The New Republic

It's important for Westerners to realize this. In fact until studying certain aspects of popular Egyptian culture, for example music and dance, I hadn't understood how severely scarred Egyptian pride has been and continues to be by the fact that Israel still manages to exist. This is a frightening thing, because it implies there is no solution other than the obvious: Egypt won't feel whole and manly again unless Israel is badly damaged or destroyed in war. In fact the peacemaker Sadat was murdered, even though Egypt had regained the Sinai. Also, there is the rank antisemitism and revisionist history, the upside-down, inside out word games about the Shoah and attempts to make "antisemitism" about "anti-Arabism." Finally, there is the Palestinian issue. But the idea of Israel's basic non-existence is something I encounter frequently, in the form of people saying things like, 1967 war was launched "to make things right in Palestine," completely ignoring what that meant, what Nasser really said, what the Arab High Command had said in 1947-48; what was intended in all these various wars. Unless some other outlet for Egyptian and other Arab frustration is found besides the ideal of destroying Israel, this is not going to end well.

- Sophia

September 13, 2011 at 12:11am

“If attacks on the Israeli Embassy are so harmful to your cause, I asked Harb, isn’t there something that you can do to stop or discourage them? “Nothing,” he replied. “How can we stop thugs from attacking the Embassy?” Indeed, the anti-Israel hatred ingrained in Egypt’s nationalist ideology may well be the downfall of Egypt’s revolt.” This is Egypt’s problem and not Israel’s. What I found most problematic, though, is that so many commentators in the West like Kristoff would like to see Israel as the cause of all the problems in the Arab world. Who cares if their pride is hurt? How is that a Western problem? This stance is offensive as it justifies criminal narcissism. I think that the commentariat in the West can’t acknowledge that they got the trajectory of history wrong. It was believed that the world was moving towards secularism and when a large chunk of the world prefers religious ideology to secularism they like to find scapegoats to account for their misjudgment. This is where anti-Israel feelings come in. They see in Israel the culprit of everything that has gone wrong in world today which is to say they don’t want to rethink their own failures in socio-political analysis.

- arnon

September 13, 2011 at 12:21am

The ghost of Orwell is cackling, "War is peace." In the Middle East, anyway.

- skahn

September 13, 2011 at 12:51am

I enjoyed this informative piece and it makes me wonder if or how a country can be so clearly defined by its hatreds. Many years ago, Netanyahu was asked by an interviewer on television the reason why the Arabs hate the Israeli's, and Netanyahu replied, "They hate you [the United States] even more."

- Nusholtz

September 13, 2011 at 4:56am

"it makes me wonder if or how a country can be so clearly defined by its hatreds" One need only look a the post-bellum history of the American South to see how fully - and how long - a country (or just a region) can be entrapped and defined by its hatreds.

- IowaBeauty

September 13, 2011 at 8:10am

It seems to me that the endemic antisemitism that permeates Egyptian society (Mein Kampf is the number one seller) makes the notion of 'democratic' reform a scary prospect for Israel. Whether in Turkey, Egypt, Syria or any other Arab state, the Jew hatred is palpable after generations of brain washing, and that is a fact of life.

- NHRDS

September 13, 2011 at 9:33am

IowaBeauty: One need only look a the post-bellum history of the American South Exactly. What Jim Crow was in the American South, the Pact of Umar was in the Middle East. The South was perfectly tolerant of Blacks who accepted the station dictated to them by Jim Crow just as the Middle Eastern Muslims were perfectly tolerant of the Jews who accepted the station dictated to them by the Pact of Umar. As long as today's Arabs are indulged in their beliefs that the Pact of Umar will come back into force, at for the Jews, they will continue pushing for its revival and will stop at nothing to bring it about.

- sighthnd

September 13, 2011 at 10:05am

This is probably a semantic distinction more than anything else, but it seems that Egyptian attacks on the Israeli embassy are bound up with Egyptian nationalism and national pride much more than with Islamism -- when a country defines its national history by reference to a war against a state and a people, it is bound to follow that the citizens of that country will act out against their perceived enemy and oppressor as soon as they get the chance. This is what happens when an unfortunate accident like the shooting of Egyptian border security personnel by Israeli troops can rapidly balloon into a crisis between nations. It is similar to the repeated small wars and low-level armed clashes that occurred between and among Eastern and Southern European states in the latter half of the 19th century and again during the Inter-War Period. And the former helped lead to World War I, the latter to World War II. Netenyahu's quote above is revealing, but in ways that are more reflective of him than of the situation on the ground. Ultimately, it doesn't matter that Arabs hate the US more than Israel -- the US is not physically located within the Arab world and, if Arabs threaten US interests, the US can always lash out at them (as it did after 9/11). Israel doesn't have the luxury of simply lashing out and withdrawing from its neighborhood, no matter how fondly some of its citizens want to do that. Especially when Israel has custody of 2.5 million sullen, stateless and potentially violent Arabs whom it rules against their will.

- wildboy

September 13, 2011 at 10:07am

What this editorial says about Egypt applies to the rest of the Arab world. They have gotten rid of all the Jews now safe in Israel with only their shirts on their back when they arrived. On day one they became citizens of Israel. The Arab refugees of 1948 are still refugees since Arab states refused to absorb them as a weapon against the Jewish state, Israel. Israel includes fully one fifth of it's citizens that are Arabs and no Jewish community remains in any Arab country even though they existed more than a millennia before any Arab came out of Arabia. The stupidity of the West calling Israel an Apartheid state is obvious to anyone caring enough to learn the history. Someone coined this, I don't know who: "When the Arabs will put down their guns there will be peace. If Israel puts down it's gun there will be no Israel." What makes all this happen? Just look at another sentence: "A Jews is hiding behind that tree, go and kill him." An Islamic sacred injunction.

- Poupic

September 13, 2011 at 10:41am

“This is probably a semantic distinction more than anything else, but it seems that Egyptian attacks on the Israeli embassy are bound up with Egyptian nationalism and national pride much more than with Islamism –“ It’s not an either/or. The attacks were led by Islamists who combined a religious zeal with nationalistic hatred. (Or religious hatred with nationalistic zeal---take your pick). The view proposed by the article relies on conspiracy fantasies: that the military used the riots at the Israeli embassy as an excuse to stay in power. This is a comforting belief (conspiracy fantasies are meant to comfort the believers). There is another more cogent view that argues that the military didn’t suppress the riots because among other reasons they weren’t sure of the loyalty of the soldiers: “Of Arms and Imams – The Egyptian Armed Forces and the Muslim Brotherhood’s chances for power” By Abu Faris “The real creeping horror here is the following scenario that more reflective Egyptians are trying not to think about. It plays out horribly: The mass and truly popular demonstrations of the revolutionary days of January have spent their force. The demonstrations and mass-meetings have become more partisan and selective with groups boycotting each other. The unity is dissipating, the people are not attending the meetings in the breadth and numbers once they did. In this the armed forces have allowed the truly livid Egyptian people to vent their fury and has very cleverly gently ratcheted up the level of control over demonstrations and mass meetings through a combination of very patient, controlled, yet firm policing, together with a clever political strategy of engagement and cooperation with the political faces of the democratic revolution. This has allowed the armed forces to both control the streets without too much violence, instigate a strategy of arresting and charging revolutionary activists and generally “kettle” the entire revolution and bend it to their own wishes.” Read it all here: http://hurryupharry.org/2011/09/11/of-arms-and-imams-%E2%80%93-the-egyptian-armed-forces-and-the-muslim-brotherhoods-chances-for-power/

- arnon

September 13, 2011 at 11:45am

I thought the general reporting on the attacks had revealed that they were NOT "led by Islamists" but rather by a soccer hooligan gang network that also attacked the Interior Ministry. No?

- ironyroad

September 13, 2011 at 12:00pm

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/what-makes-egyptian-liberal-liberal_576896.html "The question, then, is not, how could an Egyptian “liberal” partake in a round of Holocaust revisionism? Rather, it is whether Ahmed Ezz el-Arab and others like him are in fact really liberals. That is, is it possible to be a genuine liberal and an anti-Semite at the same time? Of course not. Egyptian anti-Semitism is the starting point of a political ideology that has dominated the region for more than 60 years and shaped how politics are conducted. Jew hatred and the accompanying conspiracy theories serve as a way of explaining the world that not only builds up hatred, but also crushes any serious attempt at examining the region’s true ills. Until Arab officials, journalists, and academics—encouraged by their Western counterparts—start to reconsider not only the roots of their anti-Semitic discourse but also its ugly fruit, there’s little chance of liberalism carrying the day in the region. After all, liberalism needs real liberals. "

- noga1

September 13, 2011 at 12:10pm

"I thought the general reporting on the attacks had revealed that they were NOT "led by Islamists" but rather by a soccer hooligan gang network that also attacked the Interior Ministry. No?" http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2011/09/khalid-yusuf.html "Zionist media will not stick to the theory that football hooligans were the ones behind the storming of the Israeli occupation embassy in Cairo. I want to mention that many intellectuals and leftist activists also participated in the attack on the Israeli occupation embassy. Famed Egyptian director, Khalid Yusuf, participated in attacking the wall outside the embassy with a hammer. " There is more, from the "News Service" this post comes from. I see no reason to disbelieve him. The writer glories in the viciousness and near-lynching of the attack on the Israeli embassy. If you want to know what the Arab Street thinks, you may want to visit this website. It is better than MEMRI. The writer, btw, is a professor at a respectable American university and a self-ordained Liberal. The fact that he is an insane buffoon is not an impediment for his readership; quite the contrary.

- noga1

September 13, 2011 at 12:22pm

" I want to mention that many intellectuals and leftist activists also participated in the attack on the Israeli occupation embassy." Since when do embassies represent "occupation" in the host country. Embassies are regarded as sovereign territory for as long as the host country has relations with the embassies country. Does Khalid Yusuf regard the Egyptian embassy in Israel "occupies territory?" It seems that when it comes to the Jewish State any nonsense said about it will be believed by professors.

- arnon

September 13, 2011 at 12:48pm

Embassy assault roundup: "Cairo embassy attack showcases trend of minimising endemic anti-Israel sentiment" http://justjournalism.com/media-analysis/cairo-embassy-attack-showcases-trend-of-minimising-endemic-anti-israel-sentiment/

- arnon

September 13, 2011 at 1:01pm

"Theocracy News" (aka religious nationalism) by Edmund Standing "Libya: The chief of Libya’s revolutionary movement told thousands of cheering Libyans in Tripoli Monday to strive for a civil, democratic state… “We strive for a state of the law, for a state of prosperity, for a state that will have Islamic sharia law [as] the basis of legislation.” Egypt: Egypt’s largest political group, the Muslim Brotherhood, has been touting a secular state with Islamic law as a primary source of legislation." http://hurryupharry.org/2011/09/13/theocracy-news/

- arnon

September 13, 2011 at 1:03pm

By the end of the decade secular law will be a faint memory in the Arab world. Those liberals who endorse such a prospect in the Muslim world shouldn't be surprised if in their own countries theocratic Christians start calling for Christian laws.

- arnon

September 13, 2011 at 1:05pm

Well Arnon it doesn't matter what we call for here or not. Secondly you ask above, in your comment, "What I found most problematic, though, is that so many commentators in the West like Kristoff would like to see Israel as the cause of all the problems in the Arab world. Who cares if their pride is hurt? How is that a Western problem? This stance is offensive as it justifies criminal narcissism." Well obviously it is a Western problem. It's everybody's problem, wars in the ME affect the planet.

- Sophia

September 13, 2011 at 1:37pm

Also, I think you're incorrect about Islamists leading the charge; as pointed out above. Stop trying to blame Muslims or even Islamists for Arab nationalism. They are not the same thing and in fact, in many cases contradict each other. Egyptian patriotism is just as real as American patriotism. One of the problems we have inherited from early Zionists is that themselves didn't realize the Arab nationalists including Palestinians were serious. This is related to religion in that Muslims and Christians aren't Jews but many Arab patriots were and are non-religious or even Communist. Respectfully you need to get off the Islamism schtick and realize that Arabs constitute a broad spectrum of people. Actually this is probably more frightening than religious fanaticism, which can be modified by exposure to common sense. What it means is that even the intelligentsia are not immune to aggressive nationalism and certainly are not immune to antisemitism. This started being a big, big problem during colonial times but Hitler in particular became a big hero in the Middle East in the 1930's; they had affection for Germany before that and unfortunately, many Brits were dreadfully antisemitic and let's not even discuss Vichy France. So much of this has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. Persisting in the belief that judenhass is an Islamic or Islamist problem is truly stupid, with respect; it makes it impossible for us to confront it on its own terms. People should read Matthais Kuntzel, for a start.

- Sophia

September 13, 2011 at 1:46pm

"I see no reason to disbelieve him." But Noga, I wasn't talking about what our CSU Stanislaus friend thinks, or indeed what the famed "Arab Street" claims, but what reporters on the ground have been able to establish. Hence my (and, I think Sophia's) question/comment.

- ironyroad

September 13, 2011 at 2:01pm

Arnon, the Islamism versus secularism is a red herring as far as Arab-Israeli relations are concerned. Anti-Israel and anti-Semitic animus is pervasive and widespread throughout the Arab/Muslim world, although it is mostly of the superficial puffery variety the farther one gets from the actual Middle East (see, for example, the anti-Semitism of Malaysia's Mahatir Mohammed or the anti-Semitic rants of radical Indonesian clerics -- their attitudes are real and are widely shared but don't inspire much daily thought or action on the part of their countrymen). In the Middle East, the fight against Israel and the hatred of the Jew who won't act his part in the historical role assigned to him by Arab/Muslim law and tradition are part of the landscape and the basic socialization of the people, the same way that views of the Jew as a deicidal outsider or an incorrigible opponent of the folk community were part of the basic socialization of so many Europeans during the last two centuries. The real breakdown is between the old elites who governed Middle Eastern Arab/Muslim states and the publics, including new politicians (like Turkey's Erdogan) who facilitate the public's anti-Semitism rather than swimming against the current. Thus, Mubarak, King Hussein or the Kemalist Turkish prime ministers (backed by their military) could maintain friendly or at least cordial relations with Israel because they were free to ignore their publics' anti-Israel and anti-Semitic biases. With the passing of those sorts of leaders, the new leadership of those countries needs to cater to anti-Semitic public opinion on a constant basis. They still know enough to keep the general peace and avoid all-out war, but their publics want confrontation with the Jews and the more one responds to the public, the more one risks such confrontation leading to violent conflict with unpredictable consequences. Can this fever ever pass out of the Arab/Muslim body politic? I am rather skeptical, especially since there is really no ability for Israel to meet Arab/Muslim public opinion halfway on these issues and the risks for Israel of ignoring provocative confrontations are too great to accept. While I have a dim view of Benjamin Netenyahu's motives or beliefs, the problem goes way beyond his desire to effectively control the West Bank forever and to indefinitely muddle through the problem of governing the Palestinians as they grow to a majority between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. An Israeli embrace of Palestinian independence and sovereignty over most of the West Bank and Gaza, with a governmental presence in Jerusalem and sovereignty over Arab citizens of that city, would be the right thing to do for Israel but it will not assuage anti-Semitic Arab/Muslim public opinion, and the necessary Israeli limitations on a Palestinian state (no right of return, no army, control of airspace, no government by violent factions, etc.) will always chafe at independent Palestinians and Arabs generally. There doesn't seem to be an exit here in my lifetime, or my children's lifetimes for the most part. In Eastern and Central Europe, rivers of blood had to flow and whole societies turn to dust before the anti-Semitic and nationalist virus was purged from the bloodstream of the masses. Even then, the relative absence of Jews in their midst (and of ethnically cleansed national borders in general) has been the inoculant that prevented the recurrence of the virus. The Middle East has certainly seen its share of bloodletting and societal turbulence, but destruction on the scale of World War II is not an option in today's world and Israel has nowhere else to go. Perhaps a long period of quasi-democratic, quasi-autocratic governance that results in economic and social stagnation would make Arabs and Muslims less likely to hearken to anti-Semitism, the way that many Iranians now ignore the vicious anti-Semitism of their rulers. But this seems little more than a dream, with no place in today's increasingly nasty reality. There was some discussion of the events in Egypt at this year's Passover Seder in our house. At that time, a friend noted that those who Jews (in and out of Israel) were scared of the Tahrir Square revolution and its consequences did not just accept that Jews were free and Egyptians were slaves to Pharaoh, as we read in the Haggadah and the Torah; he suggested that the Tahrir Square skeptics thought that the freedom of the Jews depended upon the Egyptians remaining slaves. I thought the comment was clever and agreed with him that this sort of thinking was perverse. I now realize that, while those thoughts remain perverse, the reality is that Jewish freedom is not something that Egyptians can accept with or without Pharaoh.

- wildboy

September 13, 2011 at 2:11pm

Who is an Arab Jew? Albert Memmi (1975) "As to the pre-colonial period, the collective memory of Tunisian Jewry leaves no doubt. It is enough to cite a few narratives and tales relating to that period: it was a gloomy one. The Jewish communities lived in the shadow of history, under arbitrary rule and the fear of all-powerful monarchs whose decisions could not be rescinded or even questioned. It can be said that everybody was governed by these absolute rulers: the sultans, beys and deys. But the Jews were at the mercy not only of the monarch but also of the man in the street. My grandfather still wore the obligatory and discriminatory Jewish garb, and in his time every Jew might expect to be hit on the head by any Moslem whom he happened to pass. This pleasant ritual even had a name - the chtaka; and with it went a sacramental formula which I have forgotten. A French orientalist once replied to me at a meeting: "In Islamic lands the Christians were no better off!" This is true - so what? This is a double-edged argument: it signifies, in effect, that no member of a minority lived in peace and dignity in countries with an Arab majority! Yet there was a marked difference all the same: the Christians were, as a rule, foreigners and as such protected by their mother-countries. If a Barbary pirate or an emir wanted to enslave a missionary, he had to take into account the government of the missionary's land of origin - perhaps even the Vatican or the Order of the Knights of Malta. But no one came to the rescue of the Jews, because the Jews were natives and therefore victims of the will of "their" rulers. Never, I repeat, never - with the possible exception of two or three very specific intervals such as the Andalusian, and not even then - did the Jews in Arab lands live in other than a humiliated state, vulnerable and periodically mistreated and murdered, so that they should clearly remember their place" http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/aj1.htm The majority of Arabs are longing to see the Jew humbled and put in his proper place. In his proper place as dictated by Islamic law. _________ I don't understand your comment, ironyroad, or its ironical curl. I'm in no mood for your mocking condescensions. Perhaps you could provide a real reliable source as to who the attackers were. I know what Michael Oren claimed but I suspect it was meant to help Egyptian people save face. The fact is that hardly any report I read mentions anything about football. There was this, too: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/09/10/egypt.journalists.targeted/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 "An angry crowd lingering near the Israeli embassy in Cairo after an attack on the building a day earlier turned on journalists reporting the incident Saturday, accusing at least one of being an Israeli spy. As a CNN crew filmed the embassy from across the street, another crew from American public television -- led by Egyptian television producer Dina Amer -- approached the building. The crew's Russian cameraman was preparing to film the embassy when a woman in the crowd began hurling insults at the TV team, Amer said. "There was this older lady who decided to follow me and rally people against me," Amer recalled. "She said 'you're a spy working with the Americans.' Then they swarmed me and I was a target." A growing crowd surrounded Amer and her colleagues, as they tried to leave the scene. Mohamed Fadel Fahmy, a producer working for CNN, rushed to help escort Amer through the angry crowd. But suddenly the two reporters were pinned against the railing of an overpass by young men who were accusing Amer of being an Israeli spy. Yelling "I'm Egyptian," Fahmy managed to pull Amer another 10 meters down the road, until the pressure from the mob overwhelmed the pair. Amer screamed as she and Fahmy were knocked to the ground and the crowd started to trample them. Other CNN journalists tried to reach in to help, but were pushed back by a wall of angry men. Fahmy lay on top of Amer, shielding her with his body. "I was thinking, how powerless I was because there was no police to save us," Fahmy said. "I was worried that they were going to rape her."

