Typical Western media account about Arab Jews: TV serial The Jewish Quarter

"The military’s real-life role in expelling Egypt’s Jews under President Gamal Abdel Nasser is omitted completely." Kirkpatrick does not mention the Lavon Affair and the role Israeli crimes and dirty covert operation and the callous recruitment of Egyptian Jews for Israeli terrorist operations inside Egypt. None of that.  2) it is not the most-talked about TV serial of Ramadan. Not at all. 3) the characterization by Kirkpatrick is typical of the Zionist rhetoric about Jews in Arab countries: if they stay inside the country, Zionists in the West yell: they are being held as prisoners. They are hostages. They should be allowed to leave and get exist visas. And when they leave, the same Zionists of the West yell: look. They kicked them out. They kicked them out and for that, the Palestinian refugees should never be allowed back into Palestine just because.

PS Don't you like the new trend among Western correspondents like Mr. Kirkpatrick? In the past, they regaled us with tales of a cab driver. Now they regale us with a comment by an anonymous Arab on a page on Facebook as representative of Arab public opinion.

Sisi surpassing Nasser? Is this a joke?

"Mr. Sisi has surpassed even President Gamal Abdel Nasser in his ability to command the loyalty of the many fractious and quasi-independent institutions of the modern Egyptian state, Professor Fahmy said".  This must be a joke and then Kirkpatrick adds: "Nasser, whose military coup in 1952 set the template for Arab autocracy, never fully controlled his own army, historians say."  Now it is true that Nasser assigned the management of the army prior to 1967 to his buffoon comrade, `Abdul-Hakim `Amir.  But after 1967, Nasser sacked `Amir, who later killed himself, and the Army stood with Nasser. There was no mutiny. But to suggest that Sisi's control surpassed that of Nasser is ridiculous.

About the Sunni-Shi`ite war

" the Shiite theocracy in Iran and the Sunni monarchy in Saudi Arabia, have sought to protect their interests and influence by funneling support to clerics, satellite networks, political factions and armed groups squaring off along sectarian lines." Kirkpatrick is trying to be balanced here but can you name one Iranian backed station that engage in blatant sectarian talk and agitation like all Saudi media? One?

the most common lie in the New York Times: David Kirkpatrick

I know that the US media parrot the line of the Saudi media on Syria but someone should ask for evidence of such claims/lies: "the government of President Bashar al-Assad and his Iranian backers sought to portray the movement as a sectarian power grab by certain Sunni extremists".  Look, the Syrian regime is lousy and repressive but it never ever uses the words Sunni or Shi`ite, ever.  Do you understand?  I know that you want to create a fake balance because the Saudi and Qatari media engage in such sectarian talk regularly. 

Look how knowledgeable the correspondent of the New York Times, David Kirkpatrick, is?

"Mr. Sisi is competing against a lesser-known, underfunded and ideologically similar opponent, Hamdeen Sabahi".  This about a leftist Nasserist who opposes every aspect of US foreign policy. 

David Kirkpatrick on US-Saudi relations

1) "“Their view of Mr. Obama is that his entire understanding is wrong,” said Mustafa Alani, an analyst at the Geneva-based Gulf Research Center who is close to the Saudi monarchy. " The center is funded by the House of Saud and the expert is an advocate of Saudi royal family.
2) "But the Saudi royal family, which draws its legitimacy from an ultraconservative Salafi branch of Islam, has long feared the Muslim Brotherhood because of its rival blend of religion and politics and its effectiveness at political organizing. Saudi officials often quote Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, the former long-serving interior minister: “All our problems come from the Muslim Brotherhood,” he once declared, arguing that the group “has destroyed the Arab world.”"  This account is utterly false.   The Saudis long funded, armed, and sponsored the Muslim Brotherhood and used them against their rivals in the region.  The statement by Prince Nayif came only after Sep. 11 when the relations with the Brotherhood soured.  Nevertheless, the Saudi regime still supports and funds the Muslim Brotherhood in at least Lebanon and Syria.
3) "At a private gathering of Arab security chiefs at the Four Seasons Hotel in Marrakesh, Morocco, two weeks ago, the Saudi interior minister asked every Arab country to outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood".  This was not a private meeting. This was not a meeting of security chiefs. This was a public regular meeting of Arab Interior Ministers. I have better things to do than to count the daily avalanche of errors and fallacies in New York Times dispatches from the Middle East.

David Kirkpatrick

Although Mr. Kirkpatrick has no background in the Middle East nor does he have training in its study but his reporting about Egypt this week has been fair and sober. 

It's not just shoe-throwing

Rob sent me this: "I saw you posted another story about the strange propensity of Arab culture to consider shoe-throwing an insult. But, in case you missed it, it's not just shoe throwing that Arabs have strange cultural preoccupations with! David Kirkpatrick of the NYT also reports that those crazy Egyptians consider bodies spilling out of coffins "a serious indignity!" Similarly to your reports about throwing your shoes at friends and neighbors here in the States, I can report that my family took my grandparents for a roll down the hill just before we buried them! Relevant quote and link below:

"It was unclear how the clashes began, but the police were soon firing heavy volleys of tear gas into the funeral march. The gas attacks caused the pallbearers to drop coffins, many witnesses said, and the bodies spilled into the streets, a serious indignity here.""

