any suggestion that Mr. Choudhury will not be accorded due process flies in the face of Bangladeshi law and the history of criminal proceedings in Bangladesh. It is worth noting again that Mr. Choudhury is out on bail while continuing to publish in Bangladesh.

The Bangladeshi courts have often ruled against the government. They have also convicted some very high profile Islamist extremists as recently as last year. All those convicted of a death penalty offence have a right to automatic appeal all the way up to the Bangladesh Supreme Court. Bangladesh is not known for summary executions or of quick dispensation of death penalty cases. The individuals who assassinated the Bangladeshi Prime Minister in 1975 were tried and convicted (three were acquitted) and sentenced to death after a long trial that ended in 2001. The trial was universally hailed as fair. The sentences of those convicted are yet to be carried out while the convicted pursue their legal rights to appeal in the Bangladeshi courts. So your uninformed assertion that "there is no such thing as due process in Bangladesh" is without merit and patently false.

To conclude, I should debunk the claim that somehow Mr. Choudhury is being targeted for speaking out against Islamist extremists and the government. It might interest you to know that the Bangladeshi press has been quite vocal in speaking out against extremists. To suggest the Mr. Choudhury is somehow a lone "moderate" amongst a sea of extremists is simply ludicrous and false. As an example, consider this article from 2004 in The Daily Star that criticizes the government as well as the Islamist extremists; or this article from 2005 exposing Jamaat-e-Islami’s links to militants; or this article from 2003 about Islamist militants in Bangladesh. There are countless other examples - anyone who has read a Bangladeshi newspaper will not be surprised by their independence and their invaluable service in exposing extremists whenever they can. Anyone who knows Bangladesh’s long struggle to independence understands how much Bengalis value their secular system. You and your colleagues do a disservice to the truth and to Bangladesh when you propagate misinformation about the nature of Bangladeshi society and its institutions.

I look forward to your continued visits to my blog. I also encourage you to comment on the posts and continue to engage me and my readers on this and other topics.

Respectfully yours,

Mashuqur Rahman

On Sunday I wrote a post on Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, a man who is facing sedition charges in Bangladesh. Late last night I received an email from Rabbi Sue Levy, a contributor to the Weekly Blitz, asking that I print a prominent retraction and an apology for my post. She said that if I did so, it would say a lot about my integrity and it would be the honorable thing to do. Below is the content of the email I received from Rabbi Sue Levy:

Dear Friend,
I’ve taken the time to go back and look at some of your past articles, and I can see that you are making an honest effort to tell people the truth. It appears to me that, in the case of Shoaib Choudhury, you have made a serious mistake, but one that was unintended if you wish to tell the truth. There are reams of propaganda being published in the guise of news in an attempt to discredit Shoaib. Some of this has been perpetrated by Arab countries, Saudi Arabia in particular. The Embassy of Bangladesh in Washington is another source.

If you are as sincere as I think you are, it would be gracious of you to print a prominent retraction and apology. It would say a lot about your integrity if you are able to do this.

You are writing about a man whose life hangs in the balance. Those of us who are trying to save him including Richard Benkin and Sheikh Palazzi are all volunteers. I agree with you that "interlocking directorates" deserve a great deal of scrutiny in the world of business where one hand is rubbing the other and dropping money in it at the same time. When you are talking about volunteer efforts on the part of people who share a common vision - even if it doesn’t happen to be your’s - there is no comparison to be made, and nothing to criticize.

Shoaib was not in prison before 2003. The story about his threatening Sheikh Hasina is a complete fabrication.

The problem now is that he is facing a judge who is a known member of a radical Islamic group and has already said publically that he sees no reason to acquit Shoaib. There is no jury, and there is no provision for defense witnesses or evidence on his behalf. Therefore, at any point in this travesty of a trial, the judge could find him guilty and sentence him to death.

Those of us who love and care for Shoaib are trying to generate enough international attention that the Government of Bangladesh will need to drop the charges if it wants to be seen as a part of the civilized world. When you discredit him, you make this effort much more difficult. Others will repeat what you say in their own blogs because they respect you. We are trying very hard to win a unanimous vote on the resolution pending in Congress in order to make a very strong statement to Bangladesh. So, please think again before you discredit someone whose life hangs in the balance. The charges of espionage are ludicrous, but someone might believe you because of your fine reputation.

I beg you to do the honorable thing and print a retraction.

While you’re at it, I would appreciate it if you would also print the comments I sent regarding your article. I will think less of you if you only publish comments from people who agree with you.

For additional information: www.interfaithstrength.com and Shoaib’s newspaper, www.weeklyblitz.net

Thank you,

Sue Levy

Below is the email response that I have sent Rabbi Levy:

Dear Rabbi Levy,

Thank you for emailing me regarding my post about Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. I regret to inform you that I am unable to comply with your request for a retraction or an apology. I do not believe I have reason to comply with your request based on the information you provided in your email. However, I will certainly correct any errors of fact that may be in my post if I am provided with credible news accounts to the contrary.

