|
Monday * No wish for conflict I read with great interest your article in The Iranian of August 16th ["Just wondering"], and presume you had already received my email to you via Gulf2000. It is extremely important that you initiated this debate which I hope will be taken up by people within Iran as well. I did not sign my email to you in my official capacity but you may be interested to know that I am an Israeli diplomat. My function in Jerusalem is that of Director of the Iran and Gulf States Division in the Middle East and Peace Process Department of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs. To reply to your question: no Sir, you have not gone mad. And we do not wish to be in a state of conflict with Iran or the Persian people. As I pointed out in some detail, it was not Israel that chose to break ties and declare a policy of enmity. Best wishes, Sincerely Yours, * Ability to right rubbish I just read your article titled "Just wondering". Your ignorance is only exceeded by your ability to right (sic) rubbish. For Your Information. Israel considers Iran its number one enemy. With that kind of attitude Iran must have an anti-Israeli policy. It is a must. You can't have an enemy like that constatntly threatening you and for you to do nothing. Are you ignorant to what AIPAC has been doing against Iran during the past twnety years? Why don't you educate yourself a bit and investigate things before you write garbage like that. A M * More Arab than Arabs One cannot help but feel despondent and extremely dispirited after reading Mr Rastegar's piece in The Iranian arguing that the Palestinian struggle is our business ["It is our business"], if and a big if, the information he gives about himself is true. If he is really of the generation he claims to be then it is extremely sad to see our younger generations have not made any progress beyond the meaningless bickering that has diverted us from focusing on the principle Iranian issues for the past century. Reading between the lines one cannot help but think that either the writer is very naïve or he has been brainwashed by the same Islamic propaganda he cites in his article or he is using this as cover to defend the traditional Leftist-Islamic pseudo intellectual view of the world. It has sadly been shown time and time again as too naïve. Let's give our friend the benefit of the doubt that he is genuinely trying to set out logical arguments in favour of Iranian support for the Palestinian cause and its relevance to Iran's problems. Firstly let me correct him and our Iranian-American friends about the name of our country. It is beyond me why Iranian-Americans encourage the idea of Persia and Persians as an ancient race and civilisation. Persia was the name of our country in all other countries till late 1930's. Persia referred to a predominantly Moslem country of many races and nationalities. It has no racial connotation. It is incredible why we should invent such a thing now. The writer tries to cleverly tie the term Persia to Iranian racism (I can hardly see how Iranians can exercise such a thing but let's leave that aside). If you are really looking for racist connotations then you should be looking for Iranian nationalists not Persian ones as they, whoever they are, should be the ones who think Iran is the land of the Aryans. By the way I did not realise there was a strong grouping ready to seize power in Iran? Where are they? Where are these Persian supremicists? Mr Rastegar taints Persian patriotism with support of the Shah, support of Israel in the past and everything that has been wrong with previous regimes in Iran. It has no bearing on the geopolitical realities of Iran. The idea that Iranian resistance to Arab nationalism (and racism) is racist is somewhat ludicrous as it ignores historical reality. The writer chooses to ignore the racism openly practiced by Arabs and confuses the Iranian struggle to escape Arab racism, nationalism, language and religion as racist. After the revolution, we turned the Israeli embassy in Teheran over to Arafat. Did he not repay us by calling for the annexation of Khouzestan, calling it Arabestan? I don't know what Mr Rastegar been smoking but perhaps he will soon expose the Iraqi war on Iran as nothing but a myth propagated by Persian supremacists. Mr Rastegar, we don't want to be the leader of the Moslem world. We don't want to be more Arab than Arabs. Perhaps you could look at problems closer to home. With regards to the lobbying problems faced in the congress, perhaps if the IRI stopped competing for the leadership of the Islamic (Arab) world and stopped calling for total annihilation of Israel and its well documented financial support for the crazed Shias in Lebanon then Israeli supporters would not have an excuse. As for your Israeli model serving as a model for Iranian Aryan Persian fascism, all I can recommend is to cease smoking that stuff dear friend, it has ruined your brain. Regards, * The Shah was right I read "Just wondering" with interest and with amazment the letters' section of The Iranian on Aug 17 in regard to the Iran-Israel relations , and I am wondring too, and coming up with more questions than answers. Let me start by saying that I am completely