Showing posts with label Iranian Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iranian Election. Show all posts

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Tools of the Internet Revolution in Iran


On Looking Deeper, Or, Things About Iran You Might Not Know


by fake consultant

Published at : Daily Kos



Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:48:19 PM PDT


It has been an amazing week in Iran, and you are no doubt seeing images that would have been unimaginable just a few weeks ago.


For most of us, Iran has been a country about which we know very little...which, obviously, makes it tough to put the limited news we're getting into a proper context.


The goal of today's conversation is to give you a bit more of an "insider look" at today's news; and to do that we'll describe some of the risks Iranian bloggers face as they go about their business, we'll meet a blogging Iranian cleric, we'll address the issue of what tools the Iranians use for Internet censorship and the companies that could potentially be helping it along, and then we'll examine Internet traffic patterns into and out of Iran.


Finally, a few words about, of all things, how certain computer games might be useful as tools of revolution.


Read More:

Monday, June 15, 2009

The Ultimate Divide


The Ultimate Divide

And the Illusion of Armageddon



The recent events in Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon and even inside the United States, show that we are experiencing a deep divide in our world. You can see it and you can touch it. It affects elections like the ones we have recently seen in the U.S., Iran and Lebanon. It crosses boundaries of geography, ethnicity, religion or cultures. The new divide is not sectarian. We have seen in Lebanon that both the Hezbollah-led alliance and March 14 coalition both had Muslim and Christian factions as a part of each. This divide is not nationalistic. We have seen some right-wing American Neoconservatives publicly or secretly wishing that Ahmadinijad would win the elections so that a final confrontation between the U.S. and Iran would imminently draw near. Islamist fanatics also supported Ahmadinijad for what appears to be different reasons, but really it is because of the same motive. A quest for confrontation. A death wish for the bloodiest self-fulfilling prophecies of all time, Armageddon.


The new divide cuts deeply through our societies. It disrupts peaceful coexistence in our homelands and our world. It brings the threat of civil war closer to our towns and cities. It competes to control our media and our education systems. In one way, the new divide could be seen as being between the moderate and the traditional. The old and the new. Between the liberals and the conservatives. Between the fanatically religious and the secular. Between those who believe in changeable human laws and those who insist on following what they see as the timeless divine will of God. Between things we can debate and things which some consider to be unbound by time, place or logic. But ultimately, the divide is really between those who believe that our problems can be solved through dialogue, diplomacy, economic cooperation and even sanctions; and those who believe that war is inevitable. The divide is between those who believe that we, with all our differences can co-exist, and those who believe that it is either us or them. Between those who think that we can differ but still maintain amicable relations and those who think that either you are with us, the good, or you are against us siding with the axis of evil. The divide is between fear-mongers and promoters of xenophobia on one hand and those who simply believe that people are more or less the same everywhere on the other.


The national divide in Egypt, Lebanon or Iran is not a simple political disagreement within one agreed framework. It is often a disagreement on the nature of the framework which should govern agreements and disagreements. The debate in Washington about torture is not the result of a political disagreement. It represents a disagreement over a basic moral question, are the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights truly universal? Do Geneva conventions apply equally to us and to others? Are they only binding for others or are they binding for all of us? The same divide occurred a few years ago in the over whether or not the United States has the right to invade Iraq, without a United Nations mandate or a consensus from the international community. The problems in Pakistan are not caused by a minority or an isolated rebel group, they represent a national divide between a large portion of the population who supports or at least sympathizes with Taliban with its extremist and violently confrontational ideology, and moderates who want to resolve conflict through peaceful means and dialogue.


Needless to say, that the absence of an effective and fair International Justice System, stands behind the widening of this divide and the empowerment of the extremist ideology. When peaceful means failed and failed for decades, violence started to be marketed as a potentially more successful alternative.


The clash of civilizations assumes that a country or a group of countries belong to a distinctive civilization. Funny enough, the new roles of globalization weaken the validity of such classification. The truth is that the clash is happening within each society. It is a clash of mindsets. A clash of values and personal ideologies. The ideological commonalities cut across societies just like global market segmentation takes place. The clash, therefore, can be more accurately seen as a clash between those who believe in tolerance, diplomacy, peaceful struggle and would only consider war as a last resort in self-defense on one hand and those who believe in exclusivity, violent confrontations and pre-emptive strikes on the other hand.


The reason why many Israeli settlers refuse to leave their illegal settlements is because they believe that this land has been promised to them by God. Many Muslims also believe that they must control Jerusalem because of other religious reasons. During the crusades, Christian warriors believed they had to reclaim the holy land. Too many promises for the same piece of land. Muslims, Christians and Jews sadly have come to believe in Armageddon. The final war where God rewards the righteous, the faithful and the virtuous and delivers victory to his chosen people. The trouble is, each party believes that they are the chosen people. As soon as an attack on Gaza takes place, Muslim mosque preachers of the Friday prayers start telling the stories of Armageddon and how "a rock will tell the faithful that an enemy Jew is hiding behind it, so that the faithful can slay that enemy." Funny enough, the idea of Armageddon had no mention in the Koran and was most likely borrowed by late interpreters from biblical sources. Some Jewish sects and more recently Zionist Christians also believe in Armageddon with different intentions, to say the least. On the way to Armageddon, Islamist extremists, right-wing Neocon extremists, Zionist extremists, do all go hand in hand, till they arrive to the battlefield of course, there it will be a different story of which no one will live to tell. Perhaps Armageddon was once necessary as a potent psychological mobilization mechanism for survival in the past. But times have changed. Armageddon has become the scariest self-fulfilling prophecy of all times. But the good news is, as much as it is self-fulfilling it also is surely self-defeating.


