The stand-off between the Israel Defense Force and the Palestinians holed up in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem continues, but progress has been made. According to the Associated Press, 26 Palestinians trapped in the church have been released.

Meanwhile, the month-long siege of Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat's offices in Ramallah appears to be within sight. "British and U.S. officials met Palestinian negotiators late Tuesday to discuss procedures for transferring six Palestinians wanted by Israel to a Palestinian prison in Jericho," according to the A.P.

The violence continues, nonetheless. "In Gaza, three Palestinians, including a two-year-old girl, were killed when Israeli tanks opened fire near the Gaza-Egypt border late Tuesday, witnesses and a Palestinian doctor said," A.P. reports tonight. "Israeli military sources said militants set off an explosive and soldiers fired a tank shell, hitting one of the bombers. Exchanges of fire continued as Israeli tanks moved into the Rafah refugee camp, residents said."

Why this had to involve the killing of a toddler was not immediately made clear.

The IDF's assault on Hebron apparently has ended. Israel said IDF forces arrested 150 Palestinians in the village, including 52 on "Israel's wanted list." Why the remaining 98 Palestinians were arrested was, in a phrase we have tired of writing, not immediately clear.

Despite today's evacuations, some 200 people remain inside the Church of the Nativity, revered as the birthplace of Jesus Christ, including Palestinian "gunmen," policemen, and civilians, as well as "Christian clerics, monks, and nuns who said they are staying put to protect the shrine" and whose well-being is apparently of no concern whatsoever to the IDF.

Was someone asleep on the editors' desk at the New York Post last night?

We can't helping thinking such was the case, having read today's column by Susan Konig, "Blame the Bishops, Not the Gays."

Konig's essay -- temperate, rational, and judicious -- is so far from the usual fare on the Post's op-ed pages that we thought for a moment we were reading a different newspaper entirely.

Aside from a rather patronizing view of the protesters who recently gathered in front of St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York, Konig presents a solid and reasonable argument that the Catholic Church's problem is not one of homosexuality.

"Many [of the demonstrators] were Catholic," Konig says, "and they spoke calmly and persuasively to reporters to get their message out. Their central complaint involved a sermon from the pulpit of St. Pat's by Msgr. Eugene Clark."

"Speaking out on the day the cardinals traveled to Rome, the monsignor intimated that gays were part of the problem by saying homosexuality was 'a disorder and, as a disorder, should prevent a person from being ordained as a priest,' " she wrote.

"Should gays be banned from the priesthood?" she asks. The response seems to come easily: "A calling is a calling, and many people can be called. The fact is, there are gay priests -- good men, celibate men. Just as there are heterosexual priests who are good men, celibate men."

Konig -- correctly -- rejects the notion that celibacy causes priests (and presumably those in religious orders, including monks, brothers, and nuns) to become sexually deviant? "One has nothing to do with another," she writes.

Pointing to the painfully obvious, an exercise mandatory given the current controversy, "Lots of men and women -- in and out of the church -- lead celibate lives, either by circumstance or by choice," she writes. "It doesn't turn them into child abusers."

Exactly!

"So the problem isn't homosexuality. The problem isn't celibacy. The problem is not one of giving in to human weakness," she adds, "because child abuse is not a human weakness -- it's a predatory crime."

Thus the problem is cause by predators and those who protected them. [Ed.: Emphasis added.]

Pointing to easiliy the most extreme example of the Church's failure to exercise even the most reasonable degree of oversight over its priests, viz. the case of Paul Shanley, Konig argues, "When a priest goes to the founding meeting of NAMBLA [North-American Man-Boy Love Association] or is repeatedly and fraudulently reassigned to parishes where he is in contact with children after being identified as an abuser, then church leaders need only point to themselves, and not the gay community, to figure out where the problem lies."

Why it is so difficult for soi-disant conservatives and orthodox Catholics to accept this simple premise is a question for the ages.

Unfortunately, their failure to recognize the reality in front of them raises the very real possibility that the Church's reaction to the current crisis is apt to be one that aggravates, rather than ameliorates, the conflict that today simmers below the surface from Rome to New York to Buenos Aires to Sydney and to Jersusalem.

"Facing strong Israeli objections, Secretary-General Kofi Annan is considering disbanding a U.N. fact-finding team that was to look into Israel's military assault on the Jenin refugee camp, a senior U.N. official said Tuesday," according to the latest Associated Press report.

As has been reported, the Israeli Cabinet decided today not to cooperate with a United Nations inquiry until the government's six demands were met regarding the mandate and composition of the team. "The U.N. team, which was to have been in Jenin Saturday, remained in Geneva for a third day," the A.P. reported.

"Since it appears from today's Cabinet statement by Israel that the difficulties in the way of deployment of the fact-finding team will not be resolved any time soon, the secretary-general is minded to disband the team,'' U.N. Undersecretary-General Kieran Prendergast told reporters following a briefing at the Security Council.

Prendergast told representatives of the members of the Security Council that Annan was inclined toward disbanding the three-member team, which since its creation has been joined by several other advisers.

Israel's refusal to accept the fact-finding mission headed for Jenin sets up the prospects for fireworks at the U.N. Security Council, which will consider whether or not to disband the mission at a meeting tomorrow.

We cannot emphasize more that the U.N. fact-finding mission that Israel has cooling its heels in Geneva, Switzerland, was established in large part at the behest of the United States, Israel's most loyal and reflexive ally and its largest donor, lender, and loan-backer. Why the Bush administration is tolerating this thumbing of the nose by Tel Aviv is a mystery to us.

"This is a shock for the Palestinian people and for every human being who believes in human rights," the A.P. quotes Ahmed Abdel Rahman, secretary of the Palestinian Cabinet, in reaction to Israel's obstinance.

"The Israelis are playing games,'' said Egypt's U.N. Ambassador Ahmed Aboul Gheit. "They are procrastinating and they are today facing the United Nations and rebuffing the secretary-general's position as well as the Security Council.''

Let's not be surprised. This is a position with which Israel has been comfortable for more than 50 years, flagrantly violating numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions, ignoring the interests of its closest ally, and interfering with any reasonable investigation of its violation of basic human rights in the occupied territories.

Strange, isn't it, that the Israelis are shocked and hurt when they are criticized for ignoring world opinion?

The Sharon government may consider this a victory, but they would be ill-advised to do so. This is the type of shameful, yet thoroughly characteristic, display of arrogance, obstinance, and stupidity we have come to expect from the current Israeli regime.

Don't miss David Horowitz's hilarious self-defense, "Brocked Again," on FrontPageMag.com today.

As we discussed here on April 27, one of Horowitz's trademark "gotcha" articles, this one about an alleged lie in David Brock's latest book, Blinded by the Right, has been proved to be cut of whole cloth.

Similarly, Andrew Sullivan's David Brock "lie," also discussed here on April 27, has been shown to be the result of a misreading or mishearing or mistranscribing, what have you, of Brock's April 25 appearance on CNN's Crossfire.

Sullivan, at least, had the decency to publicly apologize for his error, albeit grudgingly.

No such concession from Horowitz.

Rather than retreating, Horowitz, in typical fashion, lashes out, with anger and hostility at "sewers of the Internet," including Media Whores Online (Hey, what about The Rittenhouse Review?), at David Brock, and at Chad Conway, the Free Press editor who proved Horowitz's charge of prevarication on the part of Brock to be untrue.

In his latest missive, it's clear that Horowitz is angry. So angry that his punch line elides into self-parody: "And I am sick and tired of this 'gotcha' tic among the politically oh so correct," whines Horowitz.

This from a man who in both his radical and right-wing incarnations has been feeding on "gotcha" tactics for nearly 40 years, denouncing in often crude and vulgar language, any politician, educator, writer, or pundit who dares deviate from whatever orthodoxy prevails in his mind that day.

So, Horowitz, caught in his own lie, fights back, argues -- over the course of no less than 1,600 words -- that it's not Brock's little (disproved) "lies" that matter, it's the bigger lies for which Brock should be held accountable.

"The first lie is that Brock was so revolted by the career he had made for himself out of gossipy sleaze and character assassination, which had earned him a million dollars and media stardom, that he decided to retire from such sordid business and reform his journalistic act," writes Horowitz, who himself knows a thing or two about changing one's political stripes -- and how lucrative such a change can be.

"The second Big Lie [Ed.: Note all-caps this time.] ... is that Brock's decision to reform was triggered by a realization that the conservatives who had supported and defended him (and helped to make him rich) were in fact closet homophobes," adds the former left-wing radical.

Interesting, we think, that Horowitz twice makes mention of Brock's financial success. We're not sure what to make of this because we can fairly assume Horowitz is doing rather well for himself in his various efforts in the fields of publishing, speaking, and grabbing foundation funds.

The self-defense Horowitz puts forward is the typical discombobulated and, dare we say it - hysterical -- diatribe that we have come to expect from the former friend of Tom Hayden, Huey P. Newton, and the Black Panthers, and current political consort of Ann Coulter, Midge Decter, and Laura Ingraham.

Horowitz relies on several disreputable tactics to try to get out of the trap he set for himself with his slur -- "The problem with the gays is they're hysterical" -- including a bad memory, forgetfulness, establishing a dubious context in which the slur must be examined, and, pathetically, putting thoughts in Conway's head and words in Conway's mouth.

"I do not think what I said in the context constituted an anti-gay slur. I don't think Chad [Conway] does either, despite what he now says," maintains Horowitz.

"In Chad's letter he does not recall having any reaction at the time we had the conversation that would indicate he took it as a serious slur," continues Horowitz. "He did not say, for example, as one might expect had he felt that way, 'Yes[,] David[,] I am gay, and you shouldn't have said that.'" [Ed.: Emphasis and correct punctuation added.]

