[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 21]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 29413-29414]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    ON RECENT COMMENTS OF THE IRANIAN PRESIDENT, MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JAMES A. LEACH

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, December 16, 2005

  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, every society has a historian who suggests 
that failure to study history is an invitation to repeat its mistakes. 
With his recent utterances, the newly elected president of Iran, 
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, may be presenting the world with a more dangerous 
conundrum. He has apparently looked at history and denied it, which 
requires each of us to come to grips with preposterousness as an 
international reality. To refuse to study history may invite 
repetition; but to deny it, particularly when it involves the greatest 
crime in human history, is an assault on civilized values and portends 
an attack on civilization itself.
  Last week, President Ahmadinejad suggested that the murder of six 
million European Jews by the Nazis did not occur and called for Israel 
to be ``wiped off the map.'' This week, after time to reconsider, he 
made it perfectly clear that he did not flippantly, accidentally or 
remorsefully express a misunderstanding. He again publicly denied the 
Holocaust, calling it a ``myth'' designed to be ``above God, religion 
and the prophets.''
  Condemning such vitriol is important, but insufficient. Anti-semitism 
demands rebuttal; but the stakes here are not just one man's prejudice. 
At issue is the legitimacy and viability of the Israeli state. The 
United States in this circumstance has no moral option except to make 
unequivocally clear that Israel's survival is a bedrock American 
commitment.
  There can and should be a role and place for a Palestinian state in 
the Middle East. But there never should be a question about the 
legitimacy of Israel. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if irrational 
aspirations such as those flaunted by President Ahmadinejad are 
perceived as realistic options.
  It is false and counter-productive to think that Jewish-Muslim 
history begins after the Holocaust or that the rationale for a Jewish 
state comes exclusively from the Shoah. While the holocaust stamps a 
moral imprimatur on modern Israel, the cause of Israel's statehood 
predates the world's most capricious act of inhumanity.
  The conflict that has emerged around the establishment of an Israeli 
state involves a multicentury exodus of a people from their homeland. 
But while the Bible is punctuated with wars and traumas, it is 
impressive how doing most of the last several millennia, Jews and 
Muslims have faced less hostility than Jews living in predominantly 
Christian countries.
  Since biblical times, Jewish communities have thrived without 
interruption in Arab lands, in Persia and in historical Palestine. When 
Islam arrived in the Middle East in 633 A.D., intermarriage and even 
conversion were not uncommon. In fact, throughout the Middle East Jews 
experienced less Persecution and discrimination than they did in 
Europe. In Palestine, for instance, Muslims repeatedly protected their 
Jewish neighbors from European crusaders; in one instance at least, 
Jews fought alongside Muslims to prevent crusaders from landing in 
Haifa; and Saladin, after re-conquering Jerusalem from the crusaders, 
invited Jews back into the city.
  The Jews in Spain under Moorish rule flourished and experienced a 
renaissance mirroring that of the great Islamic civilization and 
culture at the time. As Christianity spread from the north of Spain, 
Jews were again protected by Muslim rulers until the fall of Granada--
the last Moorish kingdom to pass into Christian hands--when both Jews 
and Muslims were expelled at the end of the 15th century. Most of the 
Jews from the Iberian peninsula settled in North Africa and the lands 
under Ottoman rule and continued their largely peaceful co-existence 
with Muslims in those countries.
  What should he taken from this history is not that there is no case 
for an Israeli state in the Holy Land, but that individuals of the 
Jewish and Muslim faiths have a long record of successfully living 
together respecting each other's beliefs and culture. Yes, President 
Ahmadinejad, there is a Western responsibility to help and defend 
Israel. But there is an Eastern imperative to enhance the prospect of a 
more dignified life for all people in the region.
  What should also be taken from the history of the last two millennia 
is that the Jewish people generally found themselves in a position of 
vulnerability precisely because they lacked a state of their own. 
Relations within the Muslim world were usually better than within most 
parts of the Christian world, but dependency and the potential of 
violence characterized inter-faith power relationships. Security was 
always in doubt.
  In this historical context, the case for a Jewish state is profound. 
The only thing that comes from statements like those of President 
Ahmadinejad is less respect for Iranian leadership, more distrust 
between peoples, and abundant concerns that violence will accelerate.
  History is an accumulated product to which each generation adds. If 
any generation allows acts of hatred to become the dominant theme of 
interpersonal relations, it is harder for the next to break out of an 
angry memory cycle. Thus the challenge in the Middle East today is to 
give harmony a chance, recognizing that current Jewish-Muslim tension 
is an aberration. Peace is the historical norm.
  Because the past is often more controversial and volatile than 
current events, it is essential that we study history both from our own 
perspective and that of others. Denial is not simply obtuse; it is hate 
inspiring. Iran and the world, deserve better.

[[Page 29414]]



                          ____________________