Iran’s anti-Semitism makes it the greatest threat to Jews

[King_David]

By Colbert I. King, Published: August 3

Blame it on my upbringing, or what I learned in school, or what I saw when I visited the Dachau concentration camp in 1968. The Holocaust was the most evil event of the 20th century.

So it is abhorrent to me that a government in today’s world would advocate a repeat of that horror. And it is almost beyond belief that the rest of the world would hear such an outrage and look the other way.

I am referring, of course, to the leaders of today’s Iran and the global ho-hum response to the most virulent form of state-sponsored anti-Semitism since Nazi Germany.

I say this as a great-grandson of slaves, as the son of parents whose potential was stifled by unrelenting racism, as a man whose youth was stymied by Jim Crow and racial prejudice, as a father who aches with anger and sorrow that he has failed to give his children and grandchildren an America that will not regard their skin color as a blemish on their humanity.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/colbert-king-irans-anti-semitism-makes-it-the-greatest-threat-to-jews/2012/08/03/75126d28-dcfa-11e1-af1d-753c613ff6d8_story.html

[oberliner]

1. This is great

No BS weaseling nonsense trying to explain away the obvious anti-semitism in those quotes from the Iranian leadership.

Maybe he can talk to Juan Cole.

[Ken Burch]

2. Missile attacks can't do anything to stop that, though.

And Israel would lose any right to ask for peace if it launched them.

The rhetoric needs to be denounced, and everybody already does denounce(as far as I can see).

But missile attacks would cause the deaths of innocent civilians and give the hardliners even more of a pretext to crack down on the Iranian democracy movement.

Such attacks would also inevitably produce an Iranian counterattack of some sort, and then lead to a shooting war, perhaps involving both the U.S. and Russia.

The result of such a war could never be a democratic, secular Iran.

Finally, the Holocaust, singular evil that it was, was not the work of Iranians or Muslims. It was the work of European Christians.

[holdencaufield]

3. Who said anything about missile attacks? NT

The subject is Iranian state-sponsored antisemitism.

[Ken Burch]

7. The whole point of going on about the Iranian government in this context, though

is to push for missile strikes.

[holdencaufield]

9. Is it?

Pointing out that Iranian state-sponsored antisemitism exists is incitement to attack?

Tell me, would you classify pointing to Aryan Brotherhood antisemitism as an invitation to physically assault them?

Are you in favour of ignoring all forms of antisemitism so as not to risk harm to the anti-Semites? Or is it only Iranian antisemitism that needs to be ignored?

[Ken Burch]

10. I don't wish to avoid harm to the Iranian government itself

or to soft-pedal antisemitism...I'm as opposed to that as anybody.

My concern was about the ordinary people of Iran...and about avoiding a larger confrontation that would harm a lot of other people, including Israelis.

[holdencaufield]

11. Interesting set up here.

Yes, the Iranian government (presumably made up of Iranian people and not Lithuanians) is rabidly antisemitic.

Yes, the same Iranian government openly calls for the destruction of Israel and (not to put too fine a point on it) Jewish interests around the world (everyone believes this except Juan Cole)

Yes, the same Iranian government is spending like a drunken yuppie on acquiring medium range missiles and nuclear warheads to put on them.

But -- if we acknowledge these things or (G-d forbid) do anything about them -- we are only hurting poor, innocent, Iranian people -- who, again presumably, love the Jews, just want to be friends with Israel, are embarrassed by their own government's calls to eradicate the same, and don't support their country's missile and nuclear weapons program.

So -- the only course of action open to Israel is to ignore the government of Iran until it goes away (either Iran or Israel). After all -- the innocent people of Iran can't be held responsible for any threats to Jews or Israel -- only their government. And we can't possibly hurt their government without harming the poor innocent Iranians.

Yea -- that works for me.

[Ken Burch]

12. Then it's enough to denounce the Iranian regime for that.

What I'm saying is that it can't be a justification for a military attack...especially since most of the people who'd be killed in the attack would be innocent civilians. And such an attack couldn't actually lead to a better Iranian government.

Also, in case you've forgotten, Iran isn't exactly a democracy, so no, you CAN'T hold the Iranian people responsible for what Ahmadinejad and his regime do, any more than the rhetoric of the Soviet leadership could ever have justified a U.S. nuclear first strike on Moscow.

