Raw courage -- but it must be focused

Tasman

"Iran needs the emergence and growth of a civil society ..."
Yes, but what is the philosophy, the worldview on which this will be based? It needs the Judaeo-Christian worldview. And it may be happening (http://www.getreligion.org/?p=14473)

YA

individual rights
freedom of consciousness
freedom of expression
equal opportunities

That's generalized Western, not "Judaeo-Christian"

and don't fool yourself nothing of it can ever be accepted in the East. Sadly, the types of institutionalized barbarity installed there have not only political/traditional but also essentially, genetic sources. To change that, dozens of generations should come and pass

For now, West can only count on separation, - apartheids, walls, wars, laws, drones - whatever makes a divide between us and them; it is the only way to preserve civilization

ONE YEAR ROUND

In view of confusion after that presidential election, it will possible to foresee that if some leader of reform faction die in present Iran, then riot will be raised.
The question is that why Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri died in this timing.

phil

I have had the good fortune to meet a number intelligent and balanced Iranians here in Europe ,who do not reflect what we have come to believe are the mass of Iranians .They are the victims of the religious maniacs even more so than ourselves .Sometime ago I suggested in these columns that we find ways to support those that wish to engage with the rest of the world ,but sadly as usual the rest of the posts on that thread were just what I have come to expect -nothing ! --not a word of support just more expressions of anything the poster wanted to say regardless of what anyone else had said .I used to think we would solve problems here and some do try but mostly it seems to be endless sarcasm and insults .interspersed by those that wish to make progress .
-------------------
--But back to the thread --I truly believe that until we push to the back of the queue all forms of religious extremists whether militant or peaceful we will continue to have a world full of people who either through fear of the leaders of the various faiths or superstition itself are too scared to think for themselves ,how we do that ?,sorry I have no idea ,but the Moslem world would benefit immensely from freedom of thought and so would we .The religion that I was born into is no exception it is locked in the past, but a past that is so outdated by modern knowledge and yet the leaders insist they are bound to follow the word of God that was given to them ,in spite of the fact that nobody saw this happen ,my given religion has many wonderful things to offer us in a way of life ,kindness ,respect and consideration to all mankind, instruction for our good health and many other things and yet it is intransigent and those that adhere to it are inextricably bound by the rules that cannot acknowledge even dinosaurs .So many wonderful human beings wasting their minds on rules and borders from the bible ,when time has passed them by .
-----------------
Iran is locked into this and those that have modern minds are made into monsters ,crazies like dinnerjacket can threaten the world whenever he likes and pronounce us the Satans -We need leaders in the West who have the courage like Winston to stand up and show these people that we are the way ,that it is we who ensure a decent way of life with freedom at its forefront .Stop pussyfooting about his nuclear reactors and now triggers and rockets .let them know that we are the inheritors of the ways of Winston and JHK OTHERWISE WE ARE GOING TO BE VERY SORRY .
--------------
I will finish this "tirade " by reminding all of us that reverse can happen and history has shown us in Japan in1945 that a people dominated by fear and superstition can change in an instant when freedom is on the menu .

hadrian

I thoroughly disagree with Ja's inane comment that regime barbarity is a genetically determined trait and so practically intractable. This borders on racilaist nonsense. Any people can be delivered from thraldom but they need, as Tasman rightly points out, the undergirdimg world-view, which is NOT 'generalised Westernism' as if that could power anything but our current cynicism and self destructive hedonism. The secret is Protestant Christianity which leads to true equality and dignity for the individual and so to Toleration.

Augustus

"But the opposition movement is complicated..." Yes, and this doesn't auger well for a clear-cut revolution. Dislodging a dictatorship is one thing, but what does this 'opposition' really want: 1) The same system,
but more freedom? 2)A different system, but with a theocracy? 3)A secular democracy? And then
there's the question of whether
the oppositionists want the same thing as the dissident citizens. If there's no consensus a real revolution can't be easily accomplished.
And BTW, where are all the mass demonstrations in the West by 'moderate' Muslims? Why aren't they on the streets demonstrating for Western values like democracy and freedom? Although Iran is a unique chance for them to show some support, not a dicky bird.
All they can do is come out against Israel.

YA

hadrian - I've meant that, not concrete regime's barbarity, but the base of support of Islamic ideology has genetic component.

I can't prove this assertion, only draw one associative hint - the ideology of Islam (as well as Judaism) is, in the core, traditionalist, it includes and sanctifies many tribal customs, such as human sacrifices, enslavement of women, initiations etc. Other words, it is closer to archaic orders, and social rules characteristic to the animal regnum - where everyhting is defined by a genetic makeup.

You can call this description racist, but it is only realistic. Racism starts with blind prejudice to someone because of his/her race. As genetic tendencies are statistical, exceptions are always present, - prejudice is morally wrong. Any human deed or quality should be judged by merit.

Baron

Sorry Melanie, Iran lacks a sizeable secular layer, and hence cannot morph into a Turkey alike entity; it will remain an Islamic autocracy whatever the Green Movement does.

Philo

It is curious, but I have noticed time and again contributors here asking critics, with a rhetorical snarl, why they show such suspicious solicitude for the Palestinians. They often explictly say that the only possible reason is anti-Semitism. And yet here they are all deeply concerned for the civil rights of the Iranian people in their struggle (their heroic struggle, we can all agree) against the Iranian government. What are Iranians to them, or they to Iranians? What are Palestinians...? There seems an inconsistency here.

Lungfish

In 1981 I had a good friend at school- his name was Saladin Amery. We got drunk on cheap cider and he told me that he had to go back to Iran otherwise his family would be in trouble. I haven't heard from him since. No bleeding heart drama just the truth.

Major Plonquer

Sorry to place this comment here. It's a bit off-topic.

Just want to say Happy New Year to Melanie and to let you know that you have my vote for Journalist of the Year. Great work.

Any time you're in Beijing I'll buy the drinks.

Derek

Philo. No, no inconsistency.

PHIL

Oh no "philo is back asking inane questions ,she cannot possibly be as daft as she makes herself appear time and again ,but just in case she is -I will tell her that the Iranian opposition to the Islamic autocracy does not go on suicide missions ,does not want to bomb the west into oblivion ,has no intention to blow up airplanes ,does want to live in peace with the rest of the world and does not seek the destruction of Israel -is that enough of a starter for the "lady" who comes regularly to ask smartalec questions which always include a snide reference to the Israeli state .

Dixon

I was totally enthusiastic about the revolutionary protests in Iran, in 1979.As a Western "progressive" by-stander that is.

Im not making the same mistake again.

Moreover, you have acknowledged that this generation of putative revolutionaries are just as entangled with clerical agendas as the last was.Why is it that the only anti-govt leaders we ever hear of are turncoats from the same government themselves. Dont be surprised if we wake up to find something a whole lot worse than Ahmedinejad!

Oh, I hear "What could be worse?"

Well, we use to think "what could be worse than the Shah?"

phil

Dixon
January 1st, 2010 3:19pm -Dixon ,DIXON, Dixon -that was not like you I know you as Dixon the courageous ,and I remember the words of the great FDR -,"The only thing to fear is fear itself"-We are well equipped to deal with dinnerjacket ,it only seems to be the political will that is missing.That is our will not that of the Iranian people .

