IDEAS

Rosie: Priceless

It was totally priceless. I did go check on your defense of your honor. I was laughing so hard, my son thought I had lost my mind. Ha! Ha! :o) 

Rosie is the Colonel's assessment correct in that many Iranians want a Monarchy? I am not so sure that it is the best future for Iran. I would think establishing a democratic government in which a separation of church and state would be the best choice. I also do not think there should be interference from other countries as they have a way of helping themselves when a country is weak.  I do remember reading somewhere that the Shah was for the modernization of Iran which was good as it needed to compete in a global market. What I do not understand is that Iran is as rich in oil as Saudi Arabia and yet the Saudi's appear to be benefiting from the wealth of the oil. The Iranians really have not benefited from the oil. Other countries seemed to have helped themselves to the wealth of the oil. What went wrong?

Sasha

Haji

Rosie,

Wow, I would have never thought he was dyslexic. I have seen students in the elementary grade with dsylexia but I must say it never occurred to me that Haji would have this problem.  At first I assumed it was due to limited English proficiency and then I allowed the other comments to change my view on him because I only saw the statements in which he had impecable English all of a sudden. I wish I had gone back to review his writings like you did. I remember that the dyslexic students which were limited in English proficiency too (Hispanics) would demonstrate behavioral problems because of a low self esteem. I had to work on having them learn while still allowing a level of success. The students were better of than Haji, in that they had their families in tact and had never been in a war torn country.

I am certainly glad that you did explain to me your findings. I did issue an apology to Haji that I posted on the Haji dictionary and I forgot which other section. I am hoping that he will see it.

I shall go in search of the postings with the defense of your honor. :o) I have a feeling you were much more eloquent in speech than I.

PS:  My defense of my sexual orientaion was on the Iranian of the day Asaloo or something like that. I thought they had finally found a decent nominee. She is a strong and intelligent scholar, which I thought had positive feminist views. However, someone disagreed with me. Even when I agreed on some points with him, he then accused me of changing the course of the argument. I guess you can never win with this people. It did intrigue me on reading more about her though. If his assessment is correct then I need to find out why, her thinking is askew.

Best wishes,

Sasha

Sasha, Haji

I was fighting my battles too. Go to the homepage, click on Kalleh va Pacheh under most viewed items, read the discussion from beginning to end and I promise you you will have a good time! (The photo was on home page for a few days).

Where can I find your defense of your honor? :)

Have you noticed that we have not been on the most discussed items for days and that actually this article we're under is more discussed than others which are? I don't know if it's a computer glitch, or if JJ wants to hide us from the world, or if he is just trying to give us a room of our own....

Here's my take on Haji. He's a really fantastic cartoonist visually and he has a lot of good ideas (objectively, in terms of humor, forget the actual content) but he is severely dyslexic. There is a kind of dyslexia where you don't reverse letters but your writing is simply gibberish. Many outstanding artists are dyslexic.

On top of this he comes from a very poor family and his mother died when he was young and his brother died in the war. I believe that he is suffering from a very severe case of post-traumatic stress disorder due to horrors he saw in the war and used to write about frequently. In fact that was how he first came to this site, in a Letter to the Editor to talk about his war experiences. I do not believe he is psychotic or even delusional, but he is definitely very, very disturbed. He posted a personals ad in Victoria which was exposed on here by some kind member, and in it he wrote, in his beyond terrible English, something like how most Canadian women aren't very nice. Great way to get a partner. And he really does want one and he has said he doesn't particularly prefer an Iranian, so you see there are really pieces missing.

How I know it is all authentic is from that initial letter he wroteto the editor, the personals posting, his website and last but not least because of the following very curious thread: A lot of people were attacking him for some cartoon last year and he posted something saying something like "BBC: the controversial Iranian artist has been transported by police to a secret place in order to ensure his safety." A couple of posters took this as proof that his English was impeccable and he'd in fact been fooling us all along. I immediately realized otherwise, and a quick keyword google proved my worst fears: He'd copied the text from from a BBC posting about that Danish cartoonist with the Prophet thing, and simply substituted Iranian for Danish.

You see he functions well on a tactile/kinetic level and navigates the Internet wonderfully but he's incapable of putting a sentence together on paper with even the most elementary grammar. I bet you he doesn't have the same problem speaking.

He's also incapable of making intelligent decisions about his life. It's quite a dire situation. When people engage him in conversation trying to get him to do things that would be helpful for him he generally doesn't respond in full, but he usually does acknowledge them and I know it makes an impression on him that people care.

You can't hold him responsible for his misogynistic and homophobic views and so forth. He was raised dirt poor and without a mother and came of age during the time of the most terrible brainwashing you can possibly imagine in Iran. He has a disability (dyslexia) and a severe psychological disorder. His sensitivity caused him to reject the IRI after tge warm and set out for his promised land, but he did not have the psychological resources to cope. The culture shock dealt the final blow. He perceives things very accurately, with deep truth, there is always a deep kernel of truth in everything he says, but he lacks the ability to put his perceptions together in coherent and meaningful fashion. He is like a sponge, just taking in the world, overwhelmed by his deep perceptions and unable to make anything coherent of them, except in his cartoons, which taken one by one are pretty clear, but taken as a whole are very very inconsistent. He has no ability to construct a framework, a structure, or an ideology so his hatred supplies the glue which his cognitive apparatus can't give him and allows him to function somehow in the world.

That's my take on Haji's world. I didn't mean to imply you'd been abusive to him, just to let you know that he needs all the support he can possibly get.
Rosie

Rosie: Thank you for the correction

First I want to discuss Haji, so then he is really this bad off. I have come across some very troubled people but I never thought Haji was this bad. Apart from the comments I make I have never written him an email directly. I will have to try to be more objective with him. I just wish he would not overgeneralize about all Western women being a certain way. After a while he pushes me over the edge with it. I know  a lot of people keep saying he is gay but I do not think so. He must of had many bad set backs to be in the condition he is today. Some people over come adversity in a positive way but others become extremely troubled. I will do my best to be kinder to Haji. Only thing when I am nice to a guy on iranian.com all of sudden some of the readers think I like the guy. Like with Ben because I was nice all of a sudden they insulted Ben's manhood.

 Sorry, I had not messaged earlier I was busy defending my sexual orientation in another section of iranian.com. :o) Good thing I have thick skin or they would tear me to shreds in iranian.com. I guess being in a really bad marriage for nine years was good for something after all.

Rosie, I will make a note of the change on the recommendation on reading material. I will save the recommendations to a word document so that I can access it when I order by books. I will probably order my books from amazon. They make finding books so much easier and best of all they deliver too. Ha! Ha! Does not get any better. :o)

PS: You not need explain how you know Haji is really in trouble. I respect you and your word is all I need. I will do as you instructed and begin a constructive conversation with Haji.

Best wishes,

Sasha

"Examining my narrative"

Thank you for reminding me that it was largely Tom Friedman's reporting back in 1982 that brought my own rude awakening on the ills of Israel to the general public's awareness; I have lately thought very little of Friedman as I found his voice to be among the most reactionary at the Times during last year's horrible summer of Lebanon. As well I find his pretensions as an economic pundit to be self-congratulatory; I think he has a very big ego. And his ideas collude with the neocons in many ways, this "flat world" of his at the "end of history" and so on. In short he is a neocon in liberal's clothing (and why not? all the Jewish ones began that way) and so I have no love for Friedman. But of course now I remember it was he who wrote From Beirut to Jerusalem....aaah, those loves of days gone by....

Funny, for you he was too far left before and now you like him, for me he is too far right now and now I don't... :D

And speaking of Smileys, I hope you realize that when I said I was having great fun on memritv I was being sarcastic. I am still quite sick to my stomach, very upset. I agree with your analysis, hardline mullahs believe they've already won the game (and probably are right); either outcome (attack/no attack) can only benefit them. PROVIDED they maintain a strong enough core base of idiotized automotons to terrorize dissenters when/if a showdown comes. So basically they are building up their Brown Shirts and using the easy target of the Jews to do it. Why not?

