Total number of comments: 56 (since 2010-11-25 00:52:12)
NimaShirazi
Nima Shirazi is a political commentator from New York City. His analysis of United States foreign policy and Middle East issues is published on his website, WideAsleepInAmerica.com, and can also be found in numerous other online and print publications. Follow him on Twitter @WideAsleepNima.
Website: http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com
As they have long said, Israel will always be "a handjob without a people, for a people without a handjob."
Also, how was this post not titled "HJ Street"?
Mayhem -
Actually, you're wrong. Einstein's relationship with Zionism, Judaism, and Israel is well documented. I urge you to read Fred Jerome's excellent book "Einstein on Israel and Zionism" for an in-depth look.
As Jerome himself explains,
Furthermore, here are some choice quotes from Einstein himself, spanning from well before World War II and the Holocaust to just before his death in 1955 (again, credit goes to Jerome, who compiles these quotes on his site):
Now, ask yourself, "Are these the words of someone who is disenchanted with the idea of a Jewish state or the concept of Zionism?"
You're welcome.
Truth.
Dershowitz's claims are totally bogus and unsupported by fact or international law. Shameful, really. For more, read this (self-promotion alert!):
The Warped Morality of a Warmonger: Why Alan Dershowitz is Wrong on Israel's 'Rights'
Even weirder in that Guardian piece you refer to, however, are the comments from professor Anthony D'Amato, who states (presumably with a serious face):
Surreal, to say the least. Has Iran never made such a threat and has absolutely never said that it is constructing nuclear weapons. Quite the contrary.
Moreover, regarding the absurd "push the Israelis into the sea" line, it should be remembered that in September 2008, The New York Times reported on President Ahmadinejad's defense of his cabinet minister (a close political ally & family member by marriage) Esfandiar Rahim Mashai's remarks that Iran was "a friend of Israeli people" and that Iran has "no hostility toward the Israeli people," and quoted the Iranian president as saying,
But hey, why fact-check or even pay attention when the only negative result is a flagrant war crime against a sovereign nation, the murders of thousands of human beings and the potential for not only a global economic collapse but also a world war?
Thanks so much for posting this, Brewer. One wonders, based on Wallace's pushback against Hannity's weird nonsense, why he allowed the 60 Minutes interview to air the way it did.
And so the trolling begins. Thank you, Hamishe_Sabz for revealing yourself so quickly. Challenging propaganda really must burn you up. Your weak attempt to disguise yourself as an Iranian activist ("hamishe sabz" means "always green" is Farsi) is not only transparent, it's absurd. Chances are you're just trying to work your way through grad school, either in Tel Aviv or Tehrangeles.
Annie, don't waste your time with this one. Just recall that he defends the racist desecration of the Mamilla cemetery and refers to Palestinians as "Palys," defends IDF propaganda and dismisses the inherent exclusivity and discrimination of Zionism. And that's when he's not being overtly disgusting.
Regarding last summer's Gaza Flotilla, he actually wrote this:
This guy is a troll, plain and simple. Better to be ignored from here on out.
And watch out, Hamishe_Sabz, your own history of bigotry and ignorance will come back to haunt you. Oh wait, it just did.
I tried posting this over on Ali's blog, but the "spam filter" is making that impossible. Thus...
Sarah Smith's conference coverage for The Daily Pennsylvanian this weekend left something to be desired and, unfortunately, made clear her proclivities and agenda. While her reporting tried to appear objective, her deliberate framing betrayed her subjectivity (or that of her editors).
For example, in her wrap-up of Ali's keynote, Smith wrote:
Note how everything is framed as "according to", "he claimed", and "Abunimah said."
These are not controversial suggestions - these are documented facts, yet Smith passes them off as mere "claims" made by Ali without any supporting evidence. But the evidence was demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt, not only in Ali's speech itself, but during conference workshops and every single day in the Israeli press.
Writing that Ali "claimed" that there are discriminatory laws in Israel clearly attempts to dismiss the "claim" as unsupported by evidence and elicit eye-rolls from anti-Palestinian readers. But what Ali said is a fact. Sadly, Smith didn't report that.
One wonders if Smith would ever consider writing a sentence like "Millions of Jews, Roma, homosexuals, and others were exterminated in the Holocaust, according to Alan Dershowitz, who claimed Nazism was racist." Framing and equivocating like that would be beyond the pale. But not when Palestinian lives and rights are discussed. Then everything becomes opinion and competing, impenetrable, counter-narratives. This is not only a disingenuous way to report, but it hides the facts from the audience behind frames of personal belief and disputable .
At yesterday's "Palestine in the Media" panel, Phil Weiss said, "The truth is serving this cause."
Meanwhile, reporters like Smith are subverting it.
Yes, GalenSword, he is.
Isi Leibler, for the uninitiated, is the former chairman of the Governing Board of the World Jewish Congress and former head of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. He lives in Jerusalem and writes regularly for the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom. Leibler also chairs the Israel Diaspora Committee of the right-wing Israeli think-tank Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
His bio say that Leibler has "published a study on the threat post Zionism poses to the soul of Israel, titled Is the Dream Ending?." It can be read here [PDF].
Isi's wife Naomi is currently the World President of Emunah, a right-wing religious Zionist women's organization that has long encouraged tribalism and colonization. Here's some nice tidbits from their website:
World Emunah also looks to the future:
Awww, how sweet of them.
Meet the Leiblers: Champions of Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples.
Thank you for this excellent piece, Phan.
The "MLK supported Israel" hasbara has been debunked for so long now, it's a wonder it's still popping up. Not only have analysts like Tim Wise (in 2003), Fadi Kiblawi and Will Youmans (in 2004) thoroughly dismantled this propaganda, the Zionist-apologist group CAMERA even conceded back in 2002 that the allegedly pro-Zionist/pro-Israel letter attributed to Dr. King (which forms the entirety of the MLK hasbara claim) was "a hoax." Naturally, CAMERA tempered its admission with the ridiculous caveat: "However, the basic message of the letter indeed reflects the sentiments of Dr. King."
Shameless.
The issue regarding the LA Times, CAMERA, and Ben-Hur was addressed here on Mondoweiss back in September:
The Department of Corrections: Ben-Hur, the LA Times & a place called Palestine
(Full Disclosure: I wrote it.)
The Jeopardy! answer/question about Palestine is especially intriguing and satisfying considering that, over the past few seasons, Alex Trebek and company have often featured clues (sometimes even whole categories with on-site video of Alex and team at Yad Vashem, floating in the Dead Sea, the Western Wall, and Masada) devoted to Israel and its current stewardship of Biblical sites and expropriation of history...usually in the form of answers and questions that wholly ignores the Occupation and existence of both Palestine and Palestinians.
Jeopardy!'s apparent love affair with Israel seems to have begun in earnest back in 2009, after Trebek and his Clue Crew were treated to a two-week hasbara trip to Israel by the Israeli Ministry of Tourism. It is clear this initiative was launched to correspond with the "Brand Israel" PR campaign.
Commercial advertisements insisting "There's a little bit of Israel in all of us. Come find the Israel in you" (paid for by the Tourism Ministry, of course) are still often aired during episodes of Jeopardy!.
