51 thoughts on “Israelis Say ‘No’ to Iran War – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. The last sentence of the post has a couple of typos. When writing, “Compare this statement to the one from Ayatollah Beheshti …,” you mean Boroujerdi, rather than Beheshti, who was an IRI ideologue assassinated during the early 80s, and it’d make more sense to link the URL not to “this statement” but the words following it.

  2. I am sort of surprised by your last paragraph.
    I would think you would agree with the idea of differentiating between the Iranian people and its government. You really object to the notion that the Iranian people are good but the Ayatollahs are bad? I’m not sure why this would be something you would take issue with.

      1. I see the point – I am just not sure why it is a disagreeable one.

        Wouldn’t you agree that the people of Iran are not to be thought of interchangeably with the ruling mullahs?

        I would think the comment cited here would be similar to someone from Iran saying that they think well of the Israeli people but not of the Likud-led government.

        You yourself made this statement: “Likud is a cancer to all of humanity, including Israelis.”

          1. Does the Rabbi quoted in your original entry advocate Israel invading Iran in order to overthrow the mullahs? Or is he simply pointing out that the leadership of Iran has many troubling traits (a sentiment I would think you’d agree with)?

          2. He studiously avoids discussing that issue but I’m sure you can find his e mail & ask him. I’d be curious to know the answer myself. But since most settler rabbis hate Arabs & Iranians, I think I’d hazard a pretty good guess as to his views on the subject. If the good rabbi had noted any flaws of Israel’s government, I’d have felt a lot more comfortable with his message. He didn’t which reveals his biases.

        1. Agreed, a people always deserve a mutually exclusive look from their government.

          The semantics of all efforts in a relationship are important and not to be overlooked; for example, would you accept an insincere apology? There is reason why it is important to keep integrity and unity between your actions and your communications.

          I think it’s still important, however, to not try to create a clique here. The wrong calculus is this: if given a choice, the Iranian people will choose anyone else over their government. The Iranians know the government, although many are disagreement with its domestic policy, is the last line of defense for Iran against a world that has been out to get them since before 1953.

          Here is the real message to the world: Hands of the people of the world!

          And here is the reply to the message and all those who supported this campaign despite the semantic disparity: thank you. The Iranian people truly love you, too. But we will not join a clique with you in bashing anyone when the message should only be peace and love.

    1. BM: “I would think you would agree with the idea of differentiating between the Iranian people and its government.”

      When I read statements like that I think back to the reporting of Robert Fisk in the leadup to the 2003 Iraqi War.

      He wrote about the day he realized that Bush was, indeed, going to war wth Iraq: it was when he heard Bush say that the USA did not have a problem with the Iraqi *people*, just with the Iraqi *leadership*.

      Oh-oh, wrote Fisk, that’s code for: a lot of you Iraqi people are soon going to die because of me. But no hard feelings, heh, buddy.

      Because that’s the problem with “differentiating between the Iranian people and its government” i.e. it turns their deaths into “collateral damage”, which means that you can wash their blood off your hands.

      You’ll still be the one killing them, of course, but you absolve yourself of responsibility for it.

      1. This is preposterous.

        By this logic, no government can be criticized.

        Do you not differentiate between the North Korean people and their government either?

    2. Because those who advance this trope clearly favor regime change. Regime change is yet another dead end. Get rid of the regime (which you can’t do) & you don’t get rid of the problem. Would you favor Iranians saying Israelis are good & their leaders are evil, & we only got rid of that “Zionist regime” (Israel’s leadership) then everything would be honky dory?

      1. You asked:

        “Would you favor Iranians saying Israelis are good & their leaders are evil, & we only got rid of that “Zionist regime” (Israel’s leadership) then everything would be honky dory?”

        But isn’t that pretty much your position?

        That is to say, don’t you believe that the current leadership in Israel is bad and ought to be replaced?

          1. Yes, the rabbi’s message is stilted and one-sided. He is saying that the good people of Israel and of Iran are both opposed to a particularly bad regime which squelches the rights of women, i.e. the Iranian regime. It is hardly a balanced and unbiased message. Had he indicated that the good folks in Israel and Iran both oppose bad leadership in both countries, it would have been balanced. As it is, it is offensive to me and surely offensive to the Iranian “people” to which it is directed. It is tendentious and offensive.