Actually it makes great good sense, because Rafsanjani is both DISCREDITING Ahmadinejad and strengthening his own brown shirt base at the same time. He is saying not only did Holocaust HAPPEN and was it LARGE, but it was GOOD, leading to two inevitable conclusions (for a brainwashed robot at a Friday sermon): 1. Ahmadinejad is an idiot and he lied to us; and 2. that does not mean however that we should have compassion for the Jews and by extension some questions about the regime's line on Israel. Afarin, Rafsanjani and Khamenei! You two old goats must be having a great time laughing about all this over some good red wine and spare ribs with your twelve year old whores. Thank you for elucidating on this one, Leb.

Now two more questions:

1. I have heard of terrible experiences Jews had growing up labeled as "impure" in Iran. (I have also been party to wounded vitriolic outbursts by Armenian Iranians about their hamvatan, things they wouldn't say to a Muslim Iranian, but they would to me...so I always roll my eyes a bit when the "Persian Tolerance" harp is played). So could you please clarify what you mean when you say you don't think Iranians in general are anti-Semitic. (Not saying I do either but would like you to clarify from your personal experience).

2. Since you and I agree that Lebanon was Israel's Vietnam, and there were "no heroes" there, do you think the use of force in Summer of 2006 by Israel was at all excessive, and if not, why not?
Thanks,
Rosie

Sasha, Correction

I confused two books when I recommended Elaine Sciolino's Persia Mirrors. It was the first book I ever read on Iran when I embarked on this road and it was indeed a good introduction to Iran but I was conflating it in my memory (the lesson to be learned here is the usual one...) with another I read shortly thereafter. The other one is:

Sandra Mackey, Persia, Islam and the Soul of a Nation

This one is more thought-provoking and inspiring. Since you already have some knowledge of the culture, it might be a better book for you. It cuts deeper but for that reason it's not as breezy a read; by no means as difficult as an academic text however). Persian Mirrors is more about the culture in general and Mackey's book is driven by an historical thesis about the hybrid historical roots of the modern Iranian nation and psyche.
Rosie PS I have been looking carefully at Hajiagha's posts from early to recent, in cartoons and comments; I have expertise in the field and sadly I have concluded that he is not playing anyone like a violin. If you want to know how I know I'll explain it. But for now please remember that he is a very creative lonely person who is deeply disturbed and be nice to him. Try to engage him in constructive conversation if you write to him and never be too harsh on him.
Rosie

Rafsanjani's ultra-anti-semitic speech

Dear Rosie,

Khahesh mikonam.

Anti-semitisim is part of the regime's doctrine (I don't think the general Iranian population is anti-semetic but who know what will happen in a generation or two).
Every Fascist regime needs someone to hate. Jews/Zionists are perfect here. Rafsanjani does not want to look like a Dove compared to Ahmadinejad on these issues. I don't think if he came to power, the nuclear stance of Iran would change that much (anyway by that time it may be to late if US decides to attack). Khamenei has the last word on any such matters. Look at Khamenei in that scene that was just posted on Memri, doesn't it remind you of the scenes in Star Wars when Darth Vader comes down the ship and marches as the Stormtroopers are standing by? There is another clip of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are sitting together at a celebration ceremony of Iran's nuclear achievements, the scene reminds me of the Planet of the Apes movie where they worship the nuclear bomb.

The regime's game plan: I think if the US attacks or does not attack, the Mullahs have calculated that they will be the winners at the end (they are probably right). If the US does not attack, they will probably get their nuke and do whatever they want in the region (its all about oil). If the US attacks, they know that it won't be a land invasion. They will lose their nuclear program for a while and it will only rally the average Iranian behind them and will give them the excuse to destroy any opposition in the country. Either way, they calculate that as a result, they will be in charge for a very long time. That is why you hear this though talk and hardening of Iran's position.

Like the title: of Mice and Mullahs

Thanks for all the good sources of information. I think that as educated individuals it is up to us to question where the source of information is and if the author has a hidden agenda. So yes the internet can be used to corrupt views but it can also be used to clarify and to find supportive or prove something is not correct. Always question the source which is what I have learned. Just look at Bush, he used faulty information to mislead the public. He also fed on the fear of North Americans to follow his own hidden agenda.

I have so much too learn on World Politics. Well, at least the more I do learn the better I will understand and continue to develop an objective view on the matter.

Take care,

Sasha

Hey, check out this new one from memri!

//www.memritv.org/clip/en/1587.htm

Wow! Khamenei must've watched Triumph of the Will hundreds of times!

For once, I'm speechless....they are more Fascist than the Fascists...

Of Mice and Mullahs

Gee, I'm having such a great time, Leb. Better than a Disney movie...

Just finished the great critical analysis of Tom and Jerry by the revered Ostaad--i.e., Jew-lover Disney created Tom & Jerry to protect the image of mice since Hitler called Jews mice. What a brilliant academic mind. You know, it reminds me of an ordinance the Nazis passed while on their merry road to the removal of that ultimate human right, the right to live--did you know it became illegal for Jews to utter the word "blond"? I swear I read this in a reliable source.

And it's funny too, because at first when I saw the clips of this academic luminary, I thought two things: 1) how ironic since everyone knows Disney was a Nazi sympathizer; and 2) I bet Tom and Jerry wasn't even Disney.

Well, a quick websearch revealed I was right on the second count. The old chestnut cartoon Tom and Jerry was Hanna-Barbera. I think the mullahs got it wrong because the more recent MOVIE was in fact Disney (old "fascist" Walt of course being long since dead...)

But on the first count I was completely wrong. Maybe "everyone" knows about ol' Fascist Walt, maybe only some people know, but Walt Disney was never a Nazi sympathizer. He actually made ANTI-Nazi cartoons which were coopted by white supremacist organizations, claiming Walt as their very very own because his cartoons of the Nazis out of context looked so cute...He was however a virulent anti-communist and named names for the HUAC in the McCarthy era. Beyond that, he was apolitical.

And I thought I was so damn smart...it just goes to show you...we all need to cultivate a lot of humility....truth is ever-elusive...
BUT...
in the Internet age with a click of a mouse (dirty little Jewish mouse?) one can easily find the "truth"...just before it escapes once again. Crafty little mice, Ostaad-joon said. Crafty little truth...
and in the Internet age with a click of a mouse one can just as easily spread vicious lies. "It all depends" as JJ said. That is the title the publisher of this site gave to Ben's original article on Arabs. Yup, JJ's right. It all depends...
I wonder which merry road the Internet will ultimately favor. Truth or the Lie. Ohrmazd or Ahriman. I suppose it all depends...

Sasha, books

Here they are with my comments (sorry if I tell you things you already know...)

PITY THE NATION by Robert Fisk, British journalist living in Beirut. He's pretty far left, check out the article on him on Wikipedia and you will see Wiki at its very best, balanced on both sides. He also has tons of articles on zmag.com, it's probably the most highly respected lefty online English-language publication in the world.

PERSIAN MIRRORS, by Elaine Sciolino, NY Times reporter, a wonderful intro to Iranian history and culture. You should understand that the title itself shows the orientation of the author, pretty typical as she is from the Times. It means she could be accused of an inherent neo-colonialist stance, the title reflects (no pun intended!) a kind of romanticized vision that is typical of what is called "Orientalism," first critiqued by the late Edward Said, a Palestinian Christian humanist (professor of comparative literature at Columbia University) who claimed that attempts by "Western" scholars to objectively understand the Middle East and any other "non-Western" cultures are inherently neo-Colonialist, at best romanticized and at worst very dangerous.

