Total number of comments: 110 (since 2012-01-14 23:46:14)
Showing comments 110 - 101Page: 2 1
Should add that part of the reason the Jewish community in Iran may prefer to participate in such rallies, is also to avert suspicion and accusation by the more radical elements that they may be Israel's 5th column. Following Israel's assaults on Gaza, e.g., they also held rallies denouncing the attacks. In such cases, they probably consider it more imperative to hold such rallies, to whatever extent these may be gov't initiated.
The photo shows 2 banners. A couple of the Persian words on the one on the left are blocked but it seems to read, "We believe in the Islamic Republic of Iran['s right] to peaceful use of nuclear energy and insist on this issue." Can't read the Hebrew. The one on the right is half cut off, but the slide show at the Haaretz link
link to haaretz.com
contains a full photo of that banner, which in English reads, "Iranian monotheists are proud of suprene [sic] leader fatwa for prohibition of mass killing weapons", while in Persian reads, "Monotheist Iranians are proud of of the Supreme Leader's fatwa on the prohibition on the production and application of weapons of mass slaughter." That this crowd came to express support for the gov't's nuclear policies is more than likely gov't initiated, but is not much different from other such rallies that the gov't orchestrates. On many occasions, they also bring out school children, workers or other strata of society to participate in rallies. This sort of bring-out-the-right-crowd-for-the-right-occasion is common to authoritarian regimes. E.g., I haven't heard of a similar rally by the Zoroastrian or the much-larger Christian minorities. Presumably, b/c the Jewish community expressing support for the nuclear program makes more of a statement.
However, in Oct., a letter signed by the head of the Tehran Jewish Committee and addressed to Obama was posted at the Committee's website,
link to iranjewish.com
expressing support for the Islamic Republic in general and Rouhani's initiatives in particular, rejecting Netanyahu's claim that the recent elections weren't free and that Iranians don't have the right to wear jeans, and adding that the Jews of Iran have total freedom of worship. Was this the Committee head's own initiative and does it fairly represent the community's views? I don't know. But some such coming-outs in support of whatever the regime likes are clearly based on demand. E.g., a few days ago was Shi'ism's holiest occasion, Ashura, when large public expressions of mourning and self-flagellation take place across Iran. The state media put out clips of the "recognized religious minorities" participating in at least one such ceremony, expressing support for Shi'ism.
Here are 2 such clips (in the 1st go to 00:40)
link to nasrtv.com
link to youtube.com
where Zoroastrians & Christians are shown expressing envy towardsd the Shia and love and adoration for Shia holy figures. The announcer says that Jews are present at the ceremony as well (and a banner instructs that Muslims & non-Muslims should get their ceremonial free food from different areas). There are no political statements in these clips, purely religious (though religious is also used politically in Iran).
Since I brought up Kh.'s own tract on religious obligations, checking it out through the link @ link to majdedez.com states that, even though clerics differ on such a designation, Khamenei doesn't consider "people of the Book" as "najes" by nature (although he applies that designation to others, such as the Baha'is and the non-believers). However, designation of any non-Muslim in general, and Jews in particular, as "najes" has had a long and sordid history in Iran:
link to en.wikipedia.org
It should be noted that, as far as I know, this designation is not encoded in law in Iran; it is part of religious laws & obligations that some of the faithful choose to follow as prescribed by their clerical mentors.
"... was responded to with chants of “Death to America”— PM of Israel ... Netanyahu is evidently referring to a series of tweets from the account linked to Iran’s Supreme Leader." How is it so evident that it's about tweets if Israeli PM mentions Death-to-America chants? And how did the author miss the reports of Khamenei's speech the day before (w/ their usual chants), but not his tweets?
link to usatoday.com
What the above report doesn't mention is Kh.'s use of a term w/ racist connotations, which can be seen from the original Persian,
link to magiran.com
namely his use of the "najes" designation, which means "ritually unclean/filthy." This concept was introduced by Shia clerics a few centuries ago, and applies to non-Muslims, even "people of the Book," as well as dogs:
link to world-federation.org
Khamenei used the "ritually-filthy" reference twice in the speech, "... from the insidious and najes mouth of the region's rabid dog, meaning the Zionist regime ..." and "... in front of the insidious najes Zionist regime ..." Though the "ritual filthiness" has been applied to variousl non-Muslim populations, historically, it has probably been mostly directed towards the Jews of Iran in the form of "johood-e najes (filthy Kike)". (I believe Khamenei's own tract on religious obligations makes the "najes" designation.) A more prudent and less foul-mouthed leader than Khamenei would have avoided a reference w/ such a baggage of bigotry in the Iranian Shia context.
The Supreme Leader is trying to maintain the radical pose even if he's going along w/ the current negotiations, in order to maintain credibility w/ the hardliners, who are his most devoted subjects, and perhaps also not to appear softer than Israel's hostile posturing. He'll probably make such hardline speeches even if the negotiations proceed on course, which should provide Netanyahu w/ ample propaganda opportunities.
He [Ziabari] made no such claim. He is explaining the reason for Iran insisting the deal be kept confidential.
Ziabari is simply deferring to state authority as to why details of a process that the public everywhere is highly interested in should be kept secret, projecting future blame on Iran's official enemies, "extremist and neo-conservative elements in the Western gov'ts." This is even less credible than Western analysts reiterating the state's claim that Assange, Manning & Snowden's revelations harm national security. Ziabari is just following the familiar pattern of state-approved journalists deferring to state authority whenever it demands so on the grounds of national interest or security. (It may be that Rouhani's side is also partly worried about the reaction of its own extremists, hence demanding secrecy, but cannot openly say so.)
That’s debatable, seeing as the World Bank predicts the Iranian economy will grow in 2014. In fact, the sanctions have lead to improved efficiencies and diversification of the economy, namely reduced reliance on imports.
Just referring to an analysis as "drek" is not a logical rebuttal. Al-Monitor is "drek" when I cite it, but you don't have objections when Ziabari refers to it for support in the article. Al-Monitor is "pro Washington," but you find The World Bank, part of the so-called "Washington Consensus" and a promoter of neoliberalism, as reliable. The kind of prediction you mention, had been made previously by other neoliberal outfits, such as the IMF, and Ahmadinejad himself. Even the current Rouhani administration doesn't buy it.
The hardliners do not call the shots in Iran, the Supreme Leader does, and for decades, his fatwa against nukes has remained unchallenged. The hard liners may be opposed to Rouhani’s willingness to compromise on the nuclear program, but that doesn’t mean they are pushing for nukes. There are no nukes being developed or pursued in Iran and there never have been.
The SL, Khamenei, is generally considered in the hardliner camp, although there's variation w/in each of these factions. The "hardliners" are generally the most loyal to and espouse the most extreme unwavering support for Khamenei. I didn't claim that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, or even that the hardliners/Khamenei intend as such; just that they don't necessarily want areas of confrontation w/ the US completely patched over.
The author is sympathetic to the Iranian gov't's demand that the contents of the current negotiations be kept confidential until an agreement is reached, arguing that the media would distort such disclosure to the detriment of the results. It's rather odd for a journalist to prefer to be kept in the dark about his gov't's activities and to express distrust in his own institution. But this is not really surprising given that Ziabari is a state-sanctioned Iranian journalist, meaning that he only publishes and advocates points of view that happen to be compatible w/ those of the Iranian authorities, as evidenced by the articles he's published at the site linked to at the end of his article. Therefore, he prefers not to be informed and keep his readers in the dark on certain issues, if that's how his gov't likes it. In other words, the name of the online journal he's published at notwithstanding, a "dissident voice" he is not. Maybe the author does not trust himself w/ handling the information properly, but he may wanna refrain from blanket accusations against the media in general, such as his prediction of "spreading falsehoods."
Ziabari talks about the long history of sanctions on the Islamic Republic and their "devastating impact on the Iranian people." Although the effects of the sanctions on the Iranian public have been the most dire in the past year or two, the most significant failings of the Iranian economy prior to that period have been the results of mismanagement and corruption. As link to iranhumanrights.org puts it, "The purpose of this study is to alert the international community to the mounting costs inflicted on the Iranian population by the current sanctions regime. To be sure, as the study has shown, regime policies have contributed significantly to the economic hardships of the Iranian people. Indeed, during the bulk of the existence of the Islamic Republic, poor government policies and inefficient and corrupt institutions far outweighed the impact of sanctions in impeding economic growth, producing a dysfunctional and vulnerable economy, and undermining the economic well-being of Iranians. Moreover, the Iranian government’s continued economic mismanagement, which reflects either a willful exacerbation of the sanctions’ effects for political gain or the result of managerial incompetence, has magnified the impact of the 2012 sanctions. Yet the fact remains that sanctions have now combined with regime policies to cause a severe deterioration in the living conditions of Iranians. Increasingly, the Iranian people have become unable to pursue their basic economic and social rights to employment, food, shelter, healthcare, and employment." During the last year or so of Ahmadinejad's administration, it was routine for various officials outside his faction to lay significant blame for the economic condition on mismanagement and corruption: link to al-monitor.com
The article's claim that the nuclear dossier can be closed once the sanctions are lifted, remains to be seen. While the opening presented by Rouhani's overtures should be pursued, there are hawkish forces w/in Iran that are not happy w/ agreements that may come out of these talks and seek to derail them. It remains to be seen how such factionalism plays out domestically in Iran.
link to csmonitor.com
link to nytimes.com
On his next trip to the Negev, Max needs to take the counter-protesters appearing in the following video for a tour and interview. This is, apparently, from a recent small protest against the Prawer plan and in support of boycotting settlement goods at some retailer in London. A group of Kahanist types crash on the protest and start their circus act, which picks up around 9:45 when the guy wearing a beret and a prayer shawl, who sounds American, starts screaming. One of them, an Iraqi Jew, talks about Palestinians, b/c of their culture and savagery, raping Kuwaiti women en masse during Saddam's invasion. The clip contains crass and lewd annotations w/ some quite offensive ones, such as referring to Rachel Corrie "being pancaked" (20:45):
link to youtube.com
The police seem ineffective in maintaining proper order for the protest. Do they really believe that this kind of behavior is gonna positively impress the passersby, or are they just doing it for the kicks?
In the post above I made a reference to Shirazi's webpage on Ahmadinejad's 2012 Quds Day speech @ link to wideasleepinamerica.com and stated that he "completely overlooks posting a single translation of this [MA's] speech." Technically, NS quotes 1 line from that speech, regarding Zionist regime as an insult to humanity, presumably from English sources and w/o any links. No other quotes from that speech are entertained. By veering off into the topic of Israeli Apartheid, he's apparently implying that Ahmadinejad is on par w/ anti-Apartheid activists, completely ignoring and hiding from his readers the Protocols-of-the-Elders message of the speech.
I should add that, contrary to what's attributed to Rosen in this post, I am not suggesting that editors of this site, or even Shirazi, are Holocaust deniers/revisionists themselves. The issue is honesty and accuracy by so-called progressives who adamantly present themselves as flag bearers of such standards.
