AND: Consider this, from Anne Applebaum:
Unfortunately, Iran is serious—or at least Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is deadly serious. Holocaust denial is his personal passion, not just a way of taunting Israel, and it's based in his personal interpretation of history. Earlier this year, in a distinctly eerie open letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he lauded the great achievements of German culture and assaulted "the propaganda machinery after World War II that has been so colossal that [it] has caused some people to believe that they are the guilty party." Such views hearken back to the 1930s, when the then-Shah of Iran was an admirer of Hitler's notion of the "Aryan master race," to which Persians were meant to belong. Ahmadinejad himself counts as a mentor an early revolutionary who was heavily influenced by wartime Nazi propaganda. It shows.
Posts
32 comments:
It doesn't take a lot of words to say a lot.
We should remember, though, that occasionally the miraculous can happen.
I'm unsure why anyone takes the ravings of Ahmadinejad seriously. His assertions have nothing to do with historical veracity, and everything to do with his determined propaganda jihad against the Jews. He is a despicable little hate monger, for whom truth is entirely secondary to political expediency. It would help though if Israeli ministers like Avigdor Lieberman refrained from hegemonic rants on behalf of Jewish blood supremacy. That bs just lends justification to loonies like Mahmoud.
Aidan: See the article linked in the new material I added.
Yes I'm aware of the history - the collusion with the Nazis and the Frits Grobba episode that catered to Persian imperial aspirations etc. It runs deep with the Iranians. The Mufti of Jerusalem was also pro-Nazi so these sympathies were held by the Arabs also. This bias in their history is clear.
No doubt Ahmadinejad draws his inspiration from this legacy, however even the most outspoken of German apologists for the Reich and its doings would hesitate before taking it to Ahmadinejad's level of denial.
There is an almost pathological hatred of Israel in the region that allows leaders to say outrageous things about Jews without challenge. In Iraq apparently, ordinary civilians are now referring to G.I.'s disparagingly as "Jews".
Religion is the larger sickness in this region that permits these hatreds to be incubate for time immemorial. This is why Israel needs to move fast toward a secular model that sidelines guys like Lieberman. One fifth of the Israeli population is non-Jewish - in addition large numbers of Israeli Jews are secular and dislike the influence of religion in their politics.
If Israel moves to re-enforce the idea of the "Jewish state" and allows the religious additional sway in that society - Israel will have no future aside from grief. We have to fight the lies and propaganda of Tehran by pushing for justice and equality, not only in Israel but in other Middle Eastern countries that are grappling with the challenging new reality of democracy.
The future, if there is one, lies in the struggle to transcend ethnocentric and religious (read tribal) prejudice in order to establish the rule of law based on equality and justice. It's a pity the Bush strategy has wasted a lot of credibility in the region, but I believe many in the Middle East are seeking a new order that transcends the old definitions.
really crazy
If the Lancet study of the number of Iraqi civilians that have died during the American occupation proves to be accurate...will we treat those who denied it with equal contempt?
Have you heard this....
If there is a possible silver lining to holocaust denial, it would be at least the Jihadists believe that perpetrating such a deed is evil, otherwise why would they try to deny it....
I am not so sure. I don't think erasing the holocaust from history is Iran's goal - their goal is to seek out the Jew haters in the West and create a new international movement with Iran as the leader, similar to the International Communist movement created in the 1920s and 1930s. Western Jew haters will become the new "useful idiots" for the terrorist's plan to spread jihad throughout the world.
There are still loads of Jew haters in Europe waiting to blame Jews (and America) for the failed states they are about to inherit from their parents. I wonder how the media is reporting on this event in Europe....
Aidan, a more secular Israel is not going to make the Arabs hate them less. If anything, it may make them hate more, if that was possible.
Getting away from Israel for a sec - I think political systems based on ideas of blood and heritage rather than law and justice are the biggest obstacle we face in this new century.
Look at Europe, in particular France. Multiculturalism is a cloak for endemic hypocrisy. There is a "French first" protocol that dooms immigrants to marginal lives in sink estates such as Les Pyramids. If you are third generation French and you have 3 degrees, speak 4 languages but your name happens to be Hassan - good luck in getting a job in Paris.
Why do you think the Euros are scared silly of the US constitutional model and the American way - because it is the great leveler. Under the old deal they they get to incubate all sorts of prejudices and inequalities while posing as egalitarians. They prefer the game, rather than the real McCoy.
As for Israel - there are 20% Muslim Arabs living there. They have representatives in the Knesset. Ensuring that they get equal and just treatment is vital because the more justice and equality are canvased in the region as the standards that define Israel, the less these detractors can cry racism and apartheid and try to use it as an excuse.
