Obama’s peacemaking pledge– to the world

Where he said it was as important as what he said.
Today, in his debut appearance as US President at the UN General Assembly, Barack Obama vowed,

    I will… continue to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world. We will continue to work on that issue. Yesterday, I had a constructive meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. We have made some progress. Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians. As a result of these efforts on both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow. But more progress is needed. We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.)
    The time has come — the time has come to re-launch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. And the goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security — a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. (Applause.)
    As we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors. In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral negotiations.
    Now, I am not naïve. I know this will be difficult. But all of us — not just the Israelis and the Palestinians, but all of us — must decide whether we are serious about peace, or whether we will only lend it lip service. To break the old patterns, to break the cycle of insecurity and despair, all of us must say publicly what we would acknowledge in private. The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. (Applause.) And — and nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks against Israel over constructive willingness to recognize Israel’s legitimacy and its right to exist in peace and security. (Applause.)
    We must remember that the greatest price of this conflict is not paid by us. It’s not paid by politicians. It’s paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the middle of the night. It’s paid for by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own. These are all God’s children. And after all the politics and all the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security. That is a lesson embedded in the three great faiths that call one small slice of Earth the Holy Land. And that is why, even though there will be setbacks and false starts and tough days, I will not waver in my pursuit of peace. (Applause.)

This is is a good start.
It is still not enough. He needs to pledge himself not just to the pursuit of peace, but to its securing. He probably needs to move beyond the mouthing of inaccurate and formulaic “parallelisms”: equating Israel’s settlement-building with alleged Palestinian “incitement”; or the US’s previous neglect of Palestinian claims with the alleged “vitriol” of verbal attacks launched by the UNGA against Israel; etc.
Most of all, he needs to act. We need to see him throwing the whole weight of US national policy behind this vigorously pursued search for attainment of the final-status peace.
But at least, yesterday’s comments after the three-way with Netanyahu and Abbas and today’s even more significant UNGA speech are, as I said, a good start.

35 thoughts on “Obama’s peacemaking pledge– to the world”

  2. I think he means it.
    However to make it a reality means a big political operation, and the will is not yet obvious. Given that many of Obama’s White House are themselves pro-Zionist.
    I’ve seen the first shoots in the US, well-publicised meetings where the Israeli representative has quite rightly been shouted down.
    Scepticism about Israeli policies is going to take a lot longer to develop, though it will do.

  4. I don’t care who is right or wrong. Lasting peace is important to our security as well. If one of them is unwilling to make concessions; we should discontinue our support and begin imposing sanctions.

  5. How come the dialogue seeking Obama did not stick around to hear Ghadaffi and Ahmadinejad speaking. Dialogue begins with listening to the other side.
    Maybe Obama can take a page from Wilson’s book and scream You Lie when the moslem lunatic statesmen start with the rambles and imaginary tirades.
    Also amazed that with Gazillions of Iranians in the US, and their families being raped in Iranian prisons, they don’t have the cojones to converge in New York to make some noise. I hera there are 100 protesters…

  6. I agree, Titus. Obama and Netanyahu should have been in attendance for Ghadafi’s’ speech. If for anything, you can’t pay for that quality of entertainment. And like any stupendous stand up act, some of it has meaning, such as pointing out the need for reform at the UNSC.
    Yeah, the Zionists must be disappointed at the relatively low turnout of Iranian protesters at the UN. As you’re starting to learn more and more, Titus, you can’t win ’em all.

  7. Abu Mus’ab al-Suri
    In what might be described as Syria from a jihadist perspective, an article entitled “Al-Qaeda al-Sulbah” (the Solid Base) was posted to the jihadi website al-Faloja.com on July 21 by active al-Faloja contributor Abu Fadil al-Madi. The article urges Salafi-Jihadis to reconsider the importance of the political and strategic changes in Syria. The title of al-Madi’s posting is borrowed from a 1988 article by Palestinian jihad ideologue Abdullah Azzam. [1]
    Al-Madi claims there was a kind of agreement between the jihadis and the Syrian regime, an “unannounced agreement to stop mutual hostilities,” but the situation has changed since the latter part of 2005. It was then that the regime launched a campaign against “all the components of the Sunnis in Syria; the traditional religious groups (al-Khaznawi Naqshbandiya [a Sufi order] and al-Qubeisyat for example), the Shari’ia institutions (al-Fatah Institute and Abu Nur Institute, in particular), and even against those who were considered to be close allies of the regime, working with all their strength as a trumpet [of the regime] (Muhammad Habash, as an example).[2] As well, there is the fierce security campaign against the Salafi-Jihadi movement, which has escalated since [Fall 2005].”
    Al-Madi’s post asserts that there is an alliance between the Syrian Alawite regime and Ja’afri-dominated Iran. [3] This alliance, based on the religious links of these two branches of Shi’ism (though not all Shiites recognize the Alawis as Shi’a), created the division in the Middle East between “the Shi’a crescent” and the “moderate axis.” Despite these ties, the article claims the Syrian regime is pragmatic in terms of its relations with the United States, especially when it comes to coordination against jihadis. Washington’s extradition to Syria of jihadi ideologue Abu Mus’ab al-Suri is an indication of the degree of this cooperation, claims the writer.
    Having concluded that the Syrian regime is working hard against Sunnis in general, the writer asks, “What is the Salafi-Jihadi movement’s strategic vision for Syria?… Will it remain a potential passage for supplies [to Iraq] or has the time come – or close to it – for a radical strategic change?”
    Al-Madi’s post states that the jihadi movement has concentrated its efforts on the Iraqi front since 2003 and “developed its political-strategic project by proclaiming the Islamic State of Iraq.” However, the geographically sensitive location of Iraq and the international and regional strategic conflict over resources such as oil have pushed both the states of the moderate axis and the Shi’a crescent to try to contain the jihadi movement, penetrate its apparatus and “adapt” it by all means, “each in its own way.” Accordingly, the Awakening councils (al-Sahawat) of Iraq were created by exploiting tribal relations with Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The councils also had connections to Syria, benefitting from the latter’s close ties with some Iraqi Ba’athist elements. Al-Madi believes that such policies wasted the efforts of the jihadis since 2007 in a battle of attrition instead of a final battle with “the Crusaders and their supporters in Iraq.”
    Al-Madi continued by saying that “the fall of the Syrian regime or its collapse into chaos will have a direct impact on the neighboring Sunnis in Iraq and Lebanon, and they will liberate themselves from the constraints on their movement and will find in Syria, a free, important space for movement and supply.” In such a scenario the writer thinks that the “fall of Syria” will cut off land transport of Iranian land supplies to Hezbollah in Lebanon. This will equalize the strength of the Lebanese Sunnis with Lebanon’s Shi’a community. According to the author, Syria will serve as a backyard to support the fight against Americans in Iraq. “More importantly, the jihadi project will be in direct contact with Israel in an area which is ideal for guerrilla warfare, namely the occupied Golan Heights, without having to fight a costly battle to overcome the Shiite strongholds in southern Lebanon”.
    The writer concludes that “material interests” in Syria do not exist as they do in Iraq, meaning that international and regional actors will not become involved in armed conflict in Syria as they did in Iraq because any military invasion would be too costly. He also declared that “the planning for change relies on a solid popular base in Syria which never existed in Iraq. The Sunnis, whose rights are prejudiced, are the majority in Syria, while the dominant and well-armed Rafidah (rejectionist) Shi’a do not form more than a quarter of the Syrian population.”
    Despite the “unannounced agreement” between jihadis and the Syrian regime, the enmity between the parties goes back to the early 1980s, when clashes took place between Syrian authorities and the Muslim Brotherhood. The hostility exists not because there is a close relation between the jihadis and the Muslim Brotherhood, but because that era has played a significant role in shaping the way Islamists in the Arab world regard the Syrian regime. The negative perception of the Syrian Alawite regime can be seen in much of the Arab world’s Islamist literature, but is particularly visible in the works of Abu Mus’ab al-Suri.
    Al-Madi’s article shows that the jihadis in the Levant region are concerned about the influence of Iran, based on their religious differences. The increasing numbers of Syrian fighters that have taken part in jihad activities in Iraq or in Lebanon since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 make the ideas presented in the article crucial. [4] The Salafi-Jihadi movement is in decline in Iraq, but it follows that those jihadis returning to their own countries or new locations could become a potential security problem. Syria is one of the countries that jihadis could aim to turn into a new front after benefitting from its use as a passage to Iraq for the last six years.
    Notes:
    1. Abdullah Azzam, al-Qai’ida al-Salbba (the Solid Base), Jihad Magazine, Issue 41, April 1988.
    2. Al-Madi refers here to the Syrian Kurdish branch of the Naqshbandiyya Sufi order led by Ahmad al-Khaznawi. Al-Qubeisyat is a religiously conservative women’s organization. Muhammad Habash is director of the moderate Islamic Studies Center in Damascus. For the Abu Nur Institute, see Terrorism Monitor, June 4.
    3. Al-Madi refers to the Imami Shi’a school of jurisprudence, named for its founder, Ja’afar al-Sadiq, the sixth Shi’a imam. The Alawis are a small but powerful minority in Syria, where most of the population is Sunni Muslim. There is also a small Christian community.
    Murad Batal al-Shishani, Ma Ba’ad al-Islam al-Siyasi fi Soria: Abu Mus’ab al-Suri wal-jeel al-Thaleth mn al-Salafeen al-Jihadeen (Beyond Political Islam in Syria: Abu Mus’ab al-Suri and the Third Generation of the Salafi-Jihadists), in Radwan Ziadeh (ed), al-Ikhwan al-Muslmeen fi Soria (Muslim Brotherhood in Syria), al-Misbar Studies and Research Center, Dubai, August 2009

