Comedy Treat: Head of Jewish Conference of Presidents Addresses Iranian People
My apologies for posting so much on Iran this weekend. If I could, I'd merge my posts into one so as not to crowd the page. But this is worth seeing. I promise it's my last post of the weekend.
This has to be seen to be believed.
The head of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organization addresses the people of Iran.
It's hilarious and utterly weird. Probably 2% of American Jews have heard of this guy who is addressing the Iranian people in our name. (He keeps saying "we." Who exactly is his "we?" When did we American Jews get our own President?) Like him or not, we have a President and this guy ain't him. There is also the State of Israel which does not speak for American Jews but which has a Prime Minister who speaks for 6,000,000 Israeli Jews and, to an extent, for all Jews who identify with Israel.
But who is this guy? Who empowered him to do this? And, most significantly, what does it mean when a Jewish organizational functionary in America takes it upon himself to address the people of Iran and has it distributed by the Israeli media? (I found this through H'aretz).
I saw the Adam Sandler film, Zohan, yesterday. It was funny (it also brilliantly points out the stupidity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the neocon worldview). But it is not as funny as this is. On second thought, maybe this is not so funny. Maybe scary is the right word.
NOTE MARTIN PERETZ today also beating the drums for war. The usual neocon suspects are lining up. Attention must be paid!
I see this is one of those "watch this on the recreational drug of choice" moments, isn't it?
And I would like to speak for all middle-aged Italian-American men from New England when I say the dude in the video is as nutty as a fruitcake. I am hoping and expecting the Iranian people realize that too.
June 22, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you, Libertine. You made me laugh and I was hopping furious!
June 22, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL...that was what I was hoping for. My pleasure MJ. :)
June 22, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I am betting the Iranian people are laughing even harder at Hoenlein's self deluded arrogance. Lets form an orderly queue for the more messages to be sent directly to the Iranian people. Who's next?
Overthrow your government so we can replace your VERY offensive and dangerous political leaders with a slightly less offensive pro-American puppet regime. You are sitting on top of our oil and we want it. You'll all be driving SUV's, have big screen high definition TV's, have low paying jobs at Wal-Mart and have to pay through the nose for health care before you know it...you'll just love it and I'm sure thank us for the freedom we'll bring you.
June 22, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so bad it makes me think that Doug Feith had to be somewhere in the wings promoting it as a good idea.
June 22, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. I cannot download the video on this phone -- I will respond tomorrow. Hres 362? and Sres 580 -- dear God. I'm ineffibly heartened by what your doing here. I'm off to read the Times article you mentioned in the last post. Thank you M.J.
June 22, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Satyagraha.
June 22, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, i would like to stress that there just is not that much actual evidence that Iran "seeks hegemony" over the region, not to one-tenth or one-twentieth of the extent that the US and Israel seek hegemony over the region.
Actual evidence, not consisting of mis-translated statements by Ach- jad and more substantive than conjectures by Likudist pundits & govt. agents in Jerusalem and Washington, is quite lacking.
To re-state a point I tried to make a few weeks ago, as a historian I see, over the last 3 decades, 5 apparent efforts to seek hegemony over the region. The three indigenous Muslim--state-based efforts have all, essentially, failed miserably: neither the Shah's Iran, Saddam Hussein's Iraq nor the most adventurous of the Saudi royal family have gotten anywhere with their dreams of regional hegemony. The Soviet Union kept up the appearance of a superpower through the late 80's, and its collapse included the entire regime.
None of these four has ever done as much toward their dreams of hegemony in the Middle East in a week as Israel and the United States have done every day towards maintaining their military superiority over all other nations in the Middle East. Considering Israel and the US as an alliance, as we basically have been since after the Six-Day War, WE ARE THE ONES who claim military and political power over all the Middle East, WE ARE THE HEGEMONY-SEEKERS and we have had the means to back it up.