Wilhelm

Phil 3.13pm

Are you writing a book, son ?

phil

Wilhelm
January 1st, 2010 6:31pm -what did you think of the first chapter ?

Wilhelm

My first marriage was shorter than that comment.

Dixon

"phil
January 1st, 2010 3:42pm
Dixon
January 1st, 2010 3:19pm -Dixon ,DIXON, Dixon -that was not like you I know you as Dixon the courageous ,and I remember the words of the great FDR -,"The only thing to fear is fear itself"-We are well equipped to deal with dinnerjacket ,it only seems to be the political will that is missing.That is our will not that of the Iranian people ."

But that was the point I was making in my first comment: If theres a revolution that appears to be a new-broom, the chances of our leaders having the gonads to attack the Iranian weapons labs goes way down from where it is now. It will be all a narrative of "new people, new negotiations". Think about it, a superficial change of regime in Tehran is all the real power-monkeys there would need to completely neutralise any possibility of their N-plants being attacked.

We had better hope that Agmejinnjinjacket stays in power long enough for the necessary deed to be carried out.

phil

Dixon
January 1st, 2010 10:59pm suppose we will just have to wait and see

Philo

Derek,
You are of course quite right. In a sense there is no inconsistency. The abuse of those who think Palestinians have the same right as everyone else to self-determination, and the support of those Iranians who think their election was stolen, both are interested.

Linda Smith

Philo (2 Jan 9:20am) "..The abuse of those who think Palestinians have the same right as everyone else to self-determination.."

Philo overlooks the fact that for many "Palestinians", whose "right" to "self-determination" he champions, such "self-determination" necessitates the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement by an Islamic state.

Of course there is no such thing as a natural "right" to "self-determination". But here we are entering into a necessary philosophical discussion which Philo and his/her ilk studiously avoid.

Dixon

"Linda Smith
January 2nd, 2010 11:26am
Philo (2 Jan 9:20am) "..The abuse of those who think Palestinians have the same right as everyone else to self-determination.."

Philo overlooks the fact that for many "Palestinians", whose "right" to "self-determination" he champions, such "self-determination" necessitates the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement by an Islamic state.

Of course there is no such thing as a natural "right" to "self-determination". But here we are entering into a necessary philosophical discussion which Philo and his/her ilk studiously avoid."

More fundamentally, Linda, these people are ignorant of the simple fact that "Palestine" is simply a geographical region, like "The Pennines" and there is not nor ever was such a thing as a "Palestinian" national any more than there is or was a "citizen of the Pennines". Its a totally invented identity applied to people who are naturally nationals of the contiguous Arab states, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria. They have absolutely no more right to be there than any Israeli.

Original Tony

What many folk here are overlooking is that a large number of Iranians are turning to Christianity and part of this conversion will be a natural desire for social justice, which is one of the main driving forces behind the current riots.

Augustus

The Iranian demonstrators have been shouting: "No Lebanon! No Gaza! We will only die for Iran!" Which means that these people are the exact opposite of
terrorists. They want nothing to do with those Muslim brothers
and sisters which their wicked leadership so willingly supports.

David Alcock

As much as I feel for the people of Iran I cannot see with any telescope that's available to me, a bright future for them. Throughout Islam, repression is the norm and has been for a very long time.

Altough Turkey's situation and history make it different from the rest it remains in it's/our part of the world exceptionally repressive and always under internal pressure to reject secularism. The lid could always blow if the West demanded to much of them in terms of loyalty in an anti- Islamic cause.

So if there is an effective revolution in Iran and the mullahs are mullered, some more will come along. It is they whose seeds are in the muslim soil not those of secular leaders, proponents of civil society or scions of democracy.

Iran is but one part of an Islam in civil crisis: this has been festering for 700 years. Western democracies need a strategy for Islam and it's propensity for corruption, repression and terror. I don't know what it is but we really do need it. They will out-populate us and the diaspora that will intensify will increasingly engulf us.

Perhaps we should take a tougher stance to ensure that the muslim diaspora honours its host as do the Jews. Then maybe Islam and civil society may start to acknowledge each other and some new seeds sown. Until then Iran remains yet another Islamic tragedy. It has just got to the front of the queue.

By the way, I value this forum greatly and admire Melanie's commitment to air these topics. It's a great pity that some contributors have to make defammatory remarks about other contributors:nameless hoodies mugging a passing stranger See PHIL on Philo above.

Noa Freedom Loving Zrk

Dixon

Please cease being Penninist forthwith. All free peoples have a right to self-determination and we who live near to or in the Pennines demand the same rights as the Scots and the Welsh, (but not the English, who aren't entitled to self determination because they are a multi-cultural mongrel hot potch undeserving of privileged minprity status).
Forward for a Free Penninia!

Philo

Dixon,
"...these people are ignorant of the simple fact that "Palestine" is simply a geographical region, like "The Pennines" and there is not nor ever was such a thing as a "Palestinian" national any more than there is or was a "citizen of the Pennines". Its a totally invented identity applied to people who are naturally nationals of the contiguous Arab states, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria. They have absolutely no more right to be there than any Israeli."

You have me bemused here utterly.

When national identity evolves, the nation is usually called after the land the people live in, or is it vice versa? - I doubt there is any one essential way of truly becoming a nation - (e.g. the Scots, Picts, Saxons, Vikings etc. that make up the Scottish nation live in Scotland; the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, French, Britons, Romans etc. who make up the English nation live in England; the English, Scots, Welsh etc...) The people who live in Palestine, when they collectively decided to exercise self-determination (a process that occurred in the early twentieth century), they naturally called themselves Palestinians. I was not aware that there has to have been a prior polity of the same name before they can declare themselves a nation - perhaps you are simply wrong about that.

You say the people who have lived in Palestine for generations and their children and childrens' children are more naturally citizens of the newly created states of Jordan, Lebanon, or Syria. - How does that work, at all?

You say finally that the inhabitants of Palestine and their children and their childrens' children have no more right to live there than Israelis. That is arguable. What is certain is that they have no less right.

phil

David Alcock
January 2nd, 2010 7:14pm I understand your sympathy but it is misplaced on this occasion .you need to see what this person philo has been nagging away at on various threads -he or she asks questions which are always both snide and loaded and always against Israel or Jewish ethics,never provides an answer to a question posed and is thoroughly objectionable .I try hard to be polite but there is a limit and he/she has tested it . There are people here with whom I do not agree and we discuss in a proper manner and you are right that is what should happen and it does if you follow other threads .Dixon and I do not always agree with each others opinions but we talk and we do not insult each other ,sometimes we persuade one another and that is right, ,philo is quite different and I will not tolerate it .

phil

Dixon you might wish to tell philo that there was never a Palestinian until 1967 -they have never had a capital ,a king or even a government ,they are people used as pawns by the Arab nations who caused their migration in 1948 and even then were known as refugees .They lived in the Ottoman empire as did many others including Jews until the allies put Britain in charge of the mandate and subsequently vacated their homes at the behest of the incoming Arab armies and I have no doubt in terror from some of the Jewish inhabitants ,but not the policy of the state of Israel
------
.Those armies failed them and their friends have continued to leave them in rotten conditions .I do not make light of their plight either ,I wish for peace and justice for both sides but this will never occur so long as certain people continue to ferment the problems rather than try to find a solution suitable for both peoples .I have just been scolded by David Alcock for being unpleasant to philo ,I hope he may see why now .

