From Bruce Wolman:
Those of us wanting to prevent a looming military conflict with Iran are scratching our heads today, wondering who is the biggest obstacle to peace we face, Binyamin Netanyahu or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The only Head of State willing to accept the UN's invitation to attend the Durban Review Conference on Racism, Ahmadinejad was given the introductory speaking slot as protocol dictates. By the time he left the platform, you have to wonder, is this guy a Mossad agent? The Israelis themselves could not have written the role of arch fiend better.
Almost nobody in the world heard the speech and only a few more read it. The most controversial and frequented reported line, a clear denial of the Holocaust, in the end did not get uttered. In the speech's prepared release, Ahmadinejad stated "the West had used the ambiguous and dubious question of the Holocaust in setting up the the State of Israel." He decide to drop the crucial words, ambiguous and dubious from his delivery after a meeting with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who reminded him that the UN had adopted resolutions "to revoke the equation of Zionism with racism and to reaffirm the historical facts of the Holocaust". Some of Ahmadinejad's previous Holocaust statements before world forums contained enough ambiguity that the charitable might have left him off the outright denier list, but make no mistake, the President of Iran has now unequivocally earned his place among The Deniers, right up there with David Irving and his band of Nazi apologists.
Admadinejad's speech triggered a walk-out in the conference hall. A wide swath of Europe along with Morocco and St. Kitts had their delegates march out on the Iranian leader. Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland and the United States had previously decided to boycott the conference before it began.
From all the hoopla, you might have thought the President had engaged in one long, Castro-style, anti-Zionist harangue. In fact, he started out with a 9-paragraph review of the history of imperialism and colonialism plus a critique of the UN Security Council. He then moved on to a 6-paragraph attack on the United States and its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, followed by a 3-paragraph discussion on the collapsing world economy and the unfair global economic structure. Midway, he reached the topic of the conference: Racism. His short dissertation on that topic was so theologically infused and ethereal, I'm not religious enough to comment. At last, Ahmadinejad came around to his favorite subject, World Zionism:
World Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religions and abuses religious sentiments to hide its hatred and ugly face. 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 the resources including their economic and political influence and world media to render support in vain to the Zionist regime and to maliciously diminish the indignity and disgrace of this regime.
This is not simply a question of ignorance and one cannot conclude these ugly phenomena through consular campaigns. Efforts must be made to put an end to the abuse by Zionists and their political and international supporters and in respect with the will and aspirations of nations. Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights aimed at eradicating this barbaric racism and to move towards reform in current international mechanisms.
There is no doubt that you are all aware of the conspiracies of some powers and Zionist circles against the goals and objectives of this conference. Unfortunately, there have been literatures and statements in support of Zionists and their crimes. And it is the responsibility of honorable representatives of nations to disclose these campaigns which run counter to humanitarian values and principles.
Like another famous President, this guy does not do nuance. Considering that Ahmadinejad went on to state, "it is absolutely possible to improve the existing situation in the world. However, it must be noted that this could be only achieved through the cooperation of all countries in order to get the best out of the existing capacities and resources in the world", one has to question whether this character have any diplomatic skills at all. This stuff may play in the red states of Iran, but did Ahmadinejad really think that a screed worse than anything found in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was going to elicit cooperation from Western Nations or their populations?
Unless Ahmadinejad was playing to a home crowd as Iranian elections near, this was the wrong speech at the wrong time on the wrong subject. It certainly didn't help the Palestinians nor US-Iranian relations. Nor the cause of fighting racism, which no matter what we think of Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, is a much broader and pervasive problem than Israel-Palestine.
Those of us working to prevent an attack on Iraq can only hope that President Ahmadinejad will not be re-elected this summer. Otherwise, the next few years will be needlessly more conflict ridden than they have to be.
{ 50 comments }
Rubbish.
