The Louvre - what more needs to be said?

Pentagon told Obama not to visit troops

News in France - France 24

Pictures, Who Doesn't Love Pictures

[caption id="attachment_750" align="aligncenter" width="400" caption="Obama leaving for London"][/caption]

The Three Point Tour

Nothing But Net

© Bryan Zepp Jamieson
http://zeppcommentaries.com/
7/25/08

It may be a while before John McCain pushes Barack Obama to take a dare
again.

For the past several weeks, he had been hammering home the point that
Obama didn’t have much in the way of foreign policy experience. It was a
legitimate claim, and McCain’s people were making the most of it,
putting up a day clock on their website to show how long it had been
since Obama had visited Iraq, and McCain himself taunted Obama,
challenging him to take a tour of the middle east and to talk to our
allies so he would know what was really going on over there.

It seemed a safe enough tactic. McCain doubtlessly believed that Obama
would privately share his conviction that the Illinois Senator was a
lightweight in foreign policy, and would avoid going over to the
occupied areas and saying or doing something that would either show he
didn’t know what he was talking about, or better still, having a
“Dukakis-in-the-tank” moment in which he would look ridiculous trying to
show off non-existent military credentials.

Then, too, there was the fact that presidential candidates rarely left
the country at ALL during the heat of the campaign, let alone on a
week-long, highly-publicized tour. In terms of getting votes, Enid,
Oklahoma would be more fertile grounds than all of Germany and France
combined. The conventional wisdom was that truculent voters would be
wondering why he was sucking up to a buncha damn furriners when there
were red-blooded Americans right here demanding his attention.

The tour turned out to be a disaster, not for Obama, but for McCain. It
was supposed to show that Obama would be out of his league dealing with
heads of state. He wasn’t. It was supposed to show that he put politics
ahead of the troops, and the troops resented it. They didn’t. And it was
supposed to give McCain the opportunity to second guess Obama, and
suggest better ways he might have handled the situations that Obama bobbled.

Except Obama didn’t bobble any.

It began with Obama in Afghanistan, being greeted with thunderous
approval by troops there. None of the perfunctory applause that one
hears when the audience has a military duty to show the
commander-in-chief some courtesy; these soldiers jumped up and down,
cheered, whooped, pounded one another on the back, and roared approval
when Obama took a basketball and sank the throw from thirty feet out.

So much for the troops resenting Obama.

While Obama was meeting with Karzai and promising more American troops
(the one mistake Obama made, in my opinion), McCain was explaining to a
few bored reporters that Obama had no idea of the conditions along the
Iraq/Pakistan border, “otherwise known,” Jon Stewart acidly observed,
“as Iran.”

Der Spiegel, the German magazine, then had an interview with al-Maliki,
the Iraqi Prime Minister, who observed that Obama’s 16-month timetable
for getting American troops out of Iraq was pretty much what al-Maliki
himself thought was the best route to take. A top McCain staffer let
himself be caught in earshot of the press saying, “Oh, we are fucked.”
The White House promptly put out a message, saying they had spoken to
al-Maliki, and he had been misinterpreted. No, al-Maliki shot back, that
is what I meant to say. Since a big part of McCain’s campaign was that
he knew better than Obama what was best for Iraq, “fucked” is a pretty
good description.

On the day that McCain was supposed to use Novak the Prince of Darkness
to leak his choice for vice president, Batman beat up his mother and
Novak himself drew attention away from the announcement by running over
a pedestrian with a car. Later that day, McCain landed in New Hampshire
to find that only one reporter and one photographer was there to cover
his campaign stop.

On the day of the big speech in Berlin, McCain planned to steal some
thunder by giving a speech on an oil platform about how vital offshore
drilling was, and how clean and safe. The speech and photo-op were
cancelled at the last moment, supposedly because of Hurricane Dolly
which had gone ashore and disintegrated a couple of days earlier. Not
mentioned by the McCain people was that there was a 400,000 gallon oil
spill in the vicinity, caused by a collision between two ships.

One of the elements of Obama’s trip that might have a lasting effect on
the voters was one that McCain didn’t manage to make worse for himself.

