The other day we ran a repudiation of Ahmadinejad's speech in Geneva by Bruce Wolman. As a Jew, I took comfort in that; but this site is not about comfort. We aim to be a place where dialogue occurs across national, ethnic and religious lines in a new world. Today we run a vigorous defense of Ahmadinejad by Mohammad of Vancouver, our Iranian-Canadian correspondent.
The history of imperialism and colonialism that takes up nine paragraphs of Ahmadinejad's speech–and Bruce emphasizes quantity– is a very relevant historical grounding of the problem of racism in post-colonial and neo-colonial times. I do not need to tell you how historically-rooted in colonialism are the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the tortures at Abu Ghareib.
Racism involves all the things Ahmadinejad talks about. As any theorist of critical race theory would tell you, it is about imperialism, colonialism, the late capitalist economy, globalization, transnational spheres of hegemony; and yes Palestine is still a colonized land and we all stand in solidarity on this.
Bruce, I understand your frustration. Denial of the Holocaust is "bad." Mentioning of the word Holocaust is often followed by an obsessive search and research into deciding whether it was denied, questioned, undermined, etc. And I acknowledge, references to the Holocaust in Ahmadinejad's speeches in the past and at the Durban 2 Conference on Racism have not been free of tension. Let's leave aside the old debate on the act of denial of the Holocaust and the meaning of it and stick to the very exact concern of: how did Ahmadinejad used the term Holocaust in this speech.
For all of you who do not speak Farsi, I have to emphasize, even when Ahmadinejad seems to be demeaning the memory of Holocaust, even when he seems to be belittling the memory of millions of lost Jewish lives, he does so with ambiguity. Compare that to the direct, offensive and aggressive rhetoric of Bush (axis of Evil, threat of military action), Olmert and Lieberman (constantly referring to Iran as Nazi Germany, threat of military action) and the use of nuclear bombs and the specific threat of the annihilation of Iran as a nation in defense of Israel (Hilary Clinton). And Bruce, do you criticize Israeli leaders for comparing the the nation of Iran to Nazi Germany?
There are a lot of criticisms of Israel in this blog and elsewhere, and people are all so busy tracking Israel’s actual crimes that they don’t get to get offended by Israel’s words. In that category, Israel gets to run free in a sea of smear, libel and unfair comments about everyone. From Norman Finklestein to Richard Falk, from Mearsheimer to Ahmadinejad, everyone is an anti Semite bent on the destruction of Jewish people. When was the last time anyone took offense at these outrageous statements? Why do we tolerate Israel’s not so ambiguous distortion of truth, but can’t even take our time to fact check our own work when we take offence against Ahmadinejad?
In the past, Ahmadijead has had two strategic goals for questioning the Holocaust. The first one is to show to Iranians and Muslims the limits of freedom in the West. He invokes Holocaust to show to his primary audience, Muslims throughout the world, that the west is not fully free, therefore why should Muslims adapt to limitless Western-style freedoms? This strategy is a challenge, not to Jews or the memory of Holocaust, but to the seculars within the Islamic world who constantly contrast Islam with the limitless and ideal freedoms in the West.
Another reason for using Holocaust is to challenge the West’s, and Israel’s, monopoly on contemporary history. By questioning Holocaust, not only does he challenge the West’s hold on the notion of history, he also challenges the central role of World War 2 and its consequence as the implicit pretext injustice, racism and war crimes today. He positions himself against all those Arab leaders in the past or today who have never questioned the legitimizing narrative of the World War 2 as a basis for the creation of Israel, and comes out as a historical hero.
I personally use this argument constantly, that Israel is abusing and has abused the memory of the Holocaust. This idea was the exact same idea that Ahmadinejad used when using the term Holocaust in his speech. This shows that he actually toned down the questioning of the Holocaust and only talked about the abuse of Holocaust by Zionists. How could this mild insult put him in a spot equal to Netanyahu?
As to the facts, we have one copy of the videotape version of the live speech in Farsi, an English translation provided by the Iranian delegation, a Persian text of the speech from the Iranian news agency, and a BBC PDF file with the letterhead symbol of Islamic Republic of Iran (Allah) accompanied by a rather sentimental font indicating that it is either an official fax from Iranian officials that was not intended for delivery (it says on the file "please check against delivery") and that has possibly leaked out, or is a fake. "The most controversial and frequented reported line, a clear denial of the Holocaust," as Bruce has argued comes from this last version (and not the link he has provided as evidence). The word Holocaust is accompanied by two "clearly" or "seemingly" (take your pick) problematic adjectives: "ambiguous and dubious."