Ridiculous article by a dishonest author. Lets look at the evidence Nima Shirazi (NS) brandishes for his claim that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (MA) had acknowledged Nazi genocide against Jews and was more or less saying the same thing that Rouhani's administration is saying, and then look at the evidence he deliberately omits. First note that, contrary to his conventional practice of disputing translations of IRI statements and going to the original Persian source for accurate translation, the author's links are either to American & Israeli, or non-existent sources. Shirazi refers to MA's Columbia U. speech and quotes WaPo's translation referring to "My first question was if -- given that the Holocaust is a present reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives?" But 1st part of MA's speech in the original Persian is @ link to aparat.com where the referenced quote is around 22:00 min, "My 1st question was that if Holocaust is an historical event, why don't they allow researchers to research on it?" There's no reference to "present reality of our time, a history that occurred," but the usual "even if it's true, why not allow researching it?" Shirazi then quotes from the same source, though mistakenly links to another site, "I am not saying that it didn’t happen at all. This is not that judgment that I am passing here. I said ... granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people?” The original Persian is around 7:30 min in the 2nd part @ link to aparat.com "I'm not saying it didn't 'hap' [doesn't complete the phrase "didn't happen"], I'm not judging. In the 2nd question I made the assumption that it has happened and I said let's assume it happened, what does it have to do w/ the people of Palestine?"
Shirazi then quotes MA from Ynet in 2006, "Don’t you think that continuation of genocide by expelling Jews from Europe was one of their [the Europeans'] aims in creating a regime of occupiers of Al-Quds?" and claims that this is a clear affirmation of the Nazi genocide. Again going to the original Persian, which NS has done when it's suited his purpose in the past but not now, @ link to news.gooya.com in the last paragraph, MA actually says, "A question has occurred to me which I now present: don't you think that by establishing the fabricated regime of 'occupation of Jerusalem' and moving the Jews of Europe there is a sort of continuation of the same antisemitism, meaning that their goal was the expulsion of Jews from Europe and a sort of ethnic and religious cleansing?" There is no reference to a Nazi genocide or Holocaust against the Jews, but "traditional European antisemitism" and cleansing of Jews from that continent. But we shall see how MA maintains that view.
The author then refers to MA's letter to Merkel through a dysfunctional link, where MA allegedly acknowledges "past wrongs." The original letter can be found @ link to vista.ir where MA states,
"For a while I have been thinking, why today some nations who can, and their history shows that in the past they have been able to, play important and prominent roles in material and spiritual advancement of humanity in various scientific, artistic, literary, philosophic and political arenas and be civilization-makers, are not permitted, as a great nation, to be proud of their historical achievements in a worthy manner and correctly play their constructive role on the global stage. Rather they [WWII victors] try to constantly maintain a black cloud of humiliation and disgrace and apology over their [Germans'] head. And even more unfortunate is that some officials and managers of that nation consider this situation worthy of themselves and their nation and defend it. Isn't this one of the wonders of the world today? Propaganda efforts since the second world war have been so extensive that some of them have believed that they are the historical culprits and have to pay for the sins of their fathers for consecutive generations till an undetermined time ... I do not intend to review the subject of Holocaust here. But isn't it logical that some victorious countries in the war have intended to create an excuse based on which they would constantly keep the people of the defeated country apologetic in order to weaken motive, movement and elation in them and pose a barrier to the advancement and deserved power of that country. In addition to the people of Germany, the people of the ME and, in fact, all of humanity have suffered losses from presenting the topic of Holocaust ... The question is that if these countries, and in particular England, feel responsibility vis-a-vis Holocaust survivors, why didn't they provide them a refuge in their own country and why, by starting the current of antisemitism, forced them to emigrate to the lands of others, and with the excuse of housing Holocaust survivors, they encouraged Jews worldwide to emigrate, and today an important part of the inhabitants of the occupied lands are non-European Jews ..." According to Shirazi, Ahmadinejad advising Merkel that German leaders have to realize that Germany has been victimized and should not be apologetic for its past, but rather proud of it, is evidence of "acknowledgement of past wrongs."
But what does Shirazi leave out? Whatever doesn't suit his deceptive narrative. Here's MA in a 2012 Tehran interview w/ the German public TV as quoted at the official Iranian presidency website (with all the grammatical errors) @ link to president.ir "How did this nation, this regime came to be? It was a colonialist planning, everyone knows that it created by a lie ... They have invented a story with the title Holocaust ... President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the Holocaust a “lie” and accusing Zionist regime of using it to suppress Palestinians. Zionist regime statehood “was a colonialist plan that resulted from a lie,” ... Responding to this question, is that the reason that you once said "This country will vanish from the map?"President said we said that occupation and crimes have to be stopped and prevented lies." Ahmadinejad, it seems, feels a responsibility to instruct and correct Germans on their recent history. In his 2009 Quds day speech MA noted
link to tabnak.ir
"After the 2nd world war they claimed that during this war the adventure of Holocaust has taken place and claimed that a large number of Jews have been killed in the ovens. In fact, they instituted 2 slogans; one is the the victimhood of the Jewish nation with complicated propaganda lies and plots and the creation of the psychological atmosphere that they are victims, and second that they need an independent land ... During the past 4 years I have discussed topics regarding their fake victimhood, but here I want to point out how rooted and fabricated this victimhood is ... Why don't you allow uncovering the secret of this [Holocaust] adventure and for truth and reality to be revealed?" Yet another example of his acknowledgement of the "fabricated Jewish victimhood."
Or consider this 2013 article in an Iranian news site, titled "Renewed defense of the president [Ahmadinejad] of the slogan of Holocaust denial/people's farewell with Ahmadinejad," which quotes MA's 2011 Quds Day speech as "All the preludes to the establishment of this regime were based on lying and deception and one of these grand lies is the myth of the Holocaust." To let MA summarize it himself, in a July 2013 official farewell event in his honor, he insisted
link to youtube.com
"The topic of Holocaust demolished the spine of the capitalist regime b/c it was the only remaining sacred element in the capitalist regime. God is not sacred there, the prophet is not sacred, values are not sacred. They were all prejudiced on one topic and no one should enter it. We are, like you, a Baseeji [those who would sacrifice for the cause]. We entered it head on [chuckles]." In other words, till the waning days of his presidency, MA was quite proud of his Holocaust denial, considering it a decisive blow, presumably to the "capitalist regime." Somehow Shirazi has not yet come across these sources. Maybe this knowledgeable author should contact MA's rivals in the presidential elections of (the disputed) 2009 and 2013 and correct them on their rejection of MA's Holocaust denials during the debates and interviews. Apparently, they had misunderstood Ahmadinejad.
And then there is the whole Holocaust-denial industry that MA's presidency unleashed in Iranian media and officialdom that we won't get into. But since the author mentions the Holocaust cartoon contest that was ushered following the Danish newspaper's Mohammad cartoons, here are 20 short wonderful animations, tastefully named "Holocartoons," that the organizers of that contest have proudly provided for public viewing: link to youtube.com...3432.4845.0.5002.9.9.0.0.0.0.216.816.4j4j1.9.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.ze39GMOpDcM
Basically, don't miss any opportunity, no matter how unrelated, to deliver yet another blow to the "capitalist regime" by mocking the "fabricated Jewish victimhood" and suffering.
Shirazi quotes Velayati regarding the Holocaust, but why waste time w/ the underlings when the alpha man, the Supreme Leader, himself can provide guidance. Here's Khamenei at a 2012 gathering of the clerics of the Assembly of Experts
link to nasrtv.com
which is conveniently translated at Khamenei's official English site link to english.khamenei.ir
as "When a person expresses his objection to the myth of Holocaust and announced that he does not believe it, they throw him into prison. They sentence him to prison for denying a fictitious event. Even if we assume that the event is not fictitious, even if we assume that it is a true story, is it a crime to deny a true historical event? If a person is not convinced of the truth of the Holocaust and he denies the story or expresses doubt about it, he is thrown into prison. This is what they are doing in the European countries that claim to be civilized. If somebody protests the Holocaust, expresses doubt about it or denies it, European courts convict him in a court of law. However, when they openly insult the Holy Prophet of Islam (s.w.a.), that prominent man of the entire history of mankind, when they insult what 1.5 billion Muslims hold sacred, nobody is allowed to protest against their actions. Notice how wrong and disgraceful their frameworks are."
Shirazi further claims that the "alleged" Holocaust denial is always accompanied by asserting the Palestinians' innocence in that even-if-we-assume-it's-true event. But such denial is usually accompanied by a whole narrative of history. Take for example one of MA's finest moments, his 2012 Quds Day speech. Real-time translation of it is provided courtesy of Iran's state PressTV @
link to shiatv.net
Starting around 11:25 min, follows his dialog on the "Zionists," which takes over half of the speech. I won't bother quoting verbatim, but a synopsis of it would be that "Zionists" for the past 2000 years have been responsible for the worst crimes against humanity, including slavery, colonialism (not just in Palestine), the 2 world wars, and much of current poverty and misery in the world. The "Zionists" dominate the world banking system, media and governments. But what is noteworthy here is that Shirazi made a post at his website @ link to wideasleepinamerica.com about this speech. The author, who routinely demands accuracy in quoting Iranian officials and presents sometimes-multiple translations to that effect, somehow completely overlooks posting a single translation of this speech and instead quickly veers off into "Israeli Apartheid."
On the lunatic and Protocols-of-the-Elders-inspired views of history, there have been many "historical documentaries" presented in Iranian state media, esp. during MA's presidency, elaborating and expanding on the views similar to the above speech of MA, which are available on the web. In fact, Ahmadinejad's vice president and close adviser, Mohammad Reza Rahimi, gave this lesson on "Zionist" mischief at an international conference: link to irandailybrief.com
My issue here is not so much the pronouncements of IRI officials. But rather standards of honesty and accuracy that progressives demand and claim to uphold, but segments of which, with utmost hypocrisy, flush 'em down the toilet when it doesn't suit their preconceived narratives. Do those who engage in such deception, and, in the case of Shirazi, act as shills for the most lunatic and racist segments of Iranian gov't (rejected even by other segments of the same regime), expect to be taken seriously? And a question to editors of this site, using Ahmadinejad's favorite rhetorical/logical conditional: even assuming that (in a parallel universe) your go-to guy on Iranian affairs is a reliable and honest observer of such matters, do you really believe that always relying on the same person on such issues is providing the best understanding for your readers? Wouldn't some modicum of diversity of views be beneficial when it comes to a large country, diverse and complicated as Iran?
On the other hand, some mass media outlets are now uncharacteristically providing more balanced discussions of the occupation. NY metro's PBS station, Ch. 13, the largest in the country, recently featured "The Law in These Parts" & "5 Borken Cameras," along w/ director interviews and panel discussions representing the "2 sides." The 2 movies can be viewed at their website for a limited time (will be removed sometime in Sep.).
The links ...
The Law ...
Discussion of "The Law"
"The Law" director interview
Discussion of "5 Cameras"
"5 Cameras" director interview
(The connections for these links may be intermittent.)
The most hilarious of the panelists is the confrontational Brooke Goldstein of the LawFare Project in the 5-Cameras discussion, who even gets on the moderator's nerves. She starts off by claiming that 200 Israeli soldiers have been killed in the violent Bil'in protests, brandishing photos of some alleged victims. Later on, she talks about "innocent 18 or 19 year old Israeli soldiers who are there peacefully" being provoked by violent rock-throwing Palestinian kids, who are used as human shields by their elders. Goldstein also accuses Huwaida Arraf, also on the panel, and her International Solidarity Movement of praising suicide bombings and of being in bed w/ Hamas & Islamic Jihad. And the evidence for all this, she claims, "is on the internet." As if ...
Safe to say no state follows that dictum; it's not specific to Iran, Israel or the US.
