Abeer Allam, or The Female Version of Hassan Fattah: House Arabs in the New York Times. I admit it. I do read very closely what Arabs-in-residence at the New York Times write. I know the rules. Not only do those individuals have to adhere to the "standards" of bias at the Times, but they also have to--in order to stay and to proceed and be promoted--go even farther. They have to prove their political "loyalty." They have to prove that they are more supportive of US and Israeli wars and occupations, and that they are more opposed to US and Israeli enemies than the other "regular" writers at the Times. Notice now Abeer Allam. Notice what she wrote today in her dispatch from Sudan: "Analysts in the region feel that Iran is being rewarded for adopting a confrontational approach. Even though Iran has supported terrorist groups and defied the West's admonition to abandon its nuclear program, Arab countries fear that the United States may cut a deal with Iran that further weakens Arab influence in Iraq." What is noteworthy is this. First, she offers opinions that most other "regular" New York Times correspondents would generally refrain from making. They are too opinionated to be appear in a dispatch usually. Secondly, notice that she talks about "analysts in the region." They are unnamed, and thus can be used to offer whatever points of view. The analysts "feel" she tells you. It is "their feelings." And notice that Allam proceeds to render a categorical judgment about Iran's behavior: that Iran is adopting a "confrontational approach." That is an editorial and opinionated judgment. No regular foreign dispatch would say that US or Israel is adopting a "confrontational approach". I can't even imagine that a "regular" New York Times correspondent would get away saying that even Iran is "adopting a confrontational approach." But House Arabs can get away with more editorializing just as Fouad Ajami gets away with saying things and making generalizations about Arabs and Muslims that no other regional expert would be allowed to make about the people in the region that she/he studies. And then she says that Iran "has supported terrorist groups." She is talking, presumably, about Hamas and Hizbullah. This particular phrase got my attention. I will not get into what is terrorism and what is not, but her clear designation of those groups as "terrorist" in fact violates the very standards of The New York Times, which sometimes add that these groups are considered terrorist by the US or Israeli government. But Allam was permitted to settle the matter, to judge all those groups, Hamas, Hizbullah, and more, as terrorist. But the "indigenous experts" of the Times can get away with more. They can soon decide to call all Palestinians "terrorists". In that sense, I don't view the matter of hiring the handful of Arabs at the New York Times or the Washington Post (look at Nora Boustany and her fluff and horrible pieces) as progress, or as a step in some right direction. On the contrary, those hired will be examined (politically) and they will only be approved if they go beyond the "standards" of the New York Times. And then she adds that Iran "defied the West's admonition to abandon its nuclear program". How dare Iran? Israel of course did not defy "West's admonition" to abandon its nuclear program. And notice how defying "the West's admonition" sounds as if it is a crime, or a violation of international law. Such are the rules for House Arabs of the New York Times. Good night.