printBibi Netanyahu’s excoriating address to the UN is being described as “Churchillian.” I doubt Bibi matched the master, but the address was factual, solemn, dignified and to the point (excerpted and YouTubed below).
So too is Canada to be commended. Foreign minister Lawrence Cannon walked out while A-Jad, the Iranian Majnun, delivered his rant. (A-Jad is short for Ahmadinejad. First name: Mahmoud. Residence: Iran. Occupation: dictator.) The Canada of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a good record with respect to Israel.
Said Canada’s Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon: “The prime minister of Canada indicated earlier today that the outrageous statements by Iran’s president, denying, of course, a holocaust, casting terrible aspersions against the state of Israel, the complete violation for human rights … as we’ve seen Iran over the course of the last several years, complete disregard for United Nations Security Council resolutions, prompted us quite clearly to not be in the same room with the Iranians while the president was making his speech.”
Details are sketchy, but the US seems to have lingered a little too long in the assembly. I can’t find information on who stayed tuned to the fulminating A-Jad and who left. [Any one?]
Over to Bibi: “Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.
But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?
A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.
What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!”… [A mockery of the Charter, perhaps, but true to the record of the institution.]
Part I of the address:
I was with him until the part about the “extreme fundamentalism” bursting onto the world scene three decades ago.
The fact is that the “extreme fundamentalism” burst onto the world scene fourteen centuries ago.
Mr. Netanyahu speaks at length of the Holocaust, but gives no mention of Moslems (their fundamentalism apparently “dormant” at this point) cheering on the Nazi regime as it carried out its pogroms. “Allah in heaven, Hitler on earth.”
As a politician, he was probably thinking that he didn’t want to alienate all Moslem countries with a needless insult. But the fact is that all Moslem countries are already effectively against him because he was born a Jew and because he leads a Jewish nation. The Moslem country that is not overtly hostile to Israel respects not the nation of Israel but the prowess of the IDF.
On the other hand, if he had spoken the pure truth, there would have been at least a chance of pulling the wool from many an eye. Sooner or later, whether next week or when the streets of Europe and America run with gore and blood, the truth about Islam will be known. My preference is for sooner rather than later.
His speech is excellent.
Nothing short of war will stop Iran getting nuclear weapons now.
Well spoken for an MIT grad. I might have given this facetious speech instead:
“I am sorry to pollute your fine assemblage of exemplars of human rights and progress – nations like Burma, Sudan, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Belarus, Somalia, and others. As has been stated, ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACISTS and as your organization has stated, Zionism is racism. No Moslem or person of color can be a racist or a murderer.
No Moslem state has ever been corrupt or murdered its own people. However, when a Jew builds a sukkah on an uninhabited hill in Judea, millions from Algiers to Jakarta suffer. Jews are always the oppressor and never the victim. Nations that have welcomed Jews like America and Holland have become impoverished. Jewish inventions have thrown people out of work; their medical advances have created more victims of Alzheimer’s…. Accordingly, it would be appropriate for your esteemed organization to expel us from your august assembly. We hope you also expel Canada, America, and other oppressor nations dominated by racists and Crusaders.”
However, the UN should not leave Manhattan – the hookers need the business and it fits in well with Ripley’s Believe-It-Or-Not and Hubert’s Freak Show.
[Brilliant, although I’m not sure illustrious relative Wolfgang Pauli would own-up to you; he was a bit of a flake.]
“Nothing short of war will stop Iran getting nuclear weapons now.” Hugh
Let’s see:
1. Stalin had nukes but did not use them.
2. Mao had nukes but did not use them.
3. North Korea has nukes but has not used them.
4. The US is the only country to use nukes and only did so when no other country had nukes.
So, Iranians are some kind of especially suicidal humans? How about the possibility that they might seek nukes to veto any plans by the US to invade or intimidate them? I notice we have not invaded North Korea even though they are in the “axis of evil”. Could it just be because they can retaliate?
If the US wants to stop the proliferation of WMDs then how about it (the US) removing a major incentive to acquire them by starting to act like a peaceful adult?
