Zcom_simple

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

Miss_s_clause

Tali Shapiro's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/Tali
Bio: Activist reporting from the privaleged side of the apartheid. (More)

All Shapiro Blogs

Bad Politics - Attacking Iran

By Tali Shapiro at Apr 18, 2009


Change Text Size a- | A+

It started out small. Netanyahu was running for prime minister and making detached comments about Iran being a threat to Israel's security. Here and there a hysterical article, assessing Iran's proximity to achieving nuclear weapon's manufacturing, popped up. It isn't official yet , but the heavy war mongering and fear instilling has began in the Israeli mainstream media. Going for the "surrounded by enemies" rhetoric, the rickety relations with Egypt has been in the headlines as well, and Lebanon is getting some extra attention with espionage charges.

Here are today's titles on the front page of the Ha'aretz website, keeping the Israeli mind in fear for its security and the feeling of chaos:

No reason to meet pathological Holocaust denier    
Israeli officials slam Swiss President Hans Rudolf Merz over planned meet with Iran's Ahmadinejad.


Report: Hezbollah cell in Egypt planned to recruit Israeli Arabs      
Asharq al-Awsat: Group wanted to recruit Israeli Arabs to smuggle explosives, perpetrate attacks.

Egypt state daily: Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah tried to overthrow Mubarak      
Lengthy piece in Al-Ahram accuses the three of cooperating to destabilize the Egyptian regime.

ANALYSIS / Hezbollah and Iran have become Egyptian targets      
Egypt's discovery of active Hezbollah cell on its soil is reverberating beyond the Arab world.

'IDF eyes attack on Iran within hours of green light'      
Top Israeli defense official tells London Times 'message to Iran is that the threat is not just words.'

Yossi Melman: I would advise Netanyahu to attack Iran

Hamas: We will never recognize the enemy in any way

Egypt uncovers 5 smuggling tunnels near Gaza border

Hamas praises driver who hit 2 Israeli policemen in West Bank 

Clinton 'deeply disappointed' with Iran sentencing of U.S. reporter 

Report: Israeli spy ring in Lebanon infiltrated Hezbollah

Are you scared yet?


Who Started it?
After four months of "climbing anti-semitism rates around the world", the threat of Iran is now splashed all over the papers. Even Times Online ran with this sickening piece, detailing the technical obstacles in attacking Iran, and praising Israel's ability to achieve it. The formal stance, however, is that of president Shimon Peres' regular peace-faker rhetoric, this time directed at U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell (Ha'aretz):

"All the talk about a possible attack by Israel on Iran is not true... The solution in Iran is not military."

After all, Mr. Peres is a laureate of a formidable peace prize, he couldn't be lying. Why would all this idle talk of attacking Iran take place then? Could it be because Israeli leaders- including Peres himself- have been threatening Iran continuously, in the media? (Ha'aretz):

""We'll strike him," Peres said in the interview."

Meanwhile, Iran is making responsible moves as part of the international community. Iran's UN ambassador wrote a letter asking for a firm response by the UN, stating Israel is violating UN charter, with it's threats of attack. That would be Article 39, he was referring to:

"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security." 



Lost in Translation
In his infamous speech, at the World Without Zionism conference, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the controversial words:

"...the occupying regime must be wiped off the map..."

There's actually a whole debate over the translation of Ahmadinejad's words, and apparently a more accurate translation would be either "this regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from] the page of time", or alternately "be eliminated from the pages of history".

Granted- at face value- this doesn't sound good. But as an Israeli, who's government does, in fact, employ an occupying regime, I'd like to take a deep look into Ahmadinejad's words and try to understand what Iran's official stance is and what its motives are. After all, if all of us, Israelis, would have been half as responsible about our information, there wouldn't be an occupation, in the first place.

Let's start with the obvious; If this was 1945 and someone would have said "the Nazi regime must be wiped off the map" no one would have been too shocked and no one would have thought this meant that Germany itself should be wiped off the map. I know many people resent the comparison between Nazis and Israel, but the rhetoric prevalent in Israel and the testimonies (readily available on the internet including on Znet), leaves me very firm with a belief that the boot fits and we should wear it.

