|
November 7, 2001 * Son of fire is ash I read with interest the Wall Street Journal article titled "Iran's U.S.-Admiring Citizens Challenge Intentions of Hard-Line Islamic Leaders" written by Hugh Pope and Peter Waldman. The article seemed like a carefully orchestrated public relations piece aimed at thrusting Mr. Pahlavi to the foreground after a life of post-1979 obscurity. There are many misleading interpretations of facts in this report from Mr. Pope and Mr. Waldman. First, Mr. Pahlavi and his family escaped from Iran in 1979 to safeguard the billions of dollars their family absconded from the Iranian treasury. During the times of most desperate need Mr. Pahlavi's voice remained silent. Now, when Iran is most poised for normalcy in domestic and international affairs and moving at President Khatami's prodding toward ever more liberalism and democracy Mr. Pahlavi has suddenly and miraculously awoken from his silent sleep. It is as if, Mr. Khatami's charm, success and popularity given rise to a fear by Mr. Pahlavi that he will become eternally obscure in the annals of Iranian history. His new sense of urgency and public speaking does not come from a passionate belief in Iran per say, but the sudden and personally damning realization that he has waited too long; his ship has left the shore. His indecision in the past, in the midst of so much luxury and comfort in Great Falls, condemns him to be our Iranian Hamlet; haunted by the ghost of his failed father. As a famous Persian saying goes, "the son of fire is ash." The irony is that his long silent voice can now do more damage than good in its newly found urgent tone fueled by personal desperation. One of the most misleading and disturbing parts of Mr. Pope and Mr. Waldman's article is the complete absence of President Khatami's relevance and importance in the Iranian equation; his belovedness in the streets of Iran and amongst the youth; and his deliberately paced movement towards ever more freedoms for Iranians and the media. In a terse 75-word paragraph the writers offer the only analysis of Mr. Khatami and remarkably offer a negative interpretation Mr Khatami's very positive terms as the elected President of Iran. Mr. Khatami has done more to provide legitimacy to Iranian state in International affairs than any other Iranian leader in the last 90 years. They also do disservice to their own fellow journalists by failing to mention any of the freedoms President Khatami has fought for in the press; long regarded as one of the keys to any long lasting democracy >>> FULL TEXT Mr. Pishevar is an Iranian American businessman, entrepreneur, investor. He has been featured in Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, New York Times, CNN, CNBC. * Right wingers joining hands Here are my thoughts about the political significance and meaning of recent articles in the Wall Street Journal regarding "demonstrations" in Iran after recent soccer matches, and the very conspicuous way that Wall Street Journal is trying to magnify the role of Reza Pahlavi, son of the former Shah of Iran. ["Iran's U.S.-Admiring Citizens Challenge Intentions of Hard-Line Islamic Leaders"] It is well known that Wall Street Journal is a right wing institution. It is also no secret that the "Christian" as well as political/military right wing in the U.S., in line with Israel, all want to turn the present conflict against "terrorism" into a religious or civilizational war, for obvious reasons. By their attempts at political "king-making," through their wildly exaggerated enlargement of the role of Reza Pahlavi, the political and religious right wingers in the U.S. and Israel want to force the right wing in Iran to react harshly, weaken the reform movement -- they do not like democracy taking root in Iran -- and provide a pretext for bombing Iran, most specifically the nuclear power plant in Bushehr. The fact that Reza Pahlavi and the likes of Rob Sobhani are players in this sinister game, reminds me of what happened to Dr. Mossadegh in 1953, where right wingers of all stripes, with common interests, joined hands to derail the development of a politically moderate democratic ethos from actualizing in Iran. Shame on all war mongers, extremists, and opportunists. I hope that the young population of Iran can read through this anti-Iran plan and not allow the spirit of the 2nd of Khordad reform movement to be crushed. The votes and hopes of 22 million people should be cherished by all who care about peace on our planet. * 15 minutes of pure rubbish A couple of days ago I read through Mohammad Sahimi's "Dream on" article. At first, I thought it was some sort of a comic piece written by Hadi Khorsandi or under an assumed name or something. Reading further into the article (and it was getting more and more vicious and nonsensical by the paragraph), I thought it must be the work of a Hezbi or a Mojahedeen Khalgh member too shy to come right out of his closet (it had that sort of a tone to it). So, I checked the name on the usual crackpot newsgroups and finally on the net as a whole. It turned out that this guy