Jaleho

Anonymous7

I completely agree that the war era would be fading now, which was Obama's central platform.

Already, his election quickly forced the revision in SOFA-Iraq's Status of Force Agreement's-previous terms. You can take a look at my first blog where I discussed SOFA and argued that in its original form it should fail to pass.

//iranian.com/main/blog/jaleho/sofa-iran-and-iraq 

Right after results of election came out, Bush made three fundamental changes that Iraqis had insisted on, hoping to get at least one kinda agreement for forces before he leaves:

The time frame  (US offers 3 years) for withdrawal, giving up on capitualtion law, and stating that Iraq won't be used as a launch pad to attack neighbors.

Now, still Sadr has called people to obeject the 3 year term as too long, and the deal has not been finalized by parliament or Okayed by Ayatollah Sistani. Yet, Bush was forced to introduce three very important chnages hoping that at least three years after him the forces would stay in Iraq.

Even if Iraqis accept the present format, finally one got a definitive time frame for withdrawal. But, I still hope that Iraqi parliament from one side, and Obama's new administration from the other cut even that time shorter!

$1 Trillion deficit, you know!

they are weak and in disarray (to Owliaei)

Owliaei: I also voted for Obama, and I did not have any illusions that AIPAC, extremist Zionists ... are going to go away. I even remember Obama's visit of AIPAC.
... so what? past 8 years extremist right including AIPAC and other pro Israeli groups have made this country very weak, wasted trillions of dollars, increased unemployment and poverty, destroyed peoples trust on economy, politics ... etc.
Now even the Zionists in Obama's camp know that they can't go on like this, they can't go start wars around the world and necessarily benefit from it, they know that U.S as the strongest supporter of Israel, itself is in deep trouble ... they know that they have no option but to resolve their own problem instead of looking to create trouble for others and benefit from it.

Dear Anonymous7

I am glad you got a chance to read my answer although time had made the page disappear from the view. In particular, the question you tackled is a common one in this site and there is I believe a misconception about my type of views as being "extremist" in this regard. So, I am glad that I had the opportunity to explain it in more detail to you.

In fact, if I were not so lazy, I'd be writing 4 blogs or articles clarifying what I call common "misconceptions," or at least where I totally differ from some prevalent points of view. And, I have already referred in pieces and comments to a good number of historical documents here and there. So, I should just collect them in one piece. Here are the 4 subjects which you might find my point of view "extremist" since it is not the common belief:

1. The historical roots of Zionism, birth of Israel, and common misconceptions around it.

2. Bush 1, or first Persian Gulf war, attack on Iraq in 1990 and reasons why he didn't remove Saddam whereas Bush 2 , the son, did. There are lots of "cloud" around Iraq's Kuwait attack, ambassador Glaspie's "green light" to Saddam to attack Kuwait, Bush call for Iraqis to rise up and then letting Saddam massacre the rebels, and finally getting "this close" to Baghdad , but not capturing it.

3. Iran's anti-Israel stance and rhetoric.

4. Did IRI intentionally extend the Iran-Iraq war past freedom of Khorramshar, or is it a  common misconception believed  by many here.

These are subjects that serious researchers, which I am not one, could write books about. However, there is this beautiful concept in the US, The Freedom of Information Act, that forces the government to release former secret information where the passage of time has made it non-sensitive to be released to public for research. I LOVE THIS FEATURE! I don't like to just read books which the writer infuses all his personal opinion in sensitive issues, rather, I like to look at historical documents like content of UN  Resolutions, raw data, and in particular National Security Archives to make my very own conclusions.

A lot of these former documents , for example about Iraq-Iraq war was released, not because of love of transparency, but because there was a need to justify attacking Iraq in the First and Second US-Iraq wars.

Anyway, these might or might not be related to what you call my opinion as "extremist". However,  in this blog's comments, I tried to briefly refer to my previous posts which explained No.1; I gave a quick answer to Iranian Jew about No.2; and clarified my opinion on No.3 for you briefly. So, I find it easier for my future reference (in case I felt energetic enough to write the 4 complete detailed blogs later on!) to cut and paste a brief explanation I gave to another reader concerning No.4.

You might find the info I have written in there useful. It has the source to some useful articles for No.4 and further search of the site for No.2. If you add these to information from the UN site, one gets a very realistic picture in my opinion. Here's my post from Party Girl's blog: Days I Weep:

by Jaleho on Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:36 PM PST

No wonder...you don't appreciate IRI efforts of Iran-Iraq war, and further you repeat the nonsense of "Iran prolonged the war" advertised by the same UN groups who turned out to be such a tool in Iraq-Iraq war, and repeated by Iranians of this site! And, now you're even surprised at Iraqi use of Chemical Weapons!! you should just look at the HISTORICAL FACTS and documents:

From Sep 1980 that Iraq attcked Iran until the final Resolution 598 of 1987, which Iran finally accepted, none of the UNSC resolution either accepted Iraq as the aggressor who initiated the war, nor the party who used chemical weapons (the 2 condictions that Iran requested repeatedly from UN).

While Iraq was INSIDE Iran, the resolutions like 479 demanded cease fire (that is Iraq borders be defined by the territory captured from Iran!) The first time that a demand was made to return to international borders was when Iran actually went INSIDE IRAQ.  

And even in 1986, when Iran captured FAW Island, and it made the west and Arabs worried about Kuwait, US in resolutions 582 and 588 of 1986 refused to accept Iraq as the culprit in initiation or use of the weapons, thus any war reparation to Iran.

Yet, from 1983 US knew that Saddam is using chemical weapons against Iran, (since they partly provided it to him!,) but according to the now declassified documents, US policy was to help Iraq defeat Iran regardless of CW treaties,  way before Rumsfeld trip to Baghdad in 1984. You can slook up Reagn's declassified National Security Directive  of March 1982, (NSSM4-82), and april 1984 (NSDD139) to that account.

For US knowledge of Iraqi use of Chemical weapons on Iran, in the following link from the National Security Archives, click on document #24. Read just the douments, not the narratives of the link.

//www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

thanks Jaleh

Jaleh thanks for your reply. Although I find your position on some issues extreme, I appreciate you exposing AIPAC and extremist Zionists. The fact of the matter is that absolute majority of Israelis and pro Israelis would be very happy to see Iranians turn to desperate people like Iraqis, and Afghanis.
Even Many Americans including those whom we cheered for when they came to power (Democrats), could care less if Iran tuns into another Afghanistan as long as that does not have any economic impact on them...
I could care less about Islam but that is the bitter truth.

I am DISGUSTED!

Who was it who told me "don't worry about Lieberman, he won't become a dog catcher even?!" Mark in my other blog "The great clor-blind America!"

See, although the unimaginable that was planned for the American public, to shove Lieberman as the head of Defense Department, is out now, but the rat was voted to keep his Chairmanship of Homeland Security!!

He should have been just thrown out like a dirty rag, not given the dog-catcher job like you said! This is not the wish of American people!

This is the power of Israeli-Occupied-Congress! When will the American people get angry enough to stop this?

meybokhor, Realist

Thanks again Meybokhor. I always thought Prince of Darkness is from another movie like Star Wars, but Dracula makes so much sense. It has been used more widely and matches a classic like Dracula.  I have heard it used for Richard Perle, but aslo a CNN person.

Realist, how ironically true, Security of Homeland, Israel!

Homeland security

You write:
"Lieberman's fate for homeland security chair is being discussed today."

Well I think it would be a marvelous idea and that he would do his outmost to ophold the security of his homeland: Israel.

Prince of Darkness

Prince of Darkness is a title for Dracula. Palpatine is called the Dark Lord.

Just so you know, I am not a movies fanatic so my knowledge is limited and mostly aided by what I search and find on the net.

But Joe Lieberman's case is not unique. Here in Denmark, we have a woman politician who started her career in an ultra left wing (bordering militarist) party in the 80's. Then switched to Social Democrats some 15 years ago. Now she is a member of the right wing Venstre party. She advocates tougher measures against foreigners in Denmark, supports Bush's wars, and her husband is the editor of the newspaper that first solicited and published the infamous Mohammad cartoons. Go figure.

Thank you meybokhor!

That's so funny. I have heard about many things of star wars, like dearth -vader (sp?) and the dark side. But, have not seen it myself. Thanks for the clarification. The pictures are amazingly similar :-)

Hey, now that you're the star war expert, is "prince of darkness" also a character of the movie?

If you can your Star Wars

If you can your Star Wars, then you know that Palpatine had succumbed to the "dark side" -- and the resembelance, both physical and character-wise is breathtaking. From Wikipedia:

"Palpatine is a fictional character in George Lucas's science fiction saga Star Wars. The character ... is the true main antagonist of the saga; introduced in the original trilogy as the Emperor of the Galactic Empire, an aged, cowled and pale-faced figure, who rises to power in the prequel trilogy through deception and treachery as a middle-aged politician of the Republic."

meybokor

Could you quit mardom-azari and explain what the photo means?

PS. Lieberman's fate for homeland security chair is being discussed today.

:)

//billandkent.com/blog/blogimages/liberman-palpatin-082206.jpg

Anonymous7

For the sake of clarity, let's separate two issues:

1. I have mentioned the  historical observation of Israel's creation by the help of western powers as a military base in the Middle East for their own use; and the historical origin of Zionism as a colonial and apartheid movement. The combination of these two and the subsequent events of WWII gave more ammunition to the establishment of state of Israel, yet the Zionist element of it has been trying to expand its territory to "Greater Israel," as it has been Zionist goal from the very start.

I have mentioned that because of its innate nature, Israel as a last pillar of apartheid and colonialism won't last, neither would its "special relation" with the US.

2. Iran's relationship with Israel.

First, No. 1 above, does not mean that by some end-of-time magic the Israeli people or anything physical in Israel would vanish all of a sudden. Neither would it mean that one can hasten it, as you think I am suggesting, it is just a historical observation to make further conclusion from. 

It can mean a change of social order in parts similar to what happened in South Africa. In fact, the birth of Israel historically coincides with the laws of apartheid in South Africa becoming the rule of land. But, by 1990s those laws were abolished, and many other good things came out of South Africa, including its voluntary undoing of its nuclear arsenal and joining NPT. Hopefully, the end of apartheid and a better social order in Israel would bring that particular benefit to the region too!

But again, in South Africa, the end of apartheid did not mean that the White Afrikaners who went to South Africa originally disappeared all of a sudden. The 10% minority still hold a good amount of political power and wealth of the country, although a gradual distribution has started by abolishing laws like "blacks can't own land." Hopefully in Israel too, there won't be this overt "Jewish only"  mentality, Jewish settlements built on home and gardens of natives, the avarice of Jewish Company to buy by force/or confiscate land for Jews-only, and enforcement of segregation laws by things like the separation wall would end.

