In the United States, when it comes to the Middle East - and only the Middle East - everyone and the mother’s uncle is an expert. I can’t believe that people whom are allowed to pretend they are an expert on the region on CNN. These are instant “experts,” people whom have never studies the Middle East, don’t know any of the languages, rarely traveled there and have no real knowledge of the history, culture or contemporary politics.

Very often their sole “qualification” for pontificating as an expert on the Middle East is the degree in which they are passionate about Israel. If you have strong views on Israel - and they must be pro-Israeli - then you are treated as an expert. All that matter is that you feel passionate about the region. That is why someone like Martin Indyk, whom never studied the region and does not speak any of its languages, was allowed to become Assistant Secretary of Near East Affairs under Clinton. Indyk’s “qualifications” was working at the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee and then working at the pro-Israel “think tank” the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

In short, America’s discourse on the Middle East is dominated by people whom are truly ignorant but feel strongly about the region because they passionately support Israel. Lest you think this is all talk, let me illustrate that gross ignorance for you in the past few days and weeks.

First, there is an op-ed in today’s Washington Post [For Radical Islam, the End Begins.] by self-described neo-conservative Joshua Muravchik. Muravchik is a so-called scholar at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute and the pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He has never studied the Middle East and doesn’t speak any of the languages, but, nonetheless, in today’s Washington has made a career writing about the region. One of his timeless editorial is simply titled “Bomb Iran.” He’s a deep thinker. Check out his expertise in today’s paper:

Finally, Lebanon held a tense election earlier this month that many expected would result in the triumph of Hezbollah and its allies over the pro-Western March 14 coalition. Instead, the latter carried the popular vote and nailed down a commanding majority in parliament.

In fact, the March 8 coalition led by Hezbollah actually won 54% of the vote but failed to win a majority in the parliament because Lebanon’s sectarian electoral laws weight districts disproportionally with Shias most adversely effected.

Thomas Friedman, the arrogant psuedoexpert par excellence, demonstrates equal ignorance:

First, a solid majority of Lebanese Christians voted against the list of Michel Aoun, who wanted to align their community with the Shiite Hezbollah party, and tacitly Iran, because he viewed them as being best able to protect Christian interests — not the West. The Christian majority voted instead for those who wanted to preserve Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence from any regional power.

Second, a solid majority of all Lebanese — Muslims, Christians and Druse — voted for the March 14 coalition led by Saad Hariri, the son of the slain Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri.

First, of course, as just stated the March 8 coalition won a majority of votes against the 46% for March 14. And the Aoun-led Christian did win the Christian vote with 50%.

So Friedman turns two loses for his side, and one by 8 points, into a “solid majority” win. Does this guy not have a fact checker?

You see, in the U.S. press not only do you see errors, but you see the same errors over and over again because ignorant writers just read each others’ ignorant crap without every learning anything. Elliot Abrams is everything that is wrong with America’s “experts” on the region. Abrams graduated with a degree in Russian studies, but worked on Latin America during the Reagan administration [he was one of the men behind Iran-Contra]. He is a fanatical supporter of Israel who opposes the two-state solution and has recently taken to the editorial pages advocating against Obama’s demand for a freeze of illegal construction of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Abrams was the point man on the Middle East during the Bush years for all eight years. His only qualification: ideological purity on Israel and the broader region. Here he demonstrates his knowledge that landed him his job:

Hezbollah’s inability to win support outside its Shiite base, along with the poor showing of its Christian ally, Gen. Michel Aoun, leaves Sheik Nasrallah diminished and less able to drag Lebanon into another war with Israel.

First of all, the Shia base which Abrams dismisses is more than 40% of the Lebanese public. Second, Aoun, again, won a close vote but won nonetheless. As for failure to win outside of the Shia base: besides the 50% of Christians, Hezbollah’s coalition won 20% of Sunnis and 30% of Druze. More Sunnis voted for a Shia-led coalition then Shias voted for the Sunni, Hariri-led coalition.

Now you may say that op-ed contributors make mistakes, but not journalists. I got a treasury trove for you then. First, Michael Slackman of the New York Times. One thing that is greatly lacking in U.S. journalism, and this extends beyond the Middle East, is the lack of truly embedded journalists. It is not a surprise that U.S. journalists lack expertise about most of the world, because they are not allowed to ever stay in one place for long enough. One week they are in Iran and the next in Lebanon. That is exactly Slackman. Last week, this guy was pretending to be an Iran expert reporting from the country and now he has returned to Lebanon demonstrating that his ignorance is not confined to one country:

“During the campaign, his candidates [Sa’ad Hariri] said they would fight to disarm Hezbollah.”

Not a single candidate in Hariri’s Future Party stated that they would disarm Hezbollah. In actuality, Hariri not only has never called for disarming Hezbollah, because he knows he can’t; but that the question of Hezbollah’s arsenal must be dealt with in accordance with national consensus. In fact, right after his electoral victory he made it clear that he had no intention to do anything about Hezbollah’s militia. But these facts do not stop Slackman from repeating his claim twice:

“One involves the majority’s earlier call for disarming Hezbollah.”

Slackman does not cite a single source for his bogus claim. Maybe Hariri told him in private that he wants to disarm Hezbollah, but that is a far claim from stating that “his candidates said they would” during the election.

And then there is the Wall Street Journal, which is an expert on Shia theology, did you not know that?:

“Syed Ali Amine, the Shiite mufti — or chief religious authority — of Tyre and Mount Amel in the south of Lebanon.”

The Angry Arab demolishes this:

In fact, Ali Al Amine was forced out of his position more than a year ago: so he is no more Muftitit of Tyre AND Jabal `Amil, as he is described here. He was a militant Hizbullah cleric allegedly giving fatwawas for kidnapping and murder back in the 1980s, and then became an Amal cleric in the 1990s and then was upset when he was passed over for the position of deputy chair of the Suprme Shi`ite Council, and then he discovered by Hariri and House of Sa`ud, which is his full time job now. In fact, his ouster was quite democratic: people just showed up at his office and asked that he be removed for his connections to Prince Muqrin becamse too clear for the people of the South. I am told that he no more attend funerals or wedding in Tyre becasue people ignore him completely or insult his Saudi sponsorship.

I point out these errors as a forewarning that one should read about the Middle East in the U.S. press with healthy skepticism and a willingness to occasionally do some fact checking. The U.S. media is, simply, not all that reliable.