It is to the eternal shame of all the OTHER heads of state that they'd sooner boycott the conference than hear the truth about filth hole israel and its abominable crimes. If I have a criticism, it's that Ahmadinejad was far too lenient in his condemnation.
"Those of us working to prevent an attack on Iraq can only hope that President Ahmadinejad will not be re-elected this summer"
I assume you mean an attack on Iran, a monstrous crime against humanity which is being plotted as we speak, while you condemn Iran's leader.
This is the wrong editorial at the wrong time and stands on the WRONG side of the issue. As for the UN's callous support of Judeo-Nazism, this is a day that will live in infamy.
Ahmadinejad may be Iran's W. Bush, but he has not invaded any countries, let alone weak ones that pose no threat to Iran's national security, so even that analogy is a stretch. W. Bush also was unable to coherently articulate any argument regarding the rights of an oppressed people. W. Bush liked oppressing people. Ahmadinejad uses words, not bullets, not air to ground missiles nor white phosphorus to engage in conflict with Iran's antagonists. Claiming the Iranian president is an obstacle to peace for creating conflict with words is the same as saying Iraq had nuclear weapons poised to strike the US, which would be something analogous to what W. Bush would say. Ahmadinejad should exclaim his non-nuclear armed nation has US and Israeli nuclear weapons trained on it because of his words, but not for any deeds.
Well, look, it certainly wasn't helpful to the Mondoweiss momentum. This forum is so poisoned, it makes no sense for the UN to host it.
I have to agree with him. Ahmadinejad was a disgrace. He has made things much worse.
And I say this as an Iranian who has suffered both under the Shah and the post-revolutionary regime.
I keep hearing what a disgrace he was but every single quote they list could have been drawn from Bt' selem or Ha'artz. The disgrace is that he was the only one to speak our about the abomination known as Israel.
The Israelis are Nazi worms, bearing only vague resemblance to human beings. It has to be stated and restated at every opportunity,
it seems that the more intelligent approach is to grasp what ahmandinejad's point of view is and why he holds it. that information can used to form a response.
Good job policing the forums. I suppose calling Jews worms with only vague resemblence to humans is ok? How about personally threating to kill a poster? Would that be ok?
rykart, ix-nay on the Azi-nay orm-way stuff, you know what I'm saying? Remember, if they think we don't like them, they will never change a thing, just to spite us. Honey vs. vinegar, all that.
come on, rykart. This guy is absolutely nuts. I have read similarly crazy stuff from Iranian ideologues in the field of art. The conspiratorial use of US animation films. I am not saying some things aren't relevant, it's the crazy organization of the whole speech, plus his obvious obsession.
His short dissertation on that topic was so theologically infused and ethereal, I'm not religious enough to comment.
Superficial religious glue, if you ask me. I find it hard to believe in religious utopias looking back over the ages, as he ironically realizes, although he gives no religion as the cause here:
Is he aware the religious were the "the power grabbing" perpetrators then? He doesn't tell his audience, it would harm the "harmony" of his tale. It feels his perspective shifts constantly, or he leaves it open for whoever to fill in the voids.
Bad translator: Medieval Ages – medieval times or Middle Ages. But interesting chronology, nevertheless.
I would appreciate Mohammad of Vancouver's comment. No comment over at Juan Cole yet, and maybe we shouldn't expect one.
caught my eye: the religious were – meaning: religious bodies were
I will respond to this writer. I think philp should have edited the reference to the elders of zion out of this article. nothing ahmadinejad said had anything to do with that book. very unfair of this writer to be afraid of ahmadinejad, because he is lazy to address the root cause of the problem and he is lazy to actually search for and read the whole speech.
Ahmadinijad's words were not particularly inflammatory this time but he did violate an understanding that Israel would not be discussed. However, he is still a disgrace to the Iranian people and he has the rhetorical skills to provoke the US and Israel into an attack. Propaganda originating from Israel and her supporters drew us into invading Iraq, which was patently stupid from day one. Akma.. with the backing of those skilled propagandist could manipulate the US into an even stupider war in Iran.
