Hate Ahmadinejad? Buy Iranian Pistachios!

Iran's political culture is far more complex and nuanced than slogans like "Axis of Evil" would have us believe. Those concerned about the threat posed by Iran need to start taking a more sophisticated look at its political system. To help us in that regard, we have our "savvy Iranian source" to analyze the outcome of Iran's recent municipal elections with his latest report from Tehran. He says:

• The high turnout showed that the public is still interested in engaging the political system, despite all its imperfections

• The vote displayed a desire by the population to go for the middle ground in the city councils (although the selective vetting of candidates in the Assembly of Experts elections ensured this prior to the vote for this body) (continued...)

• Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (pistachio magnate and former Iranian president [pre-Khatami] who lost to Ahmadinejad in the 2005 election, largely because he was perceived to be corrupt, while Ahmadinejad successfully appealed to the economic hopes of Iranian youth) made a good showing relative to previous elections. Even though he has not really increased his vote in absolute terms nationwide, Rafsanjani got many more votes than the other contenders for the Assembly elections. This means that his relative position in the system will again become stronger and that he now can make a bid for the Chairman's position in the Assembly.

• This will in itself not mean that Rafsanjani will be able to oust or directly challenge Supreme Leader Khamenei but that his relative position of power will be increased, which will mean that he can put more pressure on the Supreme Leader on certain key issues and also position himself better for the
  future.

• Rumours about Mr. Khamenei's illness have been circulating for over a decade now, and his health is at least on the surface not showing any sign of deterioration.

• Ahmadinejad's supporters can no longer claim that he has the unconditional backing of a large portion of the electorate. While previously the Supreme Leader may have been reluctant to rein him in on certain foreign policy issues due to his massive electoral support, President Ahmadinejad's opponents can now easier claim that he doesn't in fact enjoy broad support and thus push the Supreme Leader into curtailing some of his actions/rhetoric.

• Overall, in about six months' time, the actual impact of these elections will be much clearer and will also become easier to analyse as the implementation of Ahmadinejad's campaign promises are increasingly put to the test.

For more Iranian electoral analysis, see this piece by Syrian analyst Sami Moubayed.

I found the reaction of the State Department in Washington quite balanced. This is not the first time I have reported on this blog that Sean McCormack, the spokesman, is very professional. He is selective with his words and does not normally employ inflammatory rhetoric. For example:

"Well, it would seem that they're not the results that President Ahmadi-Nejad would have hoped for. I think despite the regime's efforts to cook the books in terms of an outcome, they seem to have been thwarted in that regard. There was a high turnout. But you know, again, there were some fundamental flaws in these elections in which there were numerous candidates that were excluded from even running in the elections, so the people didn't even have that choice to make ... there were people who were excluded from running in the elections who wanted to run in the elections."

Overall, what we are seeing in Iran is a balance of power between the President (Ahmadinejad), the Council of Experts (which chooses and "manages" the Supreme Leader) plus other legislative bodies, and the Supreme Leader (Khamenei). As convenient and tempting as it may be to classify Ahmadinejad as a dictator, if that were an accurate portrayal then the recent electoral results would have been far more to his liking. In this sense, Iran is more politically evolved than undemocratic governments like those of Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and most Arab countries.

But how does that explain Ahmadinejad's troubling remark that Israel should be "wiped off the map"? Our source says:

"The stuff about calling for Israel's destruction and things like that mostly have domestic power-politics objectives (and some external ones) but Iran would never get involved in open conflict with the Israelis, since this would be a very costly adventure...

...And let's not forget, the President of Iran is neither constitutionally nor institutionally entrusted with the ability to declare war. It is only the Supreme Leader that can do this."

That is of little comfort to Israelis, quite understandably. An Israeli friend and colleague wrote me right after Ahmadinejad made the infamous remark:

"What should we do? ...the world treats Ahmadinejad as a madman, but I think he is dead serious. Let me just remind you that Hitler published his plans for the Jews long before he executed them, and similarly - people then discounted him as a madman who would come to his senses when in power... I really think it's a plausible scenario that a nuclear weapon would explode in Tel Aviv and would practically demolish the state of Israel."

As our "savvy source" indicated, the true outcome of this most Iranian recent election won't be felt until a new balance of power in Tehran is reached over the next 6 months. But with Rafsanjani on the rise again and Ahmadinejad's public approval no longer riding sky-high, the battle lines have been drawn. In the meantime, those outside the country who want to influence the outcome can do little more than buy Iranian pistachios.

