When I worked in Israel, despite the wonderful things about the place,
there were four specific things I found abhorrant, and was quite proud
didn't exist in the US.

1) The obtuse security on El Al, and the aloof attitude by Isarelis
about how it impacts everyone else. As a non-Israeli, I was endlessly
subjected to security checks, often to a ridiculous degree (electric
razor disassembled, lining removed from suitcase, shoes taken to
another room, toothpaste squeezed out). Despite their claims of it
being for security, as a person who absolutely NEVER posed any sort of
security threat, the grilling I went through merely illustrated to me
what an invasive and ineffective procedure it was. Of course, none of
my Isareli friends ever got searched, so it was discriminatory as well.
However, whenever I complained to them about it, they were oblivious to
my inconvenience and spouted the usual rhetoric about it being
necessary for state security. I always used to say "well, in the US we
don't don't pull this type of crap, and we'd certianly never treat
someone else the way these guys treat me." Yeah, right.

2) The endless 'shell game' that Ariel Sharon played with the media,
with the support of much of the general public. One atrocity after
another was committed (remember the massacre in Jenin? The family of
four that was accidentally hit with a missle aimed at a Hamas leader?
The introduction of extrajudicial assassinations? That father and son
who were killed in crossfire in Jerusalem while waving their arms to be
able to get out of the way?) Whenever there was the beginnings of an
uprising in the world press about it, something else would happen and
the attention would shift. This endlessly shifting attention guaranteed
that there was never any accountability for any past actions, although
the stream of new injustices just kept on coming.

3) The reference of the participants in the Palestinian uprisings as
Terrorists (Palestinians) and Soldiers (Israelis). This type of blanket
rhetoric certainly painted a nice one-sided picture of the unrest, but
any intelligent person could see that it was not so simple. However, no
one ever protested this terminology enough to stop it, and of course it
was generated by the government, not the press. I always thought the US
Press was much more diligent and 'Free' than this, and that such a
thing would never happen back home. I felt that the superior US press
would always keep the debate open, and that American people would
always live by the expression 'I may not agree with what you say, but
I'd defend to the death your right to say it."

4) How any offense committed by Palestinians (like launching a pipe
missle into a potato field and not hitting anybody) was met with a
barrage of criticism and wailing of how brutal the Palestinians are,
but any wrongs committed by the Isareli military was always glossed
over with Orwell-speak, no matter how brutal or how obvious (Shabra and
Shattila, etc etc etc). After a missle strike into the market in Gaza
killed dozens of shoppers, or some innocent family would be blown up as
collateral damage, the news would print something about Hamas
terrorists killing 20 Palestinians caught in the crossfire" and
decrying any Israeli responsibility. Of course, there would sometimes
be a 'government inquiry' and there would never be any fault found with
the guys who fired the missle.

This news article just got me thinking about this stuff:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060327/ts_nm/iraq_dc

Did anyone else notice that W's rhetoric changed drastically after
Sharon's visit to the US back in his first year of this first term?
What the hell did Sharon ('the Man of Peace') tell the young George??

--riverman