full English text of Ahmadinejad speech

by on April 22, 2009 40
Available here. (Thanks to Mohammad of Vancouver) Oh and here is the full text as submitted to the UN by the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Posted in Iran, Israel/Palestine, US Policy in the Middle East

{ 40 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. D. says:
    April 22, 2009 at 1:37 am

    Is Bruce Wolman going to tell us where the part about Holocaust denial is?

  2. Bruce says:
    April 22, 2009 at 3:25 am

    Ah D, I've answered you enough for one day. Do your own research?

  3. ... says:
    April 22, 2009 at 3:35 am

    i see no mention of the holocaust, let alone denial of it.. perhaps one needs to use their imagination and stretch the context out of the intent in order to get to bruces position… here is the closest i could find.. "Following World War II, they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless on the pretext of Jewish sufferings."

  4. Tuyzentfloot says:
    April 22, 2009 at 3:46 am

    Here is the official Iranian translation. Reportedly the part that doubts the holocaust was in his prepared notes but Ahmadinejad skipped them.

  5. ... says:
    April 22, 2009 at 3:48 am

    i guess that is enough for people like bruce that are hell bent on taking exception, or putting words in others mouths… that is just how propaganda works…

  6. Richard Witty says:
    April 22, 2009 at 4:28 am

    Its an expression of Shia theology, that regards the west as hateful, and Zionism as the epitome of that, in fact declaring Zionist (Jewish assertion rather than periodically protected passiveness) as the driver and epitome of western intrinsic abuse.

    All the while failing to reflect on structural or incidental abuses in the Islamic, Shia and Iranian world.

    Well, in fact, for Jews, the holocaust was a last straw with subsequent primary importance of shifting our consciousness from passive, apologetic, to active assertive. RATHER than seeking protection from begrudging states (in the norm of absence of color-blind justice), we determined to seek and realize independance.

    An important shift in consciousness. The irony of the Ahmenidijad speech, is that it reminds us Jews (many of us) of the importance of that independance, that liberation, in contrast to the role of dependance, passivity, and absence of personal responsibility to ourselves and to others.

    The speech indicates the continued importance of Israeli defense, given the deeply ideological, and permanently so, hatred of Jewish assertion, and the extreme unlikelihood of Islamic acceptance of any self-assertive Jewish association or identity.

    The significance of the speech to supporters of Israel, and to supporters of mutual acceptance even at the green line, is that that is not sought in earnest from Islamic states that are theocracies in deriving their political identity from the Koran, and not from ANY pretense of originating in consent of the governed.

    The speech confirms the conflict between civilist approaches (equal human rights as originally invioble).

    In contrast, the appropriate position for Jews that regard the shift from passive to assertive as important (not individual chutzpah, but actual freedom and self-determination), is LIVE and LET LIVE.

    Not only LET LIVE, and not only LIVE.

    The liberal Zionist approach.

  7. David F. says:
    April 22, 2009 at 4:49 am

    I find the fuzzy universalism in the speech annoying, although I am always pleased to see a state leader show a serious religious sensibility.

    I didn't see anything especially obnoxious, certainly not enough to justify the mainstream reporting on the speech. Of course he is going to take swipes at Zionism and Western interference in the Islamic world. I certainly didn't find the speech hateful. The rhetoric from our own neocons is far more dehumanizing towards its perceived enemies.

  8. Richard Witty says:
    April 22, 2009 at 5:24 am

    There weren't many obnoxious soundbites. There were however the reiteration, the continued commitment, to the thesis of global cultural conflict, with the rejection of all things western and civil (not Islamic).

  9. Richard Witty says:
    April 22, 2009 at 5:26 am

    At some point, you have to ask yourself sincerely, what are you for?

    Not only, what do you oppose.

  10. kit-kat says:
    April 22, 2009 at 5:35 am

    So, jews landed in the Palestine Mandate area, and just proceeded to practice "live and let live" there; this benign tolerance continued through 1947-1948 and still does, right up to today?