The idea that there is a chosen nation, or a chosen people, or children of God, despite being so deeply rooted in the religious beliefs of Muslims, Christians and Jews is self-defeating because it gives moral justification to the notion that some of us are better or "more equal than others". The struggle of who exactly is better will continue to fuel war and conflict till doom's day, AKA Armageddon. One thing is for sure, Man, by his very nature seeks equality and freedom and rejects bondage and inferior treatment. Thus, ideologies which favor one race, one nation or one religion can fuel wars for centuries, but because Man ultimately seeks peace, safety, comfort and prosperity, these ideas are at the end self-defeating.


Armageddon, at least in the way it is currently being taught, is an illusion. Not because wars will never happen. Unfortunately we will witness wars every now and then. But the idea that Armageddon is a final war whereby one religion or one people will win an ultimate victory, military or otherwise, and then reign supreme happily ever after, as the world witnesses "the end of history", will just never happen. Wars, straight or asymmetric will just continue to erupt until a world order of equality and justice is established. Man will always seek freedom, dignity and equality and this will ultimately defeat Nazism, fascism and promoters of any sort of exclusive supremacy to any group, nation, race, religion or civilization.


But as for now, this divide will continue, until such time that the ominous promise of Armageddon is finally discredited.




Friday, June 12, 2009

Obama's New Beginning


Obama’s “New Beginning”:


Delivering on the Issue of Settlements

The people have started to deliver. The Lebanese people have just voted for U.S.-backed 14th March coalition and prevented Hezbollah from taking over the parliament and controlling the government. In today's elections in Iran, CNN is reporting heavy voter turnout. The Iranian opposition rally stepped up its pace significantly in the last week. A 17-km human chain of opposition ran across the Capital Tehran and signs show that the Obama Effect is giving the moderate Moussavi a great push. Young voters, who abstained in the last election, are vowing to participate this time and many are determined to vote against Ahmadinejad. Women are also showing up in great numbers demanding freedom in a country where women are suppressed by a conservative regime. Ahmadinijad may not be ousted this time, but growing number of people are favoring moderation over extremism. The people are starting to do their part. But is President Obama doing his?


If we regard Obama's "New Beginning" speech as the preamble of an informal collective contract then each party, Muslims, Arabs, Israelis and Americans; must play its role and honor its commitments and obligations. The people's commitment is to support tolerance and vote against extremism. This has happened in Lebanon and there are positive signs coming out of Tehran. It is also happening in Israel, where hard line Netanyahu is re-thinking his position towards a Palestinian State as many Israelis seem to be supporting Obama's "New Beginning".


Just like Roosevelt's "New Deal" made it to history books, Obama's
"New Beginning" is also making a historical ripple effect that has approached Arab and Persian shores. Now, it is time for Obama to make good on his promises. It is time he follows through on his words. People of this region may be too emotional and will give even an American President the benefit of the doubt. But they are not stupid. They paid in advance but they expect that Mr. Obama will deliver.


Quick and early dividends could be realized on the issue of the illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories. Obama confirmed his commitment to strongly oppose these illegal settlements. Now this is the time for him to deliver some actions to back his words. What we propose here is not big, but it is rather symbolic.


For years, the United States has placed very strict regulations on fund-raising activities related to financing Islamist or extremist organizations. Now it is time that Obama sends a bill to the Hill to block fundraising activities in the United States if the funds would be funneled to Israel to finance the building of illegal Israeli settlements. This does not affect other fund-raising activities going to Israel. Just the funding of illegal settlements which should be curbed. Currently, generous donations from U.S. citizens are used to build new illegal settlements, expand existing settlements and rebuild those settlements which are dismantled by the Israeli government. And to add a spoon of sugar to this bitter medicine, the United States could offer to assist Israel in developing urban engineering solutions to accommodate population growth in areas where Israel sees the problem most troubling.


Ahmadinejad might still be able to keep his seat. But even if he does, something has fundamentally changed. Ahmadinejad has announced that he wants to meet face-to-face with Obama and "debate" the issues standing between the two countries. Obama's "New Beginning" is unstoppable. The only one who can stall Obama's "New Beginning" is Obama himself; If he fails to follow through on his promises. Just like Bush failed to follow through on his commitment to democracy, crushing the hopes on the "Spring of Change", Obama could destroy his own "New Beginning" before it even begins to happen. The only thing Obama needs to do now is to nurse his own "New Beginning" by delivering even small packets of actions which somehow match the general direction of his promises before this historical window of opportunity vanishes.






By
Wael Nawara, Egypt



My Page on Facebook

Wael Nawara on Facebook