Dixon

Philo, I think Phil may have mentioned something along these lines. The fact is, the entire region was part of the Ottoman Empire until that was dissolved by the combination of Attaturks revolution and WW1. The modern states of the region simply did not exist as individual entities but were created under the auspices of the League of Nations.

To talk of "Palestinians" as though that were a nationality is like talking of people who live in the Cotswolds as "Cotswoldians" who are emntitled by birthright to have their own state and fight for freedom from occupation by the forces of the oppressors in Gloucestershire.

In other words, irs completely and utterly potty, nuts, crackers. The only differenmce between this analog and that of the "Palestinians" is that the latter "case" has been cooked up by powerful states ( ie, Egypt and Saud ), repeated a million times and swallowed by many millions of mindless sheep, who now bleat away in brainless unison about the poor oppressed "Palestinians" all over the internet and elsewhere.
Goebels was clearly right when he said that a lie reperated often enough is regarded as a fact. However, it doesnt make it a fact.

Dixon

Supposing this revolution occurrs. What then of Achmedinnejackets mates? Are we going to have boatloads of Basijji coming here as "refugees"?

Maybe that is a rhetorical question, because I think we know the answer...and it aint no joke!

Linda Smith

And here comes "Philo" again with his/her nonsensical advocation of "rights" coupled this time with historical garbage:

"The people who live in Palestine, when they collectively decided to exercise self-determination (a process that occurred in the early twentieth century), they naturally called themselves Palestinians."

The only people identified as "Palestinian" on their Passports in the early twentieth century were JEWS in the British Mandate of Palestine. The Arabs refused to be known as "Palestinian". Hence the 1947 UN Partition Plan proposed the division of the Mandate territory into a Jewish state and an Arab state.

Philo is clearly ignorant on the subject s/he chooses to spout on about ad nauseum on these threads.

Trumpeldor

I do deeply admire those demonstrators but they are on their own
No support is to be expected from the failing messiah and China is supplying Iran with brand new anti riots vehicules ...
What an awful world

solemnman

The followers of Montezari's green movement,however dedicated to their cause of reform,face a fanatical revolutionary guard with the guns and will to destroy even themselves in their efforts to destroy the enemies of their apocalyptic vision.The green movement ,even if it were well organized ,(which it is not)with strong leadership-which is ,so far, absent-faces obstacles to success that seem insurmountable without strong intervention from the west.

Dixon

"Trumpeldor
January 3rd, 2010 10:08am
I do deeply admire those demonstrators but they are on their own
No support is to be expected from the failing messiah and China is supplying Iran with brand new anti riots vehicules ...
What an awful world"

But dont you know, the British based Anglo-German gun manufacturer Heckler & Koch actually has licensed production of their weapons at plants in Iran. Look closely at the news images and you'll see that the main Iranian military weapon is the HK G3 rifle ( which they also supply to the Janjaweed of Darfur via intermediaries ) and their various police and militias carry the HK MP5 K and SD3 models ( the same as supplied to British police forces and the SAS ).

These days I am not inclined to be too critical of the Chinese on anything. They, after all, are the only country on Earth actually willing to do something to suppress home-grown Islamist dissent. As far as supporting Iran goes, theres a line of folks nearer to home to point the finger at first.

In fact, some of the shareholders may live on your street!

Philo

Dixon,
I had not realized that a state could not come into existence in what used to be the Ottoman Empire without a League of Nations fiat. (Those Scots who want their nation once more to constitute a state will be thankful they do not live there, otherwise they would in a quandary.)

I still do not understand the rest of what you say:

You say the people who have lived in Palestine for generations and their children and childrens' children are more naturally citizens of the newly created states of Jordan, Lebanon, or Syria, to the East or North. - How does that work, at all?

You say that the inhabitants of Palestine and their children and their childrens' children have no more right to live there than Israelis. That is arguable. What is certain is that they have no less right.

Philo

Linda Smith,
As I understand you, you are saying that the people who lived and still live in Palestine, or are refugees from it, because they made the foolish mistake of CALLING themselves Palestinians, which is a term only rightly applied to Jews (indigenous or immigrant or both?)cannot exercise self-determination? Is that not to invest a NAME with more power and significance than it actually has?

logdon

Here's all you need to know.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Farewell-Israel-Bush-Revolt-Islam/dp/B000VXUU6U/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1262523025&sr=8-4

Dixon

"Philo
January 3rd, 2010 4:43pm
Dixon,
I had not realized that a state could not come into existence in what used to be the Ottoman Empire without a League of Nations fiat."

But thats my point entirely, in your own words "come into exitence". It didnt exist until they invented it! Doh!

John.

The only Muslim country where there has been "the emergence and growth of a civil society" is Turkey, which is now reverting to being a fundamentalist Muslim society, Under the Shah, Persia was more or less a civil society and that was enthusiastically rejected by the Persians. A country inhabited by Muslims does not readily change into a civil secular place, for obvious reasons. While opposition to the present Iranian regime must be encouraged, there can be no great hope that anything much better will replace it.

Philo

Dixon,
Doh! Only if created by a League of Nations fiat can a people become a nation become a state? Nonsense. What the League of Nations was allegedly about was self-determination. Just because the League of Nations was not altogether honest in its promise this does not mean the people under its imperialist control should not have been allowed self-determination not does it mean that its omissions cannot be rectified now. You have a curiously essentialist notion of how a state can be constituted. They seem to exist for you as eternal Platonic ideals subject to no change. In the real world...

Linda Smith

Philo (3 Jan 4:48pm): "Linda Smith, As I understand you..."

No you do not understand me. Go back and read what I wrote again.

By the way, when two groups of people with conflicting interests both want to "exercise self determination" the result is war. The winner's interests prevail. To date, Israel has been the winner. The so-called "Palestinians" cannot exercise "self-determination" because the winner - Israel - has "self-determined" that it is not in its own interests to allow itself to be wiped out and replaced by an Islamic Palestinian state.

Adam B.

Philo, specifically Palestinian Arab nationalism only came about in order to delegitimize Israel. It was invented in the 1960's. There was no such nationalism when Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria and Egypt occupied Gaza in the years 1948-67.

Blyth worker.

Melanie, sorry to go off topic. But I listened to your radio four program. And it was very good. The benefit system doesn't help people get into work, it hinders them.
About the lad who passed his driving test- As a taxpayer, I would rather have paid for his driving lessons. I would rather pay for bus passes for low paid workers. And I would rather pay for training courses for the unemployed.

But I have spent some time working in schools in the Blyth area, and I was shocked and dispirited by the complete absence of ambition and aspiration among the high school children. They didn't want to be something, they just wanted to have stuff. At sixteen, they seem to have the general approach of much older, wearier, people. They don't want to have to get a bus, or a train. They don't have any passion for doing something they love. They aren't all like this, but a worrying percentage are.
I remember when Blyth was bustling. We exported more coal from the port than any other port in Europe. We had a shipyard. Factories were running. Shops were busy. Yet you look at that and realise that all most kids had to look forward to was 40 years in a factory, or down the pit, or working in a shop. If you could get an education, you made the most of it. I did. But those dead end jobs were always there as a safety net. There was always something you could do, and someone you could be.

