Now this is some of the most disgusting, bellicose and irresponsible political rhetoric I’ve heard from Israel in–I don’t know–about a week. But it truly goes beyond the pale. The story in Ynetnews is titled, We Need to Kill Him:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has to be killed. Really be killed, I mean, physically. He should be eliminated, put to death, assassinated, and all those words that serve to say the same thing.
Former Mossad Director Meir Amit said this explicitly in a recent interview with the Kfar Chabad weekly (Hebrew). It is indeed a very impolite way to express our disgust with the Iranian archenemy. Government officials, including ones who have retired already, usually merely hint at such matters – that is, if they choose to talk about them at all.
And still, Meir Amit is right. Here too, while we are so busy with manners and etiquette, the man in Teheran is vigorously advancing the extermination plan for the people of Israel.
Since at this time he is personally responsible for Iran’s nuclear program, and since he is ignoring the insistent pleading, various pressures, persuasion attempts and temptations, an attempt should be made to eliminate him.
There is no doubt that our president and intelligence establishment has run roughshod over civil liberties in this country and the world for the last six years. But I can’t imagine a former CIA director calling publicly in an evangelical right-wing publication (the equivalent, say, of Kfar Chabad) for the extermination of the Iranian president. Nor can I imagine the second most widely read daily newspaper in the U.S. publishing such trash as Yediot Achronot has done here. It’s repulsive.
Unfortunately, there is precedent for such histrionics. When he was Ariel Sharon’s enforcer, Ehud Olmert told the Jerusalem Post that Israel would consider assassinating Yasser Arafat. Indeed, Sharon’s confidant, Uri Dan, has just written a book about Sharon in which he reveals that Sharon clearly indicated with a wink and a nod that the Mossad did precisely that.
This is precisely the problem with a U.S. Mideast policy that unleashes the worst impulses within Israel’s cowboy intelligence community. I say, if Israel wants to unleash a Mideast nuclear confrontation by assassinating the leader of Iran that the U.S. should let them know in no uncertain terms that we won’t look kindly on this. But of course, nothing of the sort will happen because our Mideast policy has no independence or authenticity. One might credibly claim that the folks like Dick Cheney would actually encourage such statements and behavior.
Sol Salbe very incisively suggests that we replace the name “Ahmadinejad” in the Yediot story and substitue either “Bush” or “Olmert” and say it comes from an Iranian media source. Can you imagine the furor it would create here in the U.S. or in Israel? And we wonder why Iran lashes out in such an angry fashion at provocations like these? We call Iran mad or bellicose? Let’s look at ourselves and the lunatics in our midst who call themselves “journalists” or “intelligence officers.” We breed just as much talk of blood as the Iranians.
I don’t know whether the Mossad put Uri Orbach up to writing this article as a PsyOps tactic against Iran or whether it was Orbach’s brilliant idea himself. Does it matter? Israel should be saved from its worst impulses.
You’re conflating a moral issue with a political one. You’re absolutely right that killing Ahmadinejad would be disastrous. As a matter of policy, I oppose it just as you do. But I wouldn’t call is “disgusting.” If (and this is a big if) Israeli intelligence determined that it would be prudent to assassinate him, it would be justified. Self-defense is a perfectly legitimate justification for military force. Now of course, we both realize that actually killing Ahmadinejad would accomplish nothing positive and possibly trigger a nuclear war. But don’t confuse bad policy with immorality. I hope you can appreciate that distinction.
No, for me the political and moral dimension are completely in synch. It is immoral to assassinate the leader of a foreign country merely because he is an anti-Semite. Besides, it is immoral for any nation to kill anyone before a judicial proceeding that proves their guilt. That is why I’m adamantly opposed to targeted assassination of Palestinian militants & Arab leaders.
There is no “self-defense” here. Iran has acted aggressively toward Israel (as Israel has toward Iran). But it has done nothing warranting such an attack. I fully agree that any Iranian terrorist acts against Israelis or Jews should be adjudicated in a court of law & I’m in favor of aggressively pursuing such remedies.
Killing Ahmadinejad is precisely the same type of allegedly preemptive strike that Bush tried to his utter dismay in Iraq. Didn’t work then, won’t work now.
To paraphrase our Midrash, since when does the Shin Bet get to become God & determine whether someone deserves to live or die? Is Ahmadinejad’s blood less red than yours or mine or Meir Amit’s? Of course, in the eyes of most Israelis who maintain racist attitudes toward Arabs, Jewish blood IS unfortunately more red. But the rest of the world doesn’t believe this.
The U.S. already toppled a sleazy, murderous leader with disastrous consequences. WOuld you have Israel try this again to see if it can do right what the U.S. couldn’t?
Ahmadinejad isn’t merely an antisemite. He’s an antisemite who had openly called for the destruction of Israel, refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and is developing nuclear weapons. Like I said, I don’t think it’s a smart move for many of the reasons you mention. But it’s certainly within the right of a state to target an individual with both the motive and power to caues serious harm to the Israeli people.
