Jump to content

Should the Jews repay their debt to the Persians?


Recommended Posts

"By the river of Babylon, where we have come....

Israel Defense Minister Converses with Radio Listeners in... Iran

DEBKAfile Special Report

December 17, 2003, 5:57 PM (GMT+02:00)

This week, Israel’s Iranian-born defense minister Shaul Mofaz made the unique gesture of answering questions from listeners in Iran – in their own language - in a live broadcast over Israel Radio’s Farsi-language service.

The questions came thick and fast.

In answer to one, he promised everything would be done to protect the environment against radioactive fallout should Israeli forces destroy Iran’s nuclear capability.

Shaul Mofaz was only six when his family emigrated from Iran to Israel. His knowledge of Farsi is rudimentary at best. But that didn’t stop the Israeli defense chief from getting his message across to a stream of callers from the Islamic Republic who appealed to him for help on Israel Radio’s Farsi service this week.

One caller from a city in central Iran asked when Israel and the Jews would finally repay their historical debt to Cyrus the Great and rescue the Iranian people from the dread ayatollahs, just as US President George W. Bush had helped the people of Iraq and Afghanistan throw off their oppressors.

(It was in 538 BC that Cyrus, king of Persia, fulfilling the word of God as spoken by the Prophet Jeremiah, issued a proclamation allowing the Jews to return to Zion from their exile in Babylon and rebuild their Temple in Jerusalem.)

Mofaz, admitting he was not in the miracle business, wished the Iranian people success in their struggle for freedom. But then a stream of callers pleaded for Israel to intervene to help overthrow the Islamic regime. The defense minister replied it was up to the Iranian people to determine its fate. But he also mentioned the United States role in the region and said the Americans still had much work to do after prevailing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran and Syria were still there as key elements of Bush’s axis of evil.

This reply brought forth a chorus of listeners who wanted to persuade the Israeli minister that the Teheran regime was more of a danger to the region and the world than Saddam Hussein had ever been.

Mofaz gently parried these demands. He also refrained from answering a listener, apparently calling from the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, who wanted a rundown of Israel’s attitude on the Kurdish question and Iraq’s future.

Many of the questions focused on Iran’s nuclear weapons program. One caller wanted to know how Israel would respond to Iran’s efforts to build an atomic bomb or stage a nuclear attack. Mofaz said that, should it became necessary to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Israel would take steps to ensure the safety of Iranian civilians.

Some callers asked for a response to the Iranian defense minister Hossein Dehghan’s statement on Sunday, December 14, that Iran had no choice but to develop increasingly powerful weapons to overcome the technological threats posed by its strongest enemies, the United States and Israel. Mofaz denied any threat. The Jewish state had no offensive intentions towards Iran; nor did it nurture any hostility toward the Iranian people. In the past, Iran and the Jewish states had enjoyed warm and productive relations. But if Israel came under attack, he emphasized, it would defend itself with all the measures it deemed necessary.

A woman caller, a Muslim, then recalled tearfully the disappearance eight years ago of the son of Jewish neighbors who had never been heard of since being caught in flight across the border with Pakistan. In the last decade, 12 Iranian Jews have been caught fleeing by way of Pakistan and never seen again.

Mofaz reiterated Israel’s commitment to protect Jews all over the world. He promised to investigate these cases and see what could be done to help.

At the end of the 50-minute program, Mofaz said he would never have imagined the depth of sympathy for Israel entertained by ordinary Iranians - in sharp contrast to the violence and hate emitting from the rulers of the Islamic Republic. The gap between regime and people was dramatic. A lot of this sympathy is born of the Iranian people’s historic resentment of their Islamic rulers and the Arabs, who invaded their country 1,400 years ago, destroyed Iranian culture and forced the populace to embrace Islam.

Israel Radio’s Farsi service has become a byword among a wide audience in Iran. Just last week, an Iranian legislator who voiced sharp criticism in parliament of the Iranian government was asked sarcastically whether he was not Menashe Amir, director of Israel Radio’s Farsi service, in disguise.

