With One Eye Open
When it comes to the unfolding drama regarding Iran, look no further than the Israelis for proof positive that hypocrisy is alive and well. Yesterday, Israeli’s newly appointed ambassador to the UK, Ron Prosor, uttered the following…
“At the current rate of progress, Iran will reach the technical threshold for producing fissile material by 2009,” he said.
“This is a global threat and it requires a global response.
“It should be made clear that if Iran does not co-operate, then military confrontation is inevitable. It is either co-operation or confrontation.”
“There needs to be full verification of what is happening in Iran,” Mr Prosor said. “In Israel, there is a belief that the Iranians are continuing with their nuclear weapons program.”
While I’m sure that I’ll catch flack for this entry, I must admit to being tired of hearing the Israelis go on about the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program when they themselves have refused to acknowledge that their own program even exists, have never allowed the IAEA to inspect it, have not signed the NPT, and jailed the one person that had the fortitude to come forward and tell the world that Israel does, in fact, possess a nuclear arsenal.
As of 2002, Israel is believed to possess between 75 and 200 nuclear weapons. Among them are neutron bombs, nuclear mines, submarine borne missiles, and other variants. Despite the fact that, in 1975, highly classified US government documents, now declassified, show that the United States was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons, the US has never called for an international inquiry into their existence or production, nor pushed for the UN to be granted access to Israeli facilities to determine the scope of their program.
In Ness Ziona, at the Israel Institute for Biological Research, the Israelis have also undertaken research and development into vaccines to counteract the effects of chemical and biological weapons. And while it is currently believed that they are not producing chemical and biological weapons of their own, such research could be used to constitute an offensive chemical and biological arms program. Given that last statement, why is that of little to no concern to anyone? Because we, in the West, simply accept the fact that Israel wouldn’t initiate an offensive chemical and biological weapons program? And if so, why is it that the West is so unsuspicious of Israeli programs?
In all seriousness, here we are talking about a nation in the Middle East that, in truth, has been given free reign by the West for no other reason than it represents the West’s foremost military proxy in the region. Even Israel’s creation was the result of a heavily Western backed initiative via the United Nations, largely spearheaded by the Truman administration. It has, since that time, been one of the largest recipients of US military aid in the world, a trend that continues to this day. In fact, to counteract a recent ten year, $20 billion dollar, arms agreement with various Arab states, the United States pledged to provide Israel alone with $30 billion dollars in military aid over the same period of time.
I’ll not disagree that the Iranian government’s position on Israel’s right to exist is tired and counterproductive, because it is. Then again, since the Islamic revolution, no overt military action has been taken against Israel by Iran itself (in truth, Iran, then Persia, has not invaded another country since the 19th century). True, Iran has been complicit in funding groups such as Hezbollah, but how is that any different that the Israelis being funded by the United States and exploiting that relationship to institute policies that have basically ghettoized a people and been responsible for human rights violations and war crimes?
If you’re under the assumption that that isn’t the case, that Israel has enacted such policies solely for purposes of security, then why did Avi Dichter, Israel’s Public Security minister, recently turn down an invitation to travel to the UK in fear that he could be arrested on war crimes charges in connection with the attack in Gaza on Saleh Shehadah which killed at least 13 civilians in July of 2002?
I’m not going to claim that it doesn’t go both ways, but there is a vast difference between radical Palestinian groups armed with RPG’s and Kalashnikovs, not to mention children hurling rocks, and the IDF, which has at its disposal some of the most advanced weaponry in the world, including a state of the art air force. True, suicide attacks are one of the tools employed by radical groups, though it must be said – if they possessed attack helicopters, armor, and fighter planes, they would most likely resort to employing the sorts of weapons that we commonly condone as ‘honourable’. Let’s face it – there is, as far as Western perceptions are concerned, no honour in blowing oneself up and taking others with you. But it is honourable to use state of the art attack helicopters to do the same thing – correct?
Now, with regards to Iranian support for Hezbollah, I will again not argue that Iran hasn’t been complicit. But as I’ve said, how is that any different than US support for Israel? In truth, Iran’s military support for Hezbollah is vastly minimal by comparison. Of course, the counter argument is that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and that the government of Israel is not. Then again, the last time I checked, Hezbollah was not responsible for the million bomblets from Cluster Bombs that still litter Southern Lebanon, the majority of which were dropped in the last days of that conflict, and that still continue to maim and kill Lebanese civilians on a daily basis.
The fact remains that while Israeli’s foremost military enabler scrutinizes Iran’s intentions and programs, Israel escapes scrutiny. There is nary a word about Israel’s nuclear program, or the fact that the Israelis refuse to allow it to be inspected by the very same body that has been pushed to scrutinize Iran’s nuclear program. No National Intelligence Estimate regarding Israel’s nuclear program has been undertaken, and if it has it hasn’t been publicized for the sole reason that it would expose the hypocrisy of not only the Israelis, but the United States as well. In fact, the influence of the Israeli lobby in the United States would probably ensure that it was killed before it even saw the light of day.
Is the Iranian government guilty of human rights violations? Absolutely. Is Israel? Absolutely. Of course, it can be argued that Iran’s violations are considerably worse, and one would expect that. Then again, the same sorts of violations occur in other counties with which the US has close relations and they are rarely, if ever, scrutinized – Saudi Arabia being a primary example.
When it comes to this issue, we live in a society that lacks objectivity, and to claim as much is to offer ones self up for target practice for daring to say so. Deep and indoctrinated lines have been drawn regarding this issue, and to attempt to look at it objectively, or to hold all those involved to the same standards, is something that is, rather ironically, not acceptable.
No matter what you happen to believe, peace is a universal proposition. It is not one that comes with caveats penned by those that possess greater military capabilities. We have been programmed to believe that the latter is standard practice and, not surprisingly, peace continues to elude us.
There is no side worth being on that does not transparently promote justice, equality, and security without agenda. Those besides are nothing more than avenues paved for the weak willed to travel. Ironically, the fantasy author JK Rowling might have put it best when she wrote – the time will soon come to choose between what is right and what is easy. When it comes to how we view global events, that maxim is of incredible import. For behind those behind the curtains there are ordinary people that outnumber them by the billions, all of them connected by the simplest of bonds - the universal desire to live lives without fear and to escape those entrenchments that have pitted them against one another for far too long.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Friday, December 7th, 2007 at 2:10 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Nice Moral Equivallency dead horse you’re beating there, i.e. Isreal is just as bad as all other Mid East countries.
The “Palestinians” (no such independant country ever existed) are “ghettoized” by themselves and their fellow Arabs, not the Israelis.
The US doesn’t question Israel’s nuclear program for the same reason they don’t question Great Britain’s nuclear program: Israel is an ally.
