SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Another Way To Deal With Ahmadinejad

THE SPINE DECEMBER 19, 2006

Another Way To Deal With Ahmadinejad

BY TNR STAFF

Maybe you didn't notice it on the weekend. But I posted a small item, "Ahmadinejad and Genocide", on The Spine. It was about a Friday morning meeting in New York at which I spoke that was also addressed by Alan Dershowitz, the former Canadian minister of justice Irwin Cotler, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, Congressman Charlie Rangel and Professor Ruth Wedgewood, a very learned legal scholar at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. The purpose of this gathering was to mobilize international sentiment to get Mahmoud Ahmadinejad indicted at the International Court of Justice in the Hague for inciting to genocide (against Israel and Jews), as stipulated in the Geneva Convention to which Iran is a signatory. That was before the ayatollahs were in charge. The Shah governed then, and in retrospect he was a benign, even liberal and enlightened, monarch when you compare him to the bloodthirsty men who have replaced him.

It's just possible that the Iranians have gotten a bit wary of
Ahmadinejad. The results of elections to the Assembly of Experts,
reported by Nazila Fathi in this morning's New York Times, show that voters weren't so entranced by their president's behavior. His candidate (and mentor), Ayatollah Muhammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, which is a mouthful, was roundly and soundly defeated by former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, also a mouthful, whom the Times calls a "pragmatic politician." Not so fast. On November 9, 2006, Argentina ordered an international warrant for Rafsanjani's arrest in the bombing of the 1994 Buenos Aires Jewish Community Center in which 85 people were killed. This crime was apparently the act of a very nasty duo, Hezbollah and the holy Islamic Government of Iran. (Just Google "Rafsanjani" and "Argentina" and you'll see plenty.) Why did the Times not mention that fact of Rafsanjani's life? Go know.

It will be hard to get an International Court indictment of Ahmadinejad. (The Argentine warrant for Rafsanjani took more than a decade.) But there is one move that is simpler and more efficient. It's what I suggested at the gathering, and the proposal was endorsed by Professor Wedgewood, who is not only learned but also practical. It can be done government by government in the way that it was done against former U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim when he was president of Austria. He had denied that he had been a Nazi, an accusation first made in these pages long ago, once by Shirley Hazzard and then by me, by me ad nauseum. In any case, he was put on a "watch-list," and was never allowed to enter the United States again. In fact, the only place in Europe he was invited was to the Vatican. Whose deed was that? Who knows? But Waldheim was hardly the first Nazi around whom the Holy See had put its protective warmth.

So the U.S., the U.K., France, the Scandinavians, the Low Countries, every country that knows the ugliness which Ahmadinejad represents should place him on a watch-list, an interdict against crossing their borders. Maybe even some Arab states and some Muslim states would also declare the interdict against the Iranian president. It would be an important test, very important, indeed.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 56 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

56 comments

- involution

December 19, 2006 at 9:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am not holding my breath!

- rmakover

December 19, 2006 at 10:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ahmadinejad is already not allowed to enter the US. As for the rest of the world, forget China, Russia and India. They have financial ties to Iran they don't want severed. Forget Europe because they want to buy oil and sell Euros. Honestly do you really want to make this guy some kind of martyr. Remember the Cuban blockade (the one only the US enforces) that worked real well

- Yminale

December 19, 2006 at 10:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The Shah governed then, and in retrospect he was a benign, even liberal and enlightened, monarch when you compare him to the bloodthirsty men who have replaced him." HUH. The government is pretty bad but come on, it was nowhere near as brutal as under the Shah. Israel seem to think so since they supported Iran in the Iran Iraq War. Good Grief are you going to wax poetically about Pinochet and how he brough freedom to democracy.

- Yminale

December 19, 2006 at 11:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Numerous authored have compared the regime under the shah to that under the current mullahs. The mullahs are at least 10 times worse is the concensus. Yminale is hiding somewhere we probably don't want to know. Read the many iranian authors quoted in the past 6 months on regimechangeiran and news.faithfreedom.org

- ellwoodnr

December 19, 2006 at 11:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The mullahs are at least 10 times worse is the concensus." You gotta be kidding me. The Shah killed as many people as Saddam Hussein and probably tortured more. It shocks me how people are willing to accept the "lesser" of two evils arguments. It's also disgusting that people will support the Shah "because he didn't threaten Israel".

