The New Republic

Very good article. I hope that the president reads it. More than thirty years ago a friend of mine mentioned in a conversation about the Soviet Union that it was in the world of Islam that the last political ideology lived. And a venomous ideology it is.

- paskunac

February 5, 2011 at 7:03am

What is troubling is that Islamism is deeply rooted in Islam. Our only hope for relatively peaceful change is that more cultural Muslims cease to believe in the Islamic religion, understand how destructive it is, and seek other alternative beliefs. Just as people ceased to believe in Communism.

- amidut

February 5, 2011 at 8:20am

What a refreshingly balanced, non-ideological, on point piece. Without restorting to lies about Obama's commitment, poise and skill in dealing with the "world as it is" so far, this writer suggests a clear and focused path forward. Thank you, just brilliant and much needed. You have found your niche sir.

- WandreyCer

February 5, 2011 at 9:31am

I'm not so sure equating Islamism with terrorism will inspire peaceful Muslims to rise up against terrorist Muslims, any more than equating Catholicism with terrorism would have inspired peaceful Catholics to rise up against terrorist Catholics in Northern Ireland. As a westerner, I think I know the distinction he is making between Islam and "Islamism", but not so the Muslim world. For someone who professes to believe in the power of words, my suggestion is that Herf consider his own advice.

- rayward

February 5, 2011 at 10:15am

The Irish analogy isn't one really, as the Provisional IRA and associated groups drew their theory of legitimacy from a nationalist tradition, not a theological one. That militant/violent Irish Republicans were mostly Catholics is an accident of history (as indeed the Kenyan, Palestinian (Jewish), and Malayan campaigns against British authorities had little to do with religion per se, in their day).

- ironyroad

February 5, 2011 at 1:02pm

An outstanding and important article. Reminds me of the best polemic anti-Communist written during the cold war. I hope somebody in Obama's administration is listening.

- arnon

February 5, 2011 at 8:57pm

I agree with the commenders of this very fine article and share with wandreycer my admiration for the balanced assessment of Obama's willingness to take it to the Islamist enemy. Obama's world-reaching bully pulpit to denounce Islamism, and to distinguish it from Islam proper, would do three things amongst others: it takes the offensive fight to the radicals; it countervails the serious error of those who see radical Islam as co-extensive with Islam proper; and it adds to the intra Muslim controversy betwen these different two. Herf is right to note Obama's unique rhetorical gifts, intellect and charisma as so suited to the task he pleads with Obama to undertake. Finally, Herf makes his most challenging and immediately relevant call: for Obama in lending his moral authority to Democratic forces in Egypt and demanding the immediate transition to reform there should complementarily denounce the forces of radical Islam swirling and swimming shark like in the roiling Egyptian revolutionary waters. (I'm not confident that Obama will heed this particular call.) As a post script, I'm struck by how succinctly, clearly and powerfully Herf lays out the central case against Radical Islam. If Paul Berman, who I'm increasingly coming to think as something of a gas bag, ihowever substantive, isn't a gas bag, needlessly wordy he certainly is, and Herf on the same themes, with no sacrifice of complexity, is a refreshing, to the-point-contrast.

- basman

February 5, 2011 at 9:55pm

There IS potential for large lessons in the here and now. Most salient and productive would be to approach the subject of freedom and all of its justice ramifications. Try to cut through all of the noise that narcissism (a profoundly perverse and powerful force) can employ. It's not a simple task by any means. It very much must needs to be spoken to. Obama is of the uniquely proper alchemical constitutions to make a very necessary start on this pivotal hinge.

- jacko

February 6, 2011 at 8:13am

Since he has approved the use of the word before in these pages (in his review of Wistrich's book), why does Herf resist the use of the word in this post? He says he believes in the power of words. We know he believes in the power of incendiary words. The incendiary word he approves? Islamofascism. Herf describes himself as a liberal hawk. Hawk, for sure, but liberal, absolutely not. The difficulty with Herf and his approach to the very real threat facing not just Jews but western civilization (yes, we agree on the threat, just not on the best approach for dealing with it) is that once you identify all Muslims with radical, fascist (yes, they are fascists) Muslims, there can be no solution other than war, a global war against Islam. I will concede to nobody the level of disgust I feel for anti-semitism in any form, whether the soft variety so prevalent today in the west or the hard variety in Nazi Germany in the 1930s or in the predominantly Muslim, underdeveloped world today. Combating anti-semitism and fascism in any form is difficult enough without making the struggle a religious one as well. Maybe Herf is right, that armageddon is unavoidable, and I am just naive. But I am not ready to accept his pessimism. The west has been on the wrong side for so long, supporting oppressive dictators, that we don't know if another way is possible. What is clear from recent events is that the oppressors' days are numbered, and the west has two choices: adapt or defend. If the west adapts, the west can influence the outcome. If the west defends, it's armageddon.

- rayward

February 6, 2011 at 9:22am

Rayward: What part of responsible freedom would you jettison per adaptation?

- jacko

February 6, 2011 at 10:12am

Perhaps I should rephrase to "responsible and accountable freedom". Hey, if it's war then so be it. The end of days is and has always been with us. That doesn't mean that we should berate sisyphus for his efforts. If an end is near then so is a beginning. Both live in the same space and breathe the same air.

- jacko

February 6, 2011 at 10:23am

“The west has been on the wrong side for so long, supporting oppressive dictators, that we don't know if another way is possible. What is clear from recent events is that the oppressors' days are numbered, and the west has two choices: adapt or defend. If the west adapts, the west can influence the outcome. If the west defends, it's armageddon.” I don’t take seriously positions on world affairs that only offer us two diametrically opposed solutions on complex problems. This is a prescription for paralyses and not a solution to anything. If “The west” supported dictators that’s because most countries till recently were non democratic. In most Latin American countries dictatorship of one kind or another were in power since independence. In the Middle East most countries are non-democratic and it’s still too early to say if that is going to change. The US supported the governments that were on our side during the cold war. After the cold war ended it was the West that has been pushing for democratic changes everywhere. It’s strange to read a screed that blames the West for supporting non democratic regimes while tolerating the most extremist theocratic regimes. This may well be the outcome of our push towards democratization in the Middle East. Does anyone think that if we do nothing these radicals will just go away? If their aim is create a new Caliphate in the Muslim world will they stop there? There isn’t going to be a war against a billion Muslims. This is the specter brought out by those who don’t wish to do anything to stop Islamic radicals. On the other hand, doing nothing will eventually lead to the kind of “Armageddon” the poster fears most. It will lead the kinds of wars between Islam and the Wets that were the rule till the 18th century.

- arnon

February 6, 2011 at 12:31pm

Rayward, I don't understand the logic of your post. You say this: ...The difficulty with Herf and his approach to the very real threat facing not just Jews but western civilization (yes, we agree on the threat, just not on the best approach for dealing with it) is that once you identify all Muslims with radical, fascist (yes, they are fascists) Muslims, there can be no solution other than war, a global war against Islam... But Herf specifically decries this conflation: …There is probably nothing Obama can say to the ideological hard core of Islamists that will change their minds or hearts. But he has the talent and grasp of nuance both to speak clearly about the evils of this horrendous ideology and to distinguish it from the Islam that for the majority of believers has nothing to do with terrorism… So it seems to me that you are arguing no position that Herf takes. The use of the term "Islamofacsism" in context here is the side show swallowing a circus. On a different point, I’d add that Herf is, further, to be commended for his balanced assessment of Obama’s initial crack at engagement. Herf admires .Obama’s capacity for nuance. In this regard, I’m thinking that if Obama can carry out at the same time many of Bush’s means of fighting terrorism and in places augment them, then I think he can, too, be more clear in his moral condemnation where warranted and also hold out a hand to be grasped by others.

- basman

February 6, 2011 at 12:42pm

For the Left, a welcome contribution. But there is a dangerous flaw: it fails to recognize that the difference between a radical and a moderate Muslim is usually that the former will kill the Infidel now, while the latter is willing to wait a few decades for us to surrender. The problem we need to address is not “Why are most Muslims terrorists” (which no one has ever said, despite the hysteria about “Islamophobia”) but “Why are most terrorists Muslims?” The answer was hinted at by the Pope, who was pilloried for suggesting that Islam revisit the relation of Faith to Reason. The Pope had in mind Plato’s famous question “Does God will an act because it is Right, or is an act Right because God wills it?” Moral law depends on the former, which implies that Right and Wrong are determined by reason. If the deity’s opinion makes an act Right or Wrong, then those concepts rest only on authority, not reason. Islam opted for the latter, and so there is no contradiction between saying that killing a Muslim is wrong, but also claiming that it is permissible to kill an Infidel for trying to convert a Muslim. Indeed, the Western distinction between politics and religion has no meaning in Islam, since Allah’s Will applies to all actions of the faithful. The result is that in describing right and wrong Christians and Muslims talk past each other, using the same words but with different meanings. For even moderate Muslims, Free Speech can never include the right to offend one’s religion. Thus while they avoid violence themselves, they do not feel that they can publicly expose and condemn extremists who are also Muslim, for fear of offending Allah. It is a rare mosque where an imam has never demanded that homosexuals be beheaded, condemned the Danish cartoons, or defended Hamas or Hizbollah for killing Jews. It is the political pressure of Muslim organizations which made it possible for the Christmas Day Bomber or the Fort Hood killer to carry out their actions without anyone acting on the signals they sent out so often earlier. There are some signs that some North American Muslims are beginning to wake up to the danger of seeming to differ from extremists only in being willing to wait for a few decades for us to surrender. If they want to win our trust, they must rethink their basic assumptions about what makes moral actions right or wrong. We can then begin communicating in the same language. We can begin by noting that saying most terrorists are Muslim does not imply that most Muslims are terrorists. Saying that most New York policemen are residents of New York does not imply that most residents of New York are policemen. “Islamophobia” is simply a slogan intended to make any criticism of any aspect of Islam racist. It is incompatible with free speech, and plays into the hands of the extremists.