Two hundred thousand Germans turned out to see Barack Obama in Berlin.
He is immensely popular over there. And in this, there is a message:

People still want to like America. Yes, Putsch has disgraced the
country, alienated its friends and made it many new enemies, and he is a
source for sour jokes and outright hatred all over the world. But people
all over the world still love the American dream, and still respect and
adore the principles for which the country stands. Even as many
Americans lost that vision, it remained in Europe, even while they
stared in bafflement as America twice elected a vicious buffoon and
followed policies closer in spirit to Adolph Hitler than to Thomas
Jefferson.

The Germans are wise in the ways of politicians, in a way Americans hope
never to find out. I watched the BBC’s Matt Frei interviewing Germans,
and a couple raised the question of whether Obama is a dreamer or a
demagogue.

It isn’t just a legitimate question. It is THE most legitimate question
any voter should ask about all the candidates, and not just of those
candidates they don’t like. There’s no guarantee the answer will be the
right one (I myself felt in October 2000 that George W. Bush was an
amiable flyweight who would prove to be an ineffectual and generally
worthless one-termer. I didn’t begin to guess the ability of the people
around him to tear apart much of what America stood for, in order to
erect their own corporate-run national empire). But the question at
least puts your mind in the right place to spot and react to demagoguery
when and if it arises.

Despite the question, Germans clearly like Obama and wish him – and
America – well. Around the world, people still believing in America may
be what it takes to get Americans believing in themselves again, after
eight years of the moral and intellectual morass of the Putsch junta.

McCain still hits all the same sour “can’t do” notes. America can’t find
peace without war. America can’t find prosperity by feeding its poor.
America can’t clean up its industry without it falling apart.

America can’t do this. America can’t do that.

But America is strong. So strong it doesn’t need to talk to anyone.
Doesn’t need to know what others are thinking. Doesn’t need friends. And
writhes in resentful fury because everyone is alienated from it.

People, both in America and abroad, need to change that. And Obama,
honestly or not, holds out the promise that he will.

OSLO - Twenty-three people were wounded when a gang of 40-50 men armed with steel bars and machetes attacked residents at a refugee centre in Norway late on Thursday, officials said on Friday.

No one was seriously wounded, but 10 were sent to hospital and 13 treated at a local clinic, hospital officials said.

An official at the centre in Oestfold south of Oslo said the attackers were Chechens and the victims Kurds. Police declined to confirm or deny that and said they had made no arrests so far.

"There was an attack from outside the asylum centre by people who don't live here, Chechens, 40 to 50 men armed with steel bars and other weapons," Ole Morten Lyng, an official at the centre, told NRK public radio news.

"There also seem to have been knives involved," Lyng said. "They went into the rooms and pulled out Kurds and beat them up."

A police officer said some of the attackers had machetes.

Lyng told Norwegian news agency NTB that the conflict stemmed from a minor dispute between Kurds and Chechens at the centre that got blown out of proportion.

Just see how well they've assimilated to their adopted culture! It's common knowledge that Norwegians settle their minor disputes by attacking each other with steel bars and machetes. Sure they do. When are those wimpy descendants of Vikings going to wake up?

But the first: Christian, Stephanie, and I talked with Patrick for about 2 hours. Another very in depth time where we presented the entire Gospel in a clear way. And another time where we talked about purpose and the uniqueness of Jesus among other religions. That seems to be a theme here for me this week. He enjoyed this time and commented that he never talks about these kinds of things. He left admitting that he once felt something when he went to a church in India. He couldn't deny it, but did not follow it. Christian encouraged him to "Ask, seek, and knock... and you will find."

This was perhaps the most spiritually intense and involved and exhausting conversation I have ever had. Not because of any arguments. I'm not quite sure why, but when we left, I was tired; I was exhausted, and I was spent! I was disengaged during our next time (the one that went an hour longer that it should've...).

