New UN chief denounces Iran for denying Holocaust, threatening Israel

[Swede]

Incoming United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told Iran on Thursday it was unacceptable to deny that the Holocaust took place or to call for Israel to be wiped off the map.

Ban was responding to a question asked at a news conference about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who since coming to power in August last year has caused an outcry by terming the Holocaust a "myth" and calling Israel a "tumor" in the Middle East.

Ahmadinejad just ended a two-day international conference on the Holocaust that was dominated by speakers who questioned the extermination of 6 million Jews by the Nazis in World War Two.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/801365.html

[cali]

1. That's an interesting

way to begin his tenure as SG. I wonder how all those who claim that
Ahmadinejad is only calling for a peaceful democratic solution to the I/P mess will react to this:

"Nor is it acceptable to call for the elimination of states or people," Ban said. "I would like to see this fundamental principle respected in both rhetoric and practice by all the members of the international community."

[Swede]

2. He must not have the same translators as those defending Ahmadinejad.

But it is an interesting start.

[bemildred]

3. It speaks well of Ban that he did this.

I'm surprised that no-one in Iran has told that little weasel to STFU yet, he is discrediting himself, and I cannot see any purpose to his endless Jew-baiting - from the standpoint of Iranian national interest - and one can see all sorts of drawbacks to it.

While there is an important distinction to be made between someone who merely hopes for your demise, and someone that means to expedite the matter himself; and although that distinction seems to generate a good deal of heat and not much light in the discussion of Ahm-an-idjit; it seems to me that he is so clearly and carefully playing the demogogue and seeking to enflame rather than enlighten, that I think one ought not to split hairs about his meaning and intent, as he clearly is not doing so, but is rather going out of his way to blur that distinction.

[pelsar]

4. what makes is to interesting...

is that the guy couldnt be any clearer in his "wishes/dreams and intentions.....yet there are those who (including here) who simply make excuses for the guy......As an israeli and a jew, its just more of the same...the difference is, hes not even playing the 67 border game and yet there are STILL those who claim "he doesnt mean it". (or hes just trying to distract the attention)


and some say "were paranoid"......or is taking a future nuclear power with a fanatic president who has openly/repeatly said is intentions and hopes are to wipe israel off the face of the earth seriously a "paranoid' thing to do?...... especially since our history has more than a few examples of just those very attempts. I would say we would have to have our collective heads in the sand to "pretend" he doesnt mean it.

[barb162]

5. It looks the like the new UN SG is taking the guy at his word

(as I do) which is a good move. Let's hope he keeps speaking out against this jerk. No excuses should be made for Ahmadinejad

[bemildred]

6. Well, the thing is, what are you going to do about it?

As far as I can tell, the answer is not much. The little weasel thinks he can do this sort of thing with impunity, inflaming his domestic audience and playing the bigshot, and from what I can tell, he is right. It's all hot air, him venting his anti-israeli crap, and various politicians viewing it all with alarm.

[The Magistrate]

7. It Seems To Me The Reason For It, My Friend, Is Two-Fold

Iraq is beginning to look like the "Bleeding Kansas" in a pending Islamic civil war between Shia and Sunni. In such a conflict, the title of leading opponent to Israel would be very valuable, as possession of it would guarantee some division in the opposing faction. The Shia being very much outnumbered over-all, this sort of 'equalizer' would be of incalculable value, and without it, or something like it, the Shia prospects for success would be poor indeed. The drive for nuclear capability, the Hezbollah engagement, and the formalization of Holocaust denial and re-iterated predictions of destruction for the Israeli state, readily fall into place as elements of a drive to secure the greatest possible prestige as the leading foe of Israel for Iran, and the Shia side of this brewing conflict.

It is clear, too, that the regime of the mullahs in Iran is not nearly so popular with its people as it would prefer, and there is a good deal of disatisfaction under the surface, particularly in the cities. But even the dissident elements share the long inculcated dislike, even hatred, for Israel, that animates the clerics and their supporters. Anti-Semitism, come to its appogee in Holocaust denial, thus serves for them one of its old Western functions, that would be familiar to any Ochrana operative, of providing a unifying object for hatred that will bleed off discontent with the ruling party, a body that cannot palliate discontent in any other way without changing its very nature.

[bemildred]

9. Probably some truth in that.

Although I think one can easily go too far in looking for reasons in these things, and counter-arguments come easily to hand, as they almost always do.

It does seem very much the case that it is about internal politics in Iran.

