When revolutions go wrong

mods...a little indulgence is requested:...i seem to be arguing this point on several topics, so i decided to summarize it here:

We're all aware of the israeli occupation, for those of us who know something about it, we also know thats its a very complex situation. However what is not discussed its "the aftermath".

Eventually the palestenains will get their state.....Israel in essence is demanding that such a state be democratic, including basic civil rights. The theory being that a democratic country wont need an "outside enemy" as do dictatorships, thereby having a chance for a peaceful relationship with israel.

For many here, that is irrelevant. The sole issue is that the palestenians are to governed by someone with palestenian ancestory. That type of govt be if facist, democratic etc is irrelevant.

I look at the overthrow of the russians in afganistan and see how the taliban took control....i look at the overthrow of the shah and see how religious fanatics now control iran.

What i see is that simply removing an occupation or a dictator is only half of the equation. Were the afganistans better off under the russians or the iranians under the shah?....I really dont know, though some iranians who were involved in the revolution (those that werent killed afterwards by the revolutionary guards) have expressed their "regrets" (atlantic monthy...dec 2004)

Hamas has made it clear what their idea of governing will be like (taliban style), some examples have already been seen in qaquillya and gaza....yet for many, this is irrelevant.

I dont get it. For those who express such concern for the welfare of the palestenain under the israeli occupation, yet express no concern whatsoever for the palestenain under hamas? I am not claiming that the israeli occupation is "better" or preferable"..but I am advocating keeping ones "liberal values"

Under Hamas, there will be no 'free press" no one to sue for a wrong killing, no ISM to 'witness atrocities"...the palestenain will be at the mercy of the "moral squads" that tend to exist in fundamentalist communities. Yet this does not seem to concern many of the "pro palestenains"...it is "their business, as i've been told.

well i say its not. I believe that if your part of the process that removes the israeli occupation than you are also responsible for what happens later. How can you not be?...

but what is far more "mind boggling" is the attitude. If hamas takes over and has a facist fundamentalist govt, or its a dictatorship....thats ok since the rulers have palestenain roots.

of course the minor detail that Hamas will continue the war (as they say) or that dictators need outside enemies means that the killing will continue is usually ignored.

perhaps thats the difference between the many of the "pro israel camp vs many of the pro palestenains. Many of us look at the day "after palestenian independance"...where as many in the 'pro palestenain camp"....cant see that far..or dont care.....so i've come to learn.

in the end...I'm probably far more pro palestenian than many here. I'm more concerned with their future generations, their lives having freedoms that come from democratic societies and not willing to close my eyes to a potential facist dictatorship that will make their lives (and mine) miserable...I think its preferable to force the palestenians if need be to reduce their corruption to "acceptable levels"....to provide for their own, to learn responsability, to learn to govern themselves BEFORE they get independence....otherwise that independence might just end up being a taliban style govt ...but then

here i've discovered how "liberals and progressives" can actually justify "respecting a facist govt....as long as its palestenain

I'm sure if the hamas takes over...the palestenian citizen will be most thankful...(as they sneak in to israel)

Sharon and likud would never allow that.
Look-up Sharon's (called The Butcher) part in Sabra and Chatilla
just for starters. But don't view the pictures unless you have
a strong stomach and a high threshold for blinding rage.

Besides, the area lacks the resources to support
two separate states. Among other things there is only so much water available and the water routes are controlled by Sharon and likud.
No water = no state.

The House of Saud will never have it.

The American Petroleum Institute will never allow it.

TexacoChevron and ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell and Oxy and ConocoPhillips will never allow it.

"Mr. Justice" James Baker will never allow it.


The Carlyle Group will never allow it.

They all need something to divert the Arab proletariat from the exploitation of their birthright -- and the wasting of their birthright on frivolous things like race horses and bordellos and casinos and -- things that don't benefit the Arab proletariat.

The need a way to keep their angry young men from toppling the House of Saud (like the House of Romanov), and taking over Big Oil for the proletariat ("mineral reform", like Castro's "agrarian reform").

Like Mark Feldt told Woodward and Bernstein

FOLLOW THE MONEY

What are Big Oil's profits -- and the House of Saud's take - the Wahabi charity skim, and the terrorist skim. Don't ask, Halliburton CEO Cheney will feed you to the wolves (like he did with Wilson and Plame and Liddy).

there are several acquifers in the westbank and one under gaza

sharon is pm....not a dictator hence he wont be there "forever"..at anyrate it was he who gave back the palestenians gaza

the massacers were actually carried out by christians...

the Israelis don't control the aquifers?

I had to take "Soil Mechanics" and "Ground Water Hydrology".

BRACKISH!

Gotta fill those settler swimming pools first, ya know?

Newyorican's generous posting of the maps - with some hydro data - do show ground water migration. Brackishness relates to the water treatment.

