^^^^ If this topic sucks, then keep out of politics. :roll:

[quote=ian]thanks davetlv for your informed insights on the situation - interesting stuff![/quote]

and this is what most people would believe. i'm so disappointed at this time that i can't even figure out where to begin. i shouldn't have expected anything less from davetlv, however.

first of all, that article about angelina jolie is ridiculous. i won't even begin to pick that one apart. arafat may have been a billionnaire but he didn't spend a single cent of it on himself. pretty much all he owned were 3 or 4 army uniforms. he used the money to reward loyalty--however you want to interpret that.

anyway, i'd rather go back to what davetlv was saying...the part that was "as unbiased" as he could make it.

do you think that arabs called it Transjordan??? who do you think came up with that name? on the other hand, you of all people should know that although there was no political entity under the ottoman empire by the name of palestine (it was actulaly 3 sanjaks or subdivisions), the names for the region (philistine, canaan, etc.) go back to the time of the greeks and before!

to say that there were no "palestinians," and that they were created by the british is just one more way of legitimizing the land grab that is taking place. the "historical" right to the land can be justified by either side of this conflict easily.

under the international law category, israel could justify its existence by pointing to the balfour declaration, the league of nations, and the united nations. on the other hand, where do these "clubs" of european countries come off mandating what is to take place on palestinian land?

on a similar note, one could say israel had a human or moral right to have its own state in mandate palestine. but again i point to the hypocrisy of europe (and the US): you're telling me that because the europeans stood by and allowed the jews to be almost entirely annihilated from their lands, that they can somehow justify displacing another entire people (palestinians) from their lands to make room for jews? unbelievable.

and as for the peace talks, there is a lot to talk about, but i'll keep it short. you think that palestinians would allow their leader to accept any sort of deal that would afford them a mere 22% of the land they once had? the deal that arafat refused at camp david 2 in 2000, at the end of clinton's second term, was something he could never accept. the deal, conjured up by dennis ross and israeli officials was tantamount to a slice of swiss cheese. pockets of settlements here, the whole jordan river aquifer there, all to be kept by israel. the issue of water (and the control thereof) is one of the main concerns of both sides.

the disengagement plan is nothing but a scam. nothing will change. israel will still control airspace, all borders, and the coastline. how is a viable palestinian state to exist when one part is not able to communicate with the other (west bank)?

the two state solution is futile. this is one point on which i agree with the psychotic daniel pipes. there can never be a two state solution; what will essentially result of the conflict is a 'de facto' one state solution.

apartheid.

the walls and fences constructed will keep all palestinians confined to ghettos, unable to travel to work, school, anywhere. they will remain second class citizens (i wouldn't even call it that). just look at what happened in south africa not long ago. or even segregation-era america. it wasn't that long ago either.

as for israel, and israeli palestinians, that is a similar issue. anyone (including our president) who is able to call isarel the 'only true democracy in the middle east,' is truly blind. there can be no true democracy in a theocratic state--pure and simple. muslim and christian palestinians living in israel proper are second class citizens. many have assimilated into the society, yet remain marginalized in many cases. the minority in israel is somewhat represented in the knesset--but how can a christian or muslim palestinian bring himself to accept the national charter that states that israel is the homeland for all jews, and still believe he is an equal next to an israeli jew?

the events taking place in the occupied palestinian territories are nothing short of apartheid. settler colonialism, sometimes sponsored by the evangelical american right, is spreading more and more in palestine, and again the map looks more and more like swiss cheese.

the settlers in israel and the occupied territories believe they are fulfilling the will of god. this includes about 187,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, about 20,000 in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, more than 5,000 in the Gaza Strip, and fewer than 177,000 in East Jerusalem (July 2004 est.).

the evangelicals in america are funding and supporting these zionists, while they believe that in the end all jews will be killed on judgement day and only the true believers will be saved. essentially the evangelicals are smiling and nodding, letting the zionists do their work and just waiting for the time to pass. rather silly, i think.

what some people tend to neglect is the demographic-time factor. palestinian arabs make up 20% of the israeli population. it is estimated that by the year 2012, palestinian arabs in israel will outnumber jews. palestinian arabs inside israel hold one of the highest fertility rates in the world. no one talks about this, but this is why time is in fact on the palestinians' side. israel must do all it can to end the conflict in their favor, before a demographic turn for the worse (in their view).

if you were watching the news this week after the palestinian national elections, you may have seen jimmy carter speak about the polls and the roadmap. while carter had nothing to complain about israel's role in the elections, he did point out something that no american official has ever dared to say. he said that palestine and america are prepared to accept every term of the roadmap for peace; only israel (sharon) is refusing to accept the roadmap. israel has made public a list of i think 14 reservations it has about the roadmap. i'm not sure but i'm guessing these have to do with settlements in strategic areas, the right of palestinians to return to their lands or be compensated, and the control over jerusalem.

the roadmap is dead. israel will not accept it as it is, and that is why the US is no longer pursuing it. how can the US be a mediator between palestine and israel when it is clearly biased toward israel? perhaps you would argue that delegates from the EU would be too biased towards palestine to be mediators? well i wouldn't agree, but fine. why have mediators at all. abbas and sharon could meet face to face, alone, and talk. but that would never happen.

i've gone on way too long and am getting way to angry so i'll stop here. what you think you know as a fact is probably just an opinion. and whoever it was that mentioned an "unbiased" journalist should think about what he said and wonder how dumb that comment was.

read some books on palestine and israel and don't listen to stupid people who tell you their opinions as facts:

yezid sayigh "armed struggle and the search for a state"

rashid khalidi "palestinian identity"

glenn robinson "building a palestinian state"

samih farsoun "palestine and the palestinians"

nathan brown "palestinian politics after the oslo accords"

clayton swisher "the truth about camp david"

khater "sources in the history of the modern middle east"

that last one contains primary sources such as the balfour declaration, the sykes-picot agreement, the king-crane commission, the hussein-macmahon correspondence, and many others.

@thesightless there are some very informative easy-reading books available covering the history, the politics and policies of the region. when i return home i can recommend you some as i am never good at remembering names. one that comes to mind is an autobiography by palestinian lawyer/writer Raja Shehadeh called "Strangers in the House: Coming of Age in Occupied Palestine" that offers a moving view of life inside occupied territories which i highly recommend. you should check it out

[quote=face]and this is what most people would believe. i'm so disappointed at this time that i can't even figure out where to begin. i shouldn't have expected anything less from davetlv, however.[/quote]

If you shouldn't have expected anything less from me i am pleased that i was able to reach expectations.

[quote=face] anyway, i'd rather go back to what davetlv was saying...the part that was "as unbiased" as he could make it.

do you think that arabs called it Transjordan??? who do you think came up with that name? on the other hand, you of all people should know that although there was no political entity under the ottoman empire by the name of palestine (it was actulaly 3 sanjaks or subdivisions), the names for the region (philistine, canaan, etc.) go back to the time of the greeks and before![/quote]

No i think the nations that carved up this region called it Transjordan, and the names Philistine and Canaan go back some 5000+ years.

[quote=face] to say that there were no "palestinians," and that they were created by the british is just one more way of legitimizing the land grab that is taking place. the "historical" right to the land can be justified by either side of this conflict easily.[/quote]

Out of interest here [b]face [/b]which land grab are you talking about; the supposed land grab associated with the building of the security wall or the actuall creation of the state of israel?

[quote=face]on a similar note, one could say israel had a human or moral right to have its own state in mandate palestine. but again i point to the hypocrisy of europe (and the US): you're telling me that because the europeans stood by and allowed the jews to be almost entirely annihilated from their lands, that they can somehow justify displacing another entire people (palestinians) from their lands to make room for jews? unbelievable.[/quote]

Your notion of displacemement not only leaves a lot to be desired but your implication is that 'palestinians' were displaced solely by the new state of Israel. Whatever. . . .