  8. What truly amazes me is the adamant audacity of those who look at their neighbours and not in the mirror.
    The enemy is not your neighbours, it is within you.
    You cannot destroy one country after the other, when will you stop?
    Will you ever feel secure ?
    It was Lebanon’s Hizbullah, then Hamas, before it was Iraq and Pakistan, Now it is Iran ..Tomorrow it will be Turkey and then the rest of the world.
    Sorry for the bad news, but the world is not a homeland for one nation, it is for all nations..
    Their is no homeland for a people without neighbours, as their is no homeland for a people, with no people in it .
    Rather than criticizing the Iranians for not protesting, criticize those who wants another war and will always feel insecure .

  9. Pirouz, the internal repression Iranians are subjected is not really a Zionist issue. I do work with several Iranians who left around the Khomeini revolution and never gathered the courage to go and reclaim their property. I cannot pass judgement on whether their fears paralyzed them or the current regime is so ruthless that they are right in not taking the risk.
    What can I say, NPR had a piece yesterday of detained women in Tehran raped so badly in jail that their genitals were destroyed. If you chose to accept that behavior by your state upon your sisters, you are either a perpetrator or incredibly coward. When these women go back home with their lives destroyed, blaming the Zionists won’t help them much.
    While you and your Ahmadinejad keep darkening this world, in Tel Aviv Leonard Cohen is about to do the grand finale to his tour, and to his remarkable career. A celebration to poetry and life is the best response to Shirin’s boycott, and to your blind and ignorant hatred.

  10. Even more important than settlement expansion, is nuclear proliferation. NO SERIOUS DISCUSSION can take place on nuclear arms reduction and non proliferation until full exposure takes place of the massive, secret ISRAELI nuclear arms arsenal in the Negev desert, that is currently completely outside of IAEA inspection.
    To do so and ignore this ‘giant elephant in the room’, would simply be nonsensical.
    It would lead to a situation whereby not only US foreign policy lies with the Israeli lobby but also global military and political control.
    Such a decision would be indefensible.

