Doc's Talk: Iran Early Bird

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Iran Early Bird

Diplomatic Affairs

1. Europe Preparing For Deepening Ties with Iran

Speaking after a meeting (March 27) in Vienna with Austrian economic and political officials and the heads of Europe's four chambers of commerce, Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Mines (ICCIM) chief Mohammad Nahavandian told the official Iranian news agency, IRNA: "It seems that change in the international political atmosphere has affected the foresight of the European officials and this is regarded as a sign for availability of a suitable atmosphere for the purpose." He said to that end, Europeans were seemingly more serious and willing to upgrade their economic cooperation with Iran and that Europe was preparing for a boom in its economic relationship with the Islamic Republic. Nahavandian also addressed (March 27) the 4th Crans Montana Forum in Tirana, Albania, and predicted an increase in the demand for energy: "The global economy will face an increase in demand for energy once it gets out of the ongoing crisis; in the event of no swift investment in the sector, there will be another crisis.” According to IRNA, Nahavandian said that in the new energy map, the Persian Gulf states would play a more important role than in the past, and that other countries, especially the European states, would have to have a special look at the region to meet their needs. He said that Europe would also have to diversify resources to secure energy, especially gas, adding that the Nabucco pipeline could address the goal for Europe but that unfortunately the project had not witnessed appropriate progress in recent years due to various political considerations. He emphasized that the Islamic Republic of Iran had always had a positive approach towards cooperation with Europe, especially in the energy field.

2. Secretary of Supreme National Security Council visits India

Saeid Jalili, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council arrived (March 28) in New Delhi, stating that the major objectives of his visit were to meet and confer with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Sigh and Indian Cabinet's National Security Advisor M. K. Narayan. "The friendly and historical relations between Iran and India necessitate regular meetings between the two countries' officials and particularly consultations over significant regional and international developments" Jalili reiterated.

3. Russia - Iran conference on Afghanistan

According to a statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry (March 28), Moscow and Tehran have agreed to continue talks on regional issues, including the situation in West and South Asia. The Foreign Ministry statement came in the wake of talks between Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Borodavkin and his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad-Mehdi Akhundzadeh, who led the Iranian delegation to the special conference on Afghanistan, organized in Moscow by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

4. Roadmap on future Iran-Venezuela relations
Iran Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki, who is in Caracas (March 28), has been received by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

At a meeting with his Venezuelan counterpart, Mottaki called for the preparation of a roadmap on future Iran-Venezuela relations. Other bilateral issues covered were "the establishment of a Venezuelan-Iranian [investment fund], the exchange of raw material for technology, technological projects, the setting up of a cement factory, projects in the energy field, [and] the establishment of plants for the production of tractor and auto parts."
The roadmap proposal was presented Friday evening to the Venezuelan officials by Iran Deputy Foreign Minister for Economic Affairs Mohsen Tala'ie, who said: “Today we are facing a situation in which the continuation of the two countries' relations is in need of a comprehensive roadmap for the next 10 years at least.”

The Iranian deputy foreign expressed hope that Caracas would approve of the plan, keeping in mind that the upcoming state visit later this week of Venezuela President Chavez to Iran would be a good opportunity to sign the strategic documents.

Chavez: “I'm going to Iran to continue fortifying relations with Iran because among other things we're establishing the Iranian-Venezuelan bank.”
5. Iranian parliamentary delegation in Lebanon
An Iranian parliamentary delegation, headed by the chairman of the Social Affairs Commission of the Majlis, Soleyman Ja'farzadeh, arrived in Beirut on March 28, entering Lebanon through its border with Syria. The delegation was met by a group of Hezbollah officials upon arrival.
6. Rafsanjani's Friday sermon – response to Obama's New Year message
The chairman of Iran’s Expediency Council, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, responded in his Friday sermon to U.S. President Barack Obama's New Year message, commenting: “America ... has to show its goodwill in practice. We used to tell them that one measure they could take to demonstrate their goodwill was to release our frozen assets, which they have frozen unfairly, so that we would realize that they genuinely want to enter negotiations and are good-willed… After all, the U.S. president delivered a speech through a video message that focused mostly on Iran. But it wasn't an official message. He voiced a willingness to talk to Iran, but he used some words in his comments that were more telling than the message itself. [Rafsanjani uses the Persian expression, “The tail of the rooster had inadvertently stuck out of the garment – a reference to Persian folklore about a lying thief who had hidden a rooster in his garment but the tail stuck out and revealed his lie.] If he genuinely intended to negotiate and cooperate, there was no need for him to talk about it. Such comments are made during negotiations and not as propaganda. For example, he mentioned the issue of terrorism and talked as if Iran is a supporter of terrorism and should end such support.
“He also talked about weapons, by which he meant nuclear weapons and missiles. Well, these are issues that should be discussed during negotiations. The supreme leader gave a suitable response. He said that so far Iran hasn't witnessed any change in America's behavior and action. The situation is the same as before but a different language is being used.”
[For the full version of Rafsanjani's sermon, please contact Terrogence.]
Security - Military Affairs
7. Omid satellite to end its mission in 13 days
According to the supervisor of the Omid satellite project, the Omid satellite will come to the end of its successful mission in 13 days’ time and will burn up in space. In an interview with the Fars News Agency, Fathollah Ami stressed that the Omid satellite had carried out all its tasks successfully. The tasks of the satellite were to determine its coordinates after separating from the carrier, to transmit conditions of its sectors and receive commands from the earth station.
Meanwhile, the Iranian Space Agency’s media advisor noted that the Omid was the first Iranian national satellite that had been successfully placed in orbit. He described the satellite as a small-type model that orbits the earth 12 times every 24 hours and is controlled by the earth bases, adding: “By using its eight antennas and two frequency bands, this satellite has been able to send a large volume of data back to the ground stations and also to receive. Following the successful launching of the Omid satellite, a new generation of Iranian satellites will be launched next year using the latest technology.”
Human Rights
8. Cyberspace offenders arrested by IRGC
Following the death in prison of Omidreza Mirsayafi, a well known Iranian blogger, the regime has arrested 18 more people for "cyberspace offenses." The arrests were made by Iran's Center for Addressing Organized Cyberspace Offences, a group affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Meanwhile, a London-based analyst told Radio Farda that the IRGC's increasing restrictions on the Internet signified the gradual militarization of Iran's entire political system.
Mirsayafi's problems with the authorities began when he went to trial in November to face charges of insulting the country's religious leaders and propagating against the government. He spent more than 40 days in custody before he was released after posting a heavy bond. On February 7, he was again summoned for questioning and had since been detained at Evin prison.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk