What do you do with a problem like Ahmadinejad?

[Bystander]

Virginia Tiley, " The preceding sentence had made clear that the "stain of disgrace" was the Muslim world's failure to eliminate the "occupying regime".

"Eliminate?"

 

[kyleb]

That's what they are. Proposals. There were also proposals to establish a Jewish home in Uganda or South America. They all remained just that - proposals.

Yes, those are the proposals I was talking about when I mentioned that the Palestinian people chose not to agree to be transferred out of what was to become Israel and he strong Jewish majority in Israel is the majority of those Palestinians having been driven out.

Maybe, but it is an offer, the value of which is subject to several views which we will not uncover here - not a "flagrant disregard for Palestinian sovereignty" as you labelled it.

Are you not acutally http://gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf when you say that?

 

[Yonoz]

Yes, those are the proposals I was talking about when I mentioned that the Palestinian people chose not to agree to be transferred out of what was to become Israel and he strong Jewish majority in Israel is the majority of those Palestinians having been driven out.

No they were never proposed to the Palestinians. These are just Zionists conducting an internal discussion. There was overwhelming objection and it was never a matter of policy.

Are you not acutally http://gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf when you say that?

I have looked at the presentation, it's one analysis of the plan, there are many others like it. It doesn't matter since they'll get much of that free-of-charge when the West Bank unilateral pullout will be implemented.

 

[kyleb]

Virginia Tiley, " The preceding sentence had made clear that the "stain of disgrace" was the Muslim world's failure to eliminate the "occupying regime".

"Eliminate?"

Yep, kinda like the Soviet regime has been eliminated.

 

[Bystander]

Yep, kinda like the Soviet regime has been eliminated.

By the people it governed, not by an outside agency.

 

[Astronuc]

You can find a full translation of the speech to which your first and third example came from [NYTimes] and the context of that speech is relevant to the context of your second example too, and so [counterpunch link] which I linked earlier. I don't speak Farsi so of course I have to go off such translations as well; but conidering the context and variations in translation it looks like mostly misunderstanding to me in the media included, with a little misrepresentation going long in perpetuating that misunderstanding. Do you see anything more than that?

Well, the NYTimes text did not help a case for Ahmadinejad. The speech seems to be a rant against the US and Israel. Certainly the US and others supported the Shah's regime, and that is unfortunate. But then the current regime of the clerics has simply replaced the Shah's regime. The clerics and supporters of Ahmadinejad attacked opposition politicians and supporters.

Israel withdraw from Gaza as planned, not because the Palestinians forced them to. The internal conflict in Palestine, among Fatah, Hamas and other factions is purely internal and has nothing to do with 'tricks' on the part of Israel.

I still have to work through Tilley's article, but I will exercise caution with respect to Tilley's claims regarding the interpretation of what Ahmadinejad actually said. Tilley does seem to have a 'left-wing' perspective.

I would prefer a neutral and impartial source.

 

[BobG]

Ahmadinejad is a moot point. He'll be out of office before Bush leaves office.

John Bolton is already hyping evidence that Iran is engaged in developing nuclear weapons instead of nuclear power to the UN. He's also hoping Russia and China will abstain instead of veto UN sanctions.

This time around, the US won't botch things up in the UN. If the US doesn't get assurances ahead of time that Russia and China will abstain, then the US won't even take their case to the UN. We'll bypass the UN and impose sanctions on our own, along with whatever countries agree to join in. The justification will be the authorization Congress gave to take whatever actions are necessary to combat anyone who has anything to do sponsoring terrorism or protecting terrorists.

Iran won't back down in any event. They probably think US military action will confined to a few bombing strikes. That won't be good, but not backing down will make them seem even more influential in the Middle East.

Bush will keep repeating that Iran has to be held accountable for it's actions. Sometime after the fall elections, we'll start the ball rolling towards regime change. Some Democrats are already worried about Bush using the post 9/11 authorization as justification for military action against Iran without going through Congress first (notably, DeFazio who attempted to add an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill specifically requiring Bush to get Congressional approval before acting against Iran). If the elections go badly, their fears will be realized. Bush can't risk going to Congress and having them say no. I don't see the elections going well enough to ensure a Republican Congress will endorse an invasion, but Bush would go through Congress if he were guaranteed success.

Regime change might go better in Iran than it did in Iraq. The population is 89% Shi'a Muslim and 51% of the population is Persian. The 49% non-Persians are split among a lot of different ethnic groups with the largest being the Azeri at 24%. The Kurds in Northern Iran will be a problem since they would probably prefer to join with the Iraqi Kurds, but I don't think there will be the same violence between major Iranian groups that you have in Iraq.

