A delegation of thirteen leaders from US church institutions has just finished a six-day visit to Iran, culminating in a 150-minute discussion with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The delegation includes two leaders from Quaker organizations: Joe Volk, the head of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and Mary-Ellen McNish, the had of the American Friends Service Committee.
Today (Sunday), the delegation issued a statement in which the members said,
- What the delegation found most encouraging from the meeting with President Ahmadinejad was a clear declaration from him that Iran has no intention to acquire or use nuclear weapons, as well as a statement that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be solved through political, not military means. He said, “I have no reservation about conducting talks with American officials if we see some goodwill.”
We believe it is possible for further dialogue and that there can be a new day in U.S. – Iranian relations. The Iranian government has already built a bridge toward the American people by inviting our delegation to come to Iran. We ask the U.S. government to welcome a similar delegation of Iranian religious leaders to the United States.
As additional steps in building bridges between our nations, we call upon both the U.S. and Iranian governments to:
* immediately engage in direct, face-to-face talks;
* cease using language that defines the other using “enemy” images; and
* promote more people-to-people exchanges, including religious leaders, members of Parliament/Congress, and civil society.
As people of faith, we are committed to working toward these and other confidence building measures, which we hope will move our two nations from the precipice of war to a more just and peaceful settlement.
You can read more about the delegation if you read this page from the FCNL website. which has links to a number of interesting “diary” entries that Joe Volk made during the early days of the trip.
I am in Jordan right now. My personal view from here is that a U.S. military attack on Iran remains a live possibility. People I’ve talked to here– as in Egypt– say the consequences for their country in the event of such an attack could be very dire indeed.
These are two countries whose leaders are closely allied with the US. However, opinion amongst these two countries’ peoples is very strongly opposed to the idea of a US attack on Iraq, which they see as very destabilizing for the whole region.
As I’ve noted many times before,the Bushites have been working very hard indeed to try to frame the issues in the Middle East in a “Sunni vs. Shiite” way, or an “Iran vs. Arabs” way, and to project the idea that “most” Sunni Arabs would actually welcome a US move to diminish Iranian/Shiite power in the region. I cannot stress strongly enough here the fact that this is not so.
Anyway, tomorrow, the participants in the church leaders’ delegation will be having a press conference in Washington DC, so I hope we will all hear a lot more about the conversations they had on their trip.
(As for me, tomorrow I travel to Damascus.)
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/070305fa_fact_hersh
http://www.assafir.com/Article.aspx?EditionId=573&articleId=2715&ChannelId=12370
The most independent and brave Arab journalist has passed. Joseph Samahah has died of a heart attack. He was honest to a fault, was not on the payroll of corrupt tyrants and oily princes, and was not afraid of being self-critical. He strongly condemned anti-Semitism in the Arab media, but would not accept it as an excuse for further oppression of the Palestinians. He was an outspoken critic of tribalism, and always reminded how it has held back the Middle East for decades. He constantly reminded of the complicity of neo-liberal pseudo-democratic Quislings in the Arab world with the West and its “plans” for the Middle East. His columns were a breath of fresh air and a ray of truth that will be missed. Also, see Al-Akhbar’s obituary. Abu-Khalil has written a very personal eulogy that is worth reading if you knew Samahah.
وداعاً جوزف
رحل الرفيق جوزف سماحة
على حين غرّة، وفي عزّ رقاده، رحل جوزف سماحة ليلة
السبت الأحد ٢٤ – ٢٥ شباط، خلال وجوده في لندن
لمؤازرة صديقه القريب حازم صاغيّة في
مصابه برحيل زوجته مي غصوب. في “مبنى الكونكورد”
كما يسمّيه زياد رحباني، الجميع في حالة ذهول. هل
يمكن أن يكون صمت جوزف نهائياً؟
باسمِ الحُفنَة…
زياد الرحباني
إن الله يحبّ جوزف سماحة. فلقد قرّر سبحانه أن ينجّيه البارحة، من أعراض وأحقاد العديد من العديدين. خطفه كالبرق من بين كل المتربّصين به. إن الله يحبّه، فهو يعرفه جيداً، وللرفيق جوزف مكانةٌ عنده. يعرفه ويخاف من أعدائه عليه. يعرف أنه لا يحتاط، وأنه ضد التدابير الأمنية الشخصية والمرافقين، يعرف جيداً كم هو مستهترٌ أحياناً بحقّ نفسه، فأخفاه عن السمع والأنظار
http://www.al-akhbar.com/ar/node
“Hedge-fund managers and other large speculators had more net- long positions, or bets oil prices will rise, in the week ended Feb. 20, according to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Speculative long positions outnumbered short positions, or bets prices will fall, by 7,862 contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the Washington-based commission said last week.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=af7Dpo7P1zx0&refer=home
“‘With the path of the events drifting toward a more confrontational outcome, we expect geopolitics — and Iran in particular — to remain an important supportive factor for oil prices going forward,’ Barclays Capital analysts wrote in a research note.”