  11. Peter says:
    April 22, 2009 at 5:38 am

    The link above appears to point to a transcript of the real-time translation.
    There is a different translation of the speech here.
    A note at the bottom reads: "This is a BBC translation from a speech transcript supplied by the Islamic Republic of Iran News Network, Tehran, in Persian."
    Here is where Ahmadinejad mentions the Holocaust specifically:

    After the Second World War, by exploiting the holocaust and under the pretext of protecting the Jews they [some powerful countries] made a nation homeless with military expeditions and invasion. They transferred various groups of people from America, Europe and other countries to this land. They established a completely racist government in the occupied Palestinian territories. And in fact, under the pretext of making up for damages resulting from racism in Europe, they established the most aggressive, racist country in another territory, i.e. Palestine.

    You can actually hear him saying the word "holocaust" at time 1:06 on this undubbed video.

    According to the translation, he says in the speech that the Jewish state was established "under the pretext of making up for damages resulting from racism in Europe". So he's saying that there were damages resulting from racism in Europe, obviously meaning specifically against Jews.

  12. Peter says:
    April 22, 2009 at 6:01 am

    Richard Witty says that the speech contains "the reiteration, the continued commitment, to the thesis of global cultural conflict".
    Huh? Could you point to some quotes that exemplify this? On the topic of global cultural conflict, all I see in this speech is condemnation of it and its ill effects. Ahmadinejad does denounce "world Zionism", but in the same terms and for the same reasons that someone might have denounced Apartheid in South Africa.

  13. Eva Smagacz says:
    April 22, 2009 at 6:20 am

    What is wrong with cultural conflict?

    Do we all have to watch Hollywood movies and drink coca-cola while dressed in mini-skirts?

    France has been in cultural conflict with anglo-saxon world for years and world is a better place for it (or at least its a less bland world for it.

  14. Richard Witty says:
    April 22, 2009 at 7:48 am

    Cultural conflict, if unavoidable, demands taking sides.

    In this case, the sides would be the Islamic world vs the western.

    In ascribing all of the troubles of the world to the assertion that the Jewish people are a nation, and require a homeland to be a nation in practise (Zionism), Ahmenidijad is employing the same thesis as the protocols of the elders of Zion and the theses of nazism.

    The worst of expansionist Zionism is a slow strategy of annexing 2262 sq miles. That is NOT "World Zionism". It is a uniquely falsely conspiratorial worldview.

  15. Citizen says:
    April 22, 2009 at 8:05 am

    If it's not world zionism, what is it?

  16. hlmeankin says:
    April 22, 2009 at 8:55 am

    Here is the reference to the Holocaust:
    "….After the Second World War, by exploiting the holocaust and under the pretext of protecting the Jews they made a nation homeless with military expeditions and invasion. They transferred various groups of people from America, Europe and other countries to this land. They established a completely racist government in the occupied Palestinian territories. And in fact, under the pretext of making up for damages resulting from racism in Europe, they established the most aggressive, racist country in another territory, i.e. Palestine."
    Seem pretty accurate to me.
    Richard and Bruce…don't you think its time you refrained from trying to throw dust in our eyes?
    All you achieve is the reinforcement of antisemitic sterotypes..
    not about Ahmadinejad,but about yourselves. Its called a self-fulfilling prophecey..

  17. Bruce says:
    April 22, 2009 at 9:44 am

    This is all I am going to contribute to this comment exchange.

    Below is a link to the the speech as supplied by the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/20_04_09_ahmadinejad_geneva.pdf

    This is exactly the version of the speech to which I referred in my post. I also explained in the post the differences between the prepared version and the delivered version and the reasons given by the UN Secretary General for the changes.

    From the sound of your comments, I am sure some of you will insist the second link to be a forgery provided by Mossad.

    In case you are still confused, I neither put words in Ahmadinejad's mouth nor wrote his prepared speech.

  18. Shafiq says:
    April 22, 2009 at 10:23 am

    Witty,

    You've obviously never been to Tehran or seen it, have you? Tehran is LA-lite with headscarves and no nudity.

    Cultural conflict? Yeah right!

  19. Me says:
    April 22, 2009 at 10:47 am

    @Richard Witty:

    "The worst of expansionist Zionism is a slow strategy of annexing 2262 sq miles. That is NOT "World Zionism". It is a uniquely falsely conspiratorial worldview."

    The phrase "world-Zionism" can merely mean that the supporters of Zionism are scattered around the world, and not only live in Israel. It even implies that not only Jews support Zionism, an important notion. It doesn't necessarily mean that Zionisms "target" is the whole world. It's a worldwide movement, not a movement to alter the world.

  20. Richard Witty says:
    April 22, 2009 at 11:43 am

    What does Ahmenijidad mean?

