Daniel M.Zucker

Shame on Professor Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker

When will you disclose the amount of money (if any) you receive from or contribute to the Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran)?

Paul Sheldon Foote, July 22, 2007 – http://360.yahoo.com/paulsheldonfoote

In response to my book review of David Horowitz’s The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, Professor Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker posted the following comment:

“May we ask why Professor Foote always attacks opponents of the current Teheran regime? Even Professor Ervand Abrahamian

(author of the 1987 text The Iranian Mojahedin and no friend of the MEK)wrote that the MEK never was or had any ties to the Communist Party or any of its fellow travellers. Foote uses his”conservative”credentials to hide his support and defense of the tyrannical theocratic regime in Teheran. Shame on him! He opposes those that want to end the tyranny in Teheran.

Professor Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker”

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/forum/read.html?id=2075

My answers to Professor Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker are:

1. I am a lifelong registered Republican. You may verify my current party registration with Orange County, California. You have failed to disclose your party affiliation.

2. In 1992, I was a candidate for the California State Assembly in the Republican primary election. The California Republican Assembly (CRA) endorsed me. United Republicans of California (UROC) co-endorsed me. These were the two conservative Republican groups endorsing during that election.

3. I volunteered and served in Vietnam as an American Army officer fighting against communism. When have you ever opposed communism? Unlike chickenhawk neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites), I served in the military in a war zone. I did not attempt to dupe any Christian Zionists to go in my place.

4. The following is a posted usage of the word conservative related to your name:

Congregation Beth Sholom

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(CONSERVATIVE)

516-432-7464

315 Roosevelt Blvd., Long Beach, NY 11561

fax: 516-889-1015

Rabbi Daniel Zucker

S,DM,L,RS,AE email: bethsholom@peoplepc.com

http://cojonc.org/_wsn/page5.html

Can you provide any other evidence that you are conservative in any way?

5. Your summary of Professor Ervand Abrahamian’s book The Iranian Mojahedin is totally false.

On page 2, Professor Abrahamian wrote:

“The Mojahedin has in fact never once used the terms socialist, communist, Marxist or eshteraki to describe itself.”

On page 102, Professor Abrahamian included (in black and white) the red, communist flag of the MEK. Throughout his book, Professor Abrahamian explained in detail the Marxist and Maoist influences on the MEK.

Any serious student of communism knows that communists have attempted to dupe religious people in this way. Massoud Rajavi was familiar with the liberation theology successes in Latin America. If the communists in Latin America can dupe ignorant Christians by not using the usual Marxist jargon, then they will do so.

On page 261, Professor Abrahamian concluded that the MEK vision that there will be a Second Coming in Iran with the people shouting the slogan ‘Iran is Rajavi, Rajavi is Iran’ is a vision shared only by members of the MEK.

Professor Abrahamian and I are signers of the Stop War on Iran statement:

Ervand Abrahamian, Prof. ME History, Author, Between Two Revolutions

Paul Foote, Professor, California State University, Fullerton*, Fullerton, CA

http://www.stopwaroniran.org/statement.shtml

6. Your claim that I support any theocracy is a total lie. My postings are available for all to read at my blog and at my Yahoo political discussion group:

http://360.yahoo.com/paulsheldonfoote

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/traitorsusa/

Also, I appeared last year on the NITV’s “Power of One” Iranian opposition satellite television program with the hosts Zia Atabay and Manook Khodabakhshian. In a program watched in Iran, I explained that my Foote ancestors left England, a theocracy and a monarchy, nearly 400 years ago to enjoy religious and economic freedom in America. Today, I remain opposed to any theocracy and to any monarchy. However, I do not know of any member of the Foote family in America for nearly 400 years who has advocated a military attack on England because it has a theocracy or a monarchy. If Iranian expatriates do not like what is happening in Iran today, they can return to Iran to make improvements. Why have dishonest Iranian communists and monarchists moved to America? The leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran need to study why the United Kingdom has been successful in maintaining a theocracy and a monarchy.

