Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume LXXIX: Egypt Losing in the World Cup

(It's a TPBTJF double-header -- click here!)

I've been watching some of the World Cup, though not every game. For example, I missed the Argentina/Egypt game -- unfortunate for me, since apparently it had a very exciting ending, with Argentina coming back from down 2-0 with three goals in the last fifteen minutes of the game to win.

There also was a lot of complaining about the officiating in that game, with the Egyptian coach going so far as to claim the game was "rigged" (most of the controversy centers around a disallowed Egyptian goal earlier in the game).

I'm no soccer expert, so I can't speak to whether the complaints are justified. Of course, anyone who knows anything about FIFA knows that both incompetence and corruption are hardly inconceivable possibilities. And anyone who knows anything about the internet knows that someone will have a different explanation for the outcome of the match.

Since Egypt’s dramatic World Cup exit on Tuesday, French referee Francois Letexier has become the target of intense scrutiny around the globe.

[...]

Within hours of the game ending, someone had edited Letexier’s Wikipedia page to say that he was “born to an Orthodox Jewish family.” The editor later added that the referee’s grandfather fled Nazi persecution.

There was no evidence for the claim — the anonymous editor’s only citation was an article that made no mention of Letaxier’s religious background. But after a screenshot of the edited page was posted on X, soccer fans quickly pounced. 

“Born into an Orthodox Jewish family,” wrote one X user. “That explains a lot of things.”

When one user questioned the claim’s veracity, Grok, X’s artificial intelligence tool, confirmed the misinformation, citing Wikipedia. The Wikipedia page was then updated again to cite Grok.

The referee’s fabricated Jewish identity stayed on the page for nearly eight hours before it was removed, enabling the claim to spread widely. On social media platforms where antisemitism often goes unchecked, simply sharing a screenshot of the Wikipedia page was enough to start a feeding frenzy.

Even after the claim was taken down from Wikipedia — and the responsible editor banned — others shared screenshots of the removal as proof of a coverup.

Grok coming in with the antisemitism assist is, of course, transcendent. And there's something extra to be said about the double-bind Jews find ourselves in, where correcting obvious antisemitic misinformation is proof of a coverup.

In any event, I can't root for Argentina since they ousted my beloved Cape Verde. So who's my team now? Norway, I guess? Their Sam Denby lookalike is pretty good!

"It Could've Been Worse" is the Ultimate Non-Sequitur

Israel Bonan writes on the history of Egyptian Jews and the significant oppression -- culminating in violence and expulsion -- that characterized their experience in the 20th century.

It's a reply to Eyal Sagui Bizawe, who also wrote about the 20th century history of Egyptian Jews. Bizawe's column is somewhat peculiar, since it doesn't rely deny the reality of historical oppression so much as it seems cranky that it's being talked about as a form of significant oppression. It's replete with logic like "well, yeah Jews were expelled from Egypt, but not all of them so ... why should we call it 'expulsion'?" Or "yes, there was violence directed at Jews and Jewish neighborhoods, but 'pogrom' -- that's overselling it, no?"

Basically, Bizawe seems to think it's a sort of trick, or a form of dirty pool, for Egyptian Jews to argue that a significant (not the only, but a significant) component of their recent social experience was discrimination by the Egyptian state and society. It's unfair, it's reactionary, it's harboring a closet right-wing agenda. None of these contentions are particularly persuasive, and Bonan's column does a good job refuting them. But read them both and decide for yourself.

Subbing Out Roundup

I took my final subfield exam today, in the History of Political Thought. For those of you who don't know, "subfield exams" were introduced as a means of exploring the "chicken" game: the student really doesn't want to study (for obvious reasons), and the examiner really doesn't want to fail the student (since that would necessitate writing and grading another exam). The equilibrium is for the student to level a deeply mediocre exam, and the examiner in turn to excoriate the student in comments before passing him or her. How it made the jump to Political Theory remains unknown.

What I'm trying to say is, I'm feeling good about my History of Political Thought Exam. But I am very tired, and about to hop on a plane to celebrate a friend's engagement. So ... roundup!

* * *

Leon Wieseltier on Charlottesville, Trump, and the alt-right. He doesn't pull punches. Definitely worth a read.

Somebody finally did a profile piece on rural people of color.

Fascinating article on Egyptian Israeli Arabs, and their strained relationship with a state nominally at peace with Israel.

