Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts

October 26, 2010

Slavery Mall in Israel

A few days ago, I came across a piece of news (Prostitution in Israel) in a pro-Ahmadinejad news website, Rajanews. Quoted from another website, significant sentences of the story were as follows:

“In an evident case of promoting indecency and moral corruption in Zionist society, women are displayed for sale in Israel’s chain stores... According to Haaretz, each woman has a label that includes her age, weight, dimensions and country of origin. Following pictures shed some light on modern slavery in Israel, the country which claims to be a democracy.”

Then, some photos of the store, along with ‘Slavery Mall in Israel’ caption, were provided to make the whole story even more striking.

Being sure that something should be wrong with the story, I checked the web. A simple search in Google made it clear: “the display was part of an installation by the Working Group Against the Trafficking of Women, part of a widespread campaign.”

I criticized the fallacy in my Persian weblog and sent an SMS to a friend close to Rajanews administrators, asking them to hire qualified gatekeepers for their website. Several other people made fun of Rajanews as well. Consequently, the page was removed from Rajanews website. (Its cached version is still available in Google, copies of it are available here and here, and to get an impression of its impact, check Persian webpages that reported it).

According to Rajanews, original website that reported the fake story was either Mashreghnews or Qodsna. Given the frank, unambiguous article published in Haaretz, I can hardly imagine that this case could be a simple misunderstanding. Rather, it’s fair to believe that the original news editor/translator distorted the story, assuming that no one would ever dare to find the truth. Such a bitter fact that awkward distortion of the truth is still considered a suitable instrument to manipulate the minds of the audience.

Second implication of the event, however, is far more important. Many Iranians had visited the page, found the story to be consistent with their preconceived perception of the Jewish state, thus related to it and cached it in their long term memory as another indication of Israel’s brutality and corruption. The Israeli society I knew, however, could not be this wild and obscene. That is why I doubted the originality of the story, while many other people, even the educated and the elite, did not even give it a second thought. In other words, average Iranian perception of Israel is far different from the objective truth. Unfortunately, the same point arguably applies to the Israeli side as well.

Opposing or disagreeing with another country is one thing, hating it for non-existent causes is a far different thing. Put it slightly differently, there is a knowledge gap that needs be bridged. When, how and by whom? It’s a difficult yet critically important question.

July 15, 2008

Prisoner Swap

Tomorrow, a prisoner swap is expected to happen between Israel and Lebanese Hizbollah, in which Israel will receive two soldiers, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, in return for releasing Samir Kantar and four Hezbollah prisoners and returning the bodies of dozens.
Two Israeli soldiers are presumed dead. I hope that they return alive. It's in favor of all parties.
Update: my hope failed.

May 16, 2008

On the current tension in Lebanon

Here is my comment to "Mullahs’ Whim in Lebanon" which claims speaks of Iran's role in the current tension in Lebanon and Arab countries' reaction to it.
*****
Sustainable stability may never be achieved unless a balance of power comes into existence. In the world’s new order, it was Superpower’s duty to maintain the balance of power. However, right now the only Superpower’s position is frankly in favor of Israel: it has decided to side with Israel, whatever the reasons.
On the other side of the battle, Hizbollah is probably the only armed group which may balance the power struggle with Israel in the Mideast, at least in a psychological level. So, to my view, the American-induced decision of Lebanese administration to destruct this power balance is what might be called an act of destabilizing.
Let me make it clear: I really believe that an armed party is more of a nightmare to the political interactions of both the country and the region. When ‘guns’ find their way in political conflicts, they mark an end to the peace. BUT it’s almost naïve to believe that Hizbollah is merely the product of Iranian/Syrian masterminds. Hizbollah finds its roots in the wrong policies of the US in the Mideast.
Another point is Arab countries’ reactions (mostly that of Saudi Arabia) to the current conflict. I think that Arab countries prefer to have Hizbollah under their own control. In other words, they like the Hizbollah, but not an Iranian-driven Hizbollah. They, however, will not side with US to end the life of Iranian-driven Hizbollah, for this undermines their position against Israel. Thus I think that such reactions are just to remind Iran that “Ana Sharik” (I’m a partner), and Arab leaders don’t want the currant tension to lead to a real confrontation with Iran.