Israel = Democracy. Iran = Theocratic Dictatorship (and please, no one try to say the US is the same thing. If you truly believe that, you really need to take off the tin foil hat.)
December 7th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
The British have acknowledged that they have a program, not hid it, therein lies the difference. As for you comments regarding ghettoization, perhaps you should take off your tinfoil hat.
The United States is a plutocracy, not a democracy. Just as Canada is.
Palestine was a British Protectorate prior to swaths of it becoming Israel. By that logic I suppose we can also say that India didn’t represent a nation under British rule, nor is Canada now, being that the Queen is still ultimately the head of state.
You have also conveniently overlooked the differences in overt military support, which is one of the most important points of the entry.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
No, actually, India was largely a collection of smaller kingdoms fighting eachother until British rule. And no, inder British rule, it wasn’t an independant nation; it was a Crown Colony. It was the artificial partioning when the British withdrew that gave us India and Pakistan, same as happened in the middle east. I’m inclined to agree with you about the current state of Canada, under the Monarchy, by the way.
The area known as “Palestine” was for some 2000 to 3000 years continually a part of one empire or another - Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Europeans, Ottomans, British… The Jews of Europe showed up starting in the late 19th century, and made the desert bloom, and provided opportunities for many of the impoverished Arabs in the area. Then, post WWII, they showed up en masse, defying the British that still contolled the area. They didn’t chase away the “Palestinians”, the surrounding Arab nations told the local arabs to leave, so they wouldn’t be in the way when they tried to push the Jews back into the sea. Of course, the failed miserably in their attempt, and subsequently told the “Palestinians”, who were at this point living as refugees in the various Arab states, to get out and go home. But, as they had abandoned those homes, which were now occupied by Isrealis, they were left with nowhere to go. The Various Arab nations around Israel could long ago have solved the problem by absorbing their fellow Arabs into their populations; however, their hatred of Israel is far stronger than thier compassion for their brothers.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Also consider, FT, that Israel was formed with specific boundaries in mind by the UN. They exceeded those boundaries by constantly eroding Palestinian territory.
Your statement about Palestine (and no such independant country ever existed) is irrelevant considering Israel is also a new nation. Relevancy in arguments helps.
And you’re right. Iran is not an American ally. Of course, they could have been, but the US decided to remove their democratcially elected government in the 1950’s. So i suppose its easy to call someone your enemy when you are the one that made them that way. But i suppose like most appologists, you’ll look at this as yet another glaring example not of US foreign policy gone wrong, but how all those crazy guys in the ME are asking for it.
And the Palestinians ghettoized themselves? What an absurd statement.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
“Israel = Democracy. Iran = Theocratic Dictatorship”
Israel is only a Democracy if you are an Israel citizen. For the Palestinians who live under Israel’s control, Israel is anything but.
P.S. Nice scrolling effect on the log in, very cool peice of web design.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
From Amnesty International:
“Military blockades and increased restrictions imposed by Israel on the movement of Palestinians and the confiscation by Israel of Palestinian customs duties caused a significant deterioration in living conditions for Palestinian inhabitants in the Occupied Territories, with poverty, food aid dependency, health problems and unemployment reaching crisis levels.”
Palestinians ghettoizing themselves? How about you educated yourself a bit before you make such outrageously outlandish comments.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Israel is only a Democracy if you are an Israel citizen. For the Palestinians who live under Israel’s control, Israel is anything but
? The same holds tue for any country, and Arabs can hold Israeli citizenship. How many Jews can say the same in Arab countries?
Also consider, FT, that Israel was formed with specific boundaries in mind by the UN. They exceeded those boundaries by constantly eroding Palestinian territory.
Israel expands its boundaries after it’s attacked by its neighbors, then kicks their asses. And they have since given back much of that land, to their detriment, as Hezbollah and Hamas use such reclaimed territory to attack Israelis.
Your statement about Palestine (and no such independant country ever existed) is irrelevant considering Israel is also a new nation. Relevancy in arguments helps.
Yes, Israel is a new RECOGNIZED nation, where none existed before.
As for the ghettoization? Read an actual history book, not PLO propaganda. You know, the PLO, the terrorists once headed up by Yassir Arafat, who’s uncle helped Hitler plan the Final Solution.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
My family lived in India for 150 years. Under the British, India was indeed a colony, just as the Palestinian Mandate was prior to the creation of the Israeli State, which, by the way, was mandated by the UN without the blessing of the Arab League.
[quote]Ian J. Bickerton, Professor of Middle Eastern History, University of New South Wales, and Carla L. Klausner, Professor of the Modern Middle East, University of Missouri-Kansas City, in the fourth edition of A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, p. 104, wrote:
“Israelis long contended that during the Israeli War of Independence the Palestinian Arabs abandoned their homes and villages of their own free will. Not only that, they did so at the urging of the Arab leadership, who, the argument goes, told the Palestinians to leave until the Jewish state was destroyed and then they could return. The evidence, however, is inconclusive. According to some sources, the Arab League and the mufti ordered the Palestinians to remain where they were.â€[/quote]
December 7th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Alright, there is something that Matt has said that has seemed to piss off a few people.. which is awesome, there is nothing healthier then debate, as far as I am concerned. But if I am correct his BLOG is a reflection of his ideals and should be read as such.. to comment on the comment:
Palenstinians ghettoizing themselves?
Well, to a degree it has, but its more of the dictatorship that has done that to them.. If a country recieves enough foreign aid to make it a more viable state and its government doesnt use these funds for that purpose, it is then *ghettoizing* itself.
Here is a nice bit that I found by doing a simple google search.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Jewish Virtual Library, in its website’s “Fact Sheets # 27: The Palestinian Money Trail” section, retrieved on 09/29/06, offers the following:
“Since the signing of the Oslo Accord in 1993, the U.S. government has committed more than $1.3 billion in economic assistance to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Since the end of 2000, Arab states have transferred to the Palestinian Authority monthly financial aid of $45 million (since April 2002 this sum was increased to $55 million). The European Union (EU) transfers to the PA approximately $9 million monthly. By the end of 2001, the Palestinians had received $4 billion (the figure is now closer to $5.5 billion) since the 1993 Oslo agreements.
This is the equivalent of $1,330 per Palestinian. By comparison, the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II provided $272 per European (in today’s dollars).”
