Perspolis, Iran, Maus, and the Holocaust

Back on April 2nd, I attended a presentation and book signing for Marjane Satrapi, author of the graphic novel and movie "Persepolis". She spoke at the McLean Virginia Community Center and drew a full-house crowd of about 400. I had recently seen the movie and was very moved by it. It is the story of a young girl in Iran growing up around the time of the Islamic Revolution (1979), her family and people. It spans about 10 years or so in her life, much of it during the Iran-Iraq war.

There are a lot of areas of discussion that I am sure have already been covered, but at this presentation I learned a couple of new things.

First, Marjane discussed her inspiration for using the graphic novel (or "cartoon", the term she prefers) form. It comes from Art Spiegelman's book "Maus", which is a heart-wrenching story of the Holocaust.

Given all of the negative words that have been eminating from the current leadership in Iran, especially their denial of the Holocaust, it was wonderfully refreshing to find out that at least this person had not entered that terrible camp. From what I've heard from other Iranians in the U.S, this is also true of most of their population.

(Furthermore, there is a moving scene in the book where she sadly learns that her next-door neighbor in Tehran, a Jewish family, ends up being killed by Saddam's bombs during the war with Iraq. And let's keep in mind who was supporting Saddam - the United States.)

I asked her a question during the Q&A about the Iranian people's attitude towards Israel. I may not have worded it too well, as she began her answer speaking about "anti-semitism" - how it was really a "European" phenomenon, and how the Jewish people have lived in Iran for over 1000 years and have been treated with great respect (facts are, though, that many have left since 1979). But at the end, she stated that the people of Iran have no issue with Israel's existence, but feels very strongly that Israel does have some human rights issues. The last part of her response made me feel somewhat uncomfortable, but I was at least satisfied that it was not as bad as what the press says, and we could respectfully disagree and hopefully have some dialogue.

The picture is of Ms. Satrapi just before she signed my copy of her book. It was well-worth attending! (I immediately bought "Maus" afterwards).

Thank you for reading

An Open Letter to President Carter

This was sent to the Internatonal Herald Tribune, but it did not get published:


----- Original Message -----
To: opinion@iht.com
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 1:52 PM
Subject: An Open Letter to President Jimmy Carter
To President Carter:

I'd like to offer my view on your upcoming Mideast trip. Please understand that I say everything with the utmost respect and admiration for what you've done in the past.

You and I have the same goal: A permanent peace between Palestine and Israel. The question is: how do we get there?

In my view, we need to look at past and present. We all agree on Israel's right to exist. We all agree that the Palestinians have a right to their sovereign country. This was part of the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

Where we start to diverge is what happened during the 1947-1948 timeframe. In your book "Peace, Not Apartheid", you acknowldge that the Arab States opposed the UN Partition Plan. You also acknowledge that the Palestinians rejected it. You even acknowledge that the Arabs declared war on the new Jewish state.

Due to the war, as you pointed out, an estimated 750,000 Palestinians became displaced (or refugees). But it is not clear how, in every case, Palestinian families left their homes. I did hear of stories that the Israeli's forced some away. I heard of stories that the Arabs ordered families to move. I wasn't around at the time (I was born in 1954).

But most likely, the story is similar to those of my parents, who lived in Poland until 1939. My father (now deceased) saw the writing on the wall, and decided to leave Poland with my Mom (his new bride) and ended up spending 6 years in Russia. Eventually they ended up in America.

The book "The Faith Club", by Ranya Idliby, who is of Muslim/Palestinian descent (along with Priscilla Warner, a Jew, and Suzanne Oilver, a Christian) has this passage by Ms. Idilby:

""The overwhelming majority of Palestinians fled in fear as war broke out. They believed that they would return when conditions calmed down. The Israeli Army murdered Palestinians ... and frightened the Palestinians out of their homes".

So responsibility is a bit confusing, at best. Why couldn't there have been a compromise in 1947? Why were some of of the Israelis so cruel to the Palestinians?

But, President Carter, in your book, you seem to only ask the latter question, you ignore the first. You point responsibility only one way, even as you acknowledge the facts.

OK, so now let's look ahead. You wish to speak with Hamas. If speaking with them can help bring peace, fine. But they seem to be stuck in pre-1948 ideology.

And this is a little different, in my view, than 1980, when Andrew Young ('illegally") spoke to the PLO. The Palestinians have a representative now that is in favor of the 2-state solution. I believe your emphasis, if not sole purpose, should be to advance the cause of this leader, President.Mahmoud Abbas.

An analogy I think of: If my next door neighbor is claiming that my house is his, continually shoots at my house, refuses to talk about any agreement, what is my first obligation? Of course, it is to protect myself. Asking me to speak to this neighbor is a non-starter, since he doesn't want to talk to me. So Mr. Carter, what would you recommend in this instance?

I hope you understand that Hamas' intentions in this meeting is to gain acceptance, nothing more. And with this acceptance I only see more bloodshed, as they can use it as leverage against Abbas. If you know of another reason, please inform me.

So I hope you do the right thing and not meet with Hamas. If you do, I only pray that your name is not added to those who helped destroy a nation.

(Signature)

Thanks for reading this.

McCain Versus McCain: Iraq 2008 and Lebanon 1983

Amongst all of the sound bytes and cherry-picking that has been going on in this campaign, I find that it is important to do your own research. And I finally found the candidate who can best express the views that are the polar opposite of those expressed by Senator John McCain.