Since you consider it the "eternal screed of the hasbarists" to suggest that states & their leaders should primarily focus on & answer for their own crimes, and since I'd presume you're not a "hasbarist," it would follow that you'd advise the Israeli state to engage more in trash talking its enemies by focusing on their misdeeds and to stop being too harsh on itself.
The "cancerous tumor" quote is from Ah.'s 2012 Quds Day speech. He made those comments in reference to the 2-state sol'n. He was rejecting the 2ss as a matter of principle. Most of that speech consisted of Protocols-style antisemitism, such as "Zionists" have been responsible for the worst of human misery for the past 2000 years, including slavery, colonialism, the 2 world wars and present-day world-wide poverty. He also called on the world to unite in ending this historic enemy of mankind once and for all.
It's fair to denounce extremist speech. However, these statements (by Ah.) are not pronouncements of plans of action. The Israeli claims that such rhetoric indicate Iranian intention of annihilating Israel ASAP are highly exaggerated propaganda.
States, like people, should stop their own crimes & misdeeds before crying for those of their official enemies. The Iranian gov't should set its own house in order, irrespective of the model Israel follows.
The curious thing that has mostly escaped attention so far is that much of these mistranslations originate from Iranian sources themselves. ISNA, the original source of the Rouhani mistranslation, is an Iranian news agency. The "wipe-Israel-off-the-map" translation was also at first provided by a semi-official Iranian organization. There are other examples. The more radical news outlets in Iran are notorious for outright fabrication of "news." So these mistranslations are small change to them (although ISNA is of more of a reformist bent).
The Iranian president would do well to address the various injustices and apartheids that his Islamic Republic perpetrates on its own population before shedding crocodile tears for Palestinian suffering. He should start by healing the wounds and sores on "the body of the Islamic world" that are now under his presidential purview, thereby setting a model for others to follow.
"would be interesting to hear from some Iranian jews living in Iran about their circumstances." One documentary was made in 2005 by a Muslim Iranian for the Dutch National TV, "Jews of Iran":
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to sites.google.com
The film's not available for free, but here are a couple of scenes:
link to youtube.com
link to fandor.com
As far as "If I had to live as a religious minority in Israel or Iran I would chose Iran, no question," it may be wise to ask questions like "Which minority am I gonna be living as?" E.g., if you're offered to be a member of the largest non-Muslim Iranian minority, the Baha'i, a native Abrahamic religion of Iran, you'd be facing this situation:
1) link to pbs.org
2) link to huffingtonpost.com
3) link to guardian.co.uk
There are more Baha'is in Iran than the other "recognized minority religions," Christian, Jewish & Zoroastrian, combined.
If you belong to certain sects of Christianity or even Shia Islam, such as Sufi Dervishes, you can expect this:
link to forbes.com
If you're gonna be Jewish, you may wanna desensitize yourself to extreme antisemitic rhetoric from Iranian officials and in the state media, such as holding Jewish cabals & certain parts of Judaism responsible for many historical ills, such as slavery, drug smuggling, satanic worship, liberalism & humanism:
1) link to irandailybrief.com
2) Most of Ahmadinejad's 2012 Quds-day speech was about "Zionists" of the past 2000 years responsible for slavery, colonialism, the 2 world wars & current global economic problems:
link to shiatv.net
3) Here's part of a "documentary" aired on Iranian state TV a few years ago, called "Secrets of the Armageddon: Rooted in the Protocols":
link to roshangari.ir
The narrator initially appearing is identified as "Dr. Mirlohi: writer & investigator," and starts by stating that the founders of some of the most corrupt institutions in history, atheism, liberalism, satanic worship and freemasonry, were kikes or Zionist kikes. (He actually uses the Persian version of "kike.") Then the female narrator starts by stating that the most credible evidence for all this is found in the Protocols. The rest is similar and in another episode the Kabalah is discussed as a source of evil. As one may expect, the Baha'is face even more demonization in IRI's media.
I'm not suggesting that you should choose Israel for your minority reincarnation, but that you may wanna run away from either offer.
At the time of the '79 revolution, Iran's population was under 35 million and its Jewish population around 100K. Currently, Iran's population is 80 million & its Jewish population somewhere between 9 to 25 K, depending on who's quoting the statistics. The gov't places it towards the higher end, but if it's closer to the other end, then Turkey has a larger Jewish population.
"That proves he is an incompetent anti-Semite!" You're assuming that every racist is a genocidal or murderous racist.
What exactly had J St. proposed for the borders inside the Palestinian territories? Is it a modification of pre-67 border to include settlements w/ mutual exchange of territory? If so, did they intend to x'fer Israeli Palestinians in such an exchange?
So you're confirming my interpretation that Weiss is objecting to the 2ss on principle? Even if it were to become feasible, he & like-minded BDS'ers would campaign against such an outcome, and the we-don't-support-2ss-b/c-it's-not-feasible-anymore pose, that's ubiquitous on this site, is just a ruse?
I haven't followed the organization, so I'm not clear as to what is implied by "J Street ... pushed for fixing borders (inside Palestine) that would allow Israel to maintain a Jewish majority," w/ no references provided. Is "Palestine" referring to historic Palestine, and "borders" to the pre-1967 ones? Is this a complaint about their advocacy for the internationally-recognized 2-state-sol'n?
It's doubtful if "words by Khamenei" mean less than words by Philip's dentist & computer repair guy. Khamenei himself may be quite dismayed at hearing the pooh-poohing of his influence, given Iran's influence in several countries in the region. And for 77 million in Iran his words may not "mean little."
In situations of political or military conflict, demonization of the official enemy is the norm. It would precede my earliest recollections, but I don't believe that prior to about 30 years ago (but sticking to more modern times) there was much demonization of Islam in the West. Iran, for example, used to be associated w/ fine oriental art (as in Persian carpets & poetry), ancient liberator of Jews (per the Cyrus cylinder) and friend of the West (as a hospitable client state). But now "Iranian" evokes mad hostage-taking Mullahs. Arabs fared not as well, mainly due to their conflict w/ Israel, but even the anti-Arab sentiment back then wasn't couched in anti-Islam diatribe, as the Arab side was mostly led by seculars.
This dehumanization of the official enemy is used by both sides to rationalize the enmity. As an example from the other side, you have last week's speech by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, at a women's gathering, in which he called the "European races" "savages by nature" who are violent towards women. It would be as if Obama, in a speech to a women's gathering, were to claim that the Middle-Easterners are savages by nature, who can do no better than abuse their womenfolk, in contrast to our Judeo-Christian civilization. Or other examples of crude antisemitic views expressed in Iranian state media and by some of their high-ranking officials. Countering such irrational dehumanization on both sides would help diffuse the conflict and restore sanity.
Dershowitz forgot to include the evil archbishop's gross failure in condemning Israel's main official enemy, the Islamic Republic of Iran, as yet another instance of Tutu's hypocrisy: 1 2 3
Why can't all these so-called human rights advocates share the law professor's impeccable even-handedness on such matters?
The Facebook page of the conference has kept silent about Hawking's withdrawal, so far. The latest reference to him is on Apr. 7, "We are excited to be hosting at the 2013 Israeli Presidential Conference the renowned British physicist, Professor Stephen Hawking":
link to facebook.com
Chomsky joined other academics in lobbying Hawking to withdraw:
link to guardian.co.uk
An Iranian propaganda outfit put its own spin on the Mideast clash of alliances through this animation last year:
link to youtube.com
Geller's talk at the GN Chabad can be seen @
link to youtube.com
link to youtube.com
where the 1st clip, which includes the pledge of allegiance, is an introduction by her attorney, who defended her subway ads in court. Geller attacks liberal Jews, ADL & Foxman, and claims that Hitler's Judenrein program has been revived in Europe.
Apparently, the Palestinians haven't completely boycotted the conference, as Munib Al-Masri, a member of the Palestine Legislative Council, aka the "Duke of Nablus" and the "Palestinian Rothschild," is on the list of speakers:
link to 2013.presidentconf.org.il
There are several scientists on the list, including the American Nobel laureate in physiology Richard Axel. But I'd guess that Hawking would have been the best-known scientist to the general public. Among politicians on the list are Mikhail Gorbachev, former president of Mexico Ernesto Zedillo, and the monarch of Monaco. Most likely Al-Masri and Gorbachev will advocate for the two-state solution, but I don't know what the others will be saying.
Per Abramson's argument, the Al Jazeera-dubbed "most hated man in Israel," who is in no way of the same journalistic caliber as Abramson, also bares a large responsibility for Palestinian suffering:
link to aljazeera.com
A quick wiki search turns up the following quotes from Feiglin, which further illuminate his mindset:
link to en.wikipedia.org
"Why should non-Jews have a say in the policy of a Jewish state?... For two thousand years, Jews dreamed of a Jewish state, not a democratic state. Democracy should serve the values of the state, not destroy them... You can’t teach a monkey to speak and you can’t teach an Arab to be democratic. You’re dealing with a culture of thieves and robbers. Muhammad, their prophet, was a robber and a killer and a liar. The Arab destroys everything he touches."
"Hitler was an unparalleled military genius. Nazism promoted Germany from a low to a fantastic physical and ideological status. The ragged, trashy youth body turned into a neat and orderly part of society and Germany received an exemplary regime, a proper justice system and public order. Hitler savored good music. He would paint. This was no bunch of thugs. They merely used thugs and homosexuals."
Based on his Ahmadinejad, Muhammad and Hitler comments, he, presumably, would not be raising the usual specter of Ahmadinejad-as-modern-day-Hitler.
Here's a 2010 speech/Q&A in LA by Feiglin, who was The Jewish Leadership party candidate:
link to youtube.com
He wants the role of Israel as a special Jewish state to be emphasized internationally, so that it is not expected to behave like any other member of the family of nations, and wants his audience to recognize that the fate of world Jewry rests upon the success of Israeli policies. Around min 22:40 he states, "The problem is not Iran. The problem is Ahmadinejad and he should be killed," and goes on to explain how the assassination of Ahmadinejad would save millions of lives. We also learn from him that at the time of the Iran-Iraq war Ahmadinejad was already a high-ranking figure in the Islamic Republic and was personally responsible for sending thousands of kids, armed w/ Chinese-made keys to heaven, as human waves to clear mine fields.
Feiglin propagates the ignorant or propagandist view, common in right-wing circles, of raising the bogeyman of Ahmadinejad as the ultimate dictator of the IRI, whereas anyone w/ a minimal knowledge of the Iranian system knows that decisions such as direction of nuclear technology and engagement in war are prerogatives of the Supreme Leader. Ahmadinejad doesn't have the authority to make such decisions and will be leaving office in a few months. Furthermore, while there's a debate about the use of children by Khomeini's regime in the Iran-Iraq war, no one else has suggested that Ahmadinejad, who was in his late 20s and did not have any high position in the system at the time, had any role in that matter. Feiglin is rolling all the living & dead leadership of the IRI during the past 30 years into the bugbear of Ahmadinejad, who should be eliminated for the sake of saving mankind.
Maybe the opponents of this event can employ the tactic that the Christian Zionist students at UC Irvine are participating in, namely cultivating supporters through high-tech job prospects:
The student leader in the clip claims that "anti-Semitic" activism is not popular at UCI anymore, which must be why they'd rather entice students w/ high-tech prospects than engage in human-rights debates. Sounds like a birth-right trip for those w/ no such birth right.
