RISHON LEZION, Israel — Dr. Hadar Lubin explains why, in her opinion, the world is not doing more to combat Iran:
The West is ignoring Iranian genocidal anti-Semitism due to a psychological “trauma model,” according to an Israeli professor…
There is an “identification with the aggressor out of fear” that the perpetrator will cause further harm, Lubin told The Jerusalem Post. This helps to explain why the Iranian “threat to annihilate Israel, which is very straightforward, very alarming, is ignored by the West,” she said…
Lubin cited the “collusion of silence” that often accompanies child abuse as a model for understanding the international community’s failure to fathom the seriousness of Iran’s threats. The strengthening of the perpetrator — Iran — is leading not only to increased persecution of Jews but also of other groups in Iran, according to Lubin. “Bahais and moderate Iranians are being killed, and women and scholars are subjected to repression,” she said.
There are several political and psychological aspects to many in the West’s seeming embrace (or at least toleration) of Iran generally and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad specifically. First of all, it must be noted that the Iranian leader (well, second in charge, really) is extremely charismatic. From the clips I have seen online, he is friendly and polite, as well as a person who speaks English with a great deal of charm. It is little wonder that newspaper photos of him with world leaders frequently show them smiling widely — more so than the usual diplomatic politeness necessitates. Even people with the title of prime minister or president are still human beings who can easily fall victim to such personalities. (And, in comparison, Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert were nowhere near as personable. After all, it is hard to curry favor with the world and make a convincing argument through the media when one’s heavily-accented English resembles the harsh, simple bluntness of the Hebrew language. Benjamin Netanyahu is, for a second time, an improvement in this regard.)
Secondly, countries know that they cannot bite one of the oil-laden hands that feed. If Iran did not control large quantities of oil — as well as a major port through which it flows — then the world’s major powers would be much less patient with the country. This is common sense. Thirdly, there is an increasing amount of anti-Israel sentiment, if not outright anti-Semitism, throughout much of the European left that frequently leads to indifference to Israel, if not outright hostility.
But thirdly, and most importantly, many Western countries are increasingly feeling a sense of inevitability on several fronts related to extremist Islam and Iran. The United States will likely not want to engage in a second — or third, if you think the war in Afghanistan was not worthwhile — conflict in the Middle East whose relevance to America is dubious, if not non-existent. Pacified Europeans are still wary of conflict since the bloodbaths of World Wars I and II. It is unlikely that Europe — and possibly even the United States will strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Many are thinking about “learning to live with a nuclear Iran.”
Europeans themselves are not reproducing at replacement levels — having children is a subconscious vote of confidence in and hope for the future — and they are letting more Arab and Muslim immigrants into their countries cause they need workers for low-level jobs. Europeans likely wonder whether there traditional cultures will exist in fifty years. Iran has effectively gained control, or will shortly, of the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, and Syria — and it is looking to expand its sphere of influence in a region where Islamism is growing in influence. In an age of terrorism in which it is nearly impossible to stop someone from walking into a mall in London, Madrid, or Paris and blowing himself up, Europeans fear what Iran might do if the country is attacked.
Lubin is correct: Perhaps many in the West are identifying “with the aggressor out of fear” because they see only a future where Iran and Islamism keeps growing stronger and stronger. If someone truly believes that this is the case, then why would he not want to be on good terms with them? Yes, many Western diplomats made a show of walking out of Ahmadinejad’s speech at the U.N. Durban II Conference, but their governments have yet to do anything more substantial than take actions like writing strongly-worded letters in the form of U.N. resolutions.