[quote=face] and as for the peace talks, there is a lot to talk about, but i'll keep it short. you think that palestinians would allow their leader to accept any sort of deal that would afford them a mere 22% of the land they once had? the deal that arafat refused at camp david 2 in 2000, at the end of clinton's second term, was something he could never accept. the deal, conjured up by dennis ross and israeli officials was tantamount to a slice of swiss cheese. pockets of settlements here, the whole jordan river aquifer there, all to be kept by israel. the issue of water (and the control thereof) is one of the main concerns of both sides. [/quote]

No, i would have hoped that since Madrid and Oslo the previous palestinian leadership would have accepted what had been pre-negotiated. The West bank and Gaza and compensation in terms of land and money for the few pockets of large israeli settlement in the West Bank.

[quote=face]the disengagement plan is nothing but a scam. nothing will change. israel will still control airspace, all borders, and the coastline. how is a viable palestinian state to exist when one part is not able to communicate with the other (west bank)?[/quote]

Scam. . . . if it gets 8000 settlers out of Gaza its no scam. Israel will not control the airspace and borders for ever, nor do they want to, but they will until the time that the palestinan authority has centralised all the different security forces, dealt with hamas and islamic jiahad and can guarentee that rockets will not be launched on Israeli cities.

[quote=face]the two state solution is futile. this is one point on which i agree with the psychotic daniel pipes. there can never be a two state solution; what will essentially result of the conflict is a 'de facto' one state solution. [/quote]

Futile. . . . so what is your solution?

[quote=face]apartheid.

the walls and fences constructed will keep all palestinians confined to ghettos, unable to travel to work, school, anywhere. they will remain second class citizens (i wouldn't even call it that). just look at what happened in south africa not long ago. or even segregation-era america. it wasn't that long ago either.[/quote]

The only problem i have with the security wall is that it is being built on land Israel has no right to, if you had read any of my previous posts on this subject you would realise that i don't support the occupation of the west bank or gaza strip, but i do think my government has a responsibility to ensure my safety. I have no problem with a ten meter high wall as long as it follows the 1967 borders.

I cant be bothered discussing with you whether Israel is an apartheid state or not, i doubt whether i will ever be able to change your opinion on this. Think what you like!

[quote=face]as for israel, and israeli palestinians, that is a similar issue. anyone (including our president) who is able to call isarel the 'only true democracy in the middle east,' is truly blind. there can be no true democracy in a theocratic state--pure and simple. muslim and christian palestinians living in israel proper are second class citizens. many have assimilated into the society, yet remain marginalized in many cases. the minority in israel is somewhat represented in the knesset--but how can a christian or muslim palestinian bring himself to accept the national charter that states that israel is the homeland for all jews, and still believe he is an equal next to an israeli jew?[/quote]

As Israels electoral system is proportional representation should all citizens of this country vote then the knesset will reflect the demographics of the country. Plain and simple. Every citizen of this country (defined here for you as pre 1967) has a right to cast their ballot including muslims and christians.

Although i would acknowledge that the situation for some Israeli Arabs is hardly that of 'equal' partners, i also acknowledge that these same human beings have a hell of a lot more freedom and liberty then if they were living in most arab states.

And while were at it, this is probably a good juncture to remind that it was not only 'palestinians' who were displaced after the creation of the state of Israel, over 500,000 Jews were expelled from Arab lands, forced to leave with little more than the clothes on their backs. its funny, when people talk about the refugee crisis created after the state of israel was created they only talk about Palestinians who left/were kicked out (however you wanna read it) of this land never the jews who were expelled from arab nations. Funny that!

[quote=face]the settlers in israel and the occupied territories believe they are fulfilling the will of god. this includes about 187,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, about 20,000 in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, more than 5,000 in the Gaza Strip, and fewer than 177,000 in East Jerusalem (July 2004 est.).[/quote]

With the modern interpretation of settlers as being those nutters who occupy the west bank and gaza, i'm wondering who you refer to when you talk about the settlers in israel?