This is the stance the Iranian government asserted, when addressing the European Parliament on the issue:

"This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned... How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime"

Ahmadinejad has also explained his statements on several different occasions:

"There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want." [a later news conference on January 14, 2006]
"... no need for any measures by the Iranian people... I assure you... there won't be any war in the future..." [D-8 summit meeting in July 2008]

My understanding of the speech is taken from only one Wikipedia page, but seeing as I'm exposed to Israeli hysterics all day long, I think this page, which seems to point to Ahmadinejad's exoneration, balances that out. (If anyone feels like further balancing me, I'm game.) In any case, it's a fascinating in depth analysis of the Iranian stance towards Israel and I recommend you take a look, before the next up and coming war in the Middle East.

On a personal note, I think this was bad politics on Ahmadinejad's part. I understand the need for strong speech, regarding Israel's murderous policies in the occupied territories. I try to practice it myself, as I see these policies as inexcusable and condemnable. However, I'm sure Mr. President knows exactly how vulnerable his country is, right now, and making statements that could be so easily misconstrued, is irresponsible towards his people. If Israel attacks, it's not much of a gamble, who's side the US will be on. There have been enough destroyed and demonized countries in the Middle East.

 

Person

Re: Bad Politics - Attacking Iran

By Rendon, G.l. at Apr 20, 2009 06:54 AM

I agree with John that an attack would be unlikely scenario, especially considering the effect of raising gas prices in the current economy.  However, maybe a surgical strike on an Iranian facility, much like the strike on Iraq by Israel years ago, wouldn't be seen as out of the question.  Both the US and Israeli leaders have talked up stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities so much there is a small, scared part of me that believes something can and would be done if Iran doesn't steer away from the nuclear program.

  As far as what Ahmadinejad has said and guarding his tongue... I honestly believe that any real critique of the US or Israel with be viewed by the west as crazy demagoguery, and there's been nothing the Iran has done and can do since the Islamic Revolution that can get them off the "Axis of Evil".  Abu Mazen wrote his doctoral thesis on, well, basically Holocaust denying, Saudi princes have said similar things, but they're still on, as Norman Finklestein would say, the "good holocaust denier" list, because they play ball with us. That said, maybe the next Iranian president will have more luck and Obama will be a bit more diplomatic.

  Also, remembering the six day war....it's quite possible Israel can attack without any support, morally or otherwise, from the US.  We were quite close to having World War 3 during that war, with the Soviet Union almost being forced to go in to defend their men in Syria and Egypt and the US knowing if that happened they'd have to go in to defend Israel.  Maybe Obama will take a harder line on Israel....or at least make the Israelis nervous enough to not believe they'd have unlimited support, which, I'm assuming, is why they conveniently "stopped" Cast Lead right before Obama's inauguration.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Miss_s_clause

Re:

By Shapiro, Tali at Apr 21, 2009 09:14 AM

Obama got some points here for the Durban ban, although he makes the Zionists nervous, without a doubt. Just for reference, Bush was hailed as “not such a bad president”, and generally treated by the media with a kind glee (kind of like a loving parent with a slow child). Oh yeah, and everyone agreed he had a good sense of humor. It doesn’t seem that there’s really a “change” (word so over used, it feels ironic just saying it) in policy- just a lot of talk of change. Of course none of the Obama atrocities are ever reported here, so you get analysis that is completely irrelevant to reality.

Reply this comment


685347

Re: Bad Politics - Attacking Iran

By Petersen, Leif at Apr 19, 2009 12:14 PM

Hi all,

Here's another article, analyzing the timeline, and the possiblity that Israel and USA will strike a dirty deal. The latter seems a stupid theori to me, certainly Obama would be a fool to enter such a deal, especially considering John's excellent arguments below.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1079197.html

 

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Miss_s_clause

Re:

By Shapiro, Tali at Apr 19, 2009 17:05 PM

Thanks Leif,
A perfect example of the disgusting Israeli mentality: The 5 year old dying to do something mischievous and just waiting for daddy’s OK. A good journalist would have mentioned the over-200 warheads in Israel’s possession and the environmental damage a “demonstration” makes.

Obama has already made a myriad of questionable/criminal choices and continues to astonish moderate leftists, every day. Even though John made reasonable, rational points, it’s hard to tell whether the Obama administration sees these points at all.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Img_9835

The final world war?

