There He Goes Again!
Oh, that wacky Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday told delegates at an international conference questioning the Holocaust that Israel’s days were numbered.
Ahmadinejad, who has sparked international outcry by referring to the killing of six million Jews in World War Two as a “myth” and calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map”, launched another verbal attack on the Jewish state.
“Thanks to people’s wishes and God’s will the trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is downwards and this is what God has promised and what all nations want,” he said.
“Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out,” he added.
His words received warm applause from delegates at the Holocaust conference, who included ultra-Orthodox anti-Israel Jews and European and American writers who argue the Holocaust was either fabricated or exaggerated.
Any of the usual Ahmadinejad apologists want to explain this one away? Hey, ISG – is this the guy you want us to reason with over Iraq’s fate?…
We negotiated successfully with Stalin, Kruschev, and Mao, each of whom was equally a nutjob and had the world’s two largest armies to boot.
There was a news report a few days ago about a student strike in Iran. As you know, the Ayatollah’s revolution started with students also. Let’s suppose that we met with Iran. We have common interests in Afghanistan — maybe a deal can be struck there. But let’s suppose no deals and no progress. Do you think it would make a difference in the eyes of Iranian students that we met with their leaders?
I’m dying to know what common interests the mullahs have with the US in Afghanistan. Also, whether the negotiations mentioned were “successfull” is problematic to say the least. In any event, the Iranians have demonstrated that they follow the Quranic admonition that negotiating with the infidel is tactical only and that no obligation is to obtain on the believer to take it seriously otherwise. Not surprisingly, this is precisely the doctrinal position on negotiation with free peoples that the Commies subscribed to. That this is still beguiling to a certain segment of the American population is a dreary commentary, to say the least, but typical of the Leftist affliction that has cost the US and the world so dearly, so often and so predictably.
Peter, let me turn the question around – do you think it would matter to the Israelis that we thought Ahmadinejad was a man we could do business with?
1) The conflict between Iran and the Taliban is deeper than the fact that Iranians are Shia and Taliban are Sunni. When eight Iranians were killed by the Taliban in 1998, there was nearly an Afghan-Iranian war. Because Iran and Afghanistan share a common border, Iran would far prefer a strong Karzai government than the current situation, where there is territory in Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan which is controlled by the Taliban. Our common interest is reducing the power of the Taliban.
2) Negotiations with the Russians and Chinese were successful in averting a nuclear war in the Cuban missile crisis, fighting the Nazis, and establishing diplomatic and trade relations with China, among other examples. It was because Nixon went to China to speak to our arch-enemy that Wal-Mart shoppers everywhere can buy their underwear for $1.99.
3) I don’t think that Israel, or any other country, should have veto power over which countries we speak with. We have had unstinting support of Israel for many years, and our allegiance to their interests is unquestioned. In any event, I have no doubt that the Israelis continually talk to Iran (as well as every other country in the Middle East) through back channels.
You think the Israelis are talking to Iran through back channels? Can you provide a citation for that?…
In any event, Peter, one would presume that we would talk to Iran and Syria about something in particular. Can you tell me what that something might be? I’m at a loss as to what ‘help’ they can offer us in Iraq…
To paraphrase Dennis Miller: I’m not a fan of any of their previous work, and I’m not looking forward to the new s*it…
How is being against apartheid translate into a desire of genocide against white people?
It does not. Opposing Zionism manifested as a political system (Israel) is not the same as a desire to commit a holocaust against Jews. Israel intentionally equates the two for propaganda purposes, just like it portrays any criticism of its policies as anti-Semitism.
I dont understand this passionate attachment for Israel at the expense of our interest. This passionate attachment for a nation like the state of Israel is what George Washington warned us about in his farewell address in 1796. It is scary how true those words are today:
“…In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation”.
If only we had wise leadership today as we did 200 years ago, we wont be in the mess we are in today.