In late November 2009, some days after Jeopardy! featured a category entitled "A Journey Through Israel", which Alex described as "reliving history thousands of years old or just a few decades old," Carlton Cobb wrote an excellent and informative post for Fair Policy, Fair Discussion, the official blog for the Council for the National Interest Foundation. It's well worth the read.
Good to see Jeopardy! is finally moving away from heavy-handed hasbara.
Fineman, as usual, doesn't know how to deal with popular politicians who don't push for illegal wars against Muslim-majority countries.
More important, however, is the fact that Fineman (along with every other pundit, commentator, and AIPAC-er) is deliberately ignoring the fact that Paul is not a lone voice in the wilderness with regards to Iran. Quite the contrary, Paul's perspective, specifically with regard to the allegation (albeit totally unsubstantiated and evidence-free) that a potential effort by Iran to seek nuclear weapons might not be irrational or based on genocidal intentions is taken directly from...drumroll, please...former Israeli PM, current Defense Minister, perennial warmonger Ehud Barak.
Speaking with Charlie Rose last month, Barak was asked, "If you were Iran wouldn’t you want a nuclear weapon?" Barak replied:
During the last GOP debate, Paul even credited Barak himself with this line of reasoning when answering the same question:
Fineman is totally ignoring Paul's primarily resource - the Israeli Defense Minister - when dismissing his views as "outside the mainstream." Fineman would do well to take a peak outside the comfortable, bellicose Beltway establishment groupthink once in a while himself...who knows, he might be compelled to start telling the truth!
Actually, considering Parliamentary representation is based on population (think House of Representatives), recognized religious minorities in Iran are rather well represented in the Majlis.
The population of Iran is nearly 74,000,000 and there are 290 parliamentary ministers. That breaks down to about 255,000 citizens per representative. However, as mandated by the Iranian Constitution (Chap. V, Sec. 1, Art. 64), five seats are always reserved for recognized minorities regardless of the total numbers of those minority populations. The Constitution states:
These requirements do not mean that members of religious minorities can not run for election for other seats in the Majlis (though admittedly and sadly it would be difficult to win - imagine if Remi Kanazi had run for Anthony Weiner's old Congressional seat!), but it does require that even populations with very small populations in Iran will have at least one representative in government.
In fact, looking at those figures, we can see that - purely by represented constituency - Jewish Iranians are actually ten times more represented than the average Muslim Iranian.
Additionally, I'd love to know why you call the Majlis a "farce parliament." If it is - as I would assume - because all potential candidates are vetted and approved by the 12-member Guardian Council (6 clerics, 6 jurists), please think for a moment about how we vet our own candidates here in Freedomtown, USA: money, money, fealty to a hegemonic surveillance state of endless war and empire, money, money, and then there's also money.
Abhorring a theocratic-republican hybrid political system and/or the reservation of representation by religious affiliation is one thing (and on that I believe we would agree), but getting the facts right about the reality of the Iranian government is important.
Efforts like these to call into question the rampant and blatant discrimination of Israeli authorities against indigenous Palestinians is both pathetic and shameful.
Nevertheless, since James is adamant about receiving a response that goes beyond calling out his deference to hasbara, I present this Letter to the Editors of the Jerusalem Post, written by Human Rights Watch researcher Bill Van Esveld in response to a JPost article similarly condemning a then-recent HRW report. The thrust of Van Esveld's letter is but one, accurate but narrow, rebuttal to this type of nonsense.
Enjoy.
You should read me more often, PissedOffAmerican!
December 29, 2010:
Speaking in Doha, Qatar on February 14, 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed, what she called, "Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons." Although Clinton said that the United States was attempting to "influence the Iranian decision regarding whether or not to pursue a nuclear weapon," she added that "the evidence is accumulating that that's exactly what they are trying to do, which is deeply concerning, because it doesn't directly threaten the United States, but it directly threatens a lot of our friends, allies, and partners here in this region and beyond."
January 9, 2011:
Hillary Clinton, speaking today in Abu Dhabi, dismissed Meir Dagan's prediction as irrelevant, saying, "The timeline is not so important as the international effort to try to ensure that whatever the timeline, Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons." Repeating the age-old absurdity that Iran has threatened Arab countries and Israel with military action (which it never has), Clinton continued, "I don't know that it gives much comfort to somebody who is in the Gulf, or who is in a country that Iran has vowed to destroy, that it's a one-year or a three-year timeframe."
The Reuters report stated that "Western intelligence agencies say Iran could make a bomb by the middle of the decade, should it choose to enrich uranium to higher levels and master weaponization techniques."
Translation: A country could make a nuclear bomb if it does what is necessary to make a nuclear bomb.
Genius.
January 10, 2011:
[Hillary] Clinton has once again chimed in from Abu Dhabi, advancing the claim that the successful implementation of sanctions "have made it much more difficult for Iran to pursue its nuclear ambition." Although Clinton also credited technical and technological problems with supposedly slowing down Iran's "timetable," she continued, "But the real question is how do we convince Iran that pursuing nuclear weapons will not make it safer and stronger but just the opposite...We have time, but not a lot of time."
In order to be sufficiently ridiculous, Clinton also blamed Iran for both warmongering in the Middle East and opposing the so-called Israeli-Palestinian "peace process."
Clinton's focus on sanctions should be viewed within the context of the latest Iranian airplane crash that occurred yesterday, killing at least 77 people. The Washington Post points out today that "U.S. sanctions prevent Iran from updating its 30-year-old American aircraft and make it difficult to get European spare parts or planes as well. The country has come to rely on Russian aircraft, many of them Soviet-era planes that are harder to get parts for since the Soviet Union's fall."
As LobeLog analyst Ali Gharib points out:
Speaking in Abu Dhabi, Clinton expressed her confidence that existing sanctions on Iran "have had a very significant impact."
Without a doubt, the mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, brothers, sisters, children, families, and friends of those Iranians killed in yesterday's plane crash would agree.
Regarding Dagan's 2015 prediction, by far the best thing Clinton said was this:
Indeed, what a shame that would be.
June 2, 2011:
...the paradoxical views of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who addressed Iran directly on Meet the Press in July 2009, saying, "You have a right to pursue the peaceful use of civil, nuclear power," and then immediately contradicted herself by insisting, "You do not have the right to have the full enrichment and reprocessing cycle under your control."
July 19, 2011:
While on the campaign trail in April 2008, Hillary Clinton was asked about a potential response to a hypothetical Iranian first-strike on Israel (hilarious in itself considering Iran has never threatened as much, whereas nuclear-armed Israel has repeatedly threatens Iran with an attack, conducted war games planning for such an operation, and has often boasted of its ability to carry out such an attack), and she replied:
Clearly realizing how truly demented such a statement was, she continued, "That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic."
Not the kind of reckless or foolishness it would take or tragedy it would be to, oh, I don’t know, totally obliterate an entire country of over 70 million people.
A couple of weeks later, when Clinton was asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos whether she regretted making that statement, she doubled down:
So, should there really be any fuss over the "Cain Doctrine", when we've known about the "Clinton Doctrine" for over three years now?
