Experts say report of badges for Jews in Iran is untrue

[rodeodance]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6626a0fa-99de-4f1e-aebe-bb91af82abb3
Experts say report of badges for Jews in Iran is untrue


Chris Wattie, National Post
Published: Friday, May 19, 2006

Several experts are casting doubt on reports that Iran had passed a law requiring the country’s Jews and other religious minorities to wear coloured badges identifying them as non-Muslims.

The Iranian embassy in Otttawa also denied the Iranian government had passed such a law.

A news story and column by Iranian-born analyst Amir Taheri in yesterday’s National Post reported that the Iranian parliament had passed a sweeping new law this week outlining proper dress for Iran’s majority Muslims, including an order for Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians to wear special strips of cloth.

According to the reports, Jews were to wear yellow cloth strips, called zonnar, while Christians were to wear red and Zoroastrians blue.

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre and Iranian expatriates living in Canada had confirmed that the order had been passed, although it still had to be approved by Iran’s “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect.

[Kagemusha]

1. Don't the Iranians have such a thing as bills?

I mean, in the US, the terminology is crystal clear. Bills are passed and then signed into law.

Why is there confusion in the Iranian case?

[11cents]

4. It has an elected parliament ...

...which passes laws, but they can essentially be vetoed by the clerical establishment.

Amir Taheri is gearing up to be the Iranian Chalabi (of course, it seems that Chalabi was already the Iranian Chalabi), so nothing from him should be taken at face value.

The Taliban, though, really did have a law requiring non-Muslims (a tiny population in Afghanistan) to wear distinctive badges.

[Poll_Blind]

2. But if it's not true, who would make up such a thing and why?

I wonder. Oh, right. Got it.

PB

[dipsydoodle]

6. Aside from your own ideas

I'd put my money on some half witted relative of the Shah with aspirations of a return to Iran - along with SAVAK no doubt. :puke:

[adigal]

19. Bush, Cheney, Condi and Rummy are pissed

that the truth about their made-up badge story has been leaked.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

41. precisely. This is another Cheney Special Ops project.

it has his paw prints on it, including the exquisite timing of Jerusalem Post's re-re-reporting of it.

[truth2power]

38. Exactly! More propaganda to get Murikans salivating for war..

They can't get us with "babies thrown from incubators", "rape rooms", or WMDs. Been there, done that.

This stinks of Bushco lies. I'm not buying it until there's incontrovertible evidence.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Iranian exiles are probably lying like Iraqi exiles did

Just what we needed, legions of Persian Chalabis.

[PsychoDad]

8. Saddam, Babies and incubaters...

Remember those :(

The propaganda machine is set to overdrive.

Peace.

[truth2power]

39. Great minds think alike, I guess...I just posted above,

the same thing, before reading your post.

on edit> Geez! It's getting easier all the time to see through those reptiles in the WH.

[dipsydoodle]

5. Must confess

that when I read the original post on this subject I thought it was the start of a smear campaign in the worst possible taste. Whoever started the rumour needs exposing for what they are worth - SFA.

[pnorman]

7. Here's an interesting excerpt from that article:

"Sam Kermanian, of the U.S.-based Iranian-American Jewish Federation, said in an interview from Los Angeles that he had contacted members of the Jewish community in Iran — including the lone Jewish member of the Iranian parliament — and they denied any such measure was in place."

I think that report is disinformation bullshit, but denials by those living under the thumb of the Iranian authorities also have to be taken with a bit of scepticism. Still, I was surprised to learn that there was even one Jewish member of the Iranian parliament. That must be a remnant of the secular parliamentiary system that the CIA overthrew in 1954. Here's a good summary of that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax That coup was done during the Golden Age of "fostering US values" throught the world. Accordingly, many of the principals felt no hesitation in openly boasting of their feats. That makes it easy to confirm it with reasonable certainty. Here, GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND.

pnorman

[pocket]

9. american/zionist propaganda

I am not suprised

[MelliMel]

16. Yes, part of big Jewish conspiracy.

Excuse me, I have to go get ready for the weekly International Zionist Conspiracy Dinner/Planning Committee. :sarcasm:

I am glad the story is untrue. However, Jews don't always have it good in some Muslim countries. We have a large Persian-Jewish community in Orange County. Many came here when the Ayatollah came into power.

[NorthernSpy]

34. He didn't say that. Not all zionists are Jewish; not all Jews are zionist

Let's try to be precise.

[IndianaGreen]

43. but AIPAC has been a willing tool of the neocons

and it will become the patsies when blame is shifted from neocons to the American Jewish community.

The German militarists successfully shifted the blame to the reds, anarchists, liberals, and Jews for the folly of World War I and their role in it.

[AlienGirl]

56. I think you're on to something there, sadly

[Josh]

21. Could you not use that phrase?

We tend to think of ourselves as better in the realm of intellectual debate (and by 'us' I mean people at this forum) than to stoop to such things.