- lance00002001

February 6, 2011 at 1:02pm

I am a pragmatist. I've spent almost 33 years as a negotiator, during which I have learned a few lessons. The first lesson is that insulting your adversary will get you nothing in return except insults. The first lesson is detachment; if it's personal, you have lost before you start. Second, make a personal connection to your adversary. Know his interests, and reveal yours. Without trust, you cannot be an effective advocate. The third lesson, which is the hardest but also the key to successful advocacy, is to convince your adversary that he has a stake in the outcome you want. Sometimes it takes a series of small outcomes. It's hard work. And it can be frustrating, when I'd like nothing better than to tell my adversary he is a prick. Or an Islamofascist. Fortunately for the west, Obama understands the art of negotiations, or diplomacy. Herf is an academic, and his writings are a valuable contribution to history and our understanding of it. But he has revealed himself as totally ignorant when it comes to art of negotiations. Maybe his experience in negotiations is limited to who in his academic department gets the best parking space. I don't doubt that he is a provacative professor, inspiring his students to think. But don't let him hear grandmother's china.

- rayward

February 6, 2011 at 1:41pm

Rayward “I am a pragmatist. I've spent almost 33 years as a negotiator, during which I have learned a few lessons.” It’s tautological to say that one is pragmatic in negotiations. Negotiation is itself a pragmatic enterprise. “The first lesson is that insulting your adversary will get you nothing in return except insults.” The first lesson, methinks, is that you can only negotiate with organizations that are ready to negotiate. I see no evidence that radical Islamists are willing to negotiate with those people they consider their enemies. They are certainly not willing to talk to Jews as equals much less negotiate with them.

- arnon

February 6, 2011 at 2:09pm

Rayward, assuming your post is addressed to me, and regardless, I don’t think it makes much of a case and I think reflects more on you than on Herf. First of all you don’t address the answer to your charge against Herf that he elides the difference between Islam and Islamism. Second, your experience of 33 years as a negotiator is out of context here. Herf’s argument , with which Obama agrees, has it that “radical Islam”—his phrase of choice—is third wave of a series of totalitarian movements, the first two being Fascism and Communism. Not to get all Godwinian on your ass, but was it not important, nay necessary, as Churchill and Roosevelt did as a matter of their public rhetoric to identify and call Fascism and Hitler for what they were. Was it not similarly important, nay necessary, to identify and call Communism for what it was/is as did every American President from after the Russian revolution until, at a minimum, the end of the Cold War. Your negotiations, as do mine, take place in a context, where the parties agree to work within a common frame of reference as informed by the constating norms and values of our societies. In my case, when negotiations don’t succeed, there is a rule bound dispute resolver—the civil justice system. In your case, I presume that failed negotiations don’t lead to suicide bombings. So your context is all scrambled. Third, you reductively dismiss the efficacy of moral exhortation, and the dimension of values and morality, in public and in international public life. The issue isn’t insults, or calling someone an “Islamofascist” or a “prick” or chest thumping or venting frustration—your inapposite examples. It’s exactly, when appropriate, in the appropriate for a, articulating values, spelling out evil, identifying and naming the enemy. You would have it that American lives should be sacrificed and enemy lives should be taken in a war against an enemy that can’t be cited for what it is. That’s the reduction ad absurdum of your line of reasoning. Fourth, you misconceive pragmatism if you don’t think it has a normative base and doesn’t measure consequences by criteria, ultimately to be coherent, informed by values and moral choices. Here too your logic impales you on its own ultimate absurdity—a kind of soulless, sheer utilitarianism that does not know itself and, seemingly, can’t think its way out of a wet paper bag.

- basman

February 6, 2011 at 2:39pm

Arnon I didn't see your post when I posted mine.

- basman

February 6, 2011 at 2:40pm

Arnon, rayward doesn't say that he is "pragmatic in negotiations." You are saying that. You're parsing a sentence that you wrote yourself. Rayward merely expressed two sequential ideas: (a) he's a pragmatist, and (b) he has a lot of experience in negotiations. What is tautologial about that? On the broader point you make, there is indeed a transitional stage between hostilities and negotiations and some readiness to move is obviously required on both sides before the actual process begins. But it's more complicated that that, however, because the motivations for negotiating may diverge. One party may desperately want a solution, while the other party is playing for time. Obviously that falls outside rayward's strict example as his sketch depends upon both parties acting in good faith.

- ironyroad

February 6, 2011 at 2:45pm

Look, if there is to be "Armageddon" (whatever that term may mean), then there will be Armageddon, and there really is nothing we, or anyone, can do to evade or prevent it. What we can hope for, and fearlessly, tirelessly work to prevent, is its being a nuclear Armageddon; because that will be a very, very big problem to deal with. Yet, if it's to be a nuclear Armageddon, we must all hope, work and pray together that it will not be in, or over the Holy Land. That would truly be a catastrophe! Why? It will almost certainly destroy Israel, the world's one and only hope for a peaceful world, where there can be mutual understanding and respect among all peoples. Aside from that, the West, the United States in particular, has its Islamophobia to get over. It's a pernicious phenomenon, one about which Obama could speak to, forcefully and in a nuanced way. That he hasn't done so is both baffling and vexing. What is he waiting for? A second term? He may not have the luxury. I don't think most Muslims and predominantly Muslim nations need instruction or speaking to about the dangers of Islamo-fascism, Islamism, Wahabism, Salafism, etc. They recognize and understand the distinction very well enough without being lectured to by Obama or anyone else. They also understand the difference between a strong leader, on the one hand, and a cruel and unjust dictator. And they understand and are sympathetic with the oppressed peoples in Iran who must suffer under a despotic theocracy. What most warrants forceful, blunt, and unswerving talk, and action—to the Western nations other than our own, is the once again dangerously and destructively growing and spreading phenomenon of Judeo-phobia in the World. The "Jewish problem" Western leaders, Church leaders (excepting the Pope, finally, thank goodness), and NGO leaders identify with "Zionist" Israel. Obama conspicuously hasn't done that either, and that most troubles me about him and his Presidency, unfortunately. It is one of the prime reasons Iran's leaders, the Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. get cover while they arm themselves and prepare for...Armageddon!

- Tgossard

February 6, 2011 at 3:12pm

Arnon, Basman, others (Herf included), great posts.

- Curran1

February 6, 2011 at 3:21pm

"Arnon, rayward doesn't say that he is "pragmatic in negotiations." " Whatever, it might be better if you let ray ward to answer me himself, unless you are his deputy.

- arnon

February 6, 2011 at 4:07pm

As an aside, I'm struck by how little of this revolution so far fits in to the existing paradigms we've all become accustomed to thinking in about the Middle East in general. For example: I have never seen a military take it upon themselves to support their people in ousting a dictator and enforcing order while making it clear from the beginning they will not attack (we shall see, but I'm still in awe), comparatively little death to America/Israel/burning flag kabuki (of course it exists, but it is the exception rather than the rule in these protests), hundreds of thousands of people across many religions sticking to the point: democracy now (not jihad now, not Islamic rule now), adolescent gangs protecting neighborhoods, rich and poor marching together, I've lost count of how many interviews I've seen with people spatting at the idea of an Islamic/Iranian based state. Anyone on these boards proclaiming to know exactly what is happening, what it means and what will happen is foolish.

- WandreyCer

February 6, 2011 at 4:29pm

"For example: I have never seen a military take it upon themselves to support their people in ousting a dictator..." Might mean that the military has its own agenda. It's too early to tell what is going on.

- arnon

February 6, 2011 at 4:38pm

I'm behind the eight ball: is that what the military is doing? I thought it was working with Mubarak to keep him in interim power as they all pave the way to September elections without him running or his son running.

- basman

February 6, 2011 at 4:52pm

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/02/is-egypt-nation-of-hip-facebook-adept.html "So here is the real issue: What do the masses want? Remember, it is the people of Egypt--especially in an election--that will determine the outcome, not just the demonstrators in Tahrir Square, and not just the Facebook-adept youth in Tahrir Square. And even many of the Facebookistas are also pretty extreme. That's Egypt's problem. Here's ours: We all want this revolution to succeed and create a stable, democratic Egypt. But will it do so? And it is absolutely necessary for people to point out the dangers. For how else can policymakers try to avoid the dangers? I can't resist adding that these are the same people who would look down on Americans from rural areas or small towns, the pious, the conservative, those who own guns, and so on. In their own culture they have strong views and know how to read social signals. Ironically, in a real sense they distrust their own masses. In short, much of the American elite thinks that the Tea Party or evangelical Christians are dangerous while the Muslim Brotherhood isn't. Abroad, though, and especially in the Third World, their perceptions get even more confused, tangled up in the exotic and unfamiliar. They look for those who think like them, dress like them, and speak good English. Then they project those characteristics onto a whole society. Often their counterparts, whether intentionally or not, mislead them. Even then, are they aware that the Muslim Brotherhood controls both the doctors' and lawyers' associations in Egypt? Or that Syria's dictator, Bashar al-Assad, is head of the Syrian Internet Society? Or that radical Islamists have been far more effective at using the Internet than liberal reformers? The only hope for people who don't understand these things is to get a really smart anti-Islamist cab driver between the airport and the luxury hotel in Cairo who can set them straight."

