The Friday brunch that Michelle enjoyed, for example, has been an institution among Middle East expats for years. On the holiest day of the Muslim week, five-star hotels entice customers with all-day feasts and unlimited alcohol from as little as £10.

“With all the ruckus surrounding Michelle Palmer, I thought about not coming to the brunch today,” says Kelly Fields, a 28-year-old editor from Manchester, and Dubai resident of 18 months, who is dining at international restaurant Yalumba a week after Michelle’s brunch there. “But it was just too tempting with the 40-degree heat outside. And the deal is so ridiculously cheap.” At Yalumba, one of the city’s higher-end eateries, it is £57 a head to eat as much as possible, with unlimited champagne.

Friday Brunch is a national institution. I went out on many many Fridays in Dubai to be greeted by pubs in midafternoon that were akin to nightclubs at home at 2am. Such was the level of boozing that people were plastered by at least 6pm. And bars stay open until 3am. You can imagine how messy it gets. And the local papers are up in arms over falling ethical standards:

“You are all as guilty as Michelle,” said one Dubai resident in the UAE’s leading local newspaper 7days. Like many of the UK’s red tops, it blames unruly British conduct for Michelle’s downfall. “You all get drunk in public and you have all dabbled in sex before marriage at some point. The only difference between you and Michelle Palmer is that you haven’t been caught yet!” The following day another reader took a shot at Dubai authorities. “It is a shame that these laws are not enforced more often in such obvious cases … Why should the residents here (and I mean expat as well as Emiratis), whether Muslim or not, have to endure the worst of ‘western’ society?”

It is laughable. Dubai is a city of contradictions. One contradiction is the apparent moral superiority of the local Muslim population as evidenced by the comments above. It is nonsensical. The muslims in Dubai are no more or less moral than the rest of us. Except they claim to be so.

The last time I was in Dubai myself and my sister went to do some shopping in the late afternoon. Spinneys is the Middle Eastern answer to Tesco. We got a taxi from Sheikh Zayed Road to the city centre and as we approached Spinneys we noticed all the pairs of girls, walking up and down outside the shop. All from south-east Asia and all plying their trade in the evening sunshine. Whatever about the rights or wrongs of prostitution itself, this is, we are told, a Muslim country with all the supposed intolerance for this type of behaviour. Yet it goes on in broad daylight. That’s Dubai.

Dubai is being propositioned in bars by Eritrean, Ethiopian, Romanian and Russian prostitutes. All of it known to the police force, and every single local that has a pair of eyes.

Dubai is wealthy sheikhs flying groups of young prostitutes from Russia to Dubai in first class on Emirates Airlines.

Dubai is a city where a Western woman can be kidnapped by several locals, brought to the desert, brutally gang raped and then beaten and left for dead by local Emiratis. And where she gets the blame for “dressing provocatively”. ]

Dubai is a city where workers are routinely tested for HIV, and if found positive are summarily sacked, escorted to the airport by police, and deported.

Dubai is a city where workers from the sub-continent routinely fall from building skyscrapers, and have their deaths go unreported. Those same workers earn about $200 a month for a 12 hour day, six day week. And if temperatures reach 50 degree celsius or above, they may be allowed to take the day off.

Dubai is a city where everything that happens like this is common knowledge among people who live there. But where it is never reported by the media.

And they complain about Western moral standards?

I am not saying that Westerners are moral or immoral. Nor am I saying Muslims, Arabs or Emiratis are moral or immoral. What I am saying is that you cannot accuse Westerners of double standards. But you can accuse Emiratis.

BBC correspondent Alan Johnston has been freed from kidnappers in Gaza after almost four months in captivity.

Television pictures showed Mr Johnston, 45, leaving a building and entering a white car, accompanied by armed men. He said he was tired but in good health.

During his time as a hostage, three videos were released featuring images of Mr Johnston or of his belongings.

Calls were made for his release in rallies worldwide and in an online petition signed by some 200,000 people.

Mr Johnston was handed over to officials of the Hamas administration, reports say.

That’s some pretty bad photoshopping.

LGF has the expose.

More Reuters oddities here.[via Samizdata]

Note the lack of traffic, and the missing blocks of buildings.

It makes the rest of Steve’s thesis all the more interesting.

Why is Israel pounding most of Lebanon rather than just the South and rather than pinpointing its attack against Hezbollah assets? Why the dramatic bombing of explosive fuel centers? The attacks both in Gaza and in Beirut seem made for Fox News, CNN and the next Schwarzenegger movie.

I think that there is little doubt that a significant part of the explanation can be attributed to the fact that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his more liberal partner in this effort, Amir Peretz — now Defense Minister — are not former field command generals and want to demonstrate that they can be responsible stewards of Israel’s national security — and that they won’t be timid in using Israel’s military capabilities.

Steve continues, importantly:

The flamboyant, over the top reactions to attacks on Israel’s military check points and the abduction of soldiers — which I agree Israel must respond to — seems to be part establishing “bona fides” by Olmert, but far more important, REMOVING from the table important policy options that the U.S. might have pursued.

Israel is constraining American foreign policy in amazing and troubling ways by its actions. And a former senior CIA official and another senior Marine who are well-versed in both Israeli and broad Middle East affairs, agreed that serious strategists in Israel are more concerned about America tilting towards new bargains in the region than they are either about the challenge from Hamas or Hezbollah or showing that Olmert knows how to pull the trigger.

Another well respected and very serious national security public intellectual in the nation wrote this when I shared this thesis that Israeli actions were ultimately aimed at clipping American wings in the region. His response:

the thesis of your paper is right-on.

whether intentional or coincidental, that is what is being done right now.

I share these other views only to establish the fact that there is not a consensus either in support of or opposed to Israeli action — but some are beginning to scrutinize what Israel is seeking to achieve with such flamboyant displays of power that are antagonizing whole societies on their borders.

Keeping America from cutting new deals in the region — which many in the national security establishment thinks are vital — may actually be what is going on, and the smarter-than-average analysts are beginning to see that.

To take one moment though and argue a counter-point to this, one serious analyst I spoke to this morning who stopped by to talk after attending synagogue raised a good point. He said that he thought that Olmert’s insecurity about military management was driving the over-reaction.

But he also said that the QUALITY of the attacks against Israel were freaking out the Israeli military and intelligence leaders. Complex incursions that included abductions along with a successful attack on an Israeli gunship show that the enemy is no longer an unimpressive, rag-tag lot. Training and armaments have been improved, and Israel is scrambling to figure out how this happened.

Interesting thesis — and it should be on the table too.

Is it possible that part of the reasoning for an overly belligerent response is to make the US less likely to reach agreement with Iran or Syria? Curious indeed.

Of most interest to me was Dubai, who’s spectacular growth in both buildings and islands sees a major change. Google Maps has yet to be updated so I took a snapshot of Dubai, the photo is circa 1999/2000 I suspect, and is in low resolution.

So here are some rather spectacular before and after shots of Dubai.

Dubai, plus the coast line as far as Jebel Ali port (BEFORE) :

Dubai around now, with the photo showing just beyond Jebel Ali port: (AFTER)

There are other assorted buildings and structures in Dubai, many of which I photographed from the ground. Here are some of the famous ones:

The recently completed Mall of the Emirates, one of the largest shopping centers in the world, with it’s own indoor ski slopes to the left of the picture:

Palm Island Jumeirah, that did not exist just 5 years ago.

The Burj Dubai under construction, center of picture:

The Burj al Arab, Madinat Hotel and Jumeirah Beach hotel:

The skyscrapers of Sheikh Zayed Road, with Emirates Towers just off the center.

And finally, the UAE from 310 miles up, you can make out the two islands.

You can look at my photos of Dubai from the ground.

What I had not realised is that this story has been brewing since October. That this is the case lends more weight to an argument that the controversy is less reactionary than people might think.

South Park also showed Mohammed, one would imagine in a more satirical light:

Last night RTE’s Prime Time decided not to show any of the cartoons.

I have decided to link to the cartoons, I actually think they are not that good, and to be honest I can’t see what all the fuss is about. Decide for yourselves whether you think these are offensive, feel free to comment below.

Here are all of them.

Click here to see images of Mohammed from history.