Look, in Iran there are Jews who are prospering in their businesses. There are synagogues there that are active and thriving. Ahmadinejad himself gave a generous financial gift to a Jewish run hospital. Good lord there are even Rabbis attending the holocaust denial conference in Tehran along with members of Jews Against Zionism. Ahmadinejad wants the world to know that his issue is Zionism.
What's the solution? Huge walls? Retreat behind nukes? A foreign policy protocol distinguished by assassinations of opponents? Where will this lead? Nowhere except hell.
The courageous Jews in Israel are the ones who know this in their soul. They are the visionaries. Back in 1948 the Jewish political philosopher, Hannah Arendt, saw it also and she write this ...
"Even if the Jews were to win the war … the 'victorious Jews' would live surrounded by an entirely hostile Arab population, secluded inside ever threatened borders, absorbed by physical self-defense …no matter how many immigrants it could still absorb and how it extended its boundaries it would still remain a very small people greatly outnumbered by hostile neighbors."
Aidan said...
"I'm unsure why anyone takes the ravings of Ahmadinejad seriously."
I am surprised anyone would question why people would take the musings of a leader of a relatively large country with a large army and nuclear ambitions seriously. Let me see...
As for your comments about Avigdor Lieberman, I am not certain they are accurate. Perhaps they are but I haven't seen them. I have seen this: "In late May of 2004 proposed a plan in which the populations and territories of Jews and Arabs, including Israeli Arabs, would be "separated". According to the plan, only those Israeli Arabs who felt "a connection with the State of Israel" and were "completely loyal to it" would be allowed to remain."
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman
While his comments are politically incorrect and offend many, his basic premise that many Israel-Arabs (if the not the majority) are not loyal to the state of Israel is correct and numerous studies have shown support among Arab Israeli citizens for suicide bombing and a bi-national state.
Considering, the Arab population in Israel is growing at a much larger rate than the jewish population, it is likely unless there is land swaps that there were be either a bi-national state or Israel will cease to be a democracy. Neither of these options currently are palatable to the majority of Israelis.
Israel it seems is going to have to decide whether it ceaseland for a future Palestinian state, where the majority of the population is Israeli-Arab, undertake actions to discourage high birth-rates among its Arab population, somehow get the majority of Jews around the world to immigrate, or allow for the idea that they will become a bi-national state in which the Arabs who will be the majority believed that the creation of Israel never should have happened.
These are unfortunate truths and ones which Israelis regardless of their political leanings will eventually have to come to terms with.
BTW, Mr. Lieberman is secular himself and draws support from mainly secular hawks (some may say extremists) and even seems to be popular among the Druze community, which is an Arab community that serves in the Israeli army.
There is a distinction between a nationalist and a religious zealot.
On Lieberman - yes he is more of a nationalist in the sense you describe, however these nationalist views shade into the hard line positions of the religious - to the point were such views are often indistinguishable.
By "secular" I mean one who does not discriminate via policy by using markers related to ethnicity, and by this definition Lieberman is certainly not secular in a modern democratic sense.
As for the points raised about the Arab presence, I have only this to say. I am from N. Ireland where systemic discrimination was practiced against the Catholic minority. As laws and attitudes have changed, so we are finding an entirely new concept of community distinguished by a cessation of violence. And indeed there were protestant leaders in the past who used to say "you can never trust a Catholic".
The point is the Israeli Arabs ARE Israeli Arabs. They are not cattle that you can decide to do this or that with because you happen to think they breed too fast or are too in convenient. That's not how we operate in any society that claims to be a democracy.
I know its a complex issue and I realize many Israeli Jews feel pressured by this demographic reality. But remember many Germans in pre-war Berlin talked the same way about the increasing number of Jews, and they resorted to tactics that we all would agree were barbaric in the extreme.
Rather than attempt to displace Israeli Arabs through "land arrangements" or other euphemisms for "getting rid of the problem", the more honorable approach is to work on assimilating them into the society by addressing their issues and treating them with respect.
The entire region is watching how Israel handles these challenges, and as I said earlier increased isolationism and nationalistic hubris will simply create the conditions for a war that will threaten very likely the very existence of the state.
I don't see that as either a rational or practical alternative.
"Rather than attempt to displace Israeli Arabs through "land arrangements" or other euphemisms for "getting rid of the problem", the more honorable approach is to work on assimilating them into the society by addressing their issues and treating them with respect."
This way lies insanity and suicide for Israel. "Israeli" Arabs have no issues separate from the "Palestinians;" assimilation is fine for those few Arabs who wish to be or consider themselves Israeli rather than simply Arabs residing in Israel or, worse yet, waiting for Israel to disappear altogether once the "Palestinians" or someone else destroys the Israeli state.
