Confusing Reports
There is a lot of outrage about something the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is supposed to have said. The UN security council condemns him, the EU is chipping in and several states had harsh talks with their respective ambassador from Iran.
The papers report Ahmadinejad "denied the holocaust" and "called for Israel to be relocated to Europe". But did he really say so and when and to whom?
Ahmadinejad spoke on December 8th. He was in Mecca at an Organization of the Islamic Conference summit which just published a very significant declaration calling for modernization of the Ummah and a jihad on terrorism. (Not that you will read about it elsewhere, the western press hardly mentioned it.)
But other than that, the sources are divide about who Ahmadinejad talked to and what he said. No media source I found seems to have had a reporter in place. Everybody is relying on news agencies reports.
So here are the three major western agencies. Please read their dispatches with a mind to details.
Reuters says:
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday expressed doubt that the Holocaust occurred and suggested Israel be moved to Europe.
...
His comments, reported by Iran's official IRNA news agency from a news conference he gave in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca, ...
After an hour of searching and reading, I still fail to find such a report on the IRNA website. Reuters then cites Ahmadinejad:
"Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that they condemn that person and throw them in jail," IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.
"Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?" he said.
"If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe -- like in Germany, Austria or other countries -- to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it."
This could be constructed as a holocaust denial, but a serious call to move Israel to Europe?
The Associated Press report has the details (or translation?) a bit different:
Iran's hard-line president, who once called for Israel to be ``wiped off the map,'' again sparked a barrage of international criticism Thursday, saying the Jewish state should be moved to Europe and questioning whether the Holocaust took place.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad implied that European countries backed the founding of Israel in the Middle East in 1948 out of guilt over the Nazi genocide.
``Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps,'' Ahmadinejad said. ``Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned.''
``Let's assume what the Europeans say is true ... Let's give some land to the Zionists in Europe or in Germany or Austria,'' he said. ``They faced injustice in Europe, so why do the repercussions fall on the Palestinians?''
Is "Let's assume what the Europeans say is true ..." a denial? And what parts of that statement, the "...", is missing in the report? Where is the "If the Europeans ..." condition from the Reuters dispatch in the AP piece? What is the source?
AFP has a third version:
Ahmadinejad, who in October said arch-enemy Israel must be "wiped off the map", said that if Germany and Austria believed Jews were massacred during World War II, a state of Israel should be established on their soil.
"You believe the Jews were oppressed, why should the Palestinian Muslims have to pay the price?" he asked in an interview with Iranian state television's Arabic-language satellite channel, Al-Alam.
"You oppressed them, so give a part of Europe to the Zionist regime so they can establish any government they want. We would support it," he said, according to a transcript of his original Farsi-language comments given to AFP.
"So, Germany and Austria, come and give one, two or any number of your provinces to the Zionist regime so they can create a country there... and the problem will be solved at its root," he said.
"Why do they insist on imposing themselves on other powers and creating a tumour so there is always tension and conflict?"
While Reuters cites IRNA and a "press conference". The IRNA site does not carry a report that says so. AP does not give any context of where, when and to whom Ahmadinejad spoke. AFP has a translated transcript from a TV interview. Please choose the one you prefer.
But is this an all out holocaust denial? None of the agency reports would deserve that headline. Is this a call to move Israel to Europe? I read a big if there that only intends to challenge European support for Israel. But then, your mileage may vary. I for one would prefer much better reporting on this before anything else.
Like for context: when and to whom spoke Ahmadinejad. Who came up with what question? What was the overall theme?
And could one mention Netanyahu, who last Monday called for a preemptive strike on civilian infrastructure in Iran, followed by the Israeli defense minister Mofaz who speaks with regard to Iran of solutions "other than diplomatic" (BTW: is that a Hitler quote?).
Posted by b on December 10, 2005 at 20:34 UTC | Permalink
I always wondered about the veracity of attributing to Iranian leaders, quotes including the http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22destruction+of+israel%22+AND+Khamenei&btnG=Google+Search>"destruction of Israel" or http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22israel+into+the+sea%22+AND+Khamenei&btnG=Search>"Israel into the sea" or http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Israel+must+be+wiped+off+the+map%22&btnG=Search>Israel wiped off map.".
I'm not claiming these things aren't said by Iranian leadership, but attributions seem sometimes shaky.
On the other hand, the last quote there ("wipe off map") might explain why Israel conbsiders Iran a security threat.
Posted by: slothrop | Dec 10 2005 21:43 utc | 2
Ahmadinejad is verbalising a sentiment that many of us have shared. I don't see any point in debating how many people were murdered during the nazi regime, if only because both sides have shouted half truths so loudly that there is no chance of ever establishing exactly what happened from this distance. We need to accept though that Hitler in line with significant European sentiment at the time, decided to move Jewish people out of Europe by any means fair or foul. If he couldn't get them to shift once he had stripped them of any material assets, they were slaughtered by acts of ommission ('forgetting' to feed) and commission (out and out murder, either in your face by gun, dog, or club, or at a distance with cyanide)
The sad truth of WW2 is no matter who says they 'won' that war Hitler and the significant numbers of anti-semites in Europe at the time, got their way. With the exception of the UK and the former USSR, the Jewish people read the unsubtle message correctly and left.
Now I don't want to get into an arguement so soon again but a simple fact of humanity is that it is easier to like and support a foreign culture if that culture is at a distance from yourself. A cynic may suggest that the current loathing of anti-semitism throughout western Europe is in part due to the paucity of Jewish people around the place that the ignorant can resent.
The closest I can get to 'proof' of this statement is the continued oppression of Romany or Gypsy people throughout all of Europe including Britain. They didn't have a 'homeland' and it was difficult to create one for them because I suspect they had always lived a nomadic existence exactly where they live now. That is gypsies aren't necessarily 'alien' they are nomads who have been oppressed since the shift to agrarianism and land owning, millenia ago.
Yes some of the gypsies in Britain have moved across from Ireland and many of the gypsies in Western Europe have migrated from Eastern Europe following the destruction of the 'iron curtain' but one could argue that has come about by the genocide of their bretheren in those places. This has been aided by abolition of borders within Europe enabling the gypsies to resume their traditional nomadic routes.
Bit of a digression but my point is that Ahmadinejad raises a legitimate issue which needs discussion.
As a celt living in non-traditional celtic areas after some would claim, having been driven away by English colonialism, I am aware that there may indeed come a time when the traditional owners of 'New World' territories demand our expulsion. I wonder how our cousins in Scotland and Ireland would react if the millions of celts returned from the new world diaspora demanding that they be settled in their homeland.
Yes it seems ridiculous and remote to us at the moment because we have successfully sided with the oppressors who drove us here in the first place. Nothing is forever though and it is becoming apparent that the end of whitey hegemony is getting close.
There is no simple solution to any of this but a variation on Newtons third law of motion. That:
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
The more that oppressors use violent and oppressive means to impose their will on others, the worse the resistance to that oppression will eventually be.
As the arrest of the self professed English historian David Irving in Austria demonstrates, if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did say "Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned." he wasn't lying.
My view is that Europe should be made to provide for the descendants of the Jewish diaspora of Europe who wish to return. If it did happen or was even suggested some very old and largely 'forgotten' instruments of hatred and oppression would resurface eg protocols of zion.
In addition this would be no help at all to the jewish people who emigrated to Israel from other parts of the middle east. As it was they were subject to the type of oppression in Israel that they had already experienced elsewhere. However once it became apparent that Israel needed lots of people to be viable, even if that basically meant JDF cannon-fodder, they became accepted. Typical of they way the cycle of perpatrator victim works many of those people are now at the forefront of Palestinian oppression. Where would they 'go'? Palestinian tolerance dissapated long ago in assasination, home destruction and exile.
In fact the whole issue of Israel has made their 'repatriation' back to the ME diaspora untenable in the short term. Emotions are far too heated to be resolved within a couple of generations.
The way these things work means that Europe and the Middle Eastern nations could probably agree that the "new World' is just the place for people from the failed state of Israel. Apart from the issue of what the indigenous people of the 'new world' may have to say about that, I betcha US, Australia, Canada and NZ's much vaunted tolerance for the Jewish culture would disappear quickly if Israelis were moved on masse to their countries.
So the 'fix' for the mess created in Palestine is going to be long and slow. If we work with some basic principles like no one should be forced to go anywhere and that countries from which the current Israeli people came should assist and compensate any 'returnees'. That genuine effort be made to ensure that both Palestinian and Israeli people don't have to fight each other for finite resources like land, then a solution is possible.
Ahmadinejad's comments are part of the debate required to find that solution.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Dec 10 2005 22:07 utc | 3
I am quite relieved to find people actually debating this as well as being somewhat in awe that b would dare post a third rail article.
One thing I have been told by people living in the area and verified elsewhere is that Jews have been living more or less just like everyone else in the middle east since the beginning. There was no organized oppression or suppression of the Jews based on religion. I do not believe that Ahmadinejad called for the killing of all Jews even though corporate media wants to spin it in that way. Calling for the elimination of the State of Israel is quite another thing though it does get clouded when considering that Israel is a Jewish state.
I do not find it illogical to ask why Europe could not have found a homeland for the Jews within Europe. Why indeed did land have to be stolen from the Arabs to take care of a European problem? One could argue that many, if not all of the current problems in the middle east are direct results of introducing European Jews into the area.
hopefully this thread will not descend into a lot of knee jerking and hyperventilating which is normally the case.
Posted by: dan of steele | Dec 10 2005 23:13 utc | 4
As Edward Said was quoted as saying, (right before he died)..."it has become clear that, because Western audiences are so poorly informed, Israeli public officials can say anything, including out-and-out lies." That was in 2001,and by now it is quite clear that by proxy the US media has transformed into the same.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Dec 10 2005 23:59 utc | 5
It was stupid for him to question that the holocaust occurred, which those qualified statements could be construed as questioning the holocaust.
The holocaust WAS connected to the establishemtn of a Jewish state. It was the Jews themselves who wanted to make that state in Israel/palestine. The fact that the British controlled Palestine at the time was what made it possible for the Europeans to go along with placing it there.
And the antisemitic treatment of Jews in all the allied nations probably did play a racist part in the UN establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine rather than in Europe. This way they could get rid of their Jewish populations legally by providing a faraway haven for them, patting themselves on the back for their "support" of the Jewish homeland.
The Iranian should have limited his remarks to the movement of Israel to Europe, not made qualified statements regarding the holocaust.
Posted by: gylangirl | Dec 11 2005 3:18 utc | 6
theocrats, with corrupt, malignant & contingent doemestic & foreign policies whether they are american, israeli or iranian , are a danger to us all
these simpletons want to reduce everything
they speak often of their heavens & paradise but all they offer in real terms, is hell
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Dec 11 2005 3:57 utc | 7
Let me frame this a bit differently: At issue here is how to make whole the claims of a people who have been dispossessed from their homes, of which the Jews are a specific instance.
Ahmadinejad's solution was the establishment of a separate state in Europe. O.K., except that he is 55 years too late to push for this solution.
The Western powers' solution (which had really commenced around 1900, and picked up steam after WWI) lay in appropriating a piece of land in the Middle East from its inhabitants, by restrictive land and financial laws, and the use of force and threats, for the use of said dispossessed people, namely, the Jews.
Now, it seems to me, that if we examine the historical and cultural effects of WWII on Western Europe, we find that one consequence of the defeat of Nazi ideology is the notion that ethnic cleansing is wrong, and that therefore its opposite, namely acceptance of muticulturalism, however grudgingly, must be accepted as just. Interestingly, as usual, the Law of Unintended Consequences obtains in this situation. Namely, Europe being forced to legitimize multiculturalism has lead over the years to the vast influx of Muslim immigrants, and what is now called "The Muslim Problem", a problem even more vexing and threatening to so-called "European identity" than the previous "Jewish Problem." Any thoughts on how this will play out?