- noga1

February 6, 2011 at 7:57pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29NffzEh2b0 This is a "debate" on al Jazeera. Tariq Ramadan and Slavoj Zizek on the future of Egyptian politics. Funny how Zizek proves Rubin's observation right when he says that the American Evangelicals are more dangerous than the Taliban.

- noga1

February 6, 2011 at 8:00pm

Egypt's military IS the autocracy - Mubarak is the CinC, not a personality-in-charge. This, from Foreign Affairs, tries to frame this view of events: "...Contrary to the dominant media narrative, the Egyptian state did not experience a regime breakdown. The protests certainly rocked the system and had Mubarak on his heels, but at no time did the uprising seriously threaten Egypt's regime. Although many of the protesters, foreign governments, and analysts have concentrated on the personality of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, those surrounding the embattled president, who make up the wider Egyptian regime, made sure the state's viability was never in question. This is because the country's central institution, the military, which historically has influenced policy and commands near-monopolistic economic interests, never balked. ...Egypt's governing elites have used different parts of the regime to serve as arsonist and firefighter. ..." http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67351/joshua-stacher/egypts-democratic-mirage?page=show

- K2K

February 7, 2011 at 9:13am

Very contrarian view K2K. I'm not disputing the view, just noting how *unconventional* it is.

- basman

February 7, 2011 at 11:10am

Not that contrarian, I have linked to a n;umber of articles that said the same thing. Only the MSM both right and left, specially, the NYT, believes that there is a real change of regimes in the offing in Egypt.

- arnon

February 7, 2011 at 12:09pm

You can tell that nothing earthshaking is going on in Egypt by the way the stock market keeps going up.

- arnon

February 7, 2011 at 12:16pm

Foreign Affairs, doing what it does best: dutifully reporting the bland establishment CW, which in this case reeks of wide-eyed almost hilarious hubris. How can they proclaim what "happened" when it is still in the middle of happening? They don't know anything more than anyone else. I see the NYT's coverage this morning as focusing (correctly in my view) mostly on the fact that the revolution is a youthquake, not a religious event. I found their piece on Mubarak this morning to be largely sympathetic, informative and well-reported. I would like to see more coverage of those citizens without internet service, which I understand is the majority of the country. I realize this is not a monolithic group, but it is time for a broader picture. From a link on Andrew Sullivan - no wonder Cheney loves Mubarek, they are kindred spirits to the core: "Mubarak and the clique surrounding him have long treated Egypt as their fiefdom and its resources as spoils to be divided among them. Under sweeping privatisation policies, they appropriated profitable public enterprises and vast areas of state-owned lands. A small group of businessmen seized public assets and acquired monopoly positions in strategic commodity markets such as iron and steel, cement and wood. While crony capitalism flourished, local industries that were once the backbone of the economy were left to decline. At the same time, private sector industries making environmentally hazardous products like ceramics, marble and fertilisers have expanded without effective regulation at a great cost to the health of the population."

- WandreyCer

February 7, 2011 at 12:54pm

What's the evidence that the Foreign Affairs article is reporting the "establishment" point of view? Which establishment is that, anyway? The NY Times is doing what it does best, reporting what their upper middle class readers want to hear. I'd bet that the 'youthquake" is as impressive as youthquakes really are. A small temporary shudder of delight followed by a sense of let down. Unless of course it was the youth quake in Maoist China or in THE Iran of the late 1970's.

- arnon

February 7, 2011 at 2:39pm

http://www.nationalreview.com/david-pryce-jones/259165/all-eyes-syria "For almost half a century the country has been in the grip of the Assads, father Hafez and his son Bashar forming an unholy republican dynasty. They are Alawites, that is to say members of a Shia sect. Amounting to about 10 percent of a population that is otherwise Sunni, they maintain their grip through fear and police-state methods. Hafez simply turned heavy artillery on the Sunni Muslim Brothers in Hama, killing 20,000 or more according to some estimates. Bashar has ordered the killing of Kurds and recently the machine-gunning of prisoners in Saidnaya jail. Brazenly he encourages terrorist organizations to operate in Syria and he had some sort of input into political assassinations in Lebanon. His goons would certainly have beaten and arrested everyone in a small demonstration, and opened fire on a sizeable crowd. To protest in such circumstances is to dice with death. President Mubarak has been an ideological ally of the United States and helped maintain peace, at considerable cost to himself. Yet President Obama is pressuring this friend to step down as soon as may be, while rewarding the odious and hostile Bashar Assad with the resumption of diplomatic relations and talk of a new relationship with Syria. More than a contradiction, this is incoherence, folly, a sure way to a foreign policy with no future in the region."

- noga1

February 7, 2011 at 3:00pm

"Democracy or Jew-Hatred? More Evidence of Anti-Semitism at the Egypt Protests" http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/democracy-or-jew-hatred-more-evidence-of-anti-semitism-at-the-egypt-protests/?print=1

- arnon

February 7, 2011 at 5:51pm

...President Mubarak has been an ideological ally of the United States and helped maintain peace, at considerable cost to himself. Yet President Obama is pressuring this friend to step down as soon as may be, while rewarding the odious and hostile Bashar Assad with the resumption of diplomatic relations and talk of a new relationship with Syria. More than a contradiction, this is incoherence, folly, a sure way to a foreign policy with no future in the region... Ahh the anomalies of the admixture in imprecise degrees of foreign policy realism, Wilsonian-cum-Bush Idealism, interests and principes, political public relations for home and world consumption and the ideological bent of the NRO commentator. In all this, consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

- basman

February 7, 2011 at 6:21pm

George Soros: "The main stumbling block [to democracy in Egypt] is Israel." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/02/AR2011020205041.html

- noga1

February 7, 2011 at 6:33pm

By the way, having read the Stacher's essay more closely just now, I can't see it approaching anything like "dutifully reporting the bland establishment CW. Whether or not its so contrarian, it's hardly the establishment line, such as that is, and such as I apprehend it.

- basman

February 7, 2011 at 6:51pm

"Anti-Semitism at the Egypt Protests" It's an old antisemitic tactic. Hannah Arendt wrote about it (though I can't remember now in which of her writings it can be found). Two groups jousting for power. One group seeks to discredit the other by claiming the others are affiliated with Jews. So in effect, they are no better than Jews. The shared antisemitism of both groups is appealed to, and can guarantee two beneficial results: it gains the support of the silent majority, it causes the accused group to become an outcast and shrivel in due time. It's a well tested propaganda trick and it works most of the time especially among a superstitious people already inclined to believe that sharks are Zionist tools. So now that Mubarak and his supporters are tainted by the Zionist/Jewish affiliation, I think his days may indeed be numbered.

- noga1

February 7, 2011 at 7:15pm

arnon: "You can tell that nothing earthshaking is going on in Egypt by the way the stock market keeps going up." yeah, there was a brief, sharp dip at the beginning, and oil is still an issue, but, I tend to have Bloomberg on for news, and they have mostly been reporting impact on business, both in Egypt, and ripples. Quite reassuring. Astonishing to learn Egypt's military has such extensive business interests, which no doubt also reassured the traders. (Egypt's stock market not so lucky.) As such, Stacher's essay was no surprise, and, consistent with Fareed Zakaria's frame on GPS yesterday and today in WaPo. Egypt's tourism industry is in lockdown - one very good reason for the army to NOT shoot their protestors, although I wonder how long the tent villages in Tahrir Square will be tolerated.

- K2K

February 7, 2011 at 7:26pm

Noga, I think the more extended comment that Soros made in his op-ed involves a broader point: "The main stumbling block is Israel. In reality, Israel has as much to gain from the spread of democracy in the Middle East as the United States has. But Israel is unlikely to recognize its own best interests because the change is too sudden and carries too many risks. And some U.S. supporters of Israel are more rigid and ideological than Israelis themselves." I'd concede that the comment does not express much confidence in the strategic intelligence of the current Israeli government (but I have to confess to a similar feeling), but Soros admits in pretty unambiguous terms that there are risks for Israel too. That's a little more sophisticated than merely declaring Israel to be a stumbling-block, and basta.

- ironyroad

February 7, 2011 at 11:27pm

Israel, ironyroad, is not doing anything to stop the events in Egypt. That's why calling it a "stumbling block" is tantamount to mere slander, if not libel. What he and others (like you) are complaining about is that Israelis are not supporting the "rebels". Perhaps it would have been the politic thing to do but it would not be honest. No Israeli can, or should be called upon to, support a group that carries antisemitic placards and whose substantial part (MB) of it openly calls for the destruction of Israel. YOU can afford to smell the jasmin in the air and pretend that the stench of antisemitism doesn't pollute it. Israelis cannot. Perhaps it would be a little wiser to wait a while and see what kind of democracy emerges from this turmoil before Americans like you and the egregious Soros start lecturing to Israelis about what kind of dangers they prepare themselves to meet in the foreseeable future. Those will be our sons and daughters who will get to be killed if things go wrong. I will quote Caroline Glick who said it as straightforwardly as possible: "While we wish them the best of luck with their democracy movements, and would welcome the advent of a tolerant society in Egypt, we recognize that that tolerance will end when it comes to the Jews. And so whether they are democrats or autocrats, we fully expect they will continue to hate us." http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/tobin/389154 Can you provide an argument, an example, something that refutes this observation: " whether they are democrats or autocrats, we fully expect they will continue to hate us." ?? Have you seen any evidence, heard anything coming from this revolution that might be construed as a benign neighbourly expectation?