Our team regrouped for dinner - I had another Döner - then we went our separate ways for the night. Mike and I went evangelizing and had a conversation with Marco and Fransisca. Prior to this, I had done most of the talking in evangelism times so far this trip. I wanted to watch Mike. And I so enjoyed it! Such a sincere time where they listened so intently - another 2 hour time. Mike led them through the Gospel and everything made so much sense to them. They had no objections; they had sincere questions, but they accepted our answers. After several invitations to accept Jesus, they turned it down- "Not now," "I have a life to live," "It's a lot to think about..." Whereas it may be understandable, they may never have a chance like this again. Even if they live another 50 years, true Christians are so rare here, that they may never have another conversation like this again...

So so much more write! With each conversation - I've learned so much. Although the message is the same, there is a tweak or a focus that is unique to each individual interaction. I get encouraged the more I share (Philemon 6), and I learn more about so much all across the board - "presentation" and "methods," my blessings in Christ, others' conditions, God's heart. I feel like I only write brief reports; there's so much more that I'm learning during this time, and for every paragraph I write, I could write a whole blog about... I'll get to that later, after some more processing.

Saturday night is a celebration dinner for the Rock Berlin: 5th year anniversary. Daniel Georing will be there giving vision for the church. It is also an event that we've been inviting our contacts to.

Pray: that we will see those we talked with again: whether on Saturday night or for coffee sometime. Continual encouragement, faith, and unity with the team. Strength in weakness - I for one, and I don't think I'm alone, am tired. Mixed with jet-lag, overlap of HSLT and Germany, and the mission trip experience - I'm tired.

La date de l'arrestation de Radovan Karadzic: l'ancien chef des Serbes de Bosnie a été arrêté le 21 juillet au soir, selon les autorités serbes, mais le vendredi 18 juillet selon le fugitif dont les propos ont été retransmis par son avocat. Les versions divergent en outre sur les conditions mêmes de cette arrestation. Selon les autorités serbes, Radovan Karadzic a été arrêté lundi au cours d'une action des services de sécurité serbes "alors qu'il se rendait d'une localité (où il se cachait) à l'autre". L'arrestation de Karadzic s'est déroulée "sans aucun problème et avec un minimum de risque" pour les personnes ayant participé à l'action et pour l'inculpé lui-même.

Les autorités n'ont pas donné davantage de précisions sur le lieu et la façon dont s'est produite l'arrestation. Les responsables chargés du dossier ont expliqué vouloir préserver de la sorte l'enquête qui permettrait de les conduire aux deux derniers inculpés du Tribunal pénal international (TPI), l'ancien chef militaire des Serbes de Bosnie Ratko Mladic et l'ancien leader des Serbes de Croatie, Goran Hadzic.
Les officiels serbes ont révélé cependant que Radovan Karadzic utilisait une fausse identité, qu'il vivait sous le nom de Dragan Dabic à Belgrade et qu'il gagnait sa vie en s'occupant de médecine alternative.

L'avocat de Radovan Karadzic, Me Svetozar Vujacic, affirme de son côté que son client a été arrêté le vendredi 18 juillet et non le lundi 21 juillet comme le soutiennent les autorités serbes. Karadzic affirme, selon son avocat, avoir été arrêté dans un autobus des transports en commun, sur la ligne 73 reliant Belgrade au faubourg de Batajnica, situé à une quinzaine de kilomètres au nord-ouest de la capitale serbe.

"Trois voyageurs qui étaient à bord de l'autobus l'affirment également", a indiqué son avocat. Radovan Karadzic était assis à l'arrière de l'autobus plongé dans un livre lorsque plusieurs agents l'ont approché et menotté avant d'arrêter l'autobus et de le faire sortir du véhicule, a-t-on ajouté de même source. Selon Me Vujacic, Karadzic a "littéralement été kidnappé, cagoulé et emmené dès vendredi dans un lieu qu'il n'a pas pu identifier". Selon l'avocat, Radovan Karadzic aurait été détenu dans ce lieu, une chambre au mobilier austère, jusqu'à lundi, date de l'annonce officielle de son arrestation.

Me Vujacic a annoncé avoir déposé une plainte contre X en raison de ce "kidnapping". Des journaux serbes ont assuré quant à eux que Radovan Karadzic était, au moment de son arrestation, en partance pour des vacances, avançant même comme destination la province de Voïvodine (nord de la Serbie) ou la côte croate. Il disposait avec lui d'un ordinateur portable, d'un sac à dos contenant des livres et de 600 euros, selon un journal.

