Harry’s Place

The phrase ‘the lunatics are running the asylum’ has never been more apt.

I bet that the conference will reveal acknowledgement and respect for Jews & Judaism but then complain at how Zionists have somehow corrupted and abused religion.

I’m amazed at the stupidity of some of our elected leaders. When you see former presidents and prime ministers casually rubbing shoulders with tyrants, you have to wonder about their perceptions and their degree of awareness on certain key issues.

What on earth do they understand by the term ‘religious tolerance’?

It’s not exactly religious apartheid when many Shi’ite clerics who oppose theocracy on the basis that it is either heretical or unworkable have been imprisoned.

Perhaps they’re like anti-apartheid Dutch Reformed Church pastors.

Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, former Norwegian prime minister Bondevick, former Italian prime minister Romano Prodi, former French prime minister Lionel Jospin, former Swiss president Joseph Deiss, former Portuguese president Jorge Sampaio, former Irish president Mary Robinson, former Sri Lankan president Chandrika Kumaratunga and former UNESCO director general Federico Mayor

I’m hearing the theme from Last of the Summer Wine.

Irrelevant - unless you are saying that the moment all these powerful political leaders stepped down, they all took leave of their senses. If not, then they were demented while in office.

“casually rubbing shoulders with tyrants” - I’m finding it hard to think of 1 world leader in the last 100 years who HASN’T done this.

Well let’s take the glass half full view and be thankful that it’s not a list of current something or others. I would also disagree that Kofi Annan, Lionel Jospin, Mary Robinson etc are now or always have been “demented”.

Yep me too there Wardy - they always seemed reasonably un-demented.

Religious Apartheid State eh? Not the only one in the region

“casually rubbing shoulders with tyrants” - I’m finding it hard to think of 1 world leader in the last 100 years who HASN’T done this.

Yeah, but thats while they were leaders, and perhaps had little choice.
This however is after they have left their positions of power, and are choosing to associate with tyrants.

Missing the limelight methinks.

It is not just the “stupidity of some of our elected leaders” but the stupidity and foolishness of the media and educational establishment. These people do not care about human rights. They live for the pleasure of “feeling good” about themselves. To them, “tolerance” is a virtue no matter what is being tolerated, even evil - except if it is anything related to the values that made Western Civilization great, which of course is evil.

These people are not demented. They just don’t care about anything except their “feelings.” The fact that they would support, by their presence, one of the most intolerant regimes on earth, tells one all that is needed about them. They would sell you and your family into slavery for a pat on the back and a smile from from the evil doers - to the applause of the media, the educational establishment and even most of our political organizations.

To these people, the hate and violence we see in Islam means nothing. Bad times are coming.

Kactuz

Perhaps someone who thinks that these good people are if not demented then certainly naive, can explain what they think they are trying to acheive by going. I have to say it intrigues me as to how many instances there must have been by now of totalitarian regimes running this sort of fake event for their own propaganda purposes and yet it still doesn’t seem to stop a certain type of ex politician trekking along. Moths to a flame.

“Not the only one in the region”

Certainly, Abou - there are a large number of states in the Middle East which execute or otherwise persecute those who are not members of the ‘correct’ branch of Islam, or who are members of other faiths, or who want to change their faiths.

We should support states which offer democratic rights to all their citizens, irrespective of their religion.

Khatami makes it very clear that this conference has nothing to do with improving relationships between different religions; rather, it is being held solely to assert the superiority of religions over Western modernity:

To assess the place of religion in the modern world, two questions must be answered, namely: “What do we mean by contemporary world? And what is religion?” Khatami observed.

The contemporary world can be regarded as the “modern world in which Western people have lived for centuries and which has affected non-Western people,” he added.

…

“What is conspicuous in the modern world is man’s focus on his autonomous wisdom, which, with no metaphysical assistance, is regarded as the sole source of cognition and the wisdom of life.”

He pointed to the claims made by Westerners over the centuries, especially in the 1700s and 1800s, about the superiority of modernism, adding, “Today, at the beginning of the third millennium, centuries after the advent of modernism, not only has that conceit and optimism faded away, but has also made the modern world face many uncertainties and threats. As a result, we (now) see few signs of that self-confidence and optimism.”

When God is removed from the minds and lives of human beings, even if they make great achievements, their lives will not be satisfying or peaceful, Khatami noted.

“If this situation continues, it will lead to nihilism or will promote and intensify the current nihilism. As a result, the foundation of the life of human beings will collapse in the devastating storm of nihilism… and all vestiges of modern civilization will also disappear.”

Iran’s Parliament is in the process right now of passing a new law which will create an automatic death sentence for any Iranian Muslim who converts to Christianity, or any other religion.

In the very near future when innocent Iranians are being hoisted up on cranes with ligatures around their necks, dying painful, degraded deaths in front of baying crowds of bigots, we should all remind the international luminaries who are attending this conference of their shameful role in burnishing Iran’s credentials as a beacon of “religious tolerance”.

Sick and disgusting, nauseating hypocrisy.

When UN 1999 did a booklet named – Letters to the Six Billionth World Citizen – UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was one of the participants, when he learned that Salman Rushdie also should contribute he did withdraw.

Bondevik is also a priest and former parliamentary leader of Christian Democratic Party

A month ago, the Iranian parliament voted in favour of a draft bill, entitled “Islamic Penal Code”, which would codify the death penalty for any male Iranian who leaves his Islamic faith. Women would get life imprisonment. The majority in favour of the new law was overwhelming: 196 votes for, with just seven against.
[...]
… The protest from the EU has been distinctly muted; meanwhile, Germany, Iran’s largest foreign trading partner, has just increased its business deals with Iran by more than half. Characteristically, the United Nations has said nothing.

It is a sign of how little interest there is in Iran’s intention to launch a campaign of religious persecution that its parliamentary vote has still not been reported in the mainstream media.

But noting new, it only codifies it in penal law, death penalty is already in Sharia law that supersedes any other law in Iran.

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; Mark 16

Don’t bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 2:6
Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 2:10

I’m always so impressed by this interfaith stuff.

Religious persecution is also bound up with ethnic persecution. At present, the Iranian regime is waging a war on Balochis, who are predominantly Sunni. Here are a couple of reports by Reza Hussein Borr of the Balochistan Peoples Party.
http://www.unpo.org/content/view/8713/243/
http://globalpolitician.com/25239-baluchistan-iran
It must also be pointed out that Pakistan, with Western support, is doing much the same in the part of Balochistan in its territory.

Kill them. Kill them all.

Anan may not be demented, but he is certainly a pig at the trough.

When you read Khatami’s proclamation it’s sounds to be in line with earlier Saudi “inter-faith” initiative – We who believe in imagined supernatural beings must take a pause in our internal killing spree to fight the common enemy of Godless secularism, those atheist proselytes don’t believe in imaginary beings interpreted by self proclaimed religious authority, we got a dangerous common enemy in these people, they have to be defeated.

Perhaps someone who thinks that these good people are if not demented then certainly naive

But aren’t we told that these are savvy people, skilled political operators? How can they possibly have reached very high office, which must have involved stepping on opponents, doing things on a nod and a wink, pulling strings, turning a blind eye, offering and receiving political bribes, by being ‘naive’?

No, I don’t buy it. To my mind, they are disgusting, corrupt people, lacking in common humanity and motivated by nothing other than greed, envy and selfishness. While in office, you might say that they had to pursue realpolitik, choose the lesser of two evils etc, all the usual rationalisations, whether or not you buy them. But out of office?

What exactly is the point of this post. So, one of Iran’s leading reformist politicians and arch enemy of Ahmadinejad and the fanatics currently in power in Iran, hosts a conference on “the relationships between religion and globalization, modernity, democracy, peace, and justice.” This is attended by loads of prominent international statesmen. And this is a bad thing because …?

Religious Apartheid State eh? Not the only one in the region

Saudi Arabia of course. Why not say so?

Wonderland.

Alice in ……..

Will Alec Baldwin speak on behalf of the Film ACtor’s Guild (F.A.G.)?

David T.

Let me congratulate you for the excellent links which ‘punctuate’ the thrust of the article.

I will use the links when the soon expected article is published on CI(F). TeheranKid sadly, (Sneeze and snigger), cannot present it but some other useful idiot will no doubt be dragged out of a sewer to ‘do the deed’.

Unfortunately I cannot mention HP on CI(F) without being moderated.

Thanks again.

“And this is a bad thing because …?”
Perhaps because Khatami never championed religious tolerance during his tenure, but rather sustained it.

Na! You have all got it wrong.
These great and good people will sort out Religious tolerance in two days, then solve the credit bubble crash over the next weekend.

I hope they all like kebabs and sheeps eyeballs, by the way.

“So, one of Iran’s leading reformist politicians and arch enemy of Ahmadinejad and the fanatics currently in power in Iran”

Oh, yes, I forgot all the excelent reforms Khatami legated to the Iranian people. They are so many I can’t remember even one!

will Chandrika Kumaratunga ask some questions about toleration of Buddhists in Iran?

TheIrie This is attended by loads of prominent international statesmen. And this is a bad thing because..

Bekoz U iz thick.

“Saudi Arabia of course. Why not say so?”

Yes Saudi Arabia….but what about Israel? 13% of land in Israel is owned by the JNF, who will ONLY sell that land to Jews, an act that has been been through the Knesset and is now completely legal.