Iran would be a chance to show the overall Bush policy's right, even if Iraq didn't go as planned. More importantly, the war doesn't have to be won by time Bush leaves office. Getting it started is more important from his group's point of view than being there when its finished. If Bush doesn't get rid of the current Iranian regime before he leaves office, it will be at least a decade or two before any subsequent Presidents get up the nerve for anything like Bush's aggressive policies. If Bush gets the war against Islamic facism started, Bush has to be thinking the US will be left with almost no choice but to hang in there until it wins.

I don't think the military can bear the extra load for any length of time, so I wouldn't be shocked to see an active duty general resign or retire from the Joint Chiefs prematurely. The message sent by the retired generals' club on Iraq is a little too close to be ignored next go around. From the military's point of view, anything we did in Iran really would have to be win fast or lose fast, just do it fast - something that directly contradicts the idea that we'd have to hang in there no matter what once the war begins.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/05/22/bolton_iran_regime_can_stay_if_ends_arms_pursuit/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060826/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_usa_dc
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060901/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_57

I think it was only a few months ago that I wouldn't have thought even Bush could consider taking on Iran before we're done in Afghanistan and Iraq, but now I think I might have 'misunderestimated' him, or under underestimated him, or something like that.

 

[edward]

We will have to invade Iran with the army we have, not the army we wish we had.

 

[Yonoz]

We will have to invade Iran with the army we have, not the army we wish we had.

Why do you have to invade Iran?

 

[kyleb]

No they were never proposed to the Palestinians. These are just Zionists conducting an internal discussion. There was overwhelming objection and it was never a matter of policy.

not just Zionists and not just internal discussion, for examples see all of "SECTION 2. PROPOSALS BY INDIVIDUAL NON-JEWS" and "Zangwill's Article of May 1917" in Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons's 'A Historical Survey of Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine'.

I have looked at the presentation, it's one analysis of the plan, there are many others like it. It doesn't matter since they'll get much of that free-of-charge when the West Bank unilateral pullout will be implemented.

They'll get much of the collection of alcoves connected by checkpoints and crisscrossed with bypass roads under foreign control Barak offered, and you speak of it as some sort of gift? Is there even a detailed 'unilateral pullout plan' in the public record, or are you simply open to whatever your government chooses to draw for boarders?

Well, the NYTimes text did not help a case for Ahmadinejad. The speech seems to be a rant against the US and Israel. Certainly the US and others supported the Shah's regime, and that is unfortunate. But then the current regime of the clerics has simply replaced the Shah's regime. The clerics and supporters of Ahmadinejad attacked opposition politicians and supporters.

Surely you aren't suggesting his case was better off when you were quoting the blatantly contrived "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury” that was supposedly in the speech the NYT translated? And accepting that a translator who puts his name on his work does not claim Ahmadinejad said anything of the sort, who are the ones actually spreading that militant rhetoric here?

Israel withdraw from Gaza as planned, not because the Palestinians forced them to. The internal conflict in Palestine, among Fatah, Hamas and other factions is purely internal and has nothing to do with 'tricks' on the part of Israel.

While Israel withdrew from Gaza and Palestinian factions are left to fill that void, land in what little is left of the rest of Palestine continues to be expropriated for Israeli settlements; and public attention is focused on the former while the latter goes largely overlooked. That is a trick, classic slight of hand in modren dress.

I still have to work through Tilley's article, but I will exercise caution with respect to Tilley's claims regarding the interpretation of what Ahmadinejad actually said. Tilley does seem to have a 'left-wing' perspective.
I would prefer a neutral and impartial source.

Understood, I did quite a bit of digging to find other comments and further context on the quotes she mentions and I highly recommend that anyone concerned about Iran do the same. Such important issues shouldn't be left to 30 second soundbites and un-investigative journalists which are open to manipulation by those who stand much to gain from a war with Iran.

 

[Yonoz]

They'll get much of the collection of alcoves connected by checkpoints and crisscrossed with bypass roads under foreign control Barak offered, and you speak of it as some sort of gift? Is there even a detailed 'unilateral pullout plan' in the public record, or are you simply open to whatever your government chooses to draw for boarders?

Since it's unilateral, it's actually worse for Israel - when the Palestinians choose to return to the negotiations table, Israel will have one less card to draw. They're not expected to give anything in return. Are you simply open for whatever criticism is made against the Israeli government?

While Israel withdrew from Gaza and Palestinian factions are left to fill that void, land in what little is left of the rest of Palestine continues to be expropriated for Israeli settlements; and public attention is focused on the former while the latter goes largely overlooked. That is a trick, classic slight of hand in modren dress.

"Palestinian factions are left to fill that void"? What do you expect when you allow political movements to have their own private armies? Does the land relinquished by Israel in Gaza not count? BTW on that land, instead of the planned greenhouses and schools there are now training camps for the aforementioned factions, and nothing more.

 

[Astronuc]

BTW on that land, instead of the planned greenhouses and schools there are now training camps for the aforementioned factions, and nothing more.

When the Israelis pulled out of Gaza, they apparently left intact some agricultural infrastructure. The Palestinians then apparently trashed it.

Even with the occupation, the Palestinians have had ample opportunity to show that they could be good neighbors. The Palestinians have had ample opportunity to establish a functional government and economy. But what happened?

 

[Yonoz]

Even with the occupation, the Palestinians have had ample opportunity to show that they could be good neighbors. The Palestinians have had ample opportunity to establish a functional government and economy. But what happened?

Here's an interesting article by the Hamas government spokesman: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525954624&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull"

Dismissing Israel's responsibility for the growing state of anarchy and lawlessness in the Gaza Strip, Hamad said it was time for the Palestinians to embark on a soul-searching process to see where they erred.

"We're always afraid to talk about our mistakes," he added. "We're used to blaming our mistakes on others. What is the relationship between the chaos, anarchy, lawlessness, indiscriminate murders, theft of land, family rivalries, transgression on public lands and unorganized traffic and the occupation? We are still trapped by the mentality of conspiracy theories - one that has limited our capability to think."

 

[kyleb]

When the Israelis pulled out of Gaza, they apparently left intact some agricultural infrastructure. The Palestinians then apparently trashed it.

Even with the occupation, the Palestinians have had ample opportunity to show that they could be good neighbors. The Palestinians have had ample opportunity to establish a functional government and economy. But what happened?

In Gaza, how do you expect those greenhouses could have been protected from the few who looted them as the IDF pulled out from the areas unannounced? Also, could you please clarify when last and what exactly where these 'ample opportunities' you speak of? I'm at a loss to understand your position here so I think it would be enlightening for me to hear exactly what you think happened.

 

[Anttech]

Even with the occupation, the Palestinians have had ample opportunity to show that they could be good neighbors. The Palestinians have had ample opportunity to establish a functional government and economy. But what happened?

How exactly do you quantify "ample" opportunity?
Also are you saying the palestinians are not capable of governing themselfs?

 

[Yonoz]

In Gaza, how do you expect those greenhouses could have been protected from the few who looted them as the IDF pulled out from the areas unannounced?

It was anounced and coordinated with Palestinian security forces. They were allowed to carry weapons near the Israeli forces and were the first ones in.

 

[kyleb]

I recall reports of the PA not knowing what regions would be withdrawn from at what time, and hence they wound up with the their forces spread too thin to secure various areas. Unfortunately, Googleing for year old info didn't find me much for details on that; but again, the looters were but a small fraction of a populuation of over a million at a time when a third of their land in that region was being released to them. Sigthing that as grounds to blame the whole population, babies and all, is downright inhuman. Besides, to be fair we would then have to http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=620210 , and surely none of us here want that.

Also, it looking for old articles I stubled upon http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1145961389108&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull which explains how the Initial setbacks of the looting were overcome by Palistians who wound up finding much of the crops they produced being wasted due to Israeli lockdown on Gaza's boards.

 

[Yonoz]

Besides, to be fair we would then have to http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=620210 , and surely none of us here want that.

By all means, I'd be the first to attest to the problems faced by Israel at the pullout. Still, you'd expect by now they'd have sorted everything out.

Also, it looking for old articles I stubled upon http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1145961389108&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull which explains how the Initial setbacks of the looting were overcome by Palistians who wound up finding much of the crops they produced being wasted due to Israeli lockdown on Gaza's boards.

You can see in the article why the crossings, that were planned to be open, were closed:

But during the height of the harvest season, from January until now, Karni was closed by Israel more often than it was open, sometimes for weeks straight, because of what Israel said were continuous security threats from Palestinian terrorists. Indeed, in April, an attack on the Karni terminal by two cars of terrorists brandishing automatic weapons was thwarted by Palestinian security forces. Additionally, two attacks on the Erez pedestrian crossing in the north have been foiled by Israeli forces since disengagement.

Besides, I thought they needed as much food as they could produce inside the strip.

 

[kyleb]

By all means, I'd be the first to attest to the problems faced by Israel at the pullout. Still, you'd expect by now they'd have sorted everything out.

I'm pointing out we don't say "the Israelis" looted during the pullout, and hence we shouldn't say "the Palestinians" did either.

You can see in the article why the crossings, that were planned to be open, were closed:

Yes, I am quite aware of the fact that few violent individuals were claimed as justification for sealing Gaza's boarders from exporting millions of dollars in perishable goods to Europe. Put simply, Israels enforcement of such policy is making a mockery of the whole greenhouse project.

Besides, I thought they needed as much food as they could produce inside the strip.

What lead you to think that? They can produce far more food than they need in Gaza. What they need at this point is the is the "$16m. this season alone, and as much as $50m" in exports each year to pay for the cleanup of all the rubble which continues to be left by your bombs and bulldozers. They need to bring money into their economy and make something of the land which you have finally returned to them. They need something more than to be unwilling pawns in a plan for Israel to avoid reaching a resolution while cementing and expanding the hold on East Jerusalem and other areas beyond the Green-Line while minimizing the number of Palestinians within those regions. But so far anyway, that is more than the democratic nation of Israel has been willing to let go of.

 

[Yonoz]

I'm pointing out we don't say "the Israelis" looted during the pullout, and hence we shouldn't say "the Palestinians" did either.

Well it's still a matter of fact that so far they have not done anything with the land except set up training camps for their armed groups. If you look back at my last post on the previous page you'll find an article by the Hamas Government spokesperson that you may find interesting.

Yes, I am quite aware of the fact that few violent individuals were claimed as justification for sealing Gaza's boarders from exporting millions of dollars in perishable goods to Europe. Put simply, Israels enforcement of such policy is making a mockery of the whole greenhouse project.

What entity plans to attack the crossings does not matter. There are Israeli men and women operating these crossings. http://www.ict.org.il/spotlight/det.cfm?id=1029".

What lead you to think that?

The reports of hunger in Gaza.

They can produce far more food than they need in Gaza. What they need at this point is the is the "$16m. this season alone, and as much as $50m" in exports each year to pay for the cleanup of all the rubble which continues to be left by your bombs and bulldozers.

$50m a year for rubble cleanup?

They need to bring money into their economy and make something of the land which you have finally returned to them.

That's right, they do need to make something of this opportunity. Yet they haven't, and even the Hamas government spokesman says Israel can't be blamed.

They need something more than to be unwilling pawns in a plan for Israel to avoid reaching a resolution while cementing and expanding the hold on East Jerusalem and other areas beyond the Green-Line while minimizing the number of Palestinians within those regions.

Well they can stop being unwilling pawns by stopping the daily rocket attacks from Gaza at Israeli cities and villages and proving Israelis will have nothing to worry about after they give up land from which their metropolitan center can be attacked with the simplest of weapons. I can write long sentences too.

But so far anyway, that is more than the democratic nation of Israel has been willing to let go of.

That's right. That's what negotiations are for. You see, when the two delegations finally meet, each will need to have as many cards up their sleeve. If Israel gives everything back without getting a genuine return, its good faith will be forgotten in four months' time and it will enter negotiations with no means with which to reach a compromise.

 

[kyleb]

Well it's still a matter of fact that so far they have not done anything with the land except set up training camps for their armed groups. If you look back at my last post on the previous page you'll find an article by the Hamas Government spokesperson that you may find interesting.

Some grew all the produce and flowers that Israel trapped in Gaza's boarders to rot, that is a matter of fact in direct contradiction to your claim. And close your boards off all you like, it is the closing Gaza's boarders that Israel strangled the greenhouse industry with as the Palestinians people do need that income to make something out of what little they have left. The few that act out in violence to Israels continued and violent occupation and expropriation of what little and they have left is no reasonable pretext to take more land and it certainly isn't any path to negotiation, its more along the lines of beating someone until he stops bleeding on you.

 

[kyleb]

Here is the last question in an interview with a British journalist who lives in Nazareth:

What are the prerequisites for both sides in this conflict in order to achieve a genuine and durable peace?

To be honest, nothing less than the eradication of Zionism as Israel's national ideology. In the current circumstances, you can no more have a Zionist state committed to peace-making with the Palestinians than you could an apartheid South Africa ready to make peace with its native black population. Maybe Zionism at an earlier stage in its development was capable of it, but the Jewish state we have today is incapable of making a deal with the Palestinians unless it renounces Zionism or is forced to do so.

