Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Pages

• Home
• Photo Gallery
• Advertising
• Comment Rules
• Subscribe to Posts (per post)
• Tikun Olam Store
• Donate
• Subscribe (daily digest)
• Contact
• About
• Monthly archives
• Terms of Use

19 Responses to “Iran: Triumph of the Moderate Voice”

1. Gert says:

   June 9, 2009 at 8:45 AM

   Absolutely great post. Fingers crossed for Mr Moussavi!

   Keep up the good work!

   Reply
2. Violinist says:

   June 9, 2009 at 10:54 AM

   Yes, this looks like good news and could possibly prevent a confrontation that the region doesn’t need.

   Reply
3. Joachim Martillo says:

   June 9, 2009 at 11:22 AM

   Israel is not Western European democracy. It is an E. European ethnocracy, and it is fairly clear that Israeli leaders serve the interests not even of the Israeli Jewish public but roll over and do tricks for hyperwealthy Zionist lobby leaders like Adelson, the Bronfmans, the Krafts, Tenenbaum, Saban or maybe even Peretz: Boston Globe: Israel’s Broken Politics.

   Reply
4. amir says:

   June 9, 2009 at 12:06 PM

   I thought you would take this opportunity of Hizzb’allah losing the elections to admit that you were wrong. The last war did not make them more popular in Lebanon, in fact their side lost a seat.

   Reply
   • Richard Silverstein says:

     June 9, 2009 at 1:04 PM

     I read a very cogent analysis I think in the NY Times which laid the blame for Hezbollah’s failure at its own doorstep because of its mafia-like assault on Beirut last June 5th when it routed the March 14th forces in an attempt to impose its political will on them.

     Israel’s 2006 war on Lebanon had NOTHING to do with Hezbollah’s slide. In fact, if Israel had invaded a month ago NO ONE in the country would’ve voted for March 14th. Maybe Olmert & Bibi should’ve timed their wars better!

     Reply
     • amir says:

       June 9, 2009 at 1:11 PM

       Do you REALLY think Bibi wants Hezbollah to win in Lebanon?

       Reply
       • Richard Silverstein says:

         June 9, 2009 at 9:15 PM

         No, that was just a bit of snark (not directed at you). Bibi doesn’t care about Lebanon or Hezbollah. His money’s riding on Iran as the path to glory.

         Reply
   • Gert says:

     June 9, 2009 at 1:35 PM

     Also, ‘losing’ and ‘winning’ in Lebanon is hardly clear-cut.

     Hezbollah’s ‘loss’ will be acceptable to many of its supporters. And as long as Israel doesn’t make peace with the Palestinians and war in the region remains on the agenda, even the most ardent detractors of Hezbollah will not insist on disarming the Lebanese Resistance. Who else will defend Lebanon, the boys that look pretty in crisp uniforms, known as the Lebanese Regular Army?

     I wouldn’t want to be the Maronite or Sunni responsible for disarming Hesbollah, as long as the IDF is still sniffing around.

     Reply
     • Richard (not Silverstein) says:

       June 9, 2009 at 7:41 PM

       Hizbollah did not lose a single one of the 11 seats (the same as last time) which they contested – they were solid rock Shi’a and thus predetermined anyway. The March 8 alliance ‘losses’ were from ex-General Aoun’s Christian party, allied with Hizbollah

       March 8 relied too much, for instance, on 7 expected seat gains to be won by Aoun in Zahle, where there was massive in-trucking of Sunni and Christian expatriate voters, paid for by the Saudis, including free $700 return air fares.

       The results were:

       March 8 Alliance – 2005 – 57 seats 2009 – 58
       March 14 Alliance – 2005 – 71 seats 2009 – 71

       Virtually no change – the faction that included Hizbollah neither ‘won’ nor ‘lost’.

       Hizbollah’s power does not come from their less than 10% seats in Parliament, but from their (and Amal’s) representation of the Shi’a (40% of Lebanon’s population vs any single one of the other 17 sects recognised – and over-represented – in Lebanon), and the fact that it was they (and they almost alone) who kicked out the Israelis in 2000 and 2006.

       The facts are that Hizbollah are no longer international ‘terrorists’ (if they ever were), but restrict themselves solely to defending their own country against the terror from the south, and doing good works for the Shi’a that the Sunni/Christians in the government can’t be bothered to do.

       Israel must be biting its finger-nails at the loss of an opportunity to ‘pre-emptively’ attack Lebanon and claim the waters of the Litani.

       Let’s hope Ahminejad loses his place, and Israel bites its finger-nails down to the quick.