  12. Any proof Titus? You know that there is a $25,000 reward for someone to demonstrate that there was fraud in the last Iranian election, I would have thought Mosssavi or his cronies would have claimed it by now, don’t you?. yesterday a woman miraculous appeared alive, she was pronoused dead from brutal rape by Karoubi and his supporters, so unless proof is forthcoming then I take it as heresay.

  13. Atrocity propaganda of the sort Titus publishes invariably has a sado-masochistic sexual element. Also, invariably, there is not a shred of evidence adduced to substantiate claims which are obviously designed to lead to actual atrocities.
    If Titus has the tiniest interest in the ill treatment of detainees one would have thought that between Israel and the United States he would discover plenty to work on.
    One trusts that no Iranian exiles are actually frightened by Titus’s lurid and disgusting inventions, which are likely to be more a reflection of his preoccupations than the actual treatment of women in Iran.

  14. Hans, proof of what and to whom? Are you suggesting that I should go to Iran and find a proof? So that I end up like the three backpackers that have disappeared into a black hole. Listen to the NPR piece, it is usually on line, and focus on the jail abuses like rape, because genital destruction is easier to prove than election fraud.
    There were other pieces about lawyers jailed and killed you may want to check. And there is plenty of videos about hangings in Iran, just go to youtube and search Iran hanging.
    Take what as hearsay? I didn’t know this was a trial or that you were judge and jury.

  15. Sure Bevin, your assertion reminds me of Ahmadinejad at Columbia when he was asked about the treatment of homosexuals in Iran and he said there are no homosexuals in Iran.
    I do not search for masochistic angles, but it is great that at least it hit a raw nerve with bigots like you, and put you in a position to defend the human rights record of Iran. When you take that position you are outed for good as either blind, or one of the perps. From now on I can read your posts and visualize that particular expression in Ahmadinejad’s eyes…

  16. Titus, I don’t know how to break this to you, but Ahmadi Najad did not say there are no homosexuals in Iran.
    Also, the three hikers did not end up in a black hole. And while I feel for them and their families, and hope they will be released very soon, I would not want to try to imagine what would happen if three Iranians went hiking in Canada or Mexico, inadvertently wandered over the border into the U.S., and were caught. Considering what the U.S. government has done to some of its own innocent citizens and legal residents (and not just under the Bush administration), it is frightening to think what would happen.
    Oh, and Titus, if you are so concerned about women being raped in the most destructive way possible, I suggest that instead of your prurient fascination with unconfirmed stories about Iranian prisoners, you should focus your concerned efforts on the Congo. There are hundreds of documented cases there of rapes that are intended to destroy far more than just women’s genitals.

  17. Yes Alastair, you said about Obama “I think he means it,” then contrasted whatever Obama meant with what with his staffers want, since they “are themselves pro-Zionist.”
    However to make it a reality means a big political operation, and the will is not yet obvious. Given that many of Obama’s White House are themselves pro-Zionist.
    Maybe you didn’t read Obama’s statement carefully, but invoking “a Jewish state of Israel[‘s] …legitimacy and right to exist” prima facie makes the O-man a Zionist as well, as would all his earlier pronouncements on the IP conflict. So the contrast you drew makes no sense. Could you clarify? Is Obama not to be taken seriously when he talks about a “Jewish State of israel?” Is he speaking in code? Or is it ok for Zionists to want all those groovy things too, in which case, shouldnt we retire the use of the term as a slur?

