Barely 48 hours after the conclusion of a government-sponsored Holocaust denial conference in Tehran, Jewish leaders gathered in New York to announce an initiative to bring Iran’s president to trial for inciting genocide.
An all-star lineup of prominent politicians, lawyers and Jewish leaders laid out the case against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, noting his stated objective of “wiping Israel off the map,” his consistent denial of the Holocaust, and his country’s pursuit of nuclear and ballistic missile capacity.
Ahmadinejad’s incitement violates the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, speakers said. The Dec. 14 event at the New York County Lawyers’ Association was organized by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
Even as speakers accused Ahmadinejad of violating the genocide convention, they also sought to lay the groundwork for a military strike if diplomacy and legal action don’t derail Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.
“We will try the law. We will try politics. We will try everything,” said Alan Dershowitz, a prominent attorney and professor at Harvard Law School. “But if they fail, we will use self defense.”
In addition to seeking an indictment of Ahmadinejad in the International Criminal Court, Dershowitz disclosed that he and Canadian MP Irwin Cotler, a former justice minister and prominent human-rights lawyer, were preparing a brief to justify military pre-emption if legal efforts don’t work.
“We waited once, we will not wait again,” said Dershowitz, who like other speakers evoked the global silence as the Nazis prepared the Holocaust. “Do not expect passive acceptance of genocide. We will fight back.”
Iranian diplomats in New York were unavailable for comment.
Several speakers expressed reservations about placing too much faith in the United Nations.
“When you’re thinking about remedies, don’t be naive about the United Nations,” said Ruth Wedgwood, a noted international lawyer and professor at Johns Hopkins University.
She further cautioned that UN initiatives have a history of being turned around and used as diplomatic weapons against the State of Israel.
Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of the New Republic, scoffed at the idea that the United Nations could stop Iran. He accused outgoing UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan of being a “handmaiden to Darfur,” the region of Sudan where government-sponsored Arab militias have killed tens of thousands, and a silent bystander as genocides unfolded in Rwanda and Bosnia.
Annan “is invited to dinners all over Manhattan, at Jewish tables,” Peretz said. “He should be put in cherem,” or excommunicated.
Peretz noted also that Annan has avoided using the term genocide to describe the killings in Darfur – a term that would compel international action under the anti-genocide convention.
The resort to legal recourse against Iran was initiated by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, whose president, former Israeli UN ambassador Dore Gold, said Ahmadinejad was in “clear-cut violation of the anti-incitement clauses of the 1948 genocide convention.”
Speakers noted two cases in which international law had been used successfully to prosecute war criminals — former Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet and Slobodan Milosevic, former president of Serbia and Yugoslavia.
But neither of those figures was brought up on charges before committing their crimes, leading a questioner to challenge the efficacy of using legal remedies to prevent Ahmadinejad from achieving his objectives.
Dershowitz stressed that the legal initiative was intended to “give the international community a chance to prove itself,” a community he noted that includes not only the United Nations but states and non-governmental organizations.
If that effort fails, Dershowitz did not mince words in describing what should be done.
“If the international community fails, if this challenge is not met, we reserve the right of self defence,” he said. “We pledge here today to do everything it takes, and anything it takes, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We will not fail. We cannot fail.”
Also speaking at the event were outgoing American UN envoy John Bolton, U.S. Congressman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Meir Rosenne, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States.
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
5 Responses
IT IS APPALING THAT ANY HUMAN CAN AFTER PROOF TIME AND TIME AGAIN , DENY THE HOLOCAUST.
IF YOU WISH NOT TOO BELIEVE, AND KEEP IT TO YOURSELF SO THAT NOONE KNOWS YOUR TRUE BELIEF IS ONE THING, BUT TO PRONOUNCE YOUR NON BELIEF IS CRIMINAL AND YOU SHOULD BE PUT AWAY FOR ETERNITY, EITHER BY PRISON OR BY PUBLIC HANGING LIKE YOUR ANCESTOR, HAMAN !
AMEN
After reading the above article with many statements being made by secular Jews, that do not necessarily present the proper Torah outlook on the Iranian issue, I find it necessary to strengthen myself & perhaps cause others to stop & think. Without going into an entire discussion of the matter I’ll try to be brief by quoting just a few Torah sources. We repeat twice daily in the second Parsha of the Shema how are continued existence in Eretz Yisroel is dependent on keeping the mitzvos properly. (Go ahead & think about the meaning of the words we repeat so often that we may rarely focus on their meaning.) Secondly, in time of war with Esav, we find that Yaakov prepared himself with three things. They are (in order of importance) Tefillah-prayer, Doron-Presents, Milchomah-war. Jews throughout the ages following in the example of our forefather Yaakov knew that this was the only way to deal with our enemy Esav. As the story of Purim so clearly illustrates, when the Jews were faced with annihilation their first reaction was to turn to hashem in fast & prayer. Stories abound of how Jews throughout the ages, bribed their enemies to have them rescind an evil decree. Of course no one ever thought of taking up arms against those who want to harm us.(Regarding why on Chanukah Jews took up arms to save themselves as opposed to Purim, R’ Elchonon deals with this question. Basically he answers that on Purim when we were faced with physical annihilation we must react as stated earlier. However on Chanukah when we weren’t threatened physically only spiritually there we must even take up arms to defend the torah & mitzvos.) As of the last step “Milchomah-war, the pesukim, Rashi & the Ramban clearly indicate that this means fleeing from our enemies. To quote the verse, “V’hoyo hamachneh hanishar lifleitah”. None of these are my own innovations rather they are extensively discussed in the works of torah giants of the previous generation.
Of course all this talk about us not letting history repeat itself by using force is pure nonsense at best and apikorsus at worst. We have only one way of insuring our safety and that is by returning to hashem & keeping all of his torah & mitzvos & through that we will be Zocheh to the coming of Moshiach which will truly bring an end to all our tzaros from our enemies. May it be speedily in our days, Amen.
You must read and remember what ‘Mam’ wrote. But, having the right additude in mind is not a controdiction to apealing to other nations to try and stop it, as Rabbi Weissmandle Z”l tried to do.
The problem is, however, that for many jews as long as there is something cooking against him down here, even on the smallest flame if any, they won’t evan dream of the real causes up there, where it realy counts…
Mam, you say good, but you are a little hard core, not open minded and very verbose, and lengthly. For the most part, I do admire your Shtarkkeit.
Mam seems to agree with FDR not to bomb the train tracks of auchwitz which the gedolim reguested, begged for. Reb Elchonon? also limited to initial responses, assuming they were capable. The yidden did take arms and killed their Soynim Purim. A long speech you give but Tshuva does not preclude Hishtadlus.
If your only concern was to give Musser to the non observant well I don’t believe is the right websight.