Only the Iranian government themselves should have to suffer. The Iranian people can't do anything about the situation because there's no chance of them being able to bring the regime down. It would be immoral to kill Iranian civilians over the shit their government spews.

And you've proved your point with my last post...the purpose of ratcheting up the pressure here is to justify U.S. or Israeli missile strikes on Iran, even though it's already clear that such strikes would mainly(if only) hit innocent people and clearly wouldn't help anything.

[holdencaufield]

13. Three things...

1. There is a common truism that people get the government they deserve. That is true both of democracies and non-democracies. There are 3.5 million civilian firearms in Iran today (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org). I submit if the people of Iran were THAT oppressed by their government that the civilian populace could make a pretty good showing at trying to take their country back from the government you claim so diametrically opposes their sentiments concerning Jews.

In fact, if -- as you claim -- the Iranian oligarchy is unsupported by the civilian populace, the Iranian military -- made of of members of the general population (half a million active and nearly 2 million reservists) -- would join with their fellow Iranians in overthrowing what you claim is a small elite of government officials who are the only Iranians hostile to Israel and Jews.

2. How do you propose to disarm a hostile Iranian government with zero civilian casualties. You are effectively endorsing the use of Iranian civilians as human shields for their government.

3. If the Iranian government chooses to place their military facilities in close proximity to civilian populations then they -- and only they -- are responsible for any civilian casualties. If Israel is forced to make such an attack on a hostile Iranian military asset, she will do so with the minimum loss of life possible (as she did in 1981 in Iraq -- one French civilian technician killed or in 2007 Syrian -- 10 North Korean technicians were killed but it is unknown if they were civilian or military).


And, for the record, there are many legitimate justifications -- moral and legal -- for a military attack. Not the least of which would be to preempt a nuclear strike from Iran.

[LeftishBrit]

15. I emphatically disagree with the view that people 'get the government they deserve', especially in

non-democratic countries.

People in Iran did try to oppose Ahmadinejad. It did not work - at least so far.

It is not easy to depose a dictator. If people do take up arms against their government, they risk death - and often they risk torture; they risk harm to other civilians; and even if such a revolution succeeds, they may not have full control over the ultimate result, and it may be long-term civil war and instability and/or 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'. This doesn't mean that revolution is NEVER justified or NEVER works. Some of the countries of the 'Arab spring' will end up at least somewhat better than before; some may not. And I hope Ahmadinejad does end up deposed in favour of someone better. But that doesn't mean that ordinary Iranians 'deserve' him as their leader, or 'deserve' to get bombed on his account.

[holdencaufield]

16. On the complicity of the Iranian people...

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." - Albert Einstein

[LeftishBrit]

17. And this means everyone deserves to be bombed?

What about the British and American complicity over the thousands murdered in the Iraq war? What about the dictatorships in Burma or many African countries or China - should we be bombing the people there?

Inevitably any action, even diplomatic or certainly economic sanctions, will affect the ordinary people of a country to some extent; but there is no reason to say they all deserve it.

I have FREQUENTLY objected to suggestions that all Jews, or even all Israelis, should be blamed or punished for anything done by the Israeli government, or even by some random Israeli - I consider that as highly antisemitic. I don't think it's acceptable to broadbrush the citizens of any country. Especially one where they are very likely to be killed if they protest!

[Ken Burch]

18. Well put, as always.

n/t.

[Ken Burch]

20. You started by insisting that these denounciations of Iran were NOT incitement to attack.

And you ended BY inciting to attack.

[holdencaufield]

21. Tell me where I said that?

I'm not inciting anything.

[Ken Burch]

22. In the last sentence of post #13 and in your misuse of the Einstein quote

Einstein was talking about Hitler and the Holocaust...the situation with Iran has NOTHING in common with that and Einstein would not support attacks on Iran...he was for peace and reconciliation, not saber-rattling.

At the end of his life, Einstein regarded the development atomic bomb as a horrible mistake. He would have no use for a bloodthirsty maniac like Netanyahu.

It's the Likud government that is the true danger to Israel's survival, my friend. THEY are the ones pushing for a completely pointless and unnecessary confrontation.

