Sunday, March 25, 2012

The final moments of US colonial control of Egypt

A new Egyptian constitution will be written and endorsed by a referendum this year. An interesting aspect of the process is that the pro-US military dictatorship does not have a majority of the constituent assembly that will write the constitution. There does not seem to be a mechanism by which the pro-US dictatorship would be able to ensure that the military remains accountable to the US as it is now rather than to Egyptian voters after the new constitution has been ratified.
Mostafa Bakri, independent MP and head of the committee in charge of supervising the vote-counting process, indicated that as many as 589 parliamentarians participated in electing the 100-member constituent assembly, half of which will be made up of MPs, the other half of figures from outside parliament. “Until 9 pm,” Bakri added, “only 250 votes had been counted. It is not expected that the counting will be finished until the early hours of Sunday 25 March.” Employees of the People’s Assembly’s Information Centre and the Central Agency for Statistics and General Mobilisation are in charge of processing the votes. “They will see how many votes each candidate got,” said Bakri.

Yet hours before the process was completed, the names of members were made public through a list distributed to members of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) distributing copies of a list of names from parliament and outside, asking their colleagues to vote for that list. Early results show that the Islamist forces - mainly the FJP and the Salafist Nour Party - will dominate, with some 70 per cent of the assembly’s 100 members. The 50 MPs include 25 FJP MPs, 11 MPs from the Salafist Nour Party and 14 independent and non-Islamist party MPs. The 50 non-parliamentarians include constitutional law professors, prominent public figures, chairmen of political parties, religious clerics and others belonging to Islamist forces.
This is a hopeful time. We will see if this actually is the year that those in Egypt who believe their government should be accountable to Egyptians are able to wrest control of their country from the US and parties in Egypt that are subject to US influence.

In the meantime, Egypt is continuing its policies of attempting to harm Hamas for the sake of Israel. Those policies are popular with Americans like Barack Obama but unpopular with the people of Egypt. For now, Egypt's government is accountable to Barack Obama and to not Egyptians. But there is cause to be optimistic that this relationship is now coming to an end.


N. Friedman said...

"In the meantime, Egypt is continuing its policies of attempting to harm Hamas for the sake of Israel. Those policies are popular with Americans like Barack Obama but unpopular with the people of Egypt. For now, Egypt's government is accountable to Barack Obama and to not Egyptians. But there is cause to be optimistic that this relationship is now coming to an end."

In other words, the government which represents the Egyptian weighed its options and decided, all things considered, the economic crisis in its country requires it, at least for now, to continue receiving money to the tune of more than a billion dollars so that Egyptians do not start to die in large numbers of hunger due to the extreme economic depression in Egypt, one far, far worse than anywhere in the West. By contrast, you would have the government be wholly populist, ignoring the actual problems faced by Egyptians because you think that it is worth fanning the childish, racist, war-like attitude of Egyptians to Jews - attitudes of the type of the racist Lidia.

The Egyptians do not have to love the Israelis. However, they do need to live in this world, which, I would think, means working to end disputes, not fan the flames for new wars. Maybe, if you were no so obsessed with Jews, Arnold, you would realize that what you are writing is, well, nutty.

Arnold Evans said...

Maybe, if you were no so obsessed with Jews, Arnold, you would realize that what you are writing is, well, nutty.

This is not true and not worthy of a response except that you don't have to read or post here if you don't want.

The next statement like that gets you banned though.

N. Friedman said...


My apology for overstating my views, dragging you into my discussion about the racist Antisemite, Lidia.

In self defense, you were silent entirely while an infantile racist posted over and over again about the evil Zionists. The poster hardly even tried to disguise her racism and Antisemitism behind anti-Zionism, going into a rage about the Jewish religion, based on nothing other than the words of a chemistry professor - one who was shown, previously, to be a liar and one who, in fact, did not know a great deal about the religion. Why the silence from you?

What am I to think? I do not know you personally. We are, however, known for what we say, write and do and, frankly, do not do.

Now, I shall drop the subject but I want you actually to consider that the abhorrent bigotry that your website permitted to go unchallenged does - to most people - reflect very, very negatively onto you. Again, Lidia is a racist, Antisemite, as her own words - words that are traditionally thought by everyone to be Antisemitic - show. Where are you on that? After all, you are quick to defend the Iranian leadership, which speaks of Israel as a cancer - which is, although you do not seem actually realize it - the very same language, substituting only the words Zionist and Islam for Jew - used by Antisemites from Nazi Germany. Were the Nazis Antisemites? If so, so is the Iranian leadership and the Islamist leadership in Egypt.

As I have said here before, Anti-Zionism is the home of most Antisemites. Hence, if you want to be opposed to Zionism, you need to watch what goes on around you so that it does not rub off onto you. In the case of the Islamists, they are a classically Antisemitic movement - as in, they are proud of their hatred, thinking they are doing something just. Antisemitism has generally not done any favor to its adherents. As one who regularly apologies for the excesses of, say, the Iranians, you should consider what your writing suggests. In that case, I have concluded that your knowledge of Antisemitism is, well, one of not knowing a thing about it.

Enough said. I'll drop the topic, so far as your beliefs are concerned. If you want to ban me. so be it. But remember, you find offensive an allegation that there might be a hint of bigotry in yourself - which was not my eal intent, by the way - while having nothing at all to say about a blatant bigot, racist and Antisemite. Think about it.

Arnold Evans said...

I'll go a while without posting or commenting sometimes.

As far as I can tell, Lidia is not anti-semitic given a reasonable definition of anti-semitism.

Zionism is a political philosophy that can be challenged and even disparaged as much as conservatism, capitalism, liberalism or any other political philosophy.

It is not an ethnic slur to rail against Republicans, liberals, capitalists or Zionists. Nor is it a reflection of bigotry.

2) Ahmadinejad's rhetoric about Jews has nothing in common with Hitler's or Nazi Germany's. There is no remote comparison. Years ago, if memory serves, I challenged you to find a single instance of Ahmadinejad speaking in any way negatively about the Jewish ethnic or religious group and after going back and forth dozens of times, ultimately you were not able to.  You still are not able to.

