Correspondence

“You have chosen to emigrate to a country that was born by robbing the land of others. You did not do so for economic reasons or because you were discriminated for ethnic or religious reasons. You have served in the army of the robber baron country, so it is utterly hypocritcal to say that you are working for those your country oppresses.

Your presence in Israel, neither by birth nor by necessity, is a slap in the faces of those who really own that land.”

This is at the heart of a lot of the hypocrisy in the world about Israel. I live in a country that ethnically cleansed its native people in a far more vicious way than Israel did and yet are allowed to proudly call ourselves “a nation of immigrants”. Did Israel’s creation cause ethnic cleansing? Undoubtedly, but ethnic cleansing to create a country is not only not unique, it is the norm. Also, why exactly is moving to a country for religious reasons somehow worse than moving for economic reasons? In fact, whatever you think of Israel, the reasons for creating the country were infinitely more noble than the reasons for the creation of any New World country. (Which were all about land, resources, and very occasionally freedom from persecution.)

“Israel is illegitimate.”

This is something Israelis rightly worry about. This is the dominant thinking in the Muslim and Arab worlds. How can Israel move towards peace when people will never accept it? (I do not agree with this line of thinking, but I understand it.) Again, the absurdity of this statement is mind-boggling. What makes Israel illegitimate exactly? What are the criteria that make a state legitimate or not? The argument of such people will always become something like “Middle Eastern states built on stolen land starting with “I” that are not Iran or Iraq.” In other words, they will start backwards to attempt to make the criteria fit only Israel. This type of thing worries me as I think a total Israeli/Arab peace will be impossible until this unwillingness to accept Israel’s basic existence is greatly lessened.

Ranks – this has nothing to do with Jewish-Indian dialogue, I set up a Jewish-Kashmiri dialogue group, and I have been in touch with this correspondent since before that.
As for being provocative, well, you know me!

Madze – Gert’s yet to post in this thread …

On the ‘legitimacy issue’: it’s indeed pointless for an outsider to contest the legitimacy of Israel. Israel is recognised by many countries and is a reality that’s not going anywhere. I do however fully support the right of some Palestinian factions to not de jure recognise Israel. Asking them to do so is like asking the burgled to legitimise the burglar’s actions: it ads needless insult to injury. And recognition of Israel by the PLO hasn’t brought the Palestinian cause any result worthy of note.

On ethnic cleansing: Gabriel wrote; “Undoubtedly, but ethnic cleansing to create a country is not only not unique, it is the norm”. That’s an enormous overstatement. Many Nation States weren’t created through ethnic cleansing (but quite a few were). Most weren’t created on the basis of ethnicity or religion either (some of those are now truly disasters). And two wrongs don’t make a right.

Israel is also somewhat unique in the fact that its ethnic cleansing was carried out in two distinct waves, well apart from each other, when during the second wave it already had a state.

Sheik Yassin:

“Tzvika, listen, we had good teachers: You established a state thanks to your military power. The dead I take from you are for the sake of establishing a state, but you are killing women and children for the sake of the occupation. You already have a state. You are dirty and hypocritical. I have no interest in destroying you – all I want is a state.”

To this day the ethnic cleansing of Palestine continues… virtually uncontested: where is the Israeli Left (or the dried up turd of what’s left of it)? The Peace bloc?

On hypocrisy: call us hypocrites all you like. Assume you are 100% right about that, does our hypocrisy take anything away from Zionism’s crimes or Israel’s ongoing occupation, colonisation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine? No, it doesn’t. It’s a little sideshow: Gabriel Ashe’s “You suck” type of argument.

My sympathy remains completely with the Palestinian people. But with Jews I haven’t got the slightest problem.

Madze:

There’s a big distinction between Jewry and Zionism (even though Zionism often pretends to speak for all Jews).

And don’t ‘hate’ Zionists either, at least not in the literal sense of the word.

My fellow countrymen and forefathers are guilty of many crimes too, but I don’t ‘hate’ them, I just think they were wrong. As was Zionism.

“Undoubtedly, but ethnic cleansing to create a country is not only not unique, it is the norm”. That’s an enormous overstatement. Many Nation States weren’t created through ethnic cleansing (but quite a few were). Most weren’t created on the basis of ethnicity or religion either (some of those are now truly disasters). And two wrongs don’t make a right.”

1) Every single state I can think of in the New World was created by Ethnic cleansing. All of North America, all of South America. Australia, New Zealand, even India/Pakistan. I think pretty much every state was at one time or another, it’s just that the wars happened 1,000 years ago.

2) Most were not created on ethnic/religious lines because they didn’t have to be. First, there is a need for a Jewish state in a way there wasn’t ever for another White Christian European state. Second, when everyone is the same anyway, you don’t need to define the state. Israel has a higher percentage of a minority religion than almost any country in the world. When you are 95% Christian, surrounded by other states that are 95% Christian, you don’t need to define yourself as Christian. It doesn’t mean you aren’t though. It’s the same way Yemen or Iran might say “we welcome everyone of all religions” (they won’t, but this is theoretical) who the hell wants to live in Yemen? What kind of Christian or Jew is going to move to Iran? They don’t. In fact, Jews can’t really live in most countries in the world in any practical way even in countries which don’t define themselves on religious or ethnic grounds. This stuff reminds me of what one my favourite quotes. “The law is just-both the rich and the poor are forbidden from sleeping under bridges and stealing bread.”

3) Two wrongs indeed do not make a right, but that was not my point. My point is that if ethnic cleansing is deemed to make a state “illegal” then most of the states in the world are “illegal”.

“You established a state thanks to your military power. The dead I take from you are for the sake of establishing a state, but you are killing women and children for the sake of the occupation. You already have a state. You are dirty and hypocritical. I have no interest in destroying you – all I want is a state.””

Except that this is a complete lie. It’s not “all I want is a state”, it’s “all I want is a state where your state is and for you to leave.” It’s amazing how people who look for hints of ulterior motives in every word from every Israeli politician, can take at face value the words of someone whose words are contradicted by their actions and all their other words. This is a man who formed Hamas with the EXPRESS PURPOSE of opposing peace talks with Israel. He said “Israel must disappear from the map” and “reconciliation with Jews is a crime.” (Note, not Israelis, but Jews) among many other such hateful speech. Yet, we are supposed to think that this man really desired peace that “all I want is a state”? It’s such incredible bullshit and shows how dishonestly many anti-Zionists view history.

I’m sick of the whitewashing of Hamas and Hezbollah, people pretending they are pragmatic organizations instead of racist, sexist, homophobic religious extremist groups bent on perpetual war ending in the destruction of Israel. You can oppose Israel’s occupation without pretending Hamas are something they are not. Their entire history is about killing to derail peace talks, not to spur them on.

Gabriel, in my opinion Madze, is consistent in his dislike for things he doesn’t like in Israel and in his defense for Israel when she is in the right. He’s a ‘realistic’ left winger (I think he leans left) … If only we had more like that in the govt.

I think this is maybe the biggest political problem in the world today-people who feel that you have to be A or B and in this context either be pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli as if one cannot be both…or neither.

False Dichotomies. Do you contradict yourself? Very well then, you contradict yourself (you are large, you contain multitudes).

“As long as the IDF is sniffing around, Hizb’allah will continue to enjoy widespread support in Lebabon.”

Except that this is backwards. Israel wants nothing to do with Lebanon. They don’t want Lebanese land, they don’t want wars with Lebanon. Hezbollah’s presence is the main reason why Israel remains so interested in Lebanon.

“they maintain the right to violently resist Occupation, a right that is enshrined in International Law.”

Which is the right to fight soldiers, not attack civilians, even civilians living in occupied territories. And Israel has the right to fight back and kill them as well. Except that Hamas believes that it has the right to kill any Israeli and that Israel doesn’t have the right to kill even Hamas fighters. About 90% of Hamas’ “resistance” is illegal under international law. Firing rockets into civilian areas is a war crime. Attacking civilians is a war crime.

