In 1984, when I was cub reporter at the New Republic–and Kinsley was the cub editor–I wrote a piece about that reflexive tendency of Washington journalists to denounce “ideologues of the left and right” (ILAR).  ILAR-bashing, I argued, was usually the indolent scribe’s substitute for the hard work of passing judgment on the facts.

As Kinsley wrote this week.

The “extremists of the right and left” formula generally appeals to newspaper editorialists and the media because it is balanced. And maybe I’m too ideologically blinkered to see the situation clearly. But it seems — in fact, it seems obvious — that the situation is not balanced. Extremists on the right are more responsible for the poisonous ideological atmosphere than extremists on the left, whoever they may be. And extremists on the left have a lot less influence on nonextremists on the left than extremists on the right have on right-wing moderates. Sure, NPR, despite denials, tilts to the left. But not the way Fox News tilts toward the right. Rachel Maddow is no Glenn Beck.

But–my bias for balance is kicking in–I also think David Von Drehle has a fair point in Time. While the right is far more responsible for the legitimization of violence (and the criminally lax gun laws enable it), it has to be said that there is something “not normal” about some of the left/liberal/progressive reaction. The Guardian’s claim that Jared Loughner was “prone to right-wing rants” seems off-base at best. Juan Williams, the affable martyr to NPR, is prone to right-wing rants. Jared Loughner  was more confused than ideological in his rants.

I don’t blame ideologues of the left or right for their prejudices. Anybody who writes online journalism understands the imperative of 1) capturing readers  with 160 characters or less;  for the sake of 2) generating links to other Web sites; which 3) increase the size of the audience. This ardent pursuit of the beloved reader is an exciting and often useful pastime.

But we should not pretend that what we are doing is a normal act of citizenship that deserves emulation. The media provocations in the wake of the Tucson tragedy–the Daily Kos accusations, the Sarah Palin “blood libel” response–were the the normal behavior of public actors seeking attention. These actions are not what most people regard as citizenship. Most people think of citizenship as paying taxes, voting, and obeying the law, not necessarily in that order.

There’s a difference between media provocation and citizenship. We ideologues of the left and right forfeit credibility if we forget the fact.

Taseer’s death deprives Pakistan of a colourful politician with unusual reserves of pluck. More significantly, it signals a worrying reduction in the public space for public figures, who cannot even count on their own police to protect them. The country’s liberals have not felt so isolated since the dark years of the Zia dictatorship in the 1980s.

via The Hindu.

The radicalization of Pakistani society is at the heart of the conflict between Western countries and jihadists, and it is getting worse, not better, as we grow ever more dependent on the Pakistini intelligence services to sustain our over-extended military occupation of Afghanistan.

Remember that the sensational formulations beloved by headline writers like me (“Dubai hit”) will be translated into the more neutral language of Washington.

What I accurately describe as the Dubai hit can also be described as  a counterterrorism operation against an organization designated as “terrorist.” If there was a U.S. role in the assasssination of Mabhouh–and it would not be surprising if there was given the collaboration of American and U.S. military intelligence organizations in the Middle East–then the Obama administration may have a problem.

Rafik Hariri, Lebanese businessman and political leader, slain in 2005. (Wapedia)

The politics of assassination are a more decisive factor than ever in Middle East politics.

This week thousands commemorated the fifth anniversary of the death of  Lebanese billionaire Rafik Hariri who was killed in a huge bomb blast in Beirut on February 13th, 2005. But the United Nations investigation of the crime has since stalled and the feeling that politics is trumping justice is hard to avoid. Hariri’s assassination gave rise to Lebanon’s so-called March 14th Cedar Revolution which brought Syria’s foes to power. Now the demographic and political realities of Lebanon have thwarted the movement and created a new status quo. Hariri’s son, Saad, who followed his father into politics, is calling for reconciliation with the government of Syria, the prime (but not the only) suspect in his father’s murder. As al Jazeera noted:

Re-emerging Syrian influence, the persistence of Hezbollah’s role and internal divisions have all dealt steady blows to the alliance that was brought together by opposition to Damascus.

Is justice possible?