And for those people who defend him because he is just using words should recall Noriega and Panama. Basically, he dared the US and defied our hegemony with a series of speeches. That was all. And we crushed him like an ant and he today remains in a US jail (of course, we also bombed the shanty town in Panama City that was his political base and killed 800 people just to remind them not to support forces that are willing to defy the US).
"Violate the understanding that Israel not be discussed????????????"
This is a racism conference! It''s disgusting. I support Ahmadinejad as the only head of state with a scrap of integrity on THIS issue, which ought to be central to any so-called conference on racism and violation of human rights.
Meanwhile, Obama, this sick piece of crap from hell gives a pep talk to torturers and sadists who pour water into people's lungs. And WE have the audacity to attack Ahmadinejad??
It's grotesque.
I don't blame the Arabs in the slightest for attacking this shithole of a country. They should re-attack it until it's destroyed. Period.
Phil's assessment that A doesn't "do nuance" is accurate–but that's as far as it goes, for other than that, he's no more over-the-top than the current Israeli administration, who appear to have bullied quite a few Western leaders into joining them in their colossal state of denial about what's really happening in the West Bank and Gaza. I agree with Mohammad that Phil is himself a bit over-the-top in his citing of the Protocols. Phil, have you read the Protocols?
So long as we keep pandering to the putative delicate sensibilities of the Israelis, we continue to play their game–fulminate about anything except the fact that the occupation is an egregious racist crime which we in the West have been pleased to allow to continue for decades.
Considering that Ahmadinejad went on to state, "it is absolutely possible to improve the existing situation in the world. However, it must be noted that this could be only achieved through the cooperation of all countries in order to get the best out of the existing capacities and resources in the world", one has to question whether this character have any diplomatic skills at all. This stuff may play in the red states of Iran, but did Ahmadinejad really think that a screed worse than anything found in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was going to elicit cooperation from Western Nations or their populations?
Am I missing something here? Encouraging world cooperation is akin to invoking the Protocols of Elders of Zion?
Is he aware the religious were the "the power grabbing" perpetrators then?
I think you are confusing the history of the Catholic Church for that of Medieval Islam. Nothing is as superficial as this hand-me-down Dawkins nonsense.
I'm surprised Bruce talks of Ahmadinejad moving from racism to "his favorite subject, World Zionism." Although Bruce may not agree with them, many people — probably the majority of this planet — regard these as one and the same subject.
Bruce also seems disappointed that Ahmadinejad didn't pitch his speech to an American audience. Perhaps the Iranian president is not as optimistic as Bruce that our Zionist lobby can ever be dislodged. In any event, a feeling of superfluousness may be one Americans have to start getting used to.
Someday I will piss on H. W. Bush's grave for the US invasion of Panama. The invasion of Granada was a disgrace. The invasion of Panama was a crime, a crime Iran has never committed since the Revolution.
Blaming a Pearl Harbor-like sneak attack on Iran because of the provocation of words would be quite a trick, but one that many Americans would accept. If Iran is attacked it will be for other reasons, but not because of Ahmadinejad's words nor because Ahmadinejad was a drug dealer for the CIA who was threatening to expose the president of the US for his involvement in the coca trade.
Reee-lax. This is just Ahmadinejad giving a healthy F-U to the Zionists and the atheistic, money-worshipping imperialists, and adopting left-wing, anti-racism rhetoric to do it. The only people (pretending to be) upset by this are the Zionists, the atheistic money-worshipping imperialists, and the atheistic left-liberal “progressives” who don’t want their precious monopoly on the “racism” accusation being co-opted by a dusky Islamic “religious nut” and “Holocaust denier”; it’s too precious a franchise for them.
I wouldn’t put Ahmadinejad very far above or below any of the groups listed above, so I don’t see how any of them have much right to pass judgment on him. In fact, he has never invaded anyone, but they have, and for the worst of motives. (And some of them like to distinguish themselves from Bush. How laughable.)
