This and that

My column last week about "giving up on Israel" has gone viral – as we say in the Internet biz.

Not since a column I wrote called "Myths of the Middle East" back in 2000 have I witnessed this kind of reverberation. Already, the latest one has been translated into several other languages, referenced by many other writers, reprinted in dozens of publications internationally and e-mailed around the world to, I suspect, millions.

TRENDING: Public school has failed American kids: Student with 0.13 GPA ranks near top half of class

Like "Myths of the Middle East," "I give up on Israel" seems to have hit a chord – including with hundreds of Israelis who have written to me, along with many thousands of others around the world.

When you write as many words as I do (I believe I am the only serious daily news columnist on the Internet), you're bound to hit a few home runs. You're also bound to antagonize some people – like the folks at IslamOnline.

A Canadian freelance journalist for that thoughtful publication wanted to be sure the entire Muslim world knew that I should have a perpetual target on my back, writing: "WorldNetDaily.com, a website that has featured commentary by writer Joseph Farah urging the killing of 100 non-combatant Palestinian adults for every slain Israeli, regularly uses the terms Islamic or Muslim lobby to refer to advocacy groups trying to combat Islamophobia through education and awareness campaigns."

Now, first of all, let me say that I would be oh-so-happy if the Muslim world limited its activity to "lobbying." Lobbying doesn't bother me. Beheadings bother me. I didn't know lobbying was a dirty word in Arabic. I guess it's OK to kill thousands of innocent people, but not OK to "lobby" under the Muslim ethic.

But, in the interest of fairness and accuracy, journalistic traits not emphasized at IslamOnline, I thought I would revisit what I actually wrote about Israeli retribution for terrorism. Judge for yourself if I wrote what the paid propagandist of radical Islam claims I wrote in "A real peace plan."

Speaking of judging for yourself, I thought you might like to make the call as to whether WND was plagiarized by a New Jersey radio station recently.

On May 16, WND published a story about MySpace.com providing a forum for budding young terrorists.

Coincidentally, we are to believe, a reporter by the name of Martin Di Caro of Millennium Radio (NJ105.1) three days later broke the exact same story! It even included language identical to the WND report. Both stories included this unusual phrase: "A MySpace blog called 'Soldiers of Allah' features the hard-edged tones of rap to call Muslim faithfulness in titles such as 'No Compromise' and 'Bring Islam Back.'"

No, there was no credit to WND in the story – none, nada, zip, zilch. When confronted with this coincidence, Eric Scott, vice president of Millennium Radio of New Jersey explained: "As is the practice of all news organizations, Millennium Radio regularly monitors a variety of print, Internet and broadcast sources. If a national story has a New Jersey angle, one of our reporters will often pursue that lead and develop an independent report for our New Jersy audience. That was the case here.

"The story posted on our site was the result of independent confirmation and investigation. Among the sources used to develop the report were the New Jersey State Police, New Jersey Office of Counter Terrorism, MySpace.com, noted international terrorism expert Harvey Kushner and others.

"The similarities between the texts posted on our website and on WorldNetDaily.com were unintentional and I have addressed this issue with the reporter involved. The stories will be reposted on our website with a source reference crediting WorldNetDaily.com."

To date, however, all you will find if you search for the story on the station's website is this big old "Oops!" Which raises the question: If the reporter did his job so well and there was nothing wrong with his reporting, why did the news organization take the story down?

I think I can answer that – my threat of a copyright infringement lawsuit.

Sometimes I can't please anyone. A recent column I wrote about George Bush's failings on illegal immigration brought the following two responses:

• Leah Oster of Plantation, Fla.: "OK Meathead, just exactly what has (sic) your leftist creeps done to stop illegal immigration. It seems in their eight years of selling us down the drain, they could have stopped this situation, if they are so great."

• Andrew Kelch, out from under some rock: "I know that my opinion doesn't mean much to someone like you, but you should stop playing games and make a public appearance wearing your hood. What better than your KKK outfit to cover up that porn star-looking mustache you still wear? That's only, of course, if your Nazi uniform hasn't come out of dry cleaning yet, either would suit you well."

Do you get the picture? From the same commentary, I am accused of being both a Nazi klansman and a leftist.

Here's another love letter I received from Greg Irwin in Japan: "I was taken to your site by a news article on Yahoo. I feel very sorry for your intolerant and sad attitudes towards gay rights. I guess you do not 'get' other people that are not exactly like you. It's sad, and I pray for the day that you will open your mind and realize it is a big world out there with people of all shapes, sizes and sexual orientations. I hope that someday you will get the opportunity to learn more about this sensitive subject."

To which I replied: "Dear Greg: Do you think people have rights based on the way they behave?

"If homosexuals have rights based on their sexual behavior and preferences, do you believe those who practice incest have those same rights?

"Where do you think rights come from, by the way?

"Are they simply privileges extended by the changing mores of time? Are they contingent on popularity with the masses?

"Would really be interested in your thoughts ..."

Not surprisingly, no thoughts were forthcoming from Greg.

Lastly, let me leave you with a thought from Ken Raymond. The rhetorical question he asks is worthy of pondering: "Why would the Mexicans who left Mexico because of the corruption there, want to return Aztlan to Mexico? It just doesn't make any sense. Is there something wrong with their brain?"