by Faramarz_Fateh

Have you noticed our reaction when someone, normally an American, calls us an Arab?  Or during a discussion someone refers to all people of mid eastern origin as Arabs?  We generally rip them a new asshole and then proceed to educate them.

There is typically no love lost between Iranians and Arabs unless there is a third party is involved and that third party is Israel and the Jews.

Since the recent conflict in Gaza, I have seen and or read over 100 postings on regarding the atrocities of Israel.  If a new reader comes across he or she will be really confused as to whether this is or

If you are a supporter of IRI, then there is no question about the love.  Palestinian thugs, riding in Jeeps and carrying automatic rifles were a big factor in the early days and months of the Islamic revolution.  The Iranian regime owes them and owes them big.

If you are a true Iranian who yearns for a free secular and democratic Iran, rid of Islam and Arab influence, you would normally be on the side of Israel.  But the hatred of Jews which starts at age 5 or 6 via brain washing for most Iranian Muslim kids is so strong that it has blinded most Iranians.  I know about this first hand.  I was born and raised in a Muslim family.  The bull shit I was told about Jews and Bahais by my older aunts and uncles and family friends make one's head spin.  Don't tell me you did not hear these things because I don't believe you for a second.

Israel is defending herself and its right to exist.  To guarantee its long term security, Israel has been like a whore to the U.S.  But can you blame Israel?  I don't.  They live in a neighborhood with hundreds of millions of quasi savages who are hell bent on destroying them.  Any and all action for self defense in my opinion is justified.


more from Faramarz_Fateh
rosie is roxy is roshan

Okay, Persia, here goes nothing. I will try to address your

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

long historical post.

I know the land of Israel was never devoid of Jews. Let us leave aside for the moment your characterization of the Zionist movement as a "God-given right AND duty to return en masse.."  You portray a vast and empty virtually uninhabitable land with absentee landowners in Palestine at time of original Zionist immigrations. You say those Jews never kicked anyone off land, paid top dollar for it and there were only avout 120,000 Arabs living there, and by around turn of century Jewish population had .approximately equalled Arab. There were plagues and mass exoduses of both Arabs and Jews until 1922 after Zionists laid a pipe line. And that the early Zionists intended a peaceable and  mutually profitable co-existence with the Arabs but that the Arab leadership from the get-go refused and resorted to violence.

Okay, so basically that's my summary of your post as I write this trying to assimilate it. The picture you paint is identical to the one painted for me when I was a child growing up in New York City and attending p.m. Hebrew School in the '60s, my parents as well had this image. There was a poster in my Hebrew School from the 1950's with the famous slogan "A land without a people for a people without a land." Needless to say this poster was produced at a time of enormous post-trauma for the Jewish people.

I have alluded to it various times on this website as an example of a neafrious type of propagandizing on the part of the Zionist leaders and quite frankly no one really challenged this much among the Zionists, as it seems so obvious that there are so many Palestinians. So what are you saying, that's all part of a demographic explosion of the 20th century? Well, that could make sense--I am not a demographer but they do have an awful lot of children and a hundred years is five generations or so. However post WWII when there was a massive influx of European Jews ,presumably by that time the demographic explosion of Arabs was already well under way.

So to what extent is it truly relevant to the current situation? Surely by 1945 the demographics were quite different. It's interesting to me because lately onsite here and there, a couple of people bandied about the notion that Chomsky is a Zionist in defense of Zionism, and being familiar with his writings I found this absurd, and so I googled about, and what I found out was that Chomsky WAS in fact a Zionist in the pre-Israel days and lived there, when the idea of a state of Jews, Christians and Muslims living together in one state was actually a common branch of Zionism. So that Zionism can have and has had numerous meanings and interpretations.

Chomsky's experiences of his youth would be consistent with the picture you paint. But my question again is what is its relevance to today, and what was its relevance to that to me still deeply disturbing poster published in the 1950's?

Beyond the use of your word "always" for Arabs ALWAYS starting the conflictggs in the pre-WWII days (I am ALWAYS suspicious of the word "always"), I do not dispute your history, as I am not in a position to do so, and actually I find it very interesting (and nostalic, as it evokes memories of tales I was told as a child..). And indeed you seem quite knowledgeable.

What I question is why does your historical narrative end when it does?


rosie is roxy is roshan

Two Fish:

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

Anon Fish: but there can be no QUESTION that taking the OT into consideration with Israel there is an apartheid state as well as a police state. WHATEVER you think the historical causes were or who threw the first stone, today as we write in 2009, Is/Pal IS an apartheid police state. And we can ONLY work from right here where we are. And we have to start by facing the facts. Now I am against the use of the Nazi terminology as the basis of so-called "discourse"--that is totally counter-productive as well as often exaggerated, but the apartheid police state is a FACT. It's simply...a fact..and the use of excessive force...seems pretty obvious to me...did you raally think it was fair to destroy the infrastructure of an entire country that had taken thirty years to rebuild over THE STATED REASON of two soldiers IN THREE DAYS? (of course the US was partner in that, but let's just talk for now about the perception of Israel in the eyes of the world...)

what is NOT a fact is that Is/Pal is the only apartheid state. IRI practices de facto gender apartheid as well as apartheid against the Bahai. And there are many others...

Perisan Fish: Israel is surrounded by many Arab countries but THESE DAYS several of them are in collusion with the US and MANY of them are none too happy with IRI...and whenever Israel was threatened by those Arab armies, the countries were large in size and the armies great in numbers of soldiers, but WEAK, puny in comparison to the Israeli military. We know this.

