Recently elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said yesterday in a speech to youthful organizers of the country’s annual “Jerusalem Day” observances that, “Israel must be wiped off the map.” This is hateful, potentially genocidal speech that tells us a lot more about Ahmadinejad’s crass inexperience in world affairs than it does about any ability his country might have to actually “wipe” Israel off the map.
His country has no such ability. In good part because of the extremely large and capable nuclear-weapons arsenal that Israel commands, that would certainly deter any attempt that a rational leader of another state might make to eliminate it from the face of the earth.
So no-one needs to over-react to Ahmadinejad’s statement by engaging in counter-bellicosity. Indeed, a colleague recalled this morning that back in 1982, when Iranian revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini was still routinely calling for Israel’s elimination, and calling Israel “a tumor”, etc., Shimon Peres and other Israeli leaders were lobbying Washington to boost Iran’s defenses, and in 1982, Sharon proudly announced on NBC that Israel would continue to sell arms to Iran– in spite of a US ban on such sales. (Then a couple of years later, the Israelis and their various agents in Washington persuaded Ollie North and John Poindexter to get involved in the whole “arms for hostages” farce with Teheran… Tangled webs, eh?)
… Well, times have changed. Yesterday Peres (now a Vice-Premier) called for Iran to be expelled from the United Nations, though it seems unlikely that call will gather much momentum.
I am sure, though, that for many Israeli citizens, Ahmadinejad’s bellicosity seemed particularly threatening, on a day in which a Palestinian suicide bomber killed five Israeli civilians in a vegetable market in Hadera. The five were: Michael Koifman, 68; Perahiya Makhlouf, 53; Sabiha Nissim, 66; Jamil Muhammed Qa’adan, 48; and Yaakov Rahmani, 68. (Demographically, a fairly representative portion of the late-middle-age segment of Israeli society: one Palestinian Israeli and four Jewish Israelis, two or more of them apparently with Mizrachi links.)
Those killings were in direct contravention of all the provisions of international humanitarian law. IHL lays on all who take up arms (“combatants”) a positive duty to avoid causing harm to noncombatants– no matter how “just” the cause is that the combatant thinks he or she is fighting for. (And let’s face it, not many people lay their lives on the line for a cause they recognize to be unjust: nearly all combatants think they are fighting for a “just” cause. The vast bulk of IHL does not speak to that issue of just-ness; but it does lay down strict limits on how the cause can be fought for.)
Anyhway, my sincere condolences to the families of the slain Israelis. May they somehow find comfort in their bereavement.
At a broad political level, meanwhile, it’s evident that hateful, inciting rhetoric like that used by Ahmadinejad has the potential to have the following very harmful effects:
- (1) Stirring up militants in the Palestinian community and elsewhere who will likely become more convinced not only that their use of illegal forms of violence against Israeli noncombatants is justified, but also that perhaps it can lead to a situation in which the state power of a major Middle Eastern state might also be put at the disposal of their militancy;
(2) Aggravating the general level of fearfulness in an already fear-traumatized Israeli society, whose members will likely become even more supportive of hardline measures against the Palestinians, if they see Palestinian political activism of all kinds as somehow linked to Ahmadinejad’s campaign of hate;
(3) Increasing the acceptability of the argument that Israel “needs” to keep a robust nuclear arsenal because it faces an “existential” threat from outside;
(4) Increasing the willingness of leading states in the Security Council to act harshly against Iran on a number of different issues.
Given all these disastrous kinds of fallout that one can expect from Ahmadinejad’s statement, I have to hope that there are cooler heads within the Iranian ruling apparatus who will finds ways to (1) persuade him to moderate the thrust and tone of his rhetoric; (2) ensure that Iran’s military capabilities are under solid and responsible command and control; and (3) reassure all other states that Iran does indeed intend to be a responsible and constructive member of the international community.
I have to hope that there are cooler heads within the Iranian ruling apparatus who will finds ways to (1) persuade him to moderate the thrust and tone of his rhetoric; (2) ensure that Iran’s military capabilities are under solid and responsible command and control
This should to be said to other nation that has massive power used it to demolish states, Helen.
This Mouth Mistake as the other president call for “CRUSADE’S WAR”, but their was no call to be expelled from the United Nations
regime’s days r numbered
I have to say I don’t think it helps the cause of peace to describe an elected head of state as “toxic” or “hateful”. There are surely better ways of “distancing yourself”, if that’s what you want to do. Especially considering the current circumstances.
I wonder if I can distance myself? Am I not implicated? In a long dialogue on this site I recently described Israel as a “colony of a special type” (where the colonising power occupies the same territory as the colonised) and gave my opinion that the constant Israeli imperative to threaten war and to make war comes from their determination to defend their colonial anachronism against the tide of history.
That followed Allister Sparks’ article in the Johannesburg Star on October 5th. Today, after all this time, the South African Zionist Federation has taken a half (broadsheet) page advertisement to rebut Sparks all over again. They already had a letter and an article printed. There is no mention of why they thought a letter and an article was not enough.
Sparks’ crime in their eyes was to float the possibility of a “one-state” solution in Palestine. I don’t believe any “two state” solution can work (I explained why). Some posters thought I was anti-semitic for that, though others defended me against the charge.
Now along comes president Ahmedi-Nejad and puts us all on the spot. Doesn’t the “one state” solution mean the end of Israel as we know it, after all? Then what is the difference between my position and Ahmedi-Nejad’s? Did he threaten war? Well, no, actually, he did not.
I wish people, including Ahmedi-Nejad, could calm down a bit over this question. Nobody’s point of view should be suppressed, and if that is the case then nobody needs to shout. If that is what you think, Helena, then I agree with you.
One thing I’ve not been able to figure out is why the Iranians don’t have better PR folks for the public face of the government.
They could be in a pretty strong position, what with the U.S. overextended in Iraq, the Shi’ite allies in Iraq, and the fact that the Taliban have been handily removed for them.
And so they could easily carry on their same agenda, but wear a much prettier public face, and not get into nearly so much trouble at the U.N.
But then, as Salah seems to indicate, we have our own P.R. problems with the U.S. government, too… Guess that’s what happens when you get ideologues in power.
Gee willikers.
His country has no such ability. In good part because of the extremely large and capable nuclear-weapons arsenal that Israel commands, that would certainly deter any attempt that a rational leader of another state might make to eliminate it from the face of the earth.
Thank you. You have just justified Israel’s need for nuclear weapons.
The fact is that Ahmadinejad is not just another Iranian who made a public statement. He is the elected president of Iran. And if the chief executive of Iran makes such a statement, publicly and openly, then you can be sure that he has the backing of the mullahs who appear to control Iran.
Now, you may say that Iran does not have the capability today to carry out the genocidal threats made by its head of state, elected by a majority of its population (a representative sample of which were apparently on hand to applaud the remarks), and the ruling theocrats. So, does this imply that Israel should just wait until they do have the ability? Further, you seem to impart a sort of rationality on Ahmadinejad and his cohort that I am not sure applies to him.
Question: What the hell are “mizrahi links”?
Then what is the difference between my position and Ahmedi-Nejad’s? Did he threaten war? Well, no, actually, he did not.
What a joke! What do you think to “wipe off the map” means? Further, take a look at his other statements. Ahmadinejad clearly wants to determine where and how other people can live. If that isn’t a form of “imperialism”, then I’m not sure what is.
‘JERUSALEM — Israeli soldiers began massing outside the Gaza Strip yesterday, preparing for a possible ground invasion after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered a “wide-ranging and continuous” operation to root out Palestinian militants after a suicide bombing that killed five Israelis and injured dozens of others.
‘”In such a situation, I will not meet with Abu Mazen, and the Palestinians are losing all of their national dreams due to this situation,” Mr. Sharon said.’
Where is this statement of Sharon’s different from Ahmedi-Nejad’s? The difference is that the Israli troops are massing and if so many other “situations” like this are anything to go by, the Israelis will shoot, bomb, and rocket and Palestinians will die.
On and on it goes. You talk about PR, vv, but PR can’t cover up forever the feeling that hundreds of millions of people have about this. For God’s sake, let it stop, now.
Hi JES,
What took you so long?
If “wipe off the map” means a threat of war then I’m off the hook. Do you follow my meaning?
I do want a one-person-one-vote-in-one-secular-state solution for Palestine and the present Israel together. I guess that President Ahmedi-Nejad would probably settle for that too. It wouldn’t be called Israel, would it? So Israel’s name would be wiped off the map.
But I don’t want war – not any war. So if as you say, Ahmedi-Nejad wants war, as in killing people, then the distance between him and me is clear.
You are quite right that you don’t know what Imperialism is. In political literature the term has a precise meaning, and you haven’t a clue what that is. Nor will you find it in a general dictionary. Let’s take that up separately, if you wish.
“I do want a one-person-one-vote-in-one-secular-state solution for Palestine and the present Israel together.”
What YOU want for Israel is irrelevant Dominic.
http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2003/p9a.html
only 12% [of Palestinians] support a one-state solution (for Palestinians and Israelis)
Furthermore Dominic, the parties waging war on Israel from the West Bank and Gaza are far from secular. Do you realise that HAMAS is an acronym, and what it means? What ‘Hezbollah’ means??? ‘islamic jihad?’ In what universe are these secular movements?
In political literature the term has a precise meaning
Dominic has one thing in common with Hezbollah and George Bush, ironclad faith in his holy books.
I read somewhere that Ahmadinejad won his election because of grass roots movements by religious conservatives. Is that right? In that respect he strikes me as being an Iranian George W. Bush.
I remember that in the Iran Contra scandal Israel did provide support to Iran as Iran was the enemy of enemy Iraq. Someone needs to plaster that news all over the Iranian media to embarrass Ahmadinejad, as Ahmadinejad deserves the embarrassment.
It turns out that this “World Without Zionism” forum has some websites.
Official Website
News Article
It’s very disturbing that the official website has on its front page a picture of parents crying over an Israeli coffin as an example of defeating zionism. And quoting from the article:
Students between the ages of 7 and 18 can submit their art works to the organizing committee of the
Students between the ages of 7 and 18 can submit their art works to the organizing committee of the competition at this address: Tehran, P.O. Box 5745-774, or e-mail them to info@zionot.ir by November 21, Tehran Times announced.
The competition will also focus on the themes “A World without America,” “A Mirage Named Zionism,” “The Wishes of a Palestinian Student,” and “The Intifada,” noted the paper.
It’s horrifying, the forum is turning children on to hatemongering via their drawings….
Helena, in your second paragraph you do seem to imply that Israel really does need its nukes, as that’s what’s keeping Ahmadinejad from wiping Israel off the map. Israel needs to come completely clean about its nukes ( Vanunu did all of us a valuable service ). Then negotiations must begin between Israel and its hostile neighbors. The neighbors must recognize Israel’s right to exist and guarentee its safety, and then Israel can be obliged to begin nuclear disarmament. Recognition of the right to exist does not justify any Israeli policy of settlements or house destruction or whatnot, no matter what garbage about “betraying the Islamic world” Ahmadinejad might say. The insistance of people on tying the annihilation of Israel to any solution to the occupation is a barrier that’s keeping people from making any progress in getting the Palestinians out of their current unjust situation.
I think you’re dead to right, vadim. Any one-state solution has to be decided by the majority of both the Israelis and the Palestians, as a solution that both sides feel works best for them. A one-state would have to be something that respects the cultures of both peoples ( By not calling it “Israel” in any manner, Dominic, you’re already proposing a state that’s biased against Israelis ). I don’t see that understanding as possible before years of a two-state solution; of two states where both are economically viable and have complete sovereignity. Years of that peace and respect may make a one-state desirable to both peoples. But then again, maybe they’ll find things work better in their own states. The one-state solution is definitely not inevitable, no matter what “tide of history” might purportedly be there ( and is probably as real as the tooth fairy ). For now, the one-state movement is dominated by people for whom “one state” means the annihilation of the other state. Such as the 10000 ( 8-0 ) people who are rallying behind Ahmadinejad to wipe out Israel. Or the Sharon hardliners who are trying to use settlement camps to crowd out the Palestinians.
