Iranian propoganda - "For you Palestine - Zahra's blue eyes"

[Sirotnikov]

Sirotnikov, the thing that I find so terribly sad about Israel and the West Bank is that I fear it has reached the Balkan stage, ..."where nobody can even tell who started it, atrocity begets atrocity and blood begets blood." I hope for your sake, and the children on both sides, and for my daughter, I am wrong.

Frankly, I think it is in that stage - moreso among palestinians.

Both because they lead a worse daily life, and because they are exposed to more directed propoganda.

Israeli mainstream has never supported or tolerated blatant racist propoganda. It does exist in some amounts among the right-wing and religious blocks, and it is sadly not well monitored, because the police is busy with terrorist alerts and general crime, and the Shin Bet is busy with both terrorist alerts and protecting Sharon.

So protecting from racism against arabs is rather low on the list - but it is well kept by the general public and by the mainstream media.

[Sirotnikov]

This is by the way exactly why we need the fence and an Israeli disengagement.

Otherwise, a few more large terrorist attacks and the Israeli public will become even more agressive and demanding

And since the IDF is after all quite technologically advanced... the Palestinians are going to have a really bad day.



Btw, they are working on improving their rocket infrastructure.

I strongly suggest you pressure your governments to pressure the Palestinians to stop using rockets.

Because soon a certain border will be crossed, and then as Sharon said it - Israel will use its rockets. Then we possibly won't need two states.

[GePap]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
GePap, it's all a dynamic. If there is enough support for intolerance, someone will eventually thause t as a lever to come to power. Once that occurs genocide is now on the table.

It may be ethnic cleansing, or as I call it, "Genocide Lite". It may be pogroms, predating the hate mongers rise to total power. It is all vey germane.

The problem is, few people come to power on the agenda of hate-yes, hitler made his anti-semitism a part of his campaign, but it was his anti-communism that got him elected- lets remeber, the first concentration camps were for communist, socialists, and trade unionists. The original anti-Jewish boycotts petered out, and the campaign against the Jews was relatively slow at the start- it took five years for the first pogroms to start.

Look at what was done to POW's on the Soviet front in WW2 by the Nazis (note - Stalin was monstrous but he was already treating his people like that, terror is a different dynamic than genocide though for those caught in the gears the end result is still dead). Look now what some of the Muslim terror groups are doing in Iraq.

Sorry, but quantity can become quality sometimes- you can't compare the killing by indifference of millions of Soviet war prisoners to the crimes of the insurgency-which don;t really seem too different from the crimes of most violent uprisings- the Maoist in Nepal are no less violent, nor where acts in Lebanon, or Peru, where the Tupac Amaru killed thousands mercilessly. I have seen nothing in Iraq that is particularly shocking or out of the realm of the "normal" situation in violent insurgencies.

The spread and fanning the flames of hate throughout the Muslim world, and then the developing dynamic this is setting up in the United States plus large portions of Europe and Asia, could lead to exactly to the kind of war you are minimizing. It could be another "cold war", with various kinds of conflict including economic, insurgencies, terror, and eventually untracable weapons of mass destruction, including diseases, nanotechnology, and even shipping-container nukes.

I seriously doubt it- for all the hatred being spewed, in the end, most of the attention ends up being internally directed- a few Muslim extremists are expansionists, but most seek internal action- to turn their countries into Islamic paradises. The Taliban were a perfect example-they sought to take control of Afghanistan, but its not like they were plotting some vast crusade to conquer the heathen Hindus, nor the Heretical Iranians.

The fact is these terrorist are weak- they are only strong in countries that fail, like Somalia, or Afghanistan, do they get a chance. The Shia extremists, like the Iranian clerical regime or Hizbullah is far more limited, given the nature of Shiite Islam, and that its a minority sect.

The weakness of these guys makes your outcomes highly unlikely. Even if they took over a state, their treatment of science makes it very unlikely they would advance into anything as far fetched today as nanotechnology. The Taliban was not setting up engineering universities.