I am concerned by some allegations in your email. You assert that Saudi Arabia and the Bangladesh embassy are spreading propaganda regarding this case. Please provide me with news accounts that confirm your allegations. In my research I have not come across any such information. All the sources I cited in my post come from news accounts (for example, from The Daily Star, the most respected English daily in Bangladesh) or from articles written by Mr. Choudhury, Sheikh Palazzi, Dr. Benkin or others affiliated with the organizations they represent. If you are able to provide evidence of factual errors in the news accounts I cited or if the individuals I quoted disavow their own articles or the views expressed in them, I will be happy to note the corrections.

I am troubled by the misrepresentations in the press about Mr. Choudhury. He is portrayed as a moderate Muslim who is engaged in fostering dialogue between Muslims and Jews. However, his writings, his affiliation with the Islam-Israel Fellowship and Sheikh Palazzi suggest that he is not interested in fostering dialogue. I do not believe the extreme and incendiary views expressed in the commentaries published by the Islam-Israel Fellowship can be properly termed as fostering dialogue.

I am also troubled by the intervention of a foreign power in the judicial process of Bangladesh and the signal it sends to those who believe in the rule of law. Mr. Choudhury is currently out on bail and is pursuing his publishing career clearly without curbs to his freedom of expression. He has been accorded due process. I believe the Bangladesh government has an obligation to conduct a free and fair trial. I trust that you and the supporters of Mr. Choudhury will do your best to ensure that Mr. Choudhury is fully accorded his due process rights. I join Senator Dick Durbin, as expressed in his letter dated January 31, 2006, in calling upon the government of Bangladesh to ensure that Mr. Choudhury receives a fair trial. Mr. Choudhury’s guilt has not been established - he has only been charged with a crime. It is up to the court to determine his guilt or innocence. As Bangladesh is currently taking steps to ensure further independence of the judicial process, it would cause great harm to the judicial system if a case is abandoned because of political pressure. You state in your email that Bangladesh must drop the charges if "it wants to be seen as a part of the civilized world." On the contrary, only a free and fair trial, without the taint of political pressure, will ensure that Bangladesh is seen as a proud member of the community of nations.

You also suggested in your email that I have censored your comments on my blog. You should note that I do not moderate any of the comments that are posted on this site. The comments are posted immediately without being held in a moderation queue. Any reader of this site is free to post comments expressing their point of view. You should also note that there are many comments on this site which take positions contrary to mine, or which have insulted me personally. You have questioned my integrity by suggesting that I have censored your comments - I have done no such thing. If you had difficulty posting a comment on this site because of the spam check, as others have reported, please repost your comment. I have removed the spam check software because of the trouble it was causing my readers. The downside of course is that I am now having to deal with a constant barrage of spam. Until I install another version of the spam check, I anticipate that comment posting will be a much simpler excercise. If you plan to post comments regularly on this site, and I encourage you to do so, I recommend that you register using the link on the sidebar - it makes the comment posting much simpler.

Respectfully yours,

Mashuqur Rahman

On January 16, 2007 Congressman Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois, sponsored a sense of the House resolution demanding that the Bangladesh government drop all charges against Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, a journalist facing sedition charges. According to the resolution:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Government of Bangladesh should immediately drop all pending charges against Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.

Whereas Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury is a Bangladeshi journalist who, because of his beliefs in an interfaith dialogue between Jews and Muslims and criticism of Islamic extremism, is on trial for sedition, an offense punishable by death;

Whereas on November 29, 2003, Mr. Choudhury was arrested at Zia International Airport in Dhaka, Bangladesh, on his way to board a flight bound for Tel Aviv; Mr. Choudhury’s passport was seized, along with considerable sums of money and several personal items; on that same day police raided Mr. Choudhury’s home and newspaper offices, seizing files, computers, and other valuables;

…

Whereas moderate voices in the Muslim world must be supported and protected to advance the security of the United States and its allies: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that–

(1) the Government of Bangladesh should immediately drop all pending charges against Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury
(2) the Government of Bangladesh should immediately return all of Mr. Choudhury’s confiscated possessions; an
(3) the Government of Bangladesh should cease harassment and intimidation of Mr. Choudhury, take steps to protect Mr. Choudhury, and hold accountable those responsible for attacks against Mr. Choudhury.

On February 15, 2007 the resolution passed the House Committee on Foreign Affairs by voice vote.

On February 24, 2007, Dr. Richard Benkin reported in the Asia Tribune that Congressman Steve Chabot, a co-sponsor of the House resolution, met with Mr. Choudhury at the American Embassy in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Mr. Choudhury, who according to the resolution has been charged "because of his beliefs in an interfaith dialogue between Jews and Muslims and criticism of Islamic extremism", has many friends and well-wishers around the world and in the US Congress. PEN USA has made him an honorary member; the Committee to Protect Journalists has condemned his detention; Reporters without Borders has condemned an alleged bomb attack near his office; the New York Times has editorialized on his behalf; Bangladeshi bloggers I respect have championed his cause; and a diary has appeared in Daily Kos supporting his cause.

Mr. Choudhury is also a darling of the conservative side of the aisle. Michelle Malkin has taken up his cause; Atlas Shrugged has been on the case; Melanie Phillips has bemoaned his abandonment; and so has Debbie Schlussel. The Wall Street Journal has demanded his freedom, as have the New York Sun and the Washington Times.

Mr. Choudhury is a rare man - he has united the right and the left as a champion of freedom of the press and a voice of moderation against radical Islam.

As those who read my posts know, I have spoken out against extremism in Islam and against unjust detentions everywhere. Last year I spoke out against the unjust detention of Mirza Tahir Hussain. I have also written posts about Islamist extremism in Bangladesh. It would be natural for the reader to assume that I would, in this instance, take up the cause of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. However, I will not - and here is why.

I warn the reader that the story is long and complicated.

But first, here is how the New York Times frames the story:

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, a Muslim editor and commentator in Bangladesh, has a rare virtue — he champions dialogue and decency in a culture hemmed in by extremism and corruption. When his weekly newspaper, Blitz, published articles favorable to Israel, it was blacklisted by various companies. Some people demanded that the paper be banned. Mr. Choudhury was thrown out of a private television company.

But all of this pales compared with what happened last month. As he boarded a flight in Dhaka, the capital, on his way to a writers’ conference in Tel Aviv, Mr. Choudhury was arrested by security personnel, accused of being a spy and thrown in prison. The charges are a baseless sham. The Committee to Protect Journalists in New York and the Paris-based Reporters Sans Frontières have vigorously condemned his arrest. Governments, including Washington, need to demand his release.

The Tel Aviv meeting Mr. Choudhury was planning to attend was called ‘’Bridges Through Culture'’ and the lecture he hoped to deliver concerned the role of the media in establishing peace. Mr. Choudhury, who was going to open a Bangladeshi branch of a group called the International Forum for the Literature and Culture of Peace, would have been the first journalist from Bangladesh to speak publicly in Israel.

Mr. Choudhury’s mistreatment is not occurring in a vacuum. Muslim extremism is growing in Bangladesh. Moreover, violence against journalists who stand up to the ruling party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, has been increasing, especially in the south and especially for those exposing links between politicians and organized crime. On Dec. 4, a correspondent for a southern regional daily was beaten and stabbed by members of the party’s youth wing after publication of an article critical of a key local politician.

On Thursday, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Sans Frontières sent letters to Khaleda Zia, the prime minister of Bangladesh, expressing grave concern over these developments. Their alarm is quite justified. Bangladesh may now be among the world’s most dangerous countries for journalists. That makes Mr. Choudhury’s courageous stand for Muslim-Jewish dialogue all the more admirable — and vital to defend. [Emphasis added by me.]

The New York Times makes a convincing plea. However, the New York Times is suffering from a lack of reporting and a basic understanding of the facts. They are repeating a tale that has been spun by dint of repetition.

Mr. Choudhury was arrested on November 29, 2003 at Dhaka airport. Here is the original news report:

A man was arrested at Zia International Airport (ZIA) yesterday morning on his way to Tel Aviv for his alleged Mosad connection.

A leader of Bangladesh chapter of ‘Iflaq’, a Haifa-based organisation, Salauddin Shoib Chowdhury was carrying compact disks (CD) and papers containing write-ups on some sensitive issues including ‘minority repression and the al Qaeda network in Bangladesh’, police said.

Shoib was managing director of the planned Inquilab Television until he was sacked last year.

Members of different law enforcement agencies and ZIA immigration officials apprehended him at the immigration counter minutes before he was to leave for Bangkok by the Biman flight, BG-084, at 10:30am.

"He introduced himself as the editor of the ‘Blitz’, an entertainment magazine published from Dhaka, and said he was going to Bangkok," a top police officer said yesterday on condition of anonymity.

"Searching his luggage, we found a number of CD-formatted write-ups and papers that clearly proved his contact with Tel Aviv," he said. "He was going to take part in a conference in Tel Aviv scheduled to begin on December 1," the police officer added.

It was however learnt that Shoib’s movements were being monitored for quite sometime on suspicion of his connection with the Israeli secret service ‘Mosad’.

"He was going to Bangkok first and was scheduled to fly for Israel, a country Bangladeshi citizens are barred from travelling to," he said.

Mr. Choudhury has quite an interesting past. The article goes on to say:

A correspondent of Russian news agency Itar-Tass, Shoib was sacked from his job but soon joined now defunct ATV owned by Aziz Mohammad Bhai. During his job there, he was arrested on charge of smuggling information out of the country and was awarded a three-month term in the case.

Shoib later joined Inquilab Television as managing director. But he was sacked from his job on allegation of fund embezzlement last year.

He joined the Bengali daily Inquilab as special correspondent, but is no longer there for reasons unknown.

Though Bangladeshis are forbidden to go to Israel, Shoib visited the Israeli capital last month, sources said.

All reports in the Western media refer to Mr. Choudhury as having worked for a private television station and on a Bengali newspaper prior to becoming editor of an obscure Bangladeshi newspaper known as the Weekly Blitz. Those reports however leave out the most salient parts. Mr. Choudhury was the managing director of Inqilab Television, a private television venture run by the leading Islamist party in Bangladesh, the Jamaat-e-Islami. Mr. Choudhury was also a correspondent for the Daily Inqilab, the mouth-piece of Jamaat-e-Islami and published by (until his death last year) well-known war criminal and leading Islamist Maulana Abdul Mannan. Yes, boys and girls, Mr. Choudhury was an Islamist.

