|
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?).
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.
Posted by: Malooga | Dec 11 2005 5:06 utc | 8
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
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
|