Again, I assert that a major obstacle in bring peace and justice to Palestinians and Isrealis is the insistance by many people on the annihilation of either Israel or the Palestinian people. It’s THOSE people that have to be wiped off the map. Once those people are rejected and condemned then we can make real progress on building a just framework for both Palestinians and Israelis. Be it in the two states or one state that both people prefer.
And I hope that the feeling those hundreds of millions of people have is a feeling of a need to end the unjust limbo situation that occupied Palestianians currently live in. But that feeling has been perverted by the annihilators, just as the feelings of injustice done on Germans by the Treaty of Versailles was perverted by the Nazis.
With so much Jew hatred in the world (and increasing too) I don’t think an end to the Zionist state is either likely or a good idea.
Think about this one:
Arafat’s “godfather” the Mufti of Jerusalem during WW2 helped raise two divisions of SS to kill Jews. The Palis still honor this man.
There will be no peace there for a very long time. Fortunately the Palinazis are taking the brunt of the war. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of folks.
Why is anyone surprised when a muslim tells the truth about the inherent Jew-hatred of islam? He is simply expressing, out loud, the sentiments of the majority of muslims the world over. At some point we are going to have to turn that part of the world into a pane of glass. I say do it now…
Iran’s rhetoric is not a military weapon. It can’t maim or kill, as do IDF rockets. So then, what is the political reason behind such inflammatory rhetoric?
A realistic assessment of Israel’s prospect of voluntarily allowing a Palestinian State within substantially “green line” Palestine is zero %. Gaza is like the Warsaw Ghetto, its trapped population being at once shelled, rocketed and starved by overwhelming and merciless military might. The West Bank is in a prison “lock-down” situation. Settlement expansion plans are announced routinely by an Israeli government determined to realize the goals of religious fanatics. The White House has neither the stomach nor wisdom to force a reversal of Palestinian hopelessness.
So the situation for the Palestinians is akin to that of a poker player down to his last chips. “ALL IN”. With nothing to lose, rhetorical incitement is a rationale expectation. Stir the waters, raise the stakes, are the tactics of the hopeless. Al Quaida made the same “ALL IN” bet with the 9/11 attack, and has won handsomely by the dual catastrophic counter-bets by the US: (1) attacking Iraq and thus giving Al Quaida more resources for future “bets”, and (2) allowing Israel to continue its insane settlement expansion incitement in the West Bank.
Our failure is to give the Palestinians any realistic hope. And for what?
To those who disagree, please refrain from the usual anti-semitic diatribe and tell me two things:
How is the national interest of the US served by Israel’s expropriation of West Bank lands?
And if our national interest is not served by the instability that Israel’s expropriation causes – the extreme rhetoric of Iran as an example of that instability – why should we allow Israel’s continuing expropriation?
You know you’ve gone to far when Saeb Erekat goes on record as your statement as being inappropriate.
The statement is terrible, but at the very least we can say that almost everyone realized that a red line had been crossed.
Whoops, except maybe Dominic
“Now along comes president Ahmedi-Nejad and puts us all on the spot. Doesn’t the “one state” solution mean the end of Israel as we know it, after all? Then what is the difference between my position and Ahmedi-Nejad’s? ”
Very little. And they are both reprehensible.
Dominic,
Maybe you should ask yourself why you are making excuses for a reactionary, non-secular loudmouth in Iran.
Timothy,
Gaza is like the Warsaw Ghetto, its trapped population being at once shelled, rocketed and starved by overwhelming and merciless military might.
You obviously don’t know anything about the Warsaw Ghetto or Gaza if you can feel comfortable making such a statement.
M. Simon, who do you mean by “Palinazis”? I can’t tell from your post. We just had a retaliatory attack on the Strip from Israel. The attack was supposed to kill a militant. That I do not object to. But six other people died as well. We don’t know anything about them yet, but in other cases we’ve have many deaths of noncombatent Palestinians caught in the crossfire. Those people should not be taking the brunt of the war. I haven’t seen any evidence yet that the Israeli government really is making every effort possible to minimize the number of deaths of noncombatents ( I think that’s been like 2000 in the past two years? Is that really the fewest number of deaths that could be possible? )
And no, Flanstein, there’s no inherent Jew-hatred in Islam. The idea that there is is as distasteful as Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric.
Timothy L has the right idea. We need to focus efforts on stopping Israel’s continued expropriation of West Bank land. The settlements have to be stopped. On the Palestinian side the armed militias have to reigned in. With the armed militias neutralized the IDF will have no more cause to launch attacks on Gaza. Energy needs to be focused on stopping settlement expansion and militia groups, not the annihilation of either side.
Joshua, actually I get the impression that Dominic is trying to distance himself from Ahmadinejad’s ugly rhetoric. He’s taking a swipe at people who try to say there’s no difference between him and Ahmad
Where is this statement of Sharon’s different from Ahmedi-Nejad’s?
Dominic, Sharoon or Israel did not give any statement, they did it straightforward without notice this is the tricks.
We saw the staged withdraw from Gaza, and all the implications and shows the world how Sharoon a peace lover sacrificing the to give back “Occupied Land to The Real Owners” then we saw the US and others donors responded fact to support the “Victims” from the withdraw land, what then Sharoon continue to kill and sent troops and chops to kill the Palestinians in Gaza, claming he kill the leaders exactly what we hear from US troops in Iraq “We killed 19 Terrorists” but the hospital in Iraq tell us most of the women and children!
This is what Sharoon did Ad Israel then the Palestinians hopelessly loose their charm Shroon telling the world these Arabs they don’t like they are not peace lover.
Israel as a “colony of a special type
Mossad death Squads
M. Simon
Arafat’s “godfather” the Mufti of Jerusalem during WW2 helped raise two divisions of SS to kill Jews. The Palis still honor this man.
Another twisted statement, the fact for this and we still hearing and reading over and over like this untrue statements.
M.S, who did hated or killed Jews? You don’t know read your history if you are Jew and come and tell us.
In France in Italy in East Europe and the tragic one in Germany with Holocausts.
Tell us now any massive killing happened in Arabic/ Islamic Courtiers that hated Jews as you claming? Are they killed in the same scale as in the West or East?
In fact the Muslims specifically Sultan of Othman Impair hosted them and offer them living in Islamic land peacefully and protected them when they flee the killing and hatred in Europe and allowed them to live save, moreover Jews have peacefully co-existed with Muslims in Arabic/Muslims countries for centuries without problems till Dr Theodor Herzl, start his Zionist Ideology which built on his personal gain using the chose that Jew’s living in at a time in Europe and calling for Jew’s State.
Dr Theodor Herzl, offered three locations to established his dream “Jew’s State” and he killed “died” and his ideology continue and see what we see now “Zionism State” we need to correct our mind and ourself when we writing and when we saying this is the fact not “Jewish State” this the reality if we talking about Israel there are many Jews oppose Israel polices and the Zionism.
RE: “I do want a one-person-one-vote-in-one-secular-state solution for Palestine and the present Israel together.”
That would mean giving up Jewish-only towns, Jewish-only schools, and Jewish-only government benefits. Israel would need to cease being a “jewish state” and there is about as much chance of that happening as Iran ceasing to be a “islamic state.”
But I agree, religious-nationalism is a bad thing and turning Israel/Palestine into a secular democracy that guaranteed human rights and equal treatment to all it’s citizens reguardless of religion would be a good thing.
“And no, Flanstein, there’s no inherent Jew-hatred in Islam.”
Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. [5:50]
“You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, ‘O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.’ ” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177)
The Prophet killed the men of the Jewish tribe Bani Quraiza (some 600 to 800 of them) and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims All the other Jews of Medina were exiled. (Bukhari 5:59:362)
The Prophet had the date-palms of the Jewish tribe of Bani-Al- Nadir burnt and cut down. “It was with Allah’s permission” (Koran 59:5)
The Prophet said to Sa’d, :The Bani Quraiza have agreed to accept your verdict” Sa’d said, “Kill all their men and take their women and children as slaves” The Prophet replied, “You have judged according to God’s Judgment” (Bukhari 5:59:447)
“Mohammed dealt with the Jews by taking the men, ten at a time, marching them into a trench and killing them. The women were all taken as captives, and only the male children were spared death. That is how Mohammed dealt with the Jews, and that is how you, Muslim, must deal with them. This is what you must do to be a Muslim.”
Omar Ahmad
Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations
Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” – Omar Ahmad
Abu Hamza Al Masri,
there is about as much chance of that happening as Iran ceasing to be a “islamic state.”
or the 29 other states for which Islam is the state religion, from Algeria to Yemen.
“religious-nationalism is a bad thing”
Wasn’t Herzl a secular Jew, and his ‘judenstaat’ a secular state? Aren’t the most religious Jews the least likely to be Zionist? Do not half of Israelis self-identify as secular?
Personally, I would not object if the portions of the West Bank retained by the Palestinians to merge into a state with Jordan, and Gaza merges into a state with Egypt. It would give the residents a significantly more viable state.
The problem is, the Palestinians don’t want that. So it seems kind of silly to press the point. And demanding that they do it as a condition to end a violent conflict is terribly inappropriate.
Ditto for demands to force a confederation between Palestinians and Israelis.
Flanstein wants to nuke ’em. That’s what he means by “pane of glass”. “Do it now”, he says.
How many more are there like Flanstein?
Virginia Tilley argues the one-state case on Counterpunch at http://www.counterpunch.org/tilly10282005.html .
“How many more are there like Flanstein?”
There’s no shortage of kooks on the internet, Dominic.
Luckily ‘Flanstein’ isnt in charge of any soon-to-be-nuclear nations (and no credible person doubts Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.)
To JES:
I am pleased that you did not argue that Israel’s expropriation of Palestinian lands serves the national interest of the US. We all know it doesn’t. Why the US facilitates and enables and allows Israeli expropriation is beyond me… it is just not rational. Perhaps that is what “special relationship” means – hysterical applause for Israeli actions which actually harm our national interest by destabilizing the Near East. If so, that notion of “special relationship” is worse than junk – it’s poison to US interests, costly in US lives and treasure.
As for the Gaza Ghetto and the Warsaw Ghetto, JES, since your opinioned disagreement with my analogy is supported by ZERO facts, your opinion on that is not very credible. The basic horrors to the victimized population are the same – it’s as plain as the day is long.
“Virginia Tilley argues the one-state case on Counterpunch”
Dominic, Israel for the Israelians, Palestine for the Palestinians! There’s no room in there for meddling Yank academics! [/dominic-speak]
US academics out of Israel, now!
Virginia Tilley is in Johannesburg
“since your opinioned disagreement with my analogy is supported by ZERO facts”
Your analogy is supported by zero facts. Do you have any idea how many were Jews killed in the Warsaw Ghetto? Where is the Israeli Treblinka in your analogy? Where are the Jewish suicide bombers and religious-national militias in your analogy?
“Virginia Tilley is in Johannesburg”
on sabbatical from Hobart; not in Jerusalem. She is a native of the United States and has no business imposing her dangerous fantasy on millions of Israelis and Palestinians. 64% of palestinians favor a two state solution Dominic.
What we are talking about here is an international solidarity movement for the Palestinians on the basis of the demand for a one-state solution, which Virginia Tilley reasonably calls an anti-apartheid struggle, because it resembles the other struggle in practically every way.
In the anti-apartheid struggle, the first response of our opponents was always “It’s none of your business” and the second was always “The natives don’t want it”. Your response is like music to my ears. It is so familiar and nostalgic. I know how weak your arguments are! I know it from experience! And I know they are your best arguments, weak as they are!