09/29/06 Jewish Virtual Library
——————————————————————————–
The CIA - World Factbook, as of 09/27/06, estimates the amount of economic aid received by the West Bank and Gaza Strip and explains the methodology used to arrive at its estimate:
“Economic aid - recipient: $2 Billion from US (2004 est.)” [Total contributions over 50 years]
“This entry [economic aid estimate], which is subject to major problems of definition and statistical coverage, refers to the net inflow of Official Development Finance (ODF) to recipient countries. The figure includes assistance from the World Bank, the IMF, and other international organizations and from individual nation donors. Formal commitments of aid are included in the data. Omitted from the data are grants by private organizations. Aid comes in various forms including outright grants and loans. The entry thus is the difference between new inflows and repayments. These figures are calculated on an exchange rate basis, i.e., not in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms.”
09/27/06 CIA - The World Factbook
——————————————————————————–
The European Union (EU) website, in a section retrieved on 09/26/06 entitled “The EU’s Relations with West Bank and Gaza Strip,” states the following:
“Since the outbreak of the second Intifada in September 2000… the European Community shifted much of its assistance from more long-term institution-building to badly needed humanitarian assistance and support to refugees through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)… The Council of the European Union, together with the European Parliament, endorsed the use of budget support in this context.”
09/26/06 European Union
——————————————————————————–
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Middle East (UNRWA), in its website’s “Finances” section, retrieved on 09/22/06, offers the following:
Canada
$10,103,496 $22,877,698
U.S.A.
$108,000,000 $135,000,000
Total funds recieved by the participating nations:
Total Governments
$372,067,547 $329,119,217
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* here is the link for that information should you like to see it..
http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/bin/procon/procon.cgi?database=5-J-Sub-Q10.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=1&rnd=553.3476581456942
With that said..
I do believe that Palenstine has become a puppet for radical Islam, almost its little puppy, if you will. And I think that some of the actions that Isreal has taken against Palenstine VERY extreme.. but then I have to think that since its form as a Independant State in 1948, have been under attack…if I had been that country and considered to be the enemy simply because of the way I choose to worship God, I would have been extreme as well. BUT! they have been as complicit in the demise of the morale of Palenstinians as much as Radical Islamists.
…..
As far as Iran is concerned:
Iran was once a *friend* of America till the Hostage Situation on the US Embassy ( one of the reasons the former Shah Pahlavi was the darling of the US..and when he was deposed, and rightly so, Ayatollah came to the *throne* and wage a religious war inside and out of Iran. ( this was when my family was massacred in Iran and we fled to India)
here is a link a to a really good site that gives a very detailed outline of Iran then to now.
http://www.counterbias.com/632.html
Its just simply ironic that the US wishes that it had the leader that they helped overthrow, Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq, instead of the one that they helped ( by a blind hand ) place into power.
Iran chose to be a nation that was ruled by religion and when you pave the way for fanatics to run the country, then you cant be pissed and want to wage war when they decide to do what the hell they want to do. Thats the same as teaching your child to say the word shit and then telling them, umm.. no you cant do that.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
I think you’re fairly new to this site, so you might as well know. To avoid embarassment or getting schooled, make sure you know what you are talking about before getting into a foreign policy debate with Matthew good. Throwing around neocon catch phrases like tin foil hat and PLO propaganda (assuming that we don’t consult academic sources, and assuming there’s no such thing as Israeli propaganda) doesn’t help your cause either.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
According to the Encylopedia:
Palenstine, Middle East
A country in the Middle East whose boundaries were transformed by political considerations across the 20th-c. Following the break-up of the Ottoman Empire in the settlement after World War 1, Palestine was created as a British mandate in 1922. Britain had pledged its support for Zionist national aspirations in the 1917 Balfour Declaration, prior to the formation of Palestine and in disregard of the interests of the 88% Arab majority. These competing national aspirations made Britain’s position in Palestine untenable, and in 1947 it relinquished control to the UN, which voted in November to partition the territory and impose a two-state solution, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem under international control. Rejected by the Arabs and accepted by the Zionists, partition ultimately was superseded by the outcome of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, which left the new state of Israel in possession of 77% of the mandated territory. As Jordan annexed the West Bank, including East Jerusalem (1948), and Egypt administered the small Gaza Strip, Palestine effectively disappeared from the map. Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip in the June 1967 War, since which time these regions have been collectively referred to as the Occupied Territories.
In July 1988, King Hussein of Jordan severed administrative and legal ties to the West Bank in deference to the claim by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to be the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. At the 19th meeting of the Palestine National Council in Algiers (Nov 1988), the PLO proclaimed the State of Palestine. The boundaries of that state were never specified, the declaration amounting to PLO recognition of the principle of partition rejected in 1947, although the PLO Charter still denied Israel’s right to exist. Over 100 states have since recognized the State of Palestine, and PLO offices in those countries are recognized as embassies.
In 1993, a historic peace agreement was signed in Washington between the PLO and Israel, which provided for an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank town of Jericho. These two areas would be under full Palestinian authority, and a degree of self-rule would be allowed in parts of the rest of the West Bank. The agreement was internationally acclaimed (though greeted with hostility by many Israelis and Palestinians), but was only haltingly implemented by Israel. Yasser Arafat, the chairman of the Palestine National Authority (see separate entry), became president in 1996. A period of stalemate was broken by the US-brokered Wye agreement (1998), by which Israel would redeploy its forces from further West Bank areas, and the Palestinians would strengthen anti-terrorist measures and cancel anti-Israel provisions in their national charter. However, disagreement over troop withdrawals, Israeli settlements, the return of Palestinian refugees, and the status of Jerusalem continued to hinder peace negotiations, and threatened the projected deadline for the declaration of an independent state (Sep 2000).
Violent clashes between Israeli troops and Palestinian police and civilians intensified in 2001. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon maintained a hard-line approach to the crisis, and the conflict escalated when he ordered Israeli troops into the territory controlled by the Palestinian National Authority. Following a wave of attacks on Israel by suicide-bombers, further incursions took place, 2002–4. US President Bush published (Apr 2003) a peace initiative, known as the ‘road map’, for a phase-by-phase route to ending conflict in the Middle East and to full Palestinian statehood. Palestinian and Israeli moderates launched an alternative peace plan, the Geneva Accord (Dec 2003). In 2002 Israel began building a 640 km/440 mi security barrier to seal off the West Bank (ruled illegal by the World Court). Tension increased again in 2004 following further Israeli proposals to build settlements within disputed areas, and following the death of President Yasser Arafat later that year. Mahmoud Abbas was elected to succeed Arafat in January 2005. At a summit meeting in Egypt the next month, hopes for peace were renewed when he and Sharon declared a truce to end the violence, with an immediate ceasefire. In August 2005 the army evacuated Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip in line with Sharon’s disengagement plan. In January 2006, in the first parliamentary elections for a decade, Islamic militant group HAMAS won a surprise victory over the ruling Fatah party, posing a serious threat to the continuation of peace talks with Israel. In March the new administration was sworn in with Ismail Haniya as prime minister.
