Ahmadinejad on the way out?

[a_unique_person]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/04/iran.election.debate/index.html



In an unprecedented move in Iranian politics, a reformist presidential candidate accused President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of tainting the country's image by questioning the Holocaust and by wielding a reckless leadership style.

The frontrunners in Iran's presidential race clashed during a fiery debate broadcast to a national television audience on Wednesday evening.
The verbal jousting between Ahmadinejad and opponent Mir Hossein Mousavi -- a former prime minister and reformist candidate who poses a threat to the firebrand Iranian president -- lasted an hour and half.
Mousavi said Ahmadinejad's dictatorial ways have hurt Iran's image across the globe and could be a prelude to a dictatorship.
"There are two ways of confronting the country's problems," Mousavi said. "One is through a management style based on adventurism, instability, play-acting, exaggerations, wrongdoing, being secretive, self-importance, superficiality and ignoring the law. The second way is based on realism, respect, openness, collective wisdom and avoiding extremism."



In the compromised democratic system of Iran, it's good to see that a more moderate leader could still come to power. Iran needs it, as does the Middle East.

[Doctor Evil]

I hope he loses, and will be happy to see him go. However, I do not expect to see a major change in Iran's policies. As far as I know they are not determined by the president anyway.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I hope he loses, and will be happy to see him go. However, I do not expect to see a major change in Iran's policies. As far as I know they are not determined by the president anyway.

No they are not. The president has no power over Iran's foreign policy or nuclear projects or military

[Sword_Of_Truth]

In the compromised democratic system of Iran, it's good to see that a more moderate leader could still come to power. Iran needs it, as does the Middle East.

A more moderate leader is coming to power? Did the mullahs suddenly all eat their scimitars and leave Iran to the Teletubbies while I was away?

It's the mullahs who chose Ahmedinijad. It's the Mullahs who are funding terrorist attacks against Israel, Iraq and US forces and are pursuing nuclear weapons. Smackdude Immadinnerjacket was never more than an enthusiastic cheerleader.

Wake me up if the mullahs suddenly have an epiphany that terror, oppression and genocide are no longer a Good Thing™, ok?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

The president of Iran not a leader and has very limited powers. Him being replaced will make not the slightest difference, except the, cough, 'Western' propagandists will have to find someone else to mistranslate.

[CapelDodger]

It's the mullahs who chose Ahmedinijad.

The voters chose Ahmedinejad.

It's the Mullahs who are funding terrorist attacks against Israel, Iraq and US forces and are pursuing nuclear weapons.

Allegedly.

Smackdude Immadinnerjacket was never more than an enthusiastic cheerleader.

Ahmedinejad has been a great disappointment to the mullahs. He was their favoured candidate, so his failings and idiocies (such as falling for Holocaust denialism) reflects badly on them. So would his failure to be re-elected.

I'm sure they'd have preferred a stronger candidate but having promoted the jumped-up twat they're stuck with him. There's no chance of him stepping down voluntarily and they couldn't force him.

If Mousavi wins (which I rather think he will) we'll see an immediate change in Iran's diplomacy. New presidents in both the US and Iran reaching out to each other ... that'll cause a stir.

Wake me up if the mullahs suddenly have an epiphany that terror, oppression and genocide are no longer a Good Thing™, ok?

Would you believe it anyway?

[CapelDodger]

The president of Iran not a leader and has very limited powers. Him being replaced will make not the slightest difference, except the, cough, 'Western' propagandists will have to find someone else to mistranslate.

I think we're already seeing the shift from a president who's the all-powerful Voice of Iran (when he's Ahmedinejad) to a powerless voice in the wilderness (when he's a reformist).

After all, Iran is a nation dominated by mad mullahs obsessed with exterminating Jews : it always was and always will be. Irony

I think it will make a big difference. The president has the power of the soap-box, and the veto powers of the religious council are shrinking inexorably. If they push things too far there'll be street-fighting, and they can't be sure of winning. They came in on the back of a Revolution, after all.

A revolution which has run its course, IMO. Iran bears watching. A rapprochement between the US and Iran would be a stunning foreign-policy achievement for both Presidents.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

After all, Iran is a nation dominated by mad mullahs obsessed with exterminating Jews : it always was and always will be. Irony


I don't see Jews all over the world being assassinated/exterminated. They can't be that obsessed can they?

Of course in the Zionist Fantasy World everybody is obsessed with exterminating Jews. Especially those who dare to tell the truth about the crimes of Israel.

[applecorped]

I don't see Jews all over the world being assassinated/exterminated.


Any more?

[MattusMaximus]

Maybe there is a reformist movement forming among the people? From what I understand, the mullahs who really run the show behind the scenes in Iran are getting pretty old... perhaps the new generation of Iranians senses this, as well?

[a_unique_person]

Maybe there is a reformist movement forming among the people? From what I understand, the mullahs who really run the show behind the scenes in Iran are getting pretty old... perhaps the new generation of Iranians senses this, as well?

There has always been a reformist element, that's how Ahmadinejad won in the first place, the reformists were prevented from participating fully in the previous election.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I don't see Jews all over the world being assassinated/exterminated.
Any more?

Is this some kind of $64,000 cryptic question on a crass TV quiz show?

Anymore what?

Oh you mean 'truth'? Oh right.

Yeah sure, I post plenty of truths. The Zionist Apologists get all hot and sweaty and burst a few blood vessels and kill a few brain cells trying to squash them with lies and diversions. On the other hand the realists usually agree.

Applecorped, I couldn't decipher the point of your post. You obviously had a vibe in in mind when posting. what was it.

[marksman]

Every election since Ahmadinejad came to power there is speculation that a moderate will unseat him.

In 2005, he came to power with 62% of the vote.
In the legislative elections in 2007, when it was speculated that Ahmadinejad's conservatives would suffer sweeping defeat, they suffered only minor losses (not unusual in mid-term elections) and maintained a majority of seats.

I am highly doubtful that Ahmadinejad will be defeated. There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking going on, a need to "prove" that Iran is truly a democracy, and a hope that the election of a moderate with begin to "fix" politics in the region because Iran is a highly destabilizing negative influence in the region. But I don't think it's going to happen.

My position is not based on the notion that Iran is dominated by the clericy (though it is), or that the elections are rigged (I have no idea). I simply see little evidence that there is a huge groundswell of popular rebellion against Ahmadinejad outside of Western Media pipe dreams.

Would I be happy to see Ahmadinejad ousted by Mousavi? Sure. But I find it unlikely.

Also, despite Mousavi being touted as a reformer, let's not imagine that his Presidency would represent a major shiftin policy. Mousavi was Prime Minister during the Iran-Iraq War. He is, in many ways, a Cold Warrior. While he seeks to open Iran politically, mostly to benefit his party in local elections, and makes nice speeches about tolerance and open media, his governance will likely be less radical than that. Of course, he can't help but be more centrist than the radical Ahmadinejad, and, at least, Mousavi is not a Holocaust denier.

[geni]

It's the mullahs who chose Ahmedinijad.

Not so. If you want to build a theory of who chose him the revolutionary guard would be better candidates


Wake me up if the mullahs suddenly have an epiphany that terror, oppression and genocide are no longer a Good Thing™, ok?

Persia hasn't tried for genocide in centuries.

[geni]

Maybe there is a reformist movement forming among the people? From what I understand, the mullahs who really run the show behind the scenes in Iran are getting pretty old... perhaps the new generation of Iranians senses this, as well?

The mullahs ceased to run the show some time ago. They still habe influence but I doubt they would do too well in a confrontation with the revolutionary guard. From the POV of the rest of the world the rise in power of the revolutionary guard is a problem

[geni]

My position is not based on the notion that Iran is dominated by the clericy (though it is), or that the elections are rigged (I have no idea). I simply see little evidence that there is a huge groundswell of popular rebellion against Ahmadinejad outside of Western Media pipe dreams.

Infalation is up and the fall in oil prices is causeing issues for Ahmadinejad's social programs.



Also, despite Mousavi being touted as a reformer, let's not imagine that his Presidency would represent a major shiftin policy. Mousavi was Prime Minister during the Iran-Iraq War. He is, in many ways, a Cold Warrior. While he seeks to open Iran politically, mostly to benefit his party in local elections, and makes nice speeches about tolerance and open media, his governance will likely be less radical than that. Of course, he can't help but be more centrist than the radical Ahmadinejad, and, at least, Mousavi is not a Holocaust denier.

A less antagonistic iran with fewer nuclear ambitions would be an acceptable outcome.

[ravdin]

As has been stated many times already, Ahmadinejad has no real power. I'd welcome seeing a new face represent the Iranian regime to the outside world. But I wouldn't expect much to change, particularly with respect to their nuclear program and their proxy militants.

[marksman]

Infalation is up and the fall in oil prices is causeing issues for Ahmadinejad's social programs.
That's true, but the Iranian population is fairly well-educated. I think they know that Ahmadenijad's programs need higher gas prices. Heck, it's not like Mousavi can affect oil prices either.

The social programs don't seem to be the issue in this election anyway. Ahmadenijad seems to be framing Mousavi as a tired old man working for the inept ousted government that Ahmadinejad replaced. Ahmadinejad's implicit message: "No matter how bad you think the economy is now, can you remember how bad it was before I took over? That's what Mousavi represents." Problem is, most of Iran doesn't remember when Mousavi was Prime Minister, because most of Iran was born after 1988.

Mousavi is not takign issue with Ahmadinejad's social programs, and in fact, plans to continue them. He mostly attacks Ahmadinejad as someone who can't work well with others (in or out of Iran), has wrecked Iran's public image, and whose weird endtime view of the world didn't allow him to plan long-term, which made this economic downturn worse. Problem is, most Iranians know that the region hates Iran because they are Shi'a, and Ahmadinejad, while admittedly loony, only adds to that marginally. Also, anybody who remembers Ahmadinejad's predecessor Khatami (and that was only five to ten years ago) is at least a little sympathetic to the notion that the reformers, as well-intentioned as they might be, tend to be fairly inept at getting anything accomplished. A younger reformer might have fared better than Mousavi, who really was part and parcel of the prior administration.

A less antagonistic iran with fewer nuclear ambitions would be an acceptable outcome.
Hey, that would be great. And turly, it does seem that Ahmadinejad is more gung-ho about nukes even then the clerical leadership, who tend to take a long-term view of things. Ahmadinejad wants to make Iran a nuclear power during his administration so he can take credit for it. The clerics are perfectly happy to put things on hold for a decade while they get their economic house in order.