Philo

Linda Smith,
Was your point simply that I should have called them "Arabs" instead of the anachronistic "Palestinians"? And yet, anachronistic as it is, "Palestinians" identified unambiguously who I was referring to. So, although I should no doubt have been careful to observe the correct historical terminology, nothing of substance was lost. Your objection would be otiose, were it not for its unpleasant implication that, because they had not achieved independence or, with the help of the British, established a self-governing organization (the British, on the contrary, worked quite efficiently to limit political development), or ever had anything remotely like a polity to call there own, their interests could be disregarded by those who governed them without a shred of legitimacy and by those who wanted their land for themselves – they were after all merely people..

I know your opinion that the law is simply what can be enforced by the strong; that those who win wars can do what they like (to both territories and populations); that the losers can continue to resist if they wish and take the consequences, but have no claim on the victors and cannot expect of them any particular standard of behaviour (because by their defeat they have shown themselves to be the weak, and in this pseudo social Darwinian world the strong inflict what they want on the weak). This is certainly not too grossly inaccurate a description of how the world has worked up to now, although it has the uncomfortable consequence that the Axis powers can be blamed only for losing and the Allies praised only for winning. Nevertheless, as a matter of self-interest, should not the strong in this instance (the state of Israel) reach a settlement with the weak (the people who have lived in the land of Palestine/the Holy Land/whatever for generations), to allow Israelis, free finally from anxiety about their security, to turn their attention more fully to the arts of peace and the pursuit of prosperity? Every opinion poll has shown that a large majority of "Palestinians" and until relatively recently a majority of Israelis favoured a "land for peace" deal - a two-state solution sufficiently just in the division of territory and in compensation to those who have lost land to persuade the "Palestinian" population that support for terrorists is not in their interest and to persuade Israelis that peace is more attractive than continued support of military aggression to annexe territory? Such a two-state solution would not be ideal for anyone, but Israelis would certainly not have to live in an "Islamic state" and the Palestinians would probably be able to live in something at least slightly better than their current ghettoes.

Philo

Adam B.,
You say there was no Palestinian nationalism before the 1960s. I am not sure that the historical evidence supports your contention unless you mean something very specific. Or rather there is historical evidence that does not support your contention. Or maybe this is not about history. Is it perhaps about Palestinefacts again? (I read other threads, you see).

JOHN ROOSEVELT

"Philo
January 4th, 2010 11:55am
Dixon,
Doh! Only if created by a League of Nations fiat can a people become a nation become a state? Nonsense. What the League of Nations was allegedly about was self-determination. Just because the League of Nations was not altogether honest in its promise this does not mean the people under its imperialist control should not have been allowed self-determination not does it mean that its omissions cannot be rectified now. You have a curiously essentialist notion of how a state can be constituted. They seem to exist for you as eternal Platonic ideals subject to no change. In the real world..."

Last time I checked, the UN passed a resolution proposing two states - one for the Jews and one for the Arabs. The Arabs rejected it because they didn't want the Jews to have a state at all.

Plus ca change, despite your conviction re " every opinion poll" in the region.

Your problem is that you're placing the burden of a solution on the wrong team, Philo. No need to debate, Plato....If you want to understand the real world, just ponder how many times Arab leaders have lead the "Palestinians" down the road of abject disaster. That, my friend, is the "real world".

You feel me, cuz?

Arash

Thank you for bringing up and looking at a very important issue the popular uprising of the Iranian people.

Montazeri was brave enough to object to what Khomeini was doing murdering tens of thousands of political prisoners who supported the PMOI in 1988 in a matter of 3 or 4 weeks, for which he was ousted as heir to Khomeini and this was in fact the most important and righteous decision he had made.

Another very important thing he has done was that before his death he gave a religious fatwa and annulled the supreme leadership of Khamenei.

However what is important to truly understand is that after 30 years of suppression by the ruling mullahs, there is no need to fear to be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. I say this with full understanding and knowledge of the political situation in Iran.

No government in the history of Iran has been so brutal and murdering than this regime, no government in the history of Iran has been so supported by the western government and appeased than the current ruling mullahs even the US puppet of the Shah.

So anybody that would have the courage and stamina to stand up against Ali Khamenei and Ahmadinejad and topple this regime would be praised by millions of Iranians. That is why the Iranian opposition leader Mrs Maryam Rajavi praised Moussavi's action to stand up against the supreme leader, and warned against any threat to his life and his family calling it in such case Khamenai is directly responsible for it goes further to ask UN to have a team of observers stationed in Iran.

However having said that after 7 months of absolute violence against an unarmed people protesting vigorously for regime change, I can reassure you that no government would be able to stand up against the will of well trained, politicked millions of Iranians who have toppled the worst enemy of God on Earth and human beings.

As far as the main organised opposition is concerned, it is no hidden secret what they have been saying for 30 year has come true. The Iranian people are now in practice following the pattern that they experience and gave 120,000 sacrifices to topple this regime. And today people are saying exactly the same thing "Death to Khamenei", "Death to Dictator", and "Khamenie is a murder his rule is annulled".

So let us see what happens there are just one way ahead of the Iranian brutal regime. If they give up and open up their iron fist they will be washed away like the fallen leaves in Autumn on the ground against the wind, and if they try to crush by opening using live ammunition and firing on the crowd, then the will be accelerating their down fall. The rift at the top is very real and the trend of demonstrations is getting more and more radical, so those who have stood up for 30 years and gave so much sacrifices just for the freedom of expression and all civil liberties will make sure there will not be a fair facing the people, this is what is called the third option.

One last thing the realities is the third option is the only viable solution to handle the danger of Iranian regime's nuclear project to obtain an Atomic Bomb, is the only solution to stop meddling of this regime in the Middle East, and the only solution that would be in the interest of the civilized world too.

Linda Smith

Philo I suggest you read Benjamin Netanyahu's speech of June 2009, available online, which outlines his position vis-a-vis a peace settlement.

H. Mirmohammadi

The brave young men and women in Iran have a clear objective: To get rid of this religious dictatorship in its entirety. This is not a struggle between different factions of this regime. The people of Iran want real democratic change and the main Iranian opposition movement, The PMOI and the charismatic leader of the real resistance movement Mrs. Maryam Rajavi have clearly said that we want an Iran free of mullahs, a free, secular and democratic Iran and an Iran free of nuclear weapons and projects. This opposition movement wants absolute equality between men and women.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Philo wrote: "Nevertheless, as a matter of self-interest, should not the strong in this instance (the state of Israel) reach a settlement with the weak (the people who have lived in the land of Palestine/the Holy Land/whatever for generations), to allow Israelis, free finally from anxiety about their security, to turn their attention more fully to the arts of peace and the pursuit of prosperity? Every opinion poll has shown that a large majority of "Palestinians" and until relatively recently a majority of Israelis favoured a "land for peace" deal - a two-state solution sufficiently just in the division of territory and in compensation to those who have lost land to persuade the "Palestinian" population that support for terrorists is not in their interest and to persuade Israelis that peace is more attractive than continued support of military aggression to annexe territory?"

But, Philo, don't you agree that there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with.

I am confused about you, now...

