Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Hasbara 2.0, part 3: Getting the message across

The latest chapter in my Hasbara 2.0 series for NewsRealBlog is now up.

America in the 1950s and 1960s was also a more outwardly religious nation. No one was insulted at the idea that the Founding Fathers would invoke Scripture and the word “God” was not considered inappropriate to use in public. The idea of a Jewish state in the land of the Bible was simply considered fitting.

As a result, Americans were very receptive to Israel’s narrative. The “barrier” between the two nations was very low, and trust was implicit.

Today the situation is different. Because of decades of propaganda and indoctrination, America is less patriotic and less religious. Moreover, the culture of hard work being its own reward is being slowly replaced with a culture of entitlement. The unity of purpose that America had during World War II – and even after Sputnik – has eroded.

To be sure, the heartland of America remains much as our nation was five decades ago. But on college campuses and in large cities, American ideals are being replaced with a philosophy that is truly dangerous to the nation over the long term.

This is of course a very big topic on its own.

But for Israel, this means that the barrier of communication with Americans has been raised. The constant demonization of Israel in the media and on campus has turned Zionists into “the other,” people no longer to be implicitly trusted. They are now regarded as Goliaths instead of Davids, as bullies instead of the bullied, as religious extremists who cannot be related to by an increasingly secular America.

The barrier is now high, and it must be broken down.

Read the whole thing.

Who knows...I might turn it into a book one day.

Jews should visit Hebron (Moshe Arens)

Ha'aretz just had a series of articles decrying the idea that Israeli students should visit Hebron as part of their curriculum. After all, the deep Jewish connection to the ancient holy city is not nearly as important as the certainty that Arabs will be upset at Jews visiting it.

As the Ha'aretz editorial said:

Visits by schoolchildren to this place, while ignoring what Israel and the settlers have done there, is anti-educational. The visits will intensify nationalist feelings, faith in power and blindness to the injustices of the occupation.

Star Israel-bashing reporter Gideon Levy was more explicit in his hate of the idea of Jewish nationalism:

Here, too, as at Auschwitz, they will only scare them more and more. At Auschwitz they will make them frightened of the Poles and in Hebron of the Arabs. Everyone always wants to annihilate us. They will return from Hebron excited at having touched the ancient stones and even more blinded from not having touched the people who lived alongside those stones. They will see nothing and learn nothing. As at Auschwitz, they will come home even more nationalist: Hebron forever, and the force of arms.

Ha'aretz, being such a bastion of liberalism, therefore trotted out an opposing viewpoint whose words could be shouted down by the clueless commenters. But at least we have the article itself, by Moshe Arens, who is not religious but very nationalist indeed:

Who are the people, including the editorial writers of this newspaper, who have gone ballistic over the education minister's announcement that students should be taken on heritage trips to the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron? Are they Zionists, non-Zionists, post-Zionists or anti-Zionists? Have their roots in the Land of Israel withered over the years, or have they lost hold of their senses in these tumultuous times?

They seem to have forgotten the very foundation of Zionism: that the Jewish State is located in the Land of Israel just because it is the ancient homeland of the Jewish people, and that the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem are the icons of the Jewish connection to the Land of Israel - constant reminders to one and all that the Land of Israel is the ancient homeland of the Jewish people, who have returned after 2,000 years in exile.

They seem to have fallen under the spell of the "1967 borders." They are infatuated by the "Green Line" drawn like a scar across the Land of Israel. West of this line Israel is kosher, not an occupier of another people, but east of that line, you had better watch out. These, they hold, are occupied territories where Israel rules over another people, and no Jew should be living there, or God forbid, be allowed to settle there.

So what is this sacrosanct Green Line? It is nothing more than the armistice line agreed between representatives of Israel and Jordan at Rhodes on April 24, 1949. It was never intended to be a border between two nations. It simply represented, with some modifications, the line where the fighting during Israel's War of Independence ceased. The British-officered and -equipped Jordanian Arab Legion that had invaded the newborn state of Israel on May 15, 1948 had reached the point during the fighting where its commander, Glubb Pasha, realized that unless Jordan agreed to a cease-fire, the Israeli army was going to advance to the Jordan River and his army would be powerless to stop it.

