printDr. Walid Phares is the Fox News Channel’s Middle East and Terrorism Expert. He has been advocating a muscular military response in Libya. Somewhere on the Fox News’, moving-pictures-only website (in this vicinity), there is an interview in which Phares says that, “If the opposition in Libya cannot cross the Syrt line on the coast and head towards Tripoli, it is clear that there will be stalemate and only international intervention would end the crisis. The US must consider the fact that if the crisis stretch too long, even the uprising areas could be infiltrated.” (The excerpt is from Dr. Phares’ more script-friendly website, here.)
Pharisee,” which originally referred to a “member of an ancient Jewish sect that emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Mosaic law in both its oral and written form,” has also come to mean a “hypocritically self-righteous person.” (FreeDictionary.com)
I wager that if Walid were a Jewish neoconservative, and not an Arab one, he’d be accused of being “a fifth columnist; a person with dual loyalties, a ‘binational.'”
UPDATE: Tom, I fail to see why you think my post is such a harsh criticism of Phares. It shows you how lukewarm and insipid public discourse has become if a sharp dig at the good doctor’s interventionism—or more likely, at the non-reaction to his militarism—is considered a devastating blow. Nonsense.
I like Phares on some counts; not on others. He just gets a pass because he is not a Jewish interventionist. If he were a Jew, the usual suspects would accuse him of recruiting poor American boys to die in order to safeguard oil for Israel, or something like that. I can never get conspiracy theories straight, as they are so unintuitive to me.
Dear Ilana, I am surprised you criticize Dr Walid Phares so harshly. He is analyzing Libya’s situation like no one else. Why do you use his name to twist it into Pharisee. He is liberal, democratic and has published a stunning book, “The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East” few months before the revolts becoming the only author who projected it. I strongly suggest you read the book. I am sure you’ll have second thoughts.
My best regards
Tom
Phares is an Arab but a Catholic according to his MySpace page (Lebanese). So I am sure he has his share of grudges against Moslems. And remember that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Thus the US bombing the crud out of Moslems is not a negative. He probably is upset (like Kristol and the neocons) that Reagan “redeployed” out of Lebanon.
Meanwhile Pharaoh Obama is asking a legislative body for permission to go to war. In this, he is being correct. Unfortunately, the legislative body is the UN. In other words, Hu Jintao, rather than Jim Webb gets to represent me!!
Actually “Pharisee” is not really the bad person that it is implied by moderns. Pharisees started the modern church movement by creating the first synagogues and codifying religion. Judaism and Christianity are both descended from the Pharisees. Jesus was probably a Pharisee himself and the remarks inside the Gospels reflect an in-house fight between the followers of Hillel and Jesus. That said because, this too is an in-house disagreement. Dr Walid Phares represents one opinion, Ilana speaks for another, I agree with her in this matter. I do not think that anyone, including the UN has the authority to intervene in the internal affairs of another country, to do so is to invite the same problems as Israel/Palestine and Serbia/Kosovo already face.
Ilana,
Funny post in a way. Well, yes, Pharisees were/are Jewish. So I suppose if he were Jewish he could be considered a Pharisee.
As far as getting a pass… not from me. What can one say about people who wish to solve “crises” in other parts of the globe by bombing the people involved? I do consider them hypocrites. Imperialists if you want to give them the best name possible.
You are right though, if he was Jewish, I’m sure some would question his motives. Same could be said if he was Russian. Or Iranian.
Why does he get a “pass”? I won’t talk about media bias or such but human nature maybe. We consider Libyans “Arabs”, he is an “Arab” and so everyone goes about our business without comment. Even though his concept of involving US military in a regional conflict is (to me) repugnant. And yes, a Jew/Israeli would get negative comments for the exact same suggestion since Arabs and Jews are perceived as different and Israel has interest in the Middle East. Follow? Bombing Arabs is OK to us. Bombing Arabs for Jewish interests in not OK. High quality cognition at work.
Tom, God save us from “liberal, democratic” people that advocate the use of our military to solve problems in other places. Maybe some day we will get a “muscular military response” from the Chinese in response to unrest in a place like… oh… Wisconsin. I’m sure it will be done for humanitarian reasons, to ensure stability in the region, cleared with the UN too.
By the way, for the few affecionados of the US Constitution – there are only TWO allowable purposes for the collection of taxes:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”
Thus, if bombing Khaddafi, preventing malaria in Malawi, or giving grants to college students does not provide for the common defense or general (common) welfare, it CANNOT BE DONE WITH TAX MONEY. Unfortunately, Walid, Dubya, Huck, Sarah, Hillary, McCain, and Barack don’t give a hoot about the Constitution.