In any event, following the logic above, one might have proposed a third solution after the war as more just than that suggested by Ahmadinejad, or that adopted by the world. Namely, allowing all surviving Jews to return to their previous homes throughout Europe, the payment of reparations to both the living and survivors of the dead, and the acceptance of them as full citizens of their countries without prejudice, including the vigorous prosecution of all hate crimes. This would not have given the Western powers a toe-hold in the Middle East, or satisfied the demands of the Zionists, who, it should be noted, justified their claims in cultural terms, not religious ones. In any event, the result was the atavistic establishment of a state devoted to the interests of one distinct group of people, namely the Jews--a solution that had just been discredited within Europe itself.
Well, the Statesmen of the world do not have to pay heed to the mere constraints of logic as long as they can sway the hearts of their peoples.
Also at issue in this discussion is the balancing of the claims of two different groups of people in the world: Those that believe in multiculturalism in society--as we in the West, and America in particular, are always told is one of the great achievements of democratic society, even by the left; and the claims of indigenous or other tribal or national groups of people to maintain their unique and independent identities.
As I am currently rereading "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee", the bloody history of the American Indian Wars in the West, I am tempted to archly suggest that America's furious promulgation of the desirability of multiculturalism is merely a cynical ideological cover for their penchant for conquering and subjugating other peoples in order to appropriate their land and their resources: An unavoidable consequence of Imperialism is the need to grudgingly accept the remaining members of races who through some turn of fate were not originally annihilated. Of course, these new Ugly Ducklings, or "Lucky Duckies" as Rummy calls them, being uneducated and dispossed, are an excellent source of cheap, expendable labor.
Nevertheless, we do live in a modern world, one in which significant pluralities of people would like to enjoy the benefits of mobility.
Against this claim must be balanced the needs of the world's remaining groups with unique identities; groups that are often on the front lines in the war against complete global subjugation to the destructive forces of invidious Capital, to the trashing of the last remaining unspoilt corner of the earth, to the siren importunings of the benefits of "development", and of joining the "cash economy." (Note: Anthropologists have since moved on to describing the particularities of kith and kin in Western Societies now, so at least they are not at imminent risk of extinction.) Indeed, it is these very same indigenous people who live most sustainably on this planet, who may be our inspiration for mankind to emulate before civilization kills off the last remaining life support system on the planet.
The tension between the just balancing of these two polarities, unity vs. uniqueness, can be seen playing out in the negotiations at the World Social Forums. The just argument in favor of unity goes thusly: The neo-liberals push so-called "Free Trade", which provides for the unrestricted movement of capital. This works well for the wealthy. The solution is for the poor and disenfranchised of the world to push for the unrestricted movement of all people. An end to all privelege and nationalism. This would help reign in the destructive force of capital on people. This is a direct progressive response to both Ahmadinejad's and Bush's importunings.
The just argument for uniqueness calls on the implementation of participative Democracy from the bottom up, rather than the top down. All peoples should have the right to self determination, a right which is currently being taken away by the privatisation of our commons: air, water and food, through anti-democratic "Free Trade" laws. They should have the right to control, even to the point of NOT developing, their own resources, and these rights should not be resticted by overriding international "agreements" like intellectual property agreements (TRIPS). Furthermore, additional protections need to be added against the deleterious bribing effects of contingent aid in the face of natural, or man-made, catastrophe.
Well, I've come along way from what Ahmadinejad wants to do with the Jews, but I hope you can all see how reframing things on a wider canvass allows us more freedom in crafting a just and non-reactive, yet wider ranging, and more relevant, response.
I'm the president of the home and property where I live in Los Angeles. My Iranian counterpart has shown us all an example of "thinking outside the box" and a degree of imagination unconventional among us ordinary politicial leaders. Thus awakened, I want to propose some other possible adjustments that he consider for his government's possible support and approval. Most notably, I recall there were some wars between Iran and Greece and Greece prevailed but, arguably, should not have. The Greeks got Greece and the Persians got Persia. Since that outcome shouldn't have been, let's the two peoples swap. Let the Iranians set up their Islamic Republic in Greece, as rightfully they would have done had the outcome of those wars not been distorted. The Greeks, meanwhile, can occupy Iran. I support however the retention of rights to the revenue of Greek oil under this arrangement by the Iranians in a generous sharing agreement. The presence and value of oil on Greek territory was unknown at the time of the wars so should not be inherited by the Greeks as a windfall now. I'm partially of Armenian heritage, and the nearby territories of Turkey and Armenia are due for a historical realignment too. We can take care of all four mal-positioned peoples at once, the Turks and Armenians swapping too. If the territory of Armenia proves inadequate to absorb the Turkish population I offer them a return all the way back to where they came from and resettlement of that country of theirs. Then the Mongolians can occupy Armenia. I will give our full support to the Mongolian project to give their country back. There are only 3 or 4 million of them, they will fit Armenia. None of this has anything to do with my property so I'm going to stay where I am and shop for Christmas. Through diplomatic or at least moral channels, I fully support the Greeks, Turks, Armenians, Persians, and Mongolians in their modern reorinetation. I congratulate them. Yours respectfully.
Posted by: david | Dec 11 2005 7:49 utc | 9
It's so predictable that it's a wonder this thread lasted so long nearly (24 hours) Everyone has been talking about the way forward where no one gets turned over or killed and some lamer with an axe to grind for one side comes in and ridicules any discussion outside the usual paradigm of war and oppression. As part of the region which has been destabilised by the extended and expensive life support system Israel has depended on to last this long Ahmadinejad, a democratically elected leader, has a right to comment. His comments are pretty mild almost conciliatory when the agression that both the US and Israel have displayed towards his nation is considered.
We are expected to ignore the simple truth that the arguments used to demolish Ahmadinejad's concept are the polar opposite of the arguments used in favor of the state of Israel. Both arguments advanced by the supporters of this illegal theocracy.
An interesting contradiction comes out of time. In the case of Europe returnees, 50 years is too late, but for Israel, 2000 years only serves to make the situation even more important. No wonder the world is turning against this artificial state and suggesting that they either learn to get along with the people they displaced or take themselves away from those people.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Dec 11 2005 10:25 utc | 10
In the case of Europe returnees, 50 years is too late, but for Israel, 2000 years only serves to make the situation even more important.
excellent point debs
i rather like the early zionists plan for buying land in argentinia or brazil. whoops, the fundies would never go for that, it fouls up the rapture plans.
Posted by: annie | Dec 11 2005 14:17 utc | 11
After Ahmadinejad's "wipe them off the map" speech, some clarification from the former president that was not emphasized in the western press:
From the BBC:
Former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said yesterday that Iran respected both Jews and Judaism. "We have no problems with Jews and highly respect Judaism as a holy religion," Rafsanjani told worshippers at the Friday Prayers, followed by anti-Israeli demonstrations throughout Iran... Rafsanjani, heading the Expediency Council, said Iran would even co-operate in establishing peace and stability in the Middle East and reiterated Tehran's plan of a referendum involving all Palestinians, including refugees, choosing their future political fate in peaceful co-existence with the Jews.
It is also true that Iran to this day has the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country.
Jews in Iran Describe a Life of Freedom Despite Anti-Israel Actions by Tehran
Whatever, IMOP, there will be an air attach on Iran this year and it will quite likely involve nukes.
Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran
Such an attack would be supported on both sides of the aisle and we would quite likely see our leaders rallying around Bush again as the "War President".
The physicist Jorge Hirsch has written a series of articles on why such an attack will happen.
Can a Nuclear Strike on Iran Be Prevented?
Posted by: tgs | Dec 11 2005 14:46 utc | 12
And one last thing - the Times doesn't need Judy Miller to serve up misinformation to justify attacking Israel's enemies - the tradition continues quite well without her:
Posted by: tgs | Dec 11 2005 15:01 utc | 13
My view is that Europe should be made to provide for the descendants of the Jewish diaspora of Europe who wish to return. If it did happen or was even suggested some very old and largely 'forgotten' instruments of hatred and oppression would resurface eg protocols of zion.
Debs, one minor point, and an opposing pov - not something to argue about really, just fodder.
First, Germany has done exactly that, and today more Jews emigrate to Germany (eg from ex USSR and from Israel itself) than to Israel. That is a bold statement I can’t back up, as Israel keeps the numbers under wraps and one only finds a few slanted news articles following confused press conferences by the Israeli authorities on the net. So one may choose to disbelieve that - anyone interested should try and look it up: there are some surprises there. Again, just afaik, no other EU country has any dispositions whatsoever that are related to religion or ‘ethnic’ provenance - only nationality (or other papers of that type), the usual claims that can be made for refugee status (torture), etc. But it is all rather confused, and the official rules don’t tell the whole story. I’d be very interested if anyone grasped all this better than I do..
Second - and perhaps I am not clear-eyed here as I live in a very multicultural society - I don’t believe old instruments of hatred and oppression would resurface in the EU (thinking of France, CH, Germany, and Holland, which I know, but I suppose one should include Scandinavia). There are many reasons for this. Just the main one: anti-semitism in the EU has been hyped to death by Israel and the US, it is not prevalent at all. What expression it finds (eg. profanation of cemeteries in France) are directly linked to the Is-Pal situation.
Every little incident is blown out of proportion, and, more important, comparisons are never made. Catholic cemeteries are regularly devastated (Jesus sucks, etc.) I’d have more to say on this, but not now.
It is over, it is finished, it is past history. Nobody under 75 cares. Except those who want to keep racist, ethnic, religious type conflicts boiling - and we know who they are.
Naturally, a large and sudden influx of new ‘foreign’ immigrants (Gipsies, Kosovars, Americans, Moroccans, Jews, etc.) will create problems in any place that is not actively looking for new immigrants or structurally set up to welcome them.
Posted by: Noisette | Dec 11 2005 17:16 utc | 14
from the jorge hirsch article :
Why a Nuclear Attack Against Iran Is Imminent
The U.S. and Israel have made it clear that they will not allow Iran to implement a civilian nuclear program that includes the fuel cycle, because it will bring Iran closer to a point where it could develop nuclear weapons if it so decided. Iran claims the right to develop civilian nuclear technology, including the fuel cycle, which is explicitly allowed under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). These are completely irreconcilable positions, and in the absence of compromise they can only be resolved by military action in which the stronger side prevails. The U.S. is not negotiating with Iran either directly or indirectly and is in essence demanding that Iran prove today beyond any doubt that it will not have nuclear weapons in the indefinite future, which is as impossible as it was for Saddam Hussein to prove that he did not have weapons he didn't have."
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Dec 11 2005 18:06 utc | 15
The Nazis, the Zionists, and the Brits agreed to move ‘Jews’ to an arid outpost in the ME where they would be welcome at first (perhaps) but would rapidly come into conflict with the local inhabitant and surroundings. No matter: for all these right-wing domineering types, the Jews would hold a tiny territory in the ME, a patsy that was endlessly manipulable. Pious rantings about past wrongs that must be righted, consequent funding for those people, etc. would continue the Great Game.
The Jews - turned into people of a country, Israel - - now a racist non-democratic enclave complete with a semi-fascist Gvmt. and an apartheid wall - - would be hapless and victimized enough to put up with anything.
They could be enslaved with gifts and hypocritical support, given arms they would feel strong, they would fight their Arab neighbors, but would always be under control. If necessary, attack against them could easily be implemented.
And so it proved to be.
Sometimes, victims love their oppressors and set up symbiotic relations with them. Their manipulation of their oppressor provides a heady sensation of trimph. They are winning, they feel.
Israel is caught in a victim - perpetrator syndrome from which it cannot escape.
