Here are some results taken from such elementary sources as Wikipedia:

Iran:

Iran has about 30,000 Jews. They have one seat in the Iranian parliament, held by Maurice Motamed since 2000 (re-elected again in 2004). There are 11 functioning synagogues in Tehran, and 25 in the country.

There is a Jewish newspaper, library, and charitable hospital where most of the staff and patients are Muslim. The Jewish MP has met with previous president Khatami. “Haroun Yashayaei is the chairman of the Jewish Committee of Tehran and leader of Iran’s Jewish Community. On January 26, 2007, Yashayaei’s letter to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad concerning his Holocaust denial comments brought about worldwide media attention.” [Wikipedia] – and so far as I know, he has not been executed.

According to Wikipedia, the Jews of Iran resent recent offers to relocate to the US or Israel – although I expect there may be an element of fear informing that position since several Jews have been executed in Iran for promoting emigration of Jews (I am not arguing that Jews have anything resembling freedom in any Islamic country).

Saudi Arabia:

Jews are not allowed to even visit Saudi Arabia, never mind live there (although this has recently been redefined to mean Israelis, or even those with an Israeli stamp in their passport).

Bibles are not allowed in Saudi Arabia, never mind the Torah.

All public worship is forbidden unless it is Islam. There are no synagogues.

There are certainly no Jews in anything resembling a Saudi parliament.

No Jewish schools (as there are in Iran), or newspapers, or libraries, or hospitals (again, as there are in Iran).

Bush/McCain v Obama:

So the question should be, I think, would we rather have a President who will sit down and talk to the Iranians, with dignity and conviction, and tell them that they have some very stark choices to make, or a President who invites the likes of the Saudi king to his farm and walks with him hand in hand?

I have heard McCain making a lot of threatening noise concerning Iran – but, as yet (so far as I am aware), he has been silent on the appalling, racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American, dictatorial joke that is Saudi Arabia. And he doesn’t even have to concern himself with his financial legacy. Walking out on his first dedicated wife and marrying a millionaire has taken care of that department.

Condemnation of Saudi Arabia for what it is – a primitive, feudal, stone-age theocracy – is deafening in its silence.

Perhaps Obama will break that silence. But I won’t hold my breath. I expect many of his Congressional supporters would have too much to lose. So much for change!!

Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

When we consider the whole business in context, maybe the United States is preparing to attack Iran at the behest of the Saudis rather than the Israelis – perhaps Israel is the cover? Saudi Arabia, after all, would not want to be seen again (as in Gulf War I), to be calling on its investment in American politicians and business for its protection.

Why sacrifice Saudi lives when you can get those beholden to you in the US to sacrifice American lives?

Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

I haven’t checked, but I seem to remember that 15 of the 19 ‘martyrs’ on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia – I can’t remember where the rest were from. Were any from Iran?

Osama bin Laden is Sunni and Wahabi – the Saudi brand of Islam. As I understand it, the wife of one of the US Saudi embassy officials actually gave money to one of the hijackers (for reasons, apparently, totally unconnected to the hijacking – if only the British Embassy officials were as generous!).

The madras’s (forgive my spelling – I can’t be bothered getting the spelling for such things correct) around the world (and I know from personal experience) are almost exclusively Saudi sponsored – those preaching jihad, that is.

The only reason that bin Laden is not now dead is that he was entertaining ‘royalty’ from Gulf countries when we could have taken him out – the Gulf countries we are bending over backwards to appease even to this day.

Have the Saudis not evicted US forces from their soil?? Perhaps not that newsworthy!!

As I recall, but I may again be wrong, the Saudis have been sponsoring terror against Israel for decades, and rewarding, as Saddam did, suicide bombers. Many ‘fighters’ in Iraq are Saudi – or perhaps I am wrong about that too!!

At the moment, OPEC (which the Saudis pretty much control) is messing us around with oil production – no doubt secretly reveling in our predicament.

If one visits Iran, then Saudi Arabia, you would find that Iran reflects our way of life much more than the Saudi dictatorship does.

Which all makes me wonder whether, in the final analysis, it may be the Saudis we should not be talking to, rather the Iranians. Personally, I think the average Iranian is far more susceptible to reason than the average Saudi – they just don’t seem to control as many of our politicians and money as the Saudis do. And they are more circumspect when it comes to their intention to seek the destruction of Israel (that sentiment, after all, originated in Arabia).

No doubt I am wrong about all this – although, if I recall, the Saudis have been the main proponents for the demise of the Israeli state for the last 60 years. Perhaps money speaks louder than words?

Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

Obama’s belief that he can simply sit down with dictators and “talk with them” is an extension of this personalization of politics. In the same way that the demos believe that Bush (Bush the person, that is) is somehow responsible for all evil, so Obama (with some smooth words) can make the world good again.

Of course politics is predicated on debate and disagreement (and at some point, ideally, compromise). Hence Obama’s “apolitical” political campaign will receive a serious jolt when he runs into the republicans, who are fully aware that their candidate must win on ideas, and not soothing words. Look for the demos twin guns which prevent debate (and thus ensure “niceness”), sexism and racism, to be swiftly redirected at McCain.

What has been an interesting effect of this “politics of niceness,” is how those “nicely inclined” deal with dissent: they suppress it. Since politics is about disagreement and niceness isn’t, to preserve the politics of niceness you have to eliminate those who aren’t nice–instead of arriving at a compromise. This is what has generated all the tut-tutting over Hillary Clinton’s persistant campaign. While Hillary has hardly been the cutthroat she is portrayed as being in the media, she has been sufficiently disagreeable to make the Obama people feel she is “not being nice.” Hence for the “good of the party” (forget about the rules of the election) she is being encouraged to simply quit.

What has made the primary election between Hillary and Obama so interesting–and boring–is that both candidates have been able to use the politics of niceness to prevent any serious discussion of their differences. The result has been an obsession with the personal life of each candidate and endless psychoanalyzing of what they presumably will do once in office. Rather than force O and H to clearly define, for instance, Iraq policy both candidates are permitted to simply bash Bush–as if this really said anything about a specific policy. Troop withdrawals? Hardly a word!

One final point. I think the reason so many (generally white) yuppies love Obama is because he enables you to be “in dissent,” without really being in dissent about much in particular. To be “in dissent” about something in particular (a la Hillary) means potentially alienating people socially. SImply being “in dissent” vis a vis the personalities Bush and Cheny is both fashionable and really not saying much in particular. Obama-esque “dissent” is thus kosher for the work place, just like MTV.