The armistice left the biblical heartland of ancient Israel, the mountains of Samaria and Judea, the major historical and biblical sites of the Jewish people, east of the armistice line. The War of Independence brigade commanders Moshe Dayan and Yosef Tabenkin had urged the Israel Defense Forces' General Staff to allow them to capture the Old City of Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Hebron, but they were halted by the cease-fire of October 22, 1948.

With Jordan in control of these areas, not only were Jews not allowed to live there, but during the 18 years of Jordanian occupation, Jews were denied access to the Western Wall, the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel's tomb. Masada, a site visited over the years by almost all Israelis, young and old, came under Israeli control only in March 1949, when IDF units moving from Be'er Sheva reached the Dead Sea at Sodom and Ein Gedi. One can imagine that had this "last-minute" operation not taken place, the very same people who now complain about students visiting the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron would be arguing against visits to Masada, located in "occupied territory."

This perverse objection by some to visits east of the March 1949 armistice lines seems to be part of a wider boycott movement of the whole area. Whether it is Ariel or Hebron, these rootless Israelis will not set foot there. They give credence to the frequently heard Arab propaganda that the Jewish claim of a historic connection to this land is nothing but fiction.

The supporters of the "two-state solution," who insist that Israel withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines and consider Judea and Samaria to be occupied territory, seem to give no thought to assuring contact between the Jewish people and these sites if such a withdrawal were to take place. Was this even on the agenda in the negotiations between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat, or between Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni and the Palestinian Authority?

Perhaps supporters of the "two-state solution" would prefer to sever the connection between the Jewish people and the sites that are reminders of the Jewish people's connection to the Land of Israel. That might be one explanation for the objections voiced to visits by Israeli students to the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron.

(h/t Elan Miller via Facebook)

Don't forget my earlier "Apartheid" posters

Besides the posters I've been publishing in recent days, I did make some other posters that are appropriate for printing and displaying in the upcoming "Israel Apartheid Week" on college campuses:

Afternoon links and things

CAMERA on the NYT and Qaradawi:

For the past several weeks, The New York Times has been running interference for the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization set to play a significant role in Egyptian politics after the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak. In addition to publishing commentaries by two apologists for the Muslim Brotherhood, Tariq Ramadan and Essam El-Errian, on its op-ed page, the Times has published a news story that depicts the group's spiritual leader, Yusuf Qaradawi, as “committed to pluralism and democracy.”

In fact, Qaradawi is a virulent anti-Semite who has called on Allah to wipe out the Jewish people. Moreover, he has worked to undermine the democratic principle of free speech by defending the Iranian fatwa calling for the death of writer Salman Rushdie and by promoting a “day of rage” against cartoons of Muhammed printed in Sweden and Denmark.

The man has also defended the practice of female genital mutilation and affirmed Muslim teachings calling for the death penalty to be applied to those who leave Islam and encourage others to do the same.

Speaking of, Jeffrey Goldberg seems to understand Qaradawi a bit better than the Times:

Mark Gardner and Dave Rich did yeoman's work not long ago, analyzing the Egyptian cleric Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi's 2003 book, Fatawa Min Ajl Falastin, or Fatwas on Palestine, and came to the conclusion that this putatively moderate Islamic cleric argues clearly and consistently that hatred of Israel and Jews is Islamically sanctioned, and that the destruction of Israel is mandated by God.

But the NYT does have an analysis that notices that Iran is a big winner from Arab turmoil.

While it is far too soon to write the final chapter on the uprisings’ impact, Iran has already benefited from the ouster or undermining of Arab leaders who were its strong adversaries and has begun to project its growing influence, the analysts said.

Meanwhile, a Saudi man in Texas was arrested for wanting to blow up some stuff, like George W. Bush's home and reservoir dams in Colorado and California:

One extract from what is alleged to be Mr Aldawasari's diary says: "And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad."

Here's some garden variety British anti-semitism.

JoshuaPundit has a nice piece on the hypocrisy of the ICC.

A very funny article about Thomas Friedman at TNR.

A Facebook group is parodying "Israel Apartheid Week" posters.

On that same topic, an "IAW" event in New York was canceled because of objections by a Zionist gay porn director.