  21. 5 dancing shlomos says:
    April 22, 2009 at 11:44 am

    an eloquent and appropriate speech.

    Ahmadinejad doesnt deny jews died during the ww2 period. some 50-60 million people did. most had experiences and deaths far more horrible than jews experienced.

    "holocaust" is a manufactured term to make the events special and specific to one group. a BS term.

    Ahmadinejad at the iran conference requested an investigation a discussion re the happening jews term 'holocaust'. why are jews so afraid to do this. same with facts re their state. dont discuss. shout down and threaten and censor and harm. never discuss.

    is it because virtually everything jews say re their suffering their hist and their state is a lie.

    again, anyone critizing Ahmadinejad is a jew or a propagandist pet for jews. no need to call anyone a fool again. we need to be polite, even to liars.

  22. 5 dancing shlomos says:
    April 22, 2009 at 11:47 am

    run bruce, run.

  23. Me says:
    April 22, 2009 at 11:52 am

    @Richard Witty:

    "What does Ahmenijidad mean?"

    I don't know, but you pretend to do, because you said his is "a uniquely falsely conspiratorial worldview".

    And by the way, you keep getting his name wrong. It's spelled "Ahmadinejad".

  24. rykart says:
    April 22, 2009 at 12:05 pm

    Hey!!!! Not allowing Bruce to lie through his teeth about Ahmadinejad's non-existent holocaust denial is a clear case of anti-Semitism. Cut it out!!

    Gee…if I wanted to clearly deny the holocaust, how hard would that be, dya think?

    I deny the holocaust.

    there…that was easy.

    how about "The holocaust never happened!"

    How about "Jews invented the holocaust—it never happened!"

    or maybe "There never WAS a holocaust against the jews"

    or perhaps some other of the 60 trillion permutations, NONE of which Ahmadinejad ever said.

    The fact of the matter is, you're DYING for Ahmadinejad to deny the holocaust, he won't give you the satisfaction and that makes you angry.

  25. LeaNder says:
    April 22, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    Thanks Bruce for the link to the official document.

    Incidentally, I have by now edited another edition to the same address rhythm. Since his main lines of argument or his sub-chapters apparently lie between them. From dear president to dear friends so to speak.

    I have to admit though, I agree with one central point he makes. Although I do not like the way he puts it. I write that as a German, since I also feel responsible for the fate of the Palestinians, The Western powers imposed "a solution" to their own racism people who were not responsible for the persecution of, pogroms against the Jewish people in the Western world and finally the Holocaust. They ultimately had to pay the price for "the West". A think that is a central point. But how do we move on from there? Surely not via the land was G-d-given to the Jewish people.

    How can we stop not only the circle of violence but also this endless circles of arguments and necessarily created counterarguments. Or more precisely how can we stop Israel from mirroring the Holocaust in every encounter with the Other. Be it backwards in times as slaves in Egypt or forward in constantly seeing new Hitler's to confront out there in the Arab world?

    Concerning Ahmadinejad, isn't it ironic that the "pro-Israel forces" want to change the UN too? Ideally create a UN for democratic forces only? His point about veto power is not completely wrong. Without US veto power the Palestinians would have a state by now, it feels.

    Concerning your earlier ironic comment, sounds like Mossad could have written this. Look at this timely new rumor.

  26. ... says:
    April 22, 2009 at 12:30 pm

    being silly and counter productive is all bruce has got… to suggest this was written by mossad is to not have read the article, or be just plain silly… in the transcript bruce has provided, i quote from page 2 "following the world war 2 they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless, on the pretext of jewish sufferings and the ambiguous and dubious question of holocaust.".. to say their is ambiguity around the holocaust is not to deny the event… i share the views of the poster 'r' who on a previous thread made this statement..

    "

    They walked out because they're cowards, bruce and afraid of the consequences accruing from offending the very World Zionism you pretend doesn't t exist.

    Guess what? Even Jews are sick and tired of hearing about the holocaust. We've been fed this holocaust diet since childhood…holocaust movies, books, pamphlets, holocaust drinking glasses, board games and matching sweatpants, steven spielberg's ghastly movies, and every damn town has to have a stupid holocaust museum—all so that this tragic historic event can serve as cover for the Israelis and their psychotic victim narrative, which they play to wonderful effect while shooting children in the head and laying waste to people's homes.

