By conventional wisdom I should have been angry as hell that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was allowed to speak at the United Nations on Sept. 26. As a New York Jew from head to toe, I should be square in the middle of the "protest demographic" that had its blood boiling at 120 degrees over the issue of Ahmadinejad's speech last week. After all, the Iranian president's repeated threats to wipe Israel off the map and assertions that the Holocaust never occurred roughly comprise the sort of comments that would normally send me spiraling into a destructive rage. A great deal of my Jewish friends from home seemed distressed about his invitation, and my brothers informed me that the Orthodox Jewish school at which we all received our formal education was to participate in a rally protesting Ahmadinejad's speech. Clearly, tempers were a' flarin'.
So why did I feel almost nothing at all?
The obvious answer is that Ahmedinejad, as a head of state, has just as much right to speak at the United Nations as any other man or woman in his particular occupation, so when you think about it, there's really no controversy at all. But that seemed like the easy way out. Upon digging a little deeper I came to my conclusion. I don't care if Ahmedinejad speaks at the United Nations because, at this stage in the game, it's hard for me to take either Ahmedinejad or the United Nations very seriously.
To me, Ahmadinejad is just one more Middle Eastern leader who has some not nice things to say about Israel. Accusing leaders from that part of the world of anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism is something like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. I can imagine few things more wasteful of one's time. He's not even a terribly original anti-Semite; and there's nothing worse than hearing the same bad joke a thousand times. Just ask the fans of "Family Guy." When you strip him down, Ahmadinejad is nothing more than a clown with a bad haircut and a middle-child complex who finds it convenient or expedient to mask his eroding popular and political support and faltering economy with a lot of bluster and bravado. As far as the nuclear question goes, that dilemma should be seen as a consequence of our lack of a coherent policy toward Iran for the past 28 years, rather than a function of Ahmadinejad himself, who does not actually control his country's foreign policy.
Moving right along to the United Nations. When I say I don't take the it seriously, I am not saying this as some trigger-happy neocon who sees it as nothing more than an obstacle in the way of America unilaterally eliminating anyone who does not blindly support our every foreign policy venture; including France. Scratch that, especially France. Rather, I say this as a student of history who sees the United Nations as just another system of peace that has eroded and will inevitably fail to prevent the outbreak of whatever the next big war is, just like every such institution before it (read: the Concert of Europe or the League of Nations). To be frank, the body has done a pretty miserable job of stopping the multitude of small wars that have flared up consistently since its creation half a century ago.
This is not to say that I'm opposed to organizations like theUnited Nations in principle; I think they're just fine'n'dandy and can, if functional, play a valuable role in maintaining international stability. But the United Nations has fallen a long way from F.D.R.'s conception of a forum in which the world's great powers could convene to mediate their various disputes while working to prevent a future catastrophe on the level of World War II. Today, it is little more than a grand opportunity for the Third World to proclaim vociferously and repeatedly how much America and Israel are like, totally lame, doing nothing whilst yet another Kalashnikov-wielding warlord from god-knows-where decides it's time to ethnically cleanse another neighbor.
Despite the roaring tempers of many of my Jewish kinsmen, I do not feel threatened in the least by Ahmedinajed's recent speech, nor very worried for Israel's security on account of his boasting. He certainly isn't the first person in the U.N. to accuse Israel of being the spawn of Satan, and he probably won't be the last.