"Apartheid Week" poster #7

This will probably be the last one of this particular series.

Muslim Brotherhood says Camp David already null and void

Last week, a Muslim Brotherhood spokesman tried to allay fears that the group would rip up the Camp David agreement:

"The decision on the treaty does not belong to the Brotherhood, it belongs to the entire Egyptian people," said Essam al-Erian, a spokesman for the Islamist group, in an interview with Al Arabiya.

"The important thing is the position of the Egyptian people and not the Brotherhood," Erian said. "The Brotherhood will not impose their vision on the Egyptian people. The Brotherhood are part of society that accepts what the Egyptians accept and nobody can wipe out a treaty with a pen," he added.

To Iran, however, MB leaders are singing a different tune:

A senior member of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood said there is virtually no peace agreement with the Zionist regime following the recent developments in the country, adding that any treaty not approved by the Egyptian nation must be abrogated.

The Egyptian nation considers as null and void any agreement between the toppled regime and the Zionist regime which has no respect for justice and rights of the Egyptian people.

He said the world was witnessing massive changes. “People worldwide want to see unjust laws scraped. It is no surprise for the Egyptians to want the same,” he said.

Halbavi then touched on the dismantling of Berlin wall, adding that following the dismantling, many previously signed treaties were abrogated.

He said the time was over for surrender to treaties which have brought humiliation to the Egyptian nation.

Halbavi also called for permanent opening of Gaza crossing and said the closing of the crossing has been a joint conspiracy by the US, Zionist regime and Mubarak’s regime.

But of course the hard-line statements are simply posturing and the more moderate-sounding statements are the correct ones. Because it has to be that way in order for the media to continue with their memes of a progressive, socially-active, uninfluential, non-political Muslim Brotherhood.

Summary of Gaddafi's latest speech

Tweeter iyad_elbaghdadi live-tweeted Gaddafi's latest speech, given by phone from an undisclosed location, and his description contains details that are not being reported in Al Jazeera. Here is a summary:

Life in Libya is stopped completely because of what's happening, there are armed gangs and lootings. Protesters are drunks and junkies.

[He's even describing what the "hallucinogenic drugs" are and that their effects are (did he use them himself?)]

Are there no men or some reasonable person to stop these kids and take them off the streets and back home? Al Qaeda is behind all of this, they have recruited our kids. Why are you all joining Bin Laden?

These kids in Darna and Al-Bayda should be taken to Gitmo. Men, get out of home and pick up your kids and put them back home. God says you should obey your leaders. You should not obey Bin Laden's agents.

(Now he's talking about differences between Muslim Brotherhood, Salafis, and Alqaeda.)

You protesters are following Israel and Bin Laden. (!) Let Bin Laden come and feed you when your oil is gone!

There are so many kings in the world who have ruled much longer; I haven't been in power since 1977. [He claimed that he is only a symbolic leader, like Queen Elizabeth - EoZ]

Speech summary? Israel told Bin Laden to give drugs to your kids. Now ground your kids.

Map of who controls what in Libya (updated)

Via Michael Totten's Twitter, h/t Challah Hu Akbar:

Updated around 3 PM EST by original creator

Rumor: Gaddafi threatened to kill thousands of Libyan Palestinians

A Hamas news source in Damascus is claiming that Moammar Gaddafi threatened to kill tens of thousands of Palestinian Arabs in Libya because of his anger at the perceived support that Hamas and Islamic Jihad were giving the uprising.

According to the story, Gaddafi also threatened to cut off funds for Gaza development projects that Libya is underwriting.

The story goes on the claim that the PA instructed its people to not speak publicly about the Libyan revolution, saying it is an internal Libyan matter.

Of course, Libya already was discriminating against its Palestinian Arab population.

The New York Times Op-Ed Rogues Gallery (David G)

From David G:

Here's a very partial list of some of the autocrats and their cronies who have been given op-ed space in the New York Times:

Land and the Intifada By Yasir Abed Rabbo Published: May 16, 2001 - Spokesman for the PA
Feb. 3, 2002: The Palestinian Vision of Peace By YASIR ARAFAT - Chairman of the PLO
The Road From Here By ABDULLAH II
What Hamas Wants By AHMED YOUSEF Published: June 20, 2007 - Spokesman for Hamas
Pause for Peace, also by Hamas' AHMED YOUSEF
Land First, Then Peace By TURKI al-FAISAL Published: September 12, 2009 - Member of the Saudi royal family
A Peace Plan Within Our Grasp By HOSNI MUBARAK Published: August 31, 2010

And that's in addition to the Qaddafis mentioned yesterday.