Here's what the world should be condemning:
To the Men and Women of CIA:
I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the work you are doing for the country. Your work has informed every President dating back to President Truman and it protects our people. I have come to rely on your service and I believe strongly that it is vital to the security of our country. Given the threats, challenges, and opportunities facing America, the CIA remains as critical today as it has ever been to our Nation’s security. While necessity requires that the country may not know all of your names or the work that you do, all of us enjoy the freedom that you have helped secure.
I also wanted to share with you a decision that I made last night. Later today, the Department of Justice will release certain memos issued by the Office of Legal Counsel between 2002 and 2005. I did not make this decision lightly. As you may know, the release is part of an ongoing court case. I have fought for the principle that the United States must carry out covert activities and hold information that is classified for the purposes of national security and will do so again in the future. But the release of these memos is required by our commitment to the rule of law.
Much of the information contained in the memos has been in the public domain, and the previous Administration has acknowledged portions of the program – and some of the practices – associated with them. My judgment on this is a matter of record. I have prohibited the use of these interrogation techniques, and I reject the false choice between our security and our ideals.
In releasing these memos, the men and women of the CIA have assurances from both myself, and from Attorney General Holder, that we will protect all who acted reasonably and relied upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that their actions were lawful. The Attorney General has assured me that these individuals will not be prosecuted and that the Government will stand by them.
The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. They need to be fully confident that as they defend the Nation, I will defend them. We will protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security.
This is a time for reflection, not retribution. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. The national greatness that you so courageously and capably uphold is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence.
It is a core American value that we are a Nation of laws, and the CIA protects and upholds that principle under extraordinarily difficult circumstances every day. My Administration will always act in accordance with the law, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again.
Thank you for your service, and God bless the work that you do.
Barack Obama
Yes. A Riveting speaker! Kind of brings to mind ANOTHER riveting speaker from the historical archives. Remember? Boots? Little mustache? No? Drawing a blank?
Ah yes..Ahmadinejad. Now THERE's an evil guy!
I haven't read or seen the speech. None of the parts frequently quoted (and actually spoken) are horrible. Regardless of what he said, the horrors of the Holocaust ended 64 years ago. While they should never be forgotten or minimized, frankly it takes no courage to condemn them today.
The misery of Gaza is in the here and now. And it appears to speak of them in public causes serious offense to our great humanitarians in Europe. I say keep offending them.
To the practicality of Ahmedinijad's speech, speaking about the taboos is EXACTLY what needs to happen. That is precisely why Israel and the U.S. are so angered by it. They need these topics to remain taboo and Iran wont cooperate.
I greatly admire and appreciate Jews speaking out against injustice against Palestine. But they alone are not going to stop that injustice, and they can't ask Muslims/Arabs/concerned gentiles to shut up while they do their work.
I think philp should have edited the reference to the elders of zion out of this article.
I trust Phil, he will not edit people. It would absolutely contradict the image of Phil I have.
But good you respond to this. I am curious.
Which is more to our shame than his… Saying bad things about another country is not legitimate grounds for an offensive attack by that other country. If there is an attack on Iran by Israel, it will be Israel's fault and should not be excused by resorting to childish "But Ma, he called me names." (That would apply likewise to Iran if Iran attacks Israel, something I consider exceptionally unlikely.)
Bruce, I appreciate all your posts and agree with quite a few of them, but I've got to disagree with you here. Even if Ahmadinejad was denying the Holocaust (which I don't think he was), it is not a legitimate reason for war. If he wants to deny the Holocaust, or if Turkey wants to deny the Armenian genocide, or Israel the Palestinian nakba, or the US the atrocities committed during the Philippines War, none of those statements would justify the massive killing and wounding of civilians of their respective countries that a military attack would cause. But your implication that Ahmadinejad's statement makes him a bigger threat to peace than Netanyahu plays into that false meme. Netanyahu has made similar hateful statements about Iran, but his danger is not in what he says but in what he might DO.