And now, would someone please correct me if I am wrong...these rockets of Hamas....don't they go into areas beyond the '67 borders?

Sorry if I sound stupid.



Ms. Niloufar Parsi

by Anonymousessss (not verified) on

I'm sorry, but I would laugh if your comment wasn't so ironic. In response to your answer to Z's comment, please note that bridging the gap between the two sides does not come with one side (or its supporters) calling the other side "apartheid", "police state", etc. and issuing a total economic boycott fatwa.

Please approach the subject un a way that would give you a little more credibility.


Israel is in a struggle for

by persia (not verified) on

Israel is in a struggle for her very life. She is surrounded by nearly two dozen Arab countries, some of which have already tried several times to wipe Israel out of existence. The terrorist occupied Iran "The Islamic Republic of" is the world's "central banker of terrorism." Indeed, the Islamic Republic has a nine-figure line item in its budget to support terrorism, sending hundreds of millions of dollars to various groups each year; the payments to Hizballah alone are as much as $200 million annual. In this type of grave situation do you expect Israel not to react to terror? What would any other country would do to fight terror?



by Zion on

I just wanted to advise you to be grateful or the kind of lessons you are getting here. Think about it, how easier would it have been for Goebbels and co. in their efforts if they had such dedicated volunteers to teach them how to mellow their languages so that it wouldn't warn their victims of their true intentions and true mentality too early on. It's a gift from Allah this one.

rosie is roxy is roshan

 Okay Mehdi, so this is how

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

 Okay Mehdi, so this is how it goes.  Suppose I'm your garden variety Jew reading here and I read Bijan's post and it says basically Israel will never die and you are anti-semitic. I don't go further down (most people don't), I read your reply, and it goes something like this.

You say: 

   Bijan A M: Keep your opinions to yourself

by Mehdi on

--I think, ooh, he doesn't seem to know the First Amendment. Maybe he IS anti-Semitic. Anti-Semites are irrational too.

 am not trying to convince you. My intention here is for others to read my side and your side and decide.

 --Well then why doesn't he pwant eople to hear BIjan's side anymore? He MUST be anti-Semitic.

 I don't have much hope that you could ever get over your paranoia, exaggerated greed and the victim game you are playing

--What victim game? We ARE victims. Doesn' this guy know about the Holocaust? I wonder if he's one of those anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers.  Greed, greed, that's what they all say... 

only so that you can steal more and get away with it. So, please, spare me the Zionist cult brainwashing propaganda and go back to your "NEVER AGAIN, NEVER AGAIN" chant.

--What's wrong with Never Again? Does he think it should happen again? I'm getting really scared of this guy...

 I don't know what anti-semite means,

 i--That's wierd...

 I have seen it used to shut up anybody who criticizes the only apartheid regime in the world today, but if it means anti-apartheid, you are absolutely right, that I am, and proud of it too. But if you are trying to muddy the discussion because you have no answer and because I have made you look like a fool, representing retarded savages who have obtained fancy killing weapons and have come back to continue a savage war that they had lost 2000 years ago,


 I think you will agree that readers on this site are above that level of intelligence and can see through you.It is very interesting that you think that Palestinians deserve what is coming to them but the Jews have been "persecuted." Well, did it ever occur to you that maybe you also deserve it? Go chew on that for a while.

At this point the person can't READ anything anymore, and all they see is "you deserve it." That's all they see..

Language. All I'm talking about is language.



a just ally?

by mazandarani on

the idea that israel would be a natural ally in finding the way to an iran which is at ease which itself and it's history, to a democratic iran, is not really new. the abhorrence towards arabs does not result from this (positive) attitude (towards israel and jews) but bolsters it up. adherents of this idea can be "cured" by experiencing the racism of every-day-israelis towards "orientals" no matter what their attitude towards israel is...yes, iranians have to undergo a brainwashing in the islamic republic in various respects (although many manage to keep a "clear mind") but they, the israelis, also had/have their brains washed. the idea of zionism was never to live in peace and equality with the neighbours, their culture was/is considered inferior while the zionist pioneers brought the true, western culture to the "wilderness" (one has to glance also at the history of jews from oriental countries in israel). when israel built alliances with players in the region (as with the shah), it was always (exclusively) to their own advantage. i guess, faramarz' intentions are noble, i hope she will broaden her thinking.

oh by the way, if i had it my way, islam could be abolished in iran. 

rosie is roxy is roshan

I did not say or mean to imply that you can reason with

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

Hamas, people have argued to me that you can who seem to know a bit about them, I don't feign to know enough to make that kind of determination.

What I do know is that Hamas is an organization which was intitially formed w/Israeli backing, this appears to be incontrovertible, and that it has been against the existence of Israel but it was elected. It is tautological that once elected they would not recognize Israel, and a supreme irony of ironies all this; my point is that recognizing them because elected would've given Israel some moral high ground wich they could certainly use instead of the low groudn, which many of their actions have certainly earned them in world opinion. You may argue with me that the low ground is undeserved, but I will remind you that for some time, public opinion in Europe was generally very sympathetic to Israel due to all the they did SOMETHING to change that...

 If I'd been in the Knesset I would've said, recognize them and see where the chips fall next. i stand by that.




by persia (not verified) on

No, You can not reason and negitiate with the terrorists whether it is Hezbollah, Al Qaeda , Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Algerian Islamists,militant Refah Islamic Party in Turkey, Sudan's militant Muslim regime, Islamic Republic of Iran, Uighur Muslim separatist terrorists in Western China's Xinjiang Province. The Philipins Al sayef group, Indonasian Islamists the Jemaah Islamiah group,the Kashmiri Islamists in India...........