Who should apologize?

All people of good conscience have a moral obligation to support what is righteous and condemn what is wrong. But who has a duty to apologize?

• Should every person of Arab descent feel the need to apologize for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001?

• Should every American citizen feel the need to apologize for US military misconduct, like that of Abu Ghraib?

• Should every Christian feel the need to apologize for the suffering of the Jewish people in past generations?

Simply as a member of the human race, I vigorously condemn all acts of terror, cruelty, discrimination, hatred, etc. But as someone who fits into each of the categories above - an American Christian of Arab descent - I do not feel it my duty to offer apologies for the malicious acts of others who simply share a label with me.

Not all Christians, Arabs, or Americans agree with me. Some of my counterparts have taken the responsibility upon themselves to offer apologies to the harmed parties.

Here are some examples worthy of discussion: (continued...)

First, an essay which appeared in the NY Post on the 5th anniversary of 9/11, written by an Arab-American named Emilio Karim Dabul. He writes:

"Five years after that awful day, it's time for all Arab-Americans, and Arabs around the world, to protest against Islamic fascism, to raise our voices - and, where necessary, our arms - against these tyrants until their plague of terror has been driven from the face of the earth forever."

On that point, I agree completely with Mr. Dabul. It is important for Arab-Americans to not only speak out against terrorism, but also actively work to eliminate it.

Where I think Dabul carries this too far, and where I disagree with him, is when he says:

"Arabs around the world, including Arab-Americans like myself, need to start holding our own culture accountable for the insane, violent actions that our extremists have perpetrated on the world at large.

Yes, our extremists and our culture."

Well, they are not "my" extremists. Whether they come to a timely death or spend their lives rotting in prison (hopefully), or whether they continue to roam free, they are not "my" extremists. They are my enemy and I have nothing to do with them, common label or not.

As for Arab culture, of course there are some elements badly in need of reform and change - I discuss these things with my Arab-American colleagues all the time. But a group of people who happen to share a label should not be assigned blame, internally or externally, for "insane violent actions...perpetrated on the world at large" on the part of its individual members.

Second, we have Marc Gopin, a Jewish rabbi and Professor at George Mason University in Virginia. I had the great pleasure of meeting him through my dear friend, Syrian reformer-extraordinaire Hind Kabawat. Dr. Gopin has embarked upon a courageous journey to bridge gaps between cultures and religions, and thanks to his partnership with Hind, he has visited Syria numerous times and has cultivated a friendship with Syria's Grand Mufti, Sheikh Ahmed Baderedin Hassoun.

After his most recent visit this summer, Dr. Gopin published a long and very moving article that touched upon political, religious, ethical matters, containing great wisdom. I urge everyone to read it, and re-read it several times to absorb Dr. Gopin's vision.

The document, however, relates one rather controversial encounter that took place during a Friday prayer service in an Aleppo mosque:

"The Mufti introduced someone on my right. He was tall and young, maybe in his late twenties. He was dressed in white from head to toe with a traditional coat and cap. Others there wore turbans, those who were senior Sheikhs. The Mufti told me the story of this young man, and he said it in very few words. 'He is Iraqi, he was in Abu Ghraib for eight months and then released without charge. His two brothers were also picked up and have never been heard from since. This young man also spent twenty-two days living in a coffin. The American soldiers would take him out at meal times and then shackle him back inside the coffin.'

I have to presume from what the Mufti said that the coffin was also his bathroom. When I heard this my heart began to pound hard and I began to breathe heavily, my hands trembling; I felt the need to get up from my seat but I did not...the Mufti went on speaking about other things and I did not hear anything that he was saying. I was looking at the young man from Abu Ghraib, and he at me, and I could not take my eyes off of him. He had an intense and serious look on his face, and pain, and also a curious kind of shame, but I did not feel any hatred coming from him. He looked as if he was concentrating in a painful way on something, and he did not avert his eyes from me...

I could not sit anymore. I broke decorum and I got up in the middle of the Mufti speaking and I walked across the hall to the young man. The interpreter followed. The Mufti stopped speaking, and all eyes turned toward the side of the room. I spoke to the young man quietly and I told him how deeply sorry I was for what had happened to him, and I apologized in the name of the American people. Then I held his arm, and then I embraced him. I held back the tears."