I'm done, this has used up far to much of my time and the rest of your diatribe is trash! :twisted:

1. good. but i must say that not everyting in my 'diatribe' was addressed in refuting your statements. there was a lot that was just on the subject in general and not in disagreement with what you said.

2. i'm glad you don't think that palestinians called the region transjordan. and i'm glad you agree that the area was indeed carved up by foreign nations abusing their power. but your previous argument that there are no 'palestinians' per se is thereby refuted.

3. as for the land grab i was referring to the creation of the state of israel. indeed after the 1948 war israel had more land than it was alotted by the united nations proposed partition, which palestinians refused. in 1967 the territories occupied by egypt and jordan were taken over by israeli forces. today we could include in 'land grab' category the areas de facto annexed by way of the separation barrier, and the settlements in the west bank and gaza.

4. with regards to displacement of palestinians, in no way did i imply that israel was solely responsible. in fact, the whole point of that section was to elucidate the guilt of european nations. it was rather clear, i thought. moreover, jordan, egypt, lebanon, and syria did not help at all with the refugee problem.

5. like i said before: swiss cheese. there were talks and plenty of accords. i think the height of any glimmer of hope was with rabin, before he was murdered. but my point was that when you look at the camp david 2 accords, which was something that the clinton administration scrapped together at the last minute (just before he stepped down from office) to try and work something out, you can see it was truly half-assed and on the terms of the israelis. you have dennis ross and barak conjuring up a settlement and then handing it over to arafat to sign. the US can't be a legitimate mediator when it's clearly biased. i know that there have been wars and i understand the current situation, but to expect palestinians to quietly or even eagerly accept 1/5 of their land is ludicrous. in terms of international law, if there ever were a peace deal struck allowing for the creation of a palestinian state, how would israel even administer its settlements in the palestinian west bank without infringing on palestine's national sovereignty?

6. yes. the disengagement plan is a scam. even dov weisglass said in an interview in ha'aretz that the plan was a trade-off and distraction from israel's true intentions. as for hamas and islamic jihad, that's a whole can of worms (blah, i just wrote a 25 page paper on popular support for hamas and i don't want to talk about it anymore).

7. yes, futile. i've studied the region and its conflict for years and i still don't claim to be an expert. israel won't give up more than 22% of palestinian land, and many palestinians won't accept this. if you look at the polls conducted in the occupied territories you will see that only about 25% believe there is still hope for the peace process. but apparently about 57% still want a two-state solution to the conflict. there are many polls conducted; i urge you to examine the following sites:

[url]http://www.pcpsr.org/[/url]

[url]http://www.jmcc.org/[/url]

8. again, i wasn't directing my entire post at you and i never said you were for the occupation of palestinian lands. it is one thing to say that israel is defending itself, but when you look at it from another perspective you could see how it changes everything. that wall will set the borders and replace the established green line if and when a peace settlement were to be reached. courts in israel as well as international courts have ruled the wall illegal, oh well.

9. yes, people in other arab countries have a tougher time than some palestinians may in israel. but we could compare the relativity of democracies ad infinitum. i don't need any help on this subject as i myself fleed an arab country 10 years ago, to protect my rights, my family, and my life most of all. religious fanaticism will do that! and yes, i am aware of the vast number of jews who fled and/or were chased from their homes in arab countries as far as morocco. it is not only the palestinians who should have the right of return (or compensation should they decline this right), and i certainly hope that such a clause would be included if and when any short-term or final-status agreement is reached.

10. as for my data on settlers, it was actually taken from the central intelligence agency's most up-to-date world factbook, which is available through the agency's website.

that's all i have for now. some issues i did not discuss are the internal differences and conflicts between ashkhenazi, sephardic, oriental and russian jews. or the individual interests of arab dictators interfering in the palestine conflict. or the influence of religious identity in the occupied territories...

and again, this issue could be discussed for ever and ever. what you can see here is a pair of ongoing and conflicting narratives. many of the points i have brought up are clearly stated in israel's national charter, legitimating the state's right to exist and defend itself, etc. on the other hand, palestinians can easily present a valid and convincing counter-argument for each point raised.

so in fact it's really hard to break through the 'spin' and find the actual facts on the ground. what i know is that both peoples coexisted peacefully in the past and it is really a shame that such a tragedy is taking place.

p.s. i'm sorry you thought my diatribe was mostly trash. we all have our inherent biases and it's hard to put them aside, but i thought that some of the things you said needed to be contested. i don't hate you...but that is one evil looking face you're giving me!