The list goes on and on. They are all the same , seeking power , having global aspiration to make a pan Islamic world under the flag of Islam.

rosie is roxy is roshan

Mehdi, my first reply:

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

You and I do differ in one aspect. I don't have the viewpoint that every single person is trying to find the truth for himself and others.

--Well actually my specific contention had always been that that was the case for every person HERE on the site who was a regular blogger, not every person in the world, because otherwise why would they debate and debate without remuneration, etc. It is a ccntention I am in the process of re-evaluating these days.

 I think you have a very good understanding of my views, as you stated in your comment to me. I never generalize and call a group this or that. Jewish, Zionist, Muslim, Christians, are somewhat meaningless to me.

--Yes I do and I am going to analyze your post to Bijan that I questioned from the perspective of a Jew to show you how it could be misconstrued, not JUST by him per se but by a Jew in general. Wait, I will get to it by tomorrow. It all goes back to my old point about language, language, language. Although I said I am re-examining my contention about everyone here being truth-seekers (and that does not apply particularly to Bijan or even one particular side...), as you implied, we have to be accustely aware that the dialogues here are being read by many more than just the participants; BUT also that as threads get longer newcomers especially tend to read only the tops of the thread and they see what is written there, no more. We should never forget this for a moment when we write al though of course I alwas s do LOL) nor that this website has THE largest outreach to the entire global community of any single Persian-related website in the world.  So we have an impact. What we say matters from a perspective of global media. If what we say here doesn't matter then the media in general don't matter, which is ridiculous. Not trying to convince you on this one Mehdi, trying to remind other people who might be reading it. This might SEEM like an incest fest 24 hour party, sorry, it's much more than that...almost one half million hits from individual computers per month on this site, etc. etc.

But I find that it is true that some people are trying to get back to a war that was lost, I don't know when, 2000 years ago? They think that the Jewish people were defeated and now they want to resurrect the glory of the Jewish people. They have come back to reverse the results, using mainly force (not reason or friendship).

--They are overcompensating for gruesome historical circumstances of the late 19th and 20th century, culminating in the Holocaust but with many precedents throughout history, especially European medieval history, through paranoia and ossification of viewpoints into monolithich extremist nationalist philosophies, wherein the paranoia (fear) is directly outwardly as violence. It is a very common psycho-social phenomenon and it is the reason why the actions of the state of Israel resemble those of the Nazi in certain wayss. No mystery here. (Not that the actual Nazis had anything to fear from the Jews, the fear was of Europe after the treaty of Versailles, and they projected it onto the Jews, however same could be said in a sense of Israelis regarding Europe. Scratching the surface of it all, the issue is ultimately European Imperialism (and whatever tat means in terms of the US now..) and the conditions of Jewish and Palestinian people are the pus oozing out of this historical problem.  Which until the wound is healed the world won't be able to go much further in its advances to a peaceful future. Which is kind of my reply to the legitimate questions of those who ask "Why so much  focus onGaza? Why not Darfur?" Africa will have to wait until the world deals with this first, otherwise there is paralysis of the forward movement.

Your grandfather, I am sure, based on knowing you, was in fact a nice man.

My father actually. People think grandfather because of the time frame, he was born in 1908, but it is because he was 17 years older than my mother and we were his second family. She was bornin 1925. This puts me in  an unusual position vis a vis the Ashkenaz experience in the US in general. My father's brothers were born in the Czar's land (currently Byelorus), his first language was Yiddush, he was religious. My mother was born here and was/is completely secular. I was a political football between them and their generation gap about religion and degree of assimilation etc., it is part of why I learned to have my own viewpoints, I had no other choice, and also why I am used to being the monkey in whatever game of "monkey in the middle" gets played out here. It's an old role for me. (For those who don't know "monkey in the middle" is a kid's game where two kids play "catch' with each otehr with a ball and a third one in the middle tries to intercept the ball...)

  I am sorry if this excuse has been used by Hamas and Israelis alike to promote more wars and justify it as "necessary evil." But that is no reason to think that there is no such a thing as necessary force (evil, if we want to call it that).

Yes I was the one who used the term "necessary evil"  a couple of weeks ago and got flak from it from someone for it. What I mean by Hamas being a necessaary evil is that they were voted in and as such they represent the will of the Gazans AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME(whatever exacerating factors caused this IMHO bad choice). As such they must be dealt with as such. If I had been the Knesset (LOL) when Hamas was voted in and did not recognize Israel I would've said, fine we accept your decision not to recognize us but we recognize you. So let us negotiate as you a recognized government with us an "entity" which we have been called many times before, so so what? Here is the table. Let's sit.

That is IF that Israeli government wanted peace...imagine how it would've raised their esteem in the eyes of the world too...the motives of the government are highly suspect in its peace-seeking intentions but that government is voted in so that brings us back to the question of language--how to convey the message w/out polarizing center and moderate Zionists to the right-- and that is why I want to take another look at your post to Bijan which I questioned, from standpoint of language. Wait up. Getting to it.

Finally regarding Hamas, I keep saying the whitewasihng of Hamas is really bad for our "side" and I am glad you don't do it. Mammad doesn't do it either. However I am currently observing Bijan's response to you and...

well...more to come.