And yet in terms of day-to-day control and government decisions in the 20 capitols of the region, our ultimate military superiority actually cuts very little pita-bread. We cannot dictate to Arab and Iranian actors, we cannot win the hearts and minds of Arab and Iranian or Afghan or Pakistani peoples, and it is not at all clear that the long-term situation favors the any defintion of the "success" of our attempts at political and military control of the region.
If anyone has any evidence not emanating from the neocons of America and Israel that the Islamic Republic of Iran actually seeks "hegemony" over the region -- as opposed to just maintaining their influence as one regional actor among many, and being a regional actor on the defensive since being attacked by Iraq with American support in the Iraq-Iran war of the 80's, I'd love to hear that evidence.
I sure haven't heard it yet.
June 23, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
A little bit off topic aren't you?
June 23, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nejad makes nutty statemnents every day, and he's called for the end of Israel so many times, it cannot be a misquote at this point. He actually believes this is going to happen, and the Iranian government is arming/training Hezbollah/Hamas to be a key part of the strategy. I don't know if you would call that hegemony, but it certainly goes far beyond seeking to advance their interests. Iran is threatening Israel, and they have the means to strike via these groups. They are not a benign, peace-seeking entity.
June 23, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
this guy sounds like a jewish version of Bill Donahue
June 23, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you check the video? I guess not.
June 23, 2008 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think he could care less about the Iranian people. What he wants is a pro-Zionist Iran. And his rocking back and forth; He must be praying for this to come about.
June 23, 2008 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Starting long before the war on Iraq, the US supported the terrorist group MEK, based near the Iranian border in territory under the old "no fly zone." Despite the verbal rhetoric against "terror" since 9-11, this group has consistently waged a terror campaign against Iran, and yet it continues to enjoy the support of some far-right Republicans in Congress. And according to one of Sy Hersh's articles in the New Yorker a couple of years ago now, Israel has for some time maintained an intelligence relationship with elements of Kurdish military structure, and according to Hersh was thought to be using this relationship as a base for intelligence and other missions inside Iran.
I wouldn't want to sit in the middle with a clicker, but it seems that threats and attempts to bolster indigenous opponents of the "enemy" in 3rd states are certainly moving in both directions between idiots in Jerusalem and Washington, and idiots in Teheran.
Again, whatever influence Iran may have over Hezbollah in Lebanon is more than countered by the military & intelligence machines of America and Israel and their activities in nearly every country in the region. Most non-Israeli sources count Hezbollah as mostly home-grown and self-determined.
June 23, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lebanese Sunni's do not view Hezbollah as self-determined. They get the lion's share of their funding and all of their high-tech missiles from Iran. You call that self-determined? Tell it to the Sunni's that were gunned down in the recent violence by Hezbollah thugs.
When Rafik Harirri was killed, Hezbollah staged a mass demonstration -- in support of Syrian occupation and domination of their country. Curious isn't it for a "resistance organization", which btw laid down and surrendered to the Syrian occupation of their country for 30 years.
June 23, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brook D, you have zero standing for speaking for Lebanese Sunnis, or anything about Lebanon for that matter. How could you possibly know? Have you visited? No. Do you even know any Lebanese Sunnis? I highly doubt it.
otoh, I was in Lebanon, right before the Hizballah action, and while there are certainly sectarian tensions, there is significant support for Hizb amongst the Sunni and others--because of the successful resistance that Hizb has led against Israel.
Zionuts always want to portray Hizb as mere Iranian puppets, in the hope of making the world forget that Hizb is Israel's Lebanese Love Child, because they were born in resistance to Eretz Israel.
Your math is off btw, how can Syria occupy Lebanon for 30 years, when Israel was occupying it during this time?
June 23, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dave, since you know so much about Lebanon, why don't you tell us which sect had the highest body count in the latest violence? Then, please explain what the purpose was for killing them in the first place?
I don't know -- maybe i equate the prescence of Syrian troops as occupation. Again, regale us with your wisdom and tell us exactly how many years Syrian troops remained in Lebanon!
Hezbollah is nothing more than the Islamic version of the Skinheads and the KKK. I don't care if a million people support them. These hate groups once had a lot of support in this country. They were still disgusting and despicable.
