Iran Bares 'Genocidal Intent'

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, The NY Sun:

In 1904, General Lothar von Trotta, the German governor of its colony of South-West Africa (today's Namibia), publicly proclaimed, "within the German boundaries, every Herero, whether found armed or unarmed, with or without cattle, will be shot." In 1939, right before starting World War II, Hitler declared to the world his intent to take advantage of a world war to bring about "the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."

Last week, President Ahmadinejad of Iran publicly called for the annihilation of Israel. A few days later, he repeated his call to "wipe Israel off the map."

For genocide to occur, two components must be present, intent and opportunity, with intent often long preceding the acquisition of the means and circumstances necessary to implement it. READ MORE

In South-West Africa, the intent could not have been clearer, and the opportunity was also present, given the overwhelming German military superiority. The Germans systematically slaughtered three-quarters of the Herero people. Hitler had already articulated his wish to "exterminate" the Jews in 1920, but not until the German conquest of Europe did the opportunity exist for him to carry out his wishes, which he promptly did, murdering 6 million.

How has the world reacted to Mr. Ahmadinejad, von Trotta and Hitler's rhetorical heir? With the exception of the Palestinian Authority's spokesman, the leaders of Arab and other Islamic countries have been silent. Their countries' newspapers, with tacit approval, have printed on their front pages Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech without commentary. In the democratic world, political leaders and editorialists alike have roundly condemned Mr. Ahmadinejad's words. Yet the critical questions remain unanswered: How seriously should we take Mr. Ahmadinejad's statements? More specifically, what is the relationship of Mr. Ahmadinejad's words to any real intent? And will intent find opportunity?

Many reports and commentators treat Mr. Ahmadinejad as a hothead, a former student revolutionary who is politically immature and irresponsible, or as a weak political leader speaking for domestic consumption. Or they dismiss his words as empty, maintaining that Iran could not or would not act on them. They often point to more responsible leaders, such as Iran's former president the so-called moderate Hashemi Rafsanjani, as more indicative of where Iranian thinking and politics really lies.

But in December 2001, the "moderate" Rafsanjani was even more explicit in discussing the need to annihilate Israel in a Quds Day (Jerusalem) speech to the nation. "If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality." Rafsanjani, thinking through the implications of the genocidal policy, declared that the costs would be worth it.

Two Iranian presidents have now openly spoken about destroying Israel, with Ahmadinejad defiantly repeating his genocidal hopes again Friday despite the world's condemnation of him. At the time, Hitler's genocidal prophecies were openly dismissed as bluster or not taken seriously. Given the historical record of the tight relationship between genocidal statements and intent, and given the extreme political costs today of a country's leader openly declaring such genocidal ambitions, it would be folly for the world to treat the Iranian leaders' words as anything but an articulation of their intent.

Which brings us to the issue of opportunity.

Iran already has missiles that can hit Israel. It is currently developing nuclear weapons, which has put it at loggerheads with the United States and much of the west. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it would be easy for it to destroy Israel, producing a second Holocaust. Israel is a geographically tiny country the size of Maryland. Three missiles could render its three major cities, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Haifa, uninhabitable and kill hundreds of thousands. As Rafsanjani knows, even one strategically placed missile near Tel Aviv, where Israel is only about ten miles wide, would effectively destroy the country. True, Israel has nuclear retaliatory capability with its submarines, but as Rafsanjani has so clearly said, the exchange destroying Israel would only "harm" Islam, a "rational" price worth contemplating paying.

The Iranian leaders' genocidal intent is clear. The means may soon be available. What is to be done? We must not treat the Iranian leaders' words as mere bluster and merely condemn them as Kofi Annan has done with tepid "dismay," but take them seriously as a portent of possible policy. It is imperative that Iran not acquire the means to put its leaders in a position where they can seriously "contemplate" carrying out their stated wishes. Israeli leaders know this and have said as much. Tommy Lapid, a member of Israel's Knesset's Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee, recently said that if the U.S. and the Europeans do not stop Iran, "when the situation reaches the point of no return, Israel will have to act."

This is not mere Israeli paranoia.

If Bin Laden, animated by an Islamicist ideology similar to that of the Iranian leaders, had been able to hit New York with a nuclear missile, would he have not done so? Who in New York, London, Paris, or Berlin would sit idly by if a Bin Laden or an Ahmadinejad were about to develop a nuclear missile after stating his wish to destroy the U.S., Britain, France, or Germany? Would not the targeted country's allies, would not all democratic countries, do everything possible, including militarily destroying the would-be mass murderer's nascent genocidal capabilities? Why should it be different when Israel is the target?

The Iranian intent to destroy Israel had nothing to do with a just settlement of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, as the Iranian leaders themselves have made clear. They see the very existence of Israel to be an offense against Islam because it is an outpost of the values they decry most, those of democratic pluralistic countries. Not all Islamic people and leaders would like to wage war on the democratic west. But some would. Israel might be the first nuclear target but it might not be the only one. To allow the current Iranian regime to acquire nuclear weapons would be as irresponsible as were those who did not take Hitler seriously.

Mr. Goldhagen, of Harvard University's Center for European Studies, is the author of "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust." He is completing a book on genocide in our time.