Free Thoughts on Iran
Front Page | About FToI | Authors | Archives | Comment Policy | Disclaimer
e-mail

bra.gif Sanctioning of Iran by Iranians | Main | The Fallacy of Politics ket.gif

December 08, 2005

Public Display of Evil
Babak Seradjeh  [info|posts]

Holocaust_Memorial_Miami.JPG BBC reports:

"If European countries claim that they have killed Jews in World War II...why don't they provide the Zionist regime with a piece of Europe," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Iranian television.
Is that a real question, I asked myself. I wodnered why Mr. Ahmanedinejad doesn't provide the Palestinians with a piece of Iran. Reading the piece again, and seeing that the Holocaust is reduced to a "claim" (by those who did it, surprisingly), I got curious to see if this implied doubt was accurate. Unfortunately, BBC is consistently brief on such aspects. But sure enough, a simple google search returned this Reuters news piece, Iran's Ahmadinejad casts doubt on Holocaust:
Ahmadinejad was quoted by IRNA [from a news conference he gave in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca] as saying: "Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that they condemn that person and throw them in jail ... Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?" he said. "If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe -- like in Germany, Austria or other countries -- to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it."

Such evil remarks in blatant disregard of documented history is nothing new of course coming from the kind of people that Mr. Ahmadinejad represents. Denying the Holocaust, calling to wipe a country off the map, or to move it, are all the stuff of my generation's childhood, in school, on the radio and on TV, in the bold and thick slogans on the walls, the streamlined propaganda that aimed to penetrate all the space it could find in our brains.

And it is not just the incomprehensible attachment that Mr. Ahmadinejad and his constituents feel to the issue of Israel while there are so much to be done about the people of Iran that makes this issue important. The importance is in that it is a showcase of all that is wrong with these people's ideals and methods: ignorance, impudence, total disrespect for human lives (which was once again brutallly demonstrated by the latest plane crash in which more than a 100 people died while reportedly the plane was so out of shape that the original pilot did not accept to fly it), and most importantly, a burning desire to force one's flawed view on the rest of the people. Their persistent quest for acquiring nuclear power only finds its true meaning in this context.

That it is now on an international display, plain and simple, for everyone to see is another matter though. It is a rare opprtunity to see the evil for what it is. Only the leaders of the world need to address it in more meaningful actions than words of disblief or condemnation.

Comments
An Iranian Student (AIS) at December 8, 2005 07:57 PM [permalink]:

WOW!
This article was amazing. Babak I take off my hat to you.
Amazing.

Interestingly I wanted to comment on what someone called coop said about the violencein Isarael in the other thread but it is sort of relevant here too, because it addresses oneof ythe main ewasons why people don't see such evil when it stares them in the eye.
The truth is that the most prevalent form of anti-israel attitude among people like coop in Iran comes not from Islamism at all but rather leftism.
So unlike many other evil crap that the government has tried to inject in our generatiopns head unsuccessfully, due to the healthy effect of our families inside our houses, in the case of Israel (and not the jews interestingly enough) many families where "left-striken" already. So this myth of Israeli violence or "occupatio" of the socalled "palestine" has gone somewhat unchalleneged. It is there but for a completely different reason than what the regime wants .Because the islamic-palestinian ideal is hated many degrees of magnitude more than the supposed israeli violence=occupation amongour generation.
But it again proves the known truth that like the case of Nazism, it is the leftist=communist warped and non-sense worldview that lies at the core of many troubles and that strengthens more obvious forms of rabid inhuman insanity like Nazism and Islamism.
It is amazing how much we as a nation got hurt by this stinking nonsensicall madness called "the left" and its "ideals".

What yoyu wrote also made me think of the idea iof people who lived during Nazism. Those who were not directly targeted, they also under estimated the evil of Nazism, especially with th memory of the atrocities of WWI already in their heads blinding them of ehat was going in front of their eyes.

It is also interesting how the socalled "reform" in this regime is in line with the madness, only again in a subtle way. When Khatami says he doesn't consider helping those that fight state-terrorism, what do you think he meant? When the likes of Roger garody come to Iran under Khatami's time, what wasthat all about?
When Khatami goes to Lebanon and is greeted by the Nazis of our time, the Hezbollah, etc etc etc.

dwasrk times, very dark times.

An Iranian Student (AIS) at December 8, 2005 08:05 PM [permalink]:

As for the plane crash, what can one say?
That is the hell we are condemend to live by this revolution.
It seems the journalists were not allowed to leave the plane once it was realized the plane was compeltely out of order.
See here .

Of course twe get again the ususla nonsense conspiracy theories, but that is absurd.
the truth is worse. It is just this lack of any repsect for huma life for this regime and it speople, and let's face it a part of our culture. This pathetic ceremony was more important than the lives of all these people so no cancellation was in order.
Stupidity, yes but that is what is at the core of evil and vice versa.
Evil it is as you said.

yaser k at December 8, 2005 09:55 PM [permalink]:

What AN has said shouldn't at least surprize us. We knew this going to happen. The issue is not how much evil he is but how to deal with this evil and I am wondering what you mean by "the world need to address it in more meaningful actions than words of disblief or condemnation"?

An Iranian Student (AIS) at December 8, 2005 10:15 PM [permalink]:

"The issue is not how much evil he is but how to deal with this evil"

Yser, what is wrong with you?! How can you say such bad things?
Come on, I thought you were a "reasonable" man, a "pragmatic" man. You know, people are unworthy, they are apathetic, they don't support people like Ganji and all that to be able to make a difference..blah..blah..blah... and "dealing" with your AN is only daydreamin, no?!
Shouldn't we instead try to "change" him a bit, you know "reform" him.. he is a bit looney , but we can go step by step, gradually, slowly , infinitesimally... you should know, you were the expert, no?!
maybe next time you can hire three hundred buses and a couple of dolls so that the second term of your AN would be a reformed version, what'ya say?

....Many retional and pragmatic possibilities you know.

Babak S at December 8, 2005 10:44 PM [permalink]:

Good question Yaser. the answer is not that simple, but I can give you a few hints of what I mean:

1. I want Russians to stop selling Iran these missiles. Perhaps Mr. Ivanov could tell us how it is his affair but not our people's who would be suffocating under the tyranny of those who would wield the power to use those missiles.

2. Or how about the Chinese to stop the implicit and explicit support they have given to the enrichment program in Iran. Even without actually referring the nuclear issue to the security council, that coould deter a nuclear hardline Islamic Republic.

3. Or how about Spaniards stop arming Hugo Chavez who says: "Today we can say that Iran and Venezuela, the Iranian revolution and the Venezuelan revolution, are brothers; we have achieved it. And that brotherhood hopes for a world of equals."

Nema at December 9, 2005 01:48 AM [permalink]:

I disagree with Babak. I don't think it has anything to do with rolling back military sales. I think it has to do with conditioning trade with the promotion of human rights. This isn't a hard pressed concern either. The EU conditions membership on ratification and observance of the European Convention on Human Rights. One of the major reasons Turkey has improved observance on human rights is because its conditioned on trade. It is probably unlikely that Russia or China will change their policies without significant pressure by the EU.

Its interesting though, I remember reading a month ago that Khamanei had sanctioned Ahmadinejad from mentioning anything about Israel after his statement about "wiping Israel off the map." I'm curious how accurate those reports were.

yaser k at December 9, 2005 10:35 AM [permalink]:

In order that the trade policies work, a minimum rationality in the hostile government is required (which e.g. Turkey has). AN and his team don't have this minimum requirement and therefore I don't think they care much about it. Considering the oil price, any kind of sanction is also doesn't look practical at the time.

International pressure is a catalyst provided that reaction is already happening. If it is not, it can't do much.

Bandehkhoda at December 9, 2005 11:32 AM [permalink]:

AIS,

I agree on many issues with your comments, but have always taken issue with your stance on the Palestinians. To be frank, I see it as rather racist.

The recognition of the rights of the Palestinians is not a lack of recognition of the rights of the Israelis. The "so-called" Palestine is an international political entity recognized by every nation in the world (and even within the progressive sections of the Israeli society itself). If you neglect the rights of Palestinians to their own homeland, you would not be very different from Ahmadinejad, it's the same basic principle of "EVIL". Sometimes people don't see the evil in themselves but readily identify it in others.

The difference between the anti-Israeli attitude of the Iranian left with that of the Islamic fundamentalists is the fact that the fundamentalists oppose the existence of the state of Israel with anti-semitism at its core. The left (while often obnoxious and unfair) opposes the violation of rights of the Palestinians, which has been documented extensively by Amnesty International, the United Nations and many other human rights organizations across the globe.

Nema at December 9, 2005 12:32 PM [permalink]:

AIS,

I've personally been to both Israel and Palestine and I think you have grave misunderstandings about the society there. Palestinians are by no means Islamic fanatics. Moreover, there is clearly occupation going on whether or not you believe that "Palestine" was a state in the past or not. Whether an stable community is rooted by its place or controlled by a foreign entity by military force, there is occupation. The problem is that the suffering of Palestinians is used as a pretext to justify political ambitions by the Iranian government as well as by many terrorist. It is used as a justification in the same breath as the existence of dictatorships in the Arab world is used as a pretext for justifying political attacks.

Honestly, I'm not sure the plight of Palestinians really factors into Iran's foreign policy. I really think its a political game being played by Iran reflecting its broader bi-lateral relations vis a vis Israel.

Dan at December 9, 2005 01:55 PM [permalink]:

Iran's leader seems to have forgotten that Israel helped supply weapons to fight Iraq during the war,while most countries supported Iraq.I'm not sure if he really believes Israel should be moved to Europe (or "Eurabia" as I like to call it),or if he merely wanted to score points with his audience in Mecca.
As for Palestine,here is a quote I read somewhere that makes a lot of sense:
"Jordan is the Palestinian-Arab nation-state,just as Israel is the Palestinian-Jewish nation-state."

Nema at December 9, 2005 04:01 PM [permalink]:

Dan,

I don't think Iran does forget that. In fact, it sheds light that Iran's foreign policy making towards Israel seems to be guided by political, rather then religious, viewpoints. So what political factors are fueling significant anti-Israel political posturing in Iran now?

Also I'm not sure what sense that statement makes. The Jordanian government considers it Jordanian, not Palestinian, not Arab. There is a misconception that there is an "Arab people." There isn't. None of the arab-speaking countries consider themselves as the same or similar people as other arab-speaking countries. Hence the reason for bi-lateral tensions between various Arab states. The problem with the statement "Jordan is the Palestinian-Arab nation-state,just as Israel is the Palestinian-Jewish nation-state." is that it reflects a perception by some Israeli's that Palestinians should be pushed out of the west bank and gaza into Jordan, because there's so many of them there anyway, and because they are all arab. Its an effort to justify occupation and forced re-settlement on highly superficial and racist grounds.

Personally, my view on the Arab-Israel conflict is this. In Rwanda and South Africa we expected different communities there to reconcile and live in one country, because the inviolability of human rights for all persons. So why do we not expect the same in Israel? Why shouldn't we expect one state for both Palestinians and Israelis? Thats my problem with this whole rhetoric.

Shahram at December 9, 2005 05:37 PM [permalink]:

I am no expert on the Israeli-Palestinian issues, but I would like to address the President himself. I have to say that my attacks are simply personal, because I have similar jackets/coats to those of his and ever since his presidency I have not been able to use them because he is notoriously patented that appearance. So I am just attacking him because of my superficial dislike of him and unlike some Iranians in Iran I do not like to make references to Darwin's theory and etc. There goes my personal attack on His Excellency Persident Doctor Ahmadinejad:

First, Mr. President, if you do not know history please Shut up! If you think Israelis have to be returned to Europe, you cannot just single out Germany and Austria. There were other countries that collaborated with the Nazis: What about Hungary? What about Vichy France?

But I think we know that you are at best a genius in engineering and not history!

Second, at least half of the Israeli Jewish population is increasingly "not" of European origin, but of Mizrahi Jews; that is Jews of the Middle East and North Africa. Today, according to some reports (I will add more academically supported data soon) half of the Jewish population of Israel is of the North African and other Middle Eastern background.

Do you know why Mr. President? Because when, and almost every time that Israel won in either of the major battles in the 1960s and early 1970s a good chunk of the Jewish population in Arab and Islamic states were kicked out of their countries by the gracious Arab and Islamic states! Where do you think most of these people went to, Mr. President? They went to Israel!

Now, Would you Mr. President Dr. Ahmadinejad agree that all these Arab Jews and other Muslim countries' Jews who were expelled out of their houses and their properties were confiscated should also return with all of their children to the respective Arab and Muslim countries? Would you agree that they have to be paid a healthy and comparably just compensation that would also include an inter-generational sum? Would Arab and Muslim states be ready to embrace back all of these Mizrahi Jews?

If your response is equivocal, and/or if it is negative, I have another response for you Mr. Ahmadinejad: Please Shut Up Your Excellency Mr. President Dr. Ahmadinejad !

An Iranian Student (AIS) at December 9, 2005 07:41 PM [permalink]:

The fact that it is the will of the international community for the "formation" of an independent state of Palestine is nothing i ever disputed. What I said and is perfectly correct is that there was never a Palestinian state. You disagree?
Hence no meaningful notion of a pelstinian land that has been occupied. the regions in Gaza and West bank under Israeli occupation is DIFFERENt from a palestinian state.
There is no racism or neglect of the facts involved in my part.
Once the stae uis formed we can all talk meaningfully of palestinians as a nationality.


As for the left, i'm afraid is much worse than that. they "might" accept the oresence of Israel in words but that is mostly lip service. the LEFT in Iran in general considers Israel in its entirety to be an illegitimate occupying state.

Nema at December 9, 2005 08:09 PM [permalink]:

I think whether or not a Palestinian state existed is certainly debateable, but the products of that debate are meaningless, primarily because the non-existance of state boundaries does not negate the right to self-determination all peoples have. However, I will say this, international consensus is a highly contentious ground for determining the existence of a "state" per se. The guidelines used by almost every major international legal scholar is the existence of defined territorial borders, population, cultures, etc. which define a self-guided community of persons. Subsequently, whether the international community said there existed a "Palestinian state" is irrelevant in determining whether such state existed. Clearly what is more important, is whether a community of people existed in the region with defined borders and boundaries and with systems of politics and law to regulate those boundaries.

All the evidence points to the fact that such systems existed in the region known as Palestine. The Israeli counter to that is that there "were no persons" when they entered into Palestinian villages or that by fleeing their homes in the midst of war, the Palestinians had given up any rights to their homes. That argument is not only false, but goes against all major principles of human right and the rights of displaced persons. Put it in context, storm comes into Lousiana, people leave the state in order to get away from harm. Once storm passes, people from state X move in and occupy the land and homes of those who had sought shelter in other states.

At this point, if not before, Israelis justify occupation based upon a Biblical grant of property. I think its interesting because almost every moral and legal code in the world has a principle of attenuated connections. I believe the Old Testament states something along the lines that the son should not incur punishment from his fathers mistakes. In other words, at some point temporal proximity and intervening variables seperate the unlawful, or immoral, act from "fruits" of that act.

That being said, I think there's a broader problem evident here. If we condition self-determination purely on arbitrary state borders or state recognition by international powers, then we are neglecting the existence of different and diverse perceptions on communal autonomy with a colonial mentality. At this point the damage has been done. However, my conclusion is that with relation to Israel-Palestine, there is no reason why one state with both palestinians and israelis doesn't exist. It just makes sense. In mainland Israel you have a significant population of Palestinians whom, because of their growing birthrate, are reaching near 20% of the population. In the West Bank you have pockets of settlements which are also continously growing and constitute a significant of the population in the area. You cannot divorce Palestinians and Israelis from each other absent violent military conflict and literal forces of racial cleansing. You cannot possess a "Jewish state" without enforcing racially and religiously preferential laws which intentionally grant greater rights to one community over another purely on the basis of religious and ethnic makeup. Those are the consequences of having a "two-state" solution in Israel and Palestinian while recognizing the homogenous character of the region.

Nema at December 9, 2005 08:11 PM [permalink]:

I mean heterogenous

Ron at December 9, 2005 10:55 PM [permalink]:

Nema,

I can appreciate the great sympathy you have towards the people involved in this tragic conflict.
But good intentions are not enough to solve this kind of problem. Both sides have their own historical
reasons not to trust each other, and this has to be taken into account. You offer what's known as the
one-state solution, I believe most eloquently described by President Qaddaffi in his thesis on "Isratine",
see his website. While this would be an ideal solution, it would require much bigger issues to be solved
in the world, mainly the kind of anti-semitism we've heard from Mr. Ahmanedinejad, which can also be heard
practically anywhere in the world.


Until this time, the Jewish people will be forever locked in survival-mode. And what you would call racism really
has nothing to do with race, Jews and Arabs are practically the same race, if there is such a thing. What you might
percieve as Jews looking down on their Arab neighbours and treating them unfairly is a result of circumstances beyond
the control of either group. There is a reason why Jews don't trust much of the world, including their Arab neighbours,
who, by the way, if you're interested, weren't such good neighbours to the Jews even before there was an occupation or a modern
state of israel, and that is the reason why reasonable Jews can think ceding control over territory is suicidal.

President Ahmanedinejad has done the Jewish people a great service by speaking what is on his mind and in his heart.
Now the question is will people finally begin to understand that there is *evil* in this world when people who hate
are given so much power.

Armin at December 10, 2005 03:11 AM [permalink]:

in the name of GOD,

Israelis and Palestinians should pay for what they have done to each other. This gives you an idea of the bill that should be paid:

http://www.mofa.gov.ps/Statistics/index.asp

Best Wishes

Armin at December 10, 2005 07:15 AM [permalink]:

The crash: As BBC suggests "Officials blame the high frequency of crashes on a lack of aviation spare parts due to US sanctions.", but the importance of the sanctions is not the only thing which is mentioned, fortunately this time (or maybe the next!!!) the blame is hopefully going to put on local causes as well:

http://www.baztab.com/news/31600.php

http://www.baztab.com/news/31628.php

The news and the young minds: Everyone who deeply knows about the world politics is aware of the pro-Zionism imbalance in the western media, specially those controled by the News Corporation or the AOL Time Warner (two of the few great media monsters that own Sattelite TVs, newspapers, film production studios,...). There is almost no doubt that they tend to exaggerate about the Holocaust and the rights of Israelis while demonizing palestinians and the others who oppose. With these media monsters, a free democracy is a dream. They are neo-dictorship's dollar-kings that softly abuse democracy, freedom and human rights to gain popularity and decieve people (soft dictatorships allow honesty, freedom of speech and criticism to some extent, not ethically, but as a required key to the nowadays power).

Not a very relevant claim, but it is worth reading:

http://www.baztab.com/news/31682.php

Ron at December 10, 2005 10:17 AM [permalink]:

Nema,

I can appreciate the great sympathy you have towards the people involved in this tragic conflict.
But good intentions are not enough to solve this kind of problem. Both sides have their own historical
reasons not to trust each other, and this has to be taken into account. You offer what's known as the
one-state solution, I believe most eloquently described by President Qaddaffi in his thesis on "Isratine",
see his website. While this would be an ideal solution, it would require much bigger issues to be solved
in the world, mainly the kind of anti-semitism we've heard from Mr. Ahmanedinejad, which can also be heard
practically anywhere in the world.


Until this time, the Jewish people will be forever locked in survival-mode. And what you would call racism really
has nothing to do with race, Jews and Arabs are practically the same race, if there is such a thing. What you might
percieve as Jews looking down on their Arab neighbours and treating them unfairly is a result of circumstances beyond
the control of either group. There is a reason why Jews don't trust much of the world, including their Arab neighbours,
who, by the way, if you're interested, weren't such good neighbours to the Jews even before there was an occupation or a modern
state of israel, and that is the reason why reasonable Jews can think ceding control over territory is suicidal.

President Ahmanedinejad has done the Jewish people a great service by speaking what is on his mind and in his heart.
Now the question is will people finally begin to understand that there is *evil* in this world when people who hate
are given so much power.

an iranian student (AIS) at December 10, 2005 08:09 PM [permalink]:

Nema,
I'm sorry but it seems your understanding of the situation and history of Palestine is faulty.
It is not the case that a seperate "Palestinian" culture, laws, peoplehood etc existed prior to the sixties, as I have said earlier. In this case the nationhood is defined by the gegraphical region of these people, not of any pre-existing identity.
The name itself should have made that clear to you. Palestine is not an arabic-Islamic name and it was not used for this region or its people during the arab-islamic period. The Islamic name is "shaam" and it is used for the entire region including present day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan etc.
Palestine is the European name of the land since the Romans renamed Judea after the expulsion of the Jews. and this region was a wasteland wuth very few people living in the land before the wave of Jewish communities started in the Nineteenth century and the rise of Zionism. This is a documented fact. And it is from this time that the name Palestine, used by the European powers as well European Jews and philantropists who immigrated there, gradually entered the arab everyday tongue in its arabized form "felesteen"....
Anyway, important are the individuals. Yes they are many individuals and families from the Arab side as well who are caught in this and are the victims of the conflict., incldin those who lived in the land prior to the wars of independence, but that is DIFFERENT from the claim that a seperate people, the palestinians lived in a palestinian state whose land (ie the land of a distimguishible "people") has been usurped. there is no reason why the Arab population that left their houses could not be naturally part of jordan or Lebanon etc, the same way that Jews that were forced out of arab lands are now natural citizens of Israel as Shahram mentioned. But the Arabs intentionally keep them unssimilated and in despicable conditions to wage (a successful) propaganda war in their overall genocidal agneda against Israel.
And as far as the occupation is concerned , thi sis an occupation relative to the UN decleration that officially granted Israel her independence. the Arabs walked out of that session and later attacked to wipe Israel off the map. I'm sorry but that act deprived them of any rights according to that treaty prior to their invasions. It is not possible to try to destroy a state and once you failed, come back and ask what wasthe deal about, then attack again for annihlation once the chance arises, fail again and again come back to the initial decleration, attack again ....

An Iranian Student (AIS) at December 10, 2005 09:05 PM [permalink]:

I meant a demographic and propagnada warfare. Of course demographic is the much more important one that also answers your suggestions about a one state solution. That would simply be the end of the Jews and will NEVER be accpeted so there is no point in discussing it any further.

Armin at December 11, 2005 03:18 AM [permalink]:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

Armin at December 11, 2005 03:24 AM [permalink]:

The short history of the beginning of the conflict (source: the above link):

For 2,000 years there was no such conflict.

The land of Palestine was inhabited by Palestinian Arabs. In 1850 these consisted of approximately 400,000 Muslims, 75,000 Christians, and 25,000 Jews. For centuries these groups had lived in harmony: 80 percent Muslim, 15 percent Christian, 5 percent Jewish.


Zionism

But then in the late 1800s a group in Europe decided to colonize this land. Known as "Zionists," this group consisted of an extremist minority of the world Jewish population. They wanted to create a Jewish homeland, and at first considered locations in Africa and South America, before finally settling on Palestine for their colony.

At first this immigration created no problems. However, as more and more Zionists immigrated to Palestine — many with the express wish of taking over the land for an exclusively Jewish state — the indigenous population became increasingly alarmed. Eventually, there was fighting between the two groups, with escalating waves of violence.


UN Partition Plan

Finally, in 1947 the United Nations decided to intervene. However, rather than adhering to the democratic principle espoused decades earlier by Woodrow Wilson of "self-determination of peoples," in which the people themselves create their own state and system of government, the UN chose to revert to the medieval strategy whereby an outside power arbitrarily divides up other people’s land.

Under considerable pressure from high-placed American Zionists, the UN decided to give away 55 percent of Palestine to a Jewish state — despite the fact that this group represented only about 30 percent of the total population, and owned under 7 percent of the land.

A Reader at December 11, 2005 03:27 AM [permalink]:

Under considerable pressure from high-placed American Zionists, the UN decided to give away 55 percent of Palestine to a Jewish state — despite the fact that this group represented only about 30 percent of the total population, and owned under 7 percent of the land.

Armin at December 11, 2005 03:44 AM [permalink]:

By the way, like it or not, Mr. Khamenei has offered a peaceful solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict:

" Ayatollah Khamenei said that Iran's proposal for holding referendum in the occupied Palestine is in the limelight of Muslim nations and also other world nations.

