"Israel must be wiped off the map."
President Ahmadinejad

"Can you imagine a State like that with an attitude like that having nuclear weapons?"
Tony Blair

"I have never come across a situation in which the president of a country has said they want to wipe out another country. That is unacceptable."
Tony Blair

One would be forgiven for thinking that this was somehow a 'slow' week for news, given the uproar that has greeted the publicising of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's remarks about Israel. Israeli diplomats, European leaders, and even Kofi Annan himself, have all jumped into the fray, eager to castigate Ahmadinejad's speech. But is there anything new about it?

It is unlikely that those who have expressed such outrage at Iran's anti-Zionist foreign policy have missed out on the Islamic Revolution and the last 26 years of Iranian history, when this kind of rhetoric has been common place. So why all the commotion now? There seem to be a few possible factors at play.

Firstly, this attempt at forging some kind of anti-Iran consensus has to be seen as consistent with recent US and UK attempts to bring pressure to bear on Tehran. Most notably, this has included the British government's efforts to smear Iran with allegations of arming Shiite insurgents in southern Iraq, an accusation that somehow managed to involve the Lebanese Hezbollah for good measure.

As the US, UK, and Israel seek to up the ante regarding Iran's nuclear energy programme, such ploys are to be expected. Furthermore, along with Syria, Iran finds itself in the position of being the target in the Anglo-American hunt for a scapegoat for a disaster of their own making in Iraq.

A third possibility that would suggest a reason particularly for Kofi Annan's contribution, is that as the UN's internal report into the oil-for-food programme delivers the kind of damning verdict that unilateralists in the Bush administration will seek to capitalise on, the pressure is on Annan to 'play ball' and thus avoid becoming a target himself.

Tony Blair, for his part, said that he can not imagine a state with that kind of "attitude" – presumably referring to the desire for removing another state – possessing nuclear weapons. However, the Prime Minister need not use his imagination, since Israel has matched, and exceeded, his description for some time. Israel, the only country in the Middle East to possess a nuclear arsenal, is also classified as an occupying power, and has flouted international law for decades, not least with settlement building and the Separation Wall. Moreover, Israel has also done its level best for as long as it has been around to deny Palestinian national identity, and prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state.

Israel is currently continuing its policy of what Israeli writer Baruch Kimmerling calls 'politicide' [2] against the Palestinians, unimpeded by Blair, Bush, or any other member of the international community. Since July, Israel has appropriated more land in the West Bank than the total area of the entire 'liberated' Gaza Strip. Palestinian East Jerusalem is being cut off from the rest of the West Bank, and Palestinian statehood – as opposed to cantons, Bantustans, or a prison-state – looks as improbable as ever.

Since Israel's inception in 1948, Palestinian towns have been demolished, Arabic names replaced by Hebrew ones, the very existence of the Palestinian people has been called into question, and Israel has drawn up its own map based on annexed territory and unpunished occupation. But of course, Iran is the real threat to regional peace and stability. Right?

[1]www.publications.parliament.uk
[2]www.amazon.com