Thx a lot,

rosie is roxy is roshan

To Persia , I am going to answer the post, pls. keep

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

checking, it will be here by tomorrow.


I disagree .

by persia (not verified) on

No, Make no mistake about it. Hamas, Hezbollah , Islamic Jihad and other IRI supprted groups aim is not just Isreal's destruction but they think they get into a better place by way of martyrdom for their wrong interpretations of religion and the palestineans don't even have the freedom to leave this Hamas cult even if you had the dignity, integrity and self-respect to do so. They don't know that strapping dynamite to their chest or on to the chest of their 12 year old son will send neither of them to Paradise. All the bogus promises of an Islamic Heaven filled with whatever and whomever they claim should be an insult to any sane human intelligence. By the way, when was the last time an Islamic cleric, mullah, Grand Mufti, Ayatollah volunteered to blow HIMSELF up? Believe me, THEY are a lot smarter than that!!!

The Islamic Republic's cult they worship is a cult created by the mullahs of Iran and is being spread in all directions by their proxy gangs of like-minded freaks bent on plunder, murder, vandalism, mayhem, rape and pillage. And this is the same fate awaiting those few non-Muslims and even true devout muslims unfortunate enough to still reside in areas under Islamic control and theocracies such as Iran today and Afghanistan under the Taliban yesterday! Such is the sad state of affairs in ALL Islamic-dominated lands.

Bijan A M

Mehdi, Oh Boy, do I wish you were Hamas??

by Bijan A M on

There would have been no bloodshed, No suicide bombers, no rocket attacks and no threat of wiping out. Wouldn’t that be nice?. You sit in your rocking chair, relaxed, puffing your Cuban cigar and I mind my own business and continue progress. You dose off and fall asleep and I continue my struggle and keep on going. You wake up a light year later and feel lost. What happened? You can’t recognize your surrounding. You look for another Cuban cigar, but it’s not there. Everything has changed, nobody is killing anyone. People are smiling, they are friendly.


Go back to sleep my friend, the world is just fine without you. We have peace without Hamas.


If I was Hamas

by Mehdi on

I wouldn't fight Israel. I would get rid of all those rockets and buy a few lawn chairs and Cuban cigars and set myself up in the backyard, smoke my cigar and wait for Israel regime to collapse.

Why bother? What those guys are trying to do is an impossibility. You can't have democracy and religious persecution at the same time. Besides, if Hamas wasn't fighting them, Israelis would not feel so much closeness to each other and would not feel the need for unity and soon they would break into at least two groups - one wanting to force everyone to be Jewish and the other wanting to separate religion and state! Just like what we see in the US. 

Another advantage: once there is no war, the borders get relaxed and just like Mexicans invading the US, Palestinians can quite easily sneak back in and buy out the land back or whatever. This is what is happening to the US. After all those useless wars to steal the land from Mexicans, now we see most of it returned back to them anyway.

Probably the only thing that keep Israelis uniting well and keeps Israel system from collapsing is the external war they have. Very much like traditional Muslims in Iran kind of supporting the IRI due to fear of the "great satan."  If that external threat goes away, Israel will start to break apart internally. The newer generations getting raised on PlayStation 3 and HD TV, will want nothing to do with religion - Jewish or whatever.

Of course, Hamas has their own flaws that makes them want to just fight. 



by Mehdi on

You and I do differ in one aspect. I don't have the viewpoint that every single person is trying to find the truth for himself and others. My viewpoint is that some people are acting out of ulterior motives. And my conversation to Bijan was to make it known that I see him as such a person. I think you have a very good understanding of my views, as you stated in your comment to me. I never generalize and call a group this or that. Jewish, Zionist, Muslim, Christians, are somewhat meaningless to me. I have lived with all of them and have had no problem getting along and being friends with them - I can even make the most extremist ones think that I am part of their group (which I am NOT)! These terms have no standard definition. People make up their own minds about what these mean. Although we can see some general similarities, we must never assume that these people are all exactly identical. That's just insane.

But I find that it is true that some people are trying to get back to a war that was lost, I don't know when, 2000 years ago? They think that the Jewish people were defeated and now they want to resurrect the glory of the Jewish people. They have come back to reverse the results, using mainly force (not reason or friendship). Although, even I find that an interesting adventure and it kind of amuses me a little, but to those who see this as a serious issue, I have to say that this is a dangerous viewpoint and game to play, and there is no real victory possible in it. Jewish people are also part of a larger group called humanity and they will not be happy after they have defeated the other group.

People belong to groups, very much like people cheering for different football teams. As long as this is done with the realization that it is not very serious, this can be fun and interesting. But here and there some people take it so seriously that we see even murder taking place!

Your grandfather, I am sure, based on knowing you, was in fact a nice man. My father was also a very nice man and he could not have harmed a Jewish person even if his religious leader mullah ordered him to do so. So why don't we peaceful people block those who want war and tell them to go to hell? I think you never do that because you are against any force whatsoever, whereas I feel that at times it is necessary to use enough force in order to impinge on someone's drunken stupor. Otherwise, not only they harm people around them, they also harm themselves. I am sorry if this excuse has been used by Hamas and Israelis alike to promote more wars and justify it as "necessary evil." But that is no reason to think that there is no such a thing as necessary force (evil, if we want to call it that).