Apparently, there's a whole different subtext to this billboard which even the Guardian article didn't notice. After poking around some Iranian sites, I came across a pro-gov't one that, while admiring the billboard, pointed out that the design of the captions is meant as a jab at the BBC. There's the larger caption in red, followed by the smaller ones in white & gray. This is a rough imitation of the caption design in BBC news. Here's a random example from BBC Arabic news, w/ the red, white & gray captions & news feed:
link to youtube.com
BBC Persian follows a similar format.
The Islamic Republic has been waging an intense PR campaign against foreign news media aimed at Iranians, such as BBC Persian & VOA Persian, w/ BBC Persian as the main target, since it's quite popular inside Iran. Iranian media routinely run pieces about BBC Persian journalists being spies or engaged in corrupt practices. BBC satellite broadcasts have been jammed. Iranians granting interviews to the BBC risk prosecution and families of BBC journalists have been harassed & detained:
link to bbc.co.uk
This vilification campaign includes cyber warfare. The IRI has been setting up fake websites & Facebook pages to discredit the BBC. This is the actual BBC Persian site:
link to bbc.co.uk
And this is an imposter one set up from Iran, as indicated by its URL domain suffix, w/ an abundance of exclamation points (!!!):
link to persianbbc.ir
At the moment, at the fake site you can read headlines such as, "BBC's disrespect on the sorrowful 40th of [Imam] Hussein (PBUH)," "BBC and alcoholic beverages," "Colorful presence of BBC Persian's female anchor after rape [referring to fabricated news of rape among BBC Persian journalists]," "Rescue project for BBC Persian's spies; the Queen enters!," "Death of Bin Laden and Saddam, Washington's fabricated story," "America responsible for Egypt's recent events," "Iraq the next prey to Turkey, Arabia and Qatar." It's meant to trick Iranian visitors of the site w/ IRI-style news items disguised as BBC pieces. They've also set up fake Facebook pages in which BBC Iranian staff "confess" to various corrupt, immoral or criminal practices:
link to guardian.co.uk
Pieces from these fake sites & profiles are routinely presented in Iranian media as real evidence.
So beside the billboard's overt message of defiance against the US, there's a subtler anti-BBC message. If the designers expected the passersby to pick up on that message, it'd suggest their recognition that many Iranians view & are familiar w/ the BBC. This may be part of the gov't's propaganda efforts in the lead up to the upcoming presidential election. Not so ironically, the BBC is heavily blamed by Iranian Monarchists for fueling the 1979 revolution by its shortwave broadcasts of protest events, when the Iranian media were censoring such news at the time.
Shemr & Yazid were not the same character. Yazid was the evil Caliph & Shemr was his henchman who beheaded Imam Hussein (IH):
link to en.wikipedia.org
The billboard depicts Shemr. The annual Ashura mourning of IH's martyrdom at the hands of his oppressors is probably the topmost religious event in Iran. The imagery of that battle is widespread in the Iranian political discourse. The gov't claims that it represents IH & its enemies from the Shah to the US & Israel represent Yazid. In the 2009 pro-democracy protests, Mir Hussein Moussavi's supporters would chant slogans claiming he's on IH's side. The MEK uses an analogous religious imagery. So both the religious imagery and its political invocation are well-known to the average Iranian. And the smaller caption on the billboard claims that the same statement, "Be w/ us, be safe," was uttered by both Obama in 2013 & Shemr. I don't see why it would imply that Obama is necessarily a Muslim. Too bad Obama is also a Hussein.
Since it's not practical for most not-fully-Jewish Israeli couples to travel abroad just for a marriage certificate, esp. since they wouldn't go to present neighboring countries, you could make yet another argument for the 2-state sol'n. For if a Palestinian state were to be established, the Israelis could just take a short bus trip across the border to Palestine, the gov't of which would issue a marriage certificate to interfaith or not-all-Jewish couples. Such Israeli couples then have a practical option, w/ less pressure on the gov't to alienate the religious block by allowing civil interfaith marriages, and the new Palestinian gov't could have an extra source of revenue. So replace the Qalandiya checkpoint w/ an Israeli-friendly marriage bureau in a Palestinian state.
I dunno if this recent campaign ad by the Shas against converting & marrying the said Russians was posted at this site or not:
Using medical need to punish peaceful dissidents, of which intimidation of doctors who'd provide such treatments would be an example, is among the most merciless practices of repressive regimes which is not all that rare in the Middle East. Contrary to your belief, the Islamic Republic of Iran has engaged in such practices. Dragging injured protesters from hospitals, thereby scaring them out of seeking treatment, and ordering doctors to report such patients were practiced during the 2009 post-election protests:
link to iranhumanrights.org
Withholding of medical attention for the purpose of torturing political prisoners is an ongoing practice of the IRI:
link to thelancet.com
link to amnesty.org
Bahrain is another instance where injured protesters and medical personnel who help them have been under attack during the recent unrest:
link to hrw.org
And in Syria bombardment of hospitals and torturing of doctors are gov't favorites:
link to pbs.org
Peter in SF,
My point is not that your interpretation of "kT" (constant times temperature) is all that far-fetched. It's quite possible that the graph is for a system where a range of temperatures are to be considered, and placing "kT" inside or outside the parentheses is more a matter of personal preference. But if you wanna be more generous to the atom-bomb story, then the "kiloton" interpretation of "kT" may be a simpler one. Of course, the issue w/ the discrepancy between the power and energy curves remains in either case.
Since 1 kiloton TNT=4.184 TJ (TJ, TeraJoules, is a trillion Joules), if the units on the (left side) power axis were changed from kilotons/second (kT/sec) to 100 MJ (M, Mega, is a million), then the 2 curves would be roughly consistent and the energy curve would be showing a final yield equivalent to 2.5 times that of the Nagasaki bomb. I don't think such creative reinterpretations of the graph are particularly meaningful, but since you were looking for some way of making sense of the discrepancies in the graph ...
The way "kT" is placed on the graph is not the conventional way if "T" was meant to be a variable like temperature. But if you nonetheless interpret "T" as such, then the graph, as presented, is totally meaningless to the viewer, b/c "T," and, hence, the output energy, could vary between 0 & infinity. In other words, the graph could just as readily be referring to the energy output of a small flash light as to that of a superbomb that could destroy the solar system.
Your interpretation of "kT" as "Boltzmann's constant times temperature" does not apply to the graph, since the "kT" placed in parentheses as part of the axis labels indicates unit of measurement, whereas your interpretation of "kT" does not specify a unit, but a variable. As far as the lower/upper case convention (t/T) for tons, there doesn't seem to be such a definitive convention as you claim; I've seen it specified in both cases, although "t" is more common. These, however, are minor points.
If the editors of this site would read their own site, not to mention outside sources, more attentively, then they might not try to give credit for originality to their own writers for observations made by others before them. Horowitz seems to be implying that LaDuke & Shirazi came up w/ the connection in the American mainstream perception between the treatment of the American Indians & the Palestinians. But the co-editor could have read the comment by "Hostage" on 9/12/12 at 6:44 pm @
link to mondoweiss.net
where he quotes Chosmky from
link to zcommunications.org
as, "... there are independent reasons why Americans tend towards Israel. Remember, this is a long-standing relationship that goes back long before Zionism. There’s an instinctive identification that’s unique. There’s the American Indian comparison, you know, the barbaric redskins trying to prevent progress and development and attacking innocent whites: that’s Israel-Palestine. In fact, it’s right there in the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, the most libertarian of the founding fathers. One of the charges in the Declaration against King George III is that he unleashed the merciless Indian savages against us, whose known way of warfare is torture and killing and so on. That could come straight out of Zionist propaganda. This is a very deep strain in American culture and history. After all, the country was founded by religious extremists who were waving the Holy Book and describing themselves as children of Israel returning to the Promised Land. So Zionism found its natural environment here ... For many Americans, it’s just instinctive that the Jews in Israel are reliving our history. They recognize themselves, and furthermore they recognize the crusaders who succeeded in throwing out the pagans. There’s the analogy to the American conquest of the national territory, the Zionists use this analogy as well, but positively. We are bringing civilization to the barbarians, which is after all the whole core of Western imperialist ideology. It’s very deeply rooted."
Chomsky had made similar comments in previous interviews and lectures, as well. Did LaDuke or Shirazi make such statements before Chomsky? It's quite possible that Chomsky may have been influenced by other writers on these views, but I doubt if LaDuke or Shirazi were the ones. This is not to imply that such a view is not worth repeating by others, but to whether it's honest to claim originality for it.
For those organizing counter-protests, an Israeli flag waving demonstration is scheduled for tomorrow Tu 11/20 in Manhattan in front of the Israeli consulate on 2nd Ave b/w 42nd & 43rd @ 12:30p:
link to ih.constantcontact.com
The following video shows the anti-war demonstration to which the above right-wing mob was reacting from across the street:
link to youtube.com
A positive indication is that the loony demonstrators don't appear to outnumber the anti-war ones. Perhaps it indicates that, in spite of their support for the attack, most Israelis are still not attracted to such extremist displays.
Since the Israel-Palestine conflict is often compared to Apartheid S. Africa, it's noteworthy that even though a minority of blacks have risen to positions of power and privilege, generally the black majority is economically worse off than during the Apartheid era:
link to globalresearch.ca
With each major attack or war, Israel's options for the next attack/war become more constrained. Israel is having difficulty pulling a Cast Lead in this attack; its war options are shrinking. And w/ each attack Gaza & Hamas become more politically integrated into the Arab world, witness the parade of officials from the Arab countries & Turkey that have visited Gaza in the past few days or are scheduled for tomorrow. This increasing integration will also constrain Hamas' exercise of armed options, as diplomacy will be considered the preferred choice. Another constraining factor on Israel's military options is Hamas' increasing missile range.
"... no solution to Palestinian issue but more violence ... None of them paid even lip service to the two-state solution. Many expressed fears of Islamists taking power ... "I don't see a solution with the Arab" ... "Kill them all" ... not interested ... in human rights ... existential struggle that demands the law of the jungle."
And yet many on this site steadfastly hold that the only viable solution to the conflict is a single democratic/binational state, where Netanyahu & Abbas take turns as heads of the ruling coalition, Barak & Jaabari's successor jointly supervise IDF al-Qassam military exercises with Nassrallah as a dignitary observer, Livni & Haniyeh hold hands while campaigning as the loyal opposition shuttling from the River to the Sea, and the Israeli & Palestinian flags have merged into the world's first psychedelically sext-colored (bi)national emblem featuring a post-Zionist Ahmar al-Davood symbol. The last sentence of the blog should be reiterated w/ a minor modification to read, "Who cannot observe these attitudes and wonder about the wisdom of establishing a single democratic/binational state."