May 10, 2008

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, what if Israel attacks Iran and you are elected as president of the USA?

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinto

US Presidential Candidate

Your Excellency,

In one of your recent campaign interviews you stated that: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. . . . In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them" (Interview with ABC).

This is not different from President Bush's stated policy towards Iran. The logic of threatening a total obliteration of Iran, possible only through a nuclear holocaust, is based on the "right of power", not the "power of the right".

As you may know, chapter I, article II of the United Nations Charter states that:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Regardless of any hypothetical attack on Israel, the United States is legally bound not to threaten Iran or any other country. In addition to the UN Charter, the US constitution prohibits such threatening policies. Article IV Clause II states:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

As an Iranian, I feel compelled to ask you some questions. First, why are you threatening "the Iranians"? Second, if Israel attacks Iran and you are elected as president of the USA, what would then be your policy and position?

I do not agree with the rhetorical statements and foreign policies of Dr. Ahmadinejad, the President of Islamic Republic of Iran. However, while the military capability of Iran to attack Israel is questionable, Israel's capabilities concerning the conventional and non-conventional armaments to attack Iran is beyond any doubt.

With respect

Ebrahim Yazdi,Secretary General, Freedom Movement of Iran and

Former Foreign Minister, Islamic Republic of Iran

May 6th, 2008
*****
Ebrahim Yazdi was the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the interim government of Mehdi Bazargan until 6 November 1979, when he, along with the rest of the Bazargan cabinet, resigned in protest of the takeover of the United States Embassy by the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line.

Source

June 12, 2007

Zero-Degree-Turn and Ahmadinejad’s speeches; what they have in common?

It was about 4 months ago that I found this site which I hereafter call a kind of "collective effort in order to improve the situation in mideast, though not a very wide one".

At the very beginning, I was very eager to find a subject that might interest others and write about it as soon as possible.

Oh! Yes! I live in a country that makes enough hot news every second, especially when we consider the capability of our president, Ahmadinejad! Seismic effects of his every speech may be interesting enough for any reporter to write too many articles about them, analyze his attitude, predict the future, or even diagnose his mental health!

What about nuclear issue? Do we need or want it? What do ordinary people think about it?
Democracy? Women’s rights? Hijab crackdown? Fuel problem? Next parliamentary elections and its disputed date? Next round of sanctions? Would it solve the problem? A possible American invasion? Pre-emptive air attacks of Israel?

Why did I forget about Israel and wiping it off the map? Or our foreign minister's stance that "every elementary student knows a country can not be wiped off the map"?

Today, I was watching 9th installment of Zero Degree Turn; a new series aired by Iran's state TV and one of the most expensive series ever produced in my country. For a while, I felt that this movie is somehow similar to our president, Ahmadinjad. After a while, I found the similarity!

First read these articles about 0-Degree-Turn:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/866562.html

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122651

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117966393.html?categoryId=14&cs=1

For those who may not be eager to read those articles:The story is about a romantic relationship between an Iranian Muslim (who lives in France & is an associate of Iran's embassy in Paris) and a Jew girl; and it happens nearly 60 years ago: right at the beginning of WWII.

Now, for all:This story may address several important issues about Jews, Holocaust, Israel, etc, either implicitly or explicitly, but its better not to overestimate its effect on public opinion. my relatives and friends pay attention to the romantic story, beautiful decoration, and depiction of somehow previously forbidden scenes (like an Iranian boy who flirts with some of his pretty classmates, obviously girls I mean!) much more than its semi-hidden political messages (if they even understand that there is a political sub-layer in this movie). The only political issue, to which ordinary people (may) pay attention, is that Iranians were not hostile to the Jews while they were suffering anti-Semitic attitudes in Europe.

Now, about Ahmadinejad: Ahmadinejad may speak about Israel every time he travels to a poor part of this country; and people may be so quiet while he threatens this and that or speaks about countdown to the destruction of Israel. But you should know that people (most of them) don’t either approve or even listen to first half of his speech. They wait for the 2nd half, in which he is supposed to bring the oil's revenue to their tables!

Conclusion: Ahmadinejad and his speeches may be compared to that movie; very few people (if any) in the depth of the society would pay attention to their political messages.

Ahmadinejad is just a movie which may not push any real action within (this) society in its political terms. I’m waiting for its happy end, God willing!