“And the only reason Israel agreed to talk to the PLO ahead of the Oslo Accords was that the intifada uprising that began in 1987 made the occupation politically untenable. ”

Nope. The only reason they talked to the PLO is that Bush the First dragged Shamir to Madrid for talks as a way of appeasing the Arab states after Gulf War the First. Anyway, Karon’s analysis is just a typical anti-Zionist way of rationalizing why Palestinians should never recognize Israel. I mean, stuff like this “If the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan had been implemented, Palestinian Arabs would have been 45% of the population of what would become Israel” Well, who gives a fuck? The partition plan was not implemented because the Arab states rejected it. I am so sick of people harping on things that happened 60-100 years ago as if that excuses something for today or has any relevance whatsoever. This was like the Polish argument to the EU that it should have more say in the EU because had the Germans not killed so many Poles, they would have had many more people. Yeah, sure, but they did, and they don’t. Counterfactuals are for fiction.

(I always love the “lots of Jews have always opposed Zionism” as if opposing the idea of Israel in 1917 would be the same as wanting to overthrow a state in 2009. It’s like saying “some people have always thought that the conquest of Australia was a bad idea.” Maybe, but it’s all rather a moot point now. Israel is a moot point as well. It exists and you, and other people, need to get past that. In fact, this constant attempt to destroy Israel by the Muslim world and the European Left is a massive boost for the right in Israel. Why should Israelis dismantle settlements and make moves towards peace when it will just be seen as a step closer to destroy Israel?

The crucial point you miss though is this: “an opportunity to politically engage Hamas was missed”. Engaging with Hamas is even worse than Alex engaging with the correspondent above.
Hamas: you have no right to exist and we will destroy you and kill Jews.

What kind of dialogue can you have with a group that is ideologically bent on murdering you? Who celebrates the death of your children? Whose charter not only calls for your destruction but also for the murder of Jews. You are doing ridiculous whitewashing, pretending that Hamas is fighting soldiers to fend off the occupation. What Israelis know of Hamas is blowing up children on Purim outside a mall, blowing up restaurants filled with families, and blowing up buses with civilians. You may want to call that justified. I know it’s murder.

Gabriel:

Your whole line of “thinking” in the comment above mine is really that of a hardline rightist Israeli Zionist (please don’t blame us for the Israeli Right’s massive increase in popularity – anti-Zionism just isn’t that powerful at all – a mix between religio-ethnocracy, racism and military untouchability however does the trick).

“Why should Israelis dismantle settlements and make moves towards peace when it will just be seen as a step closer to destroy Israel?”

… is Likud (TM).

And a little gem like:

“In fact, this constant attempt to destroy Israel by the Muslim world and the European Left is a massive boost for the right in Israel.”

… really shows your true colours.

Anyway, good luck with your ‘principled stance’, make sure Israel doesn’t give an inch and ends up politically and economically isolated. Fuck the Palestinians, it’s all Hamas’ fault anyway.

In a sense you’ll be doing my work for me. Thanks for that!

Madze:

“You absolutely, positively ARE accusing the Jews of committing crimes against humanity, Gert.”

Zionists have committed crimes against Palestinians and have ethnically cleansed Palestine of much of its Palestinian population. Those are facts. They are not in dispute.

Just one little snippet to get your taste buds going:

AMY GOODMAN: And Shlomo Ben-Ami, your response to those who continue to say that at that time, at the time of the establishment of the state of Israel and before, that it really was empty, that Jews came to a place that was not populated.

I was kind of surprised that Mr. Ben-Ami goes beyond what many Israeli historians acknowledge. Someone like Benny Morris will say, “Yes, Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948.” That’s Benny Morris’s expression. But he says it was an accident of war. There are wars, people get dispossessed. Mr. Ben-Ami, no, he will go further. He said you can see pretty clearly that they intended to expel the Palestinians. The opportunity came along, and they did so. Now, those are the facts.