Posted by: Noisette | Dec 11 2005 18:24 utc | 16
It looks to me like Ahmadinejad actually did deny the holocaust -- or cast doubt on the extent, which is no less despicable. At the same time, The German Press Agency (DPA) -- followed by Reuters -- does appear to have incorrectly cited IRNA, which as far as I can tell did not report Ahmadinejad's denial of the holocaust or the proposal to move Israel to Europe.
Whatever IRNA reported, the earliest story (UPI, December 8 11:40) mentions Ahmadinejad "calling Europeans to 'give the Jews a land in Europe where they can set up an entity of their own.'" Salah Nasrqhi, writing for AP with a Mecca byline, reported that proposal and that Ahmadinejad cast doubt upon the extent of the holocaust.
That's one witness (and probably two) to the loathesome event. Moreover, the Iranian Foreign Ministry confirmed the statement, uncorking this little nugget of hatred:
"Ahmadinejad has just said that just because of the oppression made against the Jews in the past, with which many disagree, Israel should not have the right to avail itself of this oppression and put pressure on Islamic states in return," Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid-Reza Assefi said.
"And if the Europeans want to compensate these oppressions, then they should pay from their own pocket," the spokesman added.
So -- given the Foreign Ministry's false caim that "many disagree" -- I do think Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust.
Posted by: Jeffrey Lewis | Dec 11 2005 19:36 utc | 17
IIRC the Polish authorities turned some city in Silesia over to the Polish Jews after WWII. Unfortunately this alternative Zionism was destroyed by Stalinist paranoia, and most of the people left for Israel.
Posted by: lurker | Dec 11 2005 19:50 utc | 18
@Jeffrey - first thanks for passing bye and for your blog
The Iranian Foreign Ministry quote and the AFP quote can be interpreted differently.
The Europeans are pressuring Iran not to develop enrichment facilities. From an Iranian view this is for the sole benefit of Israel as Europe would never have to fear Iran, nuclear or not.
The Iranians do not understand why Europe supports Israel and come up with an explanation of an European guilt feeling and/or a European effort to keep Jews in Israel so they do not come to Europe. (The first one is plausible, the second one only if you don´t know modern Europe.)
Europe, a loose connection of lot of countries, would never allow a theocratic, racist state on its ground. Why should the Middle East, Arabia, the Ummah, allow this?
That is the point Ahmadinejad is pushing. He is putting up a mirror to the Europeans and asks "What would you do in our situation?" The European reaction to this was predictable. A complete rejection of the mirror case even though it is plausible.
oppression made against the Jews in the past, with which many disagree
That is a very two side-quote. Is it doubts about the numbers of holocaust death or is it disagreement with the "oppression"? As someone pointed out upthread, there are a lot of jews in Iran. To see this as anti-semitic instead of anti-zionist is a probably a poor understanding of the Iranian mind.
Sadly, no one cares.
The stores are filled with people of every color now, veritable bizarre (sic) souk of strangers, all walking up and down the isles in onezes and twozes, holding up the $4 loaf of bread, the $3 can of soup, the $10 bottle of cooking oil, and then putting them back on the shelf. Things they can open, they help themselves to a bite, and then put the package back on the shelf.
There's a festive Argentinian air to it all.
The cash registers ring forlornly, dollar store discounts, mexican rice, beans and off-brand sodas, the inevitable cans of Alpo, a few sweet potatoes, box of sugar cookies, tin of folgers.
Like WWII again, with the ration cards.
'6/6/6 Next Depression! Read The Commandments!', the enquirers shout. 'Jen's Gone Wild', it says.
'President Bush says God Damn The Constitution!'
Outside the stores people stand in layered rags, watching, disheveled, silent, signs, "it's OK to help" and "homeless with children", but, sadly, no one cares. 'Grab a chair and have a drink',
the winos offer, huddled under a leaking canopy,
then look away, nervously twisting their beards.
350,000 H-1B visas, high-tech foreign nationals,
while Ford, GMC and the US airlines lay off an equal number of mechanics and flight attendants.
Not even enough jobs for population growth and age-cohort growth, it's musical chairs now.
Jobs, jobs, jobs! There's jobs everywhere, temp jobs, minimum wage jobs, jobs with no benefits, jobs with no relocation expenses, jobs where you are expected to use your own vehicle, jobs where you buy your own inventory and pay the upline.
President Bush locks down the Mexican border, establishing a National Identity Card program (prefix-"666"), and an expansion of "beds", Fed-speak for medium security detention camps.
They got your number, Raptor and Down the Hole.
Your name, your number, your address, 'citizen, place your hands against the door pads, we are scanning electronically.' Blade Runner 2006.
But, sadly, no one cares.
LOL.
Posted by: Loose Shanks | Dec 12 2005 1:22 utc | 20
Holocaust denial is very common in the Arab world (I have read) and in Europe (I know.)
It is largely covered up and secret.
The point of it not so much historical fact - but an objection to the use of the supposedly ‘exceptional’ happenings during WW2 that allow Israel and the US to escape international laws, act ouside ‘democratic principles’, ‘human rights laws’, etc. as they are formulated, touted and often ‘imposed’ by the West and the US. The justification that is invoked - Israelis deserve a free pass, it is a special case - are both vigorously denounced and strongly repressed.
All this creates no end of trouble. And is detrimental to Israelis.
====
Loose Shanks, No, many do care. What they can do to change things - another topic.
Posted by: Noisette | Dec 12 2005 17:57 utc | 21
Iranian President Again Doubts Holocaust
Dec 13, 8:35 AM (ET)
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
(AP) Iran's President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaks to the media, during his first news conference...
Full Image
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reiterated his doubt about the Holocaust and called on Muslim nations to take a proactive stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, state media reported Tuesday.
The president's comments, published on Iranian state television's Web site, were the second time in a week he has expressed doubt about the Nazi genocide of Jews during World War II. In October, Ahmadinejad also said Israel should be "wiped off the map."
"If the killing of Jews in Europe is true," the Web site quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a speech at an Islamic conference in Tehran, "and the Zionists are being supported because of this excuse, why should the Palestinian nation pay the price?"
In Israel, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev criticized the remarks.
"The real problem with the repeated statements of the Iranian president is that they correctly represent the mind-set of the Iranian leadership, and they accurately articulate the policies of that extremist regime," he said.
Ahmadinejad also called on the Muslim world to "give up its policy of passivity" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, saying the West could not play a neutral role in the issue.
"The West's policy has always been in favor of the Zionist regime and to the detriment of the Islamic world. It can't be a judge or mediator now," Ahmadinejad said, according to the Web site.
Ahmadinejad provoked an angry reaction from the United States, Europe and even Russia, an ally of Iran, when he told reporters in Saudi Arabia on Thursday that Israel should be moved to Europe if the West wants to make up for the Holocaust.
The comment also infuriated the Saudis as it was made on the sidelines of a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference that was dedicated to showing the moderate face of Islam.
Ahmadinejad has been unapologetic about taking Iran on a more openly defiant course, insisting on Iran's right to develop its nuclear program and often using rhetoric reminiscent of the 1980s heyday of the Islamic Revolution.
But he has alienated even some conservative allies in Iran, who fear he is hurting the country's image. Moderate Iranians have called on the ruling Islamic establishment to rein in the president.
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has ultimate say on all matters, has backed Ahmadinejad's calls for Israel's elimination.
The controversy comes at a sensitive time for Iran, which is under heavy international pressure over its nuclear program. The United States is pressing the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
Washington accuses Tehran of seeking to build nuclear weapons. Iran denies this, saying its program is strictly for generating electricity.
Ahmadinejad denies holocaust, some moron deny Ahmadinejad denies holocaust. History and facts mean nothing to both morons.
Joe
Posted by: joe | Dec 13 2005 13:52 utc | 22
@joe - let my try this one.
If (a = b) and it is therefore that (a = c) why should d be effected?
If (eurpoeans killed jews) and it is therefore that (europe supports zionism) why should the palestinians be effected.
Where does the first statement express doubt in a = b?
It is really difficult discussing issues with people who express their biases without actually understanding all the facts and issues. Lets start with this. About half, well more than half before the influx of Soviet Jews in the 1990s, of the Jews in Israel had Middle Eastern backgrounds. Of course, now most Jews in Israel are Sabras, they were born there. Twenty percent of Israel is comprised of Arab Moslems, they of course are free to stay or leave. Why do you suppose they stay? Could it be because they are freer in Israel than they would be in any Arab country? The issues are of course way to complex to discuss in a comment section to a blog. But my question to you is why would you want to believe the moronic president of Iran did not deny the holocaust? I understand Hitchens, he is not merely anti-Semitic, he is anti every religion. I understand Buchanan, he is anti-Semitic. What about you?
Joe
Posted by: joe | Dec 13 2005 17:44 utc | 24
"About half, well more than half before the influx of Soviet Jews in the 1990s, of the Jews in Israel had Middle Eastern backgrounds."
By applying the same standard, one could easily argue that all those of European background should vacate the Americas and surrender it to the indigenous peoples, or the Han should give the island of Japan in its entirety to the Ainu or even, following the argument to its extreme limits, any human being could lay claim to the Olduvai region of Tanzania and displace modern Tanzanians. Romantic notions of propriety aside, it is neither a desirable nor realistic view of the situation.
"But my question to you is why would you want to believe the moronic president of Iran did not deny the holocaust?"
Because I am far more interested in what he actually said than what I "want to believe" he said. The AP article you quoted above actually undermines your case that Ahmadinejad denied the occurence of the Jewish Holocaust. What he actually said (viz. If this occured, then how does it affect that?) is a very well known rhetorical device known as Socratic Irony (id est; asking a question to demonstrate a principle or to call into question a presupposition). Taking someone's statements entirely out of context and ascribing unintended meaning to them in order to generate a negative emotional reaction is also a well known rhetorical device known as a fallacy ad miseriacordian.
"It is really difficult discussing issues with people who express their biases without actually understanding all the facts and issues."
That is becoming very evident. Perhaps if you call some more people Antisemites your meaning will become more clear.
Posted by: Monolycus | Dec 13 2005 18:29 utc | 25
“When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism.” --Martin Luther King
I can understand legitamite criticism of Israel, heck I read Haaretz every day and there is plenty right there. But if you don't see an anti-Semitic component in many of these comments, well you probably wouldn't see it at a KKK rally.
Joe
Posted by: joe | Dec 13 2005 18:39 utc | 26
@joe - if you don't see an anti-Semitic component in many of these comments
That is a strawman argument. Please point/cite a specific one and say why you think it is anti-semitic.
Ahmadinejad is verbalising a sentiment that many of us have shared.
As the arrest of the self professed English historian David Irving in Austria demonstrates, if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did say "Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned." he wasn't lying.
As the arrest of the self professed English historian David Irving in Austria demonstrates, if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did say "Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned." he wasn't lying.
The Jews - turned into people of a country, Israel - - now a racist non-democratic enclave complete with a semi-fascist Gvmt. and an apartheid wall - - would be hapless and victimized enough to put up with anything.
All the above are just total bullshit, clearly not fact based. Look, if you don't understand the bigotry inherent in most of these posts, then you simply do not understand bigotry. I suggest you take a step back and determine whether your posts, questioning the present in the same way Ahmadinejad questions the past, are based on some internal prejudice. I think we all need to do that when writing or talking about other groups or nations. And let me be clear about my bias, I am very much in favor of Israel continuing to exist as a Jewish nation. I remember the 1970s when there were long lines at gas stations and there were many in America who would have killed all the Jews for a tank of gas. Should an economic catastrophe hit America again, and it will, I fear for my children and my children's children. They need a place to be able to run to. Israel is that place, that only place. When Jews could still escape Europe in the 1930s only Brazil would take them. But only the baptized ones. My parents have pictures of my relatives who couldn't get out, they were murdered at the camps. I want to be remembered by my descendants, not by pictures.