ALL THE SHAH'S MEN, by Stephen Kinzer. I don't know anything about Kinzer but it is a wonderful book if you want to understand the resentment Iranians have toward the U.S. and the coup d'etat they keep referring to in 1953 which ousted Prime Minister Mossadegh (Mossadeq). Reads like a spy thriller, simple, straightforward, lots of history and political commentary too, very balanced. And also Mossadegh, what an amazing man...if you want to understand the Iranian psyche...this man in my opinion embodied it--his passion, his intellect, his risk-taking, his being torn between public and private life, his actions at times so seemingly unfathomably irrational, his courage, his dignity, his unwillingness (inability?) to compromise, his great humanitarian, visionary heart...almost every living Iranian loves him and almost every single political faction would like to coopt him for their very own--except for the mullahs who, with the exception of former President Khatami, try to pretend he never existed. (If you have studied your own culture as assiduously as you now do the Middle East, you may perhaps recognize an echo here of Jose Marti. If you haven't, do yourself a really big favor when you have the time and read "Nuestra America.")
All the books are available on amazon.
Best,
Rosie

Rafsanjani's ultra-anti-semitic speech

Great, Leb! It has the Persian speech with the subtitles so I can follow it exactly. KHEILI motshakeram, todah rabah, un million de gracias!

Why do you think he's doing it? He surely must know better (unlike Ahmadinejad, the jury's still out on him in that regard, I think...) I thought the whole idea behind appointing Rafsanjani to the Council of Experts was so that he would TONE DOWN Ahmadinejad's rhetoric to appease the Euros against trade sanctions and appease the U.S. against invasion, and then be able to replace Ahmadinejad with someone from his own more pragmatist camp in the next elections, but this seems to debunk my theory competely. What the hell do you think his game is? His and Khameini's and the rest of them, I mean? Just what is their game?

I'm going to look at the other clips now.
Rosie

Memritv

I got it from memritv.org
Below is the link. I have included other links for you. Here are some of my favorite clips. There are many more. See what the general population is exposed to:

Rafsanjani:

//www.memritv.org/clip/en/1575.htm

Tom & Jerry a Jewish Conspiracy:

//www.memritv.org/clip/en/1049.htm

The protocols:

//www.memritv.org/clip/en/1562.htm

Blood Thirsty:

//www.memritv.org/clip/en/1391.htm

Jews burned Christians in Yemen:

//www.memritv.org/clip/en/997.htm

Passover:

//www.memritv.org/clip/en/972.htm

9/11

//www.memritv.org/clip/en/851.htm

Purim- Jewish Genocide of Iranians

//www.memritv.org/clip/en/1005.htm

Sasha, Leb: American Ignorance, Rafsanjani

Sasha, I will tell you more about Pity the Nation later (can't be late for work!). A good book as a general introduction to Iran is called Persian Mirrors. It is by a New York Times reporter. Just gave it to a friend from Australia, will get the info for you. I have to say I admire you for educating yourself on these issues. They are very daunting as they appear to be an unfathomably complicated mess to an "outsider." You are very brave, very intellectually honest to tackle this, and braver still to stand your ground and tackle it on THIS WEBSITE with all the screaming going on. Wow! You are one of the REAL "mujaheddin" (freedom fighters).
Actually you are not an "outsider" as a US citizen. The Middle East is your issue because of our ifluence there. I am sorry to say it's not just your mother who sheltered you, your school system did too. And it wasn't because it was in a Hispanic community. The US public education is the WORST in the entire developed world (fact proven by testing across nations on such basic subjects as math and geography). I believe the cultivation of this ignornace to be intentional, it could not be otherwise after the horrors I have seen as an instructor of remedial (non-credit) English classes to entering freshmen at a public university. But more on that later. For now, you go, girl!

Which brings me back to Leb. This appalling level of education here and whether it is intentional--I consider it to be oppression to keep people so ignorant (and please hold on arguing this one until I have time to tell you just how ignorant these college students are)--it is one of the reasons why when you said earlier you have seen the world and think America is a good country, I thought immediately "For whom?" We should save that discussion til I can tell you more on this, for now I just want to note that it all ties in together and there simply is no discussing Lebanon without discussing Israel and no discussing Israel without discussing the US and so on. Part of the reason these I'net discussions usually go nowhere is because everyone wants you to be so pithy and on-topic so people try to prove how hard-hiting and concise they are and what you get are strings of soundbytes. While the issues are really so nuanced and sometimes the so-called peripheral ones really turn out to be the heart of the matter.
I don't think you ACCUSED me of being intellectually dishonest. You simply NOTED that you thought certain ideas of mine seemed intellectually dishonest. Nothing wrong with that. So I replied. The framing of the criticism makes all the difference in the world.
So much in your post, so rich...and once again time for work...Rafsanjani's remarks curdle my blood. There are issues here I can't go into but I definitely will. I'm disgusted. I was one of those who criticized the boycott of the Presidential election by "my" political hamsafaraan (fellow travellers, for Sasha) because I thought a globalizing pragmatist like Rafsanjani would be better than whatever hardliner beast his loss would usher in. Well....well...well...so he wants to revive the old canard of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", does he? Do you know anywhere I can get the text of the speech? Better in translation but I can also read it (ploddingly) in Persian. I could also listen to it but I'll only understand parts. Still it would help. Is it still accessible in any way, shape or form?
Ayyayyay--this is awful, truly, truly awful.
Thanks,
Rosie PS Thanks for telling me about the sea changes in Israel. More later.
R

Lebanon

Rosie & Sasha,

Two books I would recommend for reading are the Turban for the Crown (an excellent historical explanation of the Islamic Revolution, its roots from 1400 years ago and reasoning) and from Beirut to Jerusalem (Thomas Friedman). I read both books in the 80's. I remember how critical Tom Friedman was of Israel in the book and I though to my self that “I don't like this guy, his to anti Israel for me”. But as I have aged, I understand him and his reasoning for being so critical. I really like Tom Friedman!

I also excepted, when it was taboo amongst my friends, family, Israelis and anyone else who wished to engage in conversation, that the Palestinians deserved their own country and what Israel was doing was wrong. This was late in the 80's early 90's during the first intifada. I thought to my self, and I would argue with many Zionist orthodox Jews that I knew (these are people who have come up with the idea that all off Israel is god given and no government has a right to give any land away) that Jews should not do this to other people because of the Jewish experience in history.

I did not think of it as a Zionist thing i.e. Zionist should not do it. I thought of it as something that comes from Jewish values. It was against Jewish values which trumps any Zionist value as far as I was concerned. I remember that I had a big fight with my father about it and he basically called me an idiot. Many people thought that I was an idiot but here was Rabin shaking Arafat's hand in the white house in 92.

As a Jew from Iran, I did not know that there are conservative Jews, orthodox Jews, Reform Jews...... the whole concept was foreign to me until I arrived in the US. At the same time, to me, if you are a Jew, naturally you are a Zionist. This may sound crazy to you but I don't have a definition of Zionism in my head. I know some guy by the name of Herzel started the movement. However, regardless of Herzel, to me if you are a Jew you are a Zionist. Go open any Jewish prayer book and read, its all about the return to Zion. I never belonged to any Zionist movement or anything like that. I just think of it as a natural state of mind because of the history that I know. But this is totally different than the political Zionism you are talking about. I really don't know much about political Zionism. I doubt most Jews even care (even Jews who support AIPAC).

Right before the revolution, my father said, lets go to vacation to Israel for a month, things will come down by then. There was a lot of shooting at night in Tehran in 1978, and I remember waking up horrified at the sounds of the machiguns (this is a boy who only wanted guns as toys!). Well we went to Israel, and I have been on vacation ever since. We never went back. We left Israel after a year because my father did not like it. It was too Socialist back then. The majority of Iranian Jews came to the US.

Growing up, I never heard of the slogans “land without a people for a people without a land. I do agree with you that its total nonsense and garbage and dishonest. I think 95% of Israelis would agree with us today that this is nonsense. If you polled the Israelis or American Jews 25 years ago, 80% would probably say that the Palestinians do not deserve their own country. Please go poll them now. The mindset has shifted. There is an understanding of the struggle and Israeli responsibility.

Rosie, Golda Meir did say that there is no such thing as Palestine 35 or 40 years ago, but Barak and Livni say today that if they were Palestinians, they would be resisting the Israeli occupation.