[Thunder]

The problem with Ahmedinajad leaving, is that he has been stupid enough to flaunt his bad attitudes and bigotries. Another leader may have identical goals, but may not be as stupid about telling the world about them.

If not for Ahmedinajad's big mouth, Iran may have been able to develop a nuke, without the world caring one single bit...until it was too late.

[geni]

As has been stated many times already, Ahmadinejad has no real power.

Stated but not shown. His position gives him a fair bit of power and his links to the revolutionary guard more still.


I'd welcome seeing a new face represent the Iranian regime to the outside world. But I wouldn't expect much to change, particularly with respect to their nuclear program and their proxy militants.

Nuclear program is Ahmadinejad driven. Fairly easy for someone else to ease off on.

[Thunder]

You know, the funny thing is, if Iran just stopped building more centrifuges, they would be allowed to keep their nuclear energy program.

[ravdin]

Stated but not shown. His position gives him a fair bit of power and his links to the revolutionary guard more still.

Ahmadinejad is a former member of the Revolutionary Guards and there's no doubt he owes his current position to this. However, he does not command the Revolutionary Guards or any of Iran's military. He has a good deal of prominence based on his position, but this is not the same as influence or power.

Nuclear program is Ahmadinejad driven. Fairly easy for someone else to ease off on.

He does exactly what the Supreme Council allows him to do. Their goals will not change if Ahmadinejad is replaced.

[geni]

Ahmadinejad is a former member of the Revolutionary Guards and there's no doubt he owes his current position to this. However, he does not command the Revolutionary Guards or any of Iran's military. He has a good deal of prominence based on his position, but this is not the same as influence or power.

Strange as it may seem command positions are not the same thing as influence nor does a lack of them indicate a lack of influence.


He does exactly what the Supreme Council allows him to do.

Meaningless statement. Gorden Brown does exactly what the Queen allows him to do.

Their goals will not change if Ahmadinejad is replaced.

One of their goals is survival. If Ahmadinejad loses expect them to change their other goals to acomerdate this.

[Marc39]

As has been stated many times already, Ahmadinejad has no real power.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Grand Poobah, is just as bad, if not worse, in his threatening rhetoric.

[ravdin]

Meaningless statement. Gorden Brown does exactly what the Queen allows him to do.

The Queen is not in charge of the UK. The Supreme Council is very much in charge of Iran. If you are unable to see the distinction there's not much else I can say.

One of their goals is survival. If Ahmadinejad loses expect them to change their other goals to acomerdate this.

I think this analysis is based on wishful thinking. There's only one way to determine which of us is right, and that's to wait it out. If Ahmadinejad's departure heralds a new age of peace, freedom, and prosperity in Iran, I will gladly concede that you were right. But I very much doubt this will happen.

[geni]

The Queen is not in charge of the UK. The Supreme Council is very much in charge of Iran. If you are unable to see the distinction there's not much else I can say.

Your statement however equaly applies to both. If you want to assert the level of control the respective parties have you need to do so clearly.



I think this analysis is based on wishful thinking. There's only one way to determine which of us is right, and that's to wait it out. If Ahmadinejad's departure heralds a new age of peace, freedom, and prosperity in Iran, I will gladly concede that you were right. But I very much doubt this will happen.

Peace? The Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988 and Iran has not been significantly involved (in terms of manpower and money spent) in any conflicts since.
Freedom? Mousavi wants things like private TV channels and more women's rights but nothing earth shattering.
Prosperity? Mousavi wants Iran to be less dependent on oil prices and has some plans for privitising goverment run industry but improveing Iranian prosperity would be a hard trick to pull off.

Demanding a new age if Mousavi wins is unreasonable. Movement in a more liberal and less antagonistic dirrection would be a more reasonable hope.

[ravdin]

Peace? The Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988 and Iran has not been significantly involved (in terms of manpower and money spent) in any conflicts since.

I am frankly astonished that anyone with access to non-Iranian media could make such an embarrassingly ignorant statement. It's well known that Iran substantially supports proxies such as Hezbollah with money, material, and even personnel.

Perhaps you remember the cross border conflict between Israel and Lebanon from a couple of years ago? Regardless of who you believe the instigators to be, it can't be denied that Iran played a significant role in this conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War

[dudalb]

I am frankly astonished that anyone with access to non-Iranian media could make such an embarrassingly ignorant statement. It's well known that Iran substantially supports proxies such as Hezbollah with money, material, and even personnel.

Perhaps you remember the cross border conflict between Israel and Lebanon from a couple of years ago? Regardless of who you believe the instigators to be, it can't be denied that Iran played a significant role in this conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War

The amount of denial and wishful thinking you see among certain..by no means all...on the Left concerning Iran is mindboggling.

[CapelDodger]

Maybe there is a reformist movement forming among the people? From what I understand, the mullahs who really run the show behind the scenes in Iran are getting pretty old... perhaps the new generation of Iranians senses this, as well?

The conservatives sense it as well. The Revolution was thirty years ago; more than half the population doesn't remember what life was like before. They do know what it's like now, and they are not afraid of the US bogey-man any more. The US is out, and they're not coming back.

The only reason for the clerics ascendency in the Revolution was that the Shah's police-state expunged all democratic opposition, leaving the mosques as the only focus for revolt. Iran is not traditionally dominated by clerics. By the time the surviving democrats emerged from prison the deed was already done. Iraq's subsequent invasion set the seal on it, and ushered in the martyr principle (manpower being the only advantage Iran had once its air force was grounded for lack of parts).

The democrats salvaged much of the pre-Shah constitution simply on the need for sound governance, which the clerics desperately needed in a time of war. There's not much they can do about it now.

That's all ancient history now. As for the US bogey-man, look at Iraq. There's the bogey-man, all bogged-down having called its own bluff. That dog won't hunt.

Ahmedinejad is a small-town conservative joke to the urban majority, and I reckon he's going down.

[CapelDodger]

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Grand Poobah, is just as bad, if not worse, in his threatening rhetoric.

Do you have examples?

[Marc39]

Do you have examples?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504365,00.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/12/15/mideast.iran.reut/

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.21c84721b2a4459b107dfbfb9ada315 a.2f1&show_article=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/world/middleeast/14mideast.html?_r=2&oref=slogin

[CapelDodger]

Your statement however equaly applies to both. If you want to assert the level of control the respective parties have you need to do so clearly.

Cutting off a monarch's head does serve to clarify an issue. It may not come to that with the Ayatollah. Remember the antiquated leaders wheeled out by the Praesidium in its dying days? I predict something similar in Iran.


Peace? The Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988 and Iran has not been significantly involved (in terms of manpower and money spent) in any conflicts since.

I think in this case peace means not being pointlessly antagonistic to the US, which is Ahmedinejad's only line. And Israel really isn't Iran's problem.

Freedom? Mousavi wants things like private TV channels and more
women's rights but nothing earth shattering.

It's progress which will feed on itself.

Prosperity? Mousavi wants Iran to be less dependent on oil prices and has some plans for privitising goverment run industry but improveing Iranian prosperity would be a hard trick to pull off.

Not really. The place is run so badly right now that improvement is an easy trick. There's a lot of talent and youthful enthusiasm just raring to go.

Demanding a new age if Mousavi wins is unreasonable. Movement in a more liberal and less antagonistic dirrection would be a more reasonable hope.

Indeed. It was the most we could have hoped for from Gorbachev. Look where that ended up :).

[CapelDodger]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504365,00.html

[Ayatollah Khamene] described the Jewish state as a "cancerous tumor."

You can see his point. I'd have used "weeping sore" myself, since it isn't growing significantly but sixty years after its establishment it's still dripping poison into the region.

Khamenei also said the Holocaust was used to "usurp" Palestinian land ...

It certainly has been used as justification. Israel can hardly be mentioned without the Holocaust being trotted out.

... and said the West and Israel showed the weakness of their cause by not allowing anyone to question the Holocaust

That's pretty weak. He seems to be straining to depict Ahmedinejad as under attack by the tired old bogey-men. That isn't going to work.

An actual physical attack by Israel might work, but nobody believes in that.

[Marc39]

You can see his point. I'd have used "weeping sore" myself, since it isn't growing significantly but sixty years after its establishment it's still dripping poison into the region.

Poison to those opposed to modernity, valueing life over death, democracy, freedom, recognition of human rights and civil liberties...

[CapelDodger]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504365,00.html

"Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region," Khamenei told thousands of Muslim worshippers in Tehran.

It's a reasonable position.

Khamenei offered an alternative solution which he said might be more "internationally acceptable":

"Palestinian refugees should return and Muslims, Christians and Jews could choose a government for themselves, excluding immigrant Jews."


That might have worked in 1920 but there are far too many second-generation immigrants now. A return to status quo ante Zionism is impossible.

The return of Palestinians seems only fair though, and a non-sectarian democratic state sounds like an ideal solution.

[Marc39]

The return of Palestinians seems only fair though, and a non-sectarian democratic state sounds like an ideal solution.

The return of 150 million refugees after World War II and 900,000 Jews expelled from their homes in Arab countries seems only fair, too. Life isn't always fair.

[CapelDodger]

Poison to those opposed to modernity, valueing life over death, democracy, freedom, recognition of human rights and civil liberties...

Israel should try those. It wouldn't be a Jewish State if it did, though. What would "Jewish State" even mean under those conditions? At the moment it only defines itself against the outside world and the permanent menace it has to provide.

Israel doesn't even have a constitution, let alone human rights. Palestinians in the occupied territories have no rights at all.

Poison is in the attack on South Lebanon, the attack on Gaza, the anti-Iranian posturing, the refusal to discuss anything with anybody, and the constant search for new existential enemies to justify its own existence.

Where next after Iran? China?

[Thunder]

The return of 150 million refugees after World War II and 900,000 Jews expelled from their homes in Arab countries seems only fair, too. Life isn't always fair.

The 700,000 Jews who left the Arab and Muslim countries deserve to be able to return to their homes..or received compensation for their property.

The Palestinian refugees who were forced out or left Israel in 1948 should be allowed to return to their property or be compensated for their lost land. I predict any Israel/Palestine treaty will include allowing 100,000 Palestinians to return with the rest getting compensation.

[CapelDodger]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.21c84721b2a4459b107dfbfb9ada315 a.2f1&show_article=1

"The only way to save Palestine is resistance," Khamenei said in his address to open the global summit Tehran organised in aid of Gaza and the Palestinians.