    It is the pro-Israel JEWS who have made a disgusting farce out of the holocaust.

    Not Iran.

    That's the first thing you should come to understand.

    Posted by: r | April 21, 2009 at 10:18 PM

  27. LeaNder says:
    April 22, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    Listen, …, I have to leave now. But Bruce remark is far from silly. "Mossad" stands only for a whole group of people carefully monitoring every move the UN does. Mossad stands for the constant exaggeration of the threat out there. The pan-Islamist threat scenario.

    Apart from the fact that it never is wise to insult a whole group whose support you want. And that's exactly what he did up to the point were they got up and walked out. It's a rather crude Western history in a nutshell. Israel only was the peak of all the evil done by the West.

  28. Bruce says:
    April 22, 2009 at 3:05 pm

    @LeaNder

    I agree with most of your earlier comment, especially

    Although I do not like the way he puts it. I write that as a German, since I also feel responsible for the fate of the Palestinians, The Western powers imposed "a solution" to their own racism people who were not responsible for the persecution of, pogroms against the Jewish people in the Western world and finally the Holocaust. They ultimately had to pay the price for "the West". A think that is a central point. But how do we move on from there? Surely not via the land was G-d-given to the Jewish people.

    His point about veto power is not completely wrong. Without US veto power the Palestinians would have a state by now, it feels.

    I'd go further on the veto power, he is almost completely right.

    In reply to a comment by Witty on an earlier posting, I wrote

    My own view is that the historical record shows that at the time, in light of the Holocaust, the idea of a homeland for the Jews in Palestine seemed like a reasonable idea to a good many people, but not to the native Palestinians and the Arabs. Since 1947 pre-dated the end of colonial rule and Western imperial ambitions, it was easy for the UN to ride roughshod over the concerns of the native Arab population of Palestine in the partition plan. The Palestinians had already suffered military defeat and political disintegration when they rebelled against British colonial rule. Had the UN attempted to pass the same partition resolution five years later does anyone doubt it would have been rejected? Despite their weakened state from the conflict with the British, it is quite understandable and even legitimate that the Palestinian natives rebelled and took up arms upon the declaration of the State of Israel. All other means of righting this injustice had been exhausted.

    Israel exists today. There are many Israelis who know no other country as their own. Israel's legitimacy is based on UN and Western decisions made in 1947 not the case for Jewish "self-determination," which I have argued above is very weak. Many of us now realize that the creation of the Zionist state of Israel had untold consequences on a population now equal in size to the current Jewish population in Israel today. Hence, there is unfinished business – business of the UN and the international community. They need to clean up the mess and the injustices they created. Sixty years is long enough. Demanding a resolution negotiated between two parties vastly unequal in power is not a "just solution".

    You can read more if you like at:

    http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/04/obama-has-filled-his-administration-with-realists-and-israelfirsters-who-will-win-.html#comments

  29. Richard Witty says:
    April 22, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    Good,
    At least now we're up to discussing how we interpret events.

    Zionism in 1947 was two things:
    1. Haven for refugees, haven for continuing persecution in Europe even following the war (I hope you've read of subsequent Polish, Hungarian, Rumanian pogroms, as well as abuse by Soviet occupiers).
    2. Last straw for the community's passive attitude. NEVER AGAIN, is a psychological shift from both the European past passivity and the sephardic diaspora status in the Arab world, including the continuing Iranian (not Arab) insistence that Jews are a periodically protected minority under sharia.

    Solving those problems in the affirmative for Jews by emigration and establishment of the nation Israel was a NET good.

    ANY assertive action you can take, has consequences that a moral person and/or community will heal (if possible to), and an immoral person and/or community will take advantage of.

    I've stated a dozen times that I favor (a very contreversial view among Zionists), that the 1950's knesset laws that prohibited return to abandoned lands, prohibited proxy title claims in Israeli courts, and authorized the expropriation by the state of abandoned lands; be repealed currently.

    That constitutes healing of the past, not perfectly, not satisfactorily, and not yet.

    If it can be argued on the merits of a society of law, tetter late than never.

    I've advocated for the merits of the Arab League offer from Israel's perspective, not primarily from the dissenting anti-Zionist perspective.

    And, the primary reasons are that the maze Israel (including finger settlement pattern) is less defensible than a contiguous Israel. And, although a square Israel (river to sea) is the most defensible geographically, practically a genuine peace agreement firmed by international concensus is FAR MORE secure than a militarily secure boundary universally surrounded by enemies.