It makes you sound ill-informed and just as black-and-white and stupid as the people you claim to abhor.

Personally, I also find it offensive, given that I'm both Jewish and a Zionist (ie. I believe in a Jewish state, which is all Zionism actually means).

We can all do better than knee-jerk reactionary statements.

[NorthernSpy]

33. well, what *should* he say?

There are people who clearly want us to bomb Iran. This bit of propaganda -- which the Wiesenthal Center played a critical role in spreading -- appears to be part of a concerted effort to bring about another war.

Seriously: what label would be more accurate, in your opinion, than the one that the poster chose to describe the political ideology of those who are currently working to push Americans toward war with Iran?

This is a real question, by the way -- not a rhetorical question.


(edit: proofreading!)

[Josh]

49. To lump everyone who is pushing that single agenda -

as stemming from "Zionist propaganda" is just a massive generalisation and it does not accurately represent the true nature of this debunked report.

Zionism is not a political ideology. It was an idea created in the 1800s as a way of safeguarding Jews from consistent persecution and was embraced by many as the only way to guarantee their safety and livelihood.

Sentiment on DU is often flagrantly pro-Iran's president and regime to the extent that some people refuse to believe that they can ever do any wrong, and that the United States is a bloodthirsty empire and that there is a grand Jewish/American/Israeli/"Zionist" cabal that is directing American foreign policy in the Middle East.

To be honest, it makes me a little nervous to hear it all simply reduced to "Zionist propaganda."

[CJCRANE]

36. With a 1000+ posts

you've been on DU long enough not to use such generalisations. Most people on this board are American and the term 'zionist' is far left/far right fringe terminology and not really specific enough to add anything to the debate.

'Neocon propaganda' would probably be more accurate.

[NorthernSpy]

40. I agree that the characterization "neocon propaganda" fits...

... and it's the characterization I tend to favor. But having looked at the info offered in a post in another thread ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1238695&mesg_id=1239459 ), I'd have to say that describing the political orientation of many of those linked to Benador Associated as 'zionist' in some sense is not altogether inaccurate. Though I do understand that there is a bit of a minefield attached to the term "zionist", and one wants to avoid that if possible.

[enigma000]

10. Of course it could be Iranian disinformation

To discredit the Iranian opposition. I mean, turn about is fair play.

[annabanana]

11. "Iranian-born analyst Amir Taheri"

Who is he anyway... Is he a friend of Chalabi?

[NYC Liberal]

12. Lookie what we have here! Ties to the NEO-CONS!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Taheri

Amir Taheri is an Iranian-born journalist and author based in Europe.
His writings focus on the Middle East affairs and topics related to Islamist terrorism.
Mr Taheri is a member of Benador Associates, a Public Relations firm that is a clearing house for international Public Policy Speakers.

Now...let's take a lookie at this "Benador Associates" shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benador_Associates

Benador Associates is a public relations firm and speaker's bureau that promotes expert writers and speakers focusing primarily on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly those from a neoconservative point of view.

The CEO and founder of the firm, Eleana Benador, is a Peruvian-born linguist-turned-publicist whose client list of prominent and influential neoconservatives includes Richard Perle, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board; former CIA director James Woolsey; Daily News columnist A.M. Rosenthal; American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Michael Ledeen; National Review contributing editor Frank Gaffney Jr.; former Washington Times editor in chief Arnaud de Borchgrave; former Secretary of State Alexander Haig Jr.; and Iraqi dissident Kanan Makiya, a Brandeis professor who advocated the 2003 invasion of Iraq

Surprise surprise! :eyes:

[Ms. Clio]

14. Bing-O

k & r

[annabanana]

18. Good Catch!

let's get this out there....

[pnorman]

20. BINGO!

That's the sort of careful research that I've grown accustomed to find here on DU. Many THANKS.

pnorman

[daleo]

23. And the kind of research the corporate media can't spend five minutes on

This "google" thing is beyond the powers of the major media.

[Tom Joad]

26. Self-delete

[NorthernSpy]

35. yup! my first thought was, "another neocon plot!"

The neocons wanna drag us into war again. We haven't even quite finished losing the last one!

[baldguy]

37. Another reason to attack Iran.

I'm sure this debunking will get just as much exposure as the original story.

Yeah, right.

[joe_shmoe]

13. **PETITION AGAINST MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAN**

It is with grave concern that I observe the growing threat of a new U.S. war--this time against the people of Iran.

For a collection of articles and resources on this subject you can visit this link: http://reseaudesign.com/research/iran/iran_summery.html

I'm starting up a petition which I will be sending out to as many members of Congress as possible. I'm asking for help to get this signed by as many people, possible in the next month. Send it to as many people you can.

http://www.petitiononline.com/n0war1rn/

[Minstrel Boy]

15. Iranian Jewish MP denies badge plan

Fuck The National Post and their goddamn drumbeat for war. Its front page today was illustrated with a stock image of star-wearing Jews in a Nazi ghetto. Goddamn them for muddying memories of the Holocaust in order to create the conditions for a new one.

Jewish MP denies Iran badge plan
From: Agence France-Presse
From correspondents in Tehran
May 20, 2006

IRAN'S only Jewish MP strongly denied reports in a Canadian newspaper overnight that Iran may force non-Muslims to wear coloured badges in public so they can be identified.

"This report is a complete fabrication and is totally false," Maurice Motammed said in Tehran. "It is a lie, and the people who invented it wanted to make political gain" by doing so.

...

Mr Motammed said he had been present in parliament when a bill to promote "an Iranian and Islamic style of dress for women" was voted. "In the law, there is no mention of religious minorities," he added.

MPs representing Iran's Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian minorities sit on all parliamentary committees, particularly the cultural one, he said. "This is an insult to the Iranian people and to religious minorities in Iran," he said.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19196947-38201,00.html

[dipsydoodle]

42. Did you spot this at the same time ?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19195240-38201,00.html

[annabanana]

17. kick & nominate... this must be seen..

The lie is still being promulgated...

[struggle4progress]

22. ADL Statement on Unconfirmed Reports of Iranian 'Dress Code'

New York, NY, May 19, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement in response to unconfirmed reports that the Iranian parliament may be considering a "dress code" bill that would include badges or other identifying marks for non-Muslims:

While it is factual that the Iranian parliament is considering some kind of dress code, there is no evidence of any discussion or legislation concerning badges or the like for Jews and others. Clearly, dress codes imposed by a government on a people are one more example of the backwardness of the regime, and would be unhealthy for all groups, including minorities. How this could affect Jews, Christians and other minorities is not immediately known.

We will continue to monitor the situation in Iran as this story develops and will make further comment when more information about the proposed Iranian law comes to light.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslEx_61/4819_61.htm

[politicat]

24. The REAL proposal is about WOMEN'S dress codes.

It's a legal attempt to force women into the burquah. The Globe and Mail spoke to the measure's sponsor and author, who rebuffed the religious rumors, but admitted to the fact that the idea is to tax western clothing out of Iran and force women (how is not clear) back into the burquah.

Here's the article.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060519.wdressco0519/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home

So... where's all the outrage now that it's not Jews and Christians and it IS women? Anyone ready to go to war to free the women from the evils of discriminatory clothing?

[Tom Joad]

25. A war that will require that we drop bombs that will result in the death

of many women, no doubt.

[politicat]

27. I guess I DID need to use the :sarcasm: tag...

The point I'm trying to make is that it seems to be perfectly DANDY for a government to oppress half of its population, but a rumor of a whim of oppressing 1% is enough to make people here and all over the 'net froth at the mouth.

The common attitude seems to be (and I read your response the same way): "Oh, gee... it's not Jews? Okay, fine. Whatever. You want to lock your women up in purdah? Great! Just don't make your Jews wear distinctive clothing. That would be BAD and we would have to hurt you. But as long as it's just women, no worries, mate."

If it's bad to do to 1% of the population on religious grounds, it's bad to do to 50% of the population on religious and gender grounds.

Duh.

What does it take to get some equal justice for we of the double X variety around here?

[Chulanowa]

29. No doubt

A "national dress code" is stupid and repressive at the most basic level.

Remember WHO is beating these drums though - People who want us to believe that the nasty, nasty Iranazis are trying to round up and kill all the Jews and Christians, to legitimize another War of Conquest on the Persian Gulf. The people seeding these rumors to stir outrage DON'T CARE about women's rights. They regard women as walking wombs.

Thus, while the plight of the women is damned bad, you can't really help but breathe a small sigh of relief. The Misadministration will not wage war because women are being oppressed, like they would if it were Christians / Jews.

[Tom Joad]

31. They invaded Afgahnistan partly on the grounds that they were

liberating women.

We just have to offer a saner approach.

[politicat]

45. That was spin.

They invaded Afghanistan because they wanted a foothold in western Asia in case India and Pakistan actually do start lobbing nukes at each other instead of just glaring balefully across a no man's land. Afghanistan is in a perfect place from which to pipe natural gas from the former USSR states. And Afghanistan gave them a good platform from which to pinch Iran.

I recall I heard exactly 2 comments on "it's to liberate the women" in the drum-up to the Afghani invasion. I heard far more about playing where's Osama? and the energy issue.

And since women are actually worse off under the present Afghani administration - more likely to be victims of rape and crime, more likely to be murdered by rival clans, kidnapped and forcibly married off, or killed by family members and their deaths are less likely to be investigated - saying we went into Afghanistan to liberate the women is a gross irony.

