‹ Daniel Pipes: If Obama Wins, Bush Will Attack Iran in November •
Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal editorial page is as hard-line as ever, today featuring a lengthy and by now familiar meditation by AEI “Freedom Scholar” and perennial intrigue entrepreneur Michael Ledeen on “Iran and the Problem of Evil.” Actually, the headline is a bit of a distortion because, in typical neo-conservative fashion, Ledeen compares the conflated threats emanating from the Arab world and Iran — or, as Ledeen puts it, “from Hezbollah and al Qaeda to the Iranians Khomeinists and the Saudi Wahabis” — to those posed by Mussolini’s fascism, Hitler’s Germany, and Stalin’s Russia. To his credit, Ledeen decided to forgo the use of “Islamofascism,” a decision which no doubt will get him in trouble with David Horowitz, Frank Gaffney, and James Woolsey, among others of his hard-line fellow-neo-cons. But, of course, by putting “Iran” and the other assorted threats in the same context, he really doesn’t have to use the word itself. In any event, the lesson — and I guess here is where the headline that features “Iran” alone — is clear enough: “As it did in the 20th century, it means war.”
Ledeen often describes himself as a historian, and, as such, I would expect Ledeen to be scrupulously careful of his facts, but one assertion about anti-Semitism in Iran in his essay really stuck out at me; namely, that The Protocol of the Elders of Zion is now circulating in a Farsi edition. I did a quick Nexis search for the “Protocol” and “Protocols”, “Iran”, and “Farsi” and could find only two articles that appeared to corroborate Ledeen’s statement. One was a 2005 article in the Likudist New York Sun by Benny Avni, who asserted that “‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,’ the classic anti-Semitic fraud, is a best seller in Iran…” No further evidence to support that assertion was offered. A second article, which appeared in the November 2006 edition of Playboy, by frequent New Republic contributor Joseph Braude, also asserted that the notorious forgery had been translated into Farsi with the financial help of the Islamic Republic. Again, however, he offered no supporting evidence.
I also checked with the State Department’s nearly 100-page “Global Anti-Semitism Report” published less than three months ago and could find no mention of a Farsi edition of the Protocols, although it did note that new editions had appeared in English, Ukrainian, Indonesian, Japanese, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Greek, Russian, and Serbian since 2003. The report also noted that the Protocols had recently become “best sellers” in Turkey (a strong ally of Israel’s and hence, presumably, irrelevant to Ledeen thesis on “evil”) and Syria.
Now, it is true that the Iranian delegation to the 2005 Frankfurt International Book Fair displayed an English-language edition of the Protocols among its wares, but I doubt that it would have become a ”best seller” in Iran in that form, as the Sun’s Avni had asserted.
Ledeen also wrote that “calls for the destruction of Jews appear regularly on Iranian ….television,” and, while Ahmadinejad’s periodic calls for the elimination of Israel (from the pages of time, from history, from the map — depending on the translation), not to mention the “Death to Israel” sloganeering that has been staple of government rallies in Iran since the Revolution, I don’t have enough knowledge or research time to assess the truthfulness of this assertion. I would note, however, that Iran continues to boast by far the largest Jewish community in the region outside Israel; that Jews are an officially recognized minority free to worship as they wish; that the vast majority have shunned substantial financial inducements to emigrate to Israel; and that, despite Ahmadinejad’s well-publicized Holocaust scepticism, the government television station has broadcast a popular series about the Holocaust based on a true story about an Iranian diplomat in Paris who helped Jews escape Nazi-occupied France. That doesn’t mean anti-Semitism in Iran does not exist; on the contrary, most experts believe it is indeed on the rise there, spurred in considerable part by regional tensions and the crescendo of threats and counter-threats between the Israel and Iran. But lumping Iran in with more clearly anti-Semitic movements and governments — not to mention his blithe assertions about the popularity of the Protocols’ Farsi edition — does not enhance Ledeen’s — or the Journal’s op-ed fact-checkers’ — credibility.
Visit Lobelog.com for the latest news analysis and commentary from Inter Press News Service’s Washington bureau chief Jim Lobe.
Visit Lobelog.com for the latest news analysis and commentary from Inter Press News Service’s Washington bureau chief Jim Lobe.
Since Israel itself encourages the conflation of Jews per se with the state of Israel, it’s a wonder that — given Israel’s record of behavior — there isn’t more real anti-Semitism in Iran and in the world generally.
In the US, I find that among non-Jews (whether secular, Christian, or whatever), the staunchest “supporters of Israel” are the most likely to hold anti-Semitic attitudes toward Jews as people.