    In the present though, I do NOT propose that Israel regard Hamas as benign, nor Hezbollah, nor Iran. The three (and others) have defined THEMSELVES as UNCONDITIONAL enemies of Israel, permanently. They do NOT suggest "if Israel adopted 67 borders, we would accept them as Israel".

    They state, quoting Nasrallah, "if Israel withdrew from the Shaaba Farms, and from other smaller contested border areas, we would continue our resistance against them." Similar statements from Hamas, and from Iran.

    The difference between a sincerely conditional attitude and an unconditional one, is the difference between potential reconciliation and NO possibility of reconciliation.

    Currently, there is no change in Israeli policy that could be realize peace, which is the obligation of all state governments to provide security for their civilian residents (including non-Jewish ones). (When Hamas shelled Beersheba, they shelled a cosmopolitan city, with 40% Arab population. When Hezbollah shelled Haifa, similarly.)

    It is a dilemma, NOT only an oppression.

    If you have a confident answer to that dilemma, I'm all ears, and definitely a good heart.

  30. rykart says:
    April 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    I'm happy that for this period of time (PRIOR to the British Mandate and BEFORE I had my tonsils yanked out) it was thought that Hamas and their shelling continued to provide a basis for land regurgitations which the secretary council of my daughter's home room teacher tried to suppress.

    I love peace and everything having to do with peace. The real question is, will Hamas STOP using their stealth aircraft to bombard Jewish businesses and homes? It's ONE thing to ask Israel to obey the law, and quite another to ask Israel not to break the law!! Don't you see that?

    Naturally, there is racism in Israel and we should do everything…absolutely EVERYTHING to limit this racism, so long as it doesn't involve DOING anything. In the meantime, Hamas has sent their fighters deep into Israel, recently destroying 15 cities and killing 160 million Jews. THIS IS WRONG!!

    My gastroenterologist is considered one of the best. He jokes with me sometimes: Blinky, he says (He calls me Blinky. I've never thought to ask him why). Blinky–you know why the Jews harvest grapes and shoot Arabs? I say no, Saul…how come? Just as he starts to tell me, he keels over. Dead as a stone! We've known him for 30 years!

    Thank you for reading my post

    –Richard Witty

  31. ... says:
    April 22, 2009 at 4:28 pm

    LeaNder this is the bruce quote i find silly… "From the sound of your comments, I am sure some of you will insist the second link to be a forgery provided by Mossad."

  32. Bruce says:
    April 22, 2009 at 6:00 pm

    @ rykart

    The fact of the matter is, you're DYING for Ahmadinejad to deny the holocaust, he won't give you the satisfaction and that makes you angry.

    Do you spend all day speculating on people's motives? Get a life, rykart!

    As someone wanting to prevent a possible boycott, blockade or military conflict with Iran, it would have been much easier if Ahmadinejad stopped speculating on the Holocaust and stuck with defending the Palestinians.

    I've read enough Ahmadinejad for one day, but below are some of the highlights.

    By the way, and funny in light of some of the comments here, Ahmadinejad also denies we know who carried out the 9/11 attacks. He also knows how to use proper grammer.

    Aljazeera.net, Dec 14, 2005

    Ahmadinejad: Holocaust a myth

    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.

    "If somebody in their country questions God, nobody says anything, but if somebody denies the myth of the massacre of Jews, the Zionist loudspeakers and the governments in the pay of Zionism will start to scream."
    ….

    Reuters, May 28 2006
    By Erik Kirschbaum

    Germans should stop feeling Holocaust guilt: Ahmadinejad

    BERLIN (Reuters) – Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Germans they should no longer allow themselves to be held prisoner by a sense of guilt over the Holocaust and reiterated doubts that the Holocaust even happened.

    In an interview with Germany's Der Spiegel magazine, Ahmadinejad said he doubted Germans were allowed to write "the truth" about the Holocaust and said he was still considering traveling to Germany for the World Cup soccer tournament.

    "I believe the German people are prisoners of the Holocaust. More than 60 million were killed in World War Two … The question is: Why is it that only Jews are at the center of attention?," he said in the interview published on Sunday.

    "How long is this going to go on?" he added. "How long will the German people be held hostage to the Zionists?… Why should you feel obligated to the Zionists? You've paid reparations for 60 years and will have to pay for another 100 years."