At the start of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the Iranian nationalists collapsed quickly. That left only Islamic religious leaders and Massoud Rajavi (the leader of the communist MEK) struggling for power. I have written repeatedly that, while I am a Republican who did not vote for President Jimmy Carter, I am delighted that President Carter’s strategy of a Muslim green zone in the Middle East succeeded. I was delighted in 1981 when the Islamic leaders ousted Massoud Rajavi from Iran. If Rajavi had succeeded in installing a totalitarian regime similar to Pol Pot’s in Cambodia, Rajavi would have murdered a large percentage of the Iranian people and there might still be a Soviet Union.

7. The Web site for your Americans for Democracy in the Middle East (ADME) does not include any disclosures of financial statements:

1040 First Avenue, Suite 350

New York, NY 10022-2902

http://www.adme.ws/

When will you disclose the amount of money (if any) you receive from or contribute to the Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran)?

July 26, 2007 0 comment

Daniel M.Zucker

The time for ignorance is past

Nejat Society’s appeal to Rabbi Professor Daniel M. Zucker –

We noted with interest your recent article ‘Iran’s VEVAK: Disinformation, Inc.’ "http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2165&cid=2&sid=4" which was written in collaboration with the Mojahedin Khalq.

Regardless of this article, the seven member delegation from Nejat Association which is currently in Paris, would very much like to meet with you to share our concerns about the human rights violations inside the Mojahedin’s Camp Ashraf in Iraq.

After a twenty year absence, why is a mother not able to visit her son for two hours? This is her only request. Why will the Mojahedin not allow her this simple request, which under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention on Protected Persons, is a basic right.

Article 116 – Every internee shall be allowed to receive visitors, especially near relatives, at regular intervals and as frequently as possible.

If you are unable to visit Paris to meet with the delegation, we will be happy to meet with you in Washington where we will be arriving shortly.

Rabbi Zucker, the time for ignorance is past.

September 23, 2006 0 comment

Daniel M.Zucker

The Egalitarian Terrorists!

Following his propagandistic attempt in shouldering responsibility to distort Mojahedin Khalq’s notorious past, Daniel Zucker in his recent focus has ascribed the epithet of “egalitarian” to the group. A Zionist Rabbi devoted to help Iranian people to set up a secular democracy, Mr. Zucker once more suggests removal of MKO from the list of proscribed groups:

It is time to empower the Iranian resistance to aid the long-suffering Iranian people to rise up in revolt to overthrow the tyrannical Teheran theocracy. Specifically, this means removing the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MeK) and the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) from the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations. *

Developing a new political lexicon, Mr. Zucker has substituted the term “egalitarian” for the term terrorist. The expression comes from his statement saying:

If the egalitarian NCRI and MeK can once again become active in the field, Iran could soon become a secular democracy, exactly of the type that we’ve been trying to establish in Iraq. *

These expressions are enough to explain for the Western style democracy MKO is suggested to establish.

*. Getting It Right in Iraq

mojahedin.ws – 15/08/2006

August 20, 2006 0 comment

Daniel M.Zucker

Allies of the Neo-cons

Reading Daniel M. Zucker’s Getting It Right in Iraq published in Global Politician, I was taken aback to learn why a Zionist Rabbi so vehemently supports a terrorist group like Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO). No doubt, Mr. Zucker is a disciple of Leo Strauss theory of “constructive chaos”. Strauss, whose media branch is better known under the name of “neo-conservatives”, theorized that “the real power cannot be exerted from if one remains in the status quo, but only, quite the contrary, in the act of destroying all forms of resistance. It is by plunging the masses into chaos that the elites can aspire to ensure the stability of their position”.* The theory of “constructive chaos” is the same “remodeling of the Greater Middle East,” to use the expression of George W. Bush.

To preliminaries to prepare for reshaping of the Greater Middle East has already begun, namely, establishing a western style democracy in the concerned countries of the region. Whether or not the dream might come true is another question. It is through the theory of “constructive chaos” that the desired democracy can be established. Having failed in establishing a western style democracy in Iraq, Mr. Zucker as an advocator of chaos and disorder broaches a new suggestion:

If we really want to bring a democratic revolution to Iraq, which is something that will become increasingly difficult – given Teheran’s rising influence in Baghdad-we will have to work with all those different groups that oppose a Shiite religious state. Some of our potential allies are those Sunni insurgents that we are fighting now.

In his opinion, the dissident and terrorist groups, wearing the mask of pro-democracy, have to be unleashed as the most favored instruments to carry out the mission of shedding the needed blood to build up the Western approved democracy in Iran as well:

There is one other thing that we should be doing, given the overwhelming evidence of Iranian interference and influence in Iraqi politics. It is time to empower the Iranian resistance to aid the long-suffering Iranian people to rise up in revolt to overthrow the tyrannical Teheran theocracy. Specifically, this means removing the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MeK) and the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) from the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.

It was abundantly clear for Iranian from the very beginning that what MKO really meant by the American and Zionist dictated “third option”. Mr. Zucker’s suggestion of reactivating Mojahedin as a means of furthering the shared interests leaves no doubt that MKO is the US-Zionists’ chosen potential dissident ally to implement threats against Iran:

If the egalitarian NCRI and MeK can once again become active in the field, Iran could soon become a secular democracy, exactly of the type that we’ve been trying to establish in Iraq. Now wouldn’t that be novel-allowing a Middle-East nation to set new regional standards in the development and establishment of secular democracy.

They made a miscalculation about Iraq; the elected government was in absolute contrast to what they expected and advocated. Iranian people would never consent to a secular democracy as the Iraqi people didn’t.

*. The Neo Conservatives and the Policies of Constructive Chaos

mojahedin.ws – Sattar Orangi, August 15 2006

August 20, 2006 0 comment

Daniel M.Zucker

Ravings of MKO’s Zionist Supporter

Distorting history and producing different versions of a same historical event is an illness, with long history in the MKO.

For different reasons, including whitewashing the crimes of the past or to win the attraction of new supporters, MKO distorts the history and broadcast new versions of it through its propagandistic outlets.

It was determined recently that this kind of illness is contagious and that MKO supporters also get this illness following their deals with this group.

During past few days, MKO websites published an article by Zionist supporter of Mojahedin, Rabbi Daniel Zucker, who’s responsible for protecting Israeli interests in the US. After meeting Maryam Rajavi a few months ago, he officially asked the Israeli government to recognize his real friends (terrorist MKO) and support it.

His recent article is ridiculously full of lies and distortions so that the MKO itself has refused to publish the article in full, because it knows that all Iranians would find the lies in the article.

However, since the Rajavi’s gang is opportunist, it has taken only one sentence of the article, which says that " The MEK is the grandchild of Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq, the popular nationalist prime minister".

Zucker stresses at the beginning of his article that:

"Most Americans have no idea who and what the Mojahedin-e Khalq is, and for what it stands."

In fact, the secret behind MKO’s claims and distortions should be sought in this very fact.

However, like the MKO itself, Zucker relates this to the efforts of Islamic Republic and to prove this cliché, he resorts to very naïve lies:

"The reason for this difficulty is that the Iranian regime has disseminated a highly successful disinformation campaign about the MEK, a trick that the mullahs learned from studying with the Soviet Union’s KGB. In the period before the fall of the shah, many of the student followers of Ayatollah Khomeini spent time in the USSR learning revolutionary tactics and strategy. One such individual is the present Supreme Leader of Iran, the Faqih, Ayatollah Ali Khameneí, a graduate of Patrice Lumumba Friendship University in Moscow, the Oxford of terrorism."

There’s no doubt that the paragraph above needs no explanation. The only thing worthy of note is that such lies are expressed to pave the way for other lies, in order to decorate and hide the real face of MKO in the West.