Mofaz’s warm dialogue with ordinary Iranians occurred in the same week as harsh comments from Iran’s supreme leader and strongman, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on the capture of Saddam Hussein last Saturday December 12. The ayatollah voiced the wish that “Bush and Sharon” share the same inglorious fate suffered by the former Iraqi dictator. Cynically parroting the words of President George Bush about Saddam, Khamenei thundered, “The world would be a better place without them.”

Tehran’s hostility is not confined to belligerent language.

DEBKAfile’s military sources reported on December 15 that Russia has sold Iran advanced 300-A air defense missile systems – over Washington’s objections - to defend its controversial nuclear reactor in the southern town of Bushehr. Their deployment was discovered by chance Sunday, when two of the missiles while being installed flew out of control. One hit a minibus, killing two bus passengers and injuring 20; the second caused heavy damage to town buildings – far more extensive than admitted by Tehran. The official Iranian news agency IRNA, reporting on the incident, said a self-targeting weapon – which it did not identify -- failed to trigger its auto-destruct mechanism and slammed into the minibus.

The diplomatic fallout from this discovery will be considerable.

Israel too is watching Iran’s constant weapons upgrades with a wary eye.

On Tuesday, December 16, Israeli Shin Beit director Avi Dichter, in a rare public appearance, named Iran as the world’s No. 1 terror state and Israel’s most dangerous security threat. Tehran, he said, targets both Israel and Jews everywhere. He cited Tehran’s hand behind the 1994 bombing of the Buenos Aires Jewish community in which 85 died and more than 200 were wounded. Dichter accused the Iranians of continually hatching trouble right up to the present. Beyond backing, financing and arming the virulently anti-Israel Lebanese Shiite terror group, the Hizballah, Tehran has marked out Israel’s Arab citizens for exploitation as a potential fifth column. He described Iranian agents are actively recruiting hirelings in the Arab community.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=746

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably need to consider how unbiased debka.com is.

DEBKAfile is a self-supporting Internet publication devoted to independent, investigative reporting and forward analysis in the fields of international terrorism, intelligence, international conflict, Islam, military affairs, security and politics.

DEBKAfile comes out seven days a week in English and Hebrew with additional language sites planned.

We began publishing two and-a-half years ago. Our primary aim was to answer what appeared to be a crying need on the Web for strong content in the fields of our expertise based on cutting edge journalism.

The response has exceeded all our expectations. DEBKAfile by supplying a need has proved also to be a viable business operation.

I found it interesting that it never used the adjective 'unbiased' when describing itself. Also, it promotes analysis of Islam, but not of Judaism itself. Interesting.

And the last paragraph is brilliant - "a viable business operation".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jt I think you've taken a side to a lot of issues so it's really a waste of time and bandwidth space to discuss this with you. You have closed your mind like a steel trap and have a very narrow mind.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is this.

i) This conversation did take place. I have read it elsewhere that the Iranian goverment has acknowledged this.

ii) The Jews were helped by the Persians before Islam arrived there. This is a historical fact.

iii) I'd rather put my money with Debka files then Al Jazeera. At least Israel is a democracy. Jews are allowed to have differing opinions among themselves. Have you heard of Jews opposing Israel and Jews for Allah?

I cannot say the same for any Muslim country in the Mid East and like wise their media will be controlled or have to work within a certain framework.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't tire so easily Jamuka... :LOL:

I take your steel trap comment as a compliment, thank you. However, my mind is not narrow...I just have a problem with sweeping generalistaions and thinly veiled racism.

I don't think we've yet had a 'discussion'. All I've been doing is occasionally countering your posts...talking of which, there are a few questions I was rather hoping you'd answer on the 'change your life' topic :wink:

As for your comments on the debka files...I wasn't really commenting on them. My comment was entirely in response to your foolish statement above about perfectly valid critical thinking being a sign of 'losing an argument'!