The Islamic Ummah is pursuing the return of the
Palestinian refugees in a serious manner and is
sensitive to prevent the destruction of the holy Qods."

haji boston at December 11, 2005 03:00 PM [permalink]:

Babak jaan,
when there is a constant threat from 4 \pi steradian towards the Iranian territory (I think there is no need for justification), could you please tell us why it is wrong to buy some defense missile?

The recent contract between Iran and Russia only includes TOR-M1 surface-to-air defense missiles which is by no way a threat for neither Israel nor the States.

Bandeh at December 12, 2005 12:14 AM [permalink]:

Ron,

Let's be fair and remember how Haganna terrorized arabs in the years preceding 48. As you know it takes two to ruin a relationship. I think your previous statement indicating that there are reasons for mistrust on both sides is more accurate.

I don't think a one state solution is yet possible. A sustainable two-state solution may prepare the grounds for a one state solution in the far future, when the hatered between the two peoples has subsided.

Dan at December 12, 2005 02:20 AM [permalink]:

I don't think the one-state solution is a viable option,though it's a nice sentiment.
And putting aside the debate over whether or not there was ever a "state of Palestine" in the past...where would its borders be if we suddenly created such a nation today? Would it include much or all of Israel?Should it not logically consist of parts of Jordan and perhaps Syria?
I personally believe God gave the Jewish homeland to Abraham,Isaac and Jacob (Israel),but it was much larger than the present state of Israel...so you might say the Jews have a right to annex some of their neighboring countries.
Abraham's other son,Ishmael,was promised by God to become the father of 12 princes and a mighty nation.Perhaps his descendants are what we refer to as Arabs or Arab tribes.

An Iranian Student (AIS) at December 12, 2005 05:09 PM [permalink]:
(I had written a full comment but it is evidently lost now, so I here is a shorter version again) Nema, it is you who are out of touch with the reality in that region. The idea of a full fledged "palestinain" nation is a complete newcomer to the world. The very name must give you the clue. "Palestine" was not the Arab-Islamic term used for the region. The traditional name was "Shaam" and it included the entire region including modern Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. In other words there was no distinction between the people of these regions before this century. "Palestine" is the European term used for the land, eversince the Roman Empire expelled the jews from their land called "Judaea" and renamed it to "Palestina". It started to be used by the arab/mulsims only after the beginning of Jewish migrations to the land in the 19th century and the involvement of European powers from then on. Ironically "Palesetine" wasthe name those idealist Jews and zionists used for the land they were returning to and the utopian state they were striving for. Eventually the arabized version of that word "felesteen" became used by the arabs of the region as well. It is a historical documented fact that before the waves of highly enthisuastic Jews from Europe arrived in the land in the 19 century that part was a wasteland with very very few population. Arabs started to inhabit the land mostly after the efforts of Jewish settlers had made in more livable and lively economically. So to make a long story short, since all the new states in teh region Arab or Jewish are newly formed, there was no reasn why those Arabs who ran away from the newly formed state of Israel just before the inavsion of Arab countries to "wipe it off the map" couldn't have been assimilated and become a natural part of the "Jordanian" or the "Lebanese" or the "Syrian" nation etc, the same way that Jews expelled by force from Arab countries, as Shahram correctly pointed out, are now full fledged citizens of the state of Israel. The reason why they are kept in such misery as a paria "aplestinain " people in camps in "other" arab countries, besides ignorance and lack of compassion, is because they can serve as perfect potential weapons in this genocidal agneda against Israel, especially in the propaganda and demographic war that is being waged. The demographic one of course is the most important since together with this "right of return" means annihilation of israel and most of its jewish population. So it is out of the question and dicussing its possible merits is a waste of time. Another clue fr you should be the fact that for communists and islamists who look down on nationality and nationalism as a decadent "western" infection, the Palestinian -and only the palestinian- nationalism is not only noble and defendable but an inalienable right! Now isn't that surprising? The reason again is as Ron had mentioend before that all this talk of a Palestinian nation is mostly a good excuse to wage a war of destruction against not only the jewish people, but on the coreof liberal and free ideals. This is a war that encompasses the entire globe and has been going on for decades and centuries now, and has very little to do with a tiny population of villagers that make up the only truly meaningful "palestinian" arab nation. You better wake up soon Nema, because our fate is fast approaching doom because of this genocidal war waged by entities like the Islamic republic of iran that have t ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
an Iranian Student (AIS) at December 12, 2005 05:26 PM [permalink]:

As for the occupation, again as I had said in my lost comment, "occupation" is only meaningful with respect to the UN decleration in 1948, not of any land that belonged to a "palestinian nation". Again you are mixing two things. The suffering sof individuals and families among Arabs who lived in the land (that suffering was and is very real) and an abstact notion of a seperate "palestinain nation" of arabs who existed before 1948 and whose lands were usurped. this is not true, histotrically and factuallly and thically and any other..cally that you like to use.

Since the Arabs walked out of the Un and DID NOT accept that decleration in the first place they have no right to demand it now. You can't trample a decleration , wage repeatedly wars of genocide and annihilation, and one you fail, say "ooops, what was that treaty you were talking about before all this again?". Sorry Nema, but it just doesn't work that way.
The correct term is "disputed" territories not "occupied" ones, no matter howmnay people in israel or elsehwere refer to it that way in their EVERYDAY talks.

FToI Editorial Board at December 12, 2005 08:26 PM [permalink]:

Due to a hosting misconfiguration, the comments had not been displayed correctly for some time, leading to confusion and repeated comments. The error is now rectified, and the identically repeated comments have been removed. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Ron at December 12, 2005 09:49 PM [permalink]:

And one more thought, when President of Iran claims the Holocaust didn't happen, he's an extremist.
When President of "Palestine" writes his PHd thesis on this, he's still considered a moderate.

The point is, if these people have a legitimate case for Palestine, why do we catch them red-handed spreading the
most blatant lies about Jewish history? The facts should be enough for them right? Wrong. It's the idea of the Big Lie; that
if your lie is big enough people will believe it. And if you repeat it enough, people will remember it. And when the Holocaust
survivors, the old men and women with numbers tattooed on their arms, when they pass away, no one will be able to tell the story
first hand anymore. There will be no one left to say "I was there."

The most frightening thing is that for much of the world, the truth about the Holocaust has already been buried by years of
deliberate lying and deceit.

THAT, my friends, is what this discussion should really be about. Israel and Palestine can follow.

I can see it almost with certainty, my friends. By the end of this century, the Holocaust will be another Jewish myth,
like the Bible...

Bandeh at December 12, 2005 10:32 PM [permalink]:

Contrary to Ron, I believe the frequent usage of the holocaust to justify nearly everything can be a factor that dilute its effect in people's minds, not unlike September 11th.

The holocaust will be remembered by humanity for a long time to come, as we still remember the massacre of Spartacus's gladiators by Rome, the inquisition, and many other attrocities committed against human beings. It will be remembered through the works of Mario Puzo, Ellie Wiesel, Abraham Maslow, Chaim Potok and many others who will remind us through a veritable portrayal. Their contributions are far more effective than the constant usage by the likes of Alan Dershowitz or other right wing ideologues who use it to justfy attrocities commited by the Israeli Defense Force in some instances (not all). It is actually to the benefit of people like Ahmadinejad when the holocaust is used as a strategic weapon rather than the realization of the tragedy of "non-tolerance".

Unlike Ron, I think the bible is definitely far more in fashion these days, as is the new testament and the qur'an. It's all a tragedy, because instead of taking responsibility for our actions, we are merely letting YHWH, the Christian Lord and Allah fight it out.

I think the giving of the land to Abraham, Isaac etc. may be nice to think about if it were symbolic, but to use that to determine international political boundaries is simply unjustified.

Bandeh at December 12, 2005 10:39 PM [permalink]:

I was actually reading the bible the other day and found this interesting:
"You shall not worhsip them [the idols], for I the lord your god, am a jealous god. I punish the children for the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me."

Talk about tolerance :)

Also according to the bible, when Moses came down the mountain and saw the idol worshippers among the Israelites, he asked the Levites to slay three thousand of those who had strayed.

The bible may be interesting as historical document, but should definitely not play a role in the way we act or make decisions today. Neither should the new testament, or the Qur'an or the Baghavad Gita for that matter. I think human wisdom, international law etc. is far more practical than using biblical arguments for or against succession of land.

Ben at December 13, 2005 12:31 AM [permalink]:
Hello from Israel, I've been reading the articles and comments on this website for a couple of days now, and I must admit that I never expected a political argument to turn out so intellectually beneficial. Some of the participants show levels of moderateness and knowledge that are rather pleasing and ironically, those are the ones that would've probably hold me back from commenting a few more days (why fix something that works?), however, the one that pinched me into the commenting section is dear armin who posted websites such as: http://www.ifamericansknew.com/ for example that allegedly present objective and correct information. Dear Armin, your sources are biased, I've checked them out and they blow up the numbers, they use misinformation and paint a twisted version of reality to serve their intentions/beliefs. I've seen before various other sources of information and people that do the same. And I also assume your stance doesn't meet with mine and thats ok. Israeli arabs in their internal media, palestinian media, media from neighboring arab countries and all of the above curriculas also do the same sort of rewriting reality (even more extremingly than your sources). I haven't got the slightest idea why some of you do this.. middle eastern custom that I'm not into yet? lack of professional scholars and reporters? I'm however a very theoretical person that like to meditate on important issues, and so in my quest for obtaining an answer I categorized your symptoms as having a glasses with a number that does not fit. -yea, that would make reality seem odd. Furthermore, I treat this as a disease because it seems to be contagious: People that have a reason to believe it do so, and those that have a floating opinion join the party. Those that aren't immune to this disease are people that are able to take things for granted and not question the initial flow of new information that constitutes the first impression. And on the other side are those that doubt things too much, in such level of doubt that cause them to become delusionally paranoid and great supporters of 'conspiracy theories'. Sometimes I see a combination of the two.. far fetched as it may sound, yet it does happen. The human mind is such of a mystery. Just remember this dear sir, when you look at the world through unreliable eyes, you put yourself in disadvantage compared to someone else with a crystal clear vision. I as an Israeli believe that having the freedom to be exposed to such a wide rainbow of opinions and perspectives in my sociaty without anyone trying to rewrite history or data, was the one and only reason for winning past wars (if theres such a thing as a winner in a war) while being clearly disadvantaged in so many aspects. Now I'll try to answer the data on the sources that Armin marked: For anyone who might be interested in correct information of history of Israel that I'd stand by anytime and which would withstand any test of objectivity and correctness by standards of factual data and history, I highly recommend the "Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs" website - choose "History of Israel" on the menu to the left http://www.mfa.gov.il/ In regards to the U.S aid: http://www.fas.org/man/crs/IB85066.pdf http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/45198.pdf Other factual data: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gz.html http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/we.html Oh, a ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
an Iranian Student (AIS) at December 13, 2005 03:56 AM [permalink]:

Bandeh,
your understanding of those verses are flawed.
What it means by " I punish the children for the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me." is exactly the opposite. What it is saying is that until the third or fourth generation will be given the chance to repent and make up for their ancestor's sins, only if it continues for 4 generations will it be punished.
and "geleaous" is the wrong translation. In general translations of the Bible come from Christian sources, especially based on King James version, with a lot of misunderstandings of biblical verses and wrong translations. They themselves are mostly based on the septuagint (ie the greek translation).
It would be a bit better if you read the Standard Revised Translation.

Anyway Bible is an old document with very interesting insights and a lot of ingenious symbolisms, but it is not the basis of poltics in the 21 century.
Don't worry.

Bandeh at December 13, 2005 09:24 AM [permalink]:

AIS,

I think you're bending backwards to defend something that is indefensible in this day and age. I guess if I objected to Armin about the Qur'an having inhumane parts he would also counter that I should not read the verses based on contemporary arabic, but a more ancient usage. I am sorry to say but this is total crap. It means what it means, and it may have made sense 3000 years ago, but it certainly doesn't today. As for your assertion that it doesn't influence politics today, I wouldn't be so sure.

Ben,

Distortion of facts is not unique to the Arab world, it is quite prevlent in the west and in Israel. It is done more professionally and more subtly, but it is far more comprehensive in scope. If you look at neuroscience, it is only natural. There is no actual reality for the senses outside of the construct of the brain, which processes external signals selectively. Facts are many. We essentially see the agreed-upon perceptions of a phenomenon by a group of people as the common set of facts accepted by those people. If that group is exclusively Jewish/Israeli (or those with the greatest sympathy with them), it is unlikely that the facts will reflect extensively negative on the group itself.. If the group is Arab/Palestinian (or those with great sympathies for them), it is again unlikely that the facts are the ones that reflect poorly on them. The facts in the Sabra and Shatila incident or in Deir Yassin are divergent for that reason.

I like the methodology of joint fact finding as a way to shed light on facts by both sides. There is a group called Visions of Peace with Justice in Israel/Palestine (VOPJ), consisting of secular Jewish and Israel progressives and secular/non religous Palestinians who have together looked at the factual events since the 1920s in what was then called "Palestine" (under British rule). Having done that, and having acknowledged improper behavior on both sides, they are now moving forward with visions for the future.

Armin at December 13, 2005 10:38 AM [permalink]:

Ben,

I took a look at some of your sources. You do not seem to be a good analyst.

If I want to know how arabs lie I'd better not to forget asking people like you the question, but for knowing the Israeli lies, your sources are probably among the most unreliable ones on earth. And: There are lies about lies from both sides specialy by X . Anyway:

1. What do you think about this:

"Under considerable pressure from high-placed American Zionists, the UN decided to give away 55 percent of Palestine to a Jewish state — despite the fact that this group represented only about 30 percent of the total population, and owned under 7 percent of the land."

2. What gives you the right to occupy the Palestine? You've been there? You've been forced out hundreds of years ago? God gave you the land? ... ?

Bandeh at December 13, 2005 10:59 AM [permalink]:

Pluralism and Tolerance as a Weapon

Ben, I think you raised an important point. To elaborate on your comments from an outside perspective, I think it is fair to acknowledge that Israel has produced far more pluarlistic voices, even with regards to the conflict than the Palestinians or other Arab nations. The works of the likes of Simha Flapan, Ilan Pappe, Benny Morris are good evidence of this. To be also fair, there is the caveat that Israel has been an established state and the Palestinians have not had the chance for an equivalent civil society, and my comparison may not be absolutely valid.

On the other hand it should also be noted that the Israeli society at large (not unlike other societies) puts pressure on its dissidents. This takes the form of emotional, rather than political persecution. Terms like "self-hating Jews" etc. have been used extensively to stiffle dissent. Of course, Israel being a democratic country that has not stopped these voices, but it has successfully isolated them. And that in my is a pity. Any society that lacks an open appreciation for dissent becomes entangled in its own vision of the world. I think Israel is currently engaged in far more than a survival battle. It is a civil society that is struggling with what a "Jewish" identity means. Hence the vastly different visions of Shinoi, Likud, Shas, Labor and the Russian parties. This is a healthy struggle which is unfortunately not happening in other countries in the region.

In the case of Iran, we also have a deeply divided society. Not just two camps but many. You can see AIS and I agreeing on the negative role of religion in society, while standing diametrically opposed when it comes to rule of international law, neocon visions for the world and the source of legitimacy. Armin represents one of the (many) religous factions, and although we may see them all as one, they see subtle differences amongst themselves. There are Islamic reformists, Ultranationalist Iranians, Communiusts, Socialists, Islamomarxist (yeah I know :), Monarchists and others with the bulk of the population belonging to neither camp observing how things unfold in a dazed, confused and bemused fashion.

JFTDMaster at December 13, 2005 03:57 PM [permalink]:

" I believe the frequent usage of the holocaust to justify nearly everything can be a factor that dilute its effect in people's minds"
- I have never, not once, heard a jew use the holocaust to justify anything, so unless you can back this up, stop with your propaganda.
However, the vast majority of jews will tell you that they are NOT committing any atrocities. The only thing they believe they do is try to defend themselves from terrorist groups bent on killing every jew in Israel. If there are ever Israeli soldiers that get caught stealing, targeting civilians etc they get punished according to the rule of law. Among the palestinians, on the other hand, there is no rule of law, and every political party (except a recent addition) doubles as a terrorist group, with the ultimate goal of destroying Israel.

As far as Israelis are concerned, when palestinians stop their senseless attacks, they will get a reasonable peace offer. It seems that the palestinians are not interested in that, since they seem bent on voting for the most violent and pro-terrorist candidates in their elections. While this remains true, talk about a "one state" is in my humble opinion either idiocy or dishonest propoganda.

""Under considerable pressure from high-placed American Zionists, the UN decided to give away 55 percent of Palestine to a Jewish state despite the fact that this group represented only about 30 percent of the total population, and owned under 7 percent of the land.""
- This is kind of silly, considering about 80% of the British Mandate for Palestine is Jordan. (The League of Nations originally gave Britain this mandate, and the mandate/directive was to create a homeland for the jewish nation.)

"What gives you the right to occupy the Palestine?"
- It's a long story. Palestine is a general region. The parts of it which are Israeli territory are not occupied. The 1949 armistice agreement with jordan, (which by the way has been broken a couple of times since then), is what created the armistice "green line". The west bank and gaza were taken by Israel in 1967, to prevent continued arab attacks from there, and Israel offered back all those territories to Egypt and Jordan in return for peace. Of course, the league of nations refused, still hoping to destroy Israel.

This was a territory which was at one time promised to Israel, and it was never under any legitimate sovereignty, so in 1970's, some jews (against the government's will) started to come back to the homes they hand in the west bank prior to 1948. These were the first settlements. Then more people came to live there. Decades passed.

Now Israel has offered almost all of this territory to Arafat, 97% of it according to the chief negotiator of the Clinton Administration during the peace talks. He refused. Not really surprising, considering the PLO's official charter still calls for Israel's destruction.

Anybody who wants a peaceful Israeli and Palestinian state side by side has to realize that the Palestinians are the ones who refuse this, not Israel, despite all the propoganda.

Israel withdrew from Gaza, as a test of Palestinians being able to "self-govern". What was the result? Anarchy, increased violence, Hamas smuggling in enough weapons to rival Fateh. Terrorist groups rising in popularity.

an Iranian Student (AIS) at December 13, 2005 05:52 PM [permalink]:

Bandeh,

the Bible is an old book. there are many verses there that are simply undefendable such as stoning of women, executing a child who insults his parents! some of the purity laws or depictions of violent clashes...etc. and I am not someone who tries to bend either way.
It is old and in many instances outdated.
But the verse you mentioned really and geniunly meant the opposite of what you thought it meant.

And yes, it is a fact that some words are mistranslated and do not convey the originally intended meaning. This is true about the Bible, the Koran or any other old document. You deny this?!

an Iranian Student (AIS) at December 13, 2005 06:04 PM [permalink]:

As for the issue of using Biblical arguments to settle land issues in thsi day and age, yes i agree it would be nonsense in the religious sense.
But the Bible is also the literary and cultural product of a people and in that capacity there is some room for the Bible in the modern debates.
Take a fictous example. Suppose the Iranians were exiled from Iran after say the Mongolian inavsion and the land was gradually inhabited by people of say chinese origin!
Also suppose that the Iranians in exile kept their Iranian identity and culture, rejoiced over returningto their land every nowruz and kept reading Avesta, Shahnameh,Hafez and Saadi... zeolously generation afetr generation.
After ccenturies, ina more civilised world, the chance arose for the desecndants of those Iranians, who still considered themselves Iranian in all respects to return to parts of the Iranian plateau and form an independent nation-state. Then all the verses in thsoe books like Shahname about places in Iran and their connections to the people and the culture could and should be considered as a source of the legitimacy of the demand of the iranians to have a seperate national identity in that land.

JFTDMaster at December 13, 2005 07:21 PM [permalink]:

hmm I made an error, "Of course, the league of nations refused, still hoping to destroy Israel."

was supposed to say

"Of course, the *arab league* refused, still hoping to destroy Israel. "

Also,
"Of course, Israel being a democratic country that has not stopped these voices, but it has successfully isolated them. And that in my is a pity."
- Some voices isolate themselves by speaking nonsense, in the context of the national identity.
If 99% of the population is saying, "no we are not trying to kill palestinian civilians, we are trying to minimize their casualties while we defend ourselves. Why are we being accused of BS?", then the radical (and incidentally left-wing) 1% of the population which agrees with what is seen as enemy propoganda will naturally be ignored.

Ron at December 13, 2005 08:42 PM [permalink]:

Bandeh,

I've held my tongue about it until now, but you're speaking too much crap at this point.

First, you say "As you know, it takes two to ruin a relationship". No, it doesn't take two. It only takes one to f&$^ up badly
enough for the both of them. If someone beats me because I'm black, the only thing I did to ruin my relationship with the attacker
is exist.

Now you talk about facts being a product of neuroscience and our perceptions. Frankly, this is also crap.
An event either happens or it doesn't. Not both. If I witness with my own healthy pair of eyes two cars smash into each other,
but the other 6 billion people on Earth have an "agreed upon" perception that it didn't happen, the fact that it happened still remains
a fact. You're confusing fact with opinion.

As for Zionism, please answer me two simple questions:

1. Where do you think the Jewish people came from?
2. Murdered, hated, persecuted in Europe, and the Middle East, NOT ALLOWED TO IMMIGRATE ANYWHERE ELSE, where would you propose they go?

And before you accuse me of using the Holocaust to justify this and that...I will tell you that I don't have to.

Self-preservation is justification enough.

Self-preservation trumps EVERYTHING,including anyone's property claims; it is the most basic human right, it is the responsibility of every living organism.

Ben at December 13, 2005 08:43 PM [permalink]:

JFTDMaster,
I've done my kind service of eye-opening for those who wish to accept it.
If some of them had problems with it, it's really their lose and I'm not going to spoon feed them for more than the initial once.
I couldn't agree with you more in your comment for armin tho..

btw to everyone,
I'd like you all to know we have a large population of Jews here with strong roots in Iran. It's a shame how Israel-Iran relations went down the drain. My parents still tell me about an era of cooperation between the two nations before the 'revolution'.
Ahmadinejads statements are doing Iran bad service in the public opinion here.
There really is no reason for our contries to ever be in conflict.

With Regards,
Ben

Armin at December 13, 2005 09:09 PM [permalink]:

Said: "Palestine is a general region. The parts of it which are Israeli territory are not occupied. The 1949 armistice agreement with jordan, (which by the way has been broken a couple of times since then), is what created the armistice "green line"."

- Isn't it obvious that you are not telling all the needed key truth for understanding the conflict? In this case, those countries who attacked Israel have not been that silly (even if wrong) to make SUCH wars for an ordinary agreement or an ordinary ... . Leave your justifications and talk about behind the scene if you can afford it, or if you can't afford an honest tongue invest a curious ear to afford that in future.

Bandeh at December 13, 2005 09:47 PM [permalink]:

Ron,

It would probably have been best if you had continued to hold your tongue, since you add little value to the discussion other than an illustration of ignorance. The subjectivity of "facts" does not refer the the event but to the way people with dysfunctional minds like your can perceive them. I wasn't doubting that something happens, I doubt that your mind has the capacity to understand it fully as it happens. And although with your comments you do illustrate that your particular mind may be of limited capacity, it is alas the limitation of every human being to perceive an event in the same way. Hence Roshomon, etc. What you call "fact" is actually nothing other than "opinion". And a twisted one for that.

You ask me about Zionism or the right ot a Jewish homeland. I didn't actually question it, maybe someone else did. But maybe you share dyslexia with your neocon friend in the White House. In fact, I defend the right of Israel to exist where it is, within the boundaries of the pre-67 Israel proper or any other sustainable agreement between the two peoples. Anyway too many words wasted on a low iQ.

Armin at December 13, 2005 09:54 PM [permalink]:

Maybe should say sth about this: Where do you think the Jewish people came from? Murdered, hated, persecuted in Europe, and the Middle East, NOT ALLOWED TO IMMIGRATE ANYWHERE ELSE, where would you propose they go?