"Coastie"
Professional Engineer (Pennsylvania)
Chartered Professional Engineer, Province of Saskatchewan

O how I would love to take some of these people there.
O how their story would change.

probably in more places than you have been.....

Also Abbas is putting in a dasalinizing plant in Gaza.

I drank the "tap" water in both Gaza and the WB - not in settler's homes, but in Palestinian's homes and in Palestinian coffee shops (my Jewish cousin - the "Peace Now" candidate for the Knesset - was a "Kernels of Peace" worker - and delighted in taking her "American cousins" to meet her "Palestinian friends").

BTW - working with Prof C.C. Liu (now at CWR University in Cleveland) we developed some simple water desalination technology that was simple and effective for brackish water - readily scalable and extensible.

Ciao,

"Coastie"
Board Certified Professional Engineer (Pennsylvania)
Chartered Professional Engineer (Province of Saskatchewan)

in gaza?...how? there are no israelis there

http://www.mideastweb.org/Kahan_report.htm
<snip>
The Kahan Commission determined that Ariel Sharon and several others were at least negligent in their duty and should have known that there was a danger that such massacres might occur. Under these circumstances they should not have permitted the Phalangists to enter the camps, or should have at least taken steps to ensure that no massacres occurred, or should have intervened to investigate and stop the massacres once suspicious reports began coming out of the camps. Sharon was forced to resign his post as defense minister.

There has been ongoing debate about whether Sharon was even more involved than the commision determined he was. The camps were under Israeli control at the time.

and whats not mentioned is that if any IDF officer was willing to risk getting his men killed in order to stop christians from killing muslims in a foreign country.....a country in the middle of a civil war....

try reading some more....try the lebanese websites....the christians and muslims in lebanon have been at each others throats for hundreds of years...and the palestenains were hated most of all.....

<snip>
When the facts of the massacre became known, they generated tremendous opposition to the war in Lebanon within Israel, including mass rallies, calls for the resignation of Ariel Sharon, and calls for setting up a commission of inquiry to determine whether the IDF or Defense Minister Sharon or other officials had any responsibility for the massacres.

The massacre was foreseen both by the Chief of Staff of the IDF and by then Deputy Prime Minister David Levy, at a government meeting held on the evening of the 16th of September, after the Phalagists had already begun to enter the camps.

...Nonetheless, though they should have been aware of the dangers, the government did not take any action to prevent the possibility of massacre. By Friday morning, the 17th of September, the first reports of the massacre had certainly reached the Israeli personnel, and these reports continued to circulate and grow...

but it was not until Saturday morning that the IDF acted to get the Phalangists out of the camps.
http://www.mideastweb.org/Kahan_report.htm

you wrote the IDF SENT the plangist in...the commission does NOT say that...

'The Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Rafael Eitan

>snip

The decision to send the Phalangists into the camps was taken by the Minister of Defense and the Chief of Staff, and the Chief of Staff must be viewed as a partner to this decision and as bearing responsibility both for its adoption and for its implementation. The Chief of Staff did not express any opposition to or reservation about the decision to the Minister of Defense, and no one disputed that it was taken with his consent. There is no reason to doubt that had the Chief of Staff expressed opposition or reservation, this fact would have borne serious weight in the consideration of the decision; and had there been a difference of opinion between him and the Minister of Defense, he could easily have brought the matter before the Prime Minister for his decision. It emerges quite clearly from the Chief of Staff's testimony, as cited above, that his opposition to sending the Phalangists into the camps would have meant that they would not have been sent in, and other means (which he detailed in the statement cited above) would have been adopted for taking control of the camps.'


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/kahan.html

who was there at the time. The Maronite Christians were avenging the death of their leader, Gemayel - as well as other atrocities committed by the PLO.

The Israeli army was nearby.

From the Kahan Commission report;

'>snip

The Chief of Staff remained at the forward command post in Beirut and followed the development of the I.D.F. actions from there. On that day the Phalangist officers did not arrive at the forward command post to coordinate operations, but Major-General Drori met with them in the evening and told them generally that their entry into the camps would be from the direction of Shatilla. Major-General Drori, who was not at ease with the plan to send the Phalangists into the camps, made an effort to persuade the commanders of the Lebanese Army that their forces should enter the camps and that they should prevail upon the Prime Minister of Lebanon to agree to this move. The reply of the Lebanese Army at the time was negative.