Airstrike on a Gaza residential area:
Here's a clip of the first (daylight) climb of the women to the roof of the military base: link to youtube.com
The latest contribution of the "industry" is the new video "The Red Line," one of the most extreme of recent Iranophobic productions. It's going viral w/ more than 1.25 million YT hits in the 10 days since posting:
link to youtube.com
The writer/director/producer is identified as Rabbi Shraga Simmons,
link to en.wikipedia.org
who is affiliated w/ the settler-supporting Aish HaTorah w/ connections to the Clarion Fund,
link to en.wikipedia.org
Though hardly a surprise, the US politics of the video's producers can be gleaned from the thumbs-up they give the "Obama Banned This Video" clip at their YT channel:
link to youtube.com
Unfortunately, the extremists behind these productions have managed to co-opt a couple of Iranian-Americans of some standing. The Red Line's narrator is identified as the US-residing daughter of Siamak Pourzand, a dissident Iranian writer/journalist whose case was highlighted by various human rights orgs before he was driven to suicide in 2011:
link to en.rsf.org
link to pen.org
link to unhcr.org
link to hrw.org
The 2011 Clarion Fund production "Iranium" was narrated by the Iranian-American actress Shohreh Aghdashloo:
link to imdb.com
There's a short clip of the film @ link to youtube.com
and an interview w/ Moreh @ link to youtube.com
Speaking of (re)building on Arab land, the following ad was emailed to JPost subscribers recently,
link to p5trc.emv2.com
form which one may quote, "Arabs are buying and/or squatting all over Galilee (Northern Israel) Lands. Help save Jewish Sovereignty in Galilee ... Help stop the erosion of Jewish Control of the Galilee!" along w/ links to articles such as "Jews May Lose Out to Arab Encroachment" & "Illegal Arab Occupation and Unhindered Arab Building."
When you click on the "Donate Now" button you're taken to their website w/ posts such as link to byisrael.net
Notice that at the top of their site they mention involvement in charity work such as feeding the hungry & helping the sick. Are these charity works covers for their main effort? How many ostensibly Israeli charity groups are in fact fronts for extremist ethno-religious nationalism?
@ Dan Crowther
Regarding "why aren’t they [Iranian Jews] screaming out for sanctions and regime change?", it depends on whom you're referring to specifically. Topics such as sanctions, regime change, Israel and Zionism are on the red lines of the Iranian gov't, which cannot be crossed by its citizens (in words or deed) w/o severe punishment. So official statements from representative organizations of Jews in Iran always reflect the gov't position on such issues; we can't be sure if it's a genuine reflection of that community's views. However, some segments of Iranian Jews in the US have taken the AIPAC position on such issues. In my comment below (@ 2:05 pm EST) I link to Rabbi Wolpe's views. Wolpe's congregation is largely of Iranian descent, as he alludes to in his MSNBC interview.
The specter of a nuclear-armed Islamic Third Reich is being raised as the single issue for the upcoming presidential election. Rabbi David Wolpe, who made the unexpected "capital city of Jerusalem" remark during his DNC benediction last month,
link to blogs.jta.org
sermonized his congregation at LA's Sinai Temple in that vein on the 1st day of Rosh Hashana, 9/17/12:
link to sinaitemple.org
Wolpe had earlier expressed similar sentiments on MSNBC:
link to msnbc.msn.com
The full video of the Baltzer-Finkelstein debate is up @
link to youtube.com
Finkelstein comes across as a more seasoned and persuasive debater. I don't think Baltzer, eloquent in her lecture, though somewhat ruffled during the debate, was convincing in her responses or when it came to specifics.
Speaking of the neighborly settlers & police:
link to 972mag.com
link to 972mag.com
RT clip & photos of police at the compound:
link to youtube.com
link to rt.com
"There's no indication from RightChange's website or their YouTube video feed they are an Israeli centric group." But the nonchalant plug for Birthright Israel by the narrator towards the beginning of the clip suggests collaboration between the 2 groups.
The video's been posted by RightChange, a right-wing US group supported by some pharma & health industry moguls:
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to rightchange.com
But the nonchalant plug for Birthright Israel towards the beginning of the clip by the narrator, suggests that RightChange may have partnered up w/ Birthright supporters.
The video was posted on YouTube on 9/26/12 and it's already showing more than 1,800,000 hits. The "likes" are outnumbering the "dislikes" by a factor of over 20.
Meanwhile, yet another anti-Obama video with the familiar "liberal American Jews who care for Israel and believed Obama's initial rhetoric, now disillusioned about his support for Israel" line, titled "Absolutely Uncertain":
link to absolutelyuncertain.com
Jonathan Cook @ link to jkcook.net :
"This month, the Israeli foreign ministry and US Jewish organisations formally launched the initiative, staging a conference in New York a few days before the opening sessions of the General Assembly. Israel's choice of arena - the UN - is not accidental. The campaign is chiefly designed to stifle the move announced by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in his General Assembly speech last week to begin seeking UN status for Palestine as a non-member state. After opposition from the US forced the Palestinians to abort their bid for statehood at the UN Security Council last year, Mr Abbas is expected to delay making his new request until November, after the US presidential election campaign to avoid embarrassing President Barack Obama. Mr Abbas's move has spurred Israel to take the offensive. Anyone who doubts that the Israeli government's concern for Arab Jews is entirely cynical only has to trace the campaign's provenance. It was considered for the first time in 2009, when Mr Netanyahu was forced - under pressure from Mr Obama - to deliver a speech backing Palestinian statehood. Immediately afterwards, Mr Netanyahu asked the National Security Council, whose role includes assessing strategic threats posed by the Palestinians, to weigh the merits of championing the Arab Jews' case in international forums. The NSC's advice is that Arab Jews, known in Israel as Mizrahim and comprising a small majority of the total Jewish population, should be made a core issue in the peace process. As Israel knows, that creates a permanent stumbling block to an agreement. The NSC has proposed impossible demands: contrition from all Arab states before a peace deal with the Palestinians can be reached; a decoupling of refugee status and the right of return; and the right of Arab Jews to greater compensation than Palestinian refugees, based on their superior wealth. Israel is working on other fronts too to undermine the case for Palestinian refugees. Its US lobbyists are demanding that UNRWA, the UN agency for the refugees, be dismantled. And bipartisan pressure is mounting in the US Congress to count as refugees only Palestinians personally displaced from their homes in 1948, stripping millions of descendants of their status."
I'm not particularly familiar w/ any of the groups mentioned in the Counterpunch article you link to, but it's fairly clear that the Iranian feminist group, Raha, mentioned there has no connection to "Iran 180" mentioned in this blog. Counterpunch has posted an open letter from them today:
link to counterpunch.org
And a couple of sites on them, one at the Arab Studies Institute site:
link to jadaliyya.com
link to rahacollective.org
A Raha member appears in this video:
The hope was that after the lion and the lamb lie together, not only would both get up again, but so would a hitherto-unknown "limb," which would be a miracle, since interordinal animal hybrids have not been observed:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Good to see that the army museum has succeeded in its mission to instill the Biblical Swords-into-Plowshares & Spears-into-Pruninghooks spirit in the kids. Clear sign that w/in a generation the lion and the lamb shall be lying together in the Holy Land.
"A demilitarised Jewish population in Erez Israel would cop on very quickly. " And, short of an invasion, who's gonna demilitarize a conventional and nuclear power like Israel? Israel will probably use its nukes before allowing its own dismantling.
Chomsky's arguments regarding the 2ss as a path towards the 1ss are stated in this interview from last year at min 35 of the video:
Barat did another interview w/ him a couple of year ago discussing related topics more generally:
"Avnery is disappointing “The possibility ... [of] one state ... is nil.” Why?"
His reasons are quoted above: "Both peoples are intensely nationalistic ... have different cultures ... there is intense hatred between them." And in his article at
link to counterpunch.org
he adds, "study the history of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Sudan, and the present situation of the French in Canada, Scots in Britain, Flemish in Belgium and Basques and Catalans in Spain," and suggests that "co-existence can take different forms: from a loose confederation with open borders and free movement to closer forms of evolving structures, like the European Union."
His reasoning for advocating the internationally-recognized 2ss (not Israel's Bantustan version) is essentially the same as that of Chomsky.
"If the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were to disappear, Iran would be deprived of its self-styled role as fearless champion of the Palestinian cause – the pretext that provides cover for Iran's quest for regional hegemony, that gives its anti-Zionist threats popular support on the Iranian and Arab streets, and that drives its fervent "Death to Israel" scapegoat policy."
While it's true that the IRI uses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to divert attention from its internal problems, Israeli leaders of both Labor & Likud would also like the "Iranian existential threat" to be around as an attention-grabbing bogeyman, since both Israeli parties prefer a world distracted from the viable-Palestinian-state demand. It's a mutually-beneficial antagonism between Iran & Israel.
Unlike the other parts of the Romney tape which dissed Obama supporters as free-loaders and got widely reported, I doubt if these parts of the tape, revealing his views on the US-Israeli-Palestinian conflict, will get widely reported or denounced in the mainstream media. It wouldn't be considered as scandalous as the voter-dissing part. Also, watching the Republicans carving up and eating their food, w/ cutlery noise & all, while Romney is rejecting any Palestinian sovereignty, is symbolic of Israel carving up and devouring the WB while Romney would be presiding over the Mideast conflict.
In fact, according to NYT, members of the Iranian delegation at that meeting were taken aback by Rahimi's speech. There were speculations at the time that Rahimi did this to bolster his "radical" credentials, since the Iranian judiciary has been investigating him for fraud. In other words, to take the heat off of himself, he was willing to damage his country's interests, which he's supposed to be safeguarding.
But demonizing aspects of Judaism that are not part of the Islamic tradition, can occasionally be found in the Iranian media. The small Jewish community in Iran, which is allowed to practice its religion and overall is not treated worse than other religious minorities in Iran, sometimes protests such portrayals of their faith. E.g., here's an open letter written in Persian to Rahimi by the Tehran Jewish Committee, which represents Jews of Iran, posted at their site following his speech:
link to iranjewish.com
The letter politely advises Rahimi that he has a misunderstanding of the Talmud, which couldn't have advocated drug use or smuggling, that Zionism & Judaism should not be confused, per Khomeini's directive, and that such statements hurt Iran's standing internationally and serve the enemy, and offers to educate Rahimi on the Talmud. Rahimi's office replied back politely that he respects "true" Jews and their divine religion, was condemning Zionism, not Judaism, for many crimes including the international drug trade, and that foreign media had distorted his speech for propaganda purposes:
link to iranjewish.com
(His speech, which was published w/ the same content in Iran, speaks for itself.)
"So two comments ago the Muslims were “demonising Judaism” but now we need an Judeo-Moslem alliance?"
That's b/c after 2 comments & a spoonful of rants, even Muslims will desist from demonizing their allies.
"Yup, another not-a-Zionist."
Definitely not a Zionist; too petty bourgeois. But a ZioNazi IslamoFascist? Now that's a tattoo to wear w/ pride.
Your reference to the deicide charge brings up a worthy opportunity. As is well known, both Islam & Judaism deny paternal deity for Jesus, since it smacks them of violation of monotheism. The deicide charge suggests that the son of god and man's ultimate redeemer, JC, could not defend himself against mere humans, further violating monotheism by questioning the Lord's omnipotency. It's time for a Judeo-Islamic common cause to convert the infidel creed known as Christianity, whose members constituted the first Zionists planning the desecration of that holiest of lands.
"Really, Unconscious?" This is the 2nd time you've called me "unconscious," apparently equating the unconscious w/ mindlessness. This reminds me of creationists who are most offended by suggestions that their most glorious intellectual abilities could have possibly evolved from the lowly monkey of a couple of million years ago. So, as a friendly gesture, you may wanna tell your creationist neighbors to start tapping more into their unconscious:
link to sciencedaily.com
link to en.wikipedia.org
I dunno if it was done consciously on your part or not, but the logical transition from your "Really unconscious" paragraph to the subsequent "Zionist" one is nonexistent. My reference to the ultra-orthodox was in the same vein as the title of the blog, purely in religious attitudes. So it could as well apply to the anti-Zionist ultra-ortho.
