In rhetorical circles, there is a concept known as “Reductio Ad Hitlerum” – a whimsical term that refers to the reduction of any threat or potential threat to the most extreme example posed by Hitler and Nazism. I’m sure we can all conjure up instances of this phenomenon at work (Seinfeld’s “Soup Nazi,” anyone?) In one particularly odious example, CNN reporter Glenn Beck recently compared Hilary Clinton to Hitler because of her stand on national health care.
On a geopolitical level, the “Hitler meme” has been used consistently to justify the use of military force since the end of World War II. The ultimate goal of this rhetoric is clear. Once we cry Hitler, all attempts at detente or diplomacy are dismissed as mere appeasement. There is little left to do but storm the beaches at Normandy.
Reductio Ad Hitlerum was evident in full force during a speech by former Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Nentanyahu at the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities this month. As the Jewish Telegraphic Agency recently reported:
Netanyahu warned that Iran is aiming to develop 25 nuclear weapons a year, ultimately with a range that can reach the East Coast of the United States.
“It’s 1938 — and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to get atomic weapons,” Netanyahu repeated again and again. “When someone tells you he is going to exterminate you, believe him and stop him.”
The former prime minister said he had been trying for a decade to warn world leaders that Iran represented the greatest threat — not just to Israel but also to Europe and America — “but nobody seems to care very strongly.”
While Hitler started a war and then tried to develop an atomic bomb, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is building nuclear weapons first and then will start a war, Netanyahu warned. Unlike 1938 and its aftermath, however, this time the Jewish people will not be the sacrificial lamb, Netanyahu declared to prolonged applause.
Alas, I have been trying in vain to find any discussion of the Iran crisis in the “official” Jewish community that does not somehow invoke “1938 and its aftermath.” Clearly Ahmadinejad’s murderous rhetoric toward Israel cannot and should not be taken lightly, and we should never minimize the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But we must also be very clear about what we are suggesting when we compare Ahmadinejad to Hitler and present day Iran to Nazi Germany. For what it’s worth, consider me to be one member of the organized Jewish community that finds this comparison unhelpful – and the prospect of an American or Israeli attack on Iran truly horrifying to contemplate.
Here’s an alternative viewpoint, suggested by Mideast analyst Ray Takeyh in a recent Los Angeles Times editorial:
Ahmadinejad Is no Hitler
If you think Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes outlandish comments, consider what Mao Tse-tung said to a visiting head of state in 1954: “If someone else can drop an atomic bomb, then I can too. The death of 10 or 20 million people is nothing to be afraid of.”
Nonetheless, 15 years later, a nuclear-armed China was not only contained by the world, it opted for normalization of relations with its archenemy, the United States. Today, it is fashionable to equate Ahmadinejad with Hitler, yet the lesson of the 20th century is that rash leaders can, in fact, be deterred. And Iran’s president will prove no exception.
Remember that Ahmadinejad’s comments are not even unique in the context of Iranian discourse. In 2001, the former Iranian president and putative moderate, Hashemi Rafsanjani, declared that although Israel would be destroyed by an atomic bomb, the Islamic world would only be damaged by one and therefore “such a scenario is not inconceivable.” Nevertheless, four years later, when Rafsanjani was running for president, Washington and its European allies were eagerly hoping that he would win.
Ahmadinejad is considered nutty in the United States because of his denial of the Holocaust — but that’s nothing new in the Islamic Republic either. The foremost ruler of the country, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has declared: “There are documents showing close collaboration of Zionists with Nazi Germany, and exaggerated numbers relating to the Jewish Holocaust were fabricated to lay the groundwork for the occupation of Palestine and to justify the atrocities of the Zionists.” Yet today, it is quietly hoped in Washington that Khamenei will be the one to restrain the intemperate Ahmadinejad.
All this suggests that in dealing with Iran, American officials have historically discounted its bluster and paid attention to its actual conduct. And they were right to do so. Khamenei and Rafsanjani, despite their irresponsible assertions and pernicious support for a variety of terrorist organizations, have pursued a relatively pragmatic foreign policy that has sought to eschew direct confrontation with the U.S. and Israel.
Ahmadinejad’s behavior suggests continuity with his predecessors: incendiary rhetoric and restrained conduct.
The fact is that today, unlike the 1980s, Iran is not challenging the legitimacy of the region’s political order or calling for the overthrow of regimes in places such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Tehran’s support for groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas is not an Ahmadinejad innovation but a long-standing Iranian policy.