Joe
Posted by: joe | Dec 13 2005 19:35 utc | 28
I am very much in favor of Israel continuing to exist as a Jewish nation.
does that mean any and all policies to ensure israel exists you support? do you consider anyone who opposes policies of the israeli government to be anti semite?
I remember the 1970s when there were long lines at gas stations and there were many in America who would have killed all the Jews for a tank of gas
do you have any documentation to back this up? i don't even know what you are talking about. Look, if you don't understand the bigotry inherent in your post, then you simply do not understand bigotry.I suggest you take a step back and determine whether your post is based on some internal prejudice. Should an economic catastrophe hit America again, and it will, I fear for my children and my children's children. They need a place to be able to run to. Where do you think I can go?
there are millions of Jews in America who despise the current policies of the irraeli government, my sons godmother for one, she is my best friend. i suggest you take your blinders off.
Posted by: annie | Dec 13 2005 20:05 utc | 29
Ahmadinejad also said Israel should be "wiped off the map."
where all the broha over israeli's call for a preemptive nuclear attack on iran? where's the outrage over the preparations by our government for such an attack?
Posted by: annie | Dec 13 2005 20:11 utc | 30
Just digest this news report about Bush's speech yesterday.
President Bush, looking beyond this week's parliamentary elections in Iraq, said regime change will be needed elsewhere in the world before Americans' safety at home can be ensured.Americans' safety ..."The long run in this war is going to require a change of governments in parts of the world," Bush told the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, a nonpartisan educational group, on Monday. He didn't name names but noted that Iran and Syria have become obstacles to freedom in "a tough neighborhood."
i have 2 very good friends who spent many of their teen years in israel, dragged along by their brotherhood christian parents, they loved it. they said they would go back in a heartbeat if it weren't for the current situation. when i think of the jews in israel it is in the same context i think of americans, divided. i do not imagine how anyone outside america can abhor the right wing as much as i do. i'm sure they are there but to assume we on the left somehow hate them any less because they are our countrymen is false. i would throw them to the devil if i could. does that make me anti american? i am no more anti israel than i am anti american then. are orthodox jews as supportive of the zionist regime as christian fundies are of the rightwing agenda? i don't know, why is it important for you , joe, to label someone who opposes the regime in israel a bigot? does this justify your position more. do you think this will make us shrivel? what is the word for people who can't tolerate the christian fundementalist? does this make me a bigot. then call me a proud one. if they want to practice their religion in the comfort of their home i could care less. but propping up a foriegn regime........can you even see where this is heading?
Posted by: annie | Dec 13 2005 20:41 utc | 32
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
(AP) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad waves to lawmakers as he arrives at parliament to attend an...
Full Image
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday the Holocaust is a "myth" that Europeans have used to create a Jewish state in the heart of the Islamic world.
"Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets," Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in the southeastern city of Zahedan.
The Iranian president previously expressed doubt that the Nazi destruction of six million European Jews during World War II had occurred. But Wednesday was the first time he publicly denied the Holocaust.
Ahmadinejad provoked an international outcry in October when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
Touring southeast Iran, Ahmadinejad said that if Europeans insist the Holocaust did happen, then they are responsible and should pay the price.
"If you committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?" Ahmadinejad asked rhetorically.
"This is our proposal: if you committed the crime, then give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country," he said, developing a theme he raised in Saudi Arabia last week.
Germany and Israel condemned the remark, with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier calling it "shocking and unacceptable."
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said: "The repeated outrageous remarks of the Iranian president show clearly the mind-set of the ruling clique in Tehran and indicate clearly the extremist policy goals of the regime.
"The combination of fanatical ideology, a warped sense of reality and nuclear weapons is a combination that no one in the international community can accept," Regev added, referring to allegations that Iran is developing nuclear bombs
In Berlin, Foreign Minister Steinmeier said his government had summoned the Iranian charge d'affaires to make "unmistakably clear" its displeasure.
"I cannot hide the fact that this weighs on bilateral relations and on the chances for the negotiation process, the so-called nuclear dossier," Steinmeier said, referring to European talks with Iran on its nuclear program.
Ahmadinejad said the West had harmed Muslims, invaded their countries and plundered their wealth.
"If your civilization consists of aggression, making oppressed people homeless, suffocating the voices of justice and bringing poverty to a majority of the world's people, we say loudly that we hate your hollow civilization," he said.
The president's views sharply conflict with those of his predecessor Mohammad Khatami, a moderate who used to call for dialogue among civilizations and promoted a low-key understanding with the United States that stopped short of diplomatic relations.
Inside Iran, Ahmadinejad's remarks have been criticized by some of his conservative allies who fear he is hurting the country's image. Moderate Iranians have called on the ruling Islamic establishment to rein in the president.
But Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the ultimate say, has backed Ahmadinejad's calls for Israel's elimination.
Ahmadinejad criticized the United States for refusing to sell Iran spare parts for its civilian planes as part of its long standing embargo against the country.
Iran has suffered a series of plane accidents - most recently on Dec. 6 when an aging U.S.-made military transport plane crashed into a tall building in Tehran, killing 115 people. Iranian officials have blamed Washington for the crashes, saying they are partly caused by the difficulty in obtaining spare parts.
"No country is authorized to impose spare-part sanctions against another country. Nothing can justify this," Ahmadinejad said Wednesday.
Ahmadinejad said the denial of spare parts was a reason why Iran would not trust Western promises to give it nuclear fuel. The country is currently at loggerheads with the West over its insistence on enriching uranium to fuel its first nuclear reactor, which is due to start generating electricity next year.
The Europeans, with U.S. backing, do not trust Iran to have its own enrichment process, as highly enriched uranium can be used for nuclear warheads. Europe has offered to sell enriched uranium for the reactor, but Iran has rejected this.
Ahmadinejad said that if Iran gave in on the nuclear dispute, there was no guarantee the West might not refuse to sell nuclear fuel in the future.
"I assure you that we won't step back one inch from our nuclear rights," the president told the crowd, drawing chants of "Death to America!"
Later this month, Iran is due to resume negotiations on the nuclear issue with envoys from Britain, France and Germany.
Now, how much clearer does he have to be before the deniers of the present will accept that this moron is a denier of the past?
And Annie, congradulations on being the oldest person alive, you must be because nobody could gather as much stupid without being at least 150. You say you hate the right wing yet you adopt the views of Pat Buchanan, and Israel has not threatened a nuclear strike, it has never even acknowledged having nuclear weapons. It has threatened a strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities. Israel may be a lot of things, but is has had democratic elections for over 50 years, it is clearly not a fascist state. I just haven't the time to go through and piecemeal each idiotic statement in your posts. Things are generally much more complicated that are perceived, but you, along with most of the other commentators here, simply don't have the ability to nuance the world.
Joe
Posted by: joe | Dec 14 2005 13:00 utc | 33
joe, contrary to your statement above, Israel has acknowledged it possesses nuclear weapons.
By WSWS.org: Jean Shaoul 12 February 2000 [Google cache]
At the beginning of February, the Israeli Knesset (parliament) held the first public discussion on the country's nuclear arms programme for nearly 40 years. It was greeted with deafening silence by the international establishment.Military censorship has always forbidden reports in the Israeli media about its nuclear arsenal, and successive governments have refused to discuss the issue. Finally, Issam Mahoul, an Arab Israeli MP who is a member of the Hadash (Communist) Party, went to the Supreme Court to seek a ruling forcing the government to permit a parliamentary debate. Parliament Speaker Avraham Burg backed down in order to avoid a Supreme Court decision.
In the televised debate, Mahoul stated that according to experts' estimates, Israel has stockpiled huge numbers of nuclear warheads. This had increased to what he described as the "insane amount of 200-300". The weapons had been developed with the help of the South African apartheid regime.
Thanks for posting the articles above. Interesting that charge of
Iranian officials have blamed Washington for the crashes, saying they are partly caused by the difficulty in obtaining spare parts."No country is authorized to impose spare-part sanctions against another country. Nothing can justify this," Ahmadinejad said Wednesday.
Finally it offends me that you have stooped to a personal attack on another poster here.
Annie deserves the same consideration as any speaker and I ask you to cease your irrelevant criticism. You are a new contributor here and should learn that to be taken seriously in this group you will have greater success with attribution, citation and a reasoned background for your statements.
So far that has not fully emerged.
Posted by: jonku | Dec 14 2005 13:28 utc | 34
Jonku,
The article you cited, from 2000, simply says there was a debate one of the Arab Israeli MPs said that Israel had nuclear weapons. Israel has never formally acknowledged that it has them. From the Atlanta Journal Constitution in 2004:
Israel answers to no one on nuclear weapons
"By CRAIG NELSON
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer
Jerusalem -- The White House celebrated news last month that Libya will dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and that Iran will permit snap inspections of its nuclear program.
But the biggest nuclear power in the Middle East, the state that runs the most secretive WMD program in the world, has signaled no intention of disarming or even slowing down.
In fact, Israel has declined to discuss -- or even disclose -- its weapons systems for nearly 50 years, and it remained characteristically silent after December's developments in Tripoli and Tehran.
Washington, too, has had nothing to say about Israel's weapons, despite an increasingly compelling reason for raising the issue -- namely, that Syria and Iran, with Egypt's backing, say they will not disarm unless Israel does.
For the Bush administration to pressure Israel to declare the existence of its weapons of mass destruction and outline the contingencies for their use would, at the very least, remove a glaring double standard in its high-minded proclamations on the subject. It certainly would reassure moderate Arab states, where Israel is usually viewed as Goliath, not David."
Anyway the point is that Israel has not threatened a nuclear strike. And Annie's post are so full of misinformation, absurdities and nonsense that I just don't know how else to characterise them or her.
By the way, BERNARD, do you now acknowledge that Ahmadinejad has denied the holocaust? Do you disagree with him or do you also deny the holocaust? Do you agree with that other notorious liberal, Mel Gibson, that the holocaust was not particularly unique since, after all, lots have people died in the 20th century?
Joe
Posted by: joe | Dec 14 2005 13:57 utc | 35
@joe
I explained above that the arguments you were using were ad miseriacordian; I did not, at that time, feel it was necessary to mention that your arbitrary use of the labels "moron" and "Anti-Semite" were also ad hominem (as well as technically incorrect). Since your arguments have become more abusive since then, I feel now that I should have mentioned this before.
We have long since discovered that one can not take any contrary position viz-á-viz Israel without courting the label "Anti-Semite", and so that particular epithet has come in recent times to more clearly demonstrate the biases of the person applying it to others. You have made repeated claims about the inflexible prejudices of your fellow posters in addition to making the claim that their arguments are filled with "misinformation, absurdities and nonsense". This is a very clear case of the phenomenon of enantiodromia about which I am consistently harping (to call it hypocrisy would imply that you were conscious of doing it, and I prefer to take the charitable position that you are not).
The fact of the matter is that it is widely acknowledged that Israel does possess nuclear weapons, and that they have encouraged this knowledge which implies a tacit threat to their neighbours even in the absence of any official pronouncements. I hasten to remind you that the nation of Iraq was devastated on the grounds that this behaviour is unacceptable... and Iraq had not "threatened a nuclear strike", either. I am presuming from your "anti-Iranianism" that you do not feel this was unjustified.
The question of whether or not the Jewish Holocaust did or did not occur as it has been popularly described is entirely a non-issue here unless the actual perpetrators of said Holocaust (a military-political organization that has been defunct for over 60 years) are directly involved in the debate. If it was invoked by Ahmadinejad to promote a particular emotional response, it is also being invoked by you here for the same reason. This might actually qualify as conscious hypocrisy on your part. Describing the nearly fascist Mel Gibson as a "notorious liberal" certainly does.
