Iran 271

Is dit de waarheid? 

Palestine Think Tank

---

spinning reality around the Iranian elections Posted: 14 Jun 2009 04:26 AM PDT WRITTEN BY MASSOUD NAYERI (art by Reza Abedini)I'm writing this to my friends who don't challenge my intention on speaking the truth. I'm not a fan nor a follower of Mr. Ahamdinejad, I'm just an independent Iranian thinker who loves both countries Iran and the U.S.   The election in Iran more than anything else was a PRACTICE in democracy by millions upon millions of Iranian people who were determined to take a part in their future. More than 80% of eligible Iranian voters participated in this election. That by itself is a unique and unprecedented phenomenon. This means that the idea of democracy which started in the West, specifically in the European countries almost 400 years ago, now is playing out on the streets of Tehran and Beirut. So far we see nothing wrong with that.   Just  24 hours ago, we witnessed an election in Iran that the principle idea (as I've mentioned) goes back to almost 400 years. In this election, the youth, women and intellectuals in Tehran - the capital - supported Mr. Mousavi the ex-prime minister and a painter. The working people voted for Mr. Ahmadinejad, the current President of Iran. The official result was roughly  60% for Mr. Ahamadinejad with 30% for Mr. Mousavi.   There were more than ten thousand election observers from all parties - both national and international - in this election, so any irregularity would have been obvious and would have been announced and pronounced immediately. But the dispute by Mr. Mousavi ends up in a very limited area in Tehran's streets (the capital) through a physical demonstration.      Although I support the Iranian youth and women's aspiration in Tehran, to me the question boils down to which side to take between INDEPENDENCE or FAKE DEMOCRACY. I, myself, always chose independence.   Below I'm attaching headlines of the major media and how they are spinning the reality:   The Christian Science Monitor: In Iran, first results give Ahmadinejad commanding lead His challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is claiming irregularities. Police moved quickly to quell small protests   CNN: Iran election protests turn violent Financial Times: Ahmadi-Nejad win sparks violent clashes Moussavi alleges fraud in Iran’s election Associated Press: World reacts cautiously to Iranian's re-election The New York Times: Ahmadinejad Re-Elected; Protests Flare   The Village Voice: Iran Election: Everybody Wins!   The Washington Post: Ahmadinejad Declared Winner in Disputed,  Vote Violence erupts as challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi The Times:  Protests Greet Ahmadinejad Win in Iran: 'It's Not Possible!'   The Wall Street Journal: Violent Protests Follow Iran Vote The Nation: Iran's Ex-Foreign Minister Yazdi: It's A Coup

Gate 48

http://www.gate48.org/

After Life in Fragments

Second meeting with Lymor Goldstein & Ashraf Abu Rahme about activism and solidarity.

To all the people who could not come yesterday and especially for the ones who could not enter De Balie anymore.

Please come

tonight, starting at 18.30, at Pretoriusstraat 43 in Amsterdam, followed by a benefit meal.

Ferry Biedermann van de Volkskrant

'Minder correspondenten bij de Volkskrant

31 March 2009 14:11

Pieter Broertjes

De Volkskrant moet bezuinigen en neemt daarom afscheid van enkele correspondenten. Deze zomer vertrekt Midden-Oosten-correspondent Ferry Biedermann en zijn Latijns-Amerika-collega Cees Zoon raakt vanaf begin volgend jaar zijn contract kwijt. “We moeten overwinteren”, zegt hoofdredacteur Pieter Broertjes tegen De Journalist.'

Is dit een probleem? Nee, geenszins. Uit ervaring weet ik dat de meeste Nederlandse correspondenten doorgaans niet verder komen dan de hoofdstad van het land waar ze gestationeerd zijn en hun informatie van persbureaus betrekken, net als de redacties in Nederland. Daar komt nog iets bij. Ferry Biedermann bijvoorbeeld is vooral bekend vanwege zijn tendentieuze pro-Israel verslaggeving. Dat leidde tot absurde artikelen. Net zo absurd als het feit dat vandaag de Volkskrant over de volle breedte opent met een artikel van de pro-Israel Biedermann over de actuele gebeurtenissen in Iran. En van waaruit schrijft Biedermann dit? Vanuit Beiroet, op duizenden kilometers afstand. Hoe weet Biedermann nu wat er precies gebeurt in Iran, dat zoals bekend groter is dan Teheran? Welnu, de Volkskrant-correspondent die er deze zomer uitvliegt leest wat de persbureau's te melden hebben, verzwijgt wat hem niet uitkomt en meldt wat alle anderen al hebben gemeld. Dat is geen journalistiek, maar overschrijven. Dat Biedermann de berichtgeving mag doen is een politieke keuze, want hij weet er net zoveel van als de meeste anderen die kranten lezen. Waarom dan Biedermann? Als pro-Israel berichtgever is hij voor de Volkskrant betrouwbaar, een andere reden is er niet. 