I highly recommend reading the whole interview as I think it does well to put a Western perspective on the problems which motivate Ahmadinejad's criticism of Zionism.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10869

 

[Yonoz]

The few that act out in violence to Israels continued and violent occupation and expropriation of what little and they have left is no reasonable pretext to take more land and it certainly isn't any path to negotiation, its more along the lines of beating someone until he stops bleeding on you.

I think it's a reasonable pretext for Israel to close down a http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4173077.stm" . These are not "few", the recent attacks are carried out by Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.
I don't know what expropriation you're talking about, the Gaza Strip is 100% Palestinian land since the pullout.
BTW almost all of the settlers that were removed from the Gaza Strip have been unable to resume their businesses, mostly agriculture. Unlike their Palestinian counterparts, they have not received any compensation from the international community, just as no international organisation has aided Israel during and after the Lebanese conflict.

 

[Yonoz]

Here is the last question in an interview with a British journalist who lives in Nazareth:

I highly recommend reading the whole interview as I think it does well to put a Western perspective on the problems which motivate Ahmadinejad's criticism of Zionism.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10869

Or rather it presents an image of Zionism that Ahmedinejad shares.
Jonathan Cook is entitled to his opinions, but there are some half-truths and a lot of complete nonsense in that article:

Such a platform is technically illegal in Israel, and parties and candidates can be banned for promoting it.

"Technically" meaning in the eyes of some right-wing parties and Mr. Cook, maybe - certainly not in the Supreme Court's view, meaning they are quite legal and cannot be banned - of course, Mr. Cook is worried about his book's sales, so I guess he forgot to mention that. There are non-Zionist Arab parties whose members constantly challenge Zionism. Arab parliament members even frequently meet enemy leaders - an action that would land an ordinary citizen such as myself in court. Yet no Arab parties have ever been disqualified. Furthermore, an extreme Jewish party was disqualified for racism.
BTW, the majority of Israeli Arabs voted for Zionist parties in the last 2 elections.

Israel has not tried to integrate or assimilate them. [The Arab Israelis]

I guess things such as quotas for university admissions and appointing an Arab Israeli as head of the Ministry of Interior Affairs don't count in Mr. Cook's view.

For Israelis, "Jewish and democratic" means democratic for Jews only.

Apparently, Mr. Cook feels safe to speak for all Israelis.

This is backed by polls of Israeli Jews which show an overwhelming majority reject the idea of Israel being a liberal democratic state.

Perhaps someone can find such a poll so we may see exactly what is being asked, by the time I reached that part of the article I was quite doubtful of anything coming out of Mr. Cook's mouth.

I was quite baffled by this:

Israeli military intelligence knew a lot about the intifada's causes: that it was because of Palestinian frustration at being denied a proper state; it was a popular, grass-roots rebellion; and that Yasser Arafat was largely caught unawares by its ferocity. We also know now, because of leaks from the generals in charge of Israel's military intelligence, that this information was misrepresented to and entirely ignored by the political leadership in Israel.

I don't know whether to label that a gross distortion of the truth, or plain out lies. I know for a fact it's not true.

Here's another pearl:

Israel will be able to dismiss Palestinian political demands inside Israel

Israel and the international community may claim that the occupation is coming to an end

I don't recall such a claim ever being made.
I especially like this one:

Of course, I think they were entirely wrong in that reading of Palestinian intentions.

Of course, Mr. Cook has no doubt he is right in his reading of Israeli intentions.

I'm wondering what exactly does Zionism mean to Mr. Cook.

 

[Anttech]

Or rather it presents an image of Zionism that Ahmedinejad shares.
Jonathan Cook is entitled to his opinions, but there are some half-truths and a lot of complete nonsense in that article:"Technically" meaning in the eyes of some right-wing parties and Mr. Cook, maybe - certainly not in the Supreme Court's view, meaning they are quite legal and cannot be banned - of course, Mr. Cook is worried about his book's sales, so I guess he forgot to mention that. There are non-Zionist Arab parties whose members constantly challenge Zionism. Arab parliament members even frequently meet enemy leaders - an action that would land an ordinary citizen such as myself in court. Yet no Arab parties have ever been disqualified. Furthermore, an extreme Jewish party was disqualified for racism.
BTW, the majority of Israeli Arabs voted for Zionist parties in the last 2 elections.
I guess things such as quotas for university admissions and appointing an Arab Israeli as head of the Ministry of Interior Affairs don't count in Mr. Cook's view.
Apparently, Mr. Cook feels safe to speak for all Israelis.
Perhaps someone can find such a poll so we may see exactly what is being asked, by the time I reached that part of the article I was quite doubtful of anything coming out of Mr. Cook's mouth.