- Germany should pay for example, not Palestinians. In the other hand it is against rational equilibrium to claim historical lands. Just to give a part of one example: Iran had given (by force) a part of its land to Russia for 100 years according to an agreement and it ended recently which apparently means Iran can claim Azerbayjan, but fortunately we have acted in a peaceful way. We can claim Bahrain, UAE, ... according to much better justifications than yours but what happens in a world with many Israel conflicts? By the way, is there any special reason that jews have been hated that way during the history? Does it relate to the way they are (have been?) solving their problems with others' possessions?

bandeh at December 13, 2005 10:19 PM [permalink]:

JFTD Master,

Actually there is extensive (mis)appropriation of the feeling of horror at the attrocities committed by the Germans during the Sho'ah to silence any dissent on the Israeli Defense Force's actions that result in extensive loss of civillian lives. Every time anyone objects to human rights violations by the IDF, the label of anti-semitism and the memory of the gentile neighbors is invoked. This is rather counter-productive. You may disagree, but I couldn't care less.

As for Israeli soldiers being punished, that actually doesn't solve the problem. For two main reasons 1) There have been thousands of civillians killed in Iaraeli incursions and very few punishments in response to the inattention to civillian life. While I don't believe the individual IDF soldiers targets civillians, I sincerely believe that the IDF leadership wouldn't mind civillians being killed as "collateral damage" to Hamas or other terrorists. Statistics and news reports illustrate that tendency. 2) The IDF sends troops into refugee camps that have the highest concentration of people in the world. By using tactics to hunt down Hamas terrorists in what I have heard called "Hamas neighborhoods", they make a concious decision that civillian deaths are unavoidable. Again, if Palestinian lives were worth anything this wouldn;t be the response.

You needn't defend Israel as a country, since I would not attack it anyway. But I will continue to highlight the human rights abuses that have been chronicled by the Israeli Human Rights Agencies, Amnesty International and many other agencies worldwide firmly. Are there human rights abuses on the side of the Palestinians? Extensively. Should they be highlighted. You bettya.

The rest of your argument was probably geared towards Armin, with whom I share little in terms of worldviews.

Bandeh Khoda at December 13, 2005 10:22 PM [permalink]:

Ben,

I actually didn't have too much disagreement with your previous comments, so I am surprised that you thought I had disagreed with them.

As for Iranian Jews, I also think they are an asset for the future relationship of the two peoples of Iran and Israel. So again no disagreements there.

Bandeh Khoda at December 13, 2005 10:22 PM [permalink]:

Ben,

I actually didn't have too much disagreement with your previous comments, so I am surprised that you thought I had disagreed with them.

As for Iranian Jews, I also think they are an asset for the future relationship of the two peoples of Iran and Israel. So again no disagreements there.

Bandeh at December 13, 2005 10:43 PM [permalink]:

BTW since our friends all provided their favorite websites, I find these two groups as sharing my vision for Israel/Palestine.

http://www.vopj.org/
http://www.tikkun.org/

An Iranian Student (AIS) at December 14, 2005 12:26 AM [permalink]:

Bandeh said:
" it is alas the limitation of every human being to perceive an event in the same way. Hence Roshomon, etc. What you call "fact" is actually nothing other than "opinion". And a twisted one for that."

Sorry but this is absolute nonsense.
What every human percieves has nothing to do with the fact out there.
And that provides a common ground to eb able to comapre theories and to reject some and prefer some over others on an objective basis. That is why calling them "opinions" which is very misleading. opinions are not comparable and it leads to relativism which is obviously false.
It is very simple Bandeh, your claim above, is that a fact or is that also only your "opinion". If the latter is the case then what you say is already completely worthless and irrelevant. If the former is the case, how come only what you said here is all of a sudden a general and objective "fact"?

Bandeh at December 14, 2005 12:56 AM [permalink]:

AIS, what I have stated is definitely my understanding of the facts (the reality of the outside world). Whether they are worthy or worthless is a matter of opinion. Absolute objectivity does not exist. I totally agree with you that facts are objective, but what they mean can be quite subjective. In the previous posts "facts" has been used to refer to a set of views of how events took place, or why they took place.

Let me illustrate this concept. If you look at B'Tselem (the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights) (http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp) you will see the following statistics for the last five years (intifada II):

Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces 3269 (in the Occupied Ter.) + 56 (in Israel)
Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians 41

Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians 227 (in Occupied Territories) 450 (in Israel)

These are statistics. They may be complete or incomplete, but they are an indicator for facts. The interpretation of this can be made in idfferent ways,, depending on what side of the conflict you are on. If one considers the killing of civilians as an attrocity, then one could say Israeli defense forces and civillians have commited 3366/677 (or roughly 5) times more attrocities than Palestinians. This is an interpretation of a fact, which based on the UN Human Rights Charter would be a plausible one. Or if you are Ron or Dan you would say "the Palestinians targeted the Israelis intentionally, while the Israeli soldiers mistakenly killed this many Palestinians: or you may even consider to say "90% of those 3366 killed are terrorists since there is no distinction between Palestinian terrorists and civillians". All these represent perceptions of facts, but these statements are anything but facts.

So essentially, I am not calling facts "opinions", I am pointing out that what people refer to as facts are actually "opinions". These can be substantiated and based on specific interpretation of facts or they could be rather baseless. If the meaning of facts in the world were clear, there would be no use for social scientists and political analysts.

In any case, I don't think this is getting anywhere...we canhave a thousand posts and not add much to each other's knowledge or understandding. I think this very issue has been extensiively discussed in other posts. I think we should all refrain from shoving our (informed) opinions down each other's throats. Our differences are fundamental value differencesm and we constitute many sides. Tzeth'a Leshalom VeShuvh'a Leshalom.

Bandeh at December 14, 2005 12:58 AM [permalink]:

AIS, what I have stated is definitely my understanding of the facts (the reality of the outside world). Whether they are worthy or worthless is a matter of opinion. Absolute objectivity does not exist. I totally agree with you that facts are objective, but what they mean can be quite subjective. In the previous posts "facts" has been used to refer to a set of views of how events took place, or why they took place.

Let me illustrate this concept. If you look at B'Tselem (the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights) (http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp) you will see the following statistics for the last five years (intifada II):

Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces 3269 (in the Occupied Ter.) + 56 (in Israel)
Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians 41

Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians 227 (in Occupied Territories) 450 (in Israel)

These are statistics. They may be complete or incomplete, but they are an indicator for facts. The interpretation of this can be made in idfferent ways,, depending on what side of the conflict you are on. If one considers the killing of civilians as an attrocity, then one could say Israeli defense forces and civillians have commited 3366/677 (or roughly 5) times more attrocities than Palestinians. This is an interpretation of a fact, which based on the UN Human Rights Charter would be a plausible one. Or if you are Ron or Dan you would say "the Palestinians targeted the Israelis intentionally, while the Israeli soldiers mistakenly killed this many Palestinians: or you may even consider to say "90% of those 3366 killed are terrorists since there is no distinction between Palestinian terrorists and civillians". All these represent perceptions of facts, but these statements are anything but facts.

So essentially, I am not calling facts "opinions", I am pointing out that what people refer to as facts are actually "opinions". These can be substantiated and based on specific interpretation of facts or they could be rather baseless. If the meaning of facts in the world were clear, there would be no use for social scientists and political analysts.

In any case, I don't think this is getting anywhere...we canhave a thousand posts and not add much to each other's knowledge or understandding. I think this very issue has been extensiively discussed in other posts. I think we should all refrain from shoving our (informed) opinions down each other's throats. Our differences are fundamental value differencesm and we constitute many sides. Tzeth'a Leshalom VeShuvh'a Leshalom.

Babak jAn, well written article and to the point :) Looking forward to other good articles.

An Iranian Student (AIS) at December 14, 2005 01:00 AM [permalink]:

[Removed by editors in violation of Rule 4 of comment policy]

An Iranian Student (AIS) at December 14, 2005 01:18 AM [permalink]:

Bandeh,
You said:

"Whether they are worthy or worthless is a matter of opinion. Absolute objectivity does not exist. I totally agree with you that facts are objective, but what they mean can be quite subjective."

Again what you say doesn't really make much sense. What they mean is subjective? What does "mean" here mean?
You are at least indirectly denying that there exists an objective measure to compare the "opinions" or "the interpretatiosn of facts" with. This is not correct. It is always possible to choose the best theory. You reffer to neuroscience in your talks. that term itself belongs to an overall scientific theory that is mostly accepted, a theory that could never have progressed to this level unless there existed objective ways to judjke and refute "opinions". You are contradicting yourself and this has nothing to do with mine and your "fundamental value differences".

"...So essentially, I am not calling facts "opinions", I am pointing out that what people refer to as facts are actually "opinions". These can be substantiated and based on specific interpretation of facts or they could be rather baseless. If the meaning of facts in the world were clear, there would be no use for social scientists and political analysts."

Again, based on what criteria are you deciding what is the facts and what is the "opinions" based on the facts? Where are you drawing the lines?
you seemingly accept numbers and statistics as facts, but why exactly? How come they are not "opinions" themselves?
You see you get no where by your worldview.

Yes, teh facts are out there and all we have is our theories that are never identical to the facts. But at any given time we can in principle choose and adopt the best available theory and change it only if here is enough reason for it to be refuted.
To use Ron's example, the theory that explains the functioning of our eyes and the features of light as well as the conduct of drivers and cars is accurate enough to accept the results of witnessing a car crash as a fact. there is no reason to doubt it. In that sense it is a fact.
So is the inetrpretation of events during and after the formation of Israel. there are "better" opinions based this way on facts for which no rational reasons exits to be doubted or rejected and less true "opinions". the pro-palestinian "opinoins" happen to be in general of the "less true" variety.
All your word plays to put the two views on an equal "subjective" basis is an effort to avoid the issue of how they correspond to the accepted facts "out there" and how each stand the critical test.
I'm sorry you don't wish to continue this debate and I hope you keep your mind open in all respects.
(could you translate the Hebrew sentence BTW? Is it: "go out in peace and come back in peace"? :)

Babak S at December 14, 2005 01:46 AM [permalink]:

Armin said:

Germany should pay for example, not Palestinians. In the other hand it is against rational equilibrium to claim historical lands. Just to give a part of one example: Iran had given (by force) a part of its land to Russia for 100 years according to an agreement and it ended recently which apparently means Iran can claim Azerbayjan, but fortunately we have acted in a peaceful way. We can claim Bahrain, UAE, ... according to much better justifications than yours but what happens in a world with many Israel conflicts? By the way, is there any special reason that jews have been hated that way during the history? Does it relate to the way they are (have been?) solving their problems with others' possessions?

Germany paid the price for the crimes her leaders committed very dearly indeed. Almost all of Germany was ruined in 1945. Of course it paid the price in many other ways more directly related to the Jewish population, by loosing many of her Jewish (and of course non-Jewish) citizens whose departure before and after the war cost Germany her position as the pioneer in many fields, say, Physics.

How can we claim UAE, Bahrain or Azerbaijan? Take Azerbaijan: Iran's Qajars lost it in the second Iran-Russia war, which Iran had started, in 1828 under Turkmanchai treaty; Russia in that form does not exist any more and Azerbaijan is now a separate country, a member of the UN; Almost no convincing cultural claims (language, history) exist for claiming Azerbaijan as part of today Iran; Finally, the people living in the region are citizens of a legitimate country at the moment, so any territorial claims should and could be negotiated with their political representatives. None of the above applies to Israel, now or when it was created.

It is at best amusing to see that you repeat almost identically Ahmadinejad's quotes in the original post. How you justify and wrap them is irrelevant.

Armin at December 14, 2005 07:39 AM [permalink]:

"... Germany paid the price ..."
- If the price has been paid, fine, over, nothing remains to be paid by anybody including Palestinians.

"... How can we claim UAE, Bahrain or Azerbaijan? ..."
- I said we have better justifications than Israelis, not necessarily "right" justifications (reasons). Should I mention the justifications? (as I don't think they are totally right to claim these countries with, I hesitate to do so)

Regarding Ahmadinezhad, when someone says something right we should accept it. IF some country should pay, its e.g. Germans.

A Reader at December 14, 2005 07:47 AM [permalink]:

"... How you justify and wrap them is irrelevant."

- Generally: what you call justification may be a reason you have not yet understood, don't close your mind this way. Don't turn your guess and anticipation into finalized a reason. Haven't you blamed others' on such things before?

Dan at December 14, 2005 02:40 PM [permalink]:

I did not expect anyone to agree with my literal interpretation of the Old Testament,but it does have a bearing on politics in Israel,at least among the orthodox Jews.
Can anyone be totally objective?Of course not...but does that mean there is no such thing as objective truth and reality?
The Israeli army has undoubtedly killed innocent civilians,but remember,this is not a typical "war" with battle fronts and uniformed soldiers on both sides.Palestinian suicide bombers have sometimes been teen-agers or people disguised as Israeli civilians,and it's not always possible to identify the "bad guys."
I'm glad someone brought up the fact that Arafat turned down the extremely generous offer the Clinton administration made at the peace talks.Had he accepted,he would have been out of a job! But why did his people not take him to task for rejecting it,and why did the media not delve deeper into this story at the time?And speaking of Arafat,what ever happened to the multiple millions of dollars he had socked away in foreign banks?And why was that money not used to improve the living conditions of the Palestinians?

An Iranian Student (AIS) at December 15, 2005 03:24 AM [permalink]:

Please take the time to read this important petition:

PETITION

Any effort to isolate this regime is a step in the right direction

Armin at December 15, 2005 07:41 AM [permalink]:

Excuse me but how can you be this much ... to accept these: "Not since Adolf Hitler, has the head of a sovereign state used his position so openly to threaten the Jewish people with genocide." He has casted doubt on the numbers claimed to be killed, not all the issue and also there's no genocide threateing, but they seek destroying the government of Israel. Ahmadinezhad has also suggested this peaceful way:

"Iran's nation believes in taing part of the Paestinian nation in a referendum to announce their opinion about the future of Palestine" (http://www.baztab.com/news/31949.php)

You can well understand what this means and it is clear that Ahmadinezhad wants to wipe out the government of Israel not people (and the decision of Palestinians also can change this according to what he has said.).

If you hate Ahmadinezhad that's your problem and you'd better stop spreading the nonsense you are fed by the pro-Israeli media.

Ron at December 15, 2005 08:45 AM [permalink]:

Armin,

Your bad timing is almost comical. A few days ago,
your last post may have been more persuasive, but calling the Holocaust an outright "myth" as reported by every media outlet in the world yesterday is casting doubt on "all the issue" as you say, not just on the numbers. pro-Israeli media indeed.

An Iranian Student (AIS) at December 15, 2005 11:28 AM [permalink]:

Is not just bad timing. Even in his last talk he spoke of "original" palestinians and his intentiosn were very clear.
Armin,
I try to be more polite now so my comment won't get deleted.
You have shown us your true self in your last 3 comments much better than all the nonsense you said about your "scientific" study of Islam, and your true self is that of a pathetic islamo-fascist, and you deserve only to be treated as such. You and your like are those diretly responsible for me and my loved ones chagrin, as well as most of my countrymen in the last 26 years, and there will come a time whne your ilk will pay for it very very dearly.
That is all I have to say to you here, at the moment you are not worth any more time and energy. get lost.

Ben at December 15, 2005 11:39 AM [permalink]:

Ron,
you should've pointed out at the same opportunity
that Armin is claiming Ahmadi-Nejad called to wipe the Israel government and not the state of Israel and this is also a false claim.
Everyone can quick search in Google News (http://news.google.com/)and find reports and transcripts of the exact words Ahmadi-Nejad said.
He clearly says that Israel should be wiped of the map of the world.

Armin,
Have you ever heard the expression: "Blinded by hate" ?
How about the expression: "Selective hearing" ?
Or in your case: "Selective reading" ...

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=38772&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2005/12/15/ap2394357.html

If foods were thought, you'd be so thin..
I see you patronizing above An Iranian Student (AIS), at least he knows when his country and nation's public opinion were kidnapped by a president with psychological "God complex".

Ben at December 15, 2005 12:28 PM [permalink]:

This following link is a short video from the Egyption T.V (with English subs), It shows what happens in Iran, Syria, U.A.E and the rest of the arab/muslim world.
It would be easy to come up with many more examples from the Iranian T.V, however, this one illustrates best my point from my previous comment when I said the Iranian president steals the Iranian public opinion. If you know whats going on in Iranian T.V you know theres no shortage of soap operas and programs that are all dedicated to educate for hate. This particular link shows what I could only describe as "Child abuse"
http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=924wmv&ak=null

Armin,
In my last comment I wrote some things which border insultment toward you and I did it on purpose to try and shake things.
These videos and reports help me understand how you developed your opinions.
I can't blame you. I know how this sounds, but I'm really writing this with full and all honesty.
I could only hope that you try to make a blank page and consider your views again using reliable sources which you can find if you only try.
I'm not trying to turn you into Pro-Israel/Jewish/Zionist. But I wish you moderate yourself only by a bit so our people can have hope for a better future.
I hinted before that I doubt the concept of winner in a war.

With Regards,
Ben

JFTDMaster at December 15, 2005 07:32 PM [permalink]:

"Isn't it obvious that you are not telling all the needed key truth for understanding the conflict?"
- No, but that was the only sentence in your entire post which was actually logical enough to make sense.

"Germany should pay for example, not Palestinians." - Palestinians didn't "pay", they are not victims, although the have a victimhood complex when it comes to some things.
A mostly empty area with no sovereignty allocated had a nation created on some of that territory, so now that part of it is Israel. The "palestinians" of that time joined and led the attempts to wipe out all the jews, starting in 1930's (and all those attacks eventually led to the creation of jewish self-defense and yes terrorist groups.).

"Every time anyone objects to human rights violations by the IDF, the label of anti-semitism and the memory of the gentile neighbors is invoked. This is rather counter-productive."
- No, what is happening is this: over the past 2 years, over 100 resolutions have been passed against Israel in the UN. None against Palestinians (whose terrorism is the only reason Israel militarily acts). None against the Saudi or the Iranian regime. None against the ongoing genocide in Sudan, already a few years old. Now IMO palesitnians are 90% for the violence, but even ignoring that, you can see that there is a total lack of proportionality, i.e. there is bias.

"In 2003, the UN called three emergency sessions to condemn Israel. In addition, in the same year, the General Assembly passed 18 resolutions that singled out Israel for criticism. The entire rest of mankind - 190 countries, about 6 billion people - drew only four resolutions. "
Hypocrisy alive and well at the UN, Dec. 14, 2005, The Star

"Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces 3269 (in the Occupied Ter.) + 56 (in Israel)
Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians 41 "
- These are to a fairly large degree lies, well documented. They count the hundreds of palestinian opponents executed by PLO as "killed by Israel", they count dead members of police forces who were attacking Israeli soldiers, they count hamas/islamic jihad "activists" on the way to blow up a pizzeria, etc.
Generally speaking, most palestinian dead are militants, while most israeli dead are civilian. This is fairly documented, "statistically".
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=439


September 2000 - September 2002
"In absolute terms, many more Israeli females have been killed than Palestinian females. If we include combatants and fatalities for whom responsibility is unclear, 70 Palestinian females have been killed; the corresponding Israeli figure is 190 (see Graph 1.7). "

"In absolute terms, nearly three times as many Israeli noncombatants aged 45 and over have been killed as Palestinian noncombatants 45 and over (see Graph 1.10). Israelis have killed 55 noncombatant "mature" Palestinians, while Palestinians have killed 148 "mature" Israeli noncombatants. "

ETC, all ignoring the fact that more or less 100% of palestinian civilian deaths are accidenals, due to the terrorists hiding among civilians, while the israeli civilians are the main target for palestinians.

Armin at December 16, 2005 05:10 AM [permalink]:

Ron, as far as I know Ahmadinezhad called the number and the way the holocust story has been told a myth, not all of it. The media are ready to abuse. Be careful or the media build a hatemonger out of you.

JFTD, Palestinians are victims of Israel's crimes. Without bothering yourself with biased sources tell me what right do you have to occupy the land which is not yours. Making historical claims, even if they are right, leads to what you see, can't you get that?

AIS, do not be a rude hatemonger. I don't think calling to see people (Ahmadinezhad in this case) as they are, not as misrepresented by the biased media to pursue political goals, is bad.

Ben, if I wanted to be selective in reading and hearing, I wouldn't come to this site to be insulted without logical reason by people like AIS from time to time.

Let me tell you the painful truth that my religious muslim friends who do not agree with you regarding many things are more polite and honest than you in their discussions, even with people like you who insult them even without a backing of proper rational thought for their claims.

Armin at December 16, 2005 05:18 AM [permalink]:

AIS, let e tell you something based on Psychology if you can afford to get that from behind your hate: "In case of frank people like me and you, if I have the government of Iran, I'll do to you as I talk to you, and if you have the government, you do me what you talk to me. It reveals that the government is much better to be in whose hands (Now, it's not in my hand nor yours. You must be wise enough to see if I defend Ahmadinezhad regarding sth, it does not mean he has my support and respect totally)"

Armin at December 16, 2005 06:29 AM [permalink]:

Ben,

Regarding this link:

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=924wmv&ak=null

They are not understanding their own religion and one of my concerns is to help people know Islam as it is. According to my studies, where it says Jews are pigs and apes in Quran it is about the Jews who fight the prophet, so these days it applies to very bad Jews and it is not general, but the biased media don't care, they try to abuse it and sadly this fact is not limited to pro-Israeli media, it can be seen in Iran and ..., too. It results in hate and war.

For a better life, it is important that as we try to educate muslims about the facts, you try to do so among yourselves (people accept right things from people whom they think they are right better, which is bad, but a fact).

Best Wishes

Armin at December 16, 2005 06:36 AM [permalink]:

Some of the very bad people are like Pigs and Apes? Why? How? Muslims believe people look like their deeds in the other world, and may appear in the form of animals.

Ben at December 16, 2005 08:23 AM [permalink]:

"They are not understanding their own religion"
Is it the same here too?

Lebanese Students at a Hizbullah TV Symposium: We Should Fight the Jews and Burn Them Like Hitler. Israel Should Be Wiped Off the Map:

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=962wmv&ak=null

Armin at December 16, 2005 11:25 AM [permalink]:

Of course it is if they say evil non-Islamic things such as "We Should Fight the Jews and Burn Them Like Hitler.". Some people look for such news to abuse.

I think this is right: "We should fight those Jews (or non-Jews) who kill the innocents and wipe Israel's regime (not people) off the map"

By the way, I have heard Ahadinezhad calling for referendum among Palestinians (naturaly Palestinian Jews as well) to deterine the fate of their land.

Ben at December 16, 2005 11:47 AM [permalink]:

Armin,
You have a problem with your grasp of right and wrong.
Eat some more apples.

Ben at December 16, 2005 12:15 PM [permalink]:

Armin,

You said: "Some people look for such news to abuse."
-None is abusing news. On the contrary, they bring the news as it is, with no interpretations and no modifications. It is YOU who say they abuse news, because this shows your system of beliefs with it's pants down. You are subconsciously ashamed of it, and ashamed you should be. You don't want the 'target' to know what you and your kind are really longing for, are really planning for, and so, you try to delegitimize this news source.

you mentioned the word: "innocents"
- I assume you meant innocent Palestinians..
They all get even worse brainwash than the one you've seen on the link from the Egyptian T.V.
The vast majority of them openly support suicide bombings (I assume you too).
Innocent Palestinians might exist, but they are even rarer than diamonds.

You also said: "among Palestinians (naturaly Palestinian Jews as well)"
-Dear sir, there are no Palestinian Jews because if Jews were living in Palestinian cities or villages, they would've been killed a long time ago...
There was no Jewish citizen in the past 5 years (who wasn't a soldier or extreme leftist activist) that entered the palestinian area and got away with it alive.