One thing is clear: if you oppress your own, your sins are ignored. Your opinion is valued if you promote freedom for the Palestinians.

In an editorial the other day, the editors of the Times wrote:

Bahrain’s brutality is not only at odds with American values, it is a threat to the country’s long-term stability. Washington will need to push harder.

And dictators and terrorists are not at odds with the freedoms that the Times advocates?

In a shameful justification of the paper's decision to run the Yousef op-ed, then public editor Clark Hoyt wrote:

Op-ed pages should be open especially to controversial ideas, because that’s the way a free society decides what’s right and what’s wrong for itself. Good ideas prosper in the sunshine of healthy debate, and the bad ones wither. Left hidden out of sight and unchallenged, the bad ones can grow like poisonous mushrooms.

His confidence was touching, but it's not like the ideas of Yousef would never have gotten a hearing. Reporters always look for good quotes from Hamas. The op-ed page should be saved for opinions that ought to be debated and by people who allow a reasonble amount freedom of expression. (Well, maybe Abdullah II does.) But is burnishing a bad person's reputation by giving him a voice in a presumably respectable venue really honorable?

When the person in question was Henry Blodget - a stock analyst who was convicted of fraud - "healthy debate" wasn't the issue. Blodget's past criminal record was. From Hoyt again:

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.

A disgraced stock analyst makes the New York Times look bad, but giving terrorists a platform for their lies is just "healthy debate"?

According to the NYT, terrorism and repression are acceptable - as long as you criticize Israel.

Egyptian army fires at Coptic monastery (video)

From AINA:

For the second time in as many days, Egyptian armed force stormed the 5th century old St. Bishoy monastery in Wadi el-Natroun, 110 kilometers from Cairo. Live ammunition was fired, wounding two monks and six Coptic monastery workers. Several sources confirmed the army's use of RPG ammunition. Four people have been arrested including three monks and a Coptic lawyer who was at the monastery investigating yesterday's army attack.

Monk Aksios Ava Bishoy told activist Nader Shoukry of Freecopts the armed forces stormed the main entrance gate to the monastery in the morning using five tanks, armored vehicles and a bulldozer to demolish the fence built by the monastery last month to protect themselves and the monastery from the lawlessness which prevailed in Egypt during the January 25 Uprising.

"When we tried to address them, the army fired live bullets, wounding Father Feltaows in the leg and Father Barnabas in the abdomen," said Monk Ava Bishoy. "Six Coptic workers in the monastery were also injured, some with serious injuries to the chest."

The injured were rushed to the nearby Sadat Hospital, the ones in serious condition were transferred to the Anglo-Egyptian Hospital in Cairo.

Father Hemanot Ava Bishoy said the army fired live ammunition and RPGs continuously for 30 minutes, which hit part of the ancient fence inside the monastery. "The army was shocked to see the monks standing there praying 'Lord have mercy' without running away. This is what really upset them," he said. "As the soldiers were demolishing the gate and the fence they were chanting 'Allahu Akbar' and 'Victory, Victory'".

He also added that the army prevented the monastery's car from taking the injured to hospital.

The army also attacked the Monastery of St. Makarios of Alexandria in Wady el-Rayan, Fayoum, 100 km from Cairo. It stormed the monastery and fired live ammunition on the monks. Father Mina said that one monk was shot and more than ten have injuries caused by being beaten with batons. The army demolished the newly erected fence and one room from the actual monastery and confiscated building materials. The monastery had also built a fence to protect itself after January 25 and after being attacked by armed Arabs and robbers leading to the injury of six monks, including one monk in critical condition who is still hospitalized.

The army had given on February 21 an ultimatum to this monastery that if the fence was not demolished within 48 hours by the monks, the army would remove it themselves.

From Al Masry al-Youm:

Around 2000 Copts gathered on Wednesday in Tahrir Square to protest reports that an Egyptian army unit had attacked the Monastery of Saint Pishoy in the Nitrian Desert earlier on Wednesday.

Protesters said that a military unit using armored vehicles had demolished newly-built fences surrounding the old Coptic monastery. They claimed that the soldiers fired live bullets at monks. They added that two had been injured and transferred to the Anglo-American hospital in Cairo.

Al-Masry Al-Youm failed to independently verify the reports about the injured monks.

"The army told the monasteries to protect themselves, so the monks tried to build a fence after the release of prisoners from Wadi Natrun. Then the army starting attacking the monastery," said Yasser Farag, 37, a Coptic engineer who went to the monastery after the attack.

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which has governed the country since the 11 February ouster of former President Hosni Mubarak, said on its official page on Facebook that soldiers had removed "some walls that had been illegally built on the road and on land owned by the state."

The SCAF denied claims that the armed forces had been involved in attacks on the monastery or that it had any intention to demolish the building due to its “belief in freedom and the sanctity of places of worship."

Here are two videos of the events at one monastery:

(h/t Missing Peace)

"Apartheid Week" poster #6 - a good one

All "Apartheid" posters can be seen here.

"Symposium on religious harmony" in Jordan. Only two religions, though.

Ammon News reports that Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan sponsored a symposium on religious tolerance at the University of Jordan. The speakers spoke about what unites religions, how religions can be used to solve world problems like poverty.

As far as I can tell, only two religions are represented in this symposium - Islam and Christianity.

Well, it is true that there are no Jews in Jordan, so I guess it was hard for them to find anyone Jewish to attend.

Work accident....kid killed

Palestine Today (from Islamic Jihad) says that there was a massive explosion in a house in Khan Younis, killing a seven year old girl and injuring two others.

Palestine Times says that there were aircraft in the sky at the time, but doesn't quite say they shot anything.

Libya update

Some updates, mostly from Al Jazeera:

A number of cities seem to be in the hands of the people, including Kufra, Benghazi, Derna and Tobruk. News organizations are getting into those cities and broadcasting anti-government rallies.

Gaddafi's TV claimed that Derna was taken over by Al Qaeda, a cliam that the residents ridiculed.

Tripoli is still a Gaddafi stronghold, with horrific stories about killings there, and even plain clothed men with swords in the streets.

Many nations are trying to evacuate their citizens from Libya. Turkey has some 25,000 nationals there.

A flight that was reportedly carrying Gaddafi's daughter was refused by Malta. Similarly, a private Libyan jet that was prevented from landing at Beirut's airport reportedly held the wife of one of Gaddafi's sons.

The number of dead has passed 640, according to the International Federation for Human Rights.

There are reports that a Libyan airforce crew bailed out and crashed a plane rather than bomb civilians.

Hundreds of Libyans are fleeing on foot to Egypt and Tunisia.

The London Times says it has gruesome footage of people injured and killed in Libya that proves that heavy weapons were used, such as helicopter gunships or mortars.

A former Libyan justice minister told Aftenposten that Gaddafi had personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing in 1988.

Italy is afraid that some 300,000 Libyans might flee to Europe if Gaddafi falls.

A video showing mass burials in Tripoli has been released.

Libya's former interior minister has joined the uprising, and he claims that one of Gaddafi's aides had already tried to kill him, unsuccessfully. He predicted Gaddafi would commit suicide. Not sure how believable he is - because he might be blamed for some of the violence, and he might be trying to save his skin.

Netanyahu is allowing 300 Libyan Palestinians to go to the PA.

You know the UN is useless when....

Yesterday, the UN Security Council condemned Libya's use of violence in killing its own people.

The members of the Security Council expressed grave concern at the situation in Libya. They condemned the violence and use of force against civilians, deplored the repression against peaceful demonstrators, and expressed deep regret at the deaths of hundreds of civilians. They called for an immediate end to the violence and for steps to address the legitimate demands of the population, including through national dialogue.

The members of the Security Council called on the Government of Libya to meet its responsibility to protect its population. They called upon the Libyan authorities to act with restraint, to respect human rights and international humanitarian law, and to allow immediate access for international human rights monitors and humanitarian agencies.