Niloufar Parsi


by Niloufar Parsi on

what a great question. and seems like it was a bit of a conversation killer too, tho people must be tired of this nonsense 'conversation' by now. i suggest you are asking the wrong blog here. why don't you write something up and i would love to discuss it as i am sure many others would :)




by Z (not verified) on

Kind regards to everybody,
Reading all posted here, I would like to ask sincerely to everybody who can answer if is it possible to overcome all the differences and find something in common that can benefit the future generations?
Thanks for answering and God Bless you All with Love and Peace.



by persia (not verified) on

The Land of Israel was never devoid of Jews, although at times she numbered only in the tens of thousands. This was because the land was virtually uninhabitable when the Jews once again began their God-given right AND duty to return en masse to the land of their forefathers (the Zionist Movement) in the 1880s. The silly rhetoric about a massive Arab presence being overrun by "invading Jews" is quickly dispelled by Mark Twain, who visited the area in 1867. From his book, "The Innocents Abroad"... "A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."

The Jews did not displace anyone, because very few of the people who were there actually owned the land. Most were absentee owners residing elsewhere. Another fact hardly mentioned by the "new historians" is that the arriving Jews never threw anyone off any land. All land was purchased legally from the original owners... whether they be from "Palestine" itself or elsewhere. Furthermore, top dollar was paid for this land which, in many cases, was uninhabited and hardly more than swamp land and rocky terrain. Only about 120,000 Arabs resided in an area that now comprises the State of Israel, Jordan and the so-called "West Bank" [Judea and Samaria] in between. By 1890, the number of Jews who had settled in Palestine reached 50,000 and, by 1907, numbered 100,000. In Jerusalem alone the Jews numbered more than 25,000, out of a total population in the city of only 40,000 Jews, Christians and Arabs. The Arabs did, however, constitute a majority over the sparsely populated countryside abutting Jerusalem.

From 1888 until 1915 there were about six locust plagues that made the land nearly uninhabitable. In the 1915 locust plague alone some 40,000 people died and large numbers of Jews and Arabs left the land. Those that returned did not do so until about 1922 when the Zionist money to reclaim the land started coming in and a pipe line was laid. Then both Arabs and Jews started to come in in large numbers.

Palestine's early Jewish Zionists were idealistic pioneers who arrived in pre-state Israel with every intention of living in peace alongside their Arab neighbors and upgrading the quality of life for all of the land's inhabitants. These pre-Israel Zionists (and later, Israelis) had tried to develop peacefully for the dual benefit of Jews and Arabs in the land. But the Arab leadership always, starting in the earliest days, took the low road of insisting that the only solution was for the Jews to get out, even if that meant continued poverty and stagnation. When Arab demands were not met, they always resorted to violence.

rosie is roxy is roshan

Mehdi /Bijan

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

 Mehdi, my views on Israel/Palestine are well-known here but serendipiously happen to be summarized in my post below on "Zionism" which I wrote before reading your exchanges with Bijan. I have not read all of them yet but I found the one copied below here objectionable for various reasons beginning with the title telling him not to speak, and continuing in a form that was disturbing to me. Could you do me a small favor please and re-write the essence of what you were trying to tell Bijan as though you were were perhaps speaking to my late father, who was a Zionist and and a very nice man.  Knowing you and I are both in principle against any religious state and many of the actions of the Israeli government, I find it very difficult to understand what you are trying to tell Bijan about our ideas, because through your choice of language. For instance it seems that you are comparing Jews to retarded savages and saying they are motivated only by greed but I'm sure that can't be the case. So you see your post really does need clarification. Thanks.


Oh btw, Israel is not in sensu strictu an "apartheid state' WITHIN ITS BORDERS, IRI practices apartheid against Bahai and gender apartheid, all Shariah countries the latter, Copts in Egypt complain of same, the various Caucasus countries ethnic-cleansed themselves recently, many more countries around the world practice apartheid against different groups in various ways, Israel is not the only apartheid state in the world.



Bijan A M: Keep your opinions to yourself

by Mehdi on

I am not trying to convince you. My intention here is for others to read my side and your side and decide. I don't have much hope that you could ever get over your paranoia, exaggerated greed and the victim game you are playing only so that you can steal more and get away with it. So, please, spare me the Zionist cult brainwashing propaganda and go back to your "NEVER AGAIN, NEVER AGAIN" chant. I don't know what anti-semite means, I have seen it used to shut up anybody who criticizes the only apartheid regime in the world today, but if it means anti-apartheid, you are absolutely right, that I am, and proud of it too. But if you are trying to muddy the discussion because you have no answer and because I have made you look like a fool, representing retarded savages who have obtained fancy killing weapons and have come back to continue a savage war that they had lost 2000 years ago, I think you will agree that readers on this site are above that level of intelligence and can see through you.It is very interesting that you think that Palestinians deserve what is coming to them but the Jews have been "persecuted." Well, did it ever occur to you that maybe you also deserve it? Go chew on that for a while.



by Mammad on

I have said many times in this site that Shiism is a dynamic and progressive religion, because of the fact that it allows reinterpretation of Islamic teachings according to the needs of the time. Aside from a small number of principles that one cannot change (such as belief in God, belief in Prophet Muhammad being the last God-sent prophet, belief in the Judgement Day, etc.) most things in Shiism are subject to constant reinterpretations.

I do not believe that one should equate Velaayat-e Faghih with Khomeini-ism, whatever that is. The VF, as you now know, goes back a very long time. There are also several versions or interpretations of it, it is not universally accepted, etc. 

I would also like to point out a few important points here:

(1) Right after the 1979 Revolution, a Constitution was drafted by the nationalist-religious groups, led by Mahdi Bazargan. It was based on France's Constitution, but had taken a thin layer of Islam. There was no VF in it. It was a democratic republic. Bazargan liked to call it the Constitution for Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran. It was based on a president, and a powerful prime minister, and a parliament.