To be sure, Iran is intervening in Iraq and arming various Shiite militias — but such conduct is designed not to export Iran’s model of governance but to prevent the rise of a state dominated by Sunni elites whose pan-Arab aspirations have in the past led to tense relations, and even war, with Iran. Tehran has no delusions that the Shiites of Iraq will subordinate their communal interest to Iran’s national ambitions, but it does hope that a Shiite-dominated regime will provide it with a suitable interlocutor.
Even the nuclear issue has to be viewed in the context of continuity rather than change. The decision to resume the nuclear program after a long period of suspension was taken not by Ahmadinejad but by the reformist government of Mohammad Khatami before leaving office in 2005. What’s more, Iran’s pursuit of the bomb has less to do with the destruction of Israel than with deterring a United States that has invaded two states that border Iran in the last five years. This is a moment of heightened tension between the U.S. and Iran, with the Bush administration routinely calling for a change of regime in Tehran, so perhaps it’s not so surprising that the Islamic Republic feels it requires a deterrent capability to ensure both regime survival and territorial integrity.
So then, why has Ahmadinejad persisted in his contemptible denials of the Holocaust and his repeated calls for the eradication of Israel if, in fact, they are more bluster than anything else? As a cagey politician, Ahmadinejad appreciates that his incendiary denunciations actually enhance his popularity in the Middle East. The carnage in Iraq, the failure to broker a peace between Israel and the Palestinians and the Arab rulers’ inability to stand up to Washington have generated a popular clamor for a politician willing to defy the U.S. and Israel.
Ahmadinejad has taken on that role, successfully capturing the imagination of a region prone to rely on conspiracies to explain its predicament. In this context, his persistent religious exhortations are designed not to prepare the path for the return of the Hidden Imam — the Messiah-like figure of Shiite Islam who some believe will reappear in a period of global war, chaos and bloodshed — but to advance himself and the cause of Iranian influence.
It is a peculiar American fascination to continually look for the next Hitler. Josef Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and even Saddam Hussein were all touted at one time or another as Hitler incarnate. Ahmadinejad is simply the latest figure to be contemplated for that role. Evidently, many in Washington simply cannot grasp the fact that Hitler was a uniquely evil politician and that he is in fact dead. The United States — the country that won the Cold War and contained its adversaries — should be able to deter a second-rate power with an intemperate leader.
RAY TAKEYH is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of “Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic.”
“And then Abraham buried his wife Sarah in the cave of the field of Machpelah, facing Mamre – now Hevron – in the land of Canaan.” — Genesis 23:19
During the summer of 2005, I spent a month in Nigeria, traveling and working with the Igbo tribe. (I plan to write much more about my trip in future posts, but you can click 
Parashat Toldot 5767
Published November 24, 2006 Religion , Torah Commentary 1 CommentCould there be brothers more different than Jacob and Esau? As we learn in this week’s portion Toldot, Jacob is the mild mannered lad who prefers to stay in the tent while his twin Esau is the macho, hairy hunter who loves the outdoors (25:27). As if to accentuate their differences even further, we learn that their parents play favorites with their sons: Isaac prefers Esau (for no other reason, apparently, than he simply likes his sons’s cooking) while Rebecca favors Jacob (no reason is given, though it may be because she has been given some critical inside information – see 25:23).
The episode in which Jacob buys his birthright from Esau demonstrates deeper aspects to their personalities. There is no doubt that Jacob is deviously taking advantage of Esau’s weaknesses when he tells his tired, hungry older brother that he won’t give him some lentil stew until he hands over his birthright. On the other hand, what are we to make of someone who will give up his birthright for a measly bowl of lentils?
A statement by Esau is extremely telling in this regard: “I’m at the point of death, so of what use is my birthright to me?” (25:32) It’s one of those wonderful Biblical double entendres. In the immediate sense, he seems to be saying, “I’m dying of hunger – why are we talking about birthrights here?” But we might also understand this line as “I’m going to die someday anyhow, so what good is my birthright?”
With this offhand remark, Esau betrays his most fatal flaw: his desire to live only for his immediate needs and his inability to appreciate the larger significance of his place in the world. In this way, we might say he demonstrates a kind of “proto-hedonism.” Esau represents the individual who lives first and foremost for the pleasures of the moment with little regard for transcendent meaning or purpose.
While we might take Jacob to task for his underhanded tactics (not the last time we will witness this) he ultimately understands the deeper value of his birthright: the promise made to his family, his people and to the world in which he lives. In his heart, Jacob somehow knows this promise is worth fighting for. Indeed, it is a struggle he waged even before he was born (see 25:22) – and one that will continue for the rest of his/our days.