According to Bruce, and not the article he links to as evidence, there was a meeting with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who supposedly talks Ahmadinejad out of using "problematic" adjective and the speech changes to the one that we have on the video. And the speech that we know of through the video is not a denial of Holocaust speech.
Even if, Bruce is right and that Ahmadinejad has dropped the two "problematic" adjectives prior to his speech, I still have a hard time accepting Bruce's main thesis that this guy is a warmonger sitting close to the Zionists of them all Mr. Netanyahu. Ahmadinejad did not deny the Holocaust in his speech. Even if he had intended to accompany the "question" of the Holocaust with adjectives of "dubious and ambiguous" he did not do so. The mere fact that he has not done so is a sign–and it is a very important signifier that is misread here by Bruce. It is not Ahmadinejad who denied the Holocaust, it is your assumption that he must be a denier that is making him into one and putting his name beside that of Netanyahu.
We look for hate in fear/hope of finding it, and fighting it. Yet, how this hate is articulated determines its badness. The word Holocaust out of Ahmadinejad's speech, the Holocaust that he is not denying, is not the same Holocaust of World War II in which undeniably six million Jews, homosexual, gypsies, communists, mentally and physically challenged people were executed in gas chambers. As I tried to describe earlier, Ahmadinejad's Holocaust is the Holocaust of western rhetorical strategy.
This is not so different from what anti-Zionists in the west and historians like Finkelstein have been saying, that Israel’s Holocaust is not the same as the Holocaust of 6 million Jews, because Israel has for a long time used Holocaust as a rhetorical device to advance its positions. If Ahmadinejad also uses a Holocaust rhetoric to question the basis of the Zionist system in Israel and the legitimacy of the Western hold on current events based on their monopoly of the history of the World War 2. And Israel uses a Holocaust rhetoric to legitimize racism, land grabbing, occupation and war crimes.
In one simple word, Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust is a signifier of him as a radical leader and it stands for his transgression of international political norms, the ones that the world hegemonies are imposing on him, his people and the people of the "southern" countries. His actions are partly anti colonial in our neocolonial times. His speech is indicative of his concerns for those people who have been denied their international rights by the powerful nations of the "North."
The Holocaust rhetorical strategy brings him into limelight, where he can address the material concerns of Iranians, Palestinians, and the rest of the "South." The badness of the articulation of this rhetorical strategy is much different from that of the neo-Nazis who use the frank and unambiguous denial of the Holocaust in order to redeem themselves from the burden of the actual crimes of Hitler done in the past. If their rhetoric intends to erase history, Ahmadinejad’s seek to reorient it and re-contextualize it in relation to the Palestine and the Muslim Middle East.
At
least the fair thing Bruce can do is toconcentrate on the content of
the actual
speech. At that level Ahmadinejad's speech deserves to be hailed as a
courageous challenge to European Powers and USA, which have found
comfort in their defense of Zionism, for their continued racist
policies
towards the Muslim world
and the south. Elsewhere in Ahmadinejad's speech he articulates the
course of action for anti racists; and this is not the elimination of
the Jewish state, but curbing the excess of Zionist power. Why aren't
we seeing an opening in this very claim? Why look for anti-Semitism in
a speech that starts with praise for Moses and ends with stressing the
need to work with Every country, we assume Israel included, to solve
the problems of racism? Who are we really mad at here? Doesn't our
reluctance to accept Ahmadinejd stem from our disappointment at
ourselves for our historical failure in providing any alternative to
the dominant Zionist discourse on Holocaust?
Aren’t we upset that while
we were sleeping, the people and the leaders of the south are
developing rhetoric and skills to corner Israel and the western
colonial governments and their flawed sense of morality?
Related posts:
{ 51 comments }
Bravo. But I think you were too charitable with Bruce. Only a fool or a knave could have thought that the one thing Americans needed to hear about Iran was more demonization as "antisemitic."
I thought your analysis of the "uses" of Ahmadinejad's discussion of the Holocaust was particularly interesting.
The denial of militant Zionism should be as disconcerting as the denial of the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad does not deny the Holocaust as unequivocally as Israeli apologists deny Zionist racism.
