My father used to quote this, in his Ashkenazi accent, meaning that the new king could always be worse for the Jews than the old king. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
When I was a student in the US in the mid-70s, there were Iranian students demonstrating against the Shah on campus almost every day. They had rigged up a department store dummy to represent a man being tortured by Savak which they always had on display. Most of them were leftist/communist. If any of them went back to Iran after their much hoped for revolution, they were probably executed by the clerics, who made the Shah and Savak seem like pussycats by comparison.
Also, as in China, it doesn't make any difference what the people want - as Mao said, power comes from the barrel of a gun.
Respectfully, I disagree. One Pharaoh put Joseph over Egypt, and it was good. Another did not know who Joseph was, and he was bad. There was a Shah who was very good for Israel, and there was/is an AhmediNejad who is bad for Israel. There are not the same. If a Jew says that "everything is the same" he means that he hopes that the coming Pharaoh will be better than the former one. בלי עין רע
Netanyahu said that the Iranian people would like to have peace with Israel. I assume he knows what he is talking about. The Parsi people is a minority in ots own country and it is surrounded by fanatical Arab and Pakistani hordes. We are made for each other.
My point is this - if Ahmedinejad is a "bad Pharaoh" (and he and those behind him are,undoubtedly), how do we know whether he will be replace by a "good Pharaoh" or by an "even worse" Pharaoh? Those student demonstrators in the '70s thought that the Shah was the "bad Pharaoh" and by overthrowing him they got the "even worse" Pharaoh.
By the way, Khomeini's agenda was obvious to all right from the start - as early as the early '60s, one of his main reasons for denouncing the Shah was that the Shah's reforms included removing religious tests from offices such as judgeships. To Khomeini it was anathema that a dirty Jew might be allowed to judge a pure Muslim.
6 comments:
וַיָּקָם מֶלֶךְ-חָדָשׁ, עַל-מִצְרָיִם, אֲשֶׁר
לֹא-יָדַע, אֶת-יוֹסֵף.
My father used to quote this, in his Ashkenazi accent, meaning that the new king could always be worse for the Jews than the old king. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
When I was a student in the US in the mid-70s, there were Iranian students demonstrating against the Shah on campus almost every day. They had rigged up a department store dummy to represent a man being tortured by Savak which they always had on display. Most of them were leftist/communist. If any of them went back to Iran after their much hoped for revolution, they were probably executed by the clerics, who made the Shah and Savak seem like pussycats by comparison.
Also, as in China, it doesn't make any difference what the people want - as Mao said, power comes from the barrel of a gun.
Respectfully, I disagree. One Pharaoh put Joseph over Egypt, and it was good. Another did not know who Joseph was, and he was bad. There was a Shah who was very good for Israel, and there was/is an AhmediNejad who is bad for Israel. There are not the same. If a Jew says that "everything is the same" he means that he hopes that the coming Pharaoh will be better than the former one. בלי עין רע
Netanyahu said that the Iranian people would like to have peace with Israel. I assume he knows what he is talking about. The Parsi people is a minority in ots own country and it is surrounded by fanatical Arab and Pakistani hordes. We are made for each other.
My point is this - if Ahmedinejad is a "bad Pharaoh" (and he and those behind him are,undoubtedly), how do we know whether he will be replace by a "good Pharaoh" or by an "even worse" Pharaoh? Those student demonstrators in the '70s thought that the Shah was the "bad Pharaoh" and by overthrowing him they got the "even worse" Pharaoh.
By the way, Khomeini's agenda was obvious to all right from the start - as early as the early '60s, one of his main reasons for denouncing the Shah was that the Shah's reforms included removing religious tests from offices such as judgeships. To Khomeini it was anathema that a dirty Jew might be allowed to judge a pure Muslim.
By the way, Khomeini's agenda was obvious to all right from the start - as early as the early '60s,
Which may have been Carter's reason for giving Iran to the Mullahs.
Post a Comment