Voices of aggression
Exploring Israeli-Iranian rhetoric
By
Farhang
Jahanpour, TFF Associate*
March 10, 2007
Dr. Farhang Jahanpour
has contributed to a series of occasional ORG
- Oxford Research Group - Briefings written by key international
commentators and experts. Here he explores the extreme rhetoric from
Israel and Iran, and argues that it should not be allowed to jeopardise
the unique history of relationship between these two countries. This
briefing was published first by the ORG in early March.
The Israeli Military Threat
The growing antagonism between Iran and Israel poses perhaps the most
dangerous security risk to the two countries and to peace in the Middle
East. For a long time now, in response to Iran’s nuclear programme,
which Iran insists is only for peaceful purposes and Israel and the United
States suspect of having military dimensions, factions within Israel have
been in the forefront of calls for an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites.
There has even been some talk of a nuclear attack on Iran. In January
2007, the Sunday Times revealed that in case the United States would not
follow on her threats to attack Iran, the Israeli military was getting
ready to carry out a tactical nuclear strike on Iran by itself. The paper
revealed that “Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s
uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.” They
reported that two Israeli air force squadrons, overseen by Major General
Eliezer Shkedi, were training to destroy an Iranian facility using low-yield
nuclear ‘bunker-busters’, and had already carried out practice
runs in preparation for such an attack.
Israel has denied that report, but there are other indications that confirm
the broad outlines of that article. It should be remembered that Israel
carried out a similar, non-nuclear, attack on a reactor that was under
construction in Iraq at the start of the Iran-Iraq war in 1981. Recently
Haaretz reported that an Israeli think tank, the Institute for National
Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, had concluded in its annual
report that unless military action was taken against Iran she would acquire
nuclear weapons, and that Israel would be capable of carrying out such
an attack alone. According to Haaretz: “A member of the institute’s
board, Brigadier General (ret.) Giora Eiland said there would not be a
military strike without a full ‘strategic and military’ understanding
with the US.” Eiland continued: “Even if, at the end of the
day, Israeli jets are going to carry out, or execute, this attack, it
might be perceived – and rightly – as an understanding between
the United States and Israel.” Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
has not ruled out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear programme,
but has expressed the hope that other ways could be found to keep Tehran
from becoming a nuclear power. Avi Dichter, Israel’s minister for
public security, told a recent BBC documentary that Israel might have
to take a “preventative” approach. On 20 November 2006 the
Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, also reported that President Bush said he
would understand if Israel chose to attack Iran.
In an article at the end of December 2006, Brigadier General (Ret.) Oded
Tira, a former Israeli chief artillery officer, bemoaned the lack of US
action against Iran, and called for unilateral Israeli action. He wrote:
“The Americans must act. Yet if they don’t, we’ll do
it ourselves, because there are no free rides and our existence isn’t
guaranteed. Addressing Iran would have positive implications for us in
terms of the strategic balance in our region and when it comes to Hezbollah,
stability in Lebanon, and Syria’s power.” He argued that as
“President Bush lacked the political power to attack Iran”,
Israel should campaign to win the support of the Democrats to stiffen
his resolve. He continued:
“As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence,
we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which
is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors. We need
to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one
and unrelated to the Iraq failure. We must turn to Hillary Clinton
and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party
so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran.
We should also approach European countries so that they support American
actions in Iran, so that Bush will not be isolated in the international
arena again.”
American neo-conservatives have been most vociferous in their advocacy
of regime change in Iran. Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research
at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a staunch supporter
of President Bush, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “So
long as Iran has an Islamic republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program,
at least clandestinely… The key issue, therefore, is: How long will
the present Iranian regime last?”
In an article in the Los Angeles Times, Joshua Muravchik, resident scholar
at the American Enterprise Institute, advocated the use of force against
Iran. He simply started his article with: “We must bomb Iran.”
The words “bomb Iran” flow very easily from the tongues and
pens of some neocons due to Iran’s programme of enrichment of uranium
under intense IAEA inspection – which she is entitled to do according
to NPT regulations – but of course no one is allowed even to mention,
for example, Israel’s nuclear arsenal.
