This article about Rashid Khalidi in the New York Times bothers at so many levels. Let me start first with my premise: that no Arab or Muslim or any person who cares about peace and justice should try to cover up for Barack Obama. It is not only due to our understanding of the nature of the American political system (which runs itself by itself, as Richard Nixon once famously observed, no matter which party is in power) but also becasue Obama--more than Fox News--has been responsible with his silence for the climate of prejudice and bigotry against Arabs and Muslims in the US during this campaign. He could have in one speech rebutted all these horrible claims, and it is ironic that Colin Powell (a Republican) was the one who set the record straight on these matters. Also, for those who are awaiting something from Obama on the Middle East, don't try to guess too much. We know his team: basically, Middle East policy will move from the hands of Elliott Abrams into the hands of Dennis Ross. Is this a cause for celebration? Secondly, why do Arabs need Zionists (preferrably Israeli Zionists) to screen them to determine their humaness: the New York Times had to locate an Israeli student in Israel in order to verify that Rashid is an acceptable human being. Thirdly, why do the Zionist hoodlums succeed in putting moderate Arabs always on the defensive: Rashid here had to stress that he was critical of Arafat (I mean, I detested Arafat not because he was not moderate but because he was too moderate while Rashid was criticing him presumably for not being moderate enough.) And why did Rashid have to say this: "I didn’t endorse killing Israeli soldiers." I did not get that. Am I missing something here? Let me get this straight: the Palestinian people who have been subjected to Zionist terrorism long before the establishment of the Zionist entity (founded on racist principles and on mass violence--and let us not equivocate in stating those simple facts) are asked to refrain from violent self-defense against Israeli civilians AND against Israeli soldiers? What is left for Palestinian resistance, I need to ask. In the past, the Palestinians were asked to only engage in armed struggle agasint Israeli occupation soldiers, and now they are being asked to accept the notion that self-defense agaisnt Israeli occupation soldiers is also terrorism? Are you kidding me here? This when Israeli civilians are armed and have been engaged in pogroms against the Palestinian people since before the founding of the Israeli state? I mean give me a break, as they say. American Zionist professors casually and ferociously endorse every Israeli war on Arab civilians, including that last Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006, and they never feel that they have to explain themsleves and now Rashid has to pledge that he does not want the Palestinian people to engage in self-defense against the occupation soldiers? It is in fact worse: the logical conclusions for such positions taken by moderate Arabs is basically for the Palestinians to accept their subjucation and the mass violence campaign against them silently? And if the Palestinian people speak out agaisnt the occupation--verbal and poetic resistance--moderate Arabs and their Zionist endorsers yell out: oh, no. That is hate speech. The Palestinains can't do that. Don't moderate Arabs see the slippery slopes of such Zionist tactics and ploys? Fourthly, is there no irony here in this article? Those same Zionist fanatics who are defending albeit meekly Rashid are themselves the instigators of the campaign of hate against Joseph Massad? Don't they realize the links between those campaigns? Fifthly, is it not clear that no matter how moderate moderate Arabs are, it will never be enough for the Zionists. It will never be enough unless every moderate Arab tranform himself/herslef into another Walid Shoebat or Khaled Abu Toameh or Muhammad Dahlan (or his lobbyiests in Washington, DC)? Sixthly, and why did the New York Times find it important to note that Rashid's mother is "a Lebanese-American Christian"? What is the point? That his half Lebanese Christian part makes him less dangerous as a Palestinian, just as the half whiteness of Obama makes him less dangerous as a black man? I mean the layers of racism in such articles in the Times are just appalling.