A sign of a successful evaluation is to understand the nature of the 'messanger' as you put it...take for example, if you told me the world was square, that would infer more about you than the message itself. Another example, knowing the life experiences of Satre and Camus helps to understand their respective takes on existentialist philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't tire so easily Jamuka...

Hardly so dude. No point debating with someone who's already made up their minds, no?

I take your steel trap comment as a compliment, thank you. However, my mind is not narrow...I just have a problem with sweeping generalistaions and thinly veiled racism.

I disagree, you do have a very narrow mind. You are quick to come to the conclusion that any discussion taking place on race is racism. The word racism itself have been literally raped by these politically correct types. I heard that somewhere in another part of the world our very own PC crowd are requesting the local goverment to change the color of trash cans from black to another color. They actually believe the color of the trash cans (Black) signifies that Black people are trash. I suspect you would probably agree with them.

As for your comments on the debka files...I wasn't really commenting on them. My comment was entirely in response to your foolish statement above about perfectly valid critical thinking being a sign of 'losing an argument'!

Foolish you say? I tell you now, what does it matter who is the messenger? Isn't the messege itself that is important? Our resident bozo here made some ludicrous claims about Debka files. Ok, thats all fine and dandy and I actually appreciate it but why did he not critisize the article itself? If one believes the message is false, then why don't they prove it wrong?

The fact of the matter is this 'O learned sage', those who critisize the messenger without critisizing the message is one who cannot counter the points brought forth, so he/she will get personal.

And to your earlier question

I guess you'd say the same to criticism of articles produced by the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany circa 1935 Jamuka

My answer is yes. I will at least analyze whatever one has to say despite it's source. Unlike you, I believe in keeping an open mind. If Ted Bundy wrote a book countering Einsteins theory of relaitivity, would you quickly discount it just because it is written by a serial killer?

A sign of a successful evaluation is to understand the nature of the 'messanger' as you put it...take for example, if you told me the world was square, that would infer more about you than the message itself. Another example, knowing the life experiences of Satre and Camus helps to understand their respective takes on existentialist philosophy.

I think you're well read but yet I find your sense of logic really stupid. What does it matter who claimed what? If you told me the world was square, I would research and see if this is true. Only those who cannot counter your assertion will get personal and question who you are as opposed to what you say.

BTW the Quran states that the world is flat. What is your opinion of the author of this book, may I know?

Have you tried alligning your car wheels when the arm is bent? You see, if the arm is bent, no matter how many times you rotate your wheels or allign them, they will always pull and will not remain straight. I notice this same type of nature being exhibited by some of us here. No matter what you tell them, they always believe in their own preconcieved notion of what is reality. To them I say 'you are right and I am wrong' and let them be on their way so that their ego may remain intact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice this same type of nature being exhibited by some of us here. No matter what you tell them, they always believe in their own preconcieved notion of what is reality. To them I say 'you are right and I am wrong' and let them be on their way so that their ego may remain intact.

Wow - truly enlightening. Ever thought about following it yourself?

Our resident bozo here made some ludicrous claims about Debka files. Ok, thats all fine and dandy and I actually appreciate it but why did he not critisize the article itself? If one believes the message is false, then why don't they prove it wrong?

Shame on me for questioning the validity of your source.

Unfortunately jamuka, your mind is so narrow that there's room only for your point of view. You don't seem to realise that there are certain people in this world who are not either for Islam or against it.

You quote numerous sources against Islam and pretty much spam the forum with them. I just decided to read one of them for once and found your source to be, in my opinion, biased.

The fact of the matter is this 'O learned sage', those who critisize the messenger without critisizing the message is one who cannot counter the points brought forth, so he/she will get personal.

The first line of my post was "Probably need to consider how unbiased debka.com is" --> I did not say I was for the arguments or against, just that I felt the 'messenger' wasn't completely neutral. Unfortunately, you don't seem to comprehend views other than your own, hence you decided to accuse me of attacking the messenger instead of the argument. To me, thats a sign that your huge ego was hurt by what I wrote, and you couldn't defend the 'messenger'.