Yet, again, David Kirkpatrick proves that he is not qualified for the job

David Kirkpatrick has no background (in terms of education or experience) in the Middle East.  He went from covering conservatives in the US to covering Arab uprisings and becoming Cairo bureau chief.  Look at this sentence:  "Though inflammatory anti-Semitism is a staple of political discourse of all stripes in Egypt..."  Only someone unqualified and with no knowledge of Arabic whatsoever, would make this generalization.  In fact, Egyptian leftists, and Nasserists and even liberals abhor the anti-Jewish discourse. 

PS A colleague sent me this:  "Let us not forget that he made up a whole story of how Jordanian demonstrators want Hamza as their king, which was news to everyone in Jordan, most of all to the demonstrators themselves!"

Mursi's anti-Jewish rhetoric

Regarding the anti-Jewish rhetoric that were exposed by the program of Bassem Youssef and covered today in a front-page story in the Times:
1) Israeli leaders make racist and bigoted comments against Arabs and Muslims regularly but the New York Times never feature those comments on the front page. 2) How come the New York Times and other Zionist media did not bother to unearth anti-Jewish comments by the unrepentant anti-Semitic Nazi, Anwar Sadat? 3) I am sure that Morsi's comments would be forgotten and forgiven if he continues to follow US orders.  4) How come the anti-Jewish statements by House of Saud princes don't get front page coverage in the New York Times? 5) It is no secret that the rhetoric of the Muslim Brotherhood is indeed anti-Jewish.  6)  What does Mr. Kirkpatrick mean here:  "typically restrict their inflammatory comments to the more ambiguous category of “Zionists.”" Ambiguous category of Zionists?  Is it implied that even when expression of hostility is directed against Zionists it is suspect?

David Kirkpatrick: vomiting Orientalist cliches

"It was also a demand that many of them described with the word “freedom,” although in a context very different from the term’s use in the individualistic West: the right of a community, whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish, to be free from grave insult to its identity and values."  Yes, Middle Easterners still don't know what freedom means because they are waiting for Bernard Lewis to explain to them. Of course, who can better explain the Middle East to Americans than Mr. Kirkpatrick, who never studied the Middle East and never learned any of its language and his previous experience was in covering conservatives in the US.  That is what is called qualifications in the US.

Akram reads the New York Times

Akram, Angry Arab's chief correspondent in Syria, sent me this:

"For me, reading NY Times follows a constant pattern: Each time, I start reading an article with a sincere will to continue to the last line… then on a particular point, I stop reading to wonder: How, for God sake, could they write something like this? It happened again to me here.

Some quickly pointed the finger at a major fighting group based in Homs, Al Farouq Brigade, which is considered Islamist but is opposed to Mr. Absi’s [local leader in Aleppo of "Jabhat An-Nousra", an Islamist group affiliated to Al-Qaeda who was killed last week] hard-line ideology.

How Mr. Kirkpatrick concluded that "Al-Farouq Brigade" is ideologically opposed to "Jabhat An-Nousra"? Is it for example because:

• The first is part of the Free Syrian Army while the latter isn't? Has someone told Mr. Kirkpatrick that FSA is a secular, or better, a leftist group with a Trotskyist or a Maoist flavor?

• The first opposes the car bomb "revolutionary" tactic that kills people indiscriminately (i.e. not on sectarian basis), and prefers, instead, the more targeted and more sectarian Kidnap-and-kill approach against the Alawites?

• The first prefers a governing regime of Syria that is inspired by the Sudanese model while the second prefers the Taliban-based one?

• Or is it simply what his Middle East advisers in Beirut told him?

Any of the above may be true, though I think that the real reason, for Mr. Kirkpatrick thoughtful conclusion, is the English-language translation of a video footage of "Al-Farouq Brigade" and the fluent English used by one of its fighters in asking the western powers to intervene in the war to topple Mr. Assad (the publications of Jabhat An-Nousra are poorly limited to Arabic). Speaking English fluently is a conclusive evidence that you are a deep-rooted secular with a western liberal leanings!!!

But just in case Mr. Kirkpatrick doesn't know, here is a glimpse for him and for his employers in NYT as well to know better how much liberal and humanist are "Al-Farouq Brigades" angels."

PS Akram should know that when Kirkpatrick was dispatched by the New York Times to cover the "Arab Spring", he expressed his admiration and gratitude for the paper because it is willing to send somebody without any background or knowledge of the Middle East--he meant that this is a good thing.  