At the same time, however, I am very disappointed at the Palestinians and I felt duped by Arafat when the 2nd intifada started. Even if Israel was responsible for its outbreak, the Palestinians screwed up big time. They have killed the peace camp in Israel. They have silenced it by all the crazy suicide bombings. I remember, way before the Taba talks in Egypt and way before Sharon visited the temple mount (which sparked the 2nd intifada) that Hamas was starting with the suicide bombings to derail the peace talks (this is when Rabin was still alive). Unfortunately, the Palestinian's choices in the last seven years not only destroyed the Israeli peace camp, they also destroyed the Palestinian society. I don't think the world cares as much as it did for the Palestinians. I personally think that the latest peace initiatives are designed by the Arabs (Jordan, Saudis., Egypt...) US and Israel to neutralize Iranian influence in the region. They have all come to the conclusion that its time. Do I think peace will happen? No.

Here we are starting in Lebanon and ending back in Israel again. I did not want to do it, but I felt I had to go there to show you that I think there is a recognition of the mistakes and responsibility the Israeli's (Jews/Zionists) have and recognize as a result of creating a state in 1948. I also do think that the Arabs (not Palestinians) are very responsible as well but we can save it for later.

As for Lebanon, an Israeli officer (15 years ago) told me “there were no heroes in Lebanon”. Sharon, duped Begin at that time. He went much further than he had to Begin he would go. I remember after Sabra and Shatliah, there were mass protest in Israel and it destroyed Sharon's career (at the time- who knew he would make a come back?). I could not stand Sharon. I thought he was a trouble maker but he to had changed at the end. Lebanon was Israel's Vietnam and it showed the misuse of power.

I too have stood alone like you many times but I have concluded that regardless of how Israel was formed, it was a necessity and it shall remain a necessity for a very long time. I also enjoy getting your perspective and experience. I did not mean to insult you by saying “intellectual dishonesty”. I apologize. I am asking you to look at the bigger picture in the world, there are much worse “isms” than “Zionism” and I don't think most Jews who support Israel think of themselves as ardent Zionists. I also think that Zionism is used as an excuse by many intellectuals today. I also see it used as a code word for “Jews” to hide the antisemitism that to me is apparent. Have you seen the Rafsanjani speech from two weeks ago?

I also think that there is not enough analysis and criticism of the Arab mind set when it comes to the Arab Israeli conflict by the intellectual elite (like the Chomsky's of the world- they are great attackers of US ans US allies- they do a great job at it).

There needs to be some serious soul searching by the Arabs- not only about Israel, but about their current direction in history. Sadly, the Arab world does not have enough Rosie's. I see no free thinking, I see no challenge to the current Arab narrative (like I see Rosie challenge her narrative), I see no challenge to Authority (except for the Islamists and some poor old writers in Egypt) and I see no general sense of respect for differing points view.

below is a the Rafsanjani transcript:
Following are excerpts from a Friday sermon on "International Jerusalem Day" by Hashemi Rafsanjani, chairman of the Iranian Assembly of Experts and of the Expediency Council, which aired on Channel 1, Iranian TV, on October 5, 2007:
Hashemi Rafsanjani: Europe resolved a great problem – the problem of the Zionist danger. The Zionists, who constituted a strong political party in Europe, caused much disorder there. Since they had a lot of property and controlled an empire of propaganda, they made the European governments helpless. What Hitler and the German Nazis did to the Jews of Europe at that time was partly due to these circumstances with the Jews. They wanted to expel the Zionists from Europe because they always were a pain in the neck for the governments there. This is how this calamity fell upon the Muslims, especially the Palestinians, and you all know this history, more or less.
[...]
The first goal was to save Europe from the evil of Zionism, and in this, they have been relatively successful.

Thanks

Thanks for the information. You probably might not believe it or maybe you will. Growing up my parents kept us away from watching anything considered too negative. I might as well have been raised in a convent. Now, that I am very grown up, I am learning as much as I can on World Politics. As you can imagine growing up in a Hispanic community Lebanon and Zionism where not even mentioned in my neighborhood or even covered in my school books. I continue to be amazed at how many things get left out of public school books. I just found out this year about the deportation of Hispanics regardless if you were a citizen,  resident or neither during the Great Depression. None of my friends or relatives in the South knew about it. Like those at your school deciding what you would learn to influence your view on things. These people controlling the choice of textbooks also wanted to influence so many childrens minds. I have learned a great deal at iranian.com but I could see less cursing. Yes, wikepedia is my favorite first source and then I search for other terms or names used to gain more information. I will take your recommendation and use the book as a reference. I am always looking for excellent sources as reference books.

Best wishes

Sasha

Sasha,

Hi! The book I am using is a rather ponderous tome, as I said and it is very very dry but that is to its advantage, in a way, as Ira Lapidus seems as factual and unbiased as an historian can be. However it really seeks to be a survey of ALL Islamic societies from the 7th century to the 20th and from al-Andaluz (medieval Spain) to Malaysia. As such, and considering the dryness, I think it would be a kind of torture to attempt to read it cover to cover. I recommend you keep it as a reference text and use the index in the back to just look up things you want to check on. Some things are missing, needless to say, and there is no comprehensive history of Lebanon in it, but it helps. And it does have some good sections on Iran. There is a very famous book on Lebanon called I believe "Pity the Nation". I will check on it for you. I've never read it. "Leb" probably knows more about it than I do.
Also EVERYONE calls Zionism Zionism. The movement to populate Palestine as the "Jewish homeland" begun in the 19th century has only one correct name. It is just that the teachers who educated (indoctrinated) me never ever used this name except when quoting "the Arabs", first Nassar then Arafat, as arch-fiends. And it was very smart of them. Looking back, I'm pretty sure it was an articulated policy of the school's administration. To be honest, I wonder if you can find a source on Zionism that isn't biased. My rule of thumb when tackling a new subject is start with Wikipedia. Scholars complain it's not a good source but it is much more carefully monitored now for objectivity than it used to be and it's usually a good place to start. It's kind of like this place that we're on now in that everyone gets to have their say, except without all the cursing, and trying to keep it within the realm of dispassionate "facts".
Best,
Rosie

Ah, Ben!

Hi, Ben, sorry, after all it is your article we're here under. Have we been rude? Do you mind our continuing here? The discussion of Lebanon sprung from the Arab cafe one and you know it is so cozy here on page 4, far from the maddening crowd...I guess Lebanon and I could start a new discussion but then you know that all the screaming meanies would jump in. Actually I'd like to have more voices but not the heckling ones....Anyway for me it is so gratifying to have someone who does share these four cultures and sees things from a different perspective and knows more than I do about a lot of things...It reminds me a little bit, this "place" here, under your Arab cafe, of a woman I once knew from Turkey. Her grandmother was Greek and her mother Italian and her father I don't remember, and she grew up in the "Foreign Quarter" of Izmir. Foreign meant anyone who wasn't Turkish OR wasn't Muslim. So she spoke all these languages, Turkish, Greek, Italian, and then they'd all learned English and French in the "Foreign Quarter", and then she'd learned Ladino from her friend who as a Jew lived in this "foreign quarter" ,and she was fluent in it, and there I was in New York teaching her Spanish and she spoke it with this heavy Ladino influence (it is medieval Spanish--which I'd studied--in Hebrew characters--which I'd also studied--with some Hebrew and Turkish and Slavic words), and I had written a paper in college in Spanish on Ladino for a course called "The Jewish Presence in Spain" and I also spoke some Hebrew and it was all very...odd...and Lebanon's father-in-law you know is Ladino and his family has lived in Palestine for 500 years, probably since the Sultan of Turkey said "The King of Spain must be crazy. He is expelling his best subjects," and welcomed them with open arms, and I know you are not a pan-Turkic agent but there is this Turkic thing going on here... and.....it's odd...but I feel like I'm in the Foreign Quarter of Izmir...and well anyway you get my drift...I'm drifting... :D
Rosie PS Yeah, I don't sound very Iranian. But every now and then someone thinks I am and calls me IRI traitor or Zionist traitor or some kind of traitor without really reading my post, just some word or two they saw in it, and it's really very funny...and sad...