Quite. Without resistance Palestine would be gone. It's not a terribly aggressive statement though.

Palestinian resistance has been pretty impressive. I don't think this is at all what was expected back in '67. Forty years on there are still Palestinians on the ground, and the international community hasn't recognised one hectare of annexation. As for South Lebanon, that's lost for ever. Gaza's been surrendered, and remains in limbo. Not a state, but with state-like qualities and lots of discontented people; a strategic liability of the first order.

Meanwhile Israel is falling to pieces all by itself.

Support and help to Palestinians is a mandatory duty of all Muslims. I now tell all Muslim brothers and sisters to join forces and break the immunity of the Zionist criminals," Khamenei said.

He also called for putting Israeli political and military leaders on trial for the December-January assault on Gaza ...

Calling for people to be put on trial doesn't strike me as extreme. The accused are regarded as innocent until proven guilty.

[Marc39]

Israel should try those. It wouldn't be a Jewish State if it did, though.

Winston Churchill would disagree with you. He recognized the validity of a Jewish state. What is lost on many, if not most, is that Israel wasn't created with the intent of denying others rights, but, quite simply, to provide a safe sanctuary for Jews to live wihout persecution. Anyone with any depth of insight into Israeli society recognizes the commitment to human rights and civil liberties, and, for all citizens. Israel is not perfect, but, no state is.

What would "Jewish State" even mean under those conditions? At the moment it only defines itself against the outside world and the permanent menace it has to provide.

What would a "Catholic State" called Italy even mean? What would a "Greek Orthodox State" called Greece even mean? Nobody seems to mind. I wouldn't lose too much sleep over Israel.

Israel doesn't even have a constitution, let alone human rights.

Israel's ethos is reflected in their Declaration of Independence, which emphasizes equal rights to all. Human rights is the foundation of Israeli society. Israel's 1.5 million Arabs are not exactly stampeding out of the country.

Palestinians in the occupied territories have no rights at all.

Israel's presence in the "territories" is not an occupation, although, those uninformed of the subject matter often fall into this that propaganda trap. The reality of the situation is Pals have no rights at all because they are governed by fascist regimes.

Poison is in the attack on South Lebanon

Provoked by acts of war committed by Hizbullah, a terror group.

the attack on Gaza

Provoked by acts of war committed by Hamas, a terror group.

the anti-Iranian posturing

Provoked by Iranian existential threats. Notice a certain trend?

the refusal to discuss anything with anybody, and the constant search for new existential enemies to justify its own existence.

Where next after Iran? China?

Yawn.

[SezMe]

The amount of denial and wishful thinking you see among certain..by no means all...on the Left concerning Iran is mindboggling.
As well, the belligerent approach among certain (such as Bolton) ... by no means all ... on the right concerning Iran is cringe-worthy.

[CapelDodger]

The 700,000 Jews who left the Arab and Muslim countries deserve to be able to return to their homes..or received compensation for their property.

The Palestinian refugees who were forced out or left Israel in 1948 should be allowed to return to their property or be compensated for their lost land. I predict any Israel/Palestine treaty will include allowing 100,000 Palestinians to return with the rest getting compensation.

Some form of compensation will have to be part of the deal. Most of the post-1948 Palestinian diaspora is second-generation and settled : compensation will at least be recognition of what happened to their parent and grandparents.

The situation in Lebanon would continue to be tricky but something could be worked out. Lebanese situations have always been tricky, but something is always worked out. Money works wonders in the Levant :).

That said, this is not about Palestine. This is about carpet-chewing Iranian clerics. Until the election results are in (this week), after which it will be about them.

I reckon Ahmedinejad is toast. I've had an eye on Iran since before the Revolution and I sense a sea-change. Of course it could be wishful thinking : as a history-buff I would love to watch an actual revolution through all its phases. It's one thing to read and theorise about them, but to see one in action is a rare thing.

[CapelDodger]

As well, the belligerent approach among certain (such as Bolton) ... by no means all ... on the right concerning Iran is cringe-worthy.

An unbelligerent Iran would kick a crutch out from under a lot of conservatives - within and without Iran. Iranian conservatives need the likes of Bolton as much as he needs them. The time has come when none of them actually matter.

[Marc39]

Some form of compensation will have to be part of the deal. Most of the post-1948 Palestinian diaspora is second-generation and settled : compensation will at least be recognition of what happened to their parent and grandparents.

I wouldn't hold my breath. No compensation is forthcoming, nor, should it. Further, even the most remote chance of compensation would be contingent on reciprocal compensation to the 900,000 Jews kicked out of their homes in Arab countries.

The situation in Lebanon would continue to be tricky but something could be worked out. Lebanese situations have always been tricky, but something is always worked out. Money works wonders in the Levant :).

Maybe after 60 years, Lebanon can finally grant citizenship to the 400,000 Palestinians living in squalor in Lebanon, denied them, so they could qualify for employment and healthcare, and, drop the ban on employment in 70 different jobs.

[Thunder]

No compensation is forthcoming, nor, should it.

Tell that to Holocaust survivors. They don't seek compensation for lost property but for pain and suffering.

[CapelDodger]

Winston Churchill would disagree with you.

I should care why? Winston Churchill was intellectually challenged and poorly educated to boot.

He recognized the validity of a Jewish state.

Palestinians should care? Some fat alcoholic Anglo-American ardent Imperialist with his eye on the Middle East?

Of course he favoured a European colony in Palestine, dependent on a foreign patron (in his imagination Britain; in reality the US). Zionists cut up rough when he carved Transjordan from the Mandate, and when South Lebanon was ceded to the French Mandate, but Winston didn't give a toss.

What is lost on many, if not most, is that Israel wasn't created with the intent of denying others rights, but, quite simply, to provide a safe sanctuary for Jews to live wihout persecution.

Rubbish. Have you not read Herzl?

Israel isn't (and never was) a refuge for victims. It is meant as a positive demonstration that European Jews are just as capable of creating a nation-state as any other Europeans.

Since the state couldn't be founded in Europe (all of which was claimed) it was founded where brown people lived (Europeans used to do that).

Anyone with any depth of insight into Israeli society recognizes the commitment to human rights and civil liberties, and, for all citizens. Israel is not perfect, but, no state is.

Anyone with any depth of understanding knows that you can't say anything absolute about Israeli society. It's more fragmented than Lebanon. The idea that Jews are all pretty much alike simply because they're Jewish was always a nonsense.

Israel isn't just imperfect, it's unsustainable.

What would a "Catholic State" called Italy even mean? What would a "Greek Orthodox State" called Greece even mean? Nobody seems to mind. I wouldn't lose too much sleep over Israel.

Italy and Greece are secular states, and are just what they are. One's in Italy, the other in Greece.

What is a "Jewish State"? Is Jewish a religion, or a race? Are non-Jews allowed? Are they allowed but only as a minority? Who exactly is Jewish and who isn't?

Don't look to Israel for a clear answer.

Israel's ethos is reflected in their Declaration of Independence, which emphasizes equal rights to all.

Israel's ethos is demonstrated by its behaviour.

Human rights is the foundation of Israeli society.

Military superiority is the foundation of Israeli society. The military and the arms industry are the backbone of Israeli society today.

Israel's 1.5 million Arabs are not exactly stampeding out of the country.

Diasporan Jews aren't exactly flooding into it. There's no reason for the Arab minority within Israel to leave having stuck it out for this long.

Israel's presence in the "territories" is not an occupation, although, those uninformed of the subject matter often fall into this that propaganda trap. The reality of the situation is Pals have no rights at all because they are governed by fascist regimes.

You should read that back to yourself and wonder how a normal person might see it.

It's not pretty, is it?

Palestinians are just people. They aren't their regimes, they aren't their genetic heritage, they're just people. Each an individual, having to live with the Jewish State concept that really doesn't envision them being there.

Palestinians - "Pals" - were people when they were ruled by Seljuks, and Ottomans, and Brits, and they lived with it. The Israelis uprooted them or planted their own state (and, hypothetically, religion) over them. You have to go back to the Crusader Kingdoms for that (and they didn't last).

Provoked by acts of war committed by Hizbullah, a terror group.

Israel was so easily provoked, just when Hezbullah was ready for them. They're ready for them again (which is one reason why Israeli posturing over Iran is such a joke). Hezbullah isn't a "terrorist group"; it's the state of South Lebanon. It made its name by being scrupulously honest, serving the people, and by driving the Israelis out in 2000.

Provoked by acts of war committed by Hamas, a terror group.

Another easy provocation. And another failure.

Provoked by Iranian existential threats. Notice a certain trend?

Massve inflation of existential threats.

What's next? China?

Yawn.

That doesn't fool me in the slightest.

[CapelDodger]

I wouldn't hold my breath. No compensation is forthcoming, nor, should it. Further, even the most remote chance of compensation would be contingent on reciprocal compensation to the 900,000 Jews kicked out of their homes in Arab countries.

Those Jews should also be compensated They didn't create the Jewish State that stirred up so much antagonism.

Maybe after 60 years, Lebanon can finally grant citizenship to the 400,000 Palestinians living in squalor in Lebanon, denied them, so they could qualify for employment and healthcare, and, drop the ban on employment in 70 different jobs.

Maybe, after forty years, Israel can grant citizenship to the occupied Palestinians. A one-state solution.

Why should Lebanon (a complicated state in the first place) be required to absorb this population deliberately driven across their border when Israel is not required to take them back? Your concern for Palestinians in Lebanon is pure hypocrisy.

[Thunder]

What is a "Jewish State"? Is Jewish a religion, or a race? .

Do the Islamic Republics of Iran and Afghanistan equally disturb you?

How about the Arab Republics of Egypt, Syria, and Libya?

And the Czech Republic?

[Marc39]

I should care why? Winston Churchill was intellectually challenged and poorly educated to boot.

Well, Churchill never did have the distinction of blathering in an Internet chat room, but, still...

Palestinians should care? Some fat alcoholic Anglo-American ardent Imperialist with his eye on the Middle East?

You forgot Italy, France, Japan, the entiire League of Nations, US President Woodrow Wilson, both Houses of the US Congress, the UN, and, most importantly, God.

Of course he favoured a European colony in Palestine, dependent on a foreign patron (in his imagination Britain; in reality the US). Zionists cut up rough when he carved Transjordan from the Mandate, and when South Lebanon was ceded to the French Mandate, but Winston didn't give a toss.