JOHN ROOSEVELT

H. Mirmohammadi wrote:
January 5th, 2010 8:15am
The brave young men and women in Iran have a clear objective: To get rid of this religious dictatorship in its entirety. This is not a struggle between different factions of this regime. The people of Iran want real democratic change and the main Iranian opposition movement, The PMOI and the charismatic leader of the real resistance movement Mrs. Maryam Rajavi have clearly said that we want an Iran free of mullahs, a free, secular and democratic Iran and an Iran free of nuclear weapons and projects. This opposition movement wants absolute equality between men and women."

If this indeed comes to pass, it could be the greatest opportunity for a genuine Peace in the Middle East since the British departed Palestine.

Those who want all the peoples of the Middle East to live in harmony should pray that H. Mirmohammadi is right.

raymond

I totally agree with H. Mirmohammadi and John Roosvelt too. The heart of Islamic fundamentalism is beating in Iran under the rule of mullhas and once this heart is stopped and a democratic and secular government is set up, the roots of hatred and medieval ideas like that of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will die for ever in the Middle East region.

phil

JOHN ROOSEVELT
January 5th, 2010 11:04am -John you will see on new years day here on this thread that I entirely agree with you ,but I still think philo and her "pals" will be here fomenting aggro regardless of the cost to the people of the Middle East .

Philo

Linda Smith,
I have read the sayings of Netanyahu, just as I have read those of Barak, Sharon, Olmert, Lieberman, and indeed Rabin and Peres. For forty years now, Israel has "negotiated" (the unsightly scare quotes are to indicate that Israel never had any intention that these negotiations reach a final settlement). And while "negotiating", it has steadily swallowed up what the negotiations are meant to be about. Soon it will have swallowed up all it wants - and then what need for "negotiations"? All that will be required is sufficient security around the perimeter of the Palestinian ghettoes, and already there are Palestinian volunteers for the role of guards or auxiliary policemen.

Adam B.

Philo, I would be most interested to hear of your evidence for a specifically Palestinian nationalism predating 1964. You contend it existed - where's the evidence?

Whilst we're at it, perhaps you can highlight anything which is incorrect in the palestinefacts link?

Linda Smith

Philo: you forget - Israel won the war in 1967. To the victor the spoils - however much it sticks in your craw.

If the Arabs had beaten Israel in 1967, what "negotiations" would the Arabs have entered into with the Jews? As I recall, the Arabs declared (as usual) their intention to throw the Jews into the sea.

When I repeatedly asked Sidgwick (aka Wm Hazlitt) what State the Arabs would have conceded the Jews if the Arabs had won in 1948 and 1967, he declined to answer. So, I ask you the same question here.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Phil: I couln't agree with you more, as Philo's response, below, to Linda Smith, clearly indicates:

"Philo
January 5th, 2010 1:47pm
Linda Smith,
I have read the sayings of Netanyahu, just as I have read those of Barak, Sharon, Olmert, Lieberman, and indeed Rabin and Peres. For forty years now, Israel has "negotiated" (the unsightly scare quotes are to indicate that Israel never had any intention that these negotiations reach a final settlement). And while "negotiating", it has steadily swallowed up what the negotiations are meant to be about. Soon it will have swallowed up all it wants - and then what need for "negotiations"? All that will be required is sufficient security around the perimeter of the Palestinian ghettoes, and already there are Palestinian volunteers for the role of guards or auxiliary policemen."

Philo, What you have read of Netanyahu et al obviously is not the basis for this last little vitriolic ditty of yours. We can only infer, therefore, that you are privvy to intelligence that none of the rest of us are.

All I can say is that if your "penetration" of the inner sancta of Israeli power is so effective, perhaps you should think of serving up more of same to those you would seemingly have annihilate Israel.

Bon chance!

JOHN ROOSEVELT

It's unclear whether or not Philo and his fellow travelers are genuinely sympathetic to a form Palestinian Arab nationalism which they have projected onto the movement; or truly understand the symbiotic relationship between that nationalism and Islam; or are jihadists themselves; or simply jew-haters masquerading as idealogues.

In any event, my guess is that they will - before very long - have to content themselves with rationalising jihadism in Gaza and, even, further afield in the region - but in a form that will soon be clearly identified as one lead by Al Qaeda, not Hamas or Hizbollah.

In this case, Philo will surely need to find a new source of vitriolic energy - against the West, which will surely feel more constrained to "act" on Israel's behalf than they have done of late.

If I were Philo, I would pray for a revolution in Iran that indeed does herald a new dawning of a liberal secularist regime...If not, she may well be condemned - in these columns, at least - to an "intellectual" version of St Vitas Dance. Not a pretty sight, but has been often observed of nasty pundits known to have backed the wrong horse...

Philo

Linda Smith,
I will not pretend to answer for H. Sidgwick.

I am not sure in principle why the Arabs of Palestine should have conceded a state to the Jews. I am also not sure what the Arabs of Palestine, as opposed to their self-appointed and incompetent leaders, thought on the subject. I am aware that the Arabs of Palestine were never in any position to dictate anything to anyone (the nearest they came to any sort of say was in the revolt of the late 1930s, and Britain was ruthless in its brutal suppression). I am not at all sure therefore what purpose your question is intended to serve. Is it to argue that Israel is justified in offering the Palestinians nothing but ghettoes because hypothetically the Palestinians might have offered the Jewish immigrants (and indigenous population) nothing but citizenship of Palestine, or even defied the US and tried to expel them all? If I am correct in saying that the Palestinians deserve at least some of their land and not just ghettoes, and that it is in Israel's interest to make peace instead of continuing its annexation (which I agree is at least debatable, given how close Israel is to achieving its goal), surely arguments such as this are beside the point?

SimonP

"raymond
January 5th, 2010 1:16pm

I totally agree with H. Mirmohammadi and John Roosvelt too. The heart of Islamic fundamentalism is beating in Iran under the rule of mullhas and once this heart is stopped and a democratic and secular government is set up, the roots of hatred and medieval ideas like that of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will die for ever in the Middle East region."

I also totally agree.

And for those who deliberately get his name wrong: why isn't anyone calling him Ahmonajihad? There is a heart of islamic fundamentalism beating in Iran.

phil

Linda Smith this woman philo is not sure of anything is she ?her comment regarding the
"Palestinians" conceding citizenship to a non existent state says a lot for her grasp of this area -if it was a person seeking explanations and understanding I would try to be helpful,but she has shown herself to be only interested in cynical questioning ,but never giving an answer to her inquisitors ,in fact a waste of effort and input from some of our most knowledgeable posters .

phil

SimonP
January 7th, 2010 1:36pm -dont know if you know any Yiddish but ECHMERAJACKET (not rude) would do nicely too and I echo your sentiments about who is causing so much of the festering sore in the ME

Philo

Linda Smith,
As I say, I'm not sure what you expect to gain from such hypotheticals. What state would the Zionists have offered the Palestinian Arabs if untrammeled by the imperial powers (Great Britain initially and the US latterly)?

Such exercises in counterfactuals (and in your examples well-nigh impossibles) is all great fun, but surely irrelevant to stopping the killing now.

Philo

Phil,
"if it was a person seeking explanations and understanding I would try to be helpful..."