is actually a professor of chemical engineering at a California university. And I admit this was (at least initially) a bit of a shock to me. You see. Many moons ago when I got my PhD (yes... guilty) and got my first real (non-academic) job in the petrochemical industry, someone gave me a piece of advice which luckily I never forgot. It went like this: No one likes PhD graduates over here anyway but remember this much, having a PhD will buy you the first 15 minutes in most meetings. If you spend those 15 minutes saying nothing at all, they'll probably think this is a trick and you are just waiting to pounce on them later on. Alternatively, spend the first 15 minutes talking pure irrelevant rubbish and they'll probably think you haven't bothered to read the meeting notes and you will catch on later on! After those 15 minutes you better get your act together because nothing will save your a** if you say nothing, if you give them small talk or talk rubbish! Well, this was professor Sahimi's 15 minutes of talking pure rubbish. Talking about a subject he evidently knows very little about and confusing his clearly islamic, or pro-hezbollahi views with those of the great majority of Iranian people who have had absolutely enough of being named and shamed for the actions of a few fanatics and head bangers. Let me explain, as the enlightened professor said! He talks about monarchists as "the few thousand" who reside in the U.S. and Europe, I wonder where he gets his numbers from? I mean, are there any published statistics on this, any polls to support it? Or is it just him making a wish here! He talks about "One pillar of the monarchists' thinking being that they conveniently forget history whenever it suites their interests; a cardinal sin for any serious person"... well here are a few facts and a bit of information for our good professor: He says "It is universally recognized that hijacking of airliners began after Black September." Well! I don't know which "universe" he is referring to but in fact world's longest hijacking incident actually took place in November 1968, when passengers from an El Al plane were held for 40 days after Palestinian militants forced a flight from Rome to divert to Algiers (George Habbash's associate Dr Wadi, Haddad, known to Palestinians as The Master,). That was two years before King Hussein was forced to expel the Palestinians (I won't bother to go into the detailed history of it all and why he ended up doing it suffice to say that between mid 1968 and the end of 1969 there were no fewer than five hundred violent clashes between members of the various Palestinian guerrilla groups and the Jordanian army and security forces. Serious incidents included the kidnapping of Arab diplomats and unfriendly Jordanian journalists, unprovoked attacks on government offices, rape and the humiliation of army and security officers. The Palestinians, who were legally entitled to set up road blocks, molested women, levied illegal taxes and insulted the Jordanian flag in the presence of loyal Jordanians.) Anyway. It wasn't the Pahlavis! On his second point, according to Hans-Jürgen Bäcker, who was a very prominent and active member the Baader-Meinhof gang, the gang had been under the direct target scheduling and intelligence command of Joachim Wenzel (a high Ranking East German Stasi Case Officer) from soon after their inception. Again, according to Bäcker, the group's Bank robberies, arson attacks and hijackings had been used to simply open a negative propaganda front against NATO and specifically West Germany. Nowhere in his account or those of Joachim Wenzel (who was recently in a Scottish court about Pan Am 103) did they mention anything about Iran or Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as having anything to do with the Baader-Meinhof gang and their objectives. Well, so much for that one then! Then he talks about Pahlavi's "criminal terrorism". Hey guy! This one certainly did not start with Pahlavi's, but it did get a hell of a lot worse once they left power. Just looking at the last couple of hundred years, everything from the regular political hangings during the Qajar era which were popular public entertainment to Nasserodinshah's assassination (glorified by Molla Khomeini's regime as a major achievement of one of their early pioneers in political terrorism) to Mohamad-ali-shah's attempted demolition job on the parliament and later on the Assassinations of Mansour and Razmarah..) Going back 1,300 years, Imam Ali was no angel himself (didn't he behead a few hundred people in a single day or is it just the molla's bragging?) then going on to what happened after our "popular revolutionwell let's just leave this one! Just have a look at www.didgah.co.uk for a good guide on figure and leg amputations, rape, mock executions... OOO YES and real ones as well! So as far as Pahlavis having a monopoly on terror and "criminal terrorism" is concerned.they miserably fail the test both chronologically and numerically. The rest of the article is just as inaccurate, subjective and malicious as the parts I have bothered to write about and frankly shortage of time doesn't allow me to go into them (I wish I had an academic job). However, here is my three Rupees of advice for our mixed up "professor"; Going to Tehran twice a year on free government supplied tickets and staying in half empty five star hotels is not reason enough to make a pact with the devil and then having to write trash like this to endear yourself (nearly all of us were offered the same "opportunities" at Atomic Energy Commission and teaching associated posts at various islamic universities and were principled enough to turn it downprecisely because by doing so we would have had to compromise and end up in your current situation of having to appease to "keep the invitations going). By the way, I wouldn't try to deny this one because there are at least 500+ of us out there who were offered it! Writing a few research papers and teaching a few naïve undergrads doesn't give you any sort of a political Omni-vision. Given your knowledge of political matters, what you are doing is just as tasteful as the mullah's running our country, IRAN. Do a better job of writing your research proposals and papers because if they are half as good as this one.you will lose your little academic job and then will end up having a taste of your own medicine in Mullah's Islamic Republic of Iran. * History as fiction In response to Mr. Mohammad Sahimi's "Dream on": Life's greatest fortunes are wise friends and dim-witted adversaries. The clerical regime has profited from the latter and the ancien regime failed to take advantage of the former. Many of my compatriots have taken Norman Mailer's definition of history as fiction to heart and have decided to make their own. To support our arguments, we must not be so anxious as to fabricate history or extend facts with our imagination, speculations, or expectations. History of terrorism did not begin with the late Shah of Iran. One can say state terrorism has existed since the dawn of civilization and forming of nations and empires. In every war, each conquering power and empire has unleashed terror as a tool of warfare. The Mongols, who lacked contemporary warfare technology, when attacking poorly armed and defended Neishabour, not only murdered the entire civilian population, including the old and the very young, but also killed all domestic animals including all the cats and dogs in that town. The news of that act of sheer cruelty terrorized the population and defenders of larger cities such as Esfahan and Shiraz to the degree that they capitulated without putting up much serious resistance. In attacking India in the name of Islam, but rather for its wealth of jewels and precious metals, Nader Shah employed terrorism. But these are examples of state terrorism. The earliest documented and most successful terrorist organization was the "hashishin", and thus the English word of "assassin", led by Hasan Sabbaah. Yes, we all admit to the ever-increasing extent of terror Shah's security agency, SAVAK, spread among the Iranians in 1960s and 1970s. Yes, the Shah's armed forces terrorized people of Oman and small Island nations in Persian Gulf during 1970s, at the behest of United States and as its regional proxy, in order to insure the continuous flow of oil through the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman and to suppress any popular uprising against any of the regional despotic tribal amirs and sultans. But we are in error, if in our zealousness, we were to attribute the September 1970 massacre of Palestinians in Jordan, or the formation of Baader-Meinhof terrorist group, to the former regime of Iran. Yes, the late Shah of Iran was a strong ally of King Hussein of Jordan as well as Israel. But does that implicate him in the domestic and foreign policies of those countries? Mr. Sahimi claims that the protests staged by Confederation of Iranian Students during 1967 visit of the late Shah to West Berlin was the "prime reason for the rise of the Maoist Baader-Meinhof group in Germany" according to "many German political scientists." Would he care to name a few German political scientists who concur with him on that opinion? It reminds me of arguments postulated by many Iranians that the United States brought the Islamic Republic regime to power in Iran and removed the late Shah from power; or that the Shah was responsible for bringing the mullah's to power since he failed to crack down on them as hard as he had on the nationalists and Iranian leftist groups, organizations and personalities. Interestingly enough, no Iranian was making these latter arguments in 1978, 1979 or 1980 when everyone felt they owned the revolution, and surely no one was then willing to disown it. One of cultural characteristics of us Iranians is that we refuse to take responsibility for our own actions and refuse to take charge of our own life and future. If the nationalist government of Premier Mossadegh was overthrown in a CIA-orchestrated coup with the assistance of Rashidian brothers, we also are responsible for that as far as our failure as a nation to rally