June 25, 2007
Don’t do it Tony
Is Tony Blair the right man to bring peace to the Middle East? Plenty of people will have their say on that if - as predicted in today’s FT - Blair is appointed as a new envoy to the area. But, to my mind, the more interesting question is whether the Middle East is the right place to bring peace to Tony Blair.
Consider the problem. Here is a man who is leaving office reluctantly after 10 years in Downing Street. He is uncomfortably aware that his reputation for competence and morality has been badly damaged by the Iraq war. He is seeking redemption - and now wants to do something unarguably good. He wants to save something. He could try to save the planet from climate change - but Al Gore seems to have cornered that market. He is itching to save Africa - but there is no formal job to apply for. Oh well, it will have to be the Middle East.
The trouble is that the Middle East peace process is a very bad choice if you are looking for a quick shot at redemption. It is not just that the problem is famously - notoriously - insoluble; although that cannot be a good start. Nor is it that Tony Blair has, shall we say, a mixed reputation in the Middle East.
The real problem is that rather than wiping away the bad bits of the Blair premiership, prolonged involvement in the Israel-Palestine problem will merely expose him further to the issue that did most to damage him in the first place. Blair sold involvement in the Iraq war to many sceptics in Britain on the grounds that this would gain him leverage in Washington. The proof of this leverage would be that the Bush administration would "deliver" on the Middle East peace process. But nothing happened - and so Blair ended up looking like a chump.
His new job could be designed to prolong this humiliation. Whatever brilliant schemes the soon-to-be-former prime minister comes up with, nothing will happen unless the Americans and Israelis agree. And the last few years have demonstrated that while George W. Bush is genuinely grateful to Tony Blair for his support - he is not so grateful that he is willing to let Blair dictate his policy on the Middle East. In the end Congress, Dick Cheney and Aipac all matter more.
If Blair was unable to push Bush in the "right direction" when he was British prime minister, why would he be any more effective when he is an envoy without an office? Blair may be anxious to have a new job. But this looks like the wrong one.
The Middle East envoy job will be the final blow to Tony Blair’s less than glorious exit from Downing Street..Total waste of time and he can certainly deploy his resourcefulness and skills more constructively elsewhere.
Posted by: marie-athena papathanasiou | June 26th, 2007 at 1:10 am | Report this commentIf he is seeking redemption,_ and he should indeed for knocking morality, integrity , family values and tradition out of the British psyche and social fabric, _ he should consider revamping , rebranding and relaunching the Church Of England, could do well by teaming up with the Pope too. Christianity needs all the help it can get, and Mr Blair can do miracles if he puts his mind and zeal to it
“‘WAR-ON-TERROR’ ENVOY NEEDED”
Who-ever is a middle-east envoy, as part of their duties needs to evaluate ALL of the most-troubled-countries in the whole region, and as well- evaluate countries in the rest of the world that have been targeted by the USA as part of the axis of evil-> & ask:
(1) “What types of ALTRUISTIC policies/steps &/or actions from the developed-world are required to bring these countries into constructive rapprochement with the west/the developed-world, & as well- enable their stablely developing?”
(2) “What types of altruistic policies/steps &/or actions from the developed world are required to instill in this region/nation rule-of-law + market-based-economic & democratic INERTIA?”
No types of altruistic policies or actions ought to be off-the-table or out of possible consideration-> esp not ruled out due to ‘loss of face’ or monetary implications.
If needed-altruistic-policies for one country or a region appeared to require accompaniment by force-based ultimatums directed at one country or countries… then these ought to be stated simultaneously, but with the envoy’s recommendations emphasizing “altruistic policies” that are intended to productively lead to the stable, long-term cohesive development of particular countries and regions.
Being right about the Iraq objectives should not preclude recommending policies that are different from the last 4-years of inadequate/ failing USA ones
Roderick V. Louis
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | June 26th, 2007 at 1:44 am | Report this commentnear Vancouver, BC,Canada
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
The Bush Doctrine has proven utterly unsuccessful in the Middle East thus far. While Tony may have helped sell it when it came to Iraq, I don’t think many will listen to this door-to-door salesman this time around.
In fact, the question we should be pondering is: “why on earth would Bush want to appoint someone like Blair who has 0 legitimacy in the region”? Are they genuinely blind enough to think it could work (doubtful)? Are they trying to give the appearance of doing something when in reality they’re just trying to squeeze the civilian population of Gaza for their democratic choice (more probable)?
And is Tony Blair so blind, arrogant, and lacking of any sense of shame that he would actually accept the job?
Posted by: NAQ | June 26th, 2007 at 6:30 am | Report this commentMr Rachman,
“Congress, Dick Cheney and Aipac all matter more than Mr. Blair”
What I care about, what you should care about, what anyone with a bit of sanity should care about is the price of energy. Have you ever asked your former colleagues at the economist, or your current colleagues at the Financial Times, at what point energy would become too expensive for our global society, on which billions of people depend, to continue to provide jobs, to continue to provide the logistics that stocks shelves, imports food and feed people? If you’re an economist yourself, haven’t you asked yourself what the rules of scarcity premeditate and demand? Haven’t I just defined the very purpose of the science of economy which is to comment on the chances of my bloody surivival?
In some winters, elderly people in Britain die of the cold. In some summers, elderly people die in France of the heat. Our economy is already failing our parents Gideon! Decreasing exploitation and production of oil and gas and increasing entropy as a consequence of global warming make such events only more likely! And yet in your discussion of the peace that Mr. Blair can bring to the middle east you utterly fail to convey that ffing primary critical aspect of your job: the economy of energy!
Is it then really your desire to, along with so many intellectuals in Britain, witness the bankrupcy of a civic order and morality which you so deeply and strongly identify with? The middle east is the main source of stability of the world economy and you flippantly waltz through it without mentioning the necessity of stabilizing the middle east for the sake of our utter dependency on it. Tony Blair is EMINENTLY capable of bringing peace to this area because he strongly represents the interests that billions of people such as I have in a stable world economy, and yet on the other hand he has never failed to mention the weak who deserve protection most.
But somehow even you can’t seem to graviate towards the essence, the Israel-Palestine problem you bring up has nothing to do with the oil I crave, AIPAC has no say over the gas that will heat my home this winter. In reading my responses to your posts Gideon, have you ever allowed yourselves to be swayed, even if only temporarily, to my point of view? Doesn’t my effort warrant even a slight deviation from your jaded politically correct commentary? You just recently met Tony Blair personally and this is how you do 10 years of sustained effort justice? Come on be a little constructive with all the potential you have received.
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam | June 26th, 2007 at 7:17 am | Report this commentTony Blair will not be trusted by the Arabs and Muslims: Iraq and humanitarian disaster in Lebanon while Israel was bombarding entire neighbourhoods into the middle ages. Tony Blair will never be trusted for he has blood on his hands.
Until the US decides to put pressure on Israel to go back to the 1967 borders and accept the Arab peace-for-land initiave, more anger in the muslim world will give an added excuse to those extremists to join Al Qa’ieda.
And until the world agrees that a Palestinian life is worth the same - exactly the same as that of a Jew then we will never have peace.
Posted by: Omar | June 26th, 2007 at 10:52 am | Report this commentA representative of the Quartet needs to be seen as an “honest broker”.
Does anyone seriously think that Blair, with his baggage of lies and deception that has led to the Iraqi tragedy, is an honest broker in he Middle East?
Can anyone who saw Blair’s assiduous efforts last summer to stop the international community from calling a ceasefire in the Israel- Hezbollah conflict of last summer (so that Israel can do its worst).
Appointing B Liar as a Middle East envoy is as nonsensical and ill-judged as the appointment of Lord Levey (an activist Zionist) as The Liar’s own Middle East envoy.
It is simply putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank.
Zero credibility of the envoy in the eyes of one side will assure zero success in the job.
But WAIT!, a stalled Middle East peace process is exactly what Washington and Tel Aviv want whilst Israel continues with their land grab and, as the Serbs used to call it whilst conducting their Bosnian genocide, “creating facts on the ground”.
Blair has consistently acted as a tool of the worst of the warmongering NeoCon-Likudnik forces and should not be trusted by anyone who hopes for peace and stability in the Middle East.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 26th, 2007 at 11:00 am | Report this commentI posted 2 messages before, why did they got deleted??
Posted by: Chen | June 26th, 2007 at 3:37 pm | Report this commentYou accuse Tony Blair of the Iraq war as if before the invasion Middle East was prosperious place. Middle East was in s**t before the invasion, and even before the USA came to Middle East after 2nd World War.
Untill propaganda and brain washing in Middle East stops, it will be in big trouble whatever policies will be popular in the White House.
Dear Mr.Rachman, what kind of peace process you are talking about when people in the Middle East are taught in their childhood to hate America and the West?? What kind of peace process you are talking about if average saudi thinks that ‘US is immoral society, it is the main evil in this World’?? Are you talking about ‘Let’s pretend we have peace, and future problems that will arise are not our problems’??
Posted by: John | June 26th, 2007 at 4:10 pm | Report this commentDear Felix,
1-) Please expand on how you think Mr. Blair may be eminently suitable for the job as the envoy in the Middle East, given that he is completely distrusted and discredited on the non-Israeli side of the equation?
What function can he perform other than reiterate the NeoCon-Likudnik position handed down to him and show himself up as the mouthpiece of the Bu$h admini$tration?
2-) How do you propose to bring stability to the Middle East generally through the intermediation of Blair, given that he dragged the UK (and gave credibility to the US being dragged) into the disastrous Iraqi quagmire? How can such a man’s judgement be trusted?
3-) Have you been following the corruption case involving the British Government, B Ae systems, the Saudi Government and Prince Bandar? How can Blair who ordered a cover up on grounds of national security (= the true refuge of a scoundrel) seriously lecture the Middle East potentates on clean government?
4-) You want “justice” done to Blair’s 10 years? Just listen to the man himself. The best he can say for himself is ‘I did what I thought was right’
“http://politics.guardian.co.uk/tonyblair/story/0,,2077273,00.html
Is this really what a man, who thinks he has achieved good and positive things, would say for himself? Isn’t it, as was pointed out by many observers, what Pol Pot or Hitler could have also said (and probably did)?
Now, please don’t bore me by saying that I am comparing Blair with Pol Pot. I am not. But his defence is truly pathetic. All he may be defending against, at best, is that he may not have been bribed or blackmailed into the holes he dug for the nation and claiming himself to be rank incompetent and lacking in judgement, instead.
Would this make him a respected envoy? Surely not.
Go Tony, sink your snout in the money trough of the dinner circuits of the (mainly) small town USA. You and your future audience richly deserve each other.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 26th, 2007 at 4:38 pm | Report this commentDear John,
Here is a short multiple choice test for you:
Has the UK / US invasion of Iraq made the Middle East:
A-) A Better Place ______ ?
B-) A Worse Place ______ ?
Please put a cross in the space provided. (I promise not count your vote the Floridian way!!)
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 26th, 2007 at 4:43 pm | Report this commentTony Blair is uniquely qualified to be middle east peace envoy by being loathed and distrusted by both Arabs and Israelis. On the other hand, it would be highly entertaining to see a Brit humiliate himself trying to repair the failure started by Lawrence, Bell, Churchill, Balfour, Eden, Sykes and their compatriots.
Posted by: Haim Toeg - Los Angeles | June 26th, 2007 at 5:18 pm | Report this commentPacifist, obviously the invasion in Iraq made Middle East worse off. But why do you blame only Blair and Bush about the failures in Iraq?? Why don’t you blame muslim terrorists who blow themselves up and others?? Iraq is bad because people blow themselves up there, it is not what Bush and Blair intended to do when they decided to invade.
Posted by: John | June 26th, 2007 at 10:15 pm | Report this commentPacifist, answer the following, is Iran making the sitation better off or worse off?? Does it help in anyway?? I don’t think so.
Is Worlt better off with Iran on the map?? What has Iran given to the World?? Did it create internet, cars, piano?? What did Iran gave to the World?? ANSWER THAT.
Invasion in Iraq didn’t make the World better off, but we should also ask ourselves why is it so.
To answer ‘Is Tony Blair a good diplomat’ it is not enough looking only at the Iraq War. He has the most influence in Washington amongst foreign politicians. Perhaps he took part in the Iraq campaign not because he supported the idea of the War, but because he appreciates friendship with United States and he thought he could improve the outcome of the campaign if he took part in it.
Please dont exaggerate this tricky management policy on Mideast. Tony Blair not only has not been appointed to organize multiple and pluralistic policy of Western World, but also support the Brown’s well known “capabilities!!!” on the Global Affairs especially on the area of Mideast. So, its frankly natural in terms of this transition period between the cool and hard negotiator Brown and smart and soft negotiator Tony.
Posted by: Cumhur Mumcu | June 27th, 2007 at 8:25 am | Report this commentHi John,
It is interesting that you are running away from the topic of this thread (i.e. Blair and his suitability as a peacemaker in the Middle East) and are trying to widen it to all manners of irrelevant things such as the invention of piano!!
I think it is more fruitful (and frankly more intelligent) to deepen our analysis of the suitability of Blair for such a post in view of his record as a deceitful warmonger and a partisan of NeoCon-Likudnik interests, rather than trying to widen it to other topics or, worst of all, to exchange insults about which nation contributed more and what time frame we should use to judge that. Your analysis of the suitability of Iran for existence on the map is surely reminiscent of what the German Nazis said about your own Slavic nations who were supposed to be inferior beings and only fit to work as slaves for the Master Race or to perish altogether. By your standards, your Soviet forebears wasted their time fighting and should have submitted to the far more “useful” Germans. (What had Ukraine and Belarus done for the world, after all?!!)
Anyway, I digress. Going back to the subject of Iraq, under the Geneva Conventions the occupying powers are responsible for the safety and security of the occupied citizens. This means that US/K are solely responsible for the their inability to govern the occupied people and for the resultant human tragedy. Moreover, if you need reminding, there was no civil war or daily acts of terrorism in Iraq prior to its occupation by the US/K and Al Qaeda did not operate there. Nor was Iraq anything to do with the 9/11 atrocities so, to say that it was right to attack Iraq because some terrorists blew themselves up in New York is entirely fallacious.
Your last statement about Blair being the most influential foreign politician in Washington is simply not true. As Mr. Rachman points out in his article, Israel has a lot more clout than Blair in Washington and whoever is in charge in Tel Aviv has more clout than Blair.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 27th, 2007 at 12:37 pm | Report this commentPacifist, you are saying not bad things in general I agree with you on many issues.
But you haven’t answered some of my questions: If Blair isn’t right, who is?? Give me a better alternative who is trusted by both sides??
I disagree that Israel has more influence in USA than Britain. After the war with Hezbollah last year, US wasn’t so sure ‘if it should pay all the costs’, it paid all the costs of the war later on (cuz 2b is nothing to the US budget), but it had to go through Congress and Senate and there was some resistance. Of course it eventually passed, but you probably may notice that in recent years America’s stance on Israel has changed.
Only UK will have access to security codes for the new F-35 fighter, Israel won’t have it. Japan and UK are the only possible countries where F-22 could go.
Of course US is responsible for citizens in Iraq and it bears responsibility. But because US invaded Iraq, it doesn’t mean Al Qaeda has the right to bomb people in Iraq.
Posted by: John | June 27th, 2007 at 1:34 pm | Report this commentIf there is murder in the US, people will blame the murderer, not the government.
All the best:-)
P.S.
Ukraine gave Schevchenko to the World. Belarus gave Hleb. Ukraine gave ’salo’ to the World.
Hi John,
I give you one thing…Ukranian women are among the most beautiful (at least when young!).
Schevchenko had a poor season in England and Hleb wasn’t even among the top three best players at Arsenal, let alone the world
Iran is currently home to Hossein Reza Zadeh who verifiably lifts the heaviest weights!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hossein_Reza_Zadeh
In passing I would mention Omar Khayam, Avicenna and Al Razi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khayy%C3%A1m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Razi
And before you have us eradicated from the map, here are a few bits of all humanity’s heritage you’d be eradicating too:
Persepolis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis
Esfahan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isfahan_(city)
Yazd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazd
As for Israel’s influnce, I hope Mr. Rachman is willing to back his statement as I need to do something that helps pay my mortgage this afternoon! Until he does, you may want to chew on this article written (not by Islamists extremists) but by American professors:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html
Finally, you ask who was right if Blair wasn’t. Well, for a start 1 million people who marched in London in February 2003 were right and Blair wasn’t. Then there were Chirac and Schroeder. Then there was the Iraq Study Group who made some useful observations and recommendations which Blair initially supported but then backtracked from, much to his own discredit. This showed, once more, why Blair’s claims that he has influence are complete rubbish.
Best Wishes,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 27th, 2007 at 2:56 pm | Report this commentPacifist, do you live in Iran?? For average iranian living in Iran you speak plain english and know some staff. You sound like a british muslims or something.
Shevchenko had bad season in england but it was only one season.
I would presume that people like Avicenna and Al-Razi wouldn’t support current Iranian Government. They used brains not propaganda.
