Home        Log in

Anecdotes from the Arab Uprisings by Jay Knott (01/30/11)       ⇌ (Israel and the US)       


Uprisings are always accompanied by wild rumors, which the media print uncritically.

"Earlier some thugs on a motorbike attacked a lone soldier and stole his weapon; luckily we apprehended them and tied them to a lamp-post, and then helped the soldier back to his tank."

Gets his rifle stolen by 'thugs', then has to be helped back to his tank, like an old lady.

More seriously, a rare moment of honesty from the pro-Israel Daily Telegraph:

"America, we don't want to hurt you," they said... However... "Most people believe that as long as a country supports Israel that much, people cannot be happy with America," he said.


Still, it's also worth remembering that an anti-imperialist revolution in Iran in 1979 DID end up with an Islamic regime led by a maniac who made his predecessor look as liberal as the Queen of Sweden. Just because the Telegraph says that is a danger, doesn't mean that it's not true. Israel is not the number one issue for the masses of Egypt. The Islamic version of anti-imperialism is not the program of the proletariat. Just in case you thought it was.

Latest - 2nd Feb - in scenes from Lawrence of Arabia, plain-clothes police have been riding toward protestors on camelback and throwing rocks and molotov cocktails at them.

Mystery solved - 3rd Feb - Egypt's prime minister says 'it could have been camel owners upset about the effect of the protests on tourism'.


This too is entertaining: "Members of Jewish Voice for Peace say they are simply concerned about human rights of all peoples in the Middle East — whether in Israel, the Palestinian territories or the streets of Cairo".


Yeah, right.

Feb 5 - understatement of the week:

"The political turmoil in Egypt and the possible ouster President Hosny Mubarak has led to widespread concern – particularly in Israel - that a new government in Cairo will not be as friendly towards Israel."


The new government in Cairo could hardly be more friendly than Mubarak's gang. Protestors are telling the dictator to 'go home to Tel Aviv'. Israel and its supporters are squirming - on the one hand, they don't want to be seen as friends of murderers and torturers, on the other hand, that is exactly what they are. One side-effect of this momentous week is the exposure of Zionists as enemies of everyone else in the region, and all lovers of peace and freedom around the world. It's fun to watch them tone down the hysteria a little as they realize that their position is not as secure as it was. Their usual arrogant, self-righteous tone has been replaced with worrying about the effect of the revolution on 'stability'. Translation: Jewish supremacy.

It gets better:

'Egyptians, like Israelis are desperately searching for peace' -


The Israelis would have to be 'desperate' to search for peace. Shame it's not true!

Feb 11 -

Here's another good article by Gilad Atzmon:


I don't agree with it, but it's thought-provoking and readable.

Feb 19 -

The 'Wasat' party of Egypt has been legalized! Next, the 'Wassup?' party:



Feb 23 -

The uprisings continue to spread - all the baddies of the region feel threatened, whatever their political or religious leanings, especially the Israelis:

The uprisings have exposed Zionists of enemies of freedom for hundreds of millions of people. It's funny too to read the Israeli media described as 'orientalist'. Surely this word is part of American p.c. leftism, part of the 'anti-racist' guilt trip which does more to prevent opposition to the only really significant racism left than it does to help it. Zionism is not orientalism. It's not white supremacy.

This is funny too -

While Britain's prime minister apologised in Kuwait for colonialism (but not for supporting Israel), he was unable to evacuate scared Brits from Libya. Britain can still murder Arabs by the thousand (in Iraq), but it can't defend its own subjects when its best-laid plans gang agley


Feb 28 -

The uprisings continue, with Libya the most violent. The world's governments have gone from cosying up to Gadaffi to declaring him and his family personae non grata who will be put on trial if they leave Libya. The problem with this is, it means they've got nothing to lose. It's like Roosevelt's demand of unconditional surrender from Japan and Germany - "surrender, then we'll kill you" - which prolonged World War Two.


Mar 1 -

Like boys, the leaders of the Western world are fantasising about sending in the gunboats. Don't they realise that trying to attack Gadaffi will prolong the conflict, enabling him to play the patriotic card?

Maybe they do.

In 1991, the USA stopped intervening in Iraq in order to allow Saddam Hussein to suppress an uprising:



Mar 6 -

"SAS rounded up and booted out as Libyan mission turns to farce" - just like the reaction to September 11th, the evidence tends to undermine the idea that it is a Western conspiracy


Mar 21 -

Major air attack on Libya. The way the Western leaders bumbled and argued into this, with the British and the Frogs bellicose, the Germans pacific, and the Americans vacillating, says 'no imperialist conspiracy'

Mar 22 -

Here's Robert Fisk in the Independent explaining how the Israelis reacted to the uprisings:

Mar 29 -

Another old British hack, Tariq Ali. He says "Bombing Tripoli while shoring up other despots in the Arab world shows the UN-backed strikes to oust Gaddafi are purely cynical". It shows nothing of the sort - all sorts of other explanations would work - it could be that foreign policy is random: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/29/libya-west-tripoli-arab-world-gaddafi

Mar 30 -

More 'anti-imperialist' 'analysis' of the Libya crisis, claiming it was all planned. Dissident Voice has now stopped allowing comments, but I had the last word :}  http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/03/libyas-blood-for-oil/

Apr 3 -

James Petras is normally on the ball. His 'Zionist Power Configuration' is just about the right phrase to describe Jewish power in America - more than a Lobby, less than a ZOG. However, he is an anti-fascist:

"No doubt, Anglo-American progressives and leftists will continue to debate (in ‘civilized tones’) the pros and cons of this ‘intervention’, following in the footsteps of their predecessors, the French Socialists and US New Dealers from the 1930’s, who once debated the pros and cons of supporting Republican Spain. While Hitler and Mussolini bombed the republic on behalf of the ‘rebel’ fascist forces under General Franco who upheld the Falangist banner of ‘Family, Church and Civilization': a fascist prototype for Obama’s ‘humanitarian intervention’ on behalf of his ‘rebels’".

How confused can you get? He amalgamates people who advocate Western intervention in Libya today with those who opposed a Western crusade to save the glorious Republic in Spain in the nineteen-thirties. Spain's Franco wasn't a 'prototype' for anything - he stayed out of World War II - unlike most of the left, who were its recruiting sergeants. I suppose what Petras is trying to say is "intervention is right when you are supporting a left-wing cause". Like Stalin's Russia, for example.


Apr 14 -

Female Colombian snipers 'fighting to defend Col Gaddafi in Libya':
How typical of this conservative rag to make a point of them being female. And Columbian. And snipers.

Apr 19 -

"Fears of Libya mission creep as British-French advisory team sent to Benghazi" worriies the Guardian. Fears of mission creep? "Officials stress that the team consists of advisers, rather than trainers, and that the move does not involve arming the rebels".

This is nonsense. Either the former (?) colonial powers support the rebels, or they don't. How can you distinguish between 'advisers', and 'trainers', and why would you not progress from training to actually showing the rebels how to fire things at the Libyan government forces by, er, firing things at the Libyan government forces? 'Mission creep' is the normal, logical, inevitable consequence of intervention.


Apr 26 -

All the French parties thoroughly support the attack on Libya EXCEPT the 'fascist' National Front:

"When Sarkozy launched the Libya offensive, he had the support of the vast spectrum of French politics, including the Socialists and the normally pacifist Greens, with the only criticism coming from the extreme-right Front National. The intervention is supported by a majority of the French public, but it hasn't directly boosted Sarkozy's record low poll ratings."

It's like 1939, when the British Union of Fascists opposed starting World War II. So much for the idea that fascism necessarily leads to war, and lefties are all love and peace.


Apr 27 -

Facebook is often credited with initializing the uprisings, though many inhabitants of the Middle East lack computers. A page was started calling for a third intifada against Israel, and Facebook removed it under pressure:


Not only has the Facebook page been replaced by an innocuous quote from Wikipedia, the Google cache reflects that censorship. Googling doesn't find the page, but lots of Zionist comments about it. It's not a conspiracy though.

May 1 -

"Gaddafi fanatics' revenge attack on British embassy... Colonel Gaddafi’s supporters torched the British embassy in Libya yesterday in revenge for the apparent killing of his son and three grandchildren in a Nato missile attack."


Quite right. How 'fanatical' these people must be to attack the embassy of a nation involved in 'apparently' murdering Libyan children.

Home        Log in