Until such time as you are able to debate a point without personally denigrating those who disagree with you and you are able to restrict your arguments to those facts belonging to a larger consensual reality, I am going to have to view your input as unproductive.
Posted by: Monolycus | Dec 14 2005 15:40 utc | 36
Joe - By the way, BERNARD, do you now acknowledge that Ahmadinejad has denied the holocaust? Do you disagree with him or do you also deny the holocaust? Do you agree with that other notorious liberal, Mel Gibson, that the holocaust was not particularly unique since, after all, lots have people died in the 20th century? The AP article you copied cites Amadinejad as saying:
Touring southeast Iran, Ahmadinejad said that if Europeans insist the Holocaust did happen, then they are responsible and should pay the price.That is not a holocaust denial."If you committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?" Ahmadinejad asked rhetorically.
"This is our proposal: if you committed the crime, then give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country," he said, developing a theme he raised in Saudi Arabia last week.
If he would deny that the holocaust happened, I would disagree with him ON THAT ISSUE.
What, in my view, distinguishes the holocaust from other genozides is the use of an economical optimized and industrialized process to achieve a genozide. Therein lies the unprecedented dehumanization of the victims and perpetrators.
This seems to be the right thread (i.e., I'm tossing some more
incendiary material into the fire) to ask for reader reaction
and to this
bit of MEMRI jogging which has already been commented on by Xymphora (fourth
thread down the page).
As usual I would be interested in B's input, especially if
he can debunk or confirm some of the allegations brought
to us by the selfless folk at MEMRI.
Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Dec 14 2005 16:10 utc | 38
joe5348 wrote: Things are generally much more complicated that are perceived, but you, along with most of the other commentators here, simply don't have the ability to nuance the world.
. . .
I remember the 1970s when there were long lines at gas stations and there were many in America who would have killed all the Jews for a tank of gas.
. . .
Ahmadinejad denies holocaust, some moron deny Ahmadinejad denies holocaust. History and facts mean nothing to both morons.
. . .
if you don't see an anti-Semitic component in many of these comments, well you probably wouldn't see it at a KKK rally.
. . .
Look, if you don't understand the bigotry inherent in most of these posts, then you simply do not understand bigotry.
Posted by: b real | Dec 14 2005 16:25 utc | 39
"Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets," Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in the southeastern city of Zahedan. The Iranian president previously expressed doubt that the Nazi destruction of six million European Jews during World War II had occurred. But Wednesday was the first time he publicly denied the Holocaust.
Just how much clearer does he have to be?
And what distinguishes the holocaust is that it is the culmination of centuries of religious hatred which not only went unchecked, but was fanned by governmental and religious powers to ensure the survival of those powers. I know that the holocaust was not the first or last time that hatred has resulted in the attempted extermination of an entire group, but it is the most notorious with the most dramatic results. Not to understand the effect it has on the Jewish psyche demonstrates, at best, a stunning lack of empathy.
Joe
Posted by: joe | Dec 14 2005 16:29 utc | 40
Hannah,
I suppose you already have your mind made up, but if you are really interested in what is going on in Lebanon and Syria, you might read Josh Landis' syriacomment.com from one who is somewhat sympathetic to Bashir Assad and Tony Badran's bayruit2bayside.blogspot.com who is not sympathetic to Assad.
Joe
Posted by: joe | Dec 14 2005 16:39 utc | 41
@ Joe
Thanks for the suggested links. I have so far followed only
the one to syriacomment.com and it seems very worthwhile.
Taking a leaf from B's book I have slightly edited
this quote from syriacomment.com
I trust that this will not seem offensive.
Debate among Americans over how to break out of their isolation and stimulate the government to change is very much alive. There is wide-spread and deep frustration with the slow pace of reform and inability or unwillingness of the President to articulate a clear vision for the future of the country. Many people try to block politics out of their minds because of the corruption and because they are treated like sheep. They prefer to focus on their daily concerns, but this is next to impossible. The fate of the country hangs in the balance. The government does not communicate with the nation. There is no transparency and the regime has little ability to renew itself. All the same, people have not given up hope that the better elements in government will somehow win out. Americans have a surprising faith in the state.
Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Dec 14 2005 16:52 utc | 42
There was a minor error in Joe's second link
Here's the correct form for
beirut2bayside . At first glance it also appears to be "serious".
Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Dec 14 2005 17:07 utc | 43
Monolycus,
I know that Mel Gibson is not a liberal, I was being facetious, but maybe not enough. I also know that Israel has nukes, all I said was they never have admitted it. The point is that they could not have threatened nuclear attack since they have never admitted having nukes.
As far as criticizing Israel being equated with anti-Semitism, that is just a canard. There is an election coming up with three major and many minor parties, all having different views. Anybody who picks one party necessarily disagrees with the others. There are so many different views that it would be impossible to agree with them all.
What is anti-Semitic, unless you are a Satmar Chasid (and 1. I'm not completely convinced about them and 2. they are not Orthodox), is DENYING THE RIGHT OF ISRAEL TO EXIST AS A JEWISH NATION.
Here are my rules for the right of a people to have a homeland:
1. They must be an identifiable group,
2. Subject to persecution
3. With nowhere else to go.
This clearly applies to Jews. The question is whether it also applies to Palestinians. I have concluded that it does. I understand the argument that the Palestinian homeland should be Jordan, since the entire region of the West Bank and Jordan were under Jordanian rule until 1967. However, the Palestinians are not now particularly welcome in Jordan (indeed, more Palestinians were killed in Black September than have been killed by Israel since 1948, at least through the end of the last century), and have been subject to persecution in about every Arab country, including Kuwait, Syria and Lebanon. They do not have the same civil rights as other citizens of those countries and that is sufficient persecution for me. They should have their own country, that country should not be Israel, it should be the West Bank, however those borders are ultimately negotiated and Gaza. (Though I think there may be a three state solution, with the West Bank and Gaza being different countries, Gaza being eventually controlled by Hamas).
Joe
Posted by: joe | Dec 14 2005 17:08 utc | 44
Hannah,
Sorry for the mistake, I can be an idiot sometimes. Anyway, I'm never offended by Josh Landis, even Tony, who gets quite hot at some of the things Josh says, still has a great deal of respect for him. I think reading both of those guys, and actually following some on their blogroll, is quite illuminating. For what its worth, I think it likely that Bashir had Hariri killed, but it is also possible that some in Hizbullah did it attempting to curry favor with Assad. Tony is very clear that he thinks Bashir is a thug (he's right) and that Syrian intelligence did it.
Joe
Posted by: joe | Dec 14 2005 17:48 utc | 45
What is anti-Semitic, unless you are a Satmar Chasid (and 1. I'm not completely convinced about them and 2. they are not Orthodox), is DENYING THE RIGHT OF ISRAEL TO EXIST AS A JEWISH NATION.
i disagree w/your definition joe.
Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled antisemitism) is hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
i only referred to othodox w/ reference to extreme religion. people having a problem w/israel, is not the same as being having a problem w/jews.
i think it is the way israel exists as a nation, not a good neighbor.
Posted by: annie | Dec 14 2005 18:58 utc | 46
calling people who are anti israel policy anti semite is like calling people who don't like rice racist.
Posted by: annie | Dec 14 2005 19:01 utc | 47
Annie,
Either I am going to have to be clearer or you are going to have to take a reading comprehension course. Denying the holocaust is anti-Semitic, denying Jews the right to go attend college is anti-Semitic, DENYING ISRAEL THE RIGHT TO EXIST AS A JEWISH NATION IS ANTI-SEMITIC. It is not the definition of anti-Semitism, rather it is symptomatic of the underlying condition of anti-Semitism. It is an anti-Semitic thought process. It is not the ONLY anti-Semitic thought process. You have clearly made up your mind that Israel is evil. What is it about Israel that is so vile? Why have you decided that Israel is bad without bothering to check facts? How many hospitals were in the West Bank for the benefit of the Palestinians before 1967? How many were built by Israel after Israel captured the West Bank (in a defensive war which Israel pleaded with Jordan to stay out of)? How many schools and colleges before 1967 and how many after? How many Palestinians are served at Israeli hospitals and colleges? Who coaches the Palestinian swimming and soccer teams? The point is that you have already decided that Israel is bad. What is it about Israel that makes it different from its neighbors? First, it is a democracy. You don't have a problem with that, do you? Second it is JEWISH. Could that be it? But no, you aren't a bigot. "...And so are they all, all honorable men."
Posted by: joe | Dec 14 2005 19:34 utc | 48
Iranian Leader Calls Holocaust a 'Myth'
"Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets," Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in the southeastern city of Zahedan.
"If you committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?" Ahmadinejad asked rhetorically.
"This is our proposal: if you committed the crime, then give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country," he said, developing a theme he raised in Saudi Arabia last week.
Posted by: annie | Dec 14 2005 19:43 utc | 49
joe - you have posted the complete AP piece. It has this line that you also emphazised in another comment:
But Wednesday was the first time he publicly denied the Holocaust.
But the AP piece never proves that line. It cites Amadinjahd and from that cite, which is is the same line he has given now for the fourth or fifth time, that conclusion which leads into that piece can not be drawn.
Why is AP doing this? See the "$300 million" piece I just posted.
DENYING ISRAEL THE RIGHT TO EXIST AS A JEWISH NATION IS ANTI-SEMITIC
This is a dumb statement, even without the caps.
You have clearly made up your mind that Israel is evil. What is it about Israel that is so vile
no, i have not made up my mind that israel is evil. in fact i cited a reference from 2 very good friends of mine that loved living in israel. i traveled w/some wonderful young guys i met in nepal, hiked the himalayas, they spoke very broken english and were a delight. i could feel the pride in their country. i feel israel is no more vile than america and i love my country. i just don't agree w/the powers that run it. the fight is not fair. you have an army bulldozing homes and the weapons of the palestinians are so weak they resort to using their bodies as weapons and for this we deem them terrorists. you just cannot face that people opposed to the oppression of israel do not simply think the policies are vile, you condem us as being somehow against jews. you even imply that if israel were in some loosing position jews in this country would be in a position as the japanese in ww2 are be forced into somekind of internment by saying'where would we go? this is bizarre. the assumption most jews in america agree w/the current policies of israel is a myth i believe. the left is the left. we do not condon the oppression, whoever is in this position will be villified. right now , israel is doing the oppression, or i believe america is oppressing using israel as its arm, or vice versa, i cannot keep it straight. i don't see anyway israel can remain intact in its position /location and succeed as a nation. doesn't mean i would not want everyone to live in peace. just like sure it would be loverly if we could occupy iraq and everybody would feel love and get along and want us there, aint gonna happen. this isn't about all the good things israel has done. its about us sending billions of dollars to prop up a country because it is our meger foothold in the middle east in which we want to expand/occcupy/and dominate. do not confuse my dislike for the policies w/somehow approving of these latest statements of Ahmadinejad. of course i think the holocaust existed. but i do agree it has reached mythic purportions. they certainly were not the biggest loosers in ww2. didn't the russians suffer more lose? what about africa. hasn't human suffering existed/genocide existed since the beginning of man. does this make it any less horrid? no. but we must move on. if the drumbeat of the holocaust continues and is kept alive to the degree it has been, a constant in our entertainment industry and present almost current in foriegn policy than one should not be surprised it is referenced in present solutions such as the statements made today by Ahmadinejad. to accuse someone as anti semetic under these circumstances completely eliviates the responsibilty of addressing the reasons why public opinion is turning against israel. the power of aipac , the most influential lobbying firm in dc and the influence of israel is a canard. similiar to what is being uncovered thru the bouls of the rethugs, here we have our taxes supporting israel, shoveled back at us thru aipac, supporting israeli , we might as well just hand the money over to the imperialiasts.
but i speak as a fairly run of the mill thinker, i am not as educated as most of the posters here and i'm sure many holes can be driven thru my arguments. but in a way, it makes my thoughts relevant because ultimately the war of public opinion is told thru the masses, not the best informed or educated. and israel is loosing that war, because what we see, is a giant wall, families beoing separated, people so desperate they blow themselves up, an army w/endless resources(goliath) fighting people living in a refugee camp w/no country while the oppressor is hoilding forth in their past home. and you have the nerve to call us anti semite. get a grip
Posted by: annie | Dec 14 2005 20:15 utc | 51
joe
bashir is a pedealogue for fuck's sake - he's not a monster - & even the most cursory glance at him & his speech reveal that - there is a relatively normal human being there
sharon on the other hand - is clearly sociopathic by any medical standard
& no this is not anti semitism
when israel stops behaving like nazis then perhaps people would have cooler heads. & joe reread your hilberg - because of the five categories he gives of concrete anti semitism - can be equally applied to what is being dont to the palestinatian nation in particular & the arab & persian people in general
a long time ago israel may have been able to wear the moral highhat - it has long lost that capability
the murder of the palestinian people is a crime with many many precedents
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Dec 14 2005 20:19 utc | 52
Context is our friend. Why is it that no one bothers getting a quote from a paper that is closer to the action. Who here understands Persian?