Fascinating

I am truly fascinated by the discussion Lebanon and Rosie. I know very little of history on Lebanon and even less on what some call the Zionist movement.  Like you Rosie at university I was able to develop an objective view on things. I needed more knowledge on Lebanon and what some call Zion, Zionist. Rosie, I will look into the book you mentioned. If you or Lebanon have any recommendations on other readings please, do share. :o) I want to learn as much as I can to gain a better understanding which I want to keep as objective as possible of all the possible reasons for the conflicts in the Middle East. I am sure Brick of common sense is reading too and keeping an eye on the discusssion. When he is ready, he will join in. Just like Ben is always watchful.

Rosie I am glad you were not too late to work. Take care and until later.................

...

You guys have been talking for a quite a while here. Let me say something... I can regonise who is Iranian and who is not, just by reading their posts. It is quite strange, but I can! Even if the Iranian is a Jew, their comments are recognisable, even though they are very different, some are just swear words, while others are approving.

Afarin, Lebanon!

Good! We may cross in our postings. I'm planning on writing another one soon too.
Rosie PS I was only five minutes late for work.

Lebanon

Dear Rosie,

I enjoyed reading your reply very much! I will comment very soon. Thanks!

Lebanon

Hi, Lebanon and Sasha and anyone else who is still reading this in the fast-moving world of cyberspace where we are currently already buried on page 3. Perhaps it is better that way; we avoid the name-callers and hatemongers and pornographers and can have a real discussion here. Even if it only involves the three of us, it is definitely worth it.

I, like Sasha, am very impressed with your erudition and critical analysis, and with the humanity which drives it, which is frequently not the case with those who are pro military action in the current situation. I did ask you at the outset whether you had specific ties to Lebanon because I said then I would have to defer to you on issues of fact where you would know more, and you said you didn't, but you tricked me a little! You have very close family ties with Israel and are a bit of an encyclopedia on the politics there, including the Lebanon conflict, and so I have to start out by saying that I am far from that so I am sometimes going to have to check up on these facts and/or defer to you.

Which brings me to the question of intellectual honesty. I can assure you that I try very hard not to be intellectually dishonest but I admit that I may sometimes be misinformed. Your specific criticisms of the dates I gave on the occupatons of Lebanon, however, have an explanation. I divided the recent history into four periods: the civil war, the Israeli occupation, the Syrian occupation and the post-occupation. I didn't consider anything that happened during the civil war as part of an occupation since there was basically no country to occupy, just a shambles, and I did mention the Syrian occupation as following the Israeli--of course there were years of overlap. So this was a question of semantics in choosing categories--I'm sure we all agree on who was in Lebanon when (as much as I'm sure that you have more facts about it than I do).

I appreciate your giving me some personal background. It is always very important, as there is no such thing as complete objectivity; our lens is the lens of who we are and people of conscience do the best to see as clearly through it as we can. But the lens remains so the personal background is always relevant. You are spot on in most of your sociological analysis of me. I am 48 but my sister is 51 so you got the age. I do have two Ivy League degrees, a BA from Columbia and an MA from the University of Pennsylvania, both in Spanish literature--but my main focus was theater and my artist's brain is one reason why I'm stronger on patterns and feelings than on accumulation of facts (although I understand the extreme importance of facts, I just don't catalogue them as well as you, but I try my best). I did grow up in a very liberal middle-class New York family, but I would characterize myself as a soft leftist, further left than Carter but more liberal than a Chomsky or a Dabashi. My Jewish upbringing was conservative, not reform, and I went to a very good staunch conservative Hebrew school for eight years, three days a week, after secular public school. But my family was peculiar. My parents both began as slightly observant secular Jews and over the course of time they remained together but parted ways, my father dying an Orthodox and my mother to this day a rabid anti-religion atheist. My sister and I were the political football through which this parting of ideologies took place, causing much heartbreak and confusion, but probably contributing to my commitment to try to be intellectually honest and form my own opinions.

I grew up a Zionist in an atmosphere where Zionism was a dirty word. How is this possible? It is because Zionism was an ideology so firmly entrenched that it was not recognized or named as such. Through my eight years in Hebrew school, I planted trees for Israel, learned Hebrew much better than is taught in most Hebrew schools, sang "Hatikvah" and learned about Dayan and Golda Meir as great heroes, but never once was the word Zionism used, except to quote our "enemies" who spoke of a "Zionist entity" in the UN and so forth. "THEY" called "US" Zionists because THEY were making up nasty words for us, when in "reality" the right of Israel to exist AND expand (I'm talking '67 here) was just the "truth", subject neither to naming or questioning. I can assure you it was a superbly effective form of indoctrination).

Actually I am old enough to remember the slogan "A land without a people for a people without a land" and a poster with this slogan in my Hebrew school. I believed this. I believed Palestine had been a barren desert with a few benighted Bedouins roaming around on camels before the "brave young khalutzim" came and "made a garden of the desert" and so on. This was intellectual dishonesty at its worst and most specious and its immoral use on me undoubtedly contributed to my current political views. As I grew older and became an Ivy Leaguer (neither of my parents had a college degree), I came to understand that the the depredations against the Jews of Europe in the 30's and 40's did not happen overnight, but rather were the result of a systematic and gradual taking away of civil rights (beginning with such rights as intermarriage, rights to hold certain professions, then what clothing they must wear, and so on), then their right to live in their own homes (work camps instead), and then the conversion of these work camps to death camps, taking away the final human right, the right to be alive, having been systematically and legally relegated to the status of non-persons. For this reason the term "cattle cars" is one which still evokes such horror in me. An equal horror which the slogan "A land without a people for a people without a land" evokes in me when it relegates 700,000 humans (I stand corrected, I was using the current demographic statistics on displaced Palestinians) to the status of non-persons. I do not see a qualitative, but only a quantitative difference here. The process of dehumanization is the same.Thus I am no friend of the morbid, spurious excesses of Zionist propaganda which were perpetrated on me, and I never will be.

To ensure you again of my attempt to be intellectually honest, and to attempt to bring back my post to the issue at hand, which is Lebanon (and its intersection with Israeli, US and Iranian politics), I want to share with you a political anecdote. My "political awakening" happened in 1982 and it happened over Lebanon. I was already a "soft leftie" through my Columbia education but I still never thought of myself as a Zionist nor questioned anything Israel did. (This is a pretty typical conundrum of American Jewish liberals and "soft left"). My best friend in graduate school was an older Egyptian woman who was related to the Farouks and whose uncle, "a member of the royal family" according to her, had absconded with the royal treasury to finance the Egyptian socialist movement. She was a graduate student in French and wore the Palestinian scarf stylishly draped over her European sweaters. She looked very much like Anouk Aimee. I was so appalled by the Israeli army's supplying flares to the Lebanese Christian Phalange to massacre over a thousand civilians in Sabra and Shatilla that I consented to work with her and the Arab Students Organization to disseminate information on that attrocity on campus. The campus at Penn was mostly my demographic (liberal, secular, Northeastern middle-class Jews),some of whom were my own students in Spanish language classes. I was eager to participate on a humanitarian basis.

Can you imagine my horror as Faiza and I stood waiting with our table with literature and petitions, when Salama and Arbas, her two lovely Moroccan friends, came proudly marching up with a large banner proclaiming: One Begin = One Million Hitlers"!? Immediately I was forced into confrontation with my new allies. The banner went, I stayed. It was very painful.

So you can see that I stopped being a Zionist (I believe Israel has a de facto right to exist because it is there but not a de jure one as the legalities surrounding its formation and its borders are subject to debate, but the basic tenet, the sine qua non, of Zionism as the word is defined, that Palestine is the god-given homeland, I, for secular reasons, along with many Orthodox Jews, for scriptural ones, thoroughly reject--run-on sentence, sorry--I stopped being a Zionist at the same time I found out that I was one, and the same time I found out that with this new ideology, I would have to stand alone, and ultimately fight alone.