[King_David]

23. You speak to Einstein in a seance?

Not only do you mystically know what all of us on this board think,but now you can channel the thoughts of the dead?

[Ken Burch]

25. I know what Einstein devoted his later life to...and that was peace and reconciliation.

There's no possible way he'd back Netanyahu. How could he possibly lower himself to defending a maniac? With all he said about the evils of nuclear weaponry, can you really argue that this time he'd say "but this ONE case is different"?

The reality is, any attack on Iran would almost certainly lead to a regional war involving the U.S. AND Russia. Could you at least agree that that would be the human race's ultimate nightmare scenario?

If we actually ended up with every city in the Middle East turned into Hiroshima and Nagasaki(including Jerusalem and Tel Aviv), which is entirely possible if Bibi gets his way here, would you say that that was ok because Ahmadinejad lost?

[holdencaufield]

24. If Einstein...

... only meant what he said as an indictment of GERMANS who stood by while their government perpetrated evil -- then why did he simply not say so? Einstein was a pretty clever chap and people typically aren't so quick to reinterpret him. I'm going to conclude he meant to say what he said precisely as he said it -- to be an indictment of passive acceptance of evil in general.

You're arguing two different things here. I don't -- and I haven't seen anyone else argue -- that Iran should be attacked because of their rabid antisemitism. Antisemites are as common as flies at a barbeque and people are entitled to their opinions. I don't even think Iran should be attacked for making threats. At this point in time, their threats are impotent. Don't worry about people who want to kill you -- worry about people who can.

However, on a very different topic from the OP, which you originally raised, if said rabidly antisemitic state has a viable nuclear weapons or is close to developing it in addition to overt threats to use same nuke -- any state threatened (not just Israel, but Iraq and and the Arab Gulf States) has the right (legal and moral) to preemptively defend themselves from said state by disrupting the development of that weapon.

[LeftishBrit]

14. Not necessarily at all

Frankly that reminds me of the concept that people who criticized Bush and the Iraq war must be sympathetic with the terrorists.

One can criticize Iran's (or any country's) leadership without wishing to bomb them!

[Ken Burch]

19. Yes, Iran's leaders CAN be criticized-but I think that, in this tense moment, those who do

have an obligation, at the same time, to oppose military action AGAINST Iran, since that action could not be guaranteed to have any positive effects at all, and since that action would very likely lead to an expanded regional conflict that would involve the United States AND Russia(a scenario that could easily lead to World War III).

Netanyahu's insane demands for war have to be opposed by all decent people...he's being JUST as reckless as his supporters claim Ahmadinejad is being.

Nothing Iran's leaders are doing or saying justifies putting the survival of entire planet at risk.

A military strike against Iran would make any future peace in the Middle East effectively impossible.

[Shaktimaan]

26. Well, that's just absurd.

A military strike against Iran would make any future peace in the Middle East effectively impossible.

Not only is the mideast famously resistant to any sort of predictions, especially those involving warfare, but this one in particular has no real precedent or evidence to support it. Realistically you have absolutely no idea what kind of impact (if any) a military strike on Iran would have on eventual peace opportunities.

The fact of the matter is that doing nothing is as much of a deliberate act as striking Iran. Currently I do not support such a strike, but in the future, depending on the viability of Iran gaining nuclear weapons in the near future, I could change my mind. A nuclear-armed Iran would have an enormous impact on the future of the Middle East, and almost certainly any long-term peace possibilities. Preventing that from happening could very well benefit the goals of peace and security more than allowing it to happen.

Once Iran gained nukes then any possibilities for Israel to escalate conflicts with Hezbollah would be clipped short. This would obviously empower them, possibly to the extent of starting a large scale fight by launching rockets, especially if encouraged to by Iran. If Iran followed up by stating an intention to support Lebanon militarily to prevent an Israeli invasion and stationed troops along their border with Israel then suddenly Israel would face the conundrum of either attacking the troops of a nuclear armed enemy, or bearing the brunt of thousands of rockets landing in the top third of their country for an indefinite period of time.

Nothing Iran's leaders are doing or saying justifies putting the survival of entire planet at risk.