Senator John McCain.

A few weeks ago I went to my local library and borrowed several books, one of them being John McCain’s “Worth The Fighting For”. This book was originally published in 2002 – after 9/11, but before the invasion of Iraq (update: I found the book at B&N in their bargain section).

Chapter Five, entitled “In Opposition”, caught my attention. It pertains to the tragic events in Lebanon in 1983, when the Marine barracks in Lebanon were attacked by a suicide bomber, killing over 200 American soldiers. Just prior to this, then-Congressman McCain came to a conclusion “in opposition” to President Reagan – namely, in a vote on whether to grant President Reagan authority in the decision to maintain a Military presence. He voted against this authorization, which passed the House by 90 votes.

As I read the chapter, I felt a sense of “déjà vu”. McCain recalls that in Lebanon “ethnic identity politics was the only politics, there could be no strong, central government…particularly so when the central government America decided to strengthen and protect would be dominated by a sect of Christians ruling over a Muslim majority”. But in terms of American involvement, “our naval bombardment had made it rather plain that we were now engaged in Lebanese hostilities”.

So McCain recalls his speech of September 28, 1983, where he asks “will the Lebanese Army ever be strong enough to drive out the Syrians, let alone the PLO? If the answer to this question is no, as I believe it is, then we had better be prepared to accept a lengthy and deeper involvement”. It is notable that he also asserts “The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave … I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave … But I firmly believe this will happen in any event … and I am prepared to accept the consequences of our withdrawl”.

There’s about 15 pages to this chapter on history, yet so much of it sounds to me like a parallel of today. As you read it, you can substitute “Iraq” for Lebanon, “Maliki” for Gemayel, “Al Qaeda” for Hizbullah and/or PLO, "Iran" for Syria. “McCain also describes the country as a “quagmire” for the marines. Aren’t we hearing this word by those opposed to the war today?

You might be compelled to conclude “9/11 changed things”. Maybe so. But I see no subsequent reflection by the author that results in a different conclusion. Furthermore, this book was published in 2002, and in the chapter McCain states “As events turned out, my opposition to the President would prove to be well-founded”. His afterward for the May 2003 paperback edition makes no mention of Lebanon.

So I respectfully ask: How does Senator McCain reconcile his opposition to the Commander In Chief in 1983 with his current claim on his campaign website that opposing it today “would gravely jeopardize American security”? If he acknowledged then that leaving was the best course despite the possibility of increased fighting, why isn’t that a serious option today?

Senator McCain has been known to be a “straight talker”, and a “maverick”. I desire a President who exhibits “wisdom” and “leadership”. And one who has not flipped-flopped in important policy decision philosphy.

As we look toward 2009 and beyond, questions loom about our future policy. Senator McCain states on his website that “there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq”. Well, how many troops are “enough”? And what if, in his policy that almost never mentions the word “diplomacy”, we are confronted with the need to act against the threats of anti-Americanism that exist today in Pakistan and Afghanistan, or the nuclear capabilities of Iran? How many troops will we need, and at what cost? How do we do this with a tax cut? Can we do this with an all-volunteer army? Straight talk, please!

The Bush administration ended up as McCain feared about Reagan, “trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place”. We have a chance to have a new administration change our direction.

I request you, the reader to look at McCain's (and all the candidates') writings on your own when you have the opportunity. Please do not be driven by sound bytes, or even my words.

Thanks for reading.

Mr. McCain's Laissez Faire

I wrote a letter to the Editor of the Washington Post on Sunday morning, it got published today.
This is a link to the Post letter. The original unedited letter follows:

To The Editor:

Mr. George Will applauds Senator McCain's "honorable" policy of "minimalism" in the current housing crisis, preferring little or no government intervention, allowing the housing market to first "find its bottom".

If this was a case of intervention on behalf of people taking paper losses on speculative investments, I would tend to agree.

But foreclosure is not that, it is something that forces families to move from their homes.

It appears that the Republican leadership is moving away even from "Compassionate Conservatism". I can understand not supporting irresponsible "bailouts". But what is our national consciousness? Do we instead allow a large "kick-out"?

Back in the 1980's, Mr. McCain wanted Charles Keating, his own constituent, to be "fairly treated" when Keating met with him and asked for intervention. Senator McCain asks for "fairness" as well today. Is he thus willing to meet with every single one of his Arizona constituents facing foreclosure?

I am fortunate - my house has a relatively low-interest, fixed-rate mortgage. But I do value some type of support to those less so.

This is a link to George Will's article.

My only regret was the removal of the line about "national consciousness", but I think I got my point across.

I did some research while writing the letter. I found a copy of a speech he recently gave regarding the housing crisis, and an article about the Keating scandal from an Arizona newspaper.

Since writing it I looked up what the foreclosure situation in Arizona is. According to this article the rate of sales that are foreclosures in Arizona more than doubled from 2006 to 2007 - from 3.4 percent to 7.4 percent . It didn't show the exact number of foreclosures, but I found in some Reeal Estate pages that it is in the low 4 digits per month. It's not the highest in the country - Nevada is - but I think it is above the National average.

I'll have more to say about the campaign in another blog. I have another letter about foreign policy that I hope someone will publish, so I'll wait a few days before adding it here. Please feel free to read the rest of my blog and comment.

Thank you for reading.