I have found that standing alone is a very good place to stand because it is the only legitimate place to stand in terms of one's beliefs and opinions. It is also a very lonely place but one where one soemtimes makes friends in the most surprising and unexpected corners. As far as I am concerned, you are one of those friends because of your willingness to dialogue with me and to educate me where I need to be educated, and I am grateful for the opportunity. You too are standing alone and it is the best place to be.

However, it is not really all that surprising that you and I stand together as we stand alone, on what APPEAR to be opposite sides of the political spectrum (pro vs. anti-military aggression in Lebanon). You and I share four cultures. We are both American now (as I understand it), we are both born Jewish, you are Iranian by birth and I am of all Americans I know who never lived in Iran or married an Iranian, the most involved in Iranian culture nd finally we both have close ties to Israel, you by marriage closer than mine, but I by the indoctrination which formed me and can never be discounted or erased.

I know I haven't even begun to debate the specifics of the Israeli bombardments last year but I must go to work now and anyway I think for now this synopsis of who I am and where I stand is useful background for the discussion which I am eager to continue. I thoroughly expect you to educate me. I've read all your articles and am boning up a bit on Lebanon through a rather ponderous tome called "A History of Islamic Societies" by Ira M. Lapidus which I own and seems to me as objective as a source can be, given that as far as I am concerned, all sources lie and/or omit, as they are written through the author's inevitable lens. I hope I have convinced you of where I stand: I am never INTENTIONALLY intellectually dishonest. I stand alone. I really must go. I'm late for work.
Rosie

Lebanon

Thanks so much for the replies and weblinks. I will need some time to read them carefully and think about them. Give me a couple of days.

Okay Lebanon

I am speeechless, well almost but certainly stunned at your reply to Rosie. Why did you not write an article? It is obvious you have the ability to do so. Well, I will carefully read your two short replies to Rosie. I can not wait to see what Rosie has to say. :o)

Lebanon

Dear Rosie,

You leave out crucial facts regarding the 06 Lebanon war and crucial facts about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict to make your point. If you want to make a point that sticks and has any meaning the arguments have to be fair. This is not a college class where the Professor just bs's his personal views as if they are the truth. At the end of my response I will address the reason why I don't think you are fair (Its not because of Israel).
First, You have some numbers wrong on the Israeli Occupation. Israel held a buffer zone from 1982 to 2000 (not 10 years as you state). Israel unilaterally decided to withdraw from the buffer zone (certified by the UN) after it saw that the price of confronting Hezbollah was not worth on holding to the zone. Before the withdrawal, however, for many years, it had asked for UN/Lebanese Army presence in the area to insure that no more attacks were conducted from the territory on Israel once Israel withdrew from the territory (the first Lebanon war started as a result of Palestinian attacks on Israeli territory- Israel under Begin and Sharon were looking for an excuse to get rid of the PLO from Lebanon and they got their break in 82 finally).
Israel withdrew in 2000 however, without the help of the UN and the Lebanese government and Hezbollah succeeded in liberating the land. Hezbollah comes in and takes control of the entire South. Additionally, Hezbollah, refused to acknowledge full Israeli withdrawal (remember, the UN certified the withdrawal) claiming that Sheba Farms (a few acres of land), belonged to Lebanon and therefore Hezbollah was still trying to liberate Lebanese territory. The problem was that Israel claimed that it had captured Sheba farms from Syria in 1967 and Syria refused to acknowledge that Sheba was Lebanese territory. Syria, to this day, does not officially recognize Lebanon so it would not agree that the territory was Lebanese. This was all a ploy. How could Hezbollah, who gets support from the Syrians claim that Sheba is Lebanese, but the Syrians refuse to agree that its Lebanese (by the way I think the Syrians have now, after the fact given up on the Sheba farms)? Hezbollah, used this as a pretext to occupy the area and lunch raids against Israel. During the 6 years after the Israeli withdrawal, the Iranians and the Syrians armed Hezbollah to the teeth. Rockets and the latest in Iranian (North Korean) missile technology was given to the Hezbollah. Hezbollah usefully captured 3 Israeli soldiers (dead) after a raid in 2004 (sheik Obeyed was released for the 3 soldiers- sheik obeyed was captured as a negotiating chip on Ron Arad- Hezbollah was supposed to give info on Arad in an earlier deal but breached the Agreement).

In 2006, prior to the Lebanese war, Israel also withdrew from the Gaza Strip. You have Kassams landing in Israel ever since (although I agree with Israel’s Decision to withdraw from Gaza- it was the right move)
Additionally, you left out:
1) The 30 year Syrian occupation of Lebanon.
2) Syrian attempts to destroy the Lebanese democracy by multiple murders of its leaders (just a month ago one more Lebanese parliament member was assassinated- Hezbollah blamed Israel)
3) Hezbollah’s stance against Syrian withdrawal (why?) (Hmmmm).
In 2006, the war irrupted because, Hezbollah, wanting to free a murderer terrorist, captured 2 more solders and killed 8 more in the process. During the raid to capture these soldiers, Hezbollah, as a diversionary tactic, fired missiles into Israeli towns.
Lebanon can not have it both ways. It can not have the “Democracy” that you are talking about and have Hezbollah do whatever it wants at will in its territory. Israel withdrew from Lebanese territory. What should it do, just sit there and do nothing when its soldiers are kidnapped and its towns are fired at with rockets?
Israel withdrew from Gaza and Rockets were coming. Israel withdrew from Lebanon, rockets were coming. Why? Who was behind this? Both Hezbollah and Hamas are funded and supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Any move Israel makes to diffuse a situation (withdrawal from Lebanon, withdrawal from Gaza) unfortunately backfires because of an invisible instigator called the Islamic Republic of Iran). All of this with Syrian backing of course.
The attitude in the Arab world, as a result of Israeli withdrawals and with Iran's support of groups like Hezbollah, resist Israel and they finally will be destroyed. This was the perfect example- Look they left Gaza but we will not stop until every inch is liberated. Israel has the duty to defend its borders. Israel has to also make it clear that its withdrawal from Gaza or Lebanon is not a sign of weakness. Israel has to send a message to the Iranians/Syrians that your adventures next to our borders will have consequences. Accordingly, you have every bridge destroyed in Lebanon (mind you that the Hezbollah was using the Lebanese infrastructure
(the bridges) to transport weapons and supplies during the conflict). Since the Lebanese army refused to occupy the territory, since the UN refused to bring in troops to watch over the area, Israel had no choice but to respond in the way it did. Now did you read the news articles from my previous post. Did you see how the Arab world viewed this. Yes they were later appauled by the destruction but they are happy that Hezbollah was hit because they see Hezbollah as Iranian influence and they don't like it.
This war was just a mini war. There is potentially a bigger one coming. This was just practice. The Major Arab countries do not want this future war and Israel does not want it either. Its all up to the Iranians and Syrians right now.