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other leaders have said his previous remarks questioning whether the Holocaust happened were unacceptable. Denying the Holocaust is a serious crime in Germany punishable with a prison term of up to five years.

    Six million Jews were killed by the Nazis and their allies in concentration camps.

    In the rare interview with Western media, Ahmadinejad said if the Holocaust really happened Jews should be moved from Israel back to Europe.

    "We say if the Holocaust happened, then the Europeans must accept the consequences and the price should not be paid by Palestine. If it did not happen, then the Jews must return to where they came from."

    ….Asked by Der Spiegel, in its cover story entitled "The man the world is afraid of," whether he stood by his earlier view the Holocaust was a myth, Ahmadinejad said: "I only accept something as the truth if I am truly convinced of it.

    "In Europe there are two opinions on it. One group of researchers who are by and large politically motivated say the Holocaust happened. There is another group of researchers who have the opposite view and are by and large in prison for that."

    AFP, Aug 26, 2006:

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has told German Chancellor Angela Merkel that the Holocaust may have been invented by the victorious Allied powers in World War II to embarrass Germany, the semi-official news agency Mehr reported.

    The remarks by the outspoken Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly questioned the veracity of the Holocaust, came in a letter sent to Merkel in July whose contents have not been disclosed until now. "Is it not a reasonable possibility that some countries that had won the war made up this excuse to constantly embarrass the defeated people … to bar their progress," Ahmadinejad asked in the letter.

    "The question is if these countries, especially Britain, felt responsible for the Holocaust survivors, why they did not settle them in their own countries?" he continued.

    In an interview with Iranian news channel IRINN on January 28, 2009

    Ahmadinejad stated:

    "An incident known as 9/11 occurred. It is not yet clear who carried it out, who collaborated with them, and who paved the way for them. The event took place, and – like in the case of the Holocaust – they sealed it off, refusing to allow objective research groups to find out the truth. They invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, using 9/11 as a pretext."

    DPA, Dec 10, 2008

    Iranian presidential candidate: Ahmadinejad`s Holocaust comments are `irrelevant`

    Moderate Iranian cleric Mehdi Karroubi, who Sunday declared his intention to run against incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in next June's presidential elections, has begun his campaign by calling the current president's past statements on the Holocaust "irrelevant."

    The 71-year-old cleric is head of the moderate opposition party Etemad Melli (National Trust) and the party's choice run in the June 12 elections.

    In a press conference in Tehran, Karroubi identified the president's economic and foreign policies as the main problems of the current administration that should be tackled, in particular Ahmadinejad's seeming preoccupation with the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad has remarked in the past that Israel should be "wiped off the map" and that the Holocaust is a "fairy tale," to widespread condemnation.

    "We have so far paid a heavy price for the remarks by the president and gained absolutely nothing in return," Karroubi said at a press conference in Tehran.

    "I do not remember that anybody in Iran has ever [since the 1979 Islamic revolution] referred to the Holocaust except [Ahmadinejad]," he said.

    "What we should care about is Palestine and Palestinians and how to help them, and not exposing the Holocaust and arguing about the number [of the Jewish victims in the Second World War] and whether it was registered as too much or too little," Karroubi said.

    Other opposition groups in Iran have blamed the president for having unnecessarily raised an issue which had nothing to do with Iran and hence harmed the country by "political adventurism."

    Karroubi served twice as parliament speaker, from 1990-92 and 2000-04. In the 2005 presidential elections, he missed reaching the second round by a few votes….

    Jon Lee Anderson, The New Yorker, April 22, 2009

    This January, a week after Barack Obama’s Inauguration, a conference called “Holocaust? A Sacred Lie by the West” was held in Tehran. Ahmadinejad, in a greeting that he sent to the conference, said that Zionists had “ensnared many politicians and parties.” In a follow-up statement, he added, “An incident known as 9/11 occurred. It is not yet clear who carried it out, who collaborated with them, and who paved the way for them. The event took place, and—like in the case of the Holocaust—they sealed it off, refusing to allow objective research groups to find out the truth.”

    …. Mohammad Ali Ramin advises Ahmadinejad on the Holocaust and is said to have shaped the President’s views on the subject. One morning this winter, Ramin met me and an interpreter on the campus of the Message of Light University, in Tehran….