"Ahmadinejad's Holocaust is the Holocaust of western rhetorical strategy."
This seems quite clear to me too — especially given that conference a couple of years ago in Iran, the so-called "Holocaust denial conference," which was nothing of the sort. A Canadian academic from St. F-X U (a Canadian of Iranian background who almost lost his tenure over it) was invited to that conference and read a paper on the political reconstruction of the Holocaust. Apparently, it was a major topic at that conference. Interestingly, altho our MSM made a huge deal of the conference before it happened, not one journalist covered what actually was talked about there. Too embarrassing, I guess, since it was not the festival of Holocaust deniers which Israel, Washington, and other assorted sources promised it would be.
Ahmadinejad is no more outrageous than any number of idiot Western leaders presently treated as royalty by our MSM — including my own theocon prime minister. But Israel and Washington have been so successful in reconstructing his image that none of us can just accept that there is a leadership vacuum around the globe these days, and outstanding leaders are grossly outnumbered by outrageous ones.
Everyone on this site has seen how the Zionists use the Holocaust as a bludgeon. It’s always their ace in the hole, pulled out whenever their arguments have been reduced down to fallacies and exposed as either illogical, bigoted, double standards, or downright fraud. At that point it’s always “Remember the Holocaust” or some variation thereof, like: you’re an anti-semite, you just want to drill down on Jews, you’re a Nazi…blah, blah, blah. And nine times out of ten, the ace in the whole works, and debate is shut down. And the Zionist gets a smug smile on his face and walks away victorious, and with license to continue his ethnic cleansing on the West’s dime and to the West’s detriment.
This all goes almost totally unchallenged other than by guys like Ahmadinejad, who are declared Islamofascists by the Western press, or guys like Finkelstein, who are declared self-hating Jews or basically ignored, or guys like Mearsheimer and Walt, who are declared anti-semites or basically ignored.
It is the intellectual and ethical corruption of the West that sustains this insane nonsense. That the Zionists are allowed to get away with this time and again, and that the West today lacks the moral confidence and integrity to challenge this, is a judgment upon the moral putrification of the post-Christian West nearly as much as it is a judgment upon Zionism and the factions of organized Judaism, Christian Zionists and Judeophile liberals that sustain it.
From Norman Finklestein to Richard Falk, from Mearsheimer to Ahmadinejad, everyone is an anti Semite bent on the destruction of Jewish people. When was the last time anyone took offense at these outrageous statements? Why do we tolerate Israel’s not so ambiguous distortion of truth, but can’t even take our time to fact check our own work when we take offence against Ahmadinejad?
Israeli Jews' consciousness is characterized by a sense of victimization, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanization of the Palestinians and insensitivity to their suffering.
I thought you were out to lunch.
Colonialism is not only European. Iran is currently attempting colonial-like exageration of their earned stature by militaristic and opportunistic use of others struggles for its own prestige.
The second criticism is the characterization of Israel as a colonial enterprise. Its only a European colonialism is you think of the European Israelis as the only residents/citizens. That is not the case. 40% of Israelis stem from Sephardic roots, similar to Iranian, Iraqi, North African. Further, with multiple generations having now lived there, they are NOW "indigenous".
Further, there was no people that were always there. Persians were NOT always there. They migrated to there. Palestinians were not always there. They migrated to there. There are only two peoples that have "always been there" (defined as migrating there prior to the last ice age. They are Australian aborigines and groups of Sub-Saharan Africans.)
Further, Ahmenidijad's political ideology is directly associated with the Shia theocracy that controls Iran. His ideology is not nazi fascist. Any that propose that are misleading. Nazi ideology was specific.
The Shia theological perspective regards the Islamic Waqf as undividable, and a one-way growth (always growth, never shrinking). In scale the one-way heart valve of increase of the Islamic Waqf dwarfs the very small (but still wrong) one-way heart valve of Israeli expansion into the West Bank.
There is therefore no room for others outside of the Islamic legal and social structure in the waqf, and they will fight by arms and by ideology to accomplish that.
In speaking ONLY in terms of European colonialism Muhammed gives cover for an Islamic and Iranian colonialism.
And opportunistically, Iran wants to be the beneficiary of European and industrial addictions to oil, but doesn't want to participate in commonly including European reasoning into even international relations.