Wat gebeurt er dan precies in Iran? Dat weten we op dit moment niet. Ik bedoel dit, wat de mensen uit Noord-Teheran willen, de plaats waar de rijken en de middenklasse wonen, weten we nu wel. We zijn daarover de laatste dagen voldoende ingelicht. Maar wat willen de mensen in Zuid Teheran, in de sloppenwijken waar de miljoenen armen wonen, de mensen die niet geprofiteerd hebben van het corrupte regime onder de Sjah en vervolgens onder de even corrupte ayatollahs? Wat willen de boeren en de arbeiders? We weten het niet, omdat onze correspondenten doorgaans elkaars meningen overschrijven en nauwelijks of niet buiten het Teheran van de middenklasse komen. Iran is een groot land, 48 keer groter dan Nederland. Teheran is belangrijk en kan doorslaggevend zijn zodra de armen zich aansluiten bij de middenklasse en zich tegen het huidige regime keren. Maar dat weten we niet en juist dat zouden de  correpondenten ons nu moeten melden. Maar dat kan natuurlijk nooit wanneer je correspondent duizenden kilometers van het gebied afzit. We zullen Biedermann in de toekomst geenszins missen. Overschijven en propaganda maken kan iedereen.

De Israelische Terreur 879

Israeli Spy Case

Sentence Reduced for Pentagon Analyst Who Leaked to AIPAC Officials

By JTA

June 12, 2009 -- -WASHINGTON (JTA) -- A former Pentagon analyst who pled guilty to passing secret information to two former AIPAC staffers had his sentence drastically reduced.

Larry Franklin was sentenced to probation and 10 months of "community confinement," or a halfway house, along with 100 hours of community service. In 2005, he had received a sentence of 12 and 1/2 years in prison but was free pending his cooperation with prosecutors in the case against the two formers AIPAC staffers, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman.

The charges against those two men for passing classified information were dropped by federal prosecutors last month who said that restrictions the judge had placed on the case made the government unlikely to prevail.

In a Thursday afternoon hearing in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., prosecutors asked Judge T.S. Ellis to reduce Franklin's sentence to eight years, saying he played an important role in the case but was "not what you'd call an ideal cooperator." Franklin attorney Plato Cacheris said Franklin had "paid his penalty and suffered greatly," and should not have to serve any time in prison.

Ellis said he didn't have an opinion on the dismissal of the case against Rosen and Weissman, but the fact that the case was dropped was a "significant" factor in the sentencing of Franklin. Ellis also noted in Franklin's defense that other leakers of government secrets in recent years have not been prosecuted. On the other hand, he noted that "this case is different from Rosen and Weissman because Mr. Franklin is a goverment official." For that reason, Ellis said Franklin's community service should consist of speaking to young people about the importance of public officials obeying the law, he said.

Franklin has said he leaked information to the former AIPAC staffers, as well as an Israeli diplomat, because of "frustration with policy" on Iran at the Pentagon. He believed that they would be able to relay that information on Iran to friends on the U.S. National Security Council.  

