Media Manufactures Fake Democracy Egyptian Movement

February 9, 2011

Richard Cohen
 ….at least Richard kind of gets it

…the Obama administration had a detailed, if cockamamie, plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace but seemed stunned that Egypt went haywire. Where was that plan?
meanwhile Obama blames the CIA for his lack of knowledge
Caught totally unprepared for Egypt’s uprising, the Obama administration has offered a series of excuses. It was, officials claim, quietly supporting reform all along. The CIA never warned that Egypt might blow up. No one could have anticipated what has happened in Cairo since Jan. 25.
The claim on reform is easily dismissed. Anyone who has been following Egypt for the past two years knows the administration’s record of coddling President Hosni Mubarak, cutting funds for Egyptian democracy programs and eschewing criticism of the regime’s repression.
But another part of the record also needs clearing up: The White House was warned, publicly and repeatedly, that Egypt was approaching a turning point and that the status quo was untenable – not by an intelligence agency but by a bipartisan group of Washington-based experts who pleaded, in vain, for a change of policy.

but for the most part the T.V. says….

“It’s in our interest to remove Mubarak because dictatorships breed terrorism”

Then how do you explain all the Islamic terrorists who were born in the United States and the UK. Or why  Lebanon is overrun with terrorists, but Turkmenistan isn’t. Why are English Muslims more radicalized than some Muslims in the Middle-East?

According to the Pew Research Center — one of the most outstanding organizations in America: apolitical, purely scientific, and beholden to no group –84% of Egyptians believe that people who leave the Muslim faith should receive the death penalty. 77% of them believe that it is fine to cut off the hands of thieves. 82% of Egyptians believe that people who commit adultery should be stoned. This data, if anybody wonders, was not gathered in the year 1810 but in 2010.
With these numbers in hand, the question is: What democracy are we fighting for? What should we expect from elections? Will the West be more content, and our media happier, when thieves lose their hands? Will the atheists of the West be content at the sight of dead ex-Muslims? Will Secretary Clinton be pleased when people are stoned for adultery? And, by the way, none of us knows the exact definition of “adultery. In some countries, being seen with a man not a relative or guardian is adultery. In some countries, being raped is adultery.” Is kissing “adultery” too? Maybe.
Speaking of democracy at et-Tahrir Square: Bands of youth were standing at the entrance to the square to make sure that no Hosni Mubarak supporters would “sneak” in. That is called democracy, Egyptian style, and we are supposed to support it. Why? Because, we are told, those who support Mubarak are supporters of torture chambers, which are definitely not democratic. Being democratic means, as we are learning, having the right to stone adulterers, kill converts, and cut limbs. This is what we are fighting for. Join the revolution! Long live democracy!


Richard Cohen – Time stands still in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

August 31, 2010

Richard Cohen has shown over the decades to have no loyalty to a Jewish State, but now he seems to be showing some new colors.  He is starting to understand what the rest of America thought was obvious.

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Say what you will about the Arab world, it’s hard to earn its gratitude. President Obama went to Egypt and not Israel. He demanded that Israel cease adding new settlements in the West Bank. He treated Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu with a chilling disdain. For all of that, though, Obama’s approval rating in Arab countries has sunk. Unlike almost a fifth of Americans, the Arab world clearly knows Obama is no Muslim.

The polls show some startling numbers. When this spring the Pew Global Attitudes Project asked residents of Islamic countries what they thought about Obama, he got good marks when it came to such matters as climate change. But when the question was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the numbers not only declined in Indonesia and Turkey, they nearly went through the floor in the three Arab countries polled. In Jordan, 84 percent disapproved of the way Obama was handling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In Egypt, the figure was 88 percent and in Lebanon it was 90 percent.
For Obama, the figures must be disheartening. They strongly suggest that his attempt to woo the Arab world, to convince it that America can be an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians, has dismally failed. In fact, the extent of this failure is most stark in Lebanon. There, 100 percent of Shiite respondents — in other words, Hezbollah and others — have no faith in Obama and his good intentions. This may be a setback for Obama, but it is paradoxically a success for American values.
What the Arab world seems to appreciate is that America will never agree to what the Arab world most wants — an Islamic state where a Jewish one now exists. This entirely reasonable conclusion is based on what has long been American policy — not what the State Department wanted but what the American people supported. America has always liked the idea of Israel. The Arab world, for totally understandable reasons, has always hated it. Nothing has changed.
A fundamental document in this area — a once-secret CIA analysis from 1947 — was unearthed (to my knowledge) by Thomas W. Lippman and reported in the winter 2007 issue of the Middle East Journal. The CIA strongly argued that the creation of Israel was not in America’s interests and that therefore Washington ought to be opposed. This was no different than what later diplomats and military men (most recently, David Petraeus) have argued and it is without a doubt correct. Supporting Israel hurts America in the Islamic — particularly the Arab — world and, given the crucial importance of Middle Eastern oil, makes no practical sense.

The CIA further argued that the so-called Arab-Israeli conflict would soon widen to become an Israeli-Islamic conflict — another bull’s-eye for what was then an infant intelligence service. That process was already underway, which is why some non-Arabs (Bosnian Muslims, for instance) fought the creation of Israel, and has only intensified as radical Islam, laced with healthy doses of anti-Semitism, has gotten even stronger.
But where the CIA went wrong — and not, alas, for the last time — was in predicting that the Arabs would defeat Israel and that the state would not survive. The CIA was pretty sure of the outcome, what a later CIA figure might have called a “slam dunk.”
What neither the CIA nor, for that matter, the anti-Israel State Department recognized in the late 1940s is that America’s interests are not always measurably pragmatic — metrics, in the jargon of our day. Sometimes, our interests reflect our national ethic, an affinity for other democracies, sympathy for the underdog. These, too, are in America’s interests and they may be modified, but not abandoned, for the sake of mere metrics.
This is why Obama’s overture to the Arab world, clumsily executed, was never going to succeed. America can please some Arab governments — Egypt and Jordan, for instance — but not the Arab people. What they want, and what they have been told repeatedly they deserve, is a return of Palestinian refugees to what is now Israel and control over all of Jerusalem. These are both out of the question as far as Israel is concerned. It is not willing to give up its capital and, in a relatively short time, its Jewish majority.
This week, Palestinians and Israelis will once again talk peace in Washington. But until both sides, particularly the Arab peoples, give up on what they really want, the clock will remain where it has been. Those Pew polls show that’s around 1947.

Israeli Critic Exposes Lie of Apartheid

March 4, 2010

Listen to this guy… he screwed Peter Jenning’s wife. His genitals are covered with hypocrisy and even he realizes that the Apartheid libel is bullshit.

None other than Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, a long-time and fierce critic of Israel, has exposed the lie behind tying the Jewish State with the term “apartheid.” His column on Tuesday, under the headline “Israel has its faults, but apartheid isn’t one of them,” tore apart the description as “pure racism.” Cohen’s comments coincided with “Israel Apartheid Week” events that are being staged on dozens of campuses throughout the world, predominantly in Canada and the United States.