- noga1

February 8, 2011 at 8:04am

This piece is well-intended, but misconceived, largely due to ill-thought out analogies to the struggles with fascism and communism. The most important distinction is that both fascism and communism arose within western culture. They were political and cultural phenomena within our societies both of which attracted at least for a time significant interest and following there. Despite all the right wing-nut hand-wringing about Islam's imminent take-over of the western world, the numbers of supporters of Islamism in the west are trivial. Sure, a bomber can cause a lot of damage, but the risk of a large indigenous following for Islamism is exactly zero. A second important distinction is that much of the fight against fascism and communism was a duel with state actors. This means that western rhetoric had at least two distinct audiences, governments and other publics, not necessarily aligned with one another. What has this got to do with Herf's position? The key assertion by Herf is this: "Radical Islamists—not all believers in Islam, not all Muslims—are our enemy. We cannot defeat them unless we say this clearly, and publicly hold their ideas up to the same level of public criticism and denunciation that we directed at the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism, and Communism." This claim is taken by him to be self-evident such that it requires no further support, argument or evidence. But why is this necessarily the case? Sometimes plain speaking and ideological contest are helpful, sometimes not. The question should be a strategic and tactical one, not a moral one. In the case of fascism and communism, there was a need to consolidate a consensus within western society. Thus, a great deal of what was said was actually for domestic audience, particularly if one considers the west as a whole as a shared society. We also had the goal of driving a wedge between the public in totalitarian countries and their governments. Finally, we had the goal of giving moral support to internal opponents of totalitarian regimes. Almost none of this is directly applicable to our conflict with Islamism, although their are important lessons. One must consider what is the purpose of political rhetoric, what it can possibly hope to achieve and what it is designed to achieve. This is where Herf misses so badly. He is at least honest enough to recognize that we are not going to persuade the fanatics of anything or dim their ardor. To whom then should Obama be speaking? There is almost no need to persuade an American audience, or even a European audience, that Islamism is our common enemy. The Islamists have taken care of that by blowing things up here and there. The primary audience therefore is the non-Islamist population of the Moslem world. Whatever Herf may think about Obama's rhetorical power to distinguish between Islam and Islamists, that is not terribly likely to be heard in the Moslem world. If the tactical objective is at least to reduce mainstream support for Islamism, then Obama is doing exactly what he should be doing, lowering the appearance of western hostility to Islam that the Islamists cultivate as a political weapon to garner support. This is the most that our president can reasonably hope to accomplish when addressing himself to a culture and society outside our own. He is not going to dissuade extremists; he is not going to persuade non-extremists to do battle with extremists, rhetorically or otherwise, if they are not themselves highly motivated to do that. He is not going to persuade non-Islamist governments that Islamists are their enemy. They know that already. Nor is public rhetoric going to persuade them to cooperate with us. That must be done privately. The one other thing that he might hope to accomplish is to drive some sort of wedge between quasi-Islamist governments -- Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza -- and their own populations. In this regard, the experience with communism is instructive. When we were at the height of the cold war and our rhetoric toward the Soviet Union was at its most extreme, this only made it easier for the Soviet government to persuade the population that we were the enemy and to consolidate public support. We were more successful with detente and rapprochement because the Russian public grew less and less afraid of us and thus more and more willing to focus upon the domestic failings of Soviet government. That was a positive contribution to the fall of the Soviet Union. For the same reason, it is simply not in our interest rhetorically to attack Islamists in any manner that is likely to be perceived by Moslems as hostile to them. It does not matter what Herf thinks they should think in response to Obama's rhetoric. It only matters what they will think. Soothing words avowing respect for Islam are, in my opinion, just the right tone. If nothing else, this has given more space for the US to engage in physical attacks on terrorists without igniting widespread anger in the Moslem world. That alone is a big success. Which brings us to the final point. Herf insists that Obama's policy has been a failure. In what respect? What has it failed to accomplish that it plausibly might have accomplished? Getting the Islamists to lay down their bombs? That was never in the cards. Getting Iran to stop building a bomb? That was never in the cards either without strong sanctions that require the cooperation of other governments, cooperation that has been enhanced as a result of Obama's tone. What then has Obama failed to accomplish that he might have with any sort of rhetoric? I don't think there is any substance whatsoever to Herf's complaint. He does not tell us what should have been accomplished or could have been accomplished with different rhetoric. He merely asserts, without evidence, that a sufficiently direct and belligerent tone is necessary for victory. In the end, Herf has merely dressed up in more left-pleasing attire the persistent, witless right-wing desire for morally satisfying rhetoric that has no tactical or strategic purpose. The president's job is to defend us against enemies, not to say things that appeal to right-wing sensibilities and fantasies about moral struggle. Herf is but one more idealist with no where to go and nothing useful to add.

- roidubouloi

February 8, 2011 at 10:24am

a pleasant surprise - that it was real reporting - Isabel Kershner's report on unrest in the Sinai in today's NYT :) Worth reading, from STRATFOR, hopefully to be followed by a similar analysis on the, so far, under-reported rumblings in Jordan: http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2011/02/08/egypt_israel_and_a_strategic_reconsideration_99385.html "Egypt, Israel and a Strategic Reconsideration" By George Friedman [one new? insight?] "...Today's Egyptian military trains with the Americans, and its officers pass through the American command and staff and war colleges. This generation has close ties to the United States, but not nearly as close ties to the British-trained generation that fought the Israelis or to Egypt's former patrons, the Russians. Mubarak has locked the younger generation, in their fifties and sixties, out of senior command positions and away from the wealth his generation has accumulated. They want him out. For this younger generation, the idea of Gamal Mubarak being allowed to take over the presidency was the last straw. ..."

- K2K

February 8, 2011 at 10:28am

From Jeffrey Herf and worth pondering: "American policy in postwar European history may offer a guide to how we should act in North Africa. After the defeat of Nazism and Fascism, the United States made strenuous efforts to support political currents that both upheld liberal democratic principles and also opposed the Communists. In so doing, it placed anti-Communism on liberal, not racist or dictatorial, foundations; it created for these countries a “vital center.” This is our challenge in Egypt as well: There, for thirty years, opposition to Islamism has been associated with authoritarian rule—and it is a task of the Obama administration to foster a democratic form of opposition to Islamism. In Europe, opposition to Communism was discredited for many who associated it with the rhetoric of the Fascists. In Egypt and the Arab world, a similarly vehement criticism may be no less discredited by its association with the Mubarak regime. Only the growth of a vital center in Arab politics can banish this association."

- arnon

February 8, 2011 at 11:01am

Roid. You are wrong on nearly every count. I'll get back with time.

- jacko

February 8, 2011 at 12:17pm

Oh, please do. I can't wait.

- roidubouloi

February 8, 2011 at 2:27pm

Noga, I haven't been lecturing anyone, least of all Israelis (ever since they took away my regular op-ed slot in the JP, anyhow). I have been reading and looking at much the same things over the past couple of weeks as everyone here. The absence of Israel as an obsessive theme among the Egpytian reform movement has been noticed by many commentators with no particular axe to grind. Whether the MB will gain more influence in the future is uncertain, but the possibility should not be used to malign the movement as it's constituted today. I am not against waiting -- indeed, that is what Obama has been criticized on all sides for doing -- but as a general rule I'd posit that if our security is dependent upon police states that can crumble (ideologically at least) in a short time once popular frustration is given an opening, we have given dangerously large hostages to fortune. On a larger point, either democratic rights and responsibilities are indivisible, or they don't exist. The local can inflect the universal, but not supplant it. The way I see it, at least.

- ironyroad

February 8, 2011 at 2:46pm

"The absence of Israel as an obsessive theme among the Egpytian reform movement has been noticed" http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/democracy-or-jew-hatred-more-evidence-of-anti-semitism-at-the-egypt-protests/?print=1 I don't suppose this counts for "obsessive". Why should we be bothered by such placards, eh? I don't see how I can say it any more clearly than Caroline Glick did in the quote I offered above.

- noga1

February 8, 2011 at 3:16pm

"The question should be a strategic and tactical one, not a moral one." Sorry man. It is impossible to escape the fact that every action or inaction, utterance or silence has moral dimension. "One must consider what is the purpose of political rhetoric, what it can possibly hope to achieve and what it is designed to achieve." "For the same reason, it is simply not in our interest rhetorically to attack Islamists in any manner that is likely to be perceived by Moslems as hostile to them" This smacks of contempt and condescension. The lumpen. " It only matters what they will think. Soothing words avowing respect for Islam are, in my opinion, just the right tone." More lumpen. "In the end, Herf has merely dressed up in more left-pleasing attire the persistent, witless right-wing desire for morally satisfying rhetoric that has no tactical or strategic purpose." The purpose of discussing the moral implications of freedom and standing behind those self evident truths would be an attempt to cut through the noisy yet empty howling of the Lumpen mentality and those who invest in it, such as yourself. Satisfaction with cynical multiculty is as foolish as pie-eyed multiculty. You have in the past advocated a campaign of intentional lies as a means to an end. I wonder what that end might look like. I wonder why you even bother, given your affinity for the moral void. By the way, belligerence is in the eye of the beholder. If you are hostile to the truth of responsible and accountable freedom then I'll happily take issue with you.... with Muslims....with my neighbors.....and with my family if need be.