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2007/02/25/afx3459859.html
By the time you read about trends like this in the financial press, the big guys have already locked in their profits. Therefore, it is no longer necessary for them to deny the obvious. Right, Vadim?
Gary Leupp warns of the backlash risks inherent in AIPAC’s smug manipulation of the intersection between religion and politics in the US:
When one plays this Islamophobic game of exploiting ignorance, fear, hatred and bigotry; when one conflates al-Qaeda with Iraq with Hamas with Hizbollah with Iran knowing that most Americans know little about the details and will be inclined to side (for now) with Israel against Muslims in general; when one lies (as the neocons do with such arrogance, supposing they will escape any consequences of the lies down the road) — then one invites a backlash. We live in a racist culture that easily slides into religious bigotry. Why use that culture (not so dissimilar to the German culture of the 1930s) so shamelessly — against Arabs and other Muslim peoples of the Middle East? One’s disinformation with its murderous results in the Muslim world might just produce the ignorant conclusion that could sweep Middle America down the road:
“The Jews made us do it.”
That’s what the rednecks including a whole lot of today’s brain-dead Christian Zionist fundamentalists will say as soon as everything goes wrong in the Middle East, Jesus doesn’t come back and is nowhere in sight, and the three US troops killed per day becomes six or ten for no good goddamned reason.
Awareness of this risk might help explain Gallup’s findings that Jewish Americans have consistently been the most strongly opposed to the Iraq war of all major religious groups in the US. Perhaps AIPAC’s greatest propaganda success has been convincing politicians like Hillary Clinton that it somehow represents the views of American Jews, who tend to vote Democratic. It doesn’t. It represents a right-wing Israeli point of view that actually conflicts with the interests of most Americans, Jewish or otherwise. The sad thing is that Jewish Americans as a group have done a lousy job of making this point to their political representatives.
Thanks John for the link; I am particularly intrigued by this Gary Leup. Excellent!
As for that Gallup poll, thanks for that link too to the official Gallup findings. I had seen second reports elsewhere, including via Juan. But this one seems dubious on several counts… beginning with the claim that the survey was taken “from 2005-2007” — huh??!! (How meaning-less is that?)
Curious too: why couldn’t they have broken down “protestant” a bit better (especially with such a large sampling)? Gallup in the past has done detailed surveys broken down to allow resppondents to identify with “evangelical” and/or “fundamentalist” groupings.
And why the headlines on just 300 of the 12,000+ respondents? (e.g., the Jewish component, or the 200 or so Mormons)
So what happened if the survey encountered a (gasp) Muslim among the 12,000 or so who answered the phone? Surely they were there? Or were they counted as “no religion” or were they hung up on…?
But gee, if they counted Muslims, it might mess up the headline about Jewish groups being the most opposed to the Iraq war.
Something’s really fishy about this poll….
Scott
“Something’s really fishy about this poll”
I don’t think it’s that fishy. By most estimates I’ve seen, there are only around 1/2 as many Muslims as Jews in the US. Gallup only broke out “religious groups for which there are sufficiently large sample sizes to provide stable estimates.” I presume any Muslim respondents were just part of the “All Americans” group. I think the most questionable finding is the 72% Mormon support for the war based on only 203 respondents.
Say John, thanks for the reply – and you write that Gallup only broke out percentages for”religious groups for which there are sufficiently large sample sizes to provide stable estimates.” On third reading, I now see where I missed that line.
Yet under what category did they put all the Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus,? Is that under “no religion?
Your related comment reminded me of an old “hot” spot subject – and you’ll be pleased to know Daniel Pipes & co agree with you. (just kidding)
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_islam_usa.html
By the way, I think it’s another example of the poor state of “statistical science” in this country that anybody (Muslim or otherwise) is making guesstimations based on country of origin of ancestors. (as if that’d prove anything…. ask Senator Grasslee…. or my Assyrian friends in Detroit area….)
Then too, the subject almost is “legally” ordained (if you will) from better answers, given Public Law 94-521 – the one forbidding the Census bureau from asking about religious identification. (rooted in America’s perception of itself as a land of religious “freedom” – wherein one doesn’t suffer any ill consequences of one’s religious idenitification…. in theory anyway)
Never mind…. :-}
Your bigger point remains very important – the apparent significant gap between Jewish American opinion on Iraq/Iran and the present agenda of the major pro-Israel lobby groups here in USA…..
