The dumbest comment of the day

"4.43pm: US blogger Daniel Serwer, who is in Cairo, reckons last night's violence at the Israeli embassy had more to do with discontent against Egypt's military rulers than Israel. He also suggests (see 11.12am post) that many of those protesting could be regarded as football hooligans."  Basically, I was expecting that they would soon call the protesters terrorists.  But when I read the New York Times today, I realized that they will settle on describing them as "football hooligans".  My Egyptian comrade who shared pictures of the protest with me yesterday (I posted them here) does not fit the New York Times' profile and this dumb description by this "US blogger"--whoever he is--because she holds a PhD from Oxford University and is a young academic.  But let us go along with the "US blogger"--whoever he is: so according to him the crowd was mad at the Military Council so they take it out on the Israeli embassy? Why not the Swedish embassy or Chinese embassy?  Secondly, let us say that they are "football hooligans": are they not Egyptians with rights? I mean, Zionist hooligans are so obvious when they are in denial and when they strive to twist and spin the news in way less damaging to Israel. (thanks Richard)