Robert Siegel
I'm a fan of the anthropological term "culturally-bound." I think everyone is culturally-bound, and everyone has an obligation to struggle against the bindings. Though yes I tend to focus here on privileged Americans like myself.
Well, last week Robert Siegel of National Public Radio interviewed Amr Darrag, a leader of a Muslim Brotherhood-aligned political party in Egypt, about policies favored by Islamists. And you should read his last eight questions below-- but Siegel seemed to me to be culturally-bound in his nagging apprehension about Israeli security and his concerns about the role of women in Egypt.
I am entirely in Siegel's camp about women's roles in a traditional society--I just don't think secular western browbeating is the answer. But as to Siegel's four-times-expressed concern about Israeli security, the problem is that this concern excludes any expressed concern for the popular will in Egypt.
Darrag's answer to one of Siegel's questions re the peace treaty--
according to the international law, we have to respect all treaties and agreements of previous governments.... however, the other sides of these agreements have to realize that it's not a one-sided game and the Egyptian people, through the parliament, will have to monitor that
--naturally raises the issue of Palestinian rights, which were a prime component of the Camp David Accords, vitiated over 33 years. This is one of the reasons that Jimmy Carter has been so engaged; the treaty he orchestrated has been dishonored. But Siegel doesn't seem to care about that. Nor to care about how Egyptian Arabs feel about the rightslessness of Palestinians.
Siegel's questions bolster my judgmental feeling about American establishment liberals: that they tolerated a dictatorship in Egypt that went on for 30 years, subjugating 80 million people, because they cared more about Israel's freedom than Arab freedom. And they rationalized that support with a culturally-bound contempt: these people don't believe in women's rights, so who are they to demand democracy?
Siegel's last eight questions. I've highlighted the Israel bits:
SIEGEL: I want to hear a bit about what political Islam means to you and your party. We've heard some of your Egyptian supporters say that an Islamist-led parliament should change Egyptian family law - fathers' custody right should be stronger, the age at which can marry should be a lower age. Do you foresee any changes of that sort from a majority Islamist government?
SIEGEL: But I want to pursue that a little more, Mr. Darrag. When you say Islam means democracy, in fact, this has been problematic for Islamic countries. And certainly in your part of the world, we've associated Muslim countries with monarchies, with new dictatorial dynasties that have been created. Democracy has been hard to come by.
SIEGEL: Including equal rights for women, something that wouldn't have occurred to people for 1,400 years ago?
SIEGEL: The Muslim Brotherhood has been very critical of the old regime, the Mubarak regime's relationship with Israel. If your party gains control of Egyptian defense policy, will it secure the Sinai Peninsula and the border area with Israel, so that the only armed groups operating there will be the Egyptian armed forces - no militias, no terrorists?
SIEGEL: So any of Egypt's neighbors then, including Israel, will be able to count on Egypt to police the border and prevent any armed group from crossing over into their...
SIEGEL: The US gives Egypt $1 billion a year in military aid. Does your party welcome the continuation of that aid or would you prefer to see it discontinued?
SIEGEL: And you would intend to see that the treaty is maintained?
SIEGEL: But will the Egyptian people be offered a referendum to vote on revocation of the treaty with Israel?
Oh, Phil, you’re so cute and wiggly and culturally bound! So predictable. Therefore, to answer your perfectly predictable questions, Siegel has a teaching mission, a mission from the church of Holy Zion, first, to make sure that Americans never, never, not even hardly ever, forget how awful political Islam might just be. He must teach Americans, those ever forgetful ones, over and over again, that a concern for Israel is perfectly appropriate and indeed mandatory. Also women’s rights. (But don’t ask him how things are going for women in Afghanistan. Or Gaza.) Second, he must teach Americans that a concern for Israeli failure to keep to treaty obligations (like Fourth Geneva Convention as well as Camp David) is simply not polite, not to be mentioned, not to be dwelt upon. It’s all a matter of politeness, really, because we all have Jewish friends whose finer feelings might be hurt, and Americans really have a duty of politeness that transcends anything else at all, really. Got all that, Phil? Good boy, knew you’d understand.
NPR is the voice of Israel firsters.
It is my understanding that Siegel is a big-time Zionist. Would NPR assign an Arab reporter who is a big-time supporter of the Palestinians to interview Netanyahoo?? Does NPR even have any Arab reporters??
All the questions are Israel centric as usual.
Is Seigel on retainer to Israel?
Sounds like it.
NPR at present is a Zionist shop. Seigal knows what side his bread is buttered on.
Egypt had fought 4 wars with Israel-how many questions is it OK to ask about Egypt-Israeli relationship, Phil, not to be called “Israel-firster”? You are very sensitive when you here the I-word or the Z-word that sometimes logic is just lost, replaced by the knee-jerk.
“how many questions is it OK to ask about Egypt-Israeli relationship, Phil, not to be called ‘Israel-firster’?”
One question is sufficient. These states have been at peace for almost 40 years. The inability of the US media to see the Mideast except through an Israeli-centric lens is simple disgusting bigotry. There are literally dozens of issues which are more important regarding Egypt than the thieves to its east.
The only country whom Egypt may have a military confrontation is Israel. Especially when the new force enters the ruling centers. Any suggestions for other urgent topics beyond that?
“The only country whom Egypt may have a military confrontation is Israel. ”
Who said there was any chance of that? Just because Israelis and, apparently Zio-symps, have a pathological paranoia doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to indulge you people in it.
“Especially when the new force enters the ruling centers.”
Again, your paranoia tinged with unmistakable bigotry is your problem. Go see a therapist.
“Any suggestions for other urgent topics beyond that?”
How about many of the myriad things that will affect ordinary Egyptians? Or does that not interest you because it’s dealing with Arabs??
The whole goddamned world does not revolve around your shitty criminal state.
Yes dimadok, one very urgent topic: When will Israel negotiate a real and lasting peace with the Palestinians?
@patm: when the cure for all 200 types of cancer will be found and world hunger be eliminated. Are you saying that Egypt will severe the peace treaty over the Palestinian issue? No way-they are too pragmatic for that.
As an example:
link to ynet.co.il
Just Google Translate it .
when the cure for all 200 types of cancer will be found and world hunger be eliminated.”
You evaded my question, Dim. My question was, “When will Israel negotiate a real and lasting peace with the Palestinians?”
Is the smart ass line above the answer you really want to give me??
Better translation of what dimadok was saying — the only active threat of invasion Egypt suffers… is Israel.
Woody, your reply to my Feb. 2, 2012 at 10:18 am comment to Dimadok showed up in my inbox but not on this thread. I assume it got pulled.
To copy it here would be ineffectual, so I won’t do that. It was a hard-hitting blast with much truth in it, and imo might have got through moderation except for your use of the phrase “Israeli Jews” rather than “Israeli Zionists”.
I think we must assume that a battalion of Israel Firsters is pouring over every article posted and every comment made on Mondoweiss. And likely giving Phil and Adam a lot of flak every chance they get.
patm,
Thanks for letting me know. I understand the demands that the moderators must face, and I also know that I sometimes get steamed and say things that I probably wouldn’t if the emotions weren’t fired. (And thank you for “hard-hitting blast” rather than “unhinged rant.” That was very kind of you.) So I never take it personally or mind if they choose not to let a particular post through. They do a very good job.
And as I think back on that post, I think I was actually thinking to distinguish out the Palestinians living as citizens of Israel from the blame for the oppression and occupation. Just a blanket label of “Israeli” would unfairly include them. I should have continued that thought because obviously not every Israeli Jew bear blame, either, and it is equally unfair to lump them in with the troublemakers. The problem is, as with most things, a subset of a subset of a subset which is causing the problems.
This was simply an issue my passion keeping me from fully thinking through my words. Sloppiness, not animus. So, lesson learned. Thanks.
Sloppiness, not animus.
Sloppy thinking due to fired up emotions? All too common with us chattering apes. :-) I’ve had comments pulled for the same offense.
You’re right, the moderators do a very good job. Cheers.
@Patm
I’ll tell you when-when giving up the utopia dreams will be done with (for the both sides), when the right of return will be forfeited and Hamas will stop armed resistance. So far-none of it has happened.
I would love to live in peace-just the concepts of justice are very different when it comes to the core issues. There is no and sadly, will not be any acceptance of the Jewish state and I do not want to live in another Lebanon, being torn apart by the sectarian violence, as being proposed by the proponents of the on-state solution.
So what we are left with-Israelis are there to stay and prosper, and the Palestinians will either prosper locally, depending on the situation in given city or will keep losing hopes and declining.
when the right of return will be forfeited and Hamas will stop armed resistance.