Karadzic, 63 ans, a été inculpé par la justice internationale de génocide, de crimes contre l'humanité et de crimes de guerre, notamment pour le massacre de près de 8.000 hommes et adolescents musulmans en juillet 1995 à Srebrenica, dans l'est de la Bosnie.

Via: 7sur7

Présenté en comparution immédiate pour violences volontaires, Ali Nassakh, un maçon de 30 ans de nationalité algérienne, a été condamné à deux ans de prison dont 18 mois avec sursis et placé en détention. Le procureur avait réclamé huit mois de prison dont trois avec sursis et il risquait jusqu'à cinq ans de prison. Il avait été interpellé jeudi après-midi après avoir frappé son épouse sur le parking d'une grande surface près des plages du Prado. Le couple, qui réside à Lille (nord) et s'était marié en novembre 2007, était venu en vacances à Marseille.

Un passant avait donné l'alerte après avoir vu la jeune femme le visage en sang. Elle avait fondu en larmes quand son mari avait affirmé qu'elle s'était cognée la tête à une voiture garée à côté. Devant le tribunal, le mari a demandé pardon à son épouse. Cette dernière, âgée de 24 ans et de nationalité française, a expliqué à la barre où elle s'est présentée voilée que son mari lui reprochait d'avoir dénudé son cou.

"Je ne supporte pas la chaleur", a-t-elle dit, "le foulard, je l'avais, je ne cachais pas le cou mais je n'avais pas de décolleté". La jeune femme n'a réclamé aucune indemnisation, souhaitant simplement "repartir à Lille et réfléchir". "La vraie religion de monsieur c'est le machisme", a estimé le procureur. "Nous sommes dans une culture totalement différente", a plaidé l'avocate de la défense, Me Marie-Laurence Pennicat, s'interrogeant toutefois sur l'avenir du couple car "ce n'est pas la première fois qu'elle est frappée".

Via: 7sur7

But, on to more important matters, like how awesome British people are. First of all, there's the sexy accent, impeccable taste, and swoopy hair. (Cedric Diggory, anyone? Hollerrrr.) Then there's the wealth of culture that has been disseminated across the globe. But, most importantly, there's the no-bullshit attitude. One of my favorite bloggers (who, incidentally, is about to release a book), the Waiter, wrote a guest column for The Guardian. He criticized British travelers to the United States who don't leave an adequate tip, threatening at the end of the column to nuke the country from space should it happen again.

But the best part of the article is the comments. Did the British apologize for not knowing the American custom? Did they thank the Waiter for informing them of a cultural difference? No, of course not. They laid in to the American wage system, criticizing restaurant owners and lawmakers for forcing waiters to accept a sub-subsistence wage and then expecting customers to subsidize that wage by adding a premium onto the cost of food. To paraphrase, "Bloody hell, man! That's bollocks!"

Dear Europe, please invade the United States and civilize (read: socialize) us. I'd love you forever, even moreso than I already do.

I got caught again. Guess it's just my mental recession.

From Rachel Weiner, The Huffington Post:

McCain Forgets Canada in Obama Attack

In an interview with NBC's Kelly O'Donnell airing tonight, John McCain questioned Barack Obama's decision to give a speech in Berlin while he's still a candidate. But MSNBC points out that he's forgetting a recent speech of his own:

"I would rather speak at a rally or a political gathering any place outside of the country after I am president of the United States," McCain told O'Donnell. "But that's a judgment that Sen. Obama and the American people will make."

However, on June 20, McCain himself gave a speech in Canada -- to the Economic Club of Canada -- in which he applauded NAFTA's successes. An implicit message behind that speech was that Obama had been critical of the trade accord. Also, McCain's trip to Canada was paid for by the campaign.

In fact, an ambassador's role in organizing McCain's speech led some Democrats to argue that he was violating the Hatch Act.