"[Conway] didn't react that way, because it wasn't an anti-gay slur and both of us knew it wasn't. Nor was it said in any way that could be taken as hostile or denigrating towards gays," Horowitz says with complete confidence, despite earlier contending that he barely remembers having the conversation or what the discussion preceding the slur was about.

Note how quick Horowitz is to presume how Conway should have responded to the slur. There could be any number of reasons why Conway didn't respond in the fashion Horowitz would have liked him to: perhaps to avoid provocation or a confrontation (Horowitz runs on a short fuse), perhaps out of embarrassment for Horowitz, or maybe simply out of a desire to move the conversation on toward other topics. Or could it be Conway just wanted to get off the phone with Horowitz? (Who could blame him?)

Horowitz proceeds to let it fly, using a familiar Jewish stereotype to try to make his case: "Let me put it another way. Are Jews pushy? Yes. Are all Jews pushy? No. Is someone who says, 'The problem with Jews is that they're pushy' guilty of an anti-Semitic slur?"

Get this: "The answer is that it depends on the context, the emotional tone with which the statement was made, and the tenor and quality of the speakers' [sic] relationships to [sic] actual Jews," says Horowitz.

Horowitz cannot possibly be serious here. "The problem with Jews is that they're pushy" is prima facie evidence of anti-Semitism and Horowitz knows it. In fact, we doubt Horowitz would have it any other way, nor would we.

Were any writer to submit an article containing such remarks to the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the New Republic, First Things, National Review, or the Weekly Standard, among numerous other of the cacophonous voices of debate in this country, s/he would be at best rebuffed and at worst black-listed.

Horowitz knows this.

Next, Horowitz questions Conway's motives: "Why has Chad written this letter? Perhaps Chad wants to stay friends with David Brock. Perhaps Chad's liberal politics make him want to defend Brock's book, which he apparently thinks the world of now that he's read it," sneers Horowitz.

"It doesn't really matter. His letter just adds his testimony to the fact that I am not anti-gay or 'homophobic,' that I am in fact supportive of gays, and that David Brock is a liar," Horowitz concludes in a breathtakingly dishonest non sequitur.

No apology. No ground ceded. Accusations leveled. Reputations smeared. Just another day at the office for David Horowitz.

"The Israeli military said yesterday that it could remain in Hebron for several days to search for an estimated 300 suspected Islamic terrorists, despite U.S. opposition to the incursion, which killed nine Palestinians and wounded about 20," reports the Philadelphia Inquirer today.

And despite the recent deal to free Yasir Arafat, a development expected to come to fruition later this week, "Israel's military operations in the West Bank appeared far from over," the Inquirer reports.

"We are only in the beginning of the mission," said Col. Moshe Hager Lau, deputy field commander of the Israeli forces that pushed into the Palestinian sections of Hebron, in reference to Israel's month-long incursion into Palestinian territories. "We will continue until we finish off the list of all those that we want." [Ed.: Emphasis added.]

"Finish off the list"?

What exactly is going on in Hebron and elsewhere on the West Bank? A military operation or an assassination campaign?

We remember a time when this strategy was characterized by the term "Death Squads," as in "Right-Wing Salvadoran Death Squads" and "Right-Wing Guatemalan Death Squads."

We cannot help but wonder why the term has yet to be applied to the Israeli Defense Force.

At least the IDF appears to be targeting the right people for assassination, putting aside for a moment the fall-out on innocent Palestinian civilians. "Abdulaziz Rantiesie, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza, said one of the men the Israelis killed in Hebron, Tarek al-Dufashi, was a mastermind of Saturday's attack on Adora," according to the Inquirer.

The U.S. State Department has expressed its opposition to the Israeli move into Hebron and has called on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "to complete the withdrawals of Israeli troops from all of the Palestinian-ruled areas of the West Bank that they had assaulted," the paper reports.

Once again, however, American foreign policy concerns are ignored. We suppose praise is in order for President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell. They have shown remarkable patience and restraint as Sharon flaunts his campaign of destruction and assissination across the West Bank, wreaking havoc on the Palestinian Authority's already tenuous civil and political infrastructure and killing hundreds of Palestinians in the process. Meanwhile a recession looms in the region, a prospect that has Israel asking the U.S. Congress for still more money to fund its malfunctioning socialist economy and military complex.

Praise for patience goes to U.N. Secretary General Koffi Annan, as Israel, "the only democracy in the Middle East," keeps his fact-finding team at bay with an ever-increasing list of demands, including, as of today, that Israel select which soldiers would be interviewed the the U.N. team, should they ever be allowed to approached the village of Jenin.

Patience, however, is not always a virtue, a fact that Sharon, Bush, and Annan would do well to remember. The ferocious assault on the West Bank, which we have learned has only just begun, cannot continue indefinitely, and yet an unending campaign appears to be Israeli policy. This misguided, dangerous, and yes, immoral, strategy already has eroded Israel's standing in this country, ill-will the country cannot afford at this critical time.

The clock is ticking, gentlemen.

The Wall Street Journal this morning reports that Bernard J. (“Bernie”) Ebbers, the embattled chief executive officer of WorldCom Corp., resigned yesterday and that a public announcement of his departure expected today. [Ed.: Link requires subscription.]

Ebbers’s decision came, at least in part, as a result of pressure from WorldCom’s outside directors, who were frustrated with the company’s stock price and unsettled by the controversy surrounding Ebbers’s $366 million personal loan from WorldCom’s coffers and the ongoing investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

WorldCom’s common stock, which traded as high as $64.50 in June 1999, closed at $2.35 yesterday, a decline at 96 percent.

Ebbers built his career and reputation as an acquirer of dozens of small telecommunications companies, a strategy that propelled his tiny LDDS Communications Corp., of Jackson, Miss., to the upper echelons of the phone business. WorldCom, as the company was then known, entered the big leagues in 1997 by acquiring MCI Communications Corp. Then in 1999, WorldCom attempted to acquire competitor Sprint Corp., a deal squashed by federal regulators.

Ironically, the acquisitions that created WorldCom as we now know it are the primary subject of the SEC’s inquiry, as is the loan WorldCom made to Ebbers to cover margin calls on other loans that were backed with company stock. (The $366 million loan was extended to Ebbers to cover debts he had accumulated from personal business investments, obligations that likely would have forced the CEO to sell his WorldCom shares, an outcome that would have put considerable pressure on the stock price.)

Ebbers will be succeeded by John Sidgmore, WorldCom’s vice chairman, according to the Journal, the man who for years ran WorldCom’s Internet business, UUNet.

The question now is whether Sidgmore will sell WorldCom or invest the time, energy, and money needed to rebuild the firm. In his interview with the Journal, Sidgmore dismissed talk of bankruptcy and emphasized that the company has plenty of cash.

WorldCom’s latest attempt to restructure the firm, separating the company’s consumer and small-business operations, conducted through MCI, into a tracking stock, was a dismal failure.

Already, Wall Street’s research analysts are being taken to task for failing to grasp the implications of WorldCom’s growth-by-acquisitions strategy and for their inability to understand the company’s financial statements, all the while praising Ebbers and Co. for their brilliance.

As the Journal puts it, “During the company’s heyday, few analysts complained that the frenetic pace of acquisitions made it difficult to accurately gauge the company’s health, a task also complicated by WorldCom’s reliance on confusing pro-forma figures in its financial reports.”

Of course, “Now they are singing a different tune. ‘You always had this question about whether WorldCom was a house of cards,’ says Michael Bowen, an analyst at Soundview Technology Group in Old Greenwich, Conn.” Hmm….Wonder if Bowen ever wrote that in one of his reports about the company.

“‘Everything was pro forma. It drove us nuts,’” Bowen told the Journal. Maybe, but we’ll bet Bowen parroted those figures in his notes to clients.

“He said analysts had trouble getting ‘a clear shot at what the growth really was,’” according to the Journal. No doubt, but that requires analysts to ask the right questions and management to provide correct and thorough answers. We would have no difficulty believing that was not the case here.

More important, the fall of Ebbers means another “legend,” another “genius,” another “visionary,” has gone by the wayside. Ebbers joins the 1990s Hall of Shame, already populated with the likes of Ken Lay, Andy Fastow, Jeff Skilling, and Jeff McMahon of Enron Corp.; David Duncan of Arthur Andersen & Co.; Todd Krizelman and Stephan Paternot of TheGlobe.com Inc.; Alfred Taubman and Diana Brooks of Sotheby’s Holdings Inc.; Gary DiCamillo of Polaroid Corp.; Gary Winnick and Tom Casey of Global Crossing Ltd.; Ellen Hancock of Exodous Communications Inc.; Jerome York and Paul Allaire of Xerox Corp.; Bill Schrader of PSINet Inc.; Jon Ledecky of U.S. Office Products Co.; David Wetherell of CMGi Inc.; Henry Blodget of Merrill Lynch & Co.; and Mary Meeker of Morgan Stanley.

“The voice is soft and kind, but the message is dark and fierce.”

When a newspaper article starts with a sentence like that, we duck for cover. It’s a sure sign of high moral dudgeon ahead.

No disappointment in this latest instance. The voice and the message being those of Elie Wiesel, public speaker, author, and Nobel laureate, who made an appearance in Cherry Hill, N.J., Sunday.

Before speaking to a large crowd assembled at Temple Emanuel, Wiesel told a group of reporters that the sympathy he previously had for the Palestinian people has evaporated, reports Kristen A. Graham in a not particularly well written article in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer.

