Protest against European Parliament delegation to Iran

Do it via the Austrian "Stop the Bomb" campaign here.

Stop the Bomb

A German friend has sent me a link to Stop the Bomb, a site which hosts a petition calling on the German government to impose trade sanctions as a means of exerting real pressure on the Iranian regime to drop its nuclear weapons programme.


The initiative has the support of politicians across the spectrum from Christian Democrats to Left Party members, plus sundry academics. Names with a resonance outside Germany include Matthias Küntzel (see my links section), Benny Morris and Nobel Literature Prize winner Elfrida Jelinek (something of a surprise to me - I evidently need to revise my perceptions of her politics).


You don't have to be German to sign! Germany is Iran's leading European trade partner, and that should concern everyone.


Oh, and by the way. Yes, of course Israel has the Bomb. What it doesn't have is leaders who talk openly about wiping nearby countries off the map (and, no, that wasn't a 'mistranslation'). Or who host conferences for genocide-denying racists. I haven't been celebrating Obama's triumph, but I'll start partying retrospectively if and when he convinces me that he has the measure of the seriousness of the Iranian threat.

New kid on the blog

The views expressed round here about the Grauniad are, shall we say, not uniformly favourable. But it is, after all, a house with many mansions, and it's pleasing to note that at least the paper's gossip columnist has the measure of Mad Mahmoud:-

'Possibly the world's unlikeliest blogger has been revealed by the New York Times as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, who has apparently promised to work on his site for at least 15 minutes a week. US readers have not been slow to post their comments - "You are an evil leader," says one contribution which would count as meek indeed on the Guardian's Comment is Free - but the site lacks a certain irony. The president apparently praised a protest against him at Amir Kabir University last year: "It was a joyous feeling to see a small group insult the elected president fearlessly amid a majority," he wrote, without adding that many of them ended up in prison as a result.'

Guess who isn't coming to dinner

My Man of the Week: Nestor Kirchner, left-of-centre President of Argentina, who, in signal contrast with Señores Chávez, Ortega, Morales and Correa, has shown sufficent decency to decline a meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Harry's Place reminds us of an appalling event which Chávez et al seem to have conveniently forgotten, and says of Kirchner's stand:-

'There was a time when this was the minimum you could expect from those who identified themselves with the Left. Not anymore.'

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad's boss (Mahmoud's only President, remember) has been issuing a call for Muslim unity. This is an issue which presents Tehran with something of a dilemma. They want to back their fellow Shias in Iraq, but they fear that if they go too far they'll alienate the Sunni majority in the Middle East as a whole. The ideal solution would be if they could lead Sunni and Shia in a united struggle against the real enemies - the ones whose fiendish cunning sets Muslim against Muslim and thus causes all those bombings in Iraq. Who they? Well, to be fair to the Supreme Leader, it isn't only the Israelis. We Brits are distinctly dodgy as well.

Sincere condolences

This from the Indie caught my eye the other day.

So Hamas have now recognized Israel. Sort of. This is 'recognize' as in 'OK, despite our best efforts Israel has not been wiped off the map as of today's date'. Similar to the sense in which, for instance, I recognize that George Galloway is a Member of Parliament. Anyway, it's supposed to be significant.

Then there's the news that Hamas's popular support has taken a nosedive. One reason is their recent massacre of a group of Fatah security men, and that seems a pretty good reason. The other, though, is the enthusiastic welcome their sponsors in Tehran have given to the execution of Saddam Hussein. This is obviously not an issue of principle: every state in the Middle East has the death penalty (with one exception - I don't need to say any more, do I?) and an independent Palestine would doubtless follow the regional trend. No, the point at issue is that the late tyrant and mass murderer won a place in Palestinian hearts by lobbing missiles at Israeli cities and funding pensions for the families of suicide bombers. Yasser Arafat was, in turn, happy to support his invasion of Kuwait.

So Fatah is riding high on a wave of sympathy for Saddam. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I'm really not sure, but I do know that if I had neighbours like these I'd want a good strong fence.

There is of course one surefire way for Tehran to restore its prestige, and scientists in bunkers scattered around Iran are beavering away at it even as I write. I'm afraid we're going to hear a lot more about this in 2007.

Didn't happen but should have done

Howard Jacobson writes magnificently about Ahmadinejad's jamboree for Holocaust deniers in Saturday's Indie. This is the point about the logic of Holocaust denial that can't be made too often:-

'Everything the Nazis said about the Jews, in other words, has been borne out after the event and would have justified a Holocaust had there only been one. By which reasoning it was only by a sort of historical oversight - the inadequacy of the railway lines running into Auschwitz, the shortcomings of the gas chambers - that there wasn't. Which oversight, if he gets his bomb, Ahmadinejad all but promises to rectify.'

There are no excuses left for anyone who makes excuses for this man.

The Denier and the Truth-teller

Remember how my mate President Ahmadinejad wasn't actually denying the Holocaust, just wanting a no-holds-barred examination of the evidence (see his bizarre letter to Chancellor Merkel offering the Germans solidarity against the Zionist foe)? Brace yourselves for a shock: it turns out he's a lying hypocrite.

If I wanted to make a really cheap point, I could drag in Mahmoud's penchant for scantily-clad (faces out for the lads!) dancers of the female persuasion. Over this distressingly sordid topic, however, I prefer to draw a veil.

Whereas, not for the first time, this blog takes off its hat to the decency and courage of Palestinian Holocaust-affirmer Khaled Kasab Mahameed. If there's an atom of justice in this world the man will get the Nobel Peace Prize.

Anglican news, mostly good

Anglicans for Israel bring the wondeful news of the joint Declaration signed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the two Chief Rabbis of Israel. AFI have issued a statement welcoming the Declaration which I heartily endorse. It is enormously to the Archbishop's credit, notwithstanding my past criticisms of his stance.

It is tempting to write that one of the best things about the declaration is that it has made Bishop Riah Abu al-Assal hopping mad. The temptation is to be resisted because actually it's pretty tragic that the Bishop of Jerusalem, of all people, can't be looked to to play a positive role in Anglican-Jewish dialogue. But his reaction makes it very clear why it was right and necessary to bypass him.

It would be good to hear a more welcoming response from Anglicans across the pond. The Episcopal Church's history of anti-Israel bias is documented here (via). Once again I'm staggered by TEC's double standards. This the church which is prepared to risk schism in the name of a stand of principle on gay rights. And yet it is repeatedly laying into the one country in the Middle East where gay rights exist in any shape or form.

A country where they emphatically don't exist is Iran. But that's apparently no reason why former President Mohammad Khatami shouldn't be an honoured guest of Washington's National Cathedral. I'm glad to see that some TEC liberals have drawn the line at this.

Dear Angela

President Ahmadinejad has written to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, thoughtfully offering her solidarity in the struggle to liberate Germany from the tyranny of the you-know-who's. Harry's Place has highlights and an appropriate link.

The man who gives them their missiles

'We don't want to confirm or deny the Holocaust. We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not. If it did, then those who bear the responsibility for it have to be punished, and not the Palestinians. Why isn't research into a deed that occurred 60 years ago permitted? After all, other historical occurrences, some of which lie several thousand years in the past, are open to research, and even the governments support this.'

Whilst in a doctor's waiting room Mrs Cyrus came across President Ahmadinejad's interview with the Spiegel. It's a little hard to work out who is interviewing whom.

Lost in Translation? (part 1)

A letter in Monday's Independent:-

What the Iranian President really said

'Sir: Anne Penketh repeats the assertion that Iranian President Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" (5 May). In fact, as there is no such figure of speech in Farsi, he cannot have done so. According to noted Middle East expert Dr Juan Cole, Ahmadinejad was quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, and Cole renders the quotation as "This regime of occupation in Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

'While Ahmadinejad is clearly no friend of Israel, or of Jews in general, what he actually said appears to be considerably more ambiguous than what he is reported as having said. Having had one war over the issue of non-existent weapons, it would surely be a mistake to rush into another based on a mistranslation.'

Very much the party line. Ahmadinejad is a reasonable man with whom we can do business. If there's an unhinged warmonger involved in the crisis, he's the one who sits in the Oval Office.

So it would have been a shame to spoil the effect by publishing this:-

Sir: It seems reasonable to assume that President Ahmadinejad employs competent linguists to translate his speeches for his own official website. A little time spent there will disabuse Chris Alleyne (letter, 8 May) of the idea that there is any ambiguity in his attitude towards Jews and Israel. The report of his speech to the 'World without Zionism' conference on 26 October last year quotes him as expressing 'his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away.'

Yours faithfully...

(source of quote here)

It's worth reflecting for a moment on how a 'World without Zionism' (and not merely without the 'Zionist entity') might be brought into being.

What's to be done about Iran?

Views from the weekend's papers. Rod Liddle in the Times:-

'Well, of course we must first negotiate. Of course we must, later, bring whatever pressure we can to bear from supra-national organisations such as the UN. We should beg, bully, plead and cajole the medieval Ahmadinejad. We should offer economic incentives. When these do not work, we should impose sanctions. We should bar the Iranian team from the World Cup and refuse them entry to the Eurovision song contest — that’ll teach ’em. But what on earth do we do when all that fails, as it looks as though it will? Faced with that probability, there is just silence from the politicians: the question is never answered.'

Is any enlightenment to be found in the Grauniad?

'Some argue that the best course would be to acquiesce in an Iranian bomb. That may yet happen. But there is much more to be done. What is needed is a return to the idea that a bargain can be struck with Iran, or at least with the pragmatists sidelined by the president. It can have security guarantees if it accepts UN demands. The US needs Iranian help over the mess next door in Iraq. Denouncing Tehran as dictatorial and revolutionary won't bring that. But Iran must restore confidence in its intentions. A start would be a pause in uranium enrichment - even for a brief period. Then it must allow the IAEA to mount snap inspections under the so-called "additional protocol". It must on no account leave the NPT - that would mean slamming the door shut.'

So, that's clear then. We don't 'acquiesce' in Iranian nukes - yet. Not until we have shown we mean business by lecturing Ahmadinejad on what he must do and what he must on no account do - not forgetting, meanwhile, to undermine whatever Bush does to try to put pressure on him. Then, when he has stuck up two fingers to us - then, we can wash our hands of the problem, congratulating ourselves on having done all that could reasonably have been expected of us. Israel is, after all, a good long way from where we live.

Happy, Mr Liddle? Me neither.