We used to say: “Victory is Certain!” Now that two-state has been knocked on the head – by the Israelis – I am beginning to think that victory is jolly well certain for justice and peace in palestine too.
Ms. Tilley’s article is too riddled with loaded words like “quisling” and South-Africa specific words like “bantustan” and “apartheid”. She tries to defame the 2-state idea by branding it “bantustan”, and her repetition of that word and “apartheid” clouds the issues: You’d think you were reading about old South Africa instead of Israel.
Those three “worries” she tries to address she doesn’t do very well: Why would Israel be able to further incur in the viable State of Palestine after it’s beein founded?; wishing that the Palestinian movement had a “greater multiconfessional vision” is not very reassuring; and the States could form economic ties between themselves and the Arab neighbors without needing to be one state.
Israel is a Jewish state like France is a French state. Everyone in France still has rights as citizens and legal residents ( or should ), in the same way non Jewish citizens of Israel should enjoy full rights and it still will be Israel. All around the world Kurds, Kosovars, Turkish Cypriots, Somalilanders are all fighting for their own states. OTOH, western european states are gradually integrating, having been at peace for a number of years. I think that’s the natural trend Israelis and Palestinians should follow: Start out as separate but viable sovereign states. Promote peace and form economic ties. Then consider the advantages of a possible union. That scenario shouldn’t have mud like “bantustan” slung at it.
Dominic, instead of talking about Israel and Palestine you completely changed the subject and went on and on about South Africa. You’ve confused the issue by talking about a different example. “Anti-Apartheid movement” is a smokescreen. And you act in an insulting manner with teasing like “It’s so familiar and nostalgic” and “victory is certain”, like some first grader picking on other kids.
All one-state movements are inherently tainted with a drive of one side to annihilate the other side. As such one-state movements are an obstacle to peace.
Israel is a Jewish state like France is a French state
Very funny statement!!
all around the world Kurds, Kosovars, Turkish Cypriots, Somalilanders are all fighting for their own states.
Stope Stope, what onearth you stating here, there are differences between Religious groups and Nations or ethnics groups, what you doing, you trying to inventing a new world?
You’ve confused the issue by talking about a different example.
Look to your above post you will find who had confused the issue by talking about a different example.
She/He telling untrue then blame Demonic……
RE: “Israel is a Jewish state like France is a French state”
Jesus! That’s retarded. Why are you even commenting when it’s obvious you have never been to Israel and know absolutely nothing about it?
There is one rule in the world. Who controls a territory governs it.
Doesn’t any one read Mao any more?
If the Palis want Israel let them take it. Other wise I hear Gaza is nice in the spring.
RE: “in the same way non Jewish citizens of Israel should enjoy full rights”
Well, I agree with that. But for example, you can’t declare yourself a Catholic State with special benefits reserved only for Catholics and pretend that non-Catholics are not being marginalized as lesser-status citizens. Religious states by their vary nature oppress all those of the “wrong” religion.
“special benefits reserved only for Catholics”
Please describe these “special benefits” to us – outside of the settlements, since we all agree they are bad and should go.
“Israel has struggled with tensions between two systems of values, the democratic character of a modern state, and Jewish religious teachings, practice and rulings.”
How Jewish the State of Israel?
ARE CHRISTIAN INTERESTS RESPECTED BY THE STATE OF ISRAEL?
Although the Israeli government provides seperate courts for Muslims and Christians, adminstrative treatment of Moslem and Christian Palestineans is equal; BOTH ARE TREATED UNJUSTLY. Muslim and Christian alike are mistreated by Israel on social, economic, educational and religious levels. Actions taken against Palestinians reveal Israeli government motives more clearly than media reports. To describe the mistreatment of Moslem Palestinians is to describe the mistreatment of Christian Palestinians.
http://www.al-bushra.org/latpatra/christmos.htm
RE: “Please describe these ‘special benefits’ to us”
Oh Jesus! I’t like EVERYTHING is structured to marginalize those of the “wrong” religion.
I cobbled together a whole bunch of stuff [plagerized scraps]:
Israeli Palestinians do not receive the wide range of benefits, including larger mortgage loans, partial exemptions from course fees, and preferences for public employment and housing. They are also denied special tax incentives for industry, educational programs, and housing incentives.
Palestinians receive substantially less funding for local government budgets (usually 50 percent less), and have less resources allocated for welfare budgets, school facilities or other educational programs. The education budget for Arab schools is 28 percent less than for their Jewish counterparts.
Jewish citizens can choose to serve in the military, do alternative service, or attend Yeshiva [religious schools] and then recieve additional government assistance such as state child benefits.
There are entire departments in the Israeli government that are exclusively for Jewish citizens and several non-government agencies such as the Jewish National Fund and the World Zionist Organisation have special constitutional status in Israel. These organisations benefit and represent Jews only, but have authority over certain governmental functions, including ownership and development of state lands, housing projects and settlements.
NOTE: I’ve lived in Israel and traveled extensively in the Middle East. Israel is a little thugish Middle Eastern country only slightly better than all those other little thugish Middle Eastern countries. Simply put RELIGIOUS STATES SUCK if you are the “wrong” religion.
Helena in your blog you state:
“Indeed, a colleague recalled this morning that back in 1982, when Iranian revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini was still routinely calling for Israel’s elimination, and calling Israel “a tumor”, etc., Shimon Peres and other Israeli leaders were lobbying Washington to boost Iran’s defenses, and in 1982, Sharon proudly announced on NBC that Israel would continue to sell arms to Iran– in spite of a US ban on such sales. (Then a couple of years later, the Israelis and their various agents in Washington persuaded Ollie North and John Poindexter to get involved in the whole “arms for hostages” farce with Teheran… Tangled webs, eh?)”
This notion of america and israel selling arms to Iran, is completely misunderstood. Here is an entire background:
Noam Chomsky points out that the principal weakness of the “October Surprise” theory is that the arms flow to Iran began during the Carter administration — before the 1980 election — whereas under the “October Surprise” theory the quid pro quo of delaying release of the hostages was that the Reaganites would secretly begin to provide arms to Iran after they were elected. With respect to the “arms for hostages” theory concerning the hostages taken in 1985, reams of documentation prove that there was an arms flow to Iran prior to the earliest period that was examined by the Congressional Hearings and the Tower Commission. In addition, many express statements by insiders explain that their goal was, in fact, to bring about a military coup in Iran.
For some of the evidence supporting these points, see for example, David Nyhan, “Israel plan was aimed at toppling Khomeini,” Boston Globe, October 21, 1982, p. 1 (Israeli Ambassador Moshe Arens stated in an interview that Israel had provided arms to the Khomeini regime “in coordination with the U.S . government . . . at almost the highest of levels.” “The objective,” Arens said, “was to see if we could not find some areas of contact with the Iranian military, to bring down the Khomeini regime”); Robert Levey, ” U.S. denies Arens’ claim,” Boston Globe, October 22, 1982, p. 1 (the U.S. State Department’s immediate denial of Arens’s account); David Nyhan, “Israeli disputes Globe story,” Boston Globe, October 23, 1982, p. 4 (Arens’s attempt to correct his story the next day, maintaining that the arms deal with Iran was discussed in advance with U.S. officials but saying that not enough equipment was sent to topple the Khomeini regime, although he reaffirmed that “the purpose was to make contact with some military officers who some day might be in a position of power in Iran”); Transcript of Panorama, B.B.C.-1 T.V. (U.K.) at 8:10 p.m., February 1, 1982. After David Kimche, head of Israel’s Foreign Office and former director of its intelligence agency M.O.S.S.A.D., discussed Israel’s sending American armaments to Iran from 1980, he stated:
Question: So that if Israel wishes to see a strong Iranian army it would be in Israel’s interests for America to supply those spare parts?
Kimche: Well, I don’t want to reach the obvious conclusion here. I think I made our position plain. We think that the Iranian army should be strong, yes.
Question: So, really, an army take-over is what you’re saying?
Kimche: Possibly, yes.
Former C.I.A. Director and U.S. Ambassador to Iran Richard Helms then elaborated:
One doesn’t mount coups to change governments or influence events without specific assets in the form of guns, people, groups desirous of helping, people who are prepared to take risk, all of these things, so that this is not a theoretical matter, it’s a very practical matter and I wouldn’t have any doubt that the United States is trying to find out what assets it can bring to bear.
On the timing of the arms sales, see for example, Zbigniew Brzezinski [Carter’s National Security Advisor], Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser, 1977-1981, New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1983, p. 504 (reporting that the Carter administration had learned in 1980 of secret Israeli shipments of U.S. armaments to Iran); Dan Fisher, “Israel-Iran Arms Flow Reportedly Began In ‘79,” Los Angeles Times, November 22, 1986, p. 1. An excerpt:
Israeli arms dealers, with the acquiescence of the government, have maintained a nearly continuous supply of weaponry to Iran since 1979, including at least seven shiploads dispatched independently of a U.S.-sponsored Iranian arms program over the last 14 months, according to informed sources [in Israel]. . . .
Pleased initially that revelation of the Reagan program [of clandestine weapons shipments to Iran] made Israel appear as a loyal strategic ally aiding an effort to free U.S. hostages held by pro-Iranian elements in Lebanon, Israeli policy-makers have watched with growing discomfort as Washington news reports seem increasingly to depict Jerusalem as a villain in the affair. . . . “The State of Israel has never sold American arms or weapons containing American components without having received authorization from the U.S.,” Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin told an Israeli Army Radio interviewer last week. . . . [T]hen-Israeli Defense Minister . . . [Ariel] Sharon argued that arms shipments would help keep channels open to “moderate” or “pragmatic” elements in Iran, particularly in the military, who would one day overthrow or at least inherit the reins of power from Khomeini.
“Carving a big slice of world arms sales,” Business Week, December 8, 1980, p. 43 (according to Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Mordechai Tsippori, “Iran, once a big customer for Israeli arms under the Shah, [is] now purchasing Israeli weapons again through European intermediaries”); John Walcott and Jane Mayer, “Israel Said to Have Sold Weapons to Iran Since 1981 With Tacit Approval of the Reagan Administration,” Wall Street Journal, November 28, 1986, p. 3 (noting that U.S. authorization of Israeli arms sales to be compensated by the U.S. goes back to 1981, with the knowledge of Haig, Weinberger, Shultz, Baker, and others; “Officials said both Israel and the U.S. hoped that the arms sales would curry favor with the military people in Iran, the so-called moderates, helping to position these men to take over if Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini died or there was a coup”); General Robert E. Huyser, Mission to Tehran, New York: Harper & Row, 1986 (Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s endorsement of Huyser’s book about his dispatch to Iran to organize the Iranian military to carry out a coup states that Brzezinski remains convinced that only “procrastination and bureaucratic sabotage prevented the U.S.-sponsored military coup” he advocated and “that might have saved Iran from Khomeini” and “the masses”).
See also, Samuel Segev, The Iranian Triangle: The Untold Story of Israel’s Role in the Iran-Contra Affair , New York: Free Press, 1988; Jonathan Marshall, Peter Dale Scott, and Jane Hunter, The Iran-Contra Connection: Secret Teams and Covert Operations in the Reagan Era, Boston: South End, 1987, chs. 7 and 8; Scott Armstrong et al., The Chronology: The Documented Day-by-Day Account of the Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Contras, New York: Warner, 1987, pp. 7-8.
Oh well, so much for cooler heads…. Curiously, Rafsanjani today in Iran did precisely as Helena hoped for – attempted to start pulling the leash on Ahmadinejad. See DPA report below. Note that Khamenehi recently and dramatically strengthened the role of Iran’s “Expediency Council” – in the wake of Ahmadinejad’s counterproductive appearance before the UN….. It would seem the choke-chain needs tightening….! (of course, the neocons here will reject even the thought of their being a difference between any “mullah.”)