Now, if I was born in Israel, but were part of the 20% who isnt Jewish, why is it fair that my next door neighbour who is Jewish, is allowed to buy this land, but I am not? And seeing how the word Apartheid is defined as “A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups”, could anybody have a go at explaining how Israel is not allowing Apartheid to flourish? bonus points to those who do so without resort to name calling

Well, compared to the situation today, I think its fair to say things were much better under Khatami, who I expect Azarmehr would have to agree with that (although he presumably dislikes him because he is a religious man). Khatami was a reformed, but “He has faced staunch opposition from the conservatives who control many of the country’s main institutions, despite reformist control of the parliament.” This, it seems to me, is the kind of person who should be supported, not criticised. This post, and the comments, completely fail to recognise that Iran is not a homogenous block of fanatics, but contains many contradictory forces. When the reformers receive such international support as this conference, this can only be a good thing.

“Well, compared to the situation today, I think its fair to say things were much better under Khatami, who I expect Azarmehr would have to agree with that”

Please ask anyone involved in the student uprising whether the situation was so wonderful under Khatami. The chief differences between Khatami and Ahmadinejad are not theological or political; both believe in maintaining the system as it is, including the officially sanctioned form of Shi’ite theocracy and the armies of thugs it controls. Of course there are contradictory forces, but these are not represented by the false reformist-conservative dichotomy.

“Well, compared to the…” (TheIrie)

So you don’t know of a single reform legated by Khatami.

Yes Saudi Arabia….but what about Israel? 13% of land in Israel is owned by the JNF, who will ONLY sell that land to Jews, an act that has been been through the Knesset and is now completely legal.

Actually, the JNF doesn’t only sell land to Jews, but rather holds land in trust for its donors. But what about Canada and especially BC where treaties with First Nations forbid treaty land from being sold to non-aboriginals? Would Abou (like many redneck Canadians of European descent) argue that safeguarding treaty lands for the aboriginal minority in Canada is apartheid?

Soudmand, a Christian from birth, is to be hanged for the crime of apostasy by the regime which hosted this conference. In truth, it is his failure to convert to islam which is placing the noose around his neck. This is what state-sanctioned murder actually is. The regime is breaking the law so they can kill him. Just as they customarily break the law when they kill juveniles, and people who are educationally subnormal.

And these venal self-regarding euro-buggers have gone to dance attendance on this festering shower. Whatever their reasons for going, ignorance isn’t one of them. They have no excuse for knowing less than we do, and they know perfectly well that attendance is a de-facto endorsement. Their vanity and self-promotion deserve to be treated with derision and disgust.

Or Argentina, where residual Indian communities also have land in communal ownership, which they are not allowed to sell to the rest of the citizens?

Fabian - I don’t feel like playing your silly games. Read what I just wrote.

TheIrie,

He did, Fabian was being very charitable.

Are you sitting next to him? On his knee perhaps?

“When the reformers receive such international support as this conference, this can only be a good thing.”

If Khatami was a reformer, of any stripe, he would be criticising the regime, not running it’s bloody PR.

In a country where the government can manufacture evidence, have folk executed, or just quietly murdered, how long do you suppose a true reformer would have survived?

More to the point, Khatami never did any reforming, he has always been the lipstick on the pig, and that became apparent a long time ago. But all these other attendees, fawning over a murderous police state, had many of us fooled.

““Saudi Arabia of course. Why not say so?”

Yes Saudi Arabia….but what about Israel? ”

…. or as they say at the BBC, “moving swiftly on…”

Also let us not lose sight of the thousands of muslims in Darfur, and non-muslims in southern Sudan, who have been murdered for not being quite the right colour.

TheIrie would have had a wonderful time chosing between Hitler and Stalin. For him/her, no anti-Semite is bad.

Well of course - wait for them to declare Judaism not a religion at all and of course death to Israel death to America death to Jews etc etc etc. According to the UN there are two religions: Islam, and everyone not killed by Islam.

Lets do something else, theIrie.

As we all agree, you don’t know of a single reform legated by the “reformist” Khatami to the Iranian people.

Ok, so at least you would know which reforms Khatami tried to pass in the Iranian parliament but were defeated by the opposition?

Sorry TheIrie, Khatami is another pig in a hat. Nice try but no cigar.

Well there is an impressive level of collective ignorance being displayed here. Even Nick Cohen - one of your ideologues in chief - has spoken positively about Khatami:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/oct/22/comment.theobserver

If Khatami was a reformer, of any stripe, he would be criticising the regime, not running it’s bloody PR.

Exactly. He was president for years, and yet did absolutely nothing to improve the situation.

Good cop, bad cop?

TheIrie,

what is amusing, is that Fabian, a native Spanish speaker engages in complex political discussion in a foreign lingo and does it very well

whereas you, a “native” English speaker, have comprehension difficulties on most topics, even the simplest political proposition flies over your head and you continue to ask facile questions year after year, despite being an academic and Phd candidate

will you ever learn, ANYTHING?

Abou may also like to have a go at explaining Jordan’s laws which prohibit the sale of land to Jews or for that matter the practice in the Palestine Authority of imprisoning or murdering Palestinian Arabs deemed collaborators not only if they sell land to Jews, but even if they sell perishable goods to Jews. And for bonus points perhaps he can explain how the aforementioned laws and practices don’t permit apartheid to flourish without name calling.

The idea that Khatami is doing PR for the Iranian regime is simply stupid.

TheIrie,

how is that other “moderate” keeping? Ismail Haniya?

has he broke any strikes recently? or used scab labour?

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=2162

“Hamas smashes teachers strike with violence and scab labour”

Mod - why don’t you stop transparently changing the subject, and tell me what it is I’ve said on this thread that you disagree with.

TheIrie,

wheb you manage to say something substantive and cogently argued then I might take issue with you, but you aren’t up to that level yet

So why are you wasting my time then. Have an ovaltine and go to bed why don’t you.

Again (sigh)

Lets do something else, theIrie.

As we all agree, you don’t know of a single reform legated by the “reformist” Khatami to the Iranian people.

Ok, so at least you would know which reforms Khatami tried to pass in the Iranian parliament but were defeated by the opposition?

“Oh, yes, I forgot all the excelent reforms Khatami legated to the Iranian people. They are so many I can’t remember even one!”
Well Fabian,I can’t remember a single piece of legislation legated by Queen Elizabeth II of the UK,perhaps because,like Khatami was,she is merely the head of state,with no power to legislate.

Red Hot:
You are wrong. Try to read about what happened under Khatami and let Elizabeth II sleep in peace.

Ups! she is still alive!

Outrageous.

All people of good will who genuinely want peace in the world should boycott this dangerous totalitarian regime.

but what about Israel? 13% of land in Israel is owned by the JNF, who will ONLY sell that land to Jews, an act that has been been through the Knesset and is now completely legal

1. Israel does not murder apostates.

2. The JNF is private.

3. The JNF does NOT sell land. It leases land. If a non-Jew wants to lease JNF land, the JNF swaps it to the government so the non-Jew can lease it.

Fabian-suppose you tell everyone what laws Khatami made- not what happened -what Khatami actually did?
Lbnaz,or should call you Zodiac Mindwarp,why don’t you tell me what I am thinking right now seeing as how you are telepathic and all?lbnaz
20 September 2008, 6:11 am

‘Freddie Krueger’ also thinks that targeting non-belligerent civilians with missiles filled with metal shards and nails soaked in rat poison is fair, progressive and perfectly understandable.

Fabian - Khatami was a reformer. He stood for a more open society, and against the repressions, especially religious, that now blight Iran. I think absolutely any serious news source will confirm this. It is practically impossible to read his name with the word reformer next to it. If you have any credible evidence to the contrary lets here it.

“The idea that Khatami is doing PR for the Iranian regime is simply stupid.”

Is that it then Irie? Is that the best argument you can come up with, just accusing me of being stupid? Where is the evidence to support your stance?

Irie, I am not going to accuse you of being stupid. I don’t reckon you’re stupid.

I reckon you are dishonest. A propagandist with a script, and a list of escape tactics for when your argument is on the ropes.

Lbnaz please tell me the point of soaking nail in rat poison,nails usually being regarded as a non-absorbent item.Sponge cake I can understand if it was soaked in brandy.

Fabian - I don’t feel like playing your silly games. Read what I just wrote

Have you read it yourself? Your ignorance about Israel is matched only by your general stupidity.

Is Philo-Semite really Lbnaz?

Fabian, please let me assist:

TheIrie/Red Hot, in what way can Khatami be called a “reformist”? in what sense? and precisely what has he actually REFORMED?

of course, if by “reformist” you mean not as barking mad or as racist as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad then that’s a different kettle of fish

but in the convenient sense of the word, to be a “reformist” you have to reform things, to do something

unless that is, words have no meaning for you? and “reformist” means whatever you want it to mean?

well TheIrie/Red Hot, do words have meaning or not?

So why are you wasting my time then

He doesn’t need to, you do it so much better yourself, spending time peddling ignorant antisemitic drivel instead of working on your mythical PhD.
Oops, forgot: the Metropolitan University of North West Brent will accept virtually anyone into its Media Studies and Gardening PhD programme.