The members of the Security Council called for international humanitarian assistance to the people of Libya and expressed concern at the reports of shortages of medical supplies to treat the wounded. They strongly urged the Libyan authorities to ensure the safe passage of humanitarian and medical supplies and humanitarian workers into the country.

The members of the Security Council underlined the need for the Government of Libya to respect the freedom of peaceful assembly and of expression, including freedom of the press. They called for the immediate lifting of restrictions on all forms of the media.

The members of the Security Council stressed the importance of accountability. They underscored the need to hold to account those responsible for attacks, including by forces under their control, on civilians.

The members of the Security Council expressed deep concern about the safety of foreign nationals in Libya. They urged the Libyan authorities and all relevant parties to ensure the safety of all foreign nationals and facilitate the departure of those wishing to leave the country.

The members of the Security Council will continue to follow the situation closely.

At the same time, the Arab League was meeting in Cairo. Their statement:

"The Arab League condemns crimes against the current peaceful popular protests and demonstrations in several Libyan cities," Secretary General Amr Moussa told reporters in Cairo after the group met.

He said the security forces use of live rounds, heavy weapons and foreign mercenaries is a grave breach of human rights.

"The organization calls for respecting Libyans' right to freedom of protest and expression as they demand democratic change," he said.

"Humanitarian aid must be allowed into the country," the Arab League leader said.

"Libya will be barred from taking part in the Arab League's meetings until leader Muammar Gaddafi responds to the organization's demands," Moussa said.

The UN did not decide to kick Libya off of the Human Rights Council or any other important committee. It did not do anything concrete besides empty words.

At least the Arab League banned Libya.

You know the UN has turned into a useless organization when the Arab League is more critical, and more willing to do something, concerning of one of their its members - than the UN is.

NYT discovers that the Gaddafis are not wonderful people

The New York Times has an editorial today called Libya's Butcher:

Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya vowed on Tuesday that he would “fight on to the last drop of my blood” and die a “martyr.” We have no doubt that what he really meant is that he will butcher and martyr his own people in his desperation to hold on to power. He must be condemned and punished by the international community.

Colonel Qaddafi, who took power in a 1969 coup, has a long, ruthless and erratic history. Among his many crimes: He was responsible for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. In 2003, after years of international sanctions, he announced that he had given up terrorism and his pursuit of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

We applauded those changes, and we are not eager to see Libya once again isolated. But Colonel Qaddafi’s brutal suppression of antigovernment demonstrations has left no doubt that he is still an international criminal.

But the Times has consciously done everything they could to make the Gaddafi family look like reasonable people over the years.

They published an op-ed by Gaddafi in 2009, pushing for the Jewish state to be subsumed in a larger Arab state.

They published Saif Gaddafi's whitewash of Libya's welcome to an arch terrorist. (Remember, Saif was the one who threatened all protesters on Libya TV on Sunday.)

And here is an unreal puff piece on Saif as well, from 2007:

The man — part scholar, part monk, part model, part policy wonk — was Saif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, the powerful 33-year-old son of Libya’s extroverted and impulsive president, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. He is, in short, the un-Qaddafi.

The younger Qaddafi is in the final stages of his Ph.D. program in governance at the London School of Economics, and his meticulous training showed itself in Cyrene, a rare appearance for him at a large public event. He reeled off statistics about the rate of desertification and calculations of the tens of thousands of jobs that could be created in fisheries, architecture and ecotourism in the region with his project.

Speaking with a small group of journalists after his presentation, he listened carefully to questions in Arabic and English, thinking before each answer. Although his handlers had announced that journalists should confine their questions to the ecotourism project, the queries inevitably got broader, having not been screened in advance.

“What about democracy in Libya?” someone asked.

“Of course we are going toward more democracy,” Mr. Qaddafi said carefully. “But this project is not about democracy.”

It is easy for the NYT to be against the crazed regime once they start bombing their own citizens, or once the inevitable stories of their support for terrorism (including reports that Gaddafi himself ordered the Lockerbie bombing) surface.

But where were they in the years beforehand?

They were the Gaddafi's main cheerleaders in the West.

Which makes this editorial taste very bitter indeed.

(h/t and all research David G, plus Zach N)