[quote=face] as for the land grab i was referring to the creation of the state of israel.[/quote]

For me, the above quote says it all. You, as well as some others, still see the creation of the State of Israel as a land grab! This is the same nonsense peddled by factions within Fatah and other Palestinian organisations. The same people that still today show maps of the region without Israel in it.

You are indeed correct, the physical size of the State of Israel has indeed increased since its inception in 1948. The facts that any 'extra' land added after Israel had been drawn into wars not of their making just to guarentee their survival. Spoils of war mate!

1948, 1956 and 1967 were not wars of Israels making, they were attacked by surrounding countries bent on their destruction. The fact that we managed to fight off the aggressors seems to make us the bad guy. Go figure!

BTW I didn't think most of your post was trash . . . just the parts after your apartheid comments!

As for the :twisted: , well i just think it looks pretty on the screen!

indeed the idea of zionism disturbs me a little. because weizmann discovered a way to make synthetic acetone, he became friendly with balfour, the foreign secretary of england, who in 1917 promised british support for a national homeland for jews in palestine. balfour actually said that acetone converted him to zionism!

even before weizmann though, look at herzl and "der judenstadt." he was for a national home for all jews, but not necessarily in palestine. many other places were discussed as potential settling locations, even uganda. however, amidst internal struggles and disagreements herzl acted to preserve the zionist movement's unity by agreeing on palestine as the place for their national home.

between the first and second 'aliyahs' in 1897 herzl convened the first zionist conference in basel, switzerland. this was also right at the time of the dreyfus affair in france, which was truly an embarassment. i do understand that 'anti-semitism,' including the pogroms in russia and persecution elsewhere, was rampant in eastern and western europe well before the rise of nazism.

it is true, however, that those who immigrated to ottoman palestine were entering a society that was already populated by a jewish minority, as well as several christian sects, druzes, and muslims among others. ottoman law, through western european influence and pressure, was very lenient and religious minorities were not just tolerated, they were accepted. one only has to look at the 19th century ottoman guild system in bilad al-sham (palestine, syria, lebanon) to see how muslims, jews, and christians coexisted and cooperated.

and yes, i understand the consequences of war and that land was acquired through these wars in which israel was the attacked and not the attacker. i condemn pretty much all of the wars after 1948, and even the 48 war itself, where leaders of other arab countries had jumped into the cause solely for their personal gains and agendas. and you look at sadat who was killed for making peace with israel. but then you have rabin who was killed for almost making peace.

if you read michael b. oren's "six days of war" you will see how badly the other arab nations screwed palestine's chances at statehood and peace. on that note, i would also recommend reading howard m. sachar's "the history of israel from the rise of zionism to our time."

guys a very interesting discussion indeed! One I'd love to get involved in but both of you have covered most of my ground :)

I'll merely make these comments:

1. most people who look at this issue tend to do it through a bias on one side or the other. Problem here is that all too often there have been mistakes, corruption, greed, unnecessary violence, etc. on both sides. Neither of the leaders have ever lived up to their word. The Israeli government had continued to expand settlements at the same time as the Palestinian government had continued to support the intafada (inaction would be the equivalent of support here). And those are just two blatant examples of the deception that has gone on by both sides.

I just feel that if the situation could truly find unbiased moderators (unfortunately most countries have some bias), a solution may be possible. Someone really needs to just call them all out and stop trying to pin the blame on just one side...and I don't just mean the Israelis and Palestinians, but I'm also referring to the US, the European and the neighboring arabic countries biases. It truly has been bilateral actions aimed to provoke that have created the situation and certainly made it worse.

2. face, I had a comment for you and I mean it in no way harshly, but by looking at your list of sources to read I find that they all come from merely one side of the equation. Personally I believe to fully understand a situation you have to make the effort to read from both sides, right and left. I apologize if you have that ground covered but chose not to list any contrasting views.

you're right: in my first post on this subject the texts i mentioned were all from one 'side' of the conflict in a way. not to say that palestinian academecians all fail to point out faults and weaknesses on the part of palestinians where it is evident, but again the inherent bias is obvious.

my last post mentioned two texts that i think balance it out a bit--the oren text about the 67 war is very critical of outside arab interference, like i said. and the history of israel text, well, is just that; it can be seen as a direct counteragent to the text i mentioned by yezid sayigh (both are about 1000 pages in length too!)...

i also have read many texts by what you might call "pro-israeli" and/or conservative (in terms of politics) authors: the names bernard lewis, daniel pipes (as i mentioned before; check out danielpipes.org), martin kramer all come to mind here.

i also just finished reading this short article by josef joffe in "foreign policy" ( [url]http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2737&page=0[/url] ). it's interesting to see that perspective, but i have to disagree with alot of what he says.

for a truly insightful 'blog' style site, check out [url]http://www.juancole.com[/url] . juan cole is former president of the middle east studies association and teaches middle east and south asian history at the university of michigan. i can't wait until the MESA has its annual convention here at georgetown--not that daniel pipes would ever accept but i'd love to see a heated debate between him and juan cole. once the late edward sa'id and bernard lewis had a steamy debate at the mesa convention, but i was just a young'un back then!

and of course don't forget to check out dennis ross's first-hand account of the 2000 camp david talks, which is in complete contrast to clayton swisher's first-hand account. you may also want to read madeleine albright's memoirs, where she mentions camp david as well. while both ross and albright are former public officials and have the obligation to maintain their "official" story of what happened, you then have clayton swisher (a former body guard of albright's who was also at camp david, and later interviewed hundreds of people involved) who had some wonderfully (almost incriminating) embarassing quotes from albright, who later retracted them and made swisher edit them out of his book...

fair enough :Bingo:

and one more point...I tend to find that much of the "history" of that region seems to be dictated by those who are most culpable of creating the situation and I by no means am referring to either the Israelis or Palestianians, but rather to the US and Europeans, as well as the neighboring middle-eastern countries. It's no surprise that there's little self-reflection/criticism in that "history".

Europe and the US have had their hands in a lot of shit when it comes to world politics. Mostly in formerly colonized area's, but they've tried no less (mostly Europe so far) to get into other area's too, like the Middle East.

yeah like i said, America is new to the region. Britain and France had and still have distinct ways of dealing with their (former) colonies.

as for the US, well, we're just not slick about what we do. a number of agendas or programs come to mind in the region. one of my favorites is our involvement in Iran in the 1950s: after helping to set up the shah's very own CIA-like intelligence apparatus (SAVAK), somehow this guy by the name of Musaddeq (sometimes spelled Mosadegh) was elected president (i think in 1953?) who was about to reverse all the hard work the US had invested in Iran. so, in a classic move, the CIA sends John Foster Dulles and Kermit Roosevelt (yes, they are related) with literally suitcases full of millions in cash to just hand to the public...Musaddeq was eventually given the boot, the Shah regained control and the rest as they say is just history :)

that one certainly backfired in '79, though, didn't it?

