From: ghbr@fmg.bt.co.uk (Hossein Bagherzadeh Rafsanjani)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian
Subject: Re: Iraq combats Iranian sorties, violates peace treaty
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:42:56 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

In article <1992Apr15.000649.23967@watserv1.waterloo.edu> arash@sunee.waterloo.edu (Arash Jahangir) writes:

> In article <1992Apr13.173516.3756@fmg.bt.co.uk> ghbr@fmg.bt.co.uk (Hossein Bagherzadeh Rafsanjani) writes:

> >Why "brothership" can only be between "us" and the Kurds "and some of the
> >Shia's in South-East Iraq" and not other Iraqis?

> I did not say there cannot be any brotherhood between us.  Rather that there
> is no such brotherhood between Iranians and many others, very majority of 
> Iraqies included.  Brotherhood is like "dast-e chopogh"; it has to have two 
> ends (i.e it goes both ways).  I have had quite a few interactions with most of
> the Arab countries in Persian Gulf and I have several friends in many of those
> countries.  A comparison of my experiences with those of my friends has told me
> that indeed the general public in those countries dislike Iranians.  Further,
> I know of many Iranians who as a general rule dislike anyone from other Persian
> gulf countries.  Some even go so fars hating all Arabs.  Personally I don't 
> belong to the latter group, though I can relate to them.

I am well aware that many (shall we say the majority of?) Iranians and Arabs
dislike each other.  But then so do many INSIDE these communities towards other
sections of their own communities.  Haven't you met Tehranis who dislike
Azarbayejanis and vice-versa?  And what about supporters of this footbal team
against that team?  Let me give you a better example.

In my home town of Mashhad, there used to be two groups of adversaries, called
Ne'matis and Heydaris.  They could be found on the two sides of the main river
crossing the town.  The anomicity between the two groups was so strong that
some of the group A (I am not sure which one) would refuse to go to Emaam
Reza's tomb, simply because he was buried on the other side of the river!

The point of my article wasn't that there are no such dislikes in our societies
-- but that there SHOULDN'T BE.  We have to recognise that we are first human,
and second, Iranian, Tehrani etc.  Any other way of prioritizing our identities
is a receipe for conflict, war etc.

> >  In the case of Kurds, is it
> >because they are "suffering inside Iraq" or because they are "Iranian anyways"?
> >And is it "us" who decide who is Iranian or not, or is it the people

> My personal view is that Kurds are Iranians.  As such I feel a certain 
> "keenship" with them.  When I hear that they suffer, it doesn't make a
> difference to me if they are in Iran, Iraq, or on the moon; I will feel a
> certain amount of pain myself.  

Well, you could, if you re-define yourself (as human being first, and Iranian
second), have similar feelings towards other ("non-Iranian") sufferers.  And
remember, you come from a culture which has produced these feelings some 700
years ago (by Sa'di):

	Bani-aadam a'zaay-e yekdigar-and (yek peykar-and)
		Ke dar aafrinesh ze yek gowhar-and
	To kaz mehnat-e digraan bi-ghami
		Nashaayad ke naamat nahand aadami.

(For the benefit of non-Persian-speakers, the meaning is:

	Adam's children are members of each other (one body)
		As they are made from the same essence
	If you do not care about the suffering of others
		You are not deserved to be called a human being.)

It is really saddening to see that 700 years later some Iranian intellectuals
call for anything less than such universal humanism.

> >Do the rest of sufferers inside Iraq deserve it or what?

> What do you mean by "deserve it"?  That implies that you are asking if there
> is an inherent right for "brotherhood" between us and whoever that suffers in
> Iraq.  Beyond general humanitarian obligations I do not see such right for 
> them.  However, having a common enemy/cause/... does certainly add to feeling
> of closeness. 

No, by "it" I meant "suffering".  But don't bother.  And of course,
"brotherhood" is not a RIGHT.  It is just that (like love and other similar
emotions) you do not HAVE TO restrict it by race, language, geographical
boundaries etc.  And certainly, it should not be at the expense of hate or
suffering for others.

> >  And in the case of
> >"Shia's in South-East Iraq", how come they "seem to be the ""only"" civilized
> >people in Iraq" (which, by implication, rules out the Iraqi Kurds as civilized
> >too!)?
> >

> That boolean statement is to be evaluated as "except (A & B) who SEEM to be
> the only civilized people".  People being plural, applies to both groups.

