I hope you are right, b. In my view it is a very close race between those want an attack on Iran, and those who want to negotiate. I received in my inbox this week a viral powerpoint intended to show that Iran denies the holocaust (not Ahmadinejad, rather Iran in its totality). The propaganda is strong. Which way is Netanyahu going to go? If he wants an attack, can Obama say no? It’s going to be a test for Obama.

Posted by: Alex | Feb 23 2009 21:04 utc | 3

at the risk of coming across as some kind of Elders of Zion freakshow, I suspect that WJ Clinton’s troubles came in part from his lack of enthusiasm for all things Israel. Was Ms Levinsky just a star struck groupie or was she guided? the thing about keeping a cum stained dress in the closet is at least a little weird.
so in that light, I believe Obamageddon is on the right track. Obama had to swear his loyalty to AIPAC before he was allowed to participate in the big show. To make sure he stays in line they put an Israel firster as his chief of staff. I doubt that this pro Iran stuff is coming from the whitehouse, it could very well be the shadow government that turned on w that is getting this stuff out into corporate media.
it could also be Israel itself who sees the absolute madness of attacking Iran. If the US can be made to appear that they are forcefully blocking “Israel’s right to self defense” then netanyahu can still appear to be the tough guy and the climate of fear can continue. Israel will still have the bogeyman they can point to for all that ails that country and will not have to address the actual causes.

Posted by: dan of steele | Feb 23 2009 21:30 utc | 5

One thing’s for certain about Khatami and the Reform Government regaining power in Iran. Vigilantism will be back in vogue.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Feb 23 2009 21:44 utc | 7

i am entirely pessimistic on this question & i think you & parviz are quite wrong. in essence you underestimate the stupidity of the leadership of israel & their allies who do not want, nor will allow – the growing power of iran

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 23 2009 22:01 utc | 9

they are really pushing the line that the right – which encpmpasses almost all political parties in israel – are just loudmouths who will not do anything – even make real peace – that is not the case, not at all – when you pose something as an ‘existential’ threat you have essentially incorporated it into the fabric of your intended politics
in fact, i would be surprised if there is no attack on iran before september

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 23 2009 22:17 utc | 11

I’m with r’giap; USrael demands Iran’s utter subjugation and can’t get that without (or with, actually, but no matter) war.

Posted by: ran | Feb 24 2009 0:11 utc | 13

We’ve seen many signals, and hopes, come and go and yet, over the past four decades the trend has been only more pro Tel Aviv.

Posted by: DonS | Feb 24 2009 1:17 utc | 15

Have to agree with b, Iran has just become to potentially valuable to the faltering empire. I’m sure they see the handwriting on the wall regarding Afghanistan and especially Iraq – that they are on track to slip through their fingers. As the economic catastrophe gains momentum there will be more pressure to get these over with and stop wasting money keeping those countries in indefinite and purposeless lock down. When many of their objectives could find some accommodation through rapproachment.

Posted by: anna missed | Feb 24 2009 2:19 utc | 17

But, as for b, hye never watched the film, and won’t, having been informed not to by the dullard Gideon Levy.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 24 2009 4:10 utc | 19

The film Waltz with Bashir is a complex piece of work, and it is art; and to describe it as “execrable” is unfair in the extreme. The talent that went into the animation alone, succeeds in creating an unsettling tableau of dream, that drifts into nightmare. And in the recovery of the repressed trauma, the foreshadowing of recovered memory, there is a real genius in the plot devices, which prepares the audience for a stark awakening. As a dramatic and psychological construction, and a work of art, this film deserved the critical acclaim it has received.

Posted by: Copeland | Feb 24 2009 5:46 utc | 21

Much lower in rank than he hoped for – still dangerous: Ross:

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday appointed Dennis B. Ross, a seasoned Middle East negotiator under Republican and Democratic presidents, as her special adviser for the gulf and Southwest Asia, a portfolio that will include Iran.
…
Mr. Ross’s appointment adds another prominent name to the ranks of special envoys, emissaries and advisers in the State Department. Former Senator George J. Mitchell, the special envoy for the Middle East, and Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, have both returned from their first visits to their regions.
Unlike Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Holbrooke, who are presidential envoys, Mr. Ross will report exclusively to Mrs. Clinton.
…
Mr. Ross had advocated a tough approach toward Iran that included persuading Europe to increase economic pressure on the government in Tehran. He is a co-founder of United Against Nuclear Iran, a group dedicated to stopping the country from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Posted by: b | Feb 24 2009 6:49 utc | 23

