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.  

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.

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!"

David Kirkpatrick

Do you notice that David Kirkpatrick of the Times refuses to acknowledge the presence of leftists and Nasserits in Egypt?  For him, there are only Islamists and "liberals".  

David Kirkpatrick does not believe that US bombs can ever kill civilians

"Standing at the grave of an 18-month-old baby on Wednesday, officials of the Qaddafi government presented the first specific and credible case of a civilian death caused by Western airstrikes.  But relatives speaking a few yards away said they blamed Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and welcomed the bombs.  “No, no, no, this is not from NATO,” one relative said, speaking quietly and on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. "  OK, Mr. Kirkpatrick.  What is your point? That US bombs don't have a history of killing many, many civilians, or that those civilian casualties of US bombing should always be dismissed because the US missions are always noble? Yes, Qadhdhafi regime lies but it is not difficult to expect, not imagine, the high toll of US bombings on civilians because we have seen those effects in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places, like Yemen and Somalia and elsewhere.   And then you want to reassure your readers that even if they were killed by US bombs, it does not matter because families of vicitims "welcome" the bombs, and that Arab mothers would be honored if they children are killed by US bombs.  Are you aware how ridiculous your piece and that opening paragraph in particular sound?

David Kirkpatrick on Qadhdhafi

This article in the New York Times by Kirkpatrick is very odd. It alleges that not only is Qadhdhafi popular with many Libyans but that his writings have been effective in obtaining support for the dictator.  He gives no evidence for that whatsoever.  Here he is sequestered in a hotel run by the security gangs of the regime, and permitted to talk only to those who are chosen by the regime.  Bizarre indeed.

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.

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?

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. 

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.

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.""

Who is David Kirkpatrick and where does he derive his "information" on Tunisia?

I don't know who he is.  But I will tell you this: in the entire article today about Tunisia and even about Arab reactions, he cited one--ONLY ONE--Arab source on Tunisia.  Here it goes:  "Still, many commentators around the Arab world wondered if it might be too soon to celebrate, given the continuing violence in Tunisia and the lack of an obvious leader. “We don’t know if the Tunisia of yesterday has opened up, or is about to plunge into a deep sea of the unknown and be added to the series of Arab disasters that don’t end,” Tarek al-Hamid wrote in Asharq al-Awsat, a paper with a Saudi owner. “No one will cry over Ben Ali, but the prayer is for Tunisia not to fall into a quagmire of crises with a bleak future.”"  Imagine a reporter on the Arab world who relies on the opinions and agenda of a chief propagandist for the House of Saud.  And notice that instead of saying that Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat is owned by Prince Salman and his sons, he merely said: "a paper with a Saudi owner" as if he is implying that it is an independent non-governmental newspaper.  Thirdly, his entire spiel about support for the Tunisian general by Tunisian on Facebook is absolute BS.  If anything, there is a lot of suspicion about the Army command by Tunisians on Facebook and Twitter.   Fourthly, of course, Saudi media are covering the Tunisian developments in a way that is MOST UNREPRESENTATIVE of Arab public opinion: they are stressing looting and chaos because they are the official ally of the dictator.   

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.

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. 

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)

How Arabs feel about the US: from one issue of the New York Times

From David Kirkpatrick:  "There were signs that the demonstrators had not forgotten their disappointment with what seemed to be American support for Mr. Mubarak until the end of the revolt. Though the demonstrators had returned to remove most of the graffiti around the square, one billboard remained inscribed with a message in English: “USA Admin — we will get democracy with our will. Play your games with the tyrant.”"  Don't you like the word "disappointed" about Arab public feelings toward the US?  Have you ever met an Arab who expressed her/his feelings toward the US with the word "disappointed"?
And then Neil MacFarquhar:  "The widespread eruptions of antigovernment protests in the Middle East have focused on domestic issues and have not been tinged with anti-American sentiment. The Obama administration said it hoped that the veto, which it has as one of the Council’s five permanent members, would not change that public sentiment."  Which of the two accounts is false? Both, of course. It is neither disappointed nor neutrality.  It is rage at the US.

Yusuf Al-Qaradawi in Egypt: the New York Times version

Read this long front page piece about the visit to Egypt (and Friday sermon) by Tele-Islamist, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.  Something is missing in this article.  The writer, David Kirkpatrick, reports on the speech but happens to just miss the section on the speech dealing with Palestine.  Not a word in this article about what Qaradawi said about Palestine.

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. 

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?

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?