Magid Shihade June 20th, 2009
A Pakistani blogger claims that some Israeli “activists” have been participating in the Twitter messaging campaign during the elections and events afterward in Iran. Whether that is the case is to be verified later. What we can verify is that the U.S. government requested from Twitter to postpone their scheduled maintenance of the site so that those who are using it in the election campaign in Iran continue to do so (as reported in many U.S. media outlets including CNN). On a side note, it is not strange that the oil prices remained the same, and even went down (aljazeera, 6/22/09) despite the “insecurity, and chaos” in Iran? Whenever there is a need to make Americans feel afraid of change in some places and see a place, leader, or an event as threatening …prices of oil go up under the rubrics of ‘the government has nothing to do with oil prices, it is companies who assess risks and conflicts that make these decisions. How come the possibility of overthrow of a regime in the oil rich country of Iran is not seen as a threat, risk…etc.? Is the message to the public here: “no worry, the change and havoc in Iran won’t make you pay more for gas, it might be even cheaper for you if the havoc continues”?
There are much evidence to the U.S. and Israeli mingling into the Iranian situation despite the claims for “non intervention”. As Kourosh Ziabari (”The Idol-Braker Ahmade”, and “Where are my votes?”, posted on Palestinethinktank.com, June 20th 2009) writes:
“Over the past days, the Persian section of Radio Israel aired exclusive “emergency” programs to cover the “Iran crises” by inviting “experts” and “scholars” who would unanimously invite the supporters of Mir-Hossein Mousavi to storm into the streets, call for the transformation of the Islamic government and destabilize the routine transportation, business and daily life in every way by burning the public facilities, mosques, universities and shops. The peaceful and nonviolent demonstrations of the protesting youths and pro-reform supporters of Mir-Hossein Mousavi who were demanding their votes be officially “respected” by the authorities was soon mixed with the illicit and criminal actions of the U.S. and Israel-backed revolts and mutineers whose ultimate desire was to see a “velvet revolution” going on everywhere in Iran.”
What can one also verify at this moment is worth bringing to discussion.
Who and what in Iran?
As far as the elections in Iran, the campaign was not between pro “democracy” and dismantling of the Islamic republic political structure versus those who do not want democracy and what to maintain the political structure of the Islamic republic as it is.
These candidates participated in the elections only after being qualified by the election committee of the state. Is this undemocratic?
It could be, but not less so than the system in Israel and the U.S. for example. In the U.S., Democrats and Republicans continue to block any third party from gaining power through their joined election committee, redrawing of districts that prevents thirds parties, preventing third party candidates from participating in the pre election presidential debates…etc.
In Israel too, parties who do not state publicly their commitment to the Jewish/Zionist basis of the state are challenged by the election committee, and sometimes disqualified. Even when they are allowed to participate, these parties are never included in any coalition government, and this has been taking place since 1948. In In Srael today, it is against the law to commemorate the tragedy of 1948. It is ok to remember what supposedly happened 2000 years ago, but not ok to remember what happened 60 years ago.
The point is that if the issue is really about democracy, than countries like Israel and the U.S. should stay out of this discussion. They have less to lecture to others about democracy in light of their past and current histories and policies internally and externally.
In the U.S. and Israeli media, the images of Mousavi versus Ahmade-Nejad as democrat versus not is not quiet accurate. After all, Mousavi was the Iranian prime minister during the early 8 years of the Islamic Republic, and that period was not less brutal and undemocratic, if not more, than the 4 years of Ahmade-Nejad. Couple of differences between the two period are regional. The 8 years of Mousavi in government was the years of war with Iraq, and Mousavi rhetoric during the election campaign was about distancing Iran from Hamas and Hisballah (as reported on Al-Jazeera). Maybe that why he is attracting the Israeli, American, and other western governments.
If Mousavi changed and wants to implement reforms in Iran and question policies of the current government as mistakes, than why he is not questioning the policies that his government implemented in the early 8 years of the Islamic Republic? Unless again, what is considered a better candidate in the West is the candidate that is anti-Arab, without caring of locally oppressive candidate who he was and possibly can be. Pahlavi–the Son of the Shah,claims that Hamas members are recruited to crush the uprising in Iran (C-Span, June 222, 2009), a claim that was challenged neither by the media present at his talk, nor by liberal commentators and experts.