Zachary Braiterman gives his spin on the perennial "are Jews White" topic.

Phoebe Maltz Bovy on why antisemitism needs to be seen as a distinct axis of oppression.

Very much enjoying this article by Rae Langton on "Blocking as Counterspeech."

What's worse than refusing to pay out valid worker's compensation claims to undocumented immigrants? Refusing it and using the claim as an excuse to deport them from the country. Grotesque.

Veil of Ignorance

Last month, in Tablet Magazine, Paul Berman attempted to mount a defense of the French prohibition of Muslim veils (the infamous "Burkini" ban, or, earlier, forbidding headscarves in schools). There is a faint bit of cheekiness to it, in its appeal to French cultural history as the be-all-end-all of the argument. Why don't we respect their culture? This is just the way the French do things! Maybe it is time to check our American egos, and acknowledge that other countries have valid ideas of governance in their own right? To ban the veil is, Berman argues, simply an example of the French value of secularism -- sometimes referred to be its French term, laïcité. 

If his is meant to be a subtle jab at the lazy invocation of cultural relativism that some members of the left regularly indulge in, then well done. If it is meant to be more than a satire, though, there is a problem. The French ban on the veil is indeed an example of laïcité, though Berman actually objects to the use of the term since for him laïcité is nothing more than "the Jeffersonian principle of a wall between church and state, in its French version." This is true, in the same sense that the Revolutionary Courts are the "Marbury principle of judicial review, in its Iranian version." It may fill a similar niche, but it is shorn of all the limitations and checks that make the concept worth emulating. Laïcité is "separation of church and state" in the exact way that hyperbolic American conservatives have breathlessly condemned it: taking out the "state" and substituting in "public life." A ban on headscarves in public schools (or kippot -- oddly unmentioned by Berman given that they too are covered under the French law) would not be an example of separating church from the state --it is an effort to excise religion from public life. It does not govern statecraft, it governs individuals exercising their religion as individuals on those occasions where they step outside the home.

The reason why American (and French) liberals object to the ban on religious garb worn by private citizens who have the temerity to enter the public square is that this sort of compulsory secularism is not liberation even (in Berman's oh-so-vague clawback) "in principle". It is not compatible with religious equality for anyone, and in practice its burdens fall heavier on minority groups whose religious practices will always seem louder simply because they are different (notably, crucifixes are not banned so long as they are not "obtrusive"). If secularism takes this form, it is simply a different form of theocracy -- our personal rights stop to the extent they offend the (ir)religious orthodoxy.

If Berman is looking to build opposition to the veil, a misshapen argument that butchers liberal values of secularism is unlikely to do the trick. Perhaps he would do better to make common cause with an Egyptian MP who is pitching a veil ban on the grounds that it is a "Jewish" practice. After all, just as in certain circles it is sufficient to argue against a practice by labeling it "Islamic" (or "Islamist", which -- whatever merits it might have as a carefully-used term, here is not being used with care), in others there isn't any more powerful argument against a given behavior than persuading everyone that "it's Jewish".

Has the Fever Broke?

The situation in Egypt with respect to Israel has badly deteriorated, with Israeli diplomatic staff forced to evacuate after the embassy was attacked by a mob. As distressing as that scene was -- and it was -- it also appears to be non-representative of either the current Egyptian government or the leaders of the protest movement. Indeed, six stranded embassy staffers were rescued by a team of Egyptian commandos, and the Egyptian government has promised to prosecute those responsible for the attack.

Meanwhile, Bibi went out of his way to praise President Obama for his leadership during the crisis:

Netanyahu praised the United States for intervening with Egypt in order to rescue the Israelis. “I would like to express my gratitude to the President of the United States, Barack Obama. I asked for his help. This was a decisive and fateful moment. He said, ‘I will do everything I can.’ And so he did. He used every considerable means and influence of the United States to help us. We owe him a special measure of gratitude,” Netanyahu said.

That's the sort of language that, to me, is designed to extend beyond the proximate events and heal deeper wounds. If so, it is a welcome development and worth noting.

UPDATE: Speaking of fevers breaking, Turkey is backing off earlier threats to send in its navy in escort of new flotillas. Baby steps, people.