Ahmadinejad and Bush may well share the same lack of diplomatic skills but Bush was a serious threat to peace not because of what he said, but because of what he did, which was to wage war under false pretenses against a country that was no threat to us. THAT is the true threat to peace. The other is just a dishonest means used by politicians and diplomats to blame others for their own actions. I'm sorry to see you buy into that one.
Also, I agree with Mohammed, who said your reference to the Protocols was unfair and uncalled for.
Phil. could you make it a practice to use quotes? I couldn't tell where Ahmadinejad and Wolman started or ended without rereading.
I think you are confusing the history of the Catholic Church for that of Medieval Islam. Nothing is as superficial as this hand-me-down Dawkins nonsense.
Idrees, that's what I mean with no clear perspectives. He is not taking of Medieval Islam, I think. He lists all the evil done by the West. I'll read it again, but I think it would have helped had he made his perspective more clear. And if he had used a clearer structure.
My first impression was of relevant complains coupled with an obsession with Israel without addressing the obvious. The war drums. Why? Why not?
Basically, yes I read the Protocols too between the lines. Bruce Wolman not long ago has shown in a comment to Witty that he doesn't mind critique of Israel. He does it himself. This is different.
And please delia, this is not Phil but Bruce Wolman.
What about Elie Wiesel and his group reported as present to help lead the walkout? (HuffPo)
Good post, Lysander.
Meanwhile:
Israel stands ready to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites:
http://jfjfp.com/?p=1717
The US should preemptively destroy Israel's capacity to make war. If they kill most of the Israeli people in the process, so much the better.
I haven't read or seen the speech. Here you go.
Phil. could you make it a practice to use quotes?
MRW, I don't understand these kind of complaints. Look the whole article started with "From Bruce Wolman".
I had no problems at all. I think Bruce makes it very clear where he gives additional information, were he summarizes. Just read the speech.
Thanks LeaNder..I hadn't read it.
An excellent speech I think, don't you?
I'm an atheist and naturally can't go along with his conclusion that a turning away from God is at the root of racism. I'm more inclined to believe the opposite is often the case. But he states his religiosity in a completely non-threatening way and doesn't try to shove Islam down anyone's throat.
His remarks about the United States and Israel are completely true. I wouldn't change a comma.
Maybe the guy's a psychopath. His speech however was excellent and the shame of this occasion falls on the heads of those too cowardly (or too racist) to stay and hear him out.
I'll defend Bin Laden too…when he's RIGHT.
"a screed worse than anything found in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion"
WTF? What is Bruce Wolman talking about? This is Richard-Witty-style nonsense.
syvanen – noriega was the cia's man in panama until he wasn't anymore… it always amazes me how little some americans appear to know of there own countries affairs when it comes to meddling in others..
just reading a quote from above "It is a core American value that we are a Nation of laws, and the CIA protects and upholds that principle under extraordinarily difficult circumstances every day.' LOLOL
I'm not surprised at the speech. Its slightly lighter than other of his speeches.
Thank you for reporting it.
More important than the speeches are actions that clarify what he means, what he/Iran is committed to. Proxy militias orchestrating terror on civilians.
Its a dilemma to be anti-Zionist. One inevitably then gets thrown in with Ahmenijidad, Bin-Laden, David Duke, skinheads, individuals that yell loud, but don't ask themselves about what their actions imply.
Specifically, in the name of opposing racism, they evoke and invoke worse racism.
And do so in a formula that is unconditional, rather than conditional.
On the Haaretz site was a clip of one of Ahmenijidad's entourage harranguing Elie Wiesel (81 years old) as he walked past Ahmenijidad. Yelling violently at the top of his lungs, "Zio-Nazi".