Have you noticed an increase in anti-Israeli rhetoric in Latin America? Chavez has gone out of his way to strengthen ties with Iran and other like minded despots, and I remember reading a quote from him saying “Jews hoard the worlds wealth for themselves.” Now we have this Zelaya in Honduras claiming Israeli agents were trying to kill him. It seems like the Latin American leftists and the Islamic nuts have a lot in common. Argentina needs to stand up to these thugs on behalf her of million+ Jewish population.
I hope readers don’t think that all Iranians think the same of the West much less Israel. I know some successful Iranian American restaurateurs here in town. They are Buchananites. They cannot fathom what got into Bush with the invasion of Iraq. Their loyalties lie with the US and no other country. They wish no ill to anyone or any country. They are secular. One occasionally attends a Christian church with his Filipino wife.
[Iranians are not Arabs. Most of the Iranians I meet are genteel, highly refined people.]
1. Stalin had nukes but did not use them.
Stalin was not waiting for the coming of the Hidden Imam. Ahmadinejad is not a madman; he is a true believer. He may well believe that the martyrdom of Iran’s people in nuclear fire is the best possible outcome, since all will go home to Paradise.
“Ahmadinejad is not a madman; he is a true believer. ” Van
Drat. I left out the fact that Pakistan, a Muslim nation, has nukes and has not used them.
Van, even if what’s his name wanted to nuke Israel do you think his henchmen would allow it? But I doubt he would even want to. The historical evidence is that no world leaders are suicidal.
Drat. I left out the fact that Pakistan, a Muslim nation, has nukes and has not used them.
Pakistan is ruled by a military dictatorship in much the same vein as Stalin and your other examples. Dictators seek to gain power and keep it for as long as possible, a far cry from a genuine religious fanatic. Therefore the example of Pakistan does not speak to my point (although it will be interesting to see what happens if this dictatorship is overthrown by the mujaheddin).
Van, even if what’s his name wanted to nuke Israel do you think his henchmen would allow it? But I doubt he would even want to.
Then his frequent promises to push Israel into the sea are what exactly? Posturing? Let’s hope so. IMO, his tactics are not those of a strongman who wants his reign to last. If he’s convinced that the End of Days is at hand, and his henchmen aren’t able to stop him, then perhaps he’ll set a precedent for world leaders.
As I understand it Canada walked out right at the start, and then America followed later on. Don’t know much more than that.
M.B. Moon, first of all, you don’t dispute my comment that, short of war, the Mullahs will get nuclear weapons. Second, it’s not my fault that you identify the Iranian people with the nutjobs running that joint. Third, as to the question of whether or not the Mullahs would use their nuclear arsenal, you are free to believe that a regime that’s promised to do so, whose surrogates use nuclear mushroom clouds as their flags, doesn’t really mean it. I know what I believe, and I know what Netanyahu believes.
There’s a rather good video on this subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmToGmw2DDw
Just out of interest, is there any conceivable reason to deal with the UN anymore? I mean, even on the level of going through the motions. Any ideas?
I have got to congratulate Mr. Hugo Schmidt on his link to the “youtube video.” Just watching the audience get what they deserve was worth the price of admission and the main character getting waxed was a bonus; Cheers. I’m not making guesses on the “Them in Iran” and A-bombs simply because I can’t trust myself to read other people’s minds very well, but the gentleman from Israel did well in his speech. I would ask “where was Joe Wilson the day before when A-Jad spoke? It was good that Fox showed that the Iran desk was empty when the Prime Minister spoke; however, I would have liked to see what other Middle Eastern countries failed to appear for the Israeli speech. Iran (the country) is not alone and I would like to know who their allies really are. The news is fuzzy on that. I must agree with Roger and Ilana that the Iranians in the US appear to be good people. My Friday breakfast meeting is held in a restaurant owned and managed by an Iranian family. Nice friendly people.
Hugh,
I watched part of that video. Bush does believe in Armageddon and so do I for that matter. The plain sense reading of Scripture says it’s coming. It is as much a Jewish doctrine as a Christian one.
It is nothing to long for or be careless about. If the West is truly seeking to prevent a nuclear war, that is one thing. If it is also trying to protect its economic “interests” in the region under the guise of preventing a nuclear war then it is playing with fire.
Please forgive some if we err on the side of peace since we have been grievously used by warmongers and liars.
Each case, will of course, be more urgent and compelling and this time is different of course.
Have you heard the story of the boy who cried wolf too often?
This is no game as in “The Great Game.” This could very easily be “it” with a great depression brewing in the US.
Alas, you who are longing for the day of the LORD,
For what purpose will the day of the LORD be to you?
It will be darkness and not light;
As when a man flees from a lion
And a bear meets him,
Or goes home, leans his hand against the wall And a snake bites him.
Will not the day of the LORD be darkness instead of light,
Even gloom with no brightness in it? Amos 5:18-20
Let me tell you about oil. It is simply a mixture of compounds of hydrogen and carbon. In the US we have access to vast stores of both via coal and methyl-hydrate. If energy is needed, nukes could be built for the purpose.
My point is only this: Oil is not worth risking the end of the world over.
Re: M.B. Moon’s point – I remember the era of the Cuban Missile Crisis and Dr. Strangelove and Mutual Assured Destruction and there was considerable thought about fighting and surviving nuclear wars. Recall that Mao talked cavalierly about absorbing hundreds of millions of casualties in a nuclear war. No one was confident that 64 years after Nagasaki, a nuclear weapon would not be used (as is the case).
Arguably, as N countries (N>>1) acquire the [useless in practice] nuclear capability and over the span of years, it would seem that a nuclear war of some nature is inevitable. Nevertheless, such suicidal insanity is more likely to be brought upon by GLOBAL BANKRUPTCY and POLITICAL INSTABILITY than by the mere presence of the weapons themselves. Consider that he Germany of 1910 was imperialistic but the Germany of 1940 (after humiliation, hyperinflation, and depression) was mad.
Hence, Bibi Netanyahu and the neocons’ worship of the Cult of Churchill should be taken with a great dose of skepticism. I’ll be very happy with a Gerald Ford and peace over another Churchill and war.
My apologies, I had meant to address “is there any conceivable reason to deal with the UN anymore?” as well. My thought is that we should retire NATO, bring our people home and give the UN NATO’s European administration buildings, and evict them from NYC.
Thanks for the link. It’s a good article. I sometimes wonder if the one role that the UN could conceivably paly is that of information gatherer (statistics on health, literacy and so on).
Moon,
First of all, it’s Hugo. Second, I don’t see any refutation about the point that we are dealing with complete loonies here. Of course this doesn’t mean the Iranian people – I agree with Ilana and Robert Glisson about the Persians I meet during my day to day work. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make any difference. The history of my own fatherland makes it abundantly clear what happens when lunatics get into power. It also makes a mockery of the following:
I can scarcely believe I’m reading this.
“Consider that he Germany of 1910 was imperialistic but the Germany of 1940 (after humiliation, hyperinflation, and depression) was mad.” Myron Pauli
Brilliant! Wolfgang should look up to you, maybe.
Sorry Hugo, no disrespect intended; just poor short term memory and eyesight at play.
Look, the evidence seems to be that we should not push world leaders to desperation. If I were a despot, the last thing I might want to do is commit suicide.
Even Hitler seems to have been relatively reasonable in the beginning but the West, particularly England and Poland it seems (ouch, I am 1/2 Polish) wanted to play hardball. Read Pat Buchanan for details.
But in any case, we need to quit playing games in the Middle East over oil, is my chief point.
I did not want to believe it but it is true: the victors write the history books. Hitler was a monster, true, but also a product of times that the US has a lot of responsibility for. (See Myron’s comment.)
I’ll say this too:
What if the evidence necessary to go to war was a stringent as that necessary to convict a murderer with a good defense attorney? What? The stakes are too high for due process? So God is unprincipled? Then what is the use?
The stakes are very high, so high we should despair of unprincipled behavior since no merely human behavior will suffice. Just logic.
No, I’m sorry, I won’t pass that. I have completely run out of patience for any sort of exculpatory or explanatory nonsense. The problem was that Hitler was actually insane, a twisted genius capable of bringing out the worst in people and making them think it was their best.
As regards Buchanan, his thesis is gamely dismembered here:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/141501
Money quote:
The question facing, not just Israel, but the rest of the world, is: Do we want to face these psychopaths when they have nuclear weapons or when they don’t?