Thank you for inviting me to address this meeting of Nebraskans for Peace. I mentioned to Mr. Naarveson that I thought it was important for me to share a little cross-cultural information with you about Jewish views on peace and war before addressing concerns about a nuclear armed Iran.
Peace is Judaism’s highest aspiration. The word for peace, shalom, comes from a root word that means complete. Our vision of a world that is complete involves a world that has achieved peace. The obligation to seek peace is paramount. In fact we are told in the Mishnah Torah by Maimonides, that “one should not make war against anyone until first calling out to them for peace, whether in the case of a Permitted War or an Obligatory War.” You might be asking what is an obligatory war? In Judaism, it is a war designed to protect the physical and spiritual survival of the Jewish people.
Unlike many other peoples, obligatory war is not about conquering the world and colonizing it.
Judaism has rules about our obligation to stop those who are intent on killing another. Even though we prefer peace to violence, “If someone is pursuing after another person with the manifest intent to kill him, everybody is obligated to save the pursued party, even by taking the pursuer’s life.” Pacifism in the face of evil is not a Jewish response. Refusing to fight evil in the eyes of Judaism is tantamount to being a party to evil. From a Jewish perspective, even self-defense is a moral obligation. “If a person does not defend himself, he allows evil to triumph.” (Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz)
The other part of the war and peace dichotomy for Jews is that we do not believe all is fair in war. We believe that every effort must be made to avoid killing non-combatants. Using human shields is unthinkable. Hiding combatants in schools and hospitals or in crowded neighborhoods is unconscionable.
We even go so far as to recognize that trees cannot be destroyed in the vicinity of a military attack. The use of agent orange would not be permissible according to Jewish law.
So now that I have given you the 101 short course on Jewish views about war and peace, it is time to explain why having a nuclear armed Iran is of grave concern to Israel and those of us who are concerned about its implications for Israel and the rest of the world.
Those of us who support Israel do worry about the threat of allowing a country to possess nuclear weapons that in recent past has openly advocated wiping her off the map. But that is not all we worry about, we also worry about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons as a means to destroy its other stated enemies, including the United States. Look on MEMRI (the Middle East Media Research Institute’s website) On February 17, 2014, Ayotollah Khameini, spoke before a large gathering declaring that America is the enemy. In his words: "The message of the revolution is that we shall not surrender to bullying and extortion. We shall not surrender to hegemonic order. Hegemonic order means that a few powers control all the weapons and money, and they want to rule the world. The United States is the manifestation of today’s hegemonic order. The Iranian nation has said during the revolution, in the ensuing events, in the Iran-Iraq War, and on the recent Revolution Day, that we shall not surrender to American bullying and extortion." The crowd responded, …”Khamenei is the leader. Death to those who oppose the Rule of the Jurisprudent! Death to America! Death to England! Death to the hypocrites! Death to Israel!" Khamenei continued: "Look, time after time, the Americans make stupid statements... Even their leaders have insulted Iran, but of course, our people punched them in the mouth on the recent Revolution Day... The nuclear issue is merely a pretext for enmity. Even if the nuclear issue is resolved one day in line with US
expectations – although this is impossible – they will seek something else instead. Note how the American spokespeople have talked about human rights, missiles, weapons, and so on. I am surprised at how the Americans are not ashamed to talk about human rights... Iran will not violate its agreements and commitments, but the Americans are the enemies of the Islamic Revolution and of Iran. They are the enemies of the flag that you hold high, and these [negotiations] will not bring an end to this enmity.”
Those of us who worry about a nuclear armed Iran wonder if the Supreme leader of Iran is saying these things to his people, are we to assume that he is lying or are we to assume that even though President Rouhani comes across as a moderate, the real truth and power in the nation of Iran lies with its mullahs?
(MEMRI is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)3 organization. MEMRI's main office is located in Washington, DC, with branch offices in various world capitals. MEMRI research is translated into English, French, Polish, Japanese, and Hebrew.)
Hours after the “hate America” speech, the head of Iran’s Northern Naval Fleet announced that it was on its way across the Atlantic Ocean, headed towards America. Such movement was supposed to carry a strong message.