Those familiar with colonization and the history of Zionist immigration to Palestine would immediately discern between the two, as Jews were not sent to Palestine by any metropole with the intent of ruling the population already there, exploiting their labor and stealing the natural resources. Indeed, Zionists represented anti-colonialism, as they arrived with a very strong work ethic of their own and a passion for renewing the land, in effect, adding considerably to the resources.

Studying Zionist leaders, such as Jabotinsky, Weizmann and Ben Gurion reveals their intent to avoid infringing on the Arab population, and, in fact, to live and work in peace and in cooperation with the Arabs. I'd recommend you do a bit of research into the subject matter on the Faisal-Weizmann Agreements for some much-needed enlightenment.

Israel isn't (and never was) a refuge for victims. It is meant as a positive demonstration that European Jews are just as capable of creating a nation-state as any other Europeans.

Nonsense. No further comment necessary.

Since the state couldn't be founded in Europe (all of which was claimed) it was founded where brown people lived (Europeans used to do that).

Well, there was that little thing about the 4,000-year connection between Jews and Palestine. But, who's counting?

Anyone with any depth of understanding knows that you can't say anything absolute about Israeli society. It's more fragmented than Lebanon. The idea that Jews are all pretty much alike simply because they're Jewish was always a nonsense.

Israel isn't just imperfect, it's unsustainable.

More nonsense. Churchill is not missing anything.

Italy and Greece are secular states, and are just what they are. One's in Italy, the other in Greece.

You evidently have not spent much time in either country. Clue for
you: The Vatican and Greek Orthodox Church are integral parts of every aspect of life in Italy and Greece, respectively.

What is a "Jewish State"? Is Jewish a religion, or a race? Are non-Jews allowed? Are they allowed but only as a minority? Who exactly is Jewish and who isn't?

More cluelessness.

Israel's ethos is demonstrated by its behaviour.

Meaningless prattle.

Military superiority is the foundation of Israeli society. The military and the arms industry are the backbone of Israeli society today.

As it should be. Having been attacked in three wars, and, today, surrounded by numerous terror factions, 22 hostile Arab states, 350 million hostile people, provides a cogent case for a strong military.

There's no reason for the Arab minority within Israel to leave having stuck it out for this long.

No insight whatsoever. Speak with Israeli Arabs, and, they concede they'd never want to live in an Arab country. They have it way too good in Israel.

Palestinians are just people. They aren't their regimes, they aren't their genetic heritage, they're just people. Each an individual, having to live with the Jewish State concept that really doesn't envision them being there.

Palestinians are just people...who have elected terrorists as their government. They knew what they were doing. They did not vote for Hamas to have their trash picked up on time. As for Israel not envisioning Palestinians there, you might want to edify yourself and read the PLO and Hamas charters to gain some much-needed insight into who doesn't want whom to live there. Israel has consistently supported Pal statehood. Problem is, the Pals do not want statehood. Too much work.

Palestinians - "Pals" - were people when they were ruled by Seljuks, and Ottomans, and Brits, and they lived with it.

You forgot the part where the Ottoman Turks conspired with the Arabs to dispossess the Bedouins of their land.

The Israelis uprooted them or planted their own state (and, hypothetically, religion) over them. You have to go back to the Crusader Kingdoms for that (and they didn't last).

Actually, no. There was no reason for Pals to be uprooted because of the simple, logical fact that Pals were offered their own state with UN Res. 181.

Israel was so easily provoked, just when Hezbullah was ready for them. They're ready for them again (which is one reason why Israeli posturing over Iran is such a joke). Hezbullah isn't a "terrorist group"; it's the state of South Lebanon. It made its name by being scrupulously honest, serving the people, and by driving the Israelis out in 2000.

Sorry, this makes no sense at all. I'm seeing a trend.

[Marc39]

They didn't create the Jewish State that stirred up so much antagonism.

Xenophobia is unacceptable and not to be tolerated. Not even by Arabs.

Maybe, after forty years, Israel can grant citizenship to the occupied Palestinians. A one-state solution.

Maybe after 60 years, the 22 members of the Arab League can finally offer them citizenship and repatriation, as Israel resettled the Jewish refugees. After all, it was the Arab states attacking Israel in 1948 that resulted in their displacement. People need to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. Even Arabs. It is not Israel's responsibility to resettle 4 million hostile Arabs who were born elsewhere

Why should Lebanon (a complicated state in the first place) be required to absorb this population deliberately driven across their border when Israel is not required to take them back? Your concern for Palestinians in Lebanon is pure hypocrisy.

You are confused. There are already 400,000 Pals in Lebanon, who live in refugee camps that make Gaza look like the South of France.

[SezMe]

You forgot Italy, France, Japan, the entiire League of Nations, US President Woodrow Wilson, both Houses of the US Congress, the UN, and, most importantly, God.
My bold, which defines why this is an intractable problem.

[Oliver]

Will Iran's 'Marriage Crisis' Bring Down Ahmadinejad?: (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1903420,00.html?cnn=yes)

Why does this matter? Because Iran's government cannot afford to further alienate the young people (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1903125,00.html) that comprise more than 35% of its population. The young are already seething over their government's radical stance in the world and its trashing of the economy, and their anger easily expresses itself politically. As they decide how to vote in Friday's presidential election (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1902921,00.html), young people like Farhad and Mahnaz are likely to base their decision in part on who they think will address the problem closest to their heart...

[geni]

I am frankly astonished that anyone with access to non-Iranian media could make such an embarrassingly ignorant statement. It's well known that Iran substantially supports proxies such as Hezbollah with money, material, and even personnel.

Perhaps you remember the cross border conflict between Israel and Lebanon from a couple of years ago? Regardless of who you believe the instigators to be, it can't be denied that Iran played a significant role in this conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War

You forget how big the Iran-Iraq war was. In terms of manpower (very minimal) and money spent (not quite as minimal) iran's backing of Hezbollah was not so significant.

You could make a better case if you brought up Iran's more recent involvement with Iraq and the long standing risk of serious conflict with afganistan. Even there though the more recent involvement in Iraq has at most involved very small amounts of manpower and material.

[geni]

Maybe after 60 years, Lebanon can finally grant citizenship to the 400,000 Palestinians living in squalor in Lebanon, denied them, so they could qualify for employment and healthcare, and, drop the ban on employment in 70 different jobs.

Would make a complete mess of their internal ethnic ballance.

[Marc39]

Would make a complete mess of their internal ethnic ballance.

Perfect balance. Lebanese and Palestinians are both Arab.

[Marc39]

My bold, which defines why this is an intractable problem.

Not really, since both Jews and Arabs can live in Judea and Samaria.

[geni]

Perfect balance. Lebanese and Palestinians are both Arab.

Questionable and not the point. Palistians are islamic. Maronites are christian. Druze are dissputed.

[Marc39]

Questionable and not the point. Palistians are islamic. Maronites are christian. Druze are dissputed.

Palestinians are both Islamic and Christian, and, Lebanon has the largest Christian population in the region. And, if Israel can accommodate Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Druze and others, I'm confident "even" Lebanon can figure out how to live with Palestinians.

[Thunder]

Not really, since both Jews and Arabs can live in Judea and Samaria.

As citizens of Palestine. Yes.

[marksman]

Remember the antiquated leaders wheeled out by the Praesidium in its dying days? I predict something similar in Iran.

I doubt it. The Soviets inner council in the 1990's comprised solely of old-timers in their 80's who were veterans of WWII. This was a result of the paranoia instilled by Stalin after WWII, in which only those who risked everything defending the Russia were considered loyal enough.

The Guardian Council doesn't suffer that issue. They have been careful to promote younger members to the higher ranks based, primarily, on Islamic scholarship and political acumen. (The Supreme Council of the Revolution is even more diverse.) While the Supreme Leader, Ali Khameni is in his 70's, but he took over peacefully after Khomeini died more than a decade ago. Moreover, many members of the council are in their 50's and they grooming members of the Council in their 40's to move up in the ranks.

Iran is not going to follow the foolish mistakes of the Soviets. They are politically astute. Do not put your money on a Soviet-style collapse. Rather, the biggest likelihood is a gradual moderation as the Council is forced to make compromises in order to maintain some support among an increasingly liberal population. But things rarely work out when you have such a long-range timeframe.

[CapelDodger]

Do the Islamic Republics of Iran and Afghanistan equally disturb you?

:confused:

I'm not disturbed.

How about the Arab Republics of Egypt, Syria, and Libya?

And the Czech Republic?

How about them? I'm afraid I really don't get your drift.

[CapelDodger]

Well, Churchill never did have the distinction of blathering in an Internet chat room, but, still...

But still what? Not even his friends described him as clever (his career was littered with errors) and his schooling was expensive but not terribly good.

You forgot Italy, France, Japan, the entiire League of Nations, US President Woodrow Wilson, both Houses of the US Congress, the UN, and, most importantly, God.

There is no God, so that gets you no points. The League of Nations had nothing to say about a Jewish Homeland. Woodrow Wilson was persuaded that there were Jewish votes in a vocal support of it. Where the Japanese come into it I don't know, but I doubt they were responding on principle. The US Congress doesn't impress anyone. As to the UN, look at its membership in 1948. Not terribly representative, was it?

Those familiar with colonization and the history of Zionist immigration to Palestine would immediately discern between the two, as Jews were not sent to Palestine by any metropole with the intent of ruling the population already there, exploiting their labor and stealing the natural resources.

Irrelevant. They went there with the explicit intention of creating a self-ruling colony - a Jewish State - and that is colonisation.

Indeed, Zionists represented anti-colonialism, as they arrived with a very strong work ethic of their own and a passion for renewing the land, in effect, adding considerably to the resources.

Are you claiming that Boers, Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders don't have a strong work ethic? As to their "passion for renewing the land" that's largely myth.

Studying Zionist leaders, such as Jabotinsky, Weizmann and Ben Gurion reveals their intent to avoid infringing on the Arab population, and, in fact, to live and work in peace and in cooperation with the Arabs.

That's rubbish - especially regarding Jabotinsky. Whatever a Jewish State might be, it doesn't have an Arab majority. The question was : how will the "transfer" of Arabs be achieved? Buy them out, or force them out? It soon became clear that they wouldn't be bought out (they felt a connection with the place, unsurprisingly) which left the forcing out which occurred.

I'd recommend you do a bit of research into the subject matter on the Faisal-Weizmann Agreements for some much-needed enlightenment.

I suggest you look into how little Weizmann could be trusted.

Nonsense. No further comment necessary.

You have no response then.