I am certain that Israel is talking to Iran and Syria, although I cannot prove it. I have Israeli friends, I’ve been to the Middle East, and I have (I think) a pretty good sense as to how they operate. It’s an exaggeration to say that everyone in the Middle East talks to everyone else, but it’s not far from the truth. Israel has perhaps the world’s best spy agency (Mossad) and their reach is extensive and worldwide. The Middle East is filled with shifting alliances, and things are never what they seem to be. I realize that my speculation falls well short of rigorous proof, but nonetheless I am certain that Israel has a hotline to all of the capitals in the Middle East, just as we had one to Moscow.
I don’t know what help either Iran or Syria would offer, nor do I see any reason why they would be inclined to bail us out. Iran has been the chief beneficiary of our misadventure in Iraq, and both countries stand to benefit from the turmoil in Iraq and the sight of 140,000 American troops bogged down there. Syria has benefited at least to the extent that the government has stayed in power and Assad has not been deposed in a coup, which would be more likely if we had more leverage in the region. All dictators aspire to be like Pinochet and die in their beds. I am not a Pollyanna and I have modest expectations for any discussions which would occur. However, I think there are several compelling reasons to start a dialogue.
First, while our interests may be divergent from both countries, this does not mean that we have no interests in common. Iran needs technology and expertise for their oil industry and their infrastructure. Syria would benefit from increasing trade with us from their current negligible levels. We have leverage to bear which we are not using, because we refuse to talk with them. Diplomacy is the art of discerning what an opposing country’s needs are and then using leverage to influence their behavior. Talking to odious regimes is not tantamount to endorsing what they do. It is the recognition that successful discussions will find areas of common ground which can be built upon, hopefully as the start of a process which leads to finding more areas of commonality, as happened with Maoist China. Those talks started with an exchange of ping pong teams, and we are now their largest trading partner.
Secondly, as a matter of general principle we ought to be talking to other countries which we have problems with. Unusual and expected things can happen when adversaries meet, as we learned from Nixon and Mao, as well as from Reagan and Gorbachev. At the risk of sounding like a lily-livered liberal pantywaist, I think that human chemistry is an essential element of all relationships, be they economic, personal, or diplomatic. You never know what will happen when leaders meet or negotiators sit kneecap to kneecap. I have told people who work for me not to avoid doing something merely because you are afraid of failure. You will certainly fail if you don’t try, but you may surprise yourself and succeed if you give it an honest effort.
Thirdly, we will never win the fight against terrorists by military force alone (or even primarily by the use of force). This is a hearts-and-minds struggle if ever there was one. There will always be people who would like to attack us – there is nothing we can do about that. However, if we can minimize the number of people who will strap on a suicide vest – and, equally important, if we can create allies in the Middle East and elsewhere who will help us and provide intelligence to us – then we have made a huge stride towards a sustainable peace. We are currently perceived as an arrogant bully which is uninterested in hearing what anyone else has to say. There is considerable justification for this belief. Opening a dialogue – even an unsuccessful one – is the first step in restoring the high regard which we formerly enjoyed around the world.
Finally, the current approach is simply not working, and there is no reason to think that continuing our strategy will work in the future. If your team is down in the fourth quarter, it might be time to throw away the playbook and try something new.
Peter, you have explained your position well and in depth, and though I disagree with much of it, I always appreciate the effort you put forth.
We do have a new playbook, however, and though I hate to get my hopes up, I see real signs of life in Iraq with this new idea of putting together a new coalition dedicated to isolating Sadr (an idea, by the way, that I first saw suggested by the good fellows at Iraq the Model)…
Hasan, you’ve set the bar a little high there. True, George W. Bush is no George Washington, but then, only one president (Lincoln) ever reached those heights…
In any event, Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite, or the word has no meaning…you do realize, don’t you, that he said these words at a conference dedicated to Holocaust revisionism?…
Hasan, good points. Now try juxtaposing Palestine with ‘nation’! Everything GW said is true in the case of Palestine. Moderate Palestinians are a) killed off or b) mariginalized to the point that they shut up and keep their thots to themselves. When not attacking their boogeyman, they are killing each other. Like Golda Meir once said, there will be peace when the Palestinians love their children more than martydom.
Until then, the Palestinians are simply the walking dead. What’s sad is the other Arabs don’t even give a sh*t about the Palestinians other than as pawns in their own games of intrigue.