When the Israeli regime is massacring the innocent people of Lebanon, Zionist supporter of MKO comes to prepare broader cooperation fo MKO with Israel; to win the support of Zionist lobby in the US, he writes:

"One of the errors about the MEK is the allegation that they were involved in assassinating U.S. Army personal and military contractors in the early and mid-1970’s. The accusation derives from the fact that little was known about the MEK by American intelligence at the time, and not much has been learned until recently. In 1971 the leadership of the MEK was arrested by SAVAK, the shah’s secret police for their pro-democracy activities. While the leadership was in prison, a dissident group broke away from the Muslim Mojahedin and formed a Marxist faction. It was this latter group which used the Mojahedin name but violated its principles and attacked and killed Americans."

After 25 years, Mr. Zucker wants to distort the documented history; It would be good for him to study MKO’s own journals published at that time, claiming and admitting the killing of Americans in order to get political advantages.

Elsewhere in his article, Zucker tries to distort the realty on the role of MKO in takeover of US embassy in Tehran. His efforts are aimed at showing the MKO members as good and polite boys, while he roguishly points to the name of Iranian president:

"Another false accusation against the MEK is the allegation that the MEK supported the student takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran in February 1979, and subsequent 444 day hostage crisis. MEK members actually tried to protect the U.S. Embassy from the street gang Komitehs that sought to take control of it for the Islamist faction of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeini’s student followers, including people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, clashed with the MEK, and forbade their entrance to the embassy. Indeed, the Islamist leaders of the embassy-takeover themselves have written that the MEK was not part of their group and would not have been allowed to participate because of major doctrinal differences."

It seems that Zucker thinks Sate Dpartment and the White House officials are stupid when he even ignores the fact that they have access to the archive of MKO journals; that’s why he calls MKO "the protectors of US embassy"!

Then, he writes:

"The claim, heard occasionally around Washington, that the MEK is unpopular with the masses in Iran does not add up. If the MEK is so unpopular, why has the regime’s media attacked the MEK 350% more than any other group?"

It’s not clear whether the popular support should be recognized from popular gatherings and demonstrations or (according to MKO’s logic) from those who curse this group!

Zucker asks:

"Why is Teheran scared of the MEK, but not of Reza Pahlavi and the monarchists, the Tudeh Party or Ibrahim Yazdi’s Freedom Movement of Iran? How is it possible for the MEK to uncover details of the regime’s nuclear and missile programs if the people don’t trust and respect the MEK?"

However, the question is "if the people are aware of the details of nuclear program that MKO’s awareness- if true at all- can bring them popular support"!?

In his article, Zucker enters the battlefield of MKO and Monarchists on getting the support of the US. In several occasions, he takes position against monarchists:

"Dr. Michael Rubin’s testimony on the sins of the Islamic regime in Teheran is always first rate. However, Rubin is a supporter of Reza Pahlavi and the monarchists. As a result, his views on the MEK must be held as suspect. I have written elsewhere about Dr. Rubin’s sympathies and those of his colleague Dr. Kenneth Timmerman for the monarchists. I would again ask, how reliable is the opinion of those who support the Iranian monarchy? …Timmerman and Rubin are fine scholars about the regime, but their biases must be recognized when one talks about the Iranian resistance and the question of regime change. The MEK is the grandchild of Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq, the popular nationalist prime minister that the CIA toppled in 1953 so as to bring the shah back to power. The Iranian masses have shown a decided preference for the MEK over any possible return to a Pahlavi monarchy."

In the end, Zucker points to MKO’s main problem, namely being unpopular and lacking popular base; he asks the US government to support the MKO:

"It would be prudent for the State Department to de-list the MEK and the NCRI to allow them to lead the Iranian people to make the necessary changes to bring about a secular democracy in Iran."

That’s why the MKO efforts during past 10 years to get out of terror list have all failed, because they are wholly based on lies and distortions.

MKO thought all other politicians and government officials are stupid to believe in lies and distortions of realities.

Irandidban – 2006/08/13

August 14, 2006 0 comment

Daniel M.Zucker

Mr. Zucker, more Mojahed than Mojahedin

Daniel M. Zucker, a Chairman of Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East, in his recent article, Setting the Record Straight About the Mojahedin-e Khalq of Iran, which is more a comeback to Jay Solomon’s article published in the Wall Street Journal ("Iranian Exile Group Aims to Build Bridges; Some in Congress See a Role For an Organization Listed as a Terrorist Group", May 22, 2006), regards Solomon’s article valuable “as most Americans have no idea who and what the Mojahedin-e Khalq is, and for what it stands”. To the point, there is nothing wrong with the idea. The chief problem emerges at the point where Mr. Zucker, a partisan of Mojahedin, takes the responsibility to bring up “important errors and oversights in his essay that need correction and clarification”.

Enumerating these errors one by one to correct them, Mr. Zucker begins: “One of the errors about the MEK is the allegation that they were involved in assassinating U.S. Army personal and military contractors in the early and mid-1970’s. The accusation derives from the fact that little was known about the MEK by American intelligence at the time, and not much has been learned until recently”. He seems to have read Mojahedin’s Democracy Betrayed, a response to U.S. State Department on the Mojahedin and the Iranian Resistance, because his attempt to acquit Mojahedin of being involved in assassination of the American citizens follows the baseless justification of Mojahedin themselves. It is up to U.S. State Department to defend itself against Mr. Zucker’s allegations but, for sure, it has never refuted what it had acknowledged earlier about Mojahedin’s engagement in the murder of Americans. Here is the excerpt dealing with the issue:

MKO Assassinations

In the period leading up to the revolution and its immediate aftermath, the Mojahedin carried out their strategy of armed struggle. The results included the murder of Americans, support for the seizure of the U.S. embassy, and opposition to the release of U.S. hostages. The Mojahedin are known to have assassinated the following Americans in Iran during the 1970s:

Lt. Colonel Lewis L. Hawkins Killed: June 2, 1973

Air Force Colonel Paul Schaeffer Killed: May 21, 1975

Air Force Lt. Colonel Jack Turner Killed: May 21, 1975

Donald G. Smith, Rockwell International Killed: August 28, 1976

Robert R. Krongrad, Rockwell International Killed: August 28, 1976

William C. Cottrell, Rockwell International Killed: August 28, 1976

Reza Reza’i, a member of the Mojahedin’s Ideological Team, was arrested and executed by the Shah’s government for the murder of Colonel Hawkins. The attacks on the Rockwell employees occurred on the anniversary of the arrest of a Mojahedin member, Rahman vahid Afrakhteh, for the murder of Colonels Schaeffer and Turner. In addition. Air Force Brigadier General Harold price was wounded in a 1972 attack Planned by Mojahedin Central committee member, Kazem Zul Al-Anvar. Widely credited in Tehran for these attacks at the time, the Mojahedin themselves claimed responsibility for these murders in their publications.

While Mojahedin have recurrently insisted that they were among the firsts to support the occupation of the US embassy, their own published statements and evidences are more than enough, Mr. Zucker refers to the incident as the next error: “Another false accusation against the MEK is the allegation that the MEK supported the student takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran in February 1979, and subsequent 444 day hostage crisis”.

At the time, Mojhedin even criticized the Iranian authorities for any probable future relations with the US. In “Mojahed” 18 issued on Jan.8, 1980 Mojahedin stated:

Recent recession in our anti-Imperialist struggle after the Shah’s downfall is one of (Mojahedin) Organization’s criticisms of government and officials. Of course, the reactionaries call this criticism, "uncalled for criticism" or "opposing revolutionary government". Fortunately by revolutionary move of the Students following Imam’s Line, and specially decisive position of Imam(Khomeini) to resist and face U.S. imperialism our revolution is about to get on the track.

From the very moment the U.S spy den was occupied, the organization welcomed the move and used all its facilities to mobilize masses. Especially the historical decree of Imam on general, politico-military mobilization, the Mojahedin sent their military units to support the Students following Imam’s Line, and to guard and monitor the Embassy round the clock.