No one is talking about eradicating Iranian heritage. Middle East is home to a great civilisation and has many great things in it. Everyone realises it. If there is military operation, it is to destroy nuclear targets and may be iranian government leaders. And possibly people who sponsor terrorism in Iraq.
To be a good envoy to Middle East you have to be more than just anti-war.
Posted by: John | June 27th, 2007 at 3:18 pm | Report this commentPacifist, we all have a great respect for you and Iran as a nation.
Posted by: John | June 27th, 2007 at 3:19 pm | Report this commentDear John,
I am an Iranian who lives in England for the moment (and thank you for your friendly second post).
I am against many of the policies of the government of Iran and I hope that the people of Iran will manage to change it for something better, hopefully peacefully.
Although never directly colonised by a European power (I think, among the non-European nation states, only Ethiopia and Thailand managed to stay nominally sovereign too), Iran has suffered a lot at the hands of various colonial and imperial powers as she has been neighbours to the Tsarist Russia (and then the Soviet Union), The British Empire (which was in India, Afghanistan and Iraq) and the Ottoman empire. The Americans came in 1953 after the overthrow of Mossadeq and, through their imposition and sponsorship of the Shah, did a lot of damage to Iran. The stupefying effects of the Shah’s rule and his elimination of all other legitimate opposition left a vacuum that was filled by the clergy so our suffering continues.
The above gives you a flavour of why no patriotic Iranian would ever accept foreign interference in Iran.
The current regime has not served us well in many areas but it is our problem and not America’s. Learning the hard way, through adversity, currently the Iranian society is achieving a level of political sophistication and maturity that is unparalleled in our history and way ahead of most of the Middle East. The Islamic republic is not an ossified monolith like Saddam’s Iraq or Iran under the Shah. It is a living, evolving creature with a cacophony of voices and interest groups. I sincerely believe that, left to their own devices, the Iranian people will achieve a stable, enduring, representative form of governance over the next 10 years or so and equally, I think the country will descend into anarchy and backwardness (as well as obvious human catastrophes) if she is militarily invaded or savagely sanctioned.
Moreover, the desire for non-interference by foreigners, is not simply a point of principle but we have seen some of the scary people that Washington is cosying up to and is likely to install as their satraps in Tehran.
I don’t expect you to be interested enough to read the following article (written by a US-based Iranian-American professor at the university of Southern California) but if you do, you will see what I mean:
http://www.payvand.com/news/07/may/1042.html
Finally, I hope that, next season, Schevchenko can show us the same form as he showed in Milan. We Iranians love our football!!
Best wishes,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 27th, 2007 at 4:17 pm | Report this commentWell - all this has been a bit pointless, as Mr Blair now has the job. Whether an inspired or awful choice - only time and results will tell.
Personally, I see Blair a bit like Beckham (excuse the simplification) - ie gifted for sure, limited in some ways, but the one thing you can’t doubt is the commitment. By that I mean that for the mistakes he made (and when in power, everyone makes mistakes!) Blair was acitively committed to his causes.
So I hope, no for my sake, but the people of israel and palestine mainly, that Mr Blair can commit to that cause and pull a white rabbit of his hat and sort this out.
Of course, it’s a very complex situation - but it seems the only way forward is that of two separate states, mutually acknowledging each other and their borders and eventually in trading and economic relationships. If Blair (or anyone) can help with that, I will wish them the best of luck and support them.
As a side point, I would remind people that many people have changed over time. Both Rabin and Arafat were men of war - yet I think it became clear they had become men of peace.
True - things are so bleak now - yet there is hope.
Posted by: A | June 27th, 2007 at 6:54 pm | Report this commentPacifist and John are respectfully at it again (mashalah). I can’t spend the time covering all the issues you guys have thus far, but I will say that discussing the impact of Blair’s new job is pointless. Anyone who knows anything understands that his efforts at inducing any kind of peace will be futile. His new job is mostly symbolic and probably a show of gratitude from Bush.
Now lets talk about the real issue: the increasing influence foreign policy lobbies have on the U.S. Congress. No envoy can overcome such entrenched interests. As Rachman said, “in the end, Congress…and AIPAC matter more.”
To explain my case, I will cop-out and post an excerpt from Zbigniew Brzeziniski’s new book. For those of you who don’t know who this man is, I suggest you look him up so you can understand the eminent place he holds in formulating and assessing US foreign policy.
“Greater coherence in national policy also calls for correcting the widespread impression, not only at home, but increasingly abroad, that some aspects of US foreign policy are for sale. The growing role of foreign policy lobbies in Washington is both the cause of that perception and a reflection of it. Though lobbies representing large voting constituencies with strong foreign attachments have long been part of the legislative process, the nature of their influence, the focus of their efforts, and their composition have changed, compounding the structural handicaps of US global policy making.
Posted by: kian | June 28th, 2007 at 1:36 am | Report this commentIn the past, ethnic lobbies with a foreign policy interest tended to derive their influence from the voting loyalty of their allegedly numerous constituents….
In more recent times, the capacity to raise and target electoral campaign funds have become a more important source of influence for foreign policy lobbies then their claimed voting strength. Increased congressional dependence on the costly and almost permanent campaigning is the root cause of this trend. The high expense of TV campaigns has turned targeted funding support (or opposition) into a crucial instrument for gaining influence. This explains the growing role of highly motivated Israeli-American, Cuban-American, Greek-American, Armenian-American lobbies and others, all highly effective in mobilizing financial support for their particular cases….
The effectiveness of such lobbies is reflected in the growing legislation deliberately limiting the executive Branch’s foreign policy choices….
This fragmentation of foreign policy making ill serves the American national interest. As Henry Kissinger noted, ‘Congress not only legislates the tactics of foreign policy but also seeks to impose a code of conduct on other nations by a plethora of sanctions. Scores of nations now find themselves under such sanctions.’
Stricter lobbying laws should be adopted imposing limits on the ability of foreign interests to sponsor and finance domestically based foreign policy lobbies.”
Ok, so Congress will screw America and then everyone will look at China as a role model.
Posted by: Chen | June 28th, 2007 at 10:11 am | Report this commentCaligula appointed his horse as a senator and Bush has appointed his poodle as the Middle East envoy. I guess that is a historical precedent of sorts.
For those in doubt, I checked the calendar and it is not April the 1st.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 28th, 2007 at 11:11 am | Report this commentPacifist,
You missed many of the greatest Irani/Persian scientist in history.
Here are some more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biruni
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasir_al-Din_al-Tusi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abul_W%C3%A1fa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwarizmi
These are only the most prominent names.
For a more exhaustive list go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_scientists
Admittedly, there is some dispute about the nationality of some of these figures, Al-Kharizmi in particular, but still Iran/Persia’s contribution to human progress was great.
Posted by: Javaid The Paki | June 28th, 2007 at 12:46 pm | Report this commentHi Javaid,
Thanks for your contribution.
Many westerners don’t realise that Iran is a country that is the heir to a 7,000 year old civilisation as Iran and Iranians are always being traduced
by the powers that be.
As for your last point about the dispute about the nationality of these notable people, I think the dispute is easily resolved if we make the reasonable distinction between Iran (as represented by her present-day political boundaries) and the cultural Iran (an entity that enveloped an area from the borders of Europe to borders of China and included not only the current nation state of Iran but much of Central Asia, Northern and Western India, Afghanistan, Iraq and Anatolia.
I always notice this when I travel in the region.
For example, the tomb of the poet Rumi, in Konya (present day Turkey) is covered by his Persian poetry whereas the Turkish tourist guides (who have lost contact with their own history and culture due to Ata Turk’s change to Latin script) were telling the tourists that those are Koranic / Arabic inscriptions.
Now as you can see from his biography, he was born in Afghanistan and he died in Turkey bur CULTURALLY, he was Iranian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalal_ad-Din_Muhammad_Rumi
I also noticed plenty of Persian poetry in the Red Fort in Delhi and other Moghul monuments (including on the actual gravestone of the emperor in Taj Mahal (by the way, Taj Mahal itself was built by an Iranian architect) and in such diverse places as Samarkand and Bokhara.
This doesn’t mean that any of the above places are located in Iran but indicates the breadth of the “cultural Iran”.
Best regards,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 28th, 2007 at 1:48 pm | Report this commentDear Pacifist,
Your argument about ‘cultural Iran’ has some merit, but pan-Turkists and Arabs could equally produce similar arguments.
Arabs especially could lay claim to many of these achievements, since all of the above mentioned pioneers did all of their work in Arabic and the great flourishing of scientific thought of this period was facilitated by the efforts of the early Abbasid caliphate (under Mamun Al-Rashid in particular) who collected, collated and translated into Arabic, all known knowledge from India and China in the East and Ancient Greece in the West.
Certainly, in Pakistan, Persian poetry and culture is not viewed as foreign. Both Ghalib and Allama Iqbal (the national poet and original founding father of Pakistan) were both keen students of Jalaluddin Rumi. Both of them did produce works in Persian or semi-Persian Urdu. Persian (as well as Turkish and Arab) architects and artisans were involved in building Moghul monuments such as the Taj Mahal.
Can’t we just say that this is the heritage of all the muslim world.
Posted by: Javaid The Paki | June 28th, 2007 at 2:24 pm | Report this commentDear Javaid,
I have no problem whatsoever with saying that these people were the heritage of the Muslim world or more broadly, that of the world (with no qualification).
I think patriotism is a good thing but, unforunately, there is a thin line between that and chauvinism which is breached easily and often with tragic consequences.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 28th, 2007 at 2:54 pm | Report this commentOne more thing Javaid!
It is not a good argument that these guys did their work in Arabic, so Arabs could claim credit.
For example, Sir Isaac Newton wrote his Principia Mathematica in Latin. That didn’t make him Italian (or Roman). Even the Magna Carta was written in Latin, although it is one of the most important “English” documents in history.
Today, many scientists around the world are producing work in English, that doesn’t make them English
Anyhow, we have come a long way from Blair’s joke appointment!
Best regards,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 28th, 2007 at 3:06 pm | Report this commentDear Pacifist,
To clarify, I agree with much of what you are saying. We should try to shun chauvinistic nationalism and it would be nice if we could call all progress the heritage of the whole of humankind (although this is perhaps difficult given the mistrust and hostility that exists today). Persian and Arabic contributions to human progress were not insignificant or non-existent. Nor should we in the muslim world ignore Western achievements.
As for your point on Isaac Newton, it is true enough. But Arabic influence, language and rule were far more pervasive in the Islamic Golden Age than Roman heritage was in 17th Century England. The contribution of the Arabs to the flowering of Persian scientific thought cannot be ignored. The question of the nationality of figures such as Al-Kharazmi are at best blurred. It is difficult to fully categorize such a man as Persian, since he may have been Uzbek or Turkish, worked in Arabic and did his work in Baghdad. He ends up being called a muslim mathemitician by many since it is difficult to pin him down any further.
And as for Tony Blair, I agree with Mr.Gideon. He has nothing to offer and can only damage himself further. So all I can say is “Don’t do it Blair”.
Posted by: Javaid The Paki | June 28th, 2007 at 4:29 pm | Report this commentHaaretz on Blair’s new job:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/875943.html
Pacifist,
US involvement in Iran had everything to do with the cold war, the situation is comparable to Chile where the leftist government was deposed with US help to avoid Soviet influence in South America. Iran was even more critical to western interests. After the cold war the US pushed all dictatorships it supported to democracy; but Iran had already taken its own course and the remaining dictatorships today all more or less are invulnerable to US pressure thanks to their oil assets or autarky.
Chile, Argentina, South Korea, Taiwan, the Phillipines, Indonesia, South Africa and many other countries: the moment the cold war was over their dictators and regimes lost their excuse and out they went because they were vulnerable to economic pressure. In Iran the same should and would have happened. Now the Iranian people are no better off than under the Shah. Democracy in Iran would be like that in Ireland, with religion having a very strong foothold in society. With religious leaders such as grand Ayatollah Montazeri who appreciate seperation of state and religion. Imagine what it would be like.
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam | June 28th, 2007 at 5:48 pm | Report this commentDear Felix,
Contrary to what people are fed in the West, Iranians are not children or imbeciles. They will find their own ideal, indigenous political solutions and are not in need of invasion or regime change by Washington.
Just FYI, Mr. Montazeri’s views on church-state separation did not exist when he was in line for the job that Mr. Khamenei has today.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 28th, 2007 at 6:09 pm | Report this commentP, I have Iranian friends.
You degrade those you debate with with blanket statements such as ‘contrary to what people are fed in the west’. Since you use it in your response to me, it means you think I am too ignorant to make up my own mind. You should be able to tell that I know enough about Iran if I know about Ayatollah Montazeri and his genesis from the to-be supreme leader convinced of the validity of Velayat-e Faqih to the greatest critic and dissident in Iran today. Yes he was all in favour of religious rule until he saw people’s rights trampled and the spirit of Islam violated by the very people he revolted with.
“Iranians aren’t children or imbeciles”, you say. How is that relevant?
If anyone here said that Iranians are children or imbeciles it would only serve to show that they are racists. Is that what you think I am?
No, Iranians have about 6000 years of civilization in their past and although I haven’t met any younger Iranians who were born after the revolution I have never personally met an Iranian who wasn’t well aware of it and proud of it. You’re the first Iranian I’ve met who couldn’t debate an issue without resorting to the sort of degrading tactics you employ.
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam | June 28th, 2007 at 6:48 pm | Report this commentFelix,
I congratulate you on having the taste and discernment to choose some Iranians to be your friends. I am surprised none of them has told you to chill and not to take yourself so incredibly seriously.
My point about Iranians not being children or imbeciles is relevant to what you were suggesting, namely that the US involvement in Iran was justified because of the cold war and had Iranians been good children and not kicked out the American lackeys in 1979, then the Americans would have condescended to grant them some form of democracy.
The fact that the list of countries you mention (Korea, Argentina, S Africa, Taiwan etc.) does not include a single Middle Eastern country is ample testimony to the inadequacy of your analysis:-
In the Middle East, the US hegemonic interest was not just driven by a fear of the Soviets and has not terminated as a result of the cold war. It continues because of the dependence on oil and because of the influence of the Zionist lobby in providing US support for the untenable aggressions and transgressions of Israel.
Therefore, the justification of self-interest that you provide for the US support of local thugs during the cold war, still applies to the US behaviour in the Middle East (and the oil-rich states in the Caspian basin.)
This is why the US supports the Saudi and Jordanian Royal families, the Egyptian thugocracy and the hoodlums in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
We Iranians do not need the US to give us anything. We were here long long long before the US existed and we shall outlive that empire in the way we have outlived many others. Thanks, but no thanks.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 29th, 2007 at 11:09 am | Report this commentP, read what I read above. I wrote that “the remaining dictatorships today all more or less are invulnerable to US pressure thanks to their oil assets or autarky.” There is nothing inadequate about my analysis if you please just read all of it.
P, did you know that the Ottoman Jewish population was about 2%, that in 1947 roughly 1 million Jews lived in Arab countries, Iran and Turkey, that nowadays only 50.000 remain? That most of these Jews and their offspring live in Israel because they were often forced to leave and Israel would have them? Israel has been under almost constant attack from Arab nations who failed to house their share of 1947/48 refugees and from terrorist groups. You can’t just call the “Israeli aggression and transgressions untenable”. That’s not a balanced reading of history at all. Even if the Jews only were a 2% minority they have rights such as the right to their own nation and to self defence. This goes for the Kurds, Jews, Tibetans as well as for anyone else.
Again you degrade your debating partner by phraseology such as “not to take yourself so incredibly seriously.” How is that statement relevant? Could you stop doing this? When I point out flaws I refer to your debating style and historic interpretation, not in your character; which is what you do in return. You’re an intelligent person but you won’t get far if you don’t manage to respect your opponents.
The US and Europe have to deal with those that sell it oil but as democracies they have populations that enforce a need to keep humanitarian standards in perspective. The USA is the largest contributor of global aid, the European Union nations are in % per capita the largest aid contributors. Although not much can be accomplished, humanitarian issues play very strongly in the political field. Unlike in China and Iran who support the regime in Sudan which is responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of its own civilians. The real problem is that there is no way to effectively enforce humanitarian standards on these nations because they have oil assets or are basically autarkist so there is no way to put economic pressure on them. Chile, Argentina, South Korea, Taiwan, the Phillipines, Indonesia, South Africa and many other countries did change, because through economic pressure they could be changed.
Elites in the middle east are afraid of democracy which is why they radicalize their population with antisemitic and anti western propaganda, which is why they support terrorist organisations. The wave of democratization that swept over Eastern Europe and those countries listed above was heading in their direction as well; now they have created conditions where they don’t have to change.