Even if Ledeen’s assertion is true–that Protocols has been translated into Farsi and is popular in Iran–my response is the one made famous by Cheney: “So?” This is considered justification for us to be at war with Iran? To kill thousands of innocent people. That’s not just absurd, it’s obscene. Even these knuckleheads should be able to come up with something better than that.
Robert Fisk: The West’s weapon of self-delusion:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/robert-fisk-the-wests-weapon-of-selfdelusion-842117.html
Thank you!
There *are* neo-nazi missionaries in the USA, busy translating and “explaining” to puzzled 3rd worlders why the US supports Israel, instead of the guys with the oil. (Ordinary Israelis are usually puzzled too, and expect to the US to betray them eventually.) They never mention Dispensationalism, although it IS the reason, that and a analogy with US Cowboys-and-Indians history.
Lester Ness
Ledeen is no “historian”.
His work on Machiavel is Neo-Con two minute manager stuff at best.
If scholars had firing squads, Ledeen would have long ago been extradited to Italy and shot for defamation of Macchiavelli and the national character.
Incidentally, the picture of Macchiavelli in the English-speaking world, was early distorted in drama.
He was, among other things, a Republican, and “Il Principe” is satiric in a way perhaps only those who understand the Florentine wit can follow.
It was also written in the tradition of the Arabic “Mirrors for Princes”.
Macchiavelli also favored citizen armies and found in the use of mercenaries the destruction of Italy.
He was a masterful student of Livy into the bargain, as well as a dramatist and an accomplished diplomat.
Guicciardini’s Ricordi, which were keep secret for the use of his family, and which Ledeen never heard of apparently, should be read side by side with Macchiavelli.
Macchiavelli did admire Cesare Borgia-as did Nietzsche, for example–but not for any reasons that Ledeen will ever understand or articulate.
The main reason was that he saw in Borgia the possibility of unifying Italy.
Ledeen has not read or understood even the basic books an undergraduate would master.
He is as much a “historian” as Leo Strauss was a “philosopher”–to wit, not at all.
The Neo-Cons are, one and all, crude, uneducated, vicious, intellectually bankrupt ideologues, with, like Strauss himself, some mastery of the propaganda tactics of Hitler and Goebbels and Trotsky himself, and not much else.
Eugene,
An apt comparison of Ledeen or any other neo-con “intellectual” with a legitimate historian, say Judt, is roughly the same as one comparing Gilbert & Sullivan or Victor Herbert with Giuseppe Verdi. Probably best to envision these poseurs functionally. Using an approach of that kind, one where the history involved is arranged with considerably more precision, Leeden emerges as kind of Joseph Goebbels. He is a propagandist, nothing more, and, if we are able to survive his blandishments, his name soon will disappear even from the strata of public conversation on which currently he’s been able to foist hiimself. Except for the rare glimpse into the “tenor of the times” we’re occasionally given in documentaries like the ones one sees of the early twentieth century in which referrence is made to, say, Amy Semple McPherson, or in the memory of his immediate family, Ledeen will simply cease to exist.
This one is outright funny:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmVhODlkNDI1NjAzZTQyZWQxYjdmZTRjNWU5NzQxMGY=
In addition to thinking the Florentines coined “pazzi” after the Pazzi (poor Rubicante pazzo), Ledeen also seems to think the expression is “causus belli”.
Is that like Melvin?
If he does have a Ph.D. in “history” from Wisconsin, the University might give some serious thought to expunging him.
He even gives cheese castles a bad name.
Why, if the US don’t (sic) attack Iran immediately, the Iranians my attack oil terminals and cause oil to go to $140 per barrel!
The National Review is the Der Sturmer of the present era and Ledeen its Julius Streicher. To see the typical National Review piece as anything more than noxious hate mongering is to be entirely unfamiliar with the genre. What has always baffled me is that these brownshirts are accorded the respectability usually reserved for serious scholars. But these are no scholars, they are street brawlers. One needs learn the lessons of the late Weimer SPD if one is to deal effectively with vermin of this kind. Otherwise they soon will be beating and torturing you in some makeshift Dachau.
You’ve got that right, John Lowell.
And here I though that The Wall Street Journal was the Der Stuermer of our time! But with less humor.
Slightly seriously, don’t forget that the Nazis did include some legitimate scholars. Think of Gerhard Kittel. Even Erwin Kantorwicz put the swastika on the cover of one of his books.
Lester Ness
I totally agree with you. The neo-cons and there followers are the most
stupid, uninspired, paranoid aggressors with no foresight, no humanity
and certainly the opposite of any ITALIAN INTELLECTUAL.
