Channels

Sever Plocker

Colossal scandal at UN

Western presence during Ahmadinejad’s UN speech a moral outrage

Iran’s non-elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was scheduled to deliver a speech at the United Nations Tuesday. The speech itself is a colossal scandal. Aside from his sins against Iranian citizens, including the forged elections and murder of opposition protestors, Ahmadinejad constantly voices radical anti-Semitic views of the type considered a grave crime in many states.

 

He is not only a serial Holocaust denier who refers to the Shoah as a “myth.” Rather, he turned the Holocaust into his main message; a platform for his delusional and dangerous worldview. He waves it at every possible opportunity; at closed-door sessions and in hate-filled public squares. The presence of representatives of civilized states during his UN speech – regardless of what exactly he says and what he prefers to avoid – will constitute a major moral outrage.

 

The period between May 22 and 28, 1940, was critical for World War II in general and for Britain in particular. At that time, the British war cabinet made a historic decision to reject any direct or indirect negotiations with Hitler and fight Nazi Germany to its defeat. In the cabinet session of May 27, newly appointed British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (at the time barely two weeks on the job) used the term “slippery slope” in order to describe the dangers lying in wait for Britain should it be tempted to enter talks with the Nazis.

 

Similarly fateful decisions were taken by American President Ronald Reagan’s administration. Reagan excelled in verbal assaults on the Soviet Union, did not shy away from his intention to deploy missiles in Western Europe, and simultaneously ordered the US military to look into the feasibility of launching sophisticated weapons systems into space in the framework of the Star Wars project.

 

In those years, 1982-1985, Star Wars was no more than a simulation movie and a presentation, but Reagan insisted not to enter negotiations on the issue with the Soviet leadership. In a dramatic press conference, he explained his objection: “The Soviet leadership… openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is what will further their cause, meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat, in order to attain that...”

 

Now, replace the word “Soviet” with the word “Iranian” and you will have the decisive diplomatic reason to avoid contacts, talks, and agreements with the current Iranian regime.

Boycott instead of talks

 

Reagan, just like Churchill, realized that democracy cannot gain anything from engaging in reconciliatory talks with a dictatorship, regardless of the talks’ agenda. This is a slippery slope slated to end in a crash. A diplomatic, political, and cultural boycott – and even a sports boycott like the one led by President Carter, who convinced 60 states to shun the Moscow Olympics in 1980 – encourages opposition forces and brings the end of dictatorships closer. All of them.

 

If only for these practical reasons, premised on accumulated historical experience, the West must not curry favor with Ahmadinejad or embark on any talks with his mad tyrannical regime; neither direct talks nor indirect talks, neither talks on the nuclear program nor talks about oil. No contacts and no negotiations. A complete unilateral boycott, both within and outside the UN.

 

Barak Obama’s US cannot topple the regime in Tehran. Yet it can weaken it, completely delegitimize it, and turn Ahmadinejad and his colleagues into pariahs. This is the minimum punishment they deserve. They certainly do not deserve an award in the form of a handshake between senior US and Iranian officials – or the

quiet presence of an American delegation during Ahmadinejad’s UN speech, for “reasons of politeness.”

Someone must make it clear to Obama and his surroundings, which are replete with Jews: Any direct or indirect contact with Ahmadinejad today means stabbing the freedom-seeking Iranian people in the back and constitutes a moral crime towards the Jewish people.

 

Churchill and Reagan faced decisions that were critical for the future of their states; meanwhile, Obama merely needs to turn his back on Ahmadinejad, the clown from Tehran, and say: I will not talk to you or people like you. When you speak, I leave. Simple, isn’t it?

 


פרסום ראשון: 09.22.09, 11:48
 new comment
Warning:
This will delete your current comment