Indeed if one reads the texts of the speeches and discussions at the January
2007 Herzliya Conference, one sees that the remarks of a large contingent
of US neocons who spoke at that conference were even more extreme than
those of most Israeli participants. Richard Perle assured Israel that
if she carried out an attack on Iran the US would go along with it. He
said: “If the Israeli government comes to the conclusion that it
has no choice but to take action, the reaction of the US will be the belief
in the vitality that this action must succeed, even if the US needs to
act with Israel in the current American administration.” James Woolsey,
former CIA director, was not even satisfied with attacking Iranian nuclear
sites alone, but stressed the need to destroy the entire regime. He said:
“And if we use force, we should use it decisively, not execute some
surgical strike on a single or two or three facilities. We need to destroy
the power of the Vilayat al-Faqih if we are called upon and forced to
use force against Iran.” Speaking about the recent war in Lebanon,
he regretted that it had not extended to Syria. He said: “It is
a shame that Israel did not – and the United States did not help
and participate in – a move against Syria last summer when Hezbollah
gave the opportunity. We should not pass up, if we are forced to use force,
the opportunity to use it decisively.”
Iranian Anti-Israeli
Statements
It is in the face of such an unremitting barrage of threats and campaigns
that Iranian hardliners, believing that attack is the best form of defence,
have engaged in heavy anti-Israeli propaganda of their own. Iranian President
Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s anti-Israeli tirades and the appalling conference
on the Holocaust should be seen in that context. As many experts who have
analysed Ahmadinejad’s remarks in Persian have pointed out, there
has been some exaggeration and misrepresentation of what he said about
Israel and the Holocaust. Nevertheless, he now represents the most strident
anti-Israeli stance in the Middle East. When the Danish cartoons depicting
Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist caused outrage in the Islamic world, the
West defended the newspaper’s right of freedom of expression. It
was partly in response to what they perceived as Western double standards
that the Iranian authorities decided to “test the extent of the
West’s tolerance of free speech”.
Speaking in a conference on “The World without Zionism”, Ahmadinejad
questioned the Holocaust and the continued existence of the ‘Zionist
regime’. He rejected the claim that six million Jews perished in
gas chambers, although it was not clear whether he was questioning the
entire Holocaust, the number of the victims or the manner of their death.
However, his main argument was that the Holocaust has been used as a powerful
myth to justify support for the State of Israel. He also argued that if
the West really did commit those atrocities, it had no right to criticise
others – including Iran – for their human rights record. Thirdly,
as the West was responsible for the Holocaust, he asked why the Palestinian
people should have to pay the price for that atrocity?
Some of his other attacks on Israel have, however, been exaggerated. He
did not advocate an attack on Israel and committing genocide, as has been
claimed by many commentators in the West. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud
leader and former Israeli prime minister, often refers to Ahmadinejad
as a ‘genocidal manic’ and compares him to Hitler. In a speech
in Los Angeles he said: “It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany. And
Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs,” adding that there
was “still time” to stop the Iranians. Ahmadinejad has compared
the ‘Zionist regime’ to the Apartheid regime in South Africa
and to the Soviet Union, both of which collapsed, but in neither case
did it involve the massacre of the whites or the communists. What he advocated
for Israel/Palestine was that there should be a referendum with the participation
of Arabs and Jews on the basis of equality to decide the nature of the
future state.
There is no doubt that many clerics and other Muslim fundamentalists in
Iran have strong anti-Jewish sentiments. In fact, their treatment of religious
minorities in Iran, including the Zoroastrians, Christians and Jews, but
particularly the Baha’is, has been appalling. Even their treatment
of their fellow Sunni Muslims or Muslim mystics, the Sufis, has not been
much better. There are a large number of Sunnis living in Tehran but,
despite repeated requests, the government has not allowed the construction
of a single Sunni Mosque in the city. Not long ago, the government attacked
a Sufi centre in Qom, levelled it to the ground and arrested a large number
of Sufis from the Gonabadi Order. Ever since the revolution, Baha’i
students have been prevented from studying in Iranian universities. Baha’i
houses of worship have been confiscated and destroyed. Many Baha’is
have been expelled from government positions and some were even forced
to pay back the salaries that they had received in the past.
However, it is important to bear in mind that Ahmadinejad does not represent
the entire Iranian establishment when it comes to foreign policy, and
his powers are very limited. All major decisions in Iran, especially in
foreign policy, are taken by the Supreme National Security Council, which
is composed of all the leading figures of the system. The President is
only one of the members of the Council, which also includes the secretary
of the Guardian Council, the chairman of the Expediency Council, the head
of the judiciary, the head of the intelligence, the heads of the armed
forces and the Revolution Guards, etc. The Council often meets in the
presence of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i, who seems to
have the final say on major national issues.
A day after Ahmadinejad made his remarks about Israel, the Iranian Ministry
of Foreign Affairs issued a statement, pointing out: “The Islamic
Republic of Iran is committed to its engagements based on the UN charter
and has never resorted to, nor threatened to resort to, force against
another country.” It reiterated Iran’s official policy towards
the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is to accept any agreement that is democratically
reached between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It should also be remembered
that the Islamic Republic is the only country in the Islamic world that
has bought arms from Israel, during the Iran-Iraq War.
Part of Ahmadinejad’s rationale for making such extreme statements
is to appeal to Muslim and Arab opinion in the Middle East. As many Sunni
Arab regimes have warned against a ‘Shi’a Crescent’,
which has to be confronted by a ‘Sunni bulwark’, Ahmadinejad
tries to tell the Sunnis that Iran shares many of their values. His next
aim is to bolster his rather shaky position among the Iranian hardliners.
Unlike previous presidents, Ahmadinejad is not a member of the Iranian
political establishment. His power is based on his populist policies and
his slogans of fighting against corruption and ‘bringing the oil
money to people’s tables’, which encouraged many lower class
people to vote for him. After 18 months in power, none of those policies
have been successful. His anti-Israeli and anti-Holocaust campaigns have
been partly aimed at ingratiating himself with the hardliners.
However, this tactic has also backfired. When Ahmadinejad first questioned
the Holocaust, the former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami strongly
criticised his successor. He said that as the Koran teaches that “he
who kills a single person unjustly, it is as though he has killed the
whole of mankind”, how could any sane person justify or even try
to belittle the killing of millions of innocent people purely due to their
religion? Former President Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani has also spoken openly
against Ahmadinejad’s policies. Ayatollah Hoseyn Ali Montazeri,
the one-time designated heir to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in a recent
interview with the BBC, criticised Ahmadinejad’s position both on
nuclear policy and on his provocative statements about Israel. Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei’s chief foreign policy adviser, Mr. Ali Akbar Velayati,
announced that the Holocaust was a fact of history and chastised those
who question its reality. Ali Larijani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator,
also declared the Holocaust a “historical matter” to be discussed
by scholars (not by ignorant politicians). Hamshahri, published by the
spokesman of the Supreme National Security Council, in an editorial referred
to Ahmadinejad’s policies as “hot air strategy.” The
Islamic Republic newspaper, a mouthpiece of the traditional conservatives
that reflects the views of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i,
wrote that Ahmadinejad’s policies on the nuclear program and on
the Holocaust are aimed at covering up his government’s failure.
The conference on the Holocaust organised by the Iranian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs on 12-13 December 2006, with the participation of a number of
orthodox Rabbis, Holocaust deniers, and rightwing racists from both Europe
and America, was meant as a way of justifying Ahmadinejad’s remarks.
However, far from helping that cause, it has understandably outraged many
people throughout the world. Rather than bolster Iran’s position,
the conference has further isolated the Iranian President and his regime
in world public opinion. What is not often realised is that the conference
has also been widely condemned inside Iran. At a time when Iranians are
subjected to many serious threats from abroad, this opportunistic move
could be regarded as recklessly playing with the destiny of millions of
Iranians. Apart from its political repercussions, this outrageous act
has also sullied the good name of Iranians whose history of support for
the Jews at the dawn of the Iranian Empire and their long coexistence
with their Jewish compatriots have been unique in the annals of history.
A History of Iranian-Jewish Co-existence
Not only do historical texts confirm the close bonds between Jews and
Iranians, the Hebrew Bible itself is the most eloquent testimony to the
millennia-old relations between the two peoples. The Bible does not contain
such warm references to any other people as it does to the Persians. Those
who are today sowing the seeds of discord between the Jews and the Iranians
do not seem to know anything of Iranian history or to have even read the
Bible. Fourteen books of the Bible either directly deal with an event
which has happened in Iran, or have references to Iran. Half of these
are in the form of memoirs of Jews in the courts of the Medes and the
Achaemenids, while the others refer to events which happened in Iran.
The Jewish people have had a long and inseparable connection and association
with Persian history, and Persia and the Persians have a special place
in the Bible. Iran has the oldest Jewish community of the world outside
the Holy Land. The first group of Jews was transferred to Iran by the
Assyrian King Shalamanser in the 8th century BC. During nearly three millennia
of contact and coexistence with the Iranians, Iranian Jews have been influenced
by Persian culture and, in turn, have contributed greatly to that culture.
There exists an extensive Judeo-Persian literature, which is written in
the Persian language but in Hebrew script.
After the Arab conquest and the establishment of Islam in Iran, Iranian
Jews played a big role in translating many texts from Hebrew, Aramaic
and Assyrian sources into Arabic and Persian, thus enriching the fund
of knowledge in Islam. Jewish musicians played a big role in keeping Persian
classical music alive during periods of fanaticism when hard line clerics
frowned upon music making. With very few rare exceptions when religious
fanaticism and bigotry held sway, Iranians have lived in peace and amity
with their Jewish fellow citizens. Iran still has the largest Jewish minority
in the Middle East outside Israel, despite the fact that tens of thousands
of Iranian Jews have left Iran since the Islamic revolution (alongside
some four million other Iranians), who still manage to maintain their
links with Persian language and culture.
Iranian Condemnations of the Holocaust Conference
With the exception of a few rightwing newspapers, most Iranian newspapers
either totally ignored the conference or courageously condemned it. The
message columns of most newspapers have been particularly remarkable,
with many people writing to question the wisdom of holding such a conference.
An editorial in E’temad described Ahmadinejad’s policies as
“populism at home, adventurism abroad.” One of the most outspoken
condemnations of the conference was published by the Baztab news agency,
which is affiliated to the long-term commander of the Revolution Guards
and the present secretary of the powerful Expediency Council, Mohsen Reza’i.
In a brave article titled “Adventurism at the expense of national
interests”, a regular columnist Fo’ad Sadeghi wrote that he
could not remain “silent and indifferent towards a phenomenon that
has many direct and indirect consequences for national interests and which
would have even worse consequences in the future.” After examining
some of the dubious reasons given for holding that conference, the columnist
sums up his reasons for condemning that conference as follows (which I
have summarised):
1) Although Ayatollah Khomeini was opposed to the existence of the
state of Israel, in none of his writings and speeches did he ever
question the Holocaust.
2) After the victory of the Islamic revolution, despite the fact that
both Ayatollah Khomeini and later Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i had
complete control over all organs of the state, they did not authorise
any government institution or Islamic publicity organ to cast doubt
on the Holocaust.
3) Denying the Holocaust, which has been accepted by world public
opinion, would only provide an excuse to those who wish to magnify
the threats against Israel and deny the rights of the Palestinians.
4) Iran which is fighting hard to justify her use of nuclear technology
for peaceful purposes would be regarded as an international outcast
by denying the Holocaust, which would only intensify Western pressure
on her nuclear programme.
5) The support of Neo-Nazi and Neo-fascist groups could be used to
justify negative propaganda against Islam in the West.
6) Even if the issue of the Holocaust were a matter of academic debate,
there could be no justification for the involvement of the government
and the President himself in such an objectionable venture.
Even more interesting than the article itself, were the numerous comments
by the readers. They are too numerous to quote, but they show the extent
of the disgust of most Iranians towards this foolish venture. The recent
elections in Iran were a slap in the face for Ahmadinejad and showed his
growing unpopularity. In the local council election in Tehran, only three
out of 15 victorious candidates belonged to Ahmadinejad’s group.
The same story has been repeated in the election for the Assembly of Experts,
which appoints and supervises the supreme leader of the country.
Students have also risen against the new government. Despite heavy security
measures, when Ahmadinejad visited the prestigious Amir Kabir University
of Technology in December 2006, students booed him and did not let him
finish his speech. The students held his portraits upside down and at
least three of his portraits were burnt in front of his eyes. One poster
held aloft and printed in most newspapers read: “Fascist president,
you are not welcome in the university.” Many students chanted “death
to the dictator.” In an attempt to pacify the students, his office
invited them to visit him. In an open letter that was extensively published
by the media, the students rejected the offer and called for a change
of his policies. Therefore, despite the impression given by most of the
Western media about Ahmadinejad’s popularity, the truth is somewhat
different. The recent conference on the Holocaust has further isolated
him both at home and abroad.
Israeli Voices Call for Restraint
In the same way that Ahmadinejad’s anti-Israeli policies have been
condemned in Iran, many peace-loving Jews in Israel and abroad have also
repudiated the radical anti-Iranian policies of Israeli leaders, and have
called for negotiations to resolve the differences between Israel and
Iran. The former Israeli foreign minister, Shlomo ben-Ami, in a recent
article in Haaretz wrote:
“Israel’s approach to the conflict with its neighbors
has too frequently been characterized by mental fixation: It has generally
veered away from diplomatic paths in favor of fighting them and ‘explaining’
to the world how dangerous these enemies are to it, as well as to
Israel.
The question today is not when Iran will have nuclear power, but how
to integrate it into a policy of regional stability before it obtains
such power. Iran is not driven by an obsession to destroy Israel,
but by its determination to preserve its regime and establish itself
as a strategic regional power, vis-a-vis both Israel and the Sunni
Arab states. The Sunnis are Iran’s natural foe, not Israel.
The answer to the Iranian threat is a policy of detente, which would
change the Iranian elite’s pattern of conduct.”
He rightly pointed out that this could not be achieved by Israel alone,
but was first and foremost an American issue. However, he complained:
“Unfortunately, George Bush’s America is not interested
in conflict resolution; instead, like Israel, it is fighting rearguard
battles against evil states and organizations. What happens when these
collapse is on display in Iraq: Never has the Middle East been more
dangerous and volatile than it has been since Saddam Hussein was toppled.
The US, in destroying Iraq as a counterweight to Iran, is directly
responsible for Iran’s current strategic edge, as well as for
its audacity.”
Writing in the same newspaper, Gabrielle Rifkind, Human Security Consultant
to Oxford Research Group, conveyed the same message and advocated a conversation
of equals between the US, Israel and Iran. She wrote:
“From a wider perspective and in the longer term, there are
no profound reasons for hostility between Iran and Israel. Iran has
never been invaded, threatened, nor has her population been expelled
by the Israelis. The Iranians’ real quarrel is with successive
US administrations over the last 27 years. Israel is used as a pawn,
because of its very close relationship with the US.
The great void in the Iranian-American-Israel relationships is one
of the most dangerous anomalies in international relations at present.
Distorted megaphone diplomacy has done a great deal of damage, and
what is currently needed is a conversation of equals behind closed
doors to shift the current dangerous rhetoric to communication. Ultimately,
there is much to talk about.”
Conclusion
To sum up, the extreme voices on the Israeli and Iranian sides do not
represent the entire populations and do not serve the best interests of
either country. The increasing use of sloganeering and hostile propaganda
by extremists in Iran and Israel, each trying to demonise the other, is
counterproductive and may result in tragic consequences for both. The
only solution to the mutual hostility between the two countries is to
engage in a serious dialogue, probably through third parties, and to resolve
their differences before they plunge the region into another catastrophic
war.
No matter how hard and far-fetched this solution seems, the alternative
is much worse for both countries. Iranians and Jews have lived peacefully
together for thousands of years. This unique history of relationship should
not be jeopardised by hostile and unreasonable voices on either side.
*
Copyright
© TFF & the author 1997 till today. All rights reserved.
Tell a friend about this TFF
article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
Get
free TFF articles & updates
|