I have a strong piece of advice to this group of PAZZI;
Take your TALIMUD and high-tail it to Miami Beach, Florida
and STAY THERE, PLEASE.
They seem to be much-schooled, but without wide experience in life, and thus (as you say) uneducated. Their _paideia_ seems mostly to be US mystical messianic nationalism, which I suppose is what they have in common with their allies, the Christian Fundamentalists.
Lester
What happened to “freedom of speach or to print ” that is Muslims are non-stop lectured about by the guardins of such lofty ideals in the west.So printing the Protocols ,fraud or not, should fall under that freedom as offense as might be to some,or have we forgetten the Danish cartoons so quickly!
The Medici systematically eliminated all evidence of the existence of the Pazzi. Their names were erased from the facades of their palaces, references to them were expunged from lists of praiseworthy citizens past and present, paintings and frescoes with their images were destroyed or covered up. No wonder that the Tuscan word for “fools” is pazzi!
Had the Medici been better prepared, they would have struck first. But they were well prepared to fight once the Pazzi attacked, gave no quarter in the struggle, and achieved a glorious victory….”
[Micahel Ledeen]
Ah, hum–er–Mr. Ledeen, er, ah–where did you say you did your “academic” preparation again?
Merely by the way, this practice was called by the ancient Romans, Abolitio Memoriae, and is not original with the Medici.
At Harvard in the old days they had something similar called “being expunged”.
No wonder the Italian for “Neo-Cons” is pazzi, “raving madmen”.
Pardon not closing Italics…er, um.
Maybe in two hundred years ladeen, cheney or kagan will be American slang for raving madman. I suspect that bush will have replaced wanker by then.
75% of Iran’s Jewish population left after Khomeni came to power. They stayed under the rule of the Shan but they felt they had to leave when Khomeni came to power.
Hezzbollah enagaged in attacks on Lebanese jews in the 1980’s. Hezzbollah also blew up the Jewish community center in the 1980s despite what the Khmer Rouge apologist Garath Porter reports.
http://www.teachkidspeace.org/doc356.php
well antiwar is the site where they think the US ought to have stayed out of world war II so what can you expect?
Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa decreeing that the Jews were to be protected, and the Iranian Jewish community hasn’t been persuaded to pick up and move to Israel despite lavish bribes: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/12/israel.iran
The use of the Hezbollah example is evidently intended to cast Hezbollah as latter-day Nazis. In fact, they are nothing of the sort; Hezbollah was formed in reaction to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and lacks both the martial capacities and social content associated with German fascism. There is, in short, nothing in logic that supports a comparison such as this buttressed by a lone invidious remark about antiwar.com’s anti-interventionist stance. Insubstantial hit-and-run attacks like this one are typical of neocons. In sum, stupid troll is stupid.
You ever look at images of Hizzbollah?
http://images.google.co.kr/images?um=1&complete=1&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=hezbollah&aq=f
OOOOOOOH!!!! Scary.
Seriously, you need to bring better than that sort of crass cartoon propaganda to the party.
Hezb’llah are the Lebanese resistance to (openly stated) Israeli expansion. Nothing more, nothing less.
What is your source for the “75% of Iran’s Jewish population”?
look up teachkidspeace and Honestreporting on the middle east!
Honestreporting.com - about as balanced as MEMRI, WINEP, etc!
Teach Kids Peace™ is a project of HonestReporting whose goal is
to draw attention to the culture of hatred and to promote peace education for children.
Do they ever condemn the hatred from the Israeli side? No!
you can check the video. They didn’t make the video Iran did.
I think the blame ought to be with Iran for making the video in the first place don’t you agree?
Allan and Zakhalka admitted that at the end of 2006, they persuaded Arabs from the Galilee and central Israel who were developmentally challenged or mentally ill to agree to have a kidney removed for payment. They located their victims by placing ads in the newspaper offering money for organ donation. According to the indictment, the pair gave false information to the donors, and also pressured and threatened them to give up their kidney. After the surgery, Allan and Zakhalka did not pay the donors as promised.
One of the victims was an illiterate 32-year-old single mother from an Arab village in central Israel. The pair told her she would undergo a simple operation, and she would be back on her feet in two days. At one point, the woman changed her mind, and in response Allan and Zakhalka threatened to report her to the police, telling her it was a crime to agree to donate a kidney. Like the other victims, the woman was flown to Ukraine where she underwent the surgery. When she returned home, the victims refused to pay her the $7,000 they had promised her.
