When a tragic story like this unfolds on TV, you just want no Arab to be around that story. You know that no matter who was responsible, unfounded speculations and premature conclusions will be circulated to the effect that some Arabs or Muslims are guilty. In fact, some news reports admitted that this was the first suspicion of the police before the sighting of an "Asian student" as suspect was confirmed. Notice that there will be no stories about his religious faith; it is not relevant when the religion of the suspect is not Islamic. You also now that momentarily, Stephen Emerson will be on TV talking about some secret Muslim meeting in Oklahoma City, and that Noah Feldman will soon regale audiences with references to Sunnis-versus-Shi`ites, and to his role in "helping draft" the Iraqi constiution. Alas they did not have a chance. But then came Jamal Barghuti, and his moment in the limelight. Somebody wrote to me criticizing Wolf Blitzer for brining up the fact that Barghuti is from a "prominent Palestinian family." (I hate the notion of a "prominent" family--it unfailing means wealthy (in the past or in the present)). But no, Blitzer was less guilty than Barghuti, who in every interview that I saw had to mention something along the line of "I came here to be away from the violence of the Middle East" or words to that effect. He kept referring to violence in the Middle East or to "something like this happening in the Middle East." No, Mr. Barghuti. This does not happen in the Middle East: school shootings are rare in the Middle East except what Israeli occupation troops manage to do in occupied Palestine. That would have been relevant to mention. Instead, you merely reinforced stereotypes about the violence to the Middle East. But then again: those who reinforce stereotypes about the Middle East extend their moments of glory in the media's spotlight, and become instantly quotable.