behind our democratically-elected government and defend it against the coup. Afterall, the number of people and resources involved in the coup was infinitesimal to the size of Iran's adult population and their resources at the time. If we replaced an autocratic tyrannical rule with a theocratic despotic system, in our 1979 revolution and its aftermath, WE ARE responsible for that as well. We are never going to achieve anything as long as we deceive ourselves and let others deceive us. We need to be brutally honest and sincere with ourselves. No domestic dictatorial rule or foreign intervention can stand up to a nation that is willing to take responsibility for her life and take charge of her future. Nothing strikes stronger fear in the heart of a dictator or an imperial power than a nation, a national group or even an individual who is willing to stand up and assume responsibility for her own life and destiny. This is the lesson I learned in 1975, when the lives of some of my closest comrades and best friends was severely violated for the simple act of distributing in Esfahan bazaars a beautifullyprepared glossy poster that had a verse from Quran reading "Enal-lahe laa yogheiro ma be-ghaoumen hatta yogheiro ma be anfosahem": Verily God does not change (the state of) a nation until they change it by themselves (by their own beings).[Sourato-Raed, verse 11 or 13:11] * Had enough of both There are some Iranians who think there are only two kinds of government available to Iranians. One the dictatorship of the molla and the other the dictatorship of a (gholdor) shah. When you get tired of gholdor choose the mollas. When you get tired of molla go back to the gholdor (shah). Luckily these Iranians are few in number. The majority of Iranians have enough bad experiences with both of these systems and they never want to deal with any of them again. In this day and age it is insane to think of the return of monarchy to Iran or any place else. If Iranians are dying to have a shah, I will be glad to be their shah. Look at my qualification and Reza 's qualifications: 1- My father was a doctor serving people and saving lives. His father was a thief and a killer and a coward. 2- I graduated from universities in Iran and the US. He e did not even finish Niavaron elementary school. 3- My family lived with honesty and integrity. His family's lack of decency and integrity is well known. 4- I worked hard for my living. He never worked in all his life. 5- I know how hard the people work to succeed. When he was born, success was in his diaper. 6- There have seldom been divorces in my family, like all other normal Iranian families. In his family, changing husbands or wives was as simple as changing their pants. There was never anything stable or normal in his family. 7- I am an Iranian like millions of others. He has no idea how normal people live, work, raise their family, daily association with others and so on. He grew up with silver spoon in his mouth and golden saw dust in his head. That is enough for qualifications. God forbid if one day we are forced to have a shah, like the time the British made his grandfather a shah ,or when the Americans made his father the shah. Reza Pahlavi is the least qualified to be chosen. If they have to have a shah, anybody -- and I mean anybody -- is better qualified than Reza Pahlavi. The son of the most corrupt, egoistical, and cowardly person in the history of the Iranian monarchy. He better be satisfied with the millions his father stole from Iran and do not insult the intelligent of Iranians by starting this shah business all over again. * Do you not want something BETTER? To all anti-Pahlavi/Monarchy fraternity, All I see, is the state that Iran is in at the present time. There are those who WANT CHANGE and those who do not. Those who do not want a change in Iran, and who blame the Late Shah of Iran for all the misfortunes they are experiencing... ask yourselves this: Is it fair to take out your frustrations on Reza Pahlavi? Is it SO wonderful now in Iran? Do you LOVE HOW Iran is being run? Do You LOVE that the most beautiful women in the world have to hide themselves and be regarded as second class citizens? Do you LOVE being isolated from the modernization and freedom of the rest of the world? Do you LOVE being regarded as just another ARAB country in the eyes of the free world? Do you THINK you do not DESERVE better? Do you not want something BETTER? WHO ELSE IS OFFERING THAT TO YOU? I don't see anyone else standing on line... DO YOU? The only person I see standing out is Reza Pahlavi. I call that INCREDIBLE. I also remember hearing from many Iraninans living in IRAN... some of the same people who cheered and welcomed Ayatolla Khomeini say, "heyf.....I miss those days when the Shah was in power." IF Reza Pahlavi ruled Iran... THINGS WOULD BE BETTER, IT COULDN"T GET WORSE. IT'S ALREADY AT THE BOTTOM. * Iranians must change their culture It was great for once to read an opposing view of the monarchy ["President Pahlavi"] without the usual innuendos, misrepresentations, and distortions. It was nice to see an article with due care and attention to facts ("Dream on" was despatched straight into the recycle bin). The future of Iran is in the hands of the young people in Iran, the same as it was in the 1979 revolution, and Iranians outside can merely hope that they do not repeat the same mistakes of the past. Iranians outside are carrying too much baggage and they have wasted the opportunity afforded to them by living in freedom. As another correspondent has pointed out they have not even been able to organize themselves in their own interests. The establishment of democracy and constitutional monarchy in the countries such as England, Spain, Japan etc. was not as smooth as either monarchists or the writer of "President Pahlavi" suppose. There were numerous backlashes against democracy in these countries as well. The changes and the process were by no means smooth, some kings actively tried to reverse the changes and some more surreptitiously. We also need to get away from the cult of personalities. I find it interesting that even those who are making the case for democracy are guilty of it. Dr. Mossadegh was not the only democratic leader who opposed Reza Khan becoming king, the majority of the leaders of the constitutional movement who had fought for democracy in Iran withdrew from public life and did not take an active role until he had left and withdrew again after 1953. What needs to be done? All Iranians must be willing to change their culture. Saying Iranians are not mature enough, is a sham excuse. Nonetheless we have to accept that there is a flaw in our national character. This demon must be faced and exorcised. We need to change our political culture. The realisation that we don,t need Mr Pahlavi to act as a guardian for us must be the first step towards that change (no vali's of any king please, either faghih or made in USA). Some 2,400 years ago 10,000 Greek mercenaries in the employ of Cyrus who had risen against his brother Artaxerxes (Ardeshir the 2nd) found themselves in the heart of the Persian Empire a thousand miles from Greece with Cyrus killed in battle, half their leaders arrested by the Iranians and an Iranian army just waiting for the wrong move. The crisis was not resolved either by authority, seniority or force (Mr Mirfendereski, please note). They assembled and debated. Arguments and art of words prevailed. Their army was a polity on the move. They only gave their allegiance to the man whose reason, not his blood, proved his fitness to lead. As difficulties arose they resolved each one by assembly and debate. The story of the march was immortalised by Xenophen in The Persian Expedition. Finally we must somehow bring about national reconciliation, because the current divisions make progress impossible. * Think republic It is interesting how this article ["Dream on"] has hit so many raw nerves. I do not see under what circumstances monarchists can convince an intellectually superior Iranian population of their narcissistic and lopsided agenda. Mr. Reza Pahlavi's interview with CNBC last month, was very revealing in which he failed to positively identify Farsi-speaking countries! Mr. Pahlavi insisted that people should not view the legacy of his father and grandfather as a sign of his future governance. This is analogous to applying for a job and asking the prospective employer not to read the resume and trust the candidate to deliver what he/she promises. The Pahlavi dynasty came to power with the help of the British empire, reinstalled after the 1953 coo and permanently removed when it became a liability to America's long-term interests in the region. How could a system that was- at best- a failed attempt at dictatorship, claim any moral democratic basis? This is a far fetched dream that will die a slow death and no sugar daddy like uncle Sam will be willing to sponsor it this time. Wake up to the realities of 21st century. Think republic and think democracy. * Commentator on the sidelines It seems as if "His royal lowness" has stirred quite some passions, and quite honestly I haven,' read through all the rambling replies. I have two quick points. 1) Regarding Harvard University: A lot of people have taken jabs at Naghmeh Sohrabi's education ["I had a dream"]. One thing is for sure, Naghmeh Sohrabi worked hard to get to Harvard and was undoubtedly one of the top students in her class, not one of the few who rely of their family name to get into that prestigious institution. That is nothing to be ashamed of and nothing any one can take away from her. 2) Speaking of names, and the importance thereof, on to Mr. Pahlavi (we can skip the low, and the high, not Dr., mohandess, Sgt., etc. -- and call him what he is in this day and age, Mr., right?). The recent actions of the younger Mr. Bush on that fateful September day somehow reminded me of Mr. Pahlavi. If you recall, he received some criticism, rightly so, for not being in NYC or even the Pentagon immediately after the attacks. Instead, he let himself be whisked away by Air Force One to Louisiana and South Dakota.Somehow, I picture a leader such as Churchill, or