It’s always darkest before the dawn, and appeasement of Israeli barbarity isn’t written in stone. Some barflies act as though the health of the U.S. economy, a potentially unprecedented boom for U.S. industry triggered by regional peace, a reduction in global tensions and a massive Iranian-backed effort against America’s/Iran’s common enemy (Al Qaeda) …….. are all less important to the U.S. than the need to support Israel’s continued usurpation of Palestinian territories …….. It seems a rather weird cost:benefit to me.
I sometimes feel some members of this Bog are actually ‘willing’ both nations to fail in their attempt at rapprochement, so that tensions can continue and the “spread of evil capitalism” will fail.
If Ahmadinejad can put out peace feelers I find it shameful that such otherwise highly intelligent poosters can remain stuck in an ideological time-warp suited to the Cold War, unless the latter is what they wish to maintain ad aeternam.
Is the status quo (the U.S. backing ruthless Arab dictatorships, millions dying and crippled because of invasions like Iraq, a continual threat from Al Qaeda that benefits nobody other than the U.S. arms industry and Cheney’s cronies) genuinely preferable to a rebuilding of the region’s infrastructure, a renewed focus on human rights and other such developments?
There WILL be a rapprochement, because the current stalemate has till now benefitted only Israel, and “the times they are a’changing”.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 24 2009 8:08 utc | 25

Harold (24), superb. Spirited, eloquent, damning. Loved it.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 24 2009 8:40 utc | 27

sigh. Why is it that so many americans sceptical of Israel turn out to be conspiracy nuts? Its quite possible to retain a healthy sceptical eye on the AIPAC/Hagee axis in US politics without thinking that there exists a monolithic Jewish conspiracy that runs the world, you know.

Posted by: fnord | Feb 24 2009 8:52 utc | 29

As for Hollywood, anyone denying the stifling control of Zionist Jews over this crucial propaganda instrument is in terminal denial. Just examine the racist and blatantly inaccurate portrayal of the civilized ancient Persians in ‘300’ (I wonder whether a film could have been financed/directed/distributed if it had portrayed Jews as slithering snakes with gold fangs sucking the lifeblood out of Babylon 2,500 years ago before they were freed by Cyrus the Great!?!).
You get the message ……….

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 24 2009 9:34 utc | 31

The above posts weren’t really that far off-topic, because they merely demonstrate that at some stage the world says “enough is enough!”, and I can see this phenomenon occurring as a result of the Zionist slaughter of Palestinians and the strong and equally disastrous Jewish control over the U.S. economy.
No, we don’t want a return of the gas chambers, only that Israelis stop annihilating Palestinians and stealing their lands, that the financial power of Jews is curtailed (which is actually happening thanks to Lehmann, Bear Stearns, Oppenheimer, Rothschild, Madoff et al.), that incessant Zionist Hollywood and media propaganda be exposed for what it is, that Americans get a more even-handed ideological, political and cultural education to help them understand the viewpoints and interests of the other 95 % of the globe’s inhabitants, …….
It’s not really asking too much, is it?

