Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 89 (since 2012-01-14 23:46:14)

Showing comments 89 - 1
Page:

  • Islamophobia is as widespread and acceptable as anti-Semitism used to be
    • subconscious May 23, 2013 at 2:55 am

      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."

    • subconscious May 19, 2013 at 5:08 pm with 2 replies

      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 should stop lying about Tutu's record
    • subconscious May 14, 2013 at 4:14 pm

      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 power of Stephen Hawking
    • subconscious May 12, 2013 at 12:09 pm

      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

  • US promotes regional states/Israeli alliance against Iran while leading provocative naval drills in the Gulf
  • One-woman wrecking crew of Jewish community's image, Geller brings her show to Toronto
    • subconscious May 9, 2013 at 3:04 am

      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.

  • 'The policy of the present Israeli government is likely to lead to disaster': Stephen Hawking pulls out of conference hosted by Shimon Peres, backs academic boycott of Israel (Updated)
    • subconscious May 9, 2013 at 12:42 am with 2 replies

      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.

  • NPR blames the victim: Emad Burnat brought suffering to Bil'in by filming occupiers
    • subconscious February 21, 2013 at 2:51 pm

      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

  • Meet the Knesset's newest settler members
    • subconscious February 2, 2013 at 4:14 pm

      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.

    • subconscious February 2, 2013 at 3:16 pm with 3 replies

      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.

  • Brooklyn College BDS event appears likely to go forward (as JVP explains it is in no way anti-Semitic)
    • subconscious January 31, 2013 at 5:21 am

      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:
      link to youtube.com
      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.

  • Obama in Tehran
    • subconscious January 29, 2013 at 6:58 am with 1 replies

      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.

    • subconscious January 28, 2013 at 4:04 pm with 2 replies

      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.

  • The latest existential threat to Israel? Those Russians the world was implored to free
    • subconscious January 28, 2013 at 2:24 am with 1 replies

      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.

    • subconscious January 27, 2013 at 5:14 am with 1 replies

      I dunno if this recent campaign ad by the Shas against converting & marrying the said Russians was posted at this site or not:
      link to youtube.com

  • Roots of Resistance: Israeli repression reminiscent of the first intifada may provoke a new uprising
    • subconscious December 12, 2012 at 7:49 pm

      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

  • The AP's George Jahn serves up Israeli propaganda on Iran yet again
    • subconscious December 2, 2012 at 9:45 pm

      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.

    • subconscious December 2, 2012 at 2:48 pm with 1 replies

      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 ...

    • subconscious December 2, 2012 at 2:18 pm

      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.

    • subconscious November 29, 2012 at 8:02 pm with 3 replies

      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.

  • Winona LaDuke: 'We can't talk about Israel because we are Israel'
    • subconscious November 23, 2012 at 4:28 pm

      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.

  • From London to Cairo to Barcelona, Gaza assault sparks protests
  • Video: Israeli rightwing parliamentarian calls for 'erasing' Gaza because no one there is innocent
    • subconscious November 19, 2012 at 11:26 am

      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.

  • On the Jewish Israeli street, there's no solution to Palestinian issue but more violence
    • subconscious November 17, 2012 at 8:39 pm

      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

    • subconscious November 17, 2012 at 8:27 pm

      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.

    • subconscious November 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm with 26 replies

      "... 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."

  • Day Four of Israeli Attack on Gaza: Death toll hits 46 in Gaza, 381 civilians wounded; Israel destroys Ismail Haniya's office in Gaza City; Cairo hosting cease-fire talks
  • Video: Palestinian women occupy Israeli military base in West Bank to protest Gaza attack
  • An 'industry' built on hate: How the right-wing successfully brought anti-Muslim bigotry into the American mainstream
    • subconscious October 29, 2012 at 5:51 am

      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

  • Israeli film 'The Gatekeepers' brings truths about occupation that Palestinians are vilified for saying
  • Courage in the face of intimidation: Rebuilding to remain
    • subconscious October 14, 2012 at 4:22 pm

      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?

  • Josh Block likens Iran to Nazi Germany
    • subconscious October 8, 2012 at 3:29 pm

      @ 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.

    • subconscious October 8, 2012 at 2:05 pm

      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

  • American Jewish relationship with Israel is debated at New School
    • subconscious October 8, 2012 at 8:24 pm

      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.

  • Israelis celebrating Sukkot beat Palestinians worshipers
  • Anti-Obama infomerical confirms Israel's role as a partisan election issue
    • subconscious October 3, 2012 at 4:00 pm with 1 replies

      "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 crisis of the Israel lobby
  • A sharp response to the effort to link Palestinian refugees and Jewish ones
    • subconscious October 3, 2012 at 1:53 pm

      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."

  • Anti-Iran street theater group denies it has Israel agenda. Wait a second--
  • Video: Israeli kids in the army museum ('I picture a dead Arab and that makes me happy')
    • subconscious September 25, 2012 at 10:44 pm

      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

    • subconscious September 25, 2012 at 10:58 am with 6 replies

      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.

  • Romney dirge for two-state solution causes widespread panic among those fearing for Israel
    • subconscious September 23, 2012 at 3:16 am

      "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.

    • subconscious September 21, 2012 at 4:25 pm with 1 replies

      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:
      link to youtube.com
      Barat did another interview w/ him a couple of year ago discussing related topics more generally:
      link to youtube.com

    • subconscious September 21, 2012 at 1:46 pm with 6 replies

      "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.

  • Palestine: the path toward Iranian de-escalation
    • subconscious September 18, 2012 at 4:12 pm

      "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.

  • In new leaked tapes, Romney rejects two-state solution - 'The idea of pushing on the Israelis to give something up to get the Palestinians to act is the worst idea in the world'
    • subconscious September 18, 2012 at 11:32 am with 2 replies

      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.

  • Moses and Mohammed are not equivalent figures in Jewish and Islamic faiths
    • subconscious September 21, 2012 at 2:55 am

      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.)

    • subconscious September 19, 2012 at 3:21 am

      "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.

    • subconscious September 18, 2012 at 2:39 pm with 1 replies

      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.

    • subconscious September 18, 2012 at 2:37 pm with 2 replies

      "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.

    • subconscious September 17, 2012 at 9:23 pm with 9 replies

      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

  • In caving on Jerusalem, Dems pulled back the curtain on the lobby
    • subconscious September 6, 2012 at 10:41 am

      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

  • Dems buckle, will add language to party platform referring to Jerusalem as Israel's capital
  • Dems have thrown two-state solution under the bus -- J Street and Beinart say
    • subconscious September 5, 2012 at 4:46 pm

      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.

  • Israeli rabbi with ties to gov't calls for obliterating Iranian leaders 'from the face of the earth'
    • subconscious August 27, 2012 at 10:23 pm

      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.

    • subconscious August 27, 2012 at 4:46 pm with 4 replies

      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.

    • subconscious August 27, 2012 at 4:25 pm

      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.

    • subconscious August 27, 2012 at 1:38 pm with 12 replies

      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.

  • Breaking the Silence report details soldiers humiliating and torturing Palestinian children and using them as human shields
  • 'Get ready to fight Iran,' Washington Post warns in URL
    • subconscious August 20, 2012 at 8:31 am

      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.

    • subconscious August 20, 2012 at 5:11 am with 1 replies

      @ 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

  • Democracy Now, interviews with Phyllis Bennis, Trita Parsi on Israel's threat to attack Iran
  • It's a lie that Ahmadinejad took responsibility for Bulgarian attack
    • subconscious July 26, 2012 at 1:08 am

      @lysias
      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?

    • subconscious July 26, 2012 at 1:04 am

      @Roya
      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?

    • subconscious July 25, 2012 at 7:28 am with 2 replies

      @Roya
      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.

    • subconscious July 25, 2012 at 1:51 am

      @Nima Shirazi,

      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.

    • subconscious July 23, 2012 at 5:55 pm

      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.

    • subconscious July 23, 2012 at 5:45 pm with 2 replies

      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.

    • subconscious July 23, 2012 at 5:41 pm with 2 replies

      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.

    • subconscious July 23, 2012 at 2:25 pm with 2 replies

      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.

    • subconscious July 23, 2012 at 2:07 pm with 5 replies

      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.

    • subconscious July 23, 2012 at 1:36 pm with 16 replies

      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.

  • All eyes on Moscow
    • subconscious June 19, 2012 at 2:26 pm with 1 replies

      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.

  • Beinart thought he was serious, 'NY Magazine' calls him Sammy Glick
  • Iran didn't threaten to 'wipe' Israel out -- Israel's deputy prime minister
    • subconscious April 17, 2012 at 1:56 am

      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)."

  • Jeffrey Goldberg's claim that Iran's Supreme Leader wants to kill Israeli Jews is based on shoddy sources
    • subconscious April 17, 2012 at 1:25 am

      AllenBee,

      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.

    • subconscious April 16, 2012 at 6:16 am

      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.

    • subconscious April 16, 2012 at 4:13 am with 3 replies

      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.

    • subconscious April 16, 2012 at 3:42 am with 2 replies

      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
      link to youtube.com

    • subconscious April 16, 2012 at 2:53 am with 3 replies

      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
      Synopsis:
      "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
      Synopsis:
      "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.

  • Wallace interview with Ahmadinejad was little more than deliberate demonization
    • subconscious April 14, 2012 at 5:22 pm

      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?"

    • subconscious April 12, 2012 at 7:19 pm

      Hamishe_Sabz,

      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.

    • subconscious April 12, 2012 at 6:44 pm with 2 replies

      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.

Showing comments 89 - 1
Page:

Comments are closed.