Allan and Zakhalka were part of a criminal ring that included an Israeli surgeon, Dr. Michael Zis, who also worked at Assaf Harofeh Medical Center. According to the indictment, Zis sold the kidneys he harvested for between $125,000 and $135,000, of which Allan received $10,000 dollars. The State Prosecutor’s Office is preparing an extradition order against Zis, who is being held in prison in Ukraine.
[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/935092.html]
Given all your erudition, what, might I ask, is the purpose of this posting? Perhaps you can explain it to me?
01/05/2007
Israeli doctor said detained in Turkey for illegal organ transplants
By Haaretz Service and News Agencies
An Israeli surgeon has been detained at an Istanbul hospital over alleged illegal organ transplants, a Turkish news agency reported Tuesday.
The report named the doctor as Zaki Shapira, and said that three other Israeli nationals were also detained. Two of the Israelis were reportedly donating kidneys to a third Israeli and a South African in his 60s.
The arrests occurred when Turkish police were called to the hospital because of a robbery and discovered the alleged illegal transplants.
The report said that a policeman and a robber were wounded in an exchange of gunfire. A total of 15 people were detained in connection with the incident, including seven hospital employees.
According to the report, the four would-be donors and recipients were transferred to other hospitals in Istanbul as the hospital in which they were being treated did not have a license or adequate equipment to carry out transplants.
The report quotes police as saying that the robbery had no connection to the alleged illegal organ transplants.
Again, what exactly is your point?
You have posted two articles here about illegal organ transplants. The criminals involved in purchasing the organs were four Israelis - two of them (apparently) Jews and two Arabs. It also seems that all were arrested and will face charges (two in Israel and two in other countries). So what is the point you are trying to make?
I think it is clear, the Israelis are claiming that claims about their organ harvesting operations are not true, when facts point to the opposite. They are also involved in human trafficking, but I suppose bringing that up is also “anti-semitic”.
So, Bill, let me get this straight. You think that because Israel has criminals (both Jews and Arabs in this case) who have paid people for their organs, that Israel (that is the country and its entire population) is involved in organ harvesting? Further, you think that somehow the two articles that Mr. Costa posted (although he hasn’t apparently had the guts to explain why) somehow “proves” this point. This is despite the fact that, if you actually read these articles - and particlulaly the first one that our pedant posted here - you will see that the people involved are being charged, and will be tried, for the crimes they committed. The same is true, by the way, in cases of “human trafficking”, and I don’t think that Israel is unique in this business.
I don’t think that your approach here is necessarily anti-semitic. Stupid, idiotic and almost laughable, yes. Anti-semitic, not really.
Of course, this whole issue is on-topic I guess, because it is reminscint of the Iraninan TV show , the premise of which is, indeed anti-semitic:
Test
So, Bill, let me see if I understand correctly. You are claiming that these two posts somehow bolster a claim of Israeli organ harvesting. This is despite the fact that, if you actually read the articles in question (and primarily the latest one), the criminals involved (both Jews and Arabs) have been charged and will be tried. The same, I might add, is true of “human trafficking”.
Is bringing these issues up anti-semitic? Idiotic yes. Stupid yes. Laughable yes. But I don’t think it qualifies as anti-semitic.
All of this does remind me, however, of the Iranian TV show “Zahra’s Blue Eyes”. Now that was anti-semitic, in my opinon.
wikikipedia
Wikipedia schmikipedia. Anyone can write their favorite propaganda into Wikipedia.
Lester Ness
You should probably inform the many anti-Israel posters here who rely on Wikipedia to support their arguments.
Gosh, Murdoch and Ledeen are awful creatures. Thanks for this info.
First off I couldn’t care less what Ledeen has to say. His adjenda is quite obvious. Second I also don’t care if people are anti-semetic idiots that fall for propaganda like the elders of zion. It’s their business not mine (it doesn’t mean I would pick them to hang out with). I would also say that most people in the world understand the difference between the Jewish people and their strugles and the Zionist Governments. I think they also understand that not all Americans are like our current neo-con leaders.
One of the other things I notice is how full of ourselves we are. Having lived for many years in Monterey Ca. I got the chance to hang out with tourist from all over the world. The one thing that most of them had was a love for their own countries and towns and people. They were not nearly as concerned with the US as I thought. Being young and patriotic, nationalistic and believing I lived in the best country in the world (dispite everything I still do), I was very surprised to learn that the rest of the world didn’t think that the world revolves around the US. I’m sure some things have changed, but I would be willing to bet that for the average non US person they are still mostly concerned with their own lives and countries. Us being a world power was not their biggest concern in fact they all seemed much more interested in getting down to Hollywood or Disneyland. I truly believe that if we learned to live and let live, the world could sort it’s own problems out just fine without us.