I look forward to your response that will undoubtedly be another shining example of the paucity of Zionist ideas…

Madze:

There is no hatred and thus no motivation either.

What the Palestinians would accept, in what is left of Palestine or outside of it is of course up to them (not me). I merely support the idea that their plight be considered and dealt with, in a fashion that’s acceptable to them.

You advocate incentivated transfer (buy them out, in plain English). Well, if you can name a price (and cough up the dough too, of course) that’s adequate according to them, then who would I be to oppose that: it’s their life, not mine… It’s what they want that counts, not what I see as best or ideal.

Gert, I think we’ve made some real progress here.

We now at least agree that this is a sincere effort to resolve the dispute in a way that’s quite different from genocide or a crime against humanity. I am smart enough to realize the Palestinians will be very resistant initially to such a concept, but, perhaps, if the price is right and the terms are good enough, it is conceivable they may see sufficient enough benefit in accepting a negotiated relocation to make a deal. I don’t want arabs to suffer, I don’t want Jews to suffer, and if this plan did come to fruition both sides would finally achieve the elusive peace, self determination, and secure future we all hope for.

I know it isn’t anywhere close to being a reality, but having the intentions understood even by an anti-Zionist as a sincere effort to find a workable conclusion to the conflict is a big start. I actually just felt a tiny glimmer of optimism!

Gabriel:

“Well, you are anti-Zionist who wants to see the end of Israel so ultimately while you talk about concessions, you simply see them as a step to the end of Israel.”

Get yourself to Specsavers from some decent glasses. I’ve said completely the opposite regards Israel’s existence. I used caps. Still you can’t read it. That’s sad.

“Also, quoting Norman Finkelstein talking with Ben-ami? I always amazed by the ability on anti-Zionists to find quotes that back up their minority opinions and then present them as fact. (And even more so by their reverence for third-rate polemics like Finkelstein.) Even beyond that, even if what they say is true, who cares? 0% of the population of the US was Christian in 1286. What the population was in 1906 is a irrelevant to 2009.”

Very American. Finkelstein a third-rate polemicist? The man has an encyclopedic memory of the conflict, I’ve yet to see him lose a debate on the facts. And he’s uncompromising, as he should be.

Dear Americans, keep carbon dating the world back to last Tuesday, whatever happened before that doesn’t matter. And for those who disagree, you still have your guns. Arrested development.

“Would you make the same argument for slavery? Can I keep a slave because I live in a country that used to have slaves? Is it a morally compelling argument to participate in untouchability for religious reasons because others did it too? Why shouldn’t I get my turn at moving into the house that belongs to a family in Gaza, so I can feel good about being able to speak a 2000 year old language and because God gave me the right? So what if every Jew that moves from London or Brooklyn to Palestine is the nail in the coffin of one more Palestinian waiting to come home? Give me my slave, my untouchable, my aliyah dammit. I deserve my turn.”

You can always tell an anti-Zionist argument because self-righteous anger replaces all logic. The comparison is not “Can I keep a slave because I live in a country that used to have slaves? ” it is can YOU complain about slavery in a country half the world away when you own slaves and have owned them for centuries. I live right now on land that used to be native. I didn’t live in it in the past and then moved away. All of the Americas is built on stolen land. Natives TODAY live in third world conditions on reserves sniffing gas and killing themselves at incredible rates-largely living hopeless lives. Why? Because we took their land, we fucked them over. But who cares right? Because that little kid held hostage in a camp in Lebanon, his grandfather, as a child, lived in a village 60 years ago that doesn’t exist near Tel Aviv. That is obviously the worst thing in the history of the world and nothing else matters. Of all the injustices in the world the only one that needs to be overturned, to be undone, is Israel? This is the amazing hypocrisy of anti-Zionists. Tens of millions of people murdered, millions more ghettoized, and well, that’s just the way it is. The world has to accept it. I mean, we really needed more white, Protestant countries built for economic reasons. But, with Israel built for nobler reasons that any colonization in the history of the world-”OH MY GOD, ISRAEL EXISTS!!!! IT”S EVIL!!!! ZIONISTS ARE EVIL!! ISRAEL MUST DIE!!! If it weren’t such a prevalent idiocy, it would be laughable. As usual, this “Sam” also used the idea that Zionism is based on some religious idea rather than the fact that the world has shown, rather conclusively over the past 2, 000 years that it will justify the suffering and murder of Jews. How many countries in the world TODAY is it safe to be Jewish? That you can walk down the street with Kipa on and you don’t have to fear being attacked? U.S., Canada, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, well, that’s about it. I am sure, “Sam”, that you are someone, like all anti-Zionists, who downplays antisemitism or excuses it as some natural, understandable, byproduct of Zionism.