Anybody know if the msm has picked up on this story – or, for example, leading Jewish publications like Forward…..
Now I’m getting more curious….. about(if you will) the Virgil Goode Question…. *tic
First, here’s another suggestion from the “adherents.com” web site which notes a rather obvious and bizarre flaw in the standard Gallup questions about religion in America:
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#gallup
Observations (as of 2002?)
Some observations can be made about the Gallup polling data…. In asking about religious preference, the Gallup poll specifically offers four choices: Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or Orthodox. Prior to 1977, the question excluded Orthodox and simply asked: What is your religious preference — is it Protestant, Roman Catholic or Jewish?
It is possible that the wording of this question leads to an undercount of groups not specifically mentioned in the question.
Muslims are another group which is not pecifically mentioned in the question…
(So then my sense of something “fishy” in these Gallup polls seems to still have merit….)
Other sources seem even more “rigged” – that is, something’s amiss by design…. (that’s a question, not a swipe)
http://www.thearda.com/Archive/Files/Codebooks/BRS2005_CB.asp
Here, we have a curious finding from the 2005 Baylor Study of Religion (conducted also by Gallup – and now in Association for Religious Data base): Out of over 1700 respondents, only 3 identify themselves as Muslim. (for a wee small fraction of .2%, compared to 47 and 2.8% as Jewish)
So is that it? If so, Virgil can rest easy. Perhaps Muslims are hesitant (esp. after 9/11) about such questions? Or perhaps they are concentrated in certain communities — and thus less likely to show up on so-called “randon” national surveys….
Maybe the Muslim groups out there (like CAIR) claiming high %’s of adherents are likely inflated — but I think a point can be held that the existing “statistical data” sources are also not getting the #’s correct….
Scott,
One point: most non-practicing Muslims (and there are plenty of those) do not call themselves “Muslim” if asked; they would just call themselves Turk, Malaysian, Arab, Iranian, Turkmen, … But most (almost all) non-practicing Jews (and there are plenty of those too) would still call themselves Jewish on a poll. Of course, as you and John point out, there is much more to it than that (one thing that you point out I will testify to: I know many Muslim students [and devout] who would be reluctant to tick that box on a form in Dick and George’s America).
I think Muslim identity in America is further complicated by the Nation of Islam movement, which may make up as much as 1/3 of those who would identify themselves, for some purposes at least, as Muslims. Of course almost all members of the Nation of Islam are converts, having come mostly from Protestant Christian families, and some more traditional Islamic groups refuse to recognize them as “real” Muslims.
Therefore, it is no longer necessary for them to deny the obvious. Right, Vadim?
Hi John. Sorry, I only just saw this. The “speculative long” statistic you cite is generally viewed as a counterindicator, since funds unlike commercials can’t take delivery of futures contracts and will at some stage be expected to liquidate. Also, 8k contracts net isn’t very large for this figure, which routinely tops 50,000. Some more perspective: the daily turnover on the NYMEX is something like 180k contracts (180 million barrels equivalent.)
It’s true that oil has had a bounce recently (from ~54 to ~62) but much of that was due to a an EIA report on the Chinese economy (which is also why the market sold off aggressively following the collapse of the Chinese stock market) and supportive inventory data. It’s still 35% off its highs and iimplied volatility remains low.
FWIW, the market-assigned probability of a settlement over $100 in december 2007 is a wee 3.5%.
Vadim, I bow to your superior knowledge of the energy markets. But why would the funds’ position be a “counterindicator?” Since they can’t take delivery, their long positions are worthless if prices don’t rise, right? Whereas commercial interests might go long for other reasons, such as cash flow smoothing. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I take your point that the volume is not significant, but I don’t really believe the market can predict our geopolitical future in any event.
Since they can’t take delivery, their long positions are worthless if prices don’t rise, right?
Yes, but because they can’t take delivery their “hand” (so to speak) is considered weak. At some point they will have to sell out of their futures. Commercials on the other hand can hold their discretionary shorts, and make (or take) delivery as needed at a real pipeline. Hence speculative fund length = weak length.
I don’t really believe the market can predict our geopolitical future in any event.
I’d agree with you that market judgment is imperfect. But it can distill a consensus view from a large population of well-informed and economically interested parties, many of whom aren’t speculators. Between Sy Hersh and the world’s largest and best-connected oil interests, I trust the latter to better aggregate the odds of a real cataclysm. As they did during the run-up to both Gulf wars, where crude oil’s implied volatility soared well before any bombs were dropped.
some useful definitions and charts here:
http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/alumni/ll/retreat/vancouver/speakers/ronn_energy.pdf
Note the doubling of implied volatility from Nov 2002 to Mar 2003 (p. 15)
Thanks Vadim.