Incidentally, I have it on good authority that both Little Caesar and The Noid also advocate for a full-scale air assault on Iranian nuclear facilities and military installations, followed soon thereafter by a land invasion.
Meanwhile, Papa John remains the sole voice of reason, consistently calling for the resumption of full diplomatic relations, beginning with the lifting of all sanctions and acknowledging Iran's inalienable right to a peaceful nuclear energy program, including the right to domestically enrich uranium.
Let's not forget that threatening Iran is non-partisan. That Cain's comments have gained any traction (and apparent condemnation) is fascinating considering that the current U.S. Secretary of State said essentially the exact same thing when she was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.
While on the campaign trail in April 2008, Hillary Clinton was asked about a potential response to a hypothetical Iranian first-strike on Israel (hilarious in itself considering Iran has never threatened as much, whereas nuclear-armed Israel threatens Iran on a near daily basis), and she replied:
Clearly realizing how truly demented such a statement was, she continued, "That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic."
Not the kind of reckless or foolishness it would take or tragedy it would be to, oh, I don't know, totally obliterate a country.
A couple weeks later, Clinton was asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos whether she regretted making that statement, she doubled down:
So, why all the fuss about the "Cain Doctrine", when we've known about the "Clinton Doctrine" for over three years now?
Thank you for this, eee. It's perfect.
Did you just call Hedy Epstein, Ray McGovern, Ann Wright, Yonaton Shapira, and Alice Walker "enemies" of the Israeli government and citizenry? How strange, it seems like you did.
Did you also just change your entire argument to only encompass "running a blockade", rather than "joining a protest" or "violating sanctions", as you originally stated? That's so weird, it really seems like you just did that.
I suppose it would be inconvenient for me to point out that, in April 2009, U.S. House Representative Barbara Lee led a seven-member strong Congressional delegation to Havana to meet with Cuban President Raul Castro, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez and parliamentarian Ricardo Alarcon. Let's all recall that Cuba has been under severe embargo (known as "el bloqueo" in Spanish...I'll let you figure that one out yourself) for nearly fifty years. And before you start quaking about "enemies", please consider that the embargo is authorized by the Trading With the Enemy Act.
Your use of terminology also betrays your incoherence. If Israel is "at war" with Palestinians in Gaza, then clearly the actions of armed resistance to occupation are legitimate acts of international warfare, and not "terrorism". Thanks for clearing that up. And be sure not to use that term anymore.
The issue of the blockade's illegality is also something you seem to gloss over. Kudos.
I'll leave you with this:
Back in December 2008, as your beloved Israel dropped thousands of bombs and white phosphorous on Palestinian civilians in Gaza, Jonathan Schwarz reminded us that "Israel's original justification for taking over Gaza in 1967 was that Israel was being subject to a blockade." He explained,
Unfortunately, in the very same article, Avnery claims:
He seems to have forgotten about the pesky 17 years of martial law thing, of which Cliff was kind enough to remind us, not to mention the Absentees' Property Law of 1950 and the Jewish National Fund Law of 1953, among others.
eee,
Oh my god, you're right. Can you just imagine what might happen if Congressmembers here in the good ol' U.S. of A. went to Capitol Hill and openly advocated for supporting a designated terrorist organization?! Perish the thought. Oh wait:
So, eee, where's the censure of House members actively supporting terrorists in the halls of Congress?
Incidentally, I should point out that the Taliban is not designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization.
Furthermore, the premise of your silly comment is that speaking out against occupation and discrimination is somehow the same as supporting Hamas or Hezbollah. The conflation is absurd, as is one that seeks to equate the BDS movement with armed resistance.
Beyond this, I wonder if you would condemn members of South Africa's Tricameral Parliament who spoke out against Apartheid in the 1980's and supported the efforts of the ANC, which was banned by South Africa in 1960 and was classified as a terrorist organization by the U.S. until 2008.
Your equivocation is embarrassing.
Ha! I actually had the reference there originally, then cut it out right before posting after I threw up in my mouth a little bit.
So, if I understand you correctly, Richard - and I really think I do - what you're saying is that you can no longer sit back and allow Palestinian infiltration, Palestinian indoctrination, Palestinian subversion and the international Palestinian conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids?
If this is the case, Richard - and I'm with you on this - then god willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural fluids.
Please know that tonight I will raise a glass of grain alcohol and rainwater in your honor.
I think the photographs archived by Palestine Remembered are incredible.
Agreed.
The Ha'aretz report was referring to all Israeli exports, not just agricultural. My apologies if that was unclear.
The report states, "Over the decades Israel changed the basis of its exports from citrus and other fresh produce to advanced technology-based exports," including "electronics, computer systems and software, silicon wafers, communications and medical instruments."
Furthermore, "the Israeli high-tech sector, including research and development services, generated about $28.5 billion in exports last year, representing about 35% of Israel's total exports." In 2010, agricultural exports accounted for only $1.3 billion.
Why does the IDF spokeswomen sound like she's from the United States? Oh right...never mind.
It should also be pointed out that the eternally detestable Rubin described the inalienable Palestinian Right of Return as "the demand to flood Israel with the children and grandchildren of Arabs who fled during the war of aggression on the infant Jewish state."
Historical revisionism aside (the tired Zionist tale of Palestinians fleeing at the behest of their "leaders" after poor little nascent Israel was savagely attacked by hordes of bloodthirsty Arabs for simply declaring independence has long been debunked - anyone who repeats this absurdity is being willfully dishonest), and taking Rubin's unbridled racism for granted, the use of the word "flood" is noteworthy.
Rubin's word choice is instructive and revealing. Not only does a "flood" conjure images of inhuman waves of invasion and destruction (ironic, to say the least, considering the entire history of Israel is that of invasion, settler colonialism, aggressive territorial expansion, deliberate ethnic cleansing, and the destruction of Palestinian history and culture), but it is also unoriginal.
In late November 1935, Adolph Hitler gave an exclusive interview to Hugh Baillie, president of the United Press, which was featured in the New York World-Telegram. In his attempt to justify the recent passing of the Nuremberg Legislation, including the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, Hitler stated, "This legislation is not anti-Jewish, but pro-German. The rights of Germans are thereby to be protected against destructive Jewish influences." He then continued,
The supposed threat of "flooding" a pure population with such unsavory and dangerous types as "Jewish intellectuals" (if you're a Nazi) or Palestinian "children and grandchildren" (if you're a frightened ethnosupremacist like Rubin and her fellow Zionists - oh no, chiiiiiiiiildren!) is clearly common to racist and discriminatory ideologies that rely on the perception of eternal victimization and subsequent need for violent - preemptive or preventative - 'self-defense' in order to preserve righteous purity and dominance.
Also, note how the execrable Rubin consistently refuses to acknowledge the existence of the Palestinian people, referring to them only as "Arabs."
Truly appalling.
American,
I find it hilarious that after looking at the newest post on my website - and clearly not familiarizing yourself with much more of my writing - you think you know what my motivations are and think you have identified some sort of agenda at work. Beyond simply grasping at straws to - for some odd reason - try to discredit me or cast aspersions on my analysis, you have chosen to erect strawmen.
