CenterFeud

Why Europe and the Left will miss Bush

UK columnist Nick Cohen perfectly captures the realities of the post-Bush era, both for Europe and for liberals in general: "Why Bush has been a liberal's best friend."

By building him up into a great Satan, the oil man who invades countries to seize their reserves and the Christian who orders bloody crusades, [the liberal-left in Europe and North America] have hidden the totalitarian threats of our age from themselves and anyone who listens to them. Bush allowed them to explain away radical Islam as an understandable, even legitimate, response to the hypocrisies and iniquities of American policy. Even those in the European elites who do not buy the full 'America has it coming' package believe that Bush is a cowboy who doesn't understand that the postmodern way to end conflict is to compromise rather than fight.

In January, Bush will be history, leaving liberals all alone in a frightening world. Little else will change. Radical Islam will still authorise murder without limit, Iran will still want the bomb and the autocracies of China and Russia will still be growing in wealth and confidence. All those who argued that the 'root cause' of the Bush administration lay behind the terror will find that the terror still flourishes when the root cause has retired.

Agreed 100%. In many ways, an Obama presidency would be a relief, in that it would force the Democratic Left to confront the realities of an ideology of religious supremacism that stands foursquare opposed to all of its professed ideals. But since that ideology doesn't originate with familiar opponents, it may take awhile for the realization to set in. But those realities will be there to be confronted, and the illusions will last only so long once hard decisions must be made.

Once back in power, the Democrats will find that they can stay in power by pursuing popular programs here at home and putting out soothing idealistic rhetoric abroad, all the while quietly building on the assets left to them by the Bush administration, i.e., an emerging democratic Iraq and an al-Qaeda back on its heels after a stinging defeat in Mesopotamia -- a defeat Obama the Democrats would have gladly embraced to repudiate Bush and his war, regardless of the enormous cost. Fortunately, Bush made it easy by doubling down on the Surge, enabling that victory to occur at virtually no cost to the Democrats.

For their part, if the GOP is out of power, they will need to put country above politics and lend enthusiastic support to any moves by Obama to counter the influence and aggression of radical Islam, even if that means on occasion siding with the opposition party on principle, as did Joe Lieberman. Will the GOP have the courage of its convictions, even if they no longer call the shots?

Bush vs. Batman

Bush or Batman? Lots of people can't tell them apart.

Including, apparently, the Wall St. Journal.

John Bolton slams Obama's revisionist Cold War history

Former Ambassador John Bolton weighs in with a harsh analysis of Obama's  recent address in Berlin before a crowd of 200,000 Germans:

First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, "The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together." Having earlier proclaimed himself "a fellow citizen of the world" with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved "that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because "the world stood as one." The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator's own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War,Ostpolitik-- "eastern politics," a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance -- continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative.

This is, of course, exactly right. The Cold War didn't come to an end because we all came together as one world to reject Communism; it ended in spite of a drift towards seeing the Soviet Union as a mirror image of -- and occasionally useful counterbalance  to -- to the excesses of American power. During the '80s, Ronald Reagan's hard line against the Soviet Union, which included basing medium range Pershing missiles in Germany, sparked massive protests across Europe. Yet, it was this hard line stance that convinced  the Soviet leadership that they would not be able to prevail in a confrontation with the West. The need to choose between guns and butter ultimately led to the rise of Mikhail Gorbachev and his polices of glasnost (political openness) and perrestroika (economic restructuring).

The Berlin Wall fell, in no little part because of Gorbachev's outreach to the West and his decision to not use military might to rein in Poland and other balky Warsaw Pact nations. But without the hard line -- and unpopular -- Cold War stance of Reagan, backed by Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, the Soviets would have pushed more aggressively for world domination, and reformers like Gorbachev would not have been ascendant,

Obama either forgets or ignores those lessons at his own peril. It is very possible that, should he end up in the Oval Office, he will be forced into a remedial course.

Do tell

15 years after the institution of "Don't ask, don't tell." a sea change in public attitudes towards gays in the military. From the Washington Post:

Today, Americans have become more supportive of allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the armed forces. Support from Republicans has doubled over the past 15 years, from 32 to 64 percent. More than eight in 10 Democrats and more than three-quarters of independents now support the idea, as did nearly two-thirds of self-described conservatives.

These numbers are heartening, especially the response from conservatives.

A Palestinian state by 2009?

WorldNet Daily is carrying an "insider account" of secret US-brokered negotiations that will supposedly lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state by the end of this year:

According to the source who has been playing a role in the meetings, the two sides are drafting an agreement, to be signed by the end of the year, requiring Israel to evacuate most of the West Bank and certain eastern sections of Jerusalem.

The source said Israeli community blocks in the zones of Gush Etzion, Maale Adumin and Ariel would remain Israeli while most of the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem will be slated for a Palestinian state.

In contradiction to statements by Olmert, the status of sections of Jerusalem is being negotiated but the specifics of any agreed-upon Israeli withdrawal is as yet unclear, said the source.

"It is understood [Jerusalem] Arab neighborhoods would become part of a Palestinian state," the source said.

The source told WND both sides agreed Israel would retain Jerusalem's Pisgat Zeev neighborhood, which is located near large Arab communities. Many of those Arab towns were constructed illegally on property owned by the Jewish National Fund, a Jewish nonprofit that purchases property using Jewish donors funds for the stated purpose of Jewish settlement.

The source said the U.S. pledged advanced training for thousands of PA security officers who would take over security in the West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem and operate in those territories instead of the Israel Defense Forces and Israeli police.

The U.S. previously has trained thousands of Palestinian security officers, including units in which known members of Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group serve. Scores of those security forces have carried out terrorist attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians, including recent deadly shootings in the West Bank.

But the source claimed the planned U.S. training is different:

"This training is unlike anything before. The PA, Israel and the U.S. are working very closely to vet the forces. All sides are approving the training candidates. The training is more advanced than ever. It will create a very serious Palestinian army," said the source.

Color me skeptical, but also hopeful. I was in favor of Israel withdrawing from Gaza, not because I expected it to improve the prospects for peace, but because in my view, it was an untenable situation for Israel to devote military resources to protecting a few thousand Jewish settlers embedded among a  million-plus Palestinians in a Hamas-led enclave. In a post dated August, 2005 I wrote:

The Gaza pullout makes tremendous sense to Israel, not as a "peace offering" (Sharon is not so naive) but as a military strategy. It makes no sense to have 9,000 settlers surrounded by 1.3 million Palestinians, many of whom want them dead. Even from a religious standpoint, Gaza has little significance compared to areas of the West Bank ("Judea and Samaria" to the Israeli right). It requires some thirty thousands IDF soldiers to protect those settlements, and Sharon's decision to abandon them is based purely on a cost-benefit analysis. Removing the settlements not only removes the roadblocks and occupation forces that have increased misery for the Palestinian residents of Gaza, but it also puts the emphasis on the creation of a functioning civil government. He (and future Israeli leaders) can now demand that Gaza get its house in order before there are any further concessions. And should Israel need to undertake military operations against Hamas and other terrorist groups using Gaza as a base, they can go on the offensive without having to divert resources to protecting setllers (not killing innocent Palestinians in the process will still be a major challenge, given that terrorist groups often hide among and draw support from the civilian population).

Since then, we have seen that the Hamas leadership in Gaza did not take advantage of the pullout to "get its house in order" and create a functioning civil government, but rather to continue to target Israeli civilians with rocket attacks on Sderot, near the Gaza border. Hamas has made no bones about their aim to establish Palestine in the place of Israel and to murder Jews as a means to that end. Although the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is led by the supposedly "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah ("Conquest") party, I do not expect a different outcome were Israel to agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state there. Fatah and Hamas have the same goal, they differ only in their tactics and timframe, with Fatah willing to use negotiations as an interim step to the long-term goal of eliminating Israel altogether, which has never been eliminated from the PLO charter.