You have read Herzl's The Jewish State haven't you?

Well, there was that little thing about the 4,000-year connection between Jews and Palestine. But, who's counting?

Even the Bible only makes it 3000 years, and anyway so what? Life is about the living.

More nonsense. Churchill is not missing anything.

:confused:

You evidently have not spent much time in either country. Clue for
you: The Vatican and Greek Orthodox Church are integral parts of every aspect of life in Italy and Greece, respectively.

No they aren't. No more than the Church of England is an integral part of British society.

More cluelessness.

...

Meaningless prattle.

That's your best shot?

As it should be. Having been attacked in three wars, and, today, surrounded by numerous terror factions, 22 hostile Arab states, 350 million hostile people, provides a cogent case for a strong military.

It makes a good case for not being there in the first place, doesn't it? This was the inevitable result.

No insight whatsoever. Speak with Israeli Arabs, and, they concede they'd never want to live in an Arab country. They have it way too good in Israel.

Do they want to live in a Jewish State?

Palestinians are just people...who have elected terrorists as their government. They knew what they were doing. They did not vote for Hamas to have their trash picked up on time.

They could have voted for Fatah - but then they're terrorists as well, aren't they?

As for Israel not envisioning Palestinians there, you might want to edify yourself and read the PLO and Hamas charters to gain some much-needed insight into who doesn't want whom to live there. Israel has consistently supported Pal statehood. Problem is, the Pals do not want statehood. Too much work.

Racism pure and simple.

You forgot the part where the Ottoman Turks conspired with the Arabs to dispossess the Bedouins of their land.

Bedouins are Arabs. Look it up.

In the later 19thCE the Ottomans introduced property laws more in line with the Western model to encourage inward investment. (Prior to this there was a welter of local customary laws and rights : the Ottoman Empire was highly devolved, in the traditional Eastern manner.) This opened up all sorts of opportunities for graft and swindles which were eagerly taken up. In Palestine this involved quite a lot of money from Lebanon (Christian and Moslem) and from Jerusalem (including Jewish).

Nothing is as simple as it seems.

Actually, no. There was no reason for Pals to be uprooted because of the simple, logical fact that Pals were offered their own state with UN Res. 181.

Which the Palestinians in the Israeli sector would have to move to. That's uprooting.

Sorry, this makes no sense at all. I'm seeing a trend.

So am I. I'll spell things out more.

In 2007 Hezbollah deliberately and obviously provoked the Israelis, and the Israelis leapt at it. This was easily predictable : the withdrawal from Southern Lebanon never sat easy with the army or the government. They were gagging for an opportunity to go in there and slap Hezbollah about.

It was a war both sides wanted, but Hezbollah chose the time. And Hezbollah came out of it better.

Makes you think, doesn't it? Maybe the Iranians are playing the same sort of game. Maybe they want Israel to attack them. I can think of a number of reasons why they might. Then again, it could be a double-bluff.

Iranians have been carpet-merchants for thousands of years. Deviousness is second nature to them.

[CapelDodger]

I doubt it. The Soviets inner council in the 1990's comprised solely of old-timers in their 80's who were veterans of WWII. This was a result of the paranoia instilled by Stalin after WWII, in which only those who risked everything defending the Russia were considered loyal enough.

It was more to do with endemic corruption really. Their families depended on them for patronage and influence.

The Guardian Council doesn't suffer that issue. They have been careful to promote younger members to the higher ranks based, primarily, on Islamic scholarship and political acumen. (The Supreme Council of the Revolution is even more diverse.) While the Supreme Leader, Ali Khameni is in his 70's, but he took over peacefully after Khomeini died more than a decade ago.

Apparently Khameini wasn't qualified because he wasn't an Ayatollah. He had to be promoted overnight (cutting all sorts of corners by special dispensation) to take the post. Which doesn't say much for the selection of available Ayatollahs.

It puts me in mind of those cardinals back in the day who were made priest one day, bishop the next, and got a red cap on the third. It was usually part of a deal with a military power. Revolutionary Guards lurking in the background perhaps?

Moreover, many members of the council are in their 50's and they grooming members of the Council in their 40's to move up in the ranks.

Gorbachev was 54 when he took over. Look how that turned out.

Iran is not going to follow the foolish mistakes of the Soviets.

They have the sovereign power to make their own foolish mistakes, and I've no doubt they will.

They are politically astute. Do not put your money on a Soviet-style collapse. Rather, the biggest likelihood is a gradual moderation as the Council is forced to make compromises in order to maintain some support among an increasingly liberal population. But things rarely work out when you have such a long-range timeframe.

I think there are patterns in history. As the great Mark Twain said, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes". The pattern here is the pattern of Revolutions.

The rhetoric of revolutions rings down through the generations, but the political structures don't. They are generally set up to defensively, but when the dragon's been quiet for a generation or two the threat of it doesn't rouse people any more. It takes an imaginative leap to regard the West as a continuing threat to Iranian independence, however real it was thirty years ago. With Obama in command its simply not credible.

I reckon these are the dog-days of the Iranian Revolution. If Ahmedinejad is re-elected it can only accelerate the process and make it messier.

[geni]

It puts me in mind of those cardinals back in the day who were made priest one day, bishop the next, and got a red cap on the third. It was usually part of a deal with a military power. Revolutionary Guards lurking in the background perhaps?

Perhaps or it could be that he does appear to be fairly neutral on the should power come from god or the electorate issue.

[Marc39]

Not even his friends described him as clever (his career was littered with errors) and his schooling was expensive but not terribly good.

Keep digging a hole of discredit by disparaging Winston Churchill.

There is no God, so that gets you no points.

You don't know, so that loses you points. Einstein said God exists. I'd rather listen to Einstein than some Internet chat room guy.

The League of Nations had nothing to say about a Jewish Homeland.

The League's Palestine Mandate, a legally binding document, called for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Woodrow Wilson was persuaded that there were Jewish votes in a vocal support of it.

Incorrect. It was Truman who needed to be persuaded. Read Beschloss's biography of Truman for much-needed insights. Ultimately, and, importantly, Truman acknowledged to have supported Israeli statehood because it was the right thing to do. He said he expected to be in the book, "Great Men and Famous Women" as a result of his contribution to Israeli independence.

Where the Japanese come into it I don't know, but I doubt they were responding on principle.

Your views are not in command of the facts, yet, you speculate about Japanese principles? The Japanese were among the World War I Allies who met at the San Remo Conference, where they outlined a Jewish homeland in Palestine in what is known as the San Remo Resolution.

The US Congress doesn't impress anyone.

Now, you're speaking for everyone? It impresses me, considering how rare it is for both Houses of Congress to agree enthusiastically on any matter, and, issue a resolution in support for Israeli statehood.

As to the UN, look at its membership in 1948. Not terribly representative, was it?

The UN also granted statehood to the Palestinians at the same time, so, their "membership" seemed pretty "representative" of both Jews and Arabs.

Irrelevant. They went there with the explicit intention of creating a self-ruling colony - a Jewish State - and that is colonisation.

Your confusion over colonialism is certainly relevant, since you are misguidedly libeling millions of Jews as colonialists. Your statement, "They went there with the explicit intention of creating a self-ruling colony" highlights that confusion as the foundation of colonialism is not self-rule, but, ruling the population of the colonized state. Additionally, Palestine has never been a sovereign state, further undermining your failed argument for colonialism in Palestine.

That's rubbish - especially regarding Jabotinsky. Whatever a Jewish State might be, it doesn't have an Arab majority.

No, it's truth, especially regarding Jabotinsky. A Jewish state with an Arab majority would be self-defeating The design of UN Res. 181 was that of a Jewish state with an Arab minority AND an Arab state...with a Jewish minority.

The question was : how will the "transfer" of Arabs be achieved?

Wrong. There was no transfer. The evidence is 1.5 million Israeli Arabs today.

Buy them out, or force them out? It soon became clear that they wouldn't be bought out (they felt a connection with the place, unsurprisingly) which left the forcing out which occurred.

There was no need to force Arabs out--They had their own state waiting for them right there. They rejected it.

No more than the Church of England is an integral part of British society.

Queen Elizabeth is the supreme governor of the Church of England, which is indicative of the influence of the church.

As for your denial of the Greek Orthodox Church being an integal part of Greek society, the Greek Constitution states, "The prevailing religion of Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ."

The president of Greece must be affiliated with the church and he is sworn in according to the rites of the church. Major church holidays are also state holidays. Additionally, most senior positions in the military, the judiciary, and public schools are de facto restricted to Orthodox candidates.

As for the powerful role of Catholicism in Italy, which you also deny, it was the Italian Parliament that passed the Law of Guarantees which let the Pope keep many of the privileges he would have enjoyed had he still ruled over the Papal States, including the right to send and receive ambassadors and have full diplomatic immunity.

Earlier, the Vatican and Mussolini in 1929 signed an agreement, known as the Lateran Pacts, a treaty establishing Catholicism as the state religion of Italy. Italian treaties make Catholicism the only religion in the world with a diplomatic corps and a privileged position at the United Nations. The Church uses its status at the UN to advance its own agenda on issues such as contraception, the family and women's and gay rights.

Do they want to live in a Jewish State?

Evidently. Nobody is keeping them chained. The Israeli Arab population has grown from less than 200,000 to 1.5 million today. Where else do you think they'd rather live? Saudi Arabia? Gaza? Yemen? Syria?

Bedouins are Arabs. Look it up.

You're telling ME to look information up. Laugh out loud.

In the later 19thCE the Ottomans introduced property laws more in line with the Western model to encourage inward investment. (Prior to this there was a welter of local customary laws and rights : the Ottoman Empire was highly devolved, in the traditional Eastern manner.) This opened up all sorts of opportunities for graft and swindles which were eagerly taken up. In Palestine this involved quite a lot of money from Lebanon (Christian and Moslem) and from Jerusalem (including Jewish).

Encourage "inward investment" only among the Arab aristocracy, undermining the Bedouins, taking their land and turning them into sharecroppers and tenant farmers.

Which the Palestinians in the Israeli sector would have to move to. That's uprooting.

"Uproot" suggests displacement from one's country. UN Res. 181 provided for a Palestinian minority in Israel. There might have been a need for some shifting, but, the Palestinians flatly rejected statehood due to a rejection of Israel, so, it was a moot point.

In 2007 Hezbollah deliberately and obviously provoked the Israelis, and the Israelis leapt at it.

"Leapt at it"? The Israelis responded to acts of war by Hizbullah. Similarly, the US "leapt" at retaliating against the Taliban after 9/11. It's known as self-defense.

