Egypt could be expected to aid flotillas into Gaza and to make it much easier for arms shipments and other deliveries to enter Gaza. Israel would then likely need to retake the Gaza border with Egypt and/or would need to place more troops on that border than ever before. Israel would additionally need to dramatically increase its military strength all along the Egyptian border because Egyptian troops would not be trusted to prevent incursion by militants, even if they could be trusted not to participate or directly aid in the incursions. Obviously, all previous agreements between Israel and Egypt would be in question either officially or unofficially.

The Palestinian Authority faces the possibility that its greatest supporter, Egypt, would suddenly become a supporter of its arch enemy, Hamas. The PA has been holding “We love Mubarak” rallies throughout the West Bank. Suddenly the PA’s best ally will be Israel. *I guess that I shouldn’t say this publicly because the PA would then be accused of being traitors to the Arab cause. Israel must be a hated enemy and the cause of all evil.

Jordan would have its best allies (Egypt and America) fomenting rebellion within its borders. It is almost a certainty that Jordan’s rhetoric regarding Israel in the months ahead will be much more hostile than it has previously been. This will be so as to avoid being accused of being a friend of Israel. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority’s leadership all have applied for and received Jordanian citizenship. This, just in case Jordan turns into a Palestinian state after all.

Saudi Arabia would face a highly hostile Egypt battling for hegemony in the region that will attempt to foment Islamist rebellion in the kingdom at every turn. Worse, for the King and his family, is the clear indication that the United States would abandon its close ally at the drop of a hat in favor of a hostile democratic rebellion within its borders.

So, looking at what is actually happening in Egypt, is it any wonder that the Saudis have told the Obama Administration where to place its proverbial oil rig? Is it any wonder that the Saudis have come to the aid of Mubarak, threatening to replace any aid that America would deny, and likely will or are coming to the aid of the leaders in Jordan and Yemen as well? Is it any wonder that America is no longer seen as a friend and supporter, but now as a potential threat for emboldening revolt? It is indeed a wonder that among Egypt’s best friends, among the Palestinian Authority’s best friends, among the Saudi’s best friends, is Israel!

We now look at a Middle East in which the peoples and nations that were/are at war with Israel find common cause with it against Iran, against Political Islam, and against America’s foment of insurrection.

It is indeed a strange new world.

Palestinian reports make it sound like some new extra-toxic tear gas was used and that Abu Rahma died solely because of it. Yet, her distance from the bulk of the protesters would make any assertion that her death was caused by exposure to tear gas alone seem absurd. Surely those involved in the protest and amid the highest concentrations of the tear gas would have suffered the worst effects from it. Yet, no other similar illness from the gas was reported. Abu Rahma’s death was unique in that regard.

There are multiple different accounts circulating about what happened and the timing of her hospitalization as well as disagreements as to whether or not Abu Rahma had been substantially ill. The fact is that she must have had some condition that made her and her alone particularly susceptible to the tear gas that day. Tear gas alone does not kill unless it is breathed in an enclosed space in a dosage that is substantially more potent than that which would be used to disperse even a violent riot. People do not die from exposure to tear gas in an open space unless they are in a weakened state, such as suffering from asthma. But asthma does not simply appear overnight and Abu Rahma certainly would have encountered tear gas before at earlier protests. This would lead a reasonable person to conclude that another medical condition must have been present. The Palestinian Authority refused to allow an autopsy that would have determined the actual cause of death for the simple reason that it wished to accuse Israel of having perpetrated a war crime and did not care to find out that she died primarily because of something else.

It is clear that there is a belief in the Arab world these days that Israel and Jews are capable of virtually anything conceivable using technology. Saudi Arabia, just yesterday, arrested a vulture which it accused of being a spy for the Mossad because it was tagged with a Tel Aviv University band and had a GPS tracker. So much for Saudi concerns about science. Medieval thought wins out. Where am I going with this? Well, in the case of Abu Rahma, no one else died. No one else even became ill. This cannot be said enough times. For the tear gas alone to have led directly to her death, Israel would have had to find a way to create a new form of tear gas that affected her alone to a degree that no tear gas has ever affected anyone in history. Yet, throughout the Arab world the charge that Israel committed a war crime by murdering Abu Rahma with tear gas is being told. This is an absurdity.