Peace!
To everyone his country is the best!Many Americans think that the country and government are one and the same! our troops!our prsident,and they hate us!
“But honestreporting.com’s supporters whose letters often reveal that they’ve never actually read anything I’ve written are in a class of their own. Only last month, I wrote a comment-page article in The Independent describing the way in which any serious journalist who criticised Israeli policy the operation of death squads, for example, or the building of illegal Jewish settlements on stolen Arab land was reviled as “anti-Semitic”. This, the most disgraceful of the accusations made against Western journalists, permeates many of the letters provoked by honestreporting.com.”
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles30.htm
Honest reporting didn’t make the video.
OF course Robert Fisk is such an unbaised source - not.
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/americans-must-see-this-they-paid-for-it/
would it be fair to show Israel’s hurt by Palestinians?
at any rate Israel doesn’t behave worse than its enemies during war
That’s hardly an excuse when Israel is the instigator.
Robert Fisk is not an Arab,Iranian,Nor he is a Muslim!
History will not be kind to Michael Ledeen and his group of “knuckle draggers”.
What an elitist and racist he truly is!!
By the way, when is this macho man signing up to fight in the military, big pussy that he is.
I doubt it. Separating the costs of these undertakings from their beneficiaries is an abiding precept of government, particularly in its American incarnation. But truly, there is no greater vindication of Orwell’s maxim that those who howl the loudest for blood are invariably those not fighting than these neoconservatives. They have no concept of anything beyond their grandiose, febrile visions and no appreciation of the costs they carry. Such is the result of insular lives spent peddling polemics to those among the powerful who need to rationalize their depredations.
True believers like Ledeen really love uncle Adolph, they see him everywhere and they see him always. Since they are outside reality, spacetime doesn’t affect them. They see him in Castro, and clear in Assad, in Nasser, Saddam en Ahmadinejad. They saw him in Noriega and in Arafat. (Hey I could write a tune to this.) They see him in Chavez, but he saw it right back, while Zarqawi was Hitler in his bunker in Iraq.
And now they reached the stage where they can see Rohrschachlike Hitlershapes in amorphous groups. The Taliban, al Qaida, Hezbollah and Iran. The Paki’s, Wahabbi’s and all muslims in Oman. Sadr, Hamas, al Jazeera and Sudan. But that’s just warming up for China and Taiwan.
People like Ledeen are basically social Darwinists for whom might makes right. The neocon answer to Uncle Adolph’s Master Race narrative is not, “Uncle Adolph, you’re wrong because the very concept of a Master Race is wrong.” Their answer is, “Adolph, you’re wrong because you lost and we won and therefore we’re the Master Race.”
Yeah but that would be kind of wrong considering the US sat on the sidelines waiting for the Nazis to be defeated by the USSR and UK and then join in at the best time when casualties would be light and victories would be plenty.
I wonder if Jim Lobe has actually read Ledeen’s piece in the WSJ. It seems apparent that most of the commenters here certainly haven’t.
I don’t always agree with Michael Ledeen, but Lobe’s argument is extremely lacking. He rests his case on two issues: That he was unable to find any references to a Farsi tranlation of the Protocols, and that Ledeen somehow doesn’t account for the fact that there are Jews in Iran.
In the case of the first argument, I don’t think you have to look far. Go to memri.org and do a search for “Iran protocols elders”. You’ll find that the Islamic Republic of Iran has produced a number of TV series based on the protocols. Considering that nearly one-quarter of the Iranian population is illiterate, this is probably a much better medium than the book itsel. More important, you just need to check you the weekly Friday prayer meetings. Two things have been consistent in these meetings since Khomaini started them 19 years ago. First that the ayatollah always speaks with a weapon by his side - usually an AK-47, but sometimes a sword. Second, and more to the point, that the meetings always end with chants of “Death to Israel” and “Death to America”. They don’t mention “regimes” here, by the way.
As to the second issue, I don’t see why Ledeen’s argument should have to rest on whether or not there are still Jews left in Iran. As a matter of fact, about 85% have left since the Islamic Revolution. But this really has no bearing on Ledeen’s case. As a matter of fact, when World War II broke out, there were still over 200,000 Jews left in Germany, many of whom I am certain still hoped for the return of better times. Does this mean that Hitler and the Nazis were any less of a threat to world peace?
Let’s see. We have to go to the Israeli propaganda site Memri for evidence…and see there that even they cannot find any case of Farsi Protocols. Instead we get references to Iranian TV programs with antisemitic content. Then this is presented as even stronger evidence for malicious practices, because evidently a quarter of Iranians are illiterate and so they mindlessly repeat everything they see on television. Just like Americans perhaps is the underlying idea?
Yes, Ledeen so much so ties the current Iranian regime together with Hitler Germany that it is impossible to make any distinction between them whatsoever in the Ledeen universe. The reason for that is to paint them purely ideologically driven and so make it unthinkable to deal with them peacefully. So that means that in his view the Iranian Jewish population is on the verge of being exterminated. And so it is relevant to throw in some dose of reality here because for example while you insist that it has no bearing on Ledeen’s argument you are stating exactly the same thing in trying to defend his argument. You just couldn’t leave it out.
So concerning the Iranian Jews Jonathan gave up 75%, your bid is 85% depletion. Problem is that those numbers aren’t correct. At the eve of the Islamic Revolution there were 80.000 Jews. Now there are 25000 in the Teheran area and about 40.000 in total. At first I thought you were exaggerating for the extra effect, but you probably just got the facts mixed up. Your 85% number refers to the normal growth corrected decline since 1948 with the 1905 exodus, thus with the migration to Los Angeles and Israel.
Much criticism is rightly deserved, but at the same time the Jewish community is quite outspoken and very aware of their history and very not in need of neocon assistance. The reason why they are targeted by the neocon propagandamachine might be their continuing resistance to Israeli bribes to emigrate and assist Israel in their “demographic war” which by the way is currently being won by Jewish ultra-orthodox settlers. Is the current offer still $60,000 per family or has it gone up yet? And how’s that for a political incentive? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/13/iran.israel
Your WWII Germany comparison that you couldn’t leave out is essentially the same as Ledeen’s, sans the hyperbole to your credit. But as opposed to Ledeen you stated it negatively. You are saying that because in Germany there were (actually about 240.000) Jews that fact didn’t prevent Hitler from going to war and systemically murder Jews and so likewise that because there are Jews in Iran then that will not prevent Iran from going to war and systematically murder Jews.
Stated thusly we are lead to the logical conclusion that no ofcourse would it not prevent them. But it is completely trivial. The important implied conclusion is here that because the Hitler regime did A, then so will the Iranian regime do A because both countries have a substantial Jewish minority.
It’s a form of a fallacy of the consequent. Your premises do not support your conclusion even though you are understandably careful not to explicitly state it.
Wikipedia said there were 80,000 and 30,000 were left.
so you think that Israel paid them all to leave?
and you attack Memri but Memri doesn’t make the video’s Iran’s government did
Interesting Memri is wrong for recording the videos but Iran isn’t wrong for making them.
Interesting.
“Interesting” indeed that you resort to snide enthymemes such as this one to evade your opponent’s arguments. “Interesting” as well that your paltry reply proves that you did not even read his post.
A well designed enthymeme, at least in Aritotle’s definition, is not necessarily logically faulty–it is merely a partially stated syllogism and for rhetorical effect.
Moderns often use it as “incomplete argument”, but that is a misunderstanding.
If well designed the unstated is obvious and persuasive.
Attributing enthymemic status to a string of tu quoque’s and other fallacies is being a bit generous, one should say.
Too, it takes a bit of intelligence and subtilty to compose a well-constructed enthymeme.
I think that Jonathan has amply pointed out that you can’t blame Memri for Iran’s actions. The rest of your argument concerning the “Protocols” is pure conjecture on your part and has no bearing on what either I, or Ledeen, have argued. Bottom line: It makes no difference whether or not the Islamic regime has published the “Protocols” in Farsi. That was my point. BTW, Ledeen clearly writes of the proliferation of “Jew-hating texts… in Farsi and Arabic… throughout the Middle East”, and his entire argument concerning antisemitism occupies one short paragraph in Ledeen’s piece, yet is the main issue addressed by Lobe (and others here).
Likewise the emigration of Iran’s Jews is irrelevant. Whether or not Jews remain today in Iran (and whether this is 25% or only 15% of those who might have remained had their not been an Islamic Revolution) has no bearing Ledeen’s argument. It was Lobe, not Ledeen who brought up this argument as some sort of proxy proof that no antisemitism exists in Iran today (and based largely on his self-admitted laziness in actually disproving Ledeen’s claims about antisemitism in the Muslim world through actual research). I brought up the fact that Jews remained in Germany in 1939 despite overt antisemitism, not to argue that Iran and Nazi Germany are the same, but rather to show the fallacy in Lobe’s argument.