"If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why the Palestinian nation should pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions." Stressing that "the same European countries have imposed the illegally-established Zionist regime on the oppressed nation of Palestine", he said, "If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there."Then the Iranian nation will have no objections, will stage no rallies on the Qods Day and will support your decision."
Ahmadinejad said some have created a myth on holocaust and hold it even higher than the very belief in religion and prophets because when a person expresses disbelief in God, religion and prophets they do not object to him but they will protest to anyone who would reject the Holocaust.
If you want to hate Iran you can always take words and twist them. link
Posted by: dan of steele | Dec 14 2005 20:23 utc | 53
@Hannah - that Memri - collection is just a typical Memri collection. It neither gives context to the cited pieces, nor does it mentions thouse that would not cite their intend.
For Syria. I don´t know who blows up people in Beirut, but then, the Syrians would be very dumb to do so. There is just no good reason for them.
DENYING ISRAEL THE RIGHT TO EXIST AS A JEWISH NATION
just one more point, i don't even hear Ahmadinejad saying he doesn't think israel has the right to exist as a jewish nation. its the location he objects to, and i agree. the middle east is a horrible location. the worst. why don't we give them texas.
Posted by: annie | Dec 14 2005 20:39 utc | 55
Bernard,
1.You defend Ahmadinejad the way Buchanan defends Nazi prison guards. He has been condemned by every major government, including Germany, France, and Russia. It would be very simple for him to stand up and clarify his remarks. To say, at least through his various ministries, that he was misunderstood and that he believes that the holocaust occurred. Let me know when that clarification is issued.
2. Now you're on to defending a thug like Assad. Tony Badran knows more about that than either, or both together, of us. He has written about the case since it occurred last February. Even Juan Cole acknowledged that the first name on a suspect list would be Syria. To paraphrase the great Bill James, he was talking about Chuck Tanner and the cocaine problem in the Pirate clubhouse but the sentiment is appropriate, "It is difficult for a human being to have his head so far up his rectum as to not be aware of reality."
3. As to whether not recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is anti-Semitic, there are two possibilities. The first is that a person doesn't believe that any state should have a religious component, believing that all citizens should be treated everywhere be accorded the deference that every person is entitled to. That would be ideal in an ideal world. Go back and see the Bill James paraphrase above. The other is that a person just doesn't think Jews are entitled to a homeland. I listed the factors I think are appropriate for determining whether a people is entitled to a homeland. Which one would you suggest is not appropriate for the Jewish people?
There are a bunch of other comments that are just too weird to even respond to. I would like to know, however, short of mass suicide, what it is that these people think Israel should do?
Joe
Posted by: joe | Dec 14 2005 21:33 utc | 56
@joe - I would like to know, however, short of mass suicide, what it is that these people think Israel should do?
How about becoming a territorial nation between the mediterinian and the Jordan and secular and with one vote for each women and men living in those lands (and/or having had recent ownership of that land before it was robbed by one sided dubious edicts.)
That would probably not be a U.S. financed state with a mandatory religious slate but a nation of common interest.
I had a bunch of other questions that your didn't answer but let's address this one.
1. If Israel were to be one state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan, Jews would outnumber Moslems about 2 to 1. The Palestinians, rightly or wrongly, want their own country. If Israel were to do this, and it has been proposed in Israel, the Palestinians have and would reject it. The other problem is that if such a country were created, given the demographics, there would be a terrible rush to overpopulate the area with one's own demographically similar citizens. I don't think it would be a good idea.
2. One of the problems with talking about ownership is that European notions of ownership are vastly different from Ottoman notions. For that matter, ownership is different for the Native Americans and for the European settlers. Suffice it to say that suggesting that Jews stole the land from the Arabs is to not understand the complexities and nuances of the situation after World War I.
Joe
Posted by: joe | Dec 14 2005 22:53 utc | 58
Ahmadinejad is not an Arab. He is not a Palestinian. There are 1000 miles and 3 international borders between him and Israel. His country has no identifiable interest in the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. Why does he have a position on Israel?
The answer is that he is staking a claim to speak on behalf of all Arab and non-Arab Muslims. He is showing his fundamentalist credentials by asserting a Muslim right to a solidly Muslim-dominated swath of territory from Pakistan to Morocco. It is in his interest to stir up fundamentalist fervor, as a way of downplaying the historic divide between the non-Arab Muslims of Iran and the Arab world. He can do that by opposing efforts at a peaceful solution and by encouraging war between Israel and the Palestinians, and so that it what he is doing. It is also in his interest to emphasize and exacerbate the historic division between "Christian" Europe and the Muslim lands, and so he is doing that as well.
People who are debating his remarks as if they are part of a good-faith participation in an ongoing discussion are being naive beyond belief.
Posted by: JR | Dec 14 2005 23:00 utc | 59
JR,
Good point. I had thought that Ahmadinejad was simply a student radical who thought he was running a college organization. I remember the SDS meetings, I agreed with our student leader on many things, still do, but I wouldn't want him as president. I really wouldn't want him as president if he thought he were runnig a local SDS chapter. Ahmadinejad getting rid of all the professional diplomats struck me as the sort of thing a student radical would do. But your point that I'm not realizing how clever he really is makes more sense.
Joe
Posted by: joe | Dec 15 2005 0:21 utc | 60
Ahmadinejad getting rid of all the professional diplomats struck me as the sort of thing a student radical would do
sounds to me like something bush did.
Posted by: annie | Dec 15 2005 2:13 utc | 61
You defend Ahmadinejad the way Buchanan defends Nazi prison guards.
would you copy and paste the defense of Ahmadine you reference for all to see.
please, i am curious.
Posted by: annie | Dec 15 2005 2:17 utc | 62
Ahmadinejad is not an Arab. He is not a Palestinian. There are 1000 miles and 3 international borders between him and Israel. His country has no identifiable interest in the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. Why does he have a position on Israel?
wow junior, hadn't thought of that. (scratching her head)
cheney is not an arab. he is not an iraqi. there are 4000 miles and numerous international borders between him and iraq. his country has no identifiable interest in the shiite sunni dispute. why does he have a position on iraq?
Posted by: annie | Dec 15 2005 2:33 utc | 63
Annie, you don't believe that Cheney has a good-faith position on Iraq, do you? So why do you think that bringing him up does anything to refute your niavety in discussing Ahmadinejad?
Posted by: JR | Dec 15 2005 9:54 utc | 64
JR you seem a little slow, so let's try running it by you once again shall we? You seemed to be suggesting that a thousand miles distance and some regional borders along the way disqualified Ahmadinejad from having the right to make any comment about an issue that roils his particular part of the world, with all the accompanying violence, instability and refugee problems that brings with it. Annie pointed out the idiocy of your argument by asking you politely to consider what right Cheney (and I could add, you or anyone else not living in the region), has to make interventions of any kind, based on your own criteria. Your churlish tone is, I suppose, that of one who realizes that he has been hoist on his own petard and I presume Annie will laugh at you just as hard as I and others have.
You poor saps trying to create the momentum for an attack on Iran have your work cut out, being rude, making ad hominem attacks and generally missing the point that people have tuned out your spin isn't helping you any. Your inference that Ahmadinejad's recent remarks are some kind of opportunistic 'staking a claim' seems to crash to the ground when measured against decades of Iranian support for the Palestinians (name me a town or city in Iran that doesn't have a Palestine Street or Palestine Square and tell us what you think Jerusalem Day in Iran is about or the Qods force of Pasdaran-e Inqilab), so his remarks are better viewed as simply maintaining continuity with a long held Iranian position. If you want to play scare tactics at least try and do a little reading first.
Posted by: Dokhtar Bandari | Dec 15 2005 10:32 utc | 65
Dokhtar- calm down before you have a stroke. And see today's Washington Post. There's no doubt that Ahmadinejad denied that the Holocaust happened. He also contended that governments who accept that the Holocaust did occur - eg, all European and North American governments --are "subservient to Zionists." The German government, the Polish government, and the head of the European Commmission have all condemned his statement.
What is interesting is that the government-controlled Iranian news agencies removed the key statement from the reported transcript. So as of yesterday there were conflicting reports, some based on simultaneous translation, some on transcripts, which led to Bernhard's confusion. From the Post:
"In Western countries, "if someone were to deny the existence of God . . . and deny the existence of prophets and religion, they would not bother him," Ahmadinejad said. "However, if someone were to deny the myth of the Jews' massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can."
Iran's official news agencies excised the offending language from transcripts of the speech in an apparent attempt by the government to limit any damage as it tries to avert U.N. sanctions over its nuclear program.
"It's really shocking that a head of state who has a seat in the United Nations can say such a thing," said Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, the executive body of the European Union. He said the speech "calls our attention to the real danger of that regime having an atomic bomb."
[Snip]
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said his government had summoned the Iranian charge d'affaires to issue a protest of the "shocking" remarks. The Foreign Ministry of Poland, where Nazis operated death camps where Jews were killed, said "the remarks of the Iranian president are causing even more outrage" than Ahmadinejad's statement last month that Israel should be "wiped off the map."
Now, let's hear your views, Dokhtar. Do you believe that the Holocaust happened, or do you think it's a myth? And do you think that Israel should be "wiped off the map," by force of arms, if necessary? Do you stand with Ahmadinejad or against him? Don't be shy.
Posted by: JR | Dec 15 2005 14:09 utc | 66
This has to be the stupidest thread I have ever followed on MOA.
Joe, or JR or whoever you are, you have obviously taken the bait. It was placed there nice and tempting by both sides and you went and sunk your feral teeth into it. Good for you! Have fun exercising your jaw, but don't ask us to pay any interest in the rabid spittle flying out of your mouth.
Why don't all you children elevate the discussion a bit: What does each side hope to gain by their posturing? That's more on the level of a MOA thread. Go to another blog if all you want to do is throw accusations at each other. Daily Kos would love comments like "He's a thug"; you'll get 300 thoughtless responses to it.
Oh, and Joe, don't believe everything you read in the papers, and bone up on your middle east history. Read some Norman Finkelstein.
I posted a thoughtful commentary above, and no one touched it. Pity...
Don't be shy, calm down before you have a stroke. did you learn these little intimidation tactics at pyops school JR. you never provided me w/the cut and paste of b's so called 'defense'. so are you being shy? you are being rude. you are being a bully. you have come here to our home and dare to assume anyone here is bordering on stroke to engage you? are you joking. So why do you think that bringing him up does anything to refute your niavety in discussing Ahmadinejad? get over yourself. answer the question. why does cheney have a position on iraq? too tough?