    Ramin explained that the prevailing history of the Holocaust was unfair. The West, he said, had transferred its “Jewish problem” to the Middle East. “But it seems that the U.S. and other Western governments have finally decided to get rid of the Jews,” Ramin said. “By bringing Hitler, and by taking the Jews to the Muslim world, they have created a situation in which the Jews will be destroyed. They have created a situation where, because they are killing Palestinians, the Jews are more hated than ever.” He put on his glasses, and, for the first time, met my eyes. “And so you can see that Israel has been created to destroy not only Muslims but the Jews themselves.”

    …. As we sat in front of his desk, Ramin informed me that the Jews had carried out the 9/11 attacks. “The Zionists have blamed it on the Muslims so that they have an excuse to attack some Muslim nations,” he said. But it was all for naught. The Jews had also helped Nero, and it had not saved the Roman Empire from collapse.

  33. rykart says:
    April 22, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    None of the statements was taken from the supposedly holocaust-denying speech at Durban. Some of the statements posted seem to support claims that Ahmadinijad is a holocaust denier.

    Since virtually the entire state of Israel are consistent history-deniers, atrocity-deniers and human-rights deniers who put their vile perspective into practice on a daily basis against living Arabs (rather than long-dead jews) I consider the matter of Ahmadinijad's holocaust-denial a complete and total non-story. I would venture a guess that the second largest Jewish population in the Mid East, which resides in his country, would probably agree. Who can say? What I DO know if that the Council of Iranian Jews told Israel to shove their rotten bribery scheme up their Nazis asses, they would much prefer to remain in Iran than emigrate to the fake-Jewish state, despite all of Israel's pressure tactics.

    So how is this guy a threat to Jews?
    It's preposterous on the face of it.

  34. LeaNder says:
    April 22, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    Bruce, I read that comment. And it was by far the best I have read addressing Richard, if I remember the context correctly.

    Look, "…", this comment by Bruce may be a bit cynical, but considering some of the comments, I can understand.

    Read the text carefully. This guy is a politician, he could have used this speech for a good change in relations. He could have even addressed his main points. Simply differently.

    Here they are:

    a) history idea behind the founding and reality of the UN.
    b) latest history – Afghanistan war/Iraq war – Power versus Justice
    d) challenge – world economic crisis
    e) the common ground of the three monotheist religions
    f) change in the world – the third world rising – cooperation
    g) the way forward justice and human dignity

    Now I give you my selection of his speech of the first four topics:

    a)
    [Israel I] Following World War II, they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless on the pretext of Jewish sufferings. And they sent migrants from Europe, the United States, and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine… [Delegates walk out in protest. Applause] And in fact in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe… Okay, please. Thank you. And in fact in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive, racist regime in Palestine. [Applause]

    b)[Israel II]Wasn’t the military action against Iraq planned by the Zionists and their allies in the then U.S. administration in complicity with the arms manufacturing companies and the owner of the wealth?

    c)Ladies and gentlemen, who are responsible for the current global economic crisis? Where did the crisis start from? From Africa? From Asia? Or was it first from the United States, then spreading to Europe and to their allies?

    d)That is why the cells of the Devil’s power took shape and expanded its realm of power by depriving others from enjoying equitable and just opportunities to development.

    …

    [Israel III] Dear friends, today the human community is facing a kind of racism which has tarnished the image of humanity in the beginning of the third millennium. The world Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religion and abuse religious sentiments to hide their hatred and ugly faces. However, it is of great importance to bring into focus the political goals of some of the world powers and those who control huge economic resources and interests in the world. They mobilize all their resources, including their economic and political influence and world media to render support in vain to the Zionist regime, and maliciously endeavor to diminish the indignity and disgrace of this regime. This is not simply a question of ignorance, and one cannot conquer this ugly phenomenon through cultural campaigns. Efforts must be made to put an end to the abuse by Zionists and their supporters of political and international means and respect of the will and aspirations of nations. Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights aimed at eradicating this barbaric racism [applause] and to move towards reforming … [applause] … the current international mechanisms.

    …

    you are all aware of the conspiracies of some powers and Zionist circles against the goals and objectives of this conference.

    Comment: conspiracies are secret. These activities happened in plain air for all to see.

    And yes, I agree with Bruce and Richard that some here may well applaud Ahmadinejad for the wrong reasons.