Ledeen is not arguing that the Republic of Iran and Nazi Germany, fascist Italy or the Stalinist USSR are the same. Rather he is pointing to the propensity of elements in the West - and particularly in the US - to excuse or ignore what he sees as an evil prevalent in human society.
I see you are in a bit of denial and therefore I shall refresh your memory with exact quotes from Ledeen each time and I’ll leave you to decide whether they are taken out of context or not.
Ledeen says: “Then there is anti-Semitism. Old Jew-hating texts like “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” now in Farsi and Arabic, are proliferating throughout the Middle East.”
The title of Ledeen’s article which pretty much accurately covers the content if perhaps you leave out the words bull and s**t, is “Iran and the Problem of Evil” so I’ll leave out the Arabic dimension for the sake of brevity and concentrate on Iran.
Okay, so Lobe points out there is no evidence to substantiate the allegation that there is a Farsi translation of the Protocols. You referred to Memri and since if there is anything remotely nefarious to be found inside or about Iran, Memri will report on it. And they didn’t report on any Farsi translation of The Protocols. That makes the evidence for Ledeen’s assertion not only weak but near certain non-existent. Unlike Jonathan you did get the point and so now it is suddenly irrelevant. That’s fine, but Ledeen however thought it important enough to state it without evidence. (That’s a nice way of saying important enough to lie about it.)
And sure enough the emigration of Iran’s Jews is also irrelevant. Well for the sake of brevity again let it rest for another time. But I do have to point out however (since it has become so closely tied into each other now) that Lobe does not deny there exists antisemitism in Iran, let alone that he submits “proxy proof” for such a contention. In fact he unambigiously states antisemitism is on the rise and points out the rather obvious causality to explain why. You can read it for yourself at nearly the bottom of the text.
The argument that in the Ledeen Universe there is no way to differentiate between contemporary Iran, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and so on is stated in a carefully composed rethorical contraption, using a symmetrical figure. It is the only reason why it is relevant for Ledeen to make up out some sort of Western psychological illness that manifests itself in a propensity to ignore evil. It works like this:
1. He puts the question: Why didn’t we prevent the Holocaust?
Ledeen: “Why did the West fail to see the coming of the catastrophe? [inserting distractiion here] Why did the main designated victims – the Jews – similarly fail to recognize the magnitude of their impending doom?”
2. He then answers his own question.
Ledeen: “The failure to understand what was happening took a well-known form: a systematic refusal to view our enemies plain.” Next Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin enter the stage. The central thesis is almost condensed to Hitler wrote Mein Kampf but wasn’t believed and the other two neither.
According to Ledeen they are in essence the same, the must important feature being that they are different from us. The second most important feature what makes them birds of the same feather is that they are ideologically driven, that is to say that they mean what they say and are not susceptible to corruption. Differences between them are only windowdressing and irrelevant enough to be omitted entirely.
3. Then he inserts the rethorical axis with an appeal to emotion type fallacy.
Ledeen: “Yet they are with us again, and we are acting as we did in the last century.”
This is the focus-point, the axis of the symmetrical figure.
4. He then answers the implicit question who are they who are with us again?
Ledeen: “Hezbollah and al Qaeda to the Iranian Khomeinists and the Saudi Wahhabis – who swear to destroy us and others like us. Like their 20th-century predecessors…”
5. He then puts the question: Why don’t we prevent the Holocaust?
Ledeen: “So we need to ask the old questions again. Why are we failing to see the mounting power of evil enemies”
6. Outro
This is the phase in which he tries to make the argument why Iran is the same as Stalinist Russia, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. You see you cannot deal peacefully with some people (Iran) and so you have no alternative but to start a war or they will start it for you. He then has to make up some reason why he evokes the imagery of the Holocaust (Ledeen: “..familiar Western indifference to the fate of the Jews”) without mentioning Israel and American foreign policy. And so he comes up with the Protocols as fully explanatory for the causality of antisemitism and/ or anti-Jewish resentment in Iran. And for this in Iran to work, there had to be a Farsi translation. That would be the one that mysteriously eluded Memri but found its way to Ledeen instead.
He probably doesn’t know or understand or perhaps he’s afraid that “even the contemplation if it will hurt” that all his arguments make more of a case against people like him than it does to the people he wants to make a case against, but hey it’s an entirely different universe in which Ledeen resides.
So, I’m in “denial” - the ultimate attack of the Western liberal. Please spare me the psychology lesson!
You seem to have read a lot into Ledeen’s short piece. Indeed, look at the title, particularly the “Problem of Evil” part.
In your first point, you do a nice job of elliding Ledeen’s first question with his last. But I don’t think that by “catastrophe” he means the Holocaust, rather he’s referring to the 50 million people killed in a global war.
In your second point, you assert that the most “important feature being that they are different from us.” But Ledeen goes to great pains in his third paragraph to point out the inherent “sameness” in the case of German and Italian facism: they not only shared Western culture; they excelled and led in it.
Point three. Yes, this is the central thesis, but is not, I believe, a historical comparison. Rather, it is about the nature of evil and the nature of Western industrialized societies in reacting to such evil. I don’t think that the major voices today urging against confrontation are the same as those of Charles Lindburgh, Joseph Kennedy or Henry Ford 70 years ago, but I do think that many of the same messages and motivations are similar.
And then you come full circle to justify - through your own manipulation - Ledeen’s need to make up a Farsi version of the “Protocols”, even though it is a relatively minor issue, both in terms of the argument and of the words and deeds of the actors themselves. Again, Iran’s reactionary leadership has led enthusiastic crowds in chants of “Death to Israel” nearly every Friday for almost 30 years and has regularly paraded missiles with the names of Israeli cities emblazened on them through the streets of Tehran.
So, I’m in “denial” - the ultimate attack of the Western liberal. Please spare me the psychology lesson!
Most western liberals are vociferous supporters of American imperialism in one incarnation or another, and this site has a substantial libertarian constituency, so this attack carries no specific political valence. Labeling someone a “liberal”, with all the connotations the neoconservatives have artificially affixed to the term, is sheer red-baiting.
In your first point, you do a nice job of elliding Ledeen’s first question with his last. But I don’t think that by “catastrophe” he means the Holocaust, rather he’s referring to the 50 million people killed in a global war.
In either case, the basic design of Ledeen’s argument remains the same, whatever the source of this gut feeling of yours.
Point three. Yes, this is the central thesis, but is not, I believe, a historical comparison. Rather, it is about the nature of evil and the nature of Western industrialized societies in reacting to such evil. I don’t think that the major voices today urging against confrontation are the same as those of Charles Lindburgh, Joseph Kennedy or Henry Ford 70 years ago, but I do think that many of the same messages and motivations are similar.
We can then surmise that your cognition is shoddy or nonexistent, for there exists no political or military comparison between Nazi Germany and modern day Iran. The former was a first rate industrial power driven by internal antagonisms to conquer all of Europe; the latter is a developing country with a relatively primitive army that hasn’t initiated a war with its neighbours in centuries. Oh yes, and evil is a moral quality, not a structure of motivation or ideology, so the “nature of evil” contains virtually no implications for geopolitics.
And then you come full circle to justify - through your own manipulation - Ledeen’s need to make up a Farsi version of the “Protocols”, even though it is a relatively minor issue, both in terms of the argument and of the words and deeds of the actors themselves. Again, Iran’s reactionary leadership has led enthusiastic crowds in chants of “Death to Israel” nearly every Friday for almost 30 years and has regularly paraded missiles with the names of Israeli cities emblazened on them through the streets of Tehran.
This leaves no doubt in the reader’s mind that you have not read the post. Toth noted that Ledeen had to invent a cause for Iranian anti-semitism in the form of the Protocols to mask any sort of historical context- in this case, American and Israeli foreign policy (the two operate as extensions of each other, so they can’t really be separated).
One more, with verve: stupid troll is stupid.
Oh, so we are a Libertaaaarian are we? Well, you (and your friend) can still spare me the penny psychology.
I’d like to quote my favorite part in full:
We can then surmise that your cognition is shoddy or nonexistent, for there exists no political or military comparison between Nazi Germany and modern day Iran. The former was a first rate industrial power driven by internal antagonisms to conquer all of Europe; the latter is a developing country with a relatively primitive army that hasn’t initiated a war with its neighbours in centuries. Oh yes, and evil is a moral quality, not a structure of motivation or ideology, so the “nature of evil” contains virtually no implications for geopolitics.
First off, you may want to get out of the rhetorical high chair and start out with something like: “I see that you don’t understand….” rather than trying to impress me with what “we” can surmise about my cognition. That aside…
My point is exactly that Ledeen wasn’t trying to make a political or military comparison! He was talking about Western culture and society and its relationship with evil, hateful - call them what you will - regimes who have universalistic ideologies and regional - or even global - aspirations.
You see, you (and your tag-team partner) insist on making a historical comparison based on material characteristics, because there is no comparison. That’s why Ledeen didn’t try. (Al