“Very American. Finkelstein a third-rate polemicist? The man has an encyclopedic memory of the conflict, I’ve yet to see him lose a debate on the facts. And he’s uncompromising, as he should be.”

I’m not American but “Finkelstein the son of Holocaust survivors” is not even a third-rate polemicist. He is a historian of Israel that doesn’t speak Hebrew or Arabic and a historian of the Holocaust who doesn’t speak German and just takes his work from real historians and then edits the parts that he doesn’t like so that Israel (or the Jews in general) look evil. The serious historians who he bases his work on trash him. Not trash him like “I disagree with…” but trash him like “He is a liar and he has no idea what he’s talking about.”

I actually do believe he just hates Jews. His Holocaust Industry fantasies are sickening. (And never mind that “Finkelstein the son of Holocaust survivors” uses the Holocaust for his own benefit more than 99.9% of Jews.) I saw a quote from one of his books where had this aside which was something like….”Israelis, much like American Jews did with blacks, persecute Palestinians…” Well, never mind that Jews were leaders in the civil rights march in the U.S. (and South Africa for that matter), “Finkelstein the son of Holocaust survivors” just can’t stop letting his hatred of Jews showing. If he is not an anti-Semite, he is completely insane. Anyway, “Finkelstein the son of Holocaust survivors” is only read by people who know what he is going to say and want to agree with it.

“it is can YOU complain about slavery in a country half the world away when you own slaves and have owned them for centuries. ”

Yes, I do believe I can. Otherwise, the Tanakh and Amaleks would mean the Jews should simply put up with genocides without complaint. We don’t want to go down those paths.

Gert – re. Iran, I’m posting this here because I’m moderated over at Tikkun Olam. Leaving aside the unnecessary ‘piss off’, your comment shows your true colours. Only a watcher of Press TV could deny that something extremely fishy has gone on. Regarding evidence, I suggest you start here – http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.html

Alex:

Showing my true colours in what way exactly: for giving Iran the reasonable benefit of the doubt with regards to its election? For believing in innocence before being proven guilty? Who, Alex, exactly is showing colours here?

As regards dishing Press TV, there’s much wrong with it but I bet you never watch it.

Go tell your opinion to the many Jews, non-Jews, Zionists, non-Zionist and anti-Zionists alike that contribute to wonderful programs a like American Dream, Hearts and Minds, The Real Deal or Fine Print, to name but a few.

And if I’m wrong about this election, I’ll be the first to admit it but right now I see a lot of headless chickens running around the courtyard.

Not at this point Alex, no. There’ll be other opinions and evidences brought forward, let me get a fuller picture first (you on the other hand seem all too keen to go over one night of ice on this issue).

I would have preferred Mr Moussavi to win (of course) but we need to be careful calling an election rigged just because we don’t like the result. Note that the excellent Juan Cole is quite cautious too…

He didn’t seem that cautious to me. I shall await your opinion in the coming days.

“calling an election rigged”

You’re right, Mugabe did win those elections fair and square!

Avram:

“but when people insult people with idiotic terms, it generally turns me off”

Why, you start reading comments from the bottom up?

“You’re right, Mugabe did win those elections fair and square!”

What does Mugabe have to do with Iran? Nothing whatsoever, of course.

What does the fact that historic Palestine was a region have to do with anything?