You claim that, due to your "now knowing my background and Iranian origins," I therefore eagerly endorse "any meme that makes Big Satan like little Satan." To say this is a silly generalization based upon what you appear to believe is the homogeny and monolith of Iranian discourse would be too generous. It's downright absurd, offensive, and embarrassing.
You think that, by skimming over my website, you know anything about my "background" or "origins"? Wow. Do tell, American, do tell. I guarantee you don't know what you think you know.
As you yourself wrote, this is not only "inaccurate," but also "not something a[n] experienced or mature or serious debater would do." In this case, American, I concur.
What "emotional" leanings or personal issues do you think I have? Your assumptions are incredible and seem to be based on your incorrect and stubborn perception that I have some stake in noting the religious aspects of American colonialism and how they, in turn, centuries later, related to the Zionist conquest of Palestine. It is still strange that you are disputing this.
(Again, the religious issue is only one aspect of the narrative, not the entire story - please stop trying to pretend that anyone has argued as such.)
Whether or not you trust my analysis on Iran or anything else is immaterial to me as your approval is wholly inconsequential. Your patronizing attitude and incessant (and totally unnecessary) condescension throughout this entire discussion, however, is a different matter. There has been no reason for it and, as a result, you revealed yourself as a petty and highly irritable interlocutor.
As such, even if you chose to respond to this comment of mine, I will most likely be done with this discussion as I am no longer interested in engaging you in what should be a fact-based conservation (even debate) about historical issues. Instead, you have consistently relied on a weird tactic of attempting to ascribe imagined personal "gripes" to my (and others) perspective which is both uninteresting and dishonest. It's also become increasingly boring.
And now I'm really bored.
The following reply was originally written last night (before the "babble cock" one), but was never posted. Thankfully, it's been recovered (thanks Phil!), so I am reposting it below.
I will address your latest response as a direct reply to that comment, instead of adding it here.
*****
American,
I find your reply to what I've written very weird and, at times, extremely dishonest.
When did I ever argue that Puritans “were responsible for Founding America and that their beliefs were what this country was established on despite the majority,” as you claim I have? I’m really curious as to where I wrote that, since it appears to be the reason you are freaking out over what I’ve contributed here. "Bizarre," indeed.
The point made is a simple one: The Chosen People in a Promised Land concept was but one aspect of the American settler-colonial mindset and ideology. I have already stated clearly that I do not believe this to be the only guiding principle of North America’s early settlers and have not seen any evidence on this thread of anyone arguing that point.
I see now (reviewing your initial comment that lead to my first reply) that your issue is not actually about the “Chosen People” argument, but rather about its application as the “Founding” mythology of the United States. I was addressing the former, you seem to be hot and bothered about the second. In this case, I will agree with you: the political founding of the United States of America was not solely – or even primarily, in my view – influenced or motivated by a righteous religiosity of “choseness.” I have never, nor would ever, argue that point as it is fundamentally untrue.
The Founding Fathers’ deep distrust of and disinterest in organized religion is well-known and well-documented (Chapter 2 of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion is one place to find a bunch of good stuff). No one has disputed this here and there is no need for you to point it out. I’m also aware of John Adams’ feelings about religion – we all know his famous quote, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it” – but that does not negate his use of religious imagery to promote his particular nationalist – and anti-indigenous – agenda.
The issue here is the exploitation of mythologies. No one mythology has a monopoly on American or Israeli founding ideologies. No one has argued as such here, yet you have spent considerable time attempting to debunk things no one has actually written.
Religious imagery in the European settlement of North America, just like the Zionist immigration and colonization of Palestine, was used by believers and non-believers both to motivate and indoctrinate certain susceptible portions of their targeted populations. This is indisputable. But again, before you freak out, I will stress that religious sentiment was only one aspect of the motivating mythologies used to entice both immigration and to justify the settlers' subsequent subjugation of and domination over of the indigenous populations of the colonized land.
For example, Zionist heavyweight Theodor Herzl was not a religious person whatsoever and is said to have spoken of Judaism with “mocking cynicism.” Herzl himself wrote in 1896′s Der Judenstaat, “I consider the Jewish question neither a social nor a religious one, even though it sometimes takes these and other forms.”
Nevertheless, he was aware of the appeal of religious ideology to certain elements of the Jewish community – elements he was interested in courting to his particular political agenda.
When considering both Argentina and Palestine as the location of a possible future Jewish state, Herzl didn’t seem to care either way. Still, after noting to positive features of Argentina, he turned his attention to Palestine, writing:
David Ben Gurion, also a secular fellow, appealed to biblical Judaism constantly. As Dr. Avi Becker, former secretary-general of the World Jewish Congress and professor at the School of Government and Policy at Tel Aviv University, notes, “[some] leaders of the Zionist Labor movement and founding fathers of the state, such as Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, are perfect examples of secular promoters of the chosenness concept.” He continues:
No one would argue that every single adherent or promoter of Zionism was a religious Jew who believed whole-heartedly in - or was solely motivated by - the concept of Jewish “choseness.” Nevertheless, it is an indisputably vital aspect of the Zionist narrative, regardless of how many Zionists endorsed that particular justification for the subsequent ethnic cleansing of Palestine which led to the founding of the state of Israel and has continued ever since.
Please note that these “founding mythologies” of Israel were created and propagated decades before the actual founding of the state and drew upon centuries of religious doctrine for inspiration.
In one of your previous snarky comments, you write that “[i]n the first document of the ‘Founding’, the Declaration of Independence, there is no reference to anything remotely religious except the mention of ‘divine providence’…”
You then use this fact to try and prove your point that the concept of “choseness” was irrelevant to the “founding” of the United States and add that to claim “a small group of religious fanatics like the Puritans, who were not representative of the majority of settlers” could be responsible for the founding ideology of a “chosen people” is to misrepresent history and present a false narrative of actual founding inspiration.
Yet, you fail to point out that the Declaration of the Establishment of State of Israel, Israel’s own founding document makes no mention of “choseness” either. Rather it begins, “Eretz-Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people” and, as such, shaped “their spiritual, religious and political identity.”
Consequently, would you argue that the concept of “choseness” is therefore not one of the founding Zionist ideologies of Israel, just because it’s not explicitly mentioned in Israel’s founding document? I doubt you would.
Do you think that, just because the Founding Fathers of Israel omitted this from their Declaration of Independence, it thusly makes that particular mythology less valid as one of the numerous justifications Zionists have long used to colonize Palestine? Don’t messianic Jewish settlers who continue to illegally colonize the West Bank today use this justification (among others) as well? Do these settlers represent or speak for a majority of Israelis? No, they don’t. However, this “small group of religious fanatics” (as you described – and dismissed – the Puritans) are not irrelevant to the Zionist ethnonational project; their inspirational ideology is but one piece of the Zionist puzzle.
One more thing:
You refer to “people like me” and my “agenda,” "personal gripe," "personal preferences.” What do you know about me? What agenda, gripes and preferences do you think I have? When have I ever argued that the "choseness" concept is a "Center Piece" of anything? For what purpose would I aim to promote something that’s not true? What – in your opinion – is the real intention of “people like me” and, uh, who are those people?