End of Article: Palestine (Middle East)
*****************************************************
December 7th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
As for the ghettoization? Read an actual history book, not PLO propaganda. You know, the PLO, the terrorists once headed up by Yassir Arafat, who’s uncle helped Hitler plan the Final Solution. - That’s one piece of cake, would you like a second ? “On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of German banking operations in New York City. Roosevelt’s Alien Property Custodian, Leo T. Crowley, signed Vesting Order Number 248 seizing Bush’s property under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The order cited only the Union Banking Corporation (UBC), of which Bush was a director and held one share, which had connections with a Dutch bank owned by Thyssen.” Hitler seemed to be well liked and well served by a lot of rich americans too, but I imagine you only have room for one slice of cake.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
“Israel is only a Democracy if you are an Israel citizen. For the Palestinians who live under Israel’s control, Israel is anything but
? The same holds tue for any country, and Arabs can hold Israeli citizenship. How many Jews can say the same in Arab countries?”
I’m currently living the United States. I’m not a citizen, I do not hold American citizenship. Yet if i was arrested, I would have the same rights as those who did (although this isn’t afford to everyone “arrested” by the USA). The same goes for a non-Canadian citizen living in Canada. Unfortantly for the Palestinians who live in Israel ruled territory, they do not have this privilege.
And for Amnesty International being “PLO” propaganda, ARE YOU KIDDING ME. Are you so closed minded and ignorant that you’ll blindly disregard anything that goes against your way of thinking? You obviously have put in little effort in learning what is going on in the world around you. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you educate yourself better then the 15 minutes of news the mainstream media stuffs in between updates on Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohanns drunken antics.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
This has gotten off topic.
What I would like to know Frozen Tex is where you stand on Israel’s nuclear program? The fact that it has never been scrutinized by the IAEA? The fact that they even refuse to admit it exists?
Iran has been accused of not being forthright, and because of that some have put sanctions in place. Interestingly, Israel is guilty of the exact same thing, and yet there have been no repercussions, nor have there ever been.
Were the Shah still in power, and Iran still a US ally, and the nuclear initiative that the US was helping the Iranians with prior to the revolution went ahead, would that be acceptable to you? Iran, under the Shah, was a monarchy, not a democracy. But being that it was, at that time, a US ally, would that have abated fears as to Iran possessing a nuclear capability?
In essence, is the argument simply a matter of who is and is not in line with US policy? If you are, your transgressions are overlooked. If you aren’t, then you’re cast as the world’s foremost threat – or one of them at least.
Let me ask you a question. Why did Mohammad Khatami lose the Iranian Presidency? What constitutional reforms was he proposing that led to his ultimate downfall? Remember that while he was still President, the most liberal since the revolution, Iran was alienated by the Bush administration. Why did that occur when the most open minded Iranian president in post-revolutionary Iran was in power, a man that believed in wildly liberal ideas such as stem cell research? After 9/11, a million Iranians held vigil in Tehran in solidarity with the victims of the attack – with the people of the United States. How did it go from that to membership in the Axis of Evil?
The current leadership in Iran, which is definitely influenced by a hard line element within the country, seized power very much because of the position that Iran was placed in after Mr. Bush’s now famed ‘Axis of Evil’ diatribe and the invasion of Iraq. In no small way, the United States helped create the viper they are now faced with through utterly reckless foreign policy decisions. Rather than reaching out to the Khatami government, they alienated the one man in Iran that was attempting to actually change it, and in doing so ensured that his replacement would be the sort that would not back down, nor conduct himself in any fashion that could be construed as progressive. Ahmadinejad became President to promote strength, nothing more. And with him came the complete abandonment of those initiatives that Khatami struggled to institute…
[quote]“Khatami is regarded as Iran’s first reformist president, since the focus of his campaign was on the rule of law, democracy and the inclusion of all Iranians in the political decision-making process. However, his policies of reform led to repeated clashes with the hardline and conservative Islamists in the Iranian government, who control powerful governmental organizations like the Guardian Council, whose members are appointed by the Supreme Leader. Khatami lost most of those clashes, and by the end of his presidency many of his followers had grown disillusioned with him.
As President, according to the Iranian political system, Khatami was outranked by the Supreme Leader, and had no legal authority over many key state institutions such as the armed forces (the police, the army, the revolutionary guards, etc.), the state radio and television, the judiciary, the prisons, etc.
Khatami presented the so called “twin bills” to the parliament during his term in office, these two pieces of proposed legislation would have introduced small but key changes to the national election laws of Iran and also presented a clear definition of the president’s power to prevent constitutional violations by state institutions. Khatami himself described the “twin bills” as the key to the progress of reforms in Iran. The bills were approved by the parliament but were eventually vetoed by the Guardian Council.”[/quote]
December 7th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Also, for those wanting to quote someone else, use the ‘Quote Comment’ feature or simply use this code:
[quote]CONTENT HERE[/quote].December 7th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
danke..I can be pretty iffy on the stupid quoting thingy..
December 7th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
wow its like a giant battle royale over here. lol
December 7th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
[quote comment="35153"]Alright, there is something that Matt has said that has seemed to piss off a few people.. which is awesome, there is nothing healthier then debate, as far as I am concerned. But if I am correct his BLOG is a reflection of his ideals and should be read as such.. to comment on the comment:
Palenstinians ghettoizing themselves?
Well, to a degree it has, but its more of the dictatorship that has done that to them.. If a country recieves enough foreign aid to make it a more viable state and its government doesnt use these funds for that purpose, it is then *ghettoizing* itself.
Here is a nice bit that I found by doing a simple google search.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Jewish Virtual Library, in its website’s “Fact Sheets # 27: The Palestinian Money Trail” section, retrieved on 09/29/06, offers the following:
“Since the signing of the Oslo Accord in 1993, the U.S. government has committed more than $1.3 billion in economic assistance to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Since the end of 2000, Arab states have transferred to the Palestinian Authority monthly financial aid of $45 million (since April 2002 this sum was increased to $55 million). The European Union (EU) transfers to the PA approximately $9 million monthly. By the end of 2001, the Palestinians had received $4 billion (the figure is now closer to $5.5 billion) since the 1993 Oslo agreements.
This is the equivalent of $1,330 per Palestinian. By comparison, the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II provided $272 per European (in today’s dollars).”
09/29/06 Jewish Virtual Library
——————————————————————————–
The CIA - World Factbook, as of 09/27/06, estimates the amount of economic aid received by the West Bank and Gaza Strip and explains the methodology used to arrive at its estimate:
“Economic aid - recipient: $2 Billion from US (2004 est.)” [Total contributions over 50
years]
“This entry [economic aid estimate], which is subject to major problems of definition and statistical coverage, refers to the net inflow of Official Development Finance (ODF) to recipient countries. The figure includes assistance from the World Bank, the IMF, and other international organizations and from individual nation donors. Formal commitments of aid are included in the data. Omitted from the data are grants by private organizations. Aid comes in various forms including outright grants and loans. The entry thus is the difference between new inflows and repayments. These figures are calculated on an exchange rate basis, i.e., not in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms.”