From Deutsche Presse-Agentur
October 28, 2005, Friday
09:56:26 Central European Time
SECTION: Politics
HEADLINE: EXTRA: Ex-President says Iran respects Jews and Judaism
DATELINE: Teheran
In a clear move aimed at calming worldwide tensions and condemnations over anti-Israeli remarks by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ex-President Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani said Friday that Iran respected both Jews and Judaism.
“We have no problems with Jews and highly respect Judaism as a holy religion,” Rafsanjani said at the Friday prayer ceremony which followed anti-Israeli demonstrations throughout Iran.
Ahmadinejad, during a conference in Teheran on Wednesday, said the late Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s prediction that Israel would be destroyed would soon be realised.
The remarks were harshly condemned in the Western world and by the Palestinians themselves, with chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat calling them “unacceptable” and noting that the Palestinians “have recognized the state of Israel”.
Rafsanjani, who is an opponent to Ahmadinejad’s hardline rhetoric and policies, said “we only have problems with Zionist circles in Israel
which we hold responsible for the suppression of the Palestinian nation.
“Iran has no physical presence in Palestine and all we do is aid the Palestinians spiritually, ideologically and also medically,” added the
former president, who still plays an influential role in Iran’s political scene as head of the arbitration body Expediency Council.
Rafsanjani said that Iran would even cooperate in establishing peace and stability in the Middle East and reiterated Teheran’s plan of a
referendum by all Palestinians, including refugees, for choosing their future political fate in peaceful coexistence with the Jews.
“Palestine is very important for us and we defend their legitimate rights to return to their homelands, but we are also willing to help
settling this misery,” Rafsanjani said. dpa fm ds
Rafsanjani can do some damage control, but back at the heart of the beast one million Iranians demonstrated in support of Ahmadinejad with the usual flag burnings and tired chants. One freaking million people, I guess Helena didn’t meet any of them during her 36 hour visit, or they just developed their hatred and hostility after her visit.
David
”For some of the evidence supporting these points, see for example”
This far to believed specially we all know that Israelis never been telling the truth or what the can do, their works naturally secrecy this all we know about Israeli moves.
Hi, all. I wrote this on a bad connection yesterday, and have just gotten back to reading it (and all comments here) quite carefully. I’d like to make the following clarifications/additional comments:
(1) I did not call Pres. Ahmadinejad toxic or hateful. Those were terms I used respectively for (a) the possible fallout from his comments and (b) the nature of his utterance re “wiping Israel off the map.”
(2) I see I wrote that Iran can’t actually wipe Israel off the map “in good part” because of Israel’s possession of a powerful nuclear deterrent. I should have written “in part” because of that… Because in fact even without Israel having a nuclear deterrent there are many other reasons that no rational Iranian leader would try to “wipe Israel off the map.” Among these are: (a)the United States’ possession of a very robust nuclear arsenal– some of it currently deployed very close to Iranian shores– and the quite presumable readiness of the US to threaten its use in the event of any Iranian action that even comes close to threatening Israel’s existence; (b) Israel’s and the US’s possession of extremely damaging non-nuclear weapons that could also have a strong deterrent effect; and most important of all: (c) Iran’s lack of any capability either today or within the next five-ten years of any military capability able to threaten Israel’s existence! The whole “threat” that Ahmadinejad uttered is at one level ridiculous because of Iran’s lack of capability…
Beyond that, the fact that Israel’s nuclear deterrent is only one– and not the most important– factor making Ahmadinejad’s threat unrealizable means that his utterance of it in no ways “justifies” Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, though the utterance of such threats can perhaps be seen, at a psychological level that needs to be addressed, as “explaining” the desire of Israel to have nuclear weapons.
(3) I don’t see a threat to wipe israel off the map as being in any significant way the same as exploring or even advocating the possibility of Israel and the Palestinians ending up with a unitary, binational state. The “wipe… ” project is an explicitly eliminationist one… the Jewish state, Hebrew culture, and most likely the Jewish people would be “wiped” out of the region. That is either genocidal or a clear call for massive ethnic cleansing. Calling for a single, binational state by contrast respects and honors the presence of the Israeli-Jewish people and the Hebrew culture in the region, while it invites them to build a single, non-discriminatory state with the Palestinian indigenes of the land.
(4) I see that “David” was once again trying to use my tiny portion of cyberspace to spread his wilful slanders about my trip to Iran last December. How pathetic. Anyone interested in reading what I wrote can go to the “Iran” section under Categories/topics and read it for her/himself. I don’t know why david is so apoplectic/defensive on the subject of Iran and/or my writing that he feels the need to misrepresent what I write on the topic. David, rent your own portion of cyberspace if you want to engage in slanderous attacks against others. This space is reserved for good-faith attempts at honest reporting.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speech it’s the most priceless gift to Israel which had the lead in marking these speeches to their clams and invested in marking a new free wave of international support in Europe and US to cover their savage killing and retaliations against the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank by replaying same lies that Israel surrounded by enemies they would through the “Jews to the sea”
You’re right, Salah. So why did he do it? I haven’t seen a convincing explanation.
John C,
If I may once more refer to the old anti-apartheid struggle, there were some moments when one had to examine one’s conscience. There was the Silverton seige. Then there was the Magoo’s bar bombing. And also Winnie Mandela’s “necklaces and matchboxes” speech. All of these had a big popular following. All of them went into tactics which the movement had forsworn for reasons both moral and practical.
Looking back over a long struggle lasting decades and millions of people, the extraordinary thing is how few these occasions were. Our discipline was good, but not perfect.
The problem is well illustrated in an old film called “The Hill”, which stars a young Sean Connery. The inmates revolt and take over a brutal military prison. They negotiate their release and for the punishment of the sadists who had been running the jail. At the moment of triumph, one idiot goes over the top and murders one of the captured warders. The revolt collapses, the authorities return, and things go back to what they were before. Great film.
So, looking at Ahmedi-Nejad’s remarks, it is not a question of “why?” so much, because somebody is bound to pop up sooner or later like this.
The problem is a moral one at a personal level. You support the masses, even agitate them and become a tribune of their grievances. Only to find that through some other foolish agency, or agents provocateurs (knowing or unknowing) the whole thing develops into a self-defeating “Jacquerie”.
This is an “Achilles heel” which the Imperialists know about and seek to exploit. How do you deal with it? What do you think?
You’re right, Salah. So why did he do it? I haven’t seen a convincing explanation.
Why it’s quite obvious. Ahmadinejad is a mossad agent. Just apply rule number one: Look who benifits. [large irony alert]
Just apply rule number one: Look who benifits.
Gooooood Boy JES, you learn very quickly….
Dominic, thanks for another very thoughtful post. I’ll chew on that for awhile . . .
John C.
You’re right, Salah. So why did he do it? I haven’t seen a convincing explanation.
Dear friend John, what we saw from the invasion of Iraq and demolish the state of Iraq “Destruction of Babylon” as some like to call it, and Afghanistan war, now Mules report with all the propaganda around that putting Syria saga with US and France about a death of one person as the justices should take by US around the world adding Iran case of the nuclear dram and a possibility of some sanctions against them even a limited war and may be Israeli hit like Iraqi Nuclear Centre back in 1981, in same taken we see Israel supported by US and all other blindly without nay regards that this state had been refusing 99 UN regulations in addition 100 UN regulations block by US Veto orders all this seen in the region as double standard that US/West dealing in the situations in the ME, so Iran find itself they will lose any thing if they highlights the facts that the region under it for 100 years,.
In same taken Israel behaviour in the Arab occupation land with their game playing and scenarios showing the world they withdraws from some land and asking the Arabs countries for more soften relation and Israeli highlighted and proud of some breakthroughs of some sort of success with some degree in their relations like the trade restrictions with Bahrain and others all these acts make the Islamic society anger for the outcome of this behaviour what they see Israel counting build the concert wall, still steal Arab lands and farm accordingly still killing Palestinians in Gaza and west bank still the Military operation going one and destroying the Arab land and killing, in all this the fact is US and the west need to stop and think what’s going on here, this may be another call to stop and see where is the problem GWB came to white house and promised the ME conflict will be resolved what the people and the government see the opposite more support for Israeli and more humiliation for the ME courtiers this the facts you need to understand why president Ahmedi-Nejad call inflame demonstrations and more responded from different Islamic countries and societies some these countries visited recently by Katrina Hugs to makeup US image and advice GWB.
I think there is some thing missing in the west thinking when it comes to Arab/Israel conflict even Helena when she posted about president Ahmedi-Nejad she asked for
I have to hope that there are cooler heads within the Iranian ruling apparatus who will finds ways to (1) persuade him to moderate the thrust and tone of his rhetoric; (2) ensure that Iran’s military capabilities are under solid and responsible command and control
This is simple example how the western thinking when it comes to other than Israeli as those Arabs/Islamic countries uncivilized, Slaves or Belong to US/West.
Here we go again, Helena just deleted my post critical of her December Iran trip report. Just post a link Helena to that gem of a report so readers can refresh their minds on your observations on the lack of Iranian hostility towards the West and Israel.
Iran is the topic, you went, you saw, you opined. Let your words speak by themselves.
David
Timothy L:
There are no “Palestinian lands”. They are only disputed territories. That’s what the fight is about. Israel has been demanding recognition and an end to claims in return for land (“Land for Peace”). Since then it’s become more complicated (Oslo and Disengagement) but it’s still true.
There are no “Palestinian lands”.
Really the new experts, a new name land of peace, goes and sleep well better…
Thanks, Salah. I understand the resentment over the double standard, and why Ahmadinejad and millions of others are angry. However, as your earlier post pointed out, his latest statements feed right into the Israeli-American propaganda machine.
By the way, “Katrina Hugs” is an instant Salah classic!!
John, the question is angry at who. You may get a different perspective on the blame distribution for the refugee problem through a link I just found at a blog: http://www.spiritofentebbe.blogspot.com/
It was refreshing to come across a corageous european. They exist. Live and learn…
David
You may get a different perspective on the blame distribution for the refugee problem
David, you talking about the refugee problem from its bottom end, the realty are why this problem happened from the start?
The answer very simple and easy because the Zionists make the state on the land where state existed which Palestine and there were nation and people lived their forced to leave their land either by killing them bay Gahana and other Gangs that Zionists used them to steal the land from original owners.
Again, in 1967 more refugees went out of their land and homes, this state refused to withdraw from occupied land according to UN orders and all the national community call to withdraw from occupied land.
So these refuges waiting to the day they will go home their Palestinians land there, this is not “The New Words” David when the European kills 25millions of Red Indian to steal their land, if you would to do it like that then Kill One Billion Muslims can you do it?
“The Zionists (who are also Jews), wishing to impose a ‘sectarian’ State over the heads of an indigenous population, the Palestinians. A confrontation which has resulted in horrific bloodshed and brutality with no end in sight unless there is a very radical change.
My qualification to talk on this subject is by virtue of my being one of many orthodox Jews who absolutely sympathise with the Palestinian cause, and we protest vehemently against the terrible wrongs being perpetrated against the Palestinian People by the Zionist illegitimate regime in Palestine.”
Rabbi Ahron Cohen at Birmingham University, England
“Israel is a state that was founded as a reaction to the persecution the Jews had been subjected to for centuries, particularly in European countries. The return to the old Jewish homeland in Palestine was their attempt to solve the inability of the European society to get rid of antisemitism and discrimination against Jews, which at the end, in the era of Nazi Germany, reached enormous dimensions and turned into Holocaust.”
Václav Klaus
I’m getting the idea that salah doesn’t disagree much with Ahmadinejad. so much for scare quotes around “existential threat.”
“But for example, you can’t declare yourself a Catholic State with special benefits reserved only for Catholics”
many such states exis & Im sure “===” considers argentina & bolivia just as ‘thugish’ and worthy of contempt as israel (where s/he lived, dontcha know.)