- Yminale

December 19, 2006 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Shah of Iran was something of a benevolent dictator. No, he was not my political ideal. His occasional brutalities, however, had little do with his exit from power. The hard core Islamic whack job were far more upset with his Western ways---and friendliness towards Israel. Bernard Lewis accurately predicted, after his downfall, that the revolution would usher in an era of Islamic Fascism. Women particularly would no longer be able to wear mini skirts and openly read Lolita in Tehran. Iran is losing population. It can not offer suitable employment for its college graduates. Many Iranian women are also whoring themselves in the streets of Europe. This sharp decline suggest that Iran will likely become inceasingly more dangerous in the next few years.

- thomsondavid

December 19, 2006 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Somebody has waaaay to much time on his hands. Indict Ahmadinejad? Come on... You have a better chance with George W. Bush. At least his genocide is verifiable.

- Icewiz

December 19, 2006 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Y Minale tends to overstate his case. "The government is pretty bad but come on, it was nowhere near as brutal as under the Shah. Israel seem to think so since they supported Iran in the Iran Iraq War. Good Grief are you going to wax poetically about Pinochet and how he brough freedom to democracy." First he comes up with a faux comparison, as if one should have chosen between the Shah and the Mullahs. The he compounds his error by bringing up Pinochet. His introduction of Pinochet actually works against Minale's first comparison. If one is going to argue that the Mullahs (who could also be compared to Pinochet) are better than the Shah, they then not also argue that Pinochet was better than the Allende regime? Notice that Minale could not refrain from bringing up Israel, a country which he otherwise loathes, to make his case. The issue of who was worst the Shah or the Mullahs is a moot point. From the point of view of the Iranian people they were both awful. From the point of view of the West the Shah was a petty but local tyrant who didn't export his nastiness. The Mullahs do and this from such a perspective makes them worse.

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 12:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From a lecture delivered on October 12 at Yale University: "Irwin Cotler, Member of the Canadian Parliament, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Professor of Law (on leave), McGill University "Human Rights and the New Anti-Jewishness" (Video Link) http://streaming.yale.edu:8080/ ramgen/cmibroadcast/isgap/cotler_101206.rm

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 12:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The first revolt against the Shah was started by Pro-western socialists. Afterward the CIA and SAAVIK systemetically destroyed all liberal and moderate opposition until ONLY the radical Islamicist were left. America is partly responsible for the miserable conditions in Iran (and yet they still like the US go figure). That's why all this talk of regime change is BS. We tried that and we made Iran worse.

- Yminale

December 19, 2006 at 12:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.yale.edu/ isps/seminars/antisemitism/ind ex.html and click on the October 12 lecture:

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 12:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"(and yet they still like the US go figure)." Maybe they know something you don't. "America is partly responsible for the miserable conditions in Iran." Oh, don't be coy, minale. In your mind we are totally responsible for the evils of the world.

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 12:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If one is going to argue that the Mullahs (who could also be compared to Pinochet) are better than the Shah, they then not also argue that Pinochet was better than the Allende regime?' MP argued that the Shah was better than the mullah's which is ridiculous. And yes Allende WAS better than Pinochet. Last time I looked Allende didn't mass torture disidents or commit terrorist acts in the US. His only crime, socializing major industries. The HORROR (to the right wing) "Notice that Minale could not refrain from bringing up Israel" Yes because it's historical fact that Israel supported Khoemeni during the Iran Iraq War. "From the point of view of the West the Shah was a petty but local tyrant who didn't export his nastiness." Correction to the west the Shah was a client. As for exporting nastiness. This is a seperate issue (and no one is innocent here. Not the US, Israel or anyone else). Let's remember we are in the sorry state because the US exported it's nastiness to Iran.

- Yminale

December 19, 2006 at 12:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry but the links to the Irwin Cottler lecure still doesn't work. You can google the name Irwin Cottler and Yale University seminars on antisemitism and then follow the links. I did and I got this url: http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/06-09-19-03.all.html Once there click on more info and it will take you to the seminar video links.

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 12:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"MP argued that the Shah was better than the mullah's which is ridiculous." No it isn't ridiculous from the point of view of the west. The Chile issue is too complex to talk about here. In any case the comparison is spurious. When people can't talk about an issue they come up with some comparison. It's a way of changing the subject.

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 12:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Maybe they know something you don't. " Actually it's the other way around. They don't know what I know. They get most of their info on the US through our pop culture which they like but don't know anything about our history or the current events happening in the US. "In your mind we are totally responsible for the evils of the world." And I'm wrong because as we all know it's those evil Liberal/Socialists that are the problem.

- Yminale

December 19, 2006 at 1:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"No it isn't ridiculous from the point of view of the west." You mean from the point of view of the neocon controlled US government and the Zionist dominated government in Israel who want a war with Iran. "The Chile issue is too complex to talk about here" It's only "complex" to those want to ignore the brutality of Pinochet's regime. "When people can't talk about an issue they come up with some comparison. It's a way of changing the subject." No it's a way to show a pattern of abuse. The message is clear, if you help US interests (like the Shah or Pinochet) you get a free pass to do whatever you want.

- Yminale

December 19, 2006 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"His only crime, socializing major industries. The HORROR (to the right wing)" No, the horror to anyone who knows anything about economics. The economy is far too complex for any group, however brilliant and virtuous, to run successfully. A true believer socialist is inherently a ego tripping whack job. A non-narcissistic individual is humbled by the knowledge required merely to carry out their own responsibilities.

- thomsondavid

December 19, 2006 at 1:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Actually it's the other way around. They don't know what I know." And what you know is what? It's better to be ruled by the Mullahs then to live under the sign of McDonald's? "And I'm wrong because as we all know it's those evil Liberal/Socialists that are the problem." You are wrong because whatver the faults of liberal capitalism it's a hell of a lot better than Socialist regimes as the Soviet and even the West European models show.

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Socialism is worst than torture and mass killings. WOW thanks for the laugh.

- Yminale

December 19, 2006 at 1:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You mean from the point of view of the neocon controlled US government and the Zionist dominated government in Israel who want a war with Iran." There yoy got it all in. Feel better. Calling the Israeli government "Zionist dominated" is like calling the US dominated by the constitution. Zionism is what Israel is about. It's a Jewish State even if antisemites like yourself don't like the idea. "It's only "complex" to those want to ignore the brutality of Pinochet's regime." Bull, it's no more a part of the discussion than is Stalinism or Maoism. "No it's a way to show a pattern of abuse." Yes, let's bring up the abuses by your socialist regimes. The Soviet state as it developed from Russia to Cuba is the pertinent model here. However, as I said it's not part of the debate. The Iran under Mullah's is what the debate is about.

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 1:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Socialism is worst than torture and mass killings. WOW thanks for the laugh." Yes I am sure the prisoners in the Lubyanka and the gulags died of laughter.

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It's better to be ruled by the Mullahs then to live under the sign of McDonald's?" Corporate dominance is just as bad as the Mullah's. At least the Mullah's are honest and beat you in public. "You are wrong because whatver the faults of liberal capitalism " The Shah and Pinochet (and Bush) didn't practice capitalism (and there is nothing liberal about capitalism), they practiced cronyism.

- Yminale

December 19, 2006 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Corporate dominance is just as bad as the Mullah's. At least the Mullah's are honest and beat you in public." Now this is FUNNY, minale. Gotta let you got.

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 1:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You can't keep your terms straight. Socialism is an economic system. Western Europe, Japan, Canada uses it and yes there are economic problems but I don't see anyone going to jail because of Socialism The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state under COMMUNISM. Socialism is actually much older and once again most people in the East were POLITICAL prisoners not economic prisoners. Finally Liberalism is a political theory. I don't know anyone who was tortured because he was against freedom or social justice. Finally Zionism is ethnocentric. What makes Jews more special than Palestinian or anyone else.

- Yminale

December 19, 2006 at 1:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A big problem, unfortunately, is that the Bush administration (and Clinton's, although in his case it was tactical rather than ideological) has expressed such profound and mindless hostility to the idea of international courts. I don't know where MP stands on this one, but as a general point: it's difficult to put a persuasive case out there for an indictment by an international judicial body when your administration has been dissing international law for the last six years. Come on! Having John Bolton anywhere in the building doesn't help either.

- ironyroad

December 19, 2006 at 1:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And anyone can petition the court. It was designed that way so NGO's like Amnesty and Human rights watch could submit cases.

- Yminale

December 19, 2006 at 1:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your post is besides the point. You don't show any real historical knowledge in your post. "The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state under COMMUNISM. Socialism is actually much older and once again most people in the East were POLITICAL prisoners not economic prisoners." People in the East? Is that what those sent to the Gulags were? Communism is both a political and an economic theory. In fact Marx never separated the two and neither do you in your posts. Your point about Zionism is antisemitic, pure and simple. You ask, "what makes the Jews special?" But all this is not pertinent to the topic at hand.