Dimadok, Zionists are living in a dystopian dreamland.
The details of a final peace arrangement have been known for years: some refugees will return; the majority will be compensated.
A Hamas-Fatah deal is being negotiated as I write these words. And what was Netanyahu’s response 42 minutes ago to The Jerusalem Post: “Fatah-Hamas deal will end diplomatic process.”
The Palestinians want peace, the Likudniks don’t….ever.
Dimadok, your government has been deceiving you for decades. I feel sorry for you. I wish this hadn’t happened to you.
“I’ll tell you when-when giving up the utopia dreams will be done with (for the both sides), when the right of return will be forfeited and Hamas will stop armed resistance.”
I love how you note that “both sides” will have to give up utopian dreams and basically then state that the Palestinans will have to unconditionally surrender and beg for mercy from the Israelis. What will the Israelis be giving up in this rosey scenario? The right to casually murder Arabs at whim?
The Muslim Brotherhood’s and the Salafists’ ongoing arguments are about timing since they share the same objective of implementing Sharia law and the arguing is with the Salafists wanting to do it now while the Brotherhood is wanting to do it a bit later and progressively over time. Salafists want the bars shut down and bikinis banned now and the Brothers are saying to wait a bit to not screw up tourism and the economy. All this to say that they both have the same negative feelings towards Israel with the difference being only in the timing they will be sticking it to the Israelis. The Brothers are saying that now is not the time because they still have to demonstrate their gratitude to the US for having taken them out of the doghouse. It’s that simple.
speaking of egypt, they rightly are giving freedom house and other (cough) ‘democracy building’ groups a hard time right now. “Americans barred from leaving Egypt seek refuge at US embassy in Cairo”
link to guardian.co.uk
link to sourcewatch.org
Are Freedom House and Freedom Watch the same org?
link to en.wikipedia.org
omg, i think i made a mistake there munro. here’s the bio of the David J. Kramer, the Executive Director of freedom house.
link to sourcewatch.org
“Before joining the Government, he was a Senior Fellow at the Project for the New American Century, Associate Director of the Russian and Eurasian Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Assistant Director of Russian and Eurasian Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, all in Washington.
it says “Freedom House’s work is linked to the “democracy promotion” efforts of the National Endowment for Democracy.”
link to sourcewatch.org
link to sourcewatch.org
i think lots of these ‘democracy building’ groups are cia fronts.
In a discussion on the Weekly News Roundup with Diane Rhem about the results of the then just finished Iowa primary and the upcoming New Hampshire primary, Ron Paul was not mentioned once. Not once! They even spoke of Bachmann who by that point had dropped out of the race, but NOTHING about Paul. They were forced to acknowledge him when two callers brought up his campaign, but only reluctantly it seemed obvious to me. And Rhem never had the “balls” to question her guests about this terrible oversight. From that day, I have stopped listening to NPR and as far as I am concerned, they can pull all funding for “public” and I use that word lightly, radio.
I’ve recognized NPR’s bias on many issues, particularly that regarding Israel and Palestine, but this was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
i heard the interview last week, and what struck me was not siegel’s focus, which was predictable, but darrag’s answers. he was completely sympathetic to the ideal of women’s rights, democratic politics and amicable, but equitable, relations with israel. in fact, his interview was the perfect antidote to peretz’s recent myopic presentation of ‘the brotherhood’ as the latest incarnation of the coming holocaust.
Before going to Egypt and working there, I had all these fears. Then when there I found it relatively normal for women. OK, there is sometimes more hassling on the street than would be now tolerated in the West. But no different from the leering and crude vulgar comments and hassling women experienced in the 50′s, 60′s and 70′s on the streets of southern Europe and in the US.
Now that I am no longer there, I maintain deep warm and respectful friendships with Egyptian men and their families — wives, parents, children. It cannot be compared to friendships I have with western men. Maybe it is friendships out of times of pivotal work and adversary… I do not know.
Maybe it is friendships out of times of pivotal work and adversary… I do not know.
Hi Ellen, would it be permissible to ask what sort of work you were doing in Egypt?
“Israel, will be able to count on Egypt to police the border and prevent any armed group from crossing over into their…”
That’s funny, it’s not Egypt who constantly crosses into other soveign countries and bombs the crap out of them. The moment that Israel respects the borders of Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran, others will also respect Israels border.