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 24 2009 10:01 utc | 33

dos, really?
1. Public Law 108-332, the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act was signed into law by the U.S. President in 2004. It defines anti-Semitism in the broadest possible terms to include any statement that is either anti-Jewish OR anti-Israel. The Law itself is not only offensive but clears the way for arbitrary punishment and represents yet another weapon in the Zionist Conspiracy’s armoury:
2. The U.S. Congress, by demanding AND APPROVING a ‘Report’ on examples of ‘anti-Semitism’ from the State Department, prepares the legal framework for lawsuits AND PUNISHMENT based on the State Department’s ‘definitions’ of anti-Semitism.
Essentially, the Law and the Report in combination represent ‘stealth’ legislation to stifle protest against right-wing Zionist and Israeli actions. Congress passed the Law, and the State Department provided examples of actions that break that Law. This created the legal framework. AIPAC could take legal action by citing both government documents.
The Law specifically prohibits “opposition to Zionism and the existence and/or policies of the State of Israel” in the paragraph directly above the phrase “anti-Zionist and anti-Israel criticism that is anti-Semitic in its effect — whether or not in its intent”.
I actually inspired a petition which went through various drafts through civil rights lawyers in the U.S., but in the end everyone (except myself) literally chickened out for fear of reprisal.
b, how about it?
PETITION
We, the undersigned, hereby protest the U.S. Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 (PUBLIC LAW 108–332—OCT. 16, 2004) http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ332.108.pdf, co-sponsored by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and demand that it be rescinded by the United States Congress on the grounds that it provides selective, discriminatory protection for Zionism, a political perversion of moderate Judaism, and undermines the efforts of enlightened people of all faiths to promote religious tolerance.
The undersigned also abhor the Report commanded by Public Law 108-332, issued by the U.S. State Department, which is racist and totalitarian in both tone and substance. The Report, bearing the seemingly innocuous title “Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism: A Report Provided to the United States Congress”, exposes Public Law 108-332 as no less than a Zionism Protection Law in disguise. The Report covers itself against potential First Amendment lawsuits by means of a legal footnote (#43):
(http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/102406.htm)
The U.S. State Department defines the following actions as “anti-Semitic”:
 “opposition to Zionism and the existence and/or policies of the state of Israel”
 “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”.
 Reference to Gaza as “an immense concentration camp”
 Any reference to Zionist conspiracies, including presumption of a common Neocon-Zionist agenda to dispossess the Palestinians, create a Greater Israel and dominate the Middle East
 Claiming that the Holocaust has been severely abused for pecuniary and political gain
 Articles or statements in which “Israel or its leaders are demonized or vilified”
 “disproportionate criticism of the Jewish State”
 “Publishing denigrating caricatures of Israeli leaders”
 “Anti-Zionist discourse”, including “anti-Zionist and anti-Israel criticism that is anti-Semitic in its effect—whether or not in its intent”
 “…… attributing U.S. policy to the influence of the ‘Zionist Lobby’ …… or ‘pro-Israel Lobby’ ”
 Any reference to “Israeli Apartheid” or support for an “international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel until that state recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination” (as phrased in the Resolution voted unanimously by the Canadian Union of Public Employees)
 Agreement with the 1975 U.N. General Assembly Resolution 3379 that defines “Zionism” as “a form of racism and racial discrimination”
The State Department strives to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism in a manner that repeatedly contravenes the First Amendment (footnote #43 notwithstanding) and ominously foreshadows a U.S. Government-induced stranglehold on freedom of speech and political protest of any kind. While freedom of speech is often misused, we believe that Public Law 108-332 and the resulting State Department Report not only fail to protect the Jewish religion but paradoxically increase resentment of all Jews by blurring the distinction between peaceful Judaism and right-wing Zionism.
By discriminating in favour of one religious splinter group to the exclusion of all other religions and faiths, the Law and the Report achieve precisely the opposite of their declared goal, perversely encouraging anti-Semitism and illustrating the extent to which U.S. Government policy has been hijacked by various Zionist lobbying groups.
We, people of all faiths, demand that the U.S. Congress rescind Public Law 108-332 and formally condemn the findings of the State Department Report as “ideologically tainted” and “counter-productive”. We disassociate ourselves from the pro-Zionist policies of the U.S. Government, and we sign this Petition in the interests of global religious harmony and genuine freedom of speech.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 24 2009 11:57 utc | 35

It’s good to see Chas Freeman brought back into public service. He’s someone who’s been mentioned here before.
We get ’em early and all that.

Posted by: mats | Feb 24 2009 14:28 utc | 37

Great, mats, well, for me it’s a case of better late than never.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 24 2009 14:47 utc | 39

@ Parviz:

Biography
Gregg Rickman
Special Envoy
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
Term of Appointment: 05/22/2006 to present
Gregg Rickman was sworn in as the Secretary of State’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism on May 22, 2006. In this position, he is responsible for the global monitoring of acts of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incitement and the creation of policies to combat them.
From 1995-1998, he directed the three-year United States Senate Banking Committee investigation, including five Congressional hearings, into the disposition of assets of Holocaust victims held by Swiss banks since World War II, ending with a $1.25 billion settlement on behalf of the survivors.
He has served as the Director of Congressional Affairs, at the Republican Jewish Coalition, where he worked on legislative issues of concern to the Jewish community including anti-Semitism, counter-terrorism, and immigration. He also led outreach to Jewish social action groups and coalitions as well as constituent member groups.
Most recently, he served on the staff of the House International Relations Committee where he served first on the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia where he handled numerous issues including anti-Semitism and Holocaust restitution, and then as Staff Director of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations where he directed the Committee’s investigation into the UN Oil-for-Food program and was the main author of the Committee’s Report on the investigation.
He is the author of two books, Swiss Banks and Jewish Souls, 1999, and Conquest and Redemption, A History of Jewish Assets from the Holocaust, 2006.
He received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees from John Carroll University and his Ph.D. in International Relations from the University of Miami.