(Anyone interested should read the comments from the bottom going up to the top.)

That brings up another question for you.

If you believed a final solution - killing every Palestinian in territory now controlled by Israel - was necessary for the survival of Israel as a Jewish state, would you really oppose it?

If so, why?

I'm asking you directly N. Friedman.  Between a South Africa-style one state solution where Jews are a minority in an Arab state and extermination of Palestinians, if you had to choose one, which would you choose?

You can say you hope never to make that choice or that Jews should never have make that choice.  That's not what I'm asking.  If you had to make the choice, from those two and only those two options, which would you pick?

N. Friedman said...


You write: "As far as I can tell, Lidia is not anti-semitic given a reasonable definition of anti-semitism."

Well, if one avoids be Antisemitic by using the word Zion and Israel, then you are correct. If not, then you accept as legitimate opinion what, to history, HAS ALWAYS BEEN CALLED ANTISEMITIC.

You write: "It is not an ethnic slur to rail against Republicans, liberals, capitalists or Zionists. Nor is it a reflection of bigotry."

It all depends on what one says and writes. One can criticize Democrats in a manner that displays bigotry and racism. It happens all the time.

No doubt, one can be an Anti-Zionist without hating Jews. However, I have yet to see anyone do it very successfully because, 99 out of 100 times, the reason for siding against Jews is Antisemitism.

Here we have you arguing that the ACCEPTED (i.e. BY EVERYONE BUT YOU) DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM - i.e., the one which captures, exactly, the language used by Lidia and the Iranian leadership (e.g., Israel is a cancer to be cut, as the Supreme Leader recently stated) - is not a reasonable one. I'm sorry, Arnold, but, to be frank, your definition of Antisemitism would make what is written by the Nazis into normal commentary. So, if you want someone to take you seriously, you have to use words in their normally understood way - which you are not doing - or employ a special definition, which requires one to not only define the terms but make clear that the terminology used is special.

And, even if you use a special vocabulary - as you seem to want to do -, you still have to contend that all else will disagree.

You ask: "Between a South Africa-style one state solution where Jews are a minority in an Arab state and extermination of Palestinians, if you had to choose one, which would you choose?"

I do not see the extermination of the Palestinians as being in the works, now or ever. Neither do you. So, what is the meaning of your question?

The only people, in large numbers, who speak of exterminating anyone is the leadership of Iran - i.e., the meaning of the words, a cancer to be cut, used by the Supreme Leader of Iran. Whether he meant his words literally - well, I am not a mind reader.

I could, by your manner of posing questions, ask you the very same thing you asked me, in reverse: Would it be better to have a one state Jewish domination over the Palestinians or the extermination of the Jewish population. What is your view on that? And, frankly, unlike your scenario, my scenario "extermination" side has the Hamas Covenant actually advocating the extermination of all of the world's Jews.

The reality here, Arnold, is that posing nonsense questions, ones I have never given the slightest thought to as if the choice you posed had the slightest thing to do with reality does not make your theory seem all that brilliant.

Now, if you want to ask me if I prefer the status quo - which is the actual likely future for the Palestinians because, as you note, they really do not want a two state solution - or a solution where the Palestinians leave the country or, alternatively, the Jews leave the country, I would prefer the status quo. But, I would prefer far more that the Palestinian side accept some agency for their own plight and realize that two people for two states is better than, as occurs throughout the Arab regions, internecine warfare among the tribes, ethnic groups and religious sects that marks any power sharing efforts that have been tried.

Arnold Evans said...

There had been rumors that the Muslim Brotherhood was collaborating with the Egyptian military to continue the dictatorship with some payment to the MB for cooperation.

Every time I've seen these rumors, I've had some doubts that they were accurate. I've never seen tangible evidence of this supposed cooperation.

But it looks like the relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood is better characterized as open competition than secret pro-US cooperation. The Brotherhood said the cabinet of Ganzouri,
who also served as prime minister under Mubarak in the 1990s, had been
worse than its predecessors.

The army dismissed the
criticism, saying it would not be deterred from its mission to see the
country through the transition and called for Egyptians to unite.It
said the army's backing for the government raised questions about
whether it wanted to "abort the revolution" and also questioned whether
the army could oversee a free and fair presidential vote, which starts
in May. I'm very happy that this is what we have tangible evidence of, actual statements, rather than the rumors.

Arnold Evans said...


1) Between one state Jewish domination of the Palestinians and extermination of either group, I'd choose 1 state Jewish domination.

2) You could have answered the question if you wanted to.  You chose not to. 

I believe if forced to answer honestly, you would answer that you would prefer the extermination of Palestinians to Jews losing an ethnic majority state.  Which means that I believe you fundamentally are monstrously bigoted yourself.

You can at least claim I'm wrong if you'd like.  Or you can refuse to answer if you'd like.

This is going to be a little funny:

You: One can criticize Democrats in a manner that displays bigotry and racism. It happens all the time.

Me: All the time?  Let's see one example.

You're not going to be able to produce even one example of this phenomenon you claim happens all the time, are you?

So wait.  What is your definition of anti-semitism?

My definition of anti-semitism - bigotry against Jews as an ethnic or religious group or Jewish individuals because they are Jewish - absolutely would not exclude Nazis even though it does not include either Lidia or Iran's government. You lied when you wrote that my definition would not capture Nazi bigotry.

But where is your better definition of anti-semitism?

Lysander said...

"In other words, the government which represents the Egyptian weighed its
options and decided, all things considered, the economic crisis in its
country requires it, at least for now, to continue receiving money to
the tune of more than a billion dollars so that Egyptians do not start
to die in large numbers of hunger"

Nonsense. The aid the US gives is primarily military and is done to keep the Egyptian military on side. I would love to see that aid cut. There is some purely economic aid but hardly making the difference between eating and starving.