In the early morning hours of Thursday, 16.9.82, the Chief of Staff left the forward command post and returned to Tel Aviv. That same morning, in the wake of political pressure, an order was issued by the Minister of Defense to halt the I.D.F.'s combat operations; but after a short time the Minister of Defense rescinded the order. At 10:00 a.m. the Minister of Defense held a consultation in his office with the Chief of Staff; the director of Military Intelligence, Brigadier-General Y. Saguy; Lieutenant-Colonel Zecharin, the Chief of Staffs bureau chief; and Mr. Dudai (exhibit 27 is a record of what was said at that meeting). The meeting was opened by the Chief of Staff, who announced that "the whole city is in our hands, complete quiet prevails now, the camps are closed and surrounded; the Phalangists are to go in at 11:00-12:00. Yesterday we spoke to them... The situation now is that the entire city is in our hands, the camps are all closed." Later on in his statement, while pointing to a map, the Chief of Staff stated that the areas marked on the map were in the hands of the 1. D. F. and that the Fakahani, Sabra, and Shatilla camps were surrounded. He also said that if the Phalangists came to a coordinating session and wanted to go in, it was agreed with them that they would go in and that the Lebanese Army could also enter the city wherever it chose. At this discussion, the Minister of Defense spoke of the heavy American pressure to have the I.D.F. leave West Beirut and of the political pressure from other sources. In the course of the meeting, the Chief of Staff repeated a number of times that at that moment everything was quiet in West Beirut. As for going into the camps, the Minister of Defense stated that he would send the Phalangists into the refugee camps (p. 5, exhibit 27). At the time of the consultation, the Minister of Defense informed the Prime Minister by phone that "the fighting has ended. The refugee camps are surrounded. The firing has stopped. We have not suffered any more casualties. Everything is calm and quiet. Sitting opposite me is the chief of Staff, who has just come from there. All the key points are in our hands. Everything's over. I am bringing the Chief of Staff to the Cabinet meeting. That's the situation as of now..." After this conversation, the Chief of Staff reported on the contacts during the night of 14.9.82 with the members of the Mourabitoun, in which the members of this militia said that they were unable to hide, that they were Lebanese, and that they would undoubtedly all be killed by the Phalangists, whether immediately or some time later. The Chief of Staff added that "there's such a dual kind of situation that they're confused. They're seething with a feeling of revenge, and there might have been rivers of blood there. We won't go into the refugee camps" (p. 7, exhibit 27). As stated, participating in this consultation was the director of Military Intelligence, who in the course of the discussion stated a number of things that appear in the aforementioned record.

The commanders of the Phalangists arrived for their first coordinating session regarding the entry of their forces into the camps at about 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, 16.9.82, and met with Major-General Drori at the headquarters of one of the divisions. It was agreed at that meeting that they would enter the camps and coordinate this action with Brigadier-General Yaron, commander of the division. This coordination between Brigadier-General Yaron and the Phalangist commanders would take place on Thursday afternoon at the forward command post. It was likewise agreed at that meeting that a company of 150 fighters from the Phalangist force would enter the camps and that they would do so from south to north and from west to east. Brigadier-General Yaron spoke with the Phalangists about the places where the terrorists were located in the camps and also warned them not to harm the civilian population. He had mentioned that, he stated, because he knew that the Phalangists' norms of conduct are not like those of the I.D.F. and he had had arguments with the Phalangists over this issue in the past, Brigadier-General Yaron set up lookout posts on the roof of the forward command post and on a nearby roof even though he knew that it was impossible to see very much of what was going on in the camps from these lookouts. An order was also issued regarding an additional precautionary measure whose purpose was to ascertain the actions of the Phalangist forces during their operation in the camps (this measure is cited in section 5, Appendix B). It was also agreed that a Phalangist liaison officer with a communications set would be present at all times on the roof of the forward command post - in addition to the Mossad liaison officer at the Phalangist headquarters. The Phalangist unit that was supposed to enter the camps was an intelligence unit headed, as we have said, by Elie Hobeika. Hobeika did not go into the camps with his unit and was on the roof of the forward command post during the night (testimony of Brigadier-General Yaron, p. 726). This unit was assigned the task of entering the camps at that time for two reasons, first - since the ... Phalangists had difficulty recruiting another appropriate force till then; second - since the members of this unit were considered specially trained in discovering terrorists, who tried to hide among the civilian population.

On 16.9.82 a document was issued by the Defense Minister's office, signed by the personal aide to the Defense Minister, Mr. Avi Dudai, which contained "The Defense Minister's Summary of 15 September 1982." This document is (exhibit 34) a summary of the things which Mr. Dudai had recorded during his visit with the Defense Minister in Beirut on 15.9.82, as detailed above. In various paragraphs of the document there is mention of the Defense Minister's instructions regarding the entry into West Beirut. The instruction in paragraph F. is important to the matter at had; it is stated there:

"F. Only one element, and that is the I.D.F., shall command the forces in the area. For the operation in the camps the Phalangists should be sent in."

The document is directed to the Chief of Staff, the Deputy Chief of Staff and the director of Military Intelligence. The document was received at the office of the director of Military Intelligence, according to the stamp appearing on the copy (exhibit 35), on 17.9.82.

In the testimonies we have heard, different interpretations were given to the instruction that only the I.D.F. command the forces in the area. According to one interpretation, and this is the interpretation given the document by the Chief of Staff (p. 257), the meaning of the instruction is that in contacts with external elements, and especially with the Phalangists, only the I.D.F., and not another Israeli element, such as the Mossad, will command the forces in the area - but this does not mean that the Phalangist force will be under the command of the I.D.F. On the other hand, according to the interpretation given the document by the director of Military Intelligence (pp. 127, 1523), the meaning is that all forces operating in the area, including the Phalangists, will be under the authority of the I.D.F. and will act according to its instructions.

http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/kahan-commission-part2.html

The commanders of the Phalangists arrived for their first coordinating session regarding the entry of their forces into the camps at about 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, 16.9.82, and met with Major-General Drori at the headquarters of one of the divisions. It was agreed at that meeting that they would enter the camps and coordinate this action with Brigadier-General Yaron, commander of the division

and if you keep on reading you find the lebanese govt was also involved.....

Wordie wrote;

--The IDF sent the Phalangists into the camps.eom--

CB responded;

--No, they didn't.

Englander responded;

--Yes they did.--

The snippet you've provided says, yes, the idf sent the phalangists
into the refugee camps. Which was the original claim from Wordie that
was denied by yourself & CB, & Wordie's claim has been proved to be
correct. Jabba & the idf CoS took the decision.

'The decision to send the Phalangists into the camps was taken by the Minister of Defense and the Chief of Staff, and the Chief of Staff must be viewed as a partner to this decision and as bearing responsibility both for its adoption and for its implementation.'

--The Maronite Christians were avenging the death of their leader, Gemayel - as well as other atrocities committed by the PLO.--

The PLO killed Gemayel? Now *that* is news. What are these other
'atrocities' you mention, please provide examples, so that I may
have the advantage of actually knowing what you're referring to.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I have no idea what can or cannot be stated here.
I will let this truth be the end of it.

your calling him a butcher for something he didnt do....you've used the khan commission to explain hows hes guilty.

so someone is guilty of commiting a crime when what he did is not stop some potential people from commiting a crime....maybe he knew, maybe he should have..but it was christians that massacred palestenains....not the IDF.

i doubt the police in your state can arrest someone and charge him with a crime for not stopping a crime that he might think is going to be committed.....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

there will never be a separate Palestinian nation. What will happen is demographics will, eventually, turn the area (Israel proper, annexed and occupied territories) into a minority Jewish population.

As for water resources:

The Palestinian intelligentsia will follow the Iraqi intelligentsia -- to the United States.

They will add to the United States as the Palestinians already here have added to the United States.

They will write our software, and design and build our cars (like the Iraqis), and treat our sick (like the Egyptians and the Iraqis)...

The proletariat --- they will suffer as they always do.

In this zero sum game -- net win for the US --- net loss for Israel and Palestine.

Hopefully, they will vote Democratic.

:hi: :dem:

exists in one form only, that there is No Israel State.

Since that will never happen, all else is moot. Israel will never give up Jerusalem

Any other thought process is pure unadulterated fantasy.

as though it's a given.

I reject that image. Hamas is not the taliban. Gaza is not Kabul and your typing it doesn't make it true. Furthermore, Hamas enjoys tremendous popular support. If they get positions of leadership and don't lead well, that support will decline.

Personally, I think the Palestinians have had enough of dictatorship... that's basically what they had under Arafat. I don't think we'll see that again anytime soon in Palestine... unless of course the US and Israelis don't allow Hamas to participate in upcoming legislative elections.

You think Iranians were better off under the Shah? The Shah was a hated tyrant. Our support of his regime midwifed the birth of the Islamic Revolution. At least the Iranians can change their own country if they see fit. For the past 25 years, Iran has posed no danger to us. Let them solve their own issues internally, just as European nations were able to... just as the US was able to in the 1800s... When a majority of Iranians decide they've had enough of the revolution, they'll vote in moderate representatives.

The one thing all these developing countries hate more than their own extremists is US.

Let's stay out of it.

After decades of western domination, the only groups with enough courage to stand up to the west have been religious. They *are* the only opposition. They've earned their day in the sun, and let's face it, they're where they are because of US.

Hamas take positions of leadership by power not popular support

Hamas's power is not supported by "the people" That is a western civilization concept. They are supported by middle eastern petro dollars and by weapons with the goal of vanishing Israel

The Palestinian are being used by the rest of the arab world to do their dirty work. Once that work is done, the Palestinian will be ruled by the oil rich arab countries

I have many relatives who live in Gaza. Hamas enjoys huge popular support because they are not corrupt and they stand up to the Israelis.

Really, think what you like, but if you believe that Hamas is not home grown -- and popular -- you are dead wrong.

Would they still be popular???

I am interested in your response

the PA is corrupt, hamas isnt....which is why they have such support....as what happend in iran...and now the citizens of iran cant get rid of the rulers that hang 14yr olds (as does saudi arabia) since they dont have a democratic country....

they have a govt which doesnt allow fair elections....or do you claim that they do?

and I don't have personal experience in that country.

In spite of the fact that Iranians live with difficulties under their leadership, I don't hear a hue and cry to the rest of the world asking that they be saved, do you?

They certainly have an active film industry and other forms of expression.

I think the problem with their system is that the Supreme Council (or whatever its name is) has to approve candidates before elections.

I also think their younger voters are quite cynical.

Bottom line is that your arguments boils down to this:

Continue the Israeli occupation, because it's better than self-rule led by Hamas.

I think that's poppycock.

Continue the Israeli occupation, because it's better than self-rule led by Hamas.

i never said that...nor do i recommend that....

is that many times, the only group with enough guts to take on an established dictator, tends to be religious in nature.

Same thing in Egypt. Who's the alternative to Hosni Mubarak?

I thought all along that the key to PA survival would be the establishment of a second moderate political party. I think it should be Abbas' first move, to encourage such growth.

Everybody wants political change at some point. Danger comes when there is no alternative.

The bottom line is that we need to encourage the growth of democratic institutions in developing countries, rather than supporting specific parties or leaders. We need to support the rule of law, a free press, peaceful transfer of power.

But to prolong the Israeli occupation because you hate Hamas is not an alternative, in my opinion.

i see them as a very dangerous group...but like you mentioned, it usually the religious that have the "guts" to go against an established regime...probably because of the beliefs...willling to die for god etc.

that produces a real problem as we saw in afganistan and iran....trading an occupation/dictatorship for a different one.

i dont know who is worse the shah or khomni.....my guess?..khomeni simply because they enter the homes with their religous morality.....no pluralism allowed. It doesnt mean i advocate dictatorships....but i think that religious dicatorships are far worse than secular ones.

How can we encourage progressives to exhibit more courage?

Before attacking - ask yourself--

Where's the $3.059 a gallon going?

What was the "other item" on Valerie's Brewster Jennings plate?

What was left out of the 9/11 Commission Report.

http://thinkersunderground.blogspot.com>

why do you think Hamas doesn't have popular support, especially in Gaza?

And i said, with reference to "middle eastern petrodollars" and "oil rich Arab countries"

Before attacking - ask yourself--


Where's the $3.059 a gallon going?

What was the "other item" on Valerie's Brewster Jennings plate?

What was left out of the 9/11 Commission Report.

in case you didnt notice the elections in iran were a sham...the rulers are NOT elected....demonstrations are stopped violenty..

so your one of those that "respects the iranian facisct govt?

the religious leaders also enjoyed support by everyone in order to get rid of the shah...now? they're stuck with facism only the fundamentalist kind...and how are they going to get rid of the present rulers?....

there is no free press, no free elections...no civil rights....and this how are the "people" going to change the govt?

is the unintended result of western tampering (e.g. assassination).

Iran had a democracy, until their President/Premier was assassinated by a CIA orchestrated Coup d’Etat.

Then came the brutal US-backed Shah,
then the Shah was overthrown,
then the Fundies took over,
now todays fundies want to develop nukes.

Blowback is a bitch.

Also kvetching about human rights in Iran is meaningless coming from Israelis or Americans, Israel *loved* the Shah. Under the Shah, Iran was, "the same land that had supplied much of Israel's oil; the country where Israelis had participated in training the SAVAK, the Shah's secret police; and where both Israeli and Iranian pilots had trained on U.S.-supplied Phantom F-4 fighter-bombers."
Source

they seem to imitate them, at least according to their own leaders:

start with this:
A VISION of an Islamic society that bans mixed dancing and sternly disapproves of homosexuality has been given by Mahmoud Zahar, the most senior leader of Hamas in Gaza

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1814968,00.html

and what i am saying is though its not a "surething".....the danger is obvious...and it foolish to say "it cant happen"
____________________________________________

or from a christian palestenian
http://66.116.222.243/updates/050815.html
What if Hamas wins the election? “As a Christian, I would choose to leave rather than live under Hamas. Their approach is strictly fundamentalist. I’m not interested in Palestine becoming Iran.

__________________________________
it has, afganistan, iran, saudi arabia

and the US did not cause afaganistan to be ruled by the taliban.....

a society that frowns on mixed dancing and homosexuality could also be called Baptist!

Doesn't make them the Taliban...

I wouldn't want to live under Hamas either, but I think we're witnessing what happens when the US decided to play God and save countries from themselves.