Any sane person looking at the facts will immediately realize that while tear gas may have set off a preexisting medical problem that led to her death, clearly it could not have been the sole or even primary cause because no one else suffered similar effects at that place at that time and particularly not among those who were closest to the highest concentrations of gas, namely those taking part in the protest. To make the claim that Israel killed Abu Rahma is to think Medievally, to avoid science and reason. Hatred of the enemy does this. Hatred blinds. However, 1+1 does not ever equal 3.

Abu Rahma must have died from some undisclosed or undiscovered medical condition that was perhaps complicated by inhaling tear gas. Moreover, if she did die from a preexisting condition complicated by exposure to tear gas and if she was not observing the rioting going on while standing in an area where she could be affected by tear gas, she might still be alive. That is the truth as I see it. It is that simple.

Anti-fence rallies in Ramallah area lead to violent clashes between Palestinians and security forces once again: A 20-year-old Palestinian was seriously injured Friday afternoon after being hit in the head by a tear gas grenade in the West Bank village of Naalin, according to protestors who took part in a demonstration against the separation fence being built in the area.

Of course, the reason they’re being injured is because they’re not “peaceful” protesters, as the wire services (and the Palestinian and ISM propagandists) would have you believe.

According to the army, some 400 Palestinians, left-wing activists and foreign nationals hurled stones and Molotov cocktails at the security forces stationed in the area and set tires on fire.

And let’s hear the propaganda line:

According to the Palestinian version, police and Border Guard officers brutally attacked the protestor before they even began demonstrating. In addition, the Palestinians said, the police and soldiers continued to direct the tear gas canisters straight towards them, as they had done in previous incidents several weeks ago which led to the death of one protestor and to the critical injury of another.

But wait. There’s more.

The Palestinians added that five protestors were hurt by inhaling tear gas.

That’s right. Palestinians, knowing full well that there would be tear gas, as there is just about every Friday when the protests turn violent, are complaining that violent protesters were, gee, “injured” by inhaling tear gas. I have a suggestion for them: Stop protesting violently. And yes, that is exactly what they do:

At the same time, an IDF soldier was lightly injured in an anti-fence demonstration in the nearby village of Bilin. Some 80 Palestinians, left-wing activists and foreign nationals attended the rally. They hurled stones at the security forces, who used crowd dispersal means against them.

And by “stones,” they mean “rocks the size of bricks.” Make no mistake, they’re hurling those things to kill, if possible. Here’s a picture from some time ago, of a soldier who was hit by a “stone”:

Don’t believe the minimization of the stone throwing you read in the non-Israeli media. It’s Palestinian propaganda.

Bonus: Note the third word on the protest signs: “Foolish.”

Priceless isn’t it?

There something serious to this though. Whenever there’s a protest in the Arab world, there are no shortage of reporters who’ll trumpet it as the “Arab street” speaking and having something of value to communicate to us in the West.

It was especially true this week after Muntader al-Zaidi threw his shoes at President Bush. Major American newspapers ran front page stories about how al-Zaidi is now a hero of the Arab world.

The media’s behavior is disgraceful. The media promote themselves as champions of freedom and liberty and yet for every Arab protest against President Bush, or Danish cartoon or the atrocious conditions in Gaza that they promote – yes, promote, not report -there’s a question that’s not asked.

Where’s the protest against the treatment of Copts and political opponents in Egypt? Or where’s the protest against honor killings? Or where’s the protest against the persecution of Christians in the Arab world? Or where’s the protest against the rockets being launched against civilians in southern Israel? Or where’s the protest against the increasing rate of executions in Iran? Or where’s the protest against the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia? Or where’s the protest against the stifling of dissent in Syria?

And the answer to each of these questions is: there are none. The government wouldn’t allow it.

Mr. al-Zaidi is living proof of that. He threw a shoe at President Bush and is still breathing. Had he done so six years ago when Saddam Hussein was hosting a foreign dignitary, there wouldn’t have been enough left of him to bury.

The media must know this. And yet they report uncritically on Arab protests, without even a hint of irony, as if we are to take these protests as the voice of the people.

In many of these reports there’s a scarcely contained glee that the protesters validate their hatred of President Bush and share their contempt of Israel. The solidarity boosts the reporters’ progressive credentials. But the protesters only protest what their governments allow. So in the end, the reporters and the media they work for are simply giving voice to the despots and hurting the cause of freedom they claim to champion.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.