My Iranian friends for the most part agree with me; but they all fled Iran and are free to have their own opinions. They tell me most Iranians want change; they certainly don’t want to see all this money going to support the chaos in Lebanon and Gaza while many Iranians still live in poverty and have no jobs. They’re the ones who told me about Ayatollah Montazeri and that there really is a faction amongst the Islamists that could foment positive change. Unfortunately it’s unlikely that Ahmadinejad and his Revolutionary Guard will stop turning Iran into a police state. If you want to return to Iran it’s only to be appreciated that you don’t criticise them but if you take other people’s advise and opinions to heart and try to achieve a fair hearing for all people then you are intelligent enough to be able to make a positive difference.
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam | June 29th, 2007 at 7:54 pm | Report this commentFelix, you speak to Pacifist with a very condescending tone, as if you are teaching him how to debate. Just let it go, the argument is not just between you guys, there are other people reading yall’s views as well. And I think we can discern the merit of an argument without you dwelling on a little sarcasm.
And I must say, your conclusion that Iran is an autarky is quite a parochial analysis and simply counterfactual. I will make my point by referencing an article published in today’s New York Times. Here’s a quote from the Eurasia Group: “Iran’s DEPENDENCE on imported gasoline has been a focus of international debate over future sanctions.” Sayeed Leylaz, an economist and political analyst in Tehran, said,” The high gasoline consumption has made Iran very vulnerable…We are importing gasoline from 16 different countries…The country would be on the verge of collapse if they suddenly decide not to sell us gasoline.” This simple fact, although a much greater case can be made, shatters your whole premise of how democratic transitions were forged in other countries after the cold war through external economic pressure, but not in the Middle East because they are autarks.
To make a statement like Mid East elites are afraid of democracy so they saturate their populations with anti-semitism is RIDICULOUS. Did you know that two seats in Iran’s parlaiment are reserved for JEWISH PMs? And why haven’t the other 50,000 left? The simple fact is that anti-semitism is a rhetorical political tool in Iran and is quite a hollow sentiment amongst average Iranians. If any religion is overtly persecuted in Iran, it’s the Bahai’s, not the Jews.
Do you really think that’s the reason why Iran supports “terrorists,” because of anti-semitism? I submit to you, it has to do more with geoplitics then any sort of racist sentiment. Why would any prudent government (besides George Bush’s) let ideology instead of pragmatism guide their foreign policy? You must empathize and stop analyzing things through an emotional prism.
Iran is struggling to become a regional hegemon and they are using the same tactics that a country like the US used in Latin America. For instance, supporting the contras, the sandonistas
and other terrorist organizations in the 80s with the intent on toppling indigenous governments. Have we forgotten about the Iran- contra scandle?
And lets not put Israel and America on a pedastool. America is the biggest supplier of global aid? Malarky. The US, as a percentage of per capita, is the smallest contributor of gloabla aid. And if we don’t use a per capita ratio, let us not use euphamisms like “global aid.” It’s more like “gloabl bribes.” Just look at the very countries you claim to be autarks: Egypt, Saudi, (why the hell does Saudi Arabia need foreign aid? Because its a bribe, not aid), Kuwait, etc.
And as far as Israel goes, the US does materially support the “untenable aggressions and transgressions” of that country with a $10 billion “aid” package every three years. All the while withholding rightfully due palestinian tax payer money from the democratically elected government.
Furthermore, you are implicitly justifying the oppression of the Palestinian population by claiming Jewish people need their own homeland in a country that was overwhelmingly Arab. If you study Israel’s history you will find that the first terrorist group in the country were JEWS! They were called the Irgun, and they systematially attacked British troops.
Again, if you study Israeli and Zionist history you will uncover that Jewish immigration to Israel after WWI was coordinated by the National Zionist Congress to fortify their numbers in what was then called PALESTINE. When Jewish immigration peaked during and post-WWII, it wasn’t because they were being forced out of Arab countries, but because of the holocaust and Russian anti-semitism. Anit-semitism did not just prop up in the Arab mind, it was fostered by the continual aggression of the Jews in their attempt to displace the Palestinian population to create a Jewish home land.
And to Pacifist, from one Persian to another, lets not be so nationalistic. I find that many of us are excessively proud, and this can’t be good. For instance, why do we need nuclear weapons? I know you’re going to say that they are in compliance with the NPT and what not, but lets be real, they’re pursuing nuclear weapons.
But the general answer is that it’s our national right. So what if it is, we don’t need them. Iran is not under threat. We could be using that money for ameliorating other ills of Iranian society. Not to mention the hostility this issue has created with the rest of the world and how its diverted attention away from the more eminent shortcomings of the Iranian government.
The fact is, four occurences can threaten our common humanity: disease, some astronomical phenomenon, climate issues, and nuclear weapons. Out of these four, nuclear weapons are the only things that are created by humanity and their creation can be halted, unlike the other three.
NO NUKES, not for Iran, not for Israel, not for the US, and definitely not for Russia (but maybe for the Swiss, j/k).
One last note, it is often that nationalism, and thereby parochialism, along with religion that impedes objective thought. Lets not forget our common humnaity. And if you a US citizen, vote Obama!
PS Iranians are much better off politically then they ever where under the Shah.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 30th, 2007 at 12:46 am | Report this commentHello, I do not think I am condescending to Pacifist, I rather think he is condescending to me, he called me brainwashed and a neoconservative several times and before you jump to his defence I’d rather you read the history of our exchange before you make that jump to conclusions. The only thing I have questioned are his method of debate; if you can find, in my exchange with Pacifist, anything that is condescending please quote it to me and I’ll apologize. I’m just a tough debater; there’s nothing wrong with that.
I am aware that Iran has to import most of it’s petrol. I illustrated that economic pressure on a regime, if well orchestrated, can force it to change. Iran is an oil producing nation but since it lacks the infrastructure to refine it, it is not an autarky. Iran attempts to be one; it tries to manufacture its own cars but since it cannot reproduce a functional economy on its own it tries to hook up to nations such as North Korea, Venezuela, Sudan, Russia and others of questionable reputation to informally form an alternative global economy. Exceptions may simply confirm the rule, especially in politics and economics, where complexities go far beyond the generic nature of language to be described accurately.
Iran cannot be effectively pressured not because it is an autarky but because it is an oil producing nation and all oil producing and exporting nations can get away with serious infractions, except for Norway. I said explicitly that countries that cannot be pressured either have too much sway on the world economy (such as Iran or Saudi Arabia) because they produce oil or because they are are an autarky. Presently, Iran simply is going too far (that’s the unanimous opinion of the security council which includes China and Russia) in its nuclear endeavours (again that’s the unanimous opinion of the UNSC) and the threat to global economic stability is simply too severe while Iran is run by an irresponsible group. Hence, we might see an exception to the rule.
The position of Persian Jews leaves a lot to be desired; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Jews#Current_status_in_Iran has the details. Iran retains groups of people, doesn’t deny them their heritage but denies them the right to their own homeland (Jews, Kurds and other minorities); Zionism represents millions of Jews, the offspring of Jews who formerly lived in Arab nations. Whereas the Ottoman empire attempted to protect its minorities the current nations that once were Ottoman can not and often will not guarantee the safety of its Jewish citizens; except for Israel.
You wrote: “Do you really think that’s the reason why Iran supports “terrorists,” because of anti-semitism?” That’s not what I said and the answer is no.
You wrote: “America is the biggest supplier of global aid? Malarky. The US, as a percentage of per capita, is the smallest contributor of gloabla aid.” in response to me writing “The USA is the largest contributor of global aid, the European Union nations are in % per capita the largest aid contributors.”
You wrote: “you are implicitly justifying the oppression of the Palestinian population by claiming Jewish people need their own homeland in a country that was overwhelmingly Arab.” No I said that Jewish refugees from the Ottoman collapse (numbering just under 1 million people, a sizeable proportion of the Ottoman population) were entitled to their own homeland. That homeland was attacked by the newly formed Arab states, who were defeated, who suddenly had to cope with 650.000 Arab Palestinian refugees, who they locked up in camps at Israel’s borders, while they pushed Jewish citizens (some 800.000) out of their countries, who were welcomed into Israel (some 650.000) and France (some 150.000). The oppression of the Palestinians is a consequence of Arab nations being unable to accept responsibility for their role in history and for their inability to accept the Jewish people as a genuine part of their heritage. Many Jews fled to Israel from Europe as well for very much the same reasons.
Your theory that Aliyah accounted for almost the entire Jewish population leaving Arab countries, Turkey and Iran, is not compelling. If it was, then those 150.000 Jews would not have gone to France but to Israel. If it was, it would serve to prove how extremely genuine the Jewish desire to return to Israel was. That desire was genuine with many people, but whereas almost all Jews left their fatherlands in almost all Arab nations, many Jews in Iran, Turkey and Morocco decided to stay simply because they weren’t so strongly repressed after the Arabs lost the war.