The Lebanese democracy you talk about might have been the best the Arabs came up with but its an inferior one two the democracy the Israeli Arabs enjoy in Israel. . Also with the way things were going before the war, this democracy would not last and its survival was in serious question (with our without the 2006 conflict that you blame on Israel). Look at what Hezbollah tried to do and failed at it after the war. As soon as the demographics change (5, 10 or 20 years) this democracy will be destroyed. The Islamists will use the system to destroy the system. Look at Algeria.
Furthermore, even assuming that the Lebanese democracy was the best in the Arab world, it would still be an inferior one to the democracy the Israeli Arabs enjoy in Israel. Yes I know. There is racism in Israel. Israel brutally treats the Palestinians. But Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has nothing to do with its Arab citizens. Israel has a better judicial systems, more freedoms and a better economy than Lebanon. Have you ever been to Israel?
Part of the problem with Israel, and one of the reasons there is no peace yet, is that it is to Democratic. It is so democratic that is does not have a strong governmental system. Because there are so many different parties and so many divisions in the government, you can get rid of the prime minister if you have the votes. This has happened many times.
To buttress my point, if you recall, right before the Lebanon war, Sharon (and eventually Olmert) in order to accomplish the Gaza pullout, left the Likud party to form a new party that was more centrist and willing to make concessions for peace. Many likud members left for Kadima. If they did not attack Lebanon after what happened, they would look weak and become politically incompetent. Now that they attacked Lebanon, and showed resolve to confront Hezbollah, they are able to make concessions to the Palestinians. Look, there is talk again of dividing Jerusalem (just like Barak offered before the 2nd intifadah). Why? Because Israel is a Democracy and now Olmert is politically strong enough to confront the opposition. Whether you like it or not, this is how democracies work.
Also you say the following:
“My uncle was a member of the Irgun. For me three things regarding Israel are clear: 1) the creation of Israel was the product of a grotesque human tragedy; 2) regardless of the extent of that tragedy, the creation of Israel displaced millions of persons who had not been the perpetrators of that tragedy and therefore had a right to revolt; thus the onus was on the Israels to earn their right to be there using maximum cooperation and minimal force; and 3) the specific details of the depredations on Lebanon in Summer 2006 were crimes against humanity”

Now that you got a little personal with me about your background. Let me get a little personal with you. I am an Iranian Jew who is not so religious. My parents lost everything as a result of the revolution. We started new, with nothing, when we came to the US because my father, who was an engineer for the Iranian government, ran away with all his wealth in Iran. My father grew up poor because in his town Jews were considered Najes (impure) and were segregated in a ghetto until the 1950's. All my uncles are educated from my fathers side with college degrees as a result of freedoms given to minorities by the monarchy. All my uncles from my mother's side are professionals as well (doctors, pharmacist....). I personally could care less about the phalavis. I think they screwed up big time (with President Carter‘s malfeasance of course) .
My father in law was also in the Irgun like your uncle. My father in law was born in Jerusalem. His family had lived in Jerusalem for 500 years. He is a Ladino Jew (from the Spanish Inquisition). He still speaks Ladino fluently after 500 years because that is what they spoke in the house for 500 years.
You, I assume from the way your write, are highly educated (probably Ivy league or something). Since you had an uncle in Irgun, you are probably in your 40's (maybe 50's- don't get mad at me if I added a few years- its just a guess). You are probably a reform Jew or something without any real connection to Judaism. And you are a Liberal minded person (nothing wrong with it – I am liberal on many issues as well).
You believe in human rights and are against violence. Great! President carter, with his good intentions, also believed in human rights and stayed silent during the Iranian revolution and look what we have now?
My point is, unfortunately, you have to kill and go to war so less people are killed sometimes. You have to be aggressive so your neighbors don't attack you. You have to kill 1000 so you avoid killing a million. These are very bad (sad) and risky decisions that leaders make (thank god you and I don't have to make them). Sometimes, leaders get it right. Sometimes, they get it wrong. For example, with Iraq. The question still remains if Bush got it right (has nothing to with WMD's). We will not know for another generation probably. Intellectuals, do not face these decisions and become elitist in their comfort.
I know that you probably dislike this but this is the world we live in now. Humanity has not figured out how to live in peace. Its about balance of power, free markets, oil, interest rates.... so we can all eat and drink.
As to the following rhetoric
“regardless of the extent of that tragedy, the creation of Israel displaced millions of persons who had not been the perpetrators of that tragedy and therefore had a right to revolt; thus the onus was on the Israels to earn their right to be there using maximum cooperation and minimal force;”
There was not one million Displaced Palestinians. There was about 700,000 (they are 4 million now after 60 years). You are unfair about this because there was a greater displacement of Jews from Arab lands (800,000). The Difference, Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees and the Arabs placed the Palestinian refugees into refugee camps (by the way the school I attended in Iran belonged to Iraqi Jews who came in 1948 as a result of Israel's creation).
As to the onus being on Israel, even after the 1967 war, Israel offered to withdraw from the newly captured territory. Please see the Khartoum conference results "Three No's" of the Khartoum conference ("no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it").” Unfortunately, It has been the Yom Kippur War, the building of the settlements and the 1st Lebanon war, which kicked the PLO out, that led to the public change in Arab policy by accepting Israel's right to exist. However, since than, there have been unfortunate changes in Israel as well with more militancy against peace as a result of terrorism, Hamas suicide bombers, the 2nd intifadah and Iran's intermeddling in the peace process.
I think you are unfair here because you do not like American power and how America uses its power. So you, like all my other college professors, pick on Israel since she is America's closest ally with all the troubles. If you were fair, you would take the Palestinian conflict and compare it to other conflicts of this century. The human tragedy in this conflict does not even come close to 1) what the French did to the Arabs in Algeria; 2) what happened in the Iran/Iraq war (all these anti Zionist Iranian Mullahs purchased weapons from the Israelis by the way) 3) Afghanistan with the Russians and then the Taliban; 4) the Tutsis and the Hutus in Africa; 5) Darfur, 6) what the Muslims are doing to Muslims this century; 7) What Europe has done to Africa. However, you and the rest of the Arab world are screaming war crimes and subject Israel to a higher scrutiny than all the other nations.
This is intellectual dishonesty and unfairness at its best Rosie. Its like my college professors in the first gulf war. In a symposium about the war (right before the US and its allies attacked Iraq), My professors concluded that Saddam had every right to invade Kuwait because Israel was occupying the west bank and Gaza. Again, I see Israel that has only seen progress, notwithstanding all the conflicts and human rights issues, and I see the Arabs who have done nothing and they all have conflicts and human rights issues as well.
I have seen the world. I like America. it’s the best place in the world. I like American power. it’s the best empire ever to exist. Without America, the world would be in a big trouble. I don’t expect you to change your views. But I hope you understand the other side of things.
Regards, Lebanon.

Lebanon

Dear Rosie,

I will need some time to respond. However, while you are waiting for my response. Please see the links below at the Arab response to Hizbolah's actions. If you can not open them, I will copy and paste them for you. I also pasted a New York Times Article for you from July 17, 2006 (since you respect the Times it appears)

//english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archi...

//www.nysun.com/article/36373

The Arabs
Militia Rebuked by Some Arab Countries

Article Tools Sponsored By
By HASSAN M. FATTAH
Published: July 17, 2006

BEIRUT, Lebanon, July 16 — With the battle between Israel and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah raging, key Arab governments have taken the rare step of blaming Hezbollah, underscoring in part their growing fear of influence by the group’s main

Saudi Arabia, with Jordan, Egypt and several Persian Gulf states, chastised Hezbollah for “unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts” at an emergency Arab League summit meeting in Cairo on Saturday.

The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said of Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel, “These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them.” Prince Faisal spoke at the closed-door meeting but his words were reported to journalists by other delegates.

The meeting ended with participants asserting that the Middle East peace process had failed and requesting help from the United Nations Security Council.

It is nearly unheard of for Arab officials to chastise an Arab group engaged in conflict with Israel, especially as images of destruction by Israeli warplanes are beamed into Arab living rooms. Normally under such circumstances, Arabs are not blamed, and condemnations of Israel are routine.

But the willingness of those governments to defy public opinion in their own countries underscores a shift that is prompted by the growing influence of Iran and Shiite Muslims in Iraq and across the region.

The way some officials see it, Arab analysts said, Israel is the devil they know, but Iran is the growing threat.

“There is a school of thought, led by Saudi Arabia, that believes that Hezbollah is a source of trouble, a protégé of Iran, but also a political instrument in the hands of Iran,” said Adnan Abu Odeh, a Jordanian sociologist. ‘This school says we should not play into the hands of Iran, which has its own agenda, by sympathizing or supporting Hezbollah fighting against the Israelis.”

Hanna Seniora, a Palestinian analyst with the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, lauded the Arab opposition to Hezbollah on Sunday.

“For the first time ever, open criticism was heard from countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan against the unilateral actions carried out by radical organizations, especially Hezbollah of Lebanon,” wrote Mr. Seniora, who favors coexistence with Israel and opposes radical Islam. “It became clear and beyond doubt that the most important Arab countries did not allow their emotions to rule their judgment.”