  18. .Titus, I don’t know how to break this to you, but Ahmadi Najad did not say there are no homosexuals in Iran.
    Yes Shirin, he did say that. And Joseph Massad (who I believe you may be paraphrasing) agreed with him. Massad seems to think that denying “gay” as a category of human being in “other” cultures is a-ok. Do you agree with his reading? Is “gay” a term dreamed up by westerners or has it some universal meaning?
    more on massad’s homosexual-denialism here:
    http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/queer-theory

  19. Not that I find Ahmadi Najad’s, or any other religious fundamentalist’s views on homosexuality of any great significance to world peace and security, but actually, Vadim, no, what he said was not that there are no homosexuals in Iran, despite the fact that this is the (eagerly) received interpretation among those in the U.S. who are intent upon using him as a proxy through which to demonize and ridicule Iran. And in case there is any doubt, he clarified his meaning trough a spokesman shortly after that speech.
    Joseph Massad’s views on homosexuality are of even less interest to me than are Ahmadi Najad’s, but I hope you will understand if I do not take your work for it. We have a mutual friend, and I would prefer to ask my friend to get clarification directly from him.
    And as I suggested to Titus regarding his fascination with the practice of intentionally destructive rape, if you are genuinely concerned about attitudes toward homosexuality, it would be more fruitful for you to direct your concerned attention where you might be able to make a difference. You could start right at home with your own religious fundamentalists.

  21. Where on earth did you get the idea that I was paraphrasing anyone
    Well as a matter of fact you were paraphrasing someone, Ahmadinejad’s spokesman. If you hadn’t been, you’d have been paraphrasing a translator. You don’t speak Farsi, remember? As it happens the translation was conducted in real time and visible on the web, and the meaning is obvious. retraction notwithstanding, he indeed said the ‘phenomenon’ doesn’t exist *at all* in Iran.
    Not that I find Ahmadi Najad’s, or any other religious fundamentalist’s views on homosexuality of any great significance to world peace and security
    Not that you would! You don’t live in a country where such behavior is a crime (or adjacent to one that had designs on yours.) It isnt a threat to you, so it isnt of significance to your peace or security.
    it would be more fruitful for you to direct your concerned attention where you might be able to make a difference.
    Shirin, this new “global outlook” of yours is really interesting. But aren’t you concerned someone might turn it around on you: as in “whats with the israel obsession? why aren’t you concerned with human rights violations in Sudan?” “why don’t you turn your web activism toward human rights violations in the USA?” What a blatant red herring. where I live btw there havent been any religious fundamentalists for 500 years. They so despise religious fundamentalism they’re about to vote on whether to ban minarets nationwide, which i think is taking it a bit too far. I kid you not.

  22. Ummm – no, I wasn’t paraphrasing anyone, Vadim. I merely said that Ahmadi Najad did not say there are no homosexuals in Iran, and he did not.
    Why do you always try to make it personal, Vadim? This is not about MY peace and security, Vadim. I referred specifically to world peace and security, not one person’s or even one type of person’s peace and security. Ahmadi Najad’s attitudes and beliefs toward homosexuality might be a threat to overt homosexuals in Iran, but they most certainly have no impact on world peace and security.
    Yes, he said the “phenomenon” does not exist in Iran. What was not clear was what “phenomenon” he was referring to. And by the way, perhaps you ought to invest in a thesaurus. Clarification and retraction are not synonymous.
    And again, why do you need to try to make it personal? In any case, I have had a “global outlook” ever since I can remember. Maybe having roots and connections to different countries does that to a person. But my point to Titus, and to you was that if you are concerned about issues such as intentionally destructive rape, and homosexual rights it would be a better use of your time and effort to focus on real, confirmed cases (as opposed to imaginary, or rumored ones) that you actually have a chance to affect with your actions. I focus on the issue I do because the facts are real and verifiable, I have a personal connection to them and am knowledgeable about them, and I am in a position to take actions that will help in some small way to make a difference.
    And how clever you were to manage to get that little dig in at Islam and Muslims. Congratulations, you are too clever by half.