Now, this is a slightly different context than Mr. Dabul's newspaper editorial, being that it was an emotional encounter between 2 individuals. I suppose one could argue that Dr. Gopin, as an citizen of a democratic nation like the United States, ultimately holds responsibility for the actions of the American government and its military. However, a few isolated incidents of gross misconduct by American soldiers should be addressed by their commanders. If those in leadership positions fail to take corrective action, then the citizens have an obligation not to apologize, but to elect new leaders who will demand accountability and proper military conduct in the future.

As Dr. Gopin said, "We did not elect torture":

"Then the Mufti told them what I had done with the young man from Abu Ghraib, and this created quite a stir. I believe he said, 'He apologized, how can we not respond to this?' He also rebuked them and mentioned how rare it is that they apologize, meaning the Muslim world, when they do something wrong.

Then some commotion occurred at the front. Some members were saying things to the Mufti, and I asked what was going on. They said that people were objecting to his bringing me here. They said, 'He elected George Bush,' and, my voice trembling, I responded, 'We did not elect torture.' Then the Mufti put me together with the young man and said to his followers, 'Show the world what he have done here today,' and immediately ten or twenty people in the front rows took out their cell phones and began videotaping our group standing with the Mufti and the young man."

Some will resent Dr. Gopin's apology to that Iraqi from Abu Ghraib prison, but that does not change the incredible courage shown by his efforts to promote peace on a grassroots level, between Arabs and Americans, between Muslims, Christians, and Jews. I have nothing but respect for him.

Finally, we have Senator Sam Brownback, a Republican from Kansas who has his eyes on the White House.

Speaking to the Israeli Knesset in July 2004, Brownback stated:

"As a Christian, I deeply, deeply apologize for the pain and bloodshed and deafness to suffering that we have hoisted upon you and your ancestors. May this never, ever happen again!"

Again, who is we? I am a Christian, and I have never brought any pain or bloodshed to Jews. Of course I condemn the holocaust inflicted by the Nazis upon them, as well as Gypies, Catholics (1/3 of the priests in Nazi Germany were executed), and others - but I do not feel that it is my place to apologize for it.

Every individual is responsible for his or her own actions, not those of his or her race, or ancestors, or co-religionists. But those with pride in their nationality, citizenship, religion, and origin should feel an obligation to be proactive - to combat dishonorable behavior by their colleagues, in both word and deed - not just to be reactive and apologize after the transgressions have occurred.

Immigration, Islam and terrorism

Scott Richert, the Executive Editor of Chronicles Magazine, a hard-hitting paleo-conservative journal which published my article on US-Syria relations in its October issue, recently commented on a black Muslim convert named Derrick Shareef, touching upon issues related to terrorism and immigration as they relate to Islam and Muslims in America. I disagreed with several of his assertions, which led to a fruitful discussion - I will highlight bits of it here.

First, Mr. Richert stated:

"I'll wager now that, when the next terrorist attack occurs on American soil, we'll find out that the perpetrators had already arrived—legally—before the end of 2006. Or, like Derrick Shareef, they will be native-born converts to Islam—whose conversion was made easier by the growing Muslim presence in the United States."

I then disputed his logic, because I don't believe "easier" is a relevant factor:

"While no sane person would dispute the obvious reasoning that more Muslims in America will increase the exposure of Islam and therefore its accessibility (as witnessed by the local news broadcast on which you appeared), the fact remains that Muslims have settled in America, and in fact in the Heartland, for over a century.

Isn't it logical to conclude, therefore, that those individuals willing to go to the disturbing lengths of John Walker Lindh or Rockford's own Derrick Shareef, would manage to seek out and contact, within a reasonable driving distance that wouldn't require a passport, a physical presence of 'an ideology such as Islam that provides such a strong motivating force', even if the immigration measures you advocate to curtail the presence of Muslims in America were enacted?"

(Mr. Richert believes that "the only sensible policy today...is to treat adherence to Islam as grounds for an automatic denial of entry to the United States.)

Mr. Richert responded, citing concerns of 1) accessibility and 2) rate of conversion.

"The constant drumbeat by the Bush administration and the media that 'Islam is a religion of peace' has made conversion (or even simply inquiry) much more socially acceptable.

...if the presence of Muslims in America today is helping to drive conversions (as Mr. Ajjan concedes), why wouldn't we expect that increasing numbers of immigrants (and the increasing number of mosques and schools that accompany them) would drive increasing numbers of conversions?