I support targeted assassinations because I believe it’s the best war to fight against a guerilla war. Moreover, Palestinian militants aren’t civilians. Why should they be treated as such?
I’m sorry but that’s sufficient grounds for you to be deeply concerned about his actions, but not to kill him. YOu don’t kill people for things they say. If he ever gets nuclear weapons he will not have them for a anywhere fr. 5-10 yrs depending on who you believe. Killing him now because he wants to make nuclear weapons some time in the future is outrageous. Besides, MANY Mideast and Iran experts far wiser about this region than you or I say that Iran would have absolutely no interest in using its nuclear weapons against Israel. Rather, it’s goal is protect itself fr. future enemies like a Saddam Hussein or the like. It has more than enough dangerous neighbors to worry about w/o adding Israel into the mix.
You are aware enough of Jewish law to know that it is based on acts, not thoughts or even words. Thoughts & words establish intent or motive, but they are not deeds. To make the leap from using Ahmadinejad’s words or even actions in approving nuclear research is a fatal one.
Would you have advocated killing Hitler had the opportunity arose in 1935? 1940? 1944? Ahmadinejad has several reasons to wage nuclear war against Israel. First, he believes that he can accelerate the coming of the 12th Shiite Imam by plunging the world into war. Second, war would help distract the large young unemployed mass of Iranian youth
Any time after the commencement of hostilities I would’ve approved of killing him. Before hostilities I would’ve opposed Hitler w. every moral fiber I had. But not killing him.
I’m not saying Ahmadinejad doesn’t have reasons to wage war against Israel. Of course he does just as Israel has reasons to wage war against Iran. I’m saying that it’s highly unlikely he will. Wanting to do something & doing it are 2 entirley separate things.
Why would Israel want to wage war against Iran?
When did Israel threaten to destroy Iran?
We simply disagree on this. I’d prefer to act before hostilities begin.
Oh I see the game we’re playing here. Ahmadinejad threatens Israel & that’s not OK. But when Israeli leaders threaten to attack Iran that’s somehow OK because Israel will presumably only target its nuclear plants? I’ve got news for you if that’s what you’re thinking you’ve got it all wrong. First, the world won’t make the nice distinctions that you are.
Anyway, here is Ephraim Sneh rattling Israel’s sabers:
Besides this, many Israeli rightists, intelligence analysts and U.S. neocons are in favor of regime change. You couldn’t achieve regime change with a few bunker busters. You’d have to go in an remove an entire power structure. The Iranian regime would view such an attack as an existential threat & react accordingly.
You’d prefer to act perhaps 10 yrs before Iran has any capability to threaten Israel’s destruction & before you even know for a fact whether he would use such weapons which he doesn’t even have. Besides making no sense & being way premature, preemptive war is immoral. It failed in Iraq & it would fail in Iran.
To talk about assasinating Htiler in 1935 is ludicrous. You way that now with the complete hindsight of history. In 1935 no one knew what the world would be like 20 years later. The moral justification was not there. Do you honestly believe that Israel or any other intelligence agency should use anti-semitism as a yardstick for assasinating sovereign leaders of nations purely on the basis of their anti-semetic belief? Where do we draw the line? Hasn’t Putin said some clearly anti-Semitic remarks – should he be assasniated as well?
Pat Buchanen has made some anti-Semetic remarks – if he were elected POTUS – should Israel “take him out”? And what presedence does this set? If Tom Tancredo was elected POTUS – should Mexico “terminate him?” I’m sure there are plenty of Israeli’s and American Jews who hate Germans for the holocaust. Justifyable perhaps – but would this not give Germany carte-blance to send their hit-squads should such a person be elected President?
Amd why stop at president. Vice Presidents, Judges and Legislators all over the world hold enormous amounts of power. Let’s identify the anti-Semites in those bodies and send the squads against them.
Yes whole-scale killing and organized violence has worked very well for the US and Israel – in Iraq and Afghanistan on the one hand and Lebanon on the other. Doing more DEFINITELY will advance our intersts and result in a net-gain just like as in those countries…
[comment deleted for violating comment rules]
Iran has waged war against Israel and Jews worldwide since the inception of the Islamic republic. Iran has funded Hizbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, all of which have killed Israeli citizens.The bombing of the Buenos Aires JCC and Israeli embassy in Argentina was planned in Iran. If Israel was against all Muslim states having nukes, it would go after Pakistan. However, Pakistan has never threatened Israel with destruction, even though Israel and Pakistan do not have diplomatic relations. To conflate Ahmadinejad with ordinary anti-semites like Pat Buchanan is not worthy of a 1st grader. When a leader of a country with powerful resources pledges to kill you, has a 2 decade track record of anti-Jewish violence, and can amass nuclear weapons, and a messianic ideology I think even a Dan Sniderman could figure out that this is not a nice guy. If this were two generations ago, we would have the striking figure of Dan Sniderman defending Charles Coughlin and Henry Ford in their defence of Hitler
Even if everything you say is true, do you have direct proof that Ahmadinejad himself is personally culpable for any terror acts against Jews? The Argentina attacks were perpetrated while Rafsanjani was president. Why aren’t you calling for his assassination?