[Tom Joad]

46. Yes, it was spin. My apologies if that was not clear in my post.

They don't give a shit about any human rights in Afgahnistan (or the Middle East as a whole). sometimes it is used as a way to drum up support for the war.

[Tom Joad]

30. I was just saying that is the line we are being fed. I really did not

see your post as promoting a war. But the pro-war people think war is a dandy way of "liberating" people.

[Kailassa]

28. I'm sure there are lots of DUers who would love to

free women from the evils of discriminatory clothing.

Or of any clothing at all, for that matter. ;-)

[jbnow]

32. Well we went to war

in Iraq to get that same thing in place. Iraqi women use to be free to do and wear what they wanted and are being forced back into the burquah.

It's something I often think about. Life in Iraq use to be bad for Saddam's enemies, now no one knows when they are safe and women for sure have lost ground.

With what has happened to women's freedom in Iraq they don't have much right to use this as an excuse to attack Iran.

As far as that goes they are trying to move things back for women here too, they just haven't gotten to our clothing yet.

[K-W]

44. The Simon Wiesenthal Centre eh?

The same group that spread anti-Chavez propaganda.


Venezuela's Jews Defend Leftist President in Flap Over Remarks
By MARC PERELMAN
January 13, 2006

The Venezuelan Jewish community leadership and several major American Jewish groups are accusing the Simon Wiesenthal Center of rushing to judgment by charging Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chavez, with making antisemitic remarks.

Officials of the leading organization of Venezuelan Jewry were preparing a letter to the center, complaining that it had misinterpreted Chavez's words and had failed to consult with them before attacking the Venezuelan president.

"You have interfered in the political status, in the security, and in the well-being of our community. You have acted on your own, without consulting us, on issues that you don't know or understand," states a draft of the letter obtained by the Forward. Copies of the letter are also to be sent to the heads of the World Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee, among other Jewish groups.

"We believe the president was not talking about Jews and that the Jewish world must learn to work together," said Fred Pressner, president of the Confederation of Jewish Associations of Venezuela. The confederation is known by its Spanish acronym, CAIV. He added that this was the third time in recent years that the Wiesenthal center had publicly criticized Chavez without first consulting the local community.
http://www.forward.com/articles/7189

[Zhade]

47. KandR

Don't like lies being pushed, even about shitty regimes, and ESPECIALLY when this country is thinking of illegally bombing said regime.

[Harper_is_Bush]

48. kick & R

[Moderator]

50. Kick

[Poll_Blind]

51. (IRAN) No distinctive attire for non-Muslims

This article from the Jerusalem Post:

By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER
May. 22, 2006 0:52 | Updated May. 22, 2006 1:28

Iran expert Menashe Amir on Sunday traced incorrect reports about a proposed Iranian uniform law to earlier debate on the measure.

According to erroneous articles - "totally false" in the words of Amir - Iran was preparing to require Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians to wear colored ribbons on their clothing to distinguish them from Muslims.

--snip--

In the current case, according to Tel Aviv-based Iran analyst Meir Javedanfar, "There is nothing in the law that addresses minorities." He said he had a copy of the current legislation, which still needs approval by Iranian Islamic authorities, and that the purpose was primarily to create an "indigenous fashion industry" in Iran.

--snip--

"This is first and foremost a commercial law aimed at rejuvenating Iranian fashion. It's basically putting the 'Made in Iran' sign on Iranian fashion," he said. Javedanfar added that the only section of the bill that carried the threat of criminal punishment was that pertaining to the sale of illegally imported clothing.

Amir said that in any case a law limiting what Iranians could wear would never be enforced. He pointed to the proliferation of satellite dishes and camcorders in Iran despite their being outlawed.

--snip--

It's nice to have yet another debunking of the "Iranians to make Jews, Christians were signifying marks" as a complete and utter fabrication. I would encourage, strongly, all who are interested in the matter to read the entire article. It's just about one page- it goes into much more interesting detail about what kernel of truth was used to sow this lie and how Ahmadinejad uses these fabrications to strengthen his political clout.

PB

[AlamoDemoc]

52. Thanks posting this....we need more articles such as this

in order to discredit the dubious articles published daily by the Right-wing newspapers like the National Post.

[AlamoDemoc]

53. Common...We need two more votes to put this story on TOP

We now know the story was false...but there are others who don't know the truth about this story. VOTE it up please

:kick:

[Poll_Blind]

54. Yeah, it's amazing what's getting printed as "truth" nowdays.

And if they can't make it up out of whole cloth, they'll doing by mistranslating (which also happened to Chavez recently).

PB

[azygous]

55. My first thought

back when this story first aired, was one of skepticism. It followed the tried and true pattern of our government whipping up public opinion in favor of war by making Iran into some kind of comic book enemy like they did Iraq. Looks like my instincts didn't fail me.