A banner week at Al-Ahram

Egypt's government mouthpiece weekly, Al-Ahram, is on a roll. Here are some items from the new edition.

9/11 Poll: An admittedly non-scientific "straw poll" conducted by the paper this week of 150 Egyptians found the following:

-- 52% thought those killed at the WTC "deserved it," although 35% also said they had "sympathy for the victims.
-- 39% believe that Israeli intelligence was responsible for the attack. 19% believe it was "Al-Qa'eda or other Islamic militants."
-- 68% believe that America's so called war on terror is "a means of asserting the US's global dominance," while 15% find it to be "a justified response to the attacks."
-- As for the ultimate consequences of that war, 93% think it will result in "a descent into chaos and increasing violence," and 48% think it will result in "the end of democracy and human rights."

Then there's this on U.S. "aggression" in the Middle East:

The Middle East is the region most severely effected by the fallout from 11 September. No sooner had Washington fingered Al-Qa'eda and its Arab members as responsible for the attacks than it plotted its warpath accordingly. Of course, Israel helped mark it out, as it deftly turned 11 September towards its own ends. Playing on the anti-terrorist alarm, it ensured that Washington branded the Palestinian resistance as terrorist, secured Washington's support for its massive offensive to reoccupy PA territory and succeeded in driving a deeper wedge between Washington and the Arabs.

That the Arabs unanimously denounced the attacks against the US and condemned terrorism and the targeting of innocent civilians made no difference. Nor did appeals to the US to work within the UN framework, to wait until definitive proof of the identity of the perpetrators of the attacks became available and to convene an international conference to reach a universally acceptable definition of terrorism. On the contrary, such attempts to urge Washington to a more level-headed response and to avoid a repetition of a military operation without UN Security Council approval only provoked its ire.

Yes, and they caught those Arabs unanimously denouncing the attacks on the U.S. on film, so we can't argue that point. (Sigh.) Why can't Washington be more level-headed, anyway, damn it?

Finally, there's this on the McKinney and Hilliard races.

In the two United States Congressional primary campaigns that were decided by Middle East politics, the defeat of Representatives Earl Hilliard and Cynthia McKinney was clearly a setback for Arab and Muslim Americans. But in the long run, the loser may turn out to be no one but the Democratic Party which chose to distance itself from both McKinney and Hilliard. ......

The defeat of two black members by non- black forces in black majority districts may convince angry African Americans to simply stay home on election day. In a close election a weak black turn-out could mean a Republican victory.

But above all else, the reluctance of the Democratic Party to support its two incumbents, its decision not to speak out when the Arab and Muslim American "minority" was roundly discredited in absolute terms, and even its deafening silence on Iraq is all based in a strategy aimed at not losing any votes in November. But for the Democratic Party to win the next election by compromising its values means that, for us, as well as for many Americans -- it may not matter much which party will win in November.

Would anyone reading this article have a clue that either of winning candidates were also black? Hint: it's not mentioned in the parts I didn't quote.