You mean like this:

"phil
November 19th, 2009 5:53pm
Henry Sidgwick
November 19th, Henry ,I do not have the time to study all these maps ,but you obviously have, so please can you tell me ,is the land you are complaining about within the original land assigned to Israel in 1948 or are you saying they have substantially accrued more -I genuinely do not know..."

SimonP

phil
January 7th, 2010 2:53pm

Nor a bisl!

I agree with your sentiment. Though, ech mir doesn't say all that needs to be said.

I meant to refer to his ambitions. He is kokhedik tsedrait! And that not just against his own people who oyshaltn him.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Philo wrote: "What state would the Zionists have offered the Palestinian Arabs if untrammeled by the imperial powers (Great Britain initially and the US latterly)?"

Thus is truly gobbledygook, Philo. Is this a serious speculation or are you having a stroke??

Linda Smith

Philo, The Arab/Israeli conflict is not about land as you would have it; it is a religious conflict - Islam versus Judaism. The Arabs were offered a second state in Palestine in the 1947 Partition Plan. They refused and declared war against the Jews. Arab statements are always couched in religious terms, even those of Arafat a supposed secularist. The Arab refusal to recognise Israel as a Jewish state has ALWAYS been on religious Islamic grounds. Arab/Palestinian nationalism is Islamic nationalism. Ask the oppressed Copts of Egypt and all the other oppressed Christians in Islamic States.

The Jews of the middle East suffered 1400 years of Islamic oppression, alleviated only by European "imperialism". The Jews of Yemen, topical in the news now, were forced to go barefoot amongst other Koranic humiliations, until 1947 when they were rescued by airlift by the fledgling Jewish State of Israel.

No mention from you of the fact that the Arab states have stolen land 4 times the area of Israel from Jews they made refugees since 1948.

Your Israel-bashing diatribes are ahistorical, factually false, disingenuous, and built on false premises. No mention from you of genocidal Islamist Hamas. Just daft assertions such as "it is in Israel's interest to make peace.." Ever read the genocidal Hamas Charter? Ever tried making peace with Islamists?

Do give over do, and stop writing tosh.

Linda Smith

For Philo, inverter of truth:

For hundreds of years, the Jewish community within Yemen suffered Islamic persecution and hate. In May 1949, the Imam of Yemen agreed to “release” 45,000 of the 46,000 members of the Yemenite Jewish community.

To escape further persecution in Yemen, Jews from all over Yemen made the risky and extremely dangerous journey to Aden (capital of Yemen) where they would await airlift to Israel. This highly complex operation of some 380 flights took place from 1949 to 1950 with support of the British and American airlines.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

If Qassem rockets were as effective as Linda Smith is articulate and wise, I have no doubt Israel would have been vanquished years ago.

You reckon God has a hand at putting the right people on the right side??

Oh merciful Lord, I thank thee for Linda Smith...Just when I was searching the medical sites for an antidote to Philo puffery...in vain....

phil

Linda Smith
January 8th, 2010 12:29pm I had a Yemeni Jewish girlfriend whose father had run from the Yemen and became a baker on Dizengoff street .I WISH SHE WERE READING THIS!! she might say hello :)Ahuva Levy WHERE ARE YOU ? just thought I would say it ,makes a change from complaining about the fragrant one:) ).Happy new year

Philo

Linda Smith,
It may be evidence for a benevolent Deity that there are always reasons, both righteous and plausible, why those in possession need give nothing to those they have dispossessed.

As to the Jews of Yemen, I am not clear how this can be an argument for or against a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine. Yemen was not a party to the partition, nor as I understand to any subsequent conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Philo wrote: "Linda Smith,
It may be evidence for a benevolent Deity that there are always reasons, both righteous and plausible, why those in possession need give nothing to those they have dispossessed."

Philo, you're sounding more pontificatory than usual..and that's saying something.

Apart from ignoring what Linda has said, you always ignore the fact that the "dispossessed" you so cherish were actually in "possession"..but they threw it all away in a vain attempt to anihlate the jews.

Your make me dizzy with your flips and turns...If you don't believe Israel should exist, your attempt at sounding relevant and righteous with the morsel of "biblical" sound bytes above, would be outed as plain deceit, would it not? I mean, one surely has to assume you belong to the jihadist cam,p sowhat's your game? You want charity from Israel, now? Or you want them to retreat voluntarily and buy the old "Hudna" tune from Hamas till they can carry on their murderous ways again - like Hizbollah?

Oh dear, Philo, I think you need another, smarter ruse...

Linda Smith

Philo,

I am not interested in Deities, benevolent or otherwise. As far as I am concerned, religions are human constructs.

I see no prospect of a "two state solution" any time soon, as any "Palestinian" state would be immediately taken over by militant Islamist Hamas. The only practicable solution is the one set out in Mr Netanyahu's June 2009 speech.

Adam B.

Philo, Yemen's treatment of its Jewish inhabitants, and the apartheid system to which the Jews of that country were subjected, makes it imperative for there to be an Israel. It has everything to do with the need for Israel.

Philo

Adam B.,
I think you may have misread what I said: what has Yemen to do with a two-state solution? You will note that a two-state solution implies the existence of Israel. The "need" for Israel is not at issue.

Linda Smith

Philo opined 'The "need" for Israel is not at issue.'

That's where you're wrong, Philo. The "Palestinians see no "need" for Israel at all. What's more, in the manner of the Holocaust denying Ahmedinejad, they deny that Jews have any historic ties with Jerusalem!

Clearly you and the "Palestinians" are singing from different hymn sheets.

Adam B.

Philo, you said you didn't understand how the situation of Yemen's Jews was an argument for/ against a two state solution. I am pointing out that the treatment of Jews in Arab countries, and their dhimmi status, makes the existence of Israel an absolute necessity. You seem to believe (from our other thread)that the Arab world sees the necessity of Israel - they do not. That's the problem.

Philo

Adam B.,
I was, I admit, a bit slow on the uptake. I see your point now.

However, whether or not these states understand the "need" for Israel, they have all offered to recognize Israel if it returns to the boundaries of 1967 and recognizes a Palestinian state on what is now occupied territory.

Linda Smith

Philo:
1. The "Palestinians" categorically state that they will never recognise Israel as a Jewish State.

2. Israel's 1967 boundaries are indefensible.

3. The "Palestinians" regard East Jerusalem/the Old City as "occupied territory" although the 1947 Partition Plan designated Jerusalem and its environment as a "corpus seperatum" under UN control.

The Old city of Jerusalem was a majority Jewish city until Jordan occupied it in 1948 and ethnically cleansed the Jews. The "Palestinians" deny the historical fact that Jerusalem was a Jewish City before Islam was invented and before the Arabs conquered the Middle East.

If you recall an ealier item by Melanie Phillips, the "Palestinians" admit that their demand for East Jerusalem, ie the Old City, for their capital is part of their plan for the ultimate destruction of Israel as a Jewish State.