I was quite baffled by this:I don't know whether to label that a gross distortion of the truth, or plain out lies. I know for a fact it's not true.

Here's another pearl:
I don't recall such a claim ever being made.
I especially like this one:Of course, Mr. Cook has no doubt he is right in his reading of Israeli intentions.

I'm wondering what exactly does Zionism mean to Mr. Cook.

Your credibility as a source of fact rather than a source of opinion disguised as fact took a massive dent after this post:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=130718

However I suppose you are entitled to you opinion, but why not state it as such, instead of thinly veiled attempts to mislead people?

 

[Bystander]

Your credibility as a source of fact rather than a source of opinion disguised as fact took a massive dent after this post:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=130718

However I suppose you are entitled to you opinion, but why not state it as such, instead of thinly veiled attempts to mislead people?

Huh? That was the most striking thing about the "nitwitness news" footage from Lebanon --- "innocent civilians," male, aged 15-35, in freshly laundered civilian clothes that were totally unsoiled, unwrinkled, and undamaged by anything but bloodstains --- no tears, no dirt, no perspiration stains, not even missing buttons --- after two to four weeks in a war zone?

 

[Yonoz]

However I suppose you are entitled to you opinion, but why not state it as such, instead of thinly veiled attempts to mislead people?

Well it's not my opinion that the Supreme Court ruled against banning non-Zionist political parties, nor is it my opinion that an Arab Israeli heads the Interior ministry, nor is it my opinion that university are forced to meet admission quotas for minorities.
I'd rather argue any of the points I have raised than conduct personal assaults. I would think my recognition of my fault would prove to you I can change my opinion when faced with facts. After all, we all make mistakes, don't we?

 

[kyleb]

Well it's not my opinion that the Supreme Court ruled against banning non-Zionist political parties...

Cook didn't make any claims about any Supreme Court rulings, Cook said:

The opposite of a Jewish and democratic state would be a "state of all its citizens" (what we think of as a liberal democracy), which has been the main campaign platform of Israel's Arab political parties since the Oslo agreements were signed in the 1990s. These Arab parties want every Israeli to be treated as an equal citizen irrespective of ethnicity. Such a platform is technically illegal in Israel, and parties and candidates can be banned for promoting it.

And by "technically illegal in Israel" he is obviously referring to the restriction against political platforms which subvert the Jewish nature of Israel which is outlined in http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic2_eng.htm". The Supreme Court has yet to convict anyone of breaking that law, but the 'such a platform is technically illegal in Israel' all the same. Here is another commentary on the same issues from a recent book:

The flexibility of laws is one corollary of the absence of a concept of rights in Israeli democracy. Even when rights are mentioned explicitly, as in the fundamental laws adopted during the years of the liberal interval, they are always conditional: “provided that no law exists to the contrary,” or “except in case of emergency,” or “if this does not contradict the Jewish character of the State of Israel.” In short, fundamental rights exist—like the principles of gender equality and equality between citizens of different faiths—unless the parliament has decided democratically, that is, by a simple parliamentary majority, to infringe them.

In Israel, no one has any rights just by being a citizen. Rights—the parliamentary immunity of Arab MKs; the right to run for office if you fail to meet certain political or ideological criteria (which can change whenever the parliamentary majority changes); the legal existence of a party whose program says that the notions of “Jewish state” and “democratic state” are mutually contradictory; the citizenship of Arabs who supposedly have ties with “terrorism,” etc.—can be abolished by majority vote. What could be more natural therefore than MK Avigdor Liberman’s party’s taking the next step and proposing in its election platform to strip Israelis who defame Israel of their nationality, explicitly mentioning rebellious soldiers and officers, former MK Uri Avnery and lawyer Lea Tsemel?

http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=255"

 

[Yonoz]

Cook didn't make any claims about any Supreme Court rulings, Cook said:

The opposite of a Jewish and democratic state would be a "state of all its citizens" (what we think of as a liberal democracy), which has been the main campaign platform of Israel's Arab political parties since the Oslo agreements were signed in the 1990s. These Arab parties want every Israeli to be treated as an equal citizen irrespective of ethnicity. Such a platform is technically illegal in Israel, and parties and candidates can be banned for promoting it.

