Daniel Halper at the Weekly Standard found a doozy of a Twitter post on the Fourth of July by Octavia Nasr, CNN’s senior editor of Mideast Affairs. “Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah,” she wrote. “One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot.”
I know enough about Fadlallah, who died at the age of 74 in a Beirut hospital over the weekend, that I can interpret her Twitter post charitably. While once known as the “spiritual leader” of Hezbollah, Fadlallah later moved above and beyond the Party of God and even criticized it once in a while. He supported the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and its leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, but he also criticized Khomeini’s regime of Velayat-e faqih — rule by Islamic jurists — and declared it an inappropriate political system for Lebanon. He supported women’s rights, dismissed their unequal treatment as “backward,” and issued a fatwa condemning “honor” killings.
Most Americans don’t know this about Fadlallah, or have even heard of him. Octavia Nasr surely does, though. It’s common knowledge in Lebanon. She lives in Atlanta, but she was born in Beirut, and covers the Middle East for a living. More likely than not, some or all of the above is what she had in mind when she posted her comment on Twitter.
Still, she’s talking about a man who issued theological justifications for suicide bombings. He threw his support behind hostage-taking in Lebanon during the 1980s and the truck bombings in Beirut that killed more American servicemen than any single attack since World War II. Nasr didn’t mention any of that. It doesn’t even look like she factored it in.
Twitter has a strict limit of 140 characters per “tweet.” It’s hardly the place for a nuanced exposé of a complicated man. There simply isn’t room to write more than one or two sentences at a time. Even so, I suspect the average American consumer of news would find it alarming that a senior editor of Mideast Affairs respects and mourns the loss of a man who supported the kidnapping, murder, and truck bombings of hundreds of her adopted countrymen — and that she said so on the Fourth of July — even if she mourns and respects him for entirely different reasons and does so despite, not because of, his positions on “resistance” and terrorism.
She owes her audience — and perhaps also her employers — a candid explanation at least.
Big Questions About Being a Parent
Coincident with the arrival of my third child, I am astonished to see, once again, the topic of just how horribly awful it is to be a parent popping up again in the navel-gazer media — New York magazine and the like. The self-righteously straight-talking journalism that reveals the ways in which having children don’t make an upper-middle-class Brooklynite “happy” tends to be far more revelatory about the conflicts between the present-day obsession with the narrowest aspect of self-fulfillment than it does about the nature of being a mother or a father and how being one not only changes you but fulfills the most basic hunger/obligation of any earthly creature — to keep life itself alive.
The most affecting riposte to this sort of talk I’ve read recently comes from my old friend Rod Dreher, with whom I have many disagreements ideologically but few on the most fundamental matters. Dreher is now editing a truly wonderful new website at the John Templeton Foundation called Big Questions Online under the supervision of Gary Rosen, who was a senior editor at COMMENTARY for more than a decade. It’s worth taking half an hour this weekend to look around Big Questions and see the way its writers are grappling with fundamental issues of reason and faith, science and religion — the very subjects about which the Templeton Foundation has distinguished itself through its support and consideration over the years.