So that explains the skeptical part, but then how in the world could I be hopeful? Because a two-state solution ultimately makes more sense for Israel than the alternative: a single "bi-national" Jewish-Arab state which, through sheer demographics, would soon become yet another Arab majority country in the region. For better or worse, Israel is the only place on earth where Jews can live as a majority and live according to their own religious and cultural norms. To maintain Israel is a Jewish state (one where Arabs ironically have more political freedom than anywhere else in the Middle East), the Israeli government will need to relinquish the West Bank to the Palestinians.

This will not bring about an end to terrorism against Israel, but it will allow for clarity as to what motivates that terrorism: the refusal of many Arabs  to accept, in any form, the existence of a Jewish state in their midst (84% of Palestinians preferred continued violence over talks, according to a recent poll). Nonetheless, with the removal of the occupation as a pretext and Palestine officially negotiated and on the map, it will be difficult to maintain the fiction that the conflict has ever been solely about land and borders.

But with the US fully engaged and applying the lessons learned from its counter-terrorism strategy in Iraq, there is a possibility that over the coming years, some semblance of civil society will return to the West Bank, as well as economic development and trade with Israel. We saw glimpses of this during the illusion of Oslo -- if a deal can finally be reached, we may yet see that illusion become the reality. As the alternative would be a continuation of endless war, one can't fault Bush and Olmert from making one last effort before the clock runs out for both of them.

Imagining an American intifada

Daniel Pipes conjures a grim near-future scenario that deftly mixes speculative fiction with recent history and current events:

Just as the 7/7 bombings had revealed in Great Britain, Islamist sleepers in substantial numbers lived quietly and unobtrusively in the United States. The violence became daily, ubiquitous, endemic, and routine, occurring in rural towns, upscale suburbs, and metropolitan centres, targeting private houses, restaurants, university buildings, gas stations, and electricity grids. As its frequency increased, terrorists became less cautious, leading to many arrests and bulging prisons. Some terrorists avoided this ignominious fate by engaging in suicide attacks, usually accompanied by boastful Internet videos. In all, roughly 100,000 incidents meant an average 10,000 deaths and many times more injuries each year.

Jihadis for Justice laid siege to Capitol Hill and the White House, inspired by three prior terrorist assaults on symbols of sovereignty: the attack on Trinidad's Red House in 1990, on India's Parliament House in 2001, and the failed plot to storm Ottawa's Parliament Hill in 2006. Despite massive security in Washington, sniper attacks picked off some legislators and presidential aides. Jihadis for Justice relied on Iranian and Saudi patronage but no U.S. retaliation followed because, before acting, President Obama required proofs that would pass muster in a U.S. court of law, something the intelligence agencies could not provide.

As in other countries – Israel offering the most obvious comparison – major changes in American life followed. Whoever wished to enter supermarkets, bus stations, malls, or campuses had to produce identification, show his bags and perhaps submit to a search of his person. Cars routinely underwent inspections at road blocks. As airline passengers had to arrive four hours before flight time to run the gauntlet of security questions about their travels, airports emptied and airline companies went bankrupt. Local public transportation went through similar upheavals, as commuters took up bicycling rather than submit to interrogations and near-strip searches on their way to work. Telecommuting finally took off.

Read it all.

Fallaci-Khomeini smackdown

In tribute to the recently departed Italian journalist, interviewer and polemicist Oriana Fallaci, Neo-neocon recalls her famous encounter with Ayatollah Khomenini. As good as you remember (or would imagine).

I was introduced to Fallaci's work through reading her 1977 collection, Interview with History, in which the Khomeini interview appears, along with similarly revealing interviews of Golda Meir, Mohamar Qaddafi, Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger. Hard to get hold of but still highly relevant and a showcase for Fallaci's take-no-prisoners style. She was one tough lady and feared no one. She will be sorely missed.