Evolution, Melanin And Brain Power

#2 Part 2

by

R.E. Prindle

     Melanin is only one aspect of evolution.  I presume erik assumes that the only genetic differences between the various human species is color.  If low melanin were simply geographical  and if evolution had ceased when HSI, the African, evolved then indeed all Homo Sapiens would have the same capabilities but obviously in different stages of development.

     We know howeer that evolution didn't cease one hundred fifty thousand years ago when Homo Sapiens evolved from the Last Hominid Predecessor.

     Let's consider two anomalies that distinguish Homo Sapiens from all other mammals with the exception of the Great Apes.  All other mammals are hairy whether they live on the Equator or the North Pole.  All other mammals with the exception of the Great Apes have tails.  Both Apes and HS at one time had tails.  They are now vestigial.

     The Great Apes who live in Africa are black beneath their hairy coats.  Certainly melanin is less needed by the Hairy Apes than White HS in the temperate zones.  Why haven't Apes switched off their melanin genes?

     If having high melanin has a protective benefit in the tropics and if the hominid predecessors had a full coat of hair which they surely must have what happened to it?  Wouldn't the hair have been more protective and beneficial than high melanin?

     With the Apes the anthropoids diverge from the four legged standard of mammals.  HS is the most erect of all.  As I said in EMBP #1  in the evolution of new organs or changes to the organism the organism cannot add to the existing structure from new materials it can only convert other substances to fill the new needs.  Thus it must be true that HS is relatively hairless because the hair was converted geneticall to other uses.  When the hair disappeared the predecessor of HS was black but much less protected from the sun because of the hair loss.  So melanin had nothing to do with the tropical sun.  HS was already black.  He started looking around for clothes.

     The tail also could be eliminated safely so that it too disappeared to be used in evolutionary changes elsewhere. 

     If the HS brain continues to evolve adding new capabilities the material to do so will have to be provided by the alteration of some other organ or substance such as melanin.

     We know that evolutionarily great changes have occurred.  The changes necessary for the organism to walk erect are astounding.  And yet HS must have moved on all fours at sometime in its past.  I can tell you this, geography had nothing to do in the alteration of our species so it could walk erect.

     There are many things yet to be explained.

By the way, I was really happy when I got home because my dog was so excited to see me. haha

Evolution, Melanin And Brain Power

#2 Part 1

by

R.E. Prindle

     In EMBP #1 I expressed my disdain for the theory that melanin is caused by geography rather than being a matter of evolutionary genetic changes.

     I recieved a comment from <erik> in which he says:

     Where did you get the idea that no attempt to offer a mechanism for the process is offered?

     When humans migrated North, the selective pressure for expression of melanin producing genes was removed.  So the expression of those genes became useless resulting in lighter skin color.

     I still haven't seen a mechanism offered.  As I interpret erik's meaning, when Homo Sapiens migrated from Africa he still had high melanin.  As Homo Sapiens only came into existence a hundred fifty thousand years ago one assumes that population growth was slow, especially if Africa was as disease ridden then as it is now.  We can't be sure then when population pressures were so great that Africans sent colonies into the world changing color as they went.  Who can guess?  Perhaps a hundred thousand years ago?  Now, the sun in Italy and Spain, the South of France is quite strong.  It can burn a low melanin person to a crisp in short order so one assumes the genetic melanin switch may have been a tad reluctant to turn off.  Nevertheless erik assures us it did.

     The Black Muslims of the United States with as much assurance as erik inform us that for an undetermined reason (a mad scientist enters in here, somewhere, I think) melanin loss in Whites came into existence.  These African mutants were so troublesome that Black Africans expelled them from Africa.  In this verseion, no less scientific than erik's, Whites were already low melanin when they left so that that lucky old sun had nothing to do with it.  You already have my thoughts on the subject.

     If the tropics produced high melanin then one asks why South Americans are so low melanin?  One also asks why Indonesians and South East Asians aren't Black.

     If Northern climes produce low melanin why are Mongolids of relative high melaninity?  Further as Caucasians were living cheek by jowl with the much higher melanin Mongolids how could two such different melanin contents exist in the same geographical area?