I no fan of Iranian leadership, but it's up to the Iranians to get tired enough of it to fix it for themselves. Period. And what they end up with will be geniune and it will be theirs.

your confusing a democratic country with a facist dictatorship.

and how shall the iranians get rid of their dicatatorship?...if you'll notice the last elections did not include the ruling council nor secular "democrates"....

for Iranians to solve. They managed to get rid of the Shah, didn't they?

Who knows, maybe progressive secularists will develop the cajones that the Islamic Revolutionaries had and throw the bums out!

so as far as your concerned.....for those living under facist regimes....well its "their problem"

so the kurds...llving under the occupation of of turkey and syria...is it "their problem?..as is the tibetens?..their problem

the afgans who were under the taliban..their problem?....

west saharas under moroccos thumb...their problem?

so basically your saying: civil rights only goes to those willing to fight and die for it....if your not and your govt is facists...well thats "your problem.


did i get that right?

Let me turn that around:

do you think other countries should have the authority to go into countries with despots/tyrants/dictators and install new leaders?

Do you think that worked well in Iraq?

Don't you think the populace of a country ought to be willing to fight for their own freedom?

Do you advocate invading Morocco, Turkey and of course ISRAEL in order to install "just" regimes?

...and its about time you asked....and i really dont have a black and white answer to that.
In principle, no...countries just cant invade others inorder to install "more appropriate govts.

on the other hand we also have to recognzie that dictatorships have basically stolen the country from its citizens and have no right to rule. Hamas like kohmenni and his ilk, may get elected as a response to the PAs incompetence....that cant be stopped. At the sametime it cannot be ignored.

dictatorships, that have no civil rights are dangerous places..they require a whole host of violent systems to keep the people down and under the thumb..and as such they cannot be recognized as "full countries".

the first generation may "accept the change" as "anything better"...but generation 2, will not (iran as the example)..but they are stuck with a serious problem. Not all populations can fight for change....iraq is a nice example..the kurds got gased the muslims in the south..massacred. Afganistan sure wasnt doing so well under the taliban, yet no one was revolting were they? Sudan isnt doing to well, nor are half the countries in africa....revolts can be messy

not all populations know how to "fight for their freedom. or know how" or can (check out the tibetens)

iraq?...i find it to be an experiment...can the culture be changed "overnight"....by an outside force.....and how long does it take?....its not over yet...in fact its just starting over there.

as far as the palestenains go....with all the intl pressure and influence there is no reason why the PA cant be forced in to being more competent....or have europeans come in and take over to make things work

if hamas gets elected...they MAY or MAY not turn gaza in to taliban land...we, nor you, dont know. if they do the palestenians there are screwed....nobody deserves to live under a dictatorship....an worse...and religous one.

I think these questions are the heart of the issue -- what IS a moral, workable foreign policy for Progressives?

I don't hear our party talking about it enough. It's a hard discussion to have, to put all the options out on the table. It's hard to depart from the accepted dogma of good vs. evil.

What IS the line at getting involved? At what point is it acceptable to step in without being invited? You raise good points about the Taliban in Afghanistan. But I would argue that Iran isn't nearly there, and I know for a fact Palestine isn't.

unlike the taliban, or kohmenni or china (tibet) the palestenians are subjected to outside forces....its probaby one of the few places where the UN or europe can actually have an influence. More so, the "players" are relativly known.

and unlike sudan etc. the UN and europe are involved and are willing to actually do something...

To be clear, my interest is purly selfish. A democratic palestine has a far better chance of getting along with israel than a dictatorship....be it an incompetent PA or competant Hamas....

israel for that matter has only a negative influence and has learned (i hope) to stay out of it...but nothing is a "sure thing" in the middle east

at the sametime doing nothing and watching may be the best thing to do...or maybe not....i have trouble reading the future

in fact our disagreement on the hamas is another case in point: I suspect all religious political parties..and infact would place them (if I was all powerful") out of politics period.

Religious parties in the long run do not belong in politics as they are inherently dictatorial. They may do good in the short run, they may have much to offer..but long term they can either offer or a dictatorship or limited rights to their "members" in terms of exercising their rights to participate in a democratic society. True it is their right and they must be defended, but they also represent the opposite of what a democracy is all about....

that a population selects its own leadership -- either direct or representative governors.

I would personally like to see secular governance everywhere, but I don't think it's very likely, and those ideas will have to be battled out in the ballot box. Indeed, they're being battled out here in the US. I think it's more effective for ideas to run their course, and demonstrate their weaknesses for all to see, as we're currently seeing in the US with regard to the role of evangelical christianity in the public square.

Far more dangerous than the role of religion in politics, IMO, is the role of the corporate world. We may not have a Council of Supreme religious judges who put the ixnay on particular candidates for election, as they do in Iran, but let's face it: no one can get elected in the US without the "yes" stamp of big money donors.

now your ruining all the fun...we might actually agree on something....

even though democracy means one selects their own leadership..it doesnt mean we stay niave...hitler being the prime example that liberal democracies can be turned "upside down".

Liberal democracies must be able to "defend themselves as well" and that will require using "illiberal methods"..outlawing parties that are considered "evil". True its a fine line...but the line does exist. Israel outlawed Kach...a fascist religous party....a good move.

Your belief that once in power those who are not religious will see their weakness....i dont buy that....religion does strange things to people:

or as in iran, they'll simply dump the democratic process, since religions leave little room for that. I'm not saying they shouldnt have the right to run....but i am saying that we at least have to be aware of what the consequence may bring.....it comes back to: if and when do liberal democracies interfer in other countries....dictatorships i believe threaten all democracies either directly or indirectly....but as i believe you understand i am not advocating invading....(well maybe just a select few?)

but here i agree with you about corporate politics..money greases the machines...but it seems to be a trait of all democracies, not just the US.

is to the ongoing peaceful transfer of power, more than to an ideological quality or religiosity of the parties running.

As for religious parties running their course -- I believe the majority of Americans will be sick of "people of faith" in the White House, and will have seen first hand, that "religious" leaders are no more honest, moral or compassionate than those who DON'T wear their religion on their sleeve -- indeed religious leaders are less so!

So, Pelsar, right now, whom would you deem worthy of invasion?

Is "good for Israel" your yardstick?

well because of the realities of invading...the fact that it causes lots of deaths, its not a "sure thing" i'm not really for it.

however first on my list would be countries like sudan, syria, iran, n korea, saudi arabia, burma....basically dictatorships...but with a special emphases for those who have religious overtones...its bad enough living under a secular dictatorship...but at least they dont have "moral squads" roaming the neighborhoods threatening people for "religious transgressions"..worse religious dictatorships have a far greater list of "transgressions' than secular ones....with horrendous punishments that go along with them.

as bad as n. korea is for starving its own people, i still give iran the first place in requireing a regime change.

just for the record the PA is still in flux, plus they have large secular popluation (like iran and afgansitan) so they may or may not succumb to hamas.....

btw my experience with religion and within the parties is from personal experience....in essence i learned that though they claim moral superiority....when it comes down to it, they are far worse then the "average man" as whatever they do, they have gods backing.....and have no allegence to democracy or the "other"

I agree though about Palestine. I think the best possible scenario is a parliamentary body that represents all interets and spreads responsibility around will lead to the most stability.

death squads. They tend to focus on political transgressions vs. religious. Read up on Central & South American recent history for more info.

They are equally bad.

the revolution there was in some large part a reactionary one from the religious and other types losing power. Women would be better off in a secular and progressive government. I think you're giving way too much influence to the US and the west in your last line.

is in a position to judge what's worse. Can you compare being forced to wear the chador with having male relatives disappear forever and living under the terror of SAVAK?

I don't know.

The guy I know who lived there told me when he walked into his "church" the gangs (I am being kind) would stick knives under his chin. As if to quaintly point out, if you don't go to a mosque... you're going to die soon.

Savak was terrible and the shah was authoritarian. But what do you have there now? Is it better?

was not progressive at all. He was a truely brutal dictator.

I posted this previously:


Note the bolded section about supposed concern for "human rights" by certain corners of both American and Israeli interests.

the issue is not what dictatorship is in the various interests of which country....the issue at hand is if and when do liberal democracies interfer and if they should.....and or if they can....

..and not actually taking part in your discussion.

The Shah is hardly "preferable" to Islamic revolution leaders...

Well, maybe for US oil interests... ;)

how would we know?

for women's rights, etc. Authoritarianism: toss-up with the religious types?

expel its Jewish population after 1948. That counts for something. Under the Shah, Jews were treated fairly in Iran, they've had a long, long history there.

Under the ayatollahs, life has become difficult and frightening for the Iranian Jews. Nevertheless, under Reagan/Bush, Israel was used to arm Iran in the war against Iraq - whilst America OPENLY armed the Iraqis.

Israel is as much a pawn in the Middle East as any Muslim country. Making her out to be some Machiavellian monster is both ludicrous and bigoted.

As usual, you are bolding the wrong info, bubbe. Please try learning something about the people you so enjoy damning.

He was good for Iranian Jews, so he had to be a good guy.

a more tolerant and open society in Iran under the Shah, for women as well as for minorities, and certainly for people who desired a more secular and modern approach to the world. I'd suggest a little reading about the impact on women, who'd been independent professionals, finding themselves being forced back into the veil.

The way other nations in the Middle East treat their Jewish populations most certainly affects the way Israelis see them. That is only natural, under the circumstances.

