SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Watching Cairo

TEL AVIV JOURNAL FEBRUARY 15, 2011

Watching Cairo

BY MARTIN PERETZ

For nearly three weeks as I watched the exhilarating news coming from Cairo, I had in my head four great canvases by Delacroix that hang forbiddingly in the Grande Galerie at the Louvre: The Massacre at Scio, The Bark of Dante, The Death of Sardanapalus, Liberty Leading the People.Each of them is a passionate semblance of the threat of death or of death itself. I cannot imagine anyone who has seen these impressions ever having them completely out of his head. I know the images in the Dante very well because I happen to have in my house a Cezanne oil study of the Delacroix original. Dante’s journey, guided by Virgil, away from hell has always haunted me. Terror is on several faces in the painting, particularly one which was drawn from Gericault’s Raft of the Medusa.These are icons of the ages. 

So, yes, Cairo was haunted by death for days on end. But, in one sense, Liberty was the most salient vision. Well, at least I had Liberty on my brain. I had to remind myself that this Liberty is not a prop from the French Revolution which ended in massacre, but was an alternative symbol, of the Revolution of 1830, led by Louis-Philippe, the Orleanist “citizen king” whose reign was a triumph of the middle classes. Would the magically peaceful insurrection in Egypt, 2011 conclude with its people’s conquest of the brutal history they had lived under, well, forever? Or would it end with a modern version of Scio,where 20,000 Greek islanders were slaughtered by the Ottomans and which torments still all of Asia Minor and beyond? 

I must say that thus far it has been a gentle revolution, gentle at least from the bottom up. And not really ferocious at all from the very top. Of course, there was brutality here and there, there and here, which is not to be washed away by the giddiness of the good news that may turn bad. But, to the extent that there were more than enough cases of beatings and killings, it was the brutalism of the thug element in Egyptian society, an inchoate component of every dictatorship which finds its place between criminals and cops in any disordered order, suppressing chaos and imposing quietude on the embittered. We cannot know what the next stage in Egypt will be or bring. 

I’m afraid that it is still difficult to imagine social and economic justice on the near- or middle-term agenda. What we can anticipate in the far term is zero. This is a sorrowful truth. But the fact is that the country is bitterly poor and without natural resources save for a few rapidly emptying oil beds in the Sinai. The country’s work force is trained for nothing or at least nothing exact. Its farming lands are fast being encroached upon by the desert; and though the peace with Israel has brought the country some high technologies, especially in agriculture, its population is barely educated in the practical sciences and not at all in theoretical sciences. Barack Obama might have been thrilled by the universities which hosted him in Cairo. But, you, please do not be mislead by his illusions: These institutions of higher education are about as intellectually daring as is Bob Jones University—and probably quite a bit less.

There is no shortage of data on Egypt’s social and economic prospects. Much of it is trustworthy. Alas, the most believable data is, in fact, the most devastating. Despite my distrust of the United Nations as a source of truthful information about anything (yes, anything), I have found most materials put out annually since 2002 by the U.N. Arab Human Development Program credible and challenging. (This is not the case about Egypt’s own production of such matter under the aegis of the H.D.P. This appears to have all been done by flunky social scientists, full of excuses and apologias. In any case, there were no warning signs about troubles ahead in even the latest of these documents.)

The most recent poverty rate statistics go back a half dozen years. It is doubtful that they have declined since. The fact is, then, that in 2006 nearly 41 percent of the Egyptian population earned not more than $2.7 a day, the internationally-agreed-upon benchmark for the poor. Rural poverty was 52 percent. Youth unemployment was disastrously high. Illiteracy (which means real illiteracy) now stands at upwards of 25 percent, down a bit from 26 percent. Yet the raw numbers of those who cannot read or write are up. Why? Because the birth rate is so high that it will automatically be a losing game of catch-up.

Anyway, it wasn’t from among the poor or the illiterate that the demonstrators in Tahrir Square and other centers of the brave came. Probably the distinctive needs and expectations of the demonstrators or, better yet, resistants were reflected in the vagueness—and, thus, the eloquence—of their demands which were mostly political-bordering-on-the-philosophical. Even transcendent. It’s hard to imagine these protestors clamoring for quotidian needs: ample and clean water, more doctors and nurses, hospitals and clinics, garbage removal, food. Those who went into the streets, standing there calmly and bravely, wanted justice. Maybe they will ultimately get justice or some simulacrum of it. But maybe they won’t. Injustice, we should remind ourselves, comes in many hues and in different uniforms. Sometimes with different weapons.

 

 

I don’t mean to be a killjoy. Nonetheless, I suspect that many journalists are too ecstatic in their prognostications. Roger Cohen, who admits in The International Herald Tribune that “it will be a tough road after six decades of dictatorship,” writes in the same sentence this salving line: “Egyptians have shown the depth of their culture.” (This is the man who told us about the gentility of Persian culture as a bar to the tyranny in Tehran.) Forgive me: Your intellectual credit is used up. Even Tom Friedman, who does know the Middle East and has known it for a long time, was in ecstasy: “If Egyptians can show just half the creativity, solidarity and determination in the next year of nation-building that they showed in Tahrir Square these last 18 days, they might just pull it off.” Please, Tom, you know it’ll take more than that, much more. And, no, I don’t agree that the head men in Beijing are quaking in their boots.

There are fantasies that both animate revolutions and lay them low. Egypt is an ancient civilization; this can give pride which, sorry to say, is not cashable at the World Bank. Like the Roman Empire, which seems to have left only lecherous and corrupt Caesars to its descendants. The foundations of a good society must be humanly and materially useful, commercially marketable, fiscally sound. Columnists have a way of looking aside from these imperatives as if the making of history is a mobilization of slogans. The former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, who is running for president from the op-ed pages of American newspapers (this particular piece of rhetoric was also in the Times), is adept at the skill: “we are at the dawn of a new Egypt. We have nothing to fear but the shadow of a repressive past.” It is a nice applause line. But it has about as much to do with real democracy as invoking Nefertiti, though she was serenely beautiful and also a monotheist fully 15 centuries before Mohammed. By the way, “Yes, we can” wrote the Nobelist in the Times, evoking how little we couldn’t under Obama.

The truth is that Egypt does not need sloganeering. It needs material help and technological help, humanitarian help and, lastly, judicial help since it is the Egyptian legal system that is the country’s most crippled construction. It is sad that there isn’t a single Arab society—or, for that matter, Muslim society—to which Cairo can look for an ideal type that could help it establish its own authentic measures of justice.

There is now a lurch in the streets for elections. It has been tamped down by the army’s imposition of martial law with various pledges of democratization and liberalization. For example: that future elections will really matter. But, as the astute Middle East scholar Barry Rubin points out in Sunday’s Jerusalem Post, the present constitution requires voting for parliament within 60 days. It’s hard to imagine that this will occur. And will this be seen as a violation of the army’s pledges to the populace or a suspension of them?

Watching these events unfold from Tel Aviv inevitably makes one fit Israel into the lens with Egypt. But there it becomes blurry. It is true that the peace treaty between the two countries was not a point of contention in the streets, as some Israelis and American Jews feared it would become. Friedman even mustered a protest poster—“Mubarak, if you are Pharaoh we are all Moses”—with proto-Zionist resonances. Still, while the odds are very much against this heroic moment turning into a triumph for the Muslim Brotherhood, the fact is that this fraternity of angry pietists is the best organized body in the population. The army will certainly overturn Mubarak’s ban on it. And how could it not? The usual apologists for Islamism have all been saying that the Brotherhood is not what it used to be. These folk are animated by their indifference to the concerns of Egypt’s more and more surrounded Jewish neighbor. There is more at stake than this, however. For the immediate victims of the brothers would be other Egyptians who want a life promised by the liberal truisms on the posters and leaflets in the square.

But, as you recognize, I am not unconcerned by Israel’s stake in the succession. In fact, this stake dovetails with the stakes of the people on the street. The peace treaty has more or less insulated Egyptian society from the shedding of blood over borders upon which there are no improvements. After all, Gaza was not in dispute: Egypt did not want it. Surely, Israel deplores having asked for Gaza at all. My guess, moreover, is that in the inner hearts of the Egyptians there is regret for Anwar Sadat’s insistence that Israel return the entire Sinai to Cairene possession and control. There is now a war for the Sinai between the Bedouin and the police which the police are losing. The Army is not at all eager to fight the Bedouin in the great desert.

What the Brotherhood would say about the Bedouin I have no idea. Of course, these itinerants are Muslims of some sort but not the sort that lives by Islamic law. On the other hand, there is no question what Al-Iqwan (which was founded by Hassan al-Banna, the grandfather of Tariq Ramadan, about both of whom Paul Berman has written in these pages) wants: It is a restoration of authentic Koranic traditions in society at large and in politics in the specific. 

Maybe no one has been watching. But ElBaradei, who covered for Iran during the crucial stages of its nuclear adventure, has allied himself with the Brotherhood. He is not a friend of Israel, not even a neutral about it. When the Israelis took out the nuclear installation in Syria, a joint enterprise of Iran and North Korea, he was apoplectic. I can’t recall reading an alert in the American or British press about his apologetics for Damascus, and I’m afraid there weren’t any. And certainly not many.

The fact is that the peace treaty with Israel is the one great achievement of the regime of the colonels. It brought them much aid from the U.S., not all of it military aid. It also meant that neither Israel nor Egypt were ever tempted into confrontation of arms. I thought that the American foreign policy left valued peace above all. It is reckless for this element to gamble on ElBaradei and his brotherly comrades. One way to derail the great revolution that may have been ignited in Tahrir Square is to put Egypt and Israel on edge. Civil democracy never accompanies talk of war, and it is civil democracy which is at stake. According to Ehud Yaari, Israel’s most trusted intelligence correspondent, another roller of the presidential dice, Ayman Nour, chairman of the Ghad Party—Ghad means “tomorrow”—has also questioned the value of the bi-national treaty. This is reckless politics. 

Martin Peretz is editor-in-chief emeritus of The New Republic.

 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 106 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

106 comments

" But ElBaradei, who covered for Iran during the crucial stages of its nuclear adventure, has allied himself with the Brotherhood. He is not a friend of Israel, not even a neutral about it. When the Israelis took out the nuclear installation in Syria, a joint enterprise of Iran and North Korea, he was apoplectic. I can’t recall reading an alert in the American or British press about his apologetics for Damascus, and I’m afraid there weren’t any." . I hope you didn't expect the antisemitic Guardian or the anti-Israel London Review of Books to criticize ElBaradei? They would more than likely approve of his views

- arnon

February 15, 2011 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"So in "free" Tunisia, this Tunisian mob is "free" to hold an antisemitic demonstration outside the Grand Synagogue in Tunis, changing "Allahu Akbar" and "Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!" Filmed last Friday, so it's reported―presumably after prayers. Who were those analysts who said Islamists in Tunisia were nowhere to be seen? Found 'em!" http://www.facebook.com/martinkramer.page/posts/134675126598755

- arnon

February 15, 2011 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was just thinking the other day that one of the blessings of this recent triumph of liberty in Egypt was that Mr. Peretz was not around TNR to attempt to spoil it with one of his barely coherent, mean-spirited diatribes. Guess I spoke too soon.

- alphprol

February 15, 2011 at 1:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No one forces prol, the troll, to read this web site and impose his own boneheaded single comments.

- arnon

February 15, 2011 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK I disagree with "alphprof", this piece is not a rant. The really important parts of it are impossible to dispute and that is the economic situation. With prices rising for basic commodities like wheat, due partially to increased demand, partially to a rise in oil prices but also - disastrous recent harvests - people who live in countries like Egypt may not be able to afford the most basic and necessary commodity of all: food. MP mentioned "The Raft of the Medusa." Well we are on that raft are we not? Yet - how much effort has really been made to bury the sword and pick up the plowshare and also deal rationally with population vs environmental damage? We have a huge problem just getting supposedly enlightened Americans to deal with climate change. The oil companies push back hard every time somebody even suggests alternative energy sources. The Vatican excommunicates a nun whose hospital saved a woman's life via a therapeutic abortion. Republicans want to defund or already have defunded help for women with reproductive issues - even birth control is regarded by some as a "sin." Meanwhile women in large parts of the world lack even basic control over their destinies and over their own bodies - and before we launch into an anti-Muslim rant let's deal with our own religious right. Regardless all these issues are linked: repression of women, magical thinking, ignorance and denial in general but especially about the environment, and finally the wasteful stupidity of war. What have we spent on war? It's just huge. Meanwhile we could be working to save our only home and breaking down the barriers that prevent people from learning, from talking to each other, and sharing resources and ideas. Egypt is presenting us all with an opportunity. We can look at these issues, all the issues confronting the people of Egypt, and we can honestly work to solve them and in the process we can help the rest of world. OR we can all get up on political hobbyhorses. Choose.

- Sophia

February 15, 2011 at 3:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In a purely philosophical sense (I don't know what the precise situation is in Tunisia today), if the demonstration is carried on without violence, then yes, they are free to hold a protest rally outside the synagogue. It's not pretty, but it's the price one pays for freedom of political expression. I think the question is not "found 'em" but whether this is it or whether there are more where these came from. If what's on the clip is what the islamists can gather together, it's probably a very small slice of the political pie in Tunisia, and thus the image of a country in which Islamic fundamentalism is a fringe activity may still be broadly correct.

- ironyroad

February 15, 2011 at 3:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"OK I disagree with "alphprof", this piece is not a rant." No it isn't and prol knows that it isn't. He or she doesn't believe in freedom of speech.

- arnon

February 15, 2011 at 3:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tunisia: "So in "free" Tunisia, this Tunisian mob is "free" to hold an antisemitic demonstration outside the Grand Synagogue in Tunis, changing "Allahu Akbar" and "Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!" Filmed last Friday, so it's reported―presumably after prayers. Who were those analysts who said Islamists in Tunisia were nowhere to be seen? Found 'em!" http://www.facebook.com/martinkramer.page/posts/134675126598755

- arnon

February 15, 2011 at 3:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In a purely philosophical sense (I don't know what the precise situation is in Tunisia today), if the demonstration is carried on without violence, then yes, they are free to hold a protest rally outside the synagogue. It's not pretty, ..." How nice, to sit in an American university, and preach about the philosophy of democratic genocidal speech in Tunisia. I wondered who would come up here first with this craven apologetics for this free "demonstration". Let's admire the freedom. What's the fear of 1000 Jews in Tunisia compared to the sublime elation of democracy in the Arab street?

- noga1

February 15, 2011 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- Sizes learned:

S. Obsessive viewing of paintings can cause one to those their head. M. A revolution that doesn't clamor for "ample and clean water, more doctors and nurses, hospitals and clinics, garbage removal, food" is suspect. L. The alternatives to Mubarak are seen as apocalyptic, but M.P. may accept the multiple miseries if they honor treaties. XL. "What we can anticipate in the far term is zero." but that won't stop some people from proving that knowing nothing is more convincing when they put it in writing.

- michaelg

February 15, 2011 at 4:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marty Peretz has been interviewed by an Israeli newspaper, the "Calcalist" where he is quoted as saying: ""Obama supports the Egyptian revolution because there are Islamist elements in it. He did not support the Iranian revolt for a simple reason: it was a secular revolt, aimed at wiping out Islamist influence." He denies that he said it and imputes the quote to the scurrilous nature of Israeli jounalism, the fact that Israeli journalists do not speak English very well and that they don't bother taking notes. With an advocate like that, Israel doesn't need prosecutor. Marty can wreak havoc all by himself on Israel's reputation. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/Peretz_I_was_misquoted.html

- noga1

February 15, 2011 at 4:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/Peretz_I_was_misquoted.html

- noga1

February 15, 2011 at 4:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As far as antisemitic demonstrations: what do people expect given the brainwashing of people in the Middle East since at least the 1920's but also, due to the Nazis? That's something else that needs to be confronted. It isn't Islamic in origin, it's Western - true, some phrases in the Quran are antisemitic but then one can argue that about Christianity in general also. Some of the really dangerous stuff widely believed in the modern Middle East came from the Protocols and was greatly increased during the Nazi era. I don't see the Brits dealing well with it either considering some of their cartoons and general demonization of Israel. And not to forget the level of antisemitism in the US prior to WWII - we Jews were "the oriental menace" according to Henry Ford no less. What I'm hoping is that more knowledge - more openness - not less - will start to blow the legs of this Nazi beast. The Brits however wouldn't let the scholar Matthais Kunzel speak - he's an expert on the impact of Nazi antisemitism on the Middle East. http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=2044

- Sophia

February 15, 2011 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"As far as antisemitic demonstrations: what do people expect given the brainwashing of people in the Middle East since at least the 1920's but also, due to the Nazis? That's something else that needs to be confronted. It isn't Islamic in origin, it's Western - true, some phrases in the Quran are antisemitic but then one can argue that about Christianity in general also." That's true. I said the same thing above. However, the origin of antisemitism in The Arab world is one thing dealing with it today is something else. We need to penalize racist antisemitic behavior and reward tolerance. I see no other way to deal with it. Closing one's eyes and pretending it isn't there as some would like us to do, isn't going to work and it will make the situation worse since Arab migrants to Europe and America take their Jew hatred with them and have been reintroducing it into Europe. There is more at stake than just the Middle East.

- arnon

February 15, 2011 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm so glad this conversation turned to laughable accusations (Yes, arnon. You got me. I don't believe in free speech. Very astute!) and hand-wringing about perceived anti-Semitism at the margins of these events, instead of celebrating a triumph of nonviolent democratic ideals. The board regulars here truly are concerned global citizens.

- alphprol

February 15, 2011 at 5:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So MP wants to be a spoilsport and ruin all of our fun. The NYTimes had at least three op-ed writers on the scene, Mssrs. Kristof, Friedman and Cohen, all of whom waxed idyllic in the face of this unbelievable revolution. Even Fouad Ajami on NPR yesterday was more than cautiously optimistic about the eventual outcomes of these events. So MP has to come along and remind us that Egypt confronts terrible poverty and that this may well get in the way. Not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood that has apparently withered away. However, hasn't that withering been aided by Mubarak's hatred and oppression of them? Now out of the closet, what will they do? It's an unknown. Further, as MP points out, from the perspective of the Jewish State, which has had more than thirty years of peace with Egypt and is geographically self-interested in the goings-on, now faces a country that may well come to abrogate the treaty between the two countries, and in a not very long time. So one hopes it all turns out well, that this newly liberated nation finds its way to democratic shores that resists Islamist pressures and maintains its treaties. That would be an excellent turn of events, a development that would change the paradigm in the region in a wonderful and dramatic way. We can only hope.

- pmchai

February 15, 2011 at 5:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... laughable.... hand-wringing about perceived anti-Semitism at the margins of these events... triumph of nonviolent democratic ideals. " Like I said, a democratic demonstration of nonviolent democratic ideals such as genocidal antisemitic free speech. Prol, from his superior vantage point as a citizen of the world, knows exactly what constitutes today "nonviolent democratic ideals".

- noga1

February 15, 2011 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Freedom of speech means the right to speak by everyone, even by people like MP. One doesn’t need the approval of prol to post here, thank goodness. All views should be welcome including those of the myopic prol. That Prol, can’t see signs of antisemites in the these demonstrations, is his problem, not mine.

- arnon

February 15, 2011 at 5:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Look. It's fine to be euphoric but reality is reality. So actually - it isn't fine to be euphoric. Problems exist and they MUST be solved. Otherwise, the revolution will have been for naught. So what is wrong with confronting the issues honestly and rationally?

- Sophia

February 15, 2011 at 5:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'll take Peretz at his word about being misquoted and from what I know of him I can't believe he'd say anything like what he's purported to have said. I think thoswe who think he said and don't give him the benefit of the doubt here-- as does Ben Smith for eg.-- don't know him very well. Plus this piece, the one above, is as far from being a rant as can be imagined, agree or disagree with him.

- basman

February 15, 2011 at 6:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... it isn't fine to be euphoric." I agree. This news is shocking. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/compost/2011/02/what_happened_to_lara_logan_wa.html "CBS News reported today that on Friday in Cairo, as news of Mubarak's resignation flooded the crowd, reporter Lara Logan was assaulted: "In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers." [-] It is always dangerous to extrapolate too much from a particular story. But this is already beginning to happen, and I think two points bear keeping in mind. They are the acts of an isolated group of individuals. But when we contemplate the statistics and the experience of women in this culture, we have to ask: how isolated? Egypt is not a free society. Yes, it is free of Mubarak's rule. But its women - even when shrouded in the hejab - are not free to pass through the street without being groped and catcalled. In 2008, as Slate reporter Sarah Topol noted, a study by the Egyptian Centre for Women's Rights reported that 83 percent of women experienced harassment - and that 98 percent of foreign women visitors did. And 62 percent of men admitted to perpetrating it" ___________ Why not let the Egyptians and the Tunisians sort themselves out first, stew in their juices for a while, so that at least we know what exactly is this freedom that they "celebrate" and whether this is the kind of democracy we have been praying for the lands of Araby.

- noga1

February 15, 2011 at 8:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The question is NOT whether there are confrontational Islamist elements in Tunisia -- clearly there are. The question is whether the transformation in Tunisia is really something that allows open debate and even confrontation about all topics, even about the Tunisian Jewish community and about Tunisia's relationship to Israel, and manages to police demonstrations in a way that prevents violent extremist activists taking control of the story. If there were a new rule to create a security zone of, say, 300 meters, around all houses of worship in Tunisia, would this be a protection? Should one encourage, e.g. via organizations on the ground, and the U.S. via govt to govt communication, this measure? Nobody so far has claimed that the protests -- whether they shout Juden Raus or whatever -- represent a majority opinion in Tunisia. If they do, then the whole thing, the whole fucking thing, has been a disaster. If they don't, then we need to work to keep that opinion as tiny as possible and demand that the Tunisian authorities protect all their citizens. On the other hand, maybe it would be so much, so much better if we continue to have Arab despots controlling all the Middle Eastern nations from Morocco to Yemen. That's what guarantees our security in the long term, right? And yes, freedom of speech does bring some nasty things along with it. It's the job of democracy to manage and potentially transform them.

- ironyroad

February 15, 2011 at 8:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman, I have to say that the quote just didn't sound like Marty.

- MOLLYSIMON

February 15, 2011 at 9:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, I think it's a little naive of you to question whether the majority of Tunisians feel this way. If you look at any survey ever done on the Jews in the middle East, the hate is palpable. Also, I'm not sure what you're getting at with the protesters: That's a pretty scary mob and I'd be hesitant to walk into the crowd wearing a Mogen David necklace. It's hardly peaceful. And should houses of worship in Tunisia be gated? Perhaps if they're Jewish houses of worship.

- MOLLYSIMON

February 15, 2011 at 9:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony, malahat, I'm missing what the precise issue is between you. The overthrowing of autocratic rule in Tunisia by a bottoms up social movement or explosion promises to be a good thing. As irony rightly says, "On the other hand, maybe it would be so much, so much better if we continue to have Arab despots controlling all the Middle Eastern nations from Morocco to Yemen. That's what guarantees our security in the long term, right?" The outbursts outside the synagogue are a terrible thing are to be condemned but are not necessarily a microcosm of typical attitudes in Tunisia. The oe'rthrowing of suppressive constraints issuing from autocratic rule is good. Some of what gets unleashed that otherwise might not have is execrable. The specific contours of freedom of speech in Canadian or American law might not have countenanced the Tunisian outbursts especially insofar as they can be characterized as incitement. But with all that said, what's the issue? What do I miss? p.s. there is not a word that ironyroad said above that I would call "craven apologetics." That's o'er the top.

- basman

February 15, 2011 at 9:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

p.p.s.s. Malahat I guess you know that your girl friend E.S. won a grammy for best new artist of the year, surely a case of ephemera topping the deep substance of our own tragically overlooked, adenoidal, cute as a button, Mopsy, a.k.a Justin B.

- basman

February 15, 2011 at 9:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well I'd be curious to see how irony chracterizes the issue. Maybe I am reading him incorrectly.

- basman

February 15, 2011 at 9:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not laying out an apologetics for genocidal antisemitism (just in case anyone had any doubts) but rather thinking aloud how one can lance the boil. If a wave of antisemitism -- and I take the point about the demo in front of that synagogue instead of in front of an Israeli embassy; and also the point about the surveys of hatred across the Arab world -- is to come, then is it better to confront it or to try to run it onto a siding so we can pretend it isn't there? I don't have any delusions about the potential for anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli demagoguery to take the lead in North Africa, but I also have no delusions about the way it can be neutralized or transformed. Either those political pathologies are confronted seriously, at their core, or they will just fester further. Fifty Tunisians, not Jewish, standing in front of the synagogue when a violent demo gathers will do more to that end than 30 years of a police state creating an artificial peace. I like to think I'm not "craven." But maybe that's how I come across.

- ironyroad

February 15, 2011 at 9:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

esperanza

- basman

February 15, 2011 at 10:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was accused of "craven apologetics" as if (a) apologetics meant apologizing for something when in fact it means simply defending theological propositions through reason (which of course I wasn't doing, as it wasn't a theological argument) and -- somewhat more importantly -- as if (b) I was defending threatening antisemitic demonstrations as legitimate per se. How am I "craven" for asserting we should fight something openly? All I am saying is, or better still, all I am asking is, whether it's better to confront antisemitic ideology out in the open in a democratic arena or suppress its political manifestion via an authoritarian state apparatus while somehow permitting its cultural expression in the flow of everyday social life. If anyone thinks the latter is the better option, why don't they set out why?

- ironyroad

February 15, 2011 at 10:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What's with all this "I said this" "I didn't mean that." Who cares, this isn't about you, people. Here is something important: Iran the country that had expressed joy at the Egyptian demonstrations didn't like it when it happened in their own country: "Iran’s Leader Derides Protests; Lawmakers Urge Death for Opposition Leaders" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/world/middleeast/16iran.html?src=mv

- arnon

February 16, 2011 at 12:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Regarding antisemitism in North Africa and other Arab states, the horse was out of the barn ages ago. This isn't a new problem. Nor is it a small problem limited to just a few extreme or ignorant people. Most of the Jews left already - the greatest exodus beginning in about 1947 - though there had been violence before that of course; those remaining are a tiny fragment of the whole. This can't be blamed on despotism and it won't be cured by democracy any more than Germany's democracy was free of hate.

- Sophia

February 16, 2011 at 12:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat et all -- nothing personal in this, at all. I'm just saying that I'm not "apologizing" for antisemitic and threatening/violent behavior but trying to tease out some implications of current events, and when someone writes "craven apologetics" that's what they are accusing me of. Sophia -- yes, I absolutely agree on that, regarding North Africa. What I'm trying to get at does not involve denying that, at all. There's something weird and almost evil about violent demonstrations outside a synagogue when the actual real Jewish community is gone -- but my question is, is anyone saying that, in the society? Is anyone saying, hey guys, this is stupid, the Jews mostly left 40 years ago -- who are you shouting at? To put it bluntly, is there any way antisemitism can be confronted in Tunisia (or Egypt) by forcing people to realize its meaninglessness in 2011 because it's nothing more than a diversion from real difficulties? It's a "culture war" in other words -- under no circumstances can "Jews" be held responsible for problems in Tunisia.

- ironyroad

February 16, 2011 at 1:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad that's just the point though - "Jews" are being held responsible for all the problems in the ARAB world let alone Tunisia. Indeed Rashid Khalidi said something truly ugly on CNN today, in fact a few things - one of which was we shouldn't take a stand on behalf of the demonstrators in Iran but also - he tried to frame Israel as the source of difficulties in the Middle East; that (essentially) if we don't take a stand against Israel (ie "change our policies") it will be a "stick in the eye of the Egyptian revolution." Well - this is just nuts.