The fascistic element in his speech is his equation that Israel's existence is either a component or outgrowth of European conflicts. It is that. But, it is also a component and outgrowth of Islamic rejection of Jews right to permanently and confidently live in their homes in the Arab and Iranian worlds in safety. That was NOT afforded to Iranian Jews following the Iranian revolution, and is not confidently afforded still (with the conspicuous periodic show-trials of ethnic spies).
His is the jealousy of a small dog for the big dog's bone, NOT a criticism of dog-nature.
On accusations of anti-semitism.
I've observed a phenomena of 5 – 1 responses ranting at anyone that uses the term anti-semitism even in definitional, or indirect usage, compared to the actual accusations of anti-semitism.
Its irritating, but the straw dog reactionism is also.
People have to sift through that noise to get to the truth, and as the noise is all you offer, that's the choice "I like your color noise better".
Amen!
The demonization of the Iranian leader is the more clear act of racism. It is designed, as always in the Imperial West to build and sustain a dehumanizing hatred of a foreign (darker, poorer) nation in acceptance of current and preparation for greater racial violence by the colonial West against said nation.
Ahmadinejad's real sin, as the author so eloquently observes, is the contestation from the leader of a nation who has been constantly exposed to Western and Western-backed violence and threats in the post-WWII era.
The very discourse articulated- disheartening in and of itself- on this site at once is a crucial building block for this history of actual violence by Israel, Europe and the USA against Iran and many other 3rd world peoples, and a boundary-drawing mechanism which disallows the questioning of an inevitably partial, ideological and politically constituted dominant discourse of history, especially surrounding WWII and its aftermath.
That this set of mythical narratives (as the historical stories we tell each other always are) is a key source of power and legitimacy for Israel and the West in its violent and racist endeavors over these decades is amply and vividly demonstrated by the ignorant, emotional and violent reaction of Western critics to Ahmadinejad's many apt criticisms of booth Western and Israeli policy and the mindset that underlies them; one that is nearly universally shared in the West, one that is crucially constituted by a certain WWII and Holocaust narrative and one which is plainly demonstrated in the attack on Ahmadinejad's comments on this very site.
The racist ideology of empire creeps into our minds and hearts as even against our best stated objectives and positions.
exaggerating and glorifying and using a special and proprietary name for certain jewish experiences(to deny others their suffering) in the ww2 period is worse than denial since denial was created by what may be lies. denial of what? lies? let the world do as Ahmadinejad suggested at the iranian conference. have a dialogue and discussion.
what does jewry fear? truth.
No question that the superpower's total support of Israeli's de facto policy is the current situation. The power politics are very one-sided. Witty ignores these always. Chris Berel represents Witty's choice sans underwear. The use of the Shoah
to blunt a fair and balanced treatment of the I-P situation is slowly killing the USA, and also Israel. If you were born today, it would be easy to see by the time you each maturity. Too bad all the suffering in the mean time.
before their holy sabbath day, let all good jews declare israel to have no right to exist.
for israel to exist is an act of aggression. an act of war. no matter how smiley face the aggressors are after their war crimes.
late but let us remember pat tillman. he did sacrifice. unlike cowboy crooners who defend america on stage or at pool side with a beer.
pat tillman woke up and realized "this f**king war is illegal" and fought for an illegal state.
3 shots, close range, tight grouping, forehead. assassination. elimination. poster boy for the israeli run pentagon had to be silenced.
Citizen,
The question isn't whether living in a state of war constantly devours Israel, but whether the state of war is constructed by Israel.
If Israel is internationally recognized valid state, and Iran exerts military and other pressure on Israel with the goal of it not existing, then Iran is aggressor in that equation.
It USES the Palestinians needs to advance its own theological and state's interests, in a neo-colonial (new colonial) effort.
Palestinians now are encouraged to fantasize about a "world without Zionism", which is a dismissal of reality. Its like talking about a world without autos. Autos are not a minimum necessity, and one could theoretically do without them, but they are a reality.
Iran helps defend Palestinians, and Lebanese Shiites, much like the US helps defend Israel. The main differences between the US' and Iran's help to their respective clients is Palestinians, and Lebanese Shiites are under direct military assault and the aid Iran sends to them equals about ten minutes worth of aid the US sends to Israel.
Zionists dream of a Greater Israel because of the strength of US arms, an expanding reality.