I saw similar at a demonstration in Amherst, MA associated with the Hampshire BDS movement. Directed at friends of mine, who were not urging suppression of Palestinians.
Yes, I would like to make it clear that I wrote this, not Phil.
There are quite a few comments, so I will have to take them one at a time.
"it is absolutely possible to improve the existing situation in the world. However, it must be noted that this could be only achieved through the cooperation of all countries in order to get the best out of the existing capacities and resources in the world"
Nothing wrong with that. Maybe the rest is a "screed", but not that bit.
@ rykart
I certainly meant preventing an attack on Iran.
The issue is Racism. This was a Global Conference on Racism. I did not choose the issue. In his speech Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust, and if the Holocaust is not a lesson in racism, then I don't know what is.
Maybe you are in agreement with Ahmadinejad that the question of the Holocaust is ambiguous and dubious and that those who question the Holocaust are not being given a fair chance to carry out their investigations and publicize their results. If so, there are many blogs besides Mondoweiss that will welcome you into the fold.
If opposing Holocaust-denial is the WRONG side of the issue of Racism, good luck in convincing the United States and Israel of that. I'm not the one that matters here.
"I saw similar at a demonstration in Amherst, MA associated with the Hampshire BDS movement. Directed at friends of mine, who were not urging suppression of Palestinians."
That's TERRIBLE Witty!! Just awful.
Tell me—did they shout "do you want more gas" after shooting your friend in the face and killing him?
Thanx for the link, Leander.
Having read it, I haven't changed my mind at all. Indeed, its much milder than I had thought, given all the fuss. Granted "World Zionism" has an ominous ring to it. But the idea that influential Jewish supporters of Israel use their wealth and power to further Israeli interests and to suppress any discussion about Palestine is hardly controversial in these parts. Indeed it is the topic of this very blog. Why can Phil talk about it but the President of Iran may not?
I'm grateful for anyone speaking up for justice in Palestine and elsewhere. I understand Jewish supporters of Palestinian rights are in a difficult position vis a vis other Jews. I understand they may feel embarrassed by fulsome criticism of Zionism coming from Muslims. But they are not going to stop injustice alone.
Someone actually has to fight injustice physically. Like it or not, that someone is Iran.
Case in point, many Jews condemned Israel's attack on Lebanon in '06 and I appreciate that. But it was Hizbullah's rockets that made Israel stop and not them.
@ Tommy
You won't find me defending the wars of George Bush or his reasons for it. Neither do I defend America's policy of boycotts and harassment against Iran.
But to argue that Ahmadinejad "uses words, not bullets" or that the man doesn't have an oppresssive bone in his body is quite a stretch. It is true that sometimes the Iranian government resorts to stones to kill evil-doers, but I doubt there are a number of women, gays, Bahai, Sunnis, moderates, etc. who would consider Ahmadinejad's-Iran oppression free.
I was not "claiming that the Iranian President is an obstacle to peace for creating conflict with words." My point is that his malicious pronouncements on the Holocaust and his exoriation of the West is not going to make it easier for those of us trying to persuade the US not to allow military action against Iran. If Obama does want to prevent armed confontation with Iran, and he hasn't confided in me his true thinking, do you believe Ahmadinejad's speech makes that easier politically?
I'm by no means convinced Ahmadinijad denied the holocaust, nor could I possibly care less.
Have you called for the Israelis to repudiate Golda Meir's insistence that there's no such thing as a Palestinian?? That strikes me as FAR worse, and compounds the longstanding denial of the Nakba by the Israelis. Maybe if the whole world started denying the holocaust, these Jewish mafiosi would get the message that history is not infinitely malleable to serve Jewish interests. It cuts both ways. If Palestinian history can be erased, so can Jewish history. As for Israeli history, the "history of the Jewish people" etc, it has been shown to be close to a total lie from top to bottom. A fairy tale. A hoax. Are you prepared to castigate the bulk of the Jewish community who hold to a transparently phony history or is it only the holocaust deniers who need to be castigated?