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 2:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I don't know where MP stands on this one, but as a general point: it's difficult to put a persuasive case out there for an indictment by an international judicial body when your administration has been dissing international law for the last six years. Come on!" This is an excellent point which Irwin Cotler actually addresses in his lecture on contemporary antisemitism. Cotler was a former attorney general in Canada.

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 2:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You don't show any real historical knowledge in your post" You mean I don't know any right wing propaganda. "Communism is both a political and an economic theory. " Communism as written by Marx is not a political theory. Marx believed when the state reached perfect communism, government would be irrelavent. Until then government had to forcefully transfer ownership to the proletariat. Marx didn't write what kind government would be like. "Your point about Zionism is antisemitic, pure and simple. You ask, "what makes the Jews special?" " Like I said why do we make an exception for Jews that we don't for other groups. The basis of Zionism is the belief that Jewish concerns trump anyone elses. That's ethnocentrism.

- Yminale

December 19, 2006 at 2:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As for placing hope in Iranian "pragmatists," like Rafsanjani, I think it will be about as fruitful as putting our hopes in Chou En-Lai during Mao's era. Iran is undergoing a psychotic episode typical of Muslim societies with, of coursw, its own Shi'ite inflection. The best policy, in dealing with psychotics, is intervention, but we're bogged down in Iraq, and the Euros are hopeless. Containment is the next-best policy -- riding out the episode, protracted as it is. And Marty's suggestion concerning the current Inmate-in-charge-of-the-asylum, is certainly containment.

- jm_rice

December 19, 2006 at 2:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The belief that Jews somehow control the world, that's antisemitism.

- rmakover

December 19, 2006 at 2:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nope

- Yminale

December 19, 2006 at 2:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Communism as written by Marx is not a political theory. Marx believed when the state reached perfect communism, government would be irrelavent. Until then government had to forcefully transfer ownership to the proletariat. Marx didn't write what kind government would be like." Marx didn't write "communism." He wrote different works about aspects of political economy and as well as critiques of capitalist economics called Das Kapital. Try reading your master before you post nonsense. "Like I said why do we make an exception for Jews that we don't for other groups." The people who make exceptions of the Jews are the ones who have tried and are still trying to eliminate them. These groups rabge from the Christians of yore, the National Socialists, as well as the International Socialsts and the Islamicists. The exception is being made agains by people like minale who are endorsing the ethnocentrism of the Arabs and of every other nationality want to make an exception when it comes to the right of the Jews to have their own country. The Arabs can have over a dozen countries, but the Jews cannot have one country the size of a postage stamp. No wonder Minale loves Ahmadinejad and co. The basis of Zionism is the belief that Jewish concerns trump anyone elses. That's ethnocentrism.

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The basis of Zionism is the belief that Jewish concerns trump anyone elses. That's ethnocentrism." is Yminale's and should be in quotes.

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

btw, is a way of life for most people including academics and socialists.

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 3:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The belief that Jews somehow control the world, that's antisemitism.

Not anti-Semitic, just delusional. Hey, I wish they did. The world would be a lot better place.

- jm_rice

December 19, 2006 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

your comment on ethnocentrism is absolutely correct. We, as social/group animals, do operate in this manner. The hope is that we are aware of our solipsism and make efforts to see beyond our natural or constructed perimeters. It is hard. I struggle with it all the time. The tension between self/group and the larger reality is always present and takes some skill to transcend.

- MrCookie1

December 19, 2006 at 3:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey, what happened to this thread? I thought it was about Iran, and it's now this food fight about the Jews and communism.

- jm_rice

December 19, 2006 at 3:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Marx didn't write "communism." He wrote different works about aspects of political economy and as well as critiques of capitalist economics called Das Kapital." So Marx didn't write Communist Manifesto? *snark* "The exception is being made agains by people like minale who are endorsing the ethnocentrism of the Arabs and of every other nationality want to make an exception when it comes to the right of the Jews to have their own country. " Incorrect jacksondyer. I don't think any group deserves their own country. That's why I promote the one state solution. That's why I don't support partioning Iraq. "The Arabs can have over a dozen countries, but the Jews cannot have one country the size of a postage stamp." As you correctly pointed out this is Arab-centrism and it's wrong. Look at Lebanon. Yeah they could have partitioned it Christian North and Muslim south but they aren't and are trying to live with on another. "No wonder Minale loves Ahmadinejad and co. " Arguing coexistence between Muslims and Jews is now anti-semitic and therefore Evil. Why do the normal rules or morality not apply to Israel (President Carter and I like to know.)