There is no assimilating Arabs waiting for Israel's destruction and it is utter foolishness to think this a policy worth pursuing for Israel, no matter what anyone else in the region thinks, honor be damned for national survival. And your Northern Ireland experience and analogy really doesn't hold, as in one case we have Irish of different Christian sects (and yes, ancestors of Protestant Scottish and English immigrants/colonials) whereas the ethnic, religious, cultural and geopolitical issues concerning Israel are completely different. Were it as simple as N. Ireland (which is hardly simple, as you know), the middle east and Israel would be far less dangerous than it is.
Regardless, the asshole Ahmadinejad couldn't give a rat's ass about "Israeli" Arabs, and won't think a moment about them when he unleashes the nuclear holocaust upon Israel. Israel could do all you hope for in that regard and it will not matter a whit. That's why we take his ravings seriously.
Look I'm not proposing pacifism. Israel should of course maintain all of its military options, with the option also to strike first if necessary.
There is your guarantee.
That said, should the country resort to Stalinesque removals of population and wall themselves in as part of domestic policy? Now that they are already half way down that road it will be hard to turn it back. I think it was a mistake, and I think it's going to lead to further mistakes as "survivalist" policies cause a hue and cry in the rights community and hand moral credibility to its enemies by default. As if tin Hitlers like Mahmoud need to add righteousness to his genocidal delusions.
As for the "taking Mahmoud seriously" bit up top. Of course I take him seriously. We have a saying in Ulster - "you're not serious!" that means "thats ridiculous, far fetched..." etc. Some of his statements are over the top like that ... but oh yeah, he's being received loud and clear.
I would rather see the Israelis taking the fight to them if necessary, while attempting to stand by the highest principles at home, that's were the honor comes in.
By "secular" I mean one who does not discriminate via policy by using markers related to ethnicity, and by this definition Lieberman is certainly not secular in a modern democratic sense.
Just to point out -- this is a somewhat skewed definition of "secular." The word in its usual sense has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with religiosity. That can shade over into ethnicity, but it's a second order effect, if it's there at all.
I suggest some folks read all of Al Qu'ran before making assertions that the Arab world and Israel can live in peace. Please don't cite Israeli treaties with Jordan and Egypt as evidence to the contrary when such treaties were forged by defeat of the Arabs in war. Surely nobody thinks Jordan or Egypt would come to Israel's aid if say they were attacked by Iran, do they? Despite all the brilliance and insight and resources of the West, the rigid wall of islamic paternalism has not even been seriously cracked let alone pierced by the light of reason and law. Wake up! As long as half the muslim population lives in subjugation accorded by religious mandate and 1400 years of accumulated customs, there sure the hell is not going to be peace with the Jews so spurned and despised by the same religious mandates and long cultural traditions. Sheesh!
Aidan said...
There is your guarantee.
Of what?
"the more honorable approach is to work on assimilating them into the society by addressing their issues and treating them with respect."
Oh yes, Aidan, we'll all read Jimmy Carter's "Apartheid or Peace." Then Israel will address the Palestinians' issues by dismantling the wall and welcoming back the occupants of the refugee camps of Gaza and Beirut. And then the world will live as one! And the lion will lie down with the lamb!
Thank you for your practical proposals.
"free them from Israeli prisons where they rot in detention"
And hope you aren't nearby when they set off their suicide bombs.
Re: Derve:
>>If attacked with nuclear weapons, Israel would annihilate Iran.<<
Make no mistake, Israel would still lose. Those aren't conventional weapons that have proliferated.
Well, duh.
Let me get the frame right. We're talking about a nuclear strike on Israel touching off Israeli nuclear retaliation on Iran, right? First off, Israel is tiny. Like, absurdly so. One nuclear hit of mid-size yield, and Israel is already toast. Israel has already lost from step one here -- their cities are ash, their lands rendered uninhabitable by nuclear fallout. They're just carrying out their revenge in this scenario.
Pre-emptive strikes, chest beating of Israel "annihilating" Iran... can you think far enough ahead to offer a day-after strategy this time?
Israel needs no "day-after" strategy in this one, because after one nuclear strike, Israel has ceased to exist. There might be a rump political government in exile, and there will be a few nuclear submarines launching their missiles to revenge themselves on the destroyers of their people, but practically speaking, there is no Israel left. There are only any refugees who managed to escape the initial blast -- and most of them will die in short order anyhow from radiation poisoning and fallout.
The weapons and technology will only take you so far, remember, no matter how worshipped. Better to think long term and take hard actions now.
Would that Iran thought that way. And Pakistan. Iran, in particular, shows absolutely no signs of thinking this whole "nuke Israel" thing through.
"do you think the current way is working in advancing a solution."
Well, Israel could try implementing your suggestion of "sharing its wealth," i.e., paying them off, and see if Hamas and Hezbollah astound the world with a Mandela-like reconciliation. Unfortunately, Hamas & Hez would be far more likely to spend the money on more ball bearings for their suicide vests.
For some problems there are no solutions, or at least no solutions of the kind one would expect in an 8th-grade essay assignment on "Let's Work for World Peace."