       Will they then turn their attention to the nuclear agreement signed between the US and UAE and plan to bomb Dubai?

       Reply
   • SimoHurtta says:

     June 9, 2009 at 7:48 PM

     Well Hizbollah and the Christian opposition did loose because of the strange Lebanese election system, not necessarily because of lack of popularity. The reality is that the opposition got 100,000 votes more as the winning side did.

     http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&article_id=102872&categ_id=17

     Reply
     • Richard (not Silverstein) says:

       June 9, 2009 at 8:04 PM

       Sounds like the 2000 US election

       Reply
       • SimoHurtta says:

         June 9, 2009 at 11:43 PM

         Well the difference is even bigger that in US election in 2000 considering the amount of population in Lebanon.

         One person suggested that M8 won around 800,000 votes while M14 around 700,000.
         http://qifanabki.com/2009/06/08/kerfuffle-looming/#comments
         Comment 32

         If that is true M8 got 53 percent of the votes but only 44 percent of the parliament’s seats. Not exactly a good example of a democratic system for the rest of Middle East.

         Reply
5. Red vs. Blue in Iran - The Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com says:

   June 9, 2009 at 12:57 PM

   [...] Khameni is not the only one worrying about a Moussavi win, writes Richard Silverstein at Tikun Olam: As Daniel Pipes recently revealed, he prefers an Ahmadinejad victory. The pro-war camp consisting of neocon Jews, the Israel lobby, and Israel’s Likud rightist bloc needs the most extreme leadership possible. It is far easier to demonize a Holocaust denier than a president who might actually engage in serious negotiations with the Obama administration over Iran’s nuclear program and normalizing U.S.-Iran relations. [...]

   Reply
6. David says:

   June 9, 2009 at 2:27 PM

   Has Hezbollah returned the bodies of the soldiers they tried to kidnap in their attack on sovereign Israeli soil?

   Will a “moderate” Iranian president have any power to negotiate their nuclear ambitions. . . or is that up to the “Supreme Leader” who has never been subject to the election process?

   Israel’s drive to war? Have Israel’s leaders spontaneously and repeatedly threatened to wipe Iran off the map? Or was it the other way around?

   Imagine, a nation and people so cruel as to defend themselves from attack!

   Reply
   • Richard Silverstein says:

     June 9, 2009 at 9:30 PM

     Has Hezbollah returned the bodies of the soldiers

     Israel almost routinely kidnaps Lebanese & others to hold them for ransom in such cases in order to try to gain the return of their soldiers. Both sides do this, not just Hezbollah. Israel also still holds many Hamas legislators which it kidnapped several yrs ago & is holding w. no valid charges being filed.

     Will a “moderate” Iranian president have any power to negotiate their nuclear ambitions

     Yes, if he’s trusted by the Ayatollah.

     Have Israel’s leaders spontaneously and repeatedly threatened to wipe Iran off the map?

     First, Iran never threatened to do that. You’ve been reading too much MEMRI & other right wing pro Israel propaganda. Second, yes, Israeli politicians have threatened to attack Iran AND overthrow its government. And they’ve “repeatedly” threatened this.

     Imagine, a nation and people so cruel…

     Alas, I do imagine such a nation so cruel–or at least their leaders and generals are.

     Reply
     • Richard Witty says:

       June 10, 2009 at 5:30 AM

       “First, Iran never threatened to do that.”

       He might not have meant that, but his approved translation provided to western and Arabic press did say EXACTLY that.

       Reply
       • Hugh Slaman says:

         June 10, 2009 at 12:30 PM

         “He might not have meant that, but his approved translation provided to western and Arabic press did say EXACTLY that.”

         Do you have a link to that approved translation? The “approved” translator certainly made a grave error in that case.

         Thanks,

         Reply
         • Richard Witty says:

           June 10, 2009 at 1:17 PM

           http://web.archive.org/web/20070927213903/http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=200247

           Tehran, Oct 26 – Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”.

           “The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world,” the President told a conference in Tehran entitled ‘the world without Zionism’.

           “The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land,” he said.

           “As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,” said Ahmadinejad, referring to the late founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Imam Khomeini.

           Addressing some 4,000 students gathered in an interior ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come.
7. Margaret says:

   June 9, 2009 at 3:17 PM

   I would advocate against offering “…the pro-war camp consisting of neocon Jews, the Israel lobby, and Israel’s Likud rightist bloc” suggestions for improving their message.

   It takes ‘for ever’ to type out that phrase, but what is said is clear, and informative to the uninformed. As is your comment, Joachim.

   Thanks from an humble reader.

   Reply