 The story gets more interesting. At his bail hearing Mr. Choudhury explained his financial entanglements, and some new information dripped out:

Shoib told the court that he was arrested by police at the behest of the editor of The Inquilab, AMM Bahauddin.

"I am a 30 percent share-holder of the ITV. Earlier, Bahauddin sold out my share to Salman F Rahman at Tk 6 crore without my consent," said Shoib who also claimed himself as the incumbent managing director of the ITV.

He said when he demanded his share back the Daily Inquilab editor influenced police to arrest him in order to muzzle him. He also told the court that Bahauddin threatened him with death, as he demanded his share of the money. He said a few days back he filed a general diary with Uttara Police Station in this connection.

Shoib was arrested in July 17, 1999 on charge of sending e-mail to the then prime minister Sheikh Hasina, her family members and some influential ministers threatening their lives. Charges were pressed against him on May 3 in 2000 and he was jailed for six months.

Police said Shoib used to introduce himself as an ultra Islamist. He was engaged in defrauding people. He often took money from foreign visa seekers. When he was in the daily The New Nation in 1999, he faxed a write-up to the Daily Dinkal where he mentioned that editors of different newspapers took money from the Indian High Commission.

A correspondent of Russian news agency Itar-Tass, Shoib was sacked from his job but soon joined now defunct ATV owned by Aziz Mohammad Bhai. During his stint there, he was arrested on charge of passing information out of the country. [emphasis added by me.]

While he was a good little Islamist he threatened to kill the then prime minister of Bangladesh, the leader of Bangladesh’s largest secular party. However, he had a falling out with his Islamist buddies over a very large sum of money (approximately $1 million). After his falling out, his life became even more interesting.

Mr. Choudhury, through the Weekly Blitz (founded after his falling out with his Islamist friends), went on an offensive against his former partners. He became a darling of some pro-Israel friends. Here is Mr. Choudhury’s article on extremism in Bangladesh (a topic he knew well) written in October 2003:

The Daily Inqilab acts as a mouthpiece of the fundamentalists in Bangladesh. the, It is an extremist sort of provocative newspaper spreading the theme of jihad amongst the local population Inqilab was initially funded by Iraq’s deposed autocrat Saddam Hussain and presently it receives regular cash support from a large number of hidden organization in Bangladesh and abroad. One of the owners of this daily is based in Dubai where from global activities of this organization continues. It is believed that Inqilab enjoys very close contact with Osama Bin Laden, and it has extremely good relations with a large number of small and medium ranking organizations and parties in Bangladesh. Some of these organizations are on the regular pay role of the daily.

Pressure to conform to extremist opinion is intense. Since my newspaper, the Weekly Blitz, published several articles that were favorable to Israel, we have been subject to various threats from local fanatics as well from the Palestinian ambassador in Dhaka. Our newspaper was black listed by some of the local companies financed by the Islami Bank, another organization that patronizes and nourishes extremist groups here. There were a number of applications to the Deputy Commissioner of Dhaka to cancel the registration of our newspaper. Hackers entered our Web site and tried to disrupt it, but were foiled by our technicians.

I received numerous threats from the local extremists and from the editor of an extremist daily, and in one case I had to lodge a written complaint with the local police station. Under the instructions and inspiration of Islami Bank, Ibn Sina Trust and some other religious extremist groups, I was thrown out of a private television company where fanatics suddenly acquired the major portion of the stock. Until now I have not been paid the price for my 20 percent share in that company. [Emphasis added by me.]

Please note the Mr. Choudhury fails to mention that he in fact was affiliated with the "extremist daily" and that the "private television station" was also affiliated with the "extremist daily" and was its namesake. It is this article, and a few others, that Mr. Choudhury and his supporters now cite as the reason for his arrest and detention.

About the same time, a curiously seductive op-ed appeared in the leading English language newspaper in Bangladesh. It was written by Dr. Richard Benkin (if you scroll up, you will note that I cited Dr. Benkin as the reporter for the Asia Tribune). The op-ed was entitled "Dear Bangladesh: An American Jew’s Perception". It praised Bangladesh for its secular democracy and urged it to become the broker for Middle East peace. To do so, the op-ed suggested that Bangladesh should first open diplomatic relations with Israel:

 also believe that Bangladesh is uniquely positioned to help bring peace to a region that has resisted peace for so long: the Middle East. What? Am I daft? Bangladesh is a small nation with its own problems to solve, you might say. We might remind ourselves, however, that when the United States negotiated a peace between Russia and Japan in 1903, it was still a relatively minor player on the world stage. More recently, modest Norway attempted to broker a peace between Arabs and Israelis. Other historical events are also instructive. From the end of World War II until the 1970s, America refused to recognise the People’s Republic of China, demonising it, and not accepting its legitimacy. The president who finally changed that was one of the least forgiving of those old cold warriors, Richard Nixon. A liberal Democrat who tried to do it would have faced tremendous opposition. Similarly, the first peace treaty between Israel and an Arab country was signed not by doves from each side, but by two men who fought vehemently against each other’s peoples: Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin. So, what country is better qualified to broker a truce than a non-Arab Moslem nation and a democracy at that: Bangladesh.

…

Why should the world assume that only a superpower like the United States, or a European country like Norway, should offer itself as a broker for peace? Bangladesh is really a more logical vehicle to bring together Israelis and Arabs. On the one hand, you share a Muslim heritage with Arabs. On the other, you share Israel’s religious diversity. (Do you know, Israel has approximately the same percentage of Jews as Bangladesh has Muslims?) You share the Arab world’s past subservience to western powers; but your democratic government is much closer to Israeli democracy than Arab autocracy. There is only one thing missing to complete the equation.

It would be very difficult for Bangladesh to play such a role in this conflict while it does not formally recognise the sovereignty of one of the parties. It would be difficult to broach such an issue when there is no Bangladeshi diplomatic corps in Israel to contact its Israeli counterparts. (Before trying to broker Middle East peace, the US allowed Palestinian Arabs to open a diplomatic office in Washington, and recognised the Palestinian Authority.) Imagine for a moment what would happen if Bangladesh established diplomatic relations with Israel, then announced its intentions to hold a peace conference for the parties in the Middle East? Although it would not be the first Muslim nation to recognise Israel, your action still would no doubt shock many around the world. For you would be denying the pernicious belief, which holds that a sovereign Jewish state can exist in the Middle East only at the expense of Muslims. Consign that lie to the ashbin of history where it belongs! Declare to the world that Jews and Muslims can live side by side as equals, and the world can know peace. Your bold action would demonstrate to the world a level of courage and maturity that too few nations possess. And it would place Bangladesh on the centre stage of world events.

Peace is possible in the Middle East, but it will take a special kind of wisdom and courage. Most nations are too mired in self-interest, stilted thinking, and ideologies to take that leap of faith. Let the nation and people of Bangladesh be the one to lead us out of those traps and into a new era of peace.

It was a curious request and yet seductive in its appeal.

It will not surprise you to learn that Dr. Richard Benkin and Mr. Choudhury are connected. The connections are so interesting that I am forced to draw a diagram to illustrate.

[Click on the above image for an enlarged view.]

Mr. Choudhury is the editor of the Weekly Blitz. Mr. Benkin is its USA correspondent. A certain Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, along with Ada Aharoni (of IFLAC), Asher Eder, and Yehushua Friedman, are listed as special contributors. Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi and Asher Eder are the founders of Islam-Israel Fellowship, while Yehushua Friedman is on its Board of Directors. Mr. Choudhury and Mr. Benkin are Advisory Board Members of Islam-Israel Fellowship.

The Islam-Israel Fellowship describes itself as follows:

The Islam-Israel Fellowship of the Root & Branch Association promotes cooperation between Jews and Muslims both within the State of Israel and abroad, and between the State of Israel and Muslim nations, based upon a correct Jewish understanding of the Bible and Jewish tradition, and a correct Muslim understanding of the Qur’an and Islamic Tradition.

Promoting cooperation between Jews and Muslims seems to be a worthy goal. However, all is not as it seems. A reading of the commentaries from the Islam-Israel Fellowship will make it clear that the "cooperation" they seek is similar to the kind of peace Daniel Pipes advocates:

Like many other Middle East scholars, Daniel Pipes sees a way to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But unlike most of his peers, Pipes sees no room for negotiation, no hope for compromise and no use for diplomacy. "What war had achieved for Israel," Pipes explained at a recent Zionist conference in Washington DC, "diplomacy has undone."

His solution is simple: The Israeli military must force what Pipes describes as a "change of heart" by the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza — a sapping of the Palestinian will to fight which can lead to a complete surrender. "How is a change of heart achieved? It is achieved by an Israeli victory and a Palestinian defeat," Pipes continued. "The Palestinians need to be defeated even more than Israel needs to defeat them."

Palazzi, the co-founder of Islam-Israel Fellowship - an Italian who claims some very dubious Islamic scholarship - lays out some of his thoughts on "peace" in the Middle East:

I live in Rome and I am a clergyman (Imam) of the Italian Islamic Community. I consider myself a good friend of Israel and am trying my best to help Muslims free themselves from anti-Zionism and to develop a positive attitude toward Jews in general and towards Israelis in particular.

I believe that Israeli Arabs live in a privileged position: they are the only Arabs in the Middle East who live in a democratic State. The comparison between the positive way that Israel treats them and the terrible way that refugees from "Palestine" were treated by their so-called Arab "brothers" is incredible.

I believe that "Palestinian identity" is something completely artificial: it was forged as a propagandistic tool against Israel. The strange fact is that, at least here in Europe, I have never heard an Arab from the Land of Israel ("Palestine" ) say: "I am Palestinian."

…

The real "Palestinian State" is Jordan, and from a linguistic, ethnic, religious and cultural point of view there is nothing that can be identified as "typically Palestinian" and "non-Jordanian."

…

I doubt that there is in today’s world a more corrupt and criminal organization than the "Palestinian Authority." Arafat [Abdul Rauf el-Codbi el-Husseini] and his mob travel around the world asking for money to "help the Palestinian people." They hide this money in Swiss and Kuwaiti banks, while Arabs who live in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank" ) and Gaza go hungry.

…

By signing the so-called Oslo Agreement, Israel made the worst of mistakes: it legitimized a gang of killers in the eyes of worldwide public opinion. I believe that the Israeli government should have dealt with Arafat [Abdul Rauf el-Codbi el-Husseini] in the same way that it dealt with Adolf Eichmann.