Click on "comments" below to read or post comments

  Comments (26) Comment (0) 

Zie:  http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22822.htm

Obama 106

Palestine Think Tank

---

• Joyce Chedia - On Obama's speech in Cairo
• Ronnie Kasrils - The Other Apartheid State
• The Palestinian Cause in 2 Minutes
• cartoon of the day

Joyce Chedia - On Obama's speech in Cairo Posted: 13 Jun 2009 12:52 PM PDT On June 4 U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama gave a much-heralded speech addressed to the Muslim world in Cairo, Egypt. The commentary below is based on a comment Chediac, a Lebanese-American, made at a June 5 Workers World Forum in New York City. Obama made a speech. It was called “bold” and “tough on Israel” because it called for no new Israeli settlements in the West Bank. But Israel does not have to start new settlements to continue the strangulation of the West Bank. It merely has to expand the huge high-rise settlements ringing East Jerusalem, which have virtually sealed off the West Bank. And many of these are not even considered settlements anymore, so their expansion is not even monitored. Obama made a speech. It was hailed as “evenhanded” because for the first time a U.S. president mentioned the word “Palestine,” and said Palestinians have a right to a state. But he called on Palestinians defending their right to a state, and on Hamas by name, to “renounce violence” while never calling on Israelis to renounce violence and the more than 60 years of state terrorism Israel has perpetrated against the Palestinian people, made possible with U.S. aid and U.S. weapons. Obama made a speech, which will surely lead to another round of peace talks. Since talks began in 2000, they have been used by Israel not to bring peace, but as a cover for unprecedented violence against the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza. In the name of peace Israel has been building the apartheid wall, riddled the West Bank with checkpoints, demolished homes and stolen land, tortured and arrested youth so that the West Bank is now one big jail. Meanwhile, Gaza is under siege. The time for such talks is long past. Action is needed to give the Palestinians some relief. But Obama did not take action. He did not demand disassembling the apartheid wall on the West Bank. He did not demand lifting the siege of Gaza, where 10 percent of Gaza’s children are now growth-stunted from the long-term effects of malnutrition. Instead, Obama made a speech. Obama made a speech that was much heralded in the U.S. media, but U.S. troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and U.S. drone planes are still bombing Pakistani villages. Obama made a speech, but the Sixth Fleet is still in the Mediterranean Sea; U.S. bases are still in Egypt, Israel, the Gulf States and the Indian Ocean. U.S. bases in Europe are still within striking distance of the Middle East. Obama made a speech but the U.S. Navy still has a huge nuclear-armed armada in the Persian Gulf, with guns aimed at Iran. It is well known that the U.S. military threatens the Middle East in order to keep Middle Eastern oil in Wall Street’s hands. Yet Obama’s speech, which was called “insightful,” never once mentioned “oil.” Obama made a speech in Cairo, the largest city in Africa. In order for Obama to make his speech there, the largest security force in the history of Egypt was assembled. The people of Cairo were confined to their homes and told to keep their windows shuttered. In order for Obama to make his speech, a city of 7.5 million was put on lockdown. Obama said, “No government should be imposed by one nation on another,” and praised democracy. Yet Obama pointedly criticized Hamas, voted into office in a Palestinian election which Jimmy Carter and other observers called one the best examples of participatory democracy in the world. But Obama had no words of criticism for U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s head of state, who severely represses all political opposition, and is about to run in an election where he will once again be virtually unopposed. Obama spoke in Egypt, the second largest recipient of U.S. aid. But Obama did not address the plight of the Egyptian people who, despite this influx of aid, have been steadily impoverished since their government came into the U.S. orbit. Today, 70 percent of the Egyptian diet is bread. Over a million people live in Cairo’s cemeteries because there is no housing. Two years ago, one in five Egyptians couldn’t meet their basic living needs (Reuters, Oct. 17). Conditions now are surely worse as millions of Egyptians who worked abroad and sent money to families at home have lost their jobs due to the worldwide economic crisis begun on Wall Street. Obama certainly did not say that Egypt’s relationship with the U.S. has brought its people only poverty and desperation. Obama made a speech. But nothing changed. The fundamental relationship between the U.S. government and the Muslim and other people of that region remains one of exploiter and exploited. Despite Obama’s speech, U.S. imperialism still has nothing to offer working people in the Middle East, and only seeks to take more from them. It is truer today than ever that any gains made by Muslim and other oppressed peoples are won by their own independent struggles, and the solidarity they win from progressives abroad.

Zie:  http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/06/13/joyce-chedia-on-obamas-speech-in-cairo/

De Israelische Terreur 878

Israeli Premier Netanyahu’s media manipulations

By Neve Gordon

13 June 2009

Neve Gordon shows how the Israeli government, with the collusion of the media, is manipulating the false spectre of civil war with the Jewish settlers in order to fend off US pressure to freeze settlement activity.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is beginning to sweat.

Notwithstanding the agreement between President Barack Obama and Netanyahu on issues such as the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and the insistence that the Palestinians renounce violence, there are currently points of serious contention between the two leaders. These include Obama’s position that the two-state solution is the only way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, his demand that Israel stop building settlements and his intimation that all the settlements are illegal. Other points of strife include Obama’s call for regional nuclear non-proliferation (which, in effect, assumes that Israel’s nuclear capacity will be part of the negotiations with Iran), his recognition of the plight of Palestinians, including the refugees, and his claim that Hamas is a legitimate rather than a terrorist organization.

 

So far Obama’s challenges to Israel have been theoretical, and the only substantive demand that Washington has made involves the 100 or so Jewish outposts in the West Bank. Reiterating President Bush’s directive, Obama recently asked Netanyahu to begin dismantling the outposts.

 

Legally, the outposts are just like the 121 settlements (namely, they are all illegal), only the outposts were built following the 1993 Oslo accords, and, as opposed to the settlements, which are now home to close to half a million Jews, or about 7 per cent of Israel’s citizenry, almost all the outposts are extremely sparsely populated with less than a dozen people in each one.

 

Netanyahu did not refuse, but instead of carrying out the job, he decided to put on a show.

 

Last week, the government sent troops to dismantle two outposts. The television networks were invited to cover the event, and that evening viewers watched how a group of settlers struggled against the most powerful military in the Middle East. Within hours of the news broadcasts, the settlers had already rebuilt the outposts, and thus today we are, once again, back to square one.

 

The perceptive viewer understands that the government and the settlers are staging the events, using the media to broadcast them to the world. The images of lawless fundamentalists fighting the military convey a clear message to the audience at home: if Netanyahu dares to dismantle the outposts, the settlers will not only topple his government, but there will be blood. More specifically, the not-so-latent inference is that if Netanyahu goes ahead with Washington’s directive, he will be responsible for a civil war.

 

While all of the major news networks provided a similar narrative, Channel 2, the most popular news provider, dedicated 14 minutes of prime time to the issue. In the segment, a reporter is shown interviewing a Jewish settler named Araleh from Karnei Shomron in the West Bank about the dismantlement of Jewish outposts. The two men are standing on a mountain ridge overlooking Palestinian fields that had been set on fire. The settler asserts: “This is the price tag... People need to know that if they dismantle anything in Judea and Samaria, there is a price.” He then looks at the horizon and asks: “Do you see all these mountains?” and immediately responds, “they are all ours.” When the reporter inquires what the settlers will do if a nearby outpost is dismantled, Araleh exclaims that they (the government) will not destroy it, and then adds “they might destroy a little shack in the outpost to send pictures to the nigger in the United States”.

 

The crux of the matter is that this pathetic racist settler is right: the images of troops dismantling a few outposts and the forceful resistance are all part of a well choreographed spectacle that is being produced specifically for Washington. Otherwise why remove only two outposts at a time instead of 40 at once and getting the job done? And why invite the networks to cover the events and not to dismantle the outposts by surprise in the early morning hours when the settlers are not ready?

 

The answer is straightforward: Netanyahu wants Obama to think that Israel will end up in a civil war if the White House stands firm.

 

The question now is whether Obama will back off or whether he will he have the courage to make Netanyahu dismantle both the outposts and the settlements. If Obama hesitates, Israel will become a full blown apartheid state, while if he remains bold he will probably be remembered as the president who helped save Israel from itself. To do so he will have to make Netanyahu sweat much more.

Neve Gordon teaches politics at Ben-Gurion University and is the author of Israel’s Occupation (University of California Press, 2008). Visit his homepage at www.israelsoccupation.info.

A version of this article originally appeared in the The Nation. It is published here by permission of Neve Gordon.