Now, we haven't known Wiesel to be a particularly vocal Palestinian symphathizer. A thorough source of the Internet reveals scant evidence of such concern. Indeed, more common are Wiesel's protestations that silence regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is his most appropriate response.

"As a Jew living in the United States, I have long denied myself the right to intervene in Israel's internal debates," Wiesel wrote in an essay, "Jerusalem in My Heart," published in the New York Times in January 2001. "I consider Israel's destiny mine as well, since my own memory is bound up with its history. But the politics of Israel concern me only indirectly....[A]s I am not an Israeli citizen, I am not directly involved."

"This behavior at times results in 'open letters' and acerbic articles scolding me for not protesting whenever Israeli police or soldiers react excessively to violence from Palestinian soldiers or civilians," wrote Wiesel. "I rarely answer."

The morality of silence, let's call it, though it's an odd stance for the world's favorite Holocaust survivor.

“The suicide killers overshadow anything good that has been done,” said Wiesel. “Those who glorify them are not my friends, not my allies.” The assumption here being, of course, that all Palestinians support suicide missions, an aspersion upon an entire culture that is shocking in its simplicity and vulgarity.

Wiesel maintains he supports the establishment of a Palestinian state, but the obstacle in the way of this goal is embodied in the person -- and solely in the person -- of Yasir Arafat.

Indeed, Wiesel said “he would lead the charge to take back Arafat’s Nobel Peace Prize if such a move were possible,” according to the Inquirer.

Helpfully, the 1986 winner of the Noble Peace Prize offered two suggestions for achieving peace in the region: First, “an injunction from all Middle East Islamic leaders calling for a stop to suicide bombings,” and second, “a removal of the books that teach hate to Palestinian children.”

That would be a start, we suppose. But can this man be serious? Wiesel says Israel is fighting for its very existence and yet the only suggestions he can offer for resolving this 54-year-old conflict are platitudes of the sort that elicit ovations on "Oprah."

Can the level of discourse on this matter sink any lower?

Still no response from David Horowitz to the shame of having been caught in a nasty lie about author David Brock.

Horowitz's April 18 article, "David Brock: Professional Liar," published on FrontPageMag.com, has been proved to be a distortion of the facts presented, at best, and an outright fabrication, at worst.

(See "IS DAVID BROCK A LIAR? - PART ONE David Horowitz: Hysterical Hetero," below, April 27.)

Surely this is the first time Horowitz has been at a loss for words.

We had pretty much forgotten about Fidel Castro. Apparently, quite a number of others have, too.

Kevin G. Hall, writing for the Knight Ridder News Service, puts it in perspective: "Twenty years ago, Fidel Castro was sending troops to Africa, funneling arms to rebels in Central America, and charming socialists the world over. If there was a battle between capitalism and communism, the charismatic Cuban in the green fatigues was somehow involved.

"Castro's place as an icon of a failed 20th-century revolutionary ideology is secure. But in the 21st century, he is fast becoming history.

"Isolated and increasingly irrelevant, Castro is more a pop phenomenon, receiving giddy actors and singers in Havana but playing an ever-smaller role on the world stage and in Latin America."

Unfortunately, Hall doesn't elaborate on the "giddy actors and singers" that have made Havana the latest destination of choice for the hopelessly hip, a phenomenon as revolting as it is predictable.

For a truly bizarre piece about how the ABC television network is allegedly undermining the institution of marriage, take a visit to the Weekly Standard.

"In apparent defiance of the White House, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) says he supports sending an additional $200 million in military aid to Israel," reports Eli Kintisch in the April 26 issue of the Forward.

The funds were originally part of the State Department's emergency 2002 supplemental spending bill, but were cut before the Bush administration's formal submission in March.

" 'Obviously the economy of Israel is under siege,' DeLay, a Texas Republican, said. 'And we need to help them get the terrorists -- and that takes more money.' " Strange, we think, to find a Republican so eager to funnel American funds to one of the most socialist of the world's economies, but that's a topic for another day.

The administration's position is unclear. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told the House Subcommittee on Foreign Operations Appropriations that the administration would not oppose additional funds for Israel. Later, however, officials from the State Department and the Office of Management and Budget said the administration was holding fast to its current proposal, which excludes the $200 million.

Israel is already the recipient of $2.7 billion of U.S. funds this year, of which roughly $2 billion is military aid, according to the Forward's account.

The paper quotes Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington: "Any extra support now would be much appreciated. Israel's economy is suffering due to the expanding defense expenditures and the overall damage on the economy caused by the terrorist acts," he said, apparently unwilling to accept more logical explanations for the recession in Israel, such as restrained economic activity among Israel's major trading partners and a budget bloated by out-dated socialist policies, including payments and subsidies for settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.

"A spokesman for the majority whip said he did not know how DeLay planned to secure the funding," reports the Forward. Translation: DeLay is not sure where spending in the U.S. budget will be cut, or taxes raised, to come up with the $200 million.

"Galvanized by visions of a worldwide assault against Israel and Jews, the pro-Israel lobbying powerhouse known as AIPAC assembled some 5,000 of its members here this week for a yearly convention that turned into a massive show of Jewish political force."

The lunatic, paranoid ravings of some fringe anti-Semitic crank?

Nope. That sentence comes directly from the April 26 edition of the Forward, a prominent Jewish weekly newspaper.

According to the report, the conference, "America and Israel Standing Together Against Terror," assembled by the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, saw numerous speakers praising the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policy and their unequivocal support for Israel. "There has never been a greater friend of Israel in the White House than George W. Bush," former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told attendees in what was either a keynote or a campaign speech.

The message was clear: Everybody line up. " 'There's a dual message here,' said veteran delegate David Mallach, director of the community relations committee of the United Jewish Federation of MetroWest, N.J. 'We're 100% on America's side, and Americans had really better be on our side.' "

It's not clear whether Mallach was speaking about American politicians specifically or American citizens generally, but his remarks sound like those one would expect from the terrorists of the Jewish Defense League, not a "mainstream" political organization that already has Congress in its pocket.

"[T]he mood was undeniably militant," reports the Forward. "On...the last day of the conference, the delegates fanned out over Capitol Hill for hundreds of meetings with senators and representatives, clutching talking points calling for 'additional defense assistance for Israel' and new, tough sanctions legislation against Syria and the Palestinian Authority."

That, presumably, being the same Palestinian Authority whose nascent civil and political structure was all but completely destroyed during Israel's recent three-week military assault on the West Bank.

The Forward happily reports that Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, "scored a telling victory" when AIPAC's executive committee signed on to his proposed amendments to the lobby's "Action Agenda." Klein's amendments include one that calls for the Bush administration to refer to the occupied territories as "disputed territories."

Great. That should help the administration's effort to be at least a superficially impartial broker of any possible agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This is clear and convincing evidence that AIPAC has no intention of supporting a reasonable settlement of the 50-odd-year regional conflict between the Jews and the Palestinians.

Netanyahu, apparently swinging through Washington on his campaign for the prime ministership, "received one standing ovation after another in an impassioned speech that called for worldwide U.S. military action to impose democracy on nations 'infected with the disease' of 'militant Islam.' "

Among those giving the standing ovation were half the members of the U.S. Senate and the "dozens of ambassadors" who attended AIPAC's April 22 banquet, according to the Forward.

The conference was marked by a hostile reaction to dissent from the party line. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, speaking at the banquet, called for "a normal life for Palestinians trying to provide for their families" and "two states, Israel and Palestinian living side by side."

"Both statements were greeted by the crowd with stony silence," according to the report. "And when [Card] boasted that Secretary of State Colin Powell, during his recent Middle East trip, had 'obtained from Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority a clear statement in Arabic strongly condemning all attacks against Israeli civilians,' there was audible hissing from the audience."

As in West Jerusalem, no moderates in Washington either.

"Time was, Ben Krass would gleefully bound from rack to rack to pick out suits for the likes of Joey Bishop or Muhammad Ali, his yellow Rolls-Royce parked out front of the family clothing store on South Street. But now, it is a different story for Philadelphia's best-known haberdasher -- the unabashed fan of polyester whose over-the-top television commercials for years put the 'k' in crass," writes Michael Klein in today's Philadelphia Inquirer.

"Ben Krass," the owner of the store, "wants out," Klein reports. "He is selling Krass Bros., the 'Store of the Stars,' down to the bare walls. The walls, too. In typical retailing style, Krass has priced the store to go. Not at $2 million. At $1,999,000."

No surprise, really. "The sales floor -- whose walls are lined with promotional glossies of such long-ago names as the Dovells, the Dixie Hummingbirds, Birdie Castle and his Stardusters, and the Ink Spots -- has seemed to be growing emptier by the day. On one wall rack Friday morning, an all-white leisure suit that screamed Saturday Night Fever was the lone piece of merchandise," Klein says.

Krass has no plans to retire, according to Klein. " 'Retire? Flat tire?' he quipped, deflecting such talk. 'But I still might go to Florida to open a store in Miami Beach.' "

"In his younger days, Krass was a boulevardier who tooled around town in his yellow Rolls and club-hopped with the women till dawn," reports Klein. "Nowadays, the Rolls is off the boulevard, parked in a garage. Though he still likes to go out, he keeps somewhat earlier hours. Single 'since the Last Supper,' he said he was preparing to move into a retirement community from his Rittenhouse Square bachelor pad."

Krass made a name for himself in the 1960s with a slew of 10-second television commercials, created on a budget and written by and starring Krass himself. "One particularly memorable spot had Krass inside a coffin, popping up to exclaim: 'If you gotta go, go in a Krass Bros. suit!'" (New Yorkers may remember commercials of a similar genre starring the heavily accented Mrs. Potamkin, who helped the family hawk Cadillacs to Long Islanders.)