09/27/06 CIA - The World Factbook
——————————————————————————–
The European Union (EU) website, in a section retrieved on 09/26/06 entitled “The EU’s Relations with West Bank and Gaza Strip,” states the following:
“Since the outbreak of the second Intifada in September 2000… the European Community shifted much of its assistance from more long-term institution-building to badly needed humanitarian assistance and support to refugees through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)… The Council of the European Union, together with the European Parliament, endorsed the use of budget support in this context.”
09/26/06 European Union
——————————————————————————–
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Middle East (UNRWA), in its website’s “Finances” section, retrieved on 09/22/06, offers the following:
Canada
$10,103,496 $22,877,698
U.S.A.
$108,000,000 $135,000,000
Total funds recieved by the participating nations:
Total Governments
$372,067,547 $329,119,217
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* here is the link for that information should you like to see it..
http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/bin/procon/procon.cgi?database=5-J-Sub-Q10.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=1&rnd=553.3476581456942
With that said..
I do believe that Palenstine has become a puppet for radical Islam, almost its little puppy, if you will. And I think that some of the actions that Isreal has taken against Palenstine VERY extreme.. but then I have to think that since its form as a Independant State in 1948, have been under attack…if I had been that country and considered to be the enemy simply because of the way I choose to worship God, I would have been extreme as well. BUT! they have been as complicit in the demise of the morale of Palenstinians as much as Radical Islamists.
…..
As far as Iran is concerned:
Iran was once a *friend* of America till the Hostage Situation on the US Embassy ( one of the reasons the former Shah Pahlavi was the darling of the US..and when he was deposed, and rightly so, Ayatollah came to the *throne* and wage a religious war inside and out of Iran. ( this was when my family was massacred in Iran and we fled to India)
here is a link a to a really good site that gives a very detailed outline of Iran then to now.
http://www.counterbias.com/632.html
Its just simply ironic that the US wishes that it had the leader that they helped overthrow, Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq, instead of the one that they helped ( by a blind hand ) place into power.
Iran chose to be a nation that was ruled by religion and when you pave the way for fanatics to run the country, then you cant be pissed and want to wage war when they decide to do what the hell they want to do. Thats the same as teaching your child to say the word shit and then telling them, umm.. no you cant do that.[/quote]
December 7th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Frozen Tex: “[quote]Arabs can hold Israeli citizenship. How many Jews can say the same in Arab countries?[/quote]
Well, in Iran there is an estimated 30 to 40 000 population of Jewish people (and a similar number of Christians, for the record). They are represented in the government, have synagogues, schools, at least one old-age home that I could find reference to on very short notice between studying for final exams…Jewish cemetery, and so on. The government has also officially recognized Jewish population as an official minority. Ditto the Christian population.
Also for the record, that doesn’t mean they aren’t discriminated against to a significant degree. But then, look at the Israeli government’s stance on Palestinian Arabs. All parties are guilty of equally reprehensible, inexcusable behaviour.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Matthew,
Thanks for pointing these few things out:
[quote] I must admit to being tired of hearing the Israelis go on about the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program when they themselves have refused to acknowledge that their own program even exists, have never allowed the IAEA to inspect it, have not signed the NPT, and jailed the one person that had the fortitude to come forward and tell the world that Israel does, in fact, possess a nuclear arsenal. [/quote]
Israel is something that one should be reflecting on when considering these policies. The US, UK and Israel seem like walking contradictions.
[quote] True, suicide attacks are one of the tools employed by radical groups, though it must be said – if they possessed attack helicopters, armor, and fighter planes, they would most likely resort to employing the sorts of weapons that we commonly condone as ‘honourable’. Let’s face it – there is, as far as Western perceptions are concerned, no honour in blowing oneself up and taking others with you. But it is honourable to use state of the art attack helicopters to do the same thing – correct? [/quote]
Nice Point…touche.
[quote] When it comes to this issue, we live in a society that lacks objectivity, and to claim as much is to offer ones self up for target practice for daring to say so. Deep and indoctrinated lines have been drawn regarding this issue, and to attempt to look at it objectively, or to hold all those involved to the same standards, is something that is, rather ironically, not acceptable.
No matter what you happen to believe, peace is a universal proposition. It is not one that comes with caveats penned by those that possess greater military capabilities. We have been programmed to believe that the latter is standard practice and, not surprisingly, peace continues to elude us.
There is no side worth being on that does not transparently promote justice, equality, and security without agenda. Those besides are nothing more than avenues paved for the weak willed to travel. Ironically, the fantasy author JK Rowling might have put it best when she wrote – the time will soon come to choose between what is right and what is easy. When it comes to how we view global events, that maxim is of incredible import. For behind those behind the curtains there are ordinary people that outnumber them by the billions, all of them connected by the simplest of bonds - the universal desire to live lives without fear and to escape those entrenchments that have pitted them against one another for far too long. [/quote]
Somebody was finally able to eloquently sum up the issue of why looking at things from only a textbook/academic viewpoint is important.
And last but not least: My personal Fave
The United States is a plutocracy, not a democracy. Just as Canada is
Finally…someone said F**king said that.
Of all the articles you’ve written, this is one of my faves. I’ve been trying to figure out how to write this for awhile…I couldn’t have articulated as well as you did.
*sigh*-thankfully I’m not the only one who feels this way.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
[quote comment="35162"]Were the Shah still in power, and Iran still a US ally, and the nuclear initiative that the US was helping the Iranians with prior to the revolution went ahead, would that be acceptable to you? Iran, under the Shah, was a monarchy, not a democracy. But being that it was, at that time, a US ally, would that have abated fears as to Iran possessing a nuclear capability?
[/quote]
Well for some reason I had a comment that is stuck in moderation.. so here it goes again, as it pertains to your above question/comment, Matt! : )
Shah Pahlavi was the darling of the US because, was in essence, a puppet. And he was also a monster. He killed more Iranians then Ayatollah…but his behaviours were overlooked due to the oil that Iran posses and the fact that Iran is centrally located with the Mid East..it behooved the US and its Adminstation to ignore, for lack of a better word, the means by which Pahlavi ruled..cause he did what the US wanted and in return the US was given all the oil it wanted at nice prices.