Found this:

[quote]There is not much in the NYT article itself that is not covered in my article on the coup (?The 1953 Coup d?Etat in Iran? published in 1987 in the International Journal of Middle East Studies, and available in the Gulf2000 archives) or other sources on the coup. The most interesting new tidbit here is that the CIA?s agents harassed religious leaders and bombed one?s home in order to turn them against Mossadeq. The article does not say, but this was probably done by Iranians working in the BEDAMN network, which is described in my article. There are also some new details on how that US persuaded the shah to agree to the coup, including a statement that Assadollah Rashidian was involved in this effort and that General Schwartzkopf, Sr. played a larger role in this than was previously known. There are also a few details reported in the article that I knew about but chose not to reveal, including that Donald Wilber and Norman Derbyshire developed the original coup plan and that the plan was known as TPAJAX, rather than simply AJAX. (The TP prefix indicated that the operation was to be carried out in Iran.) The NYT article does not say anything about a couple of matters that remain controversial about the coup, including whether Ayatollah Kashani played a role in organizing the crowds and whether the CIA team organized ?fake? Tudeh Party crowds as part of the effort. There may be something on these issues in the 200-page history itself.

Much more important than the NYT article are the two documents appended to the summary document giving operational plans for the coup.  These contain a wealth of interesting information.  They indicate that the British played a larger?though still subordinate?role in the coup than was previously known, providing part of the financing for it and using their intelligence network (led by the Rashidian brothers) to influence members of the parliament and do other things.  The CIA described the coup plan as ?quasi-legal,? referring to the fact that the shah legally dismissed Mossadeq but presumably acknowledging that he did not do so on his own initiative.  These documents make clear that the CIA was prepared to go forward with the coup even if the shah opposed it.  There is a suggestion that the CIA use counterfeit Iranian currency to somehow show that Mossadeq was ruining the economy, though I?m not sure this was ever done.  The documents indicate that Fazlollah Zahedi and his military colleagues were given large sums of money (at least $50,000) before the coup, perhaps to buy their support.  Most interestingly, they indicate that various clerical leaders and organizations?whose names are blanked out?were to play a major role in the coup.  Finally, the author(s) of the London plan?presumably Wilber and Derbyshire?say some rather nasty things about the Iranians, including that there is a ?recognized incapacity of Iranians to plan or act in a thoroughly logical manner.? 

Perhaps the most general conclusion that can be drawn from these documents is that the CIA extensively stage-managed the entire coup, not only carrying it out but also preparing the groundwork for it by subordinating various important Iranian political actors and using propaganda and other instruments to influence public opinion against Mossadeq.  This is a point that was made in my article and other published accounts, but it is strongly confirmed in these documents.  In my view, this thoroughly refutes the argument that is commonly made in Iranian monarchist exile circles that the coup was a legitimate ?popular uprising? on behalf of the shah. 

In reply to Nikki Keddie?s (UCLA) questions about whether the NYT article got the story right, I would say it is impossible to tell until the 200-page document comes out.  Nikki?s additional comment that these documents may not be entirely factual but may instead reveal certain biases held by their authors is an important one.  Wilber was not in Iran while the coup was occurring, and his account of it can only have been based on his debriefing of Kermit Roosevelt and other participants.  Some facts were inevitably lost or misinterpreted in this process, especially since this was a rapidly changing series of events.  This being said, I doubt that there will be any major errors in the 200-page history.  While Wilber had his biases, he certainly was a competent historian.  I can think of no reason he might have wanted to distort this account. 

Here are a few other notes.  It is my understanding that these documents were given to the NYT well before Secretary Albright?s recent speech, implying that they were not an attempt to upstage or add to the speech by the unnamed ?former official? who provided them to the NYT.  I think there is still some reason to hope that the 200-page document will be released with excisions by the NYT.  I certainly hope they do so.[/quote]

[url=http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/] Original [/url]

yeah that NS archive looks interesting. and by the way, the Tudeh Party referred to in that article is the Iranian Communist Party, FYI.

if you're interested in further reading, i recommend checking out "the eagle and the lion" (i'm pretty sure that's the title?) by James A. Bill. he was one of my undergraduate professors and one of the leading iran experts in the US--he just retired this year (and i'm missing his retirement dinner!).

can you imagine how embarassing that would be to have dozens of iranian students storm the US embassy in tehran and actually recovering and reconstituting every single classified document that the americans had shredded just minutes before?

real slick! now they make the shredders that cut the paper in two directions!