That’s the office created by the legislation referenced in your above post.

Posted by: Jeremiah | Feb 24 2009 15:01 utc | 41

freeman is certainly in lockstep w/ what i understand the obama/smart power strategy to be about – namely adapting policies to the times in order to ensure another new american century
from his speech parviz links @ 28

The moral argument put forward by both left and right-wing proponents of aggressive American unilateralism is that, as a nation with these unexampled elements of power and uniquely admired virtues, the United States has the duty both to lead the world and to remake it in our image. But our recent confusion of command and control with leadership and conflation of autocratic dictation with consultation have stimulated ever greater resistance internationally. Thus the aggressive unilateralism by which we have sought to consolidate our domination of world affairs has very effectively undermined both our dominion over them and our capacity to lead.

anyone have an example of any ‘left-wing proponents of agressive american unilateralism’ that freeman refers to? sounds like yet more exceptionalist nonsense to me.

Posted by: b real | Feb 24 2009 15:05 utc | 43

Wanna address three points
1) About the big question, rapprochement or no rapprochement, I wonder if maybe USA will offer a fake one. The scenarios being very different, I remember the first days of the Gaza slaughter when all the Israeli media (and more than a few “western” also) gloated 24/7 about the illusion of de-escalation that allowed Israel (that’s their version) to get Hamas off guard. Could these rumors of rapprochement being a smokescreen like that and with similar aims? Or maybe (as suggested by some commentators) a fig leaf that will allow to say “we tried diplomacy”?
2) About Hollywood, Maybe a general substitution of phrases like “Jewish Controlled” for others like “Zionist controlled”, “Strongly pro-zionist” or similar ones will difficult the screams of “Antisemite!!!” of the Hasbara brigade. Equate Zionism with the Jewry (or give the appearance of doing so) is not only unjust but foolish. It places many fine folks, from Norman Finkelstein to Neturei Karta, near to a ideological madness that they have fought with deep conviction. It also obscures the very active role of the “goyeem” zionists (think Joe Biden and the USA congress at large)
3) Finally I want to ask Parviz some issues about his aspirations of a rational USA-Iran rapprochement that benefits both peoples and the Middle East at large: Recognizing your inalienable right to desire that outcome, Do you trust the American government enough to believe that it won’t back stab Iran if feels that can get away with it? Do You believe that the powers that be will renounce their megalomania and racism, choosing instead make sober and realistic evaluations of the correlation of forces? USA has not distinguished itself exactly for respecting treaties (The recent attempts to encircle and strangle Russia are but a case in point)
PS. Parviz, I want to ask you about your evaluations of the 1953 western-sponsored regime change of Mr. Mosaddeq and their consequences for the modern Iran. If you have already discussed this issue, could you redirect me to that place?
Thanks & Regards.

Posted by: C.A. | Feb 24 2009 15:42 utc | 45

‘left-wing proponents of agressive american unilateralism’
well, if you could consider him left, i would say obama’s inaugural speech including the reference to ‘leading the world’ would be an example. i read ‘the left’, as dems in general.
i read his remarks as critical of the duty both to lead the world and to remake it in our image…our domination of world affairs has very effectively undermined both our dominion over them and our capacity to lead.
sloth, i agree
The film is a diagnosis of the construction of memory, how the bits of preferred recollection of war build flimsy redemptions. For bashir the constructed memory is his location in the genocide. But that location is twofold: the progress of his involvement as a soldier, and that of a man who reluctantly creates a memory comporting with the undeniable history of the atrocities.
these kids in the idf, i wonder how many of the grow up and have schisms about their positioning in the bloodbaths. one big national nightmare in which they all participated at an age too young to fully comprehend the indoctrination.
parvis As for Hollywood, anyone denying the stifling control of Zionist Jews over this crucial propaganda instrument is in terminal denial.
i have to agree w/malooga. once you win an oscar you are part of the academy and allowed to vote, it’s a lifetime achievement and your vote as a producer is worth as much as the lowlier professions. while the zionist may control the agenda, and the industry controlled by jews, to say the academy membership is primarily zionist in inaccurate. sean penn won best actor for christs sake, hardly an israel lover.
another thing you may not be aware, aside from slumdog millionaire being a great movie, it also represents a stab in the back to indie films as warner brothers, who originally produced the film thru its indie department, ended all funding of indie films and closed down that offshoot of its enterprize prior to slumdog’s release, which is why it was, in the final, put out by fox. it was on its way to video release, skipping the big screen altogether. so the vote, as i saw it, was very much a stab in the back to corportate hollywood the idea of diminishing the indie film in general. but i could be wrong.
…..
#35 the fact that we have legislation in congress paving the way towards criminalizing free speech and the first amendment, all for the sake of rabid zionists, is an abomination.