Not yet. But they might. Besides the fact that nothing Israel could do would put the survival of the planet at risk. Come on! You do not know how Iran would respond if Israel bombed their nuclear facilities. They could very easily do nothing. Iran did nothing. Syria did nothing. And you don't know that a single innocent civilian would be killed either. Israel's not bombing a city but a nuclear plant.

since that action could not be guaranteed to have any positive effects at all

Nothing in life is ever guaranteed. All we can ever do is weigh our options and make our best guess.

[Ken Burch]

27. It's not wise to base any policy calculation, especially one involving the use of force

on the assumption that it's a realistic possibility that the country you strike will do nothing in response. It's reckless to assume(as I am fairly sure Netanyahu assumes)that because there was no blowback on the Israeli strikes on Iraq and Syria, that it's therefore even moderately likely that there'd be no blowback this time.

And why do people keep assume that backing off from the "hit Iran" rhetoric equates to doing nothing? Why assume that confrontation and brinkmanship are the only possible ways to deal with this situation? That wasn't even necessary in the Cuban Missile Crisis(a brief period of totally unnecessary government-inflicted mortal terror that ended with the U.S. agreeing to what Khruschev had freaking proposed in the first place).

Diplomatic efforts are still underway. What is the harm of giving those efforts a real chance to succeed? And what possible advantage is there in simply assuming(as I also think Netanyahu does)that such talks shouldn't be given a real chance? And why isn't it possible that Iran could actually be developing nuclear technology for the same reason the pre-1979 Iranian government did so...simply as a power source for the people(and I ask that, btw, as an opponent of nuclear power)?

Iran is allied with Russia and nothing is likely to change that. There we can assume that Russia would never allow an unprovoked attack on Iran (and it goes without saying that a missile strike aimed at the nuclear facilities would have to be considered unprovoked) to go unchallenged. Any Russian response would very likely be military. If Russia got involved militarily, this would force the U.S. to get involved militarily. Both superpowers still have insane numbers of nuclear warheads. What could ever justify even the possibility of those warheads being launched? Would you want to live in whatever world would exist after that? Obviously, it's questionable at best whether anything would remain of Israel in such a world.

And of course nothing in life is guaranteed...but that doesn't mean it's no big deal to talk openly about taking the most damaging and potentially lethal choice possible.

Those who are sane would always put the preservation of human life first, before any "strategic" objective.

I take the side of keeping my grandchildren, and yours alive...and the grandchildren of everyone in Iran AND Israel alive, to say nothing of those in the rest of the world. Any decent human being would have to agree that nothing, anywhere, could possibly be more important than that. Once more than half the world was wiped out, nothing like happiness, beauty or meaning could ever exist again.

If nothing else, wouldn't you at least agree that it's time for Bibi to back the fuck off on the berserk saberrattling rhetoric(and the totally inappropriate "it is now 1938" meme)?. He'll end up destroying his own country if he doesn't, whatever might happen to the world.

[holdencaufield]

28. I like this...

"A military strike against Iran would make any future peace in the Middle East effectively impossible."

But four outright military invasions of and a 30 year campaign of suicide bombing and near daily rocket attacks on Israel has no effect on a future peace in the Middle East.

I guess you just believe Israelis are so much more tolerant and forgiving than their neighbours, right?

[Ken Burch]

29. I give Israel's leaders, in the past, credit for being what they said they were

Can you at least admit that no further good is going to be served by Bibi continuing to push for missile strikes? That he's making the situation worse than it has to be? If nothing else, would you at least agree that Bibi should shut the hell up about all of this at least until the election's over, since a missile strike before the election would guarantee an Obama defeat(and the defeat of everything you supposedly care about in THIS country)?

There are serious diplomatic efforts underway here. Why can't they be given a real chance?

A missile strike on Tehran would likely kill thousands of innocent Iranian civilians. Do you really think those people would have that coming just because they haven't succeeded in overthrowing a heavily armed police state yet? It's not like Iranians are complicit in Ahmadinejad's regime in the way Germans in the Thirties were complicit in Hitler's-Hitler actually won a free election-Ahmadinejad won a rigged vote, and just barely.

It's not like the people of Iran owed it to Israel to keep the Shah in power, y'know. Doing that would have meant giving up on any home of democracy there forever. Overthrowing him was their only chance-and they couldn't know what the mullahs would end up doing.