This was easily predictable : the withdrawal from Southern Lebanon never sat easy with the army or the government. They were gagging for an opportunity to go in there and slap Hezbollah about.

Israel was entitled under the law to not only slap Hizbullah around, but, to destroy them and destroy every military installation.

Maybe the Iranians are playing the same sort of game. Maybe they want Israel to attack them. I can think of a number of reasons why they might. Then again, it could be a double-bluff.

Israel is in no position to play a game of chicken. Iran has put into motion a justified Israeli strike. Hopefully, Israel will bomb the Mullahs back into the Middle Ages.

[Thunder]

The League's Palestine Mandate, a legally binding document, called for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.


The Mandate for Palestine was terminated in 1947.

In fact, none of the WW1 mandates continue to exist. This includes the one for Palestine.

And for that matter, the territory known as Palestine, no longer has any official existence. It is now only a geographical region, just like Appalachia.

The main goal of the Palestine Mandate was the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine. Mission Accomplished.

Let it go.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

The Mandate for Palestine was terminated in 1947.

In fact, none of the WW1 mandates continue to exist. This includes the one for Palestine.

And for that matter, the territory known as Palestine, no longer has any official existence. It is now only a geographical region, just like Appalachia.

The main goal of the Palestine Mandate was the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine. Mission Accomplished.

Let it go.

No it's not. There's much more land to steal!!

[Marc39]

There's much more land to steal!!

Definitely. Jewish settlements currently represent only about 3% or 4% of Judea and Samaria, leaving a heckuva lot more land for Jews to settle on. Just a friendly reminder to you: International law supports the Jewish settlements, so, there is no stealing of land. Capice?

[UnrepentantSinner]

The Mousavi supporters that Christiane Amanpour interviewed today certainly seemed excited about the potential for reproachment and better relations with the U.S.

One can only hope.

[Puppycow]

Mousavi win wouldn't stop Iran's nuke drive, Israel warns (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371078382&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

As more than 46.2 million eligible Iranian voters choose their president in elections on Friday, senior Israeli defense officials who closely watch Iran stress that the outcome is unlikely to have any impact on Teheran's continued race toward nuclear power.

Whether the winner is incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or his reformist challenger, the former prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, the consensus in the Israeli defense establishment is that the centrifuges in the underground bunker at Iran's Natanz facility will continue spinning and enriching uranium.

In contrast to Israel, where the focus when it comes to Iran is overwhelmingly on the nuclear program, domestically, the elections are more about growing unemployment - estimated at close to 20 percent - and runaway inflation, which recently topped 30%.

In a country where 70% of the population is under the age of 35, the future is not bright for Iran's youth, analysts note. Every year 1.2 million people graduate from the country's universities. Out of those, only about a third are able to find jobs. The price of basic commodities has also spiked over the past year by more than 150%.

The Mousavi-Ahmadinejad showdown also focuses on Islamic law. The incumbent has expanded the reach of the Shari'a since his election in 2005. Mousavi, on the other hand, appears at election rallies together with his wife and promises equality for women.

While all of this is important for understanding the Iranian people, Israel's attention is not on the cost of bread and meat but on the future of Teheran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, the defense officials stress. For this reason, there are some in the defense establishment who are silently praying that despite Mousavi's recent climb in the polls, Ahmadinejad wins Friday's vote.

Good grief, talk about cynical pessimism.
We want the scary guy, the holocaust denier, to stay in charge so that, what? The chances of war will be even higher?

[DC]

pggafekQWb8

[mortimer]

Looks like Ahmadinejad is going to win... with 50% of the vote counted, it's 68% Ahmadinejad, 30% Mousavi.

[dudalb]

I wonder if a lot of the international media has not been indulging in wishful thinking about Ahmadinejad going down.
Not that it matters all that much, the real power is with the Mullahs, as if always has been.

[geni]

Keep digging a hole of discredit by disparaging Winston Churchill.

On this forum Winston Churchill doesn't get the automatic pass to sainthood.

[marksman]

I wonder if a lot of the international media has not been indulging in wishful thinking about Ahmadinejad going down.

Yeah, I predicted that before the vote. The West does this all the time, pining for that next Velvet Revolution. It's not happening in Iran. Yeah, the teenagers are all hipster American wannabes. But then they get old enough to vote and the inherent conservative nature of Iranian culture sets in. It doesn't even look like Ahmadinejad had to cheat to win re-election.

I am highly doubtful that Ahmadinejad will be defeated. There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking going on, a need to "prove" that Iran is truly a democracy, and a hope that the election of a moderate with begin to "fix" politics in the region because Iran is a highly destabilizing negative influence in the region. But I don't think it's going to happen.
Should I apply for a million dollars? No. It's not rocket science to think the incumbent gets re-elected. It just means not getting swept up in unrealistic sentimental notions of voter revolutions.

Not that it matters all that much, the real power is with the Mullahs, as if always has been.
The Mullahs are not idiots. If Mousavi had been elected, they'd have moderated their positions as much as they could within their philosophical/religious constraints. But, it turns out, they don't have to because the Iranian people were more than happy to keep the conservative, homophobic, bellicose Ahmadinejad in power, no matter how much Western media would have loved to have seen Mousavi win.

[tomwaits]

I heard on the radio that Mousavi was also claiming victory. Things could get interesting...

[CapelDodger]

The main goal of the Palestine Mandate was the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine. Mission Accomplished.

The main goals were strictly imperialist. The Balfour Declaration was a real embarrassment (a war-time expedient that actually proved of no value) but the Brits were stuck with it. Remember, by the end of the Mandate Zionist terrorists were killing British soldiers and policemen.

Goal the first : secure the Suez Canal. Goal the second : secure communications with Iraq (another Britsh Mandate, securing the Gulf and Iran's oilfields). Goal the third : keep the French out.

[a_unique_person]

My bold, which defines why this is an intractable problem.

God don't give a **** about Jews, Arabs, Xians, or anyone else.

[CapelDodger]

I wonder if a lot of the international media has not been indulging in wishful thinking about Ahmadinejad going down.

Perhaps. Another influence might be the visibility of Mousavi's support : young, urban, on-line, photogenic. Conservative support is older, rural, off-line and easy to miss.

Not that it matters all that much, the real power is with the Mullahs, as if always has been.

Political power is always a matter of compromise, alliances and pragmatism. Absolutism never lasts. The system bends or it cracks.

The conservative rulers remember that their revolution was made on the streets, despite the Shah's police state and huge army. This is always on their minds.

They are demographically doomed. Generations are growing up that don't remember the Revolution or the Iran-Iraq war and don't feel threatened by the US bogey-man. They are suprememly confident (as the young always are) that they could do things better, and at some point they will say "enough is enough".

[CapelDodger]

God don't give a **** about Jews, Arabs, Xians, or anyone else.

People create gods which are concerned with them. It's in our nature.

[geni]

Perhaps. Another influence might be the visibility of Mousavi's support : young, urban, on-line, photogenic. Conservative support is older, rural, off-line and easy to miss.


The revolutionary guard made it clear this morning that it would oppose any popular upriseing on Mousavi's part. Effectively that allows the conservatives to rig the vote.

[CapelDodger]

I heard on the radio that Mousavi was also claiming victory. Things could get interesting...

We live in interesting times.

Ain't it great? "End of History" my arse :).

[CapelDodger]

The revolutionary guard made it clear this morning that it would oppose any popular upriseing on Mousavi's part. Effectively that allows the conservatives to rig the vote.

Not really. A popular uprising serves its own purpose : if the Guards respond the protesters can melt away, and by responding the Guards acknowledge a popular uprising. If they actually shoot some people (heaven forbid) that's even worse for them. When a government becomes an occupying power it's on the way out.

Imagine a student in Tehran defiantly blocking a Revolutionary Guard tank, beamed out across Iran and the world. The Chinese government could get away with it (as the Soviets did in Czechoslovakia '68) but the Iran is not China.

Even the Chinese government had to change its ways : it throttled back the dialectic and floored the materialism :).

[CapelDodger]

Yeah, I predicted that before the vote. The West does this all the time, pining for that next Velvet Revolution. It's not happening in Iran. Yeah, the teenagers are all hipster American wannabes. But then they get old enough to vote and the inherent conservative nature of Iranian culture sets in.

Iran has no such conservative nature. The Shah was propelled into power in '53 because a democratic Iran elected a leftist government. The history of Iran (aka Persia) demonstrates a progressive culture. That's why it has so often been the dominant power in the region between China, India and the Mediterranean.

Shi'ism itself is a progressive version of Islam, which makes this last thirty years a bizarre interlude which cannot last.

[CapelDodger]

Good grief, talk about cynical pessimism.

I can do that at length. It's my specialty.

We want the scary guy, the holocaust denier, to stay in charge so that, what? The chances of war will be even higher?

The piece you quoted was actually pre-emptive : "Even if Mousavi wins ..." the threat remains. The threat is the point. Without it where would any military establishment be? Looking for a job is where.

The similarity between the Israeli and Iranian Right's position is striking. The Iranians keep harping on about US and Zionist threats while the Israelis keep harping on about Iran as a threat. Meanwhile both reinforce each other - because they have such in common.

An actual war is the last thing either side wants. That might resolve the issue. The important point is to keep up the tension.

[a_unique_person]

Not looking good, the bigger cities are giving the vote for change a good run, where access is good for reporters, but it looks like the more remote areas are strongly conservative.

[Oliver]

Ahmadinejad ... REELECTED (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=ahmadinejad&sa=N&tab=wn&um=1). :boggled:

[The Nimble Pianist]

Ahmadinejad ... REELECTED (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=ahmadinejad&sa=N&tab=wn&um=1). :boggled:

I'm watching Charlie Rose right now (nothing else on and I'm sick).

One of his guest speakers, Karim Sadjadpour whose authority I'm not certain of, said, but 15 ago, that both Candidates are claiming victory prematurely while not all the votes have yet been counted. It seems it's neck and neck. Mr. Sadjadpour expects something "similar to what happened in Florida in 2000".

I haven't much been paying any attention to this though.


ETA: I just check the link. Are you OK Oliver?

[Oliver]

I'm watching Charlie Rose right now (nothing else on and I'm sick).

One of his guest speakers, Karim Sadjadpour whose authority I'm not certain of, said, but 15 ago, that both Candidates are claiming victory prematurely while not all the votes have yet been counted. It seems it's neck and neck. Mr. Sadjadpour expects something "similar to what happened in Florida in 2000".