The solution is quite simple - to make your post more authentic obtain some material that correlates to the above story and is less biased than debka.com.

Just a side point - if I was to spam the message boards with articles of the recent worldwide condemnation of Israel, what would your reaction be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also Jamuka, on another thread that ImaanWala guy gave us his knowledge on Sikhi and his source was an Islamic site:

http://www.alislam.org/books/religiousknowledge/sec6.html

Any broadminded individual would realise that the views being perputrated are going to be biased due to the very nature of the source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shame on me for questioning the validity of your source.

Again, this is what I said.

Our resident bozo here made some ludicrous claims about Debka files. Ok, thats all fine and dandy and I actually appreciate it but why did he not critisize the article itself? If one believes the message is false, then why don't they prove it wrong?

Do you understand the meaning of the word 'appreciate'?

Unfortunately jamuka, your mind is so narrow that there's room only for your point of view. You don't seem to realise that there are certain people in this world who are not either for Islam or against it.

In Islam, there is Darul Islam and Darul Harb. Little does a fool like you not realise that while you choose to remain unbiased, Islam has differentiated between Muslims and Non Muslims. BTW you are definitely not biased. I laugh so hard every time I come across characters like you who claim to be neutral but in actually are far from it.

You quote numerous sources against Islam and pretty much spam the forum with them. I just decided to read one of them for once and found your source to be, in my opinion, biased.

A few question if you don't me asking

i) How is it biased? Is it biased because it is a an Israeli website? If you are convinced that the sources of my articles are biased, you then should be able to point out the biases and the lies, right? So why don't you walk the walk and point out the bias and the lie? BTW how is a website biased by reporting an actual event that took place? Please enlghten my narrow mind and point out the bias. I await your reply.

ii) What does it matter who is the source from? So if Kushwant Singh wrote a book about the Sikhs, would you deem it bias as opposed to a book written by Macauliff? Woudn't you at least read the article/book and find the flaws in it instead of writing it off claiming it to be biased just because the source is not to your liking? Who is with the narrow mind now, you or me?

iii) You talk about bias when major medias such as the BBC and the Daily Mirror have been caugh lying with their pants down to the public. So if even the Beeb cannot be trusted, who can we trust?

The first line of my post was "Probably need to consider how unbiased debka.com is" --> I did not say I was for the arguments or against, just that I felt the 'messenger' wasn't completely neutral.

The please point out the bias.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to comprehend views other than your own, hence you decided to accuse me of attacking the messenger instead of the argument. To me, thats a sign that your huge ego was hurt by what I wrote, and you couldn't defend the 'messenger'.

I keep an open mind and listen to what ever anybody has to say. I don't look at the source first to decide if the information provided is biased or not. So who here is with a narrow mind? Actually it was the other way around.

I have printed something that you don't quite agree with or probably goes against your value system. You could not find fault with it so you blame the website. Muslims frequently resort to such tactics when they are cornered.

The solution is quite simple - to make your post more authentic obtain some material that correlates to the above story and is less biased than debka.com.

The solution is for you to either point out the bias and if you or not able to do so, admit to yourself that it must be the truth or close to it.

Just a side point - if I was to spam the message boards with articles of the recent worldwide condemnation of Israel, what would your reaction be?

I have not spammed, I have posted articles that are against your belief system. Should I stop because I have hurt your ego? No. I will not allow my Sikh brothers and sisters to be led astray by your God of political correctness and will let them judge for themselves what is the truth and what isn't.

In fact I would welcome you to post anything with open arms as I am an advocate of freedom of speech and wholeheartedly agree with Voltaire to defend your right to express your opinion even if I may not agree to it. Now don't you think thats fair or do you believe in fairness? Look who is being intolerant now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jamuka, stop getting so worked up.

Read my posts again.