By Andrews, John at Apr 20, 2009 01:40 AM

Hi Tali & Leif

Methinks it may be 'all our asses' as I do not believe it would remain a regional conflict. The Russians and Chinese are heavily involved in Iran. It is not inconceivable that an Israeli attack on Iran could spark the next world war.

Good news for the End of Days fanatics but not so good for the rest of us.

Sorry to be so pessimistic on a Monday morning!

Best wishes

John Andrews

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Miss_s_clause

Re: The final world war?

By Shapiro, Tali at Apr 21, 2009 09:04 AM

John, Israelis start their work week on Sunday (the better to accomplish more destruction, deary), so I’m all pumped for some midweek pessimism ;)
Thanks for the articles. A few comments on that:
Doesn’t the environmental implication bother any of these journalists?!
I wish I had a link (and a dime) for every time they say “analysts say”.
I’m not willing to even entertain anything by an Israeli “anti-terrorism-institute”- it screams bias. (I DID entertain the first paragraph and it did nothing by way of entertaining me back.)
Generally it seems like China is jumping on the capitalist-imperialism band wagon.
 

Reply this comment


685347

Re: The final world war?

By Petersen, Leif at Apr 20, 2009 02:25 AM

John, you make my hair stand on end.

Unfortunately I think you make sense. The American Empire is overstretched and uncautious, due to it's perceived impunity and invincibility. The Greeks called it hubris....

A serious misstep has been Georgia, where the U.S. has tried to create an open wound on the Russian border. Curiously Israel is also involved there, I wonder if they want Georgia to become "Israel 2" or something like that?

No doubt the West is playing with fire.

Do you have some articles about Russian and Chinese interests/ties with Iran?

 

 

Reply this comment


685347

Re:

By Petersen, Leif at Apr 19, 2009 12:40 PM

Concerning Ahmadinejad.

There will be Iranian presidential election June 12th, and what I hear is that he is not certain to win.

If he's replaced with someone who guards his tongue better, it should help Iran diplomatically, because Ahmadinejads controversial statements are being exploited endlessly by the West.

Maybe Israel is in a hurry to attack before he goes away?

Reply this comment


Img_9835

Hopefully, it won't happen

By Andrews, John at Apr 19, 2009 09:32 AM

Hi Tali

Despite the rhetoric, I am hopeful / reasonably confident that the US will not allow an Israeli attack at the present moment. I do not say this because I believe that there is any goodness in the US administration; far from it, but there are too many good reasons not to:

  • Price of oil would go sky high and the US cannot afford that now.
  • Iran is not Iraq and is more than capable of fighting back. Iraq had been destroyed by the first Gulf War and was further crippled by over ten years of devastating sanctions. Iraq was defenceless when US / UK attacked it. Iran does not have the nuclear arsenal that Israel has but it has more than enough military hardware and people under arms to do serious damage to Israel if it is attacked.
  • Iran holds the key to stability in Iraq. As devastated as Iraq is, it could get far worse and would if Iran wanted it so. The US still has very substantial troop numbers in Iraq and the weekly / monthly death toll of US service personnel is probably seen as tolerable by the US administration. Anyone who thinks that the 'Awakening Movement' in Iraq changed sides due to ideology probable still believes in Father Christmas. The 'Awakening Movement' changed sides for two reasons: the US paid them to do so and, more importantly, Iran instructed them to do so. They would change sides again tomorrow if Iran instructed them to. Then Irag would return to the darkest days of 2005 and the US body count would go 'unacceptably high' again.

For these reasons, I believe the US will keep Israel on its leash. I hope I am not wrong (I frequently am!).

Best wishes

John Andrews

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Miss_s_clause

Re: Hopefully, it won't happen

By Shapiro, Tali at Apr 19, 2009 10:18 AM

Hey John :)

I hope you're right, too. We saw this in the onslaught on Gaza, when out of the blue, Olmert asks permission to bomb Iran and was denied. But at this point I'm worried about Israel being stupid enough to do it anyway. It's all an unlikely scheme, with Netanyahu, who seems to rely on the US, but Lieberman seems to think bulling through a china shop is a good strategy to conduct international relations. If it does happen and say the US unprecedentedly decides to wash its hands of us- that's MY ass. Can’t blame a girl for fearing for her life...

Reply this comment

Loading_border