On the other hand, you are, indirectly, making a valid point. The US would certainly try to subject Egypt to the kind of economic sanctions that Iran must endure, and that could potentially result in starvation. No doubt US officials are whispering those threats in the ears of Egypt's new government.

Regarding Lidia, the antisemitism charge is really getting old. I no longer care about it. I feel no need to defend myself against such charges from people who seek US/Israeli dominance in the middle east at almost any price. Neither should Arnold or Lidia.

N. Friedman said...


"1) Between one state Jewish domination of the Palestinians and extermination of either group, I'd choose 1 state Jewish domination." Obviously, that is why people from the Arab world and elsewhere try to immigrate to Israel.

You write: "You could have answered the question if you wanted to.  You chose not to. "

No, I did not want to deal with idiocy, since the choice here from the Jewish side has not and never will involve exterminating the Palestinians. So, why deal with a question which will never come up. If, however, the Jewish people opt for exterminating the Palestinian Arabs, I would side with the Arabs. Capice.

You define Antisemitism as "bigotry against Jews as an ethnic or religious group or Jewish individuals because they are Jewish." That is not a usable definition.

On your definition, how, other than reading their mind or diary, would we know whether someone is an Antisemite? Perhaps, you do not understand the word "bigotry." However, it is a state of mind.

Now, I think that any understanding of irrational hatreds - or, even, just plain old hatreds - require a way to recognize, from what is said or done, whether we are dealing with an Antisemite.

Here is a thought. Before WWII, there were efforts to rescue Jewish children from Nazi Germany. These efforts were fought tooth and nail in the UK (and elsewhere). The top leaders of the movement established to oppose to rescuing Jewish children  asserted, when accused of Antisemitism, that they were not Antisemites and, publicly, they had never expressed a word of unkindness towards Jews. We now know very well - diaries, having been read - that these particular leaders absolutely hoped that all Jews would die because they thought Jews and Judaism were vile.

On your way of thinking, the allegations of Antisemitism - before the reading of the diaries - were bogus. After all, they showed no sign of bigotry.

So, I think your way of thinking is absolutely inadequate to what has been, historically, a potent ideology - i.e., the ideological hatred of Jews.

In our time, we have the President of Iran who has held a Holocaust denial conference. You, however, claim that he is not an Antisemite. I think, based on a thousand years of events which have focused on Jews that, in fact, only an Antisemite would deny the Holocaust. Which is to say, I think it is not 99% certain but 100% certain that Ahmadinejad is an Antisemite.

Likewise, the Supreme Leader was recently quoted as saying ( that "Israel is a 'cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut'." I take that to be a classical stated form of Antisemitism.

In France, at the dawn of the 20th Century, there were allegations about one Captain Alfred Dreyfus. As we know - but those alive then did not all understand -, the leaders of those who attacked him wanted to use him to maintain their privileges. So, they accused him of wrongdoing. They even made things up, as you know, since he was not guilty. Now, the objection to him was that he was a Jew and Jews had no place being an officer. But, publicly, that is not what was said, since it would be obviously bigoted.

In the case of the the Islamists, they are much more open about their bigotry than the French. They rival the Germans of the Nazi period in the language they use. The father of modern radical Islamism, Sayyid Qutb, wrote a book about the perfidy of Jews. He is revered, as you may know. Must I go cite chapter and verse on an entire movement - which is the home of haters - for you to open your eyes?

N. Friedman said...


Lidia's charge is that Judaism is a racist religion. That is old fashioned Antisemitism.

Ahmadinejad hosts Holocaust denial conferences. That, by any rational reckoning, is Antisemitism.

Sayyid Qutb considered himself to be an Antisemite. He was proud of it.

Tired or new, facts are facts. Tired facts are still facts.

The US gives much military aid to Egypt. That is correct. That does not, however, limn the impact of that aid. If the US did not provide the aid it provides, people would starve on the streets in Egypt, given its extreme economic condition.

Lidia said...

Hi, as a matter of fact, there is a movement in Egypt against so-called "USA aid".

for ex, see here

Anyway, USA "aid" is usually a combination of bribes for the local lackeys, sops for USA firms and not strings, but iron ropes attached (for Israel it is a bit different)

Zionists (racists, of course) have NO honest answer to people attacking their racism, so they resort to smear :) I do NOT give a damn about this.

Burtrks said...

"They even made things up, as you know, since he was not guilty."How do you know he wasn't guilty? Why because he was Jewish and that means a Jew can never have dual loyalties? The actions of people like Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, etc have only re-enforced old anti-Semitic stereotypes. If we let the Neocons drag us into another disastrous war in the Middle East on the behalf of Israel, then that itself is proof that we need Dryfus trials in the US. 

Arnold Evans said...

I'm closing the comments here.  I'll also presume to get the last word.  We've never gotten a definition of anti-semitism.  Quite convenient.  That means N. Friedman and those like him are free to accuse anyone who disagrees with Zionism of anti-semitism.

I feel like there is already a fair representation of both my side and his side of the issue here already and while it is not completely related to the topic of Egypt's transition away from having its policy controlled by the United States, there will certainly be more posts on that subject to come, in the very near future as this is, in my opinion, the single most important development in the Middle East in 2012.

N. Friedman said...


Well, because the French rescinded the finding of guilt on Dryfus after it was shown, beyond doubt, that he was not guilty. More to the point, in 1896, evidence was uncovered that showed that Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy was guilty. This evidence was suppressed but later uncovered.  I might note: all the accusations made about Alfred Dreyfus were eventually demonstrated in Court to be baseless. That is why, in 1906, Dreyfus was exonerated. Thereafter, he returned to the military as an army major. So, the French government found him to be innocent.

Other than that, I do not know.

Your allegations that the Iraq war was started by the US for Israel is not true. Israel lobbied the US not to invade Iraq. Israeli intelligence was alone among the major spy agencies to publicly question Saddam Hussein's alleged nuclear program. However, Israel did, in fact, lobby the US at the time with respect to Iran.

