Jack Ross says I'm too hard on Ahmadinejad. I don't know what to say; Ross is 23 and so much better read than I am that my jaw simply drops. Another jaw-dropper:
Insofar as you're correct to point out that he's really calling for
binationalism, you miss the point about his holocaust rhetoric. He
knows exactly what he's doing, pushing the buttons of the Americans to
get what he wants. In the past I've said the person in history he's
most comparable to is FDR, trying to provoke us into attacking Iran just as FDR did all he could to provoke Japan.
Failing that, he will still be pleased as punch to have a humiliated
America, in the person of Obama, come to Iran begging them to clean up
our mess in both Iraq and Afghanistan, which is exactly what's going to happen.
As I've said repeatedly before, this is the back door to peace and justice in Israel/Palestine. Ahmadinejad may also be thinking of the Congress of Vienna: already, Osama bin Laden
is going to go down in history as the greatest military genius since
Napoleon, having brought down both the Soviet and American empires.
And like Napoleon, the consequence of his actions will be the vital
strengthening of all the forces to which he is opposed – in Napoleon's
case, the old order, and in bin Laden's, the Shiites. In all these maneuvers, remember that in Iran we are dealing with the civilization that invented both chess and backgammon.
P.S. Also
wanted to make a point about Moment, which is a very silly magazine you
should take with a grain of salt. The article to which you referred
was a completely unsubtle version of the charade carried on by The New Republic for over a generation with much more finesse: that we right-wing Zionists are liberals because we support abortion on demand and gay marriage.
Jack is in the ozone.
He's not that skillful at all. If anything, he makes very large mistakes like urging a plebiscite of current residents, which would certainly result in a Zionist government currently.
He's already gotten the political capital of removal of his nemesis.
Its only because the Iraq invasion was so dumb to begin with that he gets this silver platter.
Where is Jack? Is he afraid to dialog?
pleased as punch
abortion on demand, is not bad either
"Osama bin Laden is going to go down in history as the greatest military genius since Napoleon,"
Actually, he will go down in history as the greatest terrorist since Gavrilo Princip, who brought down three empires — the Austrian, German and Russian and bankrupted two other — the British and French.
Osama was educated in the war against the Russians, his accomplishments there were marginal to the outcome of the fighting.
Invented Chess and Backgammon makes them sound clever. . . . .We are also clever, but corruption has become the order of the day. . . . Any dissent or dialogue is to be corrupted away. Making for a terminal system. And Muhammed said same sex relationships are a sign of end times. What does the Old Testament say?. . . . I wonder if any readers here even see my comments???
Richard: Dialogue any time, and yes, it is only because of our foolishness to invade Iraq.
Syvanen: Give bin Laden time, he may yet once we're out of the region move on to Xinjiang where he'll bring down China.
a plebiscite of current residents, which would certainly result in a Zionist government currently.
Certainly indeed, Rich. I'm sure Matzpen members will vote for the continuation of the glorious zionist status quo.
Zionism is the colonialist system impeding progress. Get rid of it and anything is possible.
Zioholics: help is out there. Right here.
Bin Laden? I thought he was dead. Oh, that's right, he's living in a cave in Afghanistan, but the greatest military and intelligence services in the world just can't seem to find him. And he and a couple Muslim guys (who had been living in caves) put together and carried out an operation that most intelligence officials the world over say could only have been accomplished by utilizing the skill, resources, and inside connections of intelligence agencies.Hmmmmmm. And I have a bridge to sell.
Interesting AP piece I just read about Ahmadinejad's speech at the U.N. This guy speaks more truth than anyone in the U.S. (outside of Phil Weiss, of course :)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_general_assembly
I sort of see Mahmoud as the Ronald Reagan of Iranian politics. Conservative but adorable. I know that the President of Iran didn't really suggest that Israelis be pushed into the sea, that of course is the product of our fraudulent Zionist press. But if you really did Mahmoud, let me know how I can help. Sixty years of brutal and murderous oppression of Christ's real people is enough for me.
There are many that refer to a parallel of South Africa to the occupied territories.
There are critical differences that are undeniable.
1. Near parity of population (52-48%) which is VERY different than the population relationship in South Africa at the time apartheid ended (80-20 approximately).
2. Oil and water populations. (I know that the apartheid whites thought that that was the case in South Africa.)
Even in apartheid South Africa it took an election of the white voters to renounce apartheid.
While the left believes that that occurred primarily because of pressure from outside, it also required contact and mutual respect between leaders in particular.
Mandela and de Klerk embodied that, demonstrated the mutual appreciation of the other.
The dissenting left argued whether to dispossess the whites from the land. Thankfully, Mandela and others convinced the hotheads that integration was their goal, not revenge, and that the white people were integral parts of South Africa and needed.
How did that election pass? It passed in the high 60% range.
It would NOT pass in Israel today, nor likely in Palestine, especially given that there is an Israeli Jewish majority in the land currently.
Expression of hatred for Zionism, defined by Jews as the right to self-govern, would not accomplish the reconciliation needed.
That it continues here, and does not distinguish between policies and actions objected to and Zionism itself, is a deterrent to peace, justice, improvement in life for Palestinians.
Its self-talk.
Do you still work for a living, Witty? You seem to be a first responder no matter when Phil posts.
Are you one of those useless "retired early" people?
I write while data processes or reports print.
I agree with Jack about the cleverness of Ahmads game except my impression is he is pushing Israelis buttons. Their population is the one already drowning in stomach acid and he is turning up the heat so their society will disintegrate that much faster. If they attack the nuclear installations all the better. Iran does not need nukes to wear the Israelis down if hostilities begin. Iran has oil.
But now that the US economy is down the tubes Israels fate is sealed. I dont see why we should even bother to talk about the subject. Our own situation is more dire. Why dont we talk about that?
The more I think about this 'bailout' the more alarmed I get. I think we are witnessing a coup against Constitutional Democracy. Against having even to pretend we live in one, I mean.
The abdication of Congressional oversight of the Administration is clearly unconstitutional I think. And when it goes through there will be no problem about suspending Constitutional rights to deal with any eventual unrest. We seem to be heading toward a situation like Chile under Pinochet.
In our case though the only significant proconstitutional power center is lodged among elements of the military. But the military cannot object if Congress abdicates.
The Ruling Class has already vitiated the Constitution but no one gave a damn. Since the Constitution is already no more than a false front it cannot be expected to endure. If the Ruling Class needs Fascism to survive they will get it.
I bullshit you not here nor am I showing off my cleverness. I am rearranging my personal priorities. The first priority now is to be able to get out if I need to. I dont look forward to being a refugee, but I think it is definitely more likely than not that I will be. If I am lucky.
Thats all I am going to say about this topic. I promise to behave myself from now on.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0924/p09s03-coop.html
But being the most democratic nation in a region marked by despotism is not the same as being democratic. And recently, indications have accumulated that Israel is becoming more rather than less like its neighbors.
Earlier this summer, Israel's parliament, the Knesset, passed two troubling pieces of legislation: the first (which still awaits final ratification) exempts the state from compensating Palestinians harmed during Israel Defense Force (IDF) operations in the territories.
The second, aimed at curtailing the travel of Arab members of the Kenesset (MK), states that any Israeli who has visited an "enemy country" shall be considered a supporter of armed struggle against the Jewish state (unless proven otherwise), and will be prevented from running for parliament in the seven years following the visit.
That law's drafter, Zevulun Orlev, the head of the parliamentary faction of the National Religious Party, explained that the statute will prevent the election of "trojan horses" into the legislature. Arab MKs would now be forced "to decide between the Syrian parliament and the Israeli parliament." On the same day these votes took place, the Knesset's Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee extended the validity of a provision exempting police from videotaping interrogations touching on security matters. The extended immunity is good for four years.
One does not need to be a constitutional scholar to worry about a democracy that eliminates access to its courts, curtails the right to be elected, and chooses to protect its police rather than detainees. Since all these measures were widely popular with Israelis, it is worthwhile reiterating an obvious point: Democracy is not only about the rule of the majority. Rather, its essence lies in empowering the majority without allowing it to tyrannize the minority. Such a balancing act is possible only if a robust set of political rights is in place. A state that jettisons these in favor of national security will probably stay safe, but it will rarely stay democratic.
The idea that Ahmadinejad wants the U.S. to attack Iran strikes me as highly implausible – the U.S. could flatten Iran in a few days. Iran could, no doubt, cause some damage in response, but there's no reason why the Iranian regime would want to get into such a fight. Their goal is not to directly take on the most powerful military juggernaut in world history but to secure their own grip on power and to develop Iran into a regional heavyweight.
In any case, Ahmadinejad is not in charge of Iranian foreign poicy. That authority rests with the Supreme Leader, and under his reign Iran – in 2003 – offered to make a grand bargain with the U.S. involving everything from Iraq to the Israel/Palestine conflict (the offer met with flat rejection from the U.S.). This hardly sounds like a regime looking to provoke an attack.
I don't think they're provoking an attack so much as incrementally escalating.
They still are not avoiding confrontation by agreeing to the French and Russian proposals to do the uranium enriching for nuclear power plants, thereby prohibiting their development into weapons.
That they want to do the enriching themselves, suggests strongly that they want either to build nuclear weapons immediately, or shortly.
Paul, what we are witnessing in america is the most elegant coup ever pulled off, a slow motion coup de etat slowly unfolding before the amazement of all. when hugo chavez nationalized private companies or when castro did it, it was barbaric communism.
so lets encapsulate, we surrender our constitutional rights for safety under the patriot act and now we sell our inheritance for a pot of porridge.
The coup seems to have two parts, the constitution now faces an existential threat.
the laws are in place and patriotic duty will be the clarion call.
next we shall hear, papers please.
what a sad state of affairs.
"That they want to do the enriching themselves, suggests strongly that they want either to build nuclear weapons immediately, or shortly."
Why? Look, Iran has ambitions to be a regional power, and this issue has become symoblic in their eyes of Iranian assertiveness and pride. They have a legal right to enrich uranium on their soil, and they aren't going to renounce that right under U.S. pressure (a stance that is supported by a large majority of the Iranian population).
That said, it is plausible that Iran is using the enrichment issue as a tool to force the U.S. into negotiations along the lines of the 'grand bargain' proposed by Iran in 2003. It's certainly possible – though we have no real evidence supporting it – that Iran *is* intent on building nuclear weapons, for the simple reason that if it isn't, it's crazy (to paraphrase Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld). The best reason we have for thinking that Iran is constructing nuclear weapons is that, given the threat posed to it by the U.S. and Israel, developing a nuclear deterrent is the only rational course of action.
This, of course, suggests obvious possibilities for those serious about reducing the chance of an nuclear-armed Iran. We could, for example, pursue a policy proposed by ElBaradei a couple of years ago whereby all high enrichment of uranium would be conducted by the IAEA or some other international body, and states could then apply to it to receive supplies. Iran is the only country in the world to have formally agreed to that proposal. We could issue Iran formal security guarantees. We could agree to a verifiable FissBan treaty, or to a NWFZ in the Middle East. There are many possibilities, but singling out Iran with sanctions and belligerent threats isn't one of them.
I don't think they're provoking an attack so much as incrementally escalating.
What are your basic information channels?
And what was first a) Iranian interest in the larger field atomic energy or b) they were a prominent target on an axis-evil-list by the biggest military force on earth; their neighbor country, who also was on this list, had just been attacked? While another one on the list seemed to have succeeded to be taken off this list by playing with atomic energy.
What evidence do you have that Iran would not simply use their weapons in a deterrence strategy? Just like Israel, or America and Russia for that matter?
And why, if you are a liberal, do you trust the right wing forces so much in this war-mongering scenario?
sorry. lot of cutting and pasting here:
And what was first a) the Iranian interest in the larger field of atomic energy or b) they were a prominent target on an axis-of-evil-soon-to-be-attacked-list by the biggest military force on earth; their neighbor country, who also was on this list, had just been attacked? While another one on the list seemed to have succeeded to be taken off it by playing with atomic energy. So they decided to copy that countries strategy?
Canada Bans Wiesenthal Center Poster Featuring Iranian President, Saluting Hitler
The point is that they've stated hundreds of times that they are NOT building a weapon, and have no intention to start.
And, that that is a component basis of their last year's compliance status by the AEIC (I forgot the acronym).
Most recently, the inspectors have sited a prohibition from inspection, NOT compliance.
If they are clear, honest, then a strategy of taking them at their word is rational. If they lie to official agencies, and publicly, then a strategy of hoping that they are interested only in deterrence (and what that means in practise), is unwise.
Israel has been reputed to have nuclear weapons for over 40 years. They genuinely have a detterrent role, even if they don't in fact exist (which is unlikely).