Have you read it yourself? Your ignorance about Israel is matched only by your general stupidity.
Nearly Oxfordian,Completely Cockstroker needs his daily fix of calling someone stupid.But like any addiction this habit is way out of control,nowadays Cockstroker needs to call someone stupid ten or twenty times a day to get a hit.

I’m not TheIrie.

No, but you are just as stupid and ignorant.

Here is an very upto date and serious analysis of Iran’s political landscape, including the role that Khatami played.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20081001essay87604/akbar-ganji/the-latter-day-sultan.html

As to specific policies or reforms, as I said, Khatami was unable to implement his policies because of the resistance he faced from other powerful institutions in Iran (like the revolutionary Guard and the military), and because, like Ahmadinejad, the role of president carries very little actual power, as compared with the Supreme leader, Khamenei.

Nor did I claim Khatami is/was a reformist, whatever that is.I just asked Fabian to say what Khatami actually did when in office.

“It is practically impossible to read his name with the word reformer next to it.”
TheIrie: you are a child.

“Fabian-suppose you tell everyone what laws Khatami made- not what happened -what Khatami actually did?” (Red Hot)

Well, since you ask…
Mohammed Khatami was in power during 8 years, from 1997 to 2005. In all that time he submitted to Parliament only two bills of reform, known as the “Twin Bills”.

(please, have in mind while I am telling you this, that the numbskull who called in October 2008 Khatami a “reformist”, is an avid Chomsky reader, the hope of the radical left, no-nonsense theIrie)

The first bill provided for the bolstering of presidential powers. (Do I hear cheers from the radical left? “At last something that we have fought so much to achieve since Vietnam”). It sought to enable the president to warn the three constitutional powers against any violation and mete out punishment if his warnings were not heeded.

The second bill, the more serious one, sought to do away with the Guardians Council’s power to disqualify candidates from running in state elections. It was submitted to -wait for it- the Guardians Council for approval. And would you believe me if I tell you that it was rejected? (me neither, it came as a shock).

Then, the “reformist” president withdrew the bills and waited patiently until the year 2005, chanting “Death to Israel” in appropiate venues.

Now, according to TheIrie’s standard, even George W. Bush is a reformist.

And again, Khatami “a reformist” comes from a guy who believes he is on the radical left.

It is simply hilarious.

Fabian - what did you want him to do - start a civil war? So, by your account he tried a) to shift power to the elected president, and away from the unelected supreme leader (who currently has absolute power) and b) to get rid of the guardian council veto on election candidates (which currently prevents progressive reformers from even running in the elections). Since those two things are highly regressive, anti-democratic constitutional arrangements, I would say you have just proved my point for me. Thanks for that.

Fabian,

in all seriousness, TheIrie is not on the Left

he’s not even a member of a trade union, rather TheIrie has some nebulous views which pop into his head like random sparks, he has a strange fixation about the Middle East but a nearly non-existence knowledge of the region, an aversion to reading and is prone to take a literalistic view of the world, when it suits him

he just parrots the words of others and without much finesse

Mod: and he can’t even read!

Fair enough Fabian.It seems possible that fixing labels such “reformer” or “hardliner” to politicians might be more about window dressing than concrete policies.However:”The second bill, the more serious one, sought to do away with the Guardians Council’s power to disqualify candidates from running in state elections. It was submitted to -wait for it- the Guardians Council for approval. And would you believe me if I tell you that it was rejected?”. I am curious why Khatami submitted this bill for approval by the Guardian Council,is this because he was obliged to by the nature of the Iranian constitution,or just because he liked to be humiliated?

Fabian, that too :)

But Fabian - seriously - you just gave us two specific reforms Khatami tried to pass. Yet you say he is not a reformer? I suppose you think he is in league with Ahmadinejad? And I’m the one that can’t read?

modernity
15 October 2008, 8:46 pm
he just parrots the words of others and without much finesse
pot,kettle..
“nebulous views which pop into his head like random sparks,”
cloudlike and yet akin to sparks!mmm,like it!Cloudy but Sparky,yeah!
Now that’s what I call Finesse!

Fabian,

again you’ll see that TheIrie jumps to peculiar conclusions: “I suppose you think he is in league with Ahmadinejad? ”

he’s not very logical :(

TheIrie, have you read this?
During the eight years of Khatami’s presidency:
• More than 200 people were executed
• There was a ten-fold increase in women being sentenced to death by stoning
• Many homosexuals were arrested and flogged, tortured, jailed or executed
• Tens of thousands of Ahwazis, members of Iran’s persecuted Arab minority, were forcibly removed from their land, with little or no compensation
• Hundreds of workers’ strikes and demonstrations, including strikes by nurses and teachers, were savagely attacked and suppressed

jr - I appreciate that - you have uniquely on this thread provided me with an evidence backed argument. My response is to repeat, the president of Iran has no power. Power is vested in the supreme leader, Khamenei, and projected through the Revolutionary Guard. If there is any evidence that Khatami himself was involved in anything that Tatchell lists I would take it seriously. But here, unfortunately, Peter Tatchell is falling into the trap of failing to recognise the complicated power structures in Iran. He says “Khatami and all other leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran are criminals and should be put on trial in The Hague for their crimes against humanity.” It is just wrong to link them altogether as if there is no differences - you have to look at the situation a bit more carefully, especially if you’re interested in solving the problems. I heartily recommend the article I linked to above.

TheIrie, do you also think Ahmedinejad ha sno power in Iran?

HRW report 1999:

“Human rights failed to improve, and in some areas deteriorated, as the power struggle intensified between supporters of President Khatami’s reformist program and those seeking to maintain the grip on power of a closed circle of clerical rulers associated with the leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khamene’i.
…

Executions after unfair trials proliferated, including cases of stoning to death in public. For the first time since 1992 a follower of the Baha’i faith was executed in prison. Other religious minorities, including Sunni Muslims, Evangelical Christians, and Jews were subjected to discrimination and persecution. Prominent dissidents, including writers and editors, were subjected to arbitrary detention and independent newspapers were closed down. New laws were passed discriminating against women and aimed at restricting debate about women’s rights. Torture was widespread during interrogation, and the government failed to take steps to halt violent attacks by vigilante groups which serve as enforcers for conservative clerics, known as the Partisans of the Party of God (Ansar-e Hezbollahi) .
…
Hundreds of people were executed after trials that failed to comply with minimum international standards. In June, the daily newspaper Hamshahri, reported the public hanging of four young men in the city of Ahvaz, in the south, for “insulting” Leader Khamene’i and “armed robbery.” Seven people were reported by opposition groups to have been convicted of adultery and stoned to death in October 1997 and six more were reported to have been sentenced to stoning in January.”

http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/mideast/iran.html

Sorry, fingers:
TheIrie, do you also think Ahmedinejad has no power in Iran?

HRW report 2002:

“Promises by reformists to increase respect for basic freedoms and the rule of law remained unrealized, and severe restrictions imposed on the independent print media, the major visible gain of President Khatami’s first period in office, remained in place. The judiciary, and branches of the security forces beyond the control of the elected government, resorted increasingly to intimidatory tactics, with a sharp increase in public executions and public floggings.”

you’d never think that TheIrie had access to the web or could use google, without assistance?

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k2/mena3.html

No decisive power. He is beholden to Khamenei. However, Ahmadinejad, unlike Khatami, happens to be completely in agreement with the forces of repression in Iran. The role of the president is like a tug boat - the supreme leader is an oil tanker. If they go in the same direction, it might look like the tug is leading. If they go in opposite directions (Khatami), it is quite clear whose engines are really the most powerful.

“I am curious why Khatami submitted this bill for approval by the Guardian Council,is this because he was obliged to by the nature of the Iranian constitution,or just because he liked to be humiliated?” (Red Hot)

I believe that it is because of the nature of the Iranian constitution.

TheIrie: I thought you were from the UK, and were well aware of the proud history of reform movements there, both inside the Parliament and outside it. If you were born in the UK, you wouldn’t call a president of a country where the worst human rights abuses were commited and in 8 years submits only 2 bills that he knew were doomed to failure, a “reformist”, but a stooge.

Keep reading Chomsky, it surely helps you a lot “to speak truth to power”.

Mod - the HRW report confirms exactly what I’ve been saying here. Specifically I said quite clearly that the reforms “remained unrealized,”. The reason - “Conservative clerics maintained a strong grip on power through the judiciary, the Council of Guardians and the office of the Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.”

Fabian,

see that wonderful tactic, employed by TheIrie, “turn evidence on its head”

when confronted by solid facts such people will invariably reply “ahh, that confirms what I have been saying all along”, even if it contradicted their views 100%

TheIrie’s ploy is argumentation by attrition, say any old bullshit, wear people down by idiocy, etc

he’s an expert at that

Irie: tell me what it is I’ve said on this thread that you disagree with.

Irie said that Nick Cohen “spoke positively” about Khatami.
I read the link Irie posted to the Cohen piece and all Cohen said about Khatami was that he was “too feeble” to help his own supporters. Hardly, a commendation, or positive speaking about Khatami from Cohen. So Irie misrepresented what Cohen wrote about Khatami while accusing others of “collective ignorance”. Has Andrew ever considered using his skull to cut diamonds?

“Mod - the HRW report confirms exactly what I’ve been saying here. Specifically I said quite clearly that the reforms “remained unrealized,”. The reason - “Conservative clerics maintained a strong grip on power through the judiciary, the Council of Guardians and the office of the Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.””

So I am certain, TheIrie, that you will provide evidence of the bills outlawing stoning, hanging, discrimination and torture submitted to Parliament by the reformist Khatami during his 8-year presidency, or you will shut up.

Philo Semite:

1. Israel does not murder apostates.

No, but it has an institution, Yad L’Achim (Hand to the Brothers), which is not a society for mutual masturbation as its name would suggest, but a paramilitary organization that goes with M-16’s to the houses of Arab men married with Jewish women and kidnaps their children to “return” them to Jewishness, with the full support of the State.

2. The JNF is private.

Actually, the JNF is a parastatal organization that works in full collaboration with the State. The JNF holds 6 seats at the Israel Land Administration.

3. The JNF does NOT sell land. It leases land. If a non-Jew wants to lease JNF land, the JNF swaps it to the government so the non-Jew can lease it.

The JNF’s statutes forbid the leasing of land to non-Jews. The swap for government land does not erase the fact that, at any given time, 13% of Israel is beyond the reach of prospective Arab settlers.

I.e., if the JNF gives 1 dunam to the State and receives 1 dunam from the State, the final balance is still 1 dunam that can’t be leased to an Arab.

Changing Iran from what it is today to a state where there is no death penalty, no discrimination and no torture, in one presidency is not reform - its revolution. Khatami was a reformer. That means working inside the system to produce gradual change in the right direction. Some people (like me for example) think that serious and lasting political change comes from reform. What Khatami wanted to achieve was to reform the Iranian constitutional arrangements. And without that reform, everything else is pretty meaningless - there is no democracy.

Fabian - have you managed to understand my point about the actual distribution of power within Iran? Its not like the US, where the president is the most powerful figure.

Lbnaz,or should call you Zodiac Mindwarp,why don’t you tell me what I am thinking right now seeing as how you are telepathic and all?lbnaz
20 September 2008, 6:11 am

WTF?

Is Philo-Semite really Lbnaz?

Nope.

Lbnaz please tell me the point of soaking nail in rat poison,nails usually being regarded as a non-absorbent item.Sponge cake I can understand if it was soaked in brandy.

Re soaking nails and bolts in rat poison, if red hot freddie kreuger has a problem believing that people would do such things he/she ought to take it up with Sharon Mamon

Why would anyone choose for themself an avatar like red hot freddie kreuger?

“Some people (like me for example) think that serious and lasting political change comes from reform. ”

Fabian, can’t you see how worthless it is to debate with TheIrie, before Jr posted in links TheIrie probably knew next to nothing about Iran, his ignorance of Iranian politics is probably greater than his grasp of the Israel/Palestinian conflict (which is piss poor from the start), it is shooting fish in a barrel

Changing Iran from what it is today to a state where there is no death penalty, no discrimination and no torture, in one presidency is not reform - its revolution.

TheIrie, do you think it is possible for Iran to cease to be a pariah in terms of its human rights, support for terrorism and destabilising role in the region, while it remains a shiite theocracy? Or would you perhaps agree that a revolution is required to undo the present constitution which was itself created in a revolution by the late unlamented arseattolah cockamamy?

That is simply a question of judgement about what does and doesn’t work in politics. I think, in general, and also in particular regard to the Iranian situation, revolutionary change leads to much less predictable outcomes (due to power vacuums) than changes by reform. But the end goal is the same. That is my judgement and I think the Iranian people agree.

TheIrie, I am afraid that you are playing with words.

Of course, in comparison with Khamenei or Ahmedinajad Khatami is a relative moderate, but it is fairly easy to be a relative moderate in comparison with these two. Would you say that BNP are reformers because they are relatively more moderate than Combat 18?

If you bother to talk with real Iranian democrats (and there are many of them, mostly in Iran, but you can occasionally meet them elsewhere, where they don’t need to use coded language), they will display their contempt to Khatami. Fabian is spot on: Khatami came to power riding on the coattails of a widespread wish for change in Iran. And then, during his entire tenure in office, he did absolutely ziltch. The convoluted power structure in Iran is not an excuse and it is simply not true that the president is just a meaningless figurehead.

The truth of the matter is that whenever Khatami was faced with the choice between reform and following the diktat of the ayatollahs, he always chose the latter. Given a choice, he might have removed few rough edges – who knows, lethal injection rather than public hangings of homosexuals, this sort of stuff – but he never challenged the basic structures of the regime and its compulsory ideology. The real Iranian reformers are totally disenchanted with his and never forgave him.

Muffin - who do you consider to be real Iranian reformers?

When I saw the headline about a “religious apartheid state” holding a conference, I thought the term was meant sarcastically, and that the article was about a conference in Israel. Then I thought how great it was that all these leaders were willing to go to Israel…then I read further and thought, “Uh, oh.” They were all going to Tehran!

The thought then occurred to me: If Israel decided to hold such a conference, would any of these VIPs come?

TheIrie last question: given the appalling crimes against humanity routinely committed by the Iranian regime during Khatami’s term of office and since, what would you like to see the assembled great and good do when they attend this jolly? Or do you agree with the post that their attendance is a mistake as it will give dignity to the event while achieving no amelioration in the situation?

“Changing Iran from what it is today to a state where there is no death penalty, no discrimination and no torture, in one presidency is not reform - its revolution.”

Yep, I agree. Those who don’t stand for revolution in Iran are therefore in favour of the status quo.

“Khatami was a reformer. That means working inside the system to produce gradual change in the right direction”

What direction would that be? There is no room for questioning the theocratic nature of the Iranian state. The reforms that can be exacted are in the field of the economy and, in that respect, Khatami was a pragmatist. But economic liberalisation is meaningless when the main motor of the economy, the oil industry, is owned by the state and is used as a cash bank for repression.

The “reforms” Khatami stood for were basically about the government obeying its own laws and the constitution, which are not exactly progressive. Yet, when Khatami had the chance to side with student protestors in 1999 and support freedom of speech after a newspaper allied to him was closed down, he chose to rally behind the Bassij. As a result, the most draconian measures were introduced. Khatami was a disaster. He cultivated the idea of tolerance, but when it mattered he sided with the oppressors and people died on the streets of Tehran and thousands were arrested and tortured. Khatami is all smiles and handshakes, but behind his smirk is a love of bloody tyranny.

The tensions within Iran are between the popular desire for economic progress and the desire of the corrupt elite to maintain its control of most of the economy. Even Iran’s industrial managers are growing ever more frustrated with political interference. For instance, Iran Khodro’s managers want more tie-ups with foreign multi-nationals to make the country into a major car-maker, but the mullahs keep frustrating their objectives for political ends, eg setting up loss-making car factories in Sudan, Syria and Venezuela to pay back their allies in the international community. Another problem is the straight-jacket the Iranian constitution has put the oil industry in, which means that Iranian oil production will steadily decline until it stops exporting in the next few years. I give the regime 10 years before the whole thing collapses in on itself and the conditions for revolution come about. In the meantime, I think we should all support those who are genuinely fighting the regime from all angles, particularly those inside Iran.

jr - I hope that their attendance will give strength, legitimacy and confidence to the forces of reform, and undermine the forces of repression who are anyway becoming so internationally isolated.

Muffin - perhaps you were thinking of Akbar Ganji - surely the most prominent Iranian dissident, and advocate of a secular Iranian state. He supported Khatami at first, and then gave up on him - not because of Khatami, but because he concluded the constitutional arrangements (i.e. supreme leader, etc) made reform impossible. He was prehaps not wrong. But this is not the same as blaming Khatami. Khatami was unsuccessful. That is his flaw.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/20/AR2005082000116.html

who do you consider to be real Iranian reformers?

You can start with student activists, TheIrie, and with trade unionists.

Ah, I hear you ask, what about political parties, the sort of people who run for the parliament… Well, I am afraid that elections in Iran are totally free, but only as long as candidates support the regime and are approved by the Council of Guardians.

Muffin - you should read Fabian’s post above. That is something Khatami tried to change.

My central disagreement with you, Muffin, is that you think Khatami was malevolent, whereas I think he was on the whole benevolent, but unsuccessful. This is a crucial distinction. If I’m right, any move to strengthen him, such as this conference is a good idea. If you’re right, its not. But, frankly, if you read around a little bit - starting with the foreign affairs article I linked to above, you’ll see that I’m right.

TheIrie, I don’t think Khatami is malevolent, I simply don’t know. What I do know is that he is a busted flush. The idea of Khatami or similar figureheads, with similar strategy, bringing about any real change in Iran is, frankly, ludicrous.

I hope that their attendance will give strength, legitimacy and confidence to the forces of reform, and undermine the forces of repression who are anyway becoming so internationally isolated.

You yourself have already explained why part one is not going to happen, and so the reduction in international isolation that results will be entirely counterproductive. No-one who goes to a meeting without a game plan expects any sort of a result. These people are going to get some free cake and put more lipstick on the pig. Unless you have a suggestion as to a game plan, TheIrie, you have just beaten yourself up again.

Khatami have a soft and sober image, smiles a lot that is of course a difference from Ahmadinejad’s hard-line thug image. But there is very little evidence that he is a big difference to the rest of the establishment of the hard-line theocratic Iran. Khatami seems to be a modern politician who knows how to speak so people can project all kinds of hopes on him without giving any definite promises.