The US invaded Iraq for its own reasons. They were not, I think, good reasons. But, Israel was not one of the reasons.

Now, why would you accuse the neocons of supporting a war for Israel that Israel had made explicitly clear (and in public, by the way) - and this is admitted by even people like Walz - it opposed? Do you want me to post facts showing I am correct?

Arnold Evans said...

What you two are discussing is not on subject for this post, even if it is a subject broadly within the subject of this blog.

Please read and discuss the following post and if you'd like, continue your discussion there:

N. Friedman said...

 I have no interest in Burtrks's topic but note that you chose not to respond to my last post, even though I did, in fact, answer your question.

Arnold Evans said...

Please.  Any reader of this thread can judge for themself who has left unanswered questions.

N. Friedman said...

See my answer to your question. Aside from noting it was not a particularly sharp question, I answered that if the Israelis ever decided to opt for an extermination policy, I would side with the Arabs. That is clear enough. Isn't it.

I thought I made pretty clear why your understanding of Antisemitism has no means to distinguish the Antisemite from the mere critic. You chose not to respond to that. Presumably, to respond, you would have to admit that your definition does not actually address the issue.

e g
cy, I would be on t

N. Friedman said...

Fair enough, Arnold.

If extermination were something the Israelis actually desired, I rather suspect the Israelis would long ago have exterminated their enemies. In the Yom Kippur War, the Israelis faced the possibility of losing their state. The Bomb, which most believe Israel had at the time was not used. A nation bent on extermination would have used the weapon and not waited (or, as some writers claim, merely threaten in the US, as a means to obtain conventional weapons) if extermination were desired.

I rather doubt, for what it is worth, that either Netanyahu or Liebermann would favor a policy of extermination. I think that is something you imagine. Belicosity does not equal an interest in extermination.

No doubt, you will find me some quote. Anticipating that, I note what is known about extermination events in history is that they have a long pre-history of expressing the need to exterminate. That was the case in Spain, with respect to the Conversos. It was true in Ruwanda. It was true in Armenia. It was most certainly true of Germany.

The Israelis have a completely different mind set. So, I think that your premise is based on lack of knowledge of what Israelis actually think - not some quote magnified for impact and propaganda purposes. That does not make the Israeli position, including of Netanyahu or Liebermann, good (or bad); just, not the position you ascribe.

Now, like any government in the world, faced with demise, the Israelis will do whatever they can to survive. I have little doubt that is the case. Which is to say, were the issue whether the Jewish population will be exterminated, I have little doubt that the Israelis - or any other people in the world - to do whatever it takes to prevent their own extermination. In such a situation, the Israelis will, without doubt, rid themselves of those who would exterminate them. In saying that, though, I am not saying anything unusual regarding Israel. I rather expect that the Arabs side would do the same if faced with extermination.

The entire basis for the relationship built between the USSR and the US - that is, that period's East West Diplomacy - was what is called MAD. MAD stood for Mutual Assured Destruction. So, we rather know for a fact that both Westerners and Easterners openly embraced the notion that their own survival would justify the extermination of their enemies. So far as I know, there is no country or people on Earth which would not, faced with extermination, attempt to exterminate their enemies first.

If you actually wish to understand the Jewish people, you would do well to consider what makes them tick, not what your ideology ascribes to them and not what propaganda limns. They have no interest in exterminating anyone. If they did, you can be assured that, long ago, there would have been no Arabs in the world.That is not only something that has, for a long time, been feasibly within Israel's ready ability to accomplish but something which, notwithstanding the ability of Israel to do so - and the knowledge of all countries around Israel -, has not resulted in countries such as Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon or Saudi Arabia attempting to mimic and, in the case of Syria, only the most modest program that was, well, squashed by the Israelis, who do believe that the Syrians, if given the chance, would try to exterminate the Israelis.

So, apart from propaganda, I think the premise of your question makes little sense. Or, in simple terms, in circumstances where all countries would act, the Israelis would likely do the same; there is no circumstance, otherwise, where extermination is relevant. In fact, the only party which has an extermination program are the Islamists, both the Shi'a and the Sunni.

N. Friedman said...

 I missed some of your questions. You asked why I would oppose the extermination of the Palestinians. I would do so because murder is wrong. So, if the Israelis formed an ideology which called for eliminating the Palestinians, I would side with their enemies. However, no such ideology exists and, if it does, it is the ideology of only a few nut cases.

Regarding enslaving the Egyptians or Saudis, that is not necessary to preserve Israel. Nor, are such peoples being enslaved by the US. Or, are you claiming that places like Syria - where the US had basically no influence for decades on end - are enslaved due to the US or Israel? I think you are seriously confused, thinking that there is some democracy which the Western countries and/or Israel has held back.

Here is a suggestion of a different way to look at things - and one which might even appeal to a Marxist. The Arab countries have their only ruling ideology, which a dominant class - i.e. the military and the religious elite - use to control the rest of society. What is happening now in the Arab states is that one elite group is replacing another - i.e., the Islamists are replacing or, at the very least, gaining leverage over the military classes.

I really do not see democracy breaking out among the Arabs. I have seen uprisings - put down, at this point, by Islamists who are coming to the forefront. But, democracy does not appear to be in the air any more than it was in the aftermath of the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution. However, I do wish that the Arabs will, in sufficient numbers, embrace democracy so that the enemies of democracy - i.e, the current elites - will be suppressed and normal societies can develop.

N. Friedman said...

 Correction:Delete: "The Arab countries have
their only ruling ideology" and substitute: " substitute
"The Arab countries have their ownn ruling ideology."

Arnold Evans said...

You've dodged the question twice. On this blog I have limited patience for creative or slick maneuvers to avoid questions. I didn't ask if you would prefer the extermination of Palestinians to the extermination of Jews. I asked if you would prefer the extermination of Palestinians to what you would describe as Arab domination, the way white South Africans today live under Black domination.

There is no question that Netanyahu and Lieberman would exterminate the Palesinians if the believed that was necessary to prevent Arab domination. The only question is are you on their side or mine. That's the question you've dodged twice so far.

You dodge the question because you can't bring yourself to write what anyone who is not a bigot would answer with no hesitation. As I answered with no hesitation when you posed the reverse to me.

You've seen the questions that you dodged and the follow up questions above. Either answer them or don't post here any more.

N. Friedman said...

 Ok, Arnold, I think I get what you want. You write: "I asked if you would prefer the extermination of Palestinians to what you would describe as Arab domination, the way white South Africans today live under Black domination."

In that circumstance, I would not favor the extermination of the Arab population. As I said, murder is wrong.

However, I would, so that we are clear here, have the Israelis use force to prevent themselves from being enslaved by the Arabs. However, I would oppose any extermination campaign to prevent the Arabs from doing to Jews what the South Africans have done to the black Africans.

You claim that you know what the Israelis would do. I think you are in dreamland. I think that either of them would be appalled at such an idea, even in self-defense.

In any event, the only groups which established extermination program are the Islamists. Must I cite their publicly published political program, not some quote blown out of context?

Arnold Evans said...

Me: What if dictatorship over 80 million Egyptians was necessary ...

You: Regarding enslaving the Egyptians ...

I'm losing patience for this type of thing.

N. Friedman said...


While you pose a nonsensical scenario, my answer is that I would accept the Egyptians living under a dictatorship. That does not bother me.

However, you should understand why it does not bother. It does not bother me for two reasons: (1) because the Egyptians live under a dictatorship because of their political ideologies, not because of the Israelis and (2) because the replacement for the dictatorship is not democracy but something worse: theocracy and not a democratic theocracy either - even though theocracy appears to be the will of the Egyptians. Call it a false consciousness, to quote Marcuse.

As I said, the actual Marxist interpretation of Egyptian politics is that there are elite ideologies which are used to confuse the masses from recognizing their own interests. And, religious governance is the current version of it, an ideology that will bring nothing but misery to Egypt. At least the military elites had programs which had something to do with the general welfare of the Egyptian people - albeit, they did not do what they promised.

So, yes, in a place where the choice is between a terrible dictatorship that prefers to preserve the region's peace and a terrible theocracy which posits an anachronism to solve society's current problems, I'd take the dictatorship every time - even for me to live under.

I suppose that is not the dichotomy you had in mind. Your version of things has the Egyptians living in peace or living under the yoke of the Israelis. That seems to be what you actually believe, notwithstanding the rise of the anti-democratic Islamists. My version has the Egyptians captive of either military or religious elites who care about themselves and preserving their own privileges. It comes to the same thing, except that my version of things has some connection with reality.

Now, I suppose if the choice were a real one for the Egyptians, I would have some pause in my choice. No, actually, I would not. I think that Jews have already lived under the yoke of Egyptians and other Arabs, as dhimmis. Enough of that. Let the Arabs change their ways radically and accept Jews as their equals; then, I might have something to ponder that was not a nonsense question.

Lidia said...

Arnold, a VERY interesting article on "Jewish rule over non-Jews"

Some historical facts (now unclassified) and some estimation of modern-day  Zionist position. 

The author is NOT a so much "leftist" even by Zionist standards 

see here

esp, regarding the question of humanity 

"Burston is critical of "progressives" who claim to support the inalienable rights of human beings over nationalism, but fail to see Israelis as people who also deserve "the freedom to live in safety and sovereignty." " - i.e. to him the rights of Jews to rule "safely" over non-Jews are NOT in question. 

George Carty said...

 And, frankly, unlike your scenario, my scenario "extermination" side has
the Hamas Covenant actually advocating the extermination of all of the
world's Jews.

While the Hamas Charter is clearly anti-semitic, I don't recall it advocating the global genocide of Jews -- could you quote the relevant passage?

Lidia said...

When I cited the highest religious authorities by Judiasm (Shulhan Arukh, for ex) being fully supported by MODERN day Israel rabbis on government-founded jobs, about religious DUTY of Jews to kill non-Jews, including BABIES,  NF accused me of Antisemitism :(

Mind you, there is NOT any doubt about "Torat-ha-melach" being about TODAY in occupied Palestine. 

see here

Of course, being Zionists, haaretz folk do NOT admit that it is NOT about mere "terrorism" but about genocide of non-Jews to which the rabbis call. 

N. Friedman said...


I did not say there are no lunatic Jews. However, you did not cite the highest authority on Judaism.

And, my comment about Hamas was about Hamas, which won the last election among Palestinians.

So, we have two lunatic groups, one with a small following and the other which wins elections.

I might add: I noted that the interpretation given by Hamas was contrary to the Islamic tradition; rather, it is an interpretation developed by the Nazis and adopted by the Islamist political parties. And, note: Islamist political parties win elections. The lunatic Jews you quote do not.

Lidia said...

This lunatic Jews are Zionist  state-appointed mentors of young religious Jews. They are also based their lunacy on very authoritative source of Judaism which is a law (Halaha) for official rabbis in Israel. They ARE supported also by members of Knesset (i.e. won elections).

Sorry, but it is NOT "bad apple", it is a very good sample of a Zionist religious law, which is a MUST to religious Zionist Jews to obey (including soldiers of Zionist army).

Of course, I am NOT saying that ONLY religious Zionists are racist baby-murderers. They all are the same more or less, just to point that the option of Arnold is MUCH more possible, esp. if supported by the highest religious authority.

Nazis, by the way, were VERY supportive of Zionism. And this support was MUTUAL.

So, if I were Zionist, I would NOT recall Nazis TOO much, just in case somebody would look into the history of Zionism. But Zionists are NOT too smart, of course, racism is bad for your brain, as I like to say.

Lidia said...

I am tired of Zionist racist here who has a gall to claim that it is Zionist Jews who are in danger in occupied Palestine, not the natives.