Zie: http://www.redress.cc/palestine/ngordon20090613

Iran 270

Jeremy Ben-Ami, the Executive Director of J Street (the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement), and I have an op-ed in the Huffington Post about how deadlines and new sanctions on Iran will undermine Obama’s strategy of diplomacy and engagement. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-benami/how-diplomacy-with-iran-c_b_214407.html

 

Also, if you want an update on how some lawmakers apparently sought to aid Ahmadinejad’s reelection campaign by slipping in new sanctions legislation into the Congressional agenda this week, you can read about it here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trita-parsi/congress-ahmadinejad-secr_b_214388.html

 

Sincerely,

Trita Parsi, PhD

www.niacouncil.org

www.tritaparsi.com   

www.treacherousalliance.com

 

 

************************************

Why Deadlines and Sanctions Undermine Obama with Iran

By Jeremy Ben-Ami and Trita Parsi

June 11, 2009

The Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-benami/how-diplomacy-with-iran-c_b_214407.html

 

As Iranians go to cast their ballots in Friday's elections, it is much more than just Iran's future that is at stake. The White House is closely following the elections, as is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli Prime Minister may be watching Washington's reaction to the results more than the results themselves since his meeting with President Barack Obama last month confirmed that they are likely to bring different approaches to the critical problems facing the Middle East. While the President will base his Middle East policy on diplomacy to resolve conflicts, particularly with Iran, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be pressing for tight timelines on diplomacy and for tough action sooner rather than later.

 

The President would be well advised to pursue his chosen strategy with the intent to succeed -- not fail -- and the most critical factor will be time. There are those urging hard and fast deadlines on the President for diplomacy with Iran -- both here and in Israel -- who do not aim to see diplomacy succeed but to use its failure to justify harsher measures.

 

One cannot help but be reminded of recent examples when a failure to provide adequate time damaged U.S. policy in the Middle East. In the rush to war in Iraq in 2002, despite pleas from UN inspectors to give weapons inspections time to prove they were in fact working, President Bush called for the removal of international inspectors to make way for "shock and awe." Allowing time for the non-military option to work could have saved tens of thousands of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars and the international reputation of the United States.

 

Similarly, the lack of adequate time to prepare and pursue diplomacy was one reason why President Clinton's push for Israeli-Palestinian peace failed under tight time constraints at the end of his term.

 

History argues strongly for President Obama to resist pressure to set arbitrary deadlines for diplomacy with Iran - as he did again on Monday. While we agree with the President that talks cannot be open-ended, the focus should be on how to make diplomacy succeed rather than debating when to declare it a failure. Successful diplomacy will require international cooperation -- with Israel and with other actors -- and an exquisite sense of timing as to when to push, when to listen and when to wait.

 

Failure to give diplomacy the attention and time it needs could have dire consequences for key U.S. interests: the stability of Iraq and Afghanistan, the global nonproliferation regime, and the prospects for peace between Israel and its neighbors. That is why the administration's diplomatic approach towards Iran must be designed to ensure success, not just to position us for other steps after an eventual break-down.

 

Similarly, efforts to impose new sanctions on Iran even before diplomacy has begun will only undermine President Obama's agenda in the Middle East. Sanctions can play a role in our approach to Iran, but they should not be permitted to interfere with and complicate the diplomatic path President Obama has set forth. We applaud the clear message sent by Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman when he promised not to move new sanctions legislation through the House in the near future.

 

Just as no President would take America to war without being fully committed to leading the country to victory, neither should diplomacy be embarked on without America's complete commitment to that strategy.

Diplomacy with Iran will not be easy, but it is necessary. Iran rests at the nexus of many of the complex problems facing the Middle East and American interests there. The various conflicts in the Middle East cannot be compartmentalized. Each affects the other, and, as President Obama has recognized, a comprehensive solution is needed.

 

With so much riding on this difficult challenge, America must realize that missing the opportunity to find a diplomatic solution is not an option. The elections result may help pave the way. Fortunately, even if the election results are not to Washington's liking, there is nothing about the challenge posed by Iran that should preclude a diplomatic solution. The trick, we must realize, will be to avoid setting up roadblocks to our own success.

 

Jeremy Ben-Ami is the Executive Director of J Street. Trita Parsi is president and co- founder of the National Iranian American Council and author of "Treacherous Alliances: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States."

 

Luister hier naar een interview met Trita Parsi: http://www.stanvanhoucke.net/audioblog/pivot/entry.php?id=43#body