Hitler vs. Satan

Ahmadinejad: Israel is bearer of Satan
from AP (hat tip to FreeRepublic)

TEHRAN, Iran - Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Saturday that Israel was the standard bearer of Satan and the Jewish state would soon fall apart, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

The agency quoted Ahmadinejad as he spoke at a religious conference and did not elaborate on what he meant by Satan. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, however, Iran has regularly referred to the United States as "the Great Satan."

"The Zionist regime is the standard bearer of invasion, occupation and Satan," he said, predicting Israel's eventual demise. "When the philosophy behind the establishment of a regime is in question, it is not unlikely that it will find itself on a course of decline and dissolution."

Israel condemned Ahmadinejad's statements as harmful to international peace and stability.

"The Iranian president's comments are typical of his vociferous animosity towards Israel," said David Baker, an Israeli government spokesman. "He threatens not only Israel but poses a clear and present danger to the international community as well."

Ahmadinejad has made anti-Israel comments in the past. In October 2005, he caused outrage in the West when he said in a speech that Israel's "Zionist regime should be wiped off the map."

His supporters have argued that Ahmadinejad's words were mistranslated and should have been better translated as "vanish from the pages of time" — implying Israel would vanish on its own rather be destroyed.

---

In the politically correct world of the AP's journalistic impartiality, Ahmadinejad, the "president" of Iran represents a "hard-line" position. If the AP sought journalistic accuracy the label "islamo-facist" might be employed as an alternative.

Everyone by now has heard of the twelfth Imam fantasies spiraling in the warped mind of Ahmadinejad. There is almost nothing of value in him and his beliefs, representing therefore a tempting target, no deposit no refill.

However, in the words quoted by the AP article something struck me. I found myself wondering, how interesting it is that the madman of Teheran recognizes the general flaws in Israel's make up? Now, it is nothing new that the greatest enemies of the Jews have studied Judaism and/or Israel carefully, examining the people, the law, the medina rigorously, extracting their flawed and biased observations for the purpose of exploding them out of proportion or context in order to liable the am segula.

"When the philosophy behind the establishment of a regime is in question, it is not unlikely that it will find itself on a course of decline and dissolution."

On the surface, there is nothing particularly unique or revealing in these words. They are, rather, conventional wisdom. It is true that societies which lose touch with their founding values and ideals often wither away or morph into some hybrid creature retaining merely the trappings of it's original self. And, it is also true that on occasion, the times render those founding ideals obsolete. In America, we still read de Tocqueville, The Federalist Papers, Paine, and Jefferson, etc.? Why? Because the values and beliefs of the Founders are preserved in the fabric of America.

Could it be that Ahmadinejad observes the scene in Israel today and believes it is a sign of his ultimate victory? After all, Jews expelling Jews from their homes, Israeli Jews claiming no affiliation with Judaism in some weird, nay traitorous mentality, liberal/socialist Israelis favoring right to return for Arabians who fled the land in 1949, who can call these events a sign of cultural or social strength? What do outsiders who are friends of Israel think of these policies, let alone the enemies of the Jews?

The political polls in Israel demonstrate a significant dislike of the major candidates running as the heads of their respective factions. Bibi and Barak have huge negatives. Why? Could it be a perceived lack of honesty, a fair conclusion based upon past performance? Could it be there is an impression that the philosophic distance between the factions is far less than the current need calls for?

And, here we re-turn to the article. The quote which demonstrates this surrealistic Israeli experience is not from the madman but from spokesman David Baker:

"The Iranian president's comments are typical of his vociferous animosity towards Israel," said David Baker, an Israeli government spokesman. "He threatens not only Israel but poses a clear and present danger to the international community as well."

David Baker was one of Ariel Sharon's "shills" to the Diaspora, selling the US Jewish community on the idea that retreat from Gaza served Israel's national and security interest. I had the opportunity to attend one of these pompously delivered policy talks and left with a sick feeling and very bad taste for railroad Israeli politics. One must wonder how Baker's and Sharon's lack of concern for the expelled families from Gush Katif in retrospect and Baker's "animosity towards Israel" comments above can be juxtaposed? Who more directly threatened Israel exactly? As of now, Iran has not initiated any conventional active hostilities against Israelis, (Hezbollah not withstanding and not conventional). Baker on the other hand has justified to thousands and conceivably to himself, what could only be considered a hostile act against Israelis. That is, evicting them from their homes and rendering Gaza judenrein.

Emuna teaches us that through the agency of HaShem, Ahmadenijad will be dealt with one way or another. Fortunately for the Jews, HaShem is patient and kind, extending blessings on top of blessings. Maybe some of his mercy is especially set aside for David Baker and his comrades.