A Palestinian State will be a disaster for both Israelis and Arabs. The Israelis will lose their security and the Arabs will lose their freedom of speech under a criminal government.

Since I love Israel, I ask God to protect it, and to help its leaders to understand that the only way to survive is to declare the Oslo Agreement null and void.

It won’t come as a surprise that Palazzi is a darling of the neo-cons. In addition to Palazzi, the other members of the fellowship also chime in to light the path to "peace":

Besides "Am Yisrael" (Jewish People), is there really another nation around today that is anything other than an established myth? The Palestinian nation is certainly a Johnny come lately, but so were the Americans in the 18th century. I’m sure that the British wrote gobs about the fake American identity. The Palestinian nation is perfectly legitimate as such; the problem is that their territorial claims conflict with our prior claim, and more importantly, with the decree of the Almighty.

Therefore, Palestinian national identity does not entitle them to a land. They "are" entitled to whatever culture they choose to develop. And if they should, "rachmana latzlan", succeed in establishing a state on our land, they wouldn’t be the first to do so. The Kingdom of Jerusalem was cherished by it’s Christian inhabitants just as much as the Palestinians cherish "Palestine".

…

There is no stronger nor no nobler claim to a piece of land than the connection between "Am Yisrael" (Jewish People) and "Eretz Yisrael" (Land of Israel). I truly believe that in the End of Days, the whole world, Palestinians included, will accept this connection, and it won’t really matter who qualifies as a nation and who not.

Let us focus on this essential issue and not be side-tracked by debates about nomenclature.

In sum, there are many nations and nationalities, and I see no reason not to enumerate the Palestinians amongst them.

However, there is only one nation with a Divine imperative to settle the Land of Israel: The Jewish Nation.

With peacemongers like these, who needs the Peace Process.

The rest of the diagram above fills in rather nicely. Dr. Richard Benkin is a member, and author of a couple of position papers, of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME), with Daniel Pipes on its board. Daniel Pipes of course has also taken an interest in Mr. Choudhury. The soup of Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum, David Horowitz’s Frontpage and Jihad Watch are well documented. Of course, some of the experts from the Middle East Forum happen to also be contributors to Mr. Choudhury’s Weekly Blitz. It is all tied nicely in a bow by Sheikh Palazzi, who happens to be the go-to guy for Frontpage magazine when it comes to Islam-Israel fellowship.

Now we come back to Dr. Richard Benkin. Dr. Benkin has been a tireless crusader for Mr. Choudhury’s cause. He maintains the FreeChoudhury website and has worked with Congressman Mark Kirk to shape the sense of the House resolution on Mr. Choudhury’s behalf.

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury is currently out on bail and editing the Weekly Blitz. His sedition trial is underway in Bangladesh. Dr. Benkin "reports" that there has been a "setback":

Crusading Muslim journalist, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, suffered a major setback in the government case against him for alleged “sedition, treason, and blasphemy.” The current government of Bangladesh had recently given explicit assurances to several US and other officials that the admittedly false charges would be dropped and done so “within the framework of Bangladeshi laws.”

We have learned that the procedure would have three successive court dates at which government witnesses failed to show, forcing the charges to be dropped. That happened on January 22 and was supposed to happen again on February 28.

Instead, two government witnesses did show and the radical-affiliated judge signed an order forcing the trial to continue and accusing Choudhury of being a “threat to the security of Bangladesh.”

It appears that the trial is set to go forward, in spite of pressure from the United States and Dr. Benkin and friends.

There is something very odd about Mr. Choudhury and his friends. His association with Sheikh Palazzi and the Islam-Israel Fellowship certainly suggests that he is not, in the words of the New York Times, the "champion" of "dialogue and decency". Mr. Choudhury recently used some decidedly neo-conservative language in showing concern for his friend, Sheikh Palazzi, and his "noble message":

Certainly there are thousands of hidden axes of the Islamist radicals, waiting to execute voices like Imam Palazzi at the first chance, because, if such noble message will get spread, possibly in a very near future, blood-monger Islamofascists will not find any more innocent pray to fall into their traps of so-called holy war.

The nexus between Dr. Benkin, Sheikh Palazzi, the neo-conservatives and Mr. Choudhury raises a lot of questions. The story of Mr. Choudhury spun in the West leaves out much of the unsavory aspects of Mr. Choudhury’s resume. The curious op-ed by Dr. Benkin in a Bangladeshi newspaper before Mr. Choudhury’s arrest smacks of a coordinated propaganda campaign by the Islam-Israel Fellowship and their affiliates. The involvement of the extremists from the Fellowship in Mr. Choudhury’s tabloid, the Weekly Blitz, is also rather curious. Mr. Choudhury, Islamist turned Zionist, may be an opportunist or a patsy, or both.

I am unconvinced that the Bangladeshi authorities have a hollow case against Mr. Choudhury. As they say, there is far too much there there. I, for one, would like to see a trial where the charges are aired and Mr. Choudhury has a chance to defend himself. However, given American pressure and the typically obtuse and heavy-handed tactics of the Bangladeshi government, this strange case may eventually be swept under the rug.