As the poster in the thread on India made the point, what if Paksitan for example falls under control of Wahabi-educated Pashtun fundamentalists? What then are the chances of a nuke going off in India, the United States, or Europe? What happens if some of the Arab funded Wahabi-extremists start to gain traction in the largely Sufi Central Asian Republics? Ned, while maybe erring on the far side of caution, and safety, is sadly not outside the realm of possiblity, maybe even probability.

Central Asia is free of nuclear material, and if extremist Islam will advance there, the blame lays with the anti-religious dictatorships there.

As for Pakistan- that country is such a mess that even if extremists took over islamabad, they would be too busy with internal repression and the loss of brain power as the westernized middle classes fled that it would become a basket case. Yes, the fact they would have nukes is horrid, but in the end, I doubt they would use many of them or that the military would be eager to use them.

But in the end, I doubt that even a state as disfunctional as Pakistan, with a relatively powerful engine of repression will fall into Islamist hands.

The problem is that the West has been largely ignoring the development of this, and in fact has been complicit in setting the stage (think British post-WW1 policies and the lack of US oil-conservation policy). Unless realistic solutions are discussed, inclunding nation-building as a joint effort, and money spent, probably on a large scale (between nuclear power, renewable power, and vegetable oil based diesal what would it cost the United States to achieve energy independence?) the trends will sadly continue.

The trend of decline in states in that region will continue, but as Iraq shows, any atempt at forcing change will only give the Islamists a chance to spread further.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


None of these regimes, faincg inherent and old anti-semitism, turned to pogroms and murderousness.

And in states in the West Jews faced every day anti-semitism, but without much state sponsorship, again going against Ned's dystopian view of Europe.

Poland didnt turn to pogroms. Its not 100% clear that was due to limits on antisemitism, or to a sense that dropping the rule of law would lead to anarchy that would endanger the Polish state and ruling class IE were the Nazis more antisemitic than (many)prewar eastern europeans, or just more radical, more lawless, more revolutionary? Or just less sane? Or just ahead of the curve - looking at the no way out dilemma of the Jews of Poland in 1939 (intolerable and unstable local situation, and places of emigration few and being closed) large scale pogroms (perhaps following the radicalization of the Jewish population) dont look that unlikely. Im not minimizing that the NAZIS were responsbible for the CRIMES OF THE NAZIS - a moral distinction it is VERY IMPORTANT to make - I just think to see the situation of the Jews of East Centeral Europe in the late '30s, at least of the Polish Jews, as much less than dystopic, is not quite accurate.

It was really very, very bad GePap. Very bad. That it was worse under the Nazis only shows how extreme their evil was.

[GePap]

I don't doubt that the conditions for Jews in Eastern Europe were bad- that the law was used to keep them down, specially in new and highly nationalistic states- that ebing said, the Polish regime, for all its cruelty, did NOT turn to pogroms as state policy. Yes, the nazi's were far more radical, and also far more efficient and powerful as well.

We are discussing here the nature of the anti-semitic propaganda feeding anti-semitism in Muslim countries- and what it might lead to.

The fact that as bad as things got, the Polish state did not carry out state sponsored violence against the Jews shows to me that widespread violence has be be either directed by the state of permitted by the state for it to take place. For all the encitement to violence you see in many Muslims states, the possiblity of anti-semitic violence is either not present (cause there are no jews there) or not appealing to the state for a variety of reasons.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
For all the encitement to violence you see in many Muslims states, the possiblity of anti-semitic violence is either not present (cause there are no jews there) or not appealing to the state for a variety of reasons.

well yes, the only muslim state where large scale antisemitic violence against local jews is possible is Iran, since thats the only muslim country that still has a significant Jewish population (About 20,000 left, I think down from 70,000 pre-1979). And in Iran AFAICT, the general population is less antisemitic than the state. And the state is restrained, given its geopolitical vulnerability. I mean to launch genocide against the jews of Iran would be suicidal, - the euros would not oppose Israeli and or US action in that case - and so is unlikely, if not impossible.

