What I said and didn’t say

I’m not much into the duelling aspect of blogging, but there has been enough misunderstanding of what I wrote yesterday about my experience in Tahrir that it may be enlightening to respond to at least a few of the criticisms.

Let me focus on Angry Arab, whose comments have been repeated elsewhere.  He writes under the heading “dumbest comment of the day”:

Daniel Serwer, who is in Cairo, reckons last night’s violence at the Israeli embassy had more to do with discontent against Egypt’s military rulers than Israel. He also suggests (see 11.12am post) that many of those protesting could be regarded as football hooligans.

This is dumb, but it is not what I said.  I wrote:  “The predominant themes in Tahrir however had little to do with Israel.”  I then went on to outline what those themes appeared to be.  I’ve checked this point several times:  people in Tahrir were talking, chanting and singing about mainly internal Egyptian issues.

I never suggested that Egyptians were not angry with Israel.  Nor did I suggest that the attack on the Embassy had more to do with Egypt’s military than with Israel.  In fact, I wrote:

Egyptians regard the Israeli killing of several Egyptian policemen in Sinai in the aftermath of a terrorist attack inside Israel as humiliating and want a more fulsome apology for it.

I went on to conclude that peace between Egypt and Israel could not be maintained unless the people are committed to it, “society to society.”

Angry Arab also suggests I said “many of those protesting could be regarded as football hooligans.” What I actually said was “some of whom were surely what would be termed football hooligans in Europe.” I might prefer today to have said “likely” rather than “surely,” but the point here is that I never said “many of those protesting” (I added the bold face) could or should be regarded as football hooligans, which is what Angry Arab said I said.  In case there is any doubt:  I assume most of them were Egyptians angry with Israel.

Accuracy is not Angry Arab’s strong point. Let’s take this statement: “this ‘US blogger’–whoever he is–because she holds a PhD from Oxford University and is a young academic.” Yes, I am a PhD, from Princeton not Oxford, male and not young, all of which is readily ascertainable from this website.

I don’t however expect anyone to believe me because of age, education or gender. I only expect to be quoted accurately and debated honestly. That is not what Angry Arab did.  I would rate his comments dumbest of  my day.