  35. LeaNder says:
    April 22, 2009 at 7:36 pm

    Here is the Spiegel interview with Ahmadinejad in the English translation. And now I am retiring.

  36. ... says:
    April 23, 2009 at 1:29 am

    LeaNder thanks for giving a link to spiegel interview with ahmadinejad… is it customary for german newpaper interviewers to take such a slanted approach to an interview? it was an interesting read, revealing as much about the papers attitude as about ahmadinejad… all i can think is if that paper is any kind of reflection on the german people, then they are a lot more far right wing then i had previously thought…

  37. Margaret says:
    April 23, 2009 at 9:36 am

    Bruce, I was surprised to find the post on Ahmadinejad was yours – it seemed written by another person. Also surprising was that you seemed to expect Ahmadinejad would be more conciliatory. Israel is understood to have been urging the US to bomb Iran. In such a climate, why would you expect a cooperative posture from him? Was there a message of conciliation from Israel to which he was expected to respond?

    The following quotation sums up the Holocaust for me, post Gaza: "We know from our own history what being sealed behind barbed wire and checkpoints is like, and we know that 'Never Again' means not anyone, not anywhere – or it means nothing at all." Ethan Heitner, an American-Jewish peace activist with Jews Against The Occupation. (from the posts of Finkelstein Lobby on Israel Palestine Forum)

    I no longer say "Never Again." What's the point?

  38. r says:
    April 23, 2009 at 11:30 am

    Nasser. Saddam. Mossadegh. Ahmadinejad. Nassralah, Haniyeh. Chavez. Allende. Ortega. Morales. All are reviled by the US and Israel, despite how utterly different they are. The one thing uniting them is that they refused to be slaves to the United States and kiss our ass. That is the unpardonable crime of Ahmadinejad, not his statements about the holocaust, a dreadfully boring topic whose only function in mainstream discourse today is to exonerate Israel from its spate of massacres.

    Finkelstein was 1000 times right when he spoke in Lebanon and castigated the government for welcoming the monster Condoleeza Rice, before the blood had even dried following Israel's abominations there. "You have no respect for yourselves. How do expect others to respect you?

    Let us praise the leaders with the guts to speak honestly about the US and Israel. There are far too few of them. I hope, as everyone does, that human rights improve in Iran. But I will NOT listen to the United States lecture anyone, while we set up dungeons all over the world and our military filth torture innocent people to death for the sheer pleasure of it, at our notorious black sites.

    Fuck the United States.
    I'm glad it was attacked.

  39. LeaNder says:
    April 23, 2009 at 11:44 am

    "…", sorry I made a mistake, this is the earlier interview: We are determined.

    I don't read "Der Spiegel"/(the mirror) regularly, but my closest friend does from his youth on, and that friend is clearly on the left. The Spiegel is far from right wing and has in fact a quite well established reputation. It is liberal and not right wing. It's in fact owned by its staff. Look, I don't like them too much concerning the arts, and I could tell you precisely where I beg to differ from the Spiegel, but that would take us to far. It surely goes farther on Israel/Palestine than the New York times. They had a couple of good background stories on the Gaza war, censorship and war-watching tourism in Israel. Right wing. Never.

    Look, the vast majority of Germans doesn't like it if you tell them the Holocaust, didn't happen, is not really studied or that fringe groups like David Irving know the ultimate truth.

    We surely have a couple of fringe groups on the right that agree with Ahmadinejad, but most of us don't desire a Fourth Reich.

    ********************************************************************
    Margret, that all is obvious. The problem is, that that he ultimately proved "the conspiracy" correct. You won't deny that. It would have helped to express his concerns in a way that opens doors not shuts them down.

  40. r says:
    April 23, 2009 at 12:07 pm

    Every genocide can be denied but not the holocaust. That in itself is racist.

    Let's have a moratorium on discussing the holocaust. No one gets to talk about it for five years. I'll bet Ahmadinejad would sign on for that in a heartbeat.

    I'm appalled that people are more outraged by Ahmadinejad's comments, silly though some of them are, than they are with Jews playing the victim card while their military butchers civilians with nowhere to flee and no means of defense. It's abominable. Let the Jews (and I'm Jewish) shut the hell up about the holocaust. Let the people who died in that European horror rest. Stop pimping them to support Israel's crimes…it's disgraceful. That's what people should be worked up about.

Leave a Reply