While cruising OpinionJournal.com's Best of Web, I read this hilarious bit of hypocrisy from ArabNews: Muslim killings in Palestine and India

India is a secular republic in which anyone with any religion has a share in government and can reach the highest echelons of the state. India has already had two Muslim presidents while many Muslims have served in Cabinet positions. Israel, however, is a Jewish state in which non-Jews, even those that become citizens of the state, do not enjoy equal status. By assuming an exclusive Jewish persona, Israel cannot but encourage others to also emphasize their religious identity.

What makes it so "humorous," of course, is that in Saudi Arabia you can't even enter the country if you're Jewish. If you're anything other than Muslim, you are restricted to where, when, how, etc., of where you go. Saudia Arabia is, in fact, an amazing insular and secular state, one of the most restricted in the world.

Annette (the ooma, the object of my affection) tells of the story of a fellow worker of hers, who is Palestinian born and raised, though also raised Catholic. He was sent to Saudi Arabia on a survey job. His visa was clearly marked who he was, his religion, and he was given a list of restrictions, which essentially said he was not allowed to go to the nearby town, period. One evening he was late returning from worksite to campsite and he strayed in the dark. Soldiers stopped him and for the next hour interrogated him mightily. Fast talking, with the added benefit of actually speaking the language, kept him alive.

And these are the people who talk about Jewish seculartism.... ROFL!

But the editorial grows even funnier. The writer is apparently distraught at comments made in an op ed piece if the New York Times (well, aren't we all?). The gist seems to be that the NY Times bit wonders why it's only the Islam countries that complain about Israeli tactics in the Middle East. China and Mexico, as given examples, don't seem to complain. The author in the Arab News piece then both replies and gives up the game. He writes: "Finally, Friedman [author if NY Times piece] wonders why the Chinese or the Mexicans who might disagree with this or that aspect of American policy do not react against the US as Muslims do?"

This is a disingenuous comparison. We will not know exactly how the Chinese or the Mexicans might react until we create similar situations affecting them. For example, imagine the US supporting the creation of a hostile and expansionist Christian state on Chinese territory somewhere between Shanghai and Beijing. Or imagine the US sponsoring an aggressive Buddhist mini-state on Mexican territory near Acapulco. Only then might we know how the Chinese and Mexicans would react in a comparable situation.

Yet earlier in the editorial, the Arab author noted that a final difference between violence in India and that in Israel is: "There is one more difference. Gujarat is not an occupied territory."

So, at first we are discussing an "occupied territory." (Itself a debateable point; after all, the areas under dispute were taken after Arab nations after being used by them as avenues of attack against Israel. In fact, this "occupied territories" weren't Palestinian, but were portions of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.) But by the end of the editorial, we are in fact (well, author's "fact") discussing a "hostile and expansionist...state." That all Israeli "expansions" have come as a result of Arab attacks is now conviniently forgotten and set aside. It is the classic truth behind the conflict. The goal is not the liberation of "occupied territories," it is the recovery of occupied land. That is, all of Israel.