If I am not mistaken , and am having a hard time getting something documented to prove my following statement, Iran was going to devolp a nuclear weapon program, but when Pahlavi was deposed (and rightfully so), the US strong armed the UN into putting sanctions on Iran, so they couldnt devolp the technology.
I am searching more for this and as soon as I have it.. I will post it here for you. Since my father, A former Iranian citizem-son of a General in the Iranian Army-and a former student of the University of Tehran, was my source..as I needed to confirm what I did remember from the time I was there.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I don’t have time to dive into the debate right now, but I’m just happy you brought this up.
Okay, well, I’ll dive in very briefly.
Israel being a formal democracy is a red herring. The United States is one, too. Formal democratic institutions (incidentally, in what amount to plutocracies, as was pointed out) have little correlation with the brutality of foreign policies. Israel and the U.S. are excellent examples of this (especially when contrasted with Iran, again, as pointed out above).
In any case, if the U.S. is concerned about nuclear proliferation, it should stop blocking a verifiable Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty, which would ban further production of weapons-grade nuclear material. Furthermore, they should join Iran in supporting the IAEA head’s call for internationalizing control of all such existing materials.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:31 am
i had aneurysms reading FT’s comments, and was sure my grandfather and other relatives turned in their graves with the quotations around the word Palestinian…
but i quickly calmed down remembering Matthew Good’s original entry… dude, thank you! a million thanks. and a sigh of relief for knowing there are people that know what is actually going on in the world…
December 8th, 2007 at 2:07 am
If there is one thing about this topic, is that whenever anyone discusses it, you can virtually always tell who is on what ’side’. So, I’ll wade into this with caution, as a Jewish liberal, (note the small l) and a recognition that in public forums I will typically be caught in the middle.
First, as far as I can tell — and I’ve done a lot of reading — modern day Israel was born legitimately in 1948 out of a valid United Nations resolution — partly because of the success of the original Zionist movement, partly because of the horrors of the Holocaust, and partly because of luck and fate at the time as the U.N. sought to resolve colonization and religious differences through the partition model (ie, India and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine.)
Israel lived its first years 48-67 under constant fear before trouncing its neighbours in the 67 war. Things rebalanced somewhat in 73, which led to the peace settlement iwth Egypt and later to the peace with Jordan and the ‘official’ acceptance of the two-state solution and the Palestinian Authority.
Israel evolved as a western democracy with loads of scientific achievement, economic and military power.
Fair enough, but what about those Palestinian occupied territories, including East Jerusalem. Here the story gets murkier, and to me, more disturbing. You see, I discovered my Jewish identity — and respect for Israel — in 1978-80 in, of all places, as a journalist in Rhodesia observing and living through the transition to Zimbabwe. And last summer, ina month-long family visit to Israel, I had the privilege of visiting some of the West Bank settlements aboard a propagandistic tour co-ordinated by the proponents of the settler movement. And I felt I was travelling right back to Africa.
The problem is the ’settlers’ are a powerful political force within Israel because they are zealots — just as intense in their values and emotions as those radical Palestinians. And they are armed with their own set of historial facts — look at Modern day Zimbabwe, or how Hamas is conducting itself in Gaza. Nevertheless, I think most of (Jewish) Israeli population knows that it is travelling down the road of the one-state solution where Jews will be a minority, after a bloody and ultimately horrific battle for legitimacy, if they don’t relinquish control and truly allow for an independent Palestinian state.
But will this happen? I fear that the speciali interest groups on both sides are not interested in peace — and the settler movement carries so much power in Israel it could thwart legitimate peaceful initiatives.
As for Iran, the nukes, Hizbollah, Hamas, and so on, there is plenty of hate all around and if you were an israeli, you probably would shake you heads and thank the settlers for defending what is right.
If this narrative seems confusing, it is because this issue is truly complex, with eloquent and strong intellenctual and emotional arguments on both sides.
My view: Israel is at a crossroads. It either has to buy into a true and meaningful partition and live by the original 1947 UN partition resolution, without worrying about whether the “bad guys” take over in the formerly occupied territories, or it must prepare for a long and painful slide into deligtimization, the story of Zimbabwe and South Africa. This is risky, and liberals like me have to battle for our space in the polarized universe. But when it comes right down to it, this is probably the solution that most Israelis, Palestinians, and the rest of the world (outside of Iran, Hizbollah, and Hamas) support.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:51 am
You’re absolutely right, I strayed this thing off topic. I see there’s a lot of feelings and opinions out there that won’t be changing anytime soon. I also apologize for my aggressive language (tin hats, etc.), as it is unconstructive and rude. I hope I didn’t cause too many fits of rage or anyeurisms…
I’ll be the first to admit that Israel is far from a perfect situation; no country is. That said, I think it is a far better situation than most of the lands surrounding it, and it is fitting that the west should treat it as an ally. To answer Matt’s main question for me, I’m not overly concerned about the secrecy surrounding Israel’s nuclear program, for the main reason that I have no fear of Israel slipping a nuclear bomb under the table to some Jewish terrorist group to use against the US or some other western country.
As to what I said regaring the ghettoization of the Palestinians (see, helz, no quotations!), whatever the causes, can anyone truly deny that much of their plight could not have been greatly ameliorated long ago by certain oil-rich nations populated by brother Arabs? I think such countries share almost as much blame as Israel for the current stae of the Palestinian people.
On a completely different note, in spite of the obvious differences in our politics, I just want to say, Matt, that you’re one of my favourite artists. I love your music, and it has the uncanny ability to be something I’m always in the mood to hear. And I think this website is a great thing (even when it threatens to give me an anyeurism) in that a serious artist is writing stuff on a regular basis, and interacts with the fans through the comments. Thanks, and please keep it up.
P.S. Will you EVER do a show in Yellowknife? Just wondering (Check out Folk On The Rocks! Not just folk music anymore…)
December 8th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Frozen Tex I think you have too much faith in an ally. Unfortunately nations look out for themselves first. You can only trust an ally as long as their interests and yours are compatible.
For example, it’s very hard to trust the US with regards to Iran. Most of the world wants a peaceful solution and while leaders in the US give lip service to the idea of peace they are obviously beating the war drums.
As for certain oil rich nations helping out brother arabs, some of these nations have horrible human rights records. If they are mistreating the people in their own borders you can’t expect them to give a shit about people outside their borders. When these nations do bring up the plight of Palestinians, it’s more to direct anger towards Israel and away from their own abuses.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:25 am
[quote comment="35188"]I also apologize for my aggressive language (tin hats, etc.), as it is unconstructive and rude. I hope I didn’t cause too many fits of rage or anyeurisms…[/quote]
Did you really just write those two sentences back to back?