- noga1

September 13, 2011 at 2:27pm

"Well obviously it is a Western problem. It's everybody's problem, wars in the ME affect the planet." This is a cliche, Sophia. Still, do you mean wars between the Arabs and Israel or between states like Iraq and Iran? In any case, how do they affect China, Japan, or Brazil?

- arnon

September 13, 2011 at 2:31pm

wildboy "Arnon, the Islamism versus secularism is a red herring as far as Arab-Israeli relations are concerned. Anti-Israel and anti-Semitic animus is pervasive and widespread throughout the Arab/Muslim world, although it is mostly of the superficial puffery variety the farther one gets from the actual Middle East (see, for example, the anti-Semitism of Malaysia's Mahatir Mohammed or the anti-Semitic rants of radical Indonesian clerics -- their attitudes are real and are widely shared but don't inspire much daily thought or action on the part of their countrymen)." True, but the attitudes in Indonesia make it difficult for Jews to visit and work there. I had a friend in the peace corp who spent time there and when it became known that she was Jewish she had a really hard time there. She had to ask for another assignment elsewhere. As theoretical as Indonesian Jew hatred is it still keeps antisemitism alive and that's not a good thing.

- arnon

September 13, 2011 at 2:36pm

http://www.daralhayat.com/portalarticlendah/306675 "It is not difficult to explain what happened with the Israeli embassy in Cairo. Indeed, despite it being unanimously recognized as unlawful action contrary to Egyptian and international law, as well as to all conventions, and despite the fact that all Egyptian political forces have rejected the attack on the embassy, as well as of course the confrontations with security personnel that followed, we must understand that there is in Egypt a major social issue called “vengeance”, for which the search to find a solution never stops, and which is well entrenched especially in Upper Egypt. Despite the fact that the law punishes those who commit crimes of vengeance and does not excuse them, even if their father or brother was killed by those against whom vengeance was exacted, incidents of vengeance never stop, but are in fact often publicized by those who commit them, who can only rest after having made sure that everyone knows they have exacted their vengeance. It is therefore of no use to direct political or media discourse at those who stormed the embassy that would point out that what they did brings harm to Egypt. Indeed, they do not concern themselves with logic when they feel that they are owed “vengeance”. It is true that they will be punished, but what matters is for the blame to fall on those who did not take measures to diminish their desire for revenge, since Egyptian soldiers and officers were killed at the border. "

- noga1

September 13, 2011 at 2:42pm

“There was some discussion of the events in Egypt at this year's Passover Seder in our house. At that time, a friend noted that those who Jews (in and out of Israel) were scared of the Tahrir Square revolution and its consequences did not just accept that Jews were free and Egyptians were slaves to Pharaoh, as we read in the Haggadah and the Torah; he suggested that the Tahrir Square skeptics thought that the freedom of the Jews depended upon the Egyptians remaining slaves. I thought the comment was clever and agreed with him that this sort of thinking was perverse. I now realize that, while those thoughts remain perverse, the reality is that Jewish freedom is not something that Egyptians can accept with or without Pharaoh.” But this is what antisemitism, and probably all bigotry is founded on. I don’t know if you have read Hitler’s Mein Kampf, but there is a passage there that reject the idea that a humanized Black race would benefit Europeans (whites). Rather he says that it would degrade them. He of course also held such views about Jews. Seeing them as the equal of Germans demeaned them. To the bigot equality demeans rather than ennobles. There are Egyptian liberals like Abu Faris whom I quoted above some are even Muslims, though they are not in position of power and they keep their opinions to themselves while in Egypt.

- arnon

September 13, 2011 at 2:43pm

Arnon, sad but true. I did read Mein Kampf for a high school history course, but I don't recall the passage about Hitler's antipathy toward humanized blacks. But it's obviously consistent with everything else he wrote in that book.

- wildboy

September 13, 2011 at 3:00pm

Noga, I was recalling the NYT on Sunday, from the main article on the Middle East: "And although some Israelis pointed fingers at Islamicization as the cause of the violence, Egyptians noted Saturday that Islamist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, distanced themselves from Friday’s protests and did not attend, while legions of secular-minded soccer fans were at the forefront of the embassy attacks." Other than that, I'm sick and tired of being accused by you -- practically on a daily basis -- of mockery, condescension, vehemence, and a Denny's menu of other purported offenses, none of which makes any rational sense and none of which has been echoed by a single other poster on any thread, ever.

- ironyroad

September 13, 2011 at 3:31pm

"on a daily basis"?? I don't even post comments on a daily basis. What is the purpose of this exaggeration? Never mind. I get your point.

- noga1

September 13, 2011 at 4:25pm

http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2011/09/cairo-demonstrators-gas-chambers-are.html Cairo demonstrators: "The gas chambers are ready"

- noga1

September 13, 2011 at 4:41pm

It feels like a daily basis.

- ironyroad

September 13, 2011 at 5:16pm

"and a Denny's menu of other purported offenses" I haven't been to a Denny's in years. Didn't care for their menu but they did have some good omelets. I hope their improved some since the 90's.