See Avram, this kind of reasoning gives Zionism the name of being a racist, ethnocentric ideology, akin to the BNP or NF in that respect.

So Zionism ethnically cleansed a region but that’s OK because it wasn’t a Country/Nation State?

Zionism ethnically cleansed a large part of Palestine, but that’s OK because they were Jews, a REAL Nation of People and the Palestinians aren’t?

Had the Palestinians been made up of 40 % Arabs, 30 % Japanese and 30 % Belgians the RoR would be no less valid, because it simply states that people are allowed to return to their homes after the hostilities have ceased. My grandfather and his family (including my father) fled from Antwerp to avoid the advancing German troops (WW II). They planned to cross into England (my granddad worked for British firm) via Boulogne but they missed the last boat. They returned to Antwerp. Were they more entitled to do so because they were Belgian? The answer is no.

You know what all these questions about the status of Palestine and the nature of the Palestinians show on your part? Undigested guilt.

That should be Gabriel referenced in my post, not Gert.

“When you call for…”

When my tax dollars pay for them, I will.

Gert:

No, I don’t read from the bottom up … I read:

“Avram:

I like all his debates.

Jerkowitz?”

So I stopped there.

“What does the fact that historic Palestine was a region have to do with anything?”

I’m glad you answered the question honestly.

“You know what all these questions about the status of Palestine and the nature of the Palestinians show on your part? Undigested guilt.”

I’m not really sure how you got 1+1 to equal 3 here, but you did. Interesting post however, not that I really know where it sprouted from …

“holocaust deniers”

I don’t think Finkelstein is a ‘denier’ – he just thinks that we as a people have made it an industry to push various goals.

Madze:

“In short, he wildly claims without any quantifiable evidence, in fact AGAINST all quantifiable evidence, that the actual Holocaust as we know it and study it is a complete fabrication. He is considered by all but the most militant and hostile anti-Semites to be a complete shill for the far left alliance with the islamic extremism.”

In short, Madze wildly claims without any quantifiable evidence, in fact AGAINST all quantifiable evidence, any old nonsense that springs to his overheated mind. Good to see you’re back to your old self again, in a certain sense. But sad to see that that piece of 9/11 shrapnel is still lodged in your brain. I told you to go and see someone about that.

When you state things like these you remind me of just what a complete joke of a man you really are, as are most of the bloggers you usually hang out with: nitwits, oddballs, the Ultimate Far Right, obsessives about Kohoho-homunism, Nietzsche fanatics, Obama bashers, homophobes, Biblical nutters, conspiracy theorists, ID freaks and assorted fundies etc, you name it and your cluster of bloggers provides it.

Finkelstein isn’t a Holocaust denier at all. If you fought with an open visor (and not anonymously) and said that to his face he’d successfully sue you to hell and back.

Whenever a Zionist complains about Palestinian extremism, I can always invoke you as a shining counter-example.

Avram:

Why are questions about the pre-1948 status of Palestine and the Palestinians relevant according to you? After all, you raised the question, so I can reasonably conclude you find this relevant.

Why is it relevant to you? Because it makes you feel better?

“Why are questions about the pre-1948 status of Palestine and the Palestinians relevant according to you? ”

You made the statement Gert, I asked a question so I can see how you define it. You have played games since.

“Why is it relevant to you? Because it makes you feel better?”

If that makes you feel better mate, ok – but the real reason is I just wanted to better understand how you defined a term you used.

“Finkelstein openly insists that the Holocaust is exaggerated”

How do you respond to this claim, Gert? If that’s the case, then Finkelstein becomes a far less extreme version of our dear Iranian president (who I think says only 1 million Jews died) wrt this subject (holocaust denial)

Boy, Gert, you sure are zinging us today. Great stuff. I know I’m unable to muster an intelligent comeback to your brilliant slams. Wait, lemme try this one: You, you, you… stupid head!

There, I gotcha!