The claim in the title, while it may be true depending on one's interpretation of theologies, is not particularly explanatory b/c it's too general, and the author doesn't really provide any argument to support it other than to say people can have different sensibilities, like Goldberg who's more sensitive to criticism of his favored state rather than a religion. Just b/c Hirsch has made a determination about the role of certain prophets in some religions, it doesn't explain specific reactions in various countries. For example, it appears that most Muslims in the world, though probably offended by the film, didn't necessarily support the riots. Some ultra-orthodox Jews may get as riotous if Muslims insult their holy figures. (And how are Christians supposed to react to Jesus insults, since he's even more of a focus in their religion than Mohammad in Islam?) And just like Goldberg has religious-like attachment to his holy state of Israel, there could be similarities among Muslims, as well. An example being the cult of personality created around Iran's Supreme Leader, Khamenei, who's essentially revered as a religio-political leader by some of his more fanatical followers.
There's also the issue of consistency. It's perfectly reasonable for the Muslim world to demand cessation of insult to their religion as part of their culture. However, they should also be equally sensitive to similar insults in parts of the Muslim world towards other religions. An example would be the Iranian gov't, which also protested the racist film. Occasionally, though, gov't officials or state media demonize other Abrahamic religions such as Baha'ism & Judaism. The case of the Baha'i persecution, w/ occasional demonization of their religion in the media, is well known:
link to pbs.org
And a recent example of demonizing Judaism was the speech of IRI's vice president at an international forum:
link to irandailybrief.com
There was also the unexpected "capital city of Jerusalem" reference added by Rabbi David Wolpe in his benediction following Clinton's speech:
link to blogs.jta.org
Wolpe, who earlier in the year, trashed Beinart for his new book "The Crisis of Zionism,"
link to jewishjournal.com
appearing at an MSNBC morning show to plug for his benediction, described the fears of his LA congregation of "radiation therapy" administered by Ahmadinejad against the "cancerous tumor of Israel," which require threatening or taking military action against Iran:
link to msnbc.msn.com
On the bright side, at least Obama has not yet officially conceded Wash. D.C. as the other indivisible and eternal capital of the Likud.
Fanaticism has its inadvertently-humorous side.
Somebody filmed that segment of the convention from his TV and bit his tongue till the end, when he blurted out his feelings about the defeated terrorists who have infiltrated the Dem Convention:
The full Wexler speech @
link to youtube.com
He mentions the 2ss, w/ a demilitarized Palestinian state, towards the end; of course, w/o specifying which version of the 2ss. Claims Netan., Barak & Peres are happy w/ Obama, which he considers a badge of honor for Ob.
MEMRI, w/ which I assume you're familiar, routinely finds media clips of or articles by individuals making inciteful comments in the Muslim M.E., suggesting that the Muslims are fanatics posing grave danger to the Jews. Do you also think it's important that they keep looking for these fringe fanatics in the Muslim world? O.Y., of course, is not just a fringe figure; he can affect viewpoints of the important religious block. And that's what's important about it. From that viewpoint, it doesn't matter much even if Yosef tomorrow reassures everyone that he definitely meant the Iranian regime/leaders and not the country in general. If that convinces his flock that the Iranian gov't should be attacked, then they'll support the Israeli gov't on that, and that's all the gov't needs. Bush II only needed the Americans to believe that the Iraqi gov't was a mortal threat to them, in order to launch the war. He never claimed that the Iraqi nation as a whole was a threat that needed to be eliminated, and he didn't need to. As far as the Shas block supporting the war effort, it doesn't matter whether they believe the existential threat is just from the Iranian leaders or from every single Iranian.
As far as evangelicals, the End Times and Israel, I was referring to the likes of Pastor Hagee and his flock. I presume you've seen this M. Blumenthal video
link to youtube.com
And there've been accounts such as this
link to alternet.org
In polite company, meaning outside their communities, leaders such as Hagee deny such theological motivations, presenting it as a case of Christian solidarity with Jews. These characters believe that they're hastening the 2nd coming by their political activities, although everyone else, including Israeli leaders, views it as chasing a fantasy.
O.Y. is a fundamentalist cleric who, in all likelihood, has a literal interpretation of the bible. The bible often talks of "obliterating the enemies" of God and the Jewish people. So it would be hardly surprising if the Rabbi thinks in those terms and uses that sort of language. You can easily find clerics of all flavors talking in such catastrophic terms. Evangelical clerics who are close allies of the Israeli gov't call for and work towards the destruction of Israel: they wanna bring about Armageddon (or Rapture), whereby Jews who don't convert will be annihilated. Extremist Muslim clerics can be found who call for annihilating Israel and Jews.
These tendencies are only deserving of attention when they help influence and implement gov't policy. The evangelical clerics are noteworthy only b/c their flock can influence US Mideast policy. Rabbi Yosef's comment is only worthy of attention b/c, as has been pointed out by others, it may indicate Israeli gov't's success in convincing the religious block in its coalition of the necessity of an attack. Otherwise, it's pure waste of time to try to decipher O.Y.'s comments; quite possibly the nonagenarian fundamentalist wasn't even clear in his own mind exactly which entity he wished obliterated.
Since the comparison you're imagining wasn't mine, I'll have to respectfully refuse your "nice try." Obviously, I was only contrasting Weiss' interpretation of O.Y.'s particular comment about "Iran" vs a specific oft-quoted comment of Ahmadinejad. Nobody compared the 2 figures in general.
The title of this post refers to "Iranian leaders" being obliterated. And the Daily Beast article by A. Sullivan that is referenced also emphasizes that he was referring to the leaders. In that case, isn't this just equivalent to Iranian leaders calling for the "cancerous tumor" to be removed? Isn't Ovadia Yosef just wishing for the Islamic Republic to "vanish from the page of time"? If so, then why does the post end w/ "Let there be no mistake: this is an Israeli rabbi calling for another people to be obliterated from the face of the earth. The ironies seem lost."? You wouldn't refer to Ahmadinejad's statement about "vanishing from the page of time" as calling for another people's obliteration.
On the other hand, this report
link to haaretz.com
puts it as, "When we say ‘may our enemies be struck down’ on Rosh Hashana, it shall be directed at Iran, the evil ones who threaten Israel. God shall strike them down and kill them," in which case it's not clear to me what he means by "Iran" here.
So just like w/ the Ahmadinejad quote, you need to indulge in years of linguistic analysis, parsing the grammatical inferences of his precious words to arrive at divergent conclusions.
Dunno if this set of videos have been earlier linked to at this site or not, but it's from Defence for Children International:
link to dci-palestine.org
And as for specific plans for settling the Israel-Palestine conflict, Ahmadinejad said, "Even if 80% of this land is given to the Palestinians, the remainder portion that is given to the Zionists, is again a danger; establishment of 2 states means a historic opportunity for their own [the Zionists'] reconstruction. Acceptance of 2 states means wasting 100 years of resistance, and whoever accepts this matter should know that he's not in line with the nations but is at the opposite pole to the nations."
While the IRI categorically rejects the 2 state sol'n, it has repeatedly voted in favor of such proposals at the UN and other international venues over the past several years.
@ Stephen Shenfield
You can see the video of Ah.'s 2012 Quds day speech along w/ real-time translation, as presented by IRI's PressTV, at
link to shiatv.net
A condensed version of the speech is posted in Persian at Ah.'s website at
link to president.ir
and also in English at
link to president.ir
But, as seen from comparing sizes, the English version is a highly redacted version of the Persian one.
Besides whatever he says about removing the Zionist entity, he makes a couple of other noteworthy references. The Persian version at his site reads (also in the video),
"Dr. Ahmadinejad named the Zionists as deviant humans who are only after power and wealth and domination over others, and by referring to their 2000 year old record in creating mayhem in the world stated that: in contemporary times, it's been at least 400 years that a small number of Zionists have afflicted the human society with turbulence and the heaviest of damages which cannot be completely rectified."
And further down,
"It's been several hundred years that nations have been in conflict with the Zionists and it's been about 100 years that nations have been imprisoned in a direct and complete manner at the hands of the policies and management of world Zionism."
What exactly does he mean by referring to the 2000, 400 and "several hundred" years history of the Zionists? I think the most plausible interpretation is that he's making a Protocol-of-the-Elders-of-Zion type of reference, namely that a clique of Jews has been acting as enemies of mankind for hundreds or thousands of years. This comes at the heels of the recent speech by his Vice President, Rahimi, at an international venue in which he referred to Zionists and the Talmud as enemies of mankind to benefit the Jews:
link to irandailybrief.com
link to nytimes.com
The Dem. Now! conversation w/ Parsi, posted above, continues in another segment discussing the effects of the sanctions, esp. given the recent Iranian earthquakes:
link to democracynow.org
Your parochial school and all its basements should be immediately subjected to comprehensive inspections on suspicion of nuclear weaponization. Were you required to sign the NPT upon graduation?
And how does your judgement of my translational skills affect my main point that foolish rhetoric from the Ahmadinejad side, such as the recent Rahimi speech (which wasn't translated by me), inflames the situation and aids in the propaganda for war?
Since my "brilliant Farsi skills" are yet more unwarranted assumptions on your part, I'll have to take your suggestion and "make it up." I simply did a literal translation, which can sometimes lose nuances of the language. The Persian word Rahimi uses is "sorkhpoost" which literally means "redskin." However, in Persian, unlike in English, it's not considered derogatory, and, as far as I know, it's the most common term used for Native Americans. So it's just as fair to translate it as Native American or American Indian. (And I won't even ask why there's still a football team operating under that name in the US.)
But my alternate translation was not meant to highlight that term. I was trying to be more fair to Rahimi by pointing out that in the video he refers to a "Zionist gynecologist," whereas the Iranian media transcribed it as a "Jewish gynecologist," making it sound worse:
link to aftabir.com
These are, however, minor considerations relative to the whole speech, which was antisemitic and plain loony. According to the NYT account, even some members of the Iranian delegation were taken aback by it.
As should have been clear from my first sentences, I agreed w/ the main point of your post, encapsulated in its title. What I said about your added translations was not a major criticism; just pointing out that even from the Times' own translation it was clear that their conclusion was not warranted.
As far as the dis to Chris./Jud. in MA's speech that I pointed to, every responder seems to have read into it far more than I stated or remotely implied. At least your response is w/in the bounds of reason; almost all the others went hog wild injecting their own imaginations.
I'm aware of how Islam views the other Abrahamics & Ahmadinejad's other comments in that regard. All it shows is that MA's "shop" reference is not fully in accord w/ his other statements, which is not surprising, since politicians tune their statements depending on the audience and the occasion. But I attached no significance to this, let alone suggest any response to it, as the other responders imagined, other than pointing that the Israel Times writers (thankfully) did not pick it up as a propaganda point. As far as far-right evangelicals "flooding the internet tubes with cries of horror" regarding this, I have no knowledge of that, and only noticed that statement from the links you provided. As far as "Making a big deal out of this" being "foolish," I agree, but tell that to the other responders to my comments.
Though these are not the points of your response here, my next comment was about Rahimi's (MA's vice president) recent inappropriate speech at an international forum, w/ the point made in the 3rd comment that the occasional inflammatory talk that has come from the Iranian side (the "shop" reference not being a main part of it) has contributed to the propaganda efforts of those who advocate war.