- Sophia

February 16, 2011 at 3:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"All I am saying is, or better still, all I am asking is, whether it's better to confront antisemitic ideology out in the open in a democratic arena or suppress its political manifestion via an authoritarian state apparatus while somehow permitting its cultural expression in the flow of everyday social life." The point is that antisemitism was never suppressed under the ancien regimes. Quite the contrary. It is one space where freedom of expression was always and particularly encouraged. Therefore, ironyroad, your reading of the situation is flawed because it is not the regime that is at fault but the society and the culture at large. When you try to apologize for such a society by claiming democracy will cure it from its antisemitism, as if it is a natural consequence of freedom of expression, you are in fact avoiding this boil rather than try to lance it. I did not mean that your earlier statement: "In a purely philosophical sense (I don't know what the precise situation is in Tunisia today), if the demonstration is carried on without violence, then yes, they are free to hold a protest rally outside the synagogue. It's not pretty, ..." was an apologetics for antisemitism but that it was a craven attempt to continue to celebrate a liberation movement in spite of the fact that it contained very substantial and dangerous antisemitism. It is obvious to me you are not at all alert to the danger because you were trying at some point to suggest a connection between this demonstration and Israel. ("The question is whether the transformation in Tunisia is really something that allows open debate and even confrontation about all topics, even about the Tunisian Jewish community and about Tunisia's relationship to Israel, and manages to police demonstrations in a way that prevents violent extremist activists taking control of the story.") We had this argument before and obviously you learned nothing. You continue to pretend that the choice is between dictatorships or open societies with antisemitic elements in them (like Germany, or Poland, or Hungary). But we are beyond that now. We are now at the stage when those societies are no longer suppressed and still emerge as very far from being a society that takes its own values seriously. So instead of holding their feet to the fire, instead of making sure they are held accountable for an unacceptable manifestation of "freedom" , you decide to speak philosophically about this antisemitism. AS if it was just another illustration of the new freedom. What that demonstration in Tunisia,, and the antisemitic placards in Egypt, mean is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming or hoping for: Whether we are oppressed or free, make no mistake, world, that we, the Arab people, will not tolerate Jews among us or in Israel. Philosophize about that.

- noga1

February 16, 2011 at 7:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...this is just nuts." No. It's just Rashid Khallidi trying to capitalize on American fascination with the Egyptian glorious revolution. Trying to extract some benefits for Palestinians from something that has nothing to do with them (the way he and ilk were trying to create a link between Iran's nukes and Israel's occupation). There is not a crisis, or dead bodies, that cannot be exploited or tweaked in some way, in order to demonize Israel. That makes him a cynical bastard, but not nuts.

- noga1

February 16, 2011 at 7:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, in my dictionary "craven" means cowardly and I dispute the label strongly. I do not see where I am being cowardly or where I suggest cowardice as a model for behavior. I do not see where I refused to hold anyone to account (in fact I said that one thing political leaders should do is quickly pass a law or regulation to protect places of worship from demonstrations directly in front of them). All I am asking is whether one can/should assume without further inquiry that the demonstrators outside the synagogue are an embodiment of Tunisian society and its current concerns or whether they represent an extremist element trying to influence events. It would seem to make an important difference what the correct answer is, including how one responds to them. You would say, I presume, that the answer is 'the latter.' That is perfectly clear, but I don't see why asking the question is illegitimate, as if one should always assume that the mass of the Tunisian population is there in spirit when a few hundred extremist thugs gather together to scream antisemitic threats. I would draw your attention to the fact -- now forgotten in the excitement of the past three weeks -- that very recently crowds of non-Christian Egyptians showed up to protect Coptic churches with their presence after the church bombing. Shortly before that Marty in his blog had dismissed the possibility out of hand that Copts would be shown any solidarity whatsoever by their Muslim neighbors. Why are a few comments of mine asking a pertinent question dismissed as "philosophizing" while your comments are, what, succinct and irrefutable statements of fact?

- ironyroad

February 16, 2011 at 2:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Why are a few comments of mine asking a pertinent question dismissed as "philosophizing" "? ironyroad, you are the one who introduced the "philosophical" into this issue. This is the statement you made, initially: "...if the demonstration is carried on without violence, then yes, they are free to hold a protest rally outside the synagogue." Now I want to ask you, in light of the contents of the video clip, whether your characterization of the "demonstration" is accurate. Is it a protest rally? What are they protesting, exactly? If you go out of your way to remove the facts that this is a mob, not a protest rally, and that they are chanting "Exterminate the Jews", not "Free the Palestinians", and the fact that this is a synagogue, not an Israel representation, then what am I supposed to make of it? When does one deliberately ignores certain facts, when he wants to carry on a certain positive illusion in his mind about anything? Isn't it a cowardly kind of confronting the facts? I don't know why you chose to present the mob in such terms, so obviously in contradiction with the actual goings-on. I can only speculate that either you refuse to face those facts or you try to minimize their import. Not a courageous view, anyway. And furthermore, do you really believe that the mass of the Tunisian population is NOT there in spirit when a few hundred extremist thugs gather together to scream antisemitic threats? Do you think those are tantamount to Neo-Nazis marching in Skokie and do not reflect the wishes of the majority of the population? ________ This is typical: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/holocaust-researcher-asks-yad-vashem-to-recognize-first-arab-righteous-gentile-1.210857 "It is not logical that throughout this entire process, not a single case has been uncovered to date of an Arab who saved a Jew." The answer to the mystery was discovered in the research. "Firstly, we, the historians, did not really make an effort to look for Arab rescuers. Only a year ago, Yad Vashem issued a study booklet on the Holocaust in Arab countries. The other half of the story is that the Arabs did not want to be found. I had the impression that at some point it became unacceptable to be a rescuer of Jews. Too many people reacted negatively to the fact that their parents rescued Jews. I met two grandchildren of the mayor of Tunis, Si Ali Sakat, who saved Jews. They told me they know the facts, but the version that they heard was that their grandfather saved German soldiers and not Jews."

- noga1

February 16, 2011 at 3:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Look. The shame is partly on the West - at least partly on the West and probably - primarily - on Europe. What attempt has been made to grapple with antisemitism in the Middle East? Indeed, the UN and the European elites have kept alive the Arab/Israeli conflict for 60 plus years. The despots indeed used the Israelis as a scapegoat - some wise Egyptians realize Israel has nothing to do with their problems - But what about the people who are not educated, who don't know any Jews/Israelis or Americans, who can't read or who have been subjected to decades of antisemitic propaganda? I think it's great if people DO establish open, fair governments but I fear a repeat of the past - especially when times are hard - get the Jew - the potential for violence is great. Most of the Jews are gone of course. That leaves the prime target - the Israelis - HOPEFULLY when it comes down to it, people will realize the absolute last thing they need is another war. But, European history shows that the opposite has occurred. When times are hard warfare has been a go-to option especially with large populations of unemployed young men. Finally - what Noga said - trying to score points from the Egyptian revolution - I agree; it's dangerous though as well as cynical - this could unleash a million bigots here as well as in Europe and the Middle East.

- Sophia

February 16, 2011 at 4:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

First of all, let's be clear about two things. I don't deny that it's a thuggish and intimidating protest rather than a demonstration, and -- why is this being ignored? -- I said several times I think there should be proper security on the streets for synagogues and other religious buildings. But I don't understand when you ask your question this way: "And furthermore, do you really believe that the mass of the Tunisian population is NOT there in spirit when a few hundred extremist thugs gather together to scream antisemitic threats? Do you think those are tantamount to Neo-Nazis marching in Skokie and do not reflect the wishes of the majority of the population?" It's not a matter of belief. I don't know, so I'm asking. It seems a somewhat lurid assuption that the majority of Tunisians are waking up in the morning and planning how to persecute Tunisian Jews as their first item of business. Hence my working assumption that we are dealing with an extremist group that is using the sudden dissolution of an authoritarian government to its advantage. Your link to the Ha'aretz article on Arab-Jewish history during WW2 has this, just after the passage you quoted above: "Satloff managed to track down a few personal stories. 'There were amazing stories. The imams of Algiers issued a religious ruling prohibiting Muslims from participating in schemes to acquire property stolen from Jews. There were quite a few people who risked their lives to save Jews'."

- ironyroad

February 16, 2011 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Your link to the Ha'aretz article on Arab-Jewish history during WW2 has this, just after the passage you quoted above: "Satloff managed to track down a few personal stories. 'There were amazing stories. The imams of Algiers issued a religious ruling prohibiting Muslims from participating in schemes to acquire property stolen from Jews. There were quite a few people who risked their lives to save Jews'."" Yes. And there were also quite a few people who risked their lives to save Jews in Italy, Russia and Poland during the Holocaust years. What is the bottom line? Were most Europeans antisemitic as per definition or were the antisemites just an exception in that society? Do you think that this is a satisfactory state of affairs, that there were, or are, or will be, "quite a few people who risked their lives to save Jews" ?? Today? In this world? Jews are supposed to live in this world with the knowledge that "quite a few people' will risk their lives to save them, in case some genocidal power decides that it's time for them to be finished? Why is it one of the first things self-liberated long-oppressed nations do, turning their attention upon the Jews? You don't find that extremely disturbing? You don't find that it vitiates any pretense these societies have for civility and human rights? Why aren't you as outraged as I am, this is what I would like to know, to understand. Why do you need to speculate with philosophical detachment whether this is just a phase, a glitch in the general flow towards democracy? When the Berlin Wall collapsed, was one of the first things East Germans did go on antisemitic demonstrations? Did this happen in Poland, after Poles got their democracy?

- noga1

February 16, 2011 at 5:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"HOPEFULLY when it comes down to it, people will realize the absolute last thing they need is another war." There doesn't have to be a war. All it needs is for the Egyptian army to stop patrolling the border, so that Hamas can work it evil not just along the Gaza borders by along the much longest border with Israel. This is what I am guessing will happen. A repeat of the Lebanon/Hizzbala model of perfect immunity to Israeli retaliation, as far as international opinion is concerned.

- noga1

February 16, 2011 at 5:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, I watched the Satloff documentary, and was actually very unimpressed by the numbers of Arabs who stuck their necks out for Jews. In the end, I believe he was able to get two Arabs' names into the (I think it's called) Garden of the Righteous. Furthermore, a very depressing aspect of the documentary was the fact that Arabs who had helped Jews did NOT want to have any kind of recognition for their valor. They knew that their neighbors would loathe them for having saved Jewish lives. God knows what kind of harassment they'd have to have endured. I think Noga's right: There is a philosophical detachment to your wonderings about whether these Arabs are representative or not. Furthermore, as I said before, your musings seem very naive in the face of every kind of survey that's ever been done in the Arab world; to a one, they reveal that Arabs think Jews and Israel are the biggest problems in the world today. Just look at how these people believe the Mossad trained sharks to attack in Egypt. I have no idea of whether this mob (I would not call them protesters) is indicative of what Tunisia is going to become. But how can democracy be possible in a country that does not send anyone to police a thuggish crowd? Here, in LA, there's plenty of police presence on the Jewish Holidays--even without the threat of violence. We believe in protecting all of our citizens; in Islam, I'm afraid only the Muslims merit such consideration. And even then, in many places, you'd better be the right kind of Muslim. If they can't even give their own kind this due, what hope is there for the Jews?

