‘One Nation For New Holocaust’ – OpEd


By Samuel Tadros

Many observers were quick to draw an analogy between the storming of the Israeli embassy in Cairo three weeks ago and the 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. After all, a few months after an uprising initially believed to be liberal and democratic, revolutionaries storm a Western embassy. Accordingly, some observers drew the conclusion that Islamists must have been behind the attack on the Cairo embassy just as Islamists had been a driving force in the Tehran takeover 32 years ago. Others saw the Egyptian army’s lackadaisical response as a way to provoke chaos, which would in turn allow the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to pass new measures curtailing democracy and free expression. And, of course, some saw the attack on the embassy as the logical result of Israeli policies. Local papers produced all sorts of conspiracy theories: Al-Wafd claimed that Israeli security was shooting at the demonstrators, and Al-Dustour contended that Gamal Mubarak plotted and funded the entire scene.

The truth is somewhat different.

While Islamists are decidedly anti-Israel and have a long and thriving history of anti-Semitism, they did not take part in any of the day’s demonstrations. Rather, the attack was carried out by some of the same groups typically labeled “democrats” or even “liberals.” In the wake of the attack, 21 of these groups proudly announced their responsibility, asserting, moreover, that they would not accept the return of the Israeli ambassador.

Islamists pose a real threat to freedom, but they are hardly the only ones. Populist demagogues are no less dangerous, neither is the odd mixture of demonstrators made up of a mix of Trotskyites, anarchists, and Nasserites. These groups have no real commitment to freedom, and they are obviously no less anti-Semitic than the Islamists. The fact is that anti-Semitism is the daily bread of Egyptian politics.

Perhaps nothing captures this grim image better than the phrase, “One Nation for New Holocaust,” which was displayed on a huge banner held by thousands of hardcore soccer fans, known as the Ultras, as seen in a YouTube video bearing the same title. Despite being completely apolitical, the Ultras were at the forefront of the embassy attack, perhaps in retaliation for police violence in a recent game, flying Egyptian flags with aswastika in place of the Eagle of Saladin. Referring to Egypt’s agreement to sell natural gas to Israel, the demonstrators chanted, “We will export no gas, we shall burn you with gasoline” (it rhymes in Arabic).

Thankfully, the attack did not end with the same result as the one in 1979, and none of the embassy staff was hurt or taken hostage, but it points out to a larger problem, one that is becoming hard to ignore.

The attack on the Israeli embassy is yet another manifestation of the decline of U.S. power and influence in the region. Perhaps Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was sincere in thanking President Obama for using “all the means and influence of the U.S.” to bring the situation at the embassy to a peaceful conclusion. Still, it is not clear what it means if it takes the U.S. secretary of defense two hours to reach his Egyptian counterpart on the phone.

The U.S. has helped bring down the regional order it has so tirelessly built for years and has not provided an alternative order. The result has been a worsening of relations between pillars of U.S. policy and a volatile situation that might well lead to regional conflict. The fact that regional leaders seem to have no appetite for war is not a consolation. Neither did Nasser in 1967, yet he still found himself driven to war by inter-Arab dynamics. While the names of the players have changed, with the Qatari Al Jazeera replacing Cairo Radio, those dynamics are still in play today. Politics in the region continues to be shaped by an Arab Cold War that is perhaps more dangerous with the proliferation of non-state actors such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda.

Samuel Tadros is a Research Fellow at Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom.This article appeared at Weekly Standard Online and is reprinted with permission.

Hudson Institute

Hudson Institute is a nonpartisan policy research organization dedicated to innovative research and analysis that promotes global security, prosperity, and freedom.

2 thoughts on “‘One Nation For New Holocaust’ – OpEd

  • October 10, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    I know our concerns are focused on Israel, but that is just normal…for today…we still need keep an eye on one nation that is currently holding a holocaust of their own upon Israel too…with their ill advice, which happens to be only the political advice they can offer.
    The Book with the Word contained within…is the one everyone need follow…as it matches the World outside it’s covers…even if you open that Book from either end…as the beginning or the end.

  • October 11, 2011 at 6:54 pm

    We cannot allow the leader of a country to cover up genocide going on.

    Civilocity is the one and only solution to make sure the leader of a country cannot cover up genocide going on. Civilocity is a form of government where the people watch the ruler entirely amongst their reign. Every single other way they fought genocide doesn’t work, including charity and the International Criminal Court, because genocide is still going on today. If you want to call genocide democide go ahead, it still resulted in over a million lives in the 20th century alone. Every other way to make sure the leader of a country is not covering up genocide going on doesn’t work and is wrong. Killing is wrong. Preaching peace is wrong. Civilocity is better than peace it works.

    I give you civilocity and would love a public conversation with holocaust survivors on the topic of civilocity while that generation is still here. I want to ask a holocaust survivor how they could have kept civilocity quiet for over four years if the holocaust was as bad as they say it was. How to make sure the holocaust doesn’t happen ever again might be right under your nose.

    It is what you teach that matters the most. You can teach about the holocaust or you can teach how to prevent the holocaust so it doesn’t happen in Sudan and Cambodia after it happened in Germany.

    It’s what others teach that I don’t tolerate because they teach what happened and not how to make sure what happened, doesn’t happen again. Thus, it keeps on happening.

    We cannot allow the leader of a country to cover up genocide going on.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *