Always On Our Minds

If the National Intelligence Estimate published on Monday is true, and Iran is not actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program, it poses a potential problem for the Bush administration's relationship with American Jewry. Given how the US President said last August that Iran is aggressively expanding its military capabilities in order to trigger a nuclear 'holocaust' - using such explicit language - how might we reconsider Bush's willingness to employ such  loaded terminology when no such preparations are actually taking place? In light of this revelation, should Jews reproach the head of state for employing terms that unnecessarily stoked our deepest-held fears?

Invoking the specter of the Nazi genocide for political purposes is nothing new. In the Jewish community, nearly sixty three years after the Second World War, the legacy of the Holocaust continues to exercise enormous influence over how we think and talk about politics. From the slightest turn of phrase to the ways in which we understand our relationship with the Christian and Islamic worlds, the Shoah ('catastrophe'), as we call it in Hebrew, is almost always a point of reference. Though there are numerous problems with the manner in which we grapple with this patrimony, there's something even more problematic when its memory is ideologically leveraged by non-Jews.

If Israel were not locked in a long distance conflict with Iran, it would be easier to overlook the inflammatory nature of the American leader's language. The problem is that Israel is in a heightened state of tension with the Islamic republic precisely because of American policies in the region. Frequently treated by its enemies as though it were an extension of the United States, witness Iraq's repeated missile attacks on Israel during Operation Desert Storm as but one example. Factor in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated denials of the Holocaust, and his threats to 'wipe Israel off the map' and Jews have every reason to take the US President's warnings with the utmost seriousness.

That is why it is incumbent that Israel's self-declared friends express their care for the country a little more wisely. To stand in solidarity with Israel, in opposition to demagogues who threaten its dissolution is one thing. But to take at face value the words of a crazed paper tiger, and repeat them as though they were the genuine item is another. Instead of assessing their empty threat responsibly, by repeating them as though the threat was indeed real, the former Governor of Texas ended up reinforcing the feelings of fear many Jews already felt instilled in them by the Iranian leader's racist rhetoric.

Comments

[Jo Ellen]

Though some think Jewish reaction to the word "holocaust" is overblown, you do a great job of pointing out here how Bush pushes all of Jews' buttons in this context.

[Joel]

Thanks for the kind words, Roi. Part of this will be coming out in my book next year.

In answer to your questions, it all depends on whether one took the 2005 report about Iran's program seriously. There were concerns about its legitimacy too.

Regarding Iraq's missile attacks during the war, of course Hussein had a plethora of motives for firing them.

Nevertheless, since the '56 war, whether the position be communist, nationalist or pan-Arabist in origin, Israel has always been considered a tool of western states by many in the region.

A strike against Israel is a blow against the Europeans, Americans etc. Clearly it's not a surprising position, but it remains an important one, obviously, to contemporary Islamist ideology.

[Roi Ben-Yehuda]

Good piece Joel. You should turn it into something more substanial and publish it. It is a perspective that has yet to be discussed.

Question: If the 2005 report stated that Iran’s leaders were working tirelessly to acquire a nuclear weapon, can you really take the president to task for taken them seriously?

Also, was not Iraq's repeated missile attacks on Israel during Operation Desert Storm a strategic effort to break up the international coalition (composed of some countires who could never side with Israel on an attack on Iraq) as opposed to an example of Israel being an extension of the US?