Posted by: annie | Feb 24 2009 16:27 utc | 47

Jeremiah, thanks for # 41.
C.A. (45), great post and you asked all the right questions. My answers to your 3 points:
1) Everyone’s aware of U.S. treachery, most of all the current Iranian regime that has been betrayed too often to describe in this post. Karim Sadjadpour wrote a brilliant essay for the Carnegie Endowment explaining precisely how clever Khamenei is, called “Reading Khamenei”, proving that the U.S. will have to undertake major ‘a priori’ steps to establish trust, i.e., steps that would be irreversible since Iran has been bitten too often.
2) “Zionist-controlled Hollywood” is fine with me, though if we’re to call a spade a spade we should objectively acknowledge that the overwhelming power of ‘Jews’ in Hollywood (even those who are not necessarily pro-Israel) is unhealthy, even sinister, in a population of which Jews comprise only a few percent.
3) This topic (the CIA overthrow of Mossadegh and subsequent acts of treachery and U.S. terrorism against Iran) has been flogged to death, so I’ll willingly re-direct you to some threads. b can probably do better as he runs MoA and I’ve only been around for a year. Here are some threads:
Feb 16th “The right to choose”
Feb 3rd “Congratulations to the People of Iran”
and especially this one which encouraged very lively discussion:

The Iranian Election

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 24 2009 17:01 utc | 49

‘Jews’ in Hollywood (even those who are not necessarily pro-Israel) is unhealthy, even sinister, in a population of which Jews comprise only a few percent.
“Sinister.” Yes, yes.
You’re a little punk. But you’re in good company.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 24 2009 17:13 utc | 51

Thanks, slothrop, the feeling is mutual.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 24 2009 17:20 utc | 53

b, that sly fellow, prodded you, but now you’re out in the open, I want to hear more.
We need to expropriate the means of the cultural reproduction from the jews, sure.
But, what about int’l banking?

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 24 2009 17:25 utc | 55

I think you, slothrop, are in a real panic at the prospect of rapprochement between Iran and the U.S., because the Zionist cause would suffer a mortal setback for lack of funds, lack of WMD and lack of sympathy which you’ve generated so cleverly, till now, through the Zionist-controlled media.
Now you’ve suddenly got Amnesty International demanding an embargo on Israel, ex-Zionist Hawk Roger Cohen writing 7 consecutive complimentary feature articles on Iran in the New York Times, Ahmadinejad publicly welcoming a thaw, ex-German Chancellor Schroeder meeting the Iranian leadership in Tehran this week (Ooooh, I bet that one hurts more than the rest!), Hillary Clinton and the Head of NATO both praising Iran’s positive role in Afghanistan, anti-Zionist Freeman as the new Head of the National Intelligence Council, arch-Zionist Ross demoted, ………..
Are you getting that sinking feeling? Not so nice when the Israeli jackboot is on the other foot, is it?

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 24 2009 18:24 utc | 57

Good one, Thrasyboulos. Perfect analogy!

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 24 2009 19:39 utc | 59

Sure it is clearly in the US interests to have a reproachment with Iran. But it has to be said that there seems to have been a quite sophisticated, and relatively successful campaign by the Iranians to win over the opinion of US/International elites and public opinion.
I never thought I’d see the day when the Israel lobby lost a fight to a country like Iran. Its not just in the military domain that Israel is starting to fall behind.

Posted by: swio | Feb 24 2009 19:56 utc | 61

“I never thought I’d see the day when the Israel lobby lost a fight to a country like Iran. Its not just in the military domain that Israel is starting to fall behind.”
Precisely, swio, and I believe the reason is not so much Iran’s diplomatic prowess as Israel’s own arrogant barbarity that has caused a change of heart globally. Zionist extremism has become too much even for many Jews to bear, let alone for the rest of the world that is sick to death of U.S.-Israeli hypocrisy on the Palestinian and other issues.
I have always maintained that the one sensible comment Ahmadinejad ever made was that “the Israeli Apatheid regime will vanish from the pages of time”, just as the racist South African regime did. Israel, the writing is on the wall and you have no one to blame but yourself. A pity, though, that it took the Persians to put some backbone into the Arabs and teach them how to beat you militarily.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 24 2009 20:44 utc | 63

ps, i’m boycotting ‘the reader’. i’m nazi’d out.