What’s this now, vadim? Are you trying to soften up Argentina and Bolivia now for a nuking? Why is Bolivia being lined up? Is it because it is a country in the middle of a revolution, where the revolutionaries have refused to let the yankees steal their natural gas? And why are you trying to line up Argentina? Is it because Argentina called the bluff of the yankee bank – the IMF, and is now enjoying a 9% growth rate, one of the best in the world? Both of these are secular states, by the way.
On a personal note, I may be a Communist but I was brought up a Catholic and I find your remarks insulting. You cannot just call all Catholics thugs. That is unacceptable. I also find it stupid. It is absurd to discuss secular politics as if the history of Church and State, Reformation, Counter-Reformation, Enlightenment and Revolution had never happened. You insult both religion and intelligence at the same time. There are no cheap tricks here for you to take. Trying to do so just makes you look childish.
Detlev Mehlis’ form is coming out. He was the one who falsely fingered Libya in the nightlub bombing case, thereby giving Ronald Reagan a plausible excuse to order jets to fly from bases in Britain (Prime Minister at the time: M. Tahtcher) to bomb Libya, resulting in the death, among others, of president Gadaffi’s youg daughter. Mehlis has blood on his hands.
See: http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/22038
vadim
When it comes to facts and truths with serious talk “salah doesn’t disagree much with Ahmadinejad” vadim, Yah…. this is typical Israeli/Zionism behaviours we used to it, we experiencing it a long time and all around the word.
Simple example the Myer of London with his speeches every one knows this man had a lot of criticisms from pro Israeli gropes for his ideas and speeches recently when he talk about Iraq, there is more and more.
I would like to highlight the very close relations between Israeli and Pretoria/South Africa that Racist Regime, that relation was so friendly closely, Israel breaks all the UN regulations of sections with that regime and support them with all around to kill and to be Racism their in South Africa.
Vadim its clear to me you’re Israeli or Pro Israeli, the state that PM and more official are killers and human’s bloods on their hands what sort of state this?
You may recall that Israeli official who kept quiet in the plane in Heathrow Airport/London worrying leaving his plane will arrested for murdering civilians, those sort of government officials rule this Terrorist State read and see the day to day crimes their in Gaza and West bank what “Peace Loving State” doing with the Olive trees, Water Supplies “Water Wells” Lands and most importantly the Civilians. This is the state you proud of Vadim
I must not forget in Iraq most the acts there its Israeli type’s acts and there is no doubt that Mossad playing there with US.
If anyone’s interested in the post I wrote after my quick visit to Iran last December, it’s here.
I haven’t a clue what friend David keeps harping on about… I made no mention in that post at all of the attitudes I found amongst Iranians toward Israel, or Zionism… David might find it hard to imagine that people in and concerned with the Middle East can have long conversations that are not about Israel, but amazingly enough that is the case.
Mainly, I was interested in social and political developments inside Iran, and in particular in a truly riveting discussion we participated in there about Islam and democracy. Some really interesting and important subjects, I submit…
“You cannot just call all Catholics thugs. That is unacceptable. I also find it stupid.”
It is certainly stupid and unacceptable Dominic, as was the stupid and offensive comment addressing Israel that invited the analogy. You seem to have missed my point altogether.
“Both of these are secular states, by the way.”
Incorrect — each has catholicism as its official state religion, each government sponsors religous programmes of exactly the sort that “===” finds so objectionable in the case of Israel.
“Yah…. this is typical Israeli/Zionism behaviours we used to it”
& you can expect more of the same as long as you use “zionist” as a pejorative. But maybe I’m wrong to compare your contempt for Israel and Israelis with Ahmadinejad’s, but thats what half your links (the ones that arent bashing the US) suggest. We get the idea & believe me we’re used to it as well!
“where the revolutionaries have refused to let the yankees steal their natural gas?”
Dominic sometimes it helps to take the Yank-bashing off autopilot. No Bolivian gas at all is eligible for export to the United States, and the oil companies currently invested in bolivia are Petrobras, Repsol, BP and British Gas. Not one from the USA.
“Both of these are secular states, by the way.”
Not only are Argentina and Bolivia officially Catholic, so are Andorra, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, Paraguay, Peru, some cantons of Switzerland and of course Vatican City. Would you like me to run down the list of “officially” Islamic countries? It’s rather long. Why do you suppose Israel is singled out quite so often among secular-minded critics, and none of these other nations?
Vadim your first post mixes up your response to me and to salah. I don’t think anybody’s going to be fooled, though, so let’s just ignore that one, shall we?
As for your second, you are quite right to put “official” in inverted commas because it is meaningless. You have made it into a weasel word.
Your intention is mendacious. You intend to misdirect us all in the matter of the origin of secular states, altogether. I think you want to pretend there is no such history of secularism anywhere.
You may well say that the Catholics have frequently played the reactionary part in history, although you should not forget our liberation theology. But you are trying to say that reaction is all there is, and that there was never any contest. But actually there are in practice no confessional states among the formerly Christian states. Equal rights under the law is the normal situation and whatever relics there may be of previous confessional constitutions are just that: relics, and dying ones at that.
Israel is the only one that appears to demand an eternal future as a confessional state (although it may just be a tactical demand pending sufficietn “facts on the ground”). If you are suggesting that Israel is only mimicking islamic states I’m afraid that’s not worth discussing. Nor should you pray in aid any confessionalism that has been imposed by colonialism.
No, vadim, you must face the complete isolation of Israel in this matter. There is nowhere to hide and really you should not be trying to hide in any crowd. If the religious apartheid of Israel cannot be justified on its own merits, it should go, immediately, and without ceremony.
I note your hostile attitude to Bolivia continues. Why? It’s completely unneccesary for your argument. It only lends credibility to the idea that the supporters of Zionism (if not the Zionists themselves) are only supporting it as a component in an Imperialist world view.
& you can expect more of the same as long as you use “zionist” as a pejorative. But maybe I’m wrong to compare your contempt for Israel and Israelis with Ahmadinejad’s, but thats what half your links (the ones that arent bashing the US) suggest. We get the idea & believe me we’re used to it as well!
Keep weaselling and chewing words, give clarifications to what stated and defends your state if there is wrong stating?
BTW, if US supported you loves you protected you why not US gifted one state to Jew and give them to create their dream Jew’s State? At lest to forgive the west what they done to Jews there.
From your talk you accused countries “No Bolivian gas at all is eligible for export to the United States, and the oil companies currently invested in Bolivia are Petrobras, Repsol, BP and British Gas. Not one from the USA.” is it their right to do so why not? US and others not exporting Hi-Tech items to many countries what’s the difference? Is right for you and not right for others to choose their friends?
(I’m coming to this a bit late, but I still thought the point should be made)
“====” – from the end:
There are entire departments in the Israeli government that are exclusively for Jewish citizens and several non-government agencies such as the Jewish National Fund and the World Zionist Organisation have special constitutional status in Israel. These organisations benefit and represent Jews only, but have authority over certain governmental functions, including ownership and development of state lands, housing projects and settlements.
The WZO, AFAIK, has no function inside Israel. As for the JNF, it’s role (and prohibition on leasing land to non-Jews) is rather exaggerated.
Jewish citizens can choose to serve in the military
Incorrect – Jews (as well as Druze) are required to serve in the military. Non-Jews, however, can join the IDF voluntarily, and quite a few do.
, do alternative service
An option open only to religious girls. When it was suggested to widen this to encompass Israeli Arabs, some of the most strident objectors to the proposal were the Arab MKs.
, or attend Yeshiva [religious schools] and then recieve additional government assistance such as state child benefits.
Benefits which also apply to Arab families.
Israeli Palestinians do not receive the wide range of benefits, including larger mortgage loans, partial exemptions from course fees, and preferences for public employment and housing. They are also denied special tax incentives for industry, educational programs, and housing incentives.
Those things (at least those which exist – for example, I’m not aware of any partial exemptions from course fees given, as a general matter, to Jews) are veteran’s benifits. As noted above, Israeli Arabs have the option of enlisting in the IDF, in which case they’re eligible for those benefits.
Palestinians receive substantially less funding for local government budgets (usually 50 percent less), and have less resources allocated for welfare budgets, school facilities or other educational programs. The education budget for Arab schools is 28 percent less than for their Jewish counterparts.
I agree that Arab municipalites tend to be underfunded compared to Jewish ones. However, two notes:
1) The gap has narrowed over the last few years
2) A considerable part of the difference is due to the fact that reportedly, municipal tax collection in the Arab sector is rather lax. Since, naturally, people have a tendency not to pay taxes when they aren’t enforced, that means tax payment is low, and thus the municipal budget is smaller.
As for your second, you are quite right to put “official” in inverted commas because it is meaningless.
Hardly. The Argentine constitution “sustains the apostolic Roman Catholic faith” explicitly, as does the Bolivian constitution and that of the other states I listed above. “Israel is the only one that appears to demand an eternal future as a confessional state” is false. This should not be read as a criticism of these governments, by the way, so
[noting my] hostile attitude to Bolivia continues
is misplaced & bizarre. I could care less how or why Bolivia develops its natural gas resources, or whether Bolivians or Saudis or Iranians choose to incorporate religion in their government (as they do). It’s none of my business really, and I don’t see why you think it’s part of yours.
” If you are suggesting that Israel is only mimicking islamic states” — I’m not. I’m wondering why you think Israel “needs to go!” and the Islamic Republics of Iran/Pakistan/Saudi Arabia/Pakistan etc. need not, or were you just getting around to those? This is why i asked “why do you suppose Israel is singled out quite so often among secular-minded critics, and none of these other nations?” Please answer this question.
“Is right for you and not right for others to choose their friends?”
Huh? Dominic claimed that US imperialists were somehow laying claim to Bolivia’s natural gas. I mentioned that no US company has any stake in Bolivian oil and gas. No broader point was intended.
Eyal,
Your points are well taken. I would add one thing.
In the previous post, the anonymous poster stated that the “Israeli government provides seperate courts for Muslims and Christians….” This is patently untrue. There is only one system of courts in all civil and criminal matters within Israel, with judges from all groups in society. (There is, for example, an Arab judge on the Supreme Court.) The only exception is in personal status matters, mainly marriage and divorce. (This is also the case under the Palestinian draft constitution, BTW.) In the case of divorce settlements, these may, at the option of the parties, be subject to the authority of civil courts, however.
“The 1st of November 1954 was a turning point for its destiny and a crowning for the tong resistance to aggressions carried out against its culture, its values and the fundamental components of its identity which are Islam, Arabity and Amazighity.”
fyi Dominic from the preamble to the Algerian constitution. Islam is mentioned no fewer than 9 times in this document. I’m sure you’ve petitioned the Algerian government to have it removed, yes?
The only exception is in personal status matters, mainly marriage and divorce.
India also maintains distinct “religious courts” for family law.
You seem to be tripping lightly hand-in-hand with Osama bin Laden back to the Dark Ages, vadim. I prefer not to follow the two of you, thanks very much.
Dominic,
A tactical retreat after so much bravado? At least you don’t remove your interlocutor’s postings like Helena does with mine. What a way to win an argument under the guise of I-pay-for-the-bandwidth.
I don’t know who pays for her bandwidth, as I said before, it may well be Iran.
David
“You seem to be tripping lightly hand-in-hand with Osama bin Laden back to the Dark Ages, vadim.”
a rather Orientalist and culturally chauvinistic comment. Salah, Dominic considers the Algerian constitution medieval and backwards, yet he claims to be on “your side.”
” I prefer not to follow the two of you, thanks very much.”
Since you don’t live in Israel, or Algeria, you needn’t.
– The Prince of Wales will try to persuade George W Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam this week because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since September 11.
– The Prince, who leaves on Tuesday for an eight-day tour of the US, has voiced private concerns over America’s “confrontational” approach to Muslim countries and its failure to appreciate Islam’s strengths.
– The Prince raised his concerns when he met senior Muslims in London in November 2001. The gathering took place just two months after the attacks on New York and Washington. “I find the language and rhetoric coming from America too confrontational,” the Prince said, according to one leader at the meeting.
CHARLES TO FOLLOW ROYAL TRADITION
Helena, the cooler heads comes from your loving place, this is the Britts wisdom.
Iran looks to me to be in a lot better position than Israel these days. Plenty of natural resources, no major dependency on foreign aid. No demographic timebomb. Strong potential for key economic alliances with emerging powers like China and India. Well positioned to take advantage of current turmoil in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon. Their current President may be a nut, but they’ve got lots of company in that regard. What advantages does Israel possess besides nuclear weapons? Those aren’t of much practical benefit, because their use would insure the ultimate destruction of the state. The Likud and their neocon agents have overplayed their hand here in the U.S. They brought on a disaster that threatens to bankrupt their trust fund. There WILL be a backlash, and it won’t be pretty. I for one will not gloat over that when it arrives.
It’s because Iran is in good shape, at peace, and making progress that they are under threat. It’s the same with Syria. It’s the PNAC logic of messing up any other country that makes any progress. In the case of Israel it’s the defence (by attack) of the indefensible.
As for the backlash I would love to see it and I would probably be tempted to have a good gloat along with you. But I don’t see where that backlash is going to come from. If there is no leadership and no movement you will only have a literary backlash.
Israel is the only one that appears to demand an eternal future as a confessional state ….It’s because Iran is in good shape, at peace, and making progress that they are under threat.
“The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:
1.the One God (as stated in the phrase “There is no god except Allah”), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
3.the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man’s ascent towards God;
4.the justice of God in creation and legislation;
5.continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam” — Article 2 of the Iranian constitution
full text here:
http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-1.html
Progress on the march! Israel is in the dark ages, but Iranians are making progress.
whoops, left out this gem (article 12)
“The official religion of Iran is Islam and the Twelver Ja’fari school [in usual al-Din and fiqh], and this principle will remain eternally immutable.”
there goes that.
Progress? In what respect are Iran and Syria making “progress”? Good for Iran if it can become a regional power, but it can’t make any progress because it’s a theocracy. Ali Khamenei and his ilk don’t want to leave. I imagine that it will have to take an uprising of the people of Iran in order to force the theocrats out and turn Iran into a progressive nation. Similarly I can’t see how Syria can make any progress until the Syrian people ( and NOT some outside busybody army ) force out the Baathist dictatorship.
Likewise we need to see the Israeli public rise up and force the Likud out in an election. It’s among the Israeli voting public that the backlash against Likud and the expansionists has to happen.
Well, vadim, its quite clear that you are very happy to have those quotes at hand. You will go on using them to say: Don’t look at Israel, we are not as theocratic as Iran or whatever other country you want to use as your excuse for the day.
What you don’t feel so happy about is the Iranian satellite just launched and the Iranian nuclear power programme. These are the kinds of things the PNACers are also looking at with hatred in their eyes. They don’t care if there is “sharia” law in Iran. Backwardness is what the PNACers want.
I’m telling you that the Iranians are being attacked by the USA and the Isralis for their progress and not for their backwardness.
“their progress”
Dominic considers swapping Iran’s LNG for chinese nuclear weapons and missiles “progress”. or perhaps he refers here to the imminent privatisation of Iran’s state power company — which is it again D?
“we are not as theocratic as Iran”
I’m fairly certain there is no reference to God AT ALL in Israel’s founding document, Dominic.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Declaration%20of%20Establishment%20of%20State%20of%20Israel
“WE APPEAL – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”
Dominic, Iran currently imports both natural gas and gasoline, despite its massive oil and gas reserves. Why is a country with such abundant hydrocarbon reserves giving away its oil and gas to nations like China in order to build a light water nuclear reactor and acquire long range missiles?
Why on earth are you cheering on this ‘progress’ of a religious dictatorship while calling for Israel’s elimination on the shallowest of religious pretexts?
‘not for their backwardness.’ I see we’re back to orientalist slurs. it’s not enough that the government of Iran is illiberal, its people must be backward (when they’re not building nuclear weapons, THATS PROGRESS!)
The UNDP’s Human Development Report 2005 has a good table giving trends in all countries’ Human Development Index (HDI) scores, which is their basic index of human wellbeing…
From 1975 through 2003 Iran progressed steadily (on a quinquennial basis) from 0.566 to 0.736, and Syria progressed steadily from 0.540 to 0.721. Israel progressed steadily from 0.795 to 0.915. All those increased scores can be seen as representing real, over-all improvements in the wellbeing of the respective citizenries, though doubtless imperfectly distributed in all cases.
Thanks Helena. I hope vadim accepts what you have written as common cause.
In the African liberation movement tradition there is a strong conviction that countries do not inherit under-development. It is forced upon them. So for example there is Walter Rodney’s classic book (available on the Internet) called “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa”.
From this point of view the PNAC is completely understandable, even if it is diabolical. The rising HDI of a country like Iran is going to catch the beady eye of the PNACers and they are going to start scheming that country’s downfall.
Jorge Hirsch has an interesting explanation for Ahmadinejad’s outburst here at Antiwar.com:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7861
He says the underlying message was: “If you nuke us, the world will know that you did it because Iran supports the Palestinian cause.”
I think he then goes well overboard in imagining that “U.S. planners” intend to nuke “any country suspected of pursuing nuclear weapons or any other military capability that could threaten the U.S. or its allies.” But the first part is quite possibly on the mark.
Lockerbie families voice concerns “A statement issued after the meeting said: “The meeting was at the request of UK relatives who have been involved in bringing the two Libyan suspects to trial, and who are concerned that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.”
From 1975 through 2003 Iran progressed steadily (on a quinquennial basis) from 0.566 to 0.736
Yet despite advances in medical care, education and other measures Iran’s highest GDP per capita occurred way back in 1976, with a Gini coefficient (measuring overall income inequality) higher in 2004 than that of the United States.
http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/indicator/indic_116_1_1.html
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_HDI.pdf
http://www.irvl.net/six_snapshots.htm
average growth rate
1974-7 7.4%
1997-00 3.4%
Unemployment rate:
1974-7 2.9%
1997-00 16.2% (!)
Investment Growth Rate
%22.9 vs %6.7
All this and a mountain of debt (27% of GDP!!!) — mostly to the nations of Western Europe, China and Russia.
Iran /Israel Last Five Years
Iran: 1998 Population 64.8Milions now 68Milons
Israel: 1998 Population 5.7 Millions Now 6.3 Millions
Iran: GDP US$107 Billions
Israel: GDP US$102Bilions
Note: very close despite the Population differences
Iran: Export US$31Billions under the sanction and now days reach to US$56Billions due to Oil price increase
Israel: Exports US$68Billions, now days US$81Billions
Salah and vadim, I don’t know where you both think you are going with this elaboration of statistics.
Occam’s razor says that it is idle to do with more, what can be done with less.
The great virtue of the “HDI” index quoted by Helena (“Human Development Index (HDI) scores, which is their basic index of human wellbeing”) is that in a single figure it is possible to get a measure of improvement in the ordinary life of the people.
Peace and prosperity are inseperable in the mind of any decent person. But in the mind of the Straussian PNACer, another country’s improvement in HDI is the trigger for menaces and so-called “pressure”, leaks and briefings to the press, war plans, infiltration, covert operations, capture and torture of people, and more.
The great virtue of the “HDI” index quoted by Helena (“Human Development Index (HDI) scores, which is their basic index of human wellbeing”) is that in a single figure it is possible to get a measure of improvement in the ordinary life of the people.
Of the 160 odd countries for whom this variable is represented, only ONE (Zambia) indicated a decline in ‘HDI’ from 1975 to the present. May we conclude that every country on earth save one is experiencing progress?
Yes, vadim, that’s the point.
What it means for the USA is that if this trend continues, US supremacy is on an inevitable decline.
That is the basic premise of PNAC. The PNACer Straussians have taken upon themselves to reverse the trend of world development through endless war.
You thought PNAC was about cutting down rivals of your own size, or coming close? No fear. The stupidity of it is that they can’t do that, because their peers are already too strong, and they are too cowardly. But instead of drawing the obvious conclusion they decided to poke at the problem, like scared kids poking at a hornet’s nest. That’s what resulted in the mess in Iraq.
http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/faq/#23
“Is the HDI enough to measure a country’s level of development?
Not at all. The concept of human development is much broader than what can be captured in the HDI, or any other of the composite indices in this Report (see gender-related development index, gender empowerment measure, and human poverty index). The HDI, for example, does not reflect political participation or gender inequalities. The HDI and the other composite indices can only offer a broad proxy on some of the key the issues of human development, gender disparity, and human poverty. A fuller picture of a country’s level of human development requires analysis of other human development indicators and information”
only ONE (Zambia) indicated a decline in ‘HDI’ from 1975 to the present.
correction: 3 countries (DRCongo, Swaziland, Zimbabwe.) HDI measures life expectancy and literacy rates by which standard even Iraq in 2003 has ‘progressed.’
Those PNAC-Zionist-neocons should really try to get their stories straight:
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=25771
For a global conspiracy, it’s not very well coordinated.
I’m not even going to bother to look at your link about global conspiracy.
The PNAC is a document with a list of proud and open subscribers. You can call it a conspiracy, but I don’t know what meaning that adds. They are no more or less of a conspiracy than any other set of political operators.
PNAC a small group of people who took advantage of the US political structures, which they knew very well, and the results are what we have in front of us today.
Some say the investigator will get them all. Others say they’ll get away with it and start more wars, beginning with Syria and Iran. If I was a US citizen I would get organised in a way that would rely on more than one investigator called Fitzgerald. And you can forget about the Democratic Party.
The PNAC is a document with a list of proud and open subscribers.
Cutting down rivals and deliberate reversal of world development I can’t find on their website. I’m presuming they keep their Zionist-hegemonic objectives well hidden and secret (hence ‘conspiracy’) with the high-minded stuff about democracy out there as window dressing.
I don’t know what meaning that adds.
I’m not sure what meaning any acronym-oriented political analysis adds , considering how sharply opinions differ even within AEI and PNAC. It’s not useful shorthand if it lacks coherent or consistent meaning.
Vadim, you’re not trying to work a split on me, are you? Because you know very well that there is nothing to generalise from her. This is the specifics of the USA and its government and history and the biography of its leading personalities over the last few years, and in the case of the “Leocon” “PNAC” crowd, an association that goes back some three decades.
The Profect for a New American Century is unique. It is expressed as a single discreet document, with certain well-identified subscribers.
During this discussion of ours I found an article which expands further than we can here, on Counterpunch. One of the lines is: “What is striking about the operations of the ‘cabal’ is the very open and direct way in which they operated”. In other words there were hardly a cabal in the usual sense at all.
I repeat, this is a very particular piece of history, not to be diluted with generalisations. And the outstanding characteristic of it is the explicit elevation of the dog-in-the-manger principle to the level of doctrine.
Vadim, you’re not trying to work a split on me, are you? Because you know very well that there is nothing to generalise from here. This is the specifics of the USA and its government and history and the biography of its leading personalities over the last few years, and in the case of the “Leocon” “PNAC” crowd, an association that goes back some three decades.
The Project for a New American Century is unique. It is expressed as a single discreet document, with certain well-identified subscribers.
During this discussion of ours I found an article which expands further than we can here, on Counterpunch. One of the lines is: “What is striking about the operations of the ‘cabal’ is the very open and direct way in which they operated”. In other words there were hardly a cabal in the usual sense at all. It’s at http://www.counterpunch.org/petras11032005.html
I repeat, this is a very particular piece of history, not to be diluted with generalisations. And the outstanding characteristic of it is the explicit elevation of the dog-in-the-manger principle to the level of doctrine.