And btw, Iran is using proxies apparently to kill U.S. troops in Iran. Should the U.S. assassinate Ahmadinehad? And if we did, what would it prove? How would it change anything except to make matters FAR WORSE?
Melvin: I’ve already deleted a similar comment of yours. This is yr final warning. If you make stupid, defamatory, unfounded charges against anyone alleging that they are, or support anti-Semites in any future comment I will ban you permanently. I don’t mind disagreement. But this is character assassination and I object to it strenuously. Consider yourself warned.
How about antisemitism plus threats to destroy Israel plus developing nuclear weapons? What if Iran’s weapons would be ready in 5 months instead of probably 5-10 years? What about in 2 weeks?
On a different but related note, what do you think of Israel’s 1967 attack on Egypt?
YOu have absolutely no proof that Iran will use nuclear weapons against Israel if & when it gets them.
Many Mideast analysts now believe that the 1967 War was based on a concatenating series of bellicose statements and mistaken interpretations of those statements. Many wars are fought for similar reasons. Look at the events spurring WWI. These same analysts believe that Nasser, no matter what his rhetoric, did not intend to go to war. The collapse of his forces confirms that they were not at all prepared for war and probably didn’t expect to fight one let alone face an Israeli assault.
This is the problem with preemptive war. You may be correctly interpreting the aggressive posture of your enemy and eliminating a future real threat. Or you may be completely misunderstanding their motives and needlessly plunge an entire region into a bloodbath. In the face of uncertainty I’m in favor of restraint and you aren’t. Apparently, the moral cost of a mistake doesn’t bother you as much as it does me.
It bothers me very much but it doesn’t paralyze me. Restraint isn’t always the safe option. Compare Chamberlain to Churchill, for instance. Of course, I’m not suggesting that any nation go to war over the slightest hint of aggression. But your approach of restraint at all costs can be just as dangerous as preemption.
What if Nasser wasn’t bluffing and Israel adopted a wait-and-see approach instead of preemtion? The “moral cost of a mistake” can go both ways.
I think that the moral calculus of waiting umtil millions of Jews die in a nuclear holocaust to prove to everyone that Ahmadinejad is evil is curious, especially given that Ahmadinejad already has a really bad track record. I also finnd the moral equalization of Israel and Iran troublesome. Can somoeone tell me the number of Jewish civilians killed by Iran in comparison to the number of Iranian civilians killed by Israel?
I don’t believe you’ve deliberately recycled the Netanyahu meme of “it’s 1938, the west is Chamberlain, Iran is Hitler.” But you’ve done it unintentionally. I find the analogy tired, self-serving, & historically specious.
I’d rather choose the analogy of George Bush pere & fils. Father knew when to stop during Iran War I. His advisors warned him of the bloodbath that would ensue if he overthrew Saddam. Cooler heads prevailed. Bush fils was determined to right daddy’s wrong & look what he got himself into. The father knew how & when to exercise restraint. The son spat on restraint. Israeli policy has total affinity for the son’s attitude & almost none for the father’s.
Analogy games.
First of all – in the US – I absolutely support the right of Henry Ford and Father Coughlins First Amendment rights to free speech. And to continue the discussion – I’m absolutely opposed to either of them being assasinated…
And how about Anwar Sadat? He presided over Egypt during the 1973 war. I’m sure he supported the PLO and the PLA and other groups that launched terrorism no different from Iran and Ahmenijad (sp?) By the reasoning and moral arguements presented here – he would be an appropriate target for assasination.
Thank Hashem that he wasn’t assaniated before the Camp David accords (or perhaps the right-wingers here are opposed to the peace treaty…)
If you read my post carefully, I did not advocate killing Henry Ford or Charles Coughlin. However, would you have supported them or criticized them had you lived in the 1930s.?Similarly, if Hitler was captured after the war, would you have supported his execution, or would you have realized that he is a silly, frustrated artist with Parkinsons disease who was trying to make the world a better place and deserves a second chance?
What would be wrong for proving before an international tribunal that Hitler was guilty of genocide & killing him? That’s not the issue. The issue is should someone have killed Hitler BEFORE we knew fully about his genocidal intentions.
I would have no problem with that, ala the Nuremberg trials. I would also have no problem doing a targeted assassination of Hitler, ie the von Stauffenberg attempt, which unfortunately failed
Hey, finally we agree! That’s great. I knew if we kept talking enough we’d finally agree.