Cracking the code on Middle East coverage

Victor Davis Hanson offers a translation guide for the code phrases used by the press in its coverage of of the war between Israel and Hezbollah:

A “ceasefire” would occur should Hezbollah give back kidnapped Israelis and stop launching missiles; it would never follow a unilateral cessation of Israeli bombing. In fact, we will hear international calls for one only when Hezbollah’s rockets are about exhausted.

“Civilians” in Lebanon have munitions in their basements and deliberately wish to draw fire; in Israel they are in bunkers to avoid it. Israel uses precision weapons to avoid hitting them; Hezbollah sends random missiles into Israel to ensure they are struck.

“Collateral damage” refers mostly to casualties among Hezbollah’s human shields; it can never be used to describe civilian deaths inside Israel, because everything there is by intent a target.

“Cycle of Violence” is used to denigrate those who are attacked, but are not supposed to win.

“Deliberate” reflects the accuracy of Israeli bombs hitting their targets; it never refers to Hezbollah rockets that are meant to destroy anything they can.

“Deplore” is usually evoked against Israel by those who themselves have slaughtered noncombatants or allowed them to perish — such as the Russians in Grozny, the Syrians in Hama, or the U.N. in Rwanda and Dafur.

“Disproportionate” means that the Hezbollah aggressors whose primitive rockets can’t kill very many Israeli civilians are losing, while the Israelis’ sophisticated response is deadly against the combatants themselves. See “excessive.”

Anytime you hear the adjective “excessive,” Hezbollah is losing. Anytime you don’t, it isn’t.

There's more along these lines, leading to the question of why the coverage tends to stress Lebanese casualties and damage, while ignoring the fact that Hezbollah is committed to the destruction of Israel in the name of the same Islamist ideology that lies behind terrorist attacks around the globe. Yet Israel remains the blind spot. Why?

What explains this distortion of language? A lot.

First there is the need for Middle Eastern oil. Take that away, and the war would receive the same scant attention as bloodletting in central Africa.

Then there is the fear of Islamic terrorism. If the Middle East were Buddhist, the world would care about Lebanon as little as it does about occupied Tibet.

And don’t forget the old anti-Semitism. If Russia or France were shelled by neighbors, Putin and Chirac would be threatening nuclear retaliation.

But while it's useful for Hanson to point this out, this is old news. Europe long ago chose sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict, with even popular opinion in Britain largely critical of Israel's policies and actions. To some extent this was due to a tendency to see in Israel a reflection of Europe's own shameful colonialist history, and to a large extent it has to do with the continent's energy and economic ties to the Middle East. China and Russia are a different matter. In addition to economic interests in the region, they are still smarting from the defeat of Communism and the rising influence of the US, so will do anything to undermine its policy aims, including turning a blind eye to an increasingly belliigerent Iran.

We know this is the case. And we also know that this time no one can make the claim that the hostilities are about land. After all, Israel withdrew from Lebanon six years ago, uprooted its settlements from Gaza last Fall, and was on a course to withdraw from large parts of the West Bank. Rather than building on these actions as milestones towards a lasting peace, Hamas and Hezbollah are trumpeting them as proof of Israel's weakness and so are pressing the attack, believing they have Israel backed into a corner. That they don't care what happens to the innocent (and some not-so-innocent) civilians they hide among is reason to condemn these terrorist organizations, not those who are fighting them to defend their very existence.

Sadly, not so long ago it was not out of the question that Israel and Lebanon might have one day worked out a peace agreement, since Israel had demonstrated that it was willing to quit its occupation of Southern Lebanon. Unfortunately, the Lebanese government is divided and weak, and Hezbollah's influence was strong enough to drag that beautiful country into war.