I haven't much been paying any attention to this though.


ETA: I just check the link. Are you OK Oliver?


Well, I'm okay, even if I would have preferred to see him go. And I saw the controversy of both sides claiming victory later on after seeing the headline at Spiegel:

PRÄSIDENTSCHAFTSWAHL IN IRAN
Ahmadinedschad erringt überwältigenden Sieg* (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,630238,00.html)
[*Ahmadineschad achieves overwhelming victory]

[Oliver]

From Spiegel's article:

So eindeutig hatte den Wahlausgang niemand erwartet: Amtsinhaber Mahmud Ahmadinedschad steht vor einem klaren Sieg. Auf den Hardliner entfallen nach Auszählung von vier Fünftel der Stimmen knapp 65 Prozent - Reformer Mussawi liegt bei 32 Prozent. Beide riefen sich zum Sieger aus.


Translation:
Nobody could have predicted such a clear election-outcome. President Mahmud Ahmadineschad achieved a distinct victory. After counting 4/5 of the votes, the Hardliner got 65% of all votes so far. Reformist Mussawi got 32 percent. Both claimed victory...

[The Nimble Pianist]

From Spiegel's article:




Translation:
Nobody could have predicted such a clear election-outcome. President Mahmud Ahmadineschad achieved a distinct victory. After counting 4/5 of the votes, the Hardliner got 65% of all votes so far. Reformist Mussawi got 32 percent. Both claimed victory...


Hmmm... Weird. The PBS show I was watching stated that both were each claiming a victory with both garnering some 65% of the vote.

Are they counting from opposite ends of the country and working their way inward? Are they counting different votes? I don't get it.

[The Nimble Pianist]

Never mind:

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-06-13-voa1.cfm

Essentially the same thing you said Oliver. Damn this flu is really getting to me, effecting my reading and listening skills. I'm off to bed. :boggled:

ETA: "Iran's state news agency has declared Mr. Ahmadinejad the winner, but Mr. Mousavi also claimed victory late Friday at a news conference in Tehran. He did not give details to support his claim but said there were problems with the voting due to a shortage of ballots in some areas."

Oh dear, I'm envisioning a "Hanging-Chad" fiasco for Iran...

[geni]

Not really. A popular uprising serves its own purpose : if the Guards respond the protesters can melt away, and by responding the Guards acknowledge a popular uprising. If they actually shoot some people (heaven forbid) that's even worse for them. When a government becomes an occupying power it's on the way out.

Imagine a student in Tehran defiantly blocking a Revolutionary Guard tank, beamed out across Iran and the world. The Chinese government could get away with it (as the Soviets did in Czechoslovakia '68) but the Iran is not China.

Even the Chinese government had to change its ways : it throttled back the dialectic and floored the materialism :).


How's that theory working out in Burma?

[marksman]

Shi'a used to be a progressive movement, 1,000 years ago. But like all movements, it has calcified with time.

Iran's urban population is cosmopolitan which makes them ripe for revolution, but Iran is overwhelmingly rural and less educated. They are naturally conservative, and even their children who get educated in cities return to their rural roots when they return home (whic most do).

If the Iranian intelligentsia is going to have a revolution, it won't be a Democratic one, at least not until the rest of Iran has an economic awakening, which is at least 20-30 years in the making. Otherwise, they'll have to have a revolution the way the Mullahs did -- through armed insurrection. And I don't think these Revolutionaries are inclined towards violent revolution.

So I don't envision any major political change in Iran for at least a generation.

[Puppycow]

Mousavi won't concede (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/13/AR2009061300627.html)

Mir Hossein Mousavi, a former prime minister who waged a heated campaign against Ahmadinejad's bid for reelection, urged his supporters to reject a "governance of lie and dictatorship." He attributed the results to widespread vote fraud and vowed to resist a "dangerous manipulation" of the balloting.
. . .
Iran's Interior Ministry announced that Ahmadinejad had won 62.6 percent of the vote in the election. The ministry said Mousavi received less than 34 percent.

"I'm warning that I won't surrender to this manipulation," Mousavi said in a statement posted on his Web site Saturday. He said the announced results were "shaking the pillars of the Islamic Republic of Iran's sacred system" and represented "treason to the votes of the people." He warned that the public would not "respect those who take power through fraud."

[Oliver]

Mousavi won't concede (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/13/AR2009061300627.html)


I did read about Police cracking down on riots about the election outcome ... Mhmm, can't find the source of that report... :"/

[JihadJane]

When was the US public first convinced that Iran was a threat to them?

[Marc39]

I'm shocked--shocked--at the election results. I'd also be
shocked--shocked--were the election not completely rigged. A truly sad day for decent Iranians and for those in the region and the world.

[Oliver]

When was the US public first convinced that Iran was a threat to them?


Back then shortly after Ahmadinejad suggessted to his fellow students that it might not be a good idea for them to capture every American Citizen within the US-embassy in Tehran. Ironically.

[plumjam]

Looks like Ahmadinejad is going to win... with 50% of the vote counted, it's 68% Ahmadinejad, 30% Mousavi.

2% Khomeini

[Oliver]

I did read about Police cracking down on riots about the election outcome ... Mhmm, can't find the source of that report... :"/


Got it:


updated 30 minutes ago
CNN International: Iran election protests turn violent (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/13/iran.election/index.html)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is declared the big winner in the country's election, but the announcement has brought thousands of people onto the streets where they have encountered a strong police presence and the threat of violence. full story (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/13/iran.election/index.html)


Riot police tackle election protesters (http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/06/13/amanpour.results.doubts.cnn)
Time: Protesters dismiss Ahmadinejad win (http://edition.cnn.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904563,00.html)

[dudalb]

How's that theory working out in Burma?

Capel seems very fond of theories that do not take reality into account, but look damn good on paper, like his idea of dividing Pakistan between Afghanistan and India. That sort of convinced me not to take him too seriously.

[dudalb]

When was the US public first convinced that Iran was a threat to them?


The Hostage crisis.

[FireGarden]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009613121740611636.html

Ahmadinejad had apparently taken the northwestern city of Tabriz with some ease.

Tabriz is the heart of East Azerbaijan, and Azeris are among the tightest ethnic groups in the country, unfailingly voting along ethnic lines.

In the 2005 presidential election, Mohsen Mehralizadeh was a largely unknown and wholly unsuccessful candidate. He came in seventh and last, and yet he still won the Azeri vote in the Azerbaijani provinces. Mir Hossein Mousavi is an Azeri from Tabriz.

What suddenly changed such voting habits? Ahmadinejad got 57% in Tabriz according to this arcticle:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200961391719990152.html

[dudalb]

Shi'a used to be a progressive movement, 1,000 years ago. But like all movements, it has calcified with time.

Iran's urban population is cosmopolitan which makes them ripe for revolution, but Iran is overwhelmingly rural and less educated. They are naturally conservative, and even their children who get educated in cities return to their rural roots when they return home (whic most do).

If the Iranian intelligentsia is going to have a revolution, it won't be a Democratic one, at least not until the rest of Iran has an economic awakening, which is at least 20-30 years in the making. Otherwise, they'll have to have a revolution the way the Mullahs did -- through armed insurrection. And I don't think these Revolutionaries are inclined towards violent revolution.

So I don't envision any major political change in Iran for at least a generation.


Every few years we hear how the Iranian moderates are going to take over, and every few years nothing happens.
I am now convinced the optimism about The Moderates winning was a sort of mass delusion by the Western Media. CNN was practically saying Masouvi had it in the bag.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Oh well. Bush also got two terms. <sigh>

[JihadJane]

When was the US public first convinced that Iran was a threat to them?



Back then shortly after Ahmadinejad suggessted to his fellow students that it might not be a good idea for them to capture every American Citizen within the US-embassy in Tehran. Ironically.

The Hostage crisis.

Thanks.

[geni]

Every few years we hear how the Iranian moderates are going to take over, and every few years nothing happens.
I am now convinced the optimism about The Moderates winning was a sort of mass delusion by the Western Media. CNN was practically saying Masouvi had it in the bag.

They've won in the past. I suspect the miscalculation this time around was that it was assumed that large scale vote rigging was limited to banning candidates.

[Marc39]

When was the US public first convinced that Iran was a threat to them?

The US public, at least, normal members of the public, are now convinced Iran is a threat, and, justifiably so.

[Thunder]

The US public, at least, normal members of the public, are now convinced Iran is a threat, and, justifiably so.

The only Americans who believe that Iran is a threat to the USA are the victims of Neo-Conservative and Neo-Zionist propaganda.

I seek peaceful relations with Iran and its people. Others, seek their destruction and demise.

[Marc39]

The only Americans who believe that Iran is a threat to the USA are the victims of Neo-Conservative and Neo-Zionist propaganda.

Such Americans likely have been doing proper due diligence regarding expert assessments of Iran's significant global threat. The greatest fear of Iran, perhaps, is among its regional neighbors in the Middle East.

[CapelDodger]

How's that theory working out in Burma?

It's too soon to tell :).

The Burmese Army makes no bones about being an occupying force. They're more or less clients of China. What we have in Burma is an imperial arrangement.

[CapelDodger]

Capel seems very fond of theories that do not take reality into account, but look damn good on paper, like his idea of dividing Pakistan between Afghanistan and India.

Don't knock it till you've tried it.

That sort of convinced me not to take him too seriously.

I get a lot of that, just for thinking outside the box. If nothing else it does illuminate the box. And look where thinking inside that box has got us.

[MattusMaximus]

Two recent headlines:

Election battles turn into street fights in Iran (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090613/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election)

and

US rejects victory claim by Iran's Ahmadinejad (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090613/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_iran)

And check out some of the photos of the unrest (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Mousavi/photo//090613/ids_photos_india_wl/ra3850589669.jpg/) - wow! :eye-poppi

Could we be seeing the beginning of a revolution in Iran?

[CapelDodger]

Two recent headlines:

Election battles turn into street fights in Iran (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090613/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election)

and

US rejects victory claim by Iran's Ahmadinejad (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090613/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_iran)

And check out some of the photos of the unrest (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Mousavi/photo//090613/ids_photos_india_wl/ra3850589669.jpg/) - wow! :eye-poppi

Could we be seeing the beginning of a revolution in Iran?

We could. Which, of course, is not to say that we are. But when it does start it will probably look something like this.

Ahmedinejad's winning margin looks far too good to be true. Even some of his voters are going to think that.