Meet the New York Times Cairo bureau chief

This is great.  David Kirkpatrick is the bureau chief of the New York Times in Cairo.  You should listen to it although I could not stand listening to more than 15 minutes.  My favorite part is when he said that the New York Times is great in that it does not require its correspondents to be experts of the region that they cover.  I kid you not.  This guy was covering conservatives in American politics and he volunteered to cover the Arab world without any background (but he tells us he hired translators, so that should solve the problem of lack of expertise).  Terry asked him about the impact of Muslim Brotherhood victory on women in Egypt.  He said that it does not matter because women in Egypt can't get education and that they all are forced into family arranged marriage and their plight is "crummy" anyway.  This segment should really introduce you to the qualifications of New York Times correspondents.  (thanks Fred)

Kershner and Kirkpatrick assures Zionists (in tears over the fall of Mubarak)

This is a funny piece over all.  My favorite part is Shadi Hamid (whoever he is) assuring Zionists that the Israeli ambassador in Cairo would be received with respect:  "If, as promised, the Brotherhood maintains the peace with Israel, Mr. Morsi as president could be expected to meet with Israeli’s ambassador and top officials, which for the Brotherhood would mark a new level of official recognition of the Israeli state. “I assume he would have to,” Mr. Hamid said, “and that would be a landmark moment.”"  Notice that the appropriate native informant who is characterized always by the ability to jump when so ordered by the White Man and who can reproduce the thoughts of the White Man in his own language, internalizes the thought process of the White Man. So for this Shadi Hamid the "landmark moment" for Egypt is when the Israeli ambassador is received by the new president.  The colonizer and the colonized, all over again.  Secondly, the article left out a major part about none other than Shafiq: that he was quite critical of Israel during the campaign and he constantly bragged about his role in the war of attrition and he bragged constantly that his proudest achievement was when he down two Israeli jets.  None of that is even mentioned by the two writers who can't read Arabic.  Dream on.

David Kirkpatrick shows his ignorance of Egypt, proudly

"former President Jimmy Carter, is something close to a national hero in Egypt for his role brokering the 1979 Camp David peace accords." (thanks Youssef)

David Kirkpatrick on the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty

"The pact is considered a linchpin of regional stability".  Considered by whom, Mr. Kirkpatrick?  By whom?  By the Egyptian people or by Israel and its American sponsor? And since that treaty was signed, has stability not entailed Israeli wars, aggression, invasions, massacres, war crimes, and American-Israeli consolidation of an Egyptian dictatorship?  Stability my potato.

Fayza Abul Naga: in the New York Times

This is how she is identified:  "She is a holdover from the Mubarak era, a friend of the former first lady".   The US and its media are now mad at Fayza Abul Naga because she dared to defy the US government and "is defying even Egypt’s military rulers.".  How dare she.  So the Times wants to discredit her: so they refer to her as "holdover from the Mubarak era".  She, of course, was not in the top elite of the Mubarak regime and I know someone far more senior who was and is a close ally of the US; how about Mubarak himself and all his cronies. The US media dare to discredit somebody by referring to her as "holdover" from the Mubarak era when the entire Mubarak-Sadat regime was set up by the US government?  But don't be mad.  Because David Kirkpatrick really seeks out ordinary Egyptian to obtain a sense of public opinion.  I mean, in this article he spoke to one average Egyptian:  " said Mohamed Anwar el-Sadat, the nephew of former President Anwar el-Sadat".  If this is not first-rate reporting, I am not a dentist.  

David Kirkpatrick on US displeasure with Egypt

"The decision to give the individuals shelter indicates a new low in the relations between Cairo and Washington, which recently threatened to stop its $1.3 billion in annual aid to the Egyptian military if it failed to take steps toward a democratic transition, including respecting such nongovernmental groups."  Mr. Kirkpatrick, some perspective and historical context is in order here.  You really believe--and state with a straight face--that US is displeased with the Military Council because the US wants a speedy transition to democracy?  Are you kidding me and kidding your leaders? Was the US ever displeased with Sadat or Mubarak over their despotism?  Also, does democracy have to include the ability of foreign governments to fund various groups in a country?  I mean, can the Chinese government just fund groups right and left here in the US?

The typical cowardice of Arab liberals

"The liberal standard-bearer, the Progressive Democratic Party, sometimes known here as the Western party, raced to distance itself from the film. “We are against blasphemy,” said Ahmed Bouazzi, a member of the party’s executive committee. “And we respect the freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of creativity. And we are against violence.”" 


PS Do you notice that Times' David Kirkpatrick does not talk to Arab communists or Arab nationalists? He only recognizes Islamists and pro-US Wahhabi liberals.

I am never concerned when Israel is concerned

"Israeli government officials said as early as July that troves of Libyan antiaircraft missiles, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons were being smuggled by land across Egypt into the neighboring Gaza Strip, the Palestinian territory that is under the control of the militant group Hamas. On Thursday, The Washington Post reported that Egyptian military officials were raising alarms after finding the same kinds of Libyan weapons in the Sinai Peninsula, on the Egyptian side of the border.

Although Kalashnikov assault rifles are relatively ubiquitous on both sides of the Sinai border, the presence of antiaircraft missiles and other heavier weapons is a worrisome development to the Israelis because they can be fired on the aircraft Israel relies on to patrol Gaza and conduct airstrikes.

“We are definitely concerned by reports of Libyan arms entering Gaza, especially antiaircraft and antiarmor weapons,” a senior Israeli official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to address a security issue. “We know that Hamas wants them and can pay for them.”"  Notice that Kirkpatrick has ruled that the bombings of the gas pipeline are terrorist acts.