OTOH antisemitic propaganda in the muslim world is not used only against jews - its used to demonize Westerners, esp Americans, and also prowestern Muslims. Much as antisemitic propaganda was used in the early years of the centrury against Communists, socialists, and liberals. It is thus a larger problem, beyond the issue of the local Jewish populations. Its one of the things holding SOME muslims back. Though perhaps not so much Iranians - it seems to be more virulent among Sunni Arabs.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

OTOH antisemitic propaganda in the muslim world is not used only against jews - its used to demonize Westerners, esp Americans, and also prowestern Muslims. Much as antisemitic propaganda was used in the early years of the centrury against Communists, socialists, and liberals. It is thus a larger problem, beyond the issue of the local Jewish populations. Its one of the things holding SOME muslims back. Though perhaps not so much Iranians - it seems to be more virulent among Sunni Arabs.

Yes, Jews are the perfect targets for essentially xenophobic propaganda, even after they now do claim a homeland. And I agree that the main target of this propaganda is the "West" in general, the US in particular. The question is, are Muslims states undergoing the same situation as Europe a century ago, or is this something different?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
The spirit shown by the students illustrates why it might be difficult for Iraq to turn into a carbon copy of Iran.

Remember, Ned. The people of Iran chose this. They established a democracy when they overthrew the Shah, and then put the mullahs in power. There was a struggel between the urban and socialist factions in Iran, and the rural, reactionary, clericalists. The reactionaries won out, then slaughtered the opposition.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Yes, Jews are the perfect targets for essentially xenophobic propaganda, even after they now do claim a homeland. And I agree that the main target of this propaganda is the "West" in general, the US in particular. The question is, are Muslims states undergoing the same situation as Europe a century ago, or is this something different?

soemthing different, Id say. For example take a look at the word "xenophobic" = to a Pole of 1935 anyone who wasnt both an ethnic Pole, a Catholic, AND a citizen of the Polish state was a foreigner. To a Baathist sympathizing Iraqi Sunni Arab, a Syrian or Jordanian Arab isnt quite a foreigner, since their nationalism is largely arab nationalism - despite its (Now broken) linkage to the Iraqi state. To a follower AQ or other Salafist groups, NO sunni muslim is an outsider - look at how Pashtuns, Arabs, Chechens etc work together against the Pakistani Army and state in the NWFP back country. Yet the same people who welcome Arabs and Chechens and Uzbeks are exquisitely sensitive to the polluting presence of Americans, and to the, in their view, essentially "deracinated" Musharraf regime. Perv is polluted by the Americans, who are polluted by the Jews.

This means that in some senses this is a bigger phenomenon than prewar antisemitism (Nazis aside, and skirting the issue of actual harm to eastern euro Jews) since it doesnt just transform individual weak states, but is an international movement - OTOH its weaker, since the forces of local nationalism can be brought to bear against it (eg Afghan resentment against Arabs, etc) Of course this plays out differently in different places - for example in Pakistan theres the Pashtun vs Punjabi issue - in Iraq theres the broad question of whether Iraqi Shia Arabs are genuinely Iraqi nationalists, motivated against Wahabis AND Arab Nationalists, but capable of compromise for the sake of the nation - or are they just pursuing their own more parochial agenda.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Remember, Ned. The people of Iran chose this. They established a democracy when they overthrew the Shah, and then put the mullahs in power. There was a struggel between the urban and socialist factions in Iran, and the rural, reactionary, clericalists. The reactionaries won out, then slaughtered the opposition.

at most, the people of Iran in 1979 chose this. A huge % of the population wasnt alive then, in a fast growing pop like this. And Im not sure that the evolution of the regime in the revolutionary conditions of 1979 was entirely democractic - it was a disorderly process, driven by demagoguery, amidst the hostage crisis. It certainly wasnt a liberal democratic process.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GePap
or Peru, where the Tupac Amaru killed thousands mercilessly.