You omit that the "Palestinians" also demand the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees and their descendants, which would render Israel majority Muslim, effectively destroying it as a Jewish state

phil

Philo
January 7th, 2010 3:01pm -Just about sums your ability up does it not -cut and past somebody else and answer nothing -philo what exactly is your problem ? you cannot find anyone to agree with anything you say ,you have gone past the period of amusing us as you have proved beyond doubt that you do not know anything of relevance on the subject that you come here for-
--------------
Each of us have tried initially to help you but , it has proved a waste of effort .I have gone back to last year and still cannot find anyone who can make heads or tails of you -You might corral S,in ,but nobody treats him seriously anyway ,so enjoy ,oh and I forgot our ancient philosopher ,

Philo

Linda Smith,
I note that you have said on this “thread” both that peace is impossible, and that peace is possible, but only on Netanyahu's terms. I was puzzled which assertion to respond to until I realized that there may be two meanings of “peace” at work here. There is the common meaning. Then there is the meaning I remember from Tacitus: speaking of the Romans he said, “They made a desert, and called it peace.”

Netanyahu's desert I grant you has the odd oasis. They are part of the plan Israel has implemented unilaterally (requiring no negotiation) and step by step for several years now. The latest step looks eerily like the US neo-colonialist blueprint in use for over a century. Those hugely impressed with the “West Bank boom” celebrated more than once on this blog will be familiar with some features.

There are now two armies in the West Bank. One is under the supervision of the US State Dept. and manned by Palestinians. The other is run by the CIA, under no supervision whatsoever. These armies ensure, by the means standard among militias trained by the US, that Palestinians do not threaten Israel's security while it continues its annexation. In return for their services, the Palestinian forces get a little bit of power and a little bit of wealth. The “international community” ensures that its aid flows through the hands of those in nominal command of the Palestinian forces. Israel relaxes the economic noose to a degree in some urban centres. And lo, we have the prosperity that so impresses propagandists for Israel. There are expensive cars, restaurants, boutiques. Some of the newfound wealth “trickles down” in true new-classical fashion (or more accurately in classical Gangster Capitalism fashion). The world can be persuaded that the Palestinians are quite happy and prosperous in their ghettoes and do not need any of the land and resources Israel has annexed. They do not need a peace agreement: peace already reigns. The consequent immiseration of the bulk of the population is a routine feature of such pacification (as in the Philippines, Haiti, Central America...).

I fear that you are probably right. Peace will not be possible, because Israel is proving so successful in imposing a Roman peace (with the odd oasis), with the help of its friends. Now that Gaza has been separated from the rest of what remains of the Palestinians' homeland, the next and final step will be for Israel to find a way to subvert Hamas, as Fatah has been subverted, or simply to bomb Gaza back to the stone age, with the help of its friends.

Crying up the faults of Islam is irrelevant to this peace process. Crying up the dangers of Islamism is irrelevant to this peace process. They provide merely a veil of righteousness to hide the squalid truth.

Linda Smith

"Crying up the faults of Islam is irrelevant to this peace process. Crying up the dangers of Islamism is irrelevant to this peace process. They provide merely a veil of righteousness to hide the squalid truth."

No, Philo, like your compadre, Rippon, you can only bash Israel by omitting the Islamic imperative to destroy Israel which lies at the heart of this conflict.

Actually, Philo, if you knew anything about history, you would know that Gaza was a Jewish homeland. The British ethnically cleansed the Jews from Gaza in the 1920's to appease the Arabs. The West Bank is also a Jewish homeland -Judea and Samaria. Hebron is an ancient Jewish city. The Jews were in Gaza and Judea and Samaria before Islam was invented and before the Muslim Arabs conquered the Land of Israel in holy Jihad.

The Jews have a legal right to settle anywhere they please in their ancient homeland granted in 1922. The 1947 Partition Plan, rejected by the Arabs, did not require Jew or Arab to relocate unless they wanted to, granting them full citizenship rights in either State. Equal rights with Jews (or any other non-Moslems) is anathema to Islam, as is the idea of a Jewish State on land previously conquered in holy Jihad. The Arabs chose war. They lost. Repeatedly.

No more suicide bombers since the West Bank fence went up. Jolly good idea. I see Egypt is building a nice deep wall to block Hamas's tunnels. Jolly good idea.

The Arabs are the only losers of a war who think they can dictate the peace terms to the victors.

You are the one who hides the truth.

Philo

Linda Smith,
I now recall where I have read your stuff before. A month or two ago, your polemical methods were dissected by another contributor. As I recall, you were found wanting, to an extent that argued deliberate intent. You declined to reply. Yet you continue as before. I suppose you rely on the fact that the thread had been on the go so long that nobody will have read the expose.

phil

Linda Smith
January 12th, 2010 12:04am The only person who is being proved right here is me and only because I have told you and ADAM that you waste your intellect on them .They wish only to reinvent the wheel ,no peace will ever be possible whilst those that hate continue to speak -I answered our friend rippon on the "unspeakable"thread -she has disappeared into the ether because like philo she has found my questions too hard to answer -I should have taken my own advice ,but she is relatively new and -----

Linda Smith

Philo, nothing wrong with my polemic. You just can't handle the truth.

Philo

Linda Smith,
Could you then clarify:

Is it that no peace is possible, ever, because of a flaw in Islam that renders its adherents unable to live in peace with the infidel? (There are too many counterexamples for this to be true.)

Is it, contrary to the above assertion) that peace is in fact possible, but only a peace as defined by Mr. Netanyahu?

Is it that the Mandate and its successor the UN gave the Jews in Palestine the right to be citizens of either of the two states after partition and therefore Israel does not need any peace deal to settle on the West Bank? (The UN would find this interpretation of any "legal rights" it had bestowed bizarre.)

Or is it that peace is irrelevant: Israel WON THE WAR, so Israel can take whatever it wants and brutalize whomsoever it wants?

Does Israel have a right founded in ancient history (it is not clear what such a right might be, and who could claim it)? Or is it that Israel has a "legal right" bestowed by the League of Nations (Britain) and the UN (the US)? - and is therefore bound by what the Mandate (as interpreted by the Mandate power) and the UN define as the scope and meaning of this "legal right". Or is it that might is right and Israel need not concern itself with any law (moral or civil or criminal or international or natural or God's or...) but can act as it pleases?

To say there is nothing wrong with your polemical methods after their evisceration by an earlier contributor argues stark insensibility to the canons of reasoning and disputation that sits oddly with the education you so proudly boast of.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Philo: do yourself a favour and open a history book on Palestine (not the ones based on the Protocols, of course, which may, to this day, be in plentiful supply to you). Take a hard look at the litany of massive political errors - one after the other - of successive Palestinian Arab leaders - starting with Husseini's rejection of the Palestine Constitution in 1922 - not long after he had instigated the Arab riots of 1920.

You and your ilk bang on about a one state solution, with one man one vote; two state solutions, with equal rights for all...etc etc.."Your"leaders have had too many chances to count to make these models a reality but they blew it. If Husseini had been fractionally as intelligent as he was power hungry, he could have accepted the Palestine Constitution - in which the Arabs would have held political sway in Palestine (with God knows what fate for the Jews there) - and, if he were inclined to the kind of utiopian claptrap you want us all to believe you genuinely believe in - could have started an experiment in social harmony and prosperity the likes of which the world had never known.

Since 1923, Arab leaders have not inferred anything from their mistakes. Instead, these mistakes, in the intellectual "dialects" of these leaders, have transformed into some kind of holy writ. That may, of course, be what mistakes ought to be (I guess it depends what your schoolbooks taught you), in which case tell that to the great democratic body politic of Gaza you want us to think you care so much about..'cause it will only condemn them to eternal "victimhood" and this won't be anyone's fault but their own or those great leaders they oh so democratically elect.