Posted by: annie | Feb 24 2009 23:24 utc | 65

which leads me to …. when nations which are otherwise concerned with creating killers turn their hands to art – it is often a dissapointment
waltz with bashir is a racist film of a very minor quality, it can be compared to that pyschopathicweepie ‘ the deerhunter’ – a film with zero intelligence & zero talent – just propaganda a another of what is called ‘crying & shooting’ – in neither film do the real victims have a part except as elements of the ego of the characters, or of the director
it was very clear b was being ironic, after all, all you had to do was read the link given but i imagine that is just too much hard wotk
anti semitism is the socialism of the stupid but never has there been a moment when the need to be prepared to sanction, to disinvest has been stronger – as i have sd israel has gone past the soweto 1976 point – it can only go down from here

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 25 2009 0:33 utc | 67

And by the way. Let’s cut the shit sophistication, here. “zionist influence” of American politics=US supports israel’s existence. In moa-speak, that is=death to israel. Especially a german can’t say this, and so devilishly slips in a jew-bashing thing (irony, man!) arbitrarily into unrelated conversation to see if one of his moron readers will take the bait.
Sure enough.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 25 2009 1:54 utc | 69

it seems more & more to me, that slothrop is our john wayne (of the green berets period) – he has one tool in his hand box – a misshapen hammer it would seem. there are claims to subtelty & attention tha§t simply do not exist or at least are not apparent in your posts
you enjoy making things up it seems & your ‘idea’ of marxism appears to me more & more absurd. as i have sd for some time now your reflections are much closer to the non tenured staff of the american enterprise institute than to even the most dissident fom of marxism
how you can see any redeeming features in waltz with bashir is completely beyond me but in fact given that you think it was dumb iraquis who were responsible for the sacking of baghdad – then all comes into focus
it seems to me you hang on to ‘marxism’ much as the dr linden character in nicolas roeg’s ‘bad timing’ attached himself to the therese russel character & i feel too ften with you like the detective played by harvey keitel
perhaps it is a thing you are goin’ thru

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 25 2009 2:23 utc | 71

& to think not so long ago sloth was giving us epithetic lectures on the robustness of u s empire – of its inherent financial genius. well, well, well

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 25 2009 2:28 utc | 73

Your attempts to vindicate your serial errors of judgment (iraqi nationalism, global economy doesn’t exist, euros are merely complicit actors, etc etc) by inventing adversaries who are more out of touch with reality than you, is laughable.
You’re a joke.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 25 2009 2:46 utc | 75

You didn’t watch the film. Fuck you.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 25 2009 3:01 utc | 77

I wish we wouldn’t argue comrade.
The jews in hollywood shit pisses me off.
Sorry. But it does.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 25 2009 3:20 utc | 79

Btw. About the film as an ideological support of “ego”–as art needed to tell the ego the story it wants to hear–is superficial critique of the film.
The dream sequences reveal the dominance of superego in the creation of the myth of ego as such. This seems to me the superlative thing about the film.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 25 2009 3:53 utc | 81

#80:
“on that we agree. the last thing the palestinian people need is the support of anti-semites”
Why would they? They’re Semites themselves.
The whole thing is about land, the greedy, hypocritical, barbaric, cynical Israeli grabbing of land. It has NOTHING to do with either religion or history or justice. It is merely the single-minded pursuit of real estate by a racist nation that bulldozes orchards and inhabited homes, massacres any women and children who get in its way and executes reporters filming their atrocities, a cowardly nation that Blitzkriegs concentration camps because its soldiers are too scared of hand-to-hand combat with ‘real’ enemy soldiers. It is a ‘state’ that repeatedly defies international law including 60-year-old U.N. resolutions, freely employs Weapons of Mass Destruction on civilians and would pursue worse crimes if it enjoyed the primitive media coverage in place in the 1940s.
Israelis aren’t noble, conscientious or civilized. They are the Darth Vaders of the 21st century, brimming with high-tech weaponry and lacking even an ounce of humanity. They are the new Nazis, and have been exposed as such, U.S. Law PUBLIC LAW 108–332 notwithstanding.
As for slothrop, you should go live in Germany and learn what a civilized nation looks like, how it treats not just its own citizens but foreign visitors — free education, compulsory health care, a far lower gap between rich poor than in the U.S.A., constant and enormous contributions to global charities, a contrite nation as evidenced by exaggeratedly huge Holocaust memorials sticking out everywhere like sore thumbs, homicide, drug and crime rates that are 1/20th their U.S. equivalents, houses that don’t fall down like matchsticks in the wind, inter-city trains that are triple the speed of U.S. versions, immigration officers who are disarmingly polite to foreign visitors, in short, a system that works.
But, slothrop, feel free to go on supporting Zionist atrocities and pouncing on every word on this Blog that might conceivably offend the sensibilities of the Netanyahu-Lieberman Nazi coalition. If it looks like a Nazi, walks like a Nazi and talks like a Nazi, it IS a Nazi.
Sure, Jews suffered a tragedy, as did the Armenians, but only the Jews bled it — and are still bleeding it — for all it’s worth.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 25 2009 5:24 utc | 83