- MOLLYSIMON

February 16, 2011 at 7:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia: http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2011/01/mubarak-showing-his-gratitude-for.html http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2011/01/baradii-on-israel.html http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2011/01/baradii-on-israel-let-zionists-weep.html

- noga1

February 16, 2011 at 7:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, Noga, Jews are not supposed to live in this world with the knowledge that "quite a few people' will risk their lives to save them, in case some genocidal power decides that it's time for them to be finished. You posted the link to the article, I just read it and noted one of the points it made, which I assume was the idea, no? "Why is it one of the first things self-liberated long-oppressed nations do, turning their attention upon the Jews? You don't find that extremely disturbing? You don't find that it vitiates any pretense these societies have for civility and human rights?" If that's what's happening then I do. But a rent-a-mob bunch yelling anti-Jewish threats outside a synagogue is not per se "a self-liberated nation" doing so. As far as I can see -- and I don't speak Arabic -- it's an extremist grouping doing so, so far. And, as yet, there seems to be a striking opportunity available for an enlightened political leadership to educate people that an obsession with Jews and Israel is one way of making sure that their liberation will be a failure, that national progress involves getting rid of paranoid superstition. Incidentally, I'm pretty sure, as I was close to the ground at the time, that the C and E European revolutions of 1989 did give rise to, for example, a resurgence of polemic and violence against the Roma, some of it pretty open about its intentions. Not exactly genocidal, but with all the contempt and hatred that runs ahead of it. But I think very few people would have condemned the overthrowing of the communist system on that basis alone. I don't do outrage. I thought you knew that by now.

- ironyroad

February 16, 2011 at 7:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The frightening Slavoj Zizek opines: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2011/feb/10/egypt-miracle-tahrir-square "And what about the fear that, after the fall of Mubarak, the new government will be hostile towards Israel? If the new government is genuinely the expression of a people that proudly enjoys its freedom, then there is nothing to fear: antisemitism can only grow in conditions of despair and oppression. (A CNN report from an Egyptian province showed how the government is spreading rumours there that the organisers of the protests and foreign journalists were sent by the Jews to weaken Egypt – so much for Mubarak as a friend of the Jews.)" How conveniently he forgets that the main engine for anti-Israel animus and antisemitism is the Egyptian elites, not exactly those who suffer from the "conditions of despair and oppression."

- noga1

February 16, 2011 at 8:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly, I already said about four times that I think the Tunisians need to get some public order under way, including protection for synagogues and other places of worship. What is it about my words in particular? Is the font invisible on some screens or what? Why do I have to repeat something ad infinitum and people respond as if I never wrote it? I'll bet if someone else makes the same comment, then there'll be no problem. I don't know if Los Angeles is a fair comparison with a city that's just emerged from a decades-long authoritarian system that has just, including it's security structures, collapsed as little as three weeks ago. There are usually some strange and unwanted phenomena coming up as well as more promising stuff in these situations. I'm not trying to be detached in a snooty way, I promise, but I am trying to get the point across that building a healthy democratic society and dealing with deep-seated hatreds and prejudices takes time. And once again, to emphasize, effective law enforcement is a key dimension of that process, not just the inspirational stuff.

- ironyroad

February 16, 2011 at 8:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony: "I am trying to get the point across that building a healthy democratic society and dealing with deep-seated hatreds and prejudices takes time. And once again, to emphasize, effective law enforcement is a key dimension of that process, not just the inspirational stuff." Okay, I see your point, and agree but only partially. I suppose that's because I have very little faith in countries like Tunisia, where the population is so uneducated and poor. Also, let's not forget, this is a country that harbors Al Qaeda. How much public order can we expect? For instance, Pakistan is having a very hard time controlling their Afghani border, where Al Qaeda has a strong presence. I believe they've pretty much given up. I'd like to be more optimistic, believe me, and my constitutional pessimism has led me astray plenty of times. But I wouldn't put my smart money on Tunisia. Had no idea, by the way, that they even had Jews in Tunisia. I figured they'd all left ages ago. What fascinates me is how universal the star of David is.

- MOLLYSIMON

February 16, 2011 at 8:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I don't do outrage" That's right. Except when someone says something ignorant and nasty about the Irish. Once or twice I recall you being pretty upset when it happened. You don't have to do outrage. But then why is it that you are always so sceptical and cool when antisemitism is discussed? Why does it seem that your natural sympathy is not immediately and emphatically responsive to threats to Jews made by Muslims or Rabid Leftists? Go back and look at your first response to see just how haughty and standoffish it was from all that ... This quote from Sartre fits very nicely in this conversation, just substitute "Arab" for "Aryan" and "Frenchman" with "any person": “The cause of the Jews would be half won if only their friends brought to their defense a little of the passion and the perseverance their enemies use to bring them down. In order to waken this passion, what is needed is not to appeal to the generosity of the Aryans- with even the best of them, that virtue is in eclipse. What must be done is to point out to each one that the fate of the Jews is his fate. Not one Frenchman will be free so long as the Jews do not enjoy the fullness of their rights. Not one Frenchman will be secure so long as a single Jew – in France or in the world at large – can fear for his life”

- noga1

February 16, 2011 at 8:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/higher-education/why-didnt-nyu-fire-nir-rosen-o.html "For those who don’t know, Logan was with a CBS crew in Tahrir Square last Friday when they were surrounded by, a network statement said, “a mob of more than 200 people whipped into a frenzy. In the crush of the mob, [Logan] was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers.” The New York Post reported today that a network source reported that her attackers screamed, "Jew! Jew!" during the assault. A day earlier, Logan told Esquire.com that Egyptian soldiers who had hassled her and her crew accused them of being Israeli spies. Logan is not Jewish"

- noga1

February 16, 2011 at 8:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mubarak-and-anti-semitism-a-boomerang-effect/ "As I showed in two previous PJM reports (see here and here), the evidence of anti-Semitic and/or anti-Israeli sentiment among the anti-Mubarak protests was extensive. Moreover, the evidence reveals not only the protestors’ hostility to Israel and/or Jews as such, but also that this hostility was inseparable from their opposition to Mubarak. Hence, the numerous portraits of Mubarak with a Star of David scrawled on his face or forehead. Arabic speakers have confirmed to me that many of the signs carried by protestors identified Mubarak as an Israeli “agent” or “spy.” As such evidence began trickling out, a common response among supporters of the “revolution” was to suggest that the pro-Mubarak forces were also employing anti-Semitic insults against the protestors and/or foreign journalists. Such claims were typically unsupported by any evidence at all, let alone the mass of evidence revealing the anti-Semitic/“anti-Zionist” current among the protestors themselves. The ultimate source for the claims appears to have been Al Jazeera. There is also, however, a more sophisticated variant of the same sort of argument. According to this variant, Mubarak has fallen victim to a kind of “boomerang effect.” He had himself been responsible for fomenting the widespread anti-Semitism in Egyptian society, and hence if he had now become the principal target of this anti-Semitism, he was merely reaping what he had sowed."

- noga1

February 16, 2011 at 9:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly -- Tunisia harbors Al Qaeda? I've read that they are trying to co-opt the reform movement there, but that's all. Noga -- I'm not skeptical or cool when anti-semitism comes up. I'm usually very engaged against it, fighting it in other words. As I'm doing here. My only question is whether one can just assume that the Tunisian reforms/revolution or whatever are entirely anti-semitic in their implications or whether one is watching -- in the clip -- an extremist group exploiting a new opening in a post-authoritarian society. I'm baffled as to why that is an illegitimate question or an example of philosophical detachment or anything except and attempt to understand the meaning, not just the superficial effects, of what's going on. I mean, if one makes that assumption (that the entire society is just waiting to engage in an orgy of antisemitic hatred and violence), then Obama should just have told the Tunisian and Egyptian leadership to roll out the tanks and shoot everyone down, right?

- ironyroad

February 16, 2011 at 9:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I mean, if one makes that assumption (that the entire society is just waiting to engage in an orgy of antisemitic hatred and violence), then Obama should just have told the Tunisian and Egyptian leadership to roll out the tanks and shoot everyone down, right?" I wonder what has upset you so much that you should attribute such an intention to me. I give up.

- noga1

February 16, 2011 at 10:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who said this: ...The fact that a Jewish prayer room was burned down in Tunisia received only one passing mention in the New York Times, and none at all in other major newspapers. Moreover, we now can see footage of a big Islamist demonstration in Tunisia in front of the main synagogue including anti-Jewish chants. Notice that as the marcher shout "Slaughter the Jews!" and "The Army of Khybar is coming," a reference to the seventh-century massacre of Jews in the Arabian penninsula, one man photographs it all on his telephone. Hi-tech friendly and Facebook-savvy indeed. Of course, this doesn't represent the views of all Tunisians, who are arguably the most tolerant people in the Arab world, but it does represent the Islamists, who are not so moderate after all.... ?

- basman

February 16, 2011 at 11:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I didn't attribute that intention to you, Noga, but why do you attribute to me what you called the "craven apologetics" (that was the phrase, right?), implying that I said it's ok to have a streak of violent antisemitism flexing its muscles in the wake of the Tunisian revolution, when I never said that either in or between the lines.