I believe that a few billion has already been sent to feed and educate the Palestinian people and build/rebuild the areas in which they live.
Most of that, however, now lies in Swiss vaults or resides in some numbered account in the Caymans.
"So charge and convict them of something then. Locking up people on whim without procedure is a sure way to gain yourself more enemies and hasten the decline of civilization. Or do you think the current way is working in advancing a solution?"
Indeed. Because "Palestinians" and Arabs have such a long history of honoring Israeli jurisprudence of its security laws...
"Personally, I'd just adjust my tactics when they weren't making me any safer or more secure, but then I tend to think in terms of the final score."
Sure. But what, exactly, do you think the "Palestinians" and Arabs want, and how on earth do you think Israel can possibly consider accommodating THAT?
Derve wrote: "There's a lot of common sense in the simplicity of treating your neighbors right, treating them like you'd treat yourself."
This works in a nice neighborhood. But it does NOT work in a rough neighborhood. Derve, I thought I read that you came up hard, did you treat your dangerous neighbors nice and kind? Bake cookies for the crack house next door?
The world is NOT a nice neighborhood. News flash. Ahmadinejad is working to bring on the Apocalypse. He seeks the Antichrist. It is a serious, spiritual endeavor that he and many like minded people are pursuing.
Perhaps the Biblical language and thoughts are foreign or contemptable to many, but this is central to Ahmadinejad's thinking. I doubt that he can be accurately measured and considered without taking his apocalyptic vision and dreams into consideration.
Trey
"I'd just adjust my tactics when they weren't making me any safer."
But the security wall IS making Israelis safer. Successful suicide attacks are now a fraction of what they were before construction of the wall. Why do you think the Palestinians hate the wall so much? Because it deflects their favorite method of killing Jews.
"Just to point out -- this is a somewhat skewed definition of "secular." The word in its usual sense has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with religiosity. That can shade over into ethnicity, but it's a second order effect, if it's there at all." - Balfegor
When I used the term "ethnicity" in relation to Israeli Arabs, I could equally have used "religion" - because in the case of the vast majority of Israeli Arabs and especially the population that is Lieberman's concern - ethnicity and religion are synonomous. But strictly speaking you are of course correct.
"Oh yes, Aidan, we'll all read Jimmy Carter's "Apartheid or Peace." Then Israel will address the Palestinians' issues by dismantling the wall and welcoming back the occupants of the refugee camps of Gaza and Beirut. And then the world will live as one! And the lion will lie down with the lamb!" - tjl
I think Jimmy Carter is full of it and I don't agree with much of his thesis. There are very sound reasons for believing the wall tactic is wrong without espousing the beatnik dissent of JC. The erection of a wall implies you are neither free or secure. Psychologically speaking its a sign of weakness. It leads ones enemies to believe that they have you running to ground; that they are backing you up. Take an example from nature. When an animal is free and resourceful, it keeps its options open and is very hard to hunt. When it retreats into a burrow and hides, that is when its destruction is guaranteed because sooner or later the hunters will devise a way to destroy it.
I wasn't referring to "welcoming back the occupants of the refugee camps of Gaza and Beirut". You start with Arab Israeli citizens who are living in Israel proper. Communities with representatives in the Knesset and deal honorably with their issues. How is that impractical? Are they of less value as citizens because they are Arab? If so what does that say about Jews fifty years ago who were regarded as zeros compared to Germans. Ethically there is no choice. As for lion lying down with lamb etc - well we're a long way from that. A politics distinguished by decency simply means establishing the conditions for an equitable society to the best of your powers, it certainly doesn't mean being in bed together.
A two-tier state option would address some of the larger population concerns in areas like Gaza. But how do you move in that direction if you are dealing with the Palestinians behind a wall, assassinating their leadership and proposing ethnic based "solutions" to the "Arab problem" ? Even Socrates would have difficulty with that.
Aidan,
In support of your proposals, would you be prepared to approach the spouses or parents of those killed by suicide bombers, look them in the eye, and tell them that they should take down the wall and trust the Palestinians not to do it again?
So he denies the Holocaust. Shocker.
Isn't the fact that he wants Israel wiped off the face of the Earth a hundred times worse and what we should realy be worrying about?
Derve wrote: "Looks like we made the wrong call on where to direct our limited resources..." in talking about Iran and the new Hitler.
Perhaps you are right. But looking at a map, I would want to have LOTS of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq before invading Iran.
So perhaps this is just a preliminary scuffle before Iran is addressed. I wonder if Derve will be happy if and when we address Iran?
Trey
Derve: I don't you've given us enough of your clear eyed insight into the perfidy of Israeli and American policy. Please do tell, at length, how AIPAC has insidiously distorted this policy for decades to oppress the noble Palestinians who truly only want peace to be able to farm.
Post a Comment