Salutes,
Ben

heydarbaba at December 17, 2005 02:26 AM [permalink]:
To Babak Seradjeh, You referred to Ahmadinejad's comments in the following way: "Such evil remarks in blatant disregard of documented history ..." how did you decide it was evil? When I look at it to me it seems a comment full of logic, in fact pure logic, I hope the reason you called it evil is not because it dares to differ from your biased view. That would be the worst of all reasons. Since you brought up the word "evil" let me throw at you some statements and you decide if they are "pure logic" or "evil". Menachem Begin called Palestinians as "beasts walking on two legs.." Raful Eitan, Menachem's chief of staff , regarding the Plaestinians said" when we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Yitzhak Shamir compared the Plaestininas to a plague of locusts (but as he vowed to settlers in a 1988 speech, they would be "crushed like grasshoppers...heads smashed against the boulders and walls."). Now I want you to take some time off from carrying water for this Jewish apartheid and think and decide if these statements and the characters who made them would be considered evil in your book. At another point you wrote: "The importance is in that it is a showcase of all that is wrong with these people's ideals and methods(referring to Ahmadinejad and his constituents): .............and most importantly, a burning desire to force one's flawed view on the rest of the people. " This is really interesting. I am sure you know that in some European countries if not all, it is a crime to shed doubt on the holocaust. In other words, in those European countries if you dare to differ from government line on holocaust, they will arrest you, prosecute you and will throw your sorry ass in jail. This is one hell of a "a burning desire to force one's flawed view on the rest of the people. ". Don't you think you should save this statement for Europeans?.By throwing that at Ahmadinejad I would say you are barking up the wrong tree. The only part of your essay I happen to agree with is at the ending of it in which you say: "Only the leaders of the world need to address it in more meaningful actions than words of disbelief or condemnation." Disbelief, condemnation , criminalizing the process of free thought , criminalizing the freedom of expression regarding the subject of holocaust, is not the way to deal with this issue. These leaders of the EU and US, but especially EU need to look at Ahmadinejad's comments as what they are and respond to it in a rational manner. Obviously Ahmadinejad is well aware that Europeans will not take back the very same people they victimized in the first place. This is not to say that many in Israel would not leave and go back to Europe. (even Iranian Jews are not moving to Israel, as Musa Ghassab (Moshe Katsav) the Israeli president has often complained)After all Israel is not such a great place to live. When I asked an Israeli friend of mine why he emigrated to US, his answer was short and simple: "Israel is a shitty place to live.."..(this was before the second, bloody intifadah). But Ahmadinejad has a very practical solution to this problem that has started with massive emigration of Jews to Plaestine. His solution should resonate well with those who "worship " democracy. Why not let every one who lives in that land from Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, gays, straights, geeks, gooks and what have you take a vote on this issue. Le ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Armin at December 17, 2005 05:40 AM [permalink]:

Ben,

"None is abusing news."
- If you broadcast news selectively and leave interpretation to people, in fact you have not leaved it to people. Also if you introduce Islam with those pieces of evil news, it's called "lie" or at least lack of understanding. Our frank plan is : "not being an oppressor nor being oppressed". "Our" is defined based on this goal and can include Jews as well.

you mentioned the word: "innocents" I assume you meant innocent Palestinians..
- No I don't.

They all get even worse brainwash than the one you've seen on the link from the Egyptian T.V.
- You do get brainwash as well.

The vast majority of them openly support suicide bombings (I assume you too).
- if they have no other way to attack "their killers", that's good and it is martyrdom not suicide, but if it results in killing innocents or if they have other ways for defence to save their life, it is bad and forbidden.

Innocent Palestinians might exist, but they are even rarer than diamonds.
- Apparently it's a part of the evil brainwash you have recieved.

there are no Palestinian Jews
- I mean those who have leaved legally in Palestine not as a result of occupation and there are many such Jews.

Ben at December 17, 2005 07:44 AM [permalink]:

Armin,

"None is abusing news."
-There are news sources dedicated to sports, some are deditated to science, and some are dedicated to only weather. MemriTV in particular is dedicated to translating media from the arab world, and thats not abusing news any more than a sports website would make you think there are only sports in the world.. Further more, if you actually took the time to browse this website, you would've found that some of the translated videos have nothing to do with hate and actually show liberal arabs talking and expressing their opinions. So there you go, I'm proving again that you were totally wrong.

"innocents"
-I counted 2 people before me, saying you are not making alot of sense in your sentences.
Sorry, but this force me to assume what you meant.. otherwise it's not possible to know.

"You do get brainwash as well"
-No, I do not.. You're the one being brainwashed..
(I would explain in detail, but it's not worth it since you didn't..)

"suicide bombings"
-In this paragraph of yours, you jusify "martyrdom" as a means of last resort.
Let me tell you something. There are no other occupied people on earth that invented suicide as a means of fighting other than Muslims. And you can see a great example with Chechens who aren't Arabs, but are Muslims..
There is no excuse to the suicide bombings. They kill and injure innocent people. In Russia, when Chechens are doing something similar, Russians go inside with tanks and destroy complete villages.
America, went in Afghanistan and Iraq dropped Napalm and 1 ton bombs in residential areas where the terrorists surrounded themselves with civilians who gave them harbor even while unaware. There are many more examples of how countries react to suicide bombers. But Israel? What does it do? It wastes alot of money on intelligence, find the one or more persons responsible for sending the suicide bomber, and then target them with laser guided missiles that surgically kill them and in most cases- them and only them. Innocent civilians are hurt by this method in small percentage of the cases and when they get hurt, you can count them on one hand of a 4 fingered cartoon character.
When you say their land is occupied you mix two kinds of occupation that happen in the same time.
The first one is West bank and Gaza being occupied by the IDF in the form of Checkpoints and road blocks. This form of occupation is necessary in order to close down their cities in case of suicide bomber intelligence alert. And this is the only reason for the army occupying.
If there were no suicide attacks, the army would have no reason to be there. It's not Israeli territory.
The other form you see as occupation is the settlers. Here is your example: Instance of pulling out of Gaza, they were evacuated.
They settle there because of ideology and they never settled in inhabitable zones populated by Palestinians. They never pushed Palestinians out of their land. This is a virtual occupation since the Israeli government showed it can evacuate them on command.
Real occupation is the army being there and there is only one reason for that and thats the suicide bombings.

"Innocent Palestinians might exist but are rare"
-It's not a brainwash that I recived since I never recived any.. I actually came to this conclusion myself.

"there are no Palestinian Jews"
-I stand still behind my claim..

Ben.

Babak S at December 17, 2005 08:29 AM [permalink]:
heydarbaba, You and your tactical and apologetic comments are no stranger to me, but for the benefit of others, I submit a few brief responses: how did you decide it was evil? When I look at it to me it seems a comment full of logic, in fact pure logic, I hope the reason you called it evil is not because it dares to differ from your biased view. That would be the worst of all reasons. No it is not because it differs from my view, which is not biased at all. I have seen, read, heard, and most important of all lived through Mr. Ahmadinejad's reasoning and ideas and the world they have created in Iran. It is evil because (1) it insists on representing a factual and objective falsehood as truth (since the Holocaust is not a myth); (2) it goes on to call for removing and displacing a whole nation forcefully (no other way being imaginably possible even if a vote is taken--see below) based on that falsehood, amounting to violating the basic rights of that nation's individuals; and additionally in this case (3) it disguises itself in politically fashionable terminology to achieve that dreaded goal, i.e. a referendum on violating those basic rights. Now I want you to take some time off from carrying water for this Jewish apartheid and think and decide if these statements and the characters who made them would be considered evil in your book. Would you care so much to give references for your quotes? If in fact anyone talks that way about ordinary members of a group of people, that is evil. I am sure you know that in some European countries if not all, it is a crime to shed doubt on the holocaust. In other words, in those European countries if you dare to differ from government line on holocaust, they will arrest you, prosecute you and will throw your sorry ass in jail. This is one hell of a "a burning desire to force one's flawed view on the rest of the people. ". Don't you think you should save this statement for Europeans?.By throwing that at Ahmadinejad I would say you are barking up the wrong tree. First of all, denying the Holocaust is flawed not vice versa. Secondly, I am not in favour of hate-speech and other similar laws in general. But, and that's an important but, those laws in Europe make perfect sense in the context of what happened in the 20th century. If a gang commit crimes based on a flawed yet popular view that buys them public support, which is the case for the Holocaust and anti-semitic views, it is imperative to fight that flawed view and those who used or may use it to commit crimes, in the form of temporary laws until the responsible elements are uprooted or weak enough not to be a threat. Ultimate, however, thebest way of fighting any flawed view is of course through free and rational discussion, but before that is even possible, the necessary freedom and most importantly the lives of people who are supposed to have the right to that freedom must be protected. Outlawing denial of the Holocaust in Europe is an example that fits in this category. Outlawing it in the Bahamas does not. But Ahmadinejad has a very practical solution to this problem that has started with massive emigration of Jews to Plaestine. His solution should resonate well with those who "worship " democracy. Why not let every one who lives in that land from Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, gays, straights, geeks, gooks and what have you take a vote on this issue. Let the people of that land decide their faith with a simple democratic process. ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Tarek at December 17, 2005 01:09 PM [permalink]:

"I wondered why Mr. Ahmanedinejad doesn't provide the Palestinians with a piece of Iran."

Why would he? He was not involved in genocide against the Palestinians. He was not involved the Holocaust, nor was Iran or any other Muslim country. He did not commit genocide against Jews; Europeans did. So why should the compensation for the Holocaust (which I believe did happen) be done at the expense of the Palestinians? Simple logic. One very good sign of bad arguments is asking the wrong question.
An Arabic proverb: Prejudice is the disease of the mind.

An Iranian Student (AIS) at December 17, 2005 02:01 PM [permalink]:

Just one small addition to babak's response to our "buddy" concerning laws against Holocaust denial in Europe:

As Babak said those laws were indeed necessary after the war when entire populatiosn grewup brainswashed by teh Nazi propaganda regime. No decent person can deny the need for such laws.
However I personally think that nowadays there is no need for them and that as is clear by the kind of use the likes of Buddy and Ahamdinezhad make of this, it ultimately does more harm than good. The main reason it still exists is not a secret at all. It is the usual results of giving governemnts an extra power, even temprarily, would be very very difficult to take it away from it, as in teh economiuc sense the Reagan administration found out how difficult it is to make a government smaller and it is yet another example of how in teh long run the free market (economically or that of ideas" is always the only right way to go.


Other comments by Tarek, the buddy, Armin etc about "palestinian people's" land being taken , or having had to "pay" ... just shows what I said earlier about the propaganda need of keepin those innocent people in such miserable conditions in camps as a "pariah" people different from the rest of arab countries. It provides such a juicy opportunity for relying "arguments" on nonsense. Again there was no "palestinian nation" before to have to "pay" for anything, neither had "this country" any land to be usurped (when something doesnot exist, it can't have anything either)
.
those who are justifiably concerned about the condition of the socalled "palestinas" today, open your eyes and see the real culprits (and the fools who fell right in their trap)

Ben at December 17, 2005 03:46 PM [permalink]:

There was no,
There is no,
There will never be any,
"genocide" against Palestinians.

If Israel wanted to genocide the Palestinians,
she has the ability to do them all untill the last one in less than one hour.
And yet she does not do it.

Palestinians do suffer,
but they bring 100% of their suffering onto themselves by themselves.

The following are the words on the new Hamas election propaganda video from Palestinian T.V:

"We succeeded, with Allah's grace, to raise an ideological generation that loves death like our enemies love life. We will not abandon the way of Jihad and Shahada [Martyrdom] as long as one inch of our holy land is in the hands of the Jews.

"Congratulations to our people of 1948 [Israeli Arabs] on the liberation of Gaza. You wish to destroy them [the Israelis] from their interior. We will never forget you, and never leave you. A day will come when our flag will fly above all the quarters of our land. Our flag will fly on the minarets of Jerusalem, and the walls of Acre, and the quarters of Haifa".
[Hamas website, December 12, 2005]

You can watch the video here: http://www.pmw.org.il/Latest%20bulletins%20new.htm#b121205


Ben

Ben at December 17, 2005 03:54 PM [permalink]:

P.S
You can only click the "Play Video" link from Internet Explorer. Firefox doesnt work with it. sorry..

m at December 18, 2005 02:13 PM [permalink]:

No genocide, agreed. what about ethnic cleansing?

Ben at December 18, 2005 04:02 PM [permalink]:

Yes I agree..
There was ethnic cleansing.
There was ethnic cleansing when Israel pulled all Jews out of their homes in Yamit, Hebron and lately north and east of the Gaza Strip (where I'd like to remind you NO Palestinians ever lived..), yea you're right.. Israel is doing ethnic cleansing against itself.. Maybe it's time Israel stop acting so suicidal and expel terrorist Palestinians FOR A CHANGE just like Palestinians expelled Jews out of their territory and nearby territory in 1948 and just like some 'enlightened' arab countries expelled Jews at about that same time.

Hey.. if we're all into that ethnic cleansing issue, Israel isn't respecting itself as an honorable ethnic cleansing state.. since if it had any respect for itself, it would kick all the 2 million Israeli arabs that have 80% unemployment rate and feed out of the Israeli welfare system without paying any taxes and having astronomical crime rates.. oh.. and also being a huge load on the health system.
Shall I also add they have representation in the parliament of Israel? Shall I add one of the Israeli arab parliament members (Azmi Bishara) went to Lebanon a few days ago and called for the "destruction of Israel" and called israel "the robbery of the century"? Shall I ask how would the enlightened Swiss parliament for example react if one of their members did the same?

Yeah.. this Israel is so sneaky.. Trying to cleanse Arabs while giving them sits in the parliament while their representatives in the Israeli parliament fly to Lebanon and call for the "destruction of Israel" on one hand, and evacuate Jews on the other.. What an original and vicious ways this Israel has..

Yeah.. and meanwhile, Israel can continue to evacuate Jews in reality and suffer accusations of having expelled arabs in the minds of the delusional and the gullible to the Palestinian propaganda..

BTW
How does it make sense that a country being consisted of more than 100 different nationalities and all races be racist?
Aha! That is why Israel is always evacuating Jews.. It doesnt like it's own raceS.. Very strange this Israel.. Very strange..

Armin at December 18, 2005 05:36 PM [permalink]:

Ben,

You do get brainwash. You are ready for it:
You said: "I counted 2 people before me, saying you are not making alot of sense in your sentences. Sorry, but this force me to assume what you meant. ...". 2 opponent (of mine) people saying something (about me) forces you? Wake up!


You say: "How does it make sense that a country being consisted of more than 100 different nationalities and all races be racist?"
- There are strong answers. A weak one: 2 million Israeli arabs that have 80% unemployment rate

Three advices for my friend (yes, I can have Jew friends in Israel, "honesty" is the only thing I need from my friends according to their knowlege and limitations):

1. Please don't justify killing civillians.

2. Please see the crimes of Israeli government as well.

3. Please don't draw the circle of innocents so small that results in crimes. We all have problems regarding ethical and scientific issues, we get brainwashes (although some/most of us don't know), we do mistakes and may regret in future, but when it's the matter of life and death, most of people are assumed to be innocent enough. Hitler also had justifications, Germans were getting brainwash and were not well-aware, and happened what happened ... and ... it may happen again and again until we all wake up.

Armin at December 18, 2005 07:03 PM [permalink]:

Babak,

"I have seen, read, heard, and most important of all lived through Mr. Ahmadinejad's reasoning and ideas and the world they have created in Iran."
- Apparently you cannot see the vast differences between practicing muslims. Also, you don't know post-revolution and war symptoms of the society as well.

"Holocaust is not a myth"
- Does the president totally denys those crimes or he casts doubt on the numbers and details? In both cases Holucast may be called myth by him but which one he means the biased media and people don't care to understand.

"Basic rights of individuals (place of living, right to life, etc), let alone a whole nation of them, may not be put to the votes of anyone."
- Apparently the president is talking with their language (do you read his full Persian speeches?). They put to vote the right of living place of Palestinians in UN, where Zionists had a considerably high influence.

I don't like Ahmadinezhad as "Iran's president" (Although I voted for him to prevent Rafsanjani), but I think you are not fair to Ahmadinezhad and the media has made you almost blind about him.

Babak S at December 18, 2005 08:04 PM [permalink]:

Armin,

"I have seen, read, heard, and most important of all lived through Mr. Ahmadinejad's reasoning and ideas and the world they have created in Iran."
- Apparently you cannot see the vast differences between practicing muslims. Also, you don't know post-revolution and war symptoms of the society as well.
I'm sorry but the "vast differences" between practising muslims have nothing to do with what I said. It's the same basic ideology that has been practised after the revolution. War symptoms cannot and do not explain what has consistently been applied as part of the same "revolutionary" principles and the "preservation of the system" (or the "sacred system of the Islamic Republic" if you are interested in the more literal official version) before, during and after the war, even by Khatami's government.

"Holocaust is not a myth"
- Does the president totally denys those crimes or he casts doubt on the numbers and details? In both cases Holucast may be called myth by him but which one he means the biased media and people don't care to understand.
Yes, he does totally deny all of it. Even if the talk was about details, they must have been pretty signifcant "details" to turn the fact that the killings of the Jews in the gas chambers amounted to genocide into a "myth." And that is what he claims, isn't it? No apologetic spinstering can cover up that final conlcusion.

"Basic rights of individuals (place of living, right to life, etc), let alone a whole nation of them, may not be put to the votes of anyone."
- Apparently the president is talking with their language (do you read his full Persian speeches?). They put to vote the right of living place of Palestinians in UN, where Zionists had a considerably high influence.
Yes, I have read his speech in Persian, and he is talking his own language. It's interesting that you claim he is talking "their" language, since most inside proponenets of the president, claimed swiftly that he is talking the langauge of the crowd he was addressing and so we should not expect the phrasing to be diplomatic. That is what is called, euphamistically, double talk. The vote to grant Israel statehood and membership of the UN (though it has been a pretty strained membership anyway) was not to deny "Palestinians" the right to live wherever they chose. How did the 20% minority of Arabs who live in Israel happen to live there? It was completely possible for the rest to stay and become citizens of the new state. They did not. They chose not to. The Zionsit influence is a myth, if you mean others, including the representatives and advocates of the Palestinian Arabs, do not have influence (they do!). It's a one-sided, distorted, version of reality if you don't.

Your other claim that the media have made me blind is complete falsehood, and not just because "the media" is a plural noun. If the media have made me blind, how come they haven't made you blind? Do you have special eyes we mortals lack? At best, this is a general conspiracy theory applied specifically, which amounts to a personal psychological pseudo-explanation that is totally worthless in our discussion, since you do not know me personally anyway.

heydarbaba at December 18, 2005 10:26 PM [permalink]:
Babak, Since you liked my apologetic comments and cared to give us your "unbiased" opinion!!! then allow me to present to you some more apologetic comments. Let me start off with your big flop first. In my comment I said: "But Ahmadinejad has a very practical solution to this problem that has started with massive emigration of Jews to Palestine. His solution should resonate well with those who "worship " democracy. Why not let every one who lives in that land from Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, gays, straights, geeks, gooks and what have you take a vote on this issue. Let the people of that land decide their faith with a simple democratic process. Let them decide if they want to keep this Jewish apartheid where you have first class and second class citizens , occupied territories, occupied people, and replace it with a humane , civilized, democratic state." In your response you decided to change the subject. Now that was not very nice and I hope you don't do that again because if you do I will talk about this issue till all the cows come home. What Ahmadinejad is suggesting in his solution is what is called "one state solution" which is the nightmare for the Jewish fanatics and extremists and Zionists around the world. When they hear the "one state solution" they simply lose all their rational if they ever had any and just go ape shit. What "one state solution " is (and I am sure you are well aware of it which could be the reason for you to have changed the subject) that we would put an end to this Jewish apartheid regime which was established by ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, an apartheid regime that has committed massacres after massacres, war crimes after war crimes and has shown absolute disrespect for human lives, human dignity and their belongings and properties and in the process has become the embodiment of all evil on earth. There is a whole lot that can be said about this Jewish apartheid (which is the only existing apartheid on earth). However "one state solution" suggests that this apartheid regime be dismantled and replaced with a civilized, humane and democratic government. You can call it Israel, you can call it Palestine or you can call it Disneyland. Dismantling the Jewish apartheid does not say that Jews leave that land, dismantling of Jewish apartheid does not suggest that Jews should go to the ocean, it does not mean that Jews should be expelled from this land. You might not be old enough to remember that there was another apartheid regime , the ex-South African apartheid. When somebody talked about the dismantling that apartheid, their constituents would go ape shit and ...but that apartheid was dismantled and has been replaced with a democratic government. The whites were not executed, were not killed, were not expelled. The same can happen in dismantling this Jewish apartheid which as of now has become the embodiment of all evil on earth and rightly so. Dismantling the Jewish apartheid would put an end to this occupation of Palestinian lands which has been the longest, the most bloody, inhumane, cruel and barbaric occupation ever since the fall of Nazis. It would also liberate many of the Jews in Israel and around the world who do not wish to live the life of a Jewsih fanatic , Jewish extremists,or a Zionists from self hate and the , guilty shameful feelings, it would make them an accepted part of the civilized world .What an average decent Israeli goes through right now is what an average ex Sout ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
heydarbaba at December 18, 2005 10:48 PM [permalink]:

Babak,
I was going to give you a refrence but I forgot. I get almost all, %99.999 of my information about Israel from Jewish and Israeli sources. This does not mean I dont read other documents or books, but the main body of my information about Israel is from Jewish and Israeli sources. Since I have never been to Israel I think it is better to get my information from those who have been there , lived there and ..if I can trust them...there is a book which is written by a Pulitzer prize winning Jewish journalist, author and I recommand that book to those Iranians and non Iranians who are interested to know what kind of a life goes on in Israel besides what we see in the news....this book tells the stories that you will NOT hear or see in the mainstream!! media. I thought it was a fascinating book and I could not see any overwhelming bias in it.
How Israel Lost, Four Questions by Richard Ben Cramer
ISBN 0-7432-5028-1 published by Simon and Schuster

since the subject of your post is about public display of Evil let me conclude it with some fitting remarks by some of Israeli leaders....

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism,colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.

"We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.

Ron at December 19, 2005 12:41 AM [permalink]:

Dear Hyderbaba,

Please allow me to point out what I believe is the critical flaw in your post, and then ask you a simple question. The comparison of Israel with apartheid South Africa
is faulty. Why? S. African apartheid regime discriminated on the basis of race, where members of the same nationality
(South African) were denied equal rights. In Israel, there is no such discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity
but on nationality. Jews are a nation. Not a religion (an atheist or buddhist jew is still a jew), not on ethnicity or
race (witness the multitude of ethnicities and colors of the Jewish people). Jewish people are either descendents of the
ancient tribes of Israel or "naturalized" members of the Jewish nation (converts, who must learn about being a Jew the same
way naturalized citizens of any state must learn to pass a citizenship test.)

The only difference between Jews as a nation and French or Germans as a nation is that the Jewish state (Judea) was destroyed and its
people exiled in 586 BCE when it was conquered by the Babylonians.

Whether or not some Jews today accept or don't accept this doesn't change anything.

Now given that Jews are a nation and Israel is in essence the reincarnation of the ancient state of their ancestors, the State of
Israel has the same right to deny residency and certain rights to non-Jews the same way France can deny residency and certain rights to non-French.

Palestinian Arabs have the misfortune of descending from Arabians (people from Arabian peninsula) who decided to conquer a large chunk of the world.

They are no more native to Palestine/Israel as Arabs are native to Spain and Morocco. A good example is the Arab state of Egypt, where
the Pyramids stand as a testament to the land's non-Arab past.

While the Egyptians that built the Pyramids are long gone, causing no such problems for today's Egyptians, the Palestinian Arabs have
the misfortune of living on land where the descendants of its previous inhabitants are still alive and well.

So I ask you please, as an Israeli, as a Jew, so I can start packing my bags, tell me please, where do I belong?

If not in Jerusalem or Judea (today's "West Bank"), where the state of my ancestors once stood, then where should I go?


Bandeh at December 19, 2005 01:46 AM [permalink]:

Ron and other friends,

Actually it is interesting to note that Israelis and Palestinians are genetically very close. It is quite possible that Palestinians today (both Christian and Muslims) are genetically identical to Sephardic Jews, and may have been Israelites who converted to Christianity and Islam during the ages when the land changed hands.

Please see the following United States National Institute of Health Journal Article.

[link]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11543891&dopt=Citation[/link]

I guess our fundamentalist Ultra-orthodox Jewish settler friends and their Hamas counterparts may not be too happy to hear that Isaac and Ishmael may have been one and the same person. So if god gave the land to anyone, he might have given it to both of these peoples :) Imagine if JFTD Master or Ron were born in a Palestinian family he would possibly be an active Hamas member by the name of Abu Raouf :)

But of course all the science in the world will not help the issue. I just wanted to make this a little more fun. Carry on with the previous discussions my friends :)

_______________________________

Ben,

You seem to be a ogical person. So you can't imagine that the Israelis have 1% effect on Palestinian suffering? not even 0.5%? You are totally certain it's 100%? Talk about absolutism Wow :)

Bandeh at December 19, 2005 01:48 AM [permalink]:

Ben,

I meant logical :)

Bandeh at December 19, 2005 02:02 AM [permalink]:

Before anyone capitalizes on the retraction of the above-mentioned article, please note that the scientific validity of the article was not under question, but sentences with normative/value statements (seen as political undertones) were objected to. Google for different perspectives on the issue.