There's Always Someone

When various rabble-rousers in Egypt were agitating to annul the peace treaty with Israel, I remarked somewhat smugly that "reputation for rabid warmongering aside, there is no political constituency of note in Israel that has called for a repudiation of peace with Egypt. It seems that once Israel makes a final agreement with one of its neighbors, it is capable of keeping it with little fuss from its citizens' end." So of course I read an Israeli editorial in Ynet that proposes doing just that. Because Lord knows if Israel didn't have its share of morons it would just be too easy.

Fortunately, it does seem like this guy is quite the marginal figure -- there remains "no political constituency of note" making this call that I've seen. And even in Egypt, the claim that there is some groundswell support for annulling the treaty is also badly overstated (the "million man march" that was planned to press for canceling the treaty drew terribly). But still, it's just so, so annoying.

Some Million

While understanding why Israelis might justifiably be nervous about the new government in Cairo, I've always been dubious that Egypt actually was going to repudiate its peace treaty with Israel. First, the minds of most Egyptians are primarily on other things right now. Second, one generally doesn't repudiate a peace treaty unless one is willing to go to war (otherwise, what's the point?), and I don't think the Egyptian people are in any mood for an actual full-blown armed conflict, nor do I imagine the Egyptian military is currently prepared to engage in such hostilities even if the populace were. Finally, and not insignificantly, there is massive international pressure against Egypt repudiating its peace agreement with Israel -- meaning that the Egyptian government won't take that step without some very strong reason (be it irresistible domestic pressure or provocation or what have you).

But one always can worry (and I do think it is notable that, reputation for rabid warmongering aside, there is no political constituency of note in Israel that has called for a repudiation of peace with Egypt. It seems that once Israel makes a final agreement with one of its neighbors, it is capable of keeping it with little fuss from its citizens' end). So I was gratified to find out that the planned "million man march" in Cairo calling for an end to peace with Israel apparently only attracted a few bare hundreds. This doesn't surprise me -- while I imagine the Egyptian street is probably rather cool towards Israel, I also, to reiterate, think they're mostly concerned about other issues right now, and are not keen on reverting back to old patterns where mad gesticulations towards Israel are used to distract them from necessary reforms at home. There, now, that playbook isn't going to fly.

Red State

New polling out of Egypt reveals some interesting preferences. Egyptians disapprove of both Barack Obama and Hamas, they want a government whose constitution mixes secular and religious sources, and they want to maintain their country's peace treaty with Israel.

Basically, they're Republicans. They should get along with us famously.

Photo of the Day

Solidarity!

The Only Difference

There's a ton of talk out there about what Obama should or shouldn't have done with respect to the Egypt and Tunisian rebellions. One major refrain is that the success of the revolts in these two countries show that, had Obama pushed a little harder during Iran's 2009 Green Revolution, that country's dictatorship could have fallen too.

I'm dubious. The US didn't really do much of anything but watch and try and stay out of the fray in Egypt (Tunisia we barely even had time to react to). And when you think about it, how much can we do? Ultimately, any revolution is going to be in the hands of the people revolting -- it's their concerns and their conditions which dictate the course of the movement. Except where the US can credibly threaten to intervene militarily -- implausible in all the countries we're talking about -- there is very little we can do to influence the situation, at least overtly.

Actually, I think there is one very simple reason why Egypt succeeded where Iran failed. As LGM put it, the Tank commander said "no":

Last night, a military officer guarding the tens of thousands celebrating in Cairo threw down his rifle and joined the demonstrators, yet another sign of the ordinary Egyptian soldier's growing sympathy for the democracy demonstrators. We had witnessed many similar sentiments from the army over the past two weeks. But the critical moment came on the evening of 30 January when, it is now clear, Mubarak ordered the Egyptian Third Army to crush the demonstrators in Tahrir Square with their tanks after flying F-16 fighter bombers at low level over the protesters.

Many of the senior tank commanders could be seen tearing off their headsets – over which they had received the fatal orders – to use their mobile phones. They were, it now transpires, calling their own military families for advice. Fathers who had spent their lives serving the Egyptian army told their sons to disobey, that they must never kill their own people.

Thus when General Hassan al-Rawani told the massive crowds yesterday evening that "everything you want will be realised – all your demands will be met", the people cried back: "The army and the people stand together – the army and the people are united. The army and the people belong to one hand."

And that's the key difference. Protesters rarely stand any chance, pound-for-pound, against a halfway decent state military apparatus. The question is whether, when push comes to shove, the military is actually willing to crush the demonstrations violently, or whether they link up with them. In Egypt, they weren't willing to fire on their own people. In Iran, they were. And so we have our different outcomes.

In any event, we're going to get a bunch of new data points on this shortly. New protests are emerging in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and Iran again. Obviously, I hope for the best in all of these countries. But I think the ultimate outcome is not likely to be contingent on what Americans say or do. It has to do with the nerve of the protesters, and the ultimate decisions of the country's military forces -- to join the revolution, or crush it.

"I'm Here" Roundup

Long story.

* * *

Great post by Ta-Nehisi Coates regarding his experience when his partner got pregnant.

Leon Wieseltier on the pro-Israel community's conflicted feelings regarding the fall of Egyptian autocracy and the rise of a new democratic order: "Jews should not rely on Pharaohs."

Conservative depressed to find out "judicial activism" is a two-way street. "Striking down democratically-enacted legislation" has the key advantage of being measurable. "Decisions that are wrong" is simply a way of muscling your way past the fact that "what the constitution commands" is precisely what's being disputed. (Via).

Cool story about a benefit dinner hosted by New York's Chinese immigrant community for Jews victimized by a Russian pogrom at the turn of the 20th century.

The What is it like being a woman in philosophy blog is harrowing, but worth reading.

Phoebe's got two good posts up on how "anti-Semitism" is and isn't part of our collective discourse -- I feel compelled to note that I really do think they're quite good, as I quarreled with a side-point she made in the comments I left over there.

Distaste for his presidency as a whole notwithstanding, one of the few areas George W. Bush was on the right path was in his views on immigration. He's recently expressed his concern that America is suffering a relapse into "nativism".

Snow (Hey Oh!) Roundup

We're fine over here in the wake of the Snowpocalypse. School was canceled yesterday and today, but folks are finally starting to dig out, and we'll be back to normal tomorrow.

* * *

Utah State Rep. wants to ban gay families from participation in all public programs.

Republicans drop "forcible rape" language from their new anti-abortion bill.

Republican presidential candidates graphed on basis of their sanity and their Mormonism.

Meanwhile, Ed Kilgore measures Jon Huntsman's 2012 chances, and finds them severely wanting. He's like Romney, but even easier to call a conservative apostate.

An interview with Dos Equis' World's Most Interesting Man.

Behavioral economists, poor people, and the broken social safety net.

Max Boot chides his fellow right-wingers for pretending there's a viable alternative to ElBaradei.

The Liberalizing Effect of International Military Interchange Programs

One of the key inflection points in any revolution is the ultimate decision by the armed forces as to whether they will fire on the protesters. Generally, any decently-entrenched regime with a powerful military can survive street protests if the military continues to back it. If the military decides to stand down, however, things get a lot more interesting. This is one of the key differences between Egypt in 2011, and Iran in 2009. Iranian military and paramilitary forces were effectively deployed against the protesters, and demonstrated a willingness to crush the demonstrations. Moreover, Iran had a layer of redundancy built in -- even if the army wavered, the army had to fear the Revolutionary Guard, which is fanatically loyal to the existing regime.

So what is it that made the Egyptian army different? Though not as tied into the state apparatus as the IRC is in Iran, it certainly was known as relatively loyal to President Mubarak. Enter a really interesting argument by Mark Thompson:

Ever since the Camp David peace accords between Egypt and Israel, promising Egyptian military officers have come to U.S. military schools, including the Army War College in Carlisle, Penn., the Army’s Command General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and the National Defense University in Washington, D.C. Inculcated there with U.S. ideals on lawful civilian control of military, such an education has helped act as a “safety” on the firepower of the Egyptian streets now massing in Cairo and in other cities.

“This new generation of Egyptian officers has been exposed to the American military and has had a very favorable impression of not just the way we fight our wars but also about the relationship between the military and society,” says Robert Scales, a retired Army major general who served as commandant of the Army War College where he launched the international fellows program. “One of the reasons for the army’s reluctance to follow Mubarak’s intent and squeeze the population in Cairo has to do with the Egyptian military’s exposure to the U.S. military.”

A little self-serving, perhaps -- particularly given the less than stellar record regarding human rights such interchange programs have assembled in the not-so-distant past. Nonetheless, there is some broader empirical research finding such a liberalizing effect correlated to U.S. military-to-military contacts. So it certainly isn't out of the question.