even Mr. Pahlavi's grandfather, being at ground zero on the very first day. Mr. Pahlavi has done nothing of note in the past twenty years, but I am sure he held some important meetings, just like Mr. Bush in his bunker, but both have failed to show any leadership and may safely be deemed beebokhar. In short, Mr. Pahlavi's actions seem to be a dollar short and a day late. Let him do his radio interviews, let him be on CNN, let him do what he does best: being a commentator on the sidelines while the action on the field of play occurs elsewhere. * Drop in intellectual faculties Dear Mr. Sheibani, ["First Iranian Harvard graduate?"] There is no shortage of Iranian Harvard graduates, past and present ["His royal lowness"]. There is however an acute drop in the quality of their intellectual faculties as is demonstrated by the arguments presented in the article (His Royal Loweness) by a recent entrant in their midst. Gone are the days that there were graduates of the calibre of Farmanfarmaians, Amouzegars, Pesarans, Majidis and the last but not the least, Abol-Reza Pahlavis. There were scholars of the eminence of Prof. Nasr (who incidentally graduated from MIT too). There are many scholars that schools such as Harvard take pride in having them invited as visitng Professors, as is the Islamic philosopher and Rumi scholar, Abdolkarim Soroush. Unlike our recent entrant, these people didn't need to flaunt their academic attributes into the face of their audience before even opening their arguments, to gain credit. There are people who give credit to the institute from which they emerge, and there are those who, even before emerging, cause discredit to its name. Personally, I believe Harvard deserves better. Regards, * Ill-conceived and useless Dear Senator Feinstein, ["Deeply concerned"] I have never before written to my congressperson before, but I feel so strongly about the bill you are sponsoring with Senator Kyl concerning visas that I had to write. I am outraged that you and the other senators sponsoring this bill would prohibit students from Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Syria, North Korea and Cuba from studying in the United States. Not one of the hijackers of September 11 was from any of these countries. On the contrary, they were from countries closely allied with the U.S. Why are you not seeking to exclude Saudi or Egyptian students from paying tuition and attending school here in the U.S.? I don't advocate discriminating against any foreign national, but it seems to me there is more risk from Gulf Arabs than Iranians or Cubans! I have a personal view of this - my fiance is a native of Iran who came here at the age of 12. We have many friends who came to Stanford and UC-Berkeley from Iran for graduate school. I cannot confirm this, but I believe that there has never been a case of terrorism in the United States perpetrated by an Iranian citizen. In addition, there are perhaps 1 million Californians of Iranian origin (and 2-3 million nationwide) who are law-abiding citizens, who perhaps voted for you. Iranians are everywhere - the UC Berkeley structural engineering professor, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, who helped deduce how the WTC towers fell, comes to mind, as does my fiance, Dr. Ali Niknejad, who will be starting in January as a professor at UC Berkeley in the electrical engineering department. I hate to stereotype, but Iranians are high achievers, and to take them out of U.S. graduate schools and employment pools would be to shortchange American research institutions and American industry. I know my generation (Generation X, we used to be called) and I know that native-born Americans are not the ones making the sacrifices and innovations that will keep America great. It's immigration that invigorates our country. I voted for you in the last election, Senator Feinstein, but don't think I'll make that mistake again. This is an ill-conceived and useless bill that is probably meant to show the American people that you're doing something (anything!) about terrorism. Well, this just isn't going to cut it. Sincerely, * Devil in the details Farhang Asfarpour's overall theme in "How to win the war" is one I agree with: "U.S. needs to be a fairer superpower in the Middle East. But as they say, the devil is in the details and on some specifics, I must take issue with Asfarpour's article. For one, Asfarpour's criticism of American's unfair policies centers on American support for Israel. For example, Asfarpour claims that since 1967 "the U.S. vetoed every UN resolution that might have resulted in Israel pulling back to its international borders... from the Arab territory it now occupied as a result of winning the so called Six Day war." If the U.S. had vetoed every such resolution how exactly was 242 and latter 338 passed? Both resolutions say two important things: first, that Israel should leave the territories it occupied in the war and second, that the Arab countries in turn end their state of belligerency with Israel and accept their right to secure borders. Although rejected