Not much to add to these two useful articles. First, from Are the Palestinians getting a hearing at the UN racism conference? on Reuters Global News blog:
Although the U.N.’s racism conference in Geneva has been dominated by Middle East politics, Palestinian rights groups say Palestinians have effectively been silenced. On the one hand tough rules by the conference organisers prevented Palestinian NGOs from holding “side events”, they say. On the other hand Monday’s controversial speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, slamming Israel as a “totally racist government” founded “on the pretext of Jewish suffering”, has distracted attention from the issues that actually affect Palestinians.
“One thing that we have noticed in this conference is that there has been a concerted effort to silence the voices of the Palestinian presence and raising the Palestinian issue,” said Wisam Ahmad of Al-Haq, a Ramallah-based advocacy group.
Ahmad says that Ahmadinejad’s speech became the symbol of the conference, as intended by “those that wanted this conference to fail”.
“We as Palestinians want to be heard and it is unfortunate that the press attributes the statements of the president of Iran to all of the Palestinian people,” he said.
Ingrid Jaradat, director of the Badil Resource Center in Bethlehem, agrees.
“We all knew he was going to come, we all knew that the European governments were going to wait until they just hear the key word and then they will all stand up and leave the hall and then the press comes in, they all would write about what he said or did not say and everybody would forget what is really written in the documents and what the conference is really about,” she said.
“From my point of view I do not think that this was helpful for the Palestinian people in general and not for our organisation.”
And a great commentary from Seumas Milne in the Guardian pointing out the hypocrisy of the Western boycotting states in his article, “What credibility is there in Geneva’s all-white boycott?“:
What do the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Italy and Israel have in common? They are all either European or European-settler states. And they all decided to boycott this week’s UN conference against racism in Geneva – even before Monday’s incendiary speech by the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad which triggered a further white-flight walkout by representatives of another 23 European states.
In international forums, it’s almost unprecedented to have such an undiluted racial divide of whites-versus-the-rest. And for that to happen in a global meeting called to combat racial hatred doesn’t exactly augur well for future international understanding at a time when the worst economic crisis since the war is ramping up racism and xenophobia across the world. . .
[If Avigdor] Lieberman had turned up to speak at the Geneva anti-racism
conference, who believes that western delegates and ambassadors would
have staged a walkout? Of course, there’s a perfectly reasonable
argument to be had about the nature of Israel’s racism and whether it
should be compared to apartheid, for example. But for western
governments to hold up their hands in horror when Israel is described
as a racist state has no global credibility whatever.Israel’s
supporters often complain that, whatever its faults, it is singled out
for attack while the crimes of other states and conflicts are ignored.
To the extent that that’s true in forums such as the UN, it’s partly
because Israel is seen as the unfinished business of European
colonialism, along with the Middle East conflict’s other special mix of
multiple toxins. The Geneva boycotters, fresh from standing behind
Israel’s carnage in Gaza, are in denial about their own racism – and
their continuing role in the tragedy of the Middle East.
"[If Avigdor] Lieberman had turned up to speak at the Geneva anti-racism conference, who believes that western delegates and ambassadors would have staged a walkout?"
Seumas Milne (not Seuman) is one of the greats.
Bruce..did you catch that?
..a pretty compelling point.
There's an easy way to get Ahmadinijad to stop talking about the holocaust. Suggest a moratorium. No one gets to mention the holocaust for the next five years. Who would suffer more–Ahmadinijad or the Israelis who can't discuss lasagna, skiing, aerodynamics or agricultural pests without invoking the holocaust?
Israel–the Shoah business capital of the world.
What a sickening disgrace they are.
We need to kick them out of this country.
You know what else similar of all theh countries that boycotted the conference?
Hint: it has to do with their system of government.
Perhaps the Palestinians should also boycott the conference if they complain that their cause is being hijacked by Iran et al.
r: I was thinking of comparing these essays to Bruces "insights" also. But I didn't want to embarrass him. ;)
Although it is true, as Bruce claims, that Ahmadinejad did once consider using the words "ambiguous" and "dubious," was this really such a crime that it should completely overshadow his attempt to actually discuss the issue of institutional racism?
Pro-Israel Students Deserve Pain, Suffering.
In fact, although it was the only conflict mentioned in the final Durban [Durban I] declaration, the reference was so mild (recognising the Palestinian right to self-determination alongside Israel's right to security) that the then Israeli prime minister, Shimon Peres, called it "an accomplishment of the first order for Israel".