Regionally and internationally Israel probably would have to cease all illegal activities made possible by western(mainly US) support, military, economic, and political help. That would mean an end to wars like Israel has done against all its neighbors, land confiscation and occupation by force.

In fact, these changes would be great for all countries in the region and for war-tired Israelis who prefer to live in peace, justice and security rather than crazy expansionist ideals of classical Zionism.

2. Iran's official opposition to Israel has nothing to do with Palestinians per se, beyond the typical care that many other people around the world have for Palestinian cause. (Although I disagree with you, majority of Iranians are extremely sympathetic to Palestinian casue, you should have seen them right after Lebanon war, Nasrrollah was admired like God-heor. They were like that in Shah's time too, Iran-Israel football game was a classic example).

It is rather because of Iran becoming a rising power in the region which opposes the status quo desired by the western powers:
to keep Israel as the regional hegemon at any cost.

That's why there is such a big opposition to any advancement of Iran by the western powers, be it the missile technology, the nuclear technology, defense industry, or space technology. Iran has been and would continue to get sanctions and hurdles to be prevented of replacing Israel as the regional power. There lies the conflict between Iran-Israel.

This is what I call a bankrupt policy which won't last as the "special relation" of US-Israel which has been kept artificially by AIPAC is unrealistic. Iran IS a powerful country of 70 million, a capable public, and now has an independent foreign policy, and an oil wealth much needed by the rest of the world. No amount of sanctions will make Iran bend to give up its rights. And, it is going to be so costly for the US to prevent Iran from achieving its full potential, that the effort can basically bankrupt US before breaking Iran!

The core of my conclusion is: time for break-up of US-Israel special relation is overdue. That "specialn relation" is by now illogical, unsustainable, bad for America and bad for Israel. Friendly US-Iran relation is good for America, good for Iran, and good for the region as the US can use Iran's help in stabilizing not only Iraq and Afghanistan, but the south Asian countries.

It is not IF, but when US decides that time for sacking AIPAC's power has come, then US will accept Iran as a main power in the Middle East, and will initiate a relationship based on mutual respect, rather than arbab-nokar that it had with Iran during Shah's time. Naturally, a lot of Israelis-Americans of AIPAC in particular in the military-industrial complex would oppose this as they'd lose their bread and butter. But, majority of Israelis won't.

Put aside his treachery during the election.... he's still bad

He doesn't deserve this position. Lieberman proved himself incompetent for this job. I'll give an example. Katrina, he blocked and decided against investigating the administration for Katrina failures. Ok that's weird. A big disaster, dead people, bad bad communication, let's find out wtf happened!

He didn't want to investigate the false reports being put out by some in congress - republicans - about "thwarted terrorist attempts" which were strangely being promoted before 2004 and 2006 elections. WHAT A DOUCHE BAG. Does not protect the people or the good of the country. Get him ou! 

So what .... now Jaleh?

Jaleh, It seems to me that in a nutshell you argue that Israel has served its purpose for the west. Assuming you are right, that does not mean Israel is going to cease to exists. Israel will continue to be there not only because Israelis are doing very well in many areas (Telecom, satellite, medical, military ... technology) but also because Israel has a strong support among Jews outside Israel, and even ultra right Christians.
On the other hand IRI support for those groups that oppose Israel will be inevitably gone, because Iranian public, Muslim and non Muslim does not relate to the Palestinian cause, I was in Iran not long ago and I could see that very clearly.
If it is jabre_tArikh, that Israel has to go, leave it to history ... Iran and Israel don't have any border and we should not be so passionately involved in anti Israeli rhetoric. Israel is a reckless nuclear power and Iran should put in place the strongest deterrence, at the same time talk to her or at least stop irritating her.

Jaleho Aziz

This will also be my last post regarding this subject and I don't expect a reply. I did not mean to go off tangent but you made many statements regarding Lieberman, The Congress, AIPAC & Jewish power....and its impossible to be brief in responses to such subjects because they all have a long history...

You may think my points were "irrelevant" and you are entitled to such view.

However, just to clarify:

1) Its seems that we are in agreement with regards to AIPAC- They do "have great power" as you state above. I don't know where you get "not as much as people like you advertise" part. I think I made it clear that with or without AIPAC, the US will do what is good for the US- Like any nation will. The US has done this to other allies. The Shah was one example, the Kurds and Shiites in Gulf War 1 as you stated were another.

2) I also agree with you that "Israel is a servant of the United States". I do not agree with your logic and reasoning for arriving at this conclusion. I think your reasoning and logic is way off. Notwithstanding, Israel is not the only "servant" of the US so I don't know if that is such a bad position for Israel to be in at the moment. The economic statistics speak for them selves.

3) I do not agree with "The US objective in the Middle East since Iran's revolution has been to defeat Iranian revolution". Again, this statement can cause me to write a lot and I'd rather not. My hand hurts and I am going in for carpal tunnel surgery on Wednesday:))) Lets just say that a normal revolution takes only a few years and people get over it and move on. This Iranian revolution has been the longest revolution in history. The only ones who like to talk about the revolution, 30 YEARS AFTER, are these Mullahs who have done more to defeat the "revolution" than the Americans ever did. You are well aware that there was a revolution within a revolution in 1979 & 1980 which had to do with Khomeini consolidating power and getting rid of all other elements that participated in the revolution. Lets just stop there and agree to disagree. Future history will prove one of us right.

4) I understand your statements about Israel. Thank you for your clarification. I do agree with you that there is an element of racism by certain Jewish groups who think "greater Israel" is a god given right. However, I think there is a reason behind Israel's madness and actions in the occupied territories in the past 40 years. The general position of the Palestinians and Arabs has changed in the past 40 years (maybe not in the street so much but the governments). You are well aware that after 1967, at the Khartoum conference, the Arab position was 1)No negotiations with Israel, 2) No recognition of Israel & 3) No Peace with Israel. This hardball stance was met in kind by the Israelis who started occupying the territories they had captured (Sinai, Golan, West Bank & Gaza). My point is that the settlement were used as a negotiating tool to change Arab position. It has worked. As ugly as the Israeli position maybe, it has worked and now you even have the Saudi's offering to leave in peace with Israel based on the 67 borders. The big problem is how to deal with the ugliness that Israel has created in allowing many of these religious zealots to actually think that this occupation was a god given right. Thank god these zealots are only a minority.

Thanks for the good dialogue.

Dear Hooshie,

No, I am not trying to be funny. I stated my opinion regarding Rahm in my other blog:

//iranian.com/main/blog/jaleho/great-color-blind-america

Have a nice weekend all. I took much more time than I intended on this blog, sorry will not check it for a while. Thanks for your responds.

Dear Iranian Jew,

I understand that you would like very much to convert the attention of the content of this blog, which is, "Lieberman is an ugly war-monger and he should be removed from the post of Homeland Security Chairmanship in a new government mandate for change," and I might add that is a very common tactic, but....

You really don't have to bring out all of the previous wars in history, and with each extremely long post add some more elaborate history to the list of your question, each of which deserve many books, and are already debated at length. For example the role of AIPAC in the Iraqi war has by now become one of the most discussed and PROVEN facts in recent years! May I simply refer you to the great book by Walt and Mearsheimer, if there is an answer that those legendary guys, with meticulous references, can not answer you, I certainly can't!!

If you're trying to challenge my patience at long writings, I throw towel for you. But, since almost all your comments and questions has a meaningful, yet irrelevant point, I will answer to the NEW parts that you have added and I thus I have not tackled before.

In particular, now you're talking about Bush I war against Saddam, and there is indeed a lot of misconceptions about it, exactly the ones you're printing here:

 If you are trying to say that Iran or Syria were the unintended benefactors of the war against Iraq you are wrong again. In 1992, when Bush 1 was deep into Iraqi territory, he was pushed by the same people (Wolfowitz & Pearl) to overthrow Saddam. They presented him with essentially the same game plan as they presented to Bush II. Bush 1 told them to take a hike because he knew he would change the balance of power visa vis IRI and its neighbors. Bush 1 did not want to do that at the time. What happened? You had 10 years of BS sanctions with Saddam making tons of money for himself and consolidating power and people like you screaming that Americans were baby killers for all the Iraqi children who were dying as a result of the Sanctions. 9/11 changed the story and Bush II decided to change the regime. Now you are partially right about the BS with regards to the WMD's but no one knew if it was 100% true or not since Saddam wanted people to think that he had them as a deterrent as well. Regardless of WMD's or not, the US would have overthrown Saddam post 9/11. 9/11 was the catalyst. WMD's was just the excuse. A bad excuse since nothing was found as will all know. Regardless, if Bush 1 knew that overthrowing Saddam would change the balance in favor of the IRI you think Bush 2 didn't? They knew from the start that there was going to be a Shiite majority ruling Iraq. Who was it going to favor? The Israelis? I already stated that the Israeli were in favor of this but so were the British, the Italians, the Polish. Were all of these countries part of the Neocon agenda you talk about? Poland has an AIPAC lobby? The British are controlled by Zionists and AIPAC? We all know that the Bush's did it for oil and America power in the region; even if Saddam was not involved in any terrorism America wanted to be a bully post 9/11. Why? I think it had a lot to do with the Russians and French. Assume the US would leave the area post 9/11 and let Saddam be. The sanctions would be lifted and Iraq could sell oil freely. What would Iraq do under Saddam? What would the Russians do? You think the Russians would not arm the Iraqis again for money? You think the French wouldn't sell to them in a few years again for money? Did the Sanctions work in Iraq after 10 years? So you would potentially have a rearmed Saddam after a few years and he would be playing the same games with the Kuwaities, the IRI and Saudis- effecting the world's oil supply in favor of the Russians. America did not want this post 9/11. My point is that the Neocons and AIPAC were one element (out of many elements) that supported this. There were many other elements- more important elements than just Neocons and AIPAC as far as the US was concerned. You trying to make this war an exclusive Neocon or AIPAC agenda is very dishonest and immature unless your real point is to prove that again JEWS control this country. "

Few points that would help you understand my position on this, although you claim you have read my "ugly opinion" on this site, yet your writing indicates that haven't, So let me repeat my "ugly opinion again":

I do believe that AIPAC has great power, but not as much as people like you advertise. I have made that clear by stating it in the offensive format of "Israel is only the US condom in the Middle East to have safe sex with Arab oil and limit Soviet influence in the region, and with the fall of Soviet Union, it is high time for the US to throw Israel in the historical toilet where it belongs." That is, I have stated that western powers have installed Israel as a military base in the region, used it to keep Soviets in check in the region, and post soviet disintegration,  Israel has become a liability for the US rather than the good servant it used to be.

Furthermore, I have stated that the reason that US still keeps the "special relations" with Israel, is because AIPAC's unhealthy power in the US government, military and legal establishments has artificially extended the life of US-Israel relation as before, but that won't last and is bound to fail!

Now, you're telling me that "if AIPAC was so all-powerful, why didn't BushI listen to Wolfowitz and Perle and remove Saddam in 1991 for Israel's sake. Because like I said, Israel is the servant of US not the other way around! You might not like this fact, the same way that you did not like when I strongly showed that unlike the AIPAC propaganda of Lieberman being a good reason for Gore getting a lot of votes, his getting no vote when he ran alone proved the opposite!

Now here's the reality: The US objective in the Middle East since Iran's revolution, has been to defeat Iranian revolution, and if failed to do so, at least  keep Iranian revolution from spreading to other oil-producing countries in the region. That is, to keep a status quo.

Saddam turned out to be too dangerous following Iran-Iraq war for the stability of region, in particular Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The US knew exactly how much they themselves had armed Saddam to defeat Iran. So, when he failed, and Iraq was at the verge of imminent unrest among its Shiite and Kurdish population, that is a revolution a la Iran in Iraq, US monitored the stability of Hussein's regime very closely. Every year of 1980s there has been the now revealed documents (which you can look from the National Security Archives--declassified documents), the possibility of his being able to stand his own population or a palace coup has been assessed.

BushI invaded Iraq to keep Saddam in check after the massive amount of Chemical weapons they knew they had provided to him, to keep Kuwait and Saudi safe. But, they did not want to remove Saddam simply because they had no better man in sight who would beat his own Shiite and Kurdish rebels!!

BushI encouraged Kurds and Shiites to rebel against Saddam, and then let him massacre the rebels and create the so-called mass graves!!

By 2003, the reports were clear that Saddam can fall any time under his own rebellious Shiite and Kurdish resurgent population, and the US used the 9/11 excuse to do the heavy damage-control by invading and occupying Iraq themselves, as there was no US-friendly alternative inside Iraq. Neo-conservatives promised the US that the AIPAC agents like Chalabi would be a stable US- friendly substitute, and they twisted and created false information to that account.

Now my fingers are really tired. If you have long questions again, can you start a blog and break your questions to short ones?

The Zionist question I have tackled more than enough, when I reminded you, that your problem is repeating of "Jews who believe Israel should EXIST," in which I stated that is the same line used by people who talk as if "Palestinians are pushing Jews to the sea, "with implication of equating those who are not Zionist are opposed to existence of Israeli people!

People like Noam Chomsky are both Jews and Zionists, yet when asked about "existence of Israel," he can separate between the essence of the question posed:

"existence of Israel within WHICH BORDER?!" 

In that sense, you can consider me a Zionist too, cause not only I don't believe Jews have the right to stay alive, I even believe that two wrongs won't make a right and Jews who have made a home in Israel should not be removed just because Palestinians were removed from their homes. That also does not mean that I am blind to the historical documents of Zionism as a racist colonial movement. However, the question of the expanded settlements, with the original stated policy of rabid Zionists like Begin who have worked since the inception of Israel till now in EXPANDING Israeli territory to what they call "Greater Israel,"which includes" Judea and Samaria," In their racist language, and is called West Bank for the rest of the non- Zionist people of the world, and which includes Chomsky and all of the "many many Jews" that I quoted in my former post...is not equivalent to the question of does Israel have a right to exist, the way you have made it the center of your propaganda!

This would be my last answer to you here. Thanks for the good dialogue though.

Oh Marge, you are creating work for me!

You said to bijan,

"You are so paranoid. However, You get extra points this time, for mentioning TROTSKY my favorite ever ;)"

Boy, of the Finklestein, Marx, Chomsky and Trotsky that he Bijan referred as proof of my being a Jew-hater, Trotsky is my favorite Jew  too :-)

Now the trouble is that I am forced to check out who Alex Trebeck is and see if he's a Jew too, casue by extension I might have an-unknown crush on him too! 

Please tell me it ain't so, since I have already been thanking God for sending Stephen Cobert so that Jon Stewart won't be my all time favorite comedian :-) :-)

So Jaleho, what’s the answer?

Is there such a thing as a good Zionist?.

Sorry if my posts are empty and offer zero information. You know, I have not read all the informative literature that you are so proud of, but it is not required to read a lot to have common sense. You don’t need to read volumes to know that energy (especially fossil fuel, for at least another generation) is the life line of modern civilization as you know it. This in a nut-shell should explain the heart of Middle East’s policy of the west. We cannot afford risking our lives in the hands of blackmailers and fundamentalists. Period. Iranian Jew has eluded to this more eloquently. Then, please stop this nonsense about conspiracy of Zionists and AIPAC, etc to take control of the US. In this process you end up revealing your true prejudice. If you use the slightest amount of common sense you will see beyond the religion.

When it comes to Israel and her existence, you are armed with enough ammunitions to condemn many of that government’s policies. Billions of people who believe in human rights, including many bhudists, Bahiis, Christians, Jews, Zionists, communists, …support you in that criticism. But, what happens to Palestinian’s responsibility in all this?  Fair-is fair. If you say you agree to the right of Israel to exist, then they should have the right to protect their citizens. And, we don’t want to open up that can of worm again and start the same debate that had been going on endlessly on this site.