Iran has exercised alternately good and restrained judgement, and aggressive, and indicates by its rhetoric, basis of political action, that it is willing to undertake excessive counter-actions (if rationalizable as "deterrent").
Their acquisition of NEW nuclear powers in the region, will be destabalizing at the least.
They primarily want to dominate the region economically/politically/militarily, and secondarily want Israel to not exist. For Israel, both positions are relevant, as the form of their dominance is to exclude, not just to be contractor of choice (competition).
Um, actually the civilization in Iran is the one that conquered the civilization that invented backgammon and chess.
Paul,
"The more I think about this 'bailout' the more alarmed I get. I think we are witnessing a coup against Constitutional Democracy. Against having even to pretend we live in one, I mean."
Right on, man! You may have to get out – of Brooklyn, anyway!! It will be much better to be in a rural or rural suburban area after the meltdown occurs. At least you can grow your own food and protect your home and property with a small arsenal.
"The Ruling Class has already vitiated the Constitution but no one gave a damn. Since the Constitution is already no more than a false front it cannot be expected to endure. If the Ruling Class needs Fascism to survive they will get it."
I can't agree with this one though. Your right in saying that no one gave a damn when the rulers torched the Constitution, but now that they have destroyed the financial institutions, which will melt down the economy, your average Joe Sixpack and a half will start getting a bit pissed. Where will he vent his anger?
Arm yourselves, and get weapons training to stay safe.
PM
Israel needs to abide by International Law and declare its nukes and then begin the process of paring them down (as should every other country). If it doesn't, then it's only reasonable that Iran would seek nukes (even though there's no concrete evidence that they are) as a deterrant. Iran has seen firsthand what has happened to other countries in the region that do not have a deterrent to Israel's "security" and expansion plans, and they obviously don't want to end up like them, nor should they.
All one needs to do is look around at the countries that have nukes – no one bothers them. If you don't have nukes, you are vulnerable to aggression from nuclear countries such as Israel and the U.S., as history has repeatedly shown. One needn't be a prophet to see this basic truism, just as one needn't be a military expert to understand the basic truism that nuclear-armed Israel and non-nuclear Iran cannot be even remotely compared.
Israel is a nuclear power with a history of aggression, while Iran has no nukes and hasn't been involved militarily beyond its borders in hundreds of years. The idea that Iran is an aggressor that must be kept in check is patently absurd and would only be put forth by someone with severe mental derangement, or who subscribes to an ideology which interferes with all rational thought.
Forgery again? Niger Yellow Cake revisited? And why is this transparency not necessary in Israel's case? Inquiring minds would like to know.
AEIC (I forgot the acronym)
AEIC
International Atomic Energy Agency:
Implementation of Safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran
The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Regrettably, the Agency has not been able to make substantive progress on the alleged studies and associated questions relevant to possible military dimensions to Iran´s nuclear programme. These remain of serious concern.
Although Iran has acknowledged that some information in the relevant documentation, including names of individuals and organizations, is correct, it reiterated that all the documents are fabricated or forged. Iran has also declared that it has not performed any of the activities described in the alleged studies and reiterated its request to be provided with originals, or even copies, of the documentation. I call upon Member States which provided the Agency with documentation related to the alleged studies to authorize the Agency to share it with Iran.
However, as mentioned in the report which you have before you, Iran should clarify the extent to which information in the documentation is factually correct and where, as it asserts, such information may have been fabricated or relates to non nuclear purposes. In that context, Iran needs to give the Agency substantive information to support its statements and provide access to relevant documentation and individuals. Unless Iran provides such transparency, and implements the Additional Protocol, the Agency will not be able to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.
I note that the Agency has not detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, nor does it have information – apart from the uranium metal document – on the actual design or manufacture by Iran of nuclear material components of a nuclear weapon. Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities. Although Iran has so far produced only limited quantities of low enriched uranium (LEU), this is still a cause for concern for the international community in the absence of full clarity about Iran´s past and present nuclear programme.
I reiterate that the Agency does not in any way seek to "pry" into Iran´s conventional or missile-related military activities. Our focus is clearly on nuclear material and activities. We need, however, to make use of all relevant information to be able to confirm that no nuclear material is being used for nuclear weapons purposes. I am confident that arrangements can be developed which enable the Agency to do its work while ensuring that Iran´s legitimate right to protect the confidentiality of sensitive information and activities is respected. I again urge Iran to show full transparency and to implement all measures required to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme at the earliest possible date.
It is now six years since we began intensive work to clarify Iran´s nuclear activities. It is in everyone´s interest that we should reach full clarity as soon as possible.
"The point is that they've stated hundreds of times that they are NOT building a weapon, and have no intention to start."
Right…
"Most recently, the inspectors have sited a prohibition from inspection, NOT compliance."
In fact they've stated that Iran has been largely compliant – in fact it has been more extensively investigated than any other country in history – and that all declared nuclear material is accounted for. They have no evidence of any undeclared nuclear material, but they can't be sure because Iran isn't implementing the additional protocol (they were until the U.S. forced thei ssue to be referred to the UNSC) and because of a few issues regarding non-cooperation. So the picture is actually one of general compliance, with a few deficiences here and there.
"If they are clear, honest, then a strategy of taking them at their word is rational. If they lie to official agencies, and publicly, then a strategy of hoping that they are interested only in deterrence (and what that means in practise), is unwise."
Is this serious? Rational does not equate to honest. In fact it can often be quite rational to lie your face off.
"Their acquisition of NEW nuclear powers in the region, will be destabalizing at the least."
Clearly, which is why no-one sensible *wants* Iran or anyone else to have a nuclear weapon. People seriously interested in stopping nuclear proliferation, and we all should be have many options available to them, as outlined above. One would be to accept and implement the proposal made by ElBaradei two years ago, which was formally accepted by Iran.
"They primarily want to dominate the region economically/politically/militarily, and secondarily want Israel to not exist. For Israel, both positions are relevant, as the form of their dominance is to exclude, not just to be contractor of choice (competition)."
No, that's nonsense – again, Iran has made no credible threat to end Israel's existence. In fact the Supreme Leader has stated that Iran shares the Arab League position (supporting a two-state settlement) on Israel/Palestine, which makes its position more 'moderate' than that of the U.S. and Israel. Iran's 2003 offer of a grand bargain to the U.S. included within its remit the Israel/Palestine issue. In fact Iran has a long history of collaboration Israel, under both the Shah and the post-1979 regime, and its policies towards Israel (that is, its actions, not its words) have been characterised by rational pragmatism, not rigid religious or ideological dogma. Dr. Trita Parsi recently examined this record in detail – people should check out his book.
Absolutely good work JamieSW. Is that your site?
The Joan Peter interview by Zola Levitt is unbelievable. We should find out the exact date. That is when exactly was it conducted?
Would he tell us?
"In fact they've stated that Iran has been largely compliant"
That is no longer FACT. Iran HAD been largely compliant (not completely). Now it is not.
James,
Your smoking ganja if you think that Iran has not undertaken any aggression against Israel, or has not advocated for the dissolution of Israel as a state.
It only wants regime change.
You don't see its expansionism. Is it too gradual for you?
You don't see its expansionism. Is it too gradual for you?
No, Richard, but we see the expansionism in the West Bank (Judea & Samaria) clearly. Room full of mirrors?
Zola Levitt Ministries interviews: Joan Peters
transcript starting about 2:44 [now it should work]
Joan Peters: They wanted to be called Southern Syrians or A**mons, Arabs or the Greater Arab Nation anything but Palestinians. Than they began to realize they couldn’t get the Israelis out of their land but by military means, and so they began to incorporate this robbery of a persona.
Zola Levitt: When the UN divided up …, well they made a Jewish homeland anyway, and it really started out to include what we now call Jordan, isn’t that so?
Joan Peters: Everything, everything from Hejaz, which is the Arabian peninsula, to the Mediterranean was supposed to be the Jewish national home; and then they lobbed off part of it and that was called the kingdom of Jordan; and in fact the Arab Palestinian state of Jordan became a Palestinian state of Jordan only in 1946, only two years efore the Jewish Palestinian State of Israel came to be internationally recognized in 1948.
Even the worst of Israel's expansion in the West Bank and Gaza is less steep than Iran's efforts.
The oppressive features are wrong and should be changed in the status of Palestinians.
But, the scale of the oppressive features in Palestine are small relative to Iran's overt and permanent and intrusive theocracy. (Only fanatics as loony as the Taliban make Iran's theocracy look moderate and conciliating.)
So work for the reform in Israel. Work for reform in the US!!!!
Just take a look at the politics from three dimensions, so you can discern perspective and weight.