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.

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.

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"?

"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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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 !

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.

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.

I mean heterogenous

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.

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

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

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.

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 ....

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.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? ... ?

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.

" 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.

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?!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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/

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"?

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.

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.

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

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"? :)

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.

"... 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.

"... 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?

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?

Please take the time to read this important petition:

PETITION

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

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

"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.

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.

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)"

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

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.

"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

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.

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

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