Mr. Zucker fails to remember, or he may have never heard, that Mojahedin were the most enthusiastic in making anti-imperialism slogans and encouraged others to chant them as well as bearing tracts and banners. In “Mojahed” 10 issued on Nov.12, 1979 they admitted their role in making and chanting a variety of slogans:

The slogans before the American Embassy remind us of the days of the revolution.

Integral, joyful mottos of the people remind us of the days, we together with our martyrs shouted against the Shah’s dictatorship. The people and the students joint slogans like "Khomeini Combats, the U.S. retreats" could be heard in and out of the Embassy.

Expulsion of Americans is an act to follow Imam (Khomeini)’s "Death to Imperialism” which is the most beautiful slogan. We also chanted: “Extradition of traitor Shah is our people’s demand”, “Struggling with the U.S. builds our unity”, “Carter must be killed either by gun or by feast”, “Savage Imperialism is the enemy of the mankind”.

If Mr. Zucker is in any doubt about MEK unpopularity among Iranian people, we gladly invite him to have a short visit to Iran to writ down some notes for himself. Can he ever name the other Iranian opposition and diaspora talking in support of Mojahedin? The exaggerated numbers of the supporters he refers to are the same baseless statistics computed and advertised by Mojahedin’s own propaganda machine. We will be also pleased to see Mr. Zucker, on behalf of Mojahedin, exhibit the documents and evidences of “over 120,000 MEK members and sympathizers” claimed to have been tortured and murdered. At the present, MKO claims the Islamic Republic has so far executed 120,000 members of the group. Their claimed number of the executed in 1987, the year they settled in Iraq, did not exceeded 20,000 which was an overstatement at the time.

Mr. Zucker furthers to say “The MEK, under the leadership of theoretician Massoud Rajavi, did not take up arms against the Islamic Republic of Iran until June 21, 1981, the day after a peaceful demonstration of over 500,000 individuals in Teheran was attacked.… Following these incidents, the MEK leadership decided to take up arms against the Khomeini regime, launching attacks that killed several high officials of the regime”.

Every now and then, we hear the news of some dissidents in some countries, especially in developed Western countries, organizing protesting rallies in demand of some right or objection to an adopted policy or else. We are also disappointed to see some of these mobs are scattered by anti-riot forces’ violent crackdown that, in some cases, ends in some killings. Do all the organizers and plotters of these quashed rallies take up arms and announce armed struggle against the government or assassinate the authorities?

Furthermore, have you ever thought of the Mojahedin’s claimed number of over 500,000 sympathizers marching in Tehran’s streets and the destructive potentialities of such a crowd if they really existed? Sensibly, could such a big mob be easily dispersed by a number of not yet organized paramilitary forces as Mojahedin, and you as well, claim?

Mr. Zucker argues that “The MEK is the grandchild of Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq, the popular nationalist prime minister that the CIA toppled in 1953 so as to bring the shah back to power”. That is too amazing that the grandchild of a once popular figure toppled by a US orchestrated coup are urged to be de-listed and protected “to allow them to lead the Iranian people to make the necessary changes to bring about a secular democracy in Iran”. It seems that Mr. Zucker, one among many others, is misguided by Mojahedin’s expropriating Mosaddeq’s name and repute. Mojahedin’s present struggle manner might in no way beguile those who are familiar with Iranians contemporary history.

Last but not least, blacklisting Mojahedin is the result of no tradeoff between the US and Iran as Mr. Zucker believes. The political breach between the two countries is broad clear to the world and the US seems to be much more prudent not to trade the security of its nation for trifle advantages. Besides, the US is not the sole country to have blacklisted Mojahedin. Reading Mr. Zucker’s article one may conclude a question; is his commendation of terrorists a newly developed approach of establishing democracy, preferably in Iran?

A. Afshar – mojahedin.ws – August 9, 2006

August 13, 2006 0 comment