I hope that, in the future, before writing nonsense like this, you take a breath and swallow your immediate inclination to be presumptuous. Instead of lobbing sad invective at targets that don’t warrant such disdain, think about what purpose will be served by making such unfounded accusations.
Just a thought. Not that I expect people like you to care.
Oh, also, what is "the religious fringe babble cock"? Did you mean "babble" or "poppycock" or both?
Or, possibly, you know an intimate detail about Ted Haggard that only Mike Jones can corroborate.
Either way, I like the term and will try to use it often from now on, especially in any future squirmish we might have over your subsequent refudiations.
Thanks.
Thomson,
Your comment, though smug, provides absolutely no refutation of what I wrote. So, thanks.
If you think that I (or Matthew Taylor, for that matter, though I should really let him speak for himself) mean to suggest that the founding ideology and subsequent history of America, including ethnic cleansing, genocide, Westward expansion, railroad track laying, slave labor economy, and everything else is solely based on the "chosen people" concept, you are mistaken. I have not argued that this concept is the only inspiration for the American project. It is but one aspect of a fascinating and bloody narrative.
But to argue that it is a false notion, dishonestly presented to "make a point," that's where you are wrong. In fact, you yourself state that it is not false, but only part of the story. Yes, absolutely. We agree. Just as Zionist ideology does not derive only from the "chosen people" narrative, neither does the notion of American exceptionalism. It is merely one - easily demonstrable - factor. I'm glad to see we concur on this point.
There is plenty of evidence validating the reciprocal nature of American mythology (both in its original settler-colonial form and its later 18th & 19th Century expansion) and Judaic Zionist mythology (both in its original biblical form and its modern, ethno-nationalist version). To dismiss this as "essentially false" is foolish and disingenuous.
Incidentally, my use of the term "cursory examination" was to demonstrate that one doesn't even need to dig deeper than what I've presented to see the parallels, not (as you seem to have read it) that further documentation and evidence is lacking or unavailable or that a researcher would be unable or incapable of going deeper into the issue.
Hilton Oberzinger's American Palestine is a good read on the subject - though, admittedly, it only addresses the 19th Century example of "Holy Land mania." Still, the influence of biblical mythologies on North America's settlement was not invented in the 19th Century; rather, it was inherited.
Also, I have no "thesis" on this subject that you need to take time to object to. I merely shared some information that backs up one of Mr. Taylor's claims after he was challenged. I have no horse in this race, so to carry this further would be silly, in my opinion.
Oh, one last thing, thank you for not suggesting I am an "Apologist for Israel." That's the nicest thing I've heard all week.
Now, let's all close our laptops and be nice to some mothers for the rest of the day. And don't worry, Israel will still really suck when we get back.
Cheers.
Just a cursory examination of the "promised land for a chosen people" premise shows it to be absolutely true. I wonder why you, American, believe this to be debunked and ridiculous.
It is more than obvious (and well-documented) that there has been a fascinating circularity in the inspirations for righteous colonization and ethnic cleansing: biblical Judaism holds that the Land of Israel was given to the Jews by divine decree which they had to seize for themselves through decimating the existing communities of indigenous people (Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, et al.); in turn, American settlers & founders drew upon biblical history of 'choseness' and redemption in their Manifest Destiny doctrine; subsequently, Zionist founders regarded American colonial-settler history (in addition to the obvious biblical connection) as an inspiration and legitimization for their own ethnic cleansing project.
Here are just a few examples:
In his essay, ‘The Right to Expel: The Bible and Ethnic Cleansing’ (included in Palestinian Refugees: The Right of Return, ed. Naseer Aruri; London: Pluto, 2001), Reverend Michael Prior notes:
The excellent scholarship of Professor Steven Salaita is instructive. He describes the American ideology of Manifest Destiny as the process of "wresting Edenic land from savages in the name of prophesy and progress," and (as but one example) reveals this lovely statement from Founding Father John Adams: "The Indians are as bigoted to their religion as the Mohametans [sic] are to their Koran." As such, Salaita explains, "[t]he goal of America followed logically," and again quotes Adams: "Apathy, barbarism, and heathenism must give way to energy, civilization, and Christianity."
Salaita has also pointed to the connections made by Uri Avnery in his 2001 article "AMERICA! AMERICA! or: The Height of Chutzpah" regarding "the identification of the Zionist enterprise with the foundations of America":
Caroline Gleason, in her examination of the 17th Century writing of Mary Rowlandson (wife of a Massachusetts Bay Colony minister and who "belie[ved] that the Puritans were the chosen people of God"), provides the following contextual history:
Furthermore, Roy H. May, Jr., drawing from the anthology "God's New Israel: Religious Interpretations of American Destiny" (ed. Conrad Cherry, 1971), notes:
So, uh, how about that bullshit?
In case anyone is interested, I have posted some additional observations on the Daily News editorial, not included in the above article, over at my website.
Click here!
What could I possibly learn from Israel, Richard?
I have no interest in forcibly dispossessing, displacing, and disenfranchising a native population at gunpoint all the while claiming some imagined moral high ground based on ethnosupremacism and entitlement.
I have no interest in collectively punishing imprisoned and deprived refugees, forced to survive under siege and resist constant assault in their own homeland. I have no interest in justifying institutionalized racism and discrimination or granting more rights to one ethno-religious group (a large majority of whom are descendants of recent immigrants or immigrants themselves) than another (majority indigenous) group. I have no interest in military occupation or righteous justification for continued colonization and land theft.
I have no interest in a false claim of democracy - one born of ethnic cleansing and murder wherein the remaining native population lived under martial law for almost twenty years before being relegated to second-class citizenry and the rest of the native population was soon thereafter occupied, thereby preventing all from exercising their universal right of self-determination.
(It should be noted that voting rights alone do not a democracy make. During the nearly two decades of Israeli martial law over Palestinian communities, those Palestinians held voting rights, but could not move freely out of their militarily-controlled communities - does this mean they were living in a "democracy"? Clearly not. To this day, despite Palestinians within the Green Line accounting for 20% of the total population of Israel and there being a few Palestinian political parties, no Palestinian party has ever been part of the government, nor held any actual position of power.)
I have no interest in a state whose very existence relies on one group of people being regarded as superior or more deserving of rights, resources, and sovereignty than another, let alone a native population that has been (and continues to be) dominated and oppressed.
I have no interest in a state which refuses to establish internationally recognized borders and illegally claims to annex more and more land for its own. I have no interest in a state without a form of government that receives its authority and legitimacy from the manifest consent of those it governs. Israel has neither. The laws proscribed and practiced by Israel are not blind and do not protect all those governed by those laws equally and without bias. To argue as such would be to willfully lie.
I have no interest in loyalty oaths that affirm Jewish supremacy or in establishing separate citizenship status for Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis. I have no interest in real estate laws which discriminate against one portion of the population. (About 93% of pre-1967 Israel is deemed the "inalienable property of the Jewish people" and the rights of residency, business ownership, and often even employment is explicitly denied to all non-Jews solely because they are not Jewish.) I have no interest in a state wherein interfaith marriage is prohibited or where tax benefits discriminate against Palestinian communities. I have no interest in a state in which Palestinian men are convicted of rape for "claiming to be Jewish" and having sex with Jewish women. I have no interest in a state in which centuries-old cemeteries are desecrated and destroyed as a way to erase history.
That kind of state, Richard, is certainly not "viable." Nor is it just. Or sustainable.
To support a "Jewish democracy" is to support no democracy at all, only ethno-religious privilege, segregation, and selective rights.
So, wait, what else could I be learning from Israel?
(NOTE: If I happen not to respond to your next comment, if there is one, I assure you it is not because you have confounded me into silence or converted me into an ethnic cleansing and apartheid apologist like yourself. It is actually because I have grown tired of your sad equivocation and irritating commentary and feel no need to reply with additional reasons why I find you ignorant, offensive, and annoying. Those I have already listed will suffice. I have no doubt you will try to goad me into continuing this fruitless dialogue and can only hope that I have the willpower to resist stooping to your level of discourse.
One more thing, Richard: If you believe Israel should become a nation with permanent and recognized borders, a democratic constitution, guaranteed equal rights to all its citizens, without any discriminatory or preferential laws and policies, and finally respect its obligations under international and humanitarian law, then we are not adversaries. We would be in agreement. If not, however, I fear we have nothing more to write to each other.
Oh, before you start crying out about equivalency, and begin saying these things should be applied as well to all countries on Earth, especially those in the Middle East, great, I also agree. But Israel is no exception. Israel should not be above the law or exempt from international treaties. Again, if you agree, then we have reached consensus.
If not, then I fear we have nothing more to talk about.)
Hahaha - oh sorry, Richard, were you expecting me to respond to your nonsense?
Maybe I'll address your silly questions later, if I decide to waste a few minutes of my time. We'll see.
According to this December 4, 2004 piece from the Jewish Journal, entitled "A Jewish Visit to Guthrie's Land," Arlo did indeed study with Kahane before his bar mitzvah. The article, written by Tom Tugend, states,
That would probably have been sometime in 1960 (considering Arlo was born in mid-1947). Dylan first met Woody Guthrie in 1961, while Guthrie was hospitalized (which he was for most of the time from 1954 until his death 11 years later). Because Dylan appeared to have been "returning to his Jewishness" and admiring Kahane in the late 1960's or early 1970's, it is unlikely (in my opinion) that the initial connection was made through Guthrie, who died in October 1967 from Huntington's disease.
Richard,
Supporting ethnic cleansing and aggressive militarism, relying on eternal victimization despite having a nuclear arsenal and the unconditional backing of a superpower, and the ongoing oppression and dehumanization of an indigenous people who live as second-class citizens, occupied prisoners, or long-suffering refugees is not really a "like it or not" proposition.
No, I don't like it. Neither should you. No one should.
Your mindless equivocation and endless justification of Israeli domination over Palestine is appalling. Your smug self-satisfaction is doubly grotesque. Anyone, like yourself, who simply dismisses an ongoing injustice as a fait accompli and with a shrug of his shoulders - as you so often do - dooms his opinions to absurdity and irrelevance. You have certainly proven this to be true time and again.
I'd say you should be ashamed of yourself if I thought for a moment that you're capable of self-reflection. Which I don't. So I won't.
Cheers.
Speaking of George Bisharat, he has a new OpEd about the Goldstone silliness in the San Francisco Chronicle today:
Israeli intimidation brings shift in Gaza report
It's my favorite too! Other than Wide Asleep in America, of course. Oh, and Mondoweiss. And this. And this.
This is a good womp womp moment, but it is based on a false premise. Israel was not "created" by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181. That was a non-binding recommendation bullied into passing by the US and Russia. The "creation" of a state without the approval or support of the indigenous population by the UN is contrary to its own Charter, as it eliminates self-determination.
In truth, Israel was "created" via unilateral declaration of independence by a minority of heavily-armed colonists after months of aggressive ethnic cleansing which then continued unabated for the next six decades.
Answer: As long as the money keeps flowing.
Excellent piece, David, as usual.
Welcome to the neighborhood, Anna.
"Serious safety and security concerns," eh?
Makes sense to me considering that, if any Palestinians, Lebanese, Turks, or Turkish-Americans happened to show up to the event, the Israeli Navy Seal "Amir" may well have just murdered them in cold blood and then gone shopping with their stolen credit cards.
I, for one, am relieved to hear that Birthright Israel Next has made such a courageous and conscientious decision on behalf of all the innocent people who would have certainly been shot numerous times in the head from above by the keynote speaker simply for attending the event.
Kudos.
No, it's a Jewish organization, actually. The full name is the 92nd Street Young Men's and Young Women's Hebrew Association.
While it is indeed true that the 92nd Street Y has hosted many fascinating and diverse panels on the Israeli/Palestinian, every panel is carefully managed in order to provide so-called "balance" - that is, to offset and temper all anti-Zionist, Arab, and Palestinian voices with heavily Zionist voices and narratives that appear to hold "equal weight" but which, in reality, counter truth with hasbara.
Also, these panels at the Y are all rather costly to attend - certainly a way to keep the "riff-raff" out. (In other words, to ensure that the desired Upper East (and West) Side demographic of Birthright parents and Hebron Fund financiers is far better represented in the audience than less well-off activists, students, and minorities.
As many have already written, this is indeed an excellent piece.
Please forgive my blatant and embarrassing self-promotion, but I thought a lengthy article, which I wrote in Sept. 2010, may interest those on this thread. Inspired by the then-much-publicized Israeli theatre boycott of a new stage in the West Bank colony of Ariel, the piece broadens into a wider analysis of BDS, Zionism itself and how - as Mark Braverman perfectly spells out here - so-called "liberal Zionists" have it all wrong. The problem is not that the nobility of Zionism is getting side-tracked by some unsavory, racist, discriminatory, and even militaristic elements, but rather that Zionism itself requires and promotes those very elements as inherent aspects of its own ideology. Without ethnic cleansing and land theft, there is no Zionism.
Enjoy.
The Thin Green Line: It's Not Just the Settlements (or the Occupation), Stupid!
Very impressive, Hostage! Thanks for this.
Richard,
The British position seems pretty straightforward. In a statement to the UN Security Council regarding the settlement resolution, British Ambassador to the UN Mark Lyall Grant said, "The United Kingdom has always been clear that settlements are illegal as well as being an obstacle to peace. Pushing ahead with settlement activity is a deeply unhelpful move. With actions such as these, it is no surprise that this council has been asked to consider a resolution condemning settlement activity."
In the recent past, British Foreign Secretary William Hague has also been quoted as being "deeply concerned" and "very disappointed" by the ongoing, illegal settlement activity in Palestine.
It appears the headline was changed to "McKinney, still in jail, expected to see judge Sunday"
Richard, in response to your January 3, 2010 at 6:10pm comment, which I just saw now:
First off, since you don't know me, how are you to say what's beneath me? For all you know, pedophilia and autoerotic asphyxiation comments are as high-brow as I get.
I see you are frustrated with, what you call, "an utter misrepresentation of [your] comments." Imagine that...maybe I should just try to wipe your comments off a map, instead. If the misrepresentation of comments is so offensive to you, maybe you should stop continuing to misrepresent the comments of others, in the face of plenty of evidence contextualizing and correcting your disingenuous representation of those comments. Think about it.
Next, I see that you are aghast at the implication that, until sufficiently proven otherwise, you are something odious and sinister, something repulsive and appalling, something inexcusable and unforgivable. Good. That was my point exactly, Richard. Hopefully it will allow you to understand the absurdity of the debate over the Iranian nuclear program...though, I'm not holding my breath on that one (since I don't have a spotter present).
Finally, you accuse me of talking to myself. Meanwhile, you posted three comments in a row within the span of an hour.
In sum, click here.
Richard,
Shingo handles your comments rather well, so I have very little to add. I would, though, like to point out that Iran has never threatened to attack any country, including Israel, and has repeatedly stated its opposition to military confrontations.
With specific regard to Israel, Ahmadinejad made clear (during a press conference in Kuala Lumpur at the D8 Summit in July 2008) his belief that the Zionist ideology of militarized, ethnosupremacist nationalism (i.e. the Israeli government) is "inherently doomed to annihilation and there is no need for Iranians to take action."
It appears that what you deem "grossly malevolent consequences," others call democracy.
I have only a couple (admittedly multi-part) questions for you, Richard:
1. You state that you "do not know if sanctions [against Iran] are called for." Do you think that Israel should be sanctioned for breaking international law on a daily basis, disregarding countless legally-binding United Nations Security Council resolutions, for continued land theft, colony construction, collective punishment, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and institutionalized racism and discrimination? Or is the verdict still out on that one, as well?
2. You wish that I would, among other things, oppose the "effort to remove Israel from the map," which you weirdly claim is official Iranian policy. Do you believe it was United States policy to remove the Soviet Union from the map? Do you think the US achieved that goal? Did you support that policy and favor the inevitable outcome? I wonder, Witty, do you think Apartheid South Africa should still be "on the map"? What about just South Africa? Is there a difference between the two, Witty? If so, what is that difference? Do you find both places to be legitimate and worthy of praise and international acceptance? With the disappearance of the former, did the latter also cease to exist, or did it, in fact, come into being? Should the change of political character and organization, of constitution and representation, be seen as the destruction of such a place, or rather the birth of a better place, based on equality, law, and justice?
Richard,
Do you not think that five years after the initial mistranslation (regardless of where it was published and thereafter repeated) and long after the mistranslation had since been exposed, it is absurd that the "wipe Israel off the map" phrase is still being tossed around as justification for demonizing Iran and its leadership?
Also, why is the onus on Iran to ingratiate itself to the West by holding, by your hilarious suggestion, a conference denouncing anti-Semitism? Iran has an ancient community of over 25,000 Jews, the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel. This community is in no danger.
In fact, the Iranian Jewish community routinely acknowledges the distinction between Zionism and Judaism. For example, Ciamak Morsadegh, the Jewish Iranian parliamentarian and community leader, has noted this clear distinction between religious faith and culture and violent, ethnocentric nationalism. In 2007, while chairman of the Tehran Jewish Committee, Morsadegh declared, "If you think Judaism and Zionism are one, it is like thinking Islam and the Taliban are the same, and they are not." A year later, he criticized Israel's policies towards Palestinians, especially in Gaza, saying it showed "anti-human behavior...they kill innocent people," and continuing that the Jewish community in Iran does "not recognize a government or a nation for the Zionist regime."
Your insistence on argumentum ad ignorantiam is ridiculous.
Incidentally, Witty, can you do me a favor? Can you please write a lengthy and fully-sourced essay about how you're not a serial pedophile and autoerotic asphyxiation connosieur...because, quite frankly, until you do that, how am I to know you're not? As Donald Rumsfeld said, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
And please remember, for safety's sake, to always have a spotter!
Thank you, Shingo.
To answer your question, no, I do not have a background, academic or professional, in nuclear science, though I am honored that you (especially) might think so. Basically, I just know how to read.
Please feel free to get in touch with me via email if you have any further questions. My contact info is available on my website, Wide Asleep in America.
Richard,
You write that Iran "may be" "building a nuclear weapon" (despite all evidence to the contrary) and that mere possibility alone is, in your estimation, "sufficient for intensive concern."
Does this mean that, in your estimation, Brazil's or Argentina's nuclear programs are also cause for "intensive concern"? What about the other 70 countries that share the exact same evaluation that Iran received from the IAEA in its Safeguards Statement for 2009, namely that - for countries "with comprehensive safeguards agreements in force, but without additional protocols in force," the IAEA "found no indication of the diversion of declared nuclear material from peaceful nuclear activities" and affirmed that all "declared nuclear material remained in peaceful activities"?
Additionally, despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Iran wishes to gain the ability to produce a nuclear weapon (remember, this is the official conclusion of not only Iran, but of the IAEA and US intelligence agencies), if it were to do so, and stopped short of production while maintaining the capability (often dubbed the "Japan option" or "breakout option"), Iran would join a nuclear club of 140 countries that, according to the IAEA and even Green Peace, "currently have the basic technical capacity to produce nuclear weapons. Over 40 countries have the materials and knowhow to build nuclear weapons quickly, a capacity that is referred to as 'rapid break-out.'"
Are all of these countries' activities subject to "intensive concern" and cause for hysterical alarm, aggressive warmongering, and genocidal speculation?
Still, even with this in mind, Iran has stated time and time that it regards the idea of "nuclear deterrence" to be a useless tool in foreign affairs and has no intention of being party to an arms race in the region. As such, Iran has called repeatedly for a comprehensive, internationally monitored agreement to affirm the Middle East as a nuclear weapons-free zone. The reason this is rejected out-of-hand by the US is solely because of Israel, which has an unmonitored and unrestricted arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons. The US has also provided vital nuclear weapons technology to both India and Pakistan, despite the fact that, like Israel, neither of the countries are NPT members, and therefore the actions of the US are totally illegal, as expressly stated by the terms of the Treaty itself.
In your opinion, are Israel's 400 nuclear warheads not cause for "intensive concern"?
eee,
Are you saying that "Israel" can only "exist" as an ethnically cleansed, aggressively militarized, racist apartheid state, replete with a two-tiered justice system and institutionalized discrimination and inequity, which treats its indigenous population as, at best, second-class citizens and, more often, as a demographic threat from within?
If that's the only way "Israel" can continue to be "on the map," tell me again why you continue to support its "existence"?
Incidentally, thank you for admitting that Israel would immediately cease to exist if it became an actual democracy that provided full representation and rights for all its people. It's about time.
Which "undisclosed nuclear facilities", pray tell, have I ignored? Are you referring to Iran's Fordow facility near Qom, which was supposedly "revealed" to the world by Barack Obama last September? If so, the reality is that Iran had already announced this site to the IAEA earlier that week. IAEA spokesman Marc Vidricaire said, "I can confirm that on 21 September, Iran informed the IAEA in a letter that a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction in the country." Obama's revelatory press conference was held on September 25th. Whoops! Where's Doc Brown when you need him?
Under its safeguards agreement with the IAEA, Iran is not obligated to inform the Agency of any new facilities until six months before the introduction of nuclear material to the site. As such, since the Fordow enrichment plant was not yet operational, and wouldn't be for another 18 months (at minimum), Iran had broken no rules. In fact, the site was announced at least a full year before it needed to be. As Ali-Akbar Salehi, Iran's nuclear chief, remarked at the time, "This installation is not a secret one, which is why we announced its existence to the IAEA."
Ahmadinejad himself even felt the need to point out that the agreements and guidelines between Iran and the IAEA do not require approval by the United States. "We have no secrecy, we work within the framework of the IAEA," he said. "This does not mean we must inform Mr Obama’s Administration of every facility that we have."
Regarding Iran's involvement in Syria's alleged nuclear site illegally bombed by Israel, there is absolutely no evidence to support your claim. The only allegation to this effect was supposedly made by former Revolutionary Guard General Ali Reza Asghari, who was recently murdered in an Israeli prison.
The assertion of Iran's funding of a Syrian nuclear facility has also been denied by a "US counterproliferation official."
So, again, what evidence am I neglecting?
There are a great many errors made by Witty in the above comment, notably the absurd and long-debunked assertion that Iran has an "overtly stated aim of removing Israel from the map." This is a flat-out lie.
A quote I withheld from my article (and was planning on using at some other point in something else) is one by George W. Bush back in March 2008. While speaking on the Farsi-language U.S. government propaganda radio station, Radio Farda, which illegally broadcasts in Iran, Bush stated, “They've [the Iranian government] declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people -- some in the Middle East. And that's unacceptable to the United States, and it's unacceptable to the world."
This statement was so devoid of truth, in fact, that even former State Department Iran specialist Suzanne Maloney was moved to speak out. Maloney, who was at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center (not a progressive organization by any stretch) at the time, said, “The Iranian government is on the record across the board as saying it does not want a nuclear weapon,” adding that while, in her opinion, “there's plenty of room for skepticism about these assertions…it's troubling for the administration to indicate that Iran is explicitly embracing the program as a means of destroying another country."
The fact of the matter is this, Witty: Neither Ahmadinejad nor any other Iranian official has ever threatened Israel in any way, let alone "existentially," as the media, and governments of the US and Israel would have you believe. The misquote attributed to the Iranian president stems from 2005 - then repeated in 2006 - that Ahmadinejad, as claimed by Jerusalem Post reporter Herb Keinon, "vowed once again that Israel would be 'wiped out.'"
Only later in his article did Keinon reproduce the entire quote from Ahmadinejad, which reveals a contextually vital qualification:
Similarly, press reports from the previous fall, which sparked the entire "wiped off the map" fiasco, failed to tell their readers the whole story. In that speech, Ahmadinejad reminded his audience that, while the eventual weakening or complete dissolution of America's hegemony over the Middle East via its colonial-settler garrison state may be unthinkable or unimaginable to some, "as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books." He listed the Shah's tyrannical monarchy in Iran, the repressive and expansionist Soviet Union, and the Iraqi dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, as examples of "regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished" in only the past three decades. In conclusion, Ahmadinejad repeated Khomeini's prescient view that the political demise of the Zionist government of Israel would soon follow: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Witty, you should also keep in mind that the idiom "wipe off the map" doesn't even exist in Farsi and therefore such a translation is automatically impossible. Please stop repeating this lie.
Furthermore, your claim that “there were extended periods when Iran did not allow inspections,” is also erroneous and disingenuous. Can you please provide some evidence for this?
Perhaps you should recall that back in May 2007, the IAEA publicly denied reports about Iran hampering inspections of its nuclear program. “The information… is untrue,” IAEA spokesman Marc Vidricaire told reporters. “We have not been denied access at any time, including in the past few weeks.” He added, “Normally we do not comment on such reports but this time we felt we had to clarify the matter.”
Iran's nuclear program has never - ever - been secret. The program began under the Shah - with the full financial and technological support of the US and other Western countries - and continued through the 1980s. After the revolution, however, the weapons program was dismantled and only the energy aspect remained. After West Germany reneged on their commitment to help Iran build two nuclear reactors that Iran had already paid for (and West Germany never returned the money, either), Iran asked the IAEA for technological support, which it received from France. Under the guidance and supervision of the IAEA, Iran's determination to produce nuclear fuel was therefore well-known, well-monitored, and completely transparent. When, in 1983, the intention of the IAEA to "contribute to the formation of local expertise and manpower needed to sustain [Iran's] ambitious program in the field of nuclear power reactor technology and fuel cycle technology” was passed on to the technical cooperation program (which legally binds NPT member states to help other member states acquire this peaceful technology), the U.S. government "directly intervened" to discourage the IAEA from assisting Iran in production. Furthermore, between 1983 and 1995, Iran attempted openly to restart its nuclear power program, but was prevented by the US at every step from achieving its goal. The US even convinced Russia in the early 1990s not to sell Iran a centrifuge plant.
From then on, Iran continued its own civilian work without the help of the so-called "international community" (which really just means the US, UK, France, and Germany) and built the Natanz enrichment site on its own. In February 2003, after Iran announced officially the existence of the Natanz facility (which it did within the time frame mandated by Iran's Safeguard Agreement with the IAEA, specifically, no later than 180 days before the site becomes operational), a spokeswoman for the IAEA confirmed, "This comes as no surprise to us, as we have been aware of this uranium exploration project for several years now. In fact, a senior IAEA official visited this mine in 1992, and the Iranians announced to us officially in September their plans to develop an ambitious nuclear-power program that would include the entire nuclear fuel cycle"
It should also be made clear that Iran has made efforts above and beyond what is required by their treaty agreements to ensure that their nuclear program is peaceful and legitimate. These efforts include an offer of multinational enrichment within Iran four years ago (which would have provided numerous countries professional access to Iran's program, thereby making it literally impossible for Iran to divert any material to military purposes in secret - something the IAEA has annually acknowledged Iran has never done). Also, Iran's nuclear sites and facilities are all under the 24-hour video surveillance by the IAEA, allow unfettered access to IAEA inspectors and inspections, and are subject to material seals application by the Agency. Additionally, even though it is not even authorized under Iran's Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, since March 2007, there have been at least 35 unannounced, surprise inspections of Iranian facilities. Throughout all of this monitoring and observation, the IAEA has consistently come to the following conclusion: "The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material [to weaponization] in Iran."
Furthermore, a look at the 2007 "Work Plan" between Iran and the IAEA (a prime example of Iranian 'confidence building measures' that are disingenuously sought by nuclear-armed Western hegemons) and Iran's compliance with fulfilling these measures to the IAEA's satisfaction shows that Iran has indeed "responded as desired" to the IAEA's "demand list."
As pointed out in Iran's 'explanatory note' to the IAEA, following February 2010's Safeguards report,
May I propose a New Years Resolution for you, Witty? Stop lying.