in agreement with all the letters in regard to the barbaric and unhuman nature of Israel's treatment of Palestinians and get that out of the way. My line of thinking in regard to Arab-Israeli conflict had always been the same as Jahanshah Javid's and I would also add that I had believed that this was one of a few areas where the late Shah was right in trying to keep some kind of relationship with Israel, in spite of the strong opposition of the mollas. But boy, wasn't I surprised when I read the letters and realized that almost all those who were stongly against the mollas also strongly sided with them in opposing Israel, which tells me why the Shah was out of touch with his people. Regardless, I still believe that he was right and THIS IS THE PROBLEM. After reading all the letters, my questions have not been answered yet and these are some of them, not necessarily in order: Had it not been for the existense of Israel and preoccupation of Arabs with her, how many more times Iran could have been invaded by these oil rich states? Probably more than once. For those bleeding hearts of genocide, did we declare war on or even raised our voices when Germans and many other nations murdered their oun countrymen including Jews, Christians and Moslems? And how many of us praised Germans for being the enemy of our enemy and the same superior race as ours? Have we ever heard of kaaseh being daaghtar az aash? And if so, why are we we more Catholic than the Pope? And why aren't we daagh tar in other parts of Moslem world like Afghanistan, Chechnia or Sudan? Is it because we can not afford it? Then how can we afford to go against the mightiest powers of the world to support Palestinians? True , the Palestinan tragedy may not be BE MAA CHEH, just like any other Moslem nation, but we can not and should not be daagh tar az kaaseh of Arabs. The world is full of disasters. Europe had it with two World Wars. East Europe had it with the USSR. Indochina had it with France , Japan and USA. And we have it with Arabs, Israel, Afghanistan and others. We can not change the world, but we can protect our own interests. Our interests are not the same as Arabs and Palestinians.They have not been and will never be our friends. As a neighbor we have to deal with them but watch out for our own interests at all times. A religious Jewish state can not be a friend of our religous Moslem state either , but isn't it in their best interest to have a fairly strong undivided Iran; not as a friend , but as another strong non-Arab regional power in the Middle East for a balance, as long as she is not a threat to Israel? The hysteria over Israel's expansion plans is unrealistic, even if the goal is Nile to Euphrates. I would rather be a neighbor of Israel than a neighbor of Saddam. Israel has no territorial claims over Iran but the Arabs do. The point has been raised that after Palestine, Israel will turn against Iraq and eventually Iran. Please be realistic .If Israel has so much problems with a million Palestinans , she has to be stupid to look for more headaches, and we know that Jews are not stupid. The point has also been raised that if we do not help Palestinians now,no body will help us when needed.Excuse me! We did need help in the war with all Arab States and the only help we received was from Israel in providing parts for a good price. Many have accused and blamed Israel for being over zealous in arming herself and keeping herself stronger militarily than her neighbours.Wouldn't any country do the same if she can? I am not trying to defend Israel and I am just bringing up these question to find an answers. The western countries,whether we like it or not have overwhelnig political,economic and military power in the area .Accepting the corrupt nature of most of the middle east goverments that we are not in love with, and accepting that Israel is not a genuine enemy of Iran , as long as we are not her enemy,what do we get in this conflict by siding with our old enemies? Can't we just sympathize with palestinians like any other nation? Can we correct all the injustices of the world? Then why are we the loudest mouth in support of Palestinians? And please do not tell me that Arab goverments do not represent their people. People deserve their goverments. Considering the historical persecution of the Jews, not to justify their actions, but trying to understand it, I believe they are over reacting and by doing so unfortunately they are exactly repeating their oppressors' behavior. Time will tell whether it pays off or backfires. But we are not the judge, and we are only a small part of the world with many problems of our own. How can we give more than what we recieved from our neighbors? The Arab-Israeli conflict is not our problem. OUR PROBLEM IS unrealistic emotional reaction to other people's problem.The Iraqi war was an awakening experience which fortunately occurred on mollas' watch.We may have a long way to go before every one is awake. I hope it will not be too late. * Stealing the show In response to the editorials "Just wondering" and "It is our business": I think Israel cannot afford to give a damn about Iran. Iran's actions as a radical fundamentalist country justify Israel's tough stance towards