And by "technically illegal in Israel" he is obviously referring to the restriction against political platforms which subvert the Jewish nature of Israel which is outlined in http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic2_eng.htm".

Why don't you quote the selected part? Here it is:

A candidates' list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset if its objects or actions, expressly or by implication, include one of the following:
(2)negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people

Can you spot the difference?

The Supreme Court has yet to convict anyone of breaking that law, but the 'such a platform is technically illegal in Israel' all the same.

No, it is not. Not only does the actual law say otherwise, but the Supreme Court has interpreted the law and created a precedent by denying such action - thus it is illegal until the law is changed.

Here is another commentary on the same issues from a recent book:

The flexibility of laws is one corollary of the absence of a concept of rights in Israeli democracy. Even when rights are mentioned explicitly, as in the fundamental laws adopted during the years of the liberal interval, they are always conditional: “provided that no law exists to the contrary,” or “except in case of emergency,” or “if this does not contradict the Jewish character of the State of Israel.” In short, fundamental rights exist—like the principles of gender equality and equality between citizens of different faiths—unless the parliament has decided democratically, that is, by a simple parliamentary majority, to infringe them.

In Israel, no one has any rights just by being a citizen. Rights—the parliamentary immunity of Arab MKs; the right to run for office if you fail to meet certain political or ideological criteria (which can change whenever the parliamentary majority changes); the legal existence of a party whose program says that the notions of “Jewish state” and “democratic state” are mutually contradictory; the citizenship of Arabs who supposedly have ties with “terrorism,” etc.—can be abolished by majority vote. What could be more natural therefore than MK Avigdor Liberman’s party’s taking the next step and proposing in its election platform to strip Israelis who defame Israel of their nationality, explicitly mentioning rebellious soldiers and officers, former MK Uri Avnery and lawyer Lea Tsemel?

That is also incorrect. You do get rights just for being a citizen, your own link to the Basic Law: The Knesset - 1950 is just one example. Unfortunately, in almost every parliamentary democracy, laws can be passed by a majority of the Parliament. However, laws that contradict the base laws or the Proclamation of Independence can be - and are regularly - revoked by the Supreme Court. Base Laws need a "special majority" to be altered. MK Avigdor Liberman is an elected [EDIT]representative[/EDIT] just like MKs Ahmad Tibi and Azmi Bishara, and just like them he may propose laws as he sees fit.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'll variate on a quote from Voltaire: I disapprove of what Avigdor Liberman says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it - just as I would Ahmad Tibi's and Azmi Bishara's.

 

[Astronuc]

This is troubling -

Ahmadinejad Calls For University Purge
Iranian President Urges Students To Push Out Liberal And Secular Teachers
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/05/world/main1968160.shtml?source=RSS&attr=World_1968160
TEHRAN, Iran, Sept. 5, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(AP) Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urged students Tuesday to push for a purge of liberal and secular teachers from universities, in another sign of his determination to stamp a strong Islamic fundamentalist revival on the country.

Ahmadinejad's call was not a surprise — since taking office a year ago, he also has moved to replace pragmatic veterans in the government and diplomatic corps with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners.

Earlier this year, dozens of liberal university professors and teachers were sent into retirement, and last November, Ahmadinejad's administration for the first time named a cleric to head the country's oldest institution of higher education, Tehran University — drawing strong protests from students.

His administration also has launched crackdowns on independent journalists, Web sites and bloggers.

Still, the latest call was another sign that Ahmadinejad is determined to remake Iran — which still has strong moderate factions — reviving the fundamentalist goals pursued in the 1980s under the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran.

His call Tuesday for a purge was, in some ways, an eerie echo from the days of the revolution.

"Today, students should shout at the president and ask why liberal and secular university lecturers are present in the universities," the official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a meeting with a group of students.

Ahmadinejad complained that reforms in the country's universities were difficult to accomplish and that the educational system had been affected by secularism for the last 150 years. But, he added: "Such a change has begun."

-----------------------------

Iran's Ahmadinejad: Fire the University Professors
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/5/101027.shtml?s=icp

Ahmadinejad Seeks College Teachers Purge
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2394675

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/09/05/1803328-ap.html (same story as abcnews link)



-----------------------------

Related to previous comments by Ahmadinejad

Iran ready to talk, says Ahmadinejad
http://english.people.com.cn/200605/12/eng20060512_265008.html

In separate comments to university audiences, which enthusiastically cheered him, he called Israel a creature of Europe that had no place in the Middle East.

Aside from the nuclear issue, Ahmadinejad's university talk ranged from suggesting to students they adopt a "can-do" attitude to a fresh attack on Israel, which he has previously said should be eliminated.