If some people on this Bog ‘deny’ the inordinate and unhealthy power of Jews in Hollywood (even some Jews confirm it proudly, as b pointed out), and if some people ‘deny’ the racist nature of the Israeli state, then these same people can’t complain when some people (myself excluded) choose to ‘deny’ the Holocaust.
You can’t have it both ways. You’ve had it your own way till now, but not any longer.
P.S., … almost threw up when I saw the trailer for yet another Zionist Hollywood movie, this time with 007 Daniel Craig “playing a Nazi-hunting concentration camp escapee” (which is news to me!).
Let’s even things up a bit and prove Hollywood isn’t run by the Jews:
How about some films portraying how Cyrus the Great saved their asses in Babylon and even built a place of worship for them?
Or how about a film portraying Jews who cooperated with the Nazis? (And don’t tell me there weren’t any).
Or how about a film accurately depicting Ben Gurion’s U.N.-documented extermination, expulsion and resulting ‘Exodus’ (how ironic!) of 80 % of the Palestinian population in 1948?
Or how about films about the Israeli genocide in Sabra, Shatila and Gaza?
Or how about a film based verbatim on passages from the Talmud, with screenplay to be adapted by Stephen King?
I believe in justice for all: Muslims (good and bad) have been demonized relentlessly. Isn’t it time for Jews (good and bad) to be treated ‘equally’?

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 25 2009 7:45 utc | 85

More evidence of Iran’s “unclenched fist”, b, and thanks for bringing the thread back on topic 😉
…… though my ‘parting shot’ is that it never really went off topic, as Iran-U.S. relations are more dependent on ‘perception’ than on ‘fact’. Since the Zionists have been so adept at warping ‘perception’ and obfuscating ‘fact’, in poisoning U.S.-Iran relations for decades, I feel fully justified in highlighting the psychological warfare that has been conducted against my country in Hollywood and the mass media, a campaign that has attempted to deny fruition of the title of this thread.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 25 2009 10:11 utc | 87

I am glad to observe MoA being quoted as a primary source of global information, even in “occupied Iraq” :-)))

MoA quoted on uruknet

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 25 2009 11:16 utc | 89

b #86, great link, thank you.
r’giap waltz with bashir is a racist film of a very minor quality, …… in neither film do the real victims have a part except as elements of the ego of the characters, or of the director
yes, i found it completety racist, but w/inspection there was an awareness of the racism by the filmaker. ie, there were 3 (at least) crowded scenes of the arab women he passed in the alleyway. the first time the were very smeared and distorted, ugly. as the movie progressed the animation of these women became more real and human. i have to agree w/sloth
The dream sequences reveal the dominance of superego in the creation of the myth of ego as such.
it was a film seeking a redemption but not excuse. it was very blatant and moreso because it used animation, an admitance of sorts that the courage was not there to use real actors. there was also the aspect the situation was coordinated between the attackers and their protectors. an awareness of the culpability. it was as much about the psychology and manipulation of the mind/ego, as it was about the event. i would like to see a german make this film about the holocaust. but no, it is always preferable to imagine every actor as fully demonized.
i have a friend married to an israeli, a totally tortured angry soul prone to violent drunken abusive outbursts. how we met is really an incredible..too long a story. but he burns every bridge , every path he goes down. i saw her recently (they are split up, he is back in israel) and ask her if he had mentioned gaza, or his impressions..in the course of the personal devestating conversation of thei violent breakup, the children..so much anguish..she told me he had these nightmares about his past and this battle where they were told to stand and watch this slaughter. (i told he about the movie and she had never heard of it) i know his brother was in special forces because one night (while drunk) he told me his brother would go undercover in palestime and meet guys and become friends and then murder them in the desert (he is arab israeli). the whole past is gruesome really. and this guy lives w/it, this tortured life which is all he knows. total indoctrination. so yes, it is propaganda, but at the same time, that is all they know, this propaganda. and how is this any different than any war? we are bred to consider our enemies as savages.
i told my friend i saw the movie with, i cannot take anymore, i want to leave the theatre, it was just too much (even in animation) and then it cut to the end, the reality of the gruesome real footage. completely gruesome. this stark real footage was why we had been watching animation, it was too horrid even for the filmaker. i still think it was about the mind, very much so, the mind in war of those who carry out the mad design of the phycopathic designers of war. i will not believe every idf is totally evil any more than i will think every nazi child who grew up to kill was evil either. we have to penetrate the minds of those who carry out the massacres, for they will grow up and lead tortured lives.
….
“Hollywood is controlled by jews” is not something I would ever hear where I live, even among persons who claim some relationship to judaism.
that is only because they have been pulverized into ignorance. get a fucking grip sloth