the Palestinians and other Arabs when it comes to taking excessively brutal actions in the name of its national security issues. In other words Iran, a non-Arab country in the region, is stealing the show from all the other Arab countries and the Persians are leading the Arabs in the forefront of the Arab-Israeli struggle. The same Iranians that were ridiculed by many Arab countries during the eight-year war with Iraq as being pseudo-Moslems and "Ajams" have taken up the banner in the fight against Israel. How convenient for Israel to see this non-Arab Iran whose population does not harbor any visceral hatred towards the Jews at large to act as an engine for Palestine's liberation. Then no matter how fervent Iran seems to be in this cause it can never be part of a united Arab front or be a catalyst for a united Arab front even under the banner of Islam. Let's not forget that the Iran-Iraq war in the eighties was actually the equivalent of an Arab-Persian conflict that was indeed very beneficial for Israel. Iraq is the only Arab country that borders Iran so it was called the Iran-Iraq war. During the war Iraq was generously financially supported by countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and was militarily supported by Egypt and Jordan. Some of the soldiers captured were not Iraqis but Egyptians and Jordanians. At the same time Israel, according to their own sources, sold around $3 billion worth of weapons to Iran. Israel also acted as an intermediary in delivering U.S.-made military spare parts to Iran during the embargo. They just changed the packaging. When the eight-year war with Iraq ended after about a million deaths and maimed and more than a trillion dollars of loss and damage on both sides Itzak Rabin said that the good eight years are over. And I think we Iranians should stop caring about others and stop and think for a minute whether others care about us as well. So many Armenians fled the Armenian genocide in Turkey and took refuge in Iran. There are the two million Afghans that took refuge in Iran after the Soviet invasion of their country. There are then more than two million Kurds that fled Iraq after the Gulf War and if you go back in history we saved the Jews from Babylonian bondage where their eventual destruction would have been assured. Being nice does not cut it any more in which all relationships are merely utilitarian. So we should base our relationships also on utilitarianism only. I think that Israel through its overwhelming worldwide Jewish networks and financial and media power is manipulating the situation in the region to its own advantage. And just to add some spice to all this. Some people in Iran called Khomeini the "Molla Juhudeh" because he very much resembled Jewish Rabbis particularly with the cap on and even a greater coincidence that his name was Ruhollah a commonly used name amongst Persian Jews. * More in common than not Jahanshah Javid's August 17 editorial ["Just wondering"] provides a succinct tour de horizon< of the numerous and serious security challenges facing Iran today, and then poses the question: why are Tehran's energies so tightly and irrationally focused on the relatively distant and non-threatening state of Israel? The question deserves a careful answer. There appear to be two major aspects of the Iranian-Israeli relationship -- or, more accurately, the absence of a relationship. One of these areas can be described in the bloodless terminology of national security policy, but it is the other, ideological area, that seems to hold the key to the strange intensity with which most of the Muslim world, and not just Iran, regards Israel. In normal terms, Iran and Israel would seem to have more in common than not. Iran faces more pressing threats from its immediate neighbors. What is more, some of these countries, notably Iraq, also threaten Israel. Indeed, Iran and Israel have shared the experience of seeing their cities struck by Iraqi missiles. Even before that time, leaders of the two countries understood the benefits of security cooperation. Right up to the end of the Shah's rule, Israel is said to have quietly assisted in the development of Iranian military technologies. The relationship was renewed temporarily during Iran's war with Iraq, when Israel supplied Iran with munitions and spare parts, and later served as a clandestine pipeline for the illegal sales of US anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Tehran. But since Iran's revolution, a countervailing trend has emerged, overshadowing the tendency towards cooperation. This has two features: on one hand, the development of a strategic arms race between the two states; on the other, Iran's patronage of the Lebanese Hezbollah and support for Palestinian Islamist terrorist organizations. The Israeli-Iranian strategic arms race is the topic of much rhetoric from defense officials in both countries, but how meaningful it will be in shaping the relationship is not yet clear. Israel's Jericho II nuclear missiles, developed to deter the Soviet Union and potential Arab antagonists, in theory also ought to deter any future threat from Iran. Yet Israeli leaders have justified the purchase of long-range F-16I and F-15I fighter-bombers in