- jacko

February 8, 2011 at 3:49pm

I watched some American rallies in favour of the Egyptian rebels on CNN. One protester, a woman properly veiled, was beseeching president Obama to put an to the dictator. One phone call is not enough. She said. Obama can do it. He should do it. He should instruct Mubarak to leave and it will be done. This fleeting image just flashed through my mind as I was reading the exchange between roi and jacko in which, interestingly, "rhetoric", "lumpen", and "moral void" came up. I re-read Orwell's fable recently. I wonder if it can be applied to the issue at hand (speaking of a moral void, lumpen and rhetoric): "I had halted on the road. As soon as I saw the elephant I knew with perfect certainty that I ought not to shoot him.... But at that moment I glanced round at the crowd that had followed me. It was an immense crowd, two thousand at the least and growing every minute. It blocked the road for a long distance on either side. I looked at the sea of yellow faces above the garish clothes-faces all happy and excited over this bit of fun, all certain that the elephant was going to be shot. They were watching me as they would watch a conjurer about to perform a trick. They did not like me, but with the magical rifle in my hands I was momentarily worth watching. And suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of me and I had got to do it; I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly. And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man's dominion in the East. Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd – seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind. I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure of a sahib. For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the "natives," and so in every crisis he has got to do what the "natives" expect of him. He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it." If Mubarak is the elephant, and the protesters are the Burmese, who is the narrator?

- noga1

February 8, 2011 at 4:20pm

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11457#frame_top "With respect to the United States and the people you talked to, whatever the sample was, how did they feel about what the United States has done and the positions it seems to have taken about Mubarak and change? LARA LOGAN: You know, this is a very interesting question. And I got the feeling that the U.S. cannot win on this one, because the protestors are interested in diplomatic speech and careful language. They wanted to know unequivocally that President Obama and the U.S. was on their side. They said for years you’ve supported Mubarak, you’ve supported this regime. But they know that what they represent those are the fundamental ideals on which the United States is built. That’s the constitution, freedom of speech and all the other rights that they’re fighting for. So they want an unequivocal statement of support and show of support. They did not feel they were getting that in the beginning and the nuances were completely lost on them or they didn’t care for them. On the other side, I will say that there’s no question the feeling from the Mubarak regime was that Egypt is viewed as a blood brother of the United States by many of them because of how closely they work with the U.S. in terms of the war on terror and what they do for the U.S. in that fight that no one is allowed to talk about because it’s black operations and it’s classified and not known in the public eye. And the feeling was that you took your blood brother and threw us under the bus, you’re traitors. And the hatred was unbelievable. It really was. There’s an underlying resentment towards the U.S. from, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood, extremist groups, and other people who feel that you can’t have it both ways, you can’t stand for human rights and support someone like Hosni Mubarak. So that’s a whole other part of Egypt. But the very interesting dynamic that came out of this situation, when President Obama made that phone call to Mubarak where he is said to have really pressured him and Secretary Clinton came out with her strongest statements that day, that was a definitive turning point. That was the day we became enemies of the Egyptian state. And that was the day really that our strategic relationship, I firmly believe our strategic relationship with Egypt was redefined at that point. It’s not that we don’t other allies in the Middle East, but Egypt was our right hand, and that is no longer the case. And that is a fundamental shift the implications of which most of us will probably never know because we don’t even know the full extent of that relationship as it stood before this crisis. "

- noga1

February 8, 2011 at 5:05pm

Noga, I agree with Lara Logan -- I thought she did a great interview. With regard to our slightly earlier exchange, I am not denying the presence of antisemitic/anti-Israeli symbols (and slogans? -- we don't seem to know) among the crowds. What I am denying are the assumptions (a) that they are dominant or heading toward dominance, (b) that democratic action and participation can only intensify them if they are there, and (c) that our security can be protected by dictatorships that fold when challenged by people expressing the political and personal courage that we claim as a key component of democratic transformation. Call it angelic choirs if you want -- I don't feel comfortable lecturing people about the central vision of a democratic society and then snootily informing them that, oh dear, we got it wrong and they are too benighted to embrace it. It's rather like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVS_zG4a1ag

- ironyroad

February 8, 2011 at 6:34pm

What you said, ironyroad was "The absence of Israel as an obsessive theme among the Egpytian reform movement has been noticed". Now you are "not denying the presence of antisemitic/anti-Israeli symbols ... among the crowds." Do you think that in a movement for democracy and human rights, there is an understandable space reserved for antisemitism, that can be encircled as irrelevant because acknowledging it would bring incoherence and too many questions into an otherwise exultant narrative? Please don't dodge the question. I'm not denying you your exuberant infatuation with the "Egyptian reform movement". I'm only questioning your judgment in rushing to embrace something you don't really understand. http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/32529 [Clinton:] “Today we learned the Muslim Brotherhood has decided to participate, which suggests that they are now involved in the dialogue that we have encouraged. We're going to wait and see how this develops, but we've been very clear about what we expect." Have you actually studied (or read or even glanced at) a history of that Brotherhood? Have you the slightest understanding of Islam as interpreted by that Brotherhood? Do you, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. President, have the slightest comprehension of what the Muslim Brotherhood would do to Israel and the Jews if it got the slightest chance?"

- noga1

February 8, 2011 at 7:48pm

Oh, and , not to be outdone by you, here is my response to your video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

- noga1

February 8, 2011 at 8:03pm

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/5215/Egypt/Politics-/Hezbollah-leader-yearns-to-be-in-Tahrir-Square.aspx "Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah said Monday he yearned to be in Cairo for the uprising against President Hosni Mubarak, as he lashed out at the United States for backing "dictatorships" in the Middle East. "The United States is trying to contain the revolution and improve its own ugly image in the Middle East and Islamic world ... after years of backing the worst dictatorships our region has ever seen," Nasrallah said in a televised speech, as the anti-Mubarak movement in Egypt headed into its third week. "But be sure that regimes allied with the United States and Israel cannot stand long against the will of the people," he added. "As God is my witness, I yearn to be among you, to give my blood and soul, as any Egyptian youth would, to this noble cause," Nasrallah said in remarks directed at the protesters. "From afar, from Beirut, all we can say to you is that we wish we could be with you in Tahrir Square, in Cairo, in Alexandria, in the city of Suez and elsewhere." Nasrallah, leader of Lebanon's most potent armed force, also declared that Egypt's protesters were on the threshold of changing the Middle East. "Your movement today is a great, great deed and one of the most important turning points in the history of the nation and region," he said. "Your acts will change the region. In your squares today, with your faith and will, you can change the face of the world." The Shiite leader, whose already-tense ties with Mubarak took a turn for the worse during Israel's 2008 offensive in Gaza, placed his militant party at the service of Egypt's protestors." To understand the level of Nassralah's hypocrisy one must remember how there were persistent rumours and reports during the Iranian riots of 2009 that Hizzbulla men were imported to join the basiji, instrumental at bludgeoning the Iranian uprising. http://qifanabki.com/2010/06/28/hezbollah-the-basij-and-the-iranian-green-movement/ "Hizbullah had airlifted to tehran 300 men to help in clamping down at the protesters in the aftermath of Iran’s presidential elections in June 2009. The Iranian riots police used an additional number of about 200 Hizbullah trainees at Lavizan training camp and Imam Ali garrison training grounds. There are no Hizbullah men attached to Iranian security police at the time. Hizbullah men assisting Iranian police were mostly enlisted men with a few junior officers. Hizbullah men felt it was their duty to assist the Islamic Revolution and many others in Hizbullah would not have hesitated to go to Iran and lend their services to the regime. There is no doubt that Hizbullah would send men to Iran to perform security duties in the future should need arise."

- noga1

February 8, 2011 at 8:25pm

I don't "dodge" questions. I think that a popular democratic political movement will be judged on its broader achievements, not on the morbid and sometimes paranoid and deeply prejudiced elements that get rolled up with it. If it ends up being taken over by those elements, instead of controlling and neutralizing them, then that will be its fate.

- ironyroad

February 8, 2011 at 9:26pm

noga: "Do you think that in a movement for democracy and human rights, there is an understandable space reserved for antisemitism, that can be encircled as irrelevant ...?" ironyroad: "I think that a popular democratic political movement will be judged on its broader achievements, not on the morbid and sometimes paranoid and deeply prejudiced elements that get rolled up with it." I take it your answer is Yes, with some qualifications which do not vitiate its yesness.

- noga1

February 8, 2011 at 9:44pm

I'm with Irony on this one. There is and has been plenty of reason for pessimism. Hoping for the best on the precondition of silence and mute paralysis is a perverse kind of consent and affirmation to those who hold such hazardous convictions.

- jacko

February 8, 2011 at 10:01pm

Oh, by the way, Noga, I completely understand your disposition in this matter. Justifiable pause and pessimism is quite rational all things considered. I certainly wouldn't expect Israel to jump for joy at the current developments.

- jacko

February 8, 2011 at 10:08pm

Of course everything has a moral dimension, jacko, but the relevant distinction was made by Aristotle: In private morality, intention is of the utmost importance. But in public morality, outcome is of the utmost importance. The president of the United States is a public actor whose words or whose failure to speak have at least potential consequences for a great many people. He therefore does not have the luxury of speech merely because some find it morally uplifting. He is not a preacher. He must speak for effect. The right is constantly demanding that the president adopt what they think is moral rhetoric, but oblivious or at best indifferent to the consequences. They too fail to make the proper distinction. Herf makes no case at all that the rhetoric he demands will have any beneficial effect on our security or on the conditions of other people in the world. This is the complete absence of public morality. Rationally considered, the audience for presidential speech to or regarding Islam is neither extremists nor the west, both of whom are convinced beyond the reach of speech. The audience is those Moslems who are not closely identified with the extremists. As to them, the only relevant moral, tactical, and strategic question is what best moves them in the right direction, not what makes Herf or the idealist right feel good, feel virtuous, feel morally superior and justified. If that consists of castigating Islamists, fine, but that is rather unlikely as it is all to easy for that castigation to be perceived by Moslems as hostile to them. Either way, however, this is the case that must be made. The business about how we must denounce Islamists to "win" is nonsense and hence public immorality -- it has no good outcome.

- roidubouloi

February 8, 2011 at 11:47pm

Noga, you are using "understandable" as meaning "to be given a pass" whereas I am using it to mean "not unexpected given the local circumstances." You are trying to say that I am ok with something when all I'm saying is that you can't order up political movements like a pizza with your favorite toppings. I think antisemitism and paranoia/hatred of Israel needs to be challenged and fought, and I'm hoping that a democratizing Egyptian society will manage to confront those phenomena and shrink them so that they don't become dominant. Clearly 25 years of Mubarak didn't do a very good job. Have I a crystal ball? No. Do I think it's possible? Yes. Do you accept that distinction between the two potential meanings of "understandable"? I'd appreciate knowing that I'm not being misunderstood here. There's nothing specifically middle eastern about the basic problem. Nationalist liberation movements in other parts of the world have also had ethnic and racial hatreds in their mix. The best ones were able to deal with them.

- ironyroad

February 9, 2011 at 2:24am

"Clearly 25 years of Mubarak didn't do a very good job." Mubarak's regime encouraged antisemitism by making it one of the few topics where freedom of speech was absolute. I believe much of the hatred you see now channeled against Mubarak has to do with the hatred of Jews, which he found useful to allow. There was a moment when no amount of arcane Zionist plots could distract the people from their more personal needs. They still believe in Zionist sharks and other Jewish perfidies and I put it to you that a Muslim Brotherhood even in partial charge will amplify these superstitions. Like the Nazis, whose milk the founders of this movement sucked, the cannot justify themselves except through antisemitism and hatred. A real reform democratic movement would have included at least some voices that decry the hatred and antisemitism, would have included some debate and challenge to a people supposedly interested in human rights and tolerance, two of the most important elements in a democratic ethos. Instead you see them carrying placards with Mubarak wearing a yarmulke and waving an Israeli flag in which the star of David is depicted as a five point star, the symbol of Satan. (Funny how this image was repeatedly screened on CNN last night without anyone of the commentators noticing its meaning and continuing to praise the brave oppressed democratic people of Egypt.) I don't understand why you are referring to this as a "Nationalist liberation movement". I thought Nasser was the instigator of that, in 1952. ____________ What's the difference between ""to be given a pass" and "not unexpected given the local circumstances." ? What are those "local circumstances" that you are speaking of? When you speak of "local circumstances" aren't you already on the road to finding excuses, understanding and in some way accepting or giving a pass? Having re-read recently Orwell's essay on the English language and politics, l am minded to give a pass to double negatives as in my opinion they are not unindicative of a certain need to avoid saying something that if written in positive terms would be too stark for our illusions to sustain. "One can cure oneself of the not un- formation by memorizing this sentence: A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field."

- noga1

February 9, 2011 at 7:45am

irony: "I think antisemitism and paranoia/hatred of Israel needs to be challenged and fought, and I'm hoping that a democratizing Egyptian society will manage to confront those phenomena...Do I think it's possible? Yes." Possible, yes, probable, no.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 9, 2011 at 8:44am

Roid. Do you somehow have it in mind that I'm advocating an indiscriminate bully pulpit as our browbeating professorial president holds world court? I would think that there is certainly a way to bring this subject matter front and center by means of various and sundry tenor and character which speaks to political ownership and consequence of having voice. If I'm Obama I have a team of people working this campaign day and night ever seeking the reach out, to find, or more importantly, be ready for that elusive and/or yet undiscovered opportunity to engage meaningfully past the realpolitik powers that be. Make no mistake, it is the realpolitik that is contributing to the prevailing pathologies in this matter of contending states and stakes, individual and collective, religious and, for lack of a better word, secular. Sometimes being unrealistic is precisely what is required. Sometimes its the only realistic alternative. I get the impression that you and those who are sympathetic to your view would have it that buying time until an Islamic Enlightenment where all things Allah are seen for the foolishness therein and intellectual proscription is the prescription for securing the future. If so I say the parallel suffers from inadequacy due to inaccurate and wishful convenience. The characterization of which has its own fairy tale like confab of dishonest proportions. As Mr. Irony said, there are no crystal balls with lifetime guarantees. But I believe that we must make the effort in the best tradition of our better and braver angels.

- jacko

February 9, 2011 at 9:55am

Well, jacko, you and yours persist in seeing yourself as having a corner on virtue, or at least on virtuous intent, that I think is totally undeserved. If there were not cost or harm in declaring the right, in whatever terms, then, by all means, have at it. No one can predict the future and it is surely the case that, if an idea is repeated often enough, it can eventually enter some positively reinforcing realm in which it gains adherents. But that is not the world we are in. There is cost, both downside and opportunity cost, to engaging in such behavior. Perhaps not if you are jacko, but definitely if you are the president of the United States. The particular downside is that, while you may think that non-Islamist Moslems should not feel attacked or that the west is hostile to them if we rhetorically attack "Islamists," that may not be how they see it. Or perhaps, contra they evidence furnished by the Bush experience, they are happy to participate with us in that distinction. But then explain why we should expect the Moslem world to understand and appreciate anti-Islamist rhetoric in that way. Why must we say "Islamist" when descrying them? Why does it not do to attack terrorists and terrorism? As far as I can tell, only because this fails to satisfy the rhetorical lusts of the domestic right-wing audience, its constant need to have its own virtue rhetorically reaffirmed. There's a waste of time. In contrast, if you want to persuade an audience, you have to use language that is persuasive to that audience. You cannot simply give offense and keep insisting that they are at fault for not understanding your benign intentions. This is why you are wrong in every respect. You share in the objectively childish view that right makes might, that because you have what you believe are virtuous intentions, the actions that you take, or advocate be taken, as the expression of those intentions will be successful. But it simply does not follow. Real political virtue, as opposed to political self-righteousness, consists of figuring out how to obtain the best accessible outcome at the least cost. If that consists of rhetorically attacking Islamists and proclaiming one thing or another about our views and their views, why that is just great. But there needs to be some explanation of why we should think this is the case beyond conclusory declarations that we "must" do this in order to win. What power and resources to we gain by this behavior? What opinion and people are mobilized to our side? Who is de-moblilized and encouraged toward passivity? These are the questions a statesman asks himself. Herf is too tangled up in your idea of virtue to even examine such questions. That makes him a child. We see his childish thinking on display when he says this, "It lies instead in the initial assumptions on which the approach was based, namely the idea that it was the policies and personality of his predecessor that were the driving force behind Islamist hatred of our country." Now, what possible basis does Herf have for believing that such a juvenile notion is the driver behind Obama's policy, other than the fact that Herf's thinking is just this juvenile and he attributes his own state of mind to Obama? Can he not think of any single reason why Obama's rhetorical approach might reap benefits other than the ridiculous belief that the only reason Islamists are our enemies is because Bush was a consummate asshole? Herf goes right on to acknowledge that, while Obama uses anodyne language toward the Moslem world, he is busy lopping off the heads of terrorists with drones at a far higher rate than Bush did or sought to do. So, isn't every constituency in the Moslem world hearing the message that it needs to hear from us to our greatest advantage? The extremists, who are not going to respond our rhetoric, are being told that we can find and kill them, understand perfectly well that there is nothing worth saying to them and, whooops!, there goes your head, and perhaps those of your family and friends in the bargain. The rest of the Moslem world hears that Obama regards them and Islam with respect. Now, go ahead, explain why, other than it makes you feel virtuous, some other policy, particularly some other rhetorical policy, by Obama is going to improve our situation in our struggle with these very real enemies and an ideology that has as its object our destruction. If you cannot, as I suspect you cannot, then take a seat next to Herf in his political kiddie-car and ride off with him into the sunset accompanied by nursery rhymes.

- roidubouloi

February 9, 2011 at 10:51am

George Jonas is a Canadian journalist and author. He wrot ethe book "Vengeance" on which Spilberg's film "Munich" was based, though Jonas had protested that its message had been bowdlerized by the screenwriter. Here is he writes about the prospect of democracy in Egypt: "Then came a revealing moment. In an interview with the German journalist Erich Folllath, ElBaradei used the word “myth” to describe the apprehension that a new regime may abrogate Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel. That’s just scare-tactics, rumors spread by Mubarak. “Do you mean an Egyptian government in which the Muslim Brotherhood participates will continue Mubarak’s policies towards Israel?” the interviewer wanted to know. Maybe it was a slip, or maybe ElBaredei didn’t want to strain credulity too much, but he went off script for a moment. “No,” he replied. “The Israelis need to grasp that it’s impossible to make peace with a single man. At the moment, they have a peace treaty with Mubarak, but not one with the Egyptian people.” Ah! Is this the flaw democracy is supposed to remedy? Is there perhaps too much peace between the Jewish state and the Arab world? Is the Obama White House dumping Mubarak so unceremoniously for his solitary virtue rather than for his numerous vices? One wonders. Anyway, what price democracy? They say lighting a candle is better than cursing the darkness, which is an uplifting theory, but isn’t a gunpowder depot the wrong place to put it to a test?" Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/08/george-jonas-goodbye-hosni-hello-hamas/#ixzz1DU1FrJlR

- noga1

February 9, 2011 at 12:24pm

Noga, obviously I can't convince you I'm being neither naively idealistic nor blind to undeniable reality. All I can do is echo jacko's last sentence above, and perhaps try the thought another way: pessimism of the intellect; optimism of the will.

- ironyroad

February 9, 2011 at 1:14pm

"Noga, obviously I can't convince you I'm being neither naively idealistic nor blind to undeniable reality." No. That's not it. What bothers me is your willingness to countenance antisemitic expression, in service of the better cause of democracy. It is a dangerous illusion. Democracies are supposed to be founded on the idea not only of equality and freedom but decency, as well. What kind of decent society will evolve from such crowds that embrace antisemitism as a very natural right and truth? One may be helpless to do anything about it, but I don't think one is morally obliged to cheer them on. How are they going to learn if they get cheered and no one tells them that their conception of democracy is highly flawed, if not downright immoral? Is it possible that neither Obama nor his secretary of state noticed these pathologies? Or they just don't care? Or, as roi so helpfully defined for us Obama's doctrine: "figuring out how to obtain the best accessible outcome at the least cost." The best accessible outcome: a Lebanese style Egyptian democracy. The least cost: Israel's security. History repeats itself but never in such obvious guise that would prevent one from deluding oneself that historical errors cannot be repeated.

- noga1

February 9, 2011 at 2:06pm

Roid. I'll not bother to mention when Obama et al pursue a similar course I have outlined. I'll bet it's in the works right now. It would be negligent of him otherwise. It would seem that you have a very thin skin when there is anything that smacks critical of President Obama. That isn't my purpose. Your obsession with 'the right' owns you man. Hell you're practically kissing cousins with those whom you ostensibly contend. I'm a bit surprised you can't imagine a delivery model that satisfies the communication needs and responsibilities of the leader of the Free World. But then again I guess it shouldn't surprise given the context by and in which you measure. I guess there really is quite a bit at stake in that your personal world view is put to hazard. At least you're smart enough to feel the pressure just around the corner. Identity dynamics have been inconvenienced Honkey Cat. It ain't your chess table. Take heart. Anyone who likes baseball can't be all bad. Let's call it self righteously delivered. Thump, thump goes the sound of my virtuous chest.

- jacko

February 9, 2011 at 4:03pm

I'm not "countenancing" it, Noga -- that's exactly why I asked whether you accepted the distinction I was making between understanding as "giving X a pass" and understanding as "recognizing X as expected given the local circumstances." I can't think of any other way to express the thought that I've expressed three or four times already -- antisemitism should NOT be countenanced, it should be challenged and rejected. Where have I been ambivalent on this? I am simply arguing that one should, equally, not dismiss or condemn the entire Egyptian reform movement on the basis of antisemitic symbols or statements that are also visible in its current manifestation. If one believes in democratic values, then one also has to believe that freedom of discussion and expression is a better cure for prejudice than authoritarian control and supervision.

- ironyroad

February 9, 2011 at 5:36pm

"What kind of decent society will evolve from such crowds that embrace antisemitism as a very natural right and truth?" Also, I don't quite know what to make of your comment above. The United States in its modern form evolved from crowds that believed that slavery was a legitimate social order and that only white males had the natural right to engage in political activity or even vote.

- ironyroad

February 9, 2011 at 5:40pm

"Where have I been ambivalent on this? I am simply arguing that one should, equally, not dismiss or condemn the entire Egyptian reform movement on the basis of antisemitic symbols or statements that are also visible in its current manifestation." Why not? These are not sporadic and whimsical. They are entrenched in mainstream culture. "If one believes in democratic values, then one also has to believe that freedom of discussion and expression is a better cure for prejudice than authoritarian control and supervision." Do you think "prejudice" of this size can be cured? When was the last time we witnessed a democracy curing itself of antisemitism? http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/arab/as_egypt_03_2004/default.asp "Anti-Semitism remains deeply ingrained in Egyptian society, finding expression in the mass media, popular literature and public statements while remaining virtually unchallenged by government leaders. Articles and caricatures in the Egyptian media regularly feature anti-Semitic depictions of Jews as stooped, hook-nosed, money-hungry and conspiratorial. Israeli leaders are depicted as Nazis, while other articles deny or diminish the Holocaust. Anti-Israel and anti-Jewish conspiracy theories frequently surface, including references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and modern reincarnations of the medieval blood-libel charge. In January 2004, Egypt hosted its annual book fair in Cairo, the largest literary event in the Arab and Muslim world, where numerous anti-Semitic books were displayed. Since the international outcry over the airing on Egyptian television of an anti-Jewish drama based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in December 2002, the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, important public discussions on anti-Semitism have taken place, leading to calls to condemn anti-Semitism and for Egyptians to avoid such manifestations. Nonetheless, vicious and hateful anti-Semitic articles and caricatures have continued to appear in the opposition and government press. The following are selected examples of anti-Semitic articles and caricatures that appeared in Egyptian newspapers from July 2003 to February 2004. Several common anti-Semitic themes are apparent: * conspiracy theories of Jews wanting to control the world, Jews controlling the Western governments and Jews controlling the world media. * comparing Jews and Israelis to Nazis and comparing Zionism with Nazism. * illustrating the stereotypical Jew (big nose, black coat and hat, skull cap), along with Jewish symbols such as the Star of David and demonizing Jews as bloodthirsty and violent. " _________ Here is what I got from a reform-minded Egyptian doctor when I commented on his blog: http://ashraf62.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/herzl-was-an-anti-semite-in-disguise/#comment-41 Does it look sound like he is even half aware that he is being antisemitic? That he might suffer from embarrassment? ___________ When you read, or hear, "never again" what do you think it means? That we should credit the Egyptians with permission to be as pathologically antisemitic as the Nazis because "The United States in its modern form evolved from crowds that believed that slavery was a legitimate social order and that only white males had the natural right to engage in political activity or even vote."?? Are we not supposed to have learned anything from history?

- noga1

February 9, 2011 at 6:15pm

http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/arab/as_egypt_03_2004/default.asp "Anti-Semitism remains deeply ingrained in Egyptian society, finding expression in the mass media, popular literature and public statements while remaining virtually unchallenged by government leaders. Articles and caricatures in the Egyptian media regularly feature anti-Semitic depictions of Jews as stooped, hook-nosed, money-hungry and conspiratorial. Israeli leaders are depicted as Nazis, while other articles deny or diminish the Holocaust. Anti-Israel and anti-Jewish conspiracy theories frequently surface, including references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and modern reincarnations of the medieval blood-libel charge. In January 2004, Egypt hosted its annual book fair in Cairo, the largest literary event in the Arab and Muslim world, where numerous anti-Semitic books were displayed. Since the international outcry over the airing on Egyptian television of an anti-Jewish drama based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in December 2002, the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, important public discussions on anti-Semitism have taken place, leading to calls to condemn anti-Semitism and for Egyptians to avoid such manifestations. Nonetheless, vicious and hateful anti-Semitic articles and caricatures have continued to appear in the opposition and government press. The following are selected examples of anti-Semitic articles and caricatures that appeared in Egyptian newspapers from July 2003 to February 2004. Several common anti-Semitic themes are apparent: * conspiracy theories of Jews wanting to control the world, Jews controlling the Western governments and Jews controlling the world media. * comparing Jews and Israelis to Nazis and comparing Zionism with Nazism. * illustrating the stereotypical Jew (big nose, black coat and hat, skull cap), along with Jewish symbols such as the Star of David and demonizing Jews as bloodthirsty and violent. " _________ Here is what I got from a reform-minded Egyptian doctor when I commented on his blog: http://ashraf62.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/herzl-was-an-anti-semite-in-disguise/#comment-41 Does it look sound like he is even half aware that he is being antisemitic? That he might suffer from embarrassment? ___________ When you read, or hear, "never again" what do you think it means? That we should credit the Egyptians with permission to be as pathologically antisemitic as the Nazis because "The United States in its modern form evolved from crowds that believed that slavery was a legitimate social order and that only white males had the natural right to engage in political activity or even vote."?? Are we not supposed to have learned anything from history?