     Why are the Tibetans who live under the palest of suns relatively so dark?  The Eskimos...but these are all such old arguments, been bucketing around so long, I'm embarrassed to make them.

     Evolution is evolution, erik, and has nothing to do with geography.  I'll explore this a bit further in Part 2.

The latest piece from Times Online editor, American Gerard Baker, first came to my attention about an hour ago and it's a doozy! 

His latest op-ed is absolutely awesome.  Baker takes the media's open desire to make Barack Obama the Savior/Messiah and completely pokes fun at those who have this view (he also calls Gordon Brown, Gordon the Leper!) through colorful and biblical-style language.  I don't think the New Yorker crowd will misunderstand this satire, but one never knows.  Here's a sample from the beginning:

"And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow."

I wish Obama would have "ventured forth" to the wounded troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, but that would have seemed "too political."  The Pentagon simply told him not to bring his media and campaign troglodytes, but he could go as an elected official, rather than a candidate.  He chose not to go.  However, he made it to the gym though.

AP photo.

Navigation is done through a combination of a Google map and images taken by VR (Virtual Reality) photographers. The site encourages VR photographers from around the world to become involved with the project in order to continue growing the site.

Image info here.

I don't think he is arguing that society would be better with a theistic/Christian world-view, but he has hit upon something I've been thinking about for a little while. Why is it that everything and anything that stands in my way of being "happy" needs to be cut down and destroyed? To take the example Mr. Utley cites, let's look at divorce. Is it a good thing that once a marriage hits a bumpy patch, the people involved can just dissolve it? I understand that there might be cases where divorce is the only way for two people to survive, but surely that's not the case with a vast majority of divorces. But, if somehow you aren't "happy" or "fulfilled" by the current state of your marriage, you can just leave.

That seems to be bad thing: whenever there is any kind of difficulty, are we just supposed to give up? I guess in a "happiness"-driven society, if whatever you are doing isn't making you "happy," then the only reasonable thing to do is to leave it/get rid of it. But answer me this: whoever said that you have a right to be "happy?" To take an extreme example, what if murder makes me happy? Why can't I murder?

"But Denis," you might say, "murder is totally different! Then you are hurting someone else. So, you can be happy and do whatever you want, you just can't hurt anyone."

OK, sure, that is true, probably. But let me offer another example. Ask any normal child if he would like to eat ice cream all day, I'm sure he would jump up and down and scream "YES!" No doubt, the child thinks that eating ice cream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner would make him so very "happy." But, it would not in fact be in the child's best interest to eat ice cream constantly. So, do you deny the child's happiness? Any parent with half a brain will say yes. So, you can see now that perhaps there are situations when you want to deny someone what he thinks would make him happy.

"But Denis," you might say, "we all know that eating ice cream doesn't actually make one happy. Happiness is about more than food. It's about... well, it's about other things!"

Yes, it is. Happiness is much more than the satisfaction of our basic desires (for food, drink, etc.). I'm glad you can see that. Happiness does not equate with pleasure; and I think one of the main problems with society today is that it thinks happiness = pleasure.

(Note: I put happy and happiness in quotes because, as everyone knows, true happiness is the live of virtue in accord with right reason; see here for more.)

Freemasonry Alert (or not): Senator Barack Obama is making nice to French president Nicolas Sarkozy...compare with Homer and Barney, both Stonecutters, below. -- mb

Obama meets pro-US Sarkozy in Paris
Obama "cannot requite the love that France has for him," said Francois Durpaire, the co-author of a book on the senator from Chicago, because "that would go down badly in the Midwest" states of America.

But his visit has sparked much excitement in France, with Le Monde newspaper's front-page headline stating: "Europe is under the charm of Barack Obama."

by Rabbi David Rosen
AJC's International Director of Interreligious Affairs

When King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia announced his intention some three months ago to reach out to the leaders of the main religions of the world to convene an interfaith dialogue and to work together to address major global challenges, there was understandably no shortage of skepticism.

Saudi Arabia is the heartland of Islam and arguably the most conservative of Muslim countries. Freedom of worship is not granted to other religions in Saudi Arabia, where the dominant brand of Islam is Wahhabism (or, more precisely, Salafism), which has a far more insular approach than other forms of Islam.

However, there appeared to be some obvious reasons why the king would want to take such an initiative. Aside from the need to improve the image of Islam in the West and that of his country in particular, there are the regional strategic factors at stake. The instability caused by the ongoing conflict in Iraq; the increased power and influence of Iran; the dangers posed to Sunni Islam and Saudi interests by a "Shiite crescent"-all contribute to Saudi Arabia's sense that it needs to assert what it sees as its leadership role in the Muslim world.

In pursuit of this initiative, King Abdullah enlisted the World Muslim League (WML). While the king claims the title of guardian of the two holiest shrines of Islam, his position is, in fact, not one of religious authority. While the WML is an arm of the Saudi regime, it nevertheless has the religious standing in Saudi Arabia and throughout the Muslim world to give the "cover" that the king needed for his initiative.

In typically cautious fashion, Abdullah first convened a pan-Islamic conference to discuss this venture, and while there were criticisms, he received widespread backing. However, there were those who did not attend the conference who expressed strong opposition to the whole idea of interfaith dialogue and especially to inviting members of other faiths to Saudi Arabia.

Probably for this reason, or at least in order to proceed in as much of a tactically secure fashion as possible, the decision was taken to hold the multifaith gathering in Spain, while indicating that this was the first such conference and hinting at future gatherings in Saudi Arabia itself.

There were important arguments against cooperating with this Saudi initiative. Why be party to advancing the public relations of a regime that is hardly an exemplar of religious toleration? Why cooperate with WML, which promotes a brand of Islam that does not by any means serve the interests of Muslim integration into Western democracy and pluralism? Moreover, a number of the names that appeared on an initial list of invitees were problematic, and even the secretary-general of the WML himself was implicated in supporting organizations that had served nefarious elements working abroad.

The counterargument was that a Jewish rejection of this invitation would not, in fact, serve the interests of Jewry, Israel, and the Free World-on the contrary. This was an opportunity to begin to break through barriers of hostility and bigotry, and perhaps this move (for whatever reasons of self-interest) would herald an opening up in the Muslim world to greater understanding of and even cooperation with others. In addition to the welcome AJC gave to this initiative, this was also the position taken by Israel's political and diplomatic leadership.

However, it became patently clear that for the WML, these were uncharted waters. The preparations, list of invitees, invitations, and even the program itself all betrayed the lack of familiarity with the interfaith territory at large and with specific religious communities in particular.

The invitation I received as one of the few initial Jewish invitees was sent deliberately to AJC's Jacob Blaustein Building in New York. Indeed, even though the list of invitees on the website set up for the conference included many names who never received invitations as well as others who had immediately declined, it was clear that the hosts had decided to deliberately avoid inviting any official Israeli or Palestinian representatives.

Nevertheless, the fact that I am an Israeli was widely covered in the media. Moreover, I emphasized that without official Israeli religious representation, this could not be considered a real dialogue with Jewry. It was further reported that this had greatly ruffled the organizers' feathers.

Further invitations went out, and a conference program appeared on the website. At the conference in Madrid, a Saudi journalist told me that I had been on the original program as a preliminary speaker, but was removed as a result of this publicity.

Most disturbing was the fact that when the tentative program (subsequently changed half a dozen times) appeared on the conference website, the name of Yisroel Dovid Weiss of Neturei Karta was listed on the opening plenary! Had Weiss in fact remained in this representative role, we would have withdrawn from the conference in protest-and this was very much the position that the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs had recommended as well. However, together with other Jewish figures who had accepted invitations to attend, an effective campaign was launched on our part enlisting various religious and political contacts in the U.S. and around the world. The result was that Weiss was taken off the program and did not attend at all.

The opening session on March 16 was hosted by King Juan Carlos in the Spanish Royal El Prado Palace. There was an impressive array of Arab princes (including most of the Saudi government) and Muslim clerics, together with representatives of the world's major faiths-not least among these Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the Vatican prelate responsible for relations with other faiths.

King Abdullah welcomed the attendees, and in his opening speech emphasized his conviction that authentic religion is expressed in a spirit of moderation and tolerance and requires that concord must replace conflict. He called for cooperation and collaboration between the different religions to that end, in order to address the global challenges of our time.

At the end of the opening, he greeted the guests individually. When my turn came, I introduced myself to him saying in (my limited) Arabic, "I am Rabbi Rosen from Jerusalem, Israel," and he replied "Ahalan w'asalan" (i.e., welcome), but I could see that those around him almost had heart attacks on the spot.

While the king's message was hardly earth-shattering in itself, the fact that he had given the green light for encounter, dialogue, and collaboration with the other faith communities appeared to open the gates for many who were most curious but might have been wary or even fearful of such encounters beforehand. The Jewish delegation of some fifteen rabbis and scholars was most affected by this "permission." We were interviewed incessantly by the Arab media, and many Arab figures, in particular, came up to us and said that they had never met a Jew, let alone a rabbi, and would like to ask us questions. Many of these questions reflected stunning prejudice, distortions, and misconceptions, but the very fact that they could vent them to us-almost innocently-presented opportunities to address these misrepresentations and to try to overcome them. The fact that I was not only the representative of a leading American Jewish organization but also an Israeli only increased the media interest, and I must have been interviewed, primarily by Arab media in general, but also by Saudi media in particular (as well as by Western media) some thirty times, on TV, radio, and the press.

Naturally, as is the case more often than not at conferences, conversations outside of the formal proceedings and especially at mealtimes offered far greater opportunity for meaningful exchange. In parenthesis, I might point out that kosher food had been ordered specially by the Muslim organizers for the Jewish participants. The fact that it was quite inedible and that we made do with fresh salads and fruits does not diminish from the consideration and respect shown by our hosts.

At one mealtime I was sitting next to a prominent Saudi personality who informed us that the gathering was the outcome of the process that King Abdullah had embarked upon since his accession to the throne. The king's desire, he said, was not only for Saudi Arabia to play a more engaged role with the world at large and with the world's religions in particular, but was also part of his desire to open up Saudi Arabia itself to the world.

Our Saudi interlocutors were also at pains to emphasize the courage of the eighty-five-year-old king in taking this course, evidenced by the strong criticism that had been leveled against him for doing so in his own country.

While one might raise an eyebrow at the claims of exclusively noble motives behind the initiative, enlightened self-interest is probably as good a motive as any.

In the highly choreographed format of the proceedings, there was a moment of some passion and heat. It came in the wake of the almost inevitable mantra expressed by a panelist in the penultimate session that while dialogue with Jews was permissible (and perhaps even desirable), dialogue with Israel and those who supported it was not.

I was given the floor to respond, pointing out that genuine dialogue is not one in which one side defines the character of the other, but rather seeks genuinely to understand others as they see themselves. Judaism has always been inextricably connected to the Land of Israel, and while this should not be used to justify any action or policy that is in conflict with the morality and ethics that are at the foundation of religion, to deny or try to separate this bond is to fail to acknowledge, let alone respect, Jewish self-definition.

While there was a minimal negative reaction, alleging that the irenic discussion had now been politicized, there were also constructive Muslim responses in return.

Arguably most notable of all was the respectful spirit in which the discussion took place. Many noted that it had actually served as something of a release.

As already mentioned, the Saudis had avoided inviting any official Israeli and any Palestinian representatives, assumedly to avoid any possible polemic or potentially disruptive element in the proceedings of this initial foray into the interreligious arena. (This absence might itself paradoxically point to an intention to address specifically the challenges of the conflict in the future.)

However, in a way, the absence of any mention of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict created the feeling that the "elephant in the room" was being ignored. The opportunity to refer to it in the context of respectful debate actually helped clear the air.

While the concluding statement was the anticipated pious declaration, it does nevertheless reflect the expressed Saudi intention to continue the process that has been embarked upon. This is something that should not be underestimated. The highest authority in the very heartland of Islam has taken a lead in interfaith outreach (whatever his motives might be) with the declared intention of addressing contemporary challenges and resolving conflict. This offers us a significant opportunity, and AJC is uniquely positioned to contribute to this process.