terms of the need to deter Iran's new Shihab-3 missiles, and also have built the Arrow anti-missile system to counter this threat. To complete the circle, at least one leading Iranian military man, Adm. Ali Shamkhani, until recently the Minister of Defense, justified the Shihab-3 in terms of the threat from the F-15I. Round and round we go, and where we stop, nobody knows. The "Iranian threat" and the "Israeli threat" often appear to be stalking horses for other interests. Whenever Israel purchases a new long-range fighter-bomber from the US, for instance, Israeli companies get up to a quarter of the subcontracts by way of an offset agreement with the lead contractor. This makes the Shihab-3 a helpful prop for Israel's arms industry. Similarly, Israeli weapons have become a convenient justification for those scientists, military men, and bureaucrats in Iran who hope to advance their careers through the development of missiles. Iranian decisionmakers may also find the "Israeli threat" to be a relatively non-provocative cover for weapons programs intended to match or counteract Iraqi, Pakistani, or Saudi weapons. Nevertheless, there is at least some appreciable danger that this arms race could spiral out of control, causing both countries more expense than they can afford, and risking an unwanted conflict. For the last year and a half or so, Israeli news reports have claimed that Iran has positioned medium-range missiles in Lebanon, where the Israeli Air Force continues to spar intermittently with Hezbollah and Syria. If the stories are true, this move puts the two sides uncomfortably close to a direct clash. At the same time, Israel has received three advanced diesel-electric submarines from Germany, which are rumored to be armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and operating in the Indian Ocean. Along with Iran's purchase of Kilo-class attack subs from Russia, this creates the possibility of the sort of occasionally dangerous cat-and-mouse games played undersea for so long by the US and Soviet Union. A more immediate form of conflict between Iran and Israel can be found in Iran's backing of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Tehran has served as quartermaster to Hezbollah's longtime fight against Israel in Lebanon, as well as its cross-border attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians. Along with Iran's support for terrorists based in the West Bank and Gaza, this seems to be partly a function of the Iranian quest for regional influence and prestige, and partly a function of ideology. Ideology, again, is the key to understanding both why conflict has replaced cooperation, and why Iranian rhetoric in particular expands the "Israeli threat" well beyond any reasonable bounds. The quality of Iranian perceptions of Israel has less to do with planes, missiles, or submarines than other, less tangible factors, which are by no means limited to Iran. As Javid notes, it is driven by relentless propaganda. It belongs to the sphere of ethno-religious animosity. Simply put, the Islamic Republic has no use for the Jewish State. Islam as a political phenomenon has never tolerated sovereignty for minority religious groups. What is more, the State of Israel, while in theory no different from any other post-colonial state in Asia or Africa, has long been perceived and portrayed in Soviet bloc, Middle Eastern, and Third Worldist circles as a colonial remnant. Demonizing Israel has offered leaders a convenient way to justify their own rule and their own regional roles, appeal for the sympathy of their Muslim populations, and push public discussion away from the various dissatisfactions of their own peoples. As the tragic and unnecessary Israeli-Palestinian conflict grinds on, the value of demonization is only likely to increase. * Like ignorant Americans Mr. Javid, ["Just wondering"] YES. Israel is a threat to Iran and all Iranians. As a matter of facts Israel is a thereat to all humanity. I am surprise to see your article and the question you have asked. Is there anyone in the world who has not been affected and felt threatened by this fascist regime? Please don't be like ignorant Americans. Thanks * Marhaba Baba Ay Vola, Bel akhareh yeki ham harfe dele ma ra zad. ["Just wondering"] MARHABA, * Islam or Iran? Dear Mr. Javid, I enjoyed reading your lucid and well written article ["Just wondering"]. The issue of Iran's stance towards Israel is a question of how one interprets Iranain national identity and thereby Iranian national interests and foreign policy. If we think of ourselves purely and only as Muslims as in the early days of Islamic Republic, then subsequently Israel is our ennemy by virtue of occupying the second holy shrine of Islam. If, however, we are citizens of a modern nation state called Iran, and Islam is only a question of our private beliefs, Israel is in fact our natural geopolitical ally, or at least another country with whom we should have logical discussions within the framework of our national interests. In this case an Iranian may thus oppose Israel on moral grounds as much as he opposes for example Indonesia for the suppression of the East Timor or may condemn Sharon as much as he condemns Pinochet on human