  23. Gee Shirin, I haven’t said anything personal about you (like saying “point me to the vomitorium” which is your couteous way of addressing people here.) In fact I think your beliefs are typical of a great many people in the USA
    Ahmadi Najad’s attitudes and beliefs toward homosexuality might be a threat to overt homosexuals in Iran, but they most certainly have no impact on world peace and security.
    If Iran’s treatment of homosexuals doesn’t concern you, why are you concerned with Israel’s far superior treatment of Israeli Arabs (or indeed of Palestinans)? How on earth do its human rights transgressions threaten “world peace and security”? afaik you have no “personal connection” to Israel, yes? Whereas you do have personal connections to Syria, about whose human rights record you have been mum all these years, whose embassy you have never once protested, whose goods you do not boycott. Ditto with Egypt. Lets be serious Shirin, the I/P conflict doesn’t threaten “world security” at all.
    My mention of the minaret ban wasn’t a “dig at Islam” at all. How do you get that from “taking things too far?” Read more carefully…thats the opposite of what was said!
    Now if you’ll excuse me, the vomitorium is calling my name.

  24. Oh, but you DID make it personal – you just about always do, Vadim.
    I have not said that Iran’s treatment of homosexuals does not concern me, I said Ahmadi Najad’s attitudes and beliefs toward homosexuals is not a threat to world peace and security, which is a correct statement.
    I have not concerned myself overly much about Israel’s treatment of its Palestinian citizens, although it is pretty appalling for a country that claims to be a light unto the nations and the shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East.
    And now, if you don’t mind, I will retire from this conversation. Feel free to have the last word.

  25. I dont understand.
    I dont understand what they are talking about and why they are talking about it because I cant see the palestinian state. Where is it?
    Where is the land thats gonna be called “Palestine”? The efforts to bring a twostate solution today seems to me like a story that happens only in fantasy.
    No offence but there is a need to look at reality these days and the reality says more then speech. Just political talking and society debates isnt gonna cut it anymore. Its important that we look at the reality and cut the bullshit for one second here.
    There is nothing what so ever that is happening in reality for the twostate solution. The potentiel for the idea of two states is smaller then ever, not because I like to be pessimistic, but because there isnt much land left to secure as a “state”.
    The speeches will come as a delay. The peace will come temporary.
    With all do respect. You cant turn your back from what is happening in the reality. That is what you people who infact are trying to do, you are trying to support a future “twostate solution” that isnt possible to implement.
    The crime is already done. Therefor Israel doesnt need anymore talking with. Israel needs a force that puts it down on its knees and forces the extremists and criminals to be inprisoned.
    Nothing more and nothing less. Its about time that we push the whole middle east to get done. Israel or Iran. Both need it, more or less.

  26. Titus, I never connected the repression you suggest with Zionism. You did. Although, it must be admitted that the Zionists have assisted in waging a campaign directed against the Iranian people. Need proof? Check over at the MESH blog. Your own Lt. Col. Gal Luft (ex-IDF, now IAGS) is advocating economic war be waged against the Iranian people. As a kicker, he even went so far as to insinuate that the historical figure Nebuchadnezzar was a Persian! These Zionists have the nerve to scream bloody murder when Ahmadinejad offers sloppy renderings on jewish history- the sheer hypocricy of it all!
    Too bad your Iranian-American friends are too cowardly to visit Iran. Members of my family have, and it’s been a rewarding experience.
    Iran may face challenges, but it hasn’t expelled and held captive an ethnically different people, through multiple wars and occupation. Go on and face the ugly truth, Titus, you’re defending a condition that is no less cruel and unjust than apartheid South Africa.

  27. Pirouz,
    I know a lot of Iranians who left because of the revolution, and virtually all of them have returned to Iran for visits, often lengthy ones, and some of them annually. Certainly most of them complain about the government, but I have never heard one of them express fear or even concern about being there. I find Titus’s claim suspect. Maybe the couple of Iranians he knows are part of the Chalabi-esque “opposition”, or perhaps he is just makin’ stuff up.

  28. Titus and Vadim and other hasbaristas – you all remind me of the babies allegedly taken out of the incubators in Kuweit, and the crying girl on our evening news TV screens during the first gulf war – and all manufactured as it turned out later on…

  29. Oh, and, Titus, if you went to Iran legally – you know, with a visa and all that – instead of the way those unfortunate hikers did, you would find yourself in a far different place than you expect. You would find yourself warmly welcomed by the people there, who would be eager to show you their country. No doubt that would be a huge disappointment for you, but that is how it would be, whether you like it or not.