As James Petras wrote in the Financial Times (June 15, 2009), the followers of Mousavi are largely those of upper class and western oriented, and those of Ahmede-Nejad on the other hand coming from the poorer classes. Poorer and less western oriented Iranians are the majority, as two American polls showed prior to the election, were more likely to vote for the candidate who was accused by Mousavi to give too much money for the poor, and to worsen the relations with the West, and they did vote for him.
Having said that, it is hard to dismiss the fact that there are Iranians, who want a different regime. I am not sure if those who are behind Mousavi do all want that. The tragedy is that honest critical voices in Iran are being silenced and hijacked by right wing and by liberals in the U.S., Israel, and Europe. What other scholars have argued, disrupted development is at work here in the so called “Third World”, in a neo colonial form of “speaking for”.
It is also hard for those who want to promote democracy and liberty to not feel torn in their position between supporting possible change, while at the same time fear that what is happening in Iran is being or going to be hijacked by regional and global powers (Israel, and the U.S.). While one must stand with justice and freedom everywhere, one must not also be selective in being “vehement” on some cases, and being lame on others.
Who and what in Israel and the U.S.:
As I follow American and Israeli media, it is hard for me to swallow Israeli officials calling for the “stopping the crack down on demonstrators in Iran,” while they have been cracking down on a whole nation for over 60 years.
In the U.S., to listen to Fox and the Zionist racist Charles Krauthammer (Fox News June, 20, 2009), who called for cracking down on Palestinians and Iraqis, while calling for the U.S. government to demand from the Iranian government to stop cracking down on the people on the street, is quiet bothersome to say the least. Are people in Israel or the U.S. free to demonstrate anywhere anytime? Don’t people get attacked when they demonstrate by the police and security forces in these countries?
Not only right wingers are calling for more intervention from their government in the Iranian situation, but also some liberals. Yet, there are few who have been calling for non-intervention (for ex. Just Foreign Policy. Org).
Who needs democracy, revolution, and help-solidarity?
While people are and should be commanded for showing solidarity with those who are under oppression, one must be careful not to be fooled into a campaign that is, if not designed, it is definitely being hijacked by regimes (in Israel, the U.S., and Europe) who wish nothing good for the Iranian people, and wish only another subjugated country to fall under their influence or at least neutralized.
After all, Iranians need less help in these issues, and they have demonstrated in their history that they can do and in fact made changes to their political system again and again.
Those in the U.S. and Israel for example (and some European countries), who feel the need for showing solidarity need also to question the lack of their efforts to do only part of what the Iranian people have done in their history in challenging their governments. For example, no similar public outrage took place in the U.S. when: elections were stolen, wars waged against other states and societies in their name, just to name some examples.
Those in the U.S. who continue to advocate for “non-violence” for example, should be at least as vehement in their campaign and funding of efforts to stop the violence of their governments. They should also be as vague as they have been when it comes to “conflicts” and their persistent efforts to show the “two sides of the story” as they do always when it comes to Israel/Palestine. Yet, it seems all this talk about the “two sides of the story” becomes flat when it comes to issues that fit their agendas.
He is a challene for all those on the U.S. who seems to got new life with the election of the new emperor. Get Obama to stop bombing Pakistan, get Obama ot make similar statements about Israel/Palestine, get Obama to Guantenamo on the occupied island of Cuba and similar pattern at home, get Oabma to put more fuding into education rather than “defense”. Here is another challenge for the liberals in the U.S. who especially advocate non-violence: Make a similar statememt about the regime in Israel, and about the resistance of the Palestinians without any qualifications or reservations.
Neither do Europeans show similar outrage when their governments continue to support wars and colonialism in the “Middle East” and elsewhere. Governments and officials, like in Britain for example, are not shamed for their crimes, they continue to hold political powers despite deceptions, corruptions, and war crimes. While one admires those who demonstarte against their governments’ policies and wars, one does not see a sustained opposition and cries against criminal governments of Europe in their policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Pakistan, and elsewhere.
As one person told me, solidarity with people in need is good and honorable thing, but when it comes to areas like the Middle East with its past and present history, westerners should stay out of it.
While I do not think the any person should stand silent on injustice, I do believe that solidarity with resistance ought to be led by those who resist, and should also be done so carefully so that it is not hijacked by states and groups who care or less about justice and freedom.