Suppose Ahmadinijad DOES believe the holocaust never happened? So what? He's forbidden from harboring stupid illusions? Are you suggesting the holocaust is being whitewashed? It's the massacre of Palestinians by these racist ghouls that is being whitewashed and it is living Palestinians, not long-dead Jews who are suffering the tortures of the damned.
People are turning on the Jews. They are so SICKENED by the behavior of those who purport to speak for us…their arrogance, cruelty and hypocrisy. it is for JEWS to begin to clean out this festering tool shed of rotting garbage known as the Jewish community and to live up to the high ideals we preach. It's OUR job, not Iran's.
@peters
By all means, please explain Ahmandinejad's Holocaust denial.
I agree that the Holocaust does not justify the fate which has been dealt to the Palestinians. I've made that clear on this site already.
Ahmandinejad could have made that point without Iran insisting there be no mention of the Holocaust in the Conference or its documents. And he would have more credence if he raised other instances of racisms, or are the Jews and Iran foes the only racists in the World?
Are you going to convince the Western countries to cooperate with you in ending racism by denying the holocaust and going on about World Zionism? I don't think so, but Iran can keep trying.
This really is just boiling down to what the press has focused on, as it seems that Ahmadinejad has yet again been limited to sound bytes that equates him with pure evil (like Holocaust denial is the same as shooting a protester and killing them, is it?). From another look, his speech looks sloppily worded which makes it seem that he implies that there is a gargantuan conspiracy involving Zionists. And if you remove the person from this speech, you could probably pin it on any other number of Third World leaders out there, possibly with better judgement when regarding the Zionism topic. Here's a better sentence that pinpoints the failures of the world:
"Why can Phil talk about it but the President of Iran may not?"
It seems that there must be a litmus test for anyone, and I mean ANYONE, Jews involved, to criticise Israel on any platform, even on a platform when the main topic is racism. Because every country practices some form of racism does not absolve Israel from any of the blame here, especially when they are guilty of crimes that are considered war crimes and crimes against humanity. Just a simple glance at the treatment of Israeli Arabs and how they are discouraged to join the Histadrut, how they are excluded from conscription into the army, how the Bedouin are being forced out and refused land permits, etc., it goes on and on, and many of it thanks to the ideology of Zionism. As light as Richard Witty wants to paint it by comparing Israel to neighbouring states that are afflicted by war, famine, destitution and under autocratic regimes which are pumped up by US aid money and military machinery, in some places Israel is not "top in their class" (whatever "class" that is meant to mean, I don't know) but ranks among the rest, even the PA. (So the PA refuses to give permits to Jews to build on Palestinian land; welcome to Zionism. [Instead, they are able to get Israel's permission to build homes on there illegally. You would think that some might make a connection between one and the other?])
@Mohammad
I read some of your early postings here on Mondoweiss, and I can't say I fundamentally disagreed with your insights.
I might be wrong, but it wasn't out of laziness. I read the whole speech twice. Until this speech, I gave Ahmadinejad the benefit of the doubt, including accepting Juan Coles' corrected translation of Ahmadinejad's remarks that only "called for the end to the Zionist entity".
But for me when you deny the Holocaust and go on about World Zionism, you are entering into the Protocols of the Elders of Zion territory as far as I am concerned.
By the way, what is Ahmadinejad's view of the Protocols? Has he read it? Truth or fiction?
Rykart,
This is a head of state, he would serve best NOT to resort to demagoguery. Ahmadinejad is free to think and say as he pleases, and he can offend anyone that he chooses to (if he so chose to do so) but doing this on a stage such as this only seems self-serving and self-elevating of his own status rather than the credibility of the conference. I would have to side with Bruce here; his decision to include his views about the Holocaust is entirely opportunistic and unnecessary. But I doubt Ahmadinejad knows of other instances of rampant racism in other countries aside from those that afflict his own sympathies (Shi'ism, Persians, Muslims in general). He's not some scholar researching on the detriment of the Uighurs in communist China; he's the President of Iran.
Sentences such as these really evokes late 1800s:
"People are turning on the Jews."
By the looks of this, we're only one Dreyfus Affair away to the depths of totalitarianism.
Joshua,
There is a distinction between punishing by summary execution someone that facilitates the sale of land to a Jew in the West Bank, and Israel's class-based refusal to issue permits to individuals that don't grease bureaucrats palms.
Land belongs to individuals anyway. The test cannot be Palestinian national land, but individual Palestinian's land. That test is a test of title.
Thats if you are advocating for color-blind law.
The use of expropriation for security purposes that later get transferred to individuals, is outside of the law.
But, the failure to distinguish between issues of sovereignty (where are borders) and title (where are individuals' property lines), is the difference between democracy and fascism.
Democracy respects individuals' rights. Fascism respects nations' rights.
Reform. Assertively stated. NOT revolution, carelessly stated.
"The use of expropriation for security purposes that later get transferred to individuals, is outside of the law."
You seem to have a good run-around to avoid the issue that Arabs are NOT allowed to build anew, and it is Arab houses that are getting demolished, and it is Arabs that are getting displaced, having ID cards identifying their ethnicity and gives two laws for two peoples on the same land (that belongs to individuals apparently).
"Democracy respects individuals' rights. Fascism respects nations' rights."
How quaint. How would you place an organisation such as the Jewish National Fund, the organ that refuses to distribute land to Palestinians. That does NOT respect an individuals' right to own property on Israel. It respects a Jewish nations' right to rightfully own and distribute land according to those that qualify for such a grant.
Lastly, there are plenty of examples where "security" is not even the rationale for the displacement of Bedouin and other Arabs in Israel. They recite Ottoman law to effectively root them off and replace them with state building.
"Democracy respects individuals' rights. Fascism respects nations' rights."
"There is a distinction between punishing by summary execution someone that facilitates the sale of land to a Jew in the West Bank, and Israel's class-based refusal to issue permits to individuals that don't grease bureaucrats palms."
True: the first one is viewed as collaborationist and betrayal while the second is viewed as expansionist and necessary for the character of the nation-state that is Jewish.
"Democracy respects individuals' rights. Fascism respects nations' rights."
@ Sylvanen
However, he is still a disgrace to the Iranian people and he has the rhetorical skills to provoke the US and Israel into an attack…
You made one of my main points perhaps better than I did.
But, "Ahmadinejad's words were not particularly inflammatory this time …"?
I still contend Holocaust-denial is rather inflammatory to a good many people.
Ahmadinejad also said,
Following World War II, they [not sure whether he refers to the victorious powers or a number of powerful countries] resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering and they sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine. 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.
The Security Council helped stabilize the occupying regime and supported it in the past 60 years giving them a free hand to commit all sorts of atrocities. It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defending those racist perpetrators of genocide while the awakened-conscience and free-minded people of the world condemn aggression, brutalities and the bombardment of civilians in Gaza. The supporters of Israel have always been either supportive or silent against the crimes.
Although there are some truths in these statements, there is also considerable hyperbole and a great many people would take these remarks to be inflammatory.
… but he did violate an understanding that Israel would be discussed…
I am not criticizing him for that. It is perfectly reasonable to discuss the situation of the Palestinians at a racism conference in my opinion. If you believe Zionism => Racism, make your case. But Racism <=> Zionism is definitely false and there are other cases of racism that must be discussed.
@ rykart
I don't blame the Arabs in the slightest for attacking this shithole of a country. They should re-attack it until it's destroyed. Period.
Well we understand where your stand.
If your aim was to make Ahmadinejad seem like a moderate, you've succeeded.
Comments on this entry are closed.