- Yminale

December 19, 2006 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

that doesn't mean we should except them. A Zionist state is not the answer if you want to protect Jewish people and their culture and religion. Only the adoption of open multicultural secular societies where everyone can live freely. Advancing Zionism only give people who hate the idea of coexistence (white supermacist, Christian fundamentalists, islamofacist) one more excuse to attack these societies. If we accept zionism, we might as well give up on globialization and global peace. Wall our self up like fedual Europe and wage war for scarce resources. That's what people like Lieberaman want, to turn Israel into world's largest ghetto.

- Yminale

December 19, 2006 at 3:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"what happened to this thread?" It was hijacked by a pair of "obsessive nutbags" (jacksondyer might remember that term; it's what he called me for criticizing his asshole buddy, MP). Those two don't know ANYTHING ELSE to talk about. Peretz actually has a point here, for a change. Branding some of these jokers (like Ahmadinejad and G.W. Bush) as international criminals might be a good start toward marginalizing them.

- wmsberry

December 19, 2006 at 4:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ahmadinejad is already not allowed to enter the US. As for the rest of the world, forget China, Russia and India. They have financial ties to Iran they don't want severed. Forget Europe because they want to buy oil and sell Euros. Honestly do you really want to make this guy some kind of martyr. Remember the Cuban blockade (the one only the US enforces) that worked real well

- Yminale

December 19, 2006 at 4:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"We, as social/group animals, do operate in this manner. The hope is that we are aware of our solipsism and make efforts to see beyond our natural or constructed perimeters." Yes, of course, we all interact with others and that takes us out of ourselves. However, the ethnos is the place we start from. It's easy enough in this country where most people speak the same language to pretend to universality. This isn't the case in most of the world though and I am not sure it will remain the case here with the precipitous rise in immigration here and the introduction of many foreign tongues ranging from the familiar Spanish to the unfamiliar Chinese.

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"So Marx didn't write Communist Manifesto? *snark*" Before Marx wrote the Manifesto which is the only thing most people know he wrote dozens of essays and pamphlets on political economy. Even the manifesto is a political tract. "Incorrect jacksondyer. I don't think any group deserves their own country. That's why I promote the one state solution. That's why I don't support partioning Iraq." No one gives a rat's ass what you (or I support). The reality is that a "one State" solution is the extermination of the Jewish State and the creation of another State with an Arab majority which means the elimination of Jews from the region. At best the "one State" will look like Lebanon at worse like Rwanda. The rest of your post is just more anti Jewish nonsense.

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 4:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"A Zionist state is not the answer if you want to protect Jewish people and their culture and religion." You are the last person the Jews will look for protection. "Advancing Zionism only give people who hate the idea of coexistence (white supermacist, Christian fundamentalists, islamofacist) one more excuse to attack these societies." As if these movements didn't exist before Zionism. There have always been people who blamed the Jews for all the ills in the world. Yminale points are not original with him.

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 4:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Peretz actually has a point here, for a change. Branding some of these jokers (like Ahmadinejad and G.W. Bush) as international criminals might be a good start toward marginalizing them." That wasn't Peretz' point. The point was actually Cotler's who argued that Ahmadinejad should be referred to an international court for genocidal against the Jews of Israel.

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 4:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From Peretz' introduction: "ANOTHER WAY TO DEAL WITH AHMADINEJAD: Maybe you didn't notice it on the weekend. But I posted a small item, "Ahmadinejad and Genocide", on The Spine. It was about a Friday morning meeting in New York at which I spoke that was also addressed by Alan Dershowitz, the former Canadian minister of justice Irwin Cotler, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, Congressman Charlie Rangel and Professor Ruth Wedgewood, a very learned legal scholar at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. The purpose of this gathering was to mobilize international sentiment to get Mahmoud Ahmadinejad indicted at the International Court of Justice in the Hague for inciting to genocide (against Israel and Jews), as stipulated in the Geneva Convention to which Iran is a signatory. That was before the ayatollahs were in charge. The Shah governed then, and in retrospect he was a benign, even liberal and enlightened, monarch when you compare him to the bloodthirsty men who have replaced him."