"If it's true that six million Jewish people were killed (in the Holocaust), they were killed in Europe and so why should Israel (be) created in the Middle East," he asked. "... this regime will soon perish," he added.

In a talk at another university later, Ahmadinejad made similar remarks and said: "the state of Israel has created ... a problem (for Europe). It has become a cancer for them."

------------------------------

Iran’s new President has a past mired in controversy
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2605

In 1997, the newly-installed Khatami administration removed Ahmadinejad from his post and he returned to Elm-o Sanaat University to teach, but his principal activity was to organize Ansar-e Hezbollah, a radical gang of violent Islamic vigilantes.

Since becoming mayor of Tehran in April 2003, Ahmadinejad has been using his position to build up a strong network of radical Islamic fundamentalists organised as “Abadgaran-e Iran-e Islami” (literally, Developers of an Islamic Iran). Working in close conjunction with the Revolutionary Guard’s, Abadgaran was able to win the municipal elections in 2003 and the parliamentary election in 2004. They owed their victories as much to low turnouts and general disillusionment with the “moderate” faction of the regime as to their well-oiled political and military machinery.

Abadgaran bills itself as a group of young neo-Islamic fundamentalists who want to revive the ideals and policies of the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini. It was one of several ultra-conservative groups that were setup on the orders of Ayatollah Khamenei in order to defeat outgoing President Mohammad Khatami’s faction after the parliamentary elections in February 2000.

Ahmadinejad’s record is typical of the men chosen by Khamenei’s entourage to put a new face on the clerical elite’s ultra-conservative identity. But beyond the shallow façade, few doubt that the Islamic Republic under its new President will move with greater speed and determination along the path of radical policies that include more human rights abuses, continuing sponsorship of terrorism, and the drive to obtain nuclear weapons.

--------------------------------

So the west cannot be expected to be comfortable with the Khamenei and Ahmadinejad developing long range ballistic missiles or nuclear weapons.

I don't believe violence is the answer, but how does one have a dialog with someone like Ahmadinejad, who apparently (or allegedly) organizes a radical gang of violent Islamic vigilantes (Ansar-e Hezbollah)?

--------------------------------

Is this guy just deliberately misquoted or misunderstood by Western media? On the other hand, the Chinese reporting seems consistent with the west.

 

[kyleb]

The "Chinese reporting" http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nSP276601" and is yet another unaccredited translation.

And I figure I might as well make an update on what Ahmadinejad is complaining about:

The government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday said it was seeking bids for construction of 700 housing units in the West Bank - its largest settlement construction project since taking office in May.

The Construction and Housing Ministry published ads in Israeli newspapers requesting proposals for the new construction in Ma'aleh Adumim and Betar Illit, both outside Jerusalem.

Ministry spokesman Kobi Bleich confirmed the project is the largest so far by the new government. Previously, the government issued bids to build 98 homes in other projects.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525999272&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

 

[Yonoz]

Here's a fresh example of the freedoms of Arab representatives in Israel: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3300989,00.html"

MK Abas Zkoor (United Arab List-Ta'al) sent a letter to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in which he demanded the release of Arab security prisoners who are residents of Israel.

 

[Astronuc]

The "Chinese reporting" is from the West and is yet another unaccredited translation.

True, but the paper is published in China, and they certainly didn't edit the Reuters article.

Other Chinese news services seem a bit more cautious.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2006-09/04/content_680332.htm

TEHERAN: UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan told Iranians the Holocaust was "an undeniable historical fact" yesterday after meeting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The president caused outrage in the West when he said it was a "myth."

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2006-07/20/content_644884.htm

The campaign is also meant to counterattack Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "venomous verbal attacks" that Israel should be "wiped off the map." Iran is allegedly Hezbollah's financial underwriter.

And then this -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
Interesting poster behind Ahmadinejad.
------------------------------------------

I am still waiting for Ahmadinejad or any other person in the Iranian government to state that they accept the existence of Israel, would like to coexist peacefully, and would be pleased to establish full dimplomatic and economic ties with Israel.

So far - all we get is hostile rhetoric.

 

[kyleb]

All you've got there is more unaccredited and out of context translations along with complete denial of what Iran has plainly stated needs to be done to be done for them to accept the existence of Israel. What drives your persistence in that, is stealing the Palestinian peoples land that important to you or what?

 

[Astronuc]

. . . stealing the Palestinian peoples land . . .

To which lands is one referring? Please elaborate.