  3. No he isn’t. That’s the whole point. That’s why he avoids any mention that all those “community organizers” aren’t some mainstream Israelis, but members of the hardcore Left (the chief agitator for the rally is a Communist). The false equivalence between the gang of murderers and antisemites in Tehran and the elected government in Israel is this fellow’s bread and butter.

    1. That’s a pretty high horse you have there brother… Especially with the body count your elected government amasses every year.

      Your anti-semite accusation also shows that you are incapable of making the distinction between the state, religion and population of Israel, i.e. you’re the perfect Zionist. Tehran has consistently only targeted the state of Israel (not its people nor its religion) in its rhetoric, and the same can’t be said about Tel-Aviv.

      You might also want to ask the 25’000 Jews living in Iran why they don’t accept the Israeli and US bribes and move to Israel since their life is such a nightmare. Must be very irking to have this glaring paradox in Iranian society – the most fundamentalist Shia Muslim country in the world hosts the second biggest Jewish population in the Middle East… In peace.

    2. You’re a total idiot. The J14 organizers are Communists? Israel doesn’t even have Communists anymore. But what it does have is rightist idiots like you who spout meaningless slogans.

      Iranians are just as justified in calling your government a bunch of murderers & racists as you are in calling their leaders that.

    3. Your elected government has not more moral claim than the Iranian government, probably much less. There is more ground for equivalence than differentiation given your governments practices and policies.

  4. The Iranian people themselves make this distinction between Iran and the Islamic Republic.

    (Richard, thanks for calling me an Israeli-Iranian. Please keep it, but correct the Ayatollah’s name to Borujerdi. And if you edit comments, you may delete the brackets).

    1. And it is for the Iranian people themselves to make it. Do you not understand the concept of foreign meddling?

      1. بنظر من و بر اساس واکنش ها ئی که از دوستان ایرانی می گیرم، اینکه غربی ها هم این فرق را بکنند به نفع ملت ایران است.

        1. That’s true, but the West continuously acts like it fails to understand the one major difference in this relationship: if Iran is attacked, the people of Iran won’t defend their regime. They’ll defend their country, which is tantamount to a vindication of the Mullah’s legitimacy in the light of a foreign threat.

          It’s this very point that leads to the belief all this is just one massive farce, since no-one can be that blind and stupid all at once. Any action they take against Iran ends up empowering the Mullahs and tightening their stranglehold on power, which is supposedly the exact opposite of what they’re trying to achieve: regime change.

          As we go deeper into all this, the point of view that Israel, Iran, and the US have been in bed together all along becomes more and more credible…

          1. I completely agree with you on that point. Bombing Iran would be a disaster not only because it will kill innocent (and oppressed) people, who are our friends, but also because it will strengthen the regime, thus reducing the chance of peace in the region and freedom for the people of Iran.

        2. You are right, and I should have phrased myself better. I meant to say that people oft mistake (or even hijack) the domestic grievances of Iranians for the purposes of advancing nefarious agendas, including bombing “freedom” into Iran.

          BTW, let me remind everyone the sanctions are completely illegitimate and fraudulent as Israel even admits Iran has yet to DECIDE to build a bomb. Even the accusations against Iran are fraudulent. Iran has subjected itself to inspections and been wholly misrepresented by a privately owned media to a global audience.

          The note by lifelong = 100% correct. On the foreign policy front, Iranians worldwide stand united by the supermajority (to unanimity). On the domestic front, there exist disparities. Due to Iran’s long running problem of foreign meddling, Iranians are adamant that they would like to resolve the domestic issue privately within their borders.

          After all, Iranians can live far better, but they are not Saudi Arabians or Palestinians.

    2. Some Iranians make this distinction, not all. And no Israeli rabbi should tell Iranians that their government is a tyranny, just as the Ayatollah Boroujerdi didn’t tell Israelis that their government is a tyranny. Most Iranians see Israel’s leaders in that way. Yet it would be rude & uncouth to say so & Boroujerdi didn’t. Because he has better manners.

      1. Why do you assume that Boroujerdi would think that the Israeli’s have a tyrannical government (and just didn’t say so to avoid being rude and uncouth)?

        Wouldn’t it be more likely that Boroujerdi would agree with the rabbi that Iran has a tyrannical government?

        Especially in light of the fact that he was sentenced to death for insulting Iran’s Supreme Leader and speaking out against the regime (A charge that, on appeal, was reduced to 11 years in prison).

        1. Because, Bob, he has eyes, ears, a heart, a brain, and no bias so as to ignore human suffering and justify it.

          1. Here’s what Boroujerdi has to say about Iran’s government:

            “The Islamic regime in Iran came to power based on lies and false promises by its founders, and with the passage of time, it lost its public footing, to the point where the international community realized that the people of Iran and the regime are in fact, divided.

            Those atop the regime of Supreme Leadership continue to either plunder or pillage the great wealth of this rich land, or expand their militaristic and autocratic ambitions. They, are not only unwilling to change their violent and dictatorial behavior, but they do everything in their power to block any and every peaceful means of improving and finally changing the regime.”

            That is only a short excerpt of a letter he wrote to Hillary Clinton from prison in November of last year.

            I trust that you will take his words to heart.

          2. Bob, but what you don’t get is that the Iranian complaint is an internal one about a domestic struggle. One which is mild compared to the plight of Palestinians or the average Saudi Arabian.

            On the foreign policy front, 100% of Iranians worldwide support the government’s stance as it is both on the moral and legal high ground.

          3. PersianAdvocate,

            Tell the residents of Evin Prison that their complaint is “mild” compared to Palestinians or Saudis. I’m sure they would appreciate it.

            I would also note that your claim that “100 percent of Iranians worldwide” support the government’s stance on the foreign policy front is quite revealing.

            Supporters of human rights anywhere ought to be supporters of human rights everywhere.

          4. Bob Mann — re Persian Advocate: You are mixing apples and oranges. Iranians can be complicit with their government on foreign policy without THEREBY supporting the internal strategy of the regime. Support is not “all or nothing.” Israelis can support the government’s foreign policies without condoning its attempts to strip citizens of rights and close down dissent.

        2. I don’t assume anything about Boroujerdi’s views of Israel’s government because he wisely didn’t even mention the subject–a mistake the rabbi couldn’t help himself fr making. I’m sure the Ayatalloah believes Iran’s leaders are tyrannical just as I’m sure he opposes an attack on Iran or an attempt to overthrow its government, views at odds with those of Israelis leaders who embrace an attack wholeheartedly.

          1. Boroujerdi definitely supports an attempt to overthrow Iran’s government. Have you seen any of his writings? I posted an excerpt from his letter to Hillary Clinton above.

          2. I myself noted Boroujerdi doesn’t support the current regime & believes it’s tyrannical. He’s in jail. How could he? But that doesn’t mean he supports regime change engineered by Israel or the U.S. No doubt he’s in favor of a democratically elected, non-Islamist regime. I’m in favor of that as well. But I’ll bet he doesn’t support intervention in Iran’s affairs or dictation of what form of gov’t Iran should have by outsiders. I’ll bet he doesn’t support foreign intervention in Iran. And I’ll bet the good rabbi does support some or all of that.

          3. Exactly, Richard. Bob is trying to exploit words to drive his own agenda when in reality the Iranians have always said the same thing about their domestic struggle: “It’s OURS. BUTT OUT”

          4. Boroujerdi does not say “It’s OURS. BUTT OUT” with relation to the domestic struggle in Iran.

            In fact, he said the exact opposite. I would urge you to read the letter he wrote to Hillary Clinton last year.

            It explicitly calls for assistance from the US and the international community.

          5. Bob Mann — are you suggesting he is calling for a US/Israeli assault on the country? Is he urging Israel to bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities? Recognize that this is the point: What are you attempting to prove here, anyway?

          6. David,

            I refer you to Boroujerdi’s letter to Hillary Clinton if you’d like to know what he is and is not calling for.

            He writes that “a nationwide referendum, monitored by international observers, in order to vote for a government and form of leadership of their choice” is a “vital need”.