Ill guess the absolute leader and Guardian Council wet their candidates better than McCain and that they is confident that Khatami was of no danger to the theocratic dictatorship.

Profile: Mohammad Khatami – BBC … there have been some notable achievements.
“First of all, there’s a change in ideas, and that’s very important. Khatami’s discourse of civil society, democracy, transparency, rule of law, and all this - which were quite absent in the 1980s - became dominant concepts, so that even certain segments of the conservatives tried to speak a similar language,” Iranian sociologist Asef Bayat argues.
—-
Khatami raised the idea of civil society when he came to power. That encouraged many thinkers and scholars to write about the issue extensively. But suddenly Khatami said in one of his speeches: “what I meant by civil society was the Prophet’s Medina”. His statement disappointed many Iranian scholars. Referring to this point Abdolkarim Soroush said:

“That poured cold water on everyone. …

see the problem is, basically the likes of TheIrie can’t connect the dots, the political power structures in Iran are not MEANT to be reformed, that’s why they were setup as they were

thus any measure of reform to the system has to go through the very system that it seeks to reform, and will be defeated as the above example shows.

not that TheIrie will be able to understand that…..

Let a thousand civil societies bloom.

Islamophiliac “Hasbara Buster”

1. Yad L’Achim

Please provide proof of your accusations, as well as details as to how many cases have occurred and to the state “support” you claim.

2. JNF funding was PRIVATE, representing the international Jewish community, until 1948.

3a. You’re nit-picking because you’ve lost the argument. The JNF commonly leases land to Arabs via the swap arrangement, specifically designed to bridge the issue of the PRIVATE contributions by Jews to the JNF for half a century preceding independence.

3b. You have clearly LIED in stating “13% of Israel is beyond the reach of prospective Arab settlers”. Any JNF land can be swapped; thus Arab Israelis have exactly the same rights as Jewish Israelis.

3c. Dishonest Islamophiliac that you are, you failed to note that some Arabs (Beduin) are actually leased JNF-ILA land at preferential rates as part of positive discrimination on their behalf.

4. How much land can Jews buy in Jordan or Saudi? In PA areas? ZERO. So why don’t you shut the f- up?

Personally, I have done with quibblers like you. I make no secret of my advice to Israeli friends that they complete the population exchange forced upon them by the Arab countries - all Jews from Muslim countries to Israel, all Arabs from Israel (Med to Jordan) to Arab countries. How do you like them apples?

“My central disagreement with you, Muffin, is that you think Khatami was malevolent, whereas I think he was on the whole benevolent, but unsuccessful”

He was certainly malevolent and personally directed political repression and the persecution of religious and ethnic groups. These “reformers” tend to co-opt the disenchanted in election time, then imprison them when they have gained power. Ahmadinejad is, at least, fairly honest about what he is and his intentions, whereas Khatami was duplicitous (in part, due to his self-serving pragmatism).

Hasbara Buster is not a “quibbler”, he’s a Nazi. Earlier he said that everyone is (or would be) a Nazi, only we don’t have enough information. Well, now he’s supplying you with the information. Obviously if you were an honest man, you’d respond by supporting the Holocaust and rehabilitating Hitler.

“The thought then occurred to me: If Israel decided to hold such a conference, would any of these VIPs come?”

Good question, Joanne. The answer I guess is “no”.

But why would they want to go to Iran in the first place? What David T said on his article is the most elementary common sense and logic. So are they (maybe) trying to help [?] to defuse [?] the situation (the nuclear thing: Iran is the international paria; the American bellicosity etc.). That’s my understanding (and I could be wrong). On the other hand, Iran is desperately looking for allies or gestures [?] which show [?] they are not totally isolated in the world arena. Chavez (”my brother” — mad fucker’s [a.k.a. Ahmadinejad] dixit), Morales in South America, etc.

But are they really his “allies” (ideologically speaking)? No. a) they are not muslims and b) er, they are way too socialist, don’t you think?. But hey, maybe the Americans think twice and concentrate their effort (and Doomsday machine) in their traditional backyard. And therefore leave the Middle East. “Yes Chavez, me mate! Do me favour: you and your chum Morales will swallow the American bombs from now on. Thanks a lot. May Allah be with you, filthy apostate(s)…”

It’s the only more or less coherent reason that I can see (why they are visiting that sordid, sinister theocracy that is). If that is not the case, then what a bunch of clowns…

hh

The crux here is us allowing our political elite to engage in these having their concerns being brushed under the carpet, like in the last election. Mary Robinson is just one of the myriad of usual suspects, who occupy a charmed life,who is given highly paid nonsense jobs by birds of the same feathers. This has got nothing to do with Iran, it is about us!

Philo Semite:

1. Yad L’Achim is a paramilitary organization. See here how they “rescued” a Jewish girl by actually kidnapping her together with her Palestinian father, and dropping the father off blindfolded, barefoot and bound in an olive grove.

The State supported the action by not prosecuting the kidnappers and forbidding the father from approaching his daughter.

2. I don’t understand your argument that the JNF is privately funded. Do you mean that if a private Christian organization in the US buys land and then leases it, it would be OK with you if it refused to lease the land to Jews?

3. Review your arithmetics. 13% of something is always 13%, even if the parts that make up that 13% change with time. Of course, you’re claiming that the JNF’s 13% can be leased, via the swap mechanism, to Arabs, so where’s the problem? The problem is that with each swap, land that was formerly open to everyone (i.e. State land) becomes Jewish-only land (i.e. JNF land). Moreover, this contorted fig-leaf of a mechanism to disguise racism was adopted only very recently. Up to a few months ago, the JNF had no obligation whatsoever to lease land to Arabs.

As for the land leased to the Bedouins, it’s always on a voluntary basis, i.e. the JNF does it if and when it wishes.

4. You ask and answer: How much land can Jews buy in Jordan or Saudi? In PA areas? ZERO.

Evidently, you’ve fallen for the clownish Alan Dershowitz’s lies. It’s false, at least in the case of Jordan. Learn, my dear:

“The Government recognizes Judaism as a religion; however there are reportedly no Jordanian citizens who are Jewish. The Government does not impose restrictions on Jews, and they are permitted to own property and conduct business in the country.”

From the US State Department’s report on human rights in Jordan.

Hasbara item busted — yet again.

Alberto Miyara, aka The Hasbara Buster, don’t you think your grandfather Salomon would be ashamed of you? His Jewish grandson turned into a dishonest nobody with nazi sympathies?

Kathami can best be described as a failed reformist, but I’m not sure that his reforms, even as intended, were meant to change the regime in any fundamental way. As for whether he is malevolent or merely feckless, he clearly is not nasty in the sense of Ahmadinejad, and personally seems like a nice chap. But he equally clearly accepts the legitimacy of a fundamentalist* theocratic state. He sought to reform away some of its rougher edges, but never questioned the basic tenets of clerical and Islamic supremacy, which makes it inherently illiberal and contrary to religious freedom. In that sense, holding a conference on ‘religious tolerance’ in the Islamic Republic, and hosted by this fellow, can’t be anything other than farcical. Its aim is probably to enshrine the ‘right not to be offended’, whereby the right to practice one’s faith freely is equated with the supposed right not to have it questioned or put under any sort of unfavorable scrutiny.

________________
*fundamentalist in the very specific sense that the essentials of legislation are considered god-given and immutable, rather than man-made and subject to review; and that thus the supremacy of the clerics who interpret such divine law is unquestionable.

Modernity and Fabian, I don’t agree with the Irie in this thread, but nothing that he said struck me as particularly vitriolic or dishonest. In any case, making the thread about him makes for some very boring reading.

Bruno - there are two views on what to do about the “theocratic state”. One view - the view of many progressives like Akbar Ganji - is that it should be replaced with a secular state. Another view is that Islam is going and should go through a reformation, and that a moderate, modern, reformed Islam is not incompatible with freedom, human rights, democracy. This, the reform argument, is also held by many progressive (but religious) people, like Reza Aslan and Tariq Ramadan. It is not obvious to me that one of these is clearly better than the other. The former is more consistent with our professed Western principles, whilst the latter is more consistent with our actual Western history and present. I mean, in Western Europe we didn’t just bin Christianity - we reformed it from something every bit as repressive as fundamentalist Islam in Iran, to a modern, moderate, progressive, trendy vicar force entirely consistent with democracy etc. I could support either of these in principle. And it strikes me that most Iranian people would probably prefer the latter. I think most Iranian people are religious, and do want religion to play a role in public life. Mentioning Israel is of course bound to start fireworks, but Israel is a modern, democratic state, which could also be described as a low-level theocracy. What is wrong with that as a model for Iran? So, the problem in Iran is not necessarily religion. Its political abuse of religion.

Anyway, I’m glad you agree with my main point that Khatami is a failed reformist. Where we disagree is that I think that is something we can work with, which is why I welcome this conference.

Given that the best Tariq Ramadan could do on the issue of stoning was to call for a ‘moratorium’, it is a bit eccentric to cal him ‘progressive’.

And there was me thinking that TheIriot had got a job. F**k knows who with, but i thought it possible.

As for the hasbara buster thing; Ive said before and I repeat - the chap is in need of the sort of help he is unlikely to get here. Pshychiatric help. Im not sure his presence here is either healthy for him or beneficial for the comments threads of this blog.

My thoughts with regard to TheIriot are meant as an insult. As has been proven here or countless occasions, he is a nasty, unpleasant and dishonest individual.

hasbaraBuster is just rather ill. I genuinely take no pleasure in that, however unpleasant/unpalatable many of his views are.

Matt

TheIrie, I am afraid that your history is in a dire need of resitting.

The entire story of the emergence of a modern, democratic state (within the broader background of Enlightenment) is the story of a conflict between democracy and organised religion – in this particular case, mostly Christianity. The imperfect blessings of democracy and human rights that we enjoy were not handed by some deity on Mt Sinai. They were won in a thousand conflicts and tussles, one at a time. (Which, incidentally, is a powerful argument why we should not compromise them in times or real or imagined emergencies.) And in virtually every conflict and every tussle organised religion was on the other side.

Parts (yes, TheIrie, it is only parts) of modern Christian establishment have undergone a metamorphosis which makes them (most of the time) into viable participants in a modern, democratic, secular state. That’s good. However, we have reached this state of affairs because ideas of democracy, human right and secularism won the battle, not because they signed a power-sharing agreement with the Church.

History is an imperfect teacher but, with the usual caveats, its lesson is that democracy in the Middle East will come through secularisation and through relegating religion from the public to the private domain. In that particular battle Tariq Ramadan and Muhamed Khatami are in the enemy camp.

Bob-B Given that the best Tariq Ramadan could do on the issue of stoning was to call for a ‘moratorium’, it is a bit eccentric to cal him ‘progressive’.

Don’t be silly.

The BBC always introduces Inayat Bungle as a moderate. (or progressive). And can you find fault with one who is on a campaign to ‘redefine himself’ and make himself more palatable to the gullible UK public????

Muffin “However, we have reached this state of affairs because ideas of democracy, human right and secularism won the battle, not because they signed a power-sharing agreement with the Church.” No. A power sharing agreement is precisely what happened in England and the US. France, I’ll grant you. Italy, forget it. In fact, I think France is probably unique in that regard.

Irie, I believe that “a moderate, modern, reformed Islam is not incompatible with freedom, human rights, democracy. ” What is incompatible with freedom, human rights and democracy (and, more specifically, religious toleration) is a theocracy, be it Islamic, Buddhist or Christian, that holds its law and/or rulers to be divinely-inspired. Such regime can’t help but criminalize dissent (specially religious dissent); to do otherwise is to countenance blasphemy.

Europe got rid of its divinely-inspired kings, autos-da-fés and related bullshit, over several centuries of struggle, as Muffin points out. Some relics of those heady days of yore remain; I would be cool with a supreme leader if all he did was wear silly hats and open parliament, but nor running nuclear policy.

In my view, Kathami failed not only because of spinelessness and obstruction by the hardliners, but also because he never questioned the fundamental tenets of the Islamic Republic (c) that make it incompatible with fundamental freedoms. For many reasons it would be too charitable to describe him as a Gorbatchev figure; but even with respect to the latter, I would find a conference on ‘promoting political freedoms’ sponsored by him in 1986 Moscow to be fishy, to say the least.

Bruno Mota In my view, Kathami failed not only because of spinelessness and obstruction by the hardliners, but also because he never questioned the fundamental tenets of the Islamic Republic (c) that make it incompatible with fundamental freedoms.

I feel confident that most of the posters at HP would agree with you.

The vetting of any candidate to be president would weed out any bloke who may question the above.

This is the basic reason why the ‘Iranian Democracy’ is a fraud. This is how the ‘Iranian Revolution’ prevents any dilution of its religious base. It is the reason why only violence will ever enable true democracy in Iran.

Wikipedia won’t save your sorry antizionist and Holocaust revisionist sympathizing ass Alberto

Article 3(3) of Law No. 6, 1954, (February 16, 1954), explicitly states: “Any man will be a Jordanian subject if he is not Jewish.” Source: Jordanian Nationality Law, Official Gazette, No. 1171, p. 105. This law was reactivated in Law No. 7, sect. 2 (April 1, 1963) and has never been rescinded remaining valid and in force to the present day

Erratum - I was wrong above to bracket the US with England rather than France. The US, of course, was founded as a secular state. Its just that recently things there have been sliding somewhat.

Bruno - We’ve still got our divinely inspired leader here in the UK (the Queen). OK - she does nothing. And of course, W over the pond claims he is divinely inspired. So what’s the problem? The problem is when a leader claims to be appointed by God - more or less the current situation in Iran. The problem is solved by having popularly elected leaders, whether they be religious or not, who have state power - i.e. the exact situation in the UK. So, I don’t see any fundamental problem or anything unusual about a low-level, de-fanged theocracy. There are loads of them, all over the world.

No, TheIrie, it is not power sharing. Certainly not in the States (state and religion separated by US constitution), but also neither in UK nor even in Italy. The power belongs to the electorate, who freely elect the legislature (and in the States also the executive). Except for a brace of bishops in the House of Lords in UK, organised religion has no formal part in government. No Council of Guardians, no official role in appointing, approving or removing the government of the day. Of course, organised religion has powerful informal impact, simply because a significant portion of the electorate sides with them – I might be unhappy with the impact of organised Christianity in US or Italy but they exercise it by and large through the constitutional arrangements and institutions of the secular state, as is their right as citizens.

All these are not idle points. The most important lesson of history is what you and I see round us and are used to is not necessarily something that always existed or that we can take for granted. It took hundreds of years of relentless struggle for freedom in Europe to attain this state of affairs. And it will take an effort in Iran as well. Theocracy (which, incidentally, includes also Khatami) will not yield its power and privileges willingly. Another lesson of history.

“Except for a brace of bishops in the House of Lords in UK, organised religion has no formal part in government. No Council of Guardians, no official role in appointing, approving or removing the government of the day” - well your saying that days after the Lords (rightly) vetoed the elected legislature in pushing through 42 days detention. A more diluted, benign council of Guardians is basically what we have. So why not simply de-fang and dilute the Iranian version. Why hold Iran up to higher standards than we hold ourselves?

‘A more diluted, benign council of Guardians is basically what we have.’

This is like saying a domestic cat is a ‘more diluted, benign’ version of a tiger.

the fact that, at any given time, 13% of Israel is beyond the reach of prospective Arab settlers

1. What percentage of Jordan is open to Jewish settlers?

2. What percentage of Egypt is open to Jewish settlers?

3. What percentage of Lybia is open to Jewish settlers?

Now just fuck off, you sad antisemitic jerk.

Modernity and Fabian, I don’t agree with the Irie in this thread, but nothing that he said struck me as particularly vitriolic or dishonest

Except his fundamentally dishonest attitude towards Jews and Israel, you mean … distorting history and slanting everything in an antisemitic direction. Sort of like Hasbara Buster, only less intelligent. Yes, apart from that he’s OK.

Why hold Iran up to higher standards than we hold ourselves?

No, TheIrie, I don’t hold Iranians to higher standards than ourselves. But, may I venture, you are holding them to lower standards.

Those Iranians that I have encountered are just as intelligent, aware and seeking to lead their lives in freedom and without diktat as Brits. Of course, they are not a scientific sample of whatever passes in Teheran for the man on the Clapham omnibus. But I am wary of the sentiment which you implicitly articulate (and others on whatever-became-of-the-left articulate more explicitly), namely that these “savages” deserve class B democracy. (Or even dictatorship, unless their class B democracy will be sufficiently anti-American.)

If you are right and the majority of Iranians are deeply religious and wish to be governed by theocrats, then they should have an unfettered right to elect theocrats in free and fair elections. To me, the actions of the Council of Guardians prove that they don’t believe that free and fair elections will ensure their power and privileges. May I venture that their knowledge of situation in Iran is superior to yours?

You a misrepresenting what I’m saying now. I don’t think “these “savages” deserve class B democracy”. They deserve genuine democracy. As I said, if this leads to a secular or a Theocratic outcome, that is up to them. (In my judgement if the will of Iranians was followed it would lead to a moderate theocracy, like Turkey or Israel). My point, then, is focus on the political and constitutional arrangements (e.g. the Guardian Council) and not on the religious aspects.

Strange old place, Teheran. First we have a conference to deny the Holocost took place - attended in part by Jews whose relatives were gassed and burned by Hitler’s men, then we had a cartoon festival to make fun of the Jews whose relatives were gassed and burned by Hitler’s men, now we have a conference about the rosy road to tolerance, attended by a bunch of foreign dignatories who if they were Iranian would probably be in in prison in Teheran instead.

TheIrie: I am in complete disagreement with many aspects of the state–religion interaction in Israel, but it is misleading to call it “moderate theocracy”. I am less familiar with Turkey, but also there I believe that this phrase makes no sense: if at all, separation of state and religion is firmly entrenched in Turkish constitution.

You are confusing theocracy (i.e. constitutional arrangements handing over political power, or significant part thereof, to specific religious establishment) and political role to religious individuals and parties through the democratic process. Of course, religious people in democracy have the same right as everybody else to vote, to be elected and to form political parties. This is not theocracy, it is democracy.

Will more Iranians vote for The Shia Islamic Party than for The Iranian Trotskyite Party or even for The Iranian Labour Party or The Iranian Tory Party? Probably. But now they have no choice, and this is the difference.