...if American immigration policy treated adherence to Islam as grounds for automatic denial of entry to the United States, wouldn't that be likely to counter the social acceptability of conversion to Islam, and thus decrease the number of converts and inquirers?"

My reply tackled both the accessibility and the rate issues as raised by Mr. Richert:

"In a nation of nearly 300 million – on second thought, to illustrate my point let's count only native-born Americans from European Christian heritage (like John Walker Lindh) and call it 180 million – finding a dozen disaffected individuals looking for an outlet for their frustrations, who convert to Islam and ultimately manifest violent behavior because of that conversion, will not be impeded because of the distance they will have to drive to visit a mosque or any other factor related to the accessibility of Islam in America today.

Basically, in terms of Derrick Shareef-type threats, which I believe should be classified as a separate phenomenon from Mohammad Atta-type threats, "passing fancy" is not the issue. Mr. Richert cites statistics about the dramatic increase in the number of mosques since 1990, however, in terms of accessibility in the past 15 years, there is another factor far, far more important than the number of mosques constructed: the internet. Even the tiniest Islamic terrorist group seems to have a website by which they can broadcast their horrible deeds, an action that could conceivably attract "a dozen" curious people like Derrick Shareef or John Walker Lindh.

Furthermore, Mr. Richert, in 2 contexts, mentions "social acceptability". While I am not an expert on what might make disturbed individuals like Lindh or Shareef wish to kill other people, I would venture to guess that the factors affecting their choice of how to manifest that destructive urge, in this case militant Islam, would not include "social acceptability". In fact, wouldn't a greedy, oil-rich, insert-your-favorite-liberal-cliché-here Republican President telling America that Islam itself is the enemy likely only further motivate misfits like Lindh to sign up for a violent manifestation of jihad?

Fundamentally, the damage that can be done to America's well-being by militant homegrown Muslims does not require a large infrastructure and therefore is not predicated upon the rate of conversions to Islam. So concerning the threat of "a dozen" native-born American converts to Islam acting alone and committing terrorism because of their conversion, the presence of other Muslims in America is not the major issue.

While Mr. Richert's suggested course of action (ending immigration of Muslims) might manage to keep out the likes of Mohammad Atta, he does recognize that protecting Americans from Derrick Shareef, or for that matter the London Subway bombers, is a much more difficult proposition."

The discussion continued from there, I invite you to read the rest of it. While Mr. Richert and his colleagues at Chronicles take positions that may be distasteful to many of my readers (I often disagree with them as well), I encourage everyone to participate in the discussion, either here at Chronicles website, which frequently covers Islamic issues. You will find that the paleo-conservative commentators may adopt hard-line stances, but they do so based upon a strong set of principles, not ignorance or hatred. Engage them.

As if TAXcrell hasn't done enough...

to Passaic County residents, now the rest of America will be affected by his fist-pounding brand of socialism.

Congressman Bill Pascrell, so complacent that he brags about not needing a website to tell voters why he deserves re-election, has been named to the House Ways and Means Committee.

Type "ways and means" into a search engine and you'll get the following description:

"House committee charged with writing tax legislation and bills affecting Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs."

TAXcrell with jurisdiction over entitlement programs? Looks like the beginning of a "perfect storm"...

p.s.
I'm just curious - does the NJ State Teachers' Pension Fund invest its money in the government-run Social Security Trust Fund, or is it "privatized" in the equity and bond markets?

NJGOP: Why we lost, why we'll do better next time

The Record today published my post-election wrap up piece, entitled Why we lost, why we'll do better next time.
--------------------


Why we lost, why we'll do better next time
by GEORGE AJJAN - Sunday, December 3, 2006

Though most of us are progeny of ordinary folk who contributed to society simply by virtue of their moral character and work ethic, a small few descend not merely from honest hard-working individuals, but persons with the vision, energy and resources to channel those admirable qualities into notable careers of public service.

Imagine how blessed any of us would be to count among our forebears representatives, senators and even governors. And if we chose to follow that legacy, we can only think how eager we would be to tell fellow citizens what an honor it would be to serve them as the latest in a long, distinguished line of worthy public officials.

It is quite a compelling and even inspiring proposition. In fact, that very opportunity existed for one of the candidates in the recent election. But sadly, in his quest for a seat in the United States Senate, New Jersey voters never heard such a positive, personal message from Thomas H. Kean Jr.

He never aired a commercial showing the portraits of his ancestors who have served the Garden State with distinction for generations.

He never told the voters: "I am proud to say that I am from the family Kean, and that means a great deal to me – as your senator, I will do honor not only to you my fellow citizens, but also to the legacy of my ancestors who faithfully served your parents and grandparents before me."

Name appeal

He never employed the most basic and yet most effective tactic in his entire electoral arsenal: the appeal of his very name.

Instead we got a hollow, negative message reflecting not only poor judgment on Kean's part, but indicative of the larger ills that have befallen the New Jersey Republican Party.

As we have seen repeatedly in our lackluster statewide campaigns, including Kean's most recent one, the NJGOP lacks direction, principles and energy. That is why we lose every year.

When we don't have consensus ourselves on the principles for which we stand, how can we expect local activists to show any enthusiasm for the GOP? And most of all, how can expect voters to follow us when our message is not only unfocused, but decidedly negative?

We have gone too far astray and now need to make systemic changes to revive the NJGOP.

The four courses of action advocated herein represent a starting point to rebuild and reinvigorate, so that Republicans can begin to win once again in New Jersey:

1) Can the "campaign in a can." Overly negative advertisements do not compel voters, but instead turn them off, even loyal Republicans. We need to immediately fire the incompetent consultants who design such campaigns, perpetually demonstrating that they are less interested in winning elections, and more interested in pleasing the right "insiders" so that they can get overpaid to do the same pathetic job running next year's losing race.

2) Change leadership. That is not meant as an attack on Republican State Chairman Tom Wilson. In fact, Wilson's political instincts are excellent. No doubt, he was banging his head against the wall in frustration on numerous occasions over the past year as Kean's campaign moved from blunder to blunder. Wilson should have been the one running the Kean campaign, not doing party building. If he had, the Republican Party might still be in control of the U.S. Senate come January.

Only one person has the political savvy, winning personality, fund-raising ability, grassroots skills, and broad-based appeal to turn the NJGOP around, and that is none other than former Jersey City mayor and gubernatorial candidate Bret Schundler.

Two years in advance of the 2007 Assembly and Senate elections, he was plotting for Republican victory and proposed that every elected Republican official – even school board members and municipal council members – descend upon Trenton to launch a plan for property tax reform amendments to the state Constitution.

Schundler sees the value in a unity of purpose, and that is the only way to construct a Republican message that will win over New Jersey voters.

3) Primary out "dead weight" incumbents. Every complacent, unenergetic, and especially unprincipled Republican state legislator needs to be challenged in a GOP primary and ousted. The state Senate in particular has more than its share of wily curmudgeons who contribute absolutely nothing to party-building activities.

Instead, we need passionate, vibrant Republicans to fill those "safe" seats, who will devote their energies not to self-enhancing deal-making with Democrats, but to helping GOP candidates in more challenging races throughout the state.

Elected Republicans have an obligation to breathe new life into local GOP organizations for success at the grassroots level, which is essential to winning back New Jersey.

4) Get Hispanics on board. Instead of complaining ad nauseam about America's massive illegal immigration problem (which unfortunately is not going away anytime soon), conservative activists need to have a look at New Jersey's demographic trend and redirect some of their energy into a comprehensive effort to integrate Hispanics into the Republican Party.

Last hope

If we do not do this, the NJGOP simply has no hope of ever winning in the Garden State in the long run, even if we execute flawlessly the other three actions suggested above.

Currently, much of what passes for Hispanic outreach is ad-hoc, and amounts to spitting into the wind. To put it bluntly, too many "pedigreed" Republicans seem to view these efforts as little more than a cute little diversion from country club ennui. It's time to invest in a massive recruitment drive, coordinating with Republicans from other states to replicate techniques that have succeeded in areas with large Hispanic populations. We need to start learning about the urban neighborhoods where these untapped voters live, instead of just driving around them.

The poor campaigns Republicans have run over the past several years notwithstanding, the notion that New Jersey is forever a "blue state" is ludicrous.

With unity of purpose, strong leadership, and principled candidates, we can construct a winning message and a positive campaign that will bring the Garden State back into the Republican column.

George Ajjan, a Republican activist and former candidate for the House of Representatives, can be reached at george@ajjan.com. He resides in Clifton.

O --- This article first appeared in The Record on December 3, 2006.