One more childish statement and I salute you and get out of your blog. Remember, we are all fighting for a peaceful and prosperous existence and survival. We are only human.

Have a great day.

BTW. Are you and "Observer" one and the same?

With Rahm Emmanuel at the helm who cares about Liberman!

I really don't know what you guys are bickering about. Obama's number one man, his closest confidant, Rahm Emmanuel is not only his chief of staff but the chief Zionist protagonsit in Obama's camp. Son of an Israeli terrorist, Benjamin M. Emmanuel who was a member of the Irgun, an underground terror organization in Palestine under the British rule, Rahm Emmanuel volunteered with the Israeli (not the US) army in 1991. He has strong links with the Likud party and much more.

 Are you guys, including the author of this post, trying to be funny?

BTW - I am not anti-zionist!

We are sick of Israel and her defenders everywhere

no matter if they are on the iranian.com website, the US senate or the white house. It's not just about what they are doing against palestinians, Iranians, muslims or Arabs. It's about taking our country, United States of America down with their anti human policy, by manipulating our political system, information system, media and political system. It's about pushing us into unwanted wars for their racist ideology. We are sick of Israel, zionists and her defenders. Period.

What was iranian.com without samsam and you?

Thank you for reminding me why I never want to be a Republican. The only thing I like about you is your antiques collection. The rest of you is a doomsayer. You are so paranoid. However, You get extra points this time, for mentioning TROTSKY my favorite ever ;)

I don’t know what this site will turn into without the voices of people like yourself, Mr. Kadivar, Salar, Zion, Kaveh N., Samsam, Mr. Rashidian,  Azarin, Chicago dad, 

My friends, this site will turn into a cauldron of Hamas and communism paradise! I can't wait!

Love you Bijan,

Marge 

XerXes

More and more you sound like our beloved resident "haji agha", a little "Ergh e melli" would not hurt anyone, I promise!

The hell with God damned  Plestinians when your own God damned house is burning into the ashes,.....( IF ) that's your house! ( I doubted that XERXES "Kabla ee Abol Fazl") !!!!!!!

May I recommend you to read this book " 1984 " by George Orwell?

Your beloved government always NEED an enemy, no matter who, and when there's none, they'll CREAT one...for sure...LOL

 Grow up!

Zionism is racism, who says so? United Nations say so, period.

Zionists and their defenders have mistaken the real world with Hollywood movie scripts. Look at what zionists have done to the people of Middle East, to the Palestinians to the Iraqis, to the blacks of South Africa when the blacks were ruled by the racist Europeans and Israel was the only country in the world defending the white colonialist. How can anybody call himself a human being and a zionist at the same time? Dogs and wild animals have more rights than the Palestinians in their own land. What's there to prove? Facts about the atrocites of zionist are clear.

Jaleho- Please Answer the questions

And stop putting words in my mouth. You made specific statements that you are now avoiding because either you don't have an answer to or don't want to answer.

1) If you are trying to say that Iran or Syria were the unintended benefactors of the war against Iraq you are wrong again. In 1992, when Bush 1 was deep into Iraqi territory, he was pushed by the same people (Wolfowitz & Pearl) to overthrow Saddam. They presented him with essentially the same game plan as they presented to Bush II. Bush 1 told them to take a hike because he knew he would change the balance of power visa vis IRI and its neighbors. Bush 1 did not want to do that at the time. What happened? You had 10 years of BS sanctions with Saddam making tons of money for himself and consolidating power and people like you screaming that Americans were baby killers for all the Iraqi children who were dying as a result of the Sanctions. 9/11 changed the story and Bush II decided to change the regime. Now you are partially right about the BS with regards to the WMD's but no one knew if it was 100% true or not since Saddam wanted people to think that he had them as a deterrent as well. Regardless of WMD's or not, the US would have overthrown Saddam post 9/11. 9/11 was the catalyst. WMD's was just the excuse. A bad excuse since nothing was found as will all know. Regardless, if Bush 1 knew that overthrowing Saddam would change the balance in favor of the IRI you think Bush 2 didn't? They knew from the start that there was going to be a Shiite majority ruling Iraq. Who was it going to favor? The Israelis? I already stated that the Israeli were in favor of this but so were the British, the Italians, the Polish. Were all of these countries part of the Neocon agenda you talk about? Poland has an AIPAC lobby? The British are controlled by Zionists and AIPAC? We all know that the Bush's did it for oil and America power in the region; even if Saddam was not involved in any terrorism America wanted to be a bully post 9/11. Why? I think it had a lot to do with the Russians and French. Assume the US would leave the area post 9/11 and let Saddam be. The sanctions would be lifted and Iraq could sell oil freely. What would Iraq do under Saddam? What would the Russians do? You think the Russians would not arm the Iraqis again for money? You think the French wouldn't sell to them in a few years again for money? Did the Sanctions work in Iraq after 10 years? So you would potentially have a rearmed Saddam after a few years and he would be playing the same games with the Kuwaities, the IRI and Saudis- effecting the world's oil supply in favor of the Russians. America did not want this post 9/11. My point is that the Neocons and AIPAC were one element (out of many elements) that supported this. There were many other elements- more important elements than just Neocons and AIPAC as far as the US was concerned. You trying to make this war an exclusive Neocon or AIPAC agenda is very dishonest and immature unless your real point is to prove that again JEWS control this country.

Accordingly, your following statement about me or Zionists is without merit.

"Now, Iranian Jew is trying to dismiss the fact that Zionists were the designers of the war by claiming that Iran turned out to be a beneficiary of the war, do you see the demogoguery now?!! Iranians did NOT plan the war, your UNWANTED failure happened to make them stronger!"

Again, I already stated below that the Israelis and AIPAC were for this invasion. Saddam was their enemy. However, this was only one of many elements supporting this invasion. If the US today said that they wanted to invade the IRI, this same group would support it as well. The IRI is the enemy of the Zionists as stated by Ayatollah Khomeini from day one. However, the US would not be invading for Zionist interest as you would like us to think. The US would be invading for USA's interest.

As to putting words in my mouth:

1) Where did I say that I believe in the propaganda of "Palestinians are pushing Jews into the sea."? Where? Can you show us? Just because I'm Jewish and I also believe in Israel's right to exist, I believe in this propaganda?

2) Where did I say that I do "not believe in Israeli crimes" as you accused me? Where? Can you show me and the readers where I stated as such?

3) You say that you gave Me "the example of "many many" others good Jews". And I said that almost all the examples you gave me were JEWS THAT WERE ZIONISTS WHO WERE OPPOSING ISRAELI POLICIES. You copied and paseted Zionist groups in opposition to Israeli policies. Do you get it?

Jaleho, you tried to make a distinction between "Jews" and Zionists" in Addressing Bijan AM. You made a blanket statement: Jews Good, Zionist bad. You stated:

"I guess one problem is that you don't assume people to have enough intelligence to distinguish between Judaism and Zionism, most do"

Jaleho, for the 3rd time I ask you, Assuming "Zionism is a Colonial Scheme" I stated that 95%+ of world's 14 million Jews support the existence of Israel. And I asked you specific questions which you conveniently avoided again.

I asked you if you considered these 95%+ of the world's 14 million Jews who support Israel's right to exist as Zionists or not? Well are they or not? And why yes or no? Especially since over 50% of the world jewish population now lives in Israel and supports Israel? How do you distinguish between Jews and Zionists when 95% support the idea of a Jewish Israeli state (what you call a "Colonial Scheme" 60 years after its creation)?

You avoided the question and listed websites that are fighting against the occupation, fighting for human rights violations by Israelis, fighting for peace. Almost all the sites you listed were Zionist sites that believe Israel has a right to exist side by side by Palestinians. Go and read some of the sites you copied and pasted.

Again you stated "many Jews are in the forefront of fight against Zionism, like anyone else who cares about justice". But almost all the sites you gave us were sites of Zionist Jews who support Zionism and oppose Israels policies.

And Again, I stated "I am a Jew who believes in the right of Israel to exist, am I a Zionist?" I also believe that "Israel abuses Palestinians and that Palestinians deserve their own state". Am I a Zionist still? Am I a good Zionist or bad Zionist? Are there any good Zionists Jaleho? If not, why did you give us these Zionist sites? Do you have other statistics or different ways to separate the world's 14 million Jews from Zionists? Please let us have the Stats. My point is that your attempted separation/differentiation between Jews & Zionists are meaningless.

Finally, I did not attempt to make you sound like Hitler. You made yourself sound like Hitler by making the following statements:

"the Jewish population is less than 2% in this country and they have the most over bloated representation in the congress, and all of the political and legal instruments of the US, the one and only minority with such a powerful over-representation."

You also argue for the differentiation between Zionism and Judaism just like Mr. Amhadinejad and the IRI do when convenient.

Should we transfer the Jews from Israel to Austria, Alaska and other regions of the world as Mr. Ahmadinejad proposes?

I already stated that you have a right to oppose AIPAC policies or Zionist policies. There is nothing wrong with that. You also have a right to say that Israel has no right to exist. I really could care less even though you are asking for a war as a result- But that is your right to argue. However, there is something wrong with the way that you argue it as evidenced above. I also have seen your other writings here with the same type of tone and dirty rhetoric. Would you like me to copy and paste them for you? Many people have stated this about you. I am not the first.

What's there to prove? Israel is the last remaining anti-human

regime in the world. What are we arguing about? Just read the daily news. Today the Israel did not let the European paliment members to enter Gaza. Can you belive it? We are talking about a racist regime that has imprisoned 1.5 million people. A regime that has bombed and destroyed a whole nation systematically. What is there to argue about? Zionist jews are worse than Nazists. That's what I and billions of other people believe.

Bijan,

Sorry, I am too sleepy to be polite enough to respond to your empty post, it has a zero information value. But I just got curious on your recommendation to me:

" You, go-ahead and read all finklestein, Chomsky, Trotsky, Marx,….or whoever you want. All that does will get you deeper and deeper in the hate filled hole you have dug for yourself. "

Did you intentionally pick all those Jews for me to make me even more hateful, or you simply didn't  know? :-)  

Couldn't help play on your weak knee about my being condescending :-)

Good night.

Kurush, Iranian Jew

OK, I typed so much, maybe I was a bit stingy on typing more at the expense of not being very clear, tired, you know. But part of the problem is the unfortunate attempt of Iranian Jew  to confuse a very obvious point which frankly I am not sure if he really doesn't understand it, or it is an intentional effort on his part! So Kurush, please don't allow the circular demogoguery get the better of you! I'll try again on the point both of you were not clear about, hoping that it was my shortcoming in making it clear:

YES, Iran did come out stronger because of the US failure in Iraq. But, it was not because either US or Israel planned it that way, is this clear?!! Think logically about decisions made prior to war, and the uncontrolled results afterwards. The outcomes does not mean that those who planned the war had decided on those outcomes, quite the contrary!

We are talking about a neo-conservative group in the US, a large number of them being the pro-Israel Zionists who played a major role to push the US go for the war. These people like Wolfowitz, Perle, and Feith in Penatagon invented lies to deceive the American people and led them to the war, and many Zionists in the media who planted the WMD lies like Judith Miller, and Iraqi expats like Chalabi and Kanan makyia who collaborated with AIPAC prior to the war.

Richarde Perle's slogan before the Iraq war to encourage Americans for an immediate follow up attack on Iran was:

"Everyone can go to Baghdad, Real men go to Tehran!"

The neo-conservative ideology turned out to be so WRONG that some of its fathers like Fukuyama and Makiya openly accepted that they made a mistake.

That is, a conjecure was advertised by the neo-cons on the outcome of Iraq war (Makiya proclaimed that if you attack Iraq, Iraqis would embrace us with open arms- later he agreed that Bush killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did), that conjecture was sold to American people by twisting intelligence, implanting WMD lies and the outcome of the war was an abject failure of its designers.

Now, Iranian Jew is trying to dismiss the fact that Zionists were the designers of the war by claiming that Iran turned out to be a beneficiary of the war, do you see the demogoguery now?!! Iranians did NOT plan the war, your UNWANTED failure happened to make them stronger!

Similarly, I leave it to the readers to decide if they find my argument that Lieberman was hurtful to Gore in Gore/Lieberman ticket or not. Lieberman ran for president ALONE and got the most pathetic number of votes, you wanna twist that FACT by what Dan Quayle blah blah Joe Biden blah blah.., go ahead.

And Iranian Jew, you made light of my comment about "many Jews" being in the forefront of fighting the evils of Zionism, and asked if there are "many" like Neturei Karta, or if I consider Finklestein and Chomsky as good Jews. I gave you the example of "many many" others good Jews, as excellent as Chomsky or Finklestein,  who unlike you do not believe in the propaganda of "Palestinians are pushing Jews into the sea." They don't talk about exsistence of Israel as if those who oppose Israeli policies want to destroy Israeli people, and they are in the forefront of fighting Israeli crimes. You simply do not believe in Israel crimes though, do you?

Finally on your attempt to make me sound like Hitler by this question:

"Finally, why you avoided addressing my questions re your statements about the Jewish "over bloated representation in the congress"? Why do you have an issue with this? Do you think its another Jewish conspiracy?"

 I did not avoid answering you, I already made it very clear in my first comment to Bijan who was talking about "Jewsih blood," that the Zionist power in the US has nothing to do with "Jewsih blood," it has everything to do with AIPAC's power. And, to answer your other question, yes, I do have a problem with AIPAC's power. Lobbies are part of US political system, but AIPAC undermines the American interest for the interest of another country, Israel. Not that is not a kosher Lobby, it is like a fifth column sucking the blood out of America and spies for a foreign power!

What a difference 24 hours make?.....

I’ve been out for about 24 hours and come back to see these posts… (some, earth shattering).

Desi: I sincerely appreciate your fair and unprejudiced response. Whether I agree or disagree with your view points, I respect your opinion and am grateful for your civilized tone. Thanks.

Jaleho: First of all, I did not appreciate the condescending tone of your response. Secondly, I don’t know what I said, but I am glad that I touched the right button for you to show your true face. Spilling out your guts… your hate and prejudice filled guts. I said I’m illiterate, but I still can read and comprehend and have enough common sense to differentiate between rational reasoning and hate filled slogans. You are not the only one on this site who thinks the more you read the hate filled articles in support of your distorted views, the more you earn the right to be arrogant and self-righteous.

You are so blinded by hate that you can’t see your statement about over-representation defies the concept of democracy. Are you suggesting that there is no rule of law in this land? Are you saying United State is not a democracy? What are you trying to prove?

You can flash all publications and web sites that you like, it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans if every one of those sources are not dissected to the core and then related to the root of the debate. Are you advocating destruction of Israel? Are you against the existence of a Jewish State? If your answer is yes, then you are out of touch with reality.  You don’t want peace. You are the war monger. You are the one who causes us spending our tax dollars to make sure that you stay in touch with reality. You belong to the same club as Hassan Abassi and Ahmadinejad.

You gripe quite a bit about your tax dollars, but you have absolutely no clue that your life line depends on a stable, non-radical middle east. This nation will never allow being blackmailed and starved to death by a bunch of radical fundamentalists. You, go-ahead and read all finklestein, Chomsky, Trotsky, Marx,….or whoever you want. All that does will get you deeper and deeper in the hate filled hole you have dug for yourself.

You demonstrated how shallow you are by your response to “iranian jew”. Jumping all over the place and twisting the arguments is the sign of desperation and weakness. You are better off keeping quiet. The more you talk the more you expose yourself (I mean your hate-filled self).

Iranian Jew: Thank you for your reasoned, logical, full of common sense and very defendable post. These debates need more of your realistic, fair, and balanced views.

I don’t know what this site will turn into without the voices of people like yourself, Mr. Kadivar, Salar, Zion, Kaveh N., Samsam, Mr. Rashidian,  Azarin, Chicago dad, ….and of course Mr. Javid the publisher.

Thanks again for taking the time to post. Please don’t let comments like XerXes’ discourage you.