[holdencaufield]

30. "since a missile strike before the election would guarantee an Obama defeat"

Really? Do a lot of Iranians vote in the US elections? Or, am I somehow not able to appreciate your ability to predict the future? Perhaps you can explain the cause and effect of just such an outcome?

"A missile strike on Tehran would likely kill thousands of innocent Iranian civilians."

Do you genuinely not know that Iran's nuclear facilities aren't located in downtown Tehran? Or, are you just assuming Israelis are phenomenally bad shots?

[Ken Burch]

31. A missile strike on Iran would help Romney

There's no way it can boost or even preserve Obama's vote. Why the hell would it? It would be the end of any real possibility for the kind of world Democrats and progressives want. Peace couldn't come after it. Certainly no one anywhere would possibly celebrate, since there'd be nothing TO celebrate.

Only hard-core Romney types would be stoked by such an act. Progressives of all stripes would find it sickening.

Pretty-much nobody who wants LGBT rights, stronger unions, feminism, or social justice of any sort is going to stand and cheer when thousands of innocent Iranian civilians get vaporized.

Especially since, unlike the Iraqi and Syrian strikes pro-attack zealots like to cite, it's absurdly unlikely to think that there'd be no counterattack and that Russia would stand aside and do nothing.

A potential World War III situation a week before an election is extremely unlikely to produce a progressive, humanistic election result.

If you want missile strikes on Iran, you want Romney to win. Progressive, humane, life-loving people, the sort who'd back Obama, could never cheer such an act and couldn't possibly still think voting was of much importance...especially if we're all hiding in freaking bomb shelters on election day(and you know that's a realistic possiblity of such strikes).

There's nothing at all worth risking that...especially since such a scenario couldn't possibly even be good for Israel(assuming Israel wasn't reduced to a heap of smoking ash by Russian missiles in response).

Isn't it better to choose life and the future instead?

And is "how do you know?" really the response a sane person makes to the suggestion by others than an insanely reckless course of action be chosen?

Is it wise to bet the world's future on the outside chance that unprovoked attacks WON'T lead to a harsh response?

[holdencaufield]

32. "...especially if we're all hiding in freaking bomb shelters on election day"

You have a bomb shelter?

[Ken Burch]

36. no...but people would find someplace to hide

if it looked like we'd been pushed into ANOTHER Cuban Missile Crisis-type situation.

[holdencaufield]

33. Are you genuinely unaware...

... that Israel has successfully taken out two nuclear weapons development facilities in the past 30 years (one in Iraq and the other in Syria) with minimal loss of life and somehow the world has yet to become the post-apocalyptic nightmare that you predict?

As much as I love (from a pure entertainment perspective) your Nostradamus-style predictions of disaster and doom. History doesn't actually support any of your scenarios.

People, such as yourself, have been predicting an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities has been imminent for at least two election cycles so far (going back to 2004) and it has yet to come about. Personally, it sounds like wishful thinking on your part.

[Ken Burch]

34. I know about those strikes...we all do...

Are you really going to assume that Iran hasn't learned from those events?

There's no good reason to think the consequences of attacking Iran would be just as benign as the consequences of the attacks on Syria and Iraq. Why even take the risk that it might be? How is keeping the idea of missile strikes alive good for anything at all?

If nothing else, it's suicidally risky to gamble on Putin NOT responding to an attack on Iran with an attack on Israel or possibly even the U.S. Why would anybody think Putin would just let a military assault on of his closest regional allies totally slide?

And no, I DON'T want such a thing...it's disgusting to imply that I would and you know it...but the worst way to prevent it is to ENCOURAGE Netanyahu to keep demanding such a strike. He needs to be denounced for continuing to stir up shit on this. It's insanely demagogic of him.

Everybody who self-identifies as "pro-Israel" owes it to the world to tell Bibi to shut the fuck up and let this die down. He's acting like a lunatic.

[Shaktimaan]

35. Actually, this one is easy...

If nothing else, it's suicidally risky to gamble on Putin NOT responding to an attack on Iran with an attack on Israel or possibly even the U.S. Why would anybody think Putin would just let a military assault on of his closest regional allies totally slide?