Similarly, hours after the White House convinced Democrats to withdraw their support for a sanctions bill, Iranian television broadcast a program called “The Nightmare of Vultures.” It was a documentary of a simulated military attack on Israel as well as U.S. military targets in the Persian Gulf. These are the images coming from a country that is supposed to be negotiating in good faith. It is worrisome.
In a recent TV interview, Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said that Iran had "got more than it gave" in the Joint Plan of Action, signed in November by Iran and the 5+1, and that Iran’s nuclear commitments were "temporary and non-obligatory." "The commitments made by Iran can be retracted," he stressed. Following are excerpts from the interview, which aired on IRIB1 TV on February 21, 2014:
Behrouz Kamalvandi: "[The West] is trying to achieve, through sanctions and negotiations, what it could not achieve by means of threats. This is obviously impossible. […] "Regardless of what some Western countries think, time is not on their side. They think that since the sanctions are still in place, time is on their side. Undoubtedly, time has been, and will continue to be, in Iran's favor. They sought to use time to accomplish their goal of curbing our nuclear program. Since they could not dismantle it, they sought, at the very least, to curb it. This never happened. "From 160 centrifuges, or maybe even less, we have now reached 19,000 centrifuges. This is in terms of quantity. The leap was much greater in terms of quality. The West knows this full well. This does not appear in the media. "Economically, these sanctions were hollow. Some people thought that these sanctions would be paralyzing. These sanctions may have been annoying, but certainly not paralyzing. […] "The commitments made by Iran can be retracted. These were voluntary commitments. […]
"In the Joint Plan of Action, Iran got more than it gave. This has been the case so far. The main reason for this is that the other side has de facto accepted that Iran can continue its enrichment, even though the purpose of all the U.N. Security Council resolutions and sanctions was to get Iran to freeze its uranium enrichment. This is our most important achievement. "Secondly, Iran's commitments are temporary and non-obligatory." […]
These words make me wonder how some individuals can see a nuclear armed Iran as only a threat to Israel and not also to the United States. Somehow I think the waters get muddied when as Caroline Glick,( who served from 2004-2012 as the senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC.) said, “our current administration endorses the claim that the Israel Lobby is using its supernatural powers on Capitol Hill to pass legislation that will force the US into war, for Israel.” By tying a nuclear armed Iran only into an issue about the well-being/safety of Israel and those who support her right to exist, we are being asked to forget that Iran has continued its rhetoric about destroying its enemies which includes the United States. The sanctions bill was defeated. President Obama managed to make sure that the Democrats who would have voted for it, removed their support.
But let’s move on….When Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif was quoted on February 27, 2014, by Reuters as saying, “I can tell you that Iran’s nuclear program will remain intact. We will not close any program.” How does that position line up with President Obama’s Dec. 7, 2013 statement that “We know that they don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordo in order to have a peaceful nuclear program.” How does the Iranian stance relate to President Obama’s statement that “They certainly don’t need a heavy water reactor in Arak in order to have a peaceful nuclear program.?”
The Institute for Science and International Security recently released a report entitled “Changes Visible at Parchin Nuclear Site, Why Parchin Matters to a Final Deal.” ISIS, for your information, is a non-profit, non-partisan institution dedicated to informing the public about science and policy issues affecting international security. Its primary focus is on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and related technology to other nations and terrorists, bringing out greater transparency of nuclear activities worldwide, strengthening the international non-proliferation regime, and achieving deep cuts in nuclear arsenals.
The report concludes with a question and an answer about this crisis. The group sees denial of access of the International Atomic Energy Agency to Parchin, where work on nuclear triggers is believed to have been carried out, as a real problem. The call to focus on the present and the future without looking at the past is seen by ISIS as a recipe for disaster as we proceed with negotiations.
David Albright and Srenena Kelleher-Vergantini wrote on February 25, 2014:
“But what kind of comprehensive solution can be achieved by ignoring the central concern of the crisis-- namely that Iran has misused its nuclear programs to seek nuclear weapons and may do so again? What is the value of a deal if Iran is not willing to admit to its past work on nuclear weapons and allow the IAEA to verify the correctness and completeness of its statements, along with gaining assurance that any such work has stopped? What confidence can be placed in the ability of the IAEA to verify any final deal, if Iran can successfully defy a legitimate IAEA verification request? The answer is simple: that agreement would not provide assurance that Iran is not building nuclear weapons. It would have an impaired verification regime. Iran would feel emboldened to resist future IAEA efforts aimed at ensuring the absence of undeclared nuclear activities and facilities, efforts that will inevitably require visits to military sites. “ (International Atomic Energy Agency= IAEA)
There is another concern that has been voiced in Israel and in the United States as well. “Iran is one of the world’s leading state sponsors of terrorism through its financial and operational support for groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas.” (ADL) The fear is that Iran could potentially share its nuclear technology and know-how with one of these groups. Last week in Israel, hospitals were running simulations for their staffs about how to react if a “dirty” bomb spreading radioactive material were exploded. The fear in that country is that Jihadist groups could potentially wreak havoc on its citizens without really having to launch a nuclear attack. Many feel that a dirty bomb is more of an immediate threat than a nuclear attack.
In addition we know that Tehran has been backing Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad by supplying that regime with financial and military support. The Quds Force which is an elite unit of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has been involved in bolstering Assad’s forces. (AIPAC) The atrocities in Syria have led to more than 120,000 civilian deaths.
Finally, it is important to remember that Iran, which the world is hoping will improve its relations with the West, has been in the business of denying basic freedoms to its own citizens. Women, political opponents, homosexuals, and religious and ethnic minorities have their rights suppressed. We should not ignore that as the P5+1 talks have been going on, Iran’s executions increased during the first two weeks of 2014. Forty individuals were executed without any semblance of fair trials. Last year there were 33 announced executions and another 290 unannounced executions. As we pursue our negotiations with Iran we should not assume that we are negotiating with a country that has the same democratic value system that America and Israel have. (AIPAC)
The bottom line for those of us within the Jewish community who feel as I do, is best summed up by the following words of Nobel Peace Laureate Elie Wiesel:
Iran Must Not Be Allowed to Remain Nuclear If there is one lesson I hope the world has learned from the past it is that regimes rooted in brutality must never be trusted. And the words and actions of the leadership of Iran leave no doubt as to their intentions.
Should the civilized nations of the world trust a regime whose supreme leader said yet again last month that Israel is “doomed to annihilation,” and referred to my fellow Jewish Zionists as “rabid dogs?”
Should we who believe in human rights, trust a regime which in the 21st century stones women and hangs homosexuals?
Should we who believe in freedom trust a regime which murdered its own citizens in the streets of Tehran when the people protested a stolen election in the Green Revolution of Summer, 2009?
Should we who believe in the United States trust a regime whose parliament last month erupted in “Death to America” chants as they commemorated the 34th anniversary of the storming of our Embassy in Tehran?
Should we who believe in life trust a regime whom our own State Department lists as one of the world’s foremost sponsors of terrorism?
America, too, defines itself by its words and actions. America adopted me, as it did so many others, and gave me a home after my people were exterminated in the camps of Europe. And from the time of the founding fathers America has always stood up to tyrants. Our nation is morally compromised when it contemplates allowing a country calling for the destruction of the State of Israel to remain within reach of nuclear weapons. Sanctions have come at a terrible economic cost for the people of Iran. But, unfortunately, sanctions are what have brought the Iranian regime to the negotiating table.
I appeal to President Obama and Congress to demand, as a condition of continued talks, the total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and the regime’s public and complete repudiation of all genocidal intent against Israel.
And I appeal to the leaders of the United States Senate to go forward with their vote to strengthen sanctions against Iran until these conditions have been met.
I once wrote that history has taught us to trust the threats of our enemies more than the promises of our friends. Our enemies are making serious threats. It is time to take them seriously. It is time for our friends to keep their promises.
Elie Wiesel
Nobel Peace Laureate
No comments:
Post a Comment