That really puzzled me, when I looked closer.
israel is a corpse that has been kept moving by the western money and power. if you get close the stench will kill you and your sense of smell. peres talking is like the dead man talking. whatever…
We need ONE brave college president who will say "We'd LIKE to have Hillel on campus but we find they are too divisive and for the safety of other students, we have revoked their charter and asked them to leave the university premises by the close of business today."
Israel is a live and growing community (hopefully in maturity and vitality, not geography).
Any fantasy that Israel is going to disappear for the "logic" that you present, is a setup for a great disappointment.
The portion of anarchist writing that is oriented to critical analysis solely is the poverty of anarchism, the gamble, the walk off the dock without asking if you can swim.
The portion of anarchist writing and thought that is most useful is the grass-roots self-help orientation of Mutual Aid.
The difference between the two is analagous to the two sides of the moon. The light side is affirmative, vibrant, a realization of life fully.
The dark side is cold, harsh, parasitical, more nihilist than anarchist.
The bottom line is:
'Not in my name'
If collective Jewish actions could be seen as something to be proud of, then a lot of individual angst would disappear -
Any fantasy that Israel is going to disappear for the "logic" that you present, is a setup for a great disappointment.
Why do you keep repeating this. The original Durban I document contained a really mild reminder in Israel's direction that all the documents from the Balfour Declaration (1917) on always contained the idea of a two state solution. Both people should have the chance to live on the land in self-determination.
But it raised hell. And for quite some time I only knew the propaganda. When I looked at the hard facts, I couldn't believe my eyes.
Why do you thin that is, Richard?
And I don't really have time to hang around here any longer.
@ r & D
I certainly agree wholeheartedly with both articles.
“From my point of view I do not think that this was helpful for the Palestinian people in general and not for our organisation.”
I've already made the same point several times in the comment exchanges. I don't see how you two conclude that Ahmad and Jaradat agree with you on the damage wrought by Ahmadinejad.
[If Avigdor] Lieberman had turned up to speak at the Geneva anti-racism conference, who believes that western delegates and ambassadors would have staged a walkout?"
Not me. It certainly would have put them in a dilemma though. Let's see which countries invite Lieberman over for dinner. Milne makes a real contribution in this piece.
It's Adam and Phil's site. I'm not responsible for the breadth of coverage. If I think something is overlooked, I might send them a message and and some links. Sometimes I contribute. Adam has posted good stuff on Durban II so far. I'd say this posting is the best yet. This is not a competition.
Originally, I had planned to write about both Ahmadinejad's speech and the reaction that followed. In the process as time slipped away I split the assignment in two and released part 1. I was working on part 2 when everyone's comments flooded in. Taking them seriously, I spent the next two days responding.
I didn't realize so many viewers at Mondoweiss considered a little fascist like Ahmadinejad to be the current Mideast Che Guevera (no slight to Che intended). Had I known, I would have been less snarky. I accept I should have put more context around his speech. It's not very hard, however, to find a trail of outrageous statements and repression from President A.
Had I finished Part 2, I would have discussed an article by Gerald Steinberg in the Jerusalem Post. In it he explains how the Israeli's carried out their strategic aim to sabotage Durban II. Obviously, they were not very pleased with how Durban I turned out. According to Steinberg, the Israelis game plan for Durban II was working superbly. Too bad Ahmadinejad carried out his role to a T. (Ditto the United States and most European nations as Milne poignantly captured.) The Israelis believe that the idea of future Racism Conferences have been killed, and righfully in their judgement. They want to see racism and human rights addres in a new organizational structure. God only knows what they have in mind, but I'm sure it won't be too long before we find out.
LeaNder is right. If you have a right to self-determination, so do I. Looking at the last 120 years in the Palestine area, I'd find it hard to conclude there's any balance applied towards the same objective. So, am I an anti-semite?
I would take the observations of the Palestinian NGOs with a tablespoon of salt.
Many of these NGOs are based in Ramallah, connected to the Petainist Authority and straw-fed by the EU. So they wouldn't want to antagonize their sponsors.
If the Conference had not already expunged all references to Palestinian suffering from their draft resolution under western threats, perhaps the NGOs' complaints about Ahmadinejad's high-octane speech would have had merit.
The EU walkout was a good thing, as the more brazen the EU's zionism becomes, the less chance the Europeans will have to fulfill their assigned role as a Trojan horse for the implementation of US and Israeli goals in Palestinian civil society.
My guess is the the Palestinian NGOs, part of the comprador class created by the "peace-process industry", were just happy to travel abroad, reside at posh hotels, consume pocket money, and make benign powerpoint presentations for their EU chums.