You wrote: “Anti-semitism did not just prop up in the Arab mind, it was fostered by the continual aggression of the Jews in their attempt to displace the Palestinian population to create a Jewish home land.” I can produce a very long list (I won’t) of pogroms in the Arab world that predate immigration into the area; it starts with what is written about Jews in the Hadith “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’” (Hamas made this one famous).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_massacre (1066)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allahdad_incident (1839)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_affair (1840)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism has quite a few more.
Enlightened rulers such as Harun al Rashid and Saladin however were very much appreciative of Jews, Maimonides was physician to the vizier of Egypt and to Saladin, a position that requires trust. It’s not all black and white. But both in Europe and in the Middle East persecution of Jews has been virulent and predates the destruction of the temple in 70 BC.
You know, this country where I live is mud and clay deposited by rivers. It appeared in written history only when the Romans started to arrive. But the genesis of me as a human being travels through history as far back in time as that of any other human being. People can be proud of their nation or heritage but we all come from the same source. Still, Iran is a fascinating country, there’s so much there to appreciate. Persian literature and especially poetry are renown; Sufiism is an intriguing tradition. My critique of the Iran leadership has nothing to do with Iran or Iranians; the end of theocracy in Iran can and should lead to a revival of Iranian and Persian culture much like the Chinese transformation of today makes Chinese people feel like the world class citizens they are.
Mr. Rachman I sincerely don’t mean to take up all this space on your blog always bringing up these same subjects, but I feel strongly compelled to present the facts as my family, people and educators have passed them on to me. I believe with all my being that freedom is the birthright of all beings, that denying people their freedom and dignity is worse than a crime, it is a sin against our coming into being as human beings. Still, Instead of polemicizing around the same issues I’d rather chide you for your British parochialism!
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam | June 30th, 2007 at 4:31 am | Report this commentFelix, let me apologize for my aggression. I admire your respect for the art of debate, a passion which I share. So we should make this a bit more constructive.
A few things first; I certainly hope that you don’t believe I am a Persian parochialist. I have no allegiances but to reason and our common humanity.
I did not mean to imply that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the sole catalyst of anti-semitism amongst Arabs. But Your refernce to the Hadith about Jews is anachronistic.
First, the hadith are not regarded as divine in origin. And the Hadith you chose to emphasize was not intended to slander the entire population of Jews for the rest of time to come. Hamas has expediently exploited this hadith.
It has a context, and that context is an ancient battle in which Muhammed and the Muslims had allied with the Jewish tribes to defend their city against the pegan Qhuraysh tribe.
In this battle, the Jewish tribes secretly colluded with the Qhuraysh in order to defeat the Muslims although they had supposedly allied with the Muslims. Thus, the metaphors about hiding Jews. The Quran affords Jews and Christians with the status of “People of the Book”, who are to be protected.
I am not defending the kind of extremism that Hamas preaches, but as this knowledge has been passed down to me, I feel compelled to share it with you.
The kind of anti-semitism that exists today is of an entirely different brand than the one preached in the Hadith. The contemporary brand of Arab anti-semitism is very much so,in my estimation, an emanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Judging from your comments, you have some appreciation for how the Ottomans governed their minorities. It was probably the most pragmatic way to do so, delegating moral and administrative authority over religious minorities to their religious patriarchs (Of course, provided that they pay a tax).
You claim that this system collapsed and that the Jewish people had a right to a homeland that was then attacked by Arab nations who suddenly had to deal with 650,000 Arab refugees. This is misleading.
After the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the British were proactively helping the Zionist congress establish a Jewish country in Israel. As time went by, the British realized they could not endure the cost of governing such a volatile situation, so they abandoned the Zionist’s aspirations. That is when they directed their attacks against the British Royal troops inside Palestine. The militant branch of the Zionist Congress was known as the Irgun. They briefly stopped attacking the British to help them in WWII. After the end of WWII they resumed their terrorst tactics, including the infamous bombing of the King David Hotel, which eventually led to British withdrawel from Palestine in 1948 and the proclamation of a Jewish state in Israel at the expense of Palestinians.
This is what prompted the surrounding Arabs to attack Israel, to protect their Arab brethren. Remember, palestentians at this time did not consider themselves palestinians, but as Arabs. They had no significant militant organizations until the estanlishment of the PLO in the early sixties.
You also say that Palestenian oppression is the consequence of Arab society not being able to accept Jewish people as a genuine part of their heritage. I find this to be quite chauvanistic.
Any Arab without a convoluted view of Islam understands the shared heritage they have with Jews. Just look at the similarity of their SEMETIC languages!
The states that were created after WWI in the Middle East were a product of British and French collusion (Sykes-Picot agreement) in order to secure their imperial interest. The borders of these states (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Iraq) were drawn without regard for ethnic and religious make-up. They replaced the Ottoman system with the European Westphalian nation-state system, but without the intent of establishing peace.
The consequences, whether deliberate or not, are exactly the opposite of what the Treaty of Westphalia was intended to remedy; ethnic and religious conflict/warfare.
So if you wish to have a scholarly discussion about the ramifications of the imposition of the nation-state system on the Middle East (not to mention Africa and Latin America), I would join you.
But I get the sense that you are simply advocating the Jewish side of the debate. When you say the things I have mentioned, it reveals a level of bias, in my perspective.
Also, when you make statements like, their should be a revival of Persian culture at the end of their theocracy, you are implying that the theocracy is not an emanation of Persian culture. As opposed as I am to a theocracy, as you should assume, Islam is a part of Persian culture and the sheer fact that the theocracy was an indigenous creation makes it a part of persian culture. Persian culture does not need revitilization, for that would mean a return of tyrannical Monarchies and Zoroastrianism.
Instead, this theocracy has contributed to the maturation of Persian culture and will inevitably stregnthen it through the simple experience with another system of government incompatible with the due rights of humankind.
Posted by: kian, US -Obama for President! | June 30th, 2007 at 8:13 am | Report this commentI dont know why it posted the same thing like 5 times, my apologies
Posted by: kian, US -Obama for President! | June 30th, 2007 at 8:15 pm | Report this commentKian, thank you for your thoughtful response to my post. Rest assured I didn’t consider your initial response aggressive at all, I thought it was worthy of the best response I could muster. I believe our God must love great debate. I will formulate a response worthy of your effort, but feel I should try to keep it condensed (somehow). I very much enjoy having debates on nationalism and would love having a “scholarly discussion about the ramifications of the imposition of the nation-state system on the Middle East”. Yes, the nation-state system was imposed on the Middle East, I strongly agree with how you formulated that. I will try to respond to you more eloquently later this sunday.
If Gideon Rachman wills it, we should have this discussion about the inappropriateness of nationalism amongst us; Gideon, what is your ideal vision of the Middle East? Certainly you have an opinion! How high would you aim if you were Tony Blair, envoy extraordinaire to the lands of Abraham?
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam | July 1st, 2007 at 4:32 am | Report this commentlooking forward to your response
Posted by: kian, US - Obama for President! | July 1st, 2007 at 9:02 am | Report this commentKian,
At Versailles some in the US delegation wanted to set up a democratic and federated United Arab States in the Ottoman world; this was quickly shot down by France and Britain - I am having trouble locating source material to substantiate this so I would have trouble saying who exactly proposed or opposed what. But the idea was sound, and you can imagine it coming from the Americans at that time since that nation-state concept was, and in many ways is alien to them as well. There is a sense of common Arab cause from Morocco all the way to Persia, the Arab Christians and Jews were a part of that identity; it could have worked but it was not to be; European colonialism and the arrogance with which European nations carved up the world by treaty and in blood reigned supreme at the time. Imagine Jews returning from their exodus not just to Israel but to a much larger great Arab federation where minority rights, freedom or religion and property rights were constitutionally and vigorously protected. I think that if Saladin, Harun al Rashid and Mainonides had lived in 1917 they would not just have strongly endorsed it, they would have expected it.
Yet, considering the many documented pogroms in the Arab world I would say that antisemitism has almost as strong a history in the Middle East as it does in Europe. The establishment of Israel made matters worse but the needs and desires of the Palestinian people are exploited by powerful elites; these do not care about the Palestinians but hijack their cause in their own “crusade” against Israel. The fight against Israel has become the clarion call for Arab Nationalist such as Saddam Hussein or Nasser who wanted to be seen as the leader of all Arabs and not just that piece which the French and English in their victorious folly carved up. Now it’s become the rallying cry of Islamic fundamentalists in their desire to gather Islamic support. Year in year out newspapers report that the Saudi school curriculum continues to be notoriously antisemitic. Suicide bombings are glorified on Palestinian childrens television. A dramatized version of the protocols of the elders of zion is shown on a regular basis on state owned television channels in Egypt. The Palestinian cause isn’t helped by this at all. Nations such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt should know better than to stir up such hatred in their own people because genuine peace has to include an end to it, and yet they continue to feed it.