Syria was immediately suspected  in Hariri’s mudrder because of the sheer size and sophistication of the ambush which destroyed Hariri’s motorcade and killed two dozen people. Only an organization with sophisticated planning and weaponry capabilities could have mounted such an attack.  Syria, whose military forces then occupied the country and dominated its political system, had the most reason to fear the Saudi-backed businessman, who was planning to enter politics with the goal of ending the Syrian occupation. Like its neighbors Israel, Syria also has a history of resorting to assassination to protect its interests. The backlash against Syria after the assassination empowered the pro-Western March 14 movement forced Damascus to withdraw its forces.

The initial findings of a special United Nations tribunal lent credence to the suspicions, and four pro-Syrian Lebanese general were detained in connection with the case. But the first prosecutor left the case  and the suspects have been released. In a piece for the New York Times yesterday, Michael Young, a pro-Western columnist for the Beirut Daily Star, blames the second U.N investigator, and all but recommends abandoning the probe rather than let it drag on. His frustration is understandable but his conclusion seems premature, as the investigation continues and new information has continued to emerge.

In a summary of the case yesterday, LeMonde (in French) reported that while decisive proof is lacking, the U.N. investigators have developed evidence implicating Hezbollah, the political/party militia which represents the country’s Shiite majority. The investigators have traced a network of cell phone used by the bombers to Hezbollah officials, Le Monde said.

The alleged role of Hezbollah, first reported by the German newsweekly Speigel Online, last year, does not preclude a Syrian role, as the Hezbollah has long allied itself with Syria. Hezbollah rejects the allegation. Yesterday, the group’s news site, Al Manar, reported President Obama called for justice in the Hariri case in straightfoward terms. Hezbollah is clearly heartened by Saad Hariri’s opening to Syria and his criticism of  Israel.

In short, Rafik Hariri’s rivals for power have benefited from his violent departure and his assailants elude justice.

More details of the hit from Intelligence Online via Haaretz: ten agents participated including three women, all traveling on European passports.

“It is no secret that America, Israel and European countries are seeking to impede Iran’s nuclear plans, overtly and covertly. Yet the assassination theory was widely dismissed. The professor’s known works on particle and theoretical physics did not seem central to Iran’s nuclear programme. And his name had appeared on a list of Iranian academics favouring Iran’s protest movement. So, ran the prevailing theory, Israel or America had little reason to kill him, though Iranian hardliners may have wanted to do so.

But listen to the whispers of Western spies and diplomats, and the Iranian regime may turn out to be right. Well-placed sources in two Western countries now say the professor was “one of the most important people involved in the programme.”

This is lightly sourced but The Economist is veddy conservative and wouldn’t indict Western powers lightly. This remains a most puzzling case.

More than a few commentators, and the Iranian government,  blamed Israel for the remote control bombing that killed an Iranian nuclear socientist in January. Friends of Israel did not seem bothered by the allegation. In Haaretz, Yossi Melman attributed his murder to “opponents of Iran’s nuclear program.”

Israel acted in a similar fashion during the 1960s against German scientists working to develop missiles in Egypt, and during the 1970s against various scientists. These included Egyptians and the Canadian scientist Gerald Bull who worked on Iraq’s nuclear and missile projects under Saddam Hussein.

But Frontline’s Tehran Bureau, came out with a better-sourced narrative last month, reportings that  Ali-Mohammadi was supporter of the Iran’s reformist Green Movement, was knowledgeable about the dual-use technologies, and interested in visiting the West.

In sum, the new information on Professor Ali-Mohammadi’s background and the circumstances surrounding his murder, and the fact that he had turned against the hardliners and had become a strong supporter of the Green Movement, all point in one direction: the likelihood that he was killed by hardliners terrified by the prospect that he might disclose information on Iran’s nuclear program.

This is hardly the final word on a murky crime but it has more more convincing reporting to back it up.

Israels has not denied responsibility and there’s no denying extrajudicial summary justice  is a tool of U.S. and Israeli decisionmakers. Hamas says it is not effective.. DebkaFile, the voice of Zionist militarism, says 13 more Hamas leaders have been targeted. While Hamas debates whether it should get into the international assassination business, the group hopes the Dubai police will act.