Definitely an interesting dynamic, if true. H/T: LGM.

The CPMAJO Stooges

An incredible cheap shot by Malcolm Hoenlein on former IAEA head and Egyptian opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei. He calls him a "stooge" for Iran. Regardless of how one evaluates ElBaradei's tenure as head of the IAEA, there is zero support for that accusation. ElBaradei pushed for inspections of Iran's nuclear program, albeit not as aggressively as some might have liked, and was a vociferous opponent of military confrontation with the state, which certain more hawkish sorts very much did not like. But even taken to their fullest, these are policy differences, and should remain such. Acting as if ElBaradei in his role as leader of a unified Egyptian opposition is simple a front man (or useful idiot) for Iran is deeply offensive, and beneath the dignity of the CPMAJO or any other organization.

What we have is a simple slander against the most promising secular leader of the Egyptian opposition. Let's call a spade a spade -- it's one that likely flows from Hoenlein's fear that an Egypt not led by an autocratic thug like Mubarak will be an Egypt less amenable to Israel and America's interests. Which is a descriptively legitimate fear (while many of the same pressures which keep Egypt in America's camp will still be present in any new regime, they'll be countered by a newly salient need for democratic accountability toward a populace deeply -- though not blindly -- suspicious of both nations) -- but not one that normatively justifies kneecapping the Egyptian quest for self-governance, much less slandering the man who may prove pivotal in bringing democracy to the nation.

GOP Conference Chairman Comes Out in Favor of Mubarak

There's a fair critique to be made that the Obama administration's response to the street revolution in Egypt has been a bit muddled. There's a fair excuse for that too -- we're in a tough spot, between the fact that Mubarak is an autocrat who has consistently stymied democratic reform in his country, and the fact that he's our autocrat and has managed to keep an uneasy peace with its neighbor to the east. The devil you know and all that. Still, there is little evidence that these protests have been driven by Islamist forces. And ultimately, the US will suffer far more if the Egyptian people believe that, when the chips were down, the United States wasn't there for them when they took to the streets and demanded their legitimate rights to democratic self-governance. And so, while there might have been a bit more hedging than I'd prefer, I was heartened to see Obama strongly back the rights of the Egyptian protesters and call for desperately needed reforms in the country. At the same time, folks who claim they haven't been nearly clear enough have a point.

In any event, whatever failings of clarity Obama may have had, there is no such ambiguity in the position of Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), GOP Conference chairman. He's loud and clear: the US needs to back Mubarak and make sure these protests are crushed. Presumably, he will then wonder why American credibility regarding democracy is shot to hell.

On the "Jewish State" Demand

The US has officially backed -- or at least expressed its sympathy -- for Bibi Netanyahu's demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state in exchange for a settlement freeze. Hussein Ibish, on the other hand, thinks that it demonstrates Netanyahu isn't serious about negotiations at all. What gives?

I think Ibish's position, though characteristically well-argued, is not quite right. The strongest argument against Netanyahu's request is that it exchanges something effectively permanent (recognition as a Jewish state) for something temporary (a settlement freeze of indeterminate duration). That's a fair point, but, as I think we'll see, it is something that could be worked around.

Ibish's other arguments, however, are unpersuasive. First, he claims that Israel's Jewish character was never a sticking point in Israel's negotiations with Egypt or Jordan. But that's primarily because Israel's Jewish character did not touch on any core claims of Jordanian or Egyptian nationalism. By contrast, it is a significant thread of the Palestinian national project that all of what is now Israel should really be Palestine -- "a Palestine next to a Palestine", as BDS founder Omar Barghouti described his ambition. The "greater Israel" project has the same ambition in reverse, which is why any permanent settlement has to be phrased as two states for two peoples. Otherwise it will have the feeling of but a temporary cease-fire in a larger conflict (which, in all honesty, is not particularly far off from Israel's relationship with Egypt and Jordan, whose civil society has always been furious that Israel yet breathes).

Second, he says that the "Jewish state" declaration is not merely symbolic, but has tangible impacts on the final resolution of concrete status items like refugees and Jerusalem. The latter is left essentially unargued, and the former is an area upon which everyone understood Palestinians will have to make significant concessions anyway. Palestinians demanding a total right of return is like Israel demanding to keep every settlement in the West Bank -- it's beyond a non-starter, it's a joke.

But the biggest problem is that Ibish's entire argument doesn't warrant what the PA actually did -- wholesale rejection of Netanyahu's gambit, accompanied by accusations of racism. What it warrants, as the US intimated, is a counter-offer. Ibish already concedes that President Bush's rendition of the "Jewish state" (that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people). So why not say that? Or better yet: "We are open to recognizing Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people as a product of final status negotiations." Then they don't even have to make the permanent-for-temporary-concession trade. But the PA didn't even look for something that, which indicates what many have long suspected: They're opposed to this sort of deal as a matter of kind, not degree.

A Model to Emulate

When Sarah Palin announced her desire that "peaceful" Muslims "refudiate" a proposed Mosque to be built a few blocks from the World Trade Center site, I was stunned at her brazen devolution into religion demogoguery. Put aside the fact that the organization building the group is the epitome of a "peaceful" Muslim group. As Adam Holland observes, there really isn't any other way to characterize the opposition of Palin and her ilk other than as naked religious bigotry.

A law school friend of mine was defending Palin, and I told him that the argument (such as it is) against the Mosque reminded me of a decision by the Egyptian government to forbid Jews from utilizing a recently restored synagogue in retaliation for Israeli "aggressions" against Muslim holy sites. When I read that story, I saw a human rights violation. Sarah Palin, I said, saw a model to emulate.

I didn't mean it farcically, but I hardly expected Palin or one of her allies to actually consciously admit that they viewed religious discrimination the Middle East as a guide for us to follow. Yet here's Newt Gingrich, explicitly pointing to Saudi bans on synagogues and churches as a reason to bar a Mosque in New York. What I see as barbaric, Gingrich apparently sees as pathbreaking. If only we could be as humane and open-minded parochial and bigoted as the Saudis! What a great vision for America!

The similarity between Palin (and Gingrich) and the bigoted policymakers in the Egyptian and Saudi government doesn't surprise me, as Palin clearly cut from the same cloth as those who would render me a second-class citizen -- perhaps why she is one of the most singularly unpopular politicians amongst American Jews (others have alternative explanations).

Primary Editor Roundup

I'm becoming a villain. Not sure how I feel about that.

* * *

Arkansas keeps on trying to ban gay people from adopting children. Their latest effort has been struck down as unconstitutional, and the state attorney general doesn't sound enthused about appealing.

A suicide bomber hit a refugee camp in Pakistan. The attack was apparently retaliation by Sunni terrorists after Shi'ite villagers killed two women for cnverting from Shi'ite to Sunni Islam.

...And now Merrick Garland is extreme, apparently for not wanting to burn the papers of Justice Harry Blackmun.

Two bad tastes which go poorly together: A dude affiliated with the ZOA is trying to convince Jews to go for Palin. Good luck.

Well, this is one way to get folks to read their contract language.

You may have come across a story claiming that former IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in an interview that "the Israeli occupation only understands the language of violence" and endorsing terrorism. The piece, which was purportedly sourced to the UPI, is almost definitely fake; the source is actually Iran's Press TV and Hamas' website.

Pink Tea

The folks at CODEPINK want to declare a truce with the rabid right-wingers in the Tea Party, to see if they can find some "common ground". Unsurprisingly, a large part of that "common ground" would entail slashing foreign aid to Israel (and Egypt -- why stop there? Why not foreign aid, in general?). They happily cite such luminaries as Ron Paul and "Conservative commentator" Pat Buchanan to bolster their case that the Tea Party right and the CODEPINK left should be just one big happy family -- at least where foreign policy is concerned.

Of course, nobody who's observed the behavior of former Rep. and Green Party VP candidate Cynthia McKinney should be surprised at this new desire to jump into bed with the racist right. Many folks seem quite enamored with the coloration produced by the green-brown swirl.

All I say is this: You can judge a movement quite well by who it thinks would make for good friends. I have very good reason not to trust a foreign policy agenda led by Pat Buchanan. And, just as well, I have very good reason not to trust a movement that thinks it would be wise to have our foreign policy inspired by Buchanan, either.

Jews Barred from Cairo Synagogue

Usual caveats apply given the source, but it is consistent with recent Egyptian government actions, which have shown that it does not consider the country's Jewish community to be true Egyptians in any meaningful sense.