- arnon

September 13, 2011 at 5:24pm

Here is another explanation for the Turkish Israel quarrel: Apparently the Cyprus Turkish dispute and natural gas has something to do with it: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3397

- arnon

September 13, 2011 at 5:29pm

And the view from Turkey: "Gaza is no ‘national cause’" "We, in fact, are discussing neither about Israel nor about Gaza but about Turkey. Israel and Gaza constitute not the subject but the object of the discussion. The subject of the discussion is Turkey’s torn identity and her tattered spirit." http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=gaza-is-no-8216national-cause8217-2011-09-11

- arnon

September 13, 2011 at 5:31pm

Irony, I think that the NY Times has been all to ready to buy into the myth that the Egyptian "revolution" is being led by democratic forces and that the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is not involved. That the MB in fact support democracy. This is why they buy into notions like "soccer fans" were behind this or that act of violence. From reading the NY Times you'd think that Egypt was Great Britain with its own soccer hooligans. (Though even in GB these hooligans are often accused of racism) The truth is more complex. The MB knows that Egypt depends on American aid to stay afloat. They also know that Americans are very suspicious of their ideology. Hence they are staying in the background. Students of Communist revolutions would have no trouble recognizing these tactics. Castro pretended for a long time that he was for democracy. Later on when he took power he changed his tune. The MB is in the background but that doesn't mean they are not calling the shots. How many soccer fans also belong to the MB?

- arnon

September 13, 2011 at 5:40pm

I should add that in a recent article on Egypt in the Arabic press talked about the "revolution" in Egypt: http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=26547

- arnon

September 13, 2011 at 5:42pm

Tariq Alhomayed (Asharq alawasat): http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=26547 "What the Egyptians seem to have forgotten is that the storming of the Israeli embassy in Cairo, after the Egyptian revolution, is reminiscent of the occupation of the US embassy in Tehran after the Iranian revolution, so is this the future of Egypt? Is a confrontation with Israel, or thrusting the Camp David Accords onto the Egyptian scene today, the key to solving Egypt’s internal problems? Was the Egyptian revolution originally undertaken to overthrow a peace agreement with Israel? Strangely, the attempts to drag Egypt into a confrontation with Israel seem to be an attempt to respond to those who said that the Egyptian revolution was conducted without a foreign agenda, and without burning the flags of America or Israel! Thus, the problem with regards to what is happening in Egypt is the notable absence of rationality and a failure to prioritize the interests of the state, alongside the remarkable absence of rational voices from political leaders, who are yet to speak clearly to alert everyone of the necessity not to drag Egypt into chaos. It is clear, unfortunately, that many Egyptian political leaders are more interested in their political futures than the future of Egypt, and the safety of the state as a whole. This doesn’t relate to politicians only, for anyone following the Egyptian press, and the unfair, organized campaigns it has directed against some Arab countries, would believe that Egypt’s problems are external only. Yet the fact is that Egypt’s problems are purely internal, most notably relating to the dimension of realism and prudence. The Egyptian revolution is without a head, and the demonstrations every Friday are without real demands, they are inflammatory rather than realistic; based on slogans rather than seeking to make a real difference. Despite that, all demonstrations enjoy the courtesy of the media and the elite, without posing the simple question which is: In what direction is Egypt heading? Overthrowing the Mubarak regime is not the most important achievement, but rather identifying and correcting Egypt’s course is the ultimate goal."

- noga1

September 13, 2011 at 5:54pm

arnon, I take your point that there are a number of parties, all with a particular desire to see one angle on the Eqyptian transformations emphasized and others downplayed, including the western media and of course including the NYT. Reports of the soccer gang did seem, however, to open up a new dimension on events, that could provide a more complex story than that of the islamist takeover of the political dynamics of the country. You can call it wishful thinking if you like, and I don't dispute that there may have been MB or even more radical influences behind the attack on the embassy. However, there seems to be an equally energetic push to get past the soccer gang story and make sure the events are portrayed in most favorable light for anti-Israeli polemicists. I can't judge -- which is the red herring at this point?

- ironyroad

September 13, 2011 at 6:17pm

"I can't judge -- which is the red herring at this point?" I don't disagree, ironyroad. That's why I read so many different sources.

- arnon

September 13, 2011 at 7:04pm

This is a good resource website. http://www.martinkramer.org/

- noga1

September 13, 2011 at 8:00pm

arnon, all wars in the Middle East affect China, Brazil, Japan - of course they do. Japan and China more than Brazil perhaps - China and Japan particularly are big oil importers - but even if they weren't, aren't they tied to the global economy in general? This isn't a cliche, it's a fact:)

- Sophia

September 13, 2011 at 8:08pm

Another version from a Cairene blogger who says nothing about soccer: http://ashraf62.wordpress.com/2011/09/10/egyptians-break-down-the-wall-around-the-israeli-embassy/ "What made things worse and added up to the anger of the Egyptian street is the sudden decision of the care-taker military council to build a cement wall/ barrier around the premises of the Israeli embassy to protect the embassy from any future anti-Israeli rallies. The erected wall, of 3 meters high; kind of reminded the Egyptians of the Israeli barrier in the west bank, a situation that was totally unacceptable inside the Egyptian capitol. Friday, September 9 started with a pro-reform rally in Tahrir square but a group of protestors branched off to head towards the embassy, tearing down part of the security wall around the building. It seems like a group of protesters managed to enter the embassy’s premises, located only on the top floor of a high building in central Cairo as thousands of pages of documents were tossed into the rallying crowd from the Cairo building that houses the Israel’s embassy. And for the second time in less than two weeks the Israeli flag has been taken down and replaced with the Egyptian flag."

- noga1

September 13, 2011 at 8:19pm

Better than wikileaks: http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/embassy-leaks-israel%E2%80%99s-fallen-egyptian-friends "The falling documents revealed what the public already suspected about Israel’s friendly relations with members of the Egyptian diplomatic community. Among the paper barrage were letters and correspondence exchanged between the Israeli embassy and a number of Egyptian diplomats and opposition figures. Perhaps the most surprising document is one signed “your faithful friend,” belonging to Talat al-Sadat, Anwar al-Sadat’s nephew who opposed Hosni Mubarak’s regime. Talat al-Sadat was a former member of the Egyptian parliament and became chairman of the now dissolved National Democratic Party after Mubarak’s resignation from the party. The document is a dinner invitation that Sadat extended to former Israeli ambassador to Egypt, Gideon Ben Ami, and his wife. The event was to be held at Sadat’s home, commemorating the end of Ben Ami’s term as ambassador in Egypt. Contained in the invitation is an assurance to the ambassador that the party will be attended by some of “Sadat’s peace-loving friends.” The letter also contains affirmation of Sadat’s respect for the ambassador and extends his best wishes to his “friends” the Israelis, beseeching God to preserve peace in the region. In the letter, Sadat’s promises the ambassador that he will hold another party if the latter is unable to attend the current one."