The Project for a New American Century is unique. It is expressed as a single discreet document
If you mean the PNAC “statement of principles,” I would agree that there is but one set:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm
But PNAC is also a “think tank” with an impermanent cast of affiliates. it issues many policy papers written by many different analysts:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
While the military-hegemonic stuff is certainly no secret, the ‘statement’ also advocates “promot[ing] the cause of political and economic freedom abroad.” If there exists a deliberate & coherent policy to stifle economic & political development of rival nations it’s not there.
Furthermore if secrecy and opacity of purpose are characteristics of “Straussianism”, how is this reconciled with “the very open and direct way in which [PNAC] operated?” What information is added by “Straussian”, cabal or for that matter “PNAC” when the malevolent ambitions you describe aren’t part of their “open and direct” public programme?
“there is nothing to generalise from here.”
Generalising is what acronym-oriented conspiracy theories & McCarthyite ad hominems are all about.
You are the one who is in a mental straightjacket, vadim, not me. Don’t like acronyms? Fine, we’ll call it the “Project for a New American Century”. This is the pertinent one, the relevant one, the actual one. Maybe it’s odd that Strauss taught them to dissemble (probably taught them to spell it, too. Bush wasn’t there.) But they don’t dissemble their basic intentions, they flaunt them. They dissemble plenty in other ways, though, don’t they? Yellowcake, aluminium tubes, Libby’s lies. Powell lied for them too. He shouldn’t get off although he wants to pretend they forced him to do it, like another Hansie Cronje. (Hansie was the SA cricket captain who took bribes to fix matches and later said the devil made him do it. He’s dead now. Plane crash.)
But I digress. It’s easy to make a diversion, isn’t it? But it’s not so easy for these PNACers (sorry!) to hide any more.
“Cutting down rivals and deliberate reversal of world development I can’t find on their website. I’m presuming they keep their Zionist-hegemonic objectives well hidden and secret. . .”
-Vadim
Actually no, they didn’t keep it secret at all. Here is just one example from their 1/26/98 letter to President Clinton, still proudly displayed on their website:
“It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.”
There are several notable things about this one short passage:
1. It implicitly acknowledges that Iraq no longer possesses any significant WMD capability as of 1998.
2. It assumes that “American troops in the region” are there on a permanent basis, and that their safety is more important than Iraq’s sovereignty.
3. It expressly promotes fears about the safety of Israel as a reason for the United States to attack Iraq.
4. It expressly acknowledges that control of the world’s oil supply is a critical strategic goal.
There is nothing at all subtle or hidden about this. Dominic is 100% correct. And also funny as hell.
There is nothing at all subtle or hidden about this. Dominic is 100% correct. And also funny as hell.
There is also nothing particularly starling or new about this. It is simply a restatement of the Carter Doctrine. Or is “Jimma the Idjit” also a member of the cabal?
(BTW, I think that you have taken extereme liberties in your interpretation and have read quite a bit into that statement that isn’t really there.)
There you go again, JES. The old “it’s nothing new” device, brought into play when denial is no longer possible. It’s an attempted vanishing trick.
But, blow me down, you then have another go at denial. What’s the point? We’re not stupid people out here.
The “Project for a New American Century” is the specific, explicit and current ideology of Imperialism among the leading personalities in the US government. The extraordinary feature of it is its determination to reverse the progress of humanity as a whole, using perpetual war, so as to maintain the relative position of the USA during this artificial decline.
JES – nothing startling or new, I agree. But please explain how I have “read quite a bit into that statement that isn’t really there.” I see it there plain as day.
Dominic
Salah and vadim, I don’t know where you both think you are going with this elaboration of statistics.
I quite agree with your thoughts and about the wars, I be in three big war in my country and know what the wars, not like other talking here and they have no idea about it.
Back to the main subject as Vadim and JES try to drug the main subject to “Project for a New American Century” which I believe same as AIPAC, but the point is did Israel wipe off Palestine from the map before!!! What’s happened to Israel Nothing at all…?
I’m also sympathetic to your point of view, Salah, but this is not simply a matter of which side we are on.
I do believe it is necessary to discriminate very carefully between different people and different organisations. I don’t believe PNAC and AIPAC are one and the same. They are different kinds of structure altogether, whatever ideas they may hold in common.
Did Israel wipe Palestine off the map? Zionists from the beginning have gone further than that, pretending that there is no Palestine and never was. “A land without people for a people without land”, is what they used to say.
The “empty land” is a necessary part of the founding myth of a settler colony, and it’s always a lie. It was the same in the “White Highlands” of Kenya where I grew up.
please explain how I have “read quite a bit into that statement that isn’t really there.”
“1. It implicitly acknowledges that Iraq no longer possesses any significant WMD capability as of 1998.”
False. It implicitlly acknowledges that Saddam may not yet have the means to deliver WMDs. It says nothing at all of his potential inventory of WMDs.
“It assumes that “American troops in the region” are there on a permanent basis,”
False — this is 100% assumed. It claims those that ARE there now are threatened.
“3. It expressly promotes fears about the safety of Israel as a reason for the United States to attack Iraq.”
False — the passage you cite doesn’t “recommend” attacking anyone. It also cites “moderate Arab states” alongside Israel, and there’s nothing distinctly zio-hegemonic about Jordan.
“4. It expressly acknowledges that control of the world’s oil supply is a critical strategic goal.”
False, it acknowledges that “safety of world oil suplies” is a critical strategic goal, and only a fool would claim otherwise.
Well, well, this is an interesting discussion. If I may summarize, I believe it began with John C.’s conjecture about the relative shape of Iran and Israel looking toward the future. Not certain exactly what this was based on, but it was a conjecture. (For example, I wouldn’t go so far as saying that Iran doesn’t have a demographic time bomb. They have a hell of a lot of young people who have very few prospects of work in the future.)
Vadim responded – very appropriately in my opinion – by citing economic data indicating that the picture for Iran is not as rosy as John C. indicated; that is if you actually look at the state of their economy. They have, for example, a very high foreign debt in relation to their GDP. Further, Iran’s economy is totally dependent on the consumption of fossil fuels, with little investment in other industries. I’d say that is troubling.
Helena then produces the UNDP HDI index. Well, as Vadim has pointed out, this index is only as reliable as its components, which are life expectancy, literacy rate, school enrollment and GDP. I guess this might be a measure of “well being” if you assume that people are better off simply because they can read – even if there is very little to read after the government burns the books or, worse, throws you in jail for reading the wrong things. It could also be a measure of progress, if you consider school enrollment, in and of itself, progress – even if the pupils are learning Marx and Lenin, or memorizing the Holy Quran in a madrassa, or being indoctrinated in Intelligent Design theory. So, what this HDI is, in my opinion, is an interesting “feel good” index. (Feel good for the UN bureaucrats who invented it; not necessarily for the people whose “well being” is being measured.)
Vadim, again very appropriately in my opinioin, cited accepted economic statistics that indicate that Iran’s economy has declined, rather than grown, since the Islamic Revolution. This is true in economic growth, employment and investment. In short, everything that is important for the future. Salah strengthened Vadim’s case (unintentionally I suspect) by citing some economic statistic for Iran and Israel.
Note to Salah: If Israel has a population that’s about 10% of the population of Iran, and Israel’s GDP is roughly that of Iran’s and its exports are roughly double those of Iran, then that means that Israel’s economy is much, much stronger than that of Iran’s! The fact that Iran relies almost exclusively on the export of fossil fuels, and that Israel has none to export, also speaks favorably for Israel’s economy.
So here we are with the HDI not really measuring much, with John C.’s conjecture pretty much unsubstantiated and Dominic comes along with one of the most interesting spins I’ve seen:
What it means for the USA is that if this trend continues, US supremacy is on an inevitable decline.
That is the basic premise of PNAC. The PNACer Straussians have taken upon themselves to reverse the trend of world development through endless war.
Brilliant! This is certainly the most entertaining explanation I’ve seen in a long time. The Straussians want to make people live shorter lives, become illiterate, stop going to school and have less wealth. This is the first time I’ve heard and explanation of Capitalist Imperialism that indicates that the capitalists want to decrease the size of their markets! Let me give you a tip Dominic: Marx and Lenin undoubtedly read Adam Smith and tried to understand capitalist economics. I suggest you do the same before exposing your grand theories.
Of course, Dominic then threatens Vadim with the ultimate punishment. He’s not even going to look at the link that Vadim posted. Gevalt! Instead, he very wisely decides to leave the economics argument to move in the following direction:
PNAC a small group of people who took advantage of the US political structures, which they knew very well, and the results are what we have in front of us today.
My question is: So what? Isn’t that what your international communist conspiracy wants to do? Isn’t that what the coven of neo-isolationists represented by Helena and John C. want to do?
In the meantime, the “cabal” is very open about what it does and what its positions are. Talking about it is called “free speech”. Working to get people who support your position elected (i.e. taking advantage of the political structures) is called democracy.
Anyway Dominic, have you ever been to a party and there’s this person there talking bunk and…. Oh never mind.
Vadim,
Thanks. You seem to have answered John C. for me, and I see you spotted pretty much what I did.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2294509.stm
” Media heads face prosecution in Iran over a ground-breaking opinion poll on mending relations with the United States.
It showed a large majority of the population in favour of dialogue with the “Great Satan” and nearly half showing sympathy with US policy on Iran.
….the judiciary has responded by charging NIRSOP director Behrouz Geranpayeh and Irna’s Abdollah Nasseri of “publishing lies to excite public opinion””
of course IRNA polls are notoriously unreliable. Remember this one??
http://www.payvand.com/news/05/jun/1076.html
dialogue with the “Great Satan”
When US talking “In Washington’s eyes, one of the central members of the “axis of evil” of 2002 has now graduated to become an “outpost of tyranny” its ok but if the other expressing their thoughts they are extremists Terrorists and fanatics all these words will be tagged to them.
I don’t know what’s the democracy you talking about we should treat the others like what you love the others treats you, also if you reserved to yourself the judgement of others and you be firm on your assessments this not democracy… call it whatever you like but not a democracy living in free speech environment and respecting human rights.
We will never be all same, every one every nation had its own views and ideology if you think that US or any other power can dominate the world forever this is some think I can call it stupid and misreading the live on this planet, just read the history look to the main powers where are they, how were strong and how many wars launched all it gone all we got the human disasters and more mass killing in this world in name of democracy , freedom, and batter living and one power….
Brilliant! This is certainly the most entertaining explanation I’ve seen in a long time.
Through endless wars, this more applicable to Israelis, its obvious there are many factions in the Israeli politics and as a groups left, right, and religious extremist and some moderates, those faction the only thing make them united is the endless wars, and no peace agreements to settle on.
If there is a long peace settlement with the neighbours there will be more problems that rock Israeli society structures.
This why Israelis not truly and solely believe in peace with their neighbours in addition what we saw some religious factions a opposing and peace for some religious reason they believe in.
of course IRNA polls are notoriously unreliable. Remember this one??
But Iraqi polls and voting election the most reliable in the world.
The first one who hits the drams in this propaganda was you….
Lets be realistic when we talking.
Vadim, why do you dissemble? Anyone can read the PNAC website and see what these people advocate. As JES half-heartedly pointed out, it is nothing radically different than the foreign policy pursued by previous U.S. administrations. They just wanted to – and did – take it a step further, make it a little more “in your face.” We can plainly see their ideas in action today.
I did get a good laugh over your concern for the “safety of world oil supplies,” as if it is the paternalistic duty of the United States to protect the poor oil from the depredations of the nasty people who live on top of it.
As JES half-heartedly pointed out, it is nothing radically different than the foreign policy pursued by previous U.S. administrations. They just wanted to – and did – take it a step further, make it a little more “in your face.” We can plainly see their ideas in action today.
For the record, I wholeheartedly pointed out the similarities between this statement and the Carter Doctrine. I did so because Jimma the Idjit has become an icon of the liberal left, yet his positions essentially differed little from the so-called “neocon” bogey man.
