Jewish Problem in Tehran
article is extremely naive and one-sided. Believing that the Arab world will
be peaceful if left alone is as naive as Dubya's thinking Americans would be
viewed a liberators in Iraq. It completely ignores the the history of the region
and its leaders.
Simply look at
the Iraq-Iran war to see how brutal the region is. Or, for a more up to date
example, look at Hamas' murder of Fatah prisoners.
As far as Israel's
treatment of Arabs, one has to wonder what the U.S. would do if Mexican freedom
fighters blew themselves up in southern California markets demanding the return
of what is now the U.S. Southwest. It is doubtful the response would be nearly
as restrained as Israel's.
Down to the specifics.
The article states:
is an interesting problem with selling the 'Iran as Nazi Germany' line. If Ahmadinejad
really is Hitler, ready to commit genocide against Israel's Jews as soon as
he can get his hands on a nuclear weapon, why are some 25,000 Jews living peacefully
in Iran and more than reluctant to leave despite repeated enticements from Israel
and American Jews?"
shows a complete lack of understanding of history.
Destruction of the European Jews, Raul Hilberg established what today
has become orthodoxy in Holocaust historiography: the increasingly intensifying
historical stages leading to genocide. Nazi Germany's persecution of Jews, Hilberg
argued, began relatively mildly through political-legal discrimination and the
appropriation of Jewish assets (1933-39). Then followed ghettoization: the isolation
of Jews in, and their confinement to, ghettoes (1939-41). The final stage, Hilberg
concluded, was the destruction itself, the continental annihilation of European
such as Ahmadinejad should be taken seriously. In fact the world's response
to such statements may well have saved the Jews in Iran.
If the world had
responded in such a fashion to Hitler, instead of the shameful St.
Louis affair, history would have been very different.
~ Mark R.
to start? As in most examples of Western racism, Mark's starting point is that
Arabs (and he presumably includes Persians, too) are biologically or culturally
prone to violence, with the barely concealed implication that they are therefore
inferior to "us." So when left to themselves, the Arabs plunge into fighting
– unlike the West, of course, which when left to itself launched two "world
Mark also ignores
the well-known role played by the U.S. in encouraging, and arming, both Iraq
and Iran during their war of the 1980s, doubtless with the U.S. hoping that
the two countries would exhaust each other and thereby be prevented from posing
a threat to America's two regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, the latter
nominally in charge of an oil cartel, OPEC, that keeps several U.S. clans, including
the Bushes and Bakers, immensely rich and powerful. The West even supplied Saddam
with chemical weapons, which he used against Iranian soldiers, so that he might
believe he could take on and defeat his larger neighbor. After Saddam emerged
victorious and strong, we all know what happened next. He overplayed his hand
by invading Kuwait, and the U.S., rather than helping the Arab League negotiate
a withdrawal as it wanted, rushed into a war in which fleeing Iraqi troops –
mostly conscripted Shia and Kurds – were butchered by American forces.
Then, Mark gets
to his real point, which is to justify Israel's continuing and illegal occupation
of the Palestinians. The comparison is phony, as he knows: whatever double standards
the U.S. employs toward Mexico, and there are many, it isn't trying to ethnically
cleanse Mexico and steal its land; if it were, Mexicans would be entitled under
international law to wage military resistance against the U.S.
Then "down to
the specifics" and, oh dear, Mark rather gives the game away. As he explains
Hilberg's"historical stages of genocide," what am I reminded of? Well, not Iran's
treatment of its Jews, who, as I pointed out in my article, face almost exactly
the same kinds of discrimination as Israel's 1 million Arab citizens. Does Mark
want to argue that Israel's Arab citizens are facing an imminent genocide from
are more important lessons to be learned from Hilberg. He tells us that the
process of genocide starts with political and legal discrimination, then moves
on to appropriation of assets, then confinement into ghettoes and finally annihilation.
