King Abdullah II of Jordan in the Wall Street Journal

April 7, 2010

The Wall Street Journal interviewed King Abdullah of Jordan on the eve of this trip to the United States for President Obama’s nuclear disarmament conference. For those who, like me, do not have subscriptions to the Journal, you can find the full interview on the website of the Jordanian embassy to the United States here.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

The essence of the King’s argument is that Israel has to concede to allowing Arabs into Israel to be a majority (what the Muslims call the right to return… except a majority of those returning wouldn’t even be Palestinian because the whole Muslim world now claims to be from there.)

The Saudi plan is a recipe for the end of the Jewish state. It calls for Israel to be shrunk to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and to accept every Arab who claims that he is descended from a ‘Palestinian’ who left in 1948. We would be inundated with millions of ‘Palestinian refugees.’ Why on earth would we ever agree to that? So that the 57 members of the OIC would recognize our ‘right to exist’ for the three months until the next election takes place? That’s absurd.

Our options are not going to be reduced so long as we still hold defensible territory and we prevent a ‘Palestinian state’ from coming into being on any terms other than terms that are acceptable to us. The ‘Israeli Arabs’ are not going to become 50% or even close to that any time in the foreseeable future. That’s a lie. And most Israelis know it. (More here, here, here and here).

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

The King says the stuff that we hear online in so called forums about Israel being a disability to the United States when in fact it is it’s strength and is an Island of Democracy in a region where the U.S. can not orchestrate one as seen in Iraq. That part of Abdullah talking is to be expected because he really doesn’t have much of an argument since he is revoking the citizenship of Palestinians he supposedly cares so much for. The King is not thinking differently. He still sees a solution where Israel makes itself unsustainable to the point where the is a giant pogrom in a redistricted Holy land and all the Jews are murdered in a riot created by throwing down borders. Borders are important to Democracy. The Greeks understood this. Without the limitation and representation of a group of people that can be assumed to reside within a government, Democracy can not happen. Any Internationalist view of a Democratic Republic reverts to Dictatorship or Oligarchy… just like Jordan. A Democracy with fluid borders is a totalitarian dictatorship that recreates representation through gerrymandering. This is the Arab idea of Democracy… no wonder they can’t get it working.

By the way… the photo taken is from Star Trek:

The king is also an acknowledged fan of the science fiction saga Star Trek. In 1996, while he was still a Prince, he appeared in the Star Trek: Voyager episode “Investigations“. It was a non-speaking role as he was not a member of the Screen Actors Guild.

via en.wikipedia.org

Revoking the citizenship of Palestinians living in his country? that isn’t very Star Trek like. maybe they should of talked to him. It would of been a more relevant plot line then any treachery in outer space.


Israel Matzav: How to undermine the Iranian regime

January 22, 2010

I am not as confident about a Tech Culture being the cross roads to friendship with Iran as the Wall Street Journal:

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, James K. Glassman and Michael Doran explain how the United States government can support the ‘green revolution’ and undermine the Iranian regime. via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

That threat can be diminished three ways: by military action, by compromise by Iran’s regime, or by a new, less bellicose government taking power in Tehran. The first two appear unlikely, but the third, at least since protests broke out last June after the presidential election, seems more and more realistic. Yet so far the United States and its allies have shrunk from seriously encouraging that third way. via online.wsj.com

the WSJ article seems to think military action is unlikely. A terrorist state is building a bomb and they see military action as unlikely? unlikely because we are idiots maybe.

propaganda through advanced technology is always a great idea. in fact the Iranians have been doing it to us all decade through the likes of a relationship through Robert Scoble @Scobleizer and his social media scene on twitter and friendfeed, who while disloyal to the Iranian regime is very loyal to the Green Revolution and strangely PressTV

here is their blue print:

Such a policy would have four separate tasks:

• Provide moral and educational support for the Green Revolution. Here third parties, rather than the U.S. government, should play the main role. Dissidents should be reminded that others have succeeded on the same path they are travelling.

We should, for instance, publicize reports on what worked in Ukraine or Georgia, spread testimony by leaders like the Czech Republic’s Vaclav Havel, and distribute, in Farsi, guides to nonviolent change like Gene Sharp’s “From Dictatorship to Democracy” and Peter Ackerman’s “A Force More Powerful.” It’s time to dub into Farsi documentaries on the fall of Ceausescu, Milosevic and Pinochet; the transitions in South Africa and Poland; and the achievements of the U.S. civil-rights movement.

• Tighten sanctions on the Iranian economy and publicize the connection between regime belligerence and economic malaise. Despite Iran’s oil wealth, the economy has for years been in miserable shape thanks to bad management, corruption and the squandering of funds on Arab terrorist groups and the nuclear program. The slogans of the protestors demonstrate that they are connecting the dots between the regime’s foreign policy and economic privation.