But after Gaza, this kind of pandering to western prejudices is no longer tolerable.
Bruce
I didn't notice anyone holding Oddjob in any sort of esteem other than for speaking facts mostly. (I still find all of his Holocaust remarks to be too ambiguous to say where he falls, and anyway they should not diminish the rest of his statements). You can say that it was inflammatory and perhaps not helpful to the Palestinian cause. But think about what would have happened if someone had not said what he did. The conference would have gone down as a non-event even with an unlikely mild mention of Palestinian rights. With his words out there more people are talking. I consider that to be of more importance. "Measured words" have been slowly strangling the Palestinians since the beginning – that's been Zionist policy between major spasms of bloodletting. Durban would have been at best more of the same.
So, am I an anti-semite?
Posted by: Citizen | April 23, 2009 at 01:46 PM
Of course you are, but not because of anyparticular stance on any isolated incidence. it is based on the totality of your written work. Yes, you are an antisemite. Now back in your hole.
Another great column on the juvenile behavour of our outraged white men at the conference:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/adrian-hamilton/adrian-hamilton-walking-out-on-ahmadinejad-was-just-plain-childish-1672580.html
Too bad the our intellectually and financially bankrupt MSM here in N America have not seen fit to make an honest response.
I find I really get off on self-inflicting rectal hemorrhaging, while looking at the negatives of autopsy pictures from child battering cases.
@ fultronix
I thought Oddjob's speech contained too many simplifications, too much hyperbole and too many theological references. That's why it reminded me of a George Bush speech. It was red meat for those who already had Oddjob in their sights, while not convincing anyone who didn't already ardently share his point-of-view.
That actual victims of racism were not clearly heard at the conference is a crime in my opinion. Every head of state in the world was invited. Only Ahmadinejad showed up. Any one of them could have accepted, and then present an effective case for the Palestinians or any other actual victims of racism.
The Palestinians should have been able to make their own case. And I'm sure their presentation of the facts would have been more accessible to the listeners than Ahmadinejad's.
The guiding rule of the conference seemed to be that anybody that mattered had the right to exclude a subject. The Chinese ruled out talk of the Tibetans. Iran wanted no mention of the Holocaust in the docs, even if Oddjob maintained the right to discuss it in his speech. It appears the US had some success excluding any mention of Israel and the Palestinians, but said it was still going to boycott as the conference planned to reaffirm the docs from Durban 1, and maybe pass a resolution against religious incitement that in its opinion could be used to restrict free speech.
There were some achievements on Day 2, but I saw very little coverage. Maybe you can show me what I missed. From what I read, it was all Ahmadinejad, even in Iran. And I don't hear people talking about the Palestinians other than those of us who have already been discussing them.
I understand your frustration with "measured words," but any progress on racism at an international conference, especially considering how every nation suffers from its own virus of the stuff, is not going to be achieved with polemics. If you consider the Durban conferences a waste of time, you should be relieved to know that after this week it is more than likely we've seen the last one.
I don't know if you saw my comment listing a number of Ahamdinejad remarks over the years along with those of his special Holocaust advisor. I might have pushed the ambiguous description myself at one point based on a selective interpretation of his remarks. But I don't see how anyone cannot conclude from a number of statements that he is pushing holocaust-denial, or at best deep holocaust-doubt.
"I thought Oddjob's speech contained too many simplifications, too much hyperbole and too many theological references."
But these are stylistic complaints. What you actually said is that it was "a screed worse than anything found in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
In other words, what you actually said is that the subject of most interest to you was something called "antisemitism." Now you're entitled to this prioritization, but it was sad that this idea so engulfed your mind that you failed to see all the OTHER important dimensions of his speech, not the least of which was the naming of Israeli racism. Personally, I'd endure of lot of sylistic infelicities just for that.
But then, as I once said, you seem to have very exquisite sensibilities. :)
There is doubt in Ahmadinejad's mind over how many Jews were actually put to death by the Nazis over the course of the Holocaust.
This is stupid and misguided, because it is irrelevant how many.
The point is that Germany made a formal decision to destroy an ethnic/religious group that it considered an alien asiatic threat to Western Civilization, and then carried it out to the best of its ability.
Interesting that Israel today promotes itself as the vanguard of the West against the alien, barbarous Asiatics.
Intriguing that some of Israel's stalwarts in the West, vile bigots such as Sarkozy and Berlusconi, are so hostile to asiatic immigrants, gypsies and other threats to civilizational purity.
Maybe Ahmadinejad is not alone in failing to learn the lessons of the Holocaust.
"The guiding rule of the conference seemed to be that anybody that mattered had the right to exclude a subject."
A great line.
On the subject of Zionist demonization of Iran, good article at IPS on Jeffrey Goldberg's recent work–
Jeffrey Goldberg’s War Redux
Bruce
I second "D"s comments – bringing the Protocols into this is pretty low.
Oddjob is not just speaking for Palestine – he's staring across the abyss at a homicidal regime threatening the (possible nuclear) destruction of his country, when contrary to popular propaganda he himself made no such threat, (leaving aside the issue of whether he is capable of such).
As for whether we get more discussion out of this, my comments, I confess, were probably wishful thinking on my part – but given that Phil's and Adam's project here is getting more popular as are other blogs I frequent dealing with the P-I issue (and Zionism in general), the fact that he even created a backlash could get people new to these problems to question it more. Again – wishful thinking . . .But I stick to my story that the conference was likely to be more diplomatic handwaving than anything useful to anyone other than Zionists who just love to watch the clock go talk, talk, talk ….while the blood flows in Palestine and money flows from the US and Europe to support a hideously racist enterprise. He got that right.
I myself engage in Holocaust doubt – of the Norman Finkelstein variety. It has been horribly misused especially to the eyes of the invaded and attacked of the Mid East. It has been horribly misused to stifle dissent about Zionism in the US and Europe. At this juncture I think it is healthy to question the official story – Raul Hilberg did after all – from one edition to the next. But at any rate this clamp down on free speech regarding the subject that I see mostly thugs like Dersch.. , Foxman . Lipstadt .. Wiesel etc…is not healthy — for anyone.
The theme of the speech was a reiteration of the protocols.
"World Jewish Conspiracy". How childish.
Israel does NOT promote itself as vanguard relative to Asiatics in the slightest.
40% of its citizenry resided in North Africa, Arabian peninsula, Iraq, Iran, Eastern Russia two generations ago.
That is one of the lies that Ahmenidijad and others present, and you apparently have assumed to be true.
Israel exists. That is its sole sin to Iranian leadership and cadre.
You are putting words in Ahmadinejad's mouth by those quotations as I did the research through the speech, something which you said you read, and those three words did not cojoin at all and in fact, "Jew/Jewish" only appeared once during his speech ("under the pretext of Jewish suffering"), Zionists/Zionism seven times (once linked with "World Zionism") and God six times and conspiracy/conspiracies once. Maybe you should drop the quotations and really make your assessment of Ahmadinejad your own instead of misleading the truth.
@ Ali
I agree completely with your last comment.
@ D
Okay, here's a concession for you. Maybe my comparison of the speech to the Protocols was somewhat of an exaggeration. Ahmadinejad is a fascist despite his religious leanings, and when I take fascists on, I confess, sometimes in a moment of pique my biases get the best of me and I don't quite play by Queensbury rules. As if fascists play by any rules. I will try to use more discretion in the future so as not to offend your sensibilities. I'm sure Ahmadinejad wouldn't hesitate for a second locking me up or seeing me hang from a crane in downtown Tehran, but I will try to give more serious weight to all the OTHER important dimensions of this international humanitarian.
A question, if a fascist like Avidor Lieberman manages to speak some truths now and then, how much weight should I give to those dimensions?
Whatever you concluded, anti-Semitism is not my main prioritization. I certainly wouldn't be hanging out at Mondoweiss if that was the case. I value my time more than Witty. Stopping a military conflict with Iran and attaining some justice for the Palestinians rank higher in priority. If you believe allying yourself with Ahmadinejad is going to achieve these, by all means work out an alliance with him.
And what kind of jive shit are you talking with "you have very exquisite sensibilities"? Are you engaged in some kind of kulturkampf here? Little smiley faces too, you are quite the aesthete yourself.
@ fultronix
I already answered the Protocols criticism.
Look, I accept Juan Cole's translations and the assurance that Oddjob did not threaten to destroy Israel, especially with a nuke. But he did call for the destruction of the Zionist regime, and as much as we might agree, regimes don't take such threats too kindly. They might even counter by their own attempt at regime change. Oddjob's special advisor on the Holocaust goes around explaining that the West has transferred its “Jewish problem” to the Middle East, and that the U.S. and other Western governments have finally decided to get rid of the Jews by taking the Jews to the Muslim world where they will be destroyed. If Israel is as homicidal as you declare, shouldn't Oddjob use some discretion before taunting "cold-blooded" killers?