  30. Shirin, you mean enter Iran legally like Roxana Saberi? Next.
    Pirouz, two co-workers told me that if they tried to reclaim property (not just visit) they could get in a whole lot of trouble, these are people that left parents behind, and are in constant touch with them, not just idle paranoia. I do have Bahai friends, in fact one of them sold me the first car I owned in the US. Is their persecution another lie along the existence of gays and the holocaust? The fact that you have no problem doing whatever you please in Iran signals that you may be well connected, it ain’t like the Shah was great, they just replaced one ruling class with another and you may have the upper for now and benefit from your compatriots cowardice in shaking the system up.
    You have your opinions about Israel, that is fine, I have mine about radical moslems, and I gladly share them in case you find even a bit of useful information in it. At the end of the day we need reality checks, and here in the US it is mosques that the FBI penetrates, it an Imam that was arrested this week for tipping off the Denver bomber, it is moslem Jordanian that was arrested today for a Chicago bomb plot. I think they just rolled up three plots this week, and buddy this is the Obama administration, not Cheney trying to play up the orange alert. Maybe you live on the wrong side of the globe, it must be rough to despise the place you live even if you personally don’t get to act on it like these jihadis.

  31. Great UN speech by Netanyahu in youtube, and it is kind of nice when statesmen communicate in English so we are not at the mercy of translators, or use translation for denying stuff like the Ahmadinejad gay gaffe.
    If have witnessed lowly bazaar merchants in the middle east conduct their trade in seven languages, I hear street Iraqis being interviewed in English for the radio, and of course anybody employed by modern industry is pretty much assumed to have command of english language for his job, yet we get these recalcitrant Arab leaders at the top of their societies, like Gadaffi speaking in “rapid fire Arabic” at the UN. Sad. Or the luminary Ahmadinejad. He is reading anyways, all he has to do is read english, with that laughable effeminate voice of his anything sounds like a joke, so what is the big deal about speaking the universal language of diplomacy at the UN?

  32. Who was questioning the Iranian prison rape?
    Here do your homework and have the decency to concede when you are ready:
    A video testimony in Farsi: http://keepingthechange.blogspot.com/2009/08/video-interview-with-ex-prisoner-raped.html
    Some gruesome details, and Ahmadinejad admitting but blaming enemies doing it in their prisons:
    http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/iranians-say-prison-rape-not-new/
    On Friday, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad floated a bizarre conspiracy theory: that any rape or torture of political prisoners in Iranian detention centers in recent months had been carried out by “enemy” agents, not the government. According to Reuters, Mr. Ahmadinejad said in remarks at Tehran University that were broadcast live on state radio: “In some detention centers inappropriate measures have taken place for which the enemy was again responsible.”

  33. Titus, Roxana Saberi was not an American tourist who entered Iran on a visitors visa. She holds Iranian citizenship, and she was living in Iran for years and was regarded as a citizen, not a foreign visitor. Therefore, her case is not relevant to your argument.
    Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of Americans and Europeans enter Iran legally every year, have a very good experience there, and go home more enlightened than they arrived.
    I am personally acquainted with a rabbi – a female rabbi, in fact – who went with a group of Jews to Iran to meet with members of the Jewish community there. They also had a meeting with – sit down now, and breathe slowly, in through the nose, out through the mouth – Mahmoud Ahmadi Najad. They not only had no problems during their time in Iran, they had a great experience there, and came back feeling much better about the situation of Jews in Iran.
    Iranians return home for visits all the time by the tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands, entering with U.S. and European passports, and take their American-born children to meet their families there, and see the land of their roots, and they do so with pleasure, and with no problems. As for “reclaiming” their property, I only know one person who had a problem, and it had nothing to do with the government, but with the fact that a very crooked guy had illegally disposed of her property at great profit to himself. She did not get into any kind of trouble over it, but it appears she will have difficulty reclaiming her property under the circumstances.

Comments are closed.