So for those who are wondering about the prospects of restoring "stability" to this troubled region, here is a little reality check:

Israel will do whatever it must do to defend itself from a well-armed, highly discplined terrorist group that is ideologically committed to its destruction. Whatever the spin in the media, Israel has no choice.

Hezbollah will press forward at the behest of its sponsor, Iran and its surrogate Syria, who are determined at all costs to prevent the formation of stable democracies in either Iraq or Lebanon. Playing the Israel card through Hezbollah is a reliable way for Iran to rearrange the playing field more to its liking.

The EU and the UN will bleat on about the need for a cease-fire and an international solution, but are not willing to actually expose themselves to real danger, so they are not in a position to affect the situation on the ground. The UN fled Iraq after its headquarters was attacked, and the UN presence on the Lebanese border has merely given cover to Hezbollah. Any credible international force will have to include real soldiers who are willing to put themselves on the line to protect both Israel and Lebanon from Hezbollah.

The US will go along to an extent with the international call for a cease-fire, but refuse to broker one on terms favorable to Hezbollah. The Bush administration realizes that a "peace agreement" cannot be reached with a terrorist organization. Any agreements that are achieved will be made with the Lebanese government, not with its would-be puppet masters in Syria or Iran.

In the Arab and Muslim world, the steady stream of hateful anti-semitic rhetoric will continue unabated. Calls will issue forth for the "Zionist regime" to leave the field to the jihadists, but from their standpoint it will matter little what the Israelis do. If they defend themselves against and kidnapings, suicide bombings and rocket attacks, their response will be decried as beliigerent and "disproportionate"; and if they withdraw their forces or hunker down, they will be scorned by their enemies as weak, and so attacks against them will only mount, with deadlier weapons. The goal is nothing less than the eradication of Israel and the slaughter or ethnic cleansing of every Jew in the region to clear the way for a Taliban-style Islamist regime.

And sadly, the oh-so sophisticated and progressive Western press will cooperate - whether wittingly or unwittingly - in this shameful propaganda effort to demonize and deligitimize the Jewish state. It's up to the rest of us to keep Hanson's decoder ring close at hand.

ASL Vlogging

You know videoblogging (aka vlogging) has really come into its own when you see Deaf vloggers like Joey Baer posting in ASL (American Sign Language) and linking to other vloggers for commentary and personal perspectives, also in Sign Language.

The focus of his blog is the current controversy at Gallaudet University in Washington DC, which is the only post-secondary liberal arts institution in the world specifically serving a deaf and hard-of-hearing student body (much like the role Howard University plays in the African-American Community).

For the uninitiated, some background: in 1988, Gallaudet's campus erupted in controversy as students protested the university Board of Trustees' decision to appoint a hearing administrator as President, bypassing a well-qualified deaf candidate, I. King Jordan. As a result of the protests (now known as the "DPN" movement for "Deaf President Now"), Gallaudet reversed course and appointed Jordan, who became the university's first deaf president. (To get a sense of the students' outrage, imagine the uproar if Howard University had since its inception consistently passed over African-Americans candidates to serve as its president).

Now, nearly 20 years later, a new controversy has erupted over Jordan's successor, Jane Fernandes who like Jordan is deaf but learned ASL as an adult. She is seen as problematic for reasons related both to cultural identity and the fairness of the selection process, as well as to assessments of overallcompetence. Go here for a side-by-side rendition of this argument in both English and ASL by Gallaudet faculty member Dr. Tom Holcomb:

Many of us do not see her as a leader. The first time many of us met her, we each walked away from the encounter harboring grave doubts about her abilities. So many of us did. You can go down the line. Each and every one of us have the same doubts. And we all love Gallaudet too much to accept this situation. We simply love Gallaudet too much.

Earlier this month, Protein Wisdom covered the controversy as a critique of identity politics. And got this comment from a deaf Gallaudet student, who echoes Holcomb's argument:

I know some do have the culturally deaf issue as a complaint, and I think it’s a poor one. I adhere to classical liberal values, and I would prefer that the best qualified person be picked for the presidency regardless of color, disability, religion, and so on. And while many of the protesters are of a liberal or Democratic mentality, which I’m not of, I also do know they’re focusing on the two demands reiterated above. Fringe elements of the protest are the ones pushing the culturally deaf issue.

The reason there is a protest against the selection of Fernandes is because she’s a poor academic administrator, and because the Board of Trustees did not listen to the protesters – the undergraduates, graduates, and faculty, in separate polls, voted overwhelmingly against her before the selection. In fact, it is now known that the Presidential Search Committee recommended someone else to the Board of Trustees.

The revival of the Deaf President Now controversy at Gallaudet, this time swirling around the twin issues of culture and competence, coincides with the spread of videoblogging as a phenomenon. It's an ideal medium for deaf bloggers and I hope to see more of it, even once the current controversy fades.

At sea over the issue of ports

Like many, I've found myself strangely ambivalent over the issue of whether the US should allow Dubai Ports World, the United Arab Emirates-owned company, to manage up to 21 US ports (up from the six initially reported). Obviously, the company should not be excluded because it is Arab-owned. But nonetheless, there's something more than a little odd about the fast tracking of the deal, bypassing the usual 45-day review. And the fact that the Bush administration professes to have not even known about the deal until after it was announced. For a wealth of details, see Dave Schuler's first-rate round-up at his blog, The Glittering Eye.

All in all, it smacks of a quiet strategic/diplomatic deal that has been cut with the UAE, comparable to securing the cooperation of Pakistan's Musharraf, in fighting the War on Terror. The military seems to have no problem with it, and obviously the administration doesn't want to talk about it, but the ports contract looks to be a quid pro quo for logistical support in the war on terror or other strategic considerations that would create bad press for the UAE in the Arab world. Perhaps the hope had been that this would slip by with minimal notice (fat chance!). After all, as has been since pointed out, we let China manage ports on the West Coast and to date have been apparently unconcerned about the potential security breaches.

There are many good reasons why the UAE should come under a great deal more scrutiny than it has to date. So even though this issue has stirred up a hornet's nest in Congress, with threatened vetoes and overrides being traded between Congress and the White House, it's good that it is getting a more thorough review. The whole idea of handing even partial control of our ports over to a country that formerly recognized the Taliban gives me the chills. Nonetheless, Ports World Dubai apparently has a clean record around the world, and it turns out, is already operating ports in the US acquired from CSX. The company especially gets high marks from our military.

I am also persuaded by the arguments of people like Robert Ferrigno, author of the bestselling thriller Prayers for the Assassin, in which he depicts a future Islamized America. Certainly no apologist for radical Islam, Ferrigno recently spoke out in favor of the deal in a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt:

[I]f we can work with Musharraf and Pakistan, which is an infinitely more intolerant and repressive Muslim country than the United Arab Emirates, we've got to be able to make some friends there, and treat our friends like friends, even though it heightens the risk. But we have to minimize the risk that's heightened there by it. And that should be within our power.

Mark Steyn, (who incidentally just wrote a terrific review of Ferrigno's novel) is an outspoken critic of radical Islam and is well-versed in terrorism and the politics of the Middle East. Surprisingly, he also favors the deal -- well, sort of:

But you know, this is actually the kind of company...when we say to ourselves what's wrong with the Arab world, the problem is it can't cope...it hasn't been able to cope with modernity. Well, actually, Dubai, which is this glittering city, it's like a sort of Hong Kong of the Middle East in some ways...it's the closest to Singapore. And if this is exactly the kind of global company you would like to see the Arab world producing, instead of just being mired in jihad. Now do some crazy people from the United Arab Emirates, and from Dubai say crazy things? Yes, they do. But I think you want to be pretty sure that there are real national security implications in the exchange of ownership...