rights grounds. The issue of opposition to Israel is a test case where pan Islamism and Iranian nationalism clash. The stance of men such as as Khomeini or Khamenei over Israel is consistent with their world view as they have always opted for Islam over Iran. Khatami is a different story as he sings the praises of modernism and Iranian national identity when he finds it politically expedient, but when it comes to actually setting the mark he backs away. Khatami's stance over relations with Israel is a clear indication that despite the brouhaha, he is no different from the rest of the clergy and in the final analysis he is first aMmuslim and then an Iranian. * Ask yourself In responding to Janhanshah's article ["Just wondering"] on Israeli's threat to Iran I have the following comments. First, on moral, ethical grounds Iran should condemn and oppose Israeli's heavy-handed, hegemonic, criminal policies toward Palestinians. So far as it is commonly believed that Israeli leaders have committed crimes against humanity then the logic dictates that all humanity, including Iranians, should oppose these policies. Second, on real politics grounds, I echo Jahanshah's views -- and add that given the historical and recent adversarial relationship between Arabs and Iranians, close diplomatic ties between Iran and Israel serve Iranian national interests. In considering the validity of such seemingly absurd statement, please ask your self the following question: "How many Iranians have Israelis killed and how many Iranians have Arabs killed?" Abdol S. Soofi * How would you treat your enemy? One of the issues that was brought up on numerous occasions was the Israeli lobby in the United States ["Just wondering"]. A lot of Iranians feel the Israeli lobby is responsible for the recent renewal of sanctions against Iran. Here we go again with us Iranians blaming others for our problems. This one is out of this world. Iran on numerous occasions has declared itself the number one enemy of the United States. How do we expect the Americans to respond to this? No sanctions? AIPAC lobbies on behalf of the Israeli government in the United States. It is their natural right. All other friendly governments have the same right. Let me mention that the ARMENIANS also have a strong lobby here in America. However, every single year, they are unsuccessful in their attempts to convince the U.S. government to condemn the Turks for their atrocities at the beginning of this century. The fact of the matter is that Israel and Turkey are friends of the United States and Iran is an enemy. Just sit down and think about it. How would you treat your enemy? With prizes or sanctions? If you want to get rid of the sanctions, look elsewhere on the other side of the world. That's where the problem is! Thank You, * Can't be neutral As I understand it, you like many other Iranian are saying: "We should be neutral." ["Just wondering"] I should say: we like to be, but no matter who rules Iran, in the middle of Middle-East, Iran cannot be a neutral country. Don't agree!? Just remember World War II and Iran's desire for neutrality at that time. Was it respected? * Dirty game The answer as I understand is No, Israel is not a direct treat for Iran ["Just wondering"], but: Iran and Israel are playing a complex and dirty game toward each other. Each one try to promote the other one the major anti-Arab and un-predictable country in Middle East. If Arabs were in a clash with Iran or at least be in fear of such clash, then they will definitely be ready to give more score to Israel and less support to Palestinian. This policy has been followed by Israel during the last 40 years. During the Shah's rule (at least before the 1975 Algiers's accord) their media was trying to promote the Shah as a person who is dreaming to replace Cyrus (the Great) and re-establish Persian imperialism. In the Shiite the Islamic Republic, the concept of Velayate Faghih of Khomeini has been their tool for this same aim. On the other hand the Iranian government has been following the same game in the opposite direction, promoting a challenge and war between Arabs and Israel will push Arabs (especially the American allies) to follow less US policy in giving more space to Israel and they will be more relax toward Iran. (Also it is quite clear that the major reason for delay in signing the peace agreement between Arabs and Israel is not Iran. Iran is just one player of this complex game. Maybe the major player is Israeli and American-Jewish extremists who don't want peace and or to give anything to Palestinians. they are just playing with time without claiming their real desire. The final word is that in the Midlle-East like other parts of the world (Western Europe, South America, East Asia) security of neighbors are all mixed with each other. And the solution after the Cold War will come once all countries including Israel accept the fact that they are just part of of the Middle East, not the ruler of it. * Sanctions not so bad Excellent article by Mr. J. Javid ["Just wondering"]. He just forgot to mention that the human rights record of all those countries surrounding Iran and Iran itself and all the Arab countries are much worse than Israel. Just imagine what would happen if people throw stones at the Iranian Revolutionary guards or Iraqi Republican Guards or the Taliban or Palastinian soldiers or ... They will all be shot, not just one or two!! Some claim that Israel is a very bad enemy because Jewish lobbyists are encouraging sanctions against Iran. However I don't think that sanctioning the molla republic is such a bad thing, is it?! I hope more countries cut their relationship with the theocratic dictatorship in Iran. * La-la-ee Dear Jahanshah, ["Just wondering"] A few months ago, when I went to by a pack of cigarette in the morning, I saw the "Economist" cover page: "Sharon Elected, The World in Fear". This "Wake-Up Call" was enough for me to realize that we are dealing with a " Danger" which is threatening the whole world. Not only Iran and Middle East. Now, let me know why are you singing "La-la-ee" for Iranians. They live so close to the source of such a "Danger to the Whole World"? Your polito-geographical trip around Iran to sing the "La-la-ee" sounds very cute. I really want to know about your "Textbook" for this kind of "Analysis"! Dear Jahanshah! It has been a while that threats are not measured just by geographical borders of the countries. The threats for countries are measured with other factors like the "Range of Missiles" and "Nuclear Power"! I don't see why Iranian should fall sleep with your "La-la-ee" if they can simply check the web for "Israeli Missiles and nuclear Power". (Check the Website of Federation of American Scientists, www.fas.org). If your readers don't check such a website, is because they trust you, "The Journalists", to inform them! In the last few years, I have seen the map of Middle East in so many "Papers" with some circles on it. Center of the circles is Iran and the radius of circles show the "Range" of Iranian missiles (and potential missiles). How many times have you seen such a map in a "Paper" where center of circles is Israel? Have you ever tried to draw such a map on Iranian.com? If not, why? Draw that and you will have a better idea about the "World in Fear"! After that, for the next step forward, you can check more "Papers" for such a map. The more you look for it, the less you will find it. Why? Peyda Konid Portegal forush ra? Just see how much "The Journalists" in this country keep their "Commitment to their Mission and People" when Israel comes to picture??!!! Now, you can really, really, really have a better idea about the "World in Fear"! You may not feel in fear Jahanshah and can have a good night sleep with your own "La-lae-e". You seem to be more comfortable with the "Stations and Targets " of those missiles. Not all Middle Easterners can feel as comfortable as you feel! Have you ever thought about the next "Hiroshima" in the Middle East "Mr. Jounalist"!? Don't you think you may even have a relative or friend in a middle eastern "Hiroshima" (if you don't care about others)? Is this subject allowed on your website? Based on your "Editorial Policy", I know "God", "Religion" and "Religious Values" cannot be promoted on your Iranian.com. On the other hand, I know that "God" and "Religion" are and have been the main issue in Iran, Israel and the rest of Middle East for decades. It is hard to talk then! But, tell me why your polito-geographical analysis accidentally matches the interests of "One Religion" on your "Non-religious Website"? Not that you are engaged in this ancient "Religious War" in the Middle East thru your Non-religious" Website! Dear Jahanshah! After all, you live in America. Try to learn and use the concepts of an "Open Society"! * Simply dim-witted Let us remember that the PLO embraced the invasion of Iran by Saddam in 1980. The intellectuals openly supported the Iraqi occupation forces throughout the war. Yet, given our natural anti-Arab sentiments because of the destruction of our nation during those eight terrible years, it is still morally wrong, ethically unjustified, and simply dim-witted for us as Iranians to remain silent while Israeli occupational forces are cleansing the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem and Gaza from its population. A nursery school in East Jerusalem Sunday, a father and his two sons today, and some 14-year-olds tomorrow. Needless to mention the so-called "Targeted Killings" better known in the civilized world as "assassinations". Kamran D. Rastegar, has summarized the sentiments of many in his article, "It is our business". Israel is on the wrong side of history, a rogue regime and a rogue nation, in the same way Serbs, Khmer Rouge, and Taliban were and are. Yours, * This policy will continue The source of conflict between Iran and Israel is directly related to hostile relationship between Iran & USA ["Just wondering"]. Historically, Iranian have no hostility toward Israel or Jews. But, IRI has rightfully adopted a policy that opposes US interests in the Middle East. And this policy will continue until a respectful and meaningful relationship is established between Iran. The Israel - Palestinian conflict will not be resolved until Iran and US conflict is subsides. Meanwhile, hopefully, Sharon's government will refrain from terrorist activities in Middle East. * Much bigger problems I agree to most if