New Saudi opposition group

Never heard of this before:

CAIRO — A Saudi opposition group is set to breathe new life into the kingdom’s dormant political reform movement. But in a sign of changing alliances, its founder hopes for a boost from public anger over government criticism of Hezbollah.
Founded in Paris by the exiled son of the last ruler of part of present-day Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Democratic Opposition Front claims about 2,000 members, mostly in Saudi Arabia.
It aims to provide an umbrella network for secular and Islamist activists both inside and outside the country who are campaigning for the overthrow of the al-Saud ruling family.
“We have founded the Saudi Democratic Opposition Front to push for 100 percent democracy in the country,” said Talal Mohammed Al-Rasheed, the son of the last ruler of the independent Rashidi emirate, which reigned in Saudi Arabia’s northwestern region of Hail from 1835 to 1921.
“If the al-Saud [family] introduce genuine democracy, we will support them. But if they do not, we will push by all peaceful means to make them give up their power,” said Mr. Al-Rasheed, 72, who still likes to be addressed as Prince Talal.

I don’t know what to think of these people. I found this interesting though:

Earlier this month, Mr. Al-Rasheed gave an hourlong interview to the Paris bureau chief of the Pan-Arab, Qatar-based Al Jazeera satellite news network. After announcing the formation of his party and advertising the forthcoming interview with Mr. Al-Rasheed on its news bar at the bottom of the screen, Al Jazeera suddenly removed the information and the interview was spiked.

“My sources told me that after they saw the information on Al Jazeera’s news ticker, the Saudi government called the station more than five times in one hour, pleading with them not to air it,” Mr. Al-Rasheed said, adding that Al Jazeera had “obviously caved in to the pressure.”

Et tu, Jazeera?

“New Middle East” gets Daily Show treatment

I’ve just uploaded a brilliant recent Daily Show interview with their Middle East correspondent in Beirut to YouTube. Instead of their usual correspondents, they has a guy act as their Arab correspondent. And while Jon Stewart was expressing concern about the carnage, the correspondent kept reacting as if he loved the whole birth pangs of a new Middle East thing — i.e. as if he lived in Condi and W’s alternate reality. It’s very moving comedy, and make sure you watch it to the end. (The first few seconds are blacked out, but then it’s fine.)

(Smaller download version here – 3MB)

I have to stop

The New York Times’ coverage of the Lebanon war is a scab I can’t stop picking.

The latest, from Steven Erlanger, is as dumb-founding as always.

Written entirely from the strategic viewpoint of the Israeli government, this “news analysis” posits that the ceasefire depends on the Lebanese blaming Hezbullah for the damage the Israelis have done. If the Lebanese don’t turn on Hezbullah, and the UN doesn’t disarm the group, Israel will be forced to reinvade.

Erlanger ends with the following paragraph:

The Lebanese war also raises even more serious questions, suggests Shai Feldman, director of the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis, about the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Israel respected the international border with Lebanon as verified by the United Nations, and it was Hezbollah that violated the border. “If international borders mean nothing,� Mr. Feldman asked, “why should the Israeli public support a withdrawal from the West Bank to create a Palestinian state?�

Preserving the idea of a two-state solution is one reason Mr. Olmert went to war, Mr. Feldman said. And it is one reason the Security Council acted as strongly as it did to defend the integrity of the international border and mandate an expanded United Nations force to protect it. But whether Israelis will trust those guarantees is yet another open question.

I must be dreaming. Israel is now the upholder of international borders? Israel invaded Lebanon to help further its plans to give the Palestinians a state? Did Mr. Erlanger ask Mr. Feldman about the many borders that Israel has crossed or erased? Did he point out that according to UN observers Israelis have crossed the Lebanese border about 10 times more often than Hezbullah has? Did he ask him if pounding Gaza as well as Lebanon is part of Israel’s hopes to establish a Palestinian state?

How can a New York Times reporter not only let an interviewee get away unchallenged with statements such as these, but go on to print them? The only answer I can find is: because the reporter is a propagandist.

Photographer caught doctoring Lebanon pics

The really stupid thing about the freelance photographer for Reuters who doctored his pictures is that his stupidity will discredit the thousands of real pictures out there that show what an ugly war this has been. And while the pro-Israel blogosphere probably rejoices, it doesn’t change that between 600 and 900 Lebanese people, for the most part civilians, have been killed.

And besides I don’t even see what he was trying to do.

I was interviewed by the German newspaper Stuttgart Zeitung (sp?) today about the Flickr pictures. Clearly a lot of people have picked up on the media side of this war and what a powerful (but ultimately still too weak) impact some of the horrible images we’ve seen have had.