Other security hawks who makes a case for the transaction include Robert Kaplan, James K. Glassman, Jonah Goldberg, and Charles Krauthammer, who thinks it should have been stopped early on but that there is more downside to pulling out of the deal now that it has been announced. Against the deal are Frank Gaffney, Michelle Malkin and Robert Spencer, who warns darkly:

This is staggeringly unrealistic, and reflects the dangers of the Administration’s continuing unwillingness or inability to come to grips with the full dimensions of the jihad threat. That Bush feels compelled to say “to the people of the world, ‘We’ll treat you fairly’” betrays a peculiar insecurity where he should display a robust and unapologetic self-confidence. He is trying to demonstrate to a world awash in anti-Americanism that America is not as bad as all that, but in doing so he only lends credence to the anti-American charges (for if there weren’t substance to them, after all, why would he feel the need for the gesture?) and manifests the mistaken belief that “they hate us” because of something we have done, which we can undo with the proper display of good will. In this he again shows complete unawareness of the jihad ideology which remains constant while the pretexts and grievances that fuel it shift. No amount of good will can possibly efface the jihad imperative to subjugate the world under the rule of Islamic law, which is the avowed program of jihadists everywhere.

Columnist Deborah Saunders best captures my own conclusions on the ports controversy:

To the extent that Dubai respects the culture of Westerners who respect its culture, it especially merits respect....Even still, I don't mind making Dubai Ports World suits squirm a bit. Two Sept. 11 terrorists came from Dubai. Emirates banks funneled money to the Sept. 11 hijackers, and the Los Angeles Times has reported on allegations that, before the Sept. 11 attacks, the Dubai Islamic Bank funneled money to al-Qaida.

If the Middle East can target Denmark's economy -- prompting the Danish pavilion to pull out of a Gulf Food exposition in Dubai last week -- because a newspaper published some cartoons Muslim leaders don't like, let a Middle Eastern country feel some pain, too.

If Congress wants to hold hearings, conduct an investigation and otherwise make Dubai Ports World perform somersaults, I can't get too indignant. At least Washington will have put Ports World on notice that it would be a bad thing if a bad thing happened in a Dubai-run port.

In spite of my misgivings over the way the deal was disclosed, it remains clear that the West, particularly the US, needs to approach the Arab and Islamic worlds on the basis of mutual respect. In practice, we should strengthen diplomatic and economic bonds with countries who show tolerance and respect for Western ways and freedoms. These countries will not have perfect track records, but if the positives outweigh the negatives, we should continue to work with those governments and societies, and encourage more tolerance and openness based on that mutual respect and trust.

Robert Spencer, quoted above, makes the point that the jihadist ideology treats every conciliatory move on the part of the West as a sign of weakness and an opportunity to push forward in its goal of establishing a worldwide Caliphate. So, we should hold no illusions about the nature of the Islamist outlook, and stand firm against countries and governments who are contemptuous of our way of life, and who foment hatred against us. That means not giving a pass with totalitarian regimes like the theocrats in Iran, or terrorist groups like Hamas, and not curtailing our own freedom of expression so as to avoid "offending" cultures who view such self-censorship as capitulation and will simply ratchet up their tactics of intimidation. In the case of countries like Pakistan, where we have the cooperation of the government but not necessarily the population, it can be a tricky balancing act. But that's the reality of the world we are living in today.

So, after a review by Congress in which the facts are considered and no evidence emerges of wrongdoing on the part of Ports World Dubai, we should proceed with the deal, but keep our guard up and assume that the potential risk of infiltration or information leakage is higher. At the same time, we need a resurgence of support for democrats and free-speech advocates wherever they are bravely taking a stand, whether they be politicians, pundits or pop singers.

And we should be at least as respectful of the Danes, longstanding and true allies, as we are solicitous of the UAE, who have helped us in the War on Terror but whose leaders have at best a mixed record when it comes to associations with global jihadism.