The willingness of the leading governments to openly defy Arab public opinion, which has raged against Israel’s actions in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, underscores the readjustment of risks Arab governments say they face.

It also reflects pressure from Washington on its Arab allies to stand against Hezbollah’s actions, American officials said. At the Group of 8 summit meeting in Russia, President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted with approval that a number of Arab countries had criticized Hezbollah.

That criticism could pressure Hezbollah to give up its weapons. It could also help American efforts to contain Iran.

“Who’s benefiting?” asked a senior official of one of the Arab countries critical of Hezbollah who was granted anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. “Definitely not the Arabs or the peace process. But definitely the Iranians are.”

There may be no material proof of Iran’s involvement in the conflict, the senior official added, but all indications point to an Iranian role.

Arab leaders have long been wary fof Iran. But with Iran exercising increased influence in Iraq and stirring the emotions of Arab and Muslim masses frustrated about the occupation of Iraq, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and America’s role in the region, fear of Iranian influence has increased.

“You have Hezbollah, a Shiite minority, controlled by Iran, working, and the Iranians are embarrassing the hell out of the Arab governments,” said Riad Kahwaji, managing director of the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis in Dubai. “The peace process has collapsed, the Palestinians are being killed and nothing is being done for them. And here comes Hezbollah, which is actually scoring hits against Israel.”

From its start in 1982, Hezbollah has relied on Iranian support and weapons, and logistical support from Syria. Iran has made no secret of its support for Hezbollah, and in recent months boasted to visiting scholars about providing it with missiles.

Israel has accused Iran of providing Hezbollah with sophisticated weaponry and said Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard has trained guerrillas in Lebanon. The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamidreza Assefi, brushed aside the accusations on Sunday. Mr. Assefi denied that Iran had trained guerrillas in Lebanon, and added: “It is not true that we have sent missiles. Hezbollah is capable enough. The Zionist regime is under pressure.”

A number of Lebanese have also publicly complained about Hezbollah, saying its attack on Israeli soldiers last Wednesday was carried out unilaterally and has drawn the country into a conflict it did not seek.

At the Arab summit meeting on Saturday, Syria’s foreign minister, Walid Moallem, lashed back at the critics of Hezbollah, The Associated Press reported, demanding, “How can we come here to discuss the burning situation in Lebanon while others are making statements criticizing the resistance?”

The countries supporting Syria included Yemen, Algeria and Lebanon.

In a speech broadcast on Sunday, Hezbollah’s leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, derided the Arab criticism. “It is clear that they are unable as governments and leaders to do anything,” he said. “The people of the Arab and Islamic world face a historic chance to achieve a historic victory against the Zionist enemy.”

Some in Beirut said they were deeply disappointed in their fellow Arabs. “I am ashamed of the Arabs,” said Omar Ajaq, who with his family escaped the bombing of Beirut’s southern suburbs to a shelter in central Beirut. “They are utterly useless. People are now betting on the resistance. We no longer have faith in Arab leaders.”

Reporting for this article was contributed by Nazila Fathi from Tehran, Suha Maayeh fromAmman, Jordan, Mona el-Naggar fromCairo and David E. Sanger fromVermont.

Lebanon

Hi, Lebanon,
okay, I'll try.
Lebanon a tiny little country and if you look at it on the map you kind of wonder why it even exists as a nation. It is my understanding that its formation was at least in part due to the cynical French intention of creating a somewhat Christian outpost in the Muslim region. Obviously this was doomed to fail as you point out due to the differences in demographic growth.

But Lebanon was created and it has been a history of tragedy. So no. Israel did not cause the Lebanese civil war but Israel's presence in the region was the straw that broke the camel's back. Because it seems it was Lebanese Muslim pressure to join the UAR that finally caused conflagration to erupt. For Muslim Arab states at that time this was a natural course of action. And of course there was the influx of Palestinian refugees in southern Lebanon, among them terrorists. But these refugees were created by Israel. And Israel of course supported the fascist Phalange. So although animosities among Lebanon's ethnic groups were already present, the bloody course of Lebanon's recent history can't be separated from Israel's presence in the region.

Having endured fifteen years of civil war, a decade of Israeli occupation and five years of Syrian, Lebanon was free and rebuilt. The 2005 elections were extraordinarily dynamic and free by highest "Western" standards of scrutiny. These were very hopeful times for Lebanon. Bush celebrated their democratic system (trying to take credit for it as well). Then after just two years two Israeli soldiers were captured and within three days the entire infrastructure of Lebanon had been destroyed.

I don't know what specific Arab press said about this onslaught but I do know that UN and world opinion were overwhelmingly appalled and in favor of an immediate ceasefire. I know that Bush refused to call for a cease-fire, the most basic humanitarian gesture, but immediately expedited weapons used for the specific targeting of infrastructure and civilian evacuees on the roads. I know evidence of chemical weapons was found on children's burned bodies. I got most of my information from the New York Times. Even the New York Times was appalled.

So when I talk about Lebanon being the best democracy Arabs could buy, it's because for two fleeting years Lebanon had a brilliant fledgling democracy and it had hope and I can't stand the idea of touting Israel as the best democracy for Arabs after how Israel savagely aborted that Lebanese democracy last year. This juxtaposition is an irony too bitter for me to swallow. I am not talking about standards of living; I'm talking about standards for democratic elections. Democracy is a political system, not an economic one.

Paradoxically these same democratic standards are what gives Hezbollah its seats in the parliament and it cannot be argued that Hezbollah emerged among the Shia of the south as a response to Israeli invasion. As I understand it the majority of Lebanese saw Hezbollah as a kind of necessary evil to protect the border because as you say Lebanon has practically no standing army. This is because the military defected to the militas during the civil war, for which Israel's presence was a major catalyst, and I suppose during the occupations they were not allowed to build an army.

My uncle was a member of the Irgun. For me three things regarding Israel are clear: 1) the creation of Israel was the product of a grotesque human tragedy; 2) regardless of the extent of that tragedy, the creation of Israel displaced millions of persons who had not been the perpetrators of that tragedy and therefore had a right to revolt; thus the onus was on the Israels to earn their right to be there using maximum cooperation and minimal force; and 3) the specific details of the depredations on Lebanon in Summer 2006 were crimes against humanity. I just read that the EU and the Arab Gulf States have contributed about two billion dollars to rebuild Lebanon. It is just and fitting that Europe should pay to rebuild Lebanon because they are responsible for this whole mess historically, but what about George W. Bush and my tax dollars? For bombing only, not building bridges? So I am emotional about Lebanon.

As with many Iranians, you have your good reasons to detest Hezbollah. But Hezbollah is a complex, puzzling and disturbing modern phenomenon, and if IRI supports Hezbollah, please remember Israel supported Fascist Phalange during the Lebanese Civil War. The children of the Holocaust supported the Phalange.
Rosie

WHat is really in the future

There's no doubt that the countries around the world are in developing stage becoming a challenge for west to keep it's grip on. There's one major polarization going on which is the axis of Russia-China-Iran with other 2nd tiers. Israel is just extention of the west in the region. Just look at around you:
-China was not a relevant world economy 15years ago;
-Euro was not around 15years ago
-Russia was forming 15years ago
-Canadian $ was $0.64 15years ago
-Oil was around $15 15years ago
-Islam was not a factor in world politics 15years ago
-Israel was not attacked by a country 15years ago

I as a citizen am worried about US economy and what the future holds. I think we have enough to prosper on our own. So, why the hec do we see our interest 14000miles away? The problem is I think US is doing following foreig policy that Britain deployed in the days of colonies.

Are we pushed by the force of natural political curents? Have we lost our leadership - hec yes;

Ajam or Parkash

Dear Zebel, no I'm not. If it's that important for you to substantiate, the Iranian.com admin/webmasters have my ISP info. I hererby authorize them to expose any alternative pseudonym I may have used to post here. I hope that would satisfy your curiosity.