Maybe I am. I’m trying to put forward an argument I’ve read Reza Aslan make numerous times. If you are interested, here he is explaining what he sees as the middle way between theocracy and secularism:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/04/17/aunt_kobras_islamic_democracy/

Israel is not a theocracy nor a “moderate” theocracy for the simple reason that if you get 61 members of Knesset to agree on something, you can change absolutely every law. Since MKs are elected by direct, equal and proportional votes of the entire country in just one circunscription, and are not in any way an unelected or self-elected council of sages, nor noblemen or consecrated priest or anything else, I would say that Israel’s democracy is even more simple, direct and popular than UK’s democracy with its Lords and Bishops.

“you can change absolutely every law”

Including the application of Israel’s Basic Laws.
(this is part of the present dispute between the High Court and the Knesset)

The reason that theIrie considers Israel a “moderate theocracy” is sheer ignorance from his part.
TheIrie: I would stick to chalk if it were you. Political Science is too difficult a subject for Chomsky-formed minds.

And of course, Israel’s democracy is much more representative than UK’s democracy. You have a two-party dominance in the Parliament, while we have never had less than 10 parties in the Knesset at once, unless I miss an odd occasion in which they were 9.

Only 10?? With 120 MKs????? There should be at least 121!!! The Mossad fell down on the job yet again …

Chalk is way beyond Irie’s comprehension.

Just got this:
Mr. Ban wrote to Wiesenthal Center officials to confirm that he personally confronted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after last month’s virulently anti-Semitic address to the UN General Assembly.

The October 3rd letter from the Secretary General’s Chef de Cabinet, Vijay Nambiar read, in part: “The Secretary General was disturbed to hear the comments made by President Ahmadinejad of Iran in which he predicted the collapse of Israel and alluded to racial stereotypes. The Secretary General raised this issue with both President Ahmadinejad and Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki, who met with him at their request, and urged the Iranian officials to refrain from making such remarks.”

Mr. Ban also pledged to continue to advocate full respect of the UN resolutions against Holocaust denial.

Bruno Mota wrote:

“Modernity and Fabian, I don’t agree with the Irie in this thread, but nothing that he said struck me as particularly vitriolic or dishonest.”

good point, however, as you will notice TheIrie has been discussing these issues for 2+ years, and in that time has not advanced his understanding one iota, not one bit

I am pointing out that it is worthless to discuss complex issues with someone like TheIrie who
1) can’t read very well
2) lacks basic comprehension
3) doesn’t reason too well
4) assumes the worse of others
5) requires the most charitable interpretation of HIS views
6) will ignore basic logic if it disagree with the political points he is making

I think that the above discussion with Muffin, who is an extremely patience and logic individual, illustrates my argument

Article 3(3) of Law No. 6, 1954, (February 16, 1954), explicitly states: “Any man will be a Jordanian subject if he is not Jewish.”

No, it does not. How gullible can a person be? It would be crazy for a law to indiscriminately grant citizenship of a country to any person so long as they’re not Jewish!

I quote from the Jordanian Nationality Law (not from the Hasbara version):

The following shall be deemed to be Jordanian nationals:

(2)Any person who, not being Jewish, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954;

The restriction on Jewish nationality seekers applies only to those who were Palestinian nationals before 1948.

I.e., an American Jew, for instance, can apply for Jordan citizenship under any of the various other mechanisms established by the law, and he can’t be turned down because of his religion.

Hasbara item busted — yet again.

Hasbara Buster,

please could you take your CONSTANT Jew baiting else where?

Indeed, Habara Buster would do everyone a favor if he just crawled back into the asshole from which he emerged.

Nah - he provides innocent merriment, being completely oblivious to his own stupidity. Oh, alright then, perhaps not completely innocent - just a bit of malice and schadenfreude at the way he makes a fool of himself.

To the Hasbara Bastard:

This is your funniest contribution, and that’s saying a lot:

You quote the Jordanian govt: “The Government recognizes Judaism as a religion; however there are reportedly no Jordanian citizens who are Jewish. The Government does not impose restrictions on Jews, and they are permitted to own property and conduct business in the country.” From the US State Department’s report on human rights in Jordan. Hasbara item busted — yet again.

YOU IDIOT! Talk about missing the forest for the trees. Doesn’t the fact that the entire nation of Jordan has not a single Jew in it carry more meaning than any “statute” by that govt. about the theoretical rights of jews.

My god, how friggin dense can you be. You make nearly flintstonian sound like an intellect.

Keep it up, i’m thinking of starting a compilation of the political dumbest blog posts and you could claim top position

Not to mention that the quoted Jordanian Nationality Law is full of positive discrimination towards Arabs, but a person like THB cries “racism” when bringing the Israeli Law of Return or the JNF to the debate.

“Article 3(3) of Law No. 6, 1954, (February 16, 1954), explicitly states: ‘Any man will be a Jordanian subject if he is not Jewish.’

No, it does not. How gullible can a person be? It would be crazy for a law to indiscriminately grant citizenship of a country to any person so long as they’re not Jewish! ”

Maybe not quite as gullible as you want, Buster. What you link to is not the 1954 Nationality Law, it is the 1987 revision, and even that, as you so helpfully point out, is blatantly discriminatory:

“Any person who, not being Jewish, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954″

Is there something not clear about that?

Furthermore, lbnaz’s quote continues “This law was reactivated in Law No. 7, sect. 2 (April 1, 1963) and has never been rescinded remaining valid and in force to the present day”. He doesn’t link to a source, and the law is not readily findable on Google, but your refutation doesn’t do the work of disproving it, as you seem to think it does.

Next time you want to jump all over Israel, you might remember Law No. 6: Not only does it encode discrimination against Jews, it also discriminates against women and in favour of Arabs (men, that is) vs. non-Arabs. The discrimination against women has a quirk you should find interesting: The children of Jordanian women who marry non-Jordanian men do not qualify for automatic citizenship, unlike the children of Jordanian men. Campaigners against this injustice note that one reason the Jordanian government resists changing the law is that that would result in 50,000 or more Palestinians instantly becoming new Jordanian citizens, and this makes the government nervous.

The Arab version of the Citizenship Law

The usual unprovoked attack from the ignorant dumb fucker vildechaye. Do your mummy a favour and stop peeing in your pants, little moron.

Or better still, just fuck off to Istanbul, “Turkey’s capital”.

N.O.:

1. Vildechaye was answering to “The Hasbara Buster”, a known Argentinian neonazi with some Jewish roots.
2. I can’t find in vildechaye’s words nothing that can be described as an “unprovoked attack”.
3. Lets say your 8:33 comment was directed instead to THB, the neonazi, it is still completely devoted of arguments. It is just a collection of insults. And they are not even new, original insults (which I adore to learn). You must stop posting this.
Best,
Fabian

Fabian,
Which part of “You make nearly flintstonian sound like an intellect” is too difficult for you to see as an unprovoked attack?
You really must stop thinking that you can issue instructions and I will jump to obey them.

N.O.: Indeed. I see now that “nearly flintstonian” was directed at you.
I can only say that by way of retort your message at 8:33 is lame and tiring and does your case no favor.

“You really must stop thinking that you can issue instructions and I will jump to obey them.”

I agree, you are right. But I can’t stand your pointless insults either.

Maybe we all could agree to a truce and see how long it lasts? eh, vildechaye?

I can only say that by way of retort your message at 8:33 is lame and tiring and does your case no favor

Tough. What you say is patronising nonsense. Who do you think you are, Fabian - my headmaster? My publisher’s editor? I don’t write posts in order to gain a good grade from you.

But I can’t stand your pointless insults either

Since you have now reluctantly agreed that I was pointlessly insulted without provocation, rather than vice versa, perhaps you should direct this drivel at Vildechaye? What you can or can’t stand is, again, your problem.

I have avoided Vildechaye. It’s not my doing that he stalks me. There is no ‘we’. And again, your use of the pompous ‘we’ suggests that you are labouring under the delusion that you are the headmaster and everyone else is a little child who needs your wisdom and guidance.

I’d take Fabian’s advice if I were you, NO. I enjoy reading these threads in my lunch hour and having to scroll through your bilious dirge is giving me repetitive strain injury.

Tough shit, Alex. I didn’t pick the fight with V. - he picked it with me. If you can’t see that, perhaps you have repetitive eye (or brain?) injury.

You know what I see in this thread? Love, pure love.

YOU IDIOT! Talk about missing the forest for the trees. Doesn’t the fact that the entire nation of Jordan has not a single Jew in it carry more meaning than any “statute” by that govt. about the theoretical rights of jews.

Of course, practical results are important. For instance, while an Arab can theoretically be the Prime Minister of Israel, in practice it has never happened (as different from other binational states like Canada, where the 20% French minority has provided quite a few Prime Ministers), thus undermining the notion that Arabs are equal citizens of Israel.

That said, it is an outright lie that a Jordanian law states “Any man will be a Jordanian subject if he is not Jewish.” Any person not blinded by bias can observe the suspiciously moronic wording. The fact that this notion has become so widespread is proof that hasbara busting is necessary.

While these technicalities may be hard for the improvised punditry of Internet blogs to grasp, citizenship of most countries is usually granted on one of two grounds:

a) by origin.
b) by naturalization.

Citizenship by origin means the people who AUTOMATICALLY become citizens, e.g. American-born people are automatically Americans.

Citizenship by naturalization means the people who had one nationality and acquire another one (in some cases instead of, in other cases alongside, their original one), usually through long-time residence in their new country.