The Ace in the hole works because it is the Ace. But antisemites can't grasp that concept. Zionists win because they hold the Ace.
Fantastic Mohammad, I agree with you 100%!
Ahmadinejad has a certain naivete, he truly believes that if only he could be allowed to explain his thinking, people would understand and shed their prejudices against Iran and injustices faced by Palestinians. That earnestness seems to compel him to speak out his mind and try to make his case, even at venues where more savvy leaders would mince their words.
Well said.
Shorter Witty–
Israel isn't an example of European colonialism because it contains many non-European Jews. On the other hand, Iran is an example of non-European colonialism.
Don't you love the way Witty has it both ways? This is the guy who is continually lecturing everyone on the need to be sensitive, yet he has kneejerk reactions to almost any criticism of Israel.
First line says "as a Jew, I …". Does it mean "being a Jew", or could anyone write "as a Jew I …"? This is the conundrum I would like to get rid of.
Iran is supportive of Hezbollah and Hamas–the US is supportive of Israel and its colonialism. Iran is aggressive towards Israel in the same sense that Americans who support aid to Israel are in favor of war crimes against Palestinians.
Iran is building a sphere of influence because it faces a threat from the US and Iran:
This is something that too many Americans (including you) don't understand. They've got it into their heads that the Iranians are some kind of suicidal religious maniacs when in reality, all their doing is playing the game of Realpolitik.
They didn't expect Bush to go into Iraq (as didn't many other realists) and when the US did, it was a wake up call that they could be next. So they funded the insurgency in the hope that the Americans would get bogged down and it worked like a charm.
By forming alliances with the likes of Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, it makes Iran much stronger. Ahmadinejad is not bothered about Waqf, especially so seeing as Palestine is Sunni Waqf (and not Shia Waqf).
Now they're getting the capability of building nuclear weapons (not actually building them) to act as a deterrent to Israel, a country that doesn't understand realism.
"His is the jealousy of a small dog for the big dog's bone, NOT a criticism of dog-nature."
In support of that statement, Richard, please give us a list of countries Iran has invaded, cities it has terror bombed, peoples it has ethnically cleansed. Or is helping Hizbullah rid Lebanon of the IDF count as imperialism these days?
Berel, I'm glad that you Zionists are finally admitting that you exploit the Holocaust as merely another card to be played in your enterprise, as opposed to a sacred event in Jewish history never to be degraded for material gain.
BTW, there are four aces in a deck, and you Zionists overplayed your hand long ago. Your shameless and disgraceful game is up.
Tillman was assassinated because he was going to blow the whistle on the Special Forces' heroin smuggling operation.
Egbert, I think this blog is a piece of crap and Mohammad from Vancouver is just shooting out the same old jive, he is just more refined being Canadian and all.
But I don't see where the conundrum is. I think he would have said "as a Jew I would have taken comfort in" if he was trying to be conundrumish.
"The Shia theological perspective regards the Islamic Waqf as undividable, and a one-way growth (always growth, never shrinking). In scale the one-way heart valve of increase of the Islamic Waqf dwarfs the very small (but still wrong) one-way heart valve of Israeli expansion into the West Bank.
There is therefore no room for others outside of the Islamic legal and social structure in the waqf, and they will fight by arms and by ideology to accomplish that."–Richard Witty
Say what? I am a Shia, and I most certainly do not agree with your analysis of the Shia theological perspective Witty….I think that you just like to use fancy vocabulary to cover up for your obvious biases in favor of Zionist Israel…
Mohammad, although I agree with half of what you said you are forgetting that Ahmadinejad has for an adviser a true anti-semite. His name is Mohammad Ali Ramin and they are very close. He is partly german and has lived in germany for many years… go figure…
Search for his name in this article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/04/13/090413fa_fact_anderson?printable=true
I very much appreciate the posting of Mohammad's rebuttal to Bruce Wolman's hysterical piece. I don't consider President Ahmadinijad as an anti-semitic nor do I swallow that he has been threatening to wipe Israel off the map as is constantly claimed by the Zionists, in order to try and legitimize any future attacks or actions they choose take in regards to Iran.
Iran is a threat to Israel in that it supports legitimate resistance to Israel occupations and wars, which by the way is also legal according to international laws. And Iran is a threat to Israel in that it is a competing force in the region militarily as well as economically. Iran actually helps balance out the region.