Since your oozy is crying for action and you beat me to the inevitable conclusion that MA's statements are an irrefutable call to war, you should be the one to make sure the ball is not dropped on that casus belli.
Uncanny prescience, Roya! Your Jew-dar is impeccable. Anyone who objects to racist comments by Ahmadinejad or Rahimi (per my comment below) can only be one of "them." Nudge, nudge, know what I mean? Don't forget to leave a similar comment in response to my comment on Rahimi.
How foolish of me! And I erroneously referred to it as the Freedonian Republic of Iran. Will adjust my sensitivity scale accordingly. Similarly, you should also reconsider your oversensitivity to statements by Israeli officials that are disparaging of Muslims or non-Jews. After all, Israel is the Jewish State.
This is stating the obvious, but much of the discrediting of the Islamic Republic in the international arena is the result of such imbecilic and hateful public statements that I mentioned in my 2 previous comments. Antisemitic rants, dogged Holocaust denials, 9/11 trutherism at the UN and religious Messianism exhibited in international settings by the Ahmadinejad administration, which implies the Supreme Leader's approval, contribute significantly to Western propaganda depicting Iranian officials as loonies bent on nuclear Armageddon. The "loony" part is fair, the "nuclear Armageddon" presumption is specious. But the general public assumes both to be the correct, if the former is.
Adding to my comment above about Ahmadinejad's insult to Christianity & Judaism, it should be noted that only recently his vice president, Mohammad Reza Rahimi, made a scandalously antisemitic speech at an international forum on drug prevention. The text of the speech is @
link to irandailybrief.com
and here's the NYT account of it
link to nytimes.com
As a minor note, but examples of incorrect translations, the NYT article states that Rahimi referred to black babies being killed at orders of Zionists, whereas the English translation at the pro-gov't Iranian website I linked to states it as "a Jewish gynecologist castrated 8,0000 American Indians to reduce their number." But Rahimi in this clip
link to youtube.com
actually says, "a Zionist gynecologist at some juncture has castrated 8000 redskins." Rahimi is one of those in Ahmadinejad's administration who's been accused by other officials of massive fraud, which I referred to in my previous comment.
The translation of part of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's (MA's) speech by both The Times of Israel & those provided by N. Shirazi are qualitatively the same. MA is saying that blows against Iran will be strongly retaliated. But the Islamic Republic leaders have routinely made such claims. After every scientist assassination the government has blamed the US, Zionists and their allies as the culprits and has promised retribution. The unwarranted claim by the Times is that MA was referring to the Burgas bombing, whereas he makes no specific reference to any act. The problem was not with the translation but with the interpretation.
But there is one set of claims in MA's speech that could readily be deemed offensive to Christians & Jews, which, surprisingly, neither the Israeli sources mentioned above nor Shirazi mention. The English & Persian versions of MA's speech that Shirazi links to (at MA's website) are very different in that the English version cuts out much of the speech. In the Persian version, MA talks about different topics, including the importance of mosque & Islam in society, how the US controlled by a handful of Zionists rules the world, how their system is failing and the Islamic Republic should pick up the lead in promoting worldwide justice & equality, how Iran is making substantial progress that the enemies try to strike against but their blows will be retaliated, how those who are slandering the gov't inside Iran are helping the foreign enemy [in apparent reference to accusations (by various officials) of and judicial actions against massive fraud and corruption in MA's administration], and the importance of acknowledging the coming of the Mehdi (the Shia Messiah).
But an ostensibly offensive and gratuitous part of the speech posted at his Persian website @
link to president.ir
states, "The religion of Islam is the religion of all people because fundamentally god has not descended more than one religion and all prophets were ordained to invite people to this religion.
The president added: Has god sent a religion called Christianity and a religion called Judaism or have shops been set up under these names? All prophets were Muslims for if they were not they would not have been ordained as prophets ... and the multitude of prophets does not imply the multitude of religions." Referring to Christianity & Judaism as "shops," whereas suggesting that Islam is the one true religion could easily be deemed offensive. But this has nothing to do with nuclear development or terrorist attacks, so apparently it's been ignored.
Iran's rights under the NPT should be acknowledged, but so should its government's obligations and its people's rights under various international and human rights conventions that it's a signatory to. As advocated by the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), whose president Trita Parsi has been featured at this site, the sanctions should be targeted towards the government's repressive apparatus and not the country's people,
link to niacouncil.org
Easing of targeted sanctions should be made conditional on improvements in Iran's human rights record, consistent w/ Desmond Tutu's message of solidarity on the anniversary of the 2009 democratic uprising,
link to youtube.googleapis.com
Unfortunately, it appears that human rights improvements are not particularly on the agenda, rather defanging Iran b/c it's not a Western ally. As far as the US and its allies are concerned, the Islamic Republic could remain as oppressive as it is and even be allowed to further develop its nuclear capabilities (as Iran was during the Shah) if only it would reorient itself westward.
Meanwhile, Beinart is making the rounds at some Jewish American organizations, butting heads w/ right-wingers. Here are a couple of videos from the past couple of months.
Interviewed by Shalom TV: link to youtube.com
Debate at the Jewish Journal: link to youtube.com
Regarding a couple of Meridor's assertions, he says that Iranian officials making statements about Israel's disappearance, illegitimacy or destruction has no parallel in the world today and should be of grave international concern. Then, what about US & Israel obstructing and subverting self-determination for a people, which is recognized by the rest of the world and various international organizations? Does that have a parallel in today's world and should that be a focus of international concern?
As for his repeated statements that major Arab countries have expressed grave concerns regarding Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, but none have expressed such concerns regarding Israel's arsenal, that's true if by the "Arab world" he means its ruling elites. As Foreign Policy argues, based on polls in various Arab countries, @
link to mideast.foreignpolicy.com
w/ the title "Misreading Arab public opinion on Iran's nuclear program,"
"The vast majority of the Arab public does not believe that Iran poses a threat to the "security of the Arab homeland." Only 5 percent of respondents named Iran as a source of threat, versus 22 percent who named the U.S. The first place was reserved for Israel, which 51 percent of respondents named as a threat to Arab national security ... while Saudi Arabia is often cited as the primary Arab state in support of belligerence against Iran, the data indicate that this view doesn't seem to extend to its public. In the Saudi Arabian sample, only 8 percent believed that Iran presents a threat -- a lower percentage even than that which viewed the U.S. as a source of threat (13 percent). " Furthermore, "More than half of all respondents (55 percent) believe that Israel's possession of nuclear weapons justifies other states in the region seeking to acquire such weapons. Interestingly, this percentage is about 60 percent in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan (the so-called "Sunni" alliance)."
Your comments are just plain bizarre. You distort people's statements as if the readers cannot read the plain English and judge for themselves. E.g., when you say, "subconscious DID establish a 'comparison' that you ... took down," it's obvious that I just listed several documents of IRI's human rights violations w/o a single comparison to anything. Annie Robbins injected the comparison to the US, but even she didn't explicitly suggest that I had made any comparisons. I can't even tell anymore what exactly you're objecting to in Sykes' blog. Your first comment, which started this thread, was clearly about Sykes' initial paragraph, which referred to IRI's human rights record. Now you've shifted the target of the discussion by telling us your state of mind as you read the rest of the article. When you make statements like "the links to Amnesty International reports and even videos were not that persuasive" and "the salacious and hatemongering snapshots that AI prefers to spotlight," it's clear that there's no point in referencing professional and objective documentation by respected organizations in response to you. So I shouldn't bother w/ that anymore; lets just pull stuff out of thin air and our imaginations as "evidence and documentation."
It's probably beating a poor dead horse but to reiterate, everything Sykes said in his 1st paragraph is valid. "To take the Iranian government at its word is folly." That's a no-brainer, since it's universally true of all gov'ts; by nature, all gov'ts are in the business of producing propaganda for their cause. "The Islamic Republic reserves its most egregiously, immediately and consistently malevolent behavior not for the Great Satan in America or the Zionist regime in Israel, but its own people." That's about as controversial as saying that Saddam's regime reserved its worst crimes for its own people, not the US or Israel, which is what all principled opponents of the Iraq war were saying at the time. Sykes is saying that even though the IRI is an internally tyrannical regime, it's not an existential threat to the US & Israel, as the warmongers make it out to be. "[The IRI] harasses daily, hangs in droves for offenses not more than suspicion of homosexuality, and shoots to kill [its own population] when democratic demands are taken to the street in peaceful, often silent marches." Well, I attached plenty of links to support that. But that would only convince people who don't think AI is a malicious propaganda agency. The rest of Sykes' article discusses an example of how Western propagandists distort a blog written in Iran to build a case for IRI's grave threat to the West. I'm not sure if you got that point.
As for your offer that "If subconscious wants to get into a more honest discussion of a) how Iran’s system of justice differs from American; b) how Iran’s overall cultural and ‘socio-spiritual cohesiveness’ are never represented in US MSM ... then we can have that conversation," the answer is no: I don't think much of this discussion is honest and it would be hijacking this blog into a different direction to discuss your a) & b).
Your explanation of the YouTube video that I linked to, in which a woman is clubbed in the head by a security man, and the guy who comes to help her is pulled by the hair and knee-punched in the belly by another security guy, is baloney. The voices we here in the video are of the people who were filming from a distance, not the ones involved in the incident, as you claim. They are expressing their shock at what they're witnessing from a distance. I also don't understand these "nuances" you refer to, such as "Iran’s overall cultural and ‘socio-spiritual cohesiveness’". Rather than preaching here about such "cohesiveness," you'd do better to explain them at a seminar for the security forces we see in these videos, since they seem to act towards their own population in the same police-state manner that security forces in the territories, Egypt & Bahrain do.
My previous reply has mysteriously disappeared, so I'll rephrase it. The focus of the comments by AllenBee and me, in repsonse to Percy Sykes, was just the internal human rights record of the IRI. None of us tried to compare it to violations by other countries or draw conclusions in that vein, and child executions is only one instance of such violations. Bringing in US-Israeli (or anyone else's) crimes was not part of the exchange. In any case, the Wikipedia article you link to, doesn't contradict what AI is saying about Iran's child executions. AI refers to child executions in various countries in its detailed article and draws its conclusions about Iran. Another thing to note is that unlike in the US, (as AI points out) many executions of various offenders (possibly including children) are not publicized by the Iranian gov't, so the known cases may not be providing the full statistics.
Your contrast is specious and outside the logic of the posts. It's as if in response to blogs about abuse of Palestinian children detained by Israel, someone says "but we all know that pales in comparison to hundreds of thousands of children killed in the Congo in the past several years." When they posted blogs about Mubarak's abuse of protesters (or those in Bahrain, etc.), did you respond by belittling the casualties of Mubarak's forces by comparing them to those of US-Israel or in the Congo or in Darfur or those executed in China? Wouldn't that have been viewed as anything other than whitewashing?
Organizations like AI & HRW, from which I quoted, are professional w/ a long-standing record of defending human rights across the globe. They're aware and have extensively documented the US-Israeli records, among others. So, when they make the above specific reports about Iran, they're being quite principled.
Your comment also defies the logic of the posts. The blog started by referring to IRI's ongoing and sordid human rights record, to which AllenBee objected, demanding documentation. I was just pointing out the extensive and easily-accessible documentation regarding the IRI's across-the-board internal violations of human rights. It's strange that you picked one item and (w/o refuting it) made a specious comparison.