Meanwhile the killing continues…

This farming community buried the al-Athamnah family Thursday, after marching through muddy streets bearing the bodies of the dead aloft and reaffirming in angry chants its commitment to war with Israel.

Tens of thousands of Palestinians squeezed through narrow lanes here a day after Israeli artillery shells killed 20 civilians, all but three of them from the same family. The Israeli military announced Thursday that the bombardment of the neighborhood was the result of a "technical failure in the artillery radar system."

 Among the dead were at least 7 children. The naqba continues.

Today Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki met with President Bush at the White House. Tomorrow evening he is to address a joint session of Congress. The Democratic leadership in the Senate are up in arms because Maliki has  condemned the Israeli bombing of Lebanon. I have news for the Democrats: Duh!

CNN reports why the Democrats have their knickers all in a bind:

Last week, al-Maliki said that Iraq was urging the international community "to take a quick and firm stance to stop this aggression against Lebanon, to stop the killing of innocent people and to stop the destruction of infrastructure."

"What is happening is an operation of mass destruction and mass punishment and an operation using great force that Israel has — and Lebanon does not," he said.

They want him to take it all back. They want him to eat his words. Harry Reid was positively livid today:

In a letter to al-Maliki, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York called the Iraqi leader’s comments troubling.

"Your failure to condemn Hezbollah’s aggression and recognize Israel’s right to defend itself raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East," the letter said.

The senators said some Democrats are considering boycotting al-Maliki’s speech before Congress.

"I want the prime minister to denounce what Hezbollah has done," Reid said at a news briefing. "I will lose a lot of confidence in al-Maliki if he does not denounce what Hezbollah has done."

I have news for Senator Reid. Prime Minister Maliki is not in the minority among world leaders to condemn the Israeli action in Lebanon. It is the United States that is in the minority. To expect an Arab leader to not condemn Israel for attacking Lebanon is a little much, don’t you think? It’s also a little disingenuous. When the Iraqi parliament speaker accused the US forces of "butchery" this week, where the heck was the Democratic leadership? Why aren’t they trying to boycott Mr. Maliki over his government’s position on the "butchery" of American forces? Yet, they are all up in arms when Maliki condemned (quite legitimately I might add) Israeli bombing.

I think its pathetic and its also par for the course. American national interest is being sold down the river for a few extra votes.

The real irony here is that the fact that Maliki won’t condemn Hezbollah should have been obvious to these clowns from the very start. I have written before about how Hezbollah and Maliki’s Islamic Dawa party are quite connected. Hezbollah in fact grew out of the Dawa party. Dawa introduced the world to the modern car bombing by blowing up the American and French embassies in Kuwait. The bombing of the American barracks in Lebanon in 1983 was committed by a precursor group of Hezbollah consisting of the Islamic Jihad offspring of the Dawa party. With such a history is it any surprise that Maliki and Hezbollah would have some affinity for each other?

The Bush Administration and our Democratic opposition in both houses of Congress have conveniently glossed over the history of the party they put in power in Iraq. Now they are reaping its consequences. Freedom is definitely on the march.

The Bush Administration has put in power in Iraq a Shia Islamist alliance with strong ties to Iran. This has helped Iran along in its quest for regional dominance. That dominance is now challenged by Israel’s actions in Lebanon. The Sunni Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are beside themselves trying to figure out how to stake out a position that is anti-Israel and yet does not give Iran even more regional power. Throw Syria’s shaky alliance with Iran into the mix and you have the makings of a regional powder keg. This powder keg has fuses in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Any one of these fuses can be lit to create a regional conflagration. The matter is very serious and has far reaching consequences for the region, the world and the United States.

Yet, are the most prominent liberal bloggers discussing it? With a few notable exceptions, the answer is no. It is as if the war in Lebanon was not happening. Some liberal bloggers have now come out to explain their silence. It would have been better if they had remained silent. Because their excuses are juvenile.

The excuse for not covering the Israel-Lebanon war from the liberal bloggers appears to be that it is "complicated", that it is "complex", that it not in the area of their expertise, and that it does not have any domestic impact. Like I said, it would have been better to remain silent.

If bloggers ever decided to not cover any "complex" issues, then they would have to stop blogging about stem cells, NSA wiretapping, the Iraq war, the Iranian nuclear issue, the search for WMD, al Qaeda, global warming, the CIA leak case, etc. (Did I leave anything out?). If bloggers stopped blogging about things that were not in their area of expertise then, well, I am afraid most bloggers should stop blogging. Most of these bloggers are citizen journalists, not "experts" - yet they opine on many things of interest to them. Finally, the suggestion that this war does not have domestic implications is simply laughable. The United States funds Israel to the tune of billions of dollars a year. It is the largest recipient of US foreign aid in the world. Our tax dollars and our missiles are being spent on the bombing of Lebanon - that makes it a serious domestic bread and butter issue. Oh, and one look at the gas pump should also give you an indication that this war has domestic ramifications.

The most unconvincing defense I have read so far comes from The Poor Man Institute:

I’ve said nothing about war in Lebanon or Ethiopia because I have nothing to add, and also because - as you may or may not be aware - the United States is actually involved in a hugely bloody war right now, and this is more of a pressing concern to me personally. I don’t know the secret formula for unshitting any of these beds - I promise I wouldn’t be shy if I did - but I currently only have to sleep in one of them; and, as it turns out, that’s the one bed where I actually have some miniscule chance of influencing the situation. So that’s my concern.

