Top media give top anti-Semite prime-time privilege
By Robert Horenstein
article created on:
One evening last month, as I was flipping through the TV channels with my remote, I came upon a 15-minute interview with an unabashed Holocaust denier. This wasn't the first time I had seen blatant anti-Semitism on TV, having observed on two occasions neo-Nazi skinheads spewing their hateful venom on Portland Cable Access (which, unfortunately, they're permitted to do under the Constitution).
In this particular instance, however, it wasn't some seldom viewed local cable channel. It was, shockingly enough, CNN. And the interviewee wasn't some fringe racist crackpot—it was a world leader, to use the media's terminology, who had come to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly.
Of course, I'm referring to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, who was showered with attention during his week-long visit. Ahmadinejad, who openly questions the Holocaust, calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map," and depicts Zionists as "the most detested people in all of humanity," appeared on NBC Nightly News as well as Anderson Cooper's "360." He also met with the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations and was invited to speak at Columbia University—on Erev Rosh Hashanah no less—though the appearance was cancelled due to logistical problems.
To be sure, Ahmadinejad is newsworthy. As a dictator who embraces terrorism and genocide while thumbing his nose at the U.N. Security Council in pursuit of nuclear weapons, he needs to be monitored closely.
Still, there's a big difference between the need to pay attention to his abhorrent regime and simply giving him a platform from which to promulgate his insidious propaganda and his historically preposterous views. He's doing just fine on his own making the headlines. Must our media, academic institutions, and foreign policy think tanks raise his profile even further?
But was it also a matter of protocol that the U.N. Secretary General applauded the speech of a man whose views are antithetical to the values expressed in the U.N. Charter, among them world peace, tolerance, and respect for human rights and human dignity?
Even worse, did protocol require Kofi Annan to pay a visit to Ahmadinejad on his swing through the Middle East in early September? Clearly, Annan believed this to be the case, telling reporters while in Israel that as head of the U.N., "I have no hesitation maintaining contacts with any president."
Any? Even a president who denies the Holocaust and threatens to destroy the Jewish (and a U.N. member) state? How hypocritical of Annan to speak out forcefully against anti-Semitism, as he has done, yet have no misgivings about doing business with one of the world's leading purveyors of anti-Jewish hatred.
The secretary-general's visit to Tehran amounted to legitimizing a regime that deserves to be isolated. Moreover, by bestowing the prestige of his office on Ahmadinejad, Annan sent an unequivocal message that it's perfectly all right for mainstream American organizations to dialogue with the Iranian ruler despite his extremist agenda. The Council on Foreign Relations, CNN, NBC and Columbia University were simply following the U.N.'s lead.
But the question is: What were they hoping to achieve in these interviews and meetings? Were the members of the council, for example, anticipating that their challenges to Ahmadinejad would have even the slightest effect on him? Was CNN's Anderson Cooper expecting to hear sincere, conciliatory remarks from the Iranian president—i.e., did he accept Ahmadinejad's absurd claim that his government strives for "peace and brotherhood with all nations and all people"?
Conversely, how many times do we need to hear Ahmadinejad call for "an independent and impartial investigation" of the Holocaust or contest Israel's right to exist? Do we need CNN to convince us that he means what he has said repeatedly over the last 14 months?
In a late-September L.A. Times op-ed, Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, defended his group's session with Ahmadinejad. The face-to-face meeting, he wrote, "reflects the mission and nonpartisan tradition of the council [emphasis added]."
Therein lies the problem. When it comes to confronting evil, there's absolutely no place for nonpartisanship. Appeasement, history teaches us, is dangerous. As Holocaust survivor and moralist Elie Wiesel put it, "Civilization means setting limits and Ahmadinejad has stepped beyond all limits. How can anyone talk to him?"
Robert Horenstein is the staff director of the Jewish Federation of Portland Community Relations Committee.