What about the women´s rights in Israel or in a jewish community?
In NYC there are buses ran by jewish organisations where the men and women MUST sit on different sides. In New York City!!!
In Jerusalem young women are attacked, including tourists, for not being dressed according to the requirements of the Torah. On busses the different sexes must be separated.
In Israel the number of orthodox jews are increasing rapidly. The women wear several long skirts, tops and veils covering their whole bodies, they look worse than any moslem. Great part of the settlers belong to this group.
They are called “the afghans” by modern jews.
If we talk about the rights of women, then let us cover both sides. The difference is: the moslems live in a society that never really left the middle ages, the jews come from western countries where they had the opportunity to learn a few things.
Why don´t we ever hear about those repressions of women in Israel and the orthodox jewish life?
“–naturally raises the issue of Palestinian rights, which were a prime component of the Camp David Accords, vitiated over 33 years. This is one of the reasons that Jimmy Carter has been so engaged; the treaty he orchestrated has been dishonored.”
Phil, the treaty was dishonored almost immediately on Israel’s part. Even though Begin and the Knesset agreed and signed on to adhere to UN resolution 242 to return to the 1967 borders, they obviously reneged.
“… the treaty was dishonored almost immediately on Israel’s part”
jimby, it was by the Israelis that had the habit of never abiding to any agreement, and by the Egyptians (and later by the Jordanians with their own treaty) that didn’t look out for the Palestinians’ welfare as they resolved their conflicts with Israel. The Palestinians got it from all of fhem.
“but Siegel seemed to me to be culturally-bound in his nagging apprehension about Israeli security and his concerns about the role of women in Egypt.”
Let’s be real about who makes their way into upper levels at NPR as host of shows etc. It has been obvious for decades that they are either “culturally bound” to Israel or without saying agree to go along with NPR’s willingness to avoid honest and accurate reporting on the I/P and other middle east issues (Iran). Siegel and many others at NPR are willing filters.
This is a great post Phil. Clearly “womens rights”,,,”human rights” are in many cases being used in as the new WMD issue to use the US military to intervene. Libya.. And as you so clearly point out the hypocrisy of supporting many of these regimes who trampled on human rights for 40 years because these regimes went along with Israel’s illegal expansion of territory.
Now Robert Siegel and others are so concerned about human rights? Hooey…total opportunist and hypocrite
When American Enterprise Institute Scholar Ayaan Hirsi Ali opened up her talk at allegedly about “womens rights” at Ohio University with several comments about Iran those of us who were all ready suspect of her intentions really went on alert. While I admire and respect her efforts focused on human rights. It was apparent that those who want to continue to use military force in that region were now going to try to use”womens rights”/”human rights” as the new WMD. We have to intervene now because of these issues that the US has ignored for decades.
At that time I found some documents from several official government websites that basically said that “womens rights” would be used as a new strategic tool to convince people to support US/ Nato interventions.
Looking for those documents
One of the reports I believe that was referenced during her talk was “Whence the Law: The Politics of Womens Rights, Regime Change, and the Vestiges of Reform in the Islamic Republic of Iran” by Arzod Osanlod
In that report they reference Perle and Frums book ” An End to Evil How to Win the War on Terror”
Have you ever heard Siegel, Frum, Perle etc ever pay any attention to the three repeated reasons for attacks on the US, EU etc that former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit Micheal Scheuer, Seymour Hersh, etc etc as well as the 9/11 commission report state as reasons for attacks
1. US support for dictators
2. US support for Israel no matter what they do
3. US military bases on their land to protect our access to oil and other resources.
Anyone hear any of these individuals ever talk about Palestinian human rights or Palestinian womens rights? These individuals are using women rights as opportunist and hypocrites
When you read the NPR Siegel transcript Siegels seems to be using the US aid to Egypt as a threat. If Egypt does not abide by treaties/agreements well you know Egypt funds could be cut. Have you ever heard Siegel ask Israeli officials that he has had on his program such a question ? Indicating that US aid to Israel could be cut off if Israel did not abide by UN resolutions treaties etc. Hell no
tonight: 73 dead and 300 injured because of a damn soccer game in Port Said.
More on the deadly soccer game
From the Daily Star/Reuters:
At least 73 people were killed and hundreds of others injured on Wednesday after a soccer pitch invasion in the Egyptian city of Port Said, health ministry sources said, in an incident that one player described as “a war, not football”.