at first by the PLO because itdidn't specifically refer to a Palestinian state (the West Bank you may recall was being occupied by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt) eventually the PLO did accept these resolutions. And in fact, although the USA came to reject substantial UN or international involvement in a Middle East peace settlement, 242 and 338 have essentially been the basis of an American based settlement: land for peace. Indeed, the so called Rogers plan (named for Henry Kissinger's predecessor as Secretary of State) and latter the Reagan plan in the 1980s in essence proposed a return to the status quo ante belleum 1967: Jordian control of the West Bank. Neither of course propose a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza but then neither did Jordan which still insisted on sovereignty over the West Bank. The point is that the USA did favor a return to the pre 1967 situation; this was inadequate because it did nothing to satisfy Palestinian national aspirations but it didn't mean that the USA foresaw permanent occupation of the territories by Israel, although clearly the U.S. would have preferred Jordan to resume control of the West Bank. In short, the US did propose an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied lands and reverting to their prior status. On the other hand, it is true that the Americans did not recognize Palestinian national aspirations (as apart from being under the sovereignty of Jordan or Egypt or Syria) and was very slow to accept Palestinian nationalism. Latter when the USA did accept that Palestinians had a separate national identity it attached American recognition of them to one overriding condition: acceptance of Israel's right to exist. While that might seem extreme and it did led to some silly embarrassments for the Americans (like avoiding any contacts with the PLO no matter how innocent) none the less the USA could not simply ignore the fact that the PLO national charter specifically rejected the legitimate existence of Israel under any circumstances. Talk about ignoring the so called Camp David peace accords between Israel and Egypt in fact are representative of this trend in American diplomacy at the time. In exchange for a peace agreement and thus an end to belligerency, Egypt got back the Sinai precisely what it lost in the 1967 war minus the Gaza which Egypt never claimed as sovereign territory. A return to the status quo ante belleum. Unfortunately and tragically Egypt paid a heavy price to come back to square one. (By the way, the USA in 1956 in essence took Egypt's side in the Suez war rather than that of Israel and America's closet ally England.) Further, although Asfarpour correctly notes the misdeeds of Israel in unjustly prolonging its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and Golan with settlements (as opposed to the settlements it withdrew from the Sinai) the article conformably ignores some other occupations in the region. Syria is occupying large portions of Lebanon far longer than Israel did and with many of the same unfortunate consequences for the inhabitants of that county. It was Asad's army you may recall that chased Arafat out of northern Lebanon. And of course, there is the persecution of the Kurdish peoples by four states that are predominately Islamic. One "Turkey" is an American ally but the other three (we all know who they are) can hardly be called friends of the USA. Although the Islamic world acts as if the Palestinians are the only people in the region without a state, this is a claim that would come as a great surprise to the Kurds. Apparently some stateless people deserve a state and others don't. Those are the advantages of inconsistency and double standards. There are plenty of good grounds to criticize American foreign policy some of which are mentioned by Asfarpour but indulging in double standards and weak interpretations of the evidence won't help. Only an honest appraisal by all parties will result in serious change in the region. Blaming Israel (or the Americans for that matter) for every signal problem facing the Arab and Islamic world (not an uncommon accusation in the region, I might add) is not a productive route. Sincerely, * Carefully orchestrated shabang There are certain economic imperatives which dictate certain political agendas. All this shabang was carefully orchestrated to get access to the Caspian Sea and its huge oil and gas reserves. Imagine what happens to US industry if people cannot drive their beloved cars and travel on their beloved planes or cannot heat their beloved homes if they run out of oil and gas. America's thirst for oil and gas is insatiable. To keep it flowing and to keep the bubble from bursting (or the system from collapsing) and to keep people busy working in the car industry, aeronautical industry and defense industry such unfortunate events have to be fabricated. Then after all work gives meaning to people's lives. Many people in North America cite hard work as a means of advancement and success. You know civil liberties and the rest do not go all the way. So the problem is exactly this hollow, materialistic, sensationalist, utilitarian culture of yours. So remember again that the economic stability and political certainty in North America and Western Europe is at least partially because of their entitlement to oil and gas in the Middle East region. In other words the problem is the widely advertised American Dream and people's entitlement to a piece of the pie which in today's world comes at an expense namely at the expense of others elsewhere in the world. Unfortunately the truth is as the English saying goes: "Power comes out of the barrel of the gun" and "Might is right". * Iranians will never get ahead I am ashamed of reading such an article ["Passive aggressive volcano"].This is the reason why the Iranians will never get ahead, and as I heard it from another low life Iranian who said he consider himself and his people as second hand citizens in United States. WHAT A TRAGEDY! I believe Mr. Baniameri should go back to his birth town and learn who his parents are and where they came from. Thank you, * Come over Saturday night Dear Sadaf, I have emailed you many times and you know I love all your writings in iranian magazine. As I was reading "Gharibeh", it reminded me of the time when I just moved to USA, I was very homesick.... so, What I want to do, is to invite you to our home for this Saturday night! Some of my friends and family are gathering in my home this saturday for my Persian cooking! (khoda be daad berese!!) I don't know where you live, I hope you are close to us. We live in Oakland, Northern California. So, If you are close, and would like to comy by and taste my cooking, we would love to have you here. Email me and let me know ( ke be ghole maman-am Abe khoresht ro ezafeh konam!) Ghorbanat, Farzaneh * Still complaining Dear Ms. Sadaf Kiani, At the same time that your beautiful, rich words and statements are highly refreshing and undoubtedly admirable as great work, I hope we Iranians increase the level of positive thinking and action in our daily life. I may be totally wrong in understanding you and many others who write sad pieces on ghorbat and loneliness and alike but if after 20 years we are still complaining why we are not in Iran and don't have the lives we used to have etc. I think the point would be that we forget "The Law of Nature". What I mean is that whatever positive and constructive and whatever negative and detrimental that occurred and takes place in Iran and by Iranians outside Iran, we all (each and every one of us) has a role in it (small or large, direct or indirect). We criticized our system before 1979 and we said any other regime would be better than it, and we didn't go and vote to elect better leaders and presidents etc. Fortunately we are learning it. The reason I am writing this is that I think continuing the non constructive attitude of the past will result in prolongation of pain and misery for millions of Iranians inside and outside of Iran. Again I must be missing the point in poems and write ups that are sad and I don't know how they help overcoming the huge problems we Iranians have faced the past 20 years and are facing no. We have millions of depressed Iranians all over the world struggling to survive. We need to work on the solutions. We need to learn from others who have been successful. Just look at what's happening to us these days. Not so great a people calling us terrorists and wanting to ban us from entering other countries. I think this is because we are not learning to protect ourselves sufficiently. We are the main reason for our problems. we need to do more and better. Thank you for writing to The Iranian and sharing your great talents with us but I'd like to see it to do more than reminding me of negatives, the fact that I am gharibeh and so on. Best wishes, Mohamad Navab, * The girl was me Salam! I read "Gharibeh" today when I was checking iranian.com to find patterns of persian carpets for my school assignment. It was beautiful.I thought that the girl was me -- somebody who left Iran and left her heart there. As a graphic designer and painter, I feel you. I loved your work. Movvafagh Bashi, * Lotfan bishtar beneveesid Sadaf - I try to write a few short sentences in Farsi. - "Gharibeh"
ra KhaAndam. Mersi, Kamran, * Immature and rude Dear Mr. Javid, ["Formal apology?"] I am speechless... you broke my heart, its like a friend betrayed me. I always thought you were a wise young man, one of those you hope will prevail the land and help with building the future. Someone who has control over self. Damn, we are all looking for a hero and keep getting disappointed. Your response to that, inappropriate picture to begin with, is very immature and purely emotional. It is rude too. What is the point? either porn or imam reza site? Man... you are telling us we either have to go with stupidity or banality? Is wisdom only for the blue eyes? Sorry for those of us who feel like they lost a friend. We shall try to set higher standards for ourselves.
|
|
|
Web design by BTC Consultants
Internet server Global Publishing Group