Iran is a threat to the U.S. in that it challenges our U.S. policies in their region of the world. And I happen to think that they have this right..
By the way, I watched you on Press TV's "Hearts and Minds" program Mondoweiss, and although I am sure we won't agree on everything, you struck me as being a reasonable man in your statements there.
Will you be returning to the show anytime soon?
Exploit? Hardly. but it is certainly justification for establishing a strong defense. We must always be alert for assholes attempting to water down the significance of the Holocaust.
By the way, we have all four aces.
Iran is building a sphere of influence because it wants to be the dominant Islamic power, and it wants to remove any non-Islamic influence from the region.
Nay, dancing Phool. We worry about insane asswipes who deny the Holocaust. Like You.
The Australian aborigines are the descendants of people that came out of Africa, into the Middle East (including what is now Palestine/Israel,) across Asia, then on to Australia. I don't see how you can claim that the Middle East was not populated prior to the arrival of aborigines in Australia. For all we know, the Palestinians might well be the ancestors of the Australian aborigines!
So you are an ignorant Shia. You join the ranks of ignorant sunnis, christians, and like Phil Weiss, ignorant Jews. Big deal.
Iran's challenge to US, Israeli, and Sunni hegemony is the reason Iran is under siege. Iran's challenge is not made offensively. Demanding control of its domestic politics and natural resources is the reason behind US hostility. Materially helping to defend the weak and oppressed Palestinians and Lebanese Shiites has brought the wrath of Israel upon them. Asserting their religious authority has caused tremors in Saudi Arabia. The easiest way to bring Iran into the family of nations and defuse the hostility, which the US is to a large part responsible for, is for the US to unconditionally open relations with Iran and take its navies out of the Persian Gulf. All Iran requires from the US is a pledge not to overthrow its government and interfere with its domestic politics.
John, this article that Remnick published is also a favorite of Bruce Wolman's. Perhaps you can help me. I couldn't find the part in it about Ramin being very close to Ahmadinajad. Nor could I find out just what it means to be an "advisor on the Holocaust." Is this some kind of government post those wacky Iranians have? Does he have a title? The Holocaust isn't a policy, it's an historical period, so the word advisor doesn't seem appropriate. Something sounds odd to me; doesn't it to you? Does anybody else in Iran call him Ahmadinajad's "advisor," or is it a status he accorded himself? Perhaps he just boasted that he once DISCUSSED the Holocaust with the president of Iran and a gullible (non-Farsi-speakiing) American author misinterpreted? Stranger things have happened.
I found it interesting that the author didn't provide a single example of Ahmadinad's so-called "Holocaust denial". Maybe it's because the author's an appeaser? And why didn't he give us any details at what was actually discussed at the "Holocaust denial conference"? Sounds like it could have made good juicy journalism. (Maybe David Remnick edited it out?)
I see that Jon Lee Anderson has written magazine articles on everything from Che Guevarra to the opium trade. I get an impression of a facile journalist of great width but not necessarily any depth. How much time did he spend in Iran? Who was his translator? I notice that he repeats the line that the president of Iran has a PhD in "traffic management." But other sources say the president's degree (and university teaching responsibilities) are in "civil engineering." Do you really think Iran offers PhD's in "traffic management"? Those Iranians sure are wacky.
I could go on. I'm afraid what you have here is just an old fashioned hit job. Sorry, but you're going to have to find your daily dose of "antisemitism" somewhere else.
Mohammad Ali Ramin
hmmm?
I think that is the peculiar story about these upheavals, not that I was ever a fan of the Shah and SAVAK, that a man who studied process and mechanical engineering teaches now political sciences in Iran. …
Mohammad, I'll read your comment again more carefully. Let me tell you, you didn't convince me concerning the speech. I am all too aware we have two conspiracy mythoi confronting each other, or distrust and not missing information and/or dialog on both sides, which obviously complicates matters, but the line of his narrative, sounds all two familiar for everyone who studied the use and development of the larger genre, motive, speaking of narratives and patterns.
It's a big irony of history that the respective present horizon always seems to deliver the fitting items for a new abraded version of history on a silver platter. I have to dive deeper into that.