However, it doesn't appear the Iranians are worried about the Israelis. They know the matter is now between Obama (with his national security team) and the rulers of Iran. Netanyahu is another right-wing thug, but attacking Iran is not his decision. Bush and Cheney wanted to attack Iran in 2007, but the US military stopped them. Bush then put up a red light when the Israelis wanted to attack last year before Obama came into office. If Obama tells the Israeli no attack, no Israeli leader will defy the United States. Either Obama himself attacks or gives Israel a green light, or there will be no attack. Boycott or blockades are a different matter.
If the US declares by active divestment that it is wiping its hands of Israel, then Israel will not be accountable to US vetoes.
Bruce,
We spend equal time here. Your posts are very long. I'm surprised that you declined to dialog with me directly, as it would likely be fruitful, both educationally and strategically.
I think Ahmenidijad is a fascist because of his religious leanings, his confusions about whether Jews are peers or subordinate, his religious assertions about the Islamic Waqf (strategically split in half by the presence of Israel – separating the Asian from the African Islamic waqf), his religious assertions about the status of Jerusalem (Islamic vs Jewish vs shared), and relative to Jews in general by his confusion whether Jews are hated "sons of dogs and pigs", or loved and admired "first and profound propounders of monotheism".
Its not a nationalist or democratic orientation. It originates in Shia theology, applied in a shia theocracy.
There are aspects of Shia theology that are wonderful and as profound as the deepest of any tradition. There is an urging of sincere and intimate prayer life and submission to the will of the One.
As there is only one One, then if truly adopted by the first two commandments at Sinai "I am the Lord Your God" – an affirmative statement of the oneness of God, and "Thou Shalt have no other gods before me" (no directly worshipped, no figuratively worshipped, no spiritual materialism).
For both traditions, the issue of land as of spiritual import and of excluding scripture as of spiritual import, is a delicate balance between inspiration and spiritual materialism.
If there were continuing ways for Jewish scholars and Islamic scholars to study and dialog, most likely that would continue to yeild wonderful wisdom, as it has many times in the past where the spiritual leadership of the two communities were neighbors.
Even the Koran itself contains conclusions born of admiration of Jewish scholars and commitment. But, it also contains conclusions born of Muhammed's frustration in converting Jews to a profession his interpretation of spirituality.
So, theological differences, differences in loyalty, and other mundane complaints against Jews (some old fascistic canards), resulted in the parts of Koran that are in fact anti-semitic, and permanently.
Richard,
I'm not planning to spend too much time on the Comments here. Since I'm new to the site, I made a weightier effort this week in order to clear up misunderstandings and explain more fully where I am coming from.
It might be me, but too much of what you contribute here I don't understand or I disagree with. If I think something might come out of a dialogue, you will hear from me.
For example, explaining Ahmadinejad's religious leanings as the cause of his facist orientation makes as much sense to me as explaining Lieberman's fascism by his circumcision. Discussing "Islamo-fascism", whatever that is doesn't interest me at all.
Bruce –
sorry – but it still seems that you are reading sympathy for Ahmadinejad into remarks by various posters here. I don't think that is the case and I say this in hopes that you will not let that cloud what seems otherwise like clear thinking on your part.
Considering Hitler's sympathies (Transfer Agreement – just one example) with the Zionists in their efforts to remove Jews from Europe it is not hard to understand why Arabs and Persians see that Europe transferred their "jewish problem" to their region – considering that it meant the destruction of Palestine and it's culture – and that they are paying for Europe's Holocaust of the Jews. (People can argue all they want about how Palestine didn't exist and that Zionists bought the land from the Ottomans – blah blah blah. The humane point of view has to concede that a real culture with roots in the land was destroyed by Zionism – Witty's legalese not-withstanding).
Was Oddjob taunting Israel? Is everyone who Israel threatens supposed to cower in fear? Do you really think it would slow the maniacs in Israel from launching the war on Iran that they have been threatening for fifteen or more years if he had remained silent?
As for whether Obama can stop this madness all i can say is "We'll see."
Bruce –
sorry – but it still seems that you are reading sympathy for Ahmadinejad into remarks by various posters here. I don't think that is the case and I say this in hopes that you will not let that cloud what seems otherwise like clear thinking on your part.
Considering Hitler's sympathies (Transfer Agreement – just one example) with the Zionists in their efforts to remove Jews from Europe it is not hard to understand why Arabs and Persians see that Europe transferred their "jewish problem" to their region – considering that it meant the destruction of Palestine and it's culture – and that they are paying for Europe's Holocaust of the Jews. (People can argue all they want about how Palestine didn't exist and that Zionists bought the land from the Ottomans – blah blah blah. The humane point of view has to concede that a real culture with roots in the land was destroyed by Zionism – Witty's legalese not-withstanding).
Was Oddjob taunting Israel? Is everyone who Israel threatens supposed to cower in fear? Do you really think it would slow the maniacs in Israel from launching the war on Iran that they have been threatening for fifteen or more years if he had remained silent?
As for whether Obama can stop this madness all i can say is "We'll see."
Bruce –
sorry – but it still seems that you are reading sympathy for Ahmadinejad into remarks by various posters here. I don't think that is the case and I say this in hopes that you will not let that cloud what seems otherwise like clear thinking on your part.
Considering Hitler's sympathies (Transfer Agreement – just one example) with the Zionists in their efforts to remove Jews from Europe it is not hard to understand why Arabs and Persians see that Europe transferred their "jewish problem" to their region – considering that it meant the destruction of Palestine and it's culture – and that they are paying for Europe's Holocaust of the Jews. (People can argue all they want about how Palestine didn't exist and that Zionists bought the land from the Ottomans – blah blah blah. The humane point of view has to concede that a real culture with roots in the land was destroyed by Zionism – Witty's legalese not-withstanding).
Was Oddjob taunting Israel? Is everyone who Israel threatens supposed to cower in fear? Do you really think it would slow the maniacs in Israel from launching the war on Iran that they have been threatening for fifteen or more years if he had remained silent?
As for whether Obama can stop this madness all i can say is "We'll see."
Bruce –
sorry – but it still seems that you are reading sympathy for Ahmadinejad into remarks by various posters here. I don't think that is the case and I say this in hopes that you will not let that cloud what seems otherwise like clear thinking on your part.
Considering Hitler's sympathies (Transfer Agreement – just one example) with the Zionists in their efforts to remove Jews from Europe it is not hard to understand why Arabs and Persians see that Europe transferred their "jewish problem" to their region – considering that it meant the destruction of Palestine and it's culture – and that they are paying for Europe's Holocaust of the Jews. (People can argue all they want about how Palestine didn't exist and that Zionists bought the land from the Ottomans – blah blah blah. The humane point of view has to concede that a real culture with roots in the land was destroyed by Zionism – Witty's legalese not-withstanding).
Was Oddjob taunting Israel? Is everyone who Israel threatens supposed to cower in fear? Do you really think it would slow the maniacs in Israel from launching the war on Iran that they have been threatening for fifteen or more years if he had remained silent?
As for whether Obama can stop this madness all i can say is "We'll see."
"And what kind of jive shit are you talking with "you have very exquisite sensibilities"?"
It's true I may have lost some manners on the Internet, and if I have I apologize. But you're going to have to be prepared to be called out when you act like "world Zionism" is a term beyond the pale. Or that the idea that the premises of Zionism might be fundamentally racist is some weird, fringe notion that you and your Muslim friends have never heard of before. Or that calling the linkage between the Holocaust and a colony of European Jews in Palestine "dubious" and "ambiguous" is the mark of some kind of monster.
While people are dying we don't have the luxury for that kind of sensitivity.
Richard, there are a lot of people interested in talking about "Islamo-fascism" here. You might want to see if you can find some kindred souls to bounce your ideas off. (Don't worry, they're almost all Jews.)
sorry about the multiple posts – the new format seems to be a little quirky
It's in the nature of a conspiracy that it is hard to prove. Check out some statutory definitions of criminal conspiracy sometime. Circumstantial evidence helps to clarify. Intent is implied absent confession. There's a difference between
a conspiracy freak and one who asks a lot of rational questions.
@ fultronix
I came over to read the comments on this posting by Adam, a posting I would have liked to have written myself, only to find myself dressed down by r and D in two of the first five comments. In the comment exchange at two previous postings I went to considerable lengths to expand on my views. That consumed so much time I haven't had the time to write any further follow-ups. So I was a little surprised to find that the obsession on my Ahmadinejad posting was now moving over to yet another posting. Funny, this never happened when I posted criticisms of Israel.
Considering Hitler's sympathies with the Zionists…
Whoah! I've looked into this and the Revisionist Zionists may have had sympathy with Fascism, but it is fatuous to conclude Hitler had sympathies with the Zionists. He cynically milked the Zionists for whatever money he could extract out of them, and then went off and killed as many Jews as possible. Had he won the war, you don't think he would have come after the Zionists in Palestine and liquidated them too?