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 4:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Even the manifesto is a political tract." Unless you are extreme libertarian, governments do have a legitimate part in the economey. I guess you think Keynsian economics is a political tract because government is mentioned. "The reality is that a "one State" solution is the extermination of the Jewish State and the creation of another State with an Arab majority which means the elimination of Jews from the region." If a one state solution is created NOW, it would be 5/3 favoring Jews. The whole Arab majority is based on current birth rates but if you decrease birthrates (easy to do if you give women political and economic oppurtunities) there will never be an Arab majority. Even if there is an Arab majority, that doesn't mean the Jews are going to be wiped out. The Black didn't wipeout the whites in South Africa and the Catholics didn't mass slaughter the Orangemen in Norther Ireland. Honestly since Israeli's policy is based on fear what makes Israeli's better than Palestinians whose actions are based on rage. "At best the "one State" will look like Lebanon at worse like Rwanda." And Jews are willing to live with the current situation. Constantly attacked and now threatened by nuclear annhilation.

- Yminale

December 19, 2006 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You are the last person the Jews will look for protection" Yes because I lack the ability to protect EVERY Jew but that's not my point. My point was the importantance of open secular societies. Finally will you stop implying that I'm an anti-semite. It gets us nowhere and only weakens your case. Calling me an anti-semite hasn't shut me up has it. "As if these movements didn't exist before Zionism. " Just because these movements started long ago doesn't mean they can't end. "There have always been people who blamed the Jews for all the ills in the world." And the solution is not to wall yourself up. Like I said every group can play the victim but that doesn't get us anywhere. "Yminale points are not original with him." Well Duh? I never claimed they were my ideas.

- Yminale

December 19, 2006 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

1. Cotler is a moran, you can't charge someone before the fact. There has to be signs of genocide and it has to be traced back to Ahmadinejad. A questionable translation doesn't count. 2. The Arab League tried this tactic against Israel in front of the UN commision on human rights. The EU and the US roundly critized it. (I agree it was stupid) Israeli apologist need to stop using Human rights like some kind of political football or they are no better than Arab apologist who defend suicide bombings.

- Yminale

December 19, 2006 at 5:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Cotler is a moran" Sure, the former Justice Minister of Canada is a "moron." That's it, Minale, the only difference between you and Thor is that his rants are a lot longer. Your posts lack realism and hence, no more replies from me.

- jacksondyer

December 19, 2006 at 5:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"if you decrease birthrates (easy to do if you give women political and economic opportunities) . . ." Is there a single issue more important than that in the world today? If there is, I haven't heard of it. It really comes down to women having the social status that allows them to "just say no". But the problem here-- the violent sexual and economic repression of women in the Muslim World-- is the elephant in the room that liberal apologists for Islam are unwilling to recognize. I'm a hardcore liberal myself, and I'm not just picking on Islam here; a close reading of the NT reveals Christian doctrine-- as expressed in the "inerrant" Word-- to be just as misogynistic as Islam. It's just that the Christian West has learned to wear its religion like a light wind-breaker than can be sloughed off at the first sign of fair weather. In the case of Islam, it is just a matter of where they are at this particular historical juncture. Historically, the evolution of societies has always been hetero-synchronous (especially in modern times, with respect to "THE WEST" and the rest of the world-- see W.H. McNeill's "THE RISE OF THE WEST"). Perhaps somewhat ironically, Judaism (except the most extreme orthodoxy), is much more liberal in this regard. yminale, jacksondyer: I apologize for the "obsessive nutbag" remark. That was a little OTT. As an "obsessive nutbag" myself, sometimes I just can't help it! Jacksondyer: OK, then, it's Cotler's position-- evidently shared by Peretz. The point is the same. I quite agree that Ahmadinejad's remarks about "wiping the [Jewish State] off the face of the Earth" represents at least criminal incitement and should be dealt with as such.

- wmsberry

December 19, 2006 at 6:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If we accept zionism, we might as well give up on globialization and global peace." Excuse me Yminale but didn't you say that globalization was the tool of the corporations?

- robbins10

December 19, 2006 at 8:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Minale contradicted himself in a lot of posts. His point is clear, though, the world will be better off without any organized Jewish existence. He is a sophisticated version of Thors.

- jacksondyer

December 20, 2006 at 9:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close