not all of Javid Jahanshahs article ["Just wondering"], we have much much bigger problems than Israel. Even if Israelis had not lobbied against Iran in the US we would have the same bad economy as we have today, why? Because of the enormouse corruption, bad ecenomic laws, and lack of freedoms (especially freedom of speech). Even European countries do not invest in Iran, they are just interested in the oil sector. So blaming Israel for Iran's economy is not right. The biggest reason why Iran and Iraq point their fingers at Israel all the time is that they are trying to fopcus the attention of the people on something else than the real problems they have, mainly lack of freedom, poverty and vast corruption in the country. In Iran after reformers came to power , many tabus have been broken. The press talk openly about prostitution, AIDS (which Akbar Velayati's brother in law is dying of after a journy to Thailand by the way) narcotics and other social problems. These are big problems that the conservatives have no answers for (well except the very "efficient" whipping), so what they could do is to make people believe there are much bigger problems. On the other side, Israelis have also problems within their country. They come from very diffrent cultural backgrounds, like Ethiopias, Russias, Americans and others, and there is big discrimination between them. The president of Israel (Mose Katzav, born in Yazd, Iran) is the first Israeli president of from an oriental origin, showing the big power American-European Jews have in Israel, compared to oriental Jews. Because of finding unity between its citizens Israel needs also to have an outside enemy, that could be a reason of pointing to Iran and Iraq as enemies. I believe Israel wants to keep Iran as enemy. Listen to Radio Israel for example, the only news they broadcast about Iran is very negative with no mention of some small but important steps to freedom. They put all the coverage on the conservative camps and, as one of my friends said they only quote Kayhan newspaper and the Mujahedin as their source of news. Also although Israel's president is an Iranian Jew, and on of the grand rabbis in Israel (don't remember his name) is a Hamedani Jew, they have not tried to reach Iranians inside or even outside Iran in their own mother tounge and to give a message of peace and hope. They have not tried to establish a network of Iranians for peace or at least address Iranians in a message. Hope for a better future for Iran.. * (Imaginary) enemies Just a few of points about your article on the threat posed by Israel ["Just wondering"]. It might be stating the obvious, but it is worth mentioning that your list of potential problems for Iran was -- with very few exceptions -- a list of fellow Muslim countries. So let's not even pretend that Islamic solidarity has any real place in a discussion about Israel. As far as Israel itself is concerned, as the article seemed to imply, we should not mix up our outrage at violations of human rights by Israeli government with Iranian national interest. Iran certainly has warm relations with countries which have been less than respectful of international human rights norms (Syria, North Korea, China, etc.). The mutual hostility between Iran and Israel serves a purpose on both sides. Iran like any other authoritarian regime requires (imaginary) enemies to blame for its domestic and foreign policy failures. Israel on the other hand uses the Iran bogeyman to attract the sympathy of U.S. public opinion and U.S. government material and moral support. There is no way the IRI can reduce tensions with Israel. You can't call for the eradication of a country for twenty years and expect anything other than vitriol in return. Of course the exchange of insults may someday turn into real physical aggression. On that day Iran would surely be the loser since with American support Israel would be able to harm Iran with impunity from any possible sanctions from the international community. Not that other countries would rush to defend the IRI anyway. We should not entirely discount the role of anti-Semitism in all of this either. I am talking about the kind of anti-Semitism that allows a government to get away with bombarding Iranian youth with anti-Jewish propaganda in the name of fighting Zionism (let's face it: aside from a minuscule religious minority there is no Jew who doesn't support Israel's right to exist). Quite a few years ago when I left Iran, I was amazed to discover that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which had been part of my high school history in Iran, is in fact a very famous forgery. As long as the IRI is there, Israel is a threat. And that is only because the rulers of Iran want it that way. * Not unnatural Dear editor, Reading the "More important than gays" letter incited me to write the following response. I was neither amazed nor amused by the homophobic tone of the letter. In a very self-righteous manner, the author (Ocean Sky) starts his/her letter by claiming that "our society has much more important issues" such as cultural and political ones. My question is: Since when "homosexuality" is not cultural or political? It seems to me that the author has a very distorted idea of queer struggles and resistance. Unlike Ocean Sky's assumption, queerness (or homosexuality as s/he refers to non-heteronormative sexualities) is not reducible to "showing off" one's "sexual relationship in public". Rather than assuming that heterosexuality is THE "normal behavior and instead of regarding homosexuality as "not normal" even for Americans who are world famous liberals (as Ocean Sky asserts in his/her article), one needs to question the naturalization of heterosexuality in modern liberal thought. Maybe homoeroticism was not as "unnatural" as Ocean Sky claims. Many scholars have discussed the relationship between Iranian modernity and heteronormativity, and I suggest that Ocean Sky does a little bit of reading before becoming a spokesperson for the Iranian people. Iranian modern citizenship has not been separate from othering many, including "homosexuals". Such masculine citizenship relies upon Eurocentric and Orientalist discourses that announced "homosexuality" as deviant and backward (read the travelogues of Europeans in Iran and you'll find the evidence) and constructed heterosexuality as normal behavior through educational regimes (read books on educating women and children in Qajar era and you'll find evidence of this as well). Ocean Sky seems to forget that Iranian queers are also Iranian people when s/he writes that "Iranian people should not be expected to set aside all other existing problems and discuss "your rights" (meaning queer people's rights). Ocean Sky, you do not have to defend "our rights". We just like you are very heterogeneous, and not you and not anybody else (even the American people who you find to be the greatest liberals of all) can assign "rights" that would not run the risk of exclusion. Maybe before getting all worked up, as if asked to "give rights", you should question your own sexuality rather than telling "us", the "homosexuals" what "our problem is! No offense to your heterosexuality, but you and your friends who do not like "homosexual programs" can easily turn the channel on your TV and find numerous displays of heterosexuality showed off every day and night. One more thing: From your use of masculine pronouns, it seems like you assume only men become "homosexuals). But again, the kind of Iranian citizenship you seem to assume is very male and very heterosexual. Why should I be surprised? * Overcharged fireworks A woman talks about sin, in this case the sin of having an extra marital affair, and asks for advice and help [Kobra Khanom]. What was your answer? "Don't believe in Sin, don't feel guilty" Why? Because YOU believe in extra marital sex, or YOU believe in a secular way of life opposed to a religious one? Or to put it more simply: because religion is "akh" for you? "The question of religion is irrelevant". Kobra Khanoom, the life of a person in need of help is not a tribune for "Kobra Khanoom's philosophy of freedom of sexual expression", nor is it a place to recruit followers for your political camp: "I want to tell that girl it is a revolutionary act because in our country it is illegal and punishable." Are you encouraging her to be part of your revolution as a solution to her problem? And you accept the responsibility? Are you a political leader? Or aspire to be one? Are you aware of your own motivations and aspirations before jumping to suggestions and solutions for other people's personal problems? It is ethically wrong in every counseling profession to promote or fight for your personal agenda by taking advantage of personal problems of the people coming to you for help. Even based on your so-called "Kantian" beliefs, do you think it is okay if someone tries to use your personal problems to promote his or her political agenda while she or he is just claiming to help and you are there just to receive help?! First and basic task in all counseling professions: try to understand your client without judging her feelings or ideas. Your first duty isn't "expressing our secular views loudly"! Did you recognize and understand the feeling of guilt associated with the expressed "sin" concept? It seems you are so crippled by your own traumatic experience with religion that you can't face the common feeling of guilt associated with the idea of sin. The idea of sin and its associated feeling of guilt are STILL one of the basic aspects of human psyche and very common in Iran even among non-religious women (maybe not in your post-Clinton era!). To handle feelings like guilt requires a "Gooshe Shenava" or in technical English "empathy", not political confrontation and campaigning. I strongly believe that it is better for you and your readers that you abandon the grandiose claim to help people from "Sweden to Mashad" and take some basic courses in human sciences at a nearby community college first! The kind and scope of problems presented by human beings including Iranians require and deserve more serious and professional attention than your politically-overcharged fireworks. If you still believe that you are helping them in your own idiosyncratic political way, you are absolutely wrong and causing more harm than good. Khashayar Beigi
|
|
 |
Web design by BTC Consultants
Internet server Global Publishing Group