I am not so sure the Persian hand (vis-a-vis the Sunni powers) is a weak one, and certainly Iran's soi disant enemies have been doing all in their power to improve it for them, admittedly with the opposite intention.

[The Magistrate]

11. The Persian Hand, Mr. Mildred

Is good enough locally, but the wider the thing spreads, as an item of agitation, the poorer it becomes, till it is very poor indeed. They have an edge in total population over their neighbors, which counts for a good deal, but if radical elements in Egypt, North Africa, and Pakistan are drawn in, the balance changes sharply. A full-bore 'proxy war' in Iraq, particularly after U.S. withdrawl, will feature Sunni equivalents of the International Brigades in Spain.

[bemildred]

13. Hubris will always get you in trouble, Sir.

That would be the worry with Ahm-an-idjit, he seems to have illusions of grandeur.

[The Magistrate]

14. That It Will, My Friend

And it is an occupational hazard of high office any where and any time....

[Amused Musings]

18. One of the strange things is that Iran is

probably in the strongest position it has ever been in, and thus the elevated rhetoric. The US got rid of their two greatest enemies- Saddam and the Taliban. People for the most part hate the government except on one issue -nuclearization- which garners quite a lot of support. Anti-Semitism has been inculcated, there is no doubt, but Iranians wish that their country would spend the money spent on Hizbollah and the Palestinians back home where it is sorely needed.

[pelsar]

8. not much...

is right...there is in fact little that can be done as long as some of the major powers or ex-major powers (russia) help them along.....

at least with MAD, the russians and the us shared the same basic moral values and could trust each other within that realm ....not so with fanatic muslims, who are willing to sacrafice theirs and others (remember the iranians sending in their children to clear mine fields?) for allah.

this is a real serious problem....

[bemildred]

10. It seems to me the leaders of Iran are driven as much by self-interest

as anyone else. The notion that a MAD sort of situation would not stand up with them is contrary to all observation of their behavior. They seem quite cold and rational in their decisions, not inclined to overstep the bounds of prudence, despite the belligerent rhetoric. The Persian leaders are hardly the only loudmouths on the global scene. As I said elsewhere, I am a bit concerned that a militaristic attitude has taken root there, in the sense that they would start believing their own bullshit about invincibility and destiny to rule and that sort of bombast, but it's just a worry at this point. I am, to be candid, much more worried about Pakistan/Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia than Iran. Iran is a thorn in the side of Israel and the USA, but I see no reason to think it is going to collapse or go adventuring militarily, unless some fools attack it.

[The Magistrate]

12. That Line, Mr. Pelsar, Does Not Stretch So Far As You May Think

The Iranians had nothing on the old Soviets for ruthless expenditure of soldiery and populace in war fighting, as even a cursory examination of the Great Patriotic War will amply demonstrate.

[pelsar]

15. on the soviets...

i must plead "no more than a simplistic knowledge"......i would say i draw a line when "god' enters the picture and fanatics/extremist are using her. God has been used for almost all wars etc from the crusaders to manifest destiny etc......but when a country puts their women in ninja customes, sends their kids into mine fields, prepares suicide battalians, hang homosexuals or girls with 'big mouths"....i get the feeling that something has gone "wrong" with that country......and they're no longer using a value system that can be understood in a 'western way".

[bemildred]

16. He was not saying they share Western values.

He was saying something along the lines that tolerating high rates of military and civilian casualties is as European as cherry pie, which is true. We Western nations invented "Total War" and are the past and present masters of it.

[The Magistrate]

17. You Would Find, Sir

The works of Messers. Erikson and Beevors both interesting and illuminating. The latter writes later, and has had more access to archives: the former was a pioneer, and managed an amazingly detailed presentation from what was then available to him, including personal friendships with Soviet military historians.

In pressing this comparison, too, it is worth recalling Communism was a revolutionary movement, and these always inculcate a cult of martyrdom to some degree among their followers. Further, Communism is properly regarded, for all its atheist and ostensibly materialist character, as a sort of millenialism, and its adherents displayed habits of mind in many ways quite indistinguishable from those of religious believers.

Nonetheless, we are in agreement that at the very least a religiousity openly exhalting martyrdom does introduce a wild card into any system of deterrence, raising some degree of doubt over whether leadership on one side will prize its personal survival sufficiently that fear of their own extinction will constitute the necessary check on their aggressive action. Pure fanaticism, wholly unmixed with a desire for self aggrandizement in power, is pretty rare, and extremely rare among people who manage to attain leading roles in governing a state. Unfortunately, when confronting a theocratic state, it cannot be wholly excluded from the range of possibilities a competent planner would need to consider.