- noga1

February 9, 2011 at 6:16pm

Bernard-Henri Levy: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/post_1696_b_819954.html "And, as usual, democracy has been verified a common good, as has the fact that everywhere oppression, servitude, and massive violations of human rights exist, there are men and women, whatever the numbers, who become aware of this common good and demand their due. That said, enthusiasm does not exclude lucidity. And in this case, lucidity, as, moreover, probity, calls for several comments. 1. Rebellious does not necessarily mean democratic. And the fact is that, among the hundreds of thousand of city dwellers who camped out at Tahrir Square for days in hopes of causing the fall of the regime, there were those who were seeking democracy and there were others--the Muslim Brotherhood--who absolutely were not. 2. I have often said the only clash of civilizations that counts is, within Islam, the clash between Islam of the Enlightenment and fundamentalist, rigid, eventually terrorist Islam. Well, we are there. This is exactly the situation that prevails in Egypt today. But saying that Islam of the Enlightenment is asserting itself, emerging from the shadows, progressing, does not mean, unfortunately, that the other has been vanquished or that we should let down our guard against it. In other words, democrats are faced with fighting on not one but two fronts. Not against one enemy, but two. I cannot imagine in the name of what one should refrain from thinking they must take down Mubarak, on the one hand, but on the other, they must prevent the heirs of Hassan El Banna from taking advantage of the situation to replace tyranny with their own iron rule. 3. All the more so since, in this tri-partite game, unusual alliances may be formed, one of which, in particular, would suffice to put out the flame that has been lit at Tahrir Square. This is the alliance of Mubarak and the Brotherhood, one that could result from the dialogue, initiated by Vice President Suleiman with the blessing of the United States, with representatives of the opposition--the most prominent of whom are, inevitably, the Brotherhood. And the fear that the brotherhood might take the upper hand over, for example, the so-called movements of the 6th of April or Kefaya and, in league with the Raïs and, especially, with his army, gently snuff out Egypt's hopes for democracy is, to my mind, neither exaggerated nor that of a Cassandra. "

- noga1

February 9, 2011 at 6:30pm

I agree with Levy and, in terms of the basic argument, I don't see that he is saying anything different from what I'm saying. The "doctor" with whom you were in communication seems to be one of those people who make a distinction, as you've laid it out yourself many times, between the admirable spiritual/creative Jews of the Diaspora on the one side and those nasty nationalist Israeli Zionists on the other.

- ironyroad

February 9, 2011 at 6:55pm

Really? Is that why he said my kippa is showing?

- noga1

February 9, 2011 at 7:11pm

"...don't see that he is saying anything different from what I'm saying." He is not trying to shunt aside the antisemitism the way you do, as ""not unexpected given the local circumstances." It is the central point in his position. He is saying the democratic reform movement needs to be put to the test, as to whether it can have the courage of the principles the protesters are demanding. Perhaps you didn't read the whole article. I know it is tiresome for you. You want to dance around the democratic reformers and I keep pushing this boulder in front of you. What a wet blanket I am. I hope you have a good evening.

- noga1

February 9, 2011 at 7:17pm

Gee whiz, jacko. Don't you think it would be more accurate to say of you that you cannot tolerate anyone defending Obama, even against basically ridiculous criticism such as that levied by Herf? I mean, if a Jeffrey Herf declares in a conclusory fashion that Obama's policy and rhetoric toward the Moslem world are a failure, are we all just supposed to so, "Wow, man. That's like so awesomely true." without so much as asking what failure is supposed to mean in this context? Or if Herf ascribes Obama's policy to the belief that the only animus toward us in the Moslem world is the result of Bush that we must accept that this is indeed what Obama thinks? On the basis of Herf's claim alone? You are just being evasive, jacko, because you have no answer to my question: If Herf and you say that Obama should be doing something else, give a plausible (not persuasive, not compelling, just plausible) account of what this something else can be expected to achieve that is not now being achieved and why we should consider that a likely outcome. If Obama rhetorically attacks "Islamists" rather than attacking "extremists" and "terrorists" while rhetorically affirming his respect for Islam, what will be better. Will: 1. Islamists be moved (Herf says know); 2. Westerners who do not know that Islamist are our enemies come to understand that (if they don't know that by now, my guess is they are already dead and embalmed); 3. Non-extremist Moslems be moved to our side (why?) or away from the Islamists (why?); 4. Governments in Moslem countries be moved to greater cooperation with us (why?); 5. Anything else of value to us in our fight against the Islamists. Can you not tell us one little thing that is going to be better (and why) if Obama abandons what he is doing in favor of what Herf (and you I suppose) advocates? I don't think you can, because there really isn't a case to be made, but I would be happy to hear it. Rather, I think you don't care. Your notion of policy failure is simply to fail to give public expression to your beliefs. As for the right, do you think I deplore them just because they are critical of the left? Not hardly. Who cares what they think as they are witless fools. I deplore them because, like all religious nuts, they believe ridiculous, unscientific things despite copious evidence that their beliefs are absurd. And that makes them dangerous, because there are a lot more than a few of them.

- roidubouloi

February 9, 2011 at 8:56pm

Oy. "Herf says no" I am driving myself crazy typing homonyms when I cannot really see the screen to correct myself. Sorry for that.

- roidubouloi

February 9, 2011 at 8:58pm

I am not shunting anything aside, Noga. If you would factor in the higher expressive talent of a B.-H. Levy and the time he has to do a long interview, then perhaps you'd see that. I wish you'd cease telling me I'm saying things I'm not saying. That's more than a wet blanket. It's a kafka-esque quandary, as I can't say anything other than what I've been saying, but I haven't been saying what you claim I've been saying.

- ironyroad

February 9, 2011 at 10:07pm

Well, IR, I'm only trying to understand you, based on the assumption that words have certain meanings. And I don't see how you can claim BHL's "higher expressive talent" as an excuse for being misunderstood. It's actually not about what you have been saying but about what you have left out which he did not. About how he emphasizes the problem and you trying to say well yes, there is that problem but it doesn't really matter. Your comments make me feel as if there is something almost irrational about my scepticism and reluctance to take these protests at face value.

- noga1

February 10, 2011 at 7:52am

Roid. Methinks you have a reasonable complaint at least per my characterization of your responses. I shall, henceforth, effort to refrain from such attributions. I follow the logic of BO's and your preferred approach. I just think the scaffolding has been built upon a faulty premise. The implied upshot of bowing before certain realities of collective human nature unhappily includes providing affirmation and shelter for destructive ideas and attitudes as if to sign off on an unjust accounts receivable document. That document than becomes the basis by which all else follows. As if to ratify compensation for lost treasure when a slave buys his own freedom back from clearly illegal and immoral 'ownership'.

- jacko

February 10, 2011 at 8:50am

"That document than becomes the basis by which all else follows. " Should be: That document THEN becomes the basis by which all else follows. I bow before my own imperfections. They are many. My wife will happily allow as much.

- jacko

February 10, 2011 at 9:44am

"That document THEN becomes the basis by which all else follows." Thus Jesus stood mute before his accusers. Answering the charges would have given weight to their accusations. He was bound by his obligations to freedom. That is a large measure of his bestowal. Fully owned and freely given. Those are the dimensions of the psycho/spiritual space this issue occupies. So goes the paradox of bound liberty and the basis upon which the US was founded. Whether you like it or not this is a Judeo/Christian country. Allow that this is a follow up on my claim that secular is an illusion per an earlier discussion we were having a week or so in the past. There is the nub of it and that is the rock upon which this city was built. Thus people who should know better have accused Obama of being Muslim. It's a ridiculous charge and smacks of bigotry but nonetheless.....

- jacko

February 10, 2011 at 10:16am

I have never said "it doesn't really matter." I does matter, as I have noted. I have also said, and say, that writing off the Egyptian reform movement because of the antisemitic thread within it (or anti-Israeli thread, which might be a little different) is not a good way of challenging antisemitism in the Egyptian reform movement. The way to challenge it is to argue on the spot that it's a paranoid racial superstition that has no place in a the democratic culture of a modern nation.

- ironyroad

February 10, 2011 at 2:22pm

I'm not opposed in principle, jacko, to calling out bad guys. But I do think that in a nasty and complicated world, it is not necessarily the case that is the smart or moral move in particular circumstances. It behooves us to consider what consequences will follow and what opportunities may be lost. This is not a game. I hardly think that Obama should be immune from criticism. His policy may not be the right one, and there is a great deal of uncertainty. But it is not reasonable or responsible, in my opinion, to criticize him by first attributing to him a ridiculous basis for his policy and then insisting that it is a failure for this reason. The critic has a duty to articulate what could and should be different, and why we should believe this after considering how things may and are likely to play out. Otherwise, it is just politically motivated carping and should be treated as such. I think Obama's policy has a rather obvious basis. He is attacking the Islamists wherever he can find them while trying to discourage Moslems who are not already Islamists from supporting them in reaction to a perception of western hostility. Very sensible. If someone has a better idea, let's hear it. But it needs some explanation, in the nature of expected cause and effec,t to support it -- not wing and prayer.

- roidubouloi

February 10, 2011 at 4:43pm

I substantially agree with you. I don't think a hat in hand apology for Iraq and other implied injustices that fed into the whole anti-imperialist victimology was well advised. I thought Bush screwed up in countless ways. The inferences in this mea culpa on US designs could reasonably be interpreted by MiddleEast audiences that hegemony was the underlying motivation for the removal of Saddam and his accomplices. It played directly into what the bad guys used as their justifiable complaint. The towers coming down should simply be seen as be a matter of just desserts. There has been more than a whiff of that in our domestic left-right hoo-hah. It was certainly in the air of the 2004 campaigns. " Our idiot president is fighting this war on behalf of Big Oil. " Our kids and their innocents are dying for Bush's dangerous foolishness and ultimately a pawn willing to spill blood on behalf of his real masters...... Corporate American Business. Even more cynically for jingoist campaign opportunity.

- jacko

February 10, 2011 at 6:15pm

I agree that apologies by the president of the United States are generally a bad idea. They may have played well with some Moslem publics but are the wrong message to leaders. When you are the big gun, you don't explain. But I think this was a misunderstanding by Obama of his status, not a misreading of the proper direction in which to move. In other words, bad execution. I still think his overall instinct is correct and hopefully he has learned that he must comport himself in a different manner as president than he may be inclined to do as a private person.

- roidubouloi

February 10, 2011 at 7:00pm