• Do all we can to increase communications within Iran, as well as between Iran and the outside world. Opposition movements succeed through sharing and disseminating information. Broadcasting by the taxpayer-funded Radio Farda and Voice of America satellite TV should be ramped up, and we should encourage the U.K. to do the same with the BBC. We also should vigorously protest attempts by Iran to jam broadcast signals in defiance of international law, back private media—from satellite TV pitched at young people to cell-phone messaging to social networking—and help Iranians get the technology to overcome regime attempts to block and censor.

• Finally, we should refute, in campaign style, the four key propositions of Iranian propaganda. These are that the reformers are unrepresentative and unpatriotic; that the U.S. is in decline and wants to cut a deal with Iran and extricate itself from the Middle East; that Iran’s nuclear program will advance the country technologically; and that international opposition to the program is a Western plot to keep Iran, as a Muslim nation, poor and backward.

Of course, to do this, the Obama administration would first have to decide that it wishes to get rid of the Ahmadinejad regime. So far, it has been more interested in propping up that regime through ‘engagement.’

Do not be so sure that the tech scene is loyal to Western interests. Iranian tech politics might not be in unison, but they are far from interested in being pals with us.


How to undermine the Iranian regime? Social Media and Tech

January 22, 2010

I am not as confident about a Tech Culture being the cross roads to friendship with Iran as the Wall Street Journal:

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, James K. Glassman and Michael Doran explain how the United States government can support the ‘green revolution’ and undermine the Iranian regime. via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

That threat can be diminished three ways: by military action, by compromise by Iran’s regime, or by a new, less bellicose government taking power in Tehran. The first two appear unlikely, but the third, at least since protests broke out last June after the presidential election, seems more and more realistic. Yet so far the United States and its allies have shrunk from seriously encouraging that third way. via online.wsj.com

the WSJ article seems to think military action is unlikely. A terrorist state is building a bomb and they see military action as unlikely? unlikely because we are idiots maybe.  Propaganda through advanced technology is always a great idea. in fact the Iranians have been doing it to us all decade through the likes of a relationship through Robert Scoble @Scobleizer and his social media scene on twitter and friendfeed, who while disloyal to the Iranian regime is very loyal to the Green Revolution and strangely PressTV
here is their blue print:

Such a policy would have four separate tasks:
• Provide moral and educational support for the Green Revolution. Here third parties, rather than the U.S. government, should play the main role. Dissidents should be reminded that others have succeeded on the same path they are travelling.
We should, for instance, publicize reports on what worked in Ukraine or Georgia, spread testimony by leaders like the Czech Republic’s Vaclav Havel, and distribute, in Farsi, guides to nonviolent change like Gene Sharp’s “From Dictatorship to Democracy” and Peter Ackerman’s “A Force More Powerful.” It’s time to dub into Farsi documentaries on the fall of Ceausescu, Milosevic and Pinochet; the transitions in South Africa and Poland; and the achievements of the U.S. civil-rights movement.
• Tighten sanctions on the Iranian economy and publicize the connection between regime belligerence and economic malaise. Despite Iran’s oil wealth, the economy has for years been in miserable shape thanks to bad management, corruption and the squandering of funds on Arab terrorist groups and the nuclear program. The slogans of the protestors demonstrate that they are connecting the dots between the regime’s foreign policy and economic privation.
• Do all we can to increase communications within Iran, as well as between Iran and the outside world. Opposition movements succeed through sharing and disseminating information. Broadcasting by the taxpayer-funded Radio Farda and Voice of America satellite TV should be ramped up, and we should encourage the U.K. to do the same with the BBC. We also should vigorously protest attempts by Iran to jam broadcast signals in defiance of international law, back private media—from satellite TV pitched at young people to cell-phone messaging to social networking—and help Iranians get the technology to overcome regime attempts to block and censor.
• Finally, we should refute, in campaign style, the four key propositions of Iranian propaganda. These are that the reformers are unrepresentative and unpatriotic; that the U.S. is in decline and wants to cut a deal with Iran and extricate itself from the Middle East; that Iran’s nuclear program will advance the country technologically; and that international opposition to the program is a Western plot to keep Iran, as a Muslim nation, poor and backward.

Of course, to do this, the Obama administration would first have to decide that it wishes to get rid of the Ahmadinejad regime. So far, it has been more interested in propping up that regime through ‘engagement.’

Do not be so sure that the tech scene is loyal to Western interests. Iranian tech politics might not be in unison, but they are far from interested in being pals with us.