From: Ian Hunt (ian.hunt@FLINDERS.EDU.AU)
Date: Mon Jan 22 2007 - 17:31:55 EST
There is a significant difference between claiming that the disappearance of a Zionist state (a "regime") is (morally) necessary and saying that one has the ambition of wiping a state off the map. The two differences are: (a) the first does not imply that the Iranian state will be the agent, while the second does; (b) the first implies "regime change", while the second goes further to suggest a change in political boundaries. Just how much difference there is in practice is a debatable point but there is a significant difference. The reported version supports the idea of Iranian aggression whereas the second merely confirms long standing Iranian hostility to Zionism. Characteristically, most Western public debate skates around the obvious rationale for an Iranian bomb, supposing that is Iran's aim (I am not suggesting that it is - Juriaan makes some good points about the long term realism of nuclear power for Iran-but it is just common sense to consider that possibility). The only intelligible aim would be to counter any threat from Israel to use nuclear weapons against its neighbours. This would clearly weaken the capacity of Israel to dictate terms in settlements with Syria and in returning the West bank and East Jerusalem to Palestinians. The idea peddled in our media that the aim would be to strike against Israel first is absurd. No Iranian President, however deranged he may be, is likely to attack Israel first, since that would bring massive retaliation from the US, which would in turn be tolerated by other nuclear powers. Instead of realistic discussion based on the reality of Israel's nuclear weapons we are fed nonsense about the apocalyptic dreaming of Ahmadinejad, which is consistent with Israel's policy of 'nuclear ambiguity'. But setting the agenda on false terrain so that genuine issues do not get discussed is all too characteristic of Western media. >"Ahmadinejad did not say >that at all, in Farsi. What he said was "The Imam said this regime occupying >Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise" ><http://democracyrising.us/content/view/736/164/>http://democracyrising.us/content/view/736/164/" > >I'm sorry if I have missed something here, but how is this statement >that much different from the statement circulated in Western media - >except for the alleged overdrive? He quotes the Imam saying that >Israel must "vanish" and he thinks that "this statement is very >wise". It sounds to me pretty much as if he is saying that Israel >should not exist at all, which is really the point in his speech >that caused all this havoc in the first place. > >What one should do however, is to try to put this quote into its >political and historical context, and we could perhaps also compare >it to "wartime rhetorics" by G.W. Bush (war on terrorism) of V. >Putin (chechnyen terrorists), and not least Israeli politicians, who >can be equally naughty. I think then that what is really frightening >is how on all sides of the globe we have a development into a more >populist and nationalist political framework. > >Kind regards, > >Martin -- Associate Professor Ian Hunt, Dept of Philosophy, School of Humanities, Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy, Flinders University of SA, Humanities Building, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2784
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 31 2007 - 00:00:05 EST