So, as Linda would say, stop the dishonest whining..however popular you think it makes you. You will be destined to perpetuate the historic errors of the mad hatter Husseinis of this world, if not..

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Philo: a potted history lesson - in lieu of Linda's reply to your "challenge"- which may help prep you for what's no doubt to come:

- Israel is an internationally recognised state.

- that state was attacked by the Arab Armies in 1947-49. It was resoundingly defeated. As Linda says: to the vicotrs, the spoils.

- No boarders were agreed. Only Armistice Lines were agreed.

- The Arabs of Palestine have been hellbent on Israel's destruction since 1948 and were intent on kicking the jews out of Palestine since the first Aliya.. Nothing has changed. Whatever the screams of injustice re Gaza, walls, occupation, Jerusalem..nothing but this matters. The Moslems want Israel abandoned and the Jews out of the Middle east.

- Arabs have been kicking Jews out of their countries for the last 60 years at least - countries with bugger all to do with so called occupied territories or Israel itself. It's been pure Jew hating conflated with anti Zionism. You have the gall to accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing? A bloody joke given how practiced they have been at it. Call it what you will but the Moslems have made jew-hating and anti zionism inseparable. This goes back to when the dear old Mufti of Jerusalem made Islam the hallmark of the so called Palestinian nationalism.

- Israel launched a preemptive strike against the regional Arab armies in '67 - since they were all on the verge of attacking it. They lost that war in a way that captured the imagination of the whole world - even the Left and the namby pamby Liberals were full admiration for Israel - the veritable David against Goliath.. The Arabs squirmed with self righteous indignation - not knowing where to hang their heads in shame - having been - yet again - sold down the river by the kind of b..lsh.t ideological mishmash - this time of Nasser and his merry followers. Was it socialism, nationalism, Islamism?...who the hell cares .?.It was an unholy mix from the mind of a man who undoubtedly - as so many of his contemporaries and past figures whom he may well have drawn inspiration from - admired Hitler and the Fascists. This was the end of Nasser and a serious blow to his Pan Arabist day dream. Again, I'm afraid, to the victors, the spoils...and then the Arab bleating begins in earnest.

- '73 - another attempt to end what the Arabs started - to exterminate israel. Again, a resounding defeat. Again, to the victors, the spoils...

Even after this defeat, the Arabs were hardly clamoring to accept the reality of Israel and sue for a peace which would genuinely try to create circumstances in which both religions - both peoples - could live in harmony. The bulk of the Arabs were still against this.

-Nothing really has changed. The Palestinian Arabs, Hizbollah, Iran, Syria - all still at "war" with Israel....and you want Israel to give in and yield to your appeals to higher sentiments of human rights and democracy - equality for all, one man one vote - which, in the context of these societies makes a laughing stop of the acclaimed principles themselves??!! Mad fantasies, I'm afraid...but, I guess, plus ca change...

You should think hard about the reality on the ground in the context of the history and wonder how can there be a way forward if your strategy for such is merely to demonise a country whose battle against the hordes wanting nothing but its destruction is indelibly etched into its collective psyche?

Wake up. Philo. I have told you, now, too many times to count: if you take this tack, there will never be peace. Your side has a huge mountain to climb - against the fundamentalism and madness in which it has festered for nearly 100 years.

I am not optimistic, because you haven't even gotten to first base in your thinking...and neither have those your claim to support or those who support you.

Philo

Linda Smith,
I recall there was one other contributor still following the thread when your distinctly disingenuous way of arguing was exposed. He got very excited, aroused I suppose is the mot just, imagining you smacking your opponent. If this were a somewhat less moralistic, not to say bigotted site, I would say, Well, chacun a son gout.

Linda Smith

Hi folks! I've just cottoned on that "Philo" is another of Sidgwick/Hazlitt's aliases!

Sorry, Philo/Sidgwick/Hazlitt old chap but I'd rather go and make my supper than waste my tiime untangling more of your twisted fallacies right now. You'll have to wait till tomorrow. Nite Nite.

Linda Smith

Well, Philo/Sidgwick/Hazlitt, it seems that while I was having my supper you were getting your just desserts - a smack in the chops from John Roosevelt. Well done, John Roosevelt. As you say P/S/H - chacun a son gout!

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Philo: you remind me of the poor Taliban in this little tale of woe:

A fleeing Taliban, desperate for water, was plodding through the Afghanistan desert when he saw something far off in the distance. Hoping to find water, he hurried toward the object, only to find a little old Jewish man at a small stand selling ties.

The Taliban asked, "Do your have water?"

The Jewish man replied, "I have no water. Would you like to buy a tie? They are only $5."

The Taliban shouted, "idiot! I do not need an over-priced tie. I need water! I should kill you, but I must find water first!!

"O.K.," said the old Jewish man, "it does not matter that you do not want to buy a tie and that you hate me. I will show you that I am bigger than that. If you continue over that hill to the east for about two miles, you will find a lovely restaurant. It has all the ice cold water you need. Shalom."

Muttering, the Taliban staggered away over the hill. Several hours later he staggered back, almost dead. "Your brother won't let me in without a tie."

Oh, le pauvre...

Philo

Linda Smith,
The person who excites you by smacking people is the very same who was so peculiarly excited by the prospect of you smacking people - a shared interest.

I checked back. The person whose points you were evading was indeed one of those you mentioned. I am neither. What bearing it has on the discussion I do not know.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Philo: "Linda Smith,
The person who excites you by smacking people is the very same who was so peculiarly excited by the prospect of you smacking people - a shared interest."

Ah, pauvre..the usual disingenuousness... not "people" pre se, as you well know, but just you.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Philo: you remind me of the poor Taliban in this little tale of woe:

A fleeing Taliban, desperate for water, was plodding through the Afghanistan desert when he saw something far off in the distance. Hoping to find water, he hurried toward the object, only to find a little old Jewish man at a small stand selling ties.

The Taliban asked, "Do your have water?"

The Jewish man replied, "I have no water. Would you like to buy a tie? They are only $5."

The Taliban shouted, "idiot! I do not need an over-priced tie. I need water! I should kill you, but I must find water first!!

"O.K.," said the old Jewish man, "it does not matter that you do not want to buy a tie and that you hate me. I will show you that I am bigger than that. If you continue over that hill to the east for about two miles, you will find a lovely restaurant. It has all the ice cold water you need. Shalom."

Muttering, the Taliban staggered away over the hill. Several hours later he staggered back, almost dead. "Your brother won't let me in without a tie."

Oh, le pauvre...

Philo

Linda Smith,
I note, just for the record, a pattern in your responses (and lack of responses).

I listed what appear to be the assertions you were making, which are not obviously consistent, and asked if you could clarify what you intended.

Your response has been merely to refer to another contributor who, to put it at its most charitable, is unaware of the points at issue.

This is far from the first time you have avoided explaining yourself; and I am far from the only one whose questions you have flunked.

Linda Smith

Philo, I responded to you, but for some reason my comments have not appeared.

Philo

Linda Smith,
The propensity for comments to disappear is on occasion handy for the moderator and on occasion for hard-pressed contributors too.