The game was between Al Ahli, one of Egypt’s most successful clubs, and al-Masry, a team based in Port Said. Live television footage showed fans running onto the field and chasing Ahli soccer players.
Ahli player Mohamed Abo Treika described the violence as war as Masry fans invaded the pitch after the referee blew the whistle, even though the team had beaten Ahli 3-1.
“This is not football. This is a war and people are dying in front of us. There is no movement and no security and no ambulances,” Abo Treika told the Ahli television channel. “I call for the premier league to be cancelled. This is horrible situation and today can never be forgotten.”
State television quoted Hesham Sheiha, deputy health minister, as saying that most of the injuries were caused by concussion and deep cuts.
Another match in Cairo was halted by the referee after receiving news of the violence in Port Said, prompting fans to set parts of the stadium on fire, television footage showed.
Violence at football matches across north Africa has increased significantly since political unrest sweeping across the region began more than a year ago.
Read more: link to dailystar.com.lb
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)
So sad. It is absolutely awful.
I truly do not understand all the mass violence that occurs at soccer games. I truly don’t. I am a big time baseball fan, and could never see myself getting so worked up at a game like this. And although violence obviously does occur at US sports events, I don’t really remember anything on this scale. Is this simply a function of soccer’s worldwide popularity or is there something about soccer fandom that I am missing?
Woody
The FT covered it this Saturday and it is beyond words, what the authorities did
link to ft.com
Eyewitnesses in Port Said said fans were killed in a stampede and others stabbed by rival supporters and thrown off the stands. Deaths occurred when hundreds of football supporters were trapped in a narrow corridor against an exit locked by the security forces.
Most of the dead had come to the city to cheer Ahly, Egypt’s top club which had gone to Port Said to play a game against Masri, the local side. After the game, police stood by as Masri supporters invaded the pitch, chasing the Ahly players before attacking them as they rushed to the exits to find them locked
I thought it might have been Ahli-Zamalek but then why would football supporters attack each other? It must have been a stampede.
I have some suspicions that some, not all, but some violence in Egypt is being set up. The more chaos the more difficult it makes for the real Egyptian protestors to continue with their original goal. This is what the FBI did with VN protest, put instigators in.
link to news.antiwar.com
“why would football supporters attack each other?”
The Brotherhood is saying the riot was planned by the other guys. One group was chanting anti-army slogans and the other one attacked it. Being anti-army is close to being anti-Israel. In Syria, the current conflict also involves the Brotherhood fighting the regime. Brothers already control Tunisia and Libya, and with the US backing them everywhere including the monarchies that are guiding them, where is it going with all of this?
To get back to Siegel and his beggarly questioning about what the Brothers intend doing about Israel, he didn’t get a straight answer but to be asking it, he was probably already aware of the answer he didn’t want to hear.
Football supporters often do attack each other. I was in Liverpool last Saturday pm and watched ManU supporters being led from the stadium to the railway station in a huge crocodile flanked by police on horseback, evidently with the intention of making sure that there could be even one stray missile or even an exchange of insults. The usual reason why things erupt seems, from UK experience, to be incompetent policing. As seafoid mentions, this often leads to a stampede. Our bad experience recently was at Hillsborough in the 80s. I’m hearing a radio news bulletin as I write saying that there was a stampede at Port Said leading to some people being squashed into a tunnel.
“The usual reason why things erupt seems, from UK experience, to be incompetent policing.”
I don’t discount that, certainly. And it looks like there was more to this incident in Egypt than merely “hooliganism” gone wild.
But I guess my real question is: For the person who participates or instigates these fights, why would you do that? I think about an incident which occurred in L.A., where a man, who was a San Francisco Giants’ fan was beaten near to death because a fan of the L.A. Dodgers didn’t appreciate that a Giants fan was attending a game at Dodger Stadium. It’s crazy. They’re both nothing more than corporations, selling an entertainment product.
It would be the same as someone who likes Burger King beating up someone who happened to go to a Burger King wearing a McDonald’s shirt.
Sure, we have our favorites, but the fact is that the fan who is wearing the other teams’ jersey helps you because the more popular the game is, generally, the more likely that the team that you prefer will be successful.
But, this is getting way off topic…
What caused the stampede?
link to ft.com
I listen to NPR solely to find out what they are NOT covering, or who they are NOT interviewing. It’s become a sport, in an odd way.