Jordanian Law No. 6 only states that some Jews (the ones involved in the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict) can’t be citizens by origin. This is regrettable and I’m absolutely against the clause. But it imposes no restriction whatsoever on Jews seeking to become Jordanian citizens by naturalization.

Next time you want to jump all over Israel, you might remember Law No. 6: Not only does it encode discrimination against Jews, it also discriminates against women and in favour of Arabs (men, that is) vs. non-Arabs.

Since Israel apologists claim the country is morally superior, I tend to compare Israel to democratic countries, not to some of the worst dictatorships in the world.

That said, the “discrimination in favor of Arabs” you cite is different from Israel’s Law of Return, and similar to the European Union countries’ laws that “discriminate” in favor of citizens from other member countries when it comes to acquiring nationality. It’s not an ethnic criterion; it’s a political one: the ones who can become Jordanian nationals more easily are citizens of Arab League countries, not any person of Arab descent. Also, an Arab League Jew (a Jewish citizen of Morocco, for instance) can become a citizen of Jordan under the “discrimination in favor of Arabs” clause.

While these technicalities may be hard for the improvised punditry of Internet blogs to grasp

Oh, I love it. You yourself are not just an improvised pundit of Internet blogs, but a liar who has been caught out numerous times. And still you seek to sermonise to the world on something you know nothing about, namely Israel. And the things you happen to know about, you lie about.

Religion is like a enormous dog, if its yours you like it and it gives you comfort and you think its friendly but it terrifies the hell out of everyone else and the very least you can do is to keep it away from children.

1: to the hasbara bastard: I see that the fact that Jordan has 0 jews is much less interesting to you than the fact that Israel has never had an Arab prime minister. Well, given that israel has been in a perpetual state of war and is under existential threat from mainly Arab countries (Iran excepted) would easily account for fact # 2. As for fact #1, the fact that you don’t address it or see it as important says pretty much everything about you.

2. nearly flintstonian: is your arsehole (oops, arsenal) really so small you have to keep dredging up Istanbul again and again. i should think an advocate for creationism being taught alongside evolution in science class would keep quiet about others’ small factual errors.

3. fabian: Sorry while i normally don’t go in for this sort of thing, this fellow is serially abusive and deserves some of his own back. he dishes it out but can’t even take a small ribbing concerning his pompous name (which is great for parodying). So i think i’ll keep it up for a while; i do note that i’m not the only one who’s noted problems with this fellow.

The busted Hasbara Bastard trolls non-antizionist web sites complaining that an organization is racist for purchasing and holding a small and fixed percentage of land in trust for a middle eastern minority, but would he claim on Muslim and antizionist web sites complain that the implementation of Waqf is racist? And if not why not?

nearly flintstonian: is your arsehole (oops, arsenal) really so small you have to keep dredging up Istanbul again and again

Do shut your silly gob, you pathetic ’senior newspaper editor’. You are the one stalking me for no reason (see above where you attacked me with no provocation). Every time you do so, I will remind readers that you are too ignorant to know which city is Turkey’s capital.

i should think an advocate for creationism being taught alongside evolution in science class would keep quiet about others’ small factual errors.

What a sick little liar you are. I never advocated creationism being taught alongside evolution in science classes.

hey barely darwinian: just FYI i don’t “troll” you — don’t flatter yourself, we just happen to frequent the same threads on the same blog — but when i read your gratuitous abuse to anyone who posts anything you disagree with — which unfortunately you dole out unendingly and fatuously — i occasionally have the urge to point it out. And apparently i’m not the only one.
By the way folks, in a response to someone who opined that Turkey wasn’t part of europe, i noted that Istanbul was located in Europe. I also erroneously stated that Istanbul was capital of Turkey — a mistake that could have cost me a few $$ on Jeopardy had i made it while being a contestant. However, our serial abuser here apparently considers this error of hasty scribbling a “gotcha” moment. If only he could cast the same gaze self-critically on his daily torrent of abuse. (One can’t even refer to misinformation, as there is so little information — mis- or otherwise — in the posts, just words like scum, sick, pathetic, etc…).
PS: The subject for discussion here did advocate creationism in school as an alternative point of view; i’m not obsessive enough to track down the quote, but it was in one of the Palin threads. ergo, “nearly flintstonian”.

The usual never-ending lies from this pathetic pile of trash. I argue rationally with rational posters all the time. But sad, ignorant losers like you can’t be argued with rationally.
You most certainly stalk and troll me, as anyone who scrolls down from the top of the thread (and isn’t insane like you) can see quite plainly. I didn’t say a single word to you or about you, but that didn’t stop you from posting personal abuse about me.
What I said was that I see no problem in discussing creationism in schools in order to develop critical thinking. I did NOT ‘advocate teaching it in science classes’. You are either a pathetic liar, or too stupid to understand the difference.

I’ll tell you what, flintstonian: you stop using words like “trash”, “scum”, “ignorant” “loser” etc etc ad nauseam and I’ll never direct another comment your way. and I repeat, I don’t “stalk” you. I merely comment on your vicious and nasty tongue when I visit the same threads. By your silly definition of “stalking”, you too are stalking when you respond to anyone’s posts that aren’t directed specifically at you. talk about “critical thinking,” or lack thereof.

would he claim on Muslim and antizionist web sites complain that the implementation of Waqf is racist? And if not why not?

No, I wouldn’t.

Why? Basically, because I don’t see Saudi Arabia described as a moral paragon, or the Palestinians as holding the moral high ground in the I/P conflict. On the other hand, I do see frequent claims of Israel being the most moral country in the world. See here for an example (and my response).

Why? Basically, because I don’t see Saudi Arabia described as a moral paragon, or the Palestinians as holding the moral high ground in the I/P conflict.

I don’t often see the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia described as a moral paragon either, excepting the apologias produced by recipients of Saudi largesse. But if your claim is that you don’t encounter antizionist, Arab and Muslim perspectives which assert that Palestinians hold the moral high ground in the I/P conflict, you are credulous.

What you do reveal by your response to my query is that when you charge that the JNF is racist on non antizionist blogs, but refuse to challenge Muslim, Arab and antizionist blogs that implementation of the Waqf is racist, it has nothing to do with providing apologias defending the Islamic Waqf as an antiracist institution, nor anything to do with principles that would substantiate which institutional actions or policies constitute racism in all situations.

In other words Alberto, your complaints and claims from the allegation of an interpol red notice on Solomon Morel (which doesn’t show up anywhere on interpol’s web site but which you attempted to substantiate with a link to a Holocaust denial sympathizer), to your apologias for Jordan’s anti-Jewish citizenship laws, to your accusations that the JNF is racist, to your allegation that there are frequent claims that Israel is the most moral country in the world but that you never have encountered claims that Palestinians hold the moral high ground in the I/P conflict, are all either unconvincing, dubious, spurious, strawmen or outright lies. I find you to be hypocritical, ineffectual, bigoted and boring.

And finally Alberto, the ridiculous faux Arabic and egomaniacal avatars you write under suggest you should be paying far more attention to and dealing with narcissistic and borderline personality issues.

By your silly definition of “stalking”, you too are stalking when you respond to anyone’s posts that aren’t directed specifically at you

That’s dumb drivel - so what’s new?
I don’t respond to anyone else’s posts, say Alec’s, by saying: “You are even stupider than vildechaye”, which is what you were doing.

I have no intention of refraining from criticising third parties, any more than you have undertaken to do so: do you get it?

As long as you don’t post abusive stuff about me, I won’t post abusive stuff about you.

Take it or leave it.

Why? Basically, because I don’t see Saudi Arabia described as a moral paragon, or the Palestinians as holding the moral high ground in the I/P conflict. On the other hand, I do see frequent claims of Israel being the most moral country in the world

What a stupid argument. The actual morality of the two sides is completely unaffected, in either direction, by what people are ‘claiming’ about them.

The fact is that Saudi is a medieval hellhole, where women are oppressed, gays persecuted and observing Judaism is … hmm … not exactly tolerated.

The fact is that Israel is a modern liberal state exhibiting stunning freedom under extremely difficult conditions, being besieged and threatened by genocidal maniacs. Islam is practised freely, etc.

Your refusal to condemn Saudi racism on the mega-flimsy grounds you describe, instead of which you condemn Israel, proves nothing except that you are a sick antisemite.

Hasbarabuster - you aren’t doing at all a good job. Even your name shows you to be a consummate narcissist and they are not renowned for their contact with reality.

How much do you actually know about what is commanded in the koran and the hadith about the treatment of Jews?

How much do you know about the Islamic commandment, for example, that there must never be a lasting peace between Muslim and kufr Jews, and why that is the case?

How much do you actually know about why Hamas is allowed to get away, literally, with murder by the very people who elected it on a “welfare ticket” and why the rest of the Arab world is content to let it carry on in that lunatic vein?

And how much do you actually know (rather than mouth off) about the personality profile of Ahmedinajad which makes him so dangerous to world peace?

I would wager “nothing.”

And it’s true that empty vessels like you make the most sound

Alberto, you are a nobody.
Next time I need lessons in morality, I will ask the angels.
I wish you learn how not to be a resentful prick before you die.

I need to run, the incredible medical, technological and cultural advances I am about to offer to humankind need a little more work before shabbat.