Sadly, Krass has survived all three of his children. Sons Stacy and Russell were mudered in the Krass Plus store on Frankford Avenue in Philadelphia in 1993. Son Harry died four years ago.

Krass had some great one-liners, Klein reports, not unlike the late, great Yogi Berra. Our favorite Krassism: "I'm a card? I'm no card. I'm the whole deck."

Hang in there, Ben, you did a helluva job.

[Note: This story was corrected after initial publication. Initially I referred to Krass's son Stacy as a daughter. My apologies.]

Can there be any doubt that the government of Ariel Sharon has been an complete and utter failure?

Sharon's law-and-order, strong-arm, and pro-settlements reputation got him into office, and now Israel and the Palestinians -- and ultimately the United States -- are paying the price.

A genuine read on Israeli public opinion regarding Sharon, the latest attack on the Palestinians (known as "Operation Defensive Shield") seems difficult to find. We have read polls in American and Israeli newspapers that offer distinctly contrasting views.

Today in Ha'aretz Daily we can read the opinion of at least one Israeli, Uzi Benziman, who has a solid grasp of the dire predicament in which Sharon has placed his nation, his closest ally, and his greatest enemy.

Benziman's aritcle, "Sharon's Responsibility," is a virtual political indictment of Ariel Sharon and his government. One that would be virtually unpublishable in the American media.

"Since March 2001, responsibility for the [Israeli] government's successes and failures is [Ariel Sharon's] and his alone, and he no longer has the prerogative of placing it at anyone else's door," writes Benziman.

Benziman minces no words:

"He is the man who for over a year has been leading the country to an increasingly serious conflict with the Palestinians.

"He is the man who has set in motion the aggressive responses to terror attacks.

"He is the man who urged the government to approve the policy of targeted killings, the deep incursions into Area A, the use of air force planes, the humiliation of Yasser Arafat, and in the last month, the reoccupation of West Bank cities and refugee camps, the isolation of Arafat and the imposition of a siege on the Church of the Nativity.

"For better or worse, the approach taken against the Palestinian uprising of the past year is Sharon's. The other actors -- Shimon Peres, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer -- are merely bit players."

Benziman has plenty of questions that beg answers.

Sharon must explain why Palestinian terrorist acts have taken a toll in Israeli lives in unprecedented figures, why Israel is "isolated internationally unlike anything since the Sinai Campaign of 1956," and the country's mood resembles that which preceded the Six Day War," he writes.

The ultimate question facing Sharon is this: "Why," asks Benziman, "is Israel in a worse state today than it was a year ago? "

Is Sharon dense? Is it possible he has no understanding of the all but inevitable consequences of his government's actions?

Benziman doesn't think so. He maintains that Sharon knows attacks by Palestinians will continue, in the West Bank and in Israel itself, that Sharon can see the connection between the military assault and the internationalization of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Moreover, Benziman, asserts, "Sharon is aware of the connection between Israel's security situation and its economic, moral, psychological and political situation."

Despite all this, Sharon "is unable to see the inevitable conclusion: There is no choice but to end the occupation and abandon the territories. The results of this failure are his own, along with the responsibility for his failed leadership." [Ed.: Emphasis added.]

It is sad that this conflict remains at the same point at which it stood in 1967, indeed as it stood in 1948. With that in mind, we concur that Sharon bears the ultimate responsibility for the tragedy that Israeli is today. But the groundwork was laid in advance, by such heralded prime ministers as Ben-Gurion, Sharett, Eshkol, Meir, Begin, Shamir, Peres, Barak, and Netanyahu. It's time to break the chain.

The Associated Press is just out with news of the Israeli Cabinet meeting today. The Cabinet has decided Israel will refuse to allow a United Nations fact-finding team to investigate the aftermath of the Israeli invasion of the Jenin refugee camp.

Communications Minister Reuven Rivlin said today that the Cabinet determined the U.N. had reneged on its agreements over the composition of the team.

"This awful United Nations committee is out to get us and is likely to smear Israel and to force us to do things which Israel is not prepared even to hear about, such as interrogating soldiers and officers who took part in the fighting," he said. "No country in the world would agree to such a thing."

So after stalling for at least a week, the Israelis have "won."

It remains to be see whether we will ever really know what happened in Jenin. The Palestinians assert that Israeli soldiers massacred hundreds of civilians, but Israel maintains that no more than 50 Palestinians were killed and that most of them were gunmen or bombers. Israel says 23 of its soldiers were killed in the assault on the village. Reporters have been denied access to Jenin.

Surely Israel cannot be pleased with the prospect of lingering doubts, suspicions, and accusations, the inevitable comparisons to Sabra and Shatila.

It is worth emphasizing that the U.N. fact-finding mission was established by Secretary General Koffi Annan on the recommendation of the Bush administration. Thus, Israel is once again obstructing the aims of U.S. foreign policy in the region. The question on our minds is whether Israel will be called to account for this flagrant display of arrogance. We frankly doubt it.

Lest it be said that The Rittenhouse Review is biased with respect to the current conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, let us be among the first to denounce the despicable murders of four Jews and the injury of an additional seven Jews, in the West Bank "settlement" of Adora.

The alleged perpetrators: three Palestinians in Israeli army uniforms, an obfuscation that only makes the crime more heinous.

According to a report in the New York Times, "The attack was almost certain to prompt the Israeli government to consider dispatching more ground forces to this area, just as President Bush has stepped up his call for a full Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian-controlled territory."

Not surprisingly, however, "Israeli government officials said the attack proved the need for the military measures in the West Bank."

According to the Times, "Israelis strongly support the sweeping West Bank offensive, believing that it has successfully suppressed Palestinian violence." This is surely someone's idea of a sick joke. Can it be that the Jewish population of Israel is so obstuse as to not realize that the vicious warfare the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is inflicting on the Palestinian people will lead only to one thing: namely, more violence?

"There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the violence here," James Bennet writes in the Times.

The retaliation began quickly. "Hours after the attack, Israeli soldiers shot and killed a man Israel identified [Ed.: By whom?] as one of the gunmen [Ed.: How?], on the outskirts of Hebron, just east of [Adora]. The Israeli Army said that the man, who was not immediately identified [Ed.: Why not?], was wearing an Israeli uniform and a bullet-proof vest, and that he was carrying the standard-issue army weapon, an M-16 semiautomatic rife [sic]."

For the IDF, to provide information on the IDF's own terms is to answer any accusation. No further questions may be asked, either to the Israelis or by foreign reporters. And while we at TRR are horrified by this latest incident, we are certain that the American Punditboro will go berserk with it beginning tomorrow, deflecting -- or rather, suppressing -- any meaningful discussion of the broader ramifications and implications of this wretched attack.

Andrew Sullivan, writing at AndrewSullivan.com, this week couldn't resist slamming David Brock for an alleged lie Brock uttered on CNN's "Crossfire."

On the program, which aired April 25, Brock, agreeing with an assessment made by the writers at Media Whores Online, asserted that conservative pundits were ignoring his book and that conservative news outlets, of which Fox News is certainly one, were not putting him on the air.

The initial transcript reads, in relevant part: "CARVILLE: How many talk shows have you been on let's just say the Fox network? BROCK: I have not been on Fox at all. CARVILLE: But no one invited you on? BROCK: No." [Ed.: Emphasis added.]

Gleefully, Sullivan directed his readers to a page on the web site of the ultra-conservative Media Research Center showing Brock on the Fox network -- discussing Blinded by the Right no less.

Sullivan hit the web with a piece entitled, "David Brock's Pants Experience Spontaneous Combustion." Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Now, we have spent some time in CNN's offices and can attest that the normal state is one of intense bedlam. We also have had reason to read CNN transcripts. At the top of these transcripts is printed, in all-caps, always: "THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED." And in case the reader missed it, printed once again, always, in all-caps, is: "THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED."

No matter. Take it on face value. The judge, jury, and executioner had all he needed: David Brock is a liar.

Now we come to find out what Brock actually said was, "I have not been on Fox prime time at all," the words "prime time" having been missed by the transcriptionist.

Time for some damage control at AndrewSullivan.com.

In a rare Saturday post on his site, Sullivan today concedes, "If you listen very closely to the tape rather than [read] the transcript, across chatter and under cross-talk, you can just about hear Brock say in a near-whisper 'on prime-time.' No-one on the show seemed to notice. Tucker Carlson said he couldn't hear it. The transcriber didn't hear it. But it's there." [Ed.: Emphasis added.]

Writes Sullivan, "Two things are worth saying: firstly, relying on several people who had heard the show and then double-checking the official [sic] CNN transcript is good faith journalism, not sloppiness," Sullivan argues.

But the transcript in question, is DEFINITELY NOT an "official" transcript. It is what CNN refers to as a "rush transcript" and as such it alerts the reader in block letters that it "may not be its final form." Would it not have been wise for Sullivan to make this point to his readers? Before calling Brock a liar, a serious charge indeed, might Sullivan not have been more judicious to wait until he could get a copy of the tape himself? (A request that would have been granted quite readily given his standing in the Punditboro.) Were the viewers consulted by Sullivan an unbiased group or do they share his vicious disdain for, and contemptuous attitude toward, David Brock?

"Secondly, Brock is still spinning. As Tim Noah has pointed out, Brock chose to make this distinction in an aside, fomenting the impression that indeed he had been blacklisted by Fox," Sullivan argues. "Sotto voce asides are not the mark of candor but of a continuing attempt to spin and duck," he adds.

Talking about spinning. An "aside," as readers know, is theater-speak for a comment a character makes out loud, but only to the audience. The audience must assume that none of the other characters on stage can hear the remark.

Now, Sullivan is quite caught up in a foray into acting these days, a project that entails, among other things, "grueling rehearsals" and his wearing leather pants (presumably of the non-combustible type), a fact to which he has drawn his readers' attention at least twice. Thus we're not surprised that he didn't have time to watch the program (nor have we). Yet the image he conjures up with absolute conviction is akin to Brock whispering into his sleeve or throwing his head to one side and mumbling into thin air.

Could it be that Brock's words were drowned out by the show's hosts? Sullivan concedes that to hear Brock's complete sentence one must "listen very closely...across chatter and under cross-talk," chatter and cross-talk being terms that do not even come close to describing the true nature of the "discussions" that occur on "Crossfire." The show is a juvenile, frat-boy, political food-fight: he who is loudest is heard first, giving up the floor is a sign of weakness, name-calling is common, yelling the norm. It is not without good reason that viewers tune in to "Crossfire" for entertainment, not edification.

Many other explanations may be offered: Is it possible that Brock turned, tilted, or lifted his head slightly and the microphone didn't pick up his words at normal volume? Perhaps the transcriptionist was tired or falling behind? Maybe the words couldn't be heard because Brock doesn't normally speak as if he's using a megaphone?

With unintentional (we think) hilarity, Sullivan also writes, "The distinction between 'Fox' and 'Fox Prime Time' [made by Brock] also strikes me as somewhat strained." So, Sullivan would have us believe he would be just as happy to appear on Fox at 2:30 p.m. as he would to appear at 7:30 p.m. or 8:30 p.m. Yeah, right. Who's spinning who?

The humor continues. "What worries me is Brock's long record of deception and personal abuse in matters large and small. In this particular game of 'gotcha,' Brock played the game like a pro," Sullivan whines as he approaches his apology, "even gulling CNN's transcriber."

That David Brock is one amazing man: he's so clever he can dupe even an unbiased transcriptionist into signing up to participate in "the liberal agenda."

For the record, here's Sullivan's heart-felt apology: "He's getting as good as Clinton. But my apologies for an innocent [sic] error nonetheless."

It takes a big man to be that contrite.

David Horowitz, the former radical turned conservative agitator was among the members of the Punditboro who had quite a bit of fun this week mocking author David Brock for his allegedly pathological dishonesty.

Writing on his web site, FrontPageMag.com and in Salon.com, the sandals-with-suits-wearing conservative gadfly accused Brock of lying about Horowitz in his latest book, Blinded by the Right.

Horowitz makes a fleeting appearance in the book, as Brock relays an anecdote in which Horowitz comes off looking like something other than the warm-hearted tolerant intellectual he purports to be.

In the book Brock wrote: "Horowitz uttered a hateful anti-gay slur to an editor friend of mine whom Horowitz didn't know was gay. At the time, I shrugged it off, not willing to face the truth about my friends and supporters. Not until such epithets were hurled at me would I realize I had been on a fool's errand in trying to carve out a place for myself as an openly gay icon in the conservative movement. Only then did I begin to see by allowing myself to be used as a kind of gay right-wing poster boy, I had been complicit in the bigoted politics and rank hypocrisy of the conservatives."

Horowitz correctly determined that the editor in question was Chad Conway of The Free Press. In a self-defense published on FrontPageMag.com and on Salon.com [Ed.:Full story requires subscription.], Horowitz, with his customary ferocity, denounces Brock as a liar.

Horowitz says he called Conway to back up his attack on Brock. It appears that Conway came through. "Chad had not read Brock's book, and was unaware that it contained the anecdote in question," wrote Horowitz. "In other words, Brock chose to print a hateful, damaging story about me -- which contradicted everything he otherwise knew about me from my public and private behavior -- without even checking with his source to see if he had heard or remembered the incident correctly," adds the highly agitated rabble-rouser.

"When I read Chad the passage, he was as appalled by Brock's slander as I had been," claims Horowitz. "Chad and I had discussed Brock many times over the years of our friendship, and Chad knew that my views of Brock and his political conversion were entirely free of anti-gay prejudice."

Horowitz asserts that "for the record" Conway agreed, "You [Horowitz] have never made an anti-gay slur to me or about David Brock or anyone else; you have never said anything hurtful to me -- not about gays or anything else."

"When I [Horowitz] confronted the bestselling defamer [that would be Brock] on [National Public Radio] with this refutation of his claims, [Brock] was not the least apologetic or regretful for what he had done."

Conway's E-Mail Exposes Horowitz

Since then, things have taken a dramatically different turn.

Media Whores Online apparently got its hands on an e-mail written by Conway after the controversy exploded. In the e-mail, not only does Conway confirm Brock's version of the story, he adds even more to it, and offers to write a letter in support of Brock's account.

Here's Conway: "I didn't know about Horowitz's piece [in Salon.com]. Here is the piece he left off: I told David Brock on the telephone the amusing story of how I came out to David Horowitz. [Horowitz] was on the phone with me one day, a piece he had written on some gay issue came up and he said to me, 'The problem with the gays is that they are hysterical!' I laughed and said, 'David, you don't think I am hysterical do you?' 'Jesus,' said Horowitz, [']you're not gay are you?' "

"Horowitz was always very good about the gay issue with me, and personally I don't think that he is a homophobe," writes Conway. "But there is absolutely no doubt that he stuck his foot in it that day, in that conversation, and that he might have said even more hurtful things (and saying all gays are hysterical IS hurtful) if I hadn't outed myself. Horowitz is an ass for trying to turn this on David."

"I would be happy to write Brock a letter backing him up, though I doubt anyone cares," Conway adds.

We can't leave this matter without noting the irony of Horowitz using the term "hysterical" in reference to "the gays." If you haven't had the pleasure of watching Horowitz on a talk show or news program sputtering like a deranged fanatic from the lunatic fringe, we suggest you keep your eye out for the next available opportunity. Horowitz may have swung from left to right, but the guerilla tactics and inability to countence disagreement that characterized this washed up radical in the '60s have stuck with him. It's an ugly sight, indeed.

By the way, the conclusion to Conway's e-mail message is priceless: "All that being said, I have now read the book. It is an extraordinary piece of work and has absolutely bowled me over. Bravo, David!"

Attempting to clarify the stance of U.S. cardinals with respect to the Catholic Church's response to priests and religious guilty of abusing minors, Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua of Philadelphia said yesterday that all of the cardinals favor a zero-tolerance policy.

As reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the cardinals said after their meeting in Rome that "they would lobby U.S. bishops to support a binding policy that would make it easier to defrock 'serial' and 'notorious' abusers of minors. But the cardinals' statement stopped short of recommending an unequivocal zero-tolerance rule for first-time abusers."

It sure sounded like that to us.

But Cardinal Bevilacqua, who we see emerging as the primus inter pares of the American cardinals, upon returning to the U.S. was startled to hear of the perception that there was some disagreement among the cardinals. He maintains there is no question whatsoever that the cardinals unanimously favor adopting a zero-tolerance (one strike and you're out) policy. "I want to say that all of the cardinals are agreed on zero tolerance -- and by that I mean that we all are agreed that no priest, guilty of even one act of sexual abuse of a minor, will function in any ecclesiastic ministry or any capacity in our dioceses," said Cardinal Bevilacqua.

"We intend to support this zero-tolerance position at the June meeting of the conference of bishops," Cardinal Bevilacqua added. If the policy is approved by two-thirds of the nation's roughly 400 bishops, it would be sent to the Vatican for review. If accepted, the rule would be mandatory in every U.S. diocese.

Cardinal Bevilacqua said he was speaking on behalf of all U.S. cardinals, many of whom were in Philadelphia for the 13th American Cardinals Dinner. "The cardinal said the group had agreed that he deliver the clarification alone because not every cardinal came to the fund-raising event," according to the Inquirer.

Nonetheless, there are hints that not everyone is on board. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) said yesterday that the Church leadership's position seems clear with respect to the worst offenders. But she stopped short of saying there was complete agreement on how far the zero-tolerance policy would extend. [Ed.: The Inquirer incorrectly referred to the conference as the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, an organization that merged with the U.S. Catholic Conference in July 2001 to form the USCCB.]

The Inquirer quotes the spokeswoman, Sister Mary Ann Walsh: "Cardinal Bevilacqua made it very clear that he is in favor of zero tolerance in Philadelphia, and Bishop [Wilton] Gregory made it very clear that that is his view in Belleville, Ill. But I think some people are concerned about exactly what zero tolerance means."

We doubt Sister Walsh is pulling this notion out of thin air. More likely, she has been getting wind of some grumbling among the bishops.

Our take: With the passing of New York's Cardinal John O'Connor and the shaming of Boston's Cardinal Bernard Law, Cardinal Bevilacqua is now the dominant voice in the American Catholic Church, this despite the fact that Bishop Gregory is the president of the USCCB.

And while Cardinal Bevilacqua may be correct in his assessment of the position of the cardinals, there are several hundred bishops from whom we haven't yet heard and we doubt the cardinal has spoken with more than a handful of them on this matter.

Cardinal Bevilacqua's rising profile and unequivocal remarks demonstrate an intent to take control of the Church's response to the controversy, and we do not see any in the Church hierarchy willing to challenge him. So, it is up to Cardinal Bevilacqua to "sell" the zero-tolerance policy to the bishops. His remarks in Philadelphia yesterday carried a tone of "This is how it's gonna' be, fellas," leading us to believe the zero-tolerance policy will be adopted at the Dallas conference in June.

Should he prove successful on this issue, Cardinal Bevilacqua will have established himself firmly as the most powerful leader of the Church in America and the favorite of the Vatican as well.

An editorial published in today's New York Times, "Israel's Historic Miscalculation," bears some thought.

Israeli military officials, concerned about the national-security implications of some Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, recently suggested dismantling a dozen of them. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon instantly dismissed the suggestion, saying there will be no discussion of removing even a single settlement from the occupied territories as long as he remains in office.

"It is hard to imagine a more dispiriting statement for those hoping for a negotiated land-for-peace end to hostilities in the Middle East. If Mr. Sharon sticks to this view he will leave little hope for peace between Israel and the Palestinians," the editors write.

"Just as terror is the greatest Palestinian threat to Middle East peace, so are settlements on territory captured in the 1967 war the greatest Israeli obstacle to peace," the editors add. "They deprive the Palestinians of prime land and water, break up Palestinian geographic continuity, are hard to defend against Palestinian attack and complicate the establishment of a clear, secure Israeli border."

The Times editors correctly point out that the settlements dropped off the radar screen of American foreign policy during the last 10 years. They add that since the initiation of the Oslo peace talks in 1993, the population of the Israeli settlements on the West Bank and in Gaza has nearly doubled, reaching 200,000, a figure that doesn't include the 200,000 Israelis who moved into Arab East Jerusalem. (In an interesting offhanded comment, the Times editors write: "Many Israeli maps stopped demarcating the former border" as the settlements grew in size and scope. We wonder why this fact has received so little attention when commentators so often tell us that Israel doesn't appear on Arab maps of the region.)

"This is an immense problem," the editors say.

Indeed. And it is a problem, the Times reminds us, that was the result of policies pursued by Sharon during his tenure as minister of housing in the 1990s. Government subsidies aided development of the settlements, which began to appear more like suburban towns than desert outposts. Astonishingly, since Sharon was elected prime minister a year ago, 35 new settlements have been established. Reports in American and Israeli newspapers show that building continues today, Sharon having apparently not drawn any connection between the settlements and Palestinian rage.

It is also a problem of American foreign policy. The Clinton administration's failure to maintain pressure on the Israeli government with regard to the settlements issue has enabled Israel to create "facts on the ground" that will be almost impossible to ameliorate given Sharon's intrasigence.

That intransigence renders the thought of a peace agreement, even a cease fire, all but unimaginable. "[T]o take out of negotiation even the most isolated settlements . . . is to undermine the possibility that following his military action, a meaningful political dialogue can begin," the editorial says.

We are blown away by the powerful, eloquent, and passionate essay, "The Betrayal," on the crisis in the Catholic Church by Michael Sean Winters in the latest issue of the New Republic.

Rather than commenting, we'll let Winters's essay speak for itself.

We are in agreement with Winters on almost every point and we are grateful for his ability to state his case far better than we could ever hope. It's truly a must-read.

There are few things more irritating than the unabashed orthodoxy of a recent convert. This has long been our view of Rod Dreher, senior writer at National Review, a man who has been a Catholic for something approaching, but not exceeding, 10 years, some 30-odd years less than our esteemed editor.

Dreher is apparently unhappy with the outcome of this week's meeting between the Pope and a select group of American cardinals and bishops. "Surprisingly, the cardinals did not announce a 'zero tolerance' policy for priests who have sex with minors," Dreher complains. "In the final report, the cardinals deferred specifics on the question to the June meeting of all the American bishops, at which the cardinals said they will propose that the bishops decide on a process for handling such cases."

Why Dreher believes that delaying a more complete statement for a grand total of eight weeks is a major crisis for the Church -- which after all has been hanging around for some 2,000 years -- cannot readily be answered.

Grumpy as he may be, Dreher had reason to be pleased. "There were more than a few words in the statement to please orthodox Catholics, who blame much of the scandal on doctrinal confusion, which many bishops have not done much to help, and some have done much to aggravate," Dreher observes, long-windedly. "'The pastors of the Church need clearly to promote the correct moral teaching of the Church and publicly to reprimand individuals who spread dissent and groups which advance ambiguous approaches to pastoral care, '" he writes, quoting the cardinals.

Dreher welcomes this statement. "If that were to happen, it would herald a revolution. But there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical," he writes. "When is the last time you heard of a bishop correcting a dissenting Catholic theologian or removing a priest or standing up strongly for Catholic teachings that are unpopular in American culture, particularly those having to do with human sexuality? Only on rare occasions."

A true statement, indeed. But we can't help wondering if Dreher is thinking about homosexuality, adultery, and abortion, rather than the sexual sins to which a young single man like himself is prone: namely, fornication, masturbation, petting, and pornography.

Sickeningly, Dreher adds: "The best news from the document is the cardinals' call for a 'new and serious' investigation of seminaries and houses of formation. This is code for a housecleaning in American seminaries, which in too many cases have become havens for heresy and homosexuality . . . . The roots of this scandal are planted firmly in seminaries, which certainly need investigation, followed by defenestration, fumigation, and reconsecration." [Ed.: Emphasis added.]

This is truly a deranged mind at work. Defenestration: Throw all the gay priests, brothers, nuns, and seminarians out the window. Fumigation: Exterminate the "pests" and disinfect the quarters. Reconsecration: Start again with a clean slate once the vermin has been eliminated.

"The radioactive [sic] subject of gay priests was not part of the final statement, except obliquely, with a passing reference to the 'admission requirements' of seminaries. The cardinals' communiqué suggests that they are not prepared to squarely face the problem [sic] of the homosexualization of the Catholic priesthood. Without such frankness and candor, real reform is unlikely," Dreher writes, without explaining what that "real reform" would entail.

We wish Dreher will spend less time currying favor with National Review editor-at-large Bill Buckley and more time mingling with his fellow communicants, many of whom find celibate gay priests something less than "radioactive" and whose idea of sexual sins encompasses something more than same-sex attraction.

The Council of Europe recommended today that the European Union conduct an urgent and thorough debate about the Israeli-Palestinian confict, and recommended that until the debate is completed, the E.U. suspend its economic agreement with Israel. The Council also called on the E.U. to impose an arms embargo against Israel following allegations of human rights abuses in the occupied territories.

According to a report in Ha'aretz Daily, Norway has decided to prohibit military procurement from Israeli companies. "There have been several cases of European countries canceling or suspending export permits for military components to Israel," write Gideon Alon and Amnon Barzilai. "But the Norwegian decision marks the first instance of a European country imposing a boycott on military procurement from Israel due to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."

The French, while voicing objection to the today's findings, is suggesting the Council of Europe commission prepare a report on Israel's latest activities in the territories, with a special focus on human rights.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, meanwhile, today chastised Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasir Arafat and emphasized Germany's close relations with Israel.

"It's crystal clear: the German government expects clear words from the Palestinian Authority and especially from Arafat - and other Arab leaders - against terror and a return to the principle agreed at Oslo that no side can use terror as a means to reach political goals," Schroeder said, leveling direct criticism at the Palestinian leader.

Citing Germany's "special historic responsibility," Schroeder said Germany would not agree to or support embargo measures against Israel.

The National Catholic Register has on its web site an article by Father Richard John Neuhaus called "Feathers of Scandal."

The article was previously published in the March 2002 issue of First Things, a journal edited by Fr. Neuhaus.

The essay is a lengthy, emotional, and frankly, rather unconvincing defense of Father Marcial Maciel Degollado against charges of sexually abusing teenage seminarians in Mexico going back some 40 years.

Now, Fr. Maciel is the founder of the cultish Legion of Christ, the fastest-growing religious order in the Catholic Church today.

And the Legion of Christ, through an entity doing business as Circle Media Inc., owns the National Catholic Register, a relationship nowhere mentioned in Fr. Neuhaus's article or anywhere else on the Register's web site.

So, what is the Register these days? An objective observer of the Church or a shill for the Legion of Christ?

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon may have declared an end -- a partial pull-back really -- to his country's three week invasion of the occupied territories on the West Bank, but Palestinian Authority officials returning to their offices in Ramallah were stunned to see the extent of the vicious destruction inflicted on P.A. buildings in that city.

"Israeli soldiers apparently destroyed numerous Palestinian Authority offices during their weekend pullout from the West Bank, hobbling crucial civic functions such as education and public works," writes T. Christian Miller of the Los Angeles Times. "In ministry after ministry, computers, photocopiers and other electronic machines were heaped in piles, destroyed by explosions and fire. Important files were missing. Telephones were smashed. Pictures were ripped from the walls."

" 'The main reason for all the destruction is to kill the spirit of the Palestinian people and show the power and force of the Israelis,' Azam Ahmad, the minister of public works, said as he walked through his shattered office. 'They want to take us back many years in history so we will lose hope, but we are a people who have learned to endure.' "

The Israeli Defense Force concedes it searched the P.A.'s ministerial offices, Miller reports, "but denied any attempt to deliberately cripple public services. They also denied using explosives to destroy computers or documents." The IDF "acknowledged taking documents from some of the offices for intelligence purposes but denied claims of unnecessary destruction."

The United Nations will meet in Oslo this week to collect funds to help the Palestinians rebuild their civil infrastructure. Since the 1993 Oslo agreements, donor nations have contributed more than $3 billion to support the development of Palestinian government and nonprofit organizations, writes Miller. "But still more money will be needed in the wake of the widespread destruction left behind by the Israeli invasion, which began March 29. Tanks tore up streets. Schools, hospitals, homes and stores were hit by rockets, shells and bullets. Electricity poles collapsed. Water mains were destroyed."

Hardly any agency was spared -- apparently only the ministries of planning and youth and sports were not attacked. U.N. officials said "it would take at least a week to reach a final tally, since Israeli soldiers continued blocking entry into some areas," Miller writes.

Acting Education Minister Naim abu Hommos told Miller that 47 Palestinian schools were destroyed during the IDF's incursion and that 150 soldiers in tanks and armored personnel carriers broke into the his ministry's building on April 3 and April 14. "He said that employees had offered to open doors with their keys but that soldiers sometimes ignored them and forced their way in. In the ministry's treasury department, ceiling tiles were scattered on the floor. Some files were pulled off the shelves. And, Abu Hommos said, more than $8,000 in petty cash was missing," writes Miller.

"Damage to the Ministry of Public Works was even more puzzling. One room on the top floor seemed to have been blasted by a helicopter rocket," Miller reports. "The outside window was blackened, while a conference room inside was completely charred. Down the hall on the fourth floor, the minister's offices were simply vandalized. Couches and chairs were slashed, the stuffing spilling out. A map of the region had the West Bank torn out. Even the minister's personal toilet was shattered."

The IDF's foray into the P.A.'s offices has all the characteristics of vindictiveness and viciousness, all the markings of an attempt to destroy the nascent authority of the P.A., and to demoralize and dehumanize the Palestinian people. Disrupting terrorism was the stated goal, a noble one at that, though the invasion was a dubious means of doing so, but the evidence mounts that Sharon had something else in mind: decimating the P.A., rendering Arafat powerless, and attacking the very identity of the Palestinians.

All of this was done in the hope of finding a hand-picked group of Palestinians with whom Sharon would be willing to "negotiate," by which we are certain he means imposing Israel's will on the already degraded and subjugated Palestinian people.

Seven college students from Kansas trek to the nation's capital during their spring break and spend part of their two-day "Urban Plunge," sponsored by the National Coalition for the Homeless, "surviving" on the mean streets of Washington, D.C.

Michelle Cottle, writing about the venture for TNR Online, says, "The absurdity of the entire exercise made me want to cry."

That's odd . . . we wanted to laugh. Cottle's hilarious send-up guaranteed we would.

Israeli soldiers arrived at the Khalil Sakakini Cultural Center in Ramallah on the morning of April 13. The building was closed and there was no one inside. After blasting the door open, they ran up the center's marble steps, set off another charge, and burst into the office, according to Martin Merzer of Knight Ridder News Service.

"In the hours they were there, they seized a computer and a cell phone, broke dozens of windows, swept books off shelves, peppered walls with shrapnel and bullets, allegedly stole 3,700 shekels (about $825), and spit pumpkin seeds on the floor," Merzer writes.

The center, founded in 1998, promotes Palestinian culture and art through exhibits, concerts, reading, and a visual arts program for children; the center also hosts visiting artists, lecturers, and performers. Funding comes from the Ford Foundation and the European Union, among others. "Abstract paintings hang on its walls, one frame now bearing a bullet hole," reports Merzer. "Sculptures -- one now broken in two -- still stand on display."

"On its second floor is the office of Mahmoud Darwish, the renowned poet often called the conscience of the Palestinian people. It is a jumble of shattered glass, books tossed from shelves, and letters and documents stripped from files. A bullet has left a neat hole in one window," writes Merzer. "Just outside the office, 15 more bullet holes perforate an adjoining wall and ceiling. Laidi said those holes would not be repaired."

"They will stay here forever," Adlib Laidi, director of the center, told Merzer, "because we have to remember, and it has to be a testimony of what Israelis did to an art center."

"This was not a security operation," Laidi asserts. "They didn't come in here looking for terrorists. You don't steal money during a security operation."

"It was just vandalism, part of a conscious desire to ruin everything Palestinian," she added. "Once you decide to do that, you go and methodically destroy every institution. Subconsciously, they are dreaming about shoving the whole Palestinian people out of existence."

Viewed in conjunction with the destruction wrought on the Palestinian civil infrastructure -- Palestinian Authority officials maintain that nearly every ministry building, including finance, education, and public works, has been trashed, attacked, or burned -- Laidi may be close to the mark.

The Israelis vow to investigate. "We condemn all kinds of vandalism and looting," said Lt. Col. Olivier Rafovitch, a spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces told Merzer. "And if we have evidence against soldiers, we will take the necessary action."

We're sure many Israelis are sleeping better at night knowing the Khalil Sakakini Cultural Center's subversive and terrorist activities have been been put to rest. Quite a threat the center must have posed. "Palestinian art? I guess for Israelis that is considered subversive," Laidi said. "I guess our art is very dangerous, if you don't want us to exist at all."

The Rittenhouse Review last week received its copy of Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, by David Brock. The book is everything John Farrell said it would be . . . and more.

Our primary criticism: There's no index in the damn thing!

Lacking an index, we were left to hunt through the book looking for the quick and easy dirt. (This is the kind of book our editor likes to read in its entirety during long weekends at quiet places.) And Brock's got it in spades.

Our first search was for the dish on Laura Ingraham. Okay, we'll concede that we have had an unquenchable desire for dirt on Ingraham since sometime in the mid-1980s, having learned of her juvenile antics at the Dartmouth Review. That this lightweight has achieved even a modicum of professional achievement speaks volumes about the standards in the broadcast media as we know it in the U.S. today.

We may only have found a bit of what’s in the book about Ingraham, but it's great stuff.

Most of Brock's critics have taken him to task for criticizing Ingraham's poor personal grooming habits and her lack of taste in clothes. Why they don't mention the incident he relays about Ingraham having "pulled a gun on a boyfriend after he broke up with her" or about the night during which Ingraham "in a drunken stupor, crawled through the packed two-story dance club on her hands and knees," is not clear to us. (Op. Cit., p. 235, 236.)

But Brock’s most important criticism, that which goes to the heart of Ingraham's credibility as a journalist -- or more aptly, a political personality -- makes for enlightening reading.

"[H]er one desire in life was to leave her law firm and get herself on television as a political pundit, despite the fact that she was the only person I knew who didn't appear to own a book or regularly read a newspaper," writes Brock. (Op. Cit., p. 233.)

"Though the Dartmouth Review was her sole experience in journalism, through sheer force of will Laura became the prototype for a legion of brassy, blond, not terribly well-informed pundits whom television producers, lacking a stable of conservative voices in a moment when conservatism had suddenly become chic, booked to interpret the Gingrich Revolution for their audience," he adds. (Ibid.)

"In 1999, Laura would publish The Hillary Trap: Looking for Power in All the Wrong Places. After signing the mid-six figure contract [Ed.: !], she quietly struck a deal with the talented New Republic writer Ruth Shalit [Ed.: We emphasize those words -- “talented" and "writer” -- are Brock's, not ours.] to essentially draft the book for her," Brock says in his book.

"When Shalit wisely backed out, Laura was left with a lame manuscript whose sole purpose was to hold the Clintons' marriage up to moral scrutiny and ridicule," writes Brock. (Op. cit., p. 234)

Ingraham’s own life, if held up to “moral scrutiny and ridicule,” would not likely to pass muster with the crowd within which she so happily has entangled herself. We'll hold our tongue with respect to the notorious "garden house incident," inflicted upon a married Post-man, and Ingraham's uncanny ability to "work" the highest levels of the administration of a certain Ivy League institution.

Regardless, Ingraham's inclination to either read or write with any seriousness is slight, suggestions by Brock that are evident in her work. But since she's a woman, is cute and blond, "talks tough," and is a conservative, she gets a pass.

Funny how affirmative action, even in its sublest forms, can work to the advantage of even the stupidest of privileged white women.

In a brief “Q&A,” perfectly titled “Buddhism Is the New Black,” New York magazine’s Robert Kolker chatted with the newly enlightened James Truman.

Truman, who bears the vague and amorphous, yet prestigious and lucrative, title of editorial director at Condé Nast, is back from a month in the sticks. In the interview with Kolker, Truman says he spent a month in a cabin near Woodstock, N.Y., with two Tibetan Buddhists.

It was not an escape, the diminutive Truman insists. “To the contrary, it was about giving up the familiar escape routes: no entertainment, no Internet, no shopping, no gossip, no drinking, no parties, no tiramisu at Da Silvano.”

Truman was searching for “[a]n end to the boredom of tired routines,” which is no surprise given the lifestyle he just described.

Apparently everything we’ve heard about Condé Nast is true. The waifish Truman says his days in the office are “driven by drama -- the succession of daily crises.”

So we've heard: frantic fashionistas calling HQ because they have too much luggage to get on the plane back to New York from Milan and would it be okay to book a separate flight for their bags; young staffers in a snit because a certain prominent editrix has banned all food from the magazine's offices; and brothers of top management calling to beg for high-level jobs.

And Truman -- in a moment that he will surely some day regard with considerable embarrassment -- relays that he badly missed Condé Nast’s notorious cafeteria. We wonder whether it was the food or the cat fights at the yogurt stand.

The little guy grew in Woodstock. Asked how Condé Nast might benefit from a touch of Buddhist awareness, Truman said: “My experience of New York, and the media-fashion world in particular, is that it offers a seductive invitation to get lost in the distractions of glamour and status and nonstop work. Until you step outside it, you can forget the benefits of fresh air.”

And reality.

The Rittenhouse Review has never been a big fan of Robert Scheer. So we are somewhat uncomfortable finding ourselves drawing attention to his column for the second time in two weeks.

But Scheer’s essay in today’s Los Angeles Times, “The Palestinian Side Must Be Told,” is important for its direct take on a raging debate: Whether or not the media’s coverage of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is biased in favor of the latter.

“Is there media bias against Israel?” asks Scheer. “The claim, hotly expressed in thousands of angry e-mails and subscription cancellations, that the U.S. media are anti-Israel is so absurd as to suggest hysteria.” [Ed.: Emphasis added.}

Scheer is right about this. At some American newspapers there are days when virtually every letter to the editor deals with the subject. Rarely do any of the letters have anything new to say and more often than not the writers rely on direct quotations or paraphrases of materials published by various interest groups.

War, armed conflict, and terrorism are detestable events. All are deadly, mean, ugly, messy, complicated, and confusing. The most deplorable outcomes include intentional or unintentional deaths of non-combatants, death of combatants by friendly fire, the destruction of large portions of cities and towns, among much else.

Painful truths may also emerge: the sordid motives of military and political leaders; the exposure of ethnic, racial, or religious prejudices; and the attempt to conceal the mess on the ground.

The evidence of anti-Israel bias in the American media is scant, in our opinion. We attribute the prevailing expressions of hostility to these painful truths. As Scheer puts it: “Are American Jews in such deep denial about the brutality of Israel's recent actions that they would damn those who report the truth?”

Scheer maintains that coverage of the Middle East in the American media is “balanced.” We’re not certain we agree, but he is certainly correct when he observes that Jewish journalists who maintain the necessary professional balance in their reporting are subject to attacks that are particularly nasty. “[T]he convenient denigration is that a Jewish journalist who dares disagree with the more hawkish actions of Israel must be consumed with self-hate,” he writes.

“It would have been irresponsible for the media, Jewish or not, to fail to report . . . that the Israeli onslaught was aimed at destroying all signs of civic life as well as the stated purpose of rooting out terror,” argues Scheer.

This is itself a painful truth, but one that we believe has not received the attention it deserves. The destruction of the nascent infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority is the most deranged aspect of Israel’s assault on the Palestinians. More than that, it is degrading and humiliating -- and deliberately so -- to the Palestinians.

It is also self-destructive. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon maintains that the army’s action was aimed at destroying an infrastructure of terror based in the occupied territories. Once this task is completed, Sharon maintains, Israel will be able to negotiate a resolution to the conflict with a new leadership of moderate Palestinians.

Now, having heard from Israeli apologists for decades now that there is “no such thing as a moderate Palestinian,” we’re left wondering who Sharon believes will occupy the political vacuum he seems hell-bent on creating.

Or should we be wondering whether Sharon hopes there are no Palestinians ready, willing, or able to step into this role? Given Israel’s treatment of Yasir Arafat, the list of potential candidates must be short, if it exists at all.

Why is the Armenian genocide unrecognized? asks Jackie Abramian in today’s Boston Globe.

“On April 24 Armenians worldwide will commemorate the 87th anniversary of the Armenian genocide of 1915 -- and once again wonder why most world powers and the Turkish government continue to deny the first fully documented and least recognized genocide of the 20th century,” she writes.

For readers not familiar with the matter, the Ottoman Empire in April 1915 began an ethnic cleansing and extermination program aimed at 1.5 million Armenians, a gruesome campaign for which Turkey not only has not apologized, but which it has failed even to acknowledge.

The Ottomans’ ethnic cleansing established the standard that continued throughout the 20th century. Numerous killing methods, families separated, women and children raped and mutilated, and innocent people used for medical experimentation, among other horrors.

The political clout of Turkey and Israel prevents the U.S. from according the Armenian genocide the recognition it deserves.

“In his recent visit to Turkey, Shimon Peres rejected comparisons between the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide, saying ‘what the Armenians went through is a tragedy but not a genocide,’” writes Abramian.

Apparently Peres neglected to delineate the difference between the two terms. We have two questions: When does a tragedy become genocide? When does genocide become a tragedy?

The Turkish government explodes with rage when other governments appear to be taking steps to officially recognize the Armenian genocide. Turkey, using its NATO membership as a bargaining chip, has threatened the U.S., among others, that actions against its interests in Turkey would be taken if the truth were confirmed.

“On the 87th anniversary the world owes to itself, to humanity, and to the forgotten 1.5 million Armenian victims to demand recognition from Turkey for its crimes against humanity, to demand acceptance of responsibility by the ‘silent’ witnesses who allowed Turkey's actions to continue and to serve as precedents in subsequent wars, and to issue a challenge to all supporters of truth and justice to make the 88th anniversary of the Armenian genocide one of universal recognition,” Abramian concludes.

We agree.

To learn more about the Armenian genocide, visit the Armenian National Institute; Human Rights Action: The Armenian Genocide; Armenian Genocide; and Turkey: Denying the Genocide of Armenians.

Food, food, food.

New Yorkers spend a surprising amount of time thinking and talking about food. As a topic of conversation it ranks second only to real estate and rents, no matter the setting. Eat-in, take-out, go-get, delivery, coffee shops, restaurants, cafes, produce markets, gourmet groceries, kosher kitchens, hot dog stands, felafel huts, roach coaches, it never ends.

Helpfully, the New York Times recently brought to our attention the persistence in the city of what we had thought was a backwater relic: the food co-op. The Times traveled out to Brooklyn in the personage of one Richard A. Kaye to bring the Upper East Side up-to-date with the exotic goings-on of the city's largest outer borough.

"What strikes the newcomer to the Park Slope Food Co-op is the enticement of an unfragmented communal experience, the willingness of co-op members to put up with tension-producing referendums and regulations about 'compost squads' in order to have a say in the food they put on their tables," writes Kaye, who also is a member of the Park Slope Food Co-op, a duality that raises at least a raised eyebrow with respect to a potential conflict of interest.

Already we're worried. "Compost squads"? In Brooklyn?

"If the history of food consumption in the past 200 years has been a notable shift from communal eating rituals to individual or family eating habits, then the food co-op's membership is intent on reinstating food's communal allure, its sources in an engaged, thoughtful citizenship," says Kaye. We're not sure, but we're willing to bet that when Kaye speaks of "communal allure" he is not talking about church Spaghetti Suppers, VFW Pancake Breakfasts, or neighborhood Ice Cream Socials, but something more like a "meatless pot luck/bring your own place setting/no plastic please/we'll sit on the floor" kind of thing.

Now, we know the images coming into your mind after hearing the term "food co-op": hippies, long-hairs, Dead Heads, '60s refugees, and so forth. But rest assured, despite the title of the article, "Tie-Dyed Food," the Park Slope Food Co-op attracts a much broader clientele. It had better or the Times would not have devoted so much (any?) space to the subject.

Kaye tells us that the co-op's membership includes "a large number of political and community activists, members of 'alternative families,' [and] harried professorial types like myself." Thanks, harried Dick, for that latest comment. We were inclined to lump you into the "alternative family" set until you mentioned your "professorial" character.

New York at the turn of the century was characterized by insatiable greed, the need for immediate gratification, and the demand for constant amusement. Let it not be said that the Park Slope Food Co-op didn't ride the wave. Kaye reports: "The co-op's own introductory brochure hints at its appeal to the professionally ambitious in listing among such membership advantages as 'environmental activism,' 'lectures and seminars,' 'meeting new people,' and the possibilities for 'networking.'"

Now, our editor can quite readily be characterized as "professionally ambitious." Indeed, while living in New York he attained a respectable level of achievement. But a quick chat confirmed that our editor is not interested in environmental activism, nor is he interested in lectures and seminars given in grocery stores. And he is not known for networking. With respect to "meeting new people," he's quick to add, "I already know more people than I want to know."

These days, New York is all about perks, and the Park Slope Food Co-op -- for which one must pony up $125 to join -- is keeping up with the times. "The perks, members of the co-op will tell you, are endless: classes on topics like whole grain cookery and 'meeting your meat' ('What happens to animals before they end up on our dinner tables?'), Zen music concerts, being part of an often intensely engaged community, staying abreast of co-op-related issues like New York's truth-in-pricing laws, and substantial savings, owing to the relatively low overhead resulting from all that required voluntarism," according to Kaye. [Ed.: Emphasis added.]

This is a FUN group! But what does "required volunteerism" mean?

And, wow, man, like, it all comes with this, like, really awesome spiritual environment: "For those members whose involvement in the co-op is confined to shopping and their monthly volunteer shift, the atmosphere is chattily congenial. Whereas most food stores have grave warnings that 'Shoplifters will be prosecuted,' the signs at the co-op are positively demure [Ed.: We would have said "creepy."]: 'Remember, it is uncool to snack on items before purchasing them.' " (Whatever happened to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?)

Kaye introduces us to Elizabeth Royte -- "a writer"! -- who regularly cuts the cheese at the Park Slope Food Co-op. "I joined because it's cheap and the produce is beautiful. And I love the diversity of people I meet at the co-op. The experience working there makes me more tolerant of other people's views," Royte beams.

"My volunteer job is in food processing, where I work as a cheese cutter. Sometimes I find myself working with vegans, and though I find some of their views about food completely insupportable [Ed.: Time out. We're hearing a value judgment. Can we break into teams to discuss this and then meet for a consensus-building session to evaluate our feelings?], it's interesting to know what the arguments are."

What a disappointment. We were ready to hear Royte discuss her raised consciousness with respect to ethnic and racial discrimination, but as we should have expected, the cheese-cutter was talking about food.

"Her husband works at the food register," writes Kaye. " 'He's always asking people about what food they're buying, how they are going to prepare it, and people are delighted to tell you, in the most opinionated terms,' " says Royte.

O God, one of those! We would rather that the person who "works at the food register," i.e., the cashier, pretend not to notice -- let alone comment upon -- the items we are purchasing. And our editor, who spent a fair amount of his adolescence working "at the food register" is quick to add that it is inappropriate, misguided, and downright evil to assume that either the cashier or the customer has any interest in having a conversation with the other.

"He comes home bubbling over with new ideas," adds Royte.

If ever we heard an argument for adding a den, this is it.