He may have nothing to add. I am sure he might reconsider when the conflict widens to warrant his attention.

Just like the Democrats in the Senate today, a lot of our prominent liberal bloggers are acting as if they are running for something.

Sometimes silence is golden.

On June 28, 2006 the Israel Defense Forces reentered the Gaza Strip ostensibly to win the release of Corporal Gilad Shalit. Corporal Shalit had been kidnapped by Palestinian militants 3 days earlier. The Israeli operation has been codenamed "Operation Summer Rain".

Since the attacks began Israel has destroyed roads, bridges, water plants, and electrical power stations. Israel has arrested Palestinian parliament members and targeted the Prime Minister after declaring their intention to assassinate him. The attack on Gaza has left the 1.4 million inhabitants in the densely populated Strip without electric power, running water, and with very little food. The United Nations has warned that the already dire conditions of the Palestinian people are now on the verge of a humanitarian disaster. Amidst the suffering, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has ordered more intensified attacks on the Palestinians:

The strikes appeared to be a direct response to the instructions of the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, who told subordinates at a cabinet meeting on Sunday that he intended to make the lives of Gazans ever more miserable until the captured soldier, 19-year-old Cpl. Gilad Shalit, was released. But Israel also yielded somewhat to outside pressure on Sunday by allowing a limited supply of fuel and food into Gaza.

Mr. Olmert, whose air force has already bombed Gaza’s bridges, crippled its only power plant, shelled the Palestinian prime minister’s office here and subjected all 1.4 million Gaza residents to night after night of sleep-depriving sonic booms, said he had ordered the military and government "to do everything in order to bring Gilad back home."

The message from Israel is clear: surrender the soldier or all Palestinians will suffer. Asked on CNN’s Late Edition if the Israeli assault was harming the Palestinian people, Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres said that if the Palestinians hand over the soldier the attacks will stop. So the Palestinians should stop complaining and hand over the soldier:

ROBERTS: Vice Premier Peres, the question is, is this operation harming the Palestinian people as much or more than it’s harming the Hamas government?

PERES: Well, they can get rid of it in one moment. If they would release the soldier, the operation will be over in a moment’s time. It is up to them. But they cannot keep the soldier as a hostage and then complain.

By the way, when it comes to electricity, we checked beforehand. If the hospitals have generators to supply the necessary electricity to the people who are in hospital, we wouldn’t bomb otherwise. But if they want to change the situation, it’s in their hands. They don’t have to complain.

So, once again, the Palestinian people will have to endure more suffering at the hands of the Israelis until the latest "point of no return" is crossed and magically the status quo is again restored. The politicians will argue, people will be killed on both sides, blood will be on everyone’s hands, extremists on both sides will continue to drive the agenda, and through it all Palestinians who have been refugees on their own land since the Nakba will continue to bare the brunt of the insanity.

Nakba is the Arabic word for "catastrophe". The Palestinians refer to the exodus during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War from their homes in what is now the State of Israel as the Nakba. But as with all aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the cause of the Nakba is hotly disputed. It is so disputed that the fact that I, in this post, am calling it the Nakba will likely garner some criticism. The Israelis and Palestinians it appears operate from two sets of facts. The irony is that with two sets of fact they both want to occupy one piece of land.

Regardless of whether the Palestinians left willingly or were forced out, the result has been the creation of a refugee nation of Palestinians who have lived in miserable conditions ever since. Since 1948 the people of Palestine have been used as pawns between the Arabs on one side and the Israelis on the other. The Arabs have always used the Palestinians as a tool to achieve their own domestic agendas. The Arabs have always given the Palestinians just enough to survive, but never more. The Israelis on the other hand are suffering the results of an incomplete exodus of the Palestinians. Israel has a refugee problem within its self-declared borders. It has a population that it does not want and cannot seem to get rid off. Add to that the fact that every now and then the Palestinians rise up against the Israelis violently in self-determination and you have the makings of a perpetual Nakba.

Instead of Peace we are treated to a "Peace Process". The "Peace Process" is a euphemism for a level of violence with acceptable losses of civilian lives on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. This Nakba has its own check and balance and always reaches a macabre equilibrium. Whenever a possibility is raised for meaningful progress in the "Peace Process", extremists on either one side or the other will cause just enough damage to scuttle the progress. The "Peace Process" unfortunately is designed with a built-in veto by any insignificant extremist that chooses to scuttle progress. Thus, equilibrium is always reached and the Palestinian people’s status as a refugee nation is guaranteed.

In the latest incident, just when there was news that Hamas might accept Israel’s right to exist, the inevitable match was lit to burn the prospect to the ground. As with all assaults on the Palestinian people this assault will soon end. There will be horse trading between Israeli and Palestinian politicians and both sides will step back from the brink. Ultimately Israel will likely get its soldier back and Hamas militants will likely get the release of some Palestinian prisoners in exchange (though, likely not right away to avoid an appearance of quid pro quo). Everything will be back to "normal". The Palestinian people will be left to pick the dead amidst the rubble and try to move on.

The Nakba will continue.