Since our Right-wing/Neocon/Ultraorthodox friends may doubt any study not done within Israel proper, here are some Israeli/American sources:

In the article "High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews" (Human Genetics 107(6), December 2000, pp. 630-641), Ariella Oppenheim, Almut Nebel, Dvora Filon, Mark G. Thomas, D. A. Weiss, M. Weale, and Marina Faerman presented evidence that Israeli Jews and Israeli/Palestinian Arabs are genetically similar but not identical. They suggested that these groups shared common origins, with somewhere between 70 to 80 percent of Jews and about 50 percent of Arabs sharing ancestry. The study clarifies the finding of Michael F. Hammer, Alan J. Redd, Elizabeth T. Wood, M. R. Bonner, Hamdi Jarjanazi, Tanya Karafet, Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti, Ariella Oppenheim, Mark A. Jobling, Trefor Jenkins, Harry Ostrer, and Batsheva Bonne'-Tamir in "Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish Populations Share a Common Pool of Y-chromosome Biallelic Haplotypes", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97:12 (June 6, 2000) that Ashkenazi Jews are related through paternal ancestry to Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Anatolian Turks. Meanwhile, Aravinda Chakravarti, director of the McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine at Johns Hopkins University, found that the mutation DFNB1, which causes deafness, is found among Jews, Palestinian Arabs, and other Mediterranean populations

An Iranian Student (AIS) at December 19, 2005 04:33 AM [permalink]:

Let me start from the last:

Bandeh,

I don't get the point of your comment. It actually makes perfect sense what you said about common ancestory of the people in ME, because they are the people living in ME! How is that related to the discussion exactly? as Ron pointed out , Judaism is mostly a nationality not a race. So the fact that you can find similar commonalitites between the French and the Italian or the Spanish has no bearin in their being French, Italian and spanish as sepertae national identities.
So what?

An Iranian Student (AIS) at December 19, 2005 05:32 AM [permalink]:

heydarbaba (the "Buddy", the close friend of Rafsanjani's brother),

reading your latest comments gave me great pleasure. You try to present yourself as a moderate reasonable man to cover up all the hate and ideological dogmatism that lurks beneath. When it comes to Israel though, it seems the pressure from beneath just gets too much and the steams explode.
That is a lovely image to watch and laugh, believe me. (It is a greaty honor for Israel that it does bring the inner bigotry of these "persons" to erupt. It makes me envious to be honest. although I know Israelis would rather be let alone to live their normal lives instead of such honors, but it is there nevertheless you guys!)

This kind of obsession with this so called "palestinian people" among your kind is most fascinating! what cases this state of being more catholic than the pope in the likes of you? Very interesting!

Just read again and have fun:

"...In your response you decided to change the subject. Now that was not very nice and I hope you don't do that again because if you do I will talk about this issue till all the cows come home."

"...The same can happen in dismantling this Jewish apartheid which as of now has become the embodiment of all evil on earth and rightly so."(!?!)

"...How can anybody let these pro holocaust historians and propagandists run loose and publish anything they want..."

Finally,
" Of course the road map is calling for "two state solution" which I as a taxpayer whose tax money has been supporting this ethnic cleansing and genocide wish it was replaced with "one state solution""

The main question of course is why you are allolwed to be a tax payer in America in tthe first place. Why don't theyh kick your islamist ass out of there, so you can land in southern Lebanon or some "palestinian" land for you to show your solidarity in action and where hopefully someone or other would eventually put you out of your misery once and for all.

oh, as for your quotes "Buddy", they are nothing but fabricatiosn and lies.
You lie.

Ben at December 19, 2005 10:16 AM [permalink]:

Armin,

When you don't make sense in sentences, the reader has to 'explain' himself what you meant and it has nothing to do with a brainwash. Thats unavoidable, please be clearer next time.

"A weak one: 2 million Israeli arabs that have 80% unemployment rate"
-I brought this fact up because this population of people together with someone in this forum called: 'm' claim Israel is doing ethnic cleansing while in realisty its doing nothing remotely close to that. Being cynical, I meant for you to understand that all they do is complain and actually give reason for any self aware country to kick them out: especially for the example with their parliament members which at that point I'd tell you this example was better than the example being quoted here which mostly show my anger towards their behavior and it has nothing to do with race, so you are wrong supplying it as an 'evidence'.
And now to the numbered points you made:
1. I never justified killing innocent civillians. On the contrary, I cried against that being done. Read my comments again.
2. My government is not doing any crimes and never did any, however, there were many incidents in which individual soldiers commit crimes against Palestinians -I'll give you that, and as someone told you before, the Israeli army is doing everything to punish them, and as a former IDF soldier, trust me, they get punished and sent to jail for years and stained for life outcast from the Israeli society because of the criminal record they earned.
3. You said: "Please don't draw the circle of innocents so small" -Well I'm sorry Armin, but blowing up in busses and public places of real innocent people shakes my views about how innocent Palestinians really are.. What more is that you could say: 'hey, it's only the terrorists' -Then my point is that the most of Palestinian public opinion is dedicated to support suicide bombings and that takes the innocent tag out of their neck chain. Sorry..
4. You also said: "regarding ethical and scientific issues, we get brainwashes" - Armin, Judaism is a religion. NOT A RACE. There is no such thing as "Jewish race". Now do some thinking if the "ethnical and scientific" has any room here at all.

Ben at December 19, 2005 10:21 AM [permalink]:

Dear Bandeh,

You said that while I seem logical I don't see the Israeli effect on Palestinian suffering.
Well Bandeh, either you didn't carefully read my comments or you misunderstood them.
I said Palestinians bring their suffering to themselves. This does not preclude the Israeli effect on their suffering. You ask How? Well, here are some typical examples similar to what usually happen:
1.
Cause: Palestinians send a brainwashed teenage to blow himself up in Israeli mall.
Effect: Israel closes all roads and checkpoints to prevent those that sent him to change their location, thus enabling the Israeli intelligence to catch them and bring them to justice. (Russians turn complete chechen villiges to dust in a similar incident). Because checkpoints and roads were closed, Palestinians can't go to work, can't go to school and can't leave their lives.
2.
Cause: Israeli Intelligence find information that a Palestinian Hamas leader is on his way to send his friend to expload in Israel.
Effect: Israel send laser guided missile targeting this person's car to kill him and only him and prevent a catastrophe. Some fragments that flew from the explosion for hundreds of meters hit a small girl in the neck and wounded her severely.
3.
Cause: Past experience showed that Palestinians used sea ports to bring Iranian and Syrian donation of tons of explosive materials and ammunition.
Effect: Israel closed Palestinian sea ports for everything that comes from Iran and Syria. This causes alot of loses to Palestinian economy and innocent Palestinian businessmen.
4.
Cause: Palestinian residents near the border allow Hamas to launch dozens of 'Kassam' missiles from the roofs of their homes on innocent Israeli civilians that live INSIDE '48 territory EVERY DAY. Israelies die and get injured from these missiles, homes are being wrecked.
Effect: Israel retaliate by bombing the EXACT location the 'Kassams' were fired from after getting the exact coordinates from satellite. There is no one in that location anymore, the Hamas and residents already fled, however, the sounds of explosion cause mental shock to Palestinian kids that live nearby.

So perhaps now I made myself clear for you Bandeh?
Of course there is a strong Israeli effect on the Palestinian suffering but my most important point is that there would be no such effect if the Palestinians did something to stop the ones causing this that live among them.

JFTDMaster at December 19, 2005 10:49 AM [permalink]:

"JFTD, Palestinians are victims of Israel's crimes. Without bothering yourself with biased sources tell me what right do you have to occupy the land which is not yours."
- Incorrect. Palestinians and other arabs have been trying to kill off the jews in the area since 1930's, and have been trying to destroy Israel since it was created, so Israel is the victim. The land is not "somebody else's", it was originally inhabited by the jews, then the romans drove out many of the jews, then there were mamluk turks in charge, then ottoman turks, then the british, and now the jews came back to their homeland.
It was never "arab" land, whatever that means. It was unallocated land. Then Israel was created, and now some of that land has been allocated to a legitimate state. The attempts to wipe Israel out, since 1948 until now, are what's illegitimate.

As for the territories held in 1967, they were originally only taken for defensive purposes, and on multiple occasions Israel offered them back in return for real peace.

Look. Israel has agreed to a partition of land and peace in: 1937, 1947, and 2000, and has offered peace on multiple occasions. The arabs' attacks in 1930's caused jewish defense groups to form in 1940's. The thousands of israeli civlians dead through terrorist attacks before the 1967 war, PLO beginning terrorism in 1964 (before the 1967 war and "occupation"), etc all show a pattern: Arabs are the aggressor side.

"What Ahmadinejad is suggesting in his solution is what is called "one state solution" which is the nightmare for the Jewish fanatics and extremists and Zionists around the world. "
- Since the PLO took charge in the West Bank, the Christian population was quietly ethnically cleansed out. Its pretty common in the arab world, you know. The christian population in 1990 was more than 10%, now it is non-existent. Now, considering the sheer level of hatred the arabs have for the jews, do you really think they want to "live in peace" with the jews in one happy little nation? Some might, but it seems the majority do not. One in five Israeli is an arab, but there are no jews living in "palestinian" areas. We could talk about the official PLO charter, which calls for violence and Israel's destruction. We could talk about how Hamas and the terrorist members of Fateh are getting almost all the votes. The point is, no I don't really think the palestinians want that kind of "peaceful" solution where national boundaries are meaningless. The point is, the only way the jews will be safe is through having a nation of their own, on their own land, in Israel.

As soon as the arabs stop attacks on Israel, there is no retaliation/counter-terrorist operations by Israel. As soon as the arabs accept a reasonable peace deal and a compromise, they would have one.

JFTDMaster at December 19, 2005 10:50 AM [permalink]:

"JFTD, Palestinians are victims of Israel's crimes. Without bothering yourself with biased sources tell me what right do you have to occupy the land which is not yours."
- Incorrect. Palestinians and other arabs have been trying to kill off the jews in the area since 1930's, and have been trying to destroy Israel since it was created, so Israel is the victim. The land is not "somebody else's", it was originally inhabited by the jews, then the romans drove out many of the jews, then there were mamluk turks in charge, then ottoman turks, then the british, and now the jews came back to their homeland.
It was never "arab" land, whatever that means. It was unallocated land. Then Israel was created, and now some of that land has been allocated to a legitimate state. The attempts to wipe Israel out, since 1948 until now, are what's illegitimate.

As for the territories held in 1967, they were originally only taken for defensive purposes, and on multiple occasions Israel offered them back in return for real peace.

Look. Israel has agreed to a partition of land and peace in: 1937, 1947, and 2000, and has offered peace on multiple occasions. The arabs' attacks in 1930's caused jewish defense groups to form in 1940's. The thousands of israeli civlians dead through terrorist attacks before the 1967 war, PLO beginning terrorism in 1964 (before the 1967 war and "occupation"), etc all show a pattern: Arabs are the aggressor side.

"What Ahmadinejad is suggesting in his solution is what is called "one state solution" which is the nightmare for the Jewish fanatics and extremists and Zionists around the world. "
- Since the PLO took charge in the West Bank, the Christian population was quietly ethnically cleansed out. Its pretty common in the arab world, you know. The christian population in 1990 was more than 10%, now it is non-existent. Now, considering the sheer level of hatred the arabs have for the jews, do you really think they want to "live in peace" with the jews in one happy little nation? Some might, but it seems the majority do not. One in five Israeli is an arab, but there are no jews living in "palestinian" areas. We could talk about the official PLO charter, which calls for violence and Israel's destruction. We could talk about how Hamas and the terrorist members of Fateh are getting almost all the votes. The point is, no I don't really think the palestinians want that kind of "peaceful" solution where national boundaries are meaningless. The point is, the only way the jews will be safe is through having a nation of their own, on their own land, in Israel.

As soon as the arabs stop attacks on Israel, there is no retaliation/counter-terrorist operations by Israel. As soon as the arabs accept a reasonable peace deal and a compromise, they would have one.

Ben at December 19, 2005 04:11 PM [permalink]:

I meant 'live their lives' and not 'leave'
no need to email me about that tiny mistake heh

Babak S at December 19, 2005 07:10 PM [permalink]:

heydarbaba,

Since you are so passionate about eradicating "apartheid" in the world, I gather you must be very interested in spreading Freedom and eradicating "apartheid" around the world as well. That's after all only (pure-)logical. Otherwise I have to assume you are only narrowly interested in the "apartheid" you perceive in Israel, and that it is then because you are somehow sensitive only to Israeli violations of Freedom, for which there must be a "deep" reason that is beyond my grasp :)

But let us look at the bright side, and make the former assumption. Now would you care so much to let us know if you think Mr. Ahmadinejad is for Freedom, or against it? What is his foremost passion? If he is violating Freedom, and if he is for an "apartheid" in Iran, will you be so sensitive to help eradicate that "apartheid" in Iran?

Armin at December 21, 2005 08:30 AM [permalink]:

Babak,

"I'm sorry but the "vast differences" between practising muslims have nothing to do with what I said."
- Some of the patterns people think are common among muslims are not in fact common (For example an ethical informed minority IS very important. I hope you understand the relation.).


It's the same basic ideology that has been practised after the revolution.
- Islam is truth, not reality.


War symptoms cannot and do not explain what has consistently been applied as part of the same "revolutionary" principles and the "preservation of the system"
- It does. People should have time (besides other things) to understand what to do.


even by Khatami's government.
- Khatami's government is not a sampleof Islamic government


Even if the talk was about details, they must have been pretty signifcant "details" to turn the fact that the killings of the Jews in the gas chambers amounted to genocide into a "myth."
- I do not like your or the president's ignorances. Exaggeration is significant (this is your ignorance), but I wouldn't tell the story as the president did (his ignorance). Exaggeration is better to be called exaggeration not myth.


The vote to grant Israel statehood and membership of the UN (though it has been a pretty strained membership anyway) was not to deny "Palestinians" the right to live wherever they chose.
- But it denied their right of ruling their own land.


How did the 20% minority of Arabs who live in Israel happen to live there?
- THIS is a good question: How do they live now under Israeli regime?

It was completely possible for the rest to stay and become citizens of the new state.
- I doubt. A racist state does not like the vote of "outsiders". There's almost always a facade and much justification propaganda for big dirty works.


They did not. They chose not to.
- Why? Was it fair?

The Zionsit influence is a myth
- You are much worse than Ahmadinezhad in this claim (Holucast is much more Myth than Zionist influence. Your ignorance is really surprising!)

(and: Arabs have influence, but not Palestinians directly. Palestine is not a part of Saudi Arabia)


Your other claim that the media have made me blind is complete falsehood
- when you say "complete" it means you are blind to some extent.

, and not just because "the media" is a plural noun.
"the" here means "the pro-Israeli"


If the media have made me blind, how come they haven't made you blind?
- Did I say they haven't? The reason I talk to opponents and tolerate their insults is partly because of adding to my eye power. When you don'tknow youare blind, you are the blindest. I am not. Am I not here among AIS, Bande and Shahram, talking and also listening to find some truth in their writings? I am gaining eye-sight, but you are conceited enough to claim completeness (you said it but I guess you don't really think so, do you?).


conspiracy theory
- Did you know one of the most unlogical conspiracy theories is about conspiracy theories? Repeating it is a sign of lack of political knowlege.


you do not know me personally anyway
- I know you a little

Best Wishes

Armin at December 21, 2005 09:30 AM [permalink]:

JFTD,

"hatred arabs have for the jews"
- Very unlogical! Arabs (and human generally) in fact hate oppression, not Jews. Justice is the cure and if a just state is formed people can leave in peace.

"As soon as the arabs accept a reasonable peace deal and a compromise, they would have one."
- What is the definition of "reasonable peace deal"? "To give back their rights robbed by Israeli regime" hould be part of it.


"Palestinians and other arabs have been trying to kill off the jews in the area since 1930's"
- Why? What have you done to them? Weaks do not normally attack strongs without being oppressed (and several million people cannot be called fools).


"The land is not "somebody else's", it was originally inhabited by the jews, then the romans drove out many of the jews, then there were mamluk turks in charge, then ottoman turks, then the british, and now the jews came back to their homeland. It was never "arab" land, whatever that means. It was unallocated land."
- 1) If it was unallocated as you say you wouldn't face resistance. 2) Sometime (not necessarily immediatly) Before the Jews go there from Egypet, there should be people there as well and it is quite likely that they were ancestors of the arabs of the region. 3) Many Jews have become Christians and Muslis who would have a share in the land if your story was true. 4) If you can prove some land has been taken from you by force you can claim it but only that piece of land and not the rule of a region. Ruling is not personal belonging and needs the consent of the people leaving there, specially because they have not had an influence in kicking out the Jews from the lands, and even for this reason you may need to share a piece of farm with the farmer if your proof dates back to 2500 years ago! (the present farmer is not guilty that Romans kicked you out 2500 years ago and the times seems long enough to give that farmer some ownership right, if not all of it. This is in case we assume you have the necessary documents and also the Romans are not those who should compensate! And this is only for pieces of farm, not a government)

Armin at December 21, 2005 09:57 AM [permalink]:

Ben,

"When you don't make sense in sentences, the reader has to 'explain' himself what you meant and it has nothing to do with a brainwash. Thats unavoidable, please be clearer next time."
- It seems that you couldn't presume what you said without being biased by ideas of my opponents. That's what it has to do with your being ready to easily get brainwash.


"all they do [2 million Israeli arabs that have 80% unemployment rate] is complain and actually give reason for any self aware country to kick them out"
- With that level of oppression and discremination that 80% unemployment is one of them, what else do you expect? You should learn to be fair with people and THEN expect them to act normally.

"I never justified killing innocent civillians"
- You did when you wrote about the guided missles that besides thier target only kills few civilians (which I doubt about both the "target" and the "number")


"My government is not doing any crimes and never did any"
- Any? Any? Any? You seem to be a master of getting brainwash!


"individual soldiers commit crimes"
- The government's media is responsible and even the media aside it is not just soldiers.

"the Israeli army is doing everything to punish them"
- Lie of the year!

"blowing up in busses and public places of real innocent people shakes my views about how innocent Palestinians really are ... the most of Palestinian public opinion is dedicated to support"
- You rob their land and your missles blow their houses and civilians. You have done many crimes of different kind including torture to them and as far as SOME of them (unfortunately) enjoy that your civilians are killed but don't do that themselves they cannot be put out of the circle of life/death innocence (and generally basic rights).

"You also said: "regarding ethical and scientific issues, we get brainwashes" - Armin, Judaism is a religion. NOT A RACE. There is no such thing as "Jewish race". Now do some thinking if the "ethnical and scientific" has any room here at all."
- Ethical not ethNical.


Armin at December 21, 2005 10:06 AM [permalink]:

in the name of God,

One of the crimes of the Zionist regime (the site is pro-Palestinian, the person seems independent and moreover some things are clearer than to be denied):

http://www.inminds.co.uk/from-beirut-to-jerusalem.html

Ben at December 21, 2005 01:00 PM [permalink]:
Armin, You are completely wrong: ["My government is not doing any crimes and never did any" - Any? Any? Any? You seem to be a master of getting brainwash!] *Armin, I don't get brainwashed at all.. First of all because when I talk about Army and what happens in the field I talk with FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE from opinions I made up for myself from what I saw, and not being fed by hate-website like you are. Secondly because there is no brainwash here. Deal with it. ["When you don't make sense in sentences, the reader has to 'explain' himself what you meant and it has nothing to do with a brainwash. Thats unavoidable, please be clearer next time." - It seems that you couldn't presume what you said without being biased by ideas of my opponents. That's what it has to do with your being ready to easily get brainwash. ] *Armin, I did not count on your opponents, I said my own opinion, then I brought up their complaints to strengthen its basis. ["I never justified killing innocent civillians" - You did when you wrote about the guided missles that besides thier target only kills few civilians (which I doubt about both the "target" and the "number")] *Armin, would you rather Israel bomb Gaza each day with cheap 1-2 ton bombs indiscriminately like Russions do to chechens and Americans do in Iraq and Afghanistan? You sir should be thankful Israel is wasting so much money on intelligence and guided missiles to do its best targeting the terrorists in such a surgically manner that no country in the world ever did. ["all they do [2 million Israeli arabs that have 80% unemployment rate] is complain and actually give reason for any self aware country to kick them out" - With that level of oppression and discremination that 80% unemployment is one of them, what else do you expect? You should learn to be fair with people and THEN expect them to act normally.] *Armin, why do you ignore the example of the Parliament member? Do you only regard what you find convenient to answer? Furthermore, by saying they are oppressed you weaken your claim because a factual contradicting example was already given: the parliament member. ["individual soldiers commit crimes" - The government's media is responsible and even the media aside it is not just soldiers. ] *Armin, again, when I talk about anything related to army and what happens in the field I say my opinions after seeing the issues with my own eyes and not counting on anyone else. ["blowing up in busses and public places of real innocent people shakes my views about how innocent Palestinians really are ... the most of Palestinian public opinion is dedicated to support" - You rob their land and your missles blow their houses and civilians. You have done many crimes of different kind including torture to them and as far as SOME of them (unfortunately) enjoy that your civilians are killed but don't do that themselves they cannot be put out of the circle of life/death innocence (and generally basic rights). ] *Armin, 1) I didn't rob their land, most of the within '48 boundaries was empty of arabs and the ones that were there either stayed in their homes till this very day or got paid ALOT of money from Jewish people that bought the land from them. I won't even get into those that run away during the '48 war without even seeing one (!) Israeli sodier.. Furthermore, all land occupied in '67 was occupied in SELF DEFENCE of violent people that only export terrorists to this world. Army presents there is crucial to ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Ben at December 21, 2005 01:04 PM [permalink]:

Please click 'read the whole thing' on my comment to make the structure of answers become apparent. The cut version doesn't make justice with it.

JFTDMaster at December 22, 2005 07:05 PM [permalink]:
"Arabs (and human generally) in fact hate oppression, not Jews." - I'm sure that in most wars, both sides believe justice is on their side, otherwise they would not fight. That does not change the fact that the grant mufti of jerusalem, the leader of the arabs in that region, haj amin al husseini, Arafat's uncle and hero, was Hitler's personal henchman and openly tried to kill off all the jews. What is this 'oppression' you speak of, anyway? Is it Israel's control of the West Bank? Israel could withdraw from practically all of it, if the conditions/negotiations are right. Or is it Israel's existence? In that case, there is nothing to discuss, really. "What is the definition of "reasonable peace deal"? "To give back their rights robbed by Israeli regime" hould be part of it." - Generally speaking, these would be conditions for any reasonable peace deal. 1) Palestinians stop terrorist attacks for the duration of negotiation. 2) Final borders are agreed upon (as they still never have been, which is why there are jewish towns that outgrew across the meaningless "armistice line" and have neighbourhoods in the "west bank".) 3) Most of the west bank's jewish population (constituting 1/5th of the total west bank population) should not be ethnically cleansed from their homes. Boundaries need to take wishes of the currentl local residents into consideration. If there are arab neighbourhoods in Israel proper which wish to be part of any future arab state, that should be taken into consideration. If they wish to stay Israeli citizens (as the vast majority do) and wish to stay in their homes, then that is how it should be. What "rights" are you talking about? In reality, the West Bank has not really been occupied since 1993, when Israel let Arafat's goons take over. That is when violence increased, law dissappeared, and crime/corruption/violence has started taking over the palestinian society. Was that a taking away of rights? If by rights you mean the right to become Israeli to be close to the rest of the family, hundreds of thousands of arabs are Israeli citizens because they were allowed to reunite with their family. If you mean the right to appeal to the state of Israel to become Israeli, because the person in question can prove that they were driven out by war, then individually this has been allowed and done under Israeli law for decades. I don't really know what "rights" you would really know about, since I doubt you believe that human beings should have the right to vote, to play whatever music they want in their homes (even if it is western), etc. "1) If it was unallocated as you say you wouldn't face resistance." - The sovereignty was unallocated. The original boundaries that the UN decided upon in 1947 pretty much were pretty much village by village: if a village is jewish, it became Israeli, if it was arab it was not. This was not "resistance", this was arabs from one city attacking the jews living in the next city 5+ miles away. The british mandate of palestine included all of Jordan, so much of the "resistance" came from there. That can be seen from the hundreds of Israeli civilians killed by the jordanian "fedayeen" after the 1948 war. "2) Sometime (not necessarily immediatly) Before the Jews go there from Egypet, there should be people there as well and it is quite likely that they were ancestors of the arabs of the region." - Incorrect, they are the ancestors of the jews of the region. By the way, how do you define arab, a ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Armin at December 24, 2005 02:37 PM [permalink]:

Ben,

Do not claim, prove if you can. Your answers are quite weak and in some cases not enough relevant to the issue. Maybe you should write less and think more.

I mentioned my source is pro-Palestinian but you introduce Israeli sources that dig the news for mistakes of people to justify their views and the Zionist crimes and you think you do not get brainwash AT ALL !!!

You do not answer my writings and say other things and think you have replied well(?!):

["all they do [2 million Israeli arabs that have 80% unemployment rate] is complain and actually give reason for any self aware country to kick them out"
- With that level of oppression and discremination that 80% unemployment is one of them, what else do you expect? You should learn to be fair with people and THEN expect them to act normally.]
*Armin,
why do you ignore the example of the Parliament member? Do you only regard what you find convenient to answer? Furthermore, by saying they are oppressed you weaken your claim because a factual contradicting example was already given: the parliament member.

***** Why should I talk about what I don't know? One member of your parliaent is not important and I should know the issue from reliable sources before sayng something. You did not answer what I said. Don't escape the question. Contradiction is given for a general rule, you say if we accept one member has done something bad, the others are not oppressed? This level of logical ignorance is amazing!


["individual soldiers commit crimes"
- The government's media is responsible and even the media aside it is not just soldiers. ]
*Armin,
again, when I talk about anything related to army and what happens in the field I say my opinions after seeing the issues with my own eyes and not counting on anyone else.

***** You agian do not answer the main issue. Where do your criminal soldiers come from? The media is the answer and the government is responsible (the government's direct crimes aside).


You justify killing civilians by missles and call for respect and my thanks because you have not been as wild as Americans or Russians. Many martirdom/suicide bombers and their supporters also claim that they have military targets and civiians are hit as an unavoidable result (Pizza Shop Bombers aside). They have the advantage that they are not in your land, you are in theirs and the Britain did not own this land to give it to you, it was taken by force during war as far as I know. I don't see any reason why people of region would resist a good government that also was stronger than themselves. There are many reasons that your answers are not right and you get brainwash and your denying of commitment of ANY crime by Israeli regime is one of them. No logical person would intentionally and knowingly claim a government (any) has not done any crime. And you are right that hate sites try to feed me, but you don't know that they are not successful. If the sites writing for Palestinian rights are hate sites, this site we are writing in is a hate site to a more extent (hate of Islam, hate of Iranian elected president, ...). Some of the people in this site do not practically know the border of criticism and hate.

...

Armin at December 24, 2005 02:43 PM [permalink]:

Ben, please let me friendly tell you that saying things like "the Israeli army is doing EVERYTHING to punish them [criminal soldiers]" is a sign of ignorance and being more than ready for brainwash. If you resist every criticism you will not benefit from the discussion. You have been successful in pushing me to study the rights of israeli people more than before and this is one thing I gained from the discussion, but your reasons are often weak and sometimes amazingly weak. Find the reason.

Armin at December 24, 2005 04:33 PM [permalink]:
JFTD, I'm sure that in most wars, both sides believe justice is on their side - Except a few people abusing the others. ... the grant mufti of jerusalem, the leader of the arabs in that region, haj amin al husseini, Arafat's uncle and hero, was Hitler's personal henchman and openly tried to kill off all the jews. - They do not share the same belief with us (Shias). Moreover, Shias and Sunnis have quite different factions and you cannot generalize one faction's view (if we assume you were right in reporting their hate). Hatemonger muslims (and also those who really fight the oppression) are not that much, AND THEY ARE MIXED IN THE WESTERN MEDIA BECAUSE THESE DAYS "IN SOME CASES" THEY FIGHT THE SAME ENEMY WITH DIFFERENT ETHICAL METHODS. What is this 'oppression' you speak of, anyway? Israel could withdraw from practically all of it, if the conditions/negotiations are right. - Do not justify occupation. Treat people fairly and give back their land and then expect the right results. Unfairness causes unfairness and the struggle takes much long. YOU are in their land, so they have the justification to fight you. Or is it Israel's existence? In that case, there is nothing to discuss, really. - Why should you escape a logical discussion on this? Israel could exist with the consent of the people of the region, but you have failed to gain that, so you can't stay on their land. If yousay it is your land and not theirs, you should have more than the justification I heard from you. Some proof that can be accepted in a just court to claim something, not historical claims that the people of region can have much better of them even if they are acceptable. This land is not as old as the time Jews came, its history dates back to even maybe 10'000 years ago and that aside many of the sons of those Jews can be the muslims and christians of the region who can claim the same thing you do (if it is right). 1) Palestinians stop terrorist attacks for the duration of negotiation. - They think they are defending their country and freeing it from occupation and the Israeli government is the terrorism source. In the other hand, individuals may not listen as they may think it is time killing. Not all of them are organized, I guess. 2) Final borders are agreed upon - A you want a part of the land, you should have goodreasons for it, as it is the land of Palestinians. Or you should come up with a very good suggestion that satisfies the land owner nation (Owning some pieces of land does not give you the right of having a state. Also it seems that jews had 7% of the land but UN gave them 55% of the land unfairly and now you have occupied more that even the biased UN condemns). I have a suggestion: Big mony can be raised and the area is announced free (for everybody in the world) and also weaponless under the control of the united nation (biased to you!) and the UN can move there from New York. A free weaponless country for all the people of the world. Your evil politicians do not seem to like this freedom, do they? I guess Palestinians can be satisfied by the raised money to knock the poverty and discrimination they suffer from now. hundreds of thousands of arabs are Israeli citizens because they were allowed to reunite with their family. - And if they want to reunite with their land? Your racist government would have less Jewish votes and would resist, am I wrong? The idea of a Jewish state is racist, however the supporters could give you a pie ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Ron at December 24, 2005 05:58 PM [permalink]:

Friends,

As much as I disagree with much of what Armin's last posts (your conclusions are logical, I just disagree with the underlying assumptions)

I would like to take the opportunity to make some general observations about this discussion and others like it which I have

participated in.

I have often wondered why seemingly well-intentioned people could disagree so strongly with each other on this issue. I mean, if
we all claim to want justice, and we all claim to be open to the truth, isn't it logical we would reach the same conclusions?

Given these two assumptions (good intentions and seeking of truth, which may be too much to assume) I have a couple of answers:

1.) Different value systems. Some of us might subscribe to value systems which place human life either higher or lower than some other
ideals.

2.) Assumptions of agreement on contentious terms. Terms like "Occupation" "Palestinian" and what is meant by "law" (whose law?)
and even what it means to be a Jew are just some examples I can think of.


If we can't come to an agreement on some of these basic underlying assumptions, then we are destined to a very
long and pointless discussion.

Does anyone have an opinion on this, am I just stating the obvious? Are there any more underlying issues I haven't thought of?

This would also suggest that A.) we have a lot of things to talk about before we even get to the Middle East and
B.) Perhaps there is a more systematic method of discussion which would be more effective.

In the meantime, I would like to make a suggestion: Give your opponent the benefit of the doubt. An honest critic has nothing
to lose and everything to gain this way.

For example, one could say, "The idea of a Jewish state is racist" or
"A Jewish state is not necessary to achieve security and justice for Jewish people".

The suggested course of action is the same, but the former implies a malicious motive while the latter doesn't. In other words, we can arrive
at the same conclusion without (implicitly or explicitly) calling each other liars.

Armin at December 24, 2005 06:52 PM [permalink]:

JFTD,

I said "The idea of a Jewish state is racist". I should correct it this way "The idea of THE Jewish state is racist"

I forgot to write my answer on this:
" "1) If it was unallocated as you say you wouldn't face resistance."
- The sovereignty was unallocated."

***** Sovereignty is never unallocated as you think. Otherwise you wouldn't face their resistance. People may live in some part of their region more, but they assume all of it their land (it's so all over the world).

Armin at December 24, 2005 07:10 PM [permalink]:

Dear Ron,

It is interesting that I gave an important part of your answer in my above note before reading your note. This is what I think: "The idea of THE Jewish state is racist"

I strogly agree that:
A.) we have a lot of things to talk about before we even get to the Middle East and
B.) Perhaps there is a more systematic method of discussion which would be more effective.

You expressed my belief! The fact is what we discuss here ("value system" and "its political results") should be discussed during a life or at least a part of it. In a short time we can only exchange ideas or if we are interested we can devote a part or all of our life to find the truth. I am interested. If you mean just Israel issue, I think it is important that every side understand its mistakes and tries to make up (compensate) not to make up (as people do to look more beautiful than they are) ! Couldn't you agree with me about the fact that you and the british could not decide the fate of the people of the region without their consent and vote? Couldn't you agre that owning a piece of landdoes not give you the right to announce a government? Couldn't you agree that people of a place may live in some parts of it more than the others and migrating there don't allow you to initiate a government without their consent (specially with the consent and support of their enemyat that time, Britain, that had occupied the region)?


Ben at December 24, 2005 09:05 PM [permalink]:
Armin, "Do not claim, prove if you can." -At first I did, however, you can check for yourself that throughout the whole argument you never proved anything, you are made out of words and false statements. If I was stupid enough to bring evidence for each of my claims while you just sit and shot statements like a machine gun, I would've been wasting my time. What you did wrong is creating this standard of not proving anything. By doing this, you made the discussion cheaper in advance, so don't whine about claims and proofs. "I mentioned my source is pro-Palestinian" Yes you did and it doesnt change the fact that it twists reality. "you introduce Israeli sources that dig the news for mistakes of people to justify their views and the Zionist crimes and you think you do not get brainwash AT ALL !!!" -They don't dig the mistakes of people. I already told you they bring the videos and translate them 'as is' with no interpretations or modifications. Furthermore, you should take the time to browse their website and you will find videos that don't just show what you defined as 'mistakes'. It was me that did the digging just for you, in order to prove a point in my previous comment when I still gave you credit and invested my time for the proofs you whined about in your last comment. "You do not answer my writings and say other things and think you have replied well(?!)" -The beutiful thing about this forum is that everyone can see I answer exactly what you wrote about..It is all logged: "***** Why should I talk about what I don't know? One member of your parliaent is not important" You shouldn't if you don't want to. I talked about the parliament member as an example which is important to understand my opinion. "and I should know the issue from reliable sources before sayng something." (regarding the parliament member statements at Lebanon) -You are correct. I heard of a great website called 'Google News' where you can find such reliable sources. Do some reading next time. "you say if we accept one member has done something bad, the others are not oppressed? This level of logical ignorance is amazing!" -I never said that. What I did say is that they got the option to vote (by putting a man in parliament and this contradicts your claim that they are oppressed since oppressed people do not get to vote) and they abused it by choosing representatives that openly call for the destruction of Israel. This was passive abuse actually because he reflects what their population thinks. The only ignorance which is amazing is your own. Apparently you don't carefully read my comments. "Where do your criminal soldiers come from?" -Criminal soldiers come from everywhere, there are those that use their power on others to steal and hurt just like you have this certain percent of people in any given population. The army has it's own tribunal with harsh punishments and holds a unit to press charges against those individuals and make sure they get punished. "You justify killing civilians by missles and call for respect and my thanks because you have not been as wild as Americans or Russians." -Hell yea.. If there is a bombs 'engineer' that was sending bomb equipped suiciders to kill civilians in my side for a long time, and if that 'engineer' is always underground on the run and hiding between civilians, there is no other way of stopping the bloodshed he is producing in my side without cleaning him and not so unfotunately as a side effect, the people that h ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Ron at December 25, 2005 12:19 AM [permalink]:

Armin,

I don't understand your distinction between the idea of A Jewish state and THE Jewish state.


You seem to be saying that having a Jewish state is ok, but creating one and defending it is not.

"Couldn't you agree with me about the fact that you and the british could not decide the fate of the
people of the region without their consent and vote?"

I don't believe Jews needed the consent and vote of the people of the REGION to set up a state where

very few non-Jews lived. If you wanted to take a vote of the people who would be living within the territory where

that state would stand, you would find most of them to be Jewish, therefore a Jewish majority opinion would be the

democratic decision to set up a state.

"Couldn't you agre that owning a piece of landdoes not give you the right to
announce a government? "

Sure it does if you own the land.

"Couldn't you agree that people of a place may live in some parts of it more than the others and migrating there don't
allow you to initiate a government without their consent (specially with the consent and support of their enemyat that
time, Britain, that had occupied the region)?"


What do you mean by people of a place? Which people and which place are you talking about?

An Iranian Student (AIS) at December 25, 2005 07:04 AM [permalink]:

Ron,

your questions are very interesting. Here is my view:

You (like Bandeh) talk of differnt value systems. I don't have a problem with thaat as long as it is also accepted that some are wrong and some are better on an objective basis.
You also talked about people with good inetentiosn arguing against eachother in such length. indeed, the main reason why people of good inetntion as you call them disagree is because in their differnt ways of understanding the factual structure. this again is related to the first part. ther exists objective criteria to decide about the factual understandings and to choose the best of them.
There was a short dicussio on this topic in another thread here.
This webpage was also linked there, but it is definitely worth being linked to again:
"How are moral assertions connected with the world of facts?"

I have one more thing tos ay about the topic of good intentions.
if we take the most general meaning of this as some one who acts consistently and in accordance of his overall wordlview, then it more or less encompasses most people, and in particular those who are usuallu categorized as villains and evil. Afterall fascists, nazis or the inquisitors also were acting with "good" intention according to their view of reality. Even someone who only acts for his selfish personal profit is also acting with the best intention in his bleak view of a hostile inddiferent world where self-interets as an extention of self preservation is the ultimate virtue.
But this can't be the whole picture. there is a threshold in the spectrum of the factual understandings below which the corresponding actions cannot really be called with "good intentions". Actiosn that shoudl really be called evil. To me that is acrucial point which modern thought usually misunderstands. It is wrong understanding, but it is so wrong it is evil. Ignoring this fact leads to moral relativism, extreme multi-culturism that will in all cases lead, in practice, to a support of the evil against the good, despite its good inetntions. This is as wrong as the primitive view of evil as a supernatural reality. they are both really the two sides of the same coin.
That's why I don't consider people like Armin or heydarbaba as good intentioened at all. I grewup with many of them around, as teachers, supervisors, religious big brothers... and at the core lies evil.
From another point of view, you might think of it this way: why should someone grow up to hold such diastrous viewpoints in the first place? Children are very "realistic" in their own right. So something really goes wrong during the formation of their characters as adults that leads them to such viewpoints. Something is wrong!

Anyway, take a look at this other webpage (by the same author) as well. It says it better than I can (written immidiately after 9/11):

What Now?

An Iranian Student (AIS) at December 25, 2005 07:08 AM [permalink]:

The correct links:

How are moral assertions connected with the world of facts?
What Now?

Ron at December 25, 2005 01:24 PM [permalink]:

AIS,

I wholly agree with you that there is an objective basis for determining the quality of value systems.
In my value system, human life is on top. I was merely wondering if someone out there disagrees with me
so that I can stop wasting my time arguing with them over disagreements that derive from this value difference!


I think Ben put it best "If you deny that basic right of self defence, we have nothing further to discuss."

"the main reason why people of good inetntion as you call them disagree is because in their differnt ways of understanding
the factual structure."

here you are affirming my assumption that people with Good Intentions must necessarily be open to truth (I should have said open to
factual understanding, this is what I really meant)

"there is a threshold in the spectrum of the factual understandings below which the corresponding actions cannot really
be called with "good intentions"

I believe you are basically saying that Good Intentions + Gross Lack of factual understanding (could) = Evil.

I would like to amend this equation by changing Gross Lack of Factual Understanding to Rejection of Factual Understanding,
after all, people can't be considered evil just for being ignorant, can they?

The small children in the videos who say the Jews are pigs and monkeys are not necessarily evil. They haven't necessarily
rejected factual understanding, it is much more likely (I would say certainly) they are simply not aware of their ignorance.

An Iranian Student (AIS) at December 25, 2005 03:50 PM [permalink]:

Yes. That was point exactly.
And You are right about your change of equation also.
I was primarily talking about literate adults, in whicch case a gross lack of factual understanding comes from the rejection of some important elements of it. The subtlety perhaps is that this rejection could be in several steps without having foreseen all the consequences of it in each step so that afterwards many of them convince themselves of being very "truth-seeking" even. I would still consider this evil and these people as responsible for it.

Anyway, That was a very important point.
Thank you.

JFTDMaster at December 26, 2005 01:21 PM [permalink]:
"2 million Israeli arabs that have 80% unemployment rate" - That by the way is not true, the 1.3 million Israeli Arabs are slightly worse off than the Israeli Jews. However, the income gap between the jews and the arabs has been continually declining since 1950's, due to continual efforts by the government to assist them. There is less than 5% difference in the unemployment rate. They are not mistreated, these are the reasons why they are slightly worse off: - Most choose not to serve in the military, and thus do not receive military benefits. - They choose to have more children, making the per-capita income lower. - They often live in their own cities and villages. There isn't much of a difference between the jews and the arabs in the jewish-arab city of Haifa. "You justify killing civilians by missles and call for respect and my thanks because you have not been as wild as Americans or Russians." - Any war means some civilians are likely to die. We believe your "side" is the aggressor and is responsible for the war. We also do not TARGET civilians, although some regretfully die. Terrorist groups mainly target civilians. There is a difference, like it or not. "Do not justify occupation. Treat people fairly and give back their land and then expect the right results. Unfairness causes unfairness and the struggle takes much long. YOU are in their land, so they have the justification to fight you." - Israel treats the palestinians better than the palestinians treat Israel, in my humble opinion. The occupation is mainly based on security needs. As for "their land", I just told you it is not "theirs" any more than it is Israel's, and that is why Israel and the PLO both agreed to peacefully negotiate on future borders, that's what Oslo was all about. However, they are not negotiating, they are demanding all of it and threatening violence if they don't get everything they want. Nevertheless, what I personally support is that Israel would unilaterally decide on its new borders, since the palestinians seem incapable of such negotiation. "A you want a part of the land, you should have goodreasons for it, as it is the land of Palestinians." - Once again: it was not "their" land in terms of sovereignty or ownership. They are not "natives" any more than the jews are: some jews and some arabs lived there continually. Most jews and arabs there are recent migrants over the past century. As for a good reason, having a defensible border is a pretty good reason as far as Israelis are concerned. "Or is it Israel's existence? In that case, there is nothing to discuss, really. - Why should you escape a logical discussion on this? Israel could exist with the consent of the people of the region, but you have failed to gain that, so you can't stay on their land." - Israeli people ARE one of the people of the region, and within the internationally accepted minimal boundaries of Israel (the 1949 green armistice line), Israel is on unquestionably its own land. "A free weaponless country for all the people of the world. Your evil politicians do not seem to like this freedom, do they?" - After Iran dismantles its government, throws out all of its weapons (incidentally, putting itself at the mercy of its Sunni neighbours), and stops existing as a society, we'll look on at that experiement and consider it. Now going back to the real world, a people need to attempt to be friendly with neighbours, but a people also need to be able to defend themselves. Israel ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Ben at December 26, 2005 04:53 PM [permalink]:

JFTDMaster,
If you consider only registered citizens even your 1.3 is alot. True number would be around the 1.25m (see http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html)
However reality isn't that simple.
You should add the state registered (whatever the number) those tens of thousands of 'intermarriaged' families between east Jerusalem arabs and those from the west bank and Jordan that live here but aren't registered. Can you remind me their fertility rates..
I'm not even regarding the ones that always lived in Israel- mostly villages surrounding Jerusalem and some Bedouin tribes, that report only a tiny fraction of newborns because these numbers are indeed small.

Ron at December 28, 2005 11:58 PM [permalink]:

Interesting comment to a Daniel Pipes article in The Jerusalem Post. The article was about "factual understanding" in the

Arab and Muslim world, and the comment touches on what could be called "differences in values".


Kalman Palnicki - USA

"So far as I can tell, in the Arab and Moslem worldview, revenge need not be (only)
applied to the person whose acts call for vengeance. It can be applied to any
member of his family, clan, tribe, and possibly his nation. It is decidely
nonrational notion but it seems to apply. There is also the matter of Moslems being
the new kids on the block in monotheism and figuring that their version is closest
to the ultimate truth thereby making them the creme de la creme of humanity."

Granted this is only the limited observation of a single American and that
the latter point is a matter for speculation but I think this idea of tribal justice can be a good example of value differences

where in the West the the idea is that individuals are responsible for their crimes and

any notion of collective punishment is rejected as fundementally unjust.

It is not unheard of in the West, but where it occurs it is generally thought of as a relic of old-fashioned sensibilities.

The article is here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1135696346997&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Ron at December 29, 2005 12:19 AM [permalink]:

Just to add, I don't believe, or that is, there is nothing which makes me believe that this idea of collective justice is uniquely Arab or Muslim. I'm aware that it is prevalent in traditional socities,
of which much tribal conflict in African countries come to mind.

Which DOES lead me to believe that it is somehow a function of economic evolution, where individual-centric Western sensibility places a premium on the freedom of an individual to have economic interests separate from his community.

Armin at December 30, 2005 03:16 PM [permalink]:
Ben (at December 24, 2005 09:05 PM [permalink]), "Do not claim, prove if you can." -At first I did *- You think you did! You made claims based on biased sources. "I mentioned my source is pro-Palestinian" Yes you did and it doesnt change the fact that it twists reality. *- It shows I understand what happens in the media more than you. You didn't show any doubt on your sources and it's a surprising mistake. they bring the videos and translate them 'as is' with no interpretations or modifications. *- I didn't say they change the news, I said they dig for the mistakes and quote them. They do not seem to seek the reality, they seem to seek other people's mistakes to justify their views. you will find videos that don't just show what you defined as 'mistakes'. *- sometimes people tell some truths to tell lies. Sometimes lies are in form of exaggeration. oppressed people do not get to vote *- Unlogical. The votes should be influensive enough. 80% unemployment rate is one of the proofs. they abused it by choosing representatives that openly call for the destruction of Israel. *- Why? Isn't it a sign of unfair treatment? The army has it's own tribunal with harsh punishments and holds a unit to press charges against those individuals and make sure they get punished. *- Do they punish everyone who kills civilians or they justify it by words like defence as suicide bombers and you do? If there is a bombs 'engineer' that was sending bomb equipped suiciders to kill civilians in my side for a long time, and if that 'engineer' is always underground on the run and hiding between civilians, there is no other way of stopping the bloodshed he is producing in my side without cleaning him and not so unfotunately as a side effect, the people that he put around him on purpose. *- If? And if not? With these claims and justifications you are fed, apparently you have killed more Palestinians than they have killed Israelis and even if we assume all the attacks are in this category and it is not a justification to take revenge (at least in some cases), you could kill only that person by commandos and spies and it is also questionable that how you find out at the exact time of missle attack the person is still there and in the other hand the person may be in a place which he is not known to the others and even in your point of view they can be quit innocent. "Many martirdom/suicide bombers and their supporters also claim that they have military targets and civiians are hit as an unavoidable result (Pizza Shop Bombers aside)." *- One 'Hamas' leader may say silly things and some people are very good in abusing it against human rights by generalizing it. More important, I still remember what the Iranian president said about Israel, what he meant and how the pro-Israeli or anti-Iranian media told journalist lies about it via exaggeration and accusations. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: http://www.ushmm.org/museum/press/archives/detail.php?category=07-general&content=2005-12-15: "[Ahmadinezhad is] A national leader promoting antisemitism, Holocaust denial, and genocide" Apparently he does not believe in anti-judaism or antisemitism, he did not deny holocaust but casted doubt on the exaggerated numbers and called them a myth, and much more important, the genocide issue is a cristal clear lie that shows how the people in this museum have the capability of telling lies (to be believed by people like you and broadcasted by the bia ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Armin at December 30, 2005 04:53 PM [permalink]:

Ron (at December 25, 2005 12:19 AM [permalink]),

I don't understand your distinction between the idea of A Jewish state and THE Jewish state.
*- "The" means Israel whodid not consider therights of the people of the region to decide about their region and referred their basic rights to the pro-zionist british and UN. The Jewish states of Prophet David and Prophet Solomon are quite good examples of a just jewish state.


I don't believe Jews needed the consent and vote of the people of the REGION to set up a state where very few non-Jews lived.
*- So you mean every minority can drawa circle arround them and establish a government?


"Couldn't you agre that owning a piece of landdoes not give you the right to
announce a government? " Sure it does if you own the land.
*- So if we buy land in where you call it Israel, we can announce a new government? Right?

AIS: "... That's why I don't consider people like Armin or heydarbaba as good intentioened at all. I grew up with many of them around"
- EVEN if we suppose you are honest and right about your past, this can be a case of your ignorance to mix me with those you have experienced before and put the blame of other people's deeds on me with the justification that you think we (me and them) express that we share some thoughts. If you do these ignorances many times and intentionally, you may be called evil.

Ron: "I think Ben put it best "If you deny that basic right of self defence, we have nothing further to discuss."
- No one denies self defence (at least here, as we see). The questions are: Is X self defence or offence? If X is self defence, is it a fair one the way it is done or it contains some unethical offence in it?


Ron: "after all, people can't be considered evil just for being ignorant, can they?"
- It seems if they ignore intentionally a lot of times, they may.


Armin at December 30, 2005 05:05 PM [permalink]:

Kalman Palnicki - USA

"So far as I can tell, in the Arab and Moslem worldview, revenge need not be (only)
applied to the person whose acts call for vengeance. It can be applied to any
member of his family, clan, tribe, and possibly his nation."

HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THESE LIES YOU ARE FED BY THE MEDIA ??????!!!!!!!!! IN ISLAM YOU ARE ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN DEEDS.


Armin at December 30, 2005 05:35 PM [permalink]:
JFTDMaster (at December 26, 2005 01:21 PM), "2 million Israeli arabs that have 80% unemployment rate" - That by the way is not true - One of the pro-Israelis here said it to prove one of his/her arguments. We also do not TARGET civilians - What do you call attacking civilians with missles intentionally because you think terrorists may be there? Terrorist groups mainly target civilians. - If you mean Jahad groups, How can I believe you when intentionally attacking civilians is agaist Islam and they are aimng to die for Islam immediately? However maybe it's a fatwa difference between Sha and Sunni scholars. Anyway do you have any credible source that most of them aim civilians? The occupation is mainly based on security needs. - Don't justify. It brings blood and war and justifications from the other side. Israel could exist with the consent of the people of the region, but you have failed to gain that, so you can't stay on their land." - Israeli people ARE one of the people of the region *- By people of the region I meant the jews who were there before the creation of Israel as well. "A free weaponless country for all the people of the world. Your evil politicians do not seem to like this freedom, do they?" - After Iran dismantles its government, throws out all of its weapons - You have an struggle and thismay be oneway. We do not have that struggle. Once again: hundreds of thousands of arabs are israeli citizens - Once again: What about the others? Haven't they lost their rights because of the fear of your government to loose the majority? Shouldn't all the people of the region take part in a democratic process to determine the state to prevent the struggle we see these days? Or your fear of not having a majority to have a jewish state prevented you from this and caused national ignorance and justification among you? The jewish people are a nation, living on their land, willing to live in peace with you if you stop attacking them for no rational reason. - We will accept any just peace. "Democracy has been PRACTICALLY brought to Iran by Ayatollah Khomeini, a Shia cleric, and it is supported by muslims and it is progressing in Iran " - Riiiight... Slavery is Freedom. War is Peace. *- We have not started any war after the revolution, our people have been reported to be tortured by the facilities the King's regime had brought from Israel and US, and we have freed ourselves from being semi-slaves of the US government. Israel declared itself a country, and whoever was within the country when the basic laws went into effect became a citizen, including all the arabs [in that self-defined country] - That is called dictatorship. You can't declare yourself a country and draw a circle as you want and get votes, but you must take the vote of people and see what country in what form they want (without that circle drawn before such that the majority is what planned without the consent of the people of the region). Fully 2% of Israel's population are arabs who came to Israel since 1990, just as an example. - Almost nothing. "But why haven't you give all the Palestinians a right to vote?" - Because they are not citizens, and do not live within Israel. *- I meant for creating Israel in a place they leave in. You can't just pick a piece of their land which is not populated that much and delare a state because you own some parts of the lands there. What region do you know in the world that its people accept it (even a re ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Ron at January 3, 2006 02:41 PM [permalink]:

Armin,

"- No one denies self defence (at least here, as we see). The questions are: Is X self defence or offence? If X is self defence,
is it a fair one the way it is done or it contains some unethical offence in it?"

First of all, offense CAN be a legitimate form of defense. Not always, but the two are not mutually exclusive.

Fair enough. But if one says that "X" self defence is unethical, without suggesting a Y alternative, one is
effectively denying the right to self defense in itself.

In other words, by saying self-defense is legitimate, but the X method is not, one is implicitly saying there is a better method of
self defense.

An example would be those who claim the West Bank security barrier as unethical. I have yet to hear a Y alternative proposed to stop
suicide bombers.

Another example would be missile strikes on terrorists. Some claim they are offensive or unethical. Again, what's the alternative?

One may say "well, i'm not in the business of defense strategies, so I can't propose a Y". Fair enough, but this person has also
just undermined their credibility in criticizing X.


*- So if we buy land in where you call it Israel, we can announce a new government? Right?"
*- So you mean every minority can drawa circle arround them and establish a government?

Sure, if you want to declare independence for your bathroom, it's your right. Just be prepared to defend it.


*- "The" means Israel whodid not consider therights of the people of the region to decide about their
region and referred their basic rights to the pro-zionist british and UN.
The Jewish states of Prophet David and Prophet Solomon are quite good examples of a just jewish state.


I don't believe there is historical evidence to say that David and Solomon's state was more or less "just" than today's Jewish state.

Anyways, "the region" is not a usable term.
One can say that in the region which includes Europe and the Middle East, there are more Arabs, so that Europeans must not make any domestic decisions without the consent of Arabs. Draw the circle even wider and include China; now Israel can't make laws that Chinese don't like, because it conflicts with "the will of the region".

Armin at January 5, 2006 12:50 AM [permalink]:

Ron,

Another example would be missile strikes on terrorists. Some claim they are offensive or unethical. Again, what's the alternative?

- First, those who fightfor their freedom arenot terrorists, but those who kill innocents are. Secondly, terrorists can be killed by bullets and commandos. Missle only seems to be a way of semi-blind revenge taking.


(I had said: *- So if we buy land in where you call it Israel, we can announce a new government? Right?"
*- So you mean every minority can drawa circle arround them and establish a government?)

Your answer: Sure, if you want to declare independence for your bathroom, it's your right. Just be prepared to defend it.

- I clearly meant to know your opinion on the ethical value of such acts (minorities drawing circle around them and announcing a country). You have clearly escaped answering my question (deliberatly or not!).


"the region" is not a usable term
- Unless we define it well. A region is a unified part of the world whose division is not recognized by people living there (therefore dividing it without the consent of people living there can cause disasters like what you see in Palestine Region). You could start your independence in democratic way acceptable by the people of the region, not by power and powerful countries and organizations biased to you. The process would be biased and unacceptable as a result.

Best Wishes

Armin at January 5, 2006 12:55 AM [permalink]:

You could start your independence in democratic ways acceptable to the people of the region, not by power and via powerful countries and organizations biased to you. The process has been biased and unacceptable as a result.

Ron at January 5, 2006 01:59 PM [permalink]:

Armin,


I answered your question when I said "it's your right". If a minority feels endangered by the people around them,
they certainly have the right to draw a line around them to protect themselves.

the region" is not a usable term
- Unless we define it well. A region is a unified part of the world whose division is not recognized by people living
there (therefore dividing it without the consent of people living there can cause disasters like what you see in Palestine Region).
You could start your independence in democratic way acceptable by the people of the region, not by power and powerful
countries and organizations biased to you. The process would be biased and unacceptable as a result.


Clearly the Palestine Region is not a very unified part of the world if a group of people living in one part don't care to be unified
with the people living in the other part.

You seem to be asking the question "why divide it?"
I'm saying it's already a divided place, why try to unify it?


"- First, those who fightfor their freedom arenot terrorists, but those who kill innocents are. Secondly, terrorists
can be killed by bullets and commandos. Missle only seems to be a way of semi-blind revenge taking."

Commandos are deployed every day in the West Bank for such operations, which usually result in arrests not deaths.
Gaza is the most crowded and armed place on the planet, sending commandos would almost certainly result in a prolonged battle
resulting in more bystander casualties than a missile.

What may seem to some as blind revenge is
actually a calculated way to keep unnecessary death and injury to a minimum.

Armin at January 5, 2006 06:58 PM [permalink]:

At first, something interesting:

Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss is the spokesperson for the Neturei Karta International - Jews against Zionism. He attended the United Nations World Conference Against Racism in Durban (2001) as part of the Islamic Human Rights Commission delegation and helped the NGO conference adopt the historic declaration condemning Zionism as racism and Israel for genocide which resulted in a US/Israel walkout.

Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss is descended from Hungarian Jewry, his grandparents were exterminated by the Nazis at Auschwitz. He lives with his family in New York.

Interviewed on 2nd March 2003, Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss:

"When the zionists decided to make their land, first they actually wanted to go to Uganda and other lands where ever they felt it was rich soils and so forth, but then they realised that they will have no backing from the Jewish people so they changed their plans and decided to go to Palestine.

In Palestine there was already a God fearing Jewish community (forming the minority of the inhabitants of Palestine). So when the zionists decided to go there they of course became a threat to the Palestinian Arabs, but they were also a tremendous threat for this Jewish community in Palestine. When the Jews living in Palestine saw this influx of zionists they realised that this is a tremendous threat for the whole of Judaism so they created in the 1920s the Aida Kreadus (congregation of God fearing) to fight this Zionist movement. Then later it transformed in the 1930s, the ones that were vocal were given the name Neturei Karta - the watchers or protectors of the city. These were the vocal people against zionism, they were there to fight this zionist movement and they fought it tooth and nail and people were killed in the fights. Till today they are beaten and thrown in jail, but the media doesn't go there....."

http://www.inminds.co.uk/qa-rabbi-weiss.html

Armin at January 5, 2006 07:03 PM [permalink]:

Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss: "In 1947, the Chief Rabbi Deshinski wrote a letter to the United Nations where he pleaded with them , he said

'I have under me 60,000 constituents, we do not want to be included in this state of Israel that you are creating..'

You see how opposite Judaism is to Zionism that the chief Rabbi was asking to be included with the Arab people rather than the zionists...today there are 100s of 1000s of us..."

Armin at January 5, 2006 07:22 PM [permalink]:

The Orthodox Jewish response to the criticism of the Iranian President
(statement for Al Q'uds Day)

28 October 2005
With the help of the Almighty.

Orthodox Jews the world over, are saddened by the hysteria which has greeted the recent stated desire of the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to see a world free of Zionism. This desire is nothing more than a yearning for a better, more peaceful world. It is a hope that with the elimination of Zionism, Jews and Muslims will live in harmony as they have throughout the ages, in Palestine and throughout the world.

It is a dangerous distortion, to see the Presidents words, as indicative of anti-Jewish sentiments. The President was simply re-stating the beliefs and statements of Ayatollah Khomeini, who always emphasized and practiced the respect and protection of Jews and Judaism. The political ideology of Zionism alone was rejected. President Ahmadinejad stressed this distinction by referring only to Zionism, not Judaism or the Jewish people, regardless of whether they reside in Palestine or else were.

We concur!! Orthodox Jews have always prayed and till today, continually pray for the speedy and peaceful dismantling of the Zionist state. As per the teachings of the Torah, the Jewish law, the Jewish people are required to be loyal, upstanding citizens, in all of the countries where-in they reside. They are expressly forbidden to have their own entity or state in any form or configuration, in this Heavenly decreed exile. Furthermore, the exemplification of one-self, with acts of compassion and goodness, is of the essence of Judaism. To subjugate and oppress a people, to steal their land, homes and orchards etc. is of the cardinal sins, of the basics crimes, forbidden by the Torah.

We have long stood together with the suffering Palestinian people in their struggle for self determination and respect. Based on our religious teachings, we believe it is impossible that any lasting peace can be achieved, for so long as the state of Israel exists. It is towards this goal of true reconciliation that religious Jews strive; via Palestinian statehood, so that we can once again reside in harmony and brotherhood.

May we merit to see the fruition of our prayers. Ultimately we pray for the day when all mankind will recognize the One G-g and serve Him in harmony. May this come upon us in the near future. Amen.

Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss
Neturei Karta International
Jews United Against Zionism
www.nkusa.org
914-262-8342

http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Statements/2005Oct28Iran.cfm

Ron at January 5, 2006 09:10 PM [permalink]:

Neturei Karta

Armin, you have showed me the error of my ways, thank you. Allah bless you.

Ron at January 5, 2006 09:14 PM [permalink]:

Neturei Karta!

Of course! Why didn't I think of it?! If I'm ever in danger, all I have to do is sit there and wait for God to protect me! It's brilliant.

Armin, you have showed me the error of my ways, thank you. Allah bless you.

Ron at January 5, 2006 09:15 PM [permalink]:

Neturei Karta!

Of course! Why didn't I think of it?! If I'm ever in danger, all I have to do is sit there and wait for God to protect me! It's brilliant.

Armin, you have showed me the error of my ways, thank you. Allah bless you.

Ron at January 5, 2006 09:35 PM [permalink]:

Sorry for the repition.
But you were lucky to be thrice blessed!

Raven at January 5, 2006 09:47 PM [permalink]:

That some zealot rabbi said something does not make it true! It is no secret that the ultra-religious orthodox jews were always against Zionists. And it is no surprise that our Armin finds a natural ally in them either, he is the one who thinks the husband can beat the wife if she does not please him sexually. By the way your mathematical definition of "region" sucks pal; "A region is a unified part of the world whose division is not recognized by people living there" LOL!! So you have to start from "some" given state of "regions", right? Well, if we take that to be the current state, "palestine" is already divided and we don't need to divide it again. Israel is there and you can't do a damn thing about it with your "definition". If you object to the current state and want to take another past time, when should it be?
50 years ago? 200 years ago? 5000 years ago? The big bang? LOL!!

Armin at January 5, 2006 10:03 PM [permalink]:

www.nkusa.org: "... the record of Arab and Islamic countries throughout the centuries towards their Jewish populations has been far better than those of European lands -- not perfect but far better. The hostility in this century among Moslems is the direct result of Zionism. A careful examination of the attacks and pogroms of the pre-1948 era inevitably reveals that they were in response to Zionists plans and eventual actions to wrest political sovereignty from the Turks or the English by immigration and force of arms ..."

Armin at January 5, 2006 10:23 PM [permalink]:

Raven,

some zealot rabbi said something
- As Ron says, they are too peaceful! (But I don't think they deny self defence, they seem to deny the war you have made that makes you need defence! When you offend, you are offended as a defence of your enemy and you'll need the defence from the eney you may have created youself!)


he [Armin] is the one who thinks the husband can beat the wife if she does not please him sexually
- Accordingto Islam, men need to love their wifes and be very kind in the normal situations (hardships and mood changes are quite normal). Why (or With what intention) do you omit this and that the optional SLIGHT beating can only be as serious as physical jokes of friends? Didn't you know that because of the propaganda? Beating should not make red the very sensative skin of woman and it is only for special women.


your mathematical definition of "region" sucks pal; "A region is a unified part of the world whose division is not recognized by people living there"
- Mathematical definition!!! I just said something fast! You could guess however that unification in my opinion is related to the opinion of the people, so you can't assume the Palestine has been divided. A fair democratic way to the division of the region (Palestne) would be acceptable.

Armin at January 5, 2006 10:40 PM [permalink]:

Ron,

Neturei Karta!
Of course! Why didn't I think of it?! If I'm ever in danger, all I have to do is sit there and wait for God to protect me! It's brilliant.
- I don't think they deny self defence, they seem to deny the war you have originally caused that makes you need defence! When you offend, you are offended as a defence of your enemy and you'll need the defence from the enemy you may have created youself!


I answered your question when I said "it's your right".
- You have a funny way of looking into other people's rights when you say: "if you want to declare independence for your bathroom, it's your right". And there's a smell of denying the right you say you have declared when you say: "Just be prepared to defend it.". You set conditions later: "If a minority feels endangered by the people around them,
they certainly have the right to draw a line around them to protect themselves."


You seem to be asking the question "why divide it?"
- I say: "The division has been unethical and the divider should pay the price to the oppressed (Muslim, Jew, Chriastian or ...).


Gaza is the most crowded and armed place on the planet, sending commandos would almost certainly result in a prolonged battle resulting in more by stander casualties than a missile.
- There are guns that can shot from far. In the other hand, attacking such a crowded place by missles based on the probability that somone special may be where targetted is worse than bombers who explode themselves in public areas, because at least they can make sure the non-innocent target is there and they are much more intelligent than the missle in causing less casulties.


A Reader at January 5, 2006 10:48 PM [permalink]:

Ron: "If a minority feels endangered by the people around them, they certainly have the right to draw a line around them to protect themselves."

www.nkusa.org: "... the record of Arab and Islamic countries throughout the centuries towards their Jewish populations has been far better than those of European lands -- not perfect but far better. The hostility in this century among Moslems is the direct result of Zionism. A careful examination of the attacks and pogroms of the pre-1948 era inevitably reveals that they were in response to Zionists plans and eventual actions to wrest political sovereignty from the Turks or the English by immigration and force of arms ..."

An Iranian Student (AIS) at January 5, 2006 11:31 PM [permalink]:

I'm so sorry about Sharon's condition. He was really the right man for this age, someone who acted and didn't accept crap and that's why islamo-fascists of our age and their leftists bell boys hate him so much.
May he be healed.

Armin at January 5, 2006 11:34 PM [permalink]:

Case study of a bias

http://www.inminds.co.uk/case-study-of-bias.html

For example, the biased BBC teaches Children:

"In biblical times, the Jewish Israelis lived on the land. But it then came under Arab rule in 800 AD, and many Jews were forced to leave."

Why biased?

"It starts history from Jews living in Palestine thereby establishing their ownership. If this argument is used then it is inaccurate as the Canaanite's, whom the Palestinians descend from, lived in Palestine before the Jewish immigration to Palestine. In reality in the last 5000 years many civilizations have ruled Palestine including Canaanite's, Philistines, Jews, Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Romans, Mongols and Arabs. Out of this whole period up to 1948 Jewish rule over the whole of Palestine has lasted less than a 100 years, and that was 3000 years ago. It also wrongly insinuates that the Arabs forced the Jews out of Palestine. In fact the Romans had expelled the Jews some 500 years before ... "


Armin at January 5, 2006 11:47 PM [permalink]:

You spectacularly reveal yourself AIS with your defence of this butcher.

An Iranian Student (AIS) at January 6, 2006 05:41 AM [permalink]:

Incorrect.
He was a general and a politician. He was not a butcher, cook, waiter.
Please check your facts before posting your crap.

A Reader at January 7, 2006 04:13 AM [permalink]:

You crack me up AIS. So, do you have your own website yet?

An Iranian Student (AIS) at January 7, 2006 10:09 PM [permalink]:

Hi,
There is one I have set up experimentally for the time being. It doesn't contain much for the time being. It is abit mixed up in the Persian/English formatting and all that. once I get a bit of free time I'll start blogging seriously.
Anyway it is here if you want to check:
www.yedai.blogspot.com

Armin at January 7, 2006 10:48 PM [permalink]:

What pro-Israelis say about Sharon:

UK Jew MP calls Israel 'pariah' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1874459.stm):

Israel has turned into a "pariah state" under prime minister Ariel Sharon and his ways of dealing with terrorism are "unacceptable", Jewish senior Labour MP Gerald Kaufman has claimed.
The former minister said he was saddened by the way the image of Israel had changed from "beacon" status to being portrayed by photographs of its soldiers "smirking over the corpse of a Palestinian they had just killed".

Mr Kaufman, MP for Manchester Gorton, accused former Labour prime minister Shimon Peres, now Israel's foreign minister, of "humiliating" himself by being involved in Sharon's government.

"What the Israeli Labour Party, with its fine traditions, is doing associating with this right-wing thug, I cannot begin to imagine."

What is going on in that country is something that no decent person can condone

Labour MP Gerald Kaufman

Mr Kaufman said a whole series of events had made him to vent his fury, including "the photograph a few weeks ago of one Israeli soldier photographing two others smirking over the corpse of a Palestinian they had just killed".

"This is not what Israel is all about and I am sad about it because Israel was founded in idealism.

"Obviously idealism has got to face up to reality - but the attitude of this Israeli Government in dealing what is undoubtedly horrible terrorism is not only unacceptable in humanitarian terms, but is also seriously unsuccessful in dealing with the terrorism," he told the BBC's Today programme.

...

Babak S at January 8, 2006 12:12 AM [permalink]:

Armin,

I really appreciate a dialogue. I really dislike imposing restrictions on it, and on this web site that is not my call anyway. But when I look in the comments section here, I see you have left close to 50 comments, about two times anyone else, and one-third of the total number of comments. That is by itself no problem, and many of them have been in discussions with other people. But there are also many that are not part of any dialogue or really a "comment" on the original post--like the ones where you quote other people and copy-paste form other web sites. You see, this is a comment section, not your publishing space. In general even doing that in moderation is okay, but I think you are crossing the line here. This is directly related to me, since as the author of the original piece I receive the comments in my mailbox and yours have turned effectively into spams. I can close the comments, but that is not something I'd like to do as I wrote above. So please get a sense for what is a "comment section." You can publish your favourite quotes, ideas and opinions in your own personal space on the web, weblog or other, which is available free of charge. You may also want to check out this piece, Free Speech in Practice, I wrote a while ago in response to a case of trolling this site experienced, which is relevant if you object to my request on freedom grounds.

Armin at January 12, 2006 07:27 PM [permalink]:

Babak,

Your comment is surprsing. What I have written/copied here is completely relevant and the size is fairly small. This objection of yours may be more interpretted to your objection to the content of what I have written (I hope this is not the case). This site with the few special people who write "frequently" in it has a bad anti-Islam and surprisingly a kind of black-glasses anti-Iranian bias which has passed the borders of fair criticism. It also has a kindness towards a few evil governments of the world and their media. One of the reasons of this bias may be the dollar controlled media we have in this world. They can't afford the fair discussion of many things, specially the thical and political ones in which The Other Side does not have enough power to at least indirectly force them to do so.

I donated a part of my time to the dear Iranians here to get out of this bias and tried to learn some things as well. That was not a good response from you Babak.

Armin at January 12, 2006 07:51 PM [permalink]:

Dear Babak,

Can you afford to write a fair article about Dr. Ahmadinezhad's speeches about Israel and how the world's influesive media abused it and directed it to where they wanted? Dr. Ahmadinezhad has clarified what he meant and the ongoing abuse of the others who pretend he wants to start a war, kill civilians or even make a genocide is among the most unfair things in the politics these days (Or that he totally denies holocaust itself, not the numbers and the exaggerations).

I am not his fan and I don't think he is a good president, but I think he is "too" misrepresented even in this dirty world and that's probably because they want to start a war against your country, Iran, and you and other people who have helped/are helping them by your media-biased writings will have a share in their mass-murder of the Iranians and mass-abuse of Iran.

You really owe your country a fair article this time to cover what they really are doing and how they abuse unexperienced special politicians like Ahmadinezhad. People like AIS will certainly not take off their hat for you this time, but they do the opposite, and I know this may be painful.

Best Wishes

Sahar at January 13, 2006 03:33 AM [permalink]:

Armin,

I think all of your writings are stupid.... Sorry, but I don't think Iranians need your time nor do they need your writing. So keep your God, your president, and your politics to yourself please.

Sahar at January 13, 2006 03:34 AM [permalink]:

Sorry, by your president I meant your Dr. president.

Armin at January 19, 2006 09:06 AM [permalink]:

Kam-Adab,

Many parts of my writings are common with most of the world.

Some other parts you may not understand/accept, but at least don't you understand that you should be polite and choose reason not insult?

Ahmadinezhad is not my favourite president, but I don't accept the lies, propaganda and exaggerations about his mistakes.