How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.
The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)
The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies.

go ahead sloth, enlighten us to all the other (gentile) powerhouses in hollywood not mentioned. good luck w/that.
parvis, some people (myself excluded) choose to ‘deny’ the Holocaust.
what do you mean parvis? do you mean you don’t think it happened, or you don’t believe the ‘official story’ is all there is to it?
Israelis aren’t noble, conscientious or civilized.
parvis, you can’t lump them all together like that. i just went to an event w/ shachaf polakow , israeli peace activist (i hung posters all over town). some of these israelis spend their whole lives, risk their lives, to bring justice.

Posted by: annie | Feb 25 2009 12:03 utc | 91

annie, when I wrote Israelis aren’t civilized I’m referring to the population as a whole, as a populace, as an entity. I’m very well aware of the extraordinary self-sacrifice of Uri Avnery and other conscientious Israeli opponents of Israel barbarity. And I truly appreciate the activities of ‘J Street’ in which people very close to me are involved. But Israel, and Israelis in general, suck.
Regarding the Holocaust, you misread my statement “some people (myself excluded) choose to ‘deny’ the Holocaust”.
If I had written in brackets (myself included) your question would have been valid.
As it happens, I firmly believe the Holocaust occurred, I have grave doubts about the 6 million figure which has attained Biblical proportions, I believe the misuse of the memory of the Holocaust is as unforgivable as the Holocaust itself, and I think all Jews, Christians and Muslims should go straight to Hell, do not pass go, and do not collect (in my days it was 200 Pounds)….”, then maybe we could all have some peace around here.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 25 2009 13:51 utc | 93

Parviz-
I agree and I know you’re not blinded by some silly nationalism. I think we could disagree all day about the complexities of europe vs u.s., but that would probably be a waste of time for both of us – I don’t have enough experience with europe to engaged in anything more than with generalities about the place and even then I wouldn’t trust what I wrote.
I really love america; the idea of being self-sufficient, of open spaces to explore, and the many varied peoples who have made the place home. Americans are the yin/yang of the world – capable of creating beauty yet also capable of destroying whole cultures with a couple of bombs. I like to dream of living other places, but I would only do so as an american, I’d become one of those awful hyphenations, but in a different culture… Imagine me an american-iranian…
Yeah, I’m weird, but I can’t help loving the IDEA of america and its cultural uniqueness, I just wish we’d practice what we’re preaching.
Thinking on it, I guess the most american city I’ve lived in has been San Fransisco; it is amazing how seven square miles can be filled with such a peaceful diversity of beliefs and cultures, truly a model for the rest of the world. If so many different peoples can live together packed into the hills and valleys of that almost island, there is hope, even for americans…

Posted by: David | Feb 25 2009 14:40 utc | 95

David @92
I think the notion of American as being staffed by waves of libertarian immigrants is stretching things a bit. A great number of immigrants from Europe began to arrive after the various revolutions of 1848 and socialism was very strong indeed in immigrant centers: check out the role of Italian immigrants in Barre, VT: one of the great Socialist episodes in early 20th Century US history, and now, incidentally, almost entirely (and deliberately) supressed.

Posted by: Tantalus | Feb 25 2009 15:13 utc | 97

David @98
What I meant to point out was that people weren’t coming here hoping for better social services: they were coming here for (relative) political freedom, esp. after 1848, and with the idea that they would be free to put their social ideals into practice. You can of course differentiate between urban, industrial immigrants and those who went off to colonize the West, agreed.
I think that most emigrants move to a new land to work and prosper, not solely for better social services, otherwise Europe would likely be flooded with americans. It’s happening, mate…

Posted by: Tantalus | Feb 25 2009 15:54 utc | 99