1) if Zionist Jews are afraid, they should return to where they are from. They were NOT invited to colonize Palestine, ethnic cleanse the natives and they whine how ungrateful natives want to kill them.
2) Jews from the ME would NOT come to occupied and colonized Palestine to be under such "threat" were Zionist not MADE them (by deception and by terror). If any Jews of the ME wanted to come to Palestine BEFORE Zionist colonization, he/she could do it without much problem - Palestine was under Ottoman rule, as well as the great part of the ME, so it would be just moving into another province of the same state. The majority of the ME Jews were NOT interested to move into relatively backward part of the ME from the great cities of what now is  Iraq, Syria and so on.

3) Zionism was a European colonial project, and meant typical colonialist relations to natives - nothing new and nothing good. So, Zionists KNEW that they were NOT welcome (see Iron Wall by Jabotinski, for ex.) They KNEW they would need to use force and deadly force against natives. Zionist racism also means Zionists would NOT agree with Palestinians staying in their land even as colonial subjects. Zionists ALWAYS wanted Palestine ONLY to themselves. It means that to reach this "noble" goal they did and are doing ANYTHING to made Palestine "Jewish state" - i.e. ONLY for Jews.

4) Before Zionism Muslims were NOT usually opposed to Jews living among them, because the Jews were NOT colonizers. ONLY Zionist colonialism made Palestine dangerous for Jews. So, only the END of Zionism will end the danger to Jews there. 

5) And in the same time, only the end of Zionism will end the danger to Palestinians, who are REAL victims there, all rants of a Zionist racist here notwithstanding. 

N. Friedman said...

 I appreciate your candor, Lidia.

As for the veracity of what you write, your comments are so far off base that it is not really possible to address them all. Suffice it to say that what relationship there were between Nazis and Jews were, at least so far as Jews were concerned, to help save the Jews.

What, however, is the excuse of the Nazi, Amin al-Hussayni? Ever heard of him, Lidia? Did you know that he worked for the Nazis? Did you know that he wrote and broadcast propaganda for the Nazis? Did you know he was an indicted for war crimes during WWII? Did you know that he advocated for the extermination of all Jews, Lidia? Did you know that?

If you really believe that Jews were actively involved with the Nazis, you are in dreamland. However, the information about al-Hussayni, including information uncovered recently from the German government archives by Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers puts to rest the question of al-Hussayni. And, his broadcast vile propaganda, urging Arabs to massacre all Jews anywhere was also the subject of recently uncovered research in the US archives, where a collection of all of his broadcasts on behalf of the Nazis were recently discovered.

So, do not lecture about Jews doing things with Nazis. That is the case of misrepresenting evidence of minor connections, in the early stages of Nazi rule. In the case, by contrast, of al-Hussayni, we have substantial collaboration, including involvement in a plan hatched by the Nazis to exterminate the Jews of Palestine, something al-Hussayni believed would be supported by the average Palestinian. I have my doubts that they would have followed him, but, who knows for sure, since the British fortunately foiled the plan.

Oh, and by the way, al-Hussayni was the Mufti of Jerusalem and leader of the Palestinian Arabs.

N. Friedman said...

 Oh, I forgot to mention the source for information about the al-Hussayni broadcasts, namely, Professor Jeffrey Herf, a distinguished historian. His book, Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World is an eye-opener about the lengths that people like al-Hussayni were willing to go.

Lidia said...

I am NOT going to debate with a Zionist racist. if he cannot get it - too bad :(

But I am going to refute his lie - one of many, as usual for Zionists, i.e. that 

 "Suffice it to say that what relationship there were between Nazis and Jews were, at least so far as Jews were concerned, to help save the Jews."

NO, it was NOT about just "JEWS" but about ZIONISTS (one more sleight of hands by a Zionist racist) and the goal was to colonize Palestine, and Jews who were NOT fit to do it were DAMNED by Zionists, and openly so. 

Now, it is ironic that in defense of Zionists love fest with Nazis a Zionist racist cannot even see that his "argument" could be used against him - what about "Arabs" relationship with Nazis being defended on the ground that it was ONLY to "help save" Arabs from colonialism?

George Carty said...

 If Hamas is inspired by Nazism, why do they use the phrase "this despicable Nazi-Tatar invasion" in reference to their Zionist enemies?

Unlike the PLO, Hamas is an Islamist group not reliant on support from non-Muslim powers (as the PLO was reliant on Soviet support), so I doubt that this reference was cynically put in to appeal to a non-Muslim audience...

George Carty said...

 If the Nazis supported Zionism, it would only have been because the Zionists planned to concentrate the world's Jews in one place (Palestine), meaning that the Nazis could destroy them more easily.

They'd probably use the Arabs to wipe out the Jews, before enslaving the Arabs.  After all, every people that co-operated with the Nazis were ultimately knifed in the back, except the Japanese and even then it was probably only because the Nazis never got the chance to betray them...

Lidia said...

If Hamas had anything to do with Nazis, they would support Zionism :)
Nazis were VERY helpful to Zionism, from the beginning, but Zionists do not like to be reminded of it. Hamas position against Zionism is based on the elementary fact - they are natives of Palestine, and Zionism is a colonial movement to grab Palestine. All else is not so important.

By the way,  al-Hussayni Did was  the Mufti of Jerusalem, but he was NOT " leader of the Palestinian Arabs". He was a quite marginal figure when he tried to get help from Nazis and could not help them in turn - he had NO power. 

A Zionist racist is lying here, as he does usually, as all Zionists usually lie - the truth cannot help their case, of course.

George Carty said...

Read my other post on Nazi support for Zionism -- the only reason for it was that concentrating the world's Jews in Palestine would make it easier for the Nazis to wipe them out...

Lidia said...

No, Nazis supported Zionism because they wanted Germany (Europe) Juden-Frei  and maybe to make  a lot of headache to UK in Palestine.

I guess you could have heard about the logic of today pro-Zionist anti-Semites - i.e. Christian Zionists in USA, they DO want all Jews in Palestine for the faster end of the world - and the demise of all Jews who would not convert to Christianity. 