June 23, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brook, it's a fact that Israel occupied parts of Lebanon from 1978 to 2000, and the Syrians were initially welcomed because they were a factor in ending the Israeli occupation; however, the main factor in ending that occupation was the evolution of Hizballah, which was, and is, a legitimate resistance movement.
I'm sorry that you lack any real understanding of the situation, other than what you are fed by outside sources--that you would equate the KKK to Hizballah is specious at best, given that the KKK never represented 33% of the population, nor ever provided social services or participated in the government.
While I don't deny that Hizb has ties to Iran, it is a gross mistake to overestimate their dependence on Iran, while simultaneously trying to negate their primary identity, which is a populist movement within Lebanon, focused on achieving political parity for the Shia, based on their percentage of the population.
June 23, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to point out, you answered none of my questions. Does that mean you didn't know? Because my read of history puts Syrian troops in Lebanon circa 1976 -- and they stayed until the Cedar Revolution.
I'm sure you'll agree Dave, that history is replete with populist movements that were essentially rotton at their core. Al Capone, for example, could have been mayor of Chicago and was well known for his philanthropy. This group has a very, very dark ugly side you are refusing to acknowledge.
June 24, 2008 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Dave B. for saying it much better than I could.
I'm not in the Middle East, and the bulk of my detailed knowledge is 25 years old, when I was doing reports-for-hire and Arab clients paid for a lot of detailed politico-economic studies of all sorts of facets of the Middle East, including war & peace issues, so I was at that time academically/professionally current.
For all I know, Nasrullah of Hezb. may be a perfect "mini-me" for Ach-jad of Iran. But because I avoid neocon sources, the stuff I've read doesn't suggest that. Do they have great temporary marriage of convenience going (just like, for example, Israel and the Kurds or Bush and Nouri Al-Maliki), yeah, it seems they do.
But Middle Eastern politics can make stange bedfellows of folks that will be at each other's throats soon enough. I'm still P.O.'ed that the story of how Israeli defence/intelligence did A LOT to encourage the Islamicists (back in the 1980's, as an alternative to the at-that-time more hated PLO) has never gotten through the media screen in America.
So if you've got hard evidence that the Iranian "drive for hegemony" is up to one-fifth or one-fourth as strong and significant as the Israeli/American "drive for hegemony" I'm all ears. (Again, I do distrust neo-con & Israeli intelligence sources.) Now that you mention it, it is very interesting that Iran is giving Hezb. missiles, I'd love know more of the details of that, and as soon as my 3 jobs allow me some time, I may be researching, are those going by freighter out the Gulf, thru the Suez, and into a Lebanese or Syrian port, or just what, and Israel's not all over that, sounds like there's a number of stories that need to be elucidated further for the benefit of all of us whose dependence on the petroleum economy makes us global hostages of the MidEast wars.
In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if we can help protect my children's future, by refusing to get roped into another useless Likudist war against an even bigger and more potentially-troublesome adversary,on the basis that Iran is "SEEKING REGIONAL HEGEMONY!! (YOU BETTER BE SCARED !!) while America's and Israel's actual existing hegemony is never mentioned.
June 23, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have to read neocon reports to know what Hezbollah is about. All you have to do is listen to Nasrallah describe his organization as a culture of death.
http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/004112.html
Good luck trying to make a silk purse out of this sow's ear.
June 23, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Nasrallah and Siniora are antagonists in a war for the Arab soul. Nasrallah encourages death and Siniora encourages life." -- Paul Siegel
BrookD, you have just cited an opinion piece that agrees with you as evidence that you are right.
That hardly even rises to the level of a logical fallacy.
June 24, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I cited a piece that quotes Nasrallah word for word. Apparantly, you don't really believe Mr. Nasrallah. I do.
You do realize you're out here shilling for a death cult. I'm not sure exactly why, but it's kind of creepy.
June 24, 2008 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I cited a piece that quotes Nasrallah word for word.
So you're trying to tell me that he spoke in English?
I call bullshit.
June 26, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink