posted
This article appeared in Hebrew a few days ago. The following is an English translation.
=====================================
Where is Everyone?
Ma’ariv (Monday, June 22, 09) by Ben Caspit and Ben-Dror Yemini (opinion)
Tell us, where is everyone? Where did all the people who demonstrated against Israel’s brutality in Operation Cast Lead, in the Second Lebanon War, in Operation Defensive Shield, or even in The Hague, when we were dragged there unwillingly after daring to build a separation barrier between us and the suicide bombers, disappear to? We see demonstrations here and there, but these are mainly Iranian exiles. Europe, in principle, is peaceful and calm. So is the United States. Here and there a few dozens, here and there a few hundreds. Have they evaporated because it is Tehran and not here?
All the peace-loving and justice-loving Europeans, British professors in search of freedom and equality, the friends filling the newspapers, magazines and various academic journals with various demands for boycotting Israel, defaming Zionism and blaming us and it for all the ills and woes of the world—could it be that they have taken a long summer vacation? Now of all times, when the Basij hooligans have begun to slaughter innocent civilians in the city squares of Tehran? Aren’t they connected to the Internet? Don’t they have YouTube? Has a terrible virus struck down their computer? Have their justice glands been removed in a complicated surgical procedure (to be re-implanted successfully for the next confrontation in Gaza)? How can it be that when a Jew kills a Muslim, the entire world boils, and when extremist Islam slaughters its citizens, whose sole sin is the aspiration to freedom, the world is silent?
Imagine that this were not happening now in Tehran, but rather here. Let’s say in Nablus. Spontaneous demonstrations of Palestinians turning into an ongoing bloodbath. Border Policemen armed with knives, on motorcycles, butchering demonstrators. A young woman downed by a sniper in midday, dying before the cameras. Actually, why imagine? We can just recall what happened with the child Mohammed a-Dura. How the affair (which was very harsh, admittedly) swept the world from one end to another. The fact that a later independent investigative report raised tough questions as to the identity of the weapon from which a-Dura was shot, did not make a difference to anyone. The Zionists were to blame, and that was that.
And where are the world’s leaders? Where is the wondrous rhetorical ability of Barack Obama? Where has his sublime vocabulary gone? Where is the desire, that is supposed to be built into all American presidents, to defend and act on behalf of freedom seekers around the globe? What is this stammering? A source who is connected to the Iranian and security situation, said yesterday that if Obama had shown on the Iranian matter a quarter of the determination with which he assaulted the settlements in the territories, everything would have looked different. “The demonstrators in Iran are desperate for help,” said the man, who served in very senior positions for many years, “they need to know that they have backing, that there is an entire world that supports them, but instead they see indifference. And this is happening at such a critical stage of this battle for the soul of Iran and the freedom of the Iranian people. It’s sad.”
Or the European Union, for example. The organization that speaks of justice and peace all year round. Why should its leaders not declare clearly that the world wants to see a democratic and free Iran, and support it unreservedly? Could it be that the tongue of too many Europeans is still connected to dark places? The pathetic excuse that such support would give Khamenei and Ahmadinejad an excuse to call the demonstrators “Western agents,” does not hold water. They call them “Western agents” in any case, so what difference does it make?
To think that just six months ago, when Europe was flooded with demonstrations against Israel, leftists and Islamists raised pictures of Nasrallah, the protégé of the ayatollah regime. The fact that this was a benighted regime did not trouble them. This is madness, but it is sinking in and influencing the weary West. If there is a truly free world here, let it appear immediately! And impose sanctions, for example, on those who slaughter the members of their own people. Just as it imposed them on North Korea, or on the military regime in Burma. It is only a question of will, not of ability.
Apparently, something happens to the global adherence to justice and equality, when it comes to Iran. The oppression is overt and known. The Internet era broadcasts everything live, and it is all for the better. Hooligans acting on behalf of the regime shoot and stab masses of demonstrators, who cry out for freedom. Is anything more needed? Apparently it is. Because it is to no avail. The West remains indifferent. Obama is polite. Why shouldn’t he be, after all, he aspires to a dialogue with the ayatollahs. And that is very fine and good, the problem is that at this stage there is no dialogue, but there is death and murder on the streets.
At this stage, one must forget the rules of etiquette for a moment. The voices being heard from Obama elicit concern that we are actually dealing with a new version of Chamberlain. Being conciliatory is a positive trait, particularly when it follows the clumsy bellicosity of George Bush, but when conciliation becomes blindness, we have a problem.
The courageous voice of Angela Merkel, who issued yesterday a firm statement of support for the Iranian people and its right to freedom, is in the meantime a lone voice in the Western wilderness. It is only a shame that she has not announced an economic boycott, in light of the fact that this is the European country that is most invested in building infrastructure in Iran. She was joined by British Foreign Secretary Miliband. It is little, it is late, it is not enough. Millions of freedom seekers have taken to the streets in Iran, and the West is straddling the fence, one leg here, the other leg there.
There is a different Islam. This is already clear today. Even in Iran. There are millions of Muslims who support freedom, human rights, equality for women. These millions loathe Khamenei, Chavez and Nasrallah too. But part of the global left wing prefers the ayatollah regime over them. The main thing is for them to raise flags against Israel and America. The question is why the democrats, the liberals, and Obama, Blair and Sarkozy, are continuing to sit on the fence. This is not a fence of separation, it is a fence of shame.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I'm entering into this thread against my better judgement, but I'm giving it a go after the "What's Wrong with Hatrack" thread and hoping for the best.)
To me, the Iranian situation is like a domestic dispute. My father was a police officer, and he said that no matter how violent a domestic dispute gets, they will almost invariably unify against a police officer who tries to intervene.
There is the difference between Israel/Palestine and Iran/Iran. When the west intervenes, Israel and Palestine don't unify against a common enemy. And when the west speaks out against Israel's actions, it doesn't feed into an Israeli propaganda machine already in place to rally the people against the west.
Plus, Israel is held to a higher standard, whether you feel that is fair or not.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On Fresh Air, they had an Iranian analyst who said that Ahmadinejad wants nothing more than for America and the West to put their fingers in. That will give him the opportunity to frame the protesters as being backed by the West, and will undermine his opposition.
So...according to at least one source, Obama is doing the right thing.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. Strong western support for the democratic movement in Iran would backfire (and the little that's been proffered already has, a bit). At the appearance of interference, both the population will become more likely to support those presenting strong opposition to western nations, and the real authorities (who are not currently in danger of being democratically elected, making framing this as a fight for real democracy not quite accurate) will stonewall even more than they have been. Take a look at the rhetoric in speeches by the leaders of Iran -- the situation is firmly blamed on the west. Anyone who thinks the west denouncing those leaders is going to help democracy in the region should consider adjusting his or her critical thinking cap.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh, but this article isn't about why we are not protesting the villainies of Iran. Its about how anyone dared to protest the violent tactics of Israel.
I guess that the final reason is one that Lisa can understand--pure pragmatism. We have no hope of changing the minds or plans of those in power in Iran. They are beyond calls to morality, justice, or good sense.
Many of the people and politicians of Israel are not beyond that call.
Although I would think Lisa's thread on Iran would not be a "Hey its unfair you pick on us not them." I thought it would be, "Hey, I've been telling you that all those Iranian backed terrorists in Palestine are violent genocidal monsters. What do you expect when their backers use it against their own people."
Kind of like Saddam Hussein, who was accused of using poison gas in the Iran/Iraq war was ignored until he proved his violence by using it against his own civilians, so the Iran ruling elite show their terrorist proclivities not with their sponsorship of suicide bombers in Tel-Aviv, but by shooting teens in Tehran.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my experience, it's never a good idea to assume what Lisa would say in any given situation, or to put words in her mouth.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Yes. Strong western support for the democratic movement in Iran would backfire (and the little that's been proffered already has, a bit)...
Indeed. As an example, last year, strong Western support for the "Free Tibet" movement last year essentially translated into a lot of backfiring.
quote: The Olympic Torch Tour As Public Relations Disaster
There is a public relations disaster, but the question is for whom?
On one hand, the pro-Tibet protestors have managed to turn the Olympic torch processions in London and Paris into huge publicity stunts. They have gathered global media coverage for their cause.
On the other hand, it would appear that the Chinese Communists have reaped a huge publicity bonanza from the same incidents. How so? For the Chinese Communists, the responses from western government, media and citizens are immaterial. If German Chancellor Merkel won't attend the Olympic opening ceremony, it only means tickets for some others who want to come. It won't impact their existence. The paramount goal of the Chinese Communists is to retain control of China, and therefore it is the response from the Chinese citizens that matter. Thanks to the protests, the Chinese Communists may have consolidated support by its citizens for years to come.
Specifically, you can read the story here of the Chinese paralympian fencer Jin Jing carrying the Olympic torch in Paris. The following includes the photos, the report in <Liberation Daily>, forum posts by eyewitnesses (including the photographer of that famous photo of the assault on Jin Jing) and western media reports. Millions of Chinese readers probably cried their hearts out after reading the stuff. And this public relations show was not even scripted by the Chinese Communists, who are unlikely to ever accomplish this level of success no matter how hard they try. Faced with the beautiful heroine with one leg, how is any liberal dissidence on behalf of a Free Tibet going to work inside China? This was a bonanza handed to the Chinese Communists by the pro-Tibet protestors.
As the Olympic torch tour progresses to the United States, Australia, South Korea, etc, the Chinese Communists are probably hoping that other protestors would make similar showings for their own causes (Xinjiang independence, FLG, vindication of June 4th, etc). That would guarantee that those causes will never become accepted into mainstream Chinese opinion for the next generation.
(Although in the case of the Free Tibet protesters, I suspect that the majority were good-hearted if misguided.
In the case of the Republican politicians agitating for loud blustering, I have to wonder if they *already* know they can't affect the situation positively and don't care. Perhaps they know that blustering will play well to their voters regardless of the actual results.)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: On Fresh Air, they had an Iranian analyst who said that Ahmadinejad wants nothing more than for America and the West to put their fingers in. That will give him the opportunity to frame the protesters as being backed by the West, and will undermine his opposition.
So...according to at least one source, Obama is doing the right thing.
According to every credible source I have heard. Neither side of the conflict in Iran sees the American government as the good guys. (It may be different for the American people in non official capacity.) We could only screw this up. The same is probably true for Great Britain. I don't know about Europe or Russia.
Besides, what could we really do? Threaten sanctions? We do not have a big stick, here. Or even a carrot.
Mucus:
quote: In the case of the Republican politicians agitating for loud blustering, I have to wonder if they *already* know they can't affect the situation positively and don't care. Perhaps they know that blustering will play well to their voters regardless of the actual results.)
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: In my experience, it's never a good idea to assume what Lisa would say in any given situation, or to put words in her mouth.
Anybody who just posts a potentially contentious article in the OP of a thread without offering their own take on it is essentially inviting it.
We call it arsefeedin', after "RSS feeding," disseminating articles without individual initial contribution.
The article is silly, too: "But part of the global left wing prefers the ayatollah regime over them." Sure, this means the author doesn't understand that Obama & Co is being pragmatic by not giving the ayatollah any ammunition to give their assertion of U.S. meddling any credibility. His every statement on the fact has been geared 100% towards that, with exacting nature.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That article is just plain wrong anyway, there have been thousands of people in cities across America protesting, mostly on the east and west coasts, and a bit here in Detroit.
But Europe had a massive demonstration the other day in Europe. Maybe they aren't setting things on fire, but people certainly aren't being quiet. I think we're at around the right balance of cautious silence so as not to upset the movement, and supportive protesting.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [qb] On Fresh Air, they had an Iranian analyst who said that Ahmadinejad wants nothing more than for America and the West to put their fingers in. That will give him the opportunity to frame the protesters as being backed by the West, and will undermine his opposition.
So...according to at least one source, Obama is doing the right thing.
According to every credible source I have heard. Neither side of the conflict in Iran sees the American government as the good guys. (It may be different for the American people in non official capacity.) We could only screw this up. The same is probably true for Great Britain. I don't know about Europe or Russia.
posted
Pretty much all the experts in Iranian policy have agreed that the strategy employed by Obama is the one that is maximally effectual in terms of providing support without sabotaging the Iranian protests by allowing the United States' to be Ahmadinejad's bogeyman again.
Merkel can act differently than Obama because the two countries have different relations vis a vis Iran.
The authors of that article seem obliquely incapable of understanding of that; in fact, the criticism is reliant on that ignorance.
The author(s) snipe "Where is the wondrous rhetorical ability of Barack Obama?" and they don't realize that the statement is ironic in the sense that his wondrous rhetorical ability is actually being used prominently and sagely, and in a manner which avoids the useless counterproductivity of the polemic that Caspit and Yemini would want of Obama.
I mean, there's no end to the points at which the article reveals how damn blind it is. Let's try this part on for size.
quote:How can it be that when a Jew kills a Muslim, the entire world boils, and when extremist Islam slaughters its citizens, whose sole sin is the aspiration to freedom, the world is silent?
With this part alone, they sound like incredibly ignorant dolts. Sure, "the whole world is silent." By golly, that's sure what's going on here. This hasn't been riveting news for weeks now. It hasn't been the most talked-about subject online. People aren't outpouring sympathy and watching the Nida video and being more involved in protest against the Iranian regime than ever in my lifetime.
This article is unwitting satire from a couple of horseblinded reactionaries. Seriously.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
