We get attacked all the time, mostly by moonbats, but I think this is the first time I've been denounced in a Saudi newspaper. One Jihad el Khazen, writing in the prominent newspaper Dar Al-Hayat, went off on an anti-"neocon" (i.e. anti-Semitic) rant earlier today. He attacked a lot of people, including the New York Post, Charles Krauthammer, the Washington Times, Joel Rosenberg of National Review--and me.

The tone of el Khazen's piece is discernible from these phrases: "known to be biased towards Israel," "those who sacrificed the lives of the US marines are the Israelis inside the American administration," "Mr. Krauthammer, who is an Israeli Likudist," "The Washington Times, a strong supporter of the Israeli right wing Likud Party," "[t]he Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) is defiled just like its name," and on and on. Here is his conclusion: "The only party that benefits from the situation is Israel, thanks to the well known efforts of its gang." Can anyone say, "obsession"? Especially given the fact that the ostensible subject of el Khazen's article was the Iraq war, which has little or nothing to do with Israel.

What did I do to get onto Mr. el Khazen's list? I criticized the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (of which I am a member) for adopting an anti-Israel "peace" resolution at its recent assembly. Here is what he had to say about me:

John H. Hinderaker is even more insolent that the former, for he published an article in the Weekly Standard which is a magazine speaking on behalf of the neo-cons, under the title: “Fences and a Just Peace.” The subtitle of the article reads: “The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America makes a stand against Israel’s security fence and in favor of a ‘just peace’. (Never mind Palestinian terrorism.)"

Sharon is the father and mother of Israeli terrorism. He who cover up for him is his alike. Many American Churches took the decision of putting an end to their investments in Israel. The new Pope reprimanded Israel lately. Then comes this applaud to protest.

I guess "this applaud" means my article in the Daily Standard.

There is perhaps a certain irony in the fact that I, the only Gentile among the Power Line crew, wound up in the cross-hairs of an anti-Semite. But it is a place I am quite happy to be. For that matter, I'm not very popular among anti-Semites here in the U.S., either.

I do wonder, though, how the leaders of the ELCA feel about being praised by the likes of Jihad el Khazen for their "peaceful" denunciation of Israel.

SCOTT adds: It's of interest that National Public Radio -- promoting its news service with a banner ad at the top of the Dar Al-Hayat site -- thinks that the readers of Dar Al-Hayat would be attracted to NPR's coverage. Could it be coverage like "The Gaza pullout through Palestinian eyes" that leads NPR to think so? As Andrea Levin wrote in 2003: "National Public Radio can't seem to help itself - whatever the Middle East subject, whatever the day, anti-Israel bias percolates." See also CAMERA's report: "A record of bias: National Public Radio's coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict."

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt is jealous:

To be singled out for condemnation as a friend and ally of Israel is a singular honor. Congrats to those mentioned. For a writer, I can't think of a higher honor than to be blasted for defending longest established democracy in the Middle East, and a staunch friend of America.

FURTHER UPDATE: Captain Ed, on the other hand, seems to be taking Jihad's side. Sort of:

Anyway, Jihad ol' buddy, I just want you to know that I have your back on this one. At least, I'm assuming that wide expanse we see exposed in your column is your back.

THE LAST WORD: My older brother writes:

I sympathize with John for having roused the ire of the Saudis, but this isn't the first time I've worried about fishing him out of the river.