Thanks for the lesson in boolean algebra!

> The reasoning is purely subjective.  This statement was meant more to be
> annoying than a complete reflection of my personal beliefs.  Although, if you
> look at the actions/events throughout Iraq's entire history, you will find that
> few if any of the uncivilized ones were led/participated by the above groups.

And that, I suppose, is sufficient to prove that "only" the groups you
mentioned (or implied) are civilized!

> >Your xenophobic hate manifests again when you state that "You Ba'thies are
> >dirity" (sic).  If you are referring to the idelogy, then no one is dirty just
> >beacause they "believe" in something.

> Really?  What if I believe that my personal comfort is far more important than
> other people's?  Or that I can rape and murder whoever I want for my personal
> pleasure?  Would such beliefs (or lack of) make me dirty?  I don't think you
> really know what Ba'th party's foundations are.  Think something along the
> worst of Fascism and Neo-natzism (actually scratch the "neo" part).

Well,I was talking about the Ba'th "ideology".  And I know enough of that to
say that belief in it doesn't make one dirtier than say belief in any of the
many other current ideologies.  Of course, there is an element of fascism in
every ideology which is based on sacred dogmas.  The fascism in Ba'th emenates
from its Arab-nationalism.  You also mentioned Nazism.  You know well that it
stands for National-Socialism.  And the fascism in that too emenated (mainly)
from its "National" bit.  Looking through your glasses, you can clearly see
fascism in other nationalist ideologies but not in your own.

> >  If the long
> >history of wars and xenophic hate has not taught us this simple lesson, no
> >wonder we should live under such barbaric regimes who are ready to use these
> >unhealthy sentiments to wage wars and send millions of innocent people to their
> >certain death.

> I really don't think Iranians were at war for racial reasons do you?  Nor do I
> think that the Khomeinies regime has its foundations in racism.  Negate both
> these statements and they do apply to Iraq.

Racism is not always overt and direct.  It would suffice if one believes that
the other side is not a "civilized" society.  Remember that many advantures of
white Europeans in Africa, Americas and elsewhere (and slaughter of their
inhabitants) were carried out in order to bring them into the "civilized"
world.

> >
> >The best advice to the two posters, each supporting one of the two
> >war-mongering regimes,

> Come now!  I know I said something relatively nice about the regime in Iran
> (I would not call them an Iranian regime) but that doesn't make me a supporter
> of theirs.  You should know by now that I hate the regime in Iran AT THE LEAST
> as much as I hate Saddam's regime.

> > was to put their conscience before their allegiance to
> >the respective regimes, to condemn violence, to put more value on human lives
> >than on ideologies, to care for the victims of the atrocities of their
> >respective regimes, to raise above race, religion, nationality, personal
> >interests etc, to work for humanity and human understanding and friendship.  We
> >have had enough of wars and xenophobic hate.  Let's try human-ness
> >
> >I hope you are not offended by my response.  I believe we can all learn from
> >each other.
> >
> >-hossein

> I mostly agree with you here.  But I should mention that as you pointed out
> there has been long tensions between us (I can only think of the pas 2600 years
> but it may have been longer).  You can look at the issues on both sides through
> their common and otherwise histories and form your openions.  There is 
> something to be said for statistics.

No amount of evidence of past history of anomicity justifies its continuation.
We should, and we can, try to release ourselves from the bounds put on us by
history, religion (and similar sets of factional beliefs), tribalism,
ethnicity, nationality etc, and work towards a world in which we can relate to
other human beings as human beings.  It would be a much better world to live
in.

> Arash,

> * Brother and I unite against my cousine.  My brother, I, and my cousine unite
>   against a stranger.  (another Arabic saying)

There is no shortage of sayings like this in the world.  We have had these
alliances since primitive ages.  And you do them by instinct.  Indeed, every
converntional war is justified on these grounds too.  The criteria for
alliances shouldn't be blood relation or similar, but what is just and what is
wrong.  So, the only saying of this kind worth following is one which asks for
people to unite for justice and peace, and against injustice whatever its
source.  Based on this, my motto would be:

	"Only when I can stand against somebody close to me, who has done
	something wrong to somebody distant, can I claim to be a true human being."

-hossein