Anyway, Arabs were not of much help for Nazis, while some Zionists (Stern gang) did helped Nazis in Palestine against UK. 

Lidia said...

From here have you got the info about Balfour? 

Anyway, Pleve - the pogromist minister of Tsar - was quite happy to help Zionists. Zionists were NOT going to turn Jews against Tsar, as did non-Zionist socialist  Jews

N. Friedman said...

Hamas is inspired in part by the Nazis. The refer to Israelis as Nazis for the same reason that Lidia does, namely, to smear the Israelis.

N. Friedman said...

 You are quite correct about this Mr. Carty.

However, if we are going to be historical about the matter, it is worth noting that Nazi views about a prospective Israel changed over time. Early on, they saw an opportunity to gain cash. Later, they saw some advantage, due to al-Hussayni's influence, in siding with the Arabs - an odd fit, since the Nazis thought that Arabs were not any better than farm animals; that was, to note, higher than they Nazis thought of Jews.

There were some attempts, by Zionists, to buy some Jews from the Nazis, on the idea of rescuing as many people as they could. The Nazis, however, decided that their best approach to the problem was to continue their invasion of Arab lands - allegedly in support of people they considered below human - on the expectation that they would reach Palestine. Attached to their invading army - including the Afrika Korps - was an extermination squad, as the recent research of Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers proved, finding the plan and the people involved. The Nazi plan was stopped at El Alamein in November 1942, when the British won the battle there.

N. Friedman said...


It is not that ironic. Conspiracy theories about Jews were commonplace in European history. When you hear Europeans, today, assert that Zionists are trying to control the world, you are hearing the very same nonsense asserted in previous generations, substituting the word Zionists for Jews. However, the content and alleged aims are the very same.

There were conspiracies in Europe about Jews murdering Christians for use in religious ceremonies.  These are too numerous to list.

In Spain, Jews were accused of being insincere converts and, in documents uncovered relatively recently, an entire theory was developed by Spainards that Jews were incapable, according to the Bible, of becoming true Christians; hence, whatever small number of converts were insincere, all were suspect, thus leading to an obsession in Spain in the form of a long term, multi-century inquisition to weed out supposedly secret Jews.

Such conspiracies about Jews are commonplace, for that matter, in Arab history. Among the most infamous is the Damascus blood libel allegations, of 1840.

Russia was, in the decades immediately before 1917, leader among Antisemitic regimes. However, there was no shortage of Antisemitism anywhere in Europe or the Arab world. It was the norm.

That, I might add, is why the very topic of this website is so incredibly wrongheaded. Viewing Israel's establishment in the context that Jews were colonizers - akin to the Europeans who colonized South Africa, as opposed to what they were, namely, refugees from oppression throughout Europe and the Arab world, is so ignorant, historically speaking, to be offensive. I find it pretty nauseating, whether or not the Israelis were angelic or nasty in coming to power or in governance.

George Carty said...

If Hamas refer to Zionists as Nazis, that must either mean that the Nazis are just as much a symbol of evil in the Muslim world as they are in the West, or that Hamas is cynically trying to appeal to Westerners.  Which do you think it is?

George Carty said...

Zionism was in the unique position of being a homeless nationalism.

Most other nationalisms involved people who already had a homeland (in this sense, a geographic area in which they were the majority population) and their purpose was either to liberate the homeland from foreign rule, or (in the case of Germany and Italy) to unify it under a single government.

By contrast, the Jews had no land in which they were a majority.  This meant that Zionism was a national liberation movement, but also at the same time an ideology of ethnic cleansing.

Nef131 said...

 Hi George,

I think you ask a good question.

Here is a guess at the answer.

The Nazis are universally hated, except in the Arab world, where a great many remain sympathetic (e.g., those in the Muslim Brotherhood, which, by the way, was funded directly by the Nazis at one time).

Those who wrote the Hamas Covenant know that much of the world despises the Nazis; hence, the tying of Jews to the Nazis and Nazi crimes is intended to slander the Jewish enemies of the Hamas.

[Note: The other half of the equation related to calling Jews "Nazis" is that the crimes of the Nazis are said either to have been exaggerated by Jews or to have been made up entirely; either way, the argument by those who assert that lie is that Jews created the Holocaust in order to create their "criminal" state, gaining sympathy they are supposedly not due; and, related to that whopper, Jews, in order to build their criminal state, committed a crime as great as the Nazis, if not greater (depending on the degree of Holocaust denial involved) and plan to commit another crime against the Palestinians and, more generally, all Muslims and Islam itself, in some versions of this argument).]

Nonetheless, quite a bit of material in the Hamas Covenant comes directly from Nazi propaganda, much of it the work of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

Nef131 said...


Some take the view that Zionism is a national liberation movement. I think there is something to the argument. However, it was clearly not the aim, at least not the hope, of the Zionist movement to displace anyone.

I think it is more accurate to assert that Palestinians were victims of their politics, most particularly the politics developed by al-Hussayni and his family, which viewed Jews much the same way - only with far more vehemence - that Arizonans anti-immigration groups think of Hispanics. Had, instead, the Palestinians followed the ideas of the Nashashibi family, I rather suspect that a compromise might have been worked out. I take this after reading a stellar book by Hillel Cohen, called Army of Shadows. It is about the effort by Jews to purchase land in the country and the reaction taken by Palestinians. As Cohen notes, there was a sizable group of Palestinians who wanted to live and let live, another 20% or so who even sided with the Zionists and 20% or so who were akin to the anti-immigration group of Arizona, except that this noted 20% was exceeding violent, something which is not the case in Arizona. Cohen, you will note, is partisan in favor of the Palestinians but he is also an honest historian; and there is a substantial record of collaboration; something which would not have been possible if there was uniformity of opinion. Likewise, the al-Hussayni group made it a capital offense, not to mention a violation of their religious faith, to sell to Jews, which shows pretty clearly that not all Arabs opposed Zionism.