"In Western countries, "if someone were to deny the existence of God . . . and deny the existence of prophets and religion, they would not bother him," Ahmadinejad said. "However, if someone were to deny the myth of the Jews' massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can."
this is an amusing paragraph directly after government-controlled Iranian news agencies removed the key statement from the reported transcript
let's talk about government controlled news sources. lets chat about all the dead journalists who don't tow the line.lets talk about our taxes being spent on $300 million dollars worth of BS, that if it were all so wonderful in iraq the iraqis could write about it w/out our help. lets talk about the false news stories. take your snide commentary somewhere else where you can find some woosies to get scared of you. you aren't interested in dialogue. go talk in the mirror.
Now, let's hear your views, Dokhtar. Do you believe that the Holocaust happened, or do you think it's a myth? And do you think that Israel should be "wiped off the map," by force of arms, if necessary? Do you stand with Ahmadinejad or against him? Don't be shy.
plllease, bla bla bla.
Posted by: annie | Dec 15 2005 16:18 utc | 68
sorry everyone, malooga , thank you for the wake up call. i will be silent here for now.
Posted by: annie | Dec 15 2005 16:22 utc | 69
Malooga- I read your contribution, and I believe that you are being naive. I have no feral teeth, and I don't think an accusation of naivety is equivalent to calling someone a thug.
You wrote, "At issue here is how to make whole the claims of a people who have been dispossessed from their homes, of which the Jews are a specific instance."
That is not what is "at issue here." It's an important issue but it's not the issue here. The issue here is that a head of state is using Holocaust denial for his own political aims and those of his government. Iran has regional aspirations. It seeks to export Islamic fundamentalist rule to other formerly secular countries (see Bernhard's post today about the Iraq election). His denial of the Holocaust and his attack on Western countries as "subservient to the Zionists" is in furtherance of this goal.
"Ahmadinejad's solution was the establishment of a separate state in Europe. O.K., except that he is 55 years too late to push for this solution."
No, Ahmadinejad does not really care about the problem you have posed. His comments regarding a Jewish homeland elsewhere are rhetorical- they mean, "the Jews are your problem, Europe, we intend to kick them out and you can deal with them however you want." The solution to the problem that Ahmadinejad has posed is to "wipe Israel off the map," as he has plainly said. The countries that actually border Israel - Egypt, Jordan, Syria, the PA - used to engage in this sort of rhetoric in the public sphere. They don't anymore - only Hamas and other non-governmental entities maintain it nowadays.
Ahmadinejad wants to resurrect the hard-line position as the mainstream position, because a hard-line rejectionist position is better for is own claims to leadership. It was not so long ago that Iranians were killing Arabs and vice-versa. Ahmadinejad needs to firm up his credentials as a Muslim, and the best way to do that is promote Muslim solidarity against Christians and Jews.
So when Debsisdead says, for example, "Ahmadinejad's comments are part of the debate required to find that solution," I am being charitable, not rabid, in saying that he is naive. Ahmadinejad is not interested in having a debate with anyone who reads this site. If you are not a Muslim fundamentalist, he is not talking to you. You can overhear him and try to decipher what he means, but the notion that he is engaging in a debate with Westerners is childish.
Posted by: JR | Dec 15 2005 16:36 utc | 70
bla, bla, bla? what is that, drool in print? Look, your point seems to be that the United States is bad, therefore Ahmadinejad must be good. Cheney operates in bad faith, therefore Ahmadinejad must be speaking in good faith. The US has burned through $300 million in Iraq, therefore Iran must be a force for peace. The US plants stories in the Iraqi press, therefore what the Iranian government-controlled press reports must be true. What kind of argument is that?
I don't see why you would want to disagree that the Iranian regime is fundamentalist, woman-hating, press-suppressing, and totalitarian. That the rigged election of Ahmadinejad was a giant step backwards for progressive forces in the Muslim world. That government by mullah is bad for the governed. Do you disagree?
If you have no opinion on the subject and want only to talk about Israel and the US, that's fine. Just say, I have no opinions about Iran. Don't drool on your keyboard about it.
Posted by: JR | Dec 15 2005 16:48 utc | 71
There must be some kind of sensor somewhere that goes off whenever someone writes anything that questions anything at all about Israel. It is amazing how we always get trolls whenever this subject is brought up. I am sure they are not lurkers because they know none of the posters here.
As subservient little trolls they have derailed this discussion too. The point is that the US media has distorted or misreported the comments of the leader of Iran for reasons that they know and we can only guess. The Zionists are quick to pounce on this and who the hell knows where they come from. I suspected Highlander for a while and would not be surprised if it is him/her after all. Anyway, the point the Iranian was making is pushed aside and all kinds of name calling and labeling is taking place instead. Why is it so important to squelch any discussion of this? Is the argument so weak that it will not stand up to scrutiny?
just sayin'
Posted by: dan of steele | Dec 15 2005 17:56 utc | 73
dan of steele
JR's previous posts, defending use of the bomb by the u.s., were execrable. but, his point here seems to me reasonable. unless he's nuts, Ahmadinejad is playing his constituents, including arab shia. For Iran to project power in the region, arab shia alliances are crucial, though it seems to me unlikely.
In any case, the u.s. is exhausting the "diplomatic front" as Bush says (wow, really?). So, no doubt contra JR, even if Ahmadinejad should suddenly, obstreporously venerate israel rather than defame her, Iran gets bombed. What's an evil axis member to do?
Posted by: slothrop | Dec 15 2005 18:28 utc | 74
Dan of Steele- I read MoA daily and comment from time to time. Keep your eyes open and you'll see me- I recognize you.
So - you think that this is distortion by the US press.
Try Al-Jazeera:
"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, has again caused international outcry by repeating his view that the Holocaust was a myth.
In a speech broadcast live on state television on Wednesday, Ahmadinejad told a crowd in the southern city of Zahedan: "They have fabricated a legend under the name Massacre of the Jews, and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves."
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/60AE1720-F333-4869-974D-3B69283105BF.htm
And again:
"[Hamas leader] Khaled Meshaal also praised Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, for his "courage" in having dismissed the Holocaust as a myth and calling for Israel to be moved out of the Middle East to Europe or North America."
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/95E7DFDF-1BD2-4D87-A0A7-6BF1EFA8F402.htm
Not to mention Deutche Welle:
"The German government called in an Iranian diplomat to protest against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's verbal attacks on Israel, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said on Wednesday.
He described the hardline president's remarks denying the Holocaust and suggesting Israel should be relocated to Europe as "shocking and totally unacceptable." Steinmeier told journalists that, in the absence of the Iranian ambassador, the government on Monday called in Iran's charge d'affaires in Germany to signal its disapproval of the president's latest outburst.
[snip]
Ahmadinejad's statements have been condemned by individual EU states and Britain, which holds the rotating EU presidency, on Wednesday renewed its condemnation.
"The comments are wholly unacceptable and we condemn them unreservedly. They have no place in civilised political debate," Britain's Minister for Europe, Douglas Alexander, said in Strasbourg to the applause of European parliamentarians."
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1816160,00.html
And the Guardian:
"Iran's ultra-Islamist president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, triggered a fresh wave of international outrage yesterday by dismissing the Holocaust as a myth and calling for Jews to be moved to Canada and Alaska.
In a speech broadcast live on Iranian television and calculated to generate maximum publicity, Mr Ahmadinejad described the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews in the second world war as a fabrication concocted to justify Israel's existence."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1667507,00.html
So - other than B, everyone from Bahrain to London incorrectly thinks that Ahmadinejad has denied the truth of the Holocaust.
As you say, just sayin'-
Posted by: JR | Dec 15 2005 18:29 utc | 75
Why, thank you, slothrop. Some days I'm execrable, some days I'm reasonable, but I never do have feral teeth.
Posted by: JR | Dec 15 2005 18:38 utc | 76
JR
You are still trying to frame the discussion around something that he did not say. He never says that millions of Jews were not killed in WWII. He says, and you know he says this because it is directly below the paragraph you link that a myth or legend has been created about the Holocaust that is so sacred that no one can question it or discuss it. He says that it is more important than the religion itself as no one is punished for not being Jewish or Christian or any other religion but they are immediately and publicly tormented and ridiculed for expressing even the slightest doubt in the occurence of Holocaust.
This is quite evident even here.
Sure Ahmadinejad is playing to his own crowd and that should be discussed here. Why is this a popular position in the Arab world. Don't try to tell me that Arabs hate Jews as that is just bullshit.
More importantly, this is being presented to us as news now. Why is it important for us to focus on this now? What is happening while we waste bandwidth here?
Posted by: dan of steele | Dec 15 2005 19:00 utc | 77
Dan, al Jazeera says that Ahmadinejad says that the Holocaust is a myth. Why are you defending him? And he's not an Arab. He's a Persian. (Don't tell me they all look alike to you?)
The argument he is running is simple, and well designed to stir up Muslim anger toward Europe while suppressing inter-Muslim conflicts. Ahmadinejad as a non-Arab is invoking the period of Mulsim unity and greatness under Salah-ad-Din, a Kurd, who among other things re-conquered the Crusader kingdoms. The problem is that the Crusaders were Christians, while Israel is Jewish. So Israel must be shown to be a tool of the Christian world. The main obstacle to such a showing is the Holocaust. So the Holocaust must be denied. This is done elegantly, by using the Holocaust itself as a example of Christian-Jewish duplicity. Here is how the explanation runs:
(1) Israel is a crusader state that was imposed on the Muslim world by Christian Europe and America as a first step in exerting control over all the Muslim lands.
(2) The duplicitous Westerners will never admit that this is what they have done.
(3) Therefore they have concocted a myth that the Europeans slaughtered the Jews and are paying them back by giving them a state in Muslim land.
(4) We are not fooled by the myth of the Slaughter of the Jews.
(5) If the Christians believed this myth, they would have given the Jews a homeland in their lands and leave our (i.e. Muslim) lands alone.
(6) Since they did not give the Jews a homeland in their lands, this is proof that they don't believe in the Slaughter of the Jews either.
(7) Now that we have established that they don't believe it, we have proved that Israel is really part of a plot to re-conquer Islam.
(8) We will never allow this. Instead, we are going to wipe Israel off the map, expel Christian Europe from the Muslim lands, take back our land, and let the Christians worry about what to do with the Jews.
For some reason there are people on this thread who think that this is a constructive contribution to the debate. And there are others who make apologies for it. Why that is, I can't say. Naivety, to be charitable.
Posted by: JR | Dec 15 2005 20:04 utc | 78
i'm back
i feel israel is no more vile than america and i love my country. i just don't agree w/the powers that run it
do not confuse my dislike for the policies w/somehow approving of these latest statements of Ahmadinejad. of course i think the holocaust existed. but i do agree it has reached mythic purportions
bla is not drooling. it is putting in context your selective silence w/anyone's good ideas you differ with, twisting argument that doesn't follow in the direction you choose and insulting your adversaries. ALL of the statements/questions in your 11:48 post serve you and do not reflect my positions which i previosly stated. i am not drooling.
"Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets"
in the context of this statement do i think the intention of the speaker to be the denial of the holocaust? NO.
do i think he is addressing the mythic proportion of the holocaust,yes.
lets be clear, this was not the worst atrocity to befall mankind.
but, if you think it is, and you are in fact the responsible for carrying it out, then why don't you take responsibilty by offering your own land.
i do not know enough about Ahmadinejad to make any judgement. here's what i do know. the drumbeat to invade iran is on. i consider iran having nuclear weapons no more dangerous, in fact less dangerous than both israel or the united states considering the powers in control at this time and their consistent lies and history of aggression
notice the press is not addressing this or a SOLUTION. Ahmadinejad was addressing a solution, one you may not like, but one does not have to understand the history of the middle east to see we have an untenable problem w/israels location. all you have to do is look at a map. it is glaringly obvious israel would not be able to survive there acting as the aggressor without the assistance of the US. our intentions are not noble. just as they have not been noble in iraq.
my opinion of iran you ask. if i were situated near a country calling for a preemptive nuclear strike against me, backed by the worlds greatest superpower run by an religious fanatic and his neocon sidekicks bent on changing all the regimes surrounding me, i would want to wipe that country off the face of the map.
why don't you address words people say instead of making assumptions.. try copy/paste.
what do i think israel should do? buy land in argentina.
Posted by: annie | Dec 15 2005 20:19 utc | 79
Dan, al Jazeera says that Ahmadinejad says that the Holocaust is a myth
for some reason you insist on taking that out of context and refuse to see the other words he said. so be it.
And he's not an Arab. He's a Persian. (Don't tell me they all look alike to you?)
I never said he was Arab and I probably could not tell the difference between an Arab and a Persian. I can't tell the difference between Israelis and Arabs either. Furthermore I don't see why that is relevant.
Overall I agree with your assessment of what Ahmadinejad is doing. He was elected on those ideas and is facing a lot of pressure from the US and UK. He can cower like a dog or take a stand. The end result will still be the same. If the US wants to attack, either directly or through Israel who has already threatened repeatedly to do so, they will. These pruned comments plastered everywhere in the press are designed to make us think he is either mad or an enemy of Israel. Either one of those are grounds for dismissing anything he has to say and put him and his country in the "enemy" column.
You buy the hype, I do not. Iran has done nothing to the US nor any other country in Europe or the middle east for that matter. Mercedes has opened a factory there, many other europeans have business there. The US was very tight with Iran until Khomeini came along and messed it all up. If there was business to be done with Iran before there is business to be done with them now.
So while we are looking at the shiny object, the magician is sticking something up his sleeve.
Posted by: dan of steele | Dec 15 2005 20:58 utc | 80
Annie- All the leaders of European community, all the leading European papers, and Al Jazeera, all say that Ahmadinejad denied the truth of the Holocaust. You say that they are all incorrect and you are correct. Do you believe that Al Jazeera is in the pay of the defense department? Or perhaps your knowledge of Persian is better than theirs and they are just mis-translating?
You go on to say quite plainly that Iran is justified in its stated desire to wipe Israel off the map. Your position is that Jewish Israelis should leave Israel promptly- for Argentina. So we know where you stand- with the mullahs of Iran, in favor of the destruction of Israel by force of arms. And that's fine. Just so we understand your position.
Posted by: JR | Dec 15 2005 20:58 utc | 81
Dan, I don't say that Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust. Al Jazeera says it. Why is it so hard to believe that a fundamentalist Iranian mullah denies the Holocaust? What possesses you to defend him in the face of unanimous informed international opinion to the contrary?
The fact that Ahmadinejad is Persian not Arab is crucial to understanding what he is doing. He is making a pitch to be the leader of a united fundamentalist Muslim world. Since Arabs historically don't get on with Persians at all, he is trying to show that he is more Arab than the Arab leadership. He is using anti-Israeli rhetoric to attack the Arab regimes - all of which have retreated from the sort of rejectionism he espouses - from a traditional fundamentalist position. He is not participating in some sort of rational debate with the West.
There are plenty of people here who seem to think that anyone who criticises any country or leader other than the US or Israel is a neo-con imperialist. Why is it so hard to accept that the world is filled with bad people, many of them entirely home grown?
Posted by: JR | Dec 15 2005 21:12 utc | 82
So JR, do you have a script that you are working from? Sure does sound like somebody has provided you with talking points.
Posted by: dan of steele | Dec 15 2005 21:23 utc | 83
" You say that they are all incorrect and you are correct. "
you crack me up! no wonder you don't copy and paste.
"You go on to say quite plainly that Iran is justified in its stated desire to wipe Israel off the map." no , i did not. i said if my country were living under the circumstances i cited i would feel that way. you're telling me you wouldn't???
so its ok for israel to nuke iran and not vis versa? ha!
". Your position is that Jewish Israelis should leave Israel promptly- for Argentina. So we know where you stand- with the mullahs of Iran, in favor of the destruction of Israel by force of arms. " !!!!!!!
triple wammy JR, out of the ballpark.
i would like everyone to live happily ever after, truely. but if i lived in israel, i would get the hell out. are you infavor of the destruction of iran by force of arms.?
i can tell there is no end here. you are the spinmaster of excellence. too bad it doesn't seem to be working its black magic, too bad for you that is.
dan, i was invited to a 'nuetral blog' once to discuss these issues after i brought up the rendon group on a political site. all the posters used the same MO. never address the issue you are introducing, stretch every line like bubble gum. use the persons name in a degrading manner, call people out, ask people to flat out align themselves w/an unpopular position (one you never made that is off topic) make assessments about POV as childish etc. to the T. these guys are trained. all aggressive greywolf MO. i am not surprised all the smartest posters here are not engaging. i am a little curious how far out on a limb he'll take it. and look at that great catch!in favor of the destruction of Israel by force of arms.
BINGO!!!!
Posted by: annie | Dec 15 2005 21:40 utc | 84
If anyone bothers to come down this far, name at the EuroTribune linked to a quite good article that sheds a lot of light on this whole affair. It does seem that someone in the west has mounted a PR attack for their own reasons...whatever they are. Asia Times
Posted by: dan of steele | Dec 15 2005 21:43 utc | 85
Annie,
Your amazing ignorance knows no bounds. The Jews in Israel HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO. Their ancestors were all somewhere else once and they were all subject to brutal repression, whether in Germany, Iraq, Egypt or whereever. Some of course are descended form people who have lived in the Israeli area for centuries. Jerusalem, for example, has always had a large (and frequently majority) Jewish population. ARGENTINA????? There is a Jewish population in Argentina. The Jewish Center in Buenes Aires was blown up and the crime is still unsolved. Many of the disappeareds were Jews. The former regime was brutally anti-Semitic. Say what you mean, "Jews should go back to the concentration camps and all die so we don't have to deal with them anymore." Don't be afraid to show your bigotry. I think it would be enlightening for some of your buddies here to see your real position. Perhaps if you came out it would allow them to do the same.
Joe
Posted by: joe | Dec 15 2005 22:04 utc | 87
jr
do you simply not understand the fact that the savage occupation of palestinain land has ripped the moral cloth from israelis shoulders & that very clear comparisons can be made between what the germans did to the jews of germany, poland, russia, fra,ce, holland & what the israelis have done to the palestinian people
for the nazis their war was a race war
& that is also true for israel - it has enacted a race war against the palestinian people in particular & the arab nation
the contempt with which reasonable palestinian demands have been met as edward said always wrote - made violent confrontation inevitable
when israel was in conflict with pan arabists, nasserites, communists etc it made an alliance with the very people it now murders - hamas & islamic jihad have their roots in the complicity of the israelis state to get rid of people like dr george habash & a political line that was socialist in essence & nationalist in character
aas with the us alliance with the mujahadeen -it was a short term policy that has come to bite it on the ass
fucked up theocrats or people pretending to be theocrats are running this world from washington, from israael & from iran
bush & sharon are war criminals & of that there can be no question. the real record of general sharon ought to be cause for shame in israel - it is not
& i would suggest to j r that there are many people of jewish origin here who do not side with the exterminatory policies of israel precisely because of their historical understanding of what thos crimmes actually mean in flesh & bone
to really know what has happened in ramallah - only someone from cracow - poish jews can really understand
but instead of speaking in shame - you proudly wave the baton here & what is worst you also make the same clamim as us imperialism. you claim yourself victim & hide the fact that you are a perpetrator
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Dec 15 2005 22:07 utc | 88
sorry Annie, I did preview but didn't check the link. here it is again. BTW, looks like shift change and joe is running the script now ;>)
Posted by: dan of steele | Dec 15 2005 22:09 utc | 89
Annie- Greywolf, what is that? It's a Turkish fascist terrorist organization, I know, but I don't suppose that is what you mean. So what do you mean?
On to the merits- Do you think that Al Jezeera misreported? We don't know. Do you think that Iran would be justified in nuking Israel? It looks like you think so, but we don't know.
Here's what we do know: you think that Jewish Israelis should emigrate to Argentina. In your words: "what do i think israel should do? buy land in argentina" -and now you say that if you were an Israeli, you would "get the hell out." So you do think Jewish Israelis should emigrate to Europe or America, just as Ahmadinejad does.
And although you sneeringly repeat my phrase- the destruction of Israel by force of arms- twice, you never deny that you would favor it. In fact, you make it clear that you think it is the only realistic possibility -- the only alternative you posit, "living happily ever after," is the language of fairy tales.
You see no solution other than the mass evacuation of over 5 million Jewish Israelis - peacefully if they leave voluntarily, by war if they won't. As I say, that's fine. Have the courage of your convictions and admit what you believe. You're not alone in that belief - it's something you share with Ahmadinejad and many others. You've said nothing negative about him yet, and I wouldn't expect you to.
You ask me if I am in favor of nuking Iran. Of course I'm not. You ask if I'm in favor of the destruction of Iran by force of arms. Of course I'm not. Why ever would you think so? Projection, perhaps.
What I have said here is that Iran is governed by an oppressive theocratic tyranny that has regional aspirations of leadership. I don't think that's really up for discussion. But perhaps you do. You think the Iranian theocratic government is a good government? I don't want to know what you think about the Israeli government- you've told us that, many times before, and you will again. But this is a thread about Iran, about what the president of Iran said and what he meant. Get off your hobbyhorse and focus. What do you think about Iran?
Posted by: JR | Dec 15 2005 22:24 utc | 90
Well, hello, rememberinggiap. Off our meds, again, I see. Try punctuation. It's very soothing for the nerves.
Since this thread began with Bernhard's query about whether Ahmadinejad did or did not deny the truth of the Holocaust, I wonder if you have a view? Is the entire world incorrect except for Bernhard, or can we agree that Bernhard's confusion is now cleared up?
Posted by: | Dec 15 2005 22:34 utc | 91
Say what you mean, "Jews should go back to the concentration camps and all die so we don't have to deal with them anymore."
i keep thinking the bar cannot be raised but once again joe saves the day!
guess joe didn't like my argentina suggestion . i figured those early zionists couldn't be all wrong. i going to run get my guitar so i can belt out kumbaya
and pray for forgivness.
i see we have a new anon antagonist. b., apparently the mini me threads really attacts the paid help.our taxes at work
Posted by: annie | Dec 15 2005 22:46 utc | 92
anonymous. go fuck yourself. i believe neither you, whomever you are or jr are really inerested in what he said. you have bought the talking points as your type usually does.
& in this instance i am not interested in debating with fools
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Dec 15 2005 22:53 utc | 93
That last anonymous comment came from the same Internet address than the comments of JR.
I don´t see any additional possible value coming from this discussion and will close this thread.
Thanks for participating.
Take one on the house and relax a bit please.
The comments to this entry are closed.
If you can read German, please check Henryk M. Broder SPIEGEL Gebt den Juden Schleswig-Holstein!.
Broder is a serious and well acknowledged (by all sides) German journalist (of jewish religion). In his essay he sets himself into the Arab view and finds that Ahmadinejad made a very plausible suggestion.
The early zionist movement thought about buying land in Argentinia or Brazil. The idea of "Israel" in the ME came up when the brits had to solve a problem there.
He calls the the Middle East conflict a "collateral damage of Europen anti-semitism". Those who induced the problem should solve it.
(Lot´s of good quotes in there, but right now I lack the time to translate it.)
In the end he says Ahmadinejad could probably get a commedy price.
Posted by: b | Dec 10 2005 21:01 utc | 1