- ironyroad

February 17, 2011 at 2:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Planned parenthood is what Egypt needs and probably will not get because of religion. Martin Peretz points out the truth about "the revolution" but doesn't have the courage to go to the mat. Egypt has dwindling resources and a population explosion as do all Arab states. This is an explosive mixture that needs only a small spark to ignite a fire storm. Already we can hear rumbling of changing the peace agreements with Israel even before fixing the political system of Egypt. Israel in all Arab states is subject always used to avert political problems at home. The Muslim Brotherhood is patient. They waited patiently for this moment. Like any missionary cult they tend to the poor and the sick as a tool just like Hamas, their son does in the PA. Egypt will soon descend into a maelstrom of unrest that only the army can control and everything will revert to the normal state of affair, another general will rule Egypt.

- Poupic

February 17, 2011 at 7:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Planned parenthood is what Egypt needs and probably will not get because of religion. Martin Peretz points out the truth about "the revolution" but doesn't have the courage to go to the mat. Egypt has dwindling resources and a population explosion as do all Arab states. This is an explosive mixture that needs only a small spark to ignite a fire storm. Already we can hear rumbling of changing the peace agreements with Israel even before fixing the political system of Egypt. Israel in all Arab states is subject always used to avert political problems at home. The Muslim Brotherhood is patient. They waited patiently for this moment. Like any missionary cult they tend to the poor and the sick as a tool just like Hamas, their son does in the PA. Egypt will soon descend into a maelstrom of unrest that only the army can control and everything will revert to the normal state of affair, another general will rule Egypt.

- Poupic

February 17, 2011 at 7:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... why do you attribute to me what you called the "craven apologetics" (that was the phrase, right?), implying that I said it's ok to have a streak of violent antisemitism flexing its muscles in the wake of the Tunisian revolution, when I never said that either in or between the lines." ironyroad: No doubt you believe you never said or implied any of it, but then, there is this observation from you, the one I referred to as "craven apologetics". I read it several times and I still cannot see how I can interpret it any other way. You may think you were expressing your faith in the goodness of democracy. I don't see it this way. "In a purely philosophical sense (I don't know what the precise situation is in Tunisia today), if the demonstration is carried on without violence, then yes, they are free to hold a protest rally outside the synagogue. It's not pretty, but it's the price one pays for freedom of political expression" Would you have been so generous towards the Neo-Nazis in Skokie if, instead of marching through the Jewish neigbourhood, they would have surrounded a synagogue and chanted: "Jews to the gas chambers"? Wouldn't you find your outrage at such a manifestation of raw and unadulterated hatred?hatred? Would you have gone into a philosophical mood confronted by such a spectacle? I'm wondering about your philosophical priorities. I believe you considered Palin's use of "blood libel" as antisemitic and offensive term to Jewish sensibilities. If I remember correctly, you were even upset with Dershowitz for not being outraged by the "slur". I didn't see any inclination to philosophize in that instant. How do you account for the difference?

- noga1

February 17, 2011 at 7:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Never mind, ironyroad. It's not fair to single you out with these pointed questions when obviously you are only voicing an opinion that is shared by many. And of all those who share your politics I couldn't find a more decent interlocutor and I appreciate your willingness to linger and talk it out with me.

- noga1

February 17, 2011 at 7:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe I'm missing some very basic flaw or contradiction in my presentation that you're seeing, Noga -- you know, rather like in Rousseau's "Confessions" where you realize that there's something wrong with him but the reader can't see it because Rousseau himself can't see it. Maybe my argument, that seems pretty balanced and coherent (and hopefully not delusional, although moderately optimistic) to me, comes across very differently to you, to Sophia, to malahat, and so on. That's a fair point about Palin's remark. I don't believe that I attacked Dershowitz -- I think I was a bit more nuanced about that, and wondered if he genuinely believed the term was now just a non-specific metaphor for X holding Y responsible for an act of violence -- but perhaps the answer to your question is a banal one. Tunisia seems quite far away and Giffords was shot here in the U.S., and not only in the U.S. but in the loony-infested state of Arizona. The distant is distant, the near is near: some unconscious detachment might arise for that reason alone. But I stand by my central if somewhat crudely drawn point: either one gives these societies a chance to flush out the morbid obsession with Jews and Israel that functions as a kind of negative magical belief that all their problems stem from that source, or one says, threatening protest in front of synagogue equals whole nation on the road to islamist lunacy. Tunisia isn't the only post-authoritarian society where ugly ideologies have spewed out freely after the authority had collapsed (I understand your point that antisemitism is not a kind of anomalous perspective in Arab countries, but nevertheless, from the clip we've all seen it appears to be a group of loud and thuggish guys, with no indication that the regular citizen is behind them). And it's a test of these countries, whether or not they can restore order without sinking into a new type of dictatorship. I should note that I didn't understand the shouts/slogans about massacre when I first viewed the clip -- that explanation came afterwards, so I revised my opinion to say that it's more like a thuggish and intimidating rally than a peaceful demonstration and to emphasize the necessity of protecting synagogues and other simliar buildings from attack (as the small Jewish community in Tunis is presumably not of the size where they can organize for their own defense). Other than that, I do have some faith in democratic maturing as, ultimately, more likely to lance the antisemitic boil rather than letting it fester. But it's got to be a democratic development with some measure of honesty and self-criticism, rather than just a new round of victimology.

- ironyroad

February 17, 2011 at 1:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Quote from Jean Paul Sartre: "Anti-Semite and Jew" "Thus the Jew is in the situation of a Jew because he lives in a society that takes him for a Jew. He has passionate enemies, and defenders lacking in passion. The democrat professes moderation; he blames or admonishes while synagogues are being set on fire. He is tolerant by profession; he is, indeed, snobbish about the tolerance and even extends it to the enemies of democracy. Wasn't it the style among radicals of the Left to consider Mauras a genius? How can the democrat fail to understand the anti-Semite? It is as if he were fascinated by all who plot his downfall. Perhaps at the bottom of his heart he yearns for the violence which he has denied himself. In any case, the struggle is not equal. If the democrat were to put some warmth into pleading the cause of the Jew, he would have to be Manichean too, and equate the Jew with the principle of Good. But how could he do this? The democrat is no fool. He makes himself the advocate of the Jew because he sees him as a member of humanity; since humanity has other members who he must also defend, the democrat has much to do; he concerns himself with the Jew when he has time. But the anti-Semite has only one enemy, and he can think of him all the time. This it is he who calls the turn. Vigorously attacked, feebly defended, the Jew feels himself in danger in a society in which anti-Semitism is the continual temptation. This is what we must look at more closely."

- noga1

February 17, 2011 at 1:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK it kind of comes down to this - repressive societies in the Arab world haven't eliminated antisemitism even though the Jews are all gone. Indeed, the "virtual Jew" has become Israel, where most of the Arab Jews went by the way, despite the invective of Helen Thomas who thinks Jews are from Poland. Regardless, I understand what irony is saying - that the only hope of progress lies in open societies that do have access to books, internet, and knowledge from the wider world - but also - who must finally, as democrats, confront for themselves the problems of economy, illiteracy, the repression of women and minorities and hopefully - finally - see the issue of antisemitism clearly. I don't see what choice there is anyway; the status quo was/is unsustainable and unjust. In the meantime, the Jews of Tunisia, a mere handful of people now, are probably in danger. Note as unrest spread in Yemen the handful remaining there came under attack. It's been part of a pattern since the beginning of the 20th century. http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/45283/security-worries-tunisia-after-islamist-anti-jewish-rally

- Sophia

February 17, 2011 at 2:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Okay, Basman, a guy named Martin Solomon said it. He's something of a neocon converso. You're saying that his somewhat moderate view of Tunisians trumps all because he's on the right and normally they're quick to fault Islam? Please, elaborate. Or was this just your version of Jeopardy! (I'm sure "Watson" would have gotten you the answer in .5 seconds.)

- MOLLYSIMON

February 17, 2011 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oops, it looks like Malahat wins this one. Rubin was cross-posting on Solomonia. I was in too much a hurry.

- MOLLYSIMON

February 17, 2011 at 3:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Who is Barry Rubin?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Rubin

- noga1

February 17, 2011 at 4:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In any standoff between the words of Jean-Paul Sartre and the words of ironyroad, ironyroad will of course be nodding deferentially and picking up the check at the end of the evening in Les Deux Magots! And then hailing a cab for J-P and his lady friend. Yes, Sartre is correct, that a kind of sappy liberal defense of vaguely held values is utterly useless -- as has been proven -- against an exterminatory enemy that has only one objective in sight. But civilized democracy (as opposed to pure populism) seems to involve a kind of functional sappiness, a structural expectation of mutually shared values, at least at the core. If one party in the mix has zero interest in building or maintaining that social/political model (indeed wants to annihilate that model), and draws its strengths from deep wells of resentment and paranoia, then things don't look good in the medium-to-long term. But I don't know what the solution is then. The article that Sophia linked to spoke of 40 guys outside the synagogue. Is that an occasion to say, forty is a miniscule number and suggests an extreme islamist rent-a-mob rather than a new movement sweeping through society? Or is the proper response to warn that today it's 40, tomorrow 400, next week 4,000 and so on into the dark night of Islamist terror? I wish I knew, as everyone here seems to know better than me but can't tell me what one should do in response. When I suggested to Noga that if her reading is correct, the only logical -- and I emphasize, logical -- response would have been to do everything possible to suppress the original protests that brought down the Tunisian (or Egyptian) system, she seemed to not like that implication. But that's the other option. I don't see what the third way is.

- ironyroad

February 17, 2011 at 4:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I understand what you and the others are saying, malahat. But my problem has been -- if you read back over the thread -- that when I say, ok, let's accept that my premises are indeed wrong and antisemitism is "embedded in the culture," and ask, so what should our response be then? I never get an answer, just evasion. At least I offered a logical response, if a fairly grim one. So let me ask you directly: assuming your premises rather than mine are correct, and democratic ideas and free exchange are completely irrelevant to the central issue at hand, what should our response be to the Tunisian revolution and the current post-authoritarian situation?

- ironyroad

February 17, 2011 at 6:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't have an answer, Irony, and I don't think that anywhere I implied that I was trying to provide one. I was merely observing, and saying that I really couldn't be as optimistic as you. That's all. There's not necessarily anything the US can do. Provide aid and try to promote democracy? OK. But I honestly don't believe either of those suggestions is going to lead to a Jew-tolerating Tunisia. It'll be interesting to see if and when the few remaining Jews feel compelled to leave.

- MOLLYSIMON

February 17, 2011 at 8:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was merely observing too, Molly, but when I observed I got accused of inappropriate philosophical detachment. Clearly some folks' observations are more ok than others'.

- ironyroad

February 17, 2011 at 8:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat, it makes it difficult, and I've only had a glass of ouzo, to know what to say when you follow a comment in one post: "It has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy or free speech." with the comment in another post immediately afterwards: "I never said democratic ideas and free exchange were irrelevant." I mean, I realize the context is slightly different from post to post, but still it makes me wonder. I'm setting up the straw man here?

- ironyroad

February 17, 2011 at 8:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Or to put it more succinctly, if there is to be an Islamic Enlightenment (there was a European one too of course, of which Germany was a prime example) that faces down the embedded cultural antisemitism, isn't it fairly obvious that democratic values and free exchange will have some important role to play in that?

- ironyroad

February 17, 2011 at 8:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...so what should our response be then? I never get an answer, just evasion. At least I offered a logical response, if a fairly grim one" ironyroad: Maybe you are not paying attention. I answered this question when you asked it. you chose to ignore it. Here it is again: "We had this argument before and obviously you learned nothing. You continue to pretend that the choice is between dictatorships or open societies with antisemitic elements in them (like Germany, or Poland, or Hungary). But we are beyond that now. We are now at the stage when those societies are no longer suppressed and still emerge as very far from being a society that takes its own values seriously. So instead of holding their feet to the fire, instead of making sure they are held accountable for an unacceptable manifestation of "freedom" , you decide to speak philosophically about this antisemitism. AS if it was just another illustration of the new freedom. " To repeat: What needs to be done is hold their feet to the fire, making sure they are held accountable for an unacceptable manifestation of "freedom". This can be done through media attention, international condemnation and the passing of statements in the UN. In other words, shame these societies into cleaning their houses, if they are serious about joining the club of democracies.

- noga1

February 17, 2011 at 9:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, I don't think observing is detachment. My observations weren't exactly passionate, but they were strongly felt.

- MOLLYSIMON

February 17, 2011 at 10:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: "I've only had a glass of ouzo" Does that mean you are in some Greek mood, or is this your usual drink of choice? My drink of choice is Baileys Irish Cream with ice. Sambucca is a second favourite.

- noga1

February 17, 2011 at 11:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly, surprising as it may seem, my comments had some strong feeling behind them too. That's why I had such a problem with the detachment accusation. Noga, not my usual drink of choice but I like resin drinks: ouzo, raki, and that "Israeli rotgut" (direct quote from Israeli bartender in Jerusalem) the name of which I've forgotten but which I developed a taste for. I like the taste of Bailey's but it doesn't seem to do me good. Sambucca I don't know (I love a good grappa but it's so rare and expensive in the U.S.). malahat, it seems to me that we don't disagree so much on the central issue (anti-Jewish prejudice embedded in Arab/Tunisian society) but perhaps we just have a different sense of how embedded embedded things are. I understand what you're saying, but I think that where I'm asking a question, you think the question has already been answered and it's just a distraction to ask it again. You may be right. I'm a bit of a glass-half-full guy. Talking about glasses half-full, though. The article that Noga linked to suggests that the Tunis authorities are aware that a violent and threatening demo outside a synagogue isn't the path they want to be going down, and will take action to prevent that event being repeated. We'll see.

- ironyroad

February 18, 2011 at 12:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Clearly ironyroad, your taste in alcoholic beverages corresponds to that emotional detachment you put on here: cool and moody. I like sweet liqueurs, obviously commensurate with the sweetness of my temper that becomes even sweeter after half a shot of even the mildest cherry brandy.

- noga1

February 18, 2011 at 12:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...in the inner hearts of the Egyptians there is regret for Anwar Sadat’s insistence that Israel return the entire Sinai to Cairene possession and control...." I thought the return of the Sinai was how Egyptians thought they had actually won the 1973 war? Peretz is puzzling himself too much, too soon - perhaps the sight of two small Iranian warships off the coast of Tel Aviv next week will put too-soon-to-tell Egypt into perspective. Yeah, Lara Logan was called a Jew during the misogynist attack on her - considering how very blonde she is, are we to wonder that ANY 'foreigner', or foreign journalist, is subject to such taunts? 02/17/2011 - 3:36pm EDT | malahat "... I just don't agree with the premise that democracy is either necessary or sufficient to mitigate antisemitism that is embedded within the culture. Neither is it necessary or sufficient for a lack of democracy to produce antisemitism...." malahat's examples of China and Korea are relevant in that one determinant of antisemitism in a given country, regardless of political structure, seems to be access to "The Protocols..." and/or "International Jew", on the internet. When I wrote my paper on the Protocols in 2005, I was astonished at the prominence of websites in Korea and Japan. Perhaps the gov-restricted internet today is helping preserve China's history of tolerance and absence of antisemitism. anyway, the western media obsession with the rule of the mob in the public square has been terrible journalism. and really bad for the economies, of Tunisia and Egypt so far. Bahrain is a very different story. Must be hard for Peretz to keep track.

- K2K

February 18, 2011 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

". . . obviously commensurate with the sweetness of my temper that becomes even sweeter after half a shot of even the mildest cherry brandy." You know, I've never heard anyone using the word "commensurate" without feeling the tingle of a rapier blade between my third and fourth rib. But Noga, if ever, a glass of cherry brandy it is.

- ironyroad

February 18, 2011 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

:)

- noga1

February 18, 2011 at 2:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tangentially relevant: http://www.facebook.com/martinkramer.page/posts/131630863573680 About Qaradawie: http://www.solomonia.com/wp/2011/02/egypt-gets-its-khomeini-qaradawi-returns-in-triumph/ "Friday, February 18 may be a turning point in Egyptian history. On this day Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the best-known Muslim Brotherhood cleric in the world and one of the most famous Islamist thinkers, will address a mass rally in Cairo. It was 32 years ago almost to the day when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned in triumph to Tehran to take the leadership of that country. Qaradawi has a tougher job but he’s up to the challenge if his health holds up. Up until now, the Egyptian revolution generally, and the Brotherhood in particular, has lacked a charismatic thinker, someone who could really mobilize the masses. Qaradawi is that man. Long resident in the Gulf, he is returning to his homeland in triumph. Through internet, radio, his 100 books, and his weekly satellite television program, Qaradawi has been an articulate voice for revolutionary Islamism. He is literally a living legend. Under the old regime, Qaradawi was banned from the country. He is now 84 years old–two years older than the fallen President Husni Mubarak–but he is tremendously energetic and clear-minded. It was Qaradawi who, in critiquing Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida, argued that Islamists should always participate in elections because they would, he claims, invariably win them. Hamas and Hizballah have shown that he was right on that point. Symbolically, he will give the Friday prayer sermon to be held in Tahrir Square, the center of the revolutionary movement. The massing of hundreds of thousands of people in the square to hear Islamic services and a sermon by a radical Islamist is not the kind of thing that’s been going on under the 60-year-old military regime that was recently overthrown. The context is also the thanking of Qaradawi for his support of the revolution, an implication that he is somehow its spiritual father. Qaradawi, though some in the West view him as a moderate, supports the straight Islamist line: anti-American, anti-Western, wipe Israel off the map, foment Jihad, stone homosexuals, in short the works. One of Qaradawi’s initiatives has been urging Muslims to settle in the West, of which he said, “that powerful West, which has come to rule the world, should not be left to the influence of the Jews alone.” He contends that the three major threats Muslims face are Zionism, internal integration, and globalization. To survive, he argues, Muslims must fight the Zionists, Crusaders, idolators, and Communists."

- noga1

February 18, 2011 at 3:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMy4gtZC4uI ______________ From Simon Wiesenthal Center: "Today as two million Egyptians participated in a “Victory March”, the long-exiled spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, addressed those gathered for noon prayers in Tahrir Square. Qaradawi, a virulent Jew-hater and advocate of suicide bombings, has often called for the death of all Jews:, “...oh Allah, take this oppressive, tyrannical band of people…take this oppressive, Jewish Zionist band of people…do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one.”

- noga1

February 18, 2011 at 8:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0218/Egypt-revolution-unfinished-Qaradawi-tells-Tahrir-masses "The devout crowd, many of whom turned out to hear Qaradawi give his first public speech since 1981, was also a reminder that huge sections of Egypt take their Islamic faith seriously – and that real and open democratic reform will almost certainly lead to a stronger role for the faith in the nation’s political life. “Qaradawi is very much in the mainstream of Egyptian society, he’s in the religious mainstream, he’s not offering something that’s particularly distinctive or radical in the context of Egypt,” says Mr. Hamid. “He’s an Islamist and he’s part of the Brotherhood school of thought, but his appeal goes beyond the Islamist spectrum, and in that sense he’s not just an Islamist figure, he’s an Egyptian figure with a national profile.”

- noga1

February 18, 2011 at 8:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is some more confirmation from a reliable source: http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2011/02/zionists-who-are-freaking-out-may-freak.html "Friday, February 18, 2011 Zionists who are freaking out, may freak out even more For those who say that there are no foreign policy goals for Egyptian protesters, you need to watch this. In it, Egyptians (more than 2 million today) in Tahrir Square chant: "To Jerusalem we are heading, Martyrs in the millions." (Yes, it rhymes in Arabic) عالقدس رايحين, شهداء بالملايين (thanks Farah" Please note how upset he is with the pundits in our mainstream media for insisting this is a secular, genuinely democratic movement in which the Muslim Brotherhood, a "moderate orgnization", does not play a major or defining role: "For those who say that there are no foreign policy goals for Egyptian protesters, you need to watch this." Note that he is not stating this fact with any anxiety but on the contrary, with great satisfaction.

- noga1

February 19, 2011 at 7:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For the NYT, I guess ignorance is a precious commodity that must be preserved from the contaminating touch of factual knowledge.

- noga1

February 19, 2011 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Google executive Wael Ghonim, who emerged as a leading voice in Egypt's uprising, was barred from the stage in Tahrir Square on Friday by security guards, an AFP photographer said. Ghonim tried to take the stage in Tahrir, the epicentre of anti-regime protests that toppled President Hosni Mubarak, but men who appeared to be guarding influential Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi barred him from doing so. Ghonim, who was angered by the episode, then left the square with his face hidden by an Egyptian flag." http://www.hindustantimes.com/Egypt-protest-hero-Wael-Ghonim-barred-from-stage/Article1-663996.aspx

- noga1

February 19, 2011 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Egypt-protest-hero-Wael-Ghonim-barred-from-stage/Article1-663996.aspx

- noga1

February 19, 2011 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In a special mention of the Palestinian issue, Al-Qaradhawi asked the Egyptian army to open wide the Rafah crossing and to pray for the re-conquest of Jerusalem by the Muslims, so that he and the Muslims could pray in security at Al-Aqsa Mosque. This part of his sermon was cheered and applauded by the crowd.[3]" (MEMRI)

- noga1

February 19, 2011 at 4:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

from noga's quote on page 2: "...[Qaradawi] contends that the three major threats Muslims face are Zionism, internal integration, and globalization. To survive, he argues, Muslims must fight the Zionists, Crusaders, idolators, and Communists." What is "internal integration"??? Does Qaradawi know that the Crusaders and idolators alone are more than FIVE billion people? I include Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Confucianists, and assorted Animists as "idolators". Yeah, I know, the Zionists go first, but maybe China will go Genghis and seize the Suez Canal, to insure China's exports to Europe...

- K2K

February 19, 2011 at 5:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I bet Rabbi Ovedia could take Qaradawi in a prayer-match.

- K2K

February 19, 2011 at 5:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Internal integration" sounds like it was actually "international" but misheard or mistranslated. That at least would make a sort of sense as a variant of globalization. On the other hand, "fight communists"? That sounds like it was cut and pasted from some speech from the 1970s. But fighting Zionists, Crusadors, and those damn idolators is definitely the way to go to deal with the central social, educational, and economic problems that Egypt is plagued by. That Google guy is probably an idolator of some kind.

- ironyroad

February 19, 2011 at 6:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm don't know, ironyroad. Why would he repeat a variant of globalization when he counts globalization among the three ills facing Egypt's future utopia? Maybe it should have been "internal DISintegration" as a warning against too many factions and political ideologies competing with one another in the new society. He would like to see unity. Or maybe he means just what he says, warning against allowing minorities to have equal rights in Arab Muslim societies.

- noga1

February 19, 2011 at 7:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Clapper added that a member of the Muslim Brotherhood was part of a new committee on reforming Egypt's constitution." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/18/AR2011021802440.html?hpid=artslot "In Egypt, women's rights activists immediately mounted a petition drive when the committee named to draft a new constitution included not a single woman (although many noted female Egyptian lawyers could easily serve on that committee). "

- noga1

February 19, 2011 at 8:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/18/6080854-egyptian-opposition-says-ignore-us-at-your-peril- "Few doubt the military's will to hold elections on schedule, but many worry that they are seeing too many old faces in the government and on the council for constitutional reform – and no representatives of the January 25th movement. Feminists complain that half the Egyptian population – women – have been excluded from the council that will determine constitutional amendments. Secularists are also fretting about the fact that there is one Muslim Brotherhood member on the council, as well as others who they say are sympathetic to Islamists, but no countervailing secularists, reformists or human rights lawyers. What’s at stake is Article 2 of the Egyptian constitution which establishes Islamic religious law as the basis of civil law in Egypt. Practically speaking, Islamic civil law allows men easy and unilateral divorce rights, legalizes polygamy and permits sons twice the inheritance of daughters. Egypt's top clerics have already said that Article 2 is off limits and cannot be altered, but reformists insist it must be changed. "

- noga1

February 19, 2011 at 8:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I think the Muslim Brotherhood is not anything to be afraid of in the upcoming (Egyptian) political situation and the evolution I see as most likely. They will be subsumed in the overwhelming demonstration of desire for freedom and true democracy," Carter told 1,000 people packed into the LBJ Library in Austin." http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/jimmy_carter_not_concerned_abo.html

- noga1

February 20, 2011 at 7:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is encouraging: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4030780,00.html "As many as 15,000 of the demonstrators on Saturday were protesting against Tunisia's Islamist movement, calling for religious tolerance a day after the Interior Ministry announced a Polish priest had been assassinated by an extremist group and following verbal attacks on Jews. "We need to live together and be tolerant of each other's views," said Ridha Ghozzi, 34, who was among the protesters carrying signs and chanting slogans including "Terrorism is not Tunisian," "Religion is Personal" and "Muslims, Christians, and Jews - we're all Tunisians."

- noga1

February 20, 2011 at 7:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How encouraging when Egypt is letting Iranian war ships pass through the Suez?

- MOLLYSIMON

February 21, 2011 at 12:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly, I think malahat meant a willingness on the part of Tunisians to challenge Islamist attempts to hijack events for their own purposes.

- ironyroad

February 21, 2011 at 1:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yes, it was even more encouraging that the Tunisian police and army stopped the Islamists from stoning brothels in Tunis :) Libya finally got all eyes off Israel...will those Iranian warships (passage thru Suez delayed until Tuesday) now head to Tripoli to avenge Qaddafi's 1978 kidnap and murder of Iranian-born cleric Musa Al-Sadr (the spiritual founder of Hezbollah?)

- K2K

February 21, 2011 at 3:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, I know. I was just commenting in a more general way. But yes, the news from Tunisia was encouraging. K2K: Is that your own conjecture?

- MOLLYSIMON

February 21, 2011 at 8:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly: about the brothels in Tunis? It was reported on Feb 18-19. news google "Tunisia brothels". kind of got crowded out by Wisconsin and Egypt and the Tunisians fleeing by boat to Lampedusa, Italy. Getting hard to keep track of which member of the Arab League or the African Union gets media coverage these days. I read "The Vanished Imam: Musa al Sadr and the Shia of Lebanon", by Fouad Ajami in my grad course on Political Islam. Yesterday, Lebanon accused Libya of blocking Hezbollah's television transmissions, so the blood fued with Libya got noted. I am just specualting about what those two Iranian warships intend to do besides joint training exercises with the Syrian Navy. I would think the Sunnis of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Morocco have enough on their hands without two Iranian warships appearing in the Mediterranean for the first time since 1979. Their transit thru Suez keeps getting delayed.

- K2K

February 21, 2011 at 8:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BTW, "The Vanished Imam: Musa al Sadr and the Shia of Lebanon" is a fascinating read. If he had lived past 1978, Lebanese history would have been different. He espoused non-violence while encouraging the Shi'a to become engaged politically. and, yes, Iraq's (now Ayotallah) Moqtada al Sadr is a great-grand-nephew.

- K2K

February 21, 2011 at 8:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mollysimon, Egypt has no choice, by law, but to let the Iranian warships pass through Suez.

- Sophia

February 21, 2011 at 10:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Egypt has no choice, by law, but to let the Iranian warships pass through Suez." Why not?

- noga1

February 22, 2011 at 8:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wonder if the Iranian warships were inspected under the UN sanctions? The USS Enterprise carrier group passed through the Suez Canal more than a week ago en route to scheduled deployment near the Straits of Hormuz, and must have passed by the Iranian ships in the Red Sea waiting for clearance. Too bad we shall never know or see it on Youtube. A USS aircraft carrier would make the Iranian ships look like rowboats :)

- K2K

February 22, 2011 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophie, no Iranian ship has passed through since 1979. Why now the observance of this law?

- MOLLYSIMON

February 22, 2011 at 3:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly: Iran did not mess with Mubarak. malahat: thanks for the DEBKA find! no salt, or red pepper needed :) The USS Kearsarge is a bit smaller 'carrier', otherwise called amphibious assault ship, for Marine Expeditionary Force, and it seems to be sticking around the Suez Canal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Kearsarge_(LHD-3) For the USN to also have four carrier groups basically ringing the Saudi peninsula is extraordinary, especially because the USS Ronald Reagan (#5) carrier group left San Diego on Feb 2 for the "Middle East". I expect the Enterprise is relieving one, which will then linger in the Mediterranean, except only the Enterprise and Kearsarge are based in Norfolk, VA. All the others are Pacific -based. It would appear that China is more worried about their oil-supply than letting North Korea do anything provocative right now. I think maybe some of the delay was indeed for Iran to somehow prove they really are en route to a training mission with Syria :) The USN has eleven active aircraft carriers, more than the rest of the world combined. Italy and Spain have two each, France has one, and the UK just sent theirs to be scrapped. Perhaps Italy, France, and Spain will have to deal with the Med...

- K2K

February 22, 2011 at 5:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close