Had other countries, especially the United States, accepted Jewish refugees in the Thirties, there never would have been enough Zionists in Israel to hold onto downtown Tel Aviv. Zionist efforts to attract and absorb immigrants were not proceeding very well until Hitler made it to the world stage. The extreme desperation of European Jews turned some of the lucky (as well as fit) ones into Zionist pioneers.
it is not hard to understand why Arabs and Persians see that Europe transferred their "jewish problem" to their region – considering that it meant the destruction of Palestine and it's culture – and that they are paying for Europe's Holocaust of the Jews.
Considering what the Arab Palestinians have experienced, it is easy to understand that they might not be in a generous mood to express sympathy today for the plight of the European Jews under Hitler. Although it surprises me to what extent many of them will. I've repeatedly written that the Palestinians should not be expected to pay for the Holocaust.
But I take exception with the term "Europe's Holocaust". Why not Germany's Holocaust? Most European nations were not responsible for the liquidation of European Jewry. I will tell you why Ahmadinejad will not say German Holocaust. He is too busy trying to convince the Germans that the Holocaust may have been invented by the victorious Allied powers in World War II to embarrass Germany. He wants to let the Germans know they've been maligned, and that he sympathizes with their treatement at the hands of the evil Zionists. In his mind, the Germans should perceive him as a sympathetic ally.
As for the Persians, I realize they were under the rule of the Shah's father back then, but why did Persia become Iran? Isn't it still called Iran today? The Iranians were not helping the Gestapo track down the Jews in the region in order to show their solidarity with the Palestinians. The Persians have their own historical responsibilities. This is a sophisticated culture. One reason its elite looks down on Ahmadinejad.
After the Second World War, displaced Jews had a hard time finding countries that would take them (even if the Zionists tried to steer them illegally into Palestine). Norway, for example, which rescued half of its Jews from Hitler, would not let it non-citizen Jewish residents return when the war was over. The humane point of view would concede that the remnants of a destroyed European Yiddish culture muscled their way into another land, ending up displacing and badly harming another culture. The creation of the state of Israel had serious consequences for a population now equal in size to the current Jewish population in Israel today. There is unfinished business – business of the UN and the international community. They need to clean up the mess and the injustices they created. As Phil says, sixty years is long enough.
Was Oddjob taunting Israel?
I don't know. Opinion is all over the board in the comments on this site.
Is everyone who Israel threatens supposed to cower in fear?
Most people who cower, have no choice. Everyone should stand up for themselves as best they can, but one is not obligated to become a martyr.
Do you really think it would slow the maniacs in Israel from launching the war on Iran that they have been threatening for fifteen or more years if he had remained silent?
As I already commented, war on Iran will come if Obama decides, not Israel. A more deft speech would have helped Obama politically should he deicde to take on the Israeli-firsters and the American right-wing. I could be wrong, but I don't think Obama's instincts are to want a military solution. But he's politically cautious and could be corned into accepting a confrontation. If I didn't think a more conciliatory speech would not have cost Iran anything, and maybe even helped the Palestinians a little, I wouldn't friggen spent so much time here arguing for it.
It should interest you as it does inform some of the ideology and then practise applied.
It clearly is not an accurate general description of how the Islamic world as a monolith can or does function.
It is IMPORTANT to determine if the ideology that underlies "resistance" is in fact conditional or unconditional.
An ideology that is conditional can be resolved by talking. An ideology that is unconditional can not.
A conditional ideology is constructed in various ways. If a religious approach results in a conditional relationship wonderful.
The significance of investigating ideology informs what is possible in the future, so is important.
If your politics or descriptions of what makes "justice" are constructed only on what was done, rather than what can be done, then your politics might be described as reactionary rather than progressive. (Defined in reaction, rather than in proposal.)
So, those on the left can be progressive or reactionary. Zionists can be progressive or reactionary. Shia Muslims can be progressive or reactionary.
"There is unfinished business – business of the UN and the international community. They need to clean up the mess and the injustices they created. As Phil says, sixty years is long enough."
That is the emphasis of my efforts.
Good post.
One significance of the term "European holocaust" for Jewish survivors is that the holocaust was instituted by fascists throughout Europe, not only by Germany. There is an irony about my in-laws Hungarian experience, which is that as a fascist ally of Germany, Hungary only implemented "moderately" suppressive laws and practises until late 1944, when Germany exerted more influence and then occupied.
So, Jews only lost property, professions, civil rights, punishment without trial, and forced labor, but weren't mass murdered as they were in places that the Germans occupied directly.
Hungary, Rumania, vichy France, Italy, Croatia. Unlike occupied Poland, Czechoslavakia, Russia, Austria, Holland, Belgium.
