When The New York Times feigns concern for Arabs: don't read further. It is way too touching. The only time the New York Times or the Western press express sympathy for Arabs, is when they are killed by other Arabs, especially if "honor" is invoked. Look at this sentence from the NYT: "So-called honor killings among Muslims are a phenomenon across the Middle East". First, this is not peculiar to Muslims nor to the Middle East. Read the book Republic of Cousins to see evidence of that in Europe--southern Europe especially. Also, what about "passion crimes" in the West? But most importantly, women are killed in US cities--by MEN--at rates much higher than all honor crimes in the Middle East combined. So when women are killed by men the New York Times barely notice if 1) it occurs in the West; 2) if "honor" is not invoked by killers. OK. At least we understand the standards of the Times. And then look at this ridiculous sentence: "The Israeli police and courts have caught and convicted some of the killers; unlike the laws in some Arab societies, Israel’s do not make allowances for such acts." Oh, really, o New York Times? That must be because 1) Israel is a feminist state, unlike all other states; 2) because Israel cares so deeply about the lives of Arabs. How nice of that state? I never knew that until I read this article. And in passing, the NYT says: "Ramla was once an entirely Arab town, but most of its residents fled or were exiled during the 1948 war." Oh, no. The residents of Ramlah were ALL forcibly and violently expelled by Israeli occupation troops led by Itzhak Rabin (he admitted such in the Hebrew edition of his memoirs, but that section was deleted from the English language edition lest support for Israel among American leftists suffers). And I have one last question: Israeli manages to kill Arabs almost every other day in Palestine: why no profile of those victims? Or do I really have to wonder or is it not way too obvious?