Avram, let me help Gert out a bit with some links in defense of old Norm. Here’s a glowing one from David Duke’s site promoting Finkelstein’s work.

http://www.davidduke.com/general/norman-finkelstein-anti-israel-speech_83.html

Mad Zionist:

Ever heard of the Bad Company Fallacy? The fact that David Duke (or anyone else for that matter) endorses Finkelstein (or anyone else for that matter) does not make what Finkelstein says true or false: there is no logical connection between the two.

What the Nazis said or did wasn’t wrong because it was the Nazis that said or did it, but because what they said or did was wrong.

In plain English the Bad Company Fallacy is simply smearing.

And this Madze, is something you and your buddies in the sewers of the Tinkerwebs are very good at.

As a result of your ‘methods’ you end up calling a committed Zionist like Gabriel an anti-Semite and making a total tit of yourself.

“Finkelstein openly insists that the Holocaust is exaggerated”

Make that claim hard. I know for a fact that it’s based on typical gross distortion, pulling out of context and hyperbolic invective by intellectual flyweights a la David Horowitz and his fan base, the idiots that gravitate to Mad Zionist. But right now the onus is on you to prove your accusation. Except you can’t. Go on, surprise me.

Avram:

“you run away from your statements (be it the Iran vote wasn’t a sham or ‘Historic Paletine’)”

This is getting thoroughly boring: yet another straw man. I’m willing to wait for more complete evidence on the Iranian election. In what way is that wrong or running away? On historic Palestine I gave you my honest and correct answer. Again, where’s the running away? You’re being dishonest.

On Iran, it’s now increasingly looking like the election results are suspicious. But for those like me who rooted for Moussavi wouldn’t it be much better to have incontrovertible proof of vote rigging? Something stronger than suspicions? Because conclusive proof we do not have. Evidence, yes, proof, no.

The Flat Earth Society forum (welcomes dissent!)

Avram:

“You had it almost a day afterwards”

The condemnation came very, very quickly, suspiciously quickly IMHO. Over at Mondoweiss things got really quite hysterical, with talk of coups and A. behaving like a New Prophet etc etc. I decided to take a bit of a backseat: just because Juan Cole (and I’m a fan) says so doesn’t make it true.

“I just looked through your answers since the question and you really haven’t -”</i<

Then I don’t know what you understand by an honest and correct answer. Please explain.

“Where are you from?”

Haven’t decided yet. I aim for a borderless world where such queries are irrelevant.

Avram:

“But weren’t the ‘pre-election’ %s something like 55-40 in favor of Mousavi (sp?)?”

Yes, but before the groundswell of support for Moussavi, Ahmadinejad, as the incumbent, was widely tipped to be the most likely winner, as incumbents often are (see also US elections e.g.).

Now it appears we may be looking at another Iranian Revolution or perhaps a Revolutionette, either would be good news for the Iranians. But Moussavi, make no mistake about it, is strong on both the nuclear and Palestinian issue. While the revolt, if it succeeds, would lead to much needed greater internal freedoms, I believe Iran will remain firm on these issues.

Are you impressed with the Mad Zionist’s no-show with regards to his Finkelstein claim?

I’ll give him some more time but hopes aren’t high.

“Now it appears we may be looking at another Iranian Revolution or perhaps a Revolutionette, either would be good news for the Iranians. But Moussavi, make no mistake about it, is strong on both the nuclear and Palestinian issue. While the revolt, if it succeeds, would lead to much needed greater internal freedoms, I believe Iran will remain firm on these issues.”

I don’t disagree with any of that … But to be honest, and I know it’s hard for Anti-Zionists to believe this, I could care less what he thinks of Israel/Nuclear weapons, I just would rather not see more people suffer/die needlessly there … Let it stop inshallah.

Sam is a Lennonist.

“I could distinctly hear the sound of the rehearsing of launch codes emanating from Tel Aviv”

That was probably Alex working on his pick up lines mate … They sound awfully like launch codes, honest.

I think Mad Zionist must be off to the local library, either that or reading two paragraphs of Stormin’ Norman caused him a stroke