What we have to look out for is signs of organisation behind the protests. The Iranian government locked-up a lot of students ten or twelve years ago, and many's the revolution that has been hatched in prison.

Organised strikes in critical industries should be high on the agenda, according to established revolutionary theory. But these guys might be thinking outside the box :).

[CapelDodger]

What suddenly changed such voting habits? Ahmadinejad got 57% in Tabriz according to this arcticle:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200961391719990152.html

It lacks credibility, doesn't it? Even if it's true.

More and more such anomalies will likely emerge as detailed results come in. Solidly middle-class districts going for Ahmedinejad, over 100% turnouts in some districts, the usual stuff (true or not it's very credible).

I think the powers-that-be have over-reached themselves because they're not terribly clever.

[MattusMaximus]

Organised strikes in critical industries should be high on the agenda, according to established revolutionary theory. But these guys might be thinking outside the box :).

Well, getting plenty of international press on the first day is a good way to start. From what I understand, the Iranian state security agency is also having fits keeping the Iranian people from blabbing about this - they're working hard to shut down mobile phone networks and popular websites like Facebook. I can only see this backfiring on Ahmadinejad.

[CapelDodger]

If the Iranian intelligentsia is going to have a revolution, it won't be a Democratic one, at least not until the rest of Iran has an economic awakening, which is at least 20-30 years in the making. Otherwise, they'll have to have a revolution the way the Mullahs did -- through armed insurrection. And I don't think these Revolutionaries are inclined towards violent revolution.

The Iranian Revolution wasn't an armed insurrection. It started on the streets and escalated out of the Shah's government's control. The army refused to move, the police melted away, the Shah ran away (he had a habit of that), and the whole rotten structure collapsed.

With that in mind ... how do the beneficiaries of that revolution feel today? Uncomfortable, I imagine.

[CapelDodger]

Well, getting plenty of international press on the first day is a good way to start. From what I understand, the Iranian state security agency is also having fits keeping the Iranian people from blabbing about this - they're working hard to shut down mobile phone networks and popular websites like Facebook. I can only see this backfiring on Ahmadinejad.

Perhaps not tomorrow, perhaps not this year, but eventually. It shows signs of panic - which is never good.

Lets not forget that the election was not the big problem. The economy is tanking because the country is so mismanaged, and it really is the economy, stupid :rolleyes:. The powers-that-be have no answer, since they are the management and don't have a clue. Hence the appeal to bogey-man threats that nobody sensible believes in.

The Shah's regime was secure until it screwed-up the economy. It wasn't just the religious that said "no more", it was the economically disaffected.

[geni]

Organised strikes in critical industries should be high on the agenda, according to established revolutionary theory. But these guys might be thinking outside the box :).

Organised strikes are a tactic normaly used by the urban poor. Ahmadinejad's support amoung that group isn't too bad.

[geni]

The Iranian Revolution wasn't an armed insurrection. It started on the streets and escalated out of the Shah's government's control. The army refused to move, the police melted away, the Shah ran away (he had a habit of that), and the whole rotten structure collapsed.

With that in mind ... how do the beneficiaries of that revolution feel today? Uncomfortable, I imagine.

The Revolutionary Guard has too much to fight for and nowhere to run to. I can't seem them loseing power for a fair while yet.

[CapelDodger]

Organised strikes are a tactic normaly used by the urban poor. Ahmadinejad's support amoung that group isn't too bad.

Strikes are hard to organise amongst the poor. Workers in critical industries are generally better-off and much easier to organise.

Ask yourself : if you worked in the Iranian oil-industry who would you think offers the best prospects? I rest my case :cool:. The economy is already shaky, and calling on god fails to provide.

[CapelDodger]

The Revolutionary Guard has too much to fight for and nowhere to run to. I can't seem them loseing power for a fair while yet.

They can run tanks up the streets, but there's no way they can keep the society functioning. Revolutionary Guards aren't separate from the Iranian community ; they have families and friends, some of whom will be out on the streets they'e been ordered to shoot along. They're not like (for instance) the Burmese Army.

A diplomatic compromise is called for. One that vaguely holds true to the spirit of the Revolution in a manner acceptable to all parties.

[negativ]

They can run tanks up the streets, but there's no way they can keep the society functioning. Revolutionary Guards aren't separate from the Iranian community ; they have families and friends, some of whom will be out on the streets they'e been ordered to shoot along. They're not like (for instance) the Burmese Army.

A diplomatic compromise is called for. One that vaguely holds true to the spirit of the Revolution in a manner acceptable to all parties.

They can run tanks up the streets, but there's no way they can keep the society functioning. PLA soldiers aren't separate from the Chinese community; they have families and friends, some of whom will be out on the streets they'e been ordered to shoot along. They're not like (for instance) the Schutzstaffel.

A diplomatic compromise is called for. One that vaguely holds true to the spirit of the Revolution in a manner acceptable to all parties.

[geni]

Strikes are hard to organise amongst the poor. Workers in critical industries are generally better-off and much easier to organise.

Ask yourself : if you worked in the Iranian oil-industry who would you think offers the best prospects?

Probably not the ones who can be replaced by outsiders. It's harder to ship in large numbers of lower skill workers than a small number of high skill workers.

[geni]

They can run tanks up the streets, but there's no way they can keep the society functioning.

They run about a third of the economy.


Revolutionary Guards aren't separate from the Iranian community ; they have families and friends, some of whom will be out on the streets they'e been ordered to shoot along. They're not like (for instance) the Burmese Army.


The Burmese Army is conscripted. They very much have family and friends out there. The Revolutionary Guards are less conscripted and come from the hard core conservative groups.

[Damien Evans]

You don't know, so that loses you points. Einstein said God exists. I'd rather listen to Einstein than some Internet chat room guy.


"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

- Albert Einstein.

[marksman]

how do the beneficiaries of that revolution feel today? Uncomfortable, I imagine.

I am no mind-reader, but I can't imagine anybody is ever pleased at the need to quell social unrest.

But these are disorganized protests by a dissatisfied and generally disorganized political movement. I don't think anybody realistically believes this is going to lead to an overthrow of the mullahs, although some in the West seem to be trading in their "Democratic Revolution" meme for a "Moderate Counterrevolution" meme.

[FireGarden]

It lacks credibility, doesn't it? Even if it's true.

More and more such anomalies will likely emerge as detailed results come in. Solidly middle-class districts going for Ahmedinejad, over 100% turnouts in some districts, the usual stuff (true or not it's very credible).

I think the powers-that-be have over-reached themselves because they're not terribly clever.

Via Juan Cole,
http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.html

Karoubi got 17% of the vote in 2005:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2005#Results

His vote has dropped, errr, substantially this time round! Less than 1%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2009#Results

[marksman]

Karoubi's drop doesn't surprise me. It's like H. Ross Perot getting 19% in the US Presidential election of 1992 and only 8% in 1996. And Karoubi doesn't have the independent wealth that Perot did.

What's more interestig to me is the drop in invalid ballots, from 2% to 1%. One would expect the rate of error to be rather uniform. Was there a change in the ballot to make it easier to use? If not, the drop may be caused by vote inflation (i.e., fake votes added to the tally). The problem is, the drop would be caused by a mere 300,000 votes. Even if all those votes were for Ahmadinejad, he'd still have won. Which means voter fraud could only be accomplished by 1) Ahmadinejad's supporters purposely submitting fraudulent error ballots, so as not to change the error rate too much, or 2) vote changing, which is something that should be a lot easier to ferret out.

[CapelDodger]

They run about a third of the economy.

They don't so much run it as oversee it and leech off it (which is probably why the economy is a mess). If the workers and management stop actually running it everything grinds to a halt PDQ.

If the civil service and the administrators and the workers and the shopkeepers all stop co-operating they can't be beaten back to it.

The Burmese Army is conscripted. They very much have family and friends out there.

There is a conscripted element of the Burmese Army - conscription is a proven way to keep young men under control. There is also a regular element of career soldiers. I'm no great expert on the Burmese Army but as I understand it the regular element is effectively a hereditary clan, quite separate from the general population. It's not something I've delved into.

What I do know is that you don't keep a population in subjection with a conscript army. It doesn't work.

The Revolutionary Guards are less conscripted and come from the hard core conservative groups.

But do they? It looks like a career opportunity to me, where old style family influence can be applied. It's been around long enough to be quietly corrupted. One third of the economy is a big slice of pie, after all.

The leadership may be old revolutionaries and veterans of the Iran-Iraq War but the bulk of it isn't.

[CapelDodger]

Karoubi's drop doesn't surprise me. It's like H. Ross Perot getting 19% in the US Presidential election of 1992 and only 8% in 1996. And Karoubi doesn't have the independent wealth that Perot did.

That's not a good comparison. Karoubi has an ethnic vote and a local presence : Perot had neither. Ahmedinejad has done nothing for the Lurs; Karoubi has at least raised their global profile.

(I'd never heard of them before, and I doubt I'm alone in that.)

[CapelDodger]

I am no mind-reader, but I can't imagine anybody is ever pleased at the need to quell social unrest.

Especially before they've succeeded.

But these are disorganized protests by a dissatisfied and generally disorganized political movement. I don't think anybody realistically believes this is going to lead to an overthrow of the mullahs, although some in the West seem to be trading in their "Democratic Revolution" meme for a "Moderate Counterrevolution" meme.

It's too early to tell how organised they might be. Two days doesn't demonstrate a trend.

[CapelDodger]

Probably not the ones who can be replaced by outsiders. It's harder to ship in large numbers of lower skill workers than a small number of high skill workers.

There's no question of Iran's oil industry being sold off to foreigners, whatever happens. It will remain a national asset run by Iranians. The question is : who can run it better for all concerned?

The Supreme Council is hardly going to bring in Western contractors to break a strike. Of course the Chinese may be able to get their feet under the table while the Supeme Council is looking the wrong way ...

[CapelDodger]

They can run tanks up the streets, but there's no way they can keep the society functioning. PLA soldiers aren't separate from the Chinese community; they have families and friends, some of whom will be out on the streets they'e been ordered to shoot along. They're not like (for instance) the Schutzstaffel.

The Chinese Government had to bring in units from way beyond Beijing to do the deed. Rednecks with no sympathy for students and long-hairs.

A diplomatic compromise is called for. One that vaguely holds true to the spirit of the Revolution in a manner acceptable to all parties.

Which is what followed Tianmen Square. Implicitly, but revealed by subsequent history.