Best (Possible) Wishes

Armin at January 19, 2006 09:07 AM [permalink]:

Kam-Adab,

Many parts of my writings are common with most of the world.

Some other parts you may not understand/accept, but at least don't you understand that you should be polite and choose reason not insult?

Ahmadinezhad is not my favourite president, but I don't accept the lies, propaganda and exaggerations about his mistakes.

Best (Possible) Wishes

Armin at January 19, 2006 09:36 AM [permalink]:

They have passed the border of passing the borders:

CNN wrongly translated President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying Iran had a right to use nuclear "weapons", rather than nuclear "technology":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4617754.stm

Babak S at February 2, 2006 04:46 AM [permalink]:

Dear Armin,

Your request that I write about a possible military attack on Iran is met. Although I do not expect you would agree with me on this either.

Armin at February 3, 2006 01:16 PM [permalink]:

Dear Babak,

I did not request that you write about war as much as I remember, I said: "You really owe your country a fair article this time to cover what they really are doing and how they abuse unexperienced special politicians like Ahmadinezhad." . You had repeated their exaggerations and abuses about what Ahmadiezhad had said, but you did not mention what he meant and how they told lies (eg. pretending he denies holocaust and that he plans to kill Israeli people in a genocide, and later the CNN one translating technology to weapon).

Please open your eyes and your mind to see the disgusting zionist/jewish bias of the media that feed the minds of the world. It surely controls the mid of the people ad infects democracy in a way that phrases like "free world" seems a dream and democracy a yet to achieve goal.

This different article may give you some ideas:
http://www.stormfront.org/jewish/whorules.html

Best Wishes,
Armin

Ron at February 3, 2006 02:17 PM [permalink]:

Armin,

Your revelations have certainly set off the alarms in the control bunker of the World Jewish Conspiracy.

Yes, I'm not supposed to reveal the WJC to gentiles, but you have opened my eyes to the truth. Keep it up! For now I must find secret hiding and shelter from the deadly Ninja Rabbi Brigade before they find me and throw their poison-tipped detachable sidelocks.

Pray for me Armin, you are the only one who knows the truth and can save humanity.

Iranian Freedom fighter at February 6, 2006 12:11 AM [permalink]:

We need a smart revolution. People of Iran need to oppose this oppressive government by staying at home and shout the word "Freedom" from their houses every night. It should start on Thursday 9th of February at 8 pm. And again on Saturday 11th Feb 2006 and every two days from then on. Pass this on to all your friends and relatives within Iran. With the help of the West and all decent human beings around the world, and the effort of the Iranians themselves, We as the community of decent humans around the world should be able to get rid of these murderers ruling Iran by force. Remember, Thursday Night, 9th February 2006 at 8 pm

Ben at February 7, 2006 05:53 PM [permalink]:

Jews could achive world domination if they wanted to. They have the required human resources and quality of personal to execute such evil plan.
Fact is that not only that they aren't interested in 'ruling the world', they will be super-satisfied if you just ensure that they will live in peace in their 20,000 square kilometers.
Nevertheless, anti-semitics have always attributed the Jews a 'secret evil plan' of world domination and conspiracies.

In reality, it is the fanatic religious muslim leaders that seek world domination.
There are two major Ironies here:
1) They don't have the ability to achive such goal using human resources of their own. Only possible way that comes to mind is terrorism and taking over regimes in their surrounding area in the world and spreading like a cancer while turning each regime into theocracies.

2) The funniest irony is that they OPENLY DECLARE THEIR INTENTIONS and here are some proofs that are only the tip of the iceberg:

1) Hamas Leader Khaled Mash'al at a Damascus Mosque: The Nation of Islam Will Sit at the Throne of the World:
Transcript: http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1024
Video: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1024wmv&ak=null

2) Iran leader: Islam to 'rule the world'
Urges Muslims to get ready for coming of 'messiah': http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48268

3) #669 - Palestinian Friday Sermon by Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris: Muslims Will Rule America and Britain, Jews Are a Virus Resembling AIDS:
Transcript: http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=669
Video: http://memritv.org/View.asp?P1=669


Armin at February 13, 2006 04:32 PM [permalink]:

Ron, I see you fractured logic has collapsed to making fun of people. I encourage people to study the way soceties are controlled by the media by limited people with limited ethics. You make fun of that, you make fun of yourself.

Iranian Freedom (!!!), count the number of people killed by X and see who is murderer. Iran is advancing gradually towards ethical democracy in long term.

Ben, Who is taling about "'secret evil plan' of world domination"? The fact being talked about mainly is "corrupt Jews absing their power". About world domination, Jews could never do that. At least, it seems to need a unity and a power beyond what jews or any other group has. True muslim leaders believe in coming of Emam Mahdi and the messiah which leads to doination of true Islam (you don't know true Islam, do you?). They have told that until that day the task to do is to be in defensive state. In shia Islam that I follow, initiating a war before coming of Emam Mahdi and the Messiah is forbidden. And there are many many other facts about Islam that keeps us muslim even under biased anti-Islam media. You won't know Islam under this media Ben, you only know bad muslims or a bad picture of some good/ordinary ones.

Iran's leader said a peace plan for Palestine/Israel is achievable and supported by Iran if the vote of (forcefully) migrated Palestinians is taken into account. We hae always been ready for a just peace, but some powerful countries prefer to use their power instead of ethics and justice.

Best Wishes

Ben at February 16, 2006 07:17 PM [permalink]:

Armin,
When you as an Iranian and Muslim talked about "corrupt Jews absing their power" you unpack in my view a loaded subject.
First of all because of the widely well known fact of arab media and curricula depicts Jews in power as striving to achive world domination and secondly because of the soap operas and children programs I know of from Iranian T.V that also stage episodes where Jews are seen as evil people who try to take over the world.
I don't believe you can objectively talk about corrupt Jews. Did you ran out of corrupt people of other nationalities/religions? What does it have to do in this thread that you've brought it up?

You said: ["it seems to need a unity and a power beyond what jews or any other group has"]
Therein lies your mistake. My first words were: "if they wanted to" and theres your "unity".
Just look at the Germans.
The Germans have tried to take over the world and they had the "unity". They failed militarily.
Nevertheless, in my view, they also own/ed the human resources required. Look how close they got.
I also believe the French can do it, the Japanese, Indians, British, Italians, Scandinavians and pretty much every other nation in the world that has proven itself in science/technology/culture and have resourceful natives.
But do you see ANY of those including Jews trying to take over the world? -NO. Do you see Muslims trying/wanting to take over the world? Of Course! They also openly declare it.

So I don't know what you're talking about when you say true Islam.
Islam is evil and theres nothing more to it. I'm sorry to use "in your face" approach but thats the only way people start to think and understand.
All I see around the world are people of different nationalities and ethnicities turning evil and violent when under Islam while (for example) Arabs in Israel that aren't muslims (Christians/Druze)live here in peace, contribute to the state and have no problems with anyone.
Makes you think...

An Iranian Student (AIS) at February 20, 2006 08:37 PM [permalink]:

Indeed it is true. Islam is evil. The question how much more victims and bloodshed will it take for the free people of the free world to see this clearly beyond the smokecreens of political correctness and multiculturism and help the awakend immidiate victims of it ina global struggle to rid the wolrd of it.
That is the question. I hope it won't be too late.

Armin at February 20, 2006 09:06 PM [permalink]:

Ben,

The world is badly under propaganda and I live in UK under this propaganda, not in an arabic country. War makers seem to seek soldiers among people like you for their murders and wars. The silly things they make/magnify about some (apparently) muslims are not more than army ads.

I know Islam by studying it scientifically and being in contact with some of its true believers. You know Islam via the media under corrupt Jew/Atheist's power that try to show you "the greatest source of mercy and civilization ethics" as the opposite: "All I see around the world are people of different nationalities and ethnicities turning evil and violent when under Islam ". By talking this way about "what you see", you prove what I said about the corrupt Jews ( in the biased media ) and you show that you know almost nothing about the true Islam. You only see the propaganda. As a muslim, all I see is huge ethical imrovement of the true believers of Shia Islam (that I know some of them personally). Islam is an ethical system, you do not practice, you only have a misleading name from it.

In Shia Islam, initiating war before the time of leadership of Emam Mahdi and the Messiah is forbidden (I mean by people other than them). Most of the wars and murders have been initiated by US/UK/Germany/Israel in the past 100 years. Practicing Shia muslims have been defencive, peace seeking and probably ethically the most advanced group in the world.

About the world domination, I don't claim Jews have tried to directly rule the world, but I believe they can't. Also the other countries/groups, even if we assume they have the unity, do not have the power. Hitler seem to have made the mistake you do! You know the result.

Ben at February 21, 2006 05:57 PM [permalink]:
["The world is badly under propaganda and I live in UK under this propaganda, not in an arabic country. War makers seem to seek soldiers among people like you for their murders and wars. The silly things they make/magnify about some (apparently) muslims are not more than army ads."] Armin, Your claims about world media propaganda against Islam is childish. The media services around the world did not stage actors burning European embassies/flags. Muslims did that and it was reported. And the reports of Muslim terrorists are true, Muslims do terror. Oh I can keep going and going with examples and write a scroll here but I'll save you the time and get to the point: When you get an image of a violent person because you really are, it's only your fault. And about the "War makers", you're wrong, they don't seek me. They seek people like you! They seek people like you to sign a death contract that binds you to suicide mission on western/jewish targets. Enjoy:http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_13408.shtml Was this an "army ad"? ["I know Islam by studying it scientifically and being in contact with some of its true believers. You know Islam via the media under corrupt Jew/Atheist's power that try to show you "the greatest source of mercy and civilization ethics" as the opposite: "All I see around the world are people of different nationalities and ethnicities turning evil and violent when under Islam ". By talking this way about "what you see", you prove what I said about the corrupt Jews ( in the biased media ) and you show that you know almost nothing about the true Islam. You only see the propaganda. As a muslim, all I see is huge ethical imrovement of the true believers of Shia Islam (that I know some of them personally)."] Armin, first of all, if you report an "ehical improvement" with Muslims, I'm very happy to hear that.. I'm also hoping that's true. However, ["Islam is an ethical system, you do not practice, you only have a misleading name from it."] Are you sure cutting hands and heads is ethical? Also Armin, How can you call Islam an ethical religion? Just look at that: Iranian fatwa approves use of nuclear weapons: http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/1043/75/ Is this the result of biased media again? Did the journalists "invent" this report? Can you answer my questions instead of opening another subject every time and leaving them open? ["In Shia Islam, initiating war before the time of leadership of Emam Mahdi and the Messiah is forbidden (I mean by people other than them)."] Well they could've fooled me.. ["Most of the wars and murders have been initiated by US/UK/Germany/Israel in the past 100 years."] Armin, Germany doesn't belong in that list. You deliberately put it there to legitimize your claim for "Most of the wars and murders" and "in the past 100 years". Germany is responsible for 2 world wars. How can you put it in one line with Israel? UK? even US? Are you mad? Get some perspective will ya? First you should look at your own court! Here: More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined. Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years. More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. 19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals put to death in th ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Armin at February 23, 2006 02:35 PM [permalink]:
Ben, The media services around the world did not stage actors burning European embassies/flags. Muslims did that and it was reported. And the reports of Muslim terrorists are true, Muslims do terror. - Burnings, yes, and ithardly harms people (although I do not agree with burning embassy doors or ...). About some terrorist events such as Sep. 11th and London bombings, it is not clear who is the mastermind, muslim or not. And about the "War makers", you're wrong, they don't seek me. - They do. Muslims have not started major wars in the world in the past one hundred years, specially the Shia Muslims. They have been under brutal attacks of US/UK/Russia. Armin, first of all, if you report an "ehical improvement" with Muslims, I'm very happy to hear that.. - Live with truely religious shia muslims to see the mercy, brotherhood, helping hands, thinking minds, respecting hearts, developing scientific achievements (after a few centries of being back from science) and ... . They are also very peaceful and highly defencive. The most ethical group of the world I think. Are you sure cutting hands and heads is ethical? - Cutting heads is not the form of execution we see in shia Islam, but execution of special criminals and cutting the hands of special thieves (not every thief) makes the society secure for millions via heavily punishing a few severly guilty people per year. Such punishments are under very stricts conditions that most of people (even ordinary muslims) don't know (they know just something general and incomplete that a thief's hand is cut, but thre are very strict conditions). It works very well as we see and whenever truly done, it has made the society much more secure than what it could be. Iranian fatwa approves use of nuclear weapons: http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/1043/75/ - Why do you mix Iran and a fatwa with Islam so directly? Iranian leader (a highly respected Shia cleric) has said something like: use of atomic weapons is forbidden because of its harms for the innocets. BUT THE US USED IT !!! It is easy for you or the media to find a muslim that says X, even a cleric, even a relatively famous cleric in many cases, because there are many muslims (one in four or five in the world). Is this the result of biased media again? - Yes, why don't you consider those who condemn it? (I personally do not condemn it if there's a way to use it defencively to defend the attacks without harming the innocent civilians) Did the journalists "invent" this report? - No, they find amuslim or cleric that says what they need to demonize Islam or muslims. Can you answer my questions instead of opening another subject every time and leaving them open? - Reread my writings to see the relations between what you said and what I answer. Armin, Germany doesn't belong in that list. ... Germany is responsible for 2 world wars. How can you put it in one line with Israel? UK? even US? Are you mad? - I am not mad, but you are rude. Read just the history of Iran as a part of the world to see what UK and US has been doing there (and Russia). Your not being informed from what these countries have been doing is amazing, but not veru amazing under this media. JUST SOME EXAMPLES: UK attacked Iran in the world war despite Iran's announcement of being neutral. UK brutally interferred in Irans politics, including being involved in killing Iranian reformists like aybe AmirKabir. Russia has attacked Iran several times and UK and Russia have d ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Armin at February 23, 2006 02:39 PM [permalink]:

By the way, even khaled masha'l from Hamas is heard to have said according to the media: The war between Palestinians and Israel will end if Israel withdraw from the occupied regions of 1967. Wasn't it your or Ron's suggestion that if the war ends the withdrawal takes place? They have shown the green light for that!

Ben at February 24, 2006 10:31 AM [permalink]:
["Burnings, yes, and ithardly harms people"] Armin, "hardly harms" ??? What do you call this: NIGERIA: At least 123 killed as anger over cartoons fuels existing tensions: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/258d37e19cec3fdb1b1dd48e4ffd5719.htm Also related: At Least 15 Die in Nigeria Cartoon Protest: http://www.leadingthecharge.com/stories/news-00148640.html At least 11 people were killed and some 35 others were injured: http://english.people.com.cn/200602/23/eng20060223_245263.html 2 killed in cartoons protest in Pakistan: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/02/14/1370889.htm Do your home work next time. As for the "War makers", I believe that as a scholar of Islam you know very well of the war/violence incitement in Islam.. Do you wish for quotes? Reference to studies that have been made about this by fellow Muslims? Are you going to deny Islamic preachers using these quotes to create quarrels around the world? Do you wish for media links of them doing that as well? War makers in Islam are mass produced by brainwash anchored in a religion of violence and out of personal interests. The war makers from the non-Islamic world become such as self defance response if justified, or from personal/national interests if not (talking about last 100 years). The biggest war makers are the terrorists that get shelter in Iran and other Muslim countries and the Iranian president himself that is looking for you Armin, as a brainwashed Muslim that lives in the UK to make the next 7/7 bombings in london. There are documented ties between these types of religious regimes and the Muslim preachers that live in the UK and the rest of the western world that call for Jihad against it. In Britain we saw the result in 7/7. ["Muslims have not started major wars in the world in the past one hundred years"] Armin, thats not true, Muslims are the cause in almost ALL of the wars of the last 100 years, excluding WWI and WWII, in which Germany is to blame for. ["They have been under brutal attacks of US/UK/Russia"] Armin, Keep using terrorism like cowards, and you'll find not only US/UK/Russia, but all of the world fighting against you. ["Live with truely religious shia muslims to see the mercy, brotherhood, helping hands, thinking minds, respecting hearts, developing scientific achievements (after a few centries of being back from science) and ... . They are also very peaceful and highly defencive. The most ethical group of the world I think."] Armin, wonderful words if they were generally true and not about specific people. How rare are thses people in Islam? Answer that. ["Cutting heads is not the form of execution we see in shia Islam, but execution of special criminals and cutting the hands of special thieves (not every thief) makes the society secure for millions via heavily punishing a few severly guilty people per year. Such punishments are under very stricts conditions that most of people (even ordinary muslims) don't know (they know just something general and incomplete that a thief's hand is cut, but thre are very strict conditions). It works very well as we see and whenever truly done, it has made the society much more secure than what it could be."] Armin, how can you possibly justify this?!?!?! Also what you said to justify this isn't legitimate. There are much more better ways to reduce crime rate than maim people! ["Why do you mix Iran and a fatwa with Islam so directly? "] Armin, because a fatwa is an Islamic decree issued by a Mu ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Armin at April 13, 2006 10:14 PM [permalink]:
Ben, ["By the way, even khaled masha'l from Hamas is heard to have said according to the media: The war between Palestinians and Israel will end if Israel withdraw from the occupied regions of 1967. Wasn't it your or Ron's suggestion that if the war ends the withdrawal takes place? They have shown the green light for that!"] Armin, this is not true. - It was a translation of what I had read. What is your source? ["Burnings, yes, and ithardly harms people"] Armin, "hardly harms" ??? - I meant Burning flags and embassy doors as seen in Iran, but it was not the main topic of our discussion (you provide evidence only on this?!). As for the "War makers", I believe that as a scholar of Islam you know very well of the war/violence incitement in Islam. Do you wish for quotes? Are you going to deny Islamic preachers using these quotes to create quarrels around the world? - Abuse of verses is like abusing money. War makers in Islam are mass produced by brainwash anchored in a religion of violence and out of personal interests. - Do not repeat the brainwash you get. The war makers from the non-Islamic world become such as self defance response if justified, or from personal/national interests if not (talking about last 100 years). - That's why they begin the wars? The biggest war makers are the terrorists that get shelter in Iran and other Muslim countries and the Iranian president himself that is looking for you Armin, as a brainwashed Muslim that lives in the UK to make the next 7/7 bombings in london. - That's the crap they want you to believe. I told you and you can't understand that in Shia Islam MAKING WAR BEFORE APPEARANCE OF EMAM MAHDI AND THE MESIAH IS FORBIDDEN. I have not heard even one Iranian let alone Ahmadinezhad saying they like acts like 11/9 or 7/7, let alone doing such dirty things. What I have heard frequently in Iran is the fact that the mastermind behind such acts must not be a muslim (those acts was to the benefit of war makers and anti-muslim gangs of politicians). There are documented ties between these types of religious regimes and the Muslim preachers that live in the UK and the rest of the western world that call for Jihad against it. In Britain we saw the result in 7/7. - I told you and you can't understand that in Shia Islam MAKING WAR BEFORE APPEARANCE OF EMAM MAHDI AND THE MESIAH IS FORBIDDEN. I have not heard even one Iranian let alone Ahmadinezhad saying they like acts like 11/9 or 7/7, let alone doing such dirty things. What I have heard frequently in Iran is the fact that the mastermind behind such acts must not be a muslim (those acts was to the benefit of war makers and anti-muslim gangs of politicians). ["Muslims have not started major wars in the world in the past one hundred years"] Armin, thats not true, Muslims are the cause in almost ALL of the wars of the last 100 years, excluding WWI and WWII, in which Germany is to blame for. - WWI and WWII are the deadliest wars, however your information is too wrong! Talk about the wars muslims have made if you can, specially Shia muslims. Then compare the deaths to the wars others have made and consider the population calculations as well. Astonishesd? ["They have been under brutal attacks of US/UK/Russia"] Armin, Keep using terrorism like cowards, and you'll find not only US/UK/Russia, but all of the world fighting against you. - Are you a kid? Or a preacher of brainwash yourself? You know what I think about terrorism, so your comments ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
A Reader at April 13, 2006 10:16 PM [permalink]:
Ben, ["By the way, even khaled masha'l from Hamas is heard to have said according to the media: The war between Palestinians and Israel will end if Israel withdraw from the occupied regions of 1967. Wasn't it your or Ron's suggestion that if the war ends the withdrawal takes place? They have shown the green light for that!"] Armin, this is not true. - It was a translation of what I had read. What is your source? ["Burnings, yes, and ithardly harms people"] Armin, "hardly harms" ??? - I meant Burning flags and embassy doors as seen in Iran, but it was not the main topic of our discussion (you provide evidence only on this?!). As for the "War makers", I believe that as a scholar of Islam you know very well of the war/violence incitement in Islam. Do you wish for quotes? Are you going to deny Islamic preachers using these quotes to create quarrels around the world? - Abuse of verses is like abusing money. War makers in Islam are mass produced by brainwash anchored in a religion of violence and out of personal interests. - Do not repeat the brainwash you get. The war makers from the non-Islamic world become such as self defance response if justified, or from personal/national interests if not (talking about last 100 years). - That's why they begin the wars? The biggest war makers are the terrorists that get shelter in Iran and other Muslim countries and the Iranian president himself that is looking for you Armin, as a brainwashed Muslim that lives in the UK to make the next 7/7 bombings in london. - That's the crap they want you to believe. I told you and you can't understand that in Shia Islam MAKING WAR BEFORE APPEARANCE OF EMAM MAHDI AND THE MESIAH IS FORBIDDEN. I have not heard even one Iranian let alone Ahmadinezhad saying they like acts like 11/9 or 7/7, let alone doing such dirty things. What I have heard frequently in Iran is the fact that the mastermind behind such acts must not be a muslim (those acts was to the benefit of war makers and anti-muslim gangs of politicians). There are documented ties between these types of religious regimes and the Muslim preachers that live in the UK and the rest of the western world that call for Jihad against it. In Britain we saw the result in 7/7. - I told you and you can't understand that in Shia Islam MAKING WAR BEFORE APPEARANCE OF EMAM MAHDI AND THE MESIAH IS FORBIDDEN. I have not heard even one Iranian let alone Ahmadinezhad saying they like acts like 11/9 or 7/7, let alone doing such dirty things. What I have heard frequently in Iran is the fact that the mastermind behind such acts must not be a muslim (those acts was to the benefit of war makers and anti-muslim gangs of politicians). ["Muslims have not started major wars in the world in the past one hundred years"] Armin, thats not true, Muslims are the cause in almost ALL of the wars of the last 100 years, excluding WWI and WWII, in which Germany is to blame for. - WWI and WWII are the deadliest wars, however your information is too wrong! Talk about the wars muslims have made if you can, specially Shia muslims. Then compare the deaths to the wars others have made and consider the population calculations as well. Astonishesd? ["They have been under brutal attacks of US/UK/Russia"] Armin, Keep using terrorism like cowards, and you'll find not only US/UK/Russia, but all of the world fighting against you. - Are you a kid? Or a preacher of brainwash yourself? You know what I think about terrorism, so your comments ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Christopher at December 21, 2006 09:25 AM [permalink]:

Amateur and professional members can come to the convention to purchase fireworks, paper goods, novelty items, non-explosive chemical components and much more at the PGI trade show. Before the nightly fireworks displays and competitions, club members have a chance to enjoy open shooting of any and all legal consumer or professional grade fireworks, as well as testing and display of hand-built fireworks. The 'superstring', consisting of firecrackers numbering somewhere in the millions, as well as the 'megastring' are displayed as well. The week ends with the Grand Public Display on Friday night, which gives the chosen display company a chance to strut their stuff in front of some of the world's biggest fireworks aficionados. The stakes are high and much planning is put into the show. In 1994 a shell of 36 inches in diameter was fired during the convention, more than twice as large as the largest shell usually seen in the USA, and shells as large as 24 inches are frequently fired.
Hope this helps someone

Thomas Jones at December 27, 2006 07:57 AM [permalink]:

What I have written/copied here is completely relevant and the size is fairly small. This objection of yours may be more interpretted to your objection to the content of what I have written (I hope this is not the case). This site with the few special people who write "frequently" in it has a bad anti-Islam and surprisingly a kind of black-glasses anti-Iranian bias which has passed the borders of fair criticism. It also has a kindness towards a few evil governments of the world and their media. One of the reasons of this bias may be the dollar controlled media we have in this world. They can't afford the fair discussion of many things, specially the thical and political ones in which The Other Side does not have enough power to at least indirectly force them to do so.
--------------------
Thomas
http://styleniche.org/