Well, have you?

You should. Go vote.

Best Post has been delayed for a while, so I’m suggesting you vote for someone other than me. There are a lot of fine Jewish and Israeli bloggers out there. Go look at the categories, and click onto their blogs.

Palestinians were killed at the Rafah border crossing, but the media aren’t picking it up, because they weren’t killed by Israelis. But don’t count on Israel not being blamed for this. As far as I can tell, only the BBC has picked up the story to date. Oh, and the BBC does that passive voice thing in the headline.

Man dies in Rafah border shooting
Palestinian medical officials say an off-duty security officer has been shot dead in an exchange of fire at the border crossing between Gaza and Egypt.

Several others were injured in the incident at the Rafah crossing.

Witnesses said the shooting started after Palestinian officers tried to stop at least one man barging his way through controls at the crossing.

Yep. He “dies” when shot by Palestinians. Palestinians are “killed” by Israelis, though.

The AP/Ha’aretz version:

A Palestinian security officer was killed Friday in an exchange of fire between Palestinian Presidential Guard officers and Gaza residents at the Rafah border crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt, security and medical officials said.

Three other people, including a civilian, were wounded in the incident.

[...] The incident began when a man tried to pass through the crossing by force and started firing at the Presidential Guard officers stationed at the crossing.

You won’t be reading about this incident in too many other places, I suspect.

The Middle East Times collects a roundup of Arab newspaper editorials. Be prepared to start laughing at the astonishing hypocrisy.

A commentary in Jordan’s Ad Dustour said the Israeli campaign against Arab Knesset member Azmi Bishara indicated Israel was becoming more like Arab countries and that its democracy was no longer an oasis in the midst of the Middle East political desert.

The mass-circulation daily added that if an Israeli ruling group succeeded in issuing a new law under the “Bishara bill,” it would become possible for one lawmaker to dismiss another.

It claimed that, according to Israeli news reports, the proposed bill would allow a Knesset member to level accusations against a colleague while the latter was abroad to avoid resignation, subsequently freezing all the accused lawmaker’s assets if he or she failed to present his or herself in court.

The paper, which describes itself as independent, but is partially owned by the government, opined that such a law targeted Israeli Arabs, in general, and their political leaders, in particular.

Jordan is a nation where the unelected king can dissolve Parliament at a whim, appoints all the ministers who approve his decisions, appoints the nation’s judges, and has, well, all of the power of the American President plus most of the power of Congress thrown in. Oh. And did I mention he’s not elected? And this is one of his newspapers, talking about the “lack” of Israeli democracy, proven by a bill that hasn’t gone further than being proposed.

Our pals the Kuwaitis, for whom we shed blood and treasure to rescue them from Saddam, on the U.S. military’s attempt to stop the Sunnis and Shiites from murdering one antoher:

A commentary in Kuwait’s Al Qabas wondered what Americans were doing building a wall in Baghdad, and what they hoped to achieve by provoking Iraqis in the way Israelis were doing with the Arabs.

The pro-government daily said the US barrier being raised in Baghdad’s Adhamiya district was a form of collective punishment for the Sunnis, “in which they are banned from entering and leaving from specific gates guarded by the American army.”

Moreover, it added, the wall would become a symbol of Sunni and Shiite hatred and bloodshed, and in this way, the US military would “facilitate [violence] for … extremists [by identifying] where Sunnis and Shiites live, so that killing according to [sect] becomes easier.”

The paper insisted that the idea to construct a wall had been suggested to the US by the Israelis, who “[had walled in] themselves behind a barrier out of fear of the Palestinians,” adding that the US-erected wall in Baghdad “gives the impression that the animosity between the Iraqis is the same as the animosity between the Arabs and the Jews.”

But this is my favorite part:

Meanwhile, “it has become clear that President [George W.] Bush has failed in everything … even in his attempt to ignite a sectarian war in Iraq,” the paper claimed.

“The day will soon come when the American people will demand his impeachment … to put him on trial for what he did in Afghanistan and Iraq, [and for the] unprecedented chaos in the Middle East.”

Once again, we have the mouthpiece of a government newspaper from a so-called friendly state slamming democracy—in a state that is run by yet another unelected monarch. And you can’t vote in Kuwait if you’ve been a naturalized citizen less than 30 years. Sure. Tell us all about impeachment, asshats. We wait with bated breath to hear the opinions of a bunch of backwards xenophobes and misogynists. Well, no, we don’t, and we think you dress funny, too.

Lastly, we turn to our friends the Saudis, via their London mouthpiece:

The London-based Asharq Al Awsat reported Thursday that there were more than 200 non-Iraqi Arab prisoners being held in a northern Iraq prison.

The Saudi-owned daily said it was the first newsgroup to enter the Soussa Prison near the Kurdish city of Suleimaniya and to interview the detainees.

[...] “They said they are not terrorists and [had come] to Iraq for different reasons before they were arrested,” reported the paper, distributed in many Arab capitals.

It added that 56 of the prisoners were Saudi nationals, sentenced to jail terms ranging from seven years to life.

“During Asharq al Awsat’s tour of the prison, [the phrase,] ‘I’m innocent,’ was repeated by most, and prison officials say the majority of the detainees being held on terrorism charges” deny them, the paper said.

Yeah, never heard that before from prisoners. Not anywhere. And check out the numbers: A quarter of the non-Iraqi prisoners are Saudis. Imagine that. Wonder what the Saudis were doing in Iraq?

One Saudi inmate said he was married to two Iraqi women and had entered the country in 2003 to visit his maternal aunt in the Sunni town of Fallujah, when he was arrested.

Another Saudi claimed he had come to Iraq originally to sell his car.

Oooooh. He came to Iraq to sell his car. Of course! Why else would he be there? What’s that you say? Starts with a “j” and ends with “ihad”?

Interesting reading, this site. I will be using it more frequently in the future.