Bazargan presented the draft to Ayatollah Khomeini. He approved it, signed it, and asked Bazargan to have a referendum on it. Here was the first historical mistake of Bazargan, which was out of his honesty. He told the Ayatollah that when he was in Paris, he had promised that he would form a constitutional assembly to draft the Constitution and, so, just having a referendum was not enough. The Ayatollah agreed to the assembly. Bazargan's second historical mistake was that he did not preserve the signed letter of the Ayatollah in which he had agreed to the draft. At least, no one can find it.

(2) But, when the assembly was formed (and that was a very contested issue, because it was not formed the way it was supposed to), two groups inserted the VF into the draft. One group - noncleric - was led by Hassan Ayat (he was assassinated in 1981), a right-wing representative and a close aid of Mozaffar Baghaaei who played a role in the CIA coup of 1953 and overthrow of Dr. Mosaddegh. The second group was led by Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, who is now the leading dissident cleric in Iran, and broke and with Ayatollah Khomeini over execution of political prisoners in 1988.

In fact , it was Ayatollah Montazeri - a student of Ayatollah Khomeini - who was the most forceful advocate of the VF. He has said many many times (most recently last week) that the VF that he had in mind would give only a mostly ceremonial role to the Faghih; the power would be in the hands of the president (I mentioned this in my post to you).  

(3) The Constitution was modified in 1989, right before Ayatollah Khomeini's death. It eliminated the PM post, and added much to the power of the Faghih, making it Velaayat-e Motlagh-e Faghih (the absolute rule of the Faghih). That was when almost all the leftist revolutionary forces had been eliminated or exited from power. Ayatollah Montazeri said last week that Velaayat-e Motlagh-e Faghih is nothing but apostasy, an incredibly courageous statement.

(4) Ayatollah Khomeini brought the VF into the government, but he also revived the issue of Primary Teachings vs. Secondary Teachings of Islam. This was not his invention, but he revived it in order to allow reinterpretation of Islamic teachings. As he said once,

if we were to live according to the original interpretations of the Prophet time, we would have to live in caves.

He also said once about the present right-wings in power in Iran,

These people cannot run even a bakery, let alone the country.

The Primary teachings are those that cannot be changed (see above). The Secondary are those that are subject to reinterpretation. Ever since there has been a fierce debate about what is the first group, what is in the second. 


rosie is roxy is roshan

To Persia, re Zionism,

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

yes it is true that in a sense Kouroush could be considered a great Zionist. However that was long ago at a time when Zionism was a legitimate claim for the Jewish people. And it was based on the concrete fact that a large part of the Jewish people had been forcibly ransplanted to Babylonia from their home.

In modern times the basing of a territorial claim on a book that is thousands of years old claiming a RELIGIOUS DESTINY decreed in that book is wrong-headed as it goes against all the precepts of the secular Enlightenment by which we must live as a family of nations in a globalized planet. As such Zionists and the UN were wrong to back such a claim regardless of the horrors inflicted upon my people.

However the interesting thing is that they DID NOT REALLY back such a claim. Zionism as postulated by Herzel at the end of the 19th century and propogated by his successors was a SECULAR movement based on perceived NEED of Jews for a homeland to protect themselves against persecution. And it was Zion herself who reminded me of this in one of her recent posts, contradicting someone who challenged the Biblical claim of Zionism by saying it is not Biblical, it is secular, you know nothing of Zionism, sneer, sneer, etc. etc..

So when she starts championing the Biblical claim to defend Zionism she is talking out of both sides of her mouth.

Further, as is well-known, the ultra-Orthodox sects of Judaism which reject the concept of Zionism do it because the Bible says the return of the people shall come WHEN THE MESHICAH-MESSIAH-COMES. Adding paradox to paradox, it is some of these ultra-Orthodox ant-Zionists themselves who go to the furthest settlements and cause a lot of trouble, while at the same time whining about Zionism and refusing to serve in the Israeli military and so on. I know this from a Jewish activist friend of mine who travels frequently to Palestine and Israel.

Paradox upon paradox, irony upon ironies. A further irony is that many of those Iranians who are the most rabidly against IRI (in the sense that they would do anything, even support full-scale of Iran by the "West" to topple the Islamic Republic) are those who most fervently support a Jewish state. These people badmouth even extreme Reformists because it implies an Islamic state but they advocate a Jewish state no matter what and support it no matter what it does, even when a lot of Israeli Jews decry their government's military actions.

I do not support the IRI but I do not support military invasion either. I do not support military invasion of Iran by the West and I do not support military invasion of Palestine by Israel. I am against all reigious states in principle including IRI and Israel. But I do not say I am anti-IRI, I say I am anti-Khomeinism because I believe the change will have to come from within and that it IS coming (I know I'm gonna get blasted for that one but I'm a pacifist, you won't change my mind). And I do not say I am an anti-Zionist either. I say I am a non-Zionist. It is different.

Yes, Kouroush was a great champion of Zionism at a time when Zionism was a legitimate thing to champion.

After World War II the Jews should either have been relocated to a Palestine shared equally by Jews, Christians and Muslims as a non-religious state...or...if the world and particularly Europe felt so guilty, as they should've in 1947 that they felt they needed to give the Jews a home, they should've given them part of Germany and let the Marshall Plan and the Bundesrepublik figure it out. Sure had enough money to figure it out, that Marshall Plan.

And so now people will squeak and squawk oh how could you say tht move people out of Cologne or Bonn or Essen or Stuttgart (Stuttgart-now Baden-Wuertenberg, THERE'S a place with LOTS of land to spare..), take away their HOMES and properties and jobs???!!!  My point exactly. That's exactly what the UN did when they declared the Jewish state in Palestine, only difference being the people that got kicked out weren't WHITE.

And don't forget for one minute, anyone who thinks for a minute that it's okay to do that to the Arabs because they're not so-called WHITE, that a lot of white people in the US (AND Europe) don't think you're white either just because you're Iranian, even if you have pure Aryan blood going back to the Achaemenids these 2500 years and you look like you just came out of a washing machine full of bleach, borax and brighteners. Anymore than they think I'm white, because I was born a Jew.



rosie is roxy is roshan

Hi, Mammad, thanks for your as usual detailed and

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

conscientious reply. Yes, that is the part of my post I was asking about and I knew you would be the right person to ask. As I suspected, I had been wrong in thinking it was Khomeini himself who developed the whole concept of the Velaayat Faghi. Apparently it is very old in the Shia debates and literature and has existed along a very broad spectrum, from those who believe in an extremely limited locus of the Velaayat to those like Khomeini who believe it is absolute, for almost a thousand years (?), along with those of course who as you mention reject it completely. Reading your reply and a couple of other things I googled, I got the impression the concept of absolute Velaayat had always been a very minority one until Khomeini took over. I also do not believe he came to power based on this concept. The people thought they would have a lot of freedom. So how is it that it became a part of the Constitution?

I also have the impression that Shiism itself historically, due to its focus on debate and interpretation, similar to the Jewish Talmudic Scholars and the Christian Scholasticists or Schoolmen, was a progressive force at one time relative to the governments of the Sultans, and also to Sunnism as it degenerated through the centuries. So that the idea of Velayate Faghig could've at one time seemed a very progressive form of government, yet it never was implemented until modern times when it was so regressive. I find that paradoxical but it is my impression. Am I on the right track?

I am not sure I use Khomeinism and Velayat Faghih interchangeably. Should I be dong that?It seems like I shouldn't. Anyway, I associate Khomeinism with brutal purges and so forth; I know he implemented VF but that form of government in and of itself would not necessarily have had to imply the brutality. Is there actually something CALLED Khomeinism that refers to his specific form of governance or is it just a term used loosely by people like me? And does it have an equivalent in Persian?

I also wonder if Dr. Mohsen Kadivar is related to our DK.

Thanks a lot and take care,



Re Rosie's comments

by persia (not verified) on

Re Rosie's comments

Being a Zionist means supporting Israel’s right to self-defense as a sovereign nation. By Definition, the very first Zionist was Cyrus the King.

I was amused to wander through the story of Cyrus the Great, the emperor of Persia, who freed the Jews from the Babylonian captivity and allowed, and encouraged, them to return to Jerusalem. He was the world's first, and most effective, Zionist . Cyrus was the ruler of the greatest empire the world had ever seen, from the Bosphorus to the Red Sea, from the Mediterranean to the Indus. He was a brilliant general and a superb civil administrator. His governing philosophy was to rule with popular support.

Jewish life flourished under his rule and that of his successors. His grandson, Xerxes. He's known in the Jewish tradition as the benevolent husband of Esther.


to mammad

by persia (not verified) on


"Israel first became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam ! Seven hundred and twenty-six years later in 586 B.C.E. these first ancient Jews in the Land of Israel [Judea] were overrun and Israel's First Jewish Temple (on Jerusalem's Old City Temple Mount) was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, king of ancient Babylon. Many of the Jews were killed or expelled; however many were allowed to remain. These Jews along with their progeny and other Jews who would resettle over the next 500 years, rebuilt the Nation of Israel and also a Second Temple in Jerusalem upon the Temple Mount. Thus the claim that Jews suddenly appeared fifty years ago right after the Holocaust and drove out the Arabs is preposterous."

"BTW,What is the Arab fascination with Hitler and Nazism? Maybe it's more deeply rooted that we had realized. On November 25, 1941 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, went to visit Hitler in Germany. This in and of itself was not so unusual for, during much of World War II, leading Muslims including Haji Amin al-Husseini (Arafat's uncle!) collaborated with the Nazis. The Arab leader was assured by Hitler that once he [Hitler] ridded Europe of its Jews, he would do the same throughout Palestine. Although Heir Hitler is no longer with us, the Arab world is still bent on finishing his work! The Mufti commented, ""Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world."
Further, today's Arab propagandist uses a technique called "Turnspeak," whereby the aggressor becomes the "victim" and the true victim becomes the "aggressor!" The term was first used by journalists to describe German Nazi propaganda after it invaded Czechoslovakia in March of 1939. Because the truth is the exact opposite of the information being disseminated, it is psychologically difficult to counter and leads to confusion. And THIS is their ultimate goal! A classic example of "Turnspeak" is the Arab claim that Jews are like the Nazis and they (the poor, poor Arabs) are the victims of a "Holocaust!" By doing so, the Arabs try covering up THEIR OWN close connection with the Nazis while turning the Truth on its head! It is often said the the Arabs have "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity," which means that whenever they were given an opportunity to improve their situation, they always managed to screw up. And what steps do responsible people take to remedy their stupid choices? Just what we'd expect from them... BLAME SOMEONE."



by persia (not verified) on

I couldn't have said that better myself regarding the bahais.

See videos:



No Palestinians?

by Mammad on

Now, we get in this site people who deny that Palestinians even exist. They are just Arabs! This falsehood is as old as Israel itself or older! Golda Meir, the former PM of Israel, said the same decades ago. Ariel Sharon said the same many times. Now, "Persia" says the same. What a guy supposedly said 30 years ago in an obscure place is the evidence that there are no Palestinians!! Talking about brainwashing people!!

With this type of proclamations, which is actually rampant in Israel itself  - just see who are the supporters of the right-wing party of Lieberman, the guy in charge of planning for an attack on Iran, and what other far right parties in Israel say, or what the Russian immigrants say, or what the settlers, the people who could not make it in Brooklyn, New York, but are now having a comfortable life on stolen Palestinian lands in the West Bank,  say - and with radicals on the Palestinian side as well, is it any surprise that this has become an endless conflict?



Does human dignity principle only apply to Muslims?

by Babak SD (not verified) on

Dear Anonymous33,
Although your response was not to me, I feel compelled to raise a question for you and other like minded readers of this web site; you mention that "I can never forget how it feels like when your whole world and family life is destroyed by political events that are not in your hands" and "It is like someone taking over your house and telling you which areas you are allowed to walk into after you get their permission. I do not think those who took the house are defending themselves.

In the past 160 years since the inception of the Baha'i' faith, Baha'i's have been killed, imprisoned and their homes either taken from them or burned. Even when Baha'i's die, they are not left alone. Their memorial parks are desecrated, tombs are dug and coffins are taken out and discarded. All this is recorded in history, not by Baha'i's but by Iranian Muslims in news papers and non Iranians. From the 20,000 men, women and children killed in Yazd and Neyriz to 400 Baha'i's killed at the outset of revolution. We cannot also forget that for the past 15 years, qualified Baha'i' students are forbidden to attend any institution of higher learning, public or private.

During this time, never once the Muslim population of Iran as a whole raised its voice about the injustices to this group. And these Baha'i's were born in Iran; all full blooeded Iranians.

Please don't get me wrong. There are Millions upon millions of decent Muslims living in Iran. For every Muslim that harbors hatred for Baha'i's and engages in their persecution and oppression there are 100 good and decent ones.

But its just somewhat amazing to see such an outpouring of sympathy and support for Palestinians (which is not to say that is wrong) and not a peep about Baha'i's. Mostly when someone says something, Baha'i's are marginalized by classifying them as agents of Russian, Britain, U.S. and Israel working to overthrow the Iranian government. How a group of less than 250,000 people whom have not participated in any violent action in Iran for the past 160 years and without absolutely any rights can achieve such a goal is another subject on its own.

With hope of a day when all human beings can live in unity and harmony.

Warmest regards to you.


to respond to human dignity

by persia (not verified) on

I am in disagreement with your comments.

"Quote" from a website to answer your concerns:

There was no "Arab Palestinian" history before the Arabs manufactured one shortly after 1948, and then especially after the June 1967 Arab-Israeli War! In an interview with the Dutch newspaper "Trau" (March 31, 1977), PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said, "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. It is also been a "conceptual" war for ownership of the term "Palestinian" which has been transferred over to the Arabs whereas, before 1967, "Palestine" has always been synonymous with Eretz Israel and the Land of Israel.

Archeological sites to this very day continue to yield artifacts with Hebrew writing, not some fictitious "Palestinian" or Arabic text! The so-called "Palestinian" Arabs were simply then, as they are now, Arabs no different culturally, historically or ethnically from other Arabs living in any of the 24 Arab countries from which they emigrated. The suggestion that the "Palestinians" are some sub-group of Arabs with their own unique identity is pure fiction! Great propaganda... but still pure fiction! And had not the Arabs continued to brainwash generation upon generation into believing this HISTORICAL HOGWASH.......


Human dignity

by Anonymous33 (not verified) on

Dear Faramarz,
Living in Iran during the revolution, I can never forget how it feels like when your whole world and family life is destroyed by political events that are not in your hands. I think as human beings we should have reached a level of maturity to care about other human beings and how their lives are devastated in a political turmoil. It is a shame not to see the inhumanity of the situation because one does not like Arabs or Jews.
Being against Israeli policies is not at all the same as being against Jews. Please read about the history of the region and how the Palestinian land was given to Jews by the British. It is like someone taking over your house and telling you which areas you are allowed to walk into after you get their permission. I do not think those who took the house are defending themselves.
It is the essence of our humanity to care when others are treated unfairly, even if they don't look like us, don't believe in the same religion /way of life as us, and do not come from the same ethnic group as us. This is what I call secularism and inclusion.

Bijan A M

Mehdi, why don’t you turn off that tape recoder

by Bijan A M on

I am tired of listening to the same apartheid garbage over and over again. What is wrong with accepting reality of Israel’s existence and committing to a peace (even if it means defeat) and start building a new nation envy of the world.

What is it with you and all those with your mentality? Why can’t you see reality? How many more lives does it take for you to come in touch with the real world? Forget about “never again” chant as I or any other Jew never have to justify anything any more. Not to you or any other soul. Then, would you please use those handful brain cells and think (if possible) before spewing the hate filled slogans….

 Open your ears and listen: All I am saying is you will never get to peace if your goal is to destroy Israel (or conspire to destroy).  Hamas is not the solution. One state is not the solution. The only solution is a compromise on two states. You have to let the Israel BE.