            He directly addresses Mrs. Clinton:

            “You are in that certain position, and have all the U.S. diplomatic means at your disposal, to partner with powerful allies to make this vital need, possible. Now that international sanctions against Iran are being actively pursued by the Security Council, it is absolutely necessary that problems be solved at the root, where this inhumane and violent regime is concerned. Undoubtedly, any and all effective action will be lauded by Iranians, all of whom are being abjectly oppressed, as well as all free thinkers of the world.”

            You can draw your own conclusions as to what he is calling for. My only claim is that he is not saying “butt out” by any stretch of the imagination, but quite the opposite.

            That is what I am trying to prove, and I believe the evidence shows that I have done so.

          7. So your claim that the words “you have all the U.S. diplomatic means at your disposal” to deal with Iran, means he favors outside foreign military intervention to overthrow the current regime?

          8. Bob — I see that he is definitely not taking the “butt out” view. I do not see him calling for airstrikes and occupation of his country by the US and whatever coalition.

            I remind you that every revolution breeds its counter-revolutionaries who, for lack of internal support, historically have appealed to other regimes to intervene and set things to right. Boroujerdi might very well be of this ilk and share counter-revolution with some French nobility circa the French Revolution, some few Cubans after Castro, etc. The operative phrase is “for lack of internal support”. There may be many dissenters in Iran just as there are in Israel, but dissent is not counter-revolutionary and I doubt that the Iranians are counter-revolutionaries, yearning for the good old days of the Shah.

            From my perspective, you have made a good point but you have not proved it. One needs to infer violent counter revolution in his words. The Iranians are responsible for their government and its acts, however inhumane and violent. As you know, many of us have little trouble characterizing Israel’s government as violent and inhumane as well. But the Israelis are absolutely responsible for their government just as the Iranians are responsible for theirs.

            If Boroujerdi is seeking foreign military intervention, then he is a traitor.

          9. Bob… if boroujerdi or anyone ask for foreign assistance to overthrow the regime, he should be considered a traitor. Iranian will fix their domestic problem and do not need any assistance specially from US or “international community”

  5. I have to admit, that occasionally something happens that makes me feel more optimistic about the future.

    the way Israelis and Iranians are using social networks to campain against the war is good.

    I think the responce of the palestinan authority to the murders in toulouse is one of those moments too.


    perticularly this passage:

    Fayyad said that “it is time for those criminals to stop using Palestine as the reason for their terrorist acts.”

    The Palestinian children, he said, “ask for nothing other than to live in dignity, just as the rest of the children in the world.”

    I’d hug Salam Fayyad for uttering those words. the true solution to the problems in the area might actually start with those words.

      1. Personally, I loathe the rabbi, as above, who writes such a supercilious, insensitve and ignorant letter. Most settler statements are rich with such self-righteous carping.

  6. Imho, the only safe, sane and sensible solution that will promote a permanent and just peace between Israeli Jews and Palestinians is the two-state solution, which would be for Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders. Israel should evacuate her troops and right-wing Israeli Jewish settlers from West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, give up control of water and airspace in the above-mentioned territories and allow the Palestinians to create their own independent, sovereign nation-state alongside Israel, with Arab East Jerusalem as the new independent, sovereign Palestinian nation-state’s Capitol (Israel should retain Jewish West Jerusalem as their Capitol, however.).

    It is true that neither side is blameless, and they’ve both got sufficient amounts of blood on their hands to prove it. However, both peoples also have the right to self-determination in the form of their own independent, sovereign nation-states right alongside each other.

    As for the Palestinian refugees, the sensible way for reparation for them is the incorporation of the refugees into the new Palestinian nation-state.

    Yet, at the same time, I believe that the persistent refusal of both sides to come out, squarely face up to, and openly admit to their accountability in this decades-old debacle is one of the biggest, if not the biggest obstacle to this necessary peaceful solution. The coming out, facing up to, and openly and candidly admitting to their accountability in this debacle, while not an end in itself, would be a huge, huge step in the right direction, and would go a long way towards peace taking place between the israeli Jews and Palestinians.

  7. War isn’t a solution to any problem. It brings with it destructon, death and creates new and sometimes even more serious problems. No to war! Yes to a nuclear free world!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link