- noga1

September 13, 2011 at 9:03pm

Wow, shudder, shudder, the Israeli Ambassador had Egyptian friends in Cairo. Oh these poor Caireens.

- arnon

September 13, 2011 at 9:18pm

Sophia, I don't know where you are going with this? China and Japan, btw, have excellent business relations with Israel. In any case, your view is a cliche and a fantasy. When has there ever been peace in the Mid East? In what century? You seem deprived of historical knowledge.

- arnon

September 13, 2011 at 9:25pm

Yeah, sure. But don't you think Egypt's lingering hostility toward Israel has something to do with the way Israel continues to stoke it with its intransigent behavior and belligerent overreactions 40 years after the 60's-70's wars? And don't you think Egypt feels humiliated and emasculated by being yoked to a peace treaty with Israel when Israel in recent years has done all it can to ensure that true peace never comes to the region? Given the upcoming U.N. session and the continuing ramifications of the Arab spring, Israel may be about to pay the piper for thumbing its nose at its would-be allies (including us) and the rest of the world.

- mlottman

September 14, 2011 at 11:36am

"And don't you think Egypt feels humiliated and emasculated by being yoked to a peace treaty with Israel when Israel in recent years has done all it can to ensure that true peace never comes to the region" Here is an attempt to explain mlottman's predictable whining on behalf of poor Egyptians; it is the theory of the radical loser: http://www.signandsight.com/features/493.html " ... what we are dealing with here is not annoyance, but murderous rage. What the loser is obsessed with is a comparison that never works in his favour. Since the desire for recognition knows no limits, the pain threshold inevitably sinks and the affronts become more and more unbearable. The irritability of the loser increases with every improvement that he notices in the lot of others. The yardstick is never those who are worse off than himself. In his eyes, it is not they who are constantly being insulted, humbled and humiliated, but only ever him, the radical loser. The question as to why this should be so only adds to his torment. Because it certainly cannot be his own fault. That is inconceivable. Which is why he must find the guilty ones who are responsible for his plight. But who are these omnipotent, nameless aggressors? Thrown back entirely on his own resources, the answer to this nagging question is beyond the isolated individual. If no ideological program comes to his aid, then his search is unlikely to extend to the wider societal context, looking instead to his immediate surroundings and finding: the unjust superior, the unruly wife, the bad neighbour, the conniving co-worker, the inflexible public official, the doctor who refuses to give him a medical certificate. But might he not also be facing the machinations of some invisible, anonymous enemy? Then the loser would not need to rely on his own experience: he could fall back on things he heard somewhere. Few people have the gift of inventing a delusion for themselves that fits their needs. Consequently, the loser will most often stick to material that floats freely within society. The threatening powers that are out to get him are not hard to locate. The usual suspects are foreigners, secret services, Communists, Americans, big corporations, politicians, unbelievers. And, almost always, the Jews."

- noga1

September 14, 2011 at 12:06pm

mlottman "Yeah, sure. But don't you think Egypt's lingering hostility toward Israel has something to do with the way Israel continues to stoke it with its intransigent behavior and belligerent overreactions 40 years after the 60's-70's wars?" NO, TO YOUR LEADING QUESTION. "And don't you think Egypt feels humiliated and emasculated by being yoked to a peace treaty with Israel when Israel in recent years has done all it can to ensure that true peace never comes to the region?" NO, AGAIN. Don't you think you are an antisemite? And don't your think that Germany and Japan were forced into humiliating peace with the US? Why don't they attack the US embassies in their country. Why do you judge Israel by different standards? It is because you are an antisemite.

- arnon

September 14, 2011 at 12:38pm

Speaking of pro-Arab sentiment: http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/02/09OSLO114.html "EPT FOR EUR/NB E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/09/2019 TAGS: PHUM KIRF KWBG SOCI PREL PGOV PINR IS NO SUBJECT: PART II: RISING NORWEGIAN ANTI-SEMITISM AFFECTING ITS ROLE IN THE MIDDLE EAST? REF: OSLO 90 Classified By: DCM Kevin M. Johnson for Reasons 1.4 (b,d) ¶1. (C) Summary: Anti-Semitism in Norway, and the expression of anti-Semitic comments, has increased since the Gaza war. The small Norwegian Jewish community is wary of being targeted, and "Jew" has become more popular as an epithet. While the issue of anti-Semitism is frequently debated in the media, Norwegians society has difficulty confronting it. Compared with Americans, Norwegians generally are more reluctant to accuse anyone of anti-Semitism, more reluctant to judge offense by the standards of the offended group, and more likely not to differentiate between Jews and Israelis. Israeli embassy officials have told us that increased Norwegian anti-Semitism is viewed in Israel as consistent with Norway's general anti-Israel bias, and anti-Semitism's rise further diminishes Norway's ability to mediate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. End Summary. Public Debate over Rahm Emmanuel -------------------------------- ¶2. (C) Over the last two months, a former prime minister, Kare Willoch, and a preeminent commentator on U.S. policy, Ole Moen, were accused of making comments that were anti-Semitic. On December 30 in a television debate program, when asked about the prospect for progress in the Middle East with Obama leading negotiations, Willoch said, "it doesn't look good, because he has chosen a Jew as a chief of staff." Mona Levin, a Jewish columnist who also participated in the television debate, later wrote a column in which she accused Willoch of both anti-Semitism and racism for sending a message that Jews can't be trusted and blacks are easily manipulated. She also commented on a feeling of hatred she perceived from him during the television debate, noting he pointedly said "you people," although her family has lived in Norway since the 19th century. Many voices in the media (including Willoch's own) have risen to his defense. Willoch has for years been an especially strident voice against Israeli policy." Like Lottman these people are antisemites which is where they pro Arab bias stems from.

- arnon

September 14, 2011 at 12:43pm

Mlottman I can’t see much sense in your theory. Your line of reasoning seems to be that Egypt, humiliated by its war losses to Israel, has had that humiliation increased by Israel continually scuppering the chance for genuine peace in the Middle East by its bellicosity and belligerence towards Egypt and generally. First, I ask you for the concrete evidence since Camp David of Israeli actions specifically aimed at belittling Egypt, aimed directly at Egypt. Second, I ask for concrete evidence of specific Israel actions, apart from the accidental August shootings, intensifying Egyptian humiliation and hatred of Israel. Third, I ask how you distinguish between a kind of free floating anti Semitism endemic in Egypt, the kind of radical victimization suggested by what’s cited in 09/14/2011 - 12:06pm EDT and the obsessive humiliation described by Trager on the one hand and the allegedly heaping on insult to injury as suggested by you on the other hand? Fourth, your theory presupposes that Middle East intractability is one sided, all Israel’s fault. That is patently absurd. So, stipulating for the sake of argument, both sides are at substantially at fault by reason of their different actions, where is the Egyptian resentment at the obstacles to peace caused by the Palestinians and their sponsors, Syria and Iran? If the latter is undetectable in Egypt, then you have no basis on which to distinguish between endemic Egyptian anti Semitism and Israel, supposedly, in stoking the fires of Egyptian humiliation by its, supposedly, belligerent actions. I don’t expect you to answer me. If you do fine and we can deal with what you say. But what I say is posed more to suggest what I argue is the fatuity of your theory.

- basman

September 14, 2011 at 10:04pm

So, who was it that assaulted the Israeli Embassy? One answer provided here: http://www.assafir.com/Article.aspx?EditionId=1946&ChannelId=45956&ArticleId=1563&Author= Google Translation from Arabic: "M. Israeli embassy, ​​last Friday, confirming that the Egyptian people and political movements have decided to recover part of the state's prestige and dignity of the citizen. At this time, preceded the Egyptian government demonstration called by the political forces in the country, tomorrow, under the slogan «No to the emergency law», trying to reassure Egyptians that the decision to activate this law, after the storm the Israeli embassy, ​​is a step temporary, and that would not apply to or political opponents and opinion makers. And considered the 21 movement and a political trend, in a statement distributed during the sit-in organized in front of the Press Syndicate, that «the revolution of January 25 had to restore the dignity of the Egyptian citizen, and maintain the prestige of the state», stressing «full responsibility and share them with martyrs and injured and arrested in the storming of the embassy». These movements and stressed that «the Egyptian people and political movements have decided to recover part of the state's prestige and dignity of citizens broke into the Israeli embassy and the expulsion of Ambassador and the diplomatic mission and the announcement that the time of defeat and the refraction is gone». These movements and pledged to continue the struggle until the full recovery of rights, including the right of the martyrs who were killed by Israeli fire last August, expressing its refusal to «the attack on the demonstrators and firing live bullets on them, and fabrication of false accusations». The statement, signed by both of the «Revolutionary Socialists», and «Democratic Movement Egyptian popular» and movements «rebels free», and «revolutionaries January for freedom and resistance», and «young Arab Revolt», and «inadequate», and «youth voice of the field» , and «Egyptians against Zionism», and «No to military trials», the parties «Islamic factor», and «unification Arab», and «workers' democratic», and «the National Center for the people's committees», and «the Egyptian anti-colonial», and «Arab-Islamic front to support Palestine», and «the People's Committees for the Defense of the Revolution», and the movement «start», and the movement of «not and Se», and the movement «Liberal rebels»." _____________ A coalition of Arab Egyptian "progressives", revolutionary socialists, ultra-Nationalist nutcases and "democratic" liberals was responsible for the storming of this imaginary "Bastille". There is no mention of democratic values, concern for the pending food crisis that is about to betake Egypt, women's rights, secularism, etc. What you hear is the urgent and existential need to redeem the precious Egyptian prestige and dignity which the peace treaty with Israel had turned into humiliation. These are the voices of the "Arab Spring". Here is another voice, given all the platform it needs in Egypt's media: http://www.facebook.com/martinkramer.page/posts/157203751034906 "Egyptian Author and Journalist Muhammad Abbas | Al-Hekma TV via MEMRI www.memritv.org ‎"We should destroy them completely, and not leave a single one of them alive. Anyone who immigrated to Israel must return to his country or be annihilated. But I fear that our enthusiasm might be detrimental to us."

- noga1

September 15, 2011 at 1:17pm

Someone around this thread said, or linked to someone who said, in effect, no anti-Semite can be a liberal. This proposition seems self evidently true. The issue gets more complicated when anti-Semitism is held also to include, correctly I argue, those who define or judge Israel by standards different than they apply to other countries, and, worse, to like liberal democracies. These more insidious anti -Semites cannot be liberals either, I'd say.

- basman

September 15, 2011 at 3:43pm

perhaps some Egyptians are into tearing down walls and attacking embassies? this just posted Thu, 15/09/2011 - 17:41 about a similar attack on Saudi Arabia's embassy: "Saudi Ambassador to Cairo Ahmed Abdel Aziz al-Qattan filed a complaint on Thursday with Attorney General Abdel Meguid Mahmoud, demanding he begin an investigation into the attack on the Saudi Embassy in Giza on Friday. In his complaint, Qattan said the embassy building, which is located on Ahmed Nasim Street in front of the Giza Security Directorate, was attacked by a number of thugs. He added that a number of Saudi diplomatic mission vehicles were set on fire and that an attempt was made to demolish the wall surrounding the embassy. In his complaint, Qattan said the attack was considered an attack on Saudi land, which is protected by international treaties and agreements. He pointed out that the Saudi government and people were keen on preserving good relations with Egypt. The complaint also pointed out that the embassy had received a royal order to continue its work despite the attack, which was described as "unjustified and coming from a small group of deviant outlaws, who have nothing to do with the respectable Egyptian people." Thousands of Egyptian Umra pilgrims were mistreated last month by Saudi Arabian Airlines staff at Jeddah International Airport. Sources at Cairo International Airport said they have received dozens of complaints from Egyptian returnees who used Saudi Arabian Airlines. Returnees said they were beaten and humiliated by staff members at Jeddah International Airport, their flights were delayed for more than 24 hours, and their luggage was mishandled. The passengers said they have filed reports over the mistreatment." Translated from the Arabic Edition http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/496020

- K2K

September 15, 2011 at 5:37pm

Some points on liberalism: Liberals can and have been antisemitic. Voltaire one of the founders of liberalism was antisemitic. John Stuart Mills had antisemitic things to say in his essay on liberty. It was during the Dreyfus affair that a shift in thinking about antisemitism took place. Zola and other realized that antisemitism was also anti liberalism. this is not the same as seeing Judaic culture in a positive light. The discarded their antisemitism but didn't embrace Jews. In fact they accepted Jews only on condition that they stop being Jewish.

- arnon

September 15, 2011 at 6:31pm

Ruth Wisse wrote, in a specific context to be sure, “Anti-Semitism perverts the ideal of a mutually tolerant campus. The faculty and administration, and students who wish to uphold that ideal, will have to exercise their free speech to address the function and the roots of this virulent phenomenon.” What she wrote gets at what I'm trying to suggest. As usual, things come down to needing to start with some defining. Liberalism is distinguishable from left wing/liberal and progressive politics. It’s a political philosophy and a way of thinking about the world and as the latter it’s in part procedural, a rational methodology exemplifed by how science tries to proceed. Liberalism is exemplified by America’s creedal liberties, by a commitment to the ideals of equality (better understood as equality of opportunity) and liberty, even as the inevitable clash between the two creates problems and tensions and by a habit of mind that, in the words of Alexander Meiklejohn, himself a bastion of civil liberties, believes and doubts, that “…indicates a pattern of culture which criticizes itself... It has customs and standards of behaviour. But it also has...the attitude of...questioning its own dominant beliefs and standards... The liberal both believes and doubts...and... if an individual or a group will hold fast both to custom and intelligence, then its experience will inevitably be paradoxical and divided against itself. The being who seeks intelligence is a divided personality.” So understood, neither anti-Semite, nor any other like hater, can, I’d argue, truly wear liberalism’s mantle even though he might believe otherwise. In his hating, in his deep-going biases, he repudiates the fundamental precepts he imagines define him.

- basman

September 15, 2011 at 8:48pm

"As usual, things come down to needing to start with some defining. Liberalism is distinguishable from left wing/liberal and progressive politics. It’s a political philosophy and a way of thinking about the world and as the latter it’s in part procedural, a rational methodology exemplifed by how science tries to proceed." I don’t know Bassman. Defining liberalism in itself is not the same as introducing rational or scientific methodologies. (What’s the difference between rational and scientific in your sentence above? Shouldn’t you also define these terms?) More simply liberalism is generosity; it was etymologically applied to a “gentleman” or someone with means who was generous. Later on it was applies to scholars who appealed to rational inquiry as opposed to those who appealed to authority. On the continent during the enlightenment period it was applied to educated people who argued against religion. It is here were antisemitism comes into the picture. Now there were and are different types of liberals: some argued mainly against religion. Many of these held antisemitic views: J S Mill as I mentioned above and the historian Gibbon. They viewed Judaism as merely as a religion and since they lives in a traditional Christian society they had no trouble seeing Jews as enemies of liberal thought as well as of Christianity which they also hated. Gibbon’s Decline and fall said some pretty nasty things about Judaism. The question can a liberal be antisemitic the answer is yes, if they define themselves against religion and if they view Judaism merely as a religion. Today though it is much harder for liberals to define Judaism only as a religion and hence a liberal who attacks Jews is attacking a people and is therefore contradicting the essential values of liberalism which is generosity and respect for human freedom. Of course Judaism was always more than a religion and thinkers like Gibbon, Voltaire and Mill who indicted Judaism for being intolerant were criticizing a people and a religion of which they had no first hand knowledge. Their antisemitism was based on views they acquired from the enemies of the Jews in antiquity: some Romans and some early Christians.

- arnon

September 15, 2011 at 10:47pm

Thanks for your typically rich response. The reference to the method of science is not to oppose rationality and scientific method. Rather that method is a mode of rational inquiry, and analogue for liberalism's commmitment to the rational critical inquiry into reality, that is to say, by reference to logic and evidence. For example, Meiklejohn followed by Joseph Tussman and Robert Rown after Tussman argued but made not much jurisprudential headway, that freedom of speech operated principally, if not exclusively, to protect political discourse on the idea that a politically informed, educated citizenry is essential to democracy and other form of expression were of lesser importance and did not necessarily deserve constitutional protection. The point is the emphasis on rational deliberation as a hallmark of liberalism. Cass Sunstein has argued that the ideal jury's deliberations are another analogue for the deliberation liberalism vaunts. The only other point I'd make is: if your hypothetical liberal in opposing all religion took a critical stance against Judaism inofar as it's a religion but was equally critical of all other religions and groups that adhered to their religions to the extent of that adherence, I'd think the charge of anti Semitism would be difficult to make out aganst him. As you note, the example of the hypothetical liberal who reduces Judaism to merely a religion and then stands against Judaism in toto on that basis seems so attenuated that, as you further note, its remoteness makes the argument. I couldn't with put it better than the way you say it: ...Today though it is much harder for liberals to define Judaism only as a religion and hence a liberal who attacks Jews is attacking a people and is therefore contradicting the essential values of liberalism which is generosity and respect for human freedom.... I think, too, your idea of generosity of spirit and mind is wonderfully suggestive of the conception of liberalism that I'm arguing for.

- basman

September 15, 2011 at 11:17pm

"Sorry," he said contritely, offering his hand, "we thought you were a Jew." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14911786

- noga1

September 16, 2011 at 4:52pm

Here is an important article by Shlomo Avineri on the recent problems with Turkey and Egypt: “States of flux With Turkey staking a claim for regional hegemony, Egypt's leaders facing questions about their legitimacy and the upcoming UN vote on Palestine - it's time for Israel to act wisely.” http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/states-of-flux-1.384827?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.212%2C2.215%2C

- arnon

September 16, 2011 at 7:01pm

I see the BBC has discovered the brave new world of antisemitism in Egypt. "Egypt have become increasingly strained in recent weeks, and in the Egyptian capital there is a mounting sense of tension, including incidents of anti-Semitism." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14911786 And since it's new to them it must not have existed before.

- arnon

September 16, 2011 at 7:03pm

The fact is that the Islam is a not so much a religion, as it is a totalitarian political ideology. Islam and National Socialism have much in common, which is why they were allies during WWII, and why Adolf Hitler is an esteemed figure in many Islamic countries. That isn't news, or shouldn't be to anybody who is well-informed. What is news is the revival of antisemitism among European and American leftists.

- bulbman1066

September 18, 2011 at 2:33am

"What is news is the revival of antisemitism among European and American leftists." Has it ever died?

- noga1

September 18, 2011 at 7:17am

So, the soccer story has been replaced by another story: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=238373 "Participants may have been paid 5,000-11,000 pounds to "go to the embassy and create chaos," Egyptian newspaper reports."

- noga1

September 18, 2011 at 11:21am