No, it isn't. It's an extremely safe bet. At this point in time everyone has accepted that there is a very real possibility of Israel hitting Iranian nuclear facilities with tactical missile strikes. I do not think it is extremely LIKELY, but the possibility definitely exists, and I don't even really think that it is an outrageously remote possibility at that. Would you agree with that statement?

If so, and if you truly think that Iran is a critical enough ally of Russia's that they would respond militarily on their behalf then a massively important piece of your puzzle is missing at this point in time. Namely, Russia has neglected to WARN anyone that an attack against Iran would be met by Russian retaliation. There is no conceivable reason that Russia would enact a policy like this without making a HUMUNGOUS fucking deal about it. Because, obviously, there is no point in having a deterrent unless people know about it. Having Russia keep mum about a game-changing policy like this serves no point whatsoever. What Russia wants is for Iran to NOT be attacked in the first place. They have no stake in jumping in after the fact to disintegrate any nation that dared attack their ally. For this reason alone we can state categorically that there is a 0% chance of Russia doing what you suggest.

Beyond that, they haven't voiced this policy as a possibility because they would never, ever have it under circumstances similar to the present. Why would they? We aren't discussing an all out war with Iran but merely striking some of their military facilities. I would say it's a toss up as to whether Iran itself even launches a significant response. Why would Russia?

Why would anybody think Putin would just let a military assault on of his closest regional allies totally slide?

Because that is what would be in the best interests of his country. Can you outline a reasonable scenario explaining why he WOULD respond? And can you please explain what in the world could possibly entice him to respond to a limited Israeli attack against Iran by starting a freaking war with America?! Because that might be the most far-fetched thing that I can possibly imagine. How would an act like that possibly benefit Russia? Stop and think about this for a second... do you honestly believe that Russia might really have a policy that involves starting a war with the US, yet they have neglected to mention it to anyone in the hopes of avoiding it?

By the way, Russia never attacked America when they were at the height of their power and America actually invaded Communist allies of theirs, yet they are now, at the nadir of their strength and influence, going to initiate an unprovoked, direct conflict with us over Israel sending a few missiles against Iran?!!!! I refuse to believe that you actually think this is possible.

In this scenario of yours, has Putin been brainwashed by Christian extremists who seek the end of civilization to instigate the Rapture or something? Is he a robot mimic sent by aliens as part of some intergalactic reality TV show where they kidnap the leaders of a planet and then make the nations fight each other? Or maybe has one of Putin's lovers cut off his penis in a fit of jealous rage and now he feels like he must overcompensate by sending missiles against America as a proxy for conventional intercourse. I dunno, these all seem about as equally likely to me as your theory existing just on its own.

Everybody who self-identifies as "pro-Israel" owes it to the world to tell Bibi to shut the fuck up and let this die down. He's acting like a lunatic.

Right! Especially since Putin would probably respond by infecting a legion of Russian black-ops squirrels with rabies, outfitting them with tiny backpacks full of explosives and sending them over, en masse, to overthrow the state of Tennessee via suicide bombing suburban neighborhoods. Any housepets who manage to survive the onslaught would become infected with the weaponized version of rabies Russia has been developing. This whole scenario might very well end with a state congresswoman eating the governor's face before anyone noticed the foam dribbling down on her pantsuit. We must ask ourselves if such a scenario is really worth it? After all, Bibi sure has been acting like a lunatic lately.

[King_David]

37. LOL

[King_David]

4. You reply to the wrong OP ?

[Ken Burch]

8. No. Just want to avoid

having this be used as an excuse to harm innocent Iranian civilians.

Iran's leaders have said some horrible things.

But pushing for a confrontation isn't going to help anybody.

Bibi needs to give the "it's now 1938" rhetoric a rest.

[oberliner]

5. Not everybody denounces the rhetoric

In fact, even on this very board, people seem to go out of their way to explain away many of them (citing translation errors or misunderstandings or what have you). Do a search and you will see what I mean.

I also don't see anything about missile attacks either in the OP or in my remarks so I am not sure why you go on about such things.

Finally, your last sentence is precisely what Iranians and Muslims ought to be able to concur with without controversy. A recent visit by a Palestinian official to Auschwitz has led to remarks questioning the veracity of the Holocaust.

[Ken Burch]

6. And those who question the Holocaust should be denounced for doing so.

n/t.