You wrote: “I get the sense that you are simply advocating the Jewish side of the debate.”
I certainly am; the Jewish side is thoroughly underrepresented in the debate, history plays far too little a role in explaining what is happening. Many of the attacks on Israel are from the same source as the antisemitic docudramas and schoolbooks. The history and demographics of the Ottoman Empire illustrate that Jews are entitled to live in security in the Middle East. At this time only Israel can afford them that security. As long as Arab nations stir up hatred against Jews then Israel will be a fortress for its people and will strike back when attacked. The Palestinians are equally entitled to live in peace and security in the Middle East, they are being radicalized and after 60 years still are forced to live in refugee camps holding onto hope where there is none as long as the hatred lasts. Some 16 million ethnic Germans were driven out of Eastern Europe by the Red Army, they do not now live in camps where they wait for the day when they can push the Polish and Russians into the sea and reclaim eastern Prussia. If they did there would be no European Union today.
The ME should be a democratic union as well, democracy is what the elites fear most; gone would be the Saudi’s private gold inlaid 747 airplanes, gone would be all the revenues of the Assads. Israel and the Judenhass provide them with all the excuses they need. I could recount here the vices and crimes of the Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza in an attempt to appear balanced but I presume we all read and hear about those in the media every day. It is the Israeli’s obligation to protect both their people and the Palestinians in the territories from crime and terror; and with nobody else willing and able to police there and avoid attacks on civilians on both sides they have no alternative but to act, and act they do. And since they’re human, mistakes are made and crimes are committed. But not as government policy.
I fully agree that the theocracy in Iran is home made. I’ve been told though that the ulama was much more conservative than the average Iranian and that they organized politically around opposition to the white revolution which they deemed to be far too liberal; Iran was not ready to jump from being a relatively conservative Islamic country into becoming more westernized than Greece or Lebanon but the 1979 revolution swung the pendulum thoroughly in the other direction. People, like nations, should be able to follow their own path in freedom, but a nation tend to force their path upon its people. It doesn’t take much TV zapping to realize that much in the West is decadent and depraved but I gladly pay the price of not having to watch reality television; I am free to not partake; I am a conservative myself and understand Islam’s rejection of such elements in western culture, but taking away people’s freedom is so much worse a sin.
“Either officials change their methods and give freedom to the people, and stop interfering in elections, or the people will rise up with another revolution … There is no freedom, repression is carried out in the name of Islam, and that turns people off … All these court summonses, newspaper closings and prosecutions of dissidents are wrong. These are the same things that were done under the Shah and are now being repeated. And now they are done in the name of Islam and therefore alienate people,” said Grand Ayatollah of Iran Hossein-Ali Montazeri.
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam | July 2nd, 2007 at 2:08 am | Report this commenthttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/12/opinion/12KRIS.html?position=&ei=5007&en=17c26f6f79376e66&ex=1399694400&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=print&position=
Here’s more of NYT’s Nicholas Kristof’s interview with Ayatollah Montareri; it starts about halfway down the page:
http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/editorialsoped/opedcolumnists/kristofresponds/index.html?offset=389&fid=.f3beae7/389
The planet could use a few more people of his caliber.
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam | July 2nd, 2007 at 2:26 am | Report this commentFelix,
I am profoundly disappointed in your post. I will cease to discuss any Palestinian-Israeli issue with you since you have proclaimed your bias. I believe any intellectual who takes sides on this issue and cedes reason to bias is unworthy of discussion. Such a discussion will inevitably degenerate into attacks based on emotianal (i.e religious and nationalistic) allegiances.
You did not address any of the serious issues I brought up and instead continued to rant about Arab pogroms (as if I don’t know about them or as if you assume I am an advocate of getting rid of Israel and Jews from the Mid East).
Finally, Montazeri is not someone who I look to for answers or intellectual support. NO religious person (especially the Shia clergy) is someone I look to for intellectual support. Do not quote Montazeri as if his words resonate with me by default since I am Iranian. I am not Pacifist. I spit on Montazzeri and the rest of the shia ulama. How about quoting someone like Akbar Ganji
I expected a constructive an intellectual response, but I recieved neither.
Posted by: kian, US - Obama for President! | July 2nd, 2007 at 3:18 am | Report this commentHi Felix,
I see that your one-sided analysis and hectoring tone did not sit well with at least one other poster either
In the interests of civility, I think we should all desist from assuming that our interlocutors are stupid and I suggest you read my previous comments constructively and in that light.
Your response to me is bizarre.
- You tacitly admit that your analysis and your mentioning of Argentina and Taiwan et al had nothing to do with the regimes in the Middle East. Here, in this thread, we have been discussing the Middle East, because of Blair’s appointment as envoy. So, why have you included irrelevant stuff? At least, if you are going to include irrelevant things, include something useful like a recipe for a good chicken soup or how to make good salt beef that’s not rubbery.
- You try to justify Israel’s behaviour in terms of the suffering of the Jews in the Middle East. Regardless of the alleged evidence of the complicity of the Zionist movement in trying to move the Jewish populations of the Middle East into Palestine by scare tactics (bombing of Jews in Iraq come to mind:
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/jewsofiraq.htm , I think your line of argument that the illegal occupation of Palestine and the apartheid that exists there (I don’t use the word lightly, Desmond Tutu called the situation “Apartheid in the Holy Land” and he should know a thing or two about apartheid: )http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,706911,00.html
is somehow justified by any past suffering of the Jews, makes you the moral equivalent of Slobodan Milosevic and other perpetrators of genocide who used the “wrongs of the past” to justify present and future atrocities against people who did not commit any of those atrocities.
- I see that you are also justifying the West’s attitudes in the Middle East by the need for oil. What you continue to overlook is that a democratic Middle East will also need to sell oil, just as much as the one run by corrupt elites. The difference is that, as shown by the rise of Mossadeq and his overthrow by the US, a democratically led Middle East would demand more control and more benefit of its wealth and the West prefers to deal with, and keep in power, the corrupt elites who do its bidding.
Given your attitude to the above, I find it highly amusing that you see fit to “throw stones” at Chinese attitude to the Sudan whilst sitting in the glasshouse of selfish economic interests.
- As for Montazeri, I tried to point out to you that his views are self-serving. He was old-enough to know better when he was “crown prince”. Putting Iran’s future in the hands of another geriatric cleric is simply the road to nowhere.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 2nd, 2007 at 12:54 pm | Report this commentPacifist,
I can see that we would agree on many things, as well as disagree on some things. But I just want to say your sarcasm (the whole thing about irrelevancy) towards Felix is quite funny. Albeit, I know its not gonna sit well with Felix. Felix, pacifist has made some worthy crticisms of your arguments. What say you?
Posted by: kian, US - Obama for President! | July 2nd, 2007 at 11:09 pm | Report this commentHow is a debate not held without advocacy? I have not proclaimed a bias, I said I felt that one side was underrepresented and hence in a debate I advocate it. I can’t proclaim or admit to a bias when I don’t feel I have one. Tony Blair will be envoy to the Middle East with the same kind of outlook as I have, that both Palestinians and Israelis have entitlements.
Pacifist, I illustrated that the post cold war track record of the West is impressive when it comes to turning dictatorships into democracies when and where political and economical pressure could be brought to bear; the hope was that the same kind of pressure could turn regimes in countries such as Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia democratic. I explained this by saying that these countries have an oil weapon and/or have radicalized their populations againts Israel so that a democratically elected government might resemble Hamas. That’s why it’s very relevant to Tony’s new job; it’s not bizarre either.
I’m advocating Israels right to exist not for past Jewish suffering but for the fact that they are entitled to the land because they are an Ottoman minority. You claim they went to Israel for being scared, which after numerous pogroms and the 1947 war perhaps they had reasons to be. Aliya has always been a reason and Israel was kept alive in prayer and ceremony for thousands of years. No matter the case, you seem to agree that there were almost 1 million Ottoman and Persian Jews affected and I hope you agree that as much as any minority they deserve to live in security. I think Jewish history in Europe and the Middle east shows that only Israel can give them that security at this point in time. To call the situation in Israel apartheid is as useful as to call all Palestinian political organisations terrorist, it doesn’t help and it is also an inaccurate description; Israel is holding the West Bank under occupation and bears the responsibilities of being the occupier until a peace agreement can be reached; that this is no simple affair is shown by the withdrawals form South Lebanon and Gaza.
