Before I started blogging. (OK before there were blogs.) I was a letter writer. When I didn’t like what I read in the newspaper I’d write a letter to the editor.

Well 10 years (and 2 days) ago, I had one of the highlights of my letter writing career. I had a letter published in the NY Times. The topic of my letter was a Thomas Friedman column, With allies like these … in which Friedman complained how different countries were hurting American efforts to contain Saddam. One of those countries he criticized was Israel.

(Israel is another ally that should take stock. Unlike the Europeans, Israel knows exactly who Saddam is. Israel has a fundamental interest in the coalition’s holding firm against him, particularly the Arabs. The ability of Arab leaders to do so will be influenced in part by public opinion, and already Saddam is playing on that, saying the U.S. wants to bully him but won’t lift a finger to pressure Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr. Netanyahu doesn’t have to give the Palestinians a state tomorrow, just to satisfy the Arab street. But he could buy the U.S. a lot more room to maneuver — and therefore improve Israel’s overall strategic situation — by implementing the long-delayed redeployment of Israeli forces from the West Bank in return for Palestinian concessions.)

To which I responded (it was published Nov. 12, 1997)

During the Persian Gulf war, President George Bush made sure that Israel didn’t defend itself lest an Arab state drop support for the anti-Iraq coalition. In the wake of Iraq’s eviction from Kuwait, the Arab world didn’t show much gratitude for American protection. And when President Bush led the effort in the United Nations to rescind the ”Zionism is racism” resolution, not a single Arab state voted to repeal. Even though past behavior may not be predictive of future actions, this record hardly suggests that further concessions to the Palestinian Authority will improve Israel’s strategic position.

I guess that the last sentence has, unfortunately, been confirmed by recent events. And it’s also interesting that supposedly now, part of the impetus for the Annapolis conference is to help the United States contain Iran.

Some things don’t change much, even when they failed the first time.

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.

Taint by Association by Clark Hoyt

The bigger question is whether The Times should be publishing him at all. But why would the Times give a spokesman for a terrorist organization a platform to promote Hamas? If he wanted to write about the inner workings of a terrorist organization to give the military and law enforcement agencies a better understanding of how to fight them, that would be one thing. But each time the newspaper uses Yousef as it has, it is conferring greater legitimacy on him.The deal works two ways. The Times’s luster may help Yousef and Hamas. But some of their taint rubs off on the Times.

Right, that’s what I didn’t read in the Times. The paper’s public editor was writing about former Wall Street star, Henry Blodget.

The bigger question is whether The Times should be publishing him at all. Like Nocera, I believe in second chances, and Blodget seems to be doing fine establishing a new career. But why would The Times give a former analyst who lied to investors a platform to write about financial markets? If he wanted to write about how investors can spot phony reports by analysts, that would be one thing. But each time the newspaper uses Blodget as it has, it is conferring greater expert status on him.These deals work two ways. The Times’s luster may help Blodget. But some of his taint rubs off on The Times.

This is how he actually defended the op-ed written by Hamas spokesman, Ahmed Yousef.

THE op-ed page of The New York Times is perhaps the nation’s most important forum for airing opinions on the most contentious issues of the day — the war in Iraq, abortion, global warming and more.“We look for opinions that are provocative,” said Andrew Rosenthal, the editor of the editorial page. “Opinions that confirm what you already thought aren’t that interesting.”

But some opinions provoke more than others. Two very different columns by guest contributors, one last week and one last month, caused enormous reader outcries and raised important questions. Are there groups or causes so odious they should be ruled off the page? If The Times publishes a controversial opinion, does it owe readers another point of view immediately? And what is the obligation of editors to make sure that op-ed writers are not playing fast and loose with the facts?

So let’s get this straight, a guy who represents (and defends) a group who fires rockets at civilians is not too “odious” to appear on the op-ed pages of the Times, but a guy who misled investors but paid his debt to society it too “odious” for the hallowed op-ed pages of the Times? And that’s even though the former is writing propaganda meant to help the rocket launchers and the latter is offering expertise to help the readers? Is the value of being “provocative” really that cleansing?

It reminds me of Alice’s Restaurant when Arlo Guthrie is informed that he can’t be a soldier due to his conviction - for littering.

I mean I’m sittin’ here on the Group W bench, ’cause you want to know if I’m moral enought to join ther army, burn women, kids, houses and villages after bein’ a litterbug.”

(No, I don’t share Arlo Guthrie’s view of the army.)

By Hoyt’s standards, then, cheating is worse than shooting rockets at innocents, even if the cheating is in the past and the rockets are still flying. Glad to know that the public editor of the New York Times has such a sensitive moral compass.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

It is by accident that I have stumbled on the post Haram for us, Halal for Israel by an Egyptian blogger(ess) Zeinobia. Look in Wiki for haram and halal, but for the purpose the former means “forbidden” and the latter means “permissible”. “Us” in the context of that post means the Ummah, or the Muslim world in other words.

Zeinobia succeeded in being both puzzled and muzzled in the same post.

Puzzled:

I can’t find a reason why Israel is so scared that any Arab or Islamic country would own a nuclear program !! Seriously I do not find a good reason to all what the Israelis are doing…

Muzzled:

It is silly because no one in the world, the West of course dares to open his mouth about the Israeli Nuclear program…

So, being of a weak character where pretty girls* are concerned, I have decided to help Zeinobia a bit.

You see, Zeinobia, there are only 6 and something millions of us (the Jooz) on that tiny sliver of land which you consider too big for us in any case. The Ummah, on the other hand, is about 1.2 billion and growing, being spread from that ocean to another. And it so happens that most of the Ummah would like nothing more than to see us off that tiny sliver mentioned above. Cause, you know, we are the colonial aggressive running lackey dogs of the world Zioimperialism and infidels to boot. And the most frightening mortal threat to the Ummah, in all its 1.2 billion ocean-to-ocean glory.

So, the Ummah’s burning desire to embrace the puny us in its Islamic embrace is kinda worrying. And thus we much prefer, you know, to talk softly and carry a big stick. Better than the other way around. Er… well, you catch my drift by now, I guess.

OK, I hope that we have dealt extensively enough with that puzzlement thingy and can go on to muzzlement.

In fact, dear Zeinobia, it is rather your job to explain how precisely you (and all the other complainants) are muzzled, when you seem to be not only free to link to that Wiki entry on Israeli nuclear prowess but to expand on it as well in that very long post.

In short, Zeinobia, complaining about your inability to open your mouth may lead a reader to a somewhat rude question about the provenance of your post. If you see what I mean…

(*) I can really see the beautiful Zenobia waggling her finger at the bad uncouth Israelis and pursing her lips with that “Oh you silly bad boys” expression…

Cross-posted on SimplyJews.