@ D
I know nothing about you, not even where you are writing from. I would guess the US. But those consideratons aside,
I'm not sure whether your "world Zionism" is the same as Ahmadinejad's "World Zionism" or to what extent your "world Zionism" lines up with the "World Zionism" as easily found on umpteen hate sites, but you could clear it up with your own description and I will tell you if I think it's a term beyond the pale.
I have already written on this site in response to Witty that I doubt Zionist ideology can avoid being racist, but in any case Zionism as practiced has certainly been racist. [I didn't go further as I don't want to get into Talmudic arguments about Zionism, especially since changing the practice in my judgement will require a change in the ideology.]
As I wrote to Shafiq, Ahmadinejad stated Israel is "totally racist" in his speech. I'm not even certain what "totally racist" means. I accept Israel is racist, but it is certainly not the only state in the region that treats minorities very badly. Iran treats some of its citizens worse than the Israelis treat the Arab Israelis.
And are the -isms that guide Iran and Hamas, "fundamentally racist", "racist", "non-racist" or "anti-racist"? Could you enlighten us?
My non-Arab Muslim friends have a rather realistic view of racism in the Arab world from first-hand experience, as well as what they know about racism in Israel. Do you? You shouldn't put them down so easily.
Finally, you seriously need a course in reading comprehension and grammar, probably logic also. Ahmadinejad's prepared text did not call the linkage between the Holocaust and the setting up of the State of Israel "dubious" and "ambiguous." It stated "the West had used the ambiguous and dubious question of the Holocaust in setting up the the State of Israel." The two statements are not remotely equivalent. You are either playing games or have suffered a compute failure of some kind. While people are dying we don't have the luxury for that kind of carelessness.
"The two statements are not remotely equivalent."
Well that settles that, then.
But at least we have made some progress: Ahmadinejad's bringing up Zionism at a racism conference wasn't really so grotesque as you first claimed. And "world Zionism" might not exactly be the swear word that you once accused Ahmadinejad of. Pretty soon you'll be admitting the president of Iran might not think Jews have horns. (But that will ruin your day.)
Even Witty doesn't hide behind a letter of the alphabet.
I initially claimed asserting Holocaust denial at a a Racism Conference is controversial. But I can go with grotesque if that works for you.
Another claim I implied was as Ahmadinejad and his pals use World Zionism, it is a swear word. Still haven't heard what you mean.
The day Ahmadinejad finds a new Holocaust advisor, one who doesn't give interviews in which he states:
"the West 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. 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. And so you can see that Israel has been created to destroy not only Muslims but the Jews themselves.”
that will be better a day for me.
I believe the readers have heard enough from us to draw their own conclusions.
Out of time here on this one – -
but anyway a few comments —
"sympathy" may have been the wrong word, but let's call it a mutual desire to see the Jews out of Europe . . In the Zionists case they cynically and murderously allowed the spilling of Jewish blood in varioius ways to further their desire for able bodied soldiers and farmers going only to Palestine – the rest be damned on the alter of Zionism – read Lenni Brener.
Whether Hitler "cynically" milked Jews for their money in the transfer agreement is highly interpretive considering how Jews were blamed for and benefited from Germany's financial woes in the 20s .
My use of the word "European" in regards to the Holocaust is taken from Oddjobs perspective – most certainly not mine. Where do you get this idea that he is trying to use today's Germany on this issue to gain sympathy . . .
gotta go move my car
The powers that recognized the self-proclaimed state of Israel on land already more inhabited by a different people for generations did it for a complex of reasons, including guilt for the Shoah, whether deserved or not, the moneybag influence of rich zionists on domestic politics, and as a Cold War tactic. The UN support of the partition itself was pressured also by strong-arming more neutral countries to vote in favor by
threatening to cut off their post WW2 reconstruction aid & foreign aid generally to them–by the great powers of the time. The middle east locals, all those nations and peoples, simply had no real power to look
after their own region(s).
Basically, that scenario remains to this day.
Yes, 60 years is long enough. It's obvious that we cannot rely on Israel or AIPAC types to end this glaring injustice, and it's equally obvious if we did end it that at the very least a giant arrow from the pan-Arabist quiver would be gone. Not to mention, a reversal of the low opinion by so many in the world of the USA's hypocrisy, hence a lowering of USA physical vulnerability a la 9/11…. The first step for the one with the local power, enhanced greatly by lone USA super power policy,
is to uproot the settlements in the OT. Only in that way will a first major step be made in finishing unfinished business.
If you disagree, why, and how so?