Scott Sherman Watch: Why Arab Wogs Should Behave If I were to use the journalistic methods of Scott Sherman I would easily say that I heard from an "unimpeachable source" that his difficulty with truthfulness is not new. He calls my friend Joseph Massad "a man who favors rigid thinking and coarse rhetoric." Was Sherman assigned by the Nation magazine to pyscho-analyze Joseph or to investigate the war on Middle East studies at Columbia by Zionist hoodlums from outside the university? I never recall the Nation calling Ariel Sharon a "man who favors rigid thinking." But then again, the Nation--given its admiration of Oslo process and its publishing of ads by ultra-Likud groups, may very well be a fan of Ariel Sharon. And among the negative labels that Sherman affixes to Joseph (as a stigma) is "proud." Proud! How dare he be proud? How dare Arabs, and Palestinians in particular, be proud when they are supposed to be submissive, humiliated, and subservient to their masters? How dare this Arab professor be proud when US war is supposed to have settled the matter, and humiliated all Arabs? Why can't Joseph be like other Arab wogs who act submissively and meekly, and only speak when spoken to, and always in respectful tones, and always while observing the etiquette of superior polite Western societies who take strong offense to any criticisms of Zionism. Why can't Joseph be like other Arab wogs in the US who beg for the US to spread Western civilization throughout the region. How dare Joseph not succumb to the pressures, and consider Israel a "light unto the nations"? How dare Joseph not accept the Oslo process? Sherman also takes Joseph on for being "uncompromising" on the Palestinian question. Uncompromising? Compare to whom? To Israel? To the David Project? To Campus Watch? Uncompromising? The victims are supposed to be compromising about their victimizers? Ya, why cannot the victims of brutal occupation be compromising? Why don't they lick the boots of the occupation soldiers, and beg for more civilizing missions?