I did get a good laugh over your concern for the “safety of world oil supplies,” as if it is the paternalistic duty of the United States to protect the poor oil from the depredations of the nasty people who live on top of it.
Look, John, nobody is “dissembling” here. If you take off your black/white, good/bad blinders when looking at the world economy, you’ll find that countries in the third world are far more sensitive to rises in oil prices and supply interruptions than are industrialized states such as the US. Each rise of one dollar costs hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US and has the potential to add a few basis points to inflation. But the US adapted itself following the OPEC orchestrated oil crisis of the early 1970s.
In the meantime, the third world has become dependent on fossil fuels for everything from cooking, to heating to electricity to running whatever industries they have, and they haven’t had the luxury of using this fuel in the most efficient way or in stockpiling reserves. (The average Indian is more likely to ride on an old, gas-guzzling bus than to go out and buy a Honda hybrid car.) Add to this the fact that those basis point rises in inflation mean they sell fewer exports in the West and pay higher prices for necessary imports, and you will see that a serious disruption oil supplies could push these marginal economies over the edge and result in starvation and death in these countries.
It is not the oil that is in question here. Rather, it is the world economy. I’m not saying that the so-called “neo-cons” – or Jimma the Idjit, for that matter – are being altruistic when they talk about protecting and securing energy supplies. I’m just saying that they’re being realistic.
Now, if that hasn’t sunk in, you may want to ask yourself, why the hell did Saddam seek to control those supplies, and why did he threaten to interrupt them? (Do you remember that he set the oil fields in Kuwait on fire and threatened to do the same in Iraq)? It’s because it would mean that he would hold the world economy by the balls.
JES, you are tying yourself in knots! In your heart, you know that you want the U.S. and Israel and their “allies” to have control over Middle Eastern oil supplies, as does the PNAC. You are ashamed to claim an “altruistic” motive for this, but you can’t quite admit that it is a pure power play. You seek cover by trotting out the poor “third world,” 90% of which is opposed to the policies you support. But then you end with an obvious admission that we went to war with Iraq over oil!!!
By all means, let’s be realistic. We can have an honest disagreement over who should control the oil supply, and how it should be administered. But first, you’ve got to get your story straight.
you’ll find that countries in the third world are far more sensitive to rises in oil prices and supply interruptions than are industrialized states such as the US. Each rise of one dollar costs hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US and has the potential to add a few basis points to inflation
Here we go this all about and the old story of going to “Promis Land”, those Arabs uncivilized had a lot of wealth and they don’t not know how to use them.
This is Israeli False clams this is a big leis, I member before the Iraq invasion war, a US ambassador intervened on TV when he asked about the motive is if Oil, he replay “do you need cheep oil to full your car tank?”
This is as your fanatic thinking you give yourself the right to steal the oil and other resources for stupid clams, its their richness and there is no right whatsoever to any one to steal the other assets this is just a paranoia and fantasy that you live in, you try to hide by making excuses to show others that you care about the world this is big lies and false.
JES go and search for Prophets Suleiman Ring that does will give you the control over of the world if you find it.
Can give us the reasons why the Oil prices jumped from US$18.0 to US$60.0 after the invasion of Iraq? Who responsible is it OPAC, or Saddam or Gdaffi? Come forward and tell us?
Its the Big Fat Giants Oil Companies they make billions of profits and also your government charging between 40%-60% as a tax you pay from your packet it’s not to do any things with the producers don’t forgot the insurances that topes by your clams the terrorist threats and war all this top up the insurances quota that you get the petrol with high prices.
I think you need to educate yourself before you make calms. It obvious that you either hide yourself for false clams or you do not know exactly what’s going on in this drama you just believe in you FOX News and the Experts from PNAC full your mind with this false excuses.
ontrary to public opinion, energy companies do not earn excessive profits from fuel revenues. A detailed look at the price per litre paid at the pump is revealing. For every euro the motorist pays in Germany (as at 8 September 2004) around :
• 58 cents go to the state in mineral oil tax and VAT
• 13 cents go to the state in eco-tax
• 22 cents are purchase costs for product
• 7 cents are the margin
JES you looking for peace with Arab and Islamic world Hay? Look to your real thinking that obvious nothing changed what we learned in our education system in Iraq tell your friend David he should fix you first before he talking about our thinking.
John,
Do me a favor and don’t tell me what I think! I know perfectly well what I think and what I’m saying. If you can’t present your argument on its own merits, don’t try to psycho-babble your way out of it.
I think you need to educate yourself before you make calms.
Sage advice. You should take it, Salah!
The figures you cite (for Europe) indicate that the oil company (in this case BP) makes only 7% margin (profit before taxes) on the oil it sells in Europe. Government taxes are generally imposed for two reasons. First to raise government revenues (often employed directly for roads and other resources used by the gas consumers themselves). Secondly, taxes are imposed in Europe to reduce consumption of fossil fuels (by encouraging fuel savings). This is called “political economy”.
Now I see that John C. has inspired you, and that you too have become a mind reader. Where, Salah, did anyone here mention anything even remotely resembling what you maintain:
Here we go this all about and the old story of going to “Promis Land”, those Arabs uncivilized had a lot of wealth and they don’t not know how to use them.
Each rise of one dollar costs hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US and has the potential to add a few basis points to inflation.
Simple calculation prove that what stated wrong
Oil prices before Iraq invasion warUS$28.0
Oil Price tody $61.75
Hundreds of thousands= 500,000.00
500,000* 33.75= 16,875,000.00 unemployment in US
Recent unemployment reported The “Labor Department reporton Friday also showed the national unemployment rate eased to 5 percent from 5.1 percent in September.”
http://today.reuters.co.uk/Investing/MarketReportArticle.aspx?type=usMktRpt&storyID=URI:urn:newsml:reuters.com:20051104:MTFH22164_2005-11-04_13-54-00_N04383667:1
250,000,000.0.0* 5%= 1,250,000 unemployment
JES, Come foreword and give answers for the questions.
“Can give us the reasons why the Oil prices jumped from US$18.0 to US$60.0 after the invasion of Iraq?”
Iraq’s oil production is practically unchanged from pre-war levels. The climb in global oil prices is due to skyrocketing Chinese demand in combination with dwindling global reserves & has almost nothing to do with Iraq or for that matter with OPEC, which has no surplus production capacity.
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CO/M
Note that oil prices began their climb in mid 2004 after Shell again restated their reserve estimates, not as a consequence of the invasion of Iraq. oil was trading $30 as late as November 2003.
“Here we go this all about and the old story of going to “Promis Land”…”
Salah I don’t think you understood JES post. His comment addressed the relative vulnerability of developing nations to oil prices compared to the US. The US economy is somewhat immune to oil price hikes. The world economy is not.
“But then you end with an obvious admission that we went to war with Iraq over oil!!!”
Acknowledging that oil played a part in the decision to go to war doesn’t make it the sole reason. I would think any serious “anti war” position would carefully appraise and address such arguments instead of depending on asinine ad hominems and incoherent conspiracy theories. Yes, they are incoherent. Does the US want chaos and high prices [what about Bush’s airline cronies, his auto industry cronies, his refinery cronies , his utility cronies etc]? or a pliable iraqi government and low prices [in which case why depose rather than bribe]?
” to protect the poor oil from the depredations of the nasty people who live on top of it.”
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/legacy/environment/
Depredations like these? I’ll remind you (and Salah) that when “close US ally” Saudi Arabia embargoed the United States in 1973, no invasions were launched & the US continued to buy Saudi oil through intermediaries. Were Saddam to destroy or damage Saudi oil fields, no intermediaries would help. There would simply be a worldwide depression, widespread famine and the death of millions, most of them in India and China as JES suggested.
Speaking of nutty conspiracy theories, this one’s a gem:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400062918/104-7966597-2169537?v=glance&n=283155
matter with OPEC, which has no surplus production capacity.
This not true, many times Saudis and Kuwaitis announced that they raised the production 0.5Million B/day as Saudis many times stated which obviously they are main player with OPEC.
not as a consequence of the invasion of Iraq. oil was trading $30 as late as November 2003.
Iraq’s oil production is practically unchanged from pre-war levels.
Whatever any one telling us it’s not about OIL, I ignore this statement, and I know it’s not JUST the oil but its one of the main element of the Iraqi war.
In regard of the production, before and after there are no records (un-independent} telling the truth about the Oil production from Iraqi Oil fields.
After the invasion all the references are US or few times from the Iraqi Puppets which no one trusts their words. But few resources telling it’s about 2.oMilions B/day with many interruptions from time to time.
In same talk, Billy Cox’s columnist runs every Wednesday in Florida Today, which he talking a bout there is an operation done to the oil field south Iraq early days of invasion
“It’s been an impressive operation,” Fett says. “(Construction giants) Halliburton, or Bechtel, or Brown & Root, were contracted to get the oil flowing out of Iraq as quickly as possible, and hundreds of workers have been going at it 24 hours a day, around the clock. They needed lights to work at night.” Fett adds that the project, which runs south into the metropolitan glow around Kuwait City, doesn’t have to reach the Gulf for it to be oil-related. “Why not bring it south where the infrastructure is already in place?”
This is very interested story which make it more credible is the acts of Kuwaitis government before Iraq Kuwait war which sparked after Iraq found that the Kuwaitis “Oil Companies” steal the oil from Iraqi oil fields by drilling in horizontally towers north borders of Kuwait with Iraq, after the invasion all its done under the grounds siphoning the oils from Al-Rumalh oil fields towered Kuwait and then exported from their.
“Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us,
The Middle East is living a nightmare, notably because of a man of Russian origin who became Prime Minister of Israel: Ariel Sharon. What is the profound thought of this man? This is what Amos Oz, an Israeli writer, help us to discover through an interview published by the Israeli daily Davar in December 17, 1982.
http://www.voicesofpalestine.org/ArielSharon.asp
http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/Middle_East/Sharon_the_Nazi
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=8999
Any word said about all these comments from many politicians and leaders…..!!!! May be they don’t mean it, but the acts it’s obvious their on the ground daily for many years.
“Any word said about all these comments from many politicians and leaders.”
Sure, your Sharon quote is a fake.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=766&x_context=2
” The source is found on Arab propaganda and Marxist Web sites. It gained credibility when Rocky Mountain News international editor, Holger Jensen, included it in an April 2002 column attacking Israeli Prime Minister Sharon. Four days later, Jensen was forced to recant, admitting he had “made a grievous error in not verifying the authenticity of 20-year-old quotes attributed to Ariel Sharon.” And shortly after that, Jensen “resigned to pursue other interests.”
In fact, Amos Oz has confirmed that he never met nor interviewed Sharon. The so-called “interview” was a literary device taken from Oz’s book In the Land of Israel.In the English version, the interviewee’s identity is not revealed, and is referred to as Z (Flamingo/Fontana 1983). Apparently, Palestinian propagandists substituted Sharon’s name for Z in the Davar interview. The description of Z does not fit Sharon, and at one point Z himself refers to Sharon, Begin and General Eitan.”
http://www.broeckers.com/jensen.htm
here’s a more interesting amos oz comment re: sharon:
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=israel&ID=SP18501
“Ariel Sharon is Arafat’s gift to the Israeli and the Palestinian people. In the winter of 2001, Ehud Barak was voted out of office for the same reason that caused Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination in the autumn of 1995, and Shimon Peres’s defeat in the Spring of 1996: all three men were ahead of their time. Like many other leaders in modern history, including Egypt’s Anwar Sadat and Jordan’s King Hussein, these three had qualities which Yasser Arafat lacks: the courage to compromise and make peace even while their people are calling them traitors.”
Words dose not kills Bullets Rockets dose kill.
You hide your leaders actions everyday for 75 years, if there are any cense of loving peace with the neighbours just I high light how many offers the Arabs gave you to settle this drama?
The last one by King Abdullah two years ago, your leaders refused to look at the offer its genuine and introduced to US on sold believe to solve all things.