Small correction, you mean the Shining Path, not the Tupac Amaru. The PCP is excessively murderous. TA has always been small, and more urban based. Still, the Shining Path, as much as they might try, pales in comparison to the Peruvian government.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
at most, the people of Iran in 1979 chose this. A huge % of the population wasnt alive then, in a fast growing pop like this. And Im not sure that the evolution of the regime in the revolutionary conditions of 1979 was entirely democractic - it was a disorderly process, driven by demagoguery, amidst the hostage crisis. It certainly wasnt a liberal democratic process.

Critique accepted.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Yes, Jews are the perfect targets for essentially xenophobic propaganda, even after they now do claim a homeland.

IE Zionism didnt solve the Jewish problem - not the Jews' Jewish problem, and not the antisemites Jewish problems, but liberalisms (broadly speaking) Jewish problem, which was the ability of antiliberal forces to use antisemitism as a weapon against liberalism. Herzl certainly hoped that it would - while he was very motivated by his concern for the Jews, I think he also wanted to save liberalism from antisemitism.

1. It largely worked in central europe (though the Nazis were more responsible for the demographic changes there than the Zionists)
2. It is nonetheless possible to have antisemitism without Jews. Seems to work better in the muslim world though. How much this is due to the unresolved political conflict with Israel, and how much to problems within certain parts of the Islamic political world is a matter of dispute. However reading about the progress of Abbas and moderation in the Pal territories, and the continued virulence of antisemitic rhetoric in places like Pakistan, Malaysia, Nigeria, etc leads me to think its largely the latter.
3. SOME classical Zionists would say the Zionist answer hasnt been tried - IE to them the fulfillment of Zionism means ALL Jews living in Israel, and the end of the diaspora, not the existence of Israel AND the diaspora.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Critique accepted.

then i will accept your point - the regime DOES have domestic support, and expectations of a "cakewalk" should be treated skeptically.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


soemthing different, Id say. For example take a look at the word "xenophobic" = to a Pole of 1935 anyone who wasnt both an ethnic Pole, a Catholic, AND a citizen of the Polish state was a foreigner. To a Baathist sympathizing Iraqi Sunni Arab, a Syrian or Jordanian Arab isnt quite a foreigner, since their nationalism is largely arab nationalism - despite its (Now broken) linkage to the Iraqi state. To a follower AQ or other Salafist groups, NO sunni muslim is an outsider - look at how Pashtuns, Arabs, Chechens etc work together against the Pakistani Army and state in the NWFP back country. Yet the same people who welcome Arabs and Chechens and Uzbeks are exquisitely sensitive to the polluting presence of Americans, and to the, in their view, essentially "deracinated" Musharraf regime. Perv is polluted by the Americans, who are polluted by the Jews.

In the end thought, "America" is a proxy for Modernity, since this is really what at least the salafist and Wahabbi's battle. Baathist nationalists are not really an internationalist movement like the Salafi and Wahabbi, so i would not include them.

This means that in some senses this is a bigger phenomenon than prewar antisemitism (Nazis aside, and skirting the issue of actual harm to eastern euro Jews) since it doesnt just transform individual weak states, but is an international movement - OTOH its weaker, since the forces of local nationalism can be brought to bear against it (eg Afghan resentment against Arabs, etc) Of course this plays out differently in different places - for example in Pakistan theres the Pashtun vs Punjabi issue - in Iraq theres the broad question of whether Iraqi Shia Arabs are genuinely Iraqi nationalists, motivated against Wahabis AND Arab Nationalists, but capable of compromise for the sake of the nation - or are they just pursuing their own more parochial agenda.

The fact the movement is international is exactly what makes it weak. Nationalism always trumps everything else- the most successful Islamist movements are invariably also nationalistic to a large degree- the Iranian regime, Lebanese hizbullah, the Taliban. Its like the grave threat of International Communist revolution that was always touted before- in the end, local nationalist issues trump out. Politics are always local at the end.