The Jews, to note, were not sufficiently single directed to want to drive away the Palestinians. Most people wanted to live and let live. I might add, there are countless records of good-bye dinners during the 1948 war, in which Palestinians hosted their Jewish friends, saying goodbye; such people not being driven out but leaving at the demands, backed by violence, from their Arabs allied with al-Hussayni. Of course, some people were also driven out by the Zionists, but, frankly, that is a comparatively small number and, with a few exceptions, such was not part of any orders from up high; rather, was the result of the course of fighting. Jews, it should be noted, were also displaced in large numbers; hence, the Jewish Quarter in the old city of Jerusalem, i.e., in the area claimed by the PA as its capitol was cleansed of Jews during the 1948 war; that was intentional, by the way, as was the cleansing of Jews from various towns in what is now called the West Bank; that included the cleansing of Jews with roots in the area going back to pre-Islamic times.

Lidia said...

"However, it was clearly not the aim, at least not the hope, of the Zionist movement to displace anyone."


"Arizonians"? What does it mean? The white settlers of what is now Arizona are the same as Zionist Jews, and Palestinians who who were natives of the land were against Zionists exactly on the same basis as Naives in what now is called Arizona were against European settler.

Zionists were quite open in their writings, equating Zionism with white settlers and Palestinians with "Indians", see the same Jabotinski "Iron wall"

Lidia said...

Zionism was NOT "a national liberation movement", but a colonialist settler movement  and there was a  perfect match  of what it was - a movement of Rhodes.

No matter that Rhodes was using Brits and others who, supposedly, had "their own land". 

The matter was not "national", but social. Rhodes being an British imperialist wanted a place to bring the part of UK population which was not getting enough spoils from UK colonial robbery to be content, and thus was a danger to UK capitalist order. As Rhodes says in 1895 

"The Empire is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists."

By the way, Zionism was born about the same time. 

George Carty said...

Zionism was motivated by a desire to escape anti-Semitic persecution, while Rhodes's imperialism (like Nazi expansionism) was motivated by a belief that Britain was overpopulated.

By the way, your Rhodes quote is incorrect (I found it only on Marxist sites).  The correct version exposes Rhodes's Malthusianism:

"In order to save the forty million inhabitants of the United Kingdom
from a bloody civil war, our colonial statesmen must acquire new lands
for settling the surplus population of this country, to provide new
markets... The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question."

N. Friedman said...


Perhaps, you will notice that, at present, the issue in Arizona is between native born US citizens and Hispanic migrants. In the US, those who object to the migration are typically called "racist". My contention is that those who object to the migration of people are  racists, just as they are labelled in the United States.

You are correct that there are earlier natives in the US than those born here now.

 are earlier navives


N. Friedman said...

 Have you actually read Jabotinski?
 Idoubt it? In any event, his role in the creation of Israel was minimal. So, your discussion is nonsnse, as ususal.

N. Friedman said...

 "A LIE."

No, what I wrote is demonstrably true.

Lidia said...

Zionists were using the help of the most notorious anti-Semites, including Nazis. They were interested in becoming colonial masters on others' land, and were quite open about it. In short, Zionism IS colonialism and as such is of  the  same nature as Nazi and Rhodes colonialism - an answer by capitalism to the class struggle.

Lidia said...

I see there are more than usual Zionists in the blog :)

They use any lie and spin to mask the very simple truth - Zionism is a colonialism, and Palestine is the object of their colonization and ethnic cleansing.

Zionists could invent any pretext to deny it, but it is still the fact, and it is going more and more known out of the ME. So, Zionists are getting desperate, and try even more to present themselves as victims and Palestinians - as executioners. Chuzpa is a word too mild to their rants. 

George Carty said...

While Zionism may look very much like settler colonialism from a Palestinian POV, the underlying motivations are rather different.  It is a homeless nationalism.

All nationalisms are by their nature oppressive to minority groups, but Zionism as a homeless nationalism was oppressive to the existing majority group in the area where it chose to establish its new homeland.

I like to blame Hitler for the Israeli-Arab conflict, as without the Holocaust there would have been no Israel, but just another "Lebanon" with a Jewish minority instead of a Christian one.

George Carty said...

And Hitler and Stalin were de facto allies for two years!

Just because some Zionist fascists were  willing to work with the Nazis didn't mean they were friendly!

Lidia said...

Zionism IS a settler colonialism, and POV is the only which matters, because it is one of the victims of such colonialism. Not mentioning that Zionists were quite often about them being colonizers - you see, colonialism was still fashionable back then between colonizers, now they use another words :( 

A racist Zionist could say what he wants, but I still strongly recommend you "Iron wall" by Jabotinski - not because other Zionists did not see the Zionism in the same manner, but because J made the most concise and open case exactly for Zionism being a colonialism. 

Hitler is sure to blame, because otherwise Zionists could NOT find enough Jews to become colonizers of Palestine, but the role of other imperialist states were no less important. I have also admit the guilt of Stalin, the most foolish of his mistakes, I suppose.

N. Friedman said...

 Lidia writes: "NO, they were NOT allies." Well, these "NOT allies" started a war together, invading Poland together. If that is not an alliance, nothing is.

Shahak is not an historian and his understanding of the relationship of a small number of Jews with the Nazis is irrelevant. Do you have an actual historian who supports what you quote Shahak saying? Of course not because it is all nonsense.

I do not ask you to like Israel or Jews, Lidia. But, you ought consider just how stupid what you write is. It has no basis in logic or fact.

George Carty said...

Most pre-WWII European Jews were not Zionists.  The Nazis were crucial to the Zionization of the international Jewish community, both because a disproportionate number of anti-Zionist Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, and also because the Holocaust seemed to prove that the Zionists were right (in the sense that Jews would only be ever safe in a Jewish state).

And about Lebanon, wasn't much of the trouble there caused by outside powers?  Lebanon -- by its very existence as a Middle Eastern country where Muslims peacefully co-existed with a large non-Muslim population -- was subversive to Zionism.  And there were also unwelcome intrusions by PLO terrorists and Syrian imperialists as well!