I am neither against Islam, nor for it.*

I just questioned how biased your source was.

* In a religion as big as Islam there are opposing factions whose views differ significantly. Every religion has the same factions. We see the same on this very forum - there are those who believe in Sanatan Sikhi (a view that I find comfort in) and there are those who believe in 'modern-day Sikhi' (the best name I could think of). These two views are worlds apart on certain issues, yet the core of the beliefs are identical. I believe the same for Islam - I never used to, two or three years ago I hated anything to do with Islam. But with age and a bit more maturity, my views have softened and become more neutral. More to the point, those who are accepting towards me I have no problem with, but those that fit the profile that you purport I detest.

My questioning of your source was simply that. No more, no less. If you read my posts again I think you will find that I don't question whether the incident took place or not. Hence my request to you to find material to correlate with what happened.

Just to repeat: I did not question whether the incident took place or not, just the validity of your source.

If you are convinced that the sources of my articles are biased, you then should be able to point out the biases and the lies, right? So why don't you walk the walk and point out the bias and the lie? BTW how is a website biased by reporting an actual event that took place? Please enlghten my narrow mind and point out the bias. I await your reply.

Did you even read my first post? I pointed out what parts that I felt made the source biased in my opinion. If others disagree then they should counter my arguments on the points I raised, rather than trying to determine the nature of my character.

ii) What does it matter who is the source from? So if Kushwant Singh wrote a book about the Sikhs, would you deem it bias as opposed to a book written by Macauliff? Woudn't you at least read the article/book and find the flaws in it instead of writing it off claiming it to be biased just because the source is not to your liking? Who is with the narrow mind now, you or me?

iii) You talk about bias when major medias such as the BBC and the Daily Mirror have been caugh lying with their pants down to the public. So if even the Beeb cannot be trusted, who can we trust?

ii) If someone told me they were going to read a book by Kushwant Singh and put all their faith in it I would ask them to research his background and his sources first, and then read his text with an open mind.

iii) The Beeb is at heart a government controlled media outlet. Hence, when one uses the Beeb as their one and only source of information, they would have to recognise this fact and take it into consideration. This is exactly the pont that I was trying to raise.

I keep an open mind and listen to what ever anybody has to say. I don't look at the source first to decide if the information provided is biased or not. So who here is with a narrow mind? Actually it was the other way around.

I also read the article fully before then attempting to find out more about the source (debka.com). From the information gathered (see my first post) I felt that, in my opinion, the source was a biased medium of information.

I have printed something that you don't quite agree with or probably goes against your value system. You could not find fault with it so you blame the website. Muslims frequently resort to such tactics when they are cornered.

Jamuka - what are you on about dude? Very presumtuous aren't you. "You could not find fault with it so you blame the website". Here's what I wrote just in case you missed it the first time (its near the beginning of this post):

My questioning of your source was simply that. No more, no less. If you read my posts again I think you will find that I don't question whether the incident took place or not. Hence my request to you to find material to correlate with what happened.

The funniest thing is, you actually remind me of the very same fanatical muslims that you are exposing (although your belief seems to be that all muslims are like that). Its seems as though if someone disagrees slighly with what you are saying (or, in my case, disagrees with the source of your information) then they are a fool/bozo/muslim/non-Sikh/egotistical/narrow-minded etc.

Also Jamuka, on another thread that ImaanWala guy gave us his knowledge on Sikhi and his source was an Islamic site:

http://www.alislam.org/books/religiousknowledge/sec6.html

Any broadminded individual would realise that the views being perputrated are going to be biased due to the very nature of the source.

I think I've regurgitated my main point enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My questioning of your source was simply that. No more, no less. If you read my posts again I think you will find that I don't question whether the incident took place or not. Hence my request to you to find material to correlate with what happened.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...1111448,00.html

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Commu...playMode=screen

The first source is the Guardian newspaper (a well respected British broadsheet) and the second is an official Israeli government website.

See Jamuka, what I asked for wasn't difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...