Pacifist, Slobodan Milosevic was convicted of executing a government policy of ethnic murder and cleansing, and I am his moral equivalent? You might be as bizarre as I am.
Kian, I have addressed several of the issues you raised and your response is that “You did not address any of the serious issues I brought up and instead continued to rant”. You spent the greater part of your first post, on this one issue. Your central issue was that Jew hatred in the middle east was a relatively new phenomenon and I thought I needed illustrate how it isn’t and how today Israel is the only security the Jews have in the Middle East. Do you see any truth to this? The entire Western world agrees with this point of view which is why the entire EU and UNSC boycot Hamas because accepting Israel (and the Jews) is a cornerstone of peace in the Middle East. What had you expected me to write instead? I am probably as disappointed as you are. Perhaps you expected me to discuss European Zionism or the Irgun? Or that British involvement in the formation of Israel is of a different nature than any other European colonial involvement in the ME?
Montazeri would be a great member in a broad coalition of Iranians who could see to balancing Iran out politically, spit on him Kian, or question his veracity Pacifist; his words ring true, and it is a sign of a great man to stand up against oppression when it cost him the Supreme Leadership. Here is a man who used his auhority and position to critique his own fellow revolutionaries when they turned against the spirit of Islam, I think he should be commended for it.
I would apologise if I was condescending. Irony and sarcasm are poor tactics in a debate, and questioning someone’s debating tactics if these are insulting and intentionally hurtful is the right thing to do. Am I a brainwashed equivalent of Slobodan Milosevich, Pacifist? It is demonstraby incorrect, it is not funny; is that sarcasm? Do you think it has more relevance than your chicken soup?
I’d like to sign off with an interview with someone else who agrees with my point of view.
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam | July 3rd, 2007 at 6:50 pm | Report this commenthttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/877090.html
Listen, the issue is not that you are the moral equivalent of S.M.(you are not) The issue is that you are using “the wrongs of the past to justify present and future atrocities against people who did not commit any of those atrocities.” That’s the premise Pacifist posed, but he also chose to compare you to S.M. Set that comparison aside and argue against his premise, which I find to be a theme of your posts regarding the Jewish right to exist and have a homeland.
Also, how can you assume that all the Jews in Israel are descendants of Ottoman Jews? This is simply false.
And yes, British colonialism in Palestine was different than in Iraq or Jordan or Saudi etc. The simple fact is that they colluded to establish a Jewish homeland in an area predominantly populated by indigenous Arabs (of different religions but mostly Muslim). My point in bringing up the Irgun (and yes I hoped that you would address the irony of Jewish terrorism pre-dating Palestinian terrorism)to illustrate how it took terrorist tactics - the same kind used today by Palestinians - to create a Jewish homeland. Why though? Why did they use terrorism? I’ll let you answer that, if you wish.
And you are right about Montazeri, he deserves acknowledgement for breaking with the establishment. Yet, it frustrates me that Montazeri gets all the attention because he is (was) part of the establishment but has the audacity to criticize them. This to me is not commendable, for it should be his duty and all others part of the establishment. Saying I would spit on him was my way of illustrating the disdain I have for Islamists that hijacked the Iranian constutional convention after the revolution.
I don’t know where you live (I’m assuming Amsterdam) or what publications you read, but what makes you believe the Jewish side is underrepresented? Where I live, they have the most powerful Lobby in the entire country; AIPAC. Can you name me any politicians inside the US or even in England that overtly advocate the Palestinian cause? If there are any European politicians doing so, I would sincerely like to know who (this is not a rhetorical question). If anyone is underrepresented, albeit by those with political power, it’s the Palestinians.
That said, your fervor is admirable, so I am looking forward to what you have to say.
Posted by: kian, US - Obama for President! | July 4th, 2007 at 6:02 am | Report this commentDear Felix and Kian,
I spent the past two days attending a conference that brought home to me the vast amount of technical stuff that I should keep on top of in my day job and, as such, I make this my last post to this thread.
- To suggest that Israel was set up to protect the Sephardic Jews from the effects of the collapse of the Ottoman empire flies in the face of history. All the founders of modern Zionism, Theodore Herzl, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, David Ben Gurion, et al, were European Jews and Eurocentric.
Benny Morris (the Israeli Historian), says: “Herzl regarded Zionism’s triumph as inevitable, not only because life in Europe was ever more untenable for Jews, but also because it was in Europe’s interests to rid the Jews and relieved of anti-Semitism: The European political establishment would eventually be persuaded to promote Zionism. Herzl recognized that anti-Semitism would be HARNESSED to his own–Zionist-purposes.” (Righteous Victims, p. 21)
Jabotinsky was considered to be the most important right-wing Revisionist Movement member (which eventually evolved into the post-1948 Herut Party, and later became the Likud Party), who provided the ideological map for its future policies.
He positively despised the “Orientals”, including oriental Jews. He said:”
“We Jews have nothing in common with what is called the ‘Orient,’ thank God. To the extent that our uneducated masses have ancient spiritual traditions and laws that call the Orient, they must be weaned away from them, and this is in fact what we are doing in every decent school, what life itself is doing with great success. We are going in Palestine, first for our national convenience, [second] to sweep out thoroughly all traces of the ‘Oriental soul.’ As for the [Palestinians] Arabs in Palestine, what they do is their business; but if we can do them a favour, it is to help them liberate themselves from the Orient.’” (One Palestine Complete, p. 151)”
I know that the Jews have had the concept of Aliyah (return to the Land of Israel) but if you look at the ethnic makeup of those who went and set up Israel and (perhaps easier) at the identity of the first half dozen Israeli leaders since independence you will see they were all European Jews:
Ben Gurion: Polish
Moshe Sharett: Ukrainian
Levi Eschkoll: Ukrainian
Golda Meir: Ukrainian
Yitzhak Rabin : Born Of Ukranian Parents in Jerusalem
Shimon Perez: Polish
If you look at the above list, your conclusion would be that the Jews should “return” to Ukraine and Poland which is actually right in respect of the Askenazi Jews as Judaism is a religion and not a race (despite what Hiter said).
To say that all Jews have a right to “return” to Jerusalem is as ridicolous as saying that all Muslims have a right of “return” to Mecca!!
- Nothing said above should mean the Jews (Sephardic or Ashkenazi) should not leave in peace and security. Of course, they should.
However, the shoeld to protect the Jews have been made into a sword to oppress others. I would like to quote one more time from the aforementioned Mr. Herzl and leave him in peace:
Herzl stated in his diary: “It is essential that the sufferings of Jews.. . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends”. (From his Diary, Part I, pp. 16)
The above attitude also chimed with the alleged bombing of Iraqi Jews by the Zionist interests.
Israel has every right to live within its pre 1967 borders (imho, even with logical land swaps or land purchases to ensure more secure borders). We know that the Arabs, under the leadership of the Saudis offered this but were rejected. The leaderships in Tel Aviv and Washington want to hang on to what they have and “create facts on the ground” (another term popularised by the late Mr. Milosevic and his Bosnian Serbs), by building walls and shooting at everyone who disagrees with them. After all, the two blue lines on the Israeli flag signify the rivers Nile and Euphrates, the area between which is what the Zionists think is rightly theirs.
- I did not bring up the comparison with Milosevic lightly or as a cheap shot. I know that Felix has probably not got blood on his hand but we, all of us, should consider the logical consequences of the positions we advocate. What Felix suggested was akin to the kind of revanchism that Milosevic advocated which, in turn and in principle, is no different to the kind of settling of historical scores, revenge for old defeats and recovery of lost honour that the Germans were misled into supporting in the 1930’s.
Anyhow,. as Shamloo, the great (to me and possibly to Kian!) contemporary Iranian poet said “There is much to say but I have to worry about breadwinning first!”
(Sokhan haa me tavaan goft, Gham-e naan agar bogzaarad).
Finally, in compensation for taking up so much of your valuable time, I leave you with this interesting site of Persian recipes. It is written by an erudite gentleman who teaches at an English university:
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/F.Mokhtarian/recipes/
Bon Appetite,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 5th, 2007 at 3:22 pm | Report this commentSorry, I just noticed a couple of typos that made one part of my post unintelligible:
- Nothing said above should mean the Jews (Sephardic or Ashkenazi) should not live in peace and security. Of course, they should.
Posted by: Pacifist | July 5th, 2007 at 3:46 pm | Report this commentHowever, the shield to protect the Jews have been made into a sword to oppress others. I would like to quote one more time from the aforementioned Mr. Herzl and leave him in peace: