Michael Gerson: Iran's genocidal rhetoric toward Israel shouldn't be glossed over
Hasan Sarbakhshian, Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Over the years, Americans have come to discount statements on Israel and Zionism by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Repetition has rendered them unremarkable.
Israel must be "wiped off the map." Zionism is a "germ of corruption" that "will be wiped off the face of the earth." It is a "cancer cell" that must be "removed from the body." The Zionist regime is "heading toward annihilation." "They should know that they are nearing the last days of their lives." "Israel is destined for destruction and will soon disappear."
One is tempted to add: blah, blah, blah. It is easy to dismiss this rhetoric as being designed for domestic consumption. And soon after Iran's June election, Ahmadinejad will be out of a job — history's single most persuasive argument in favor of term limits.
But the problem is this: Ahmadinejad's language is not exceptional within the Iranian regime.
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has also referred to Israel as a "cancerous tumor." "The perpetual subject of Iran," he has explained, "is the elimination of Israel from the region." "There is only one solution to the Middle East problem, namely the annihilation and destruction of the Jewish state." In recent weeks, Khamenei has promised, if the Iranian nuclear program is attacked, to "level down Tel Aviv and Haifa."
Senior Iranian military leaders, presidential advisers and religious authorities can be quoted endlessly in a similar vein. Zionists are "microbes" and "bacteria" and a "cancerous growth." "Jews are very filthy people," who are responsible for spreading disease and drug abuse. There is a religious duty to "fight the Jews and vanquish them so that the conditions for the advent of the Hidden Imam will be met."
Such arguments are deeply embedded in the Iranian regime — as a statement of mission, an organizing principle. This won't be changed by a single election.
It is possible to overplay such rhetoric. The Iranian government is not simply an irrational, apocalyptic cult. It may eventually respond to sanctions. It is sometimes necessary for America to engage in diplomacy with very nasty people.
But it is possible to underplay this language as well. It is not merely hate speech. It has the hallmarks of incitement to genocide: the dehumanization of a targeted group and the use of code words to cover genocidal intent. (In Rwanda, Tutsis were described as "snakes" and "cockroaches" who should be sent "down the river." The rivers were eventually clogged with corpses.)
One interesting theoretical question: Is such Iranian rhetoric a crime under the Genocide Convention of 1948 — to which Iran is a signatory — which forbids the "direct and public incitement to commit genocide"? The language of Iranian leaders is certainly direct and public. When forced to defend themselves, they often claim (unpersuasively) that their target is Zionists rather than Jews. But in the determination of genocidal intent, this doesn't matter. Genocide can be directed against any group — racial, ethnic, religious or national.
Yet the (rather thin) case law on incitement to genocide also requires an imminent threat of violence from the audience. In the Iranian case, the threat comes from government action — providing long-range missiles to Hamas or (down the road) the use of nuclear weapons.
In any event, a prosecution of Iranian officials for incitement to genocide is an exceedingly theoretical prospect, since it would require a referral from the United Nations Security Council — something Russia and China would not entertain.
- If 'Upworthy' covered the Bible, they would...
- In our opinion: Utah is not a swing state and...
- Michael Gerson: Why the theological...
- Which states are best for tax payers?
- M. Zuhdi Jasser: The fifth commandment is...
- Jay Evensen: In predicting the future, we...
- Letter: Right and wrong
- Dan Liljenquist: Higher education reform
- Letter: Right and wrong 97
- My view: Anti-science ruins the climate... 69
- Robert Bennett: Immigration reform... 64
- Letter: Science consensus is slow,... 54
- In our opinion: Confronted by power,... 40
- In our opinion: Western land standoff... 39
- Michael Gerson: Why the theological... 33
- John Hoffmire: Why shouldn’t... 29