The Palestinians living under Israeli occupation have endured three of the stages;
let us hope the fourth can still be averted.
Buchanan argues that our rulers would be wise to talk with foreign leaders once
in a while, even if those persons have been dubbed enemies by our government
and media. To make this point, he assigns the standard pejoratives to several
foreign political figures, concluding with this: "If Bush can bring Libya's
Muammar Gadhafi, who was responsible for Pan Am 103, the Lockerbie massacre
of American school kids, in from the cold, why cannot we talk with Hamas and
Hezbollah and Assad and Ahmadinejad? What has any of them done to us compared
to what Gadhafi did?"
out this particular conspiracy theory at this late date may presume too much
upon the ignorance of the parochial American media consumer. Pat Buchanan is
obviously well informed. He knows that by repeating a libel he makes it his
own. Why is he telling American readers this stuff about Libya and Lockerbie
a month after the whole matter was exposed in media at the scene as a fairy
news apparently has not managed to cross the Atlantic in this age of instant
digital information, British law enforcement authorities have conceded that
the trial of an alleged Libyan agent for the Lockerbie bombing was rigged with
bogus and planted evidence (see "It
Is Time to Put Right the Wrongs"). Undaunted by these revelations, various
official sources are now making a fresh attempt to re-jigger the whole thing
as a case of mistaken terrorists. We are now being told it was probably Iran,
not Libya, and certainly not the folks who manufactured the bogus trail of evidence
in the first place. When is this media myth-making going to stop?
~ E. Roby
Insights Apply to Iraq War as Well
The war in Iraq
is a capitalist war for control of oil. The U.S. Congress and presidency are
controlled by war mongering capitalists. To argue otherwise is delusional.
~ Tom Manuel
The war in Iraq
is a war for the control of the Middle East. The U.S. Congress and presidency
are controlled by two political parties that reflect the interests of members
of the political and economic elites. To argue that is just common sense.
Next War of Aggression
reactor – if used to produce tritium – would produce enough to boost perhaps
20 or so small sophisticated fission weapons, with design yields of up to 100KT.
House threats to 'go in' to those 'tribal areas' can only magnify the already
serious threats, to Musharraf's life, as well as to his control of Pakistan
and its arsenal of 'Islamic' nukes."
would Musharraf have to be overthrown for a nuke to "fall" into al-Qaeda's hands?
Pakistani military intelligence could give a small nuke to al-Qaeda right there
in Pakistan or Afghanistan now, with Musharraf in power, and then blame its
use on Iran through false-signal intelligence. Remember, al-Qaeda is the deadly
enemy of the Shi'ites. It may be an understatement to say that al-Qaeda has
had "assistance" from Western, Saudi, Jordanian (Zarqawi), and Pakistani intelligence
services in the past.
The greatest potential
threat often comes from the unsuspected direction. In this case the threat is
from our "ally," the government of Pakistan, while American fools are focused
on a government-manufactured, media-enhanced, nonexistent threat from Iran.
~ A. Elishewitz,
Is How Empires End
is right that the U.S. embassy will, in a few years, be in ruins or in Arab
But he doesn't
actually come out and say that there is really no option. It is implied, but
The military situation
at this point is disastrous. American forces can stay indefinitely, but only
at unacceptable cost financially and in blood, and for no purpose, since they
will eventually have to leave anyhow.
It is not at all
clear, however, that his prediction of greater bloodshed after a U.S. departure
is correct. It would well be that a peace would be forged under pressure from
Iran and the Shia majority. The Sunni minority might will decide it would be
better to reach a compromise than to try to break away with a piece of land
but no oil. And it is the Sunnis primarily, who are the educated elite that
a future Iraq would need to prosper.
to this war, Sunnis and Shia were getting along pretty well, intermarrying easily,
living together, and so on.
In any case, there
really is no alternative. The U.S. must leave.
Let the recriminations
against the madmen who began this war begin!
Lindorff, author, The
Case for Impeachment