During the time Jews all over the Middle East were being persecuted, during the postwar period, the ONLY people in the Arab world who stood up for them were the Maronite Christians in Lebanon. And again, only Iran didn't actually expel them. During WWII, the people of Central Asia refused to hand their Jews over to the Nazis. Do I have to remind anybody of the Nazi/Arab cooperation?

Put yourself in some Jewish shoes, if you can. It might be nice if people LEARNED SOMETHING about the ancient Sephardic and Mizrachi communities, their professions and the role they played in Middle Eastern cities and along the Silk Road. The Arab communities are practically defunct, after thousands of years. The Middle East and North Africa, outside of Israel and a few people scattered here and there, living in less than ideal circumstances, is practically judenrein, west of Iran - revenge for the creation of Israel. The Egyptian ambassador to the UN, Haykal Pasha, stated in a speech he feared this would occur and it did.

And as I mentioned, the Iranian community is now under great pressure under the mullahs - probably along with all the other minorities, and women; and Islamist factions in Central Asia have created renewed antisemitic attacks in the "stans".

I have another question, since the poster to whom I responded seemed to imply that Israel's use of Iranian oil somehow established a causal link between human rights in Israel and Iran (huh?), or made them similar (DOUBLE HUH????):

From which OTHER beacon of enlightened democracy in the Middle East should Israel have obtained her oil?

at the notion of the "tolerant and open" society under the Shah!

After reading that, I can't take a thing you say seriously.

that I have Iranian friends, who came here to escape the Shah, as well as others who travel back and forth and have family and economic interests both here and in Iran.

From their perspective, within that frame of reference, there was a more open intellectual climate before the mullahs took over. Some of them are Jewish. They fled because they feared for their lives. Most are Muslim, but hardly fundamentalist. Some are women, who couldn't abide being forced back into veils and living under shari'a law. Others are intellectuals, others ordinary business people. So there's a cross-section of people here. None regard the Shah as a Bill Clinton but they found life intolerable under the mullahs. Nevertheless, commerce and communication is possible between people here and in Iran, the textile trade is really creative again - a lot of this is due to the internet, and to the interaction between people in Iran and Americans and Europeans who are interested in the extremely diverse people, rich history and arts of Iran. So progress continues regardless. And people make friends, regardless.

Nothing in this world is black or white. The Shah's regime was evil in many ways, but in other ways there was progress in Iran during the years he was in power. I don't see why that can't be acknowledged. And I think it's tragic that the horrible words of the Iranian president would seek to destroy another vibrant and creative society, and that these wedges are being driven between people who have so much to offer each other.

you're not an expert on Iran.

Well, I'm not either. But I've been a student of Iranian art, culture and history, have been pretty intensely involved in it, for about 15 years now, due to my work with North African and Central Asian textiles. I've written extensively about the art of the tribal women from these regions, both weavings and embroidery. It's a very complex world - people probably aren't aware, for example, that some 56 languages are spoken in Afghanistan alone.

Also I've been a teacher and performer of Middle Eastern dance and music for over 30 years. So I'm not unfamiliar with this world, nor am I exactly phobic about Middle Eastern people, and nor do I see only through one set of lenses. In fact, distraught over the violence in the Middle East, I established a dance and music company in the early 1980's, bringing together people from all over the Middle East plus Americans. I was trying to show others that it was indeed possible for all these various cultures and people to interact, to create beauty and joy TOGETHER. There are similar groups now, I'm glad to see - but hatred and war rage on in spite of our best efforts.

It's good to remember that we don't really know each other, but to assume that the people we're talking to aren't idiots, and that in fact some of us have extensive backgrounds in pertinent fields.

Thank you.

the Shah before.

You threw me for a loop.

I wonder what kind of class issues are involved. Are the folks you know thru your personal experience "upper" class folks who might have enjoyed a progressive lifestyle under the Shah?

upper class though. However, being possessed of a university education and a profession does put them in a different situation than that enjoyed by many. I hadn't thought of it in those terms.

I think the best and probably most available comparison between the Shah and revolutionary Iran would be the works by Marjane Satrapi: Persepolis, Persepolis 2, and Embroideries.

From what I gathered, both are extremely unjust and oppressive to the people, but how they do so is different. Each has some facets which are better than the other, but most are the same.

L-

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Fuckin' A. :beer:

dictators of all stripes. I save my best efforts for the ones the US supports. You should of heard the things I said about Batista, Mobuto, Botha, Savimbi, Suharto, Marcos, etc, etc, etc...

whom are you speaking of? Please be specific, repeatable pleasures are so few and far between.

See Craig Unger, House of Saud, House of Bush....

They are the real enemy of peace in the region.

This was kept open as an exception, now it appears done so I'm locking to keep it from becoming hijacked later.