As an accompaniment to the AI item I referenced above about Iran's distinct honor of "being the world’s last official executioner of child offenders," are the following 2 videos (the lawyer in the 1st video is in exile and the 2nd clip is graphic):
link to amnesty.org.uk
Very ironic for someone who hasn't bothered to do minimal checking of extensive & readily available sources to be giving out advice on proper documentation to others. Apparently, someone has to carry out the burden of your laziness; so here's what a few minutes of straightforward web searching yielded.
-- Amnesty International's 2011 annual report on Iran @ link to amnestyusa.org
"The authorities maintained severe restrictions on freedom of expression, association and assembly. Sweeping controls on domestic and international media aimed at reducing Iranians' contact with the outside world were imposed. Individuals and groups risked arrest, torture and imprisonment if perceived as cooperating with human rights and foreign based Persian language media organizations. Political dissidents, women's and minority rights activists and other human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists and students were rounded up in mass and other arrests and hundreds were imprisoned. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees were routine and committed with impunity. Women continued to face discrimination under the law and in practice. The authorities acknowledged 252 executions, but there were credible reports of more than 300 other executions. The true total could be even higher. At least one juvenile offender was executed. Sentences of death by stoning continued to be passed, but no stonings were known to have been carried out. Floggings and an increased number of amputations were carried out."
-- "Amnesty International Says Iran Focused on Covering Up Horrific Abuses Committed During Post-Election Period" @
link to amnestyusa.org
-- Says AI, "Iran: The last executioner of children" @
link to amnestyusa.org
"Iran has the shameful status of being the world’s last official executioner of child offenders ... It also holds the macabre distinction of having executed more child offenders than any other country in the world since 1990, according to Amnesty International’s records."
-- Says AI, ""We Are Ordered to Crush You": Expanding Repression of Dissent in Iran" @
link to amnestyusa.org
-- Says AI, "Iran Determined to Impose Total Information Blackout to Stifle Dissent" @
link to blog.amnestyusa.org
-- Says AI: link to youtube.com
-- Plenty more on Iran @ AI's site.
-- HRW's "World Report 2012: Iran" @
link to hrw.org
"In 2011 Iranian authorities refused to allow government critics to engage in peaceful demonstrations. In February, March, April, and September security forces broke up large-scale protests in several major cities. In mid-April security forces reportedly shot and killed dozens of protesters in Iran’s Arab-majority Khuzestan province. There was a sharp increase in the use of the death penalty. The government continued targeting civil society activists, especially lawyers, rights activists, students, and journalists. In July 2011 the government announced it would not cooperate with, or allow access to, the United Nations special rapporteur on Iran, appointed in March 2011 in response to the worsening rights situation."
-- Feel free to go through HRW's various Iran reports @
link to hrw.org
where, just for 2012, you'll come across headlines such as, "Long Sentences in Newest Convictions of Human Rights Activists", "Opposition Imprisoned, Barred from Running in Parliamentary Elections", "Journalists’ Families Targeted in Campaign Against Media", "Iran: New Arrests of Labor Activists", "Journalists, Bloggers Arrested ahead of Elections".
-- Says Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, "All you need to know: a quick breakdown of findings from Dr. Ahmed Shaheed’s UN report" @
link to iranhrdc.org
-- Just browse through link to iranhrdc.org
-- Says Reporters Without Borders, "Press Freedom Index 2011-2012" @ link to en.rsf.org
"... Syria, Iran and China, three countries that seem to have lost contact with reality as they have been sucked into an insane spiral of terror ... In Iran (175th), hounding and humiliating journalists has been part of officialdom’s political culture for years. The regime feeds on persecution of the media."
-- Sample public execution in Iran (graphic) @
link to youtube.com
w/ plenty more on YouTube.
-- Sample crackdown on post-2009-election protests @
link to youtube.com
link to youtube.com
link to youtube.com
link to youtube.com
Tons more of such clips on YouTube for the minimally non-lazy.
I'm not sure what MEMRI has to do w/ what I'm saying, since you bring 'em up w/o me referring to them. I was referring to the following points raised in Nima Shirazi's (NS's) post. Referring to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's (MA's) comments censored by CBS, NS writes that MA made "No military threats, only a call for democratic elections and a government that represents the will of the people." And further that the aired interview "purposefully obfuscated what the Iranian President had actually said to his interlocutor in order to further propagate a false narrative of an Iran is an "existential threat" to Israel and which officially denies the Holocaust."
As far as Holocaust denial, there's ample record of what MA has said. The quotes from the Daily Star that I copied above make his Holocaust denial unambiguous. Here's a Persian account of MA's speech at last year's Quds Day,
link to asriran.com
The title of the article reads, "Ahmadinejad on Quds Day: the Holocaust is a grand lie." And even more recent is his 3/2012 interview w/ German TV, which is posted in English at his own official site at link to president.ir
in which he said,
"How did this nation, this regime came to be? It was a colonialist planning, everyone knows that it created by a lie. They have never been rulers of this country. They have invented a story with the title Holocaust and the damage, the cost for that, had to be paid by the Palestinians. While the Palestinians played no role at all, neither during the 2nd World War, nor in the events afterwards. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the Holocaust a “lie” and accusing Zionist regime of using it to suppress Palestinians. Zionist regime statehood “was a colonialist plan that resulted from a lie,” He said: “They never were rulers of this land.""
So how much of an exaggeration is it to call Ahmadinejad a Holocaust denier? (This, of course, doesn't imply that he intends to perpetrate one on Israel.) When I said he softens his rhetoric while in the West, I meant that he changes his tune to things like "I'm only suggesting an impartial investigation." As far as I can tell, this public overindulgence in Holocaust denial by the Iranian gov't started w/ the MA administration. In fact, in the debates preceding Iran's last presidential election several of his rivals questioned his indulgence in this topic as being unacceptable on either diplomatic or moral grounds. (Some of those rivals now languish in jail or are under house arrest.) Khamenei doesn't seem to indulge in that topic, but if he opposed that kind of rhetoric MA wouldn't be espousing it.
As far as your comment that MA has been consistent in supporting the rights of the 48 & 67 refugees, that's true of all the post-79 Iranian leaders. But my point was that it comes as a package, the other component of which is to consider all Israeli citizens that have been immigrants or their descendants since Zionist settlement of the land as illegitimate and not entitled to participate in the "democratic elections and a government that represents the will of the people" that NS refers to, as evidenced by Khamenei's statement that I quoted from his own website. Their vision is not the 1-man-1-vote that the 1-staters on this site propound. However, various Iranian leaders (dunno if MA is 1 of them) in the past have also added that they'll abide by whatever the Palestinians' legit leaders decide on (though it's unclear whom they'd consider as legit leaders). American mainstream reporters are often lazy & dishonest, so rather than quoting Iranian officials accurately and then digging further into their positions, simply distort them.
Roughly speaking, I'd say that the Iranian officials have 3 distinct sets of positions on the Israel-Palestine conflict. One is their diplomatic record. As N. Finkelstein has pointed out, since mid-90s Iran has voted in favor of the international consensus (the 2-state sol'n) at the UN and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. However, internally they maintain a rejectionist position, considering the majority of the Israeli Jewish population as illegitimate usurpers of the land that may need to leave the area in the future. When visiting the West, like deceitful politicians everywhere, they make ambiguous and equivocal statements w/o elaborating on crucial details: "I'm just suggesting an impartial investigation into history. What's wrong w/ that?" or "I'm suggesting a referendum among all legitimate inhabitants of the land. Isn't that democratic?"
In general, Nima Shirazi's views are not the same as those of NIAC and Trita Parsi. In any case, agreement of 2 people on a given issue does not imply one is on the pay of the other. Otherwise, one would wonder if you're being paid by the Flat Earth Society. However, regarding what you call Shirazi "defending the AN," I've added my comments below.
Dear Nima Shirazi,
While your article here seeks to demonstrate disingenuous editing of Ahmadinejad's statements on the part of the Western media, it also shows your own exclusion of relevant facts which would make Ah.'s comments more nuanced. Ah.'s repeated reference above to a "free and fair referendum" in Palestine has been echoed by various other Iranian officials elsewhere (e.g., on Charlie Rose). However, in the absence of elaboration in this interview, what a Western audience may infer from the phrase "free & fair referendum" would be drastically different from what the IRI officials actually imply.
In that regard, here's the Supreme Leader's (Khamenei's) speech at last Oct.'s International Conference on Palestinian Intifada in Tehran posted @
link to english.khamenei.ir
where he states,
"The solution of the Islamic Republic to the issue of Palestine and this old wound is a clear and logical proposal that is based on political wisdom accepted by global public opinion and it has been presented in detail previously. We neither propose a classical war with the armies of Islamic countries, nor do we propose throwing Jewish immigrants into the sea or intervention of the United Nations and other international organizations. We propose a referendum among the Palestinian people. Just like any other nation, the Palestinian nation has the right to determine its own destiny and to elect its own government. All the original people of Palestine - including Muslims, Christians and Jews and not foreign immigrants - should take part in a general and orderly referendum and determine the future government of Palestine whether they live inside Palestine or in camps or in any other place. The government that is established after the referendum will determine the destiny of non-Palestinian immigrants who migrated to Palestine in the past. This is a fair and logical proposal which global public opinion understands and it can receive support from independent nations and governments."
So, the "fair & logical" referendum that the IRI officials peddle, on the one hand, will include Palestinians of Israel/Palestine and refugees and their descendants, and, on the other, will exclude all Jewish Israelis who are either immigrants or their descendants since the advent of Zionist immigration. The fate of these millions of Jewish immigrants and their descendants is to be determined by the gov't born out of this referendum. This certainly is not the proposed one-state solution, as articulated at Mondoweiss. Needless to say, Khamenei is totally dismissive of the internationally-proposed 2-state sol'n,
"The two-state idea which has been presented in the self-righteous clothing of "recognizing the Palestinian government as a member of the United Nations" is nothing but giving in to the demands of the Zionists - namely, "recognizing the Zionist government in Palestinian lands". "
With regards to Ah.'s Holocaust denial, he has clearly and on numerous occasions repeated his unequivocal dismissal of the "Holocaust myth" w/in Iran, e.g., at his 2011 Quds (Jerusalem) Day speech as reported @
link to dailystar.com.lb
where he's quoted as,
"Ahmadinejad said the creation of a Palestinian state should be seen as merely a first step toward the annihilation of Israel and the establishment of Palestine in lands that include liberated Israeli territory. “Recognizing the Palestinian state is not the end goal. It is only one step forward toward fully liberating all of Palestine,” Ahmadinejad said. “The Zionist regime is a center of germs and cancerous cells and if it exists in even one small part of Palestine it will mobilize again and hurt everyone,” he warned. “The goal of all believers and seekers of justice should be the disappearance of the Zionist regime,” he said. Ahmadinejad also reiterated his view that the Holocaust was a “lie” used to justify Israel’s creation. “All of the foundations for the creation of this [Israeli] regime were based on a lie and deception, and the Holocaust was one of these big lies,” he said. Ahmadinejad warned the Israelis that they “had no place” in the Middle East. “Your era is over. It is in your interest to return to your homes wherever you came from and don’t make your dirty files more black. You have no place in our region,” he said."
The views Ah. peddles in the West are deliberately softened in contrast to those he and other officials propound within the Middle East. I think your analysis of Ah.'s statements and their reflection in the Western media is lacking in the above relevant details. While the Western media may be over-demonizing Ah. and his views, you appear to be over-sanitizing them.
Comments are closed.