[quote comment="35142"]Israel = Democracy. Iran = Theocratic Dictatorship (and please, no one try to say the US is the same thing. If you truly believe that, you really need to take off the tin foil hat.)[/quote]
As far as fashion accessories go, I’ve always felt the tin foil hat is more practical than blinders, personally. Most of the body’s heat is lost through the head, so it’s most sensible during the long winters such as we are experiencing now. With blinders you just fall down a lot.
Figuratively speaking, of course.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I love that anytime someone tries to criticize Israel, or even just speak thoughtfully and critically about Israel, someone has to go off on the Israel-Palestine issue. It’s really not relevant to this discussion.
So, thank you MG for bringing it back to the point of Israel’s nuclear arms program. Whether or not Israel has nuclear weapons and we should be thinking about that if we are going to shoot off our mouths about Iran has nothing to do about whether or not Palestine is or ever was an independent nation.
Don’t confuse the issue… the point is that Israel has a nuclear program and we don’t seem to care. Why is that? Thats the kind of question we’re being asked to consider here.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
[quote]Did you really just write those two sentences back to back?[/quote]
Yes, yes I did.
[quote]Quoting Frozen Tex:
Israel = Democracy. Iran = Theocratic Dictatorship (and please, no one try to say the US is the same thing. If you truly believe that, you really need to take off the tin foil hat.)
As far as fashion accessories go, I’ve always felt the tin foil hat is more practical than blinders, personally. Most of the body’s heat is lost through the head, so it’s most sensible during the long winters such as we are experiencing now. With blinders you just fall down a lot.
Figuratively speaking, of course.[/quote]
Nice. I’m glad I apologized earlier, cause having staements I said I was sorry for thrown back at me gives me a warm fuzzy.
[quote] love that anytime someone tries to criticize Israel, or even just speak thoughtfully and critically about Israel, someone has to go off on the Israel-Palestine issue. It’s really not relevant to this discussion.
[/quote]
Except that the original post delves into Israel’s struggle with Iran-supported Hebollah and fighting in Gaza, so the issue was there from the start.
[quote]As for certain oil rich nations helping out brother arabs, some of these nations have horrible human rights records. If they are mistreating the people in their own borders you can’t expect them to give a shit about people outside their borders. When these nations do bring up the plight of Palestinians, it’s more to direct anger towards Israel and away from their own abuses.[/quote]
My point exactly. These nations are more than capable of lending true aid and comfort to the Palestinians, but they choose not to. And instead of focusing on the truly horrific actions of ALL of them (not just the ones that happen to be US allies; hey, I don’t like the Saudi government’s pandering to its extremist elements either), too much time and energy is spent by some in the west deriding Israel. it’s like looking at the actions of a vicious serial killer and saying “Eh, what are you gonna do?”, then castigating a shop-lifter as being the worst monster that ever existed (perhaps a little hyperbolic on my part, but I think you get my meaning). But I suppose it’s easier to give an ally a hard time about its behavior, and more likely to be heard and positively acted on, then complain to the deaf ears of a hostile nation.
To get back to the original question of Israel’s nuclear arsenal, as I said earlier, I don’t fear it. Chris.Orser commented that I may have too much faith in an ally, as nations look out for themselves first, and only can be trusted as long as both our interests are compatible. In that regard, I no more fear Israel’s nuclear program -declared and inspected or not - than I do Great Britains, France’s, or for that matter, India’s (for which we have Canda’s own CANDU reactors to thank). I am wary again of Russia, but not by much; I fear Iran, and I fear North Korea, because I fear their intentions towards the west, and the type of shadier entities they deal with. And lately, I’m a little nervous about Pakistan’s program, thanks to the instability displayed there as of late, “ally” or not.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Frozen Tex:
You know I disagree with the majority of your statements, however, you did point out a very good example with Canada’s CANDU reactors, mostly from Northern Saskatchewan. Only thing is nuclear mining in Canada has halted here in Saskatchewan through a business called Cameo until 2010, you can find this information easily through the government website. As to why the mining has been delayed…no answers. But two of the lead department heads resigned within months of each other…quite interesting.
But what you said does call for attention to our own country and how Canada implicates itself in the ensuing war on terror.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Friday evening, I was chatting with a classmate of mine who hails from Pakistan, forced to flee when war broke out. Before that, she lived in what she described as a wonderful collectivist society - not without its faults, of course - in which, if your nuclear family could not be, your extended family was always there for you. The point I wish to make is this, and I illustrated it to her, as well, to which she could personally attest: it’s a shame the many, who want nothing more than to live, are caught between the few warring factions out for personal gain.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:03 am
You do have a point that a stable nations with nuclear arms is preferable to an unstable nation. Declared or not. Although no one having the capabilities is far superior to either choice naturally.
Although I’m not intimately familiar with the Mossad and their operations a quick look at wikipedia (yeah, not the greatest source) will show that they used Canadian passports in the attempted assassination of a leader of Hamas. While this might be a standard tactic in international espionage, does it really sound like the actions of an ally?
They, like any country, will do what they want to get what they want. Which is why I say you can only trust them as far as both side’s goals are the same.
What purpose do they have in “hiding” their nuclear arsenal? We don’t know so it that respect we can not trust them with it. Just as much as we can’t trust an Iran with such an arsenal.
Israel currently get massive support from the US while the US always talks about war whenever Iran comes up, so I’m sure that tips the trust scales quite heavily.
As for Uranium mining, could that have anything to do with holding back until the price goes up?
December 10th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Say what you want about Israel, but at least they are not banning Facebook:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/07/wfacebook107.xml
What the hell are the Syrians worried about? The Jews finding out where their parties are?
December 10th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
[quote]What the hell are the Syrians worried about? The Jews finding out where their parties are?[/quote]
If they can find their nuclear stuff, the parties should be easy. Unless that was the problem in the first place… someone posted the location of the nuclear materials on Facebook….
December 10th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
I have many mixed emotions when it comes to a topic like this. I know I’m not the only one.
There are far too many individuals, especially online, who moan about ‘the Jews’ and Israel. Even the encyclopedia entry quoted earlier by hopeforchange reflected an odd bias in terms of what bits of information it left out, but I don’t have the time to get into all of that right now. I guess what worries me is the slippery slope between disagreeing with Israel’s policy and outright anti-Semitism, because in my experience, the two are linked far too often. This is especially true when it comes to Palestine, wherein the popular liberal opinion is to pine for the poor, oppressed Palestinians regardless of what groups like Hamas do to exacerbate the situation or regardless of what the Israeli government tries to do in order to find a peaceful solution. So, I’m going to just leave this be I think. I would like to note though that one reason Israel is treated differently than, say, Iran, relates to historical precedent. There are vast differences between a nation like Israel and a nation like Iran, to the point wherein I’d feel silly even attempting to explain them.
However, I would like to note that, like in the U.S., there are huge swaths of the Israeli population who do not support outright war with Iran. On the other hand, Iran is, and always has been, a potential threat to the survival of the nation of Israel as well. It’s not cut and dry, in other words. Just remember that when you say that Israelis are hypocritical, you are referring only to certain members of government who have the same sort of conservative bent popular in the U.S. right now. It’s equivalent to lambasting all Americans because of stupid things Bush or Bush’s cronies say.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:15 am
I’m pretty sure that when most of us here talk about what Israel, or Iran, or the US are doing we are typically referring to the governments of those nations.
I absolutely HATE when people link criticism of Israeli policy to anti-Semitism. Israel has done some questionable things in it’s short history. The link that people try to conjure up is nothing more than an attempt to stifle legitimate discussion on these topics. It is no different than the people who will call someone un-American for speaking out against the war.
It’s really easy to get people to shut-up if they think that their thoughts/ideas will label them as something that is despicable in our society.
Invariably whenever Israel is discussed the word “anti-Semite” will eventually come up. It’s a special case of Godwin’s Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law
Personally, there is no slippery slope. Talk about Israel won’t tap into some hidden well of anti-Semitism that I secretly have. And I suspect the majority of people are the same.
(I sincerely apologize if, by citing Godwin’s Law, I have indirectly Godwined the thread )
December 11th, 2007 at 10:03 am
[quote]I sincerely apologize if, by citing Godwin’s Law, I have indirectly Godwined the thread )[/quote]
I think you managed to get close to the edge without falling off, so discussion may continue. Sporadically, apparently.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:04 am
[quote comment="35330"]I’m pretty sure that when most of us here talk about what Israel, or Iran, or the US are doing we are typically referring to the governments of those nations.
I absolutely HATE when people link criticism of Israeli policy to anti-Semitism. Israel has done some questionable things in it’s short history. The link that people try to conjure up is nothing more than an attempt to stifle legitimate discussion on these topics. It is no different than the people who will call someone un-American for speaking out against the war.
It’s really easy to get people to shut-up if they think that their thoughts/ideas will label them as something that is despicable in our society.
Invariably whenever Israel is discussed the word “anti-Semite” will eventually come up. It’s a special case of Godwin’s Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law
Personally, there is no slippery slope. Talk about Israel won’t tap into some hidden well of anti-Semitism that I secretly have. And I suspect the majority of people are the same.
(I sincerely apologize if, by citing Godwin’s Law, I have indirectly Godwined the thread )[/quote]
Nah, you have to mention Hitler– oh crap!
In all seriousness, I don’t see any reason for someone to need to link criticism of Israeli policy to anti-Semitism; I’m simply stating that, unfortunately, in my own personal experience, many of those who have criticised Israel have done so from a particularly unfair viewpoint. Does this mean that I think Matt Good is anti-Semitic? Of course not. Does a post like this typically lead to anti-Semitic thoughts being propagated? In my experience, yes. And I find that particularly depressing yet indicative of where too many stand on Jews in general - let alone Israel.
I also think that, for one reason or another, far too many individuals believe in a great many myths when it comes to the creation of Israel (which didn’t happen overnight, by any stretch of the imagination). I did at one time believe that Israel was a restrictive, oppressive force in the region, and had many kneejerk reactions to the ‘wall’ (which is more of a fence, really, except for in a couple of key areas where the Israeli government was being incessantly struck with missiles - but I digress). A former Prime Minister of Israel asked what Israelis are supposed to do when rockets are being shot at Israel, over and over, killing many, from civilian areas. These areas were chosen out of cowardice, for the same reason Saddam Hussein, when he thought he was going to be killed, invited civilians to come and stay with him in his palace. Without going on and on, I think we expect far more from Israel than we do from Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, et al. Why is that? I dislike double standards (for example, I do not see many posts here complaining about the United Kingdom or France for having nukes) almost as much as I dislike someone says ‘Israelis believe…’ or ‘Americans believe…’ or ‘Canadians believe…’ when in reality we are discussing a right-wing faction that exists within a population that also has many very liberal individuals.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
While the threat of the conversation getting co-opted by hate mongers is there, this is the internet after all*, we shouldn’t let the fear of that stifle discussion. I know that Matthew and the other people who can moderate would prefer to avoid that, there is always that option if necessary.
It’s the people who legitimately believe that anything but positive discussion about Israel is equivalent to anti-Semitism that bug me. It’s why discussing Israel can be political suicide, and why Matthew (not-quite) prefixed this article with
[quote]While I’m sure that I’ll catch flack for this entry…[/quote]
Back on topic, I think the point is that we demand a higher standard of disclosure from an “enemy” than one of our allies. You can trust you allies, but not absolutely, they will eventually do something that’s good for them (or the party in power ) and bad for others.
Not to bash on the US, but they are a close ally, and how much do you trust they won’t preemptively attack Iran?
*http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
December 11th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
[quote comment="35169"]
Palenstinians ghettoizing themselves?
Well, to a degree it has, but its more of the dictatorship that has done that to them.. If a country recieves enough foreign aid to make it a more viable state and its government doesnt use these funds for that purpose, it is then *ghettoizing* itself.[/quote]
One thing that must be kept in mind is that Palestinians can’t really use this aid to do things like provide jobs or to jumpstart the economy in any meaningful fashion. This money can only be used as band-aid solutions (as in purchasing water, medical supplies, food).
Unfortunately because of the control Israel has over the Palestinian territories, these funds could not be used to create factories, roads, and such. Things that would help build infrastructure and benefit the Palestinians in the long run.
Anyways, back to the original topic.
I agree, Israel is being hypocritical in pointing out Iran. I say this for two reasons: firstly, Israel themselves have a secret nuclear program, and secondly (more importantly, IMO), they’ve had members of the Knesset spout out war rhetoric.
Also keeping in mind that Israel recently attacked Lebanon (another democracy) when it had the perfect chance in using diplomacy to marginalize Hezbullah (Israel could have allied with the Lebanese government and could have labeled Hezbullah as a common “enemy” of peace and stability). This jump to using indiscriminate military force without thinking of its consequences is a quality a nuclear nation could do without.
What scares me the most is that the Israeli government saw Lebanon as a nation with homogeneous political beliefs. In the same way, the Iranian government views Israel as a country with homogeneous beliefs (not all Israelis support the occupation). The American government views Iran as a nation with homogeneous political beliefs and Al Qaeda views the US as a nation with homogeneous beliefs. All this with innocent people trapped in the middle who really don’t care about the radical-religious agenda that every single above mentioned nation shares. These people just want to live a secure peaceful life with some amount of prosperity. Anyways, I’m starting to ramble so I’m gonna hit that “Publish” button…