Terribly said. Israel's foundation was based on Eastern European roots and even its founder Herzl was from Europe and its major bases (World Zionist Congress etc.) were situated outside Palestine and as well as its biggest lobbyists held near the offices of the biggest imperial powers that were living in the major dates. As a matter of fact, it was the Mizrahi who were originally opposed to Zionism, and even after the influx of the Sephardim their influence was marginal and they were ridiculed as rather backward Jews as opposed to the advanced forms of Eurocentric Jews we know as the Ashkenazim.
Marion, thanks for mentioning that. Others who want to watch can go to Press TV, click on "Hearts and Minds," and find the show for 25 Mar. 2009.
(You might also enjoy George Galloway's "Real Deal" from the UK.)
Mohammed, your analysis is brilliant as usual.
When will we be able to discuss the zionist role in the Holocaust that Neturei Karta has been describing for over half a century?
http://www.nkusa.org/Historical_Documents/tenquestions.cfm
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/weissmandl.cfm
hasbarablaster:
so if you link to the same exact document on two different nazi websites, does that make it more legitimate?
They're Nazi websites?
You Zionists really should get a better insult. Calling everyone that disagrees with you an anti-Semite or a Nazi is getting old
Mohammed, really interesting piece you posted, especially the description of Ahmadinejad's goals in discussing the Holocaust.
For those desirous of a more accurate translation of A's speech in October 2005 in which MEMRI claimed the Farsi said A wanted to wipe Israel off the map, go here.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
It was interesting to see Phil and Dan on PressTV.
Again, I think Ahmenidijad said a big screw you to Obama, rather than an "if".
Maybe a change in attitude and action on the part of Iran can occur, but it hasn't yet.
But it doesn't blunt fair treatment. Balanced? How should it be balanced? Why should it be balanced?
I think tommy laid out the nature of the chess table Iran sits upon. Remember the Shah, look at the geographic map,
the creeping Israeli land grab, Israeli nukes, endless US superpower supply line, Shrub's pretextual war, the official
US characterization of "the Axis Of Evil, Hillary's threat to use nukes on Iran, US Naval fleet there, Israel's characterization of Iran as the New Nazi Germany, IDF dry runs on Iran, earlier destruction of Iraq nuke center, attack over Syria,
etc. Why would an Iranian not feel threatened with extinction?
Chris, are you one of those Christian or Jewish, Taleban-like, Zionists who think they know better than everyone else, and therefore want to shove your biased interpretation of our religions down our throats due to your hopes for an eventual religious war?
Israel's "creeping land grad" has increased over 41 years from 789 miles from Iran to 786.
Iran on the other hand has funded and armed militias that continue to land within sovereign Israel.
If you don't get the qualitative difference, then you are missing something neurological.
Thank you tommy for clarifying even more what Iran is up against. As you can see the Sunni so-called moderate "leaders" of the region are more than happy to play along with the U.S./Israeli agenda of over throwing or undermining (in the region) the Iranian government, which only the people of Iran should be doing[as they did with the Shah] if they are for the most part unhappy with their present government as Israel and the West like to claim.
These Sunni dictators fear Iran because of its influence amongst the people of the region who for the most part support Iran's helping to defend the weak and oppressed Palestinians and Lebanese Shiites from the Israeli war and occupation machine. And they fear that their people will start converting to the Shia faith and reject their illegitimate rule because of it.
This is the paranoia of the Sunni regimes and why they have been aligning themselves with Israel…..
The fact that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda(Shia, amongst others, haters and killers) whose members hail from these Sunni regime countries doesn't appear to make any difference to U.S./Israel's relations with these Sunni regimes, is suspect to open eyed persons such as myself…
I happen to believe that this is one of the primary reasons that the Zionists do not want the Holocaust history to be questioned and revisited. And this is one of the reasons why they hysterically protested when Ahmadijad decided held a Holocaust conference in Iran and why they decided to label it as a Holocaust denial conference.
The Zionists would prefer the world to concentrate on the Palestinian Mufti Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini and some Arab leaders relations with Hitler. Yet many around the world had relations with Hitler.
And revisiting and questioning the Holocaust could bring attention to the Zionist leaders, as well as, many western leaders and prestigious families' relations with Hitler to the forefront…
Wasn't there a banking connection between grandpa Bush and Hitler?
Some comments on Mohammad's posting: The history of imperialism and colonialism that takes up nine paragraphs of Ahmadinejad's speech — and Bruce emphasizes quantity — is a very relevant historical grounding of the problem of racism in post-colonial and neo-colonial times. Actually
Comments on this entry are closed.