Juan Cole: Ahmadinejad's Raving Lunatic Anti-Semitism
[Mr. Cole is Professor of Modern Middle Eastern and South Asian History at the University of Michigan. His website is http://www.juancole.com.]
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave a sermon on Friday for"Jerusalem Day" that is full of the most vile crackpot anti-Semitism that can be imagined.
Anti-Semitism as a form of bigotry typically ascribes the most abject motives and character to Jews in general at the same time as they are depicted as secretly controlling the world. Ahmadinejad says things about the"Zionists" like (USG OSC trans.)"After the First World War, they abused the ignorance of the nations and Muslims of the region, and they put Palestine under the trusteeship of the old colonialist, Britain." To suggest that the British Zionists not only convinced the British cabinet to give them a homeland in Mandate Palestine but that they actually were the force that arranged for Britain to take Palestine in the first place is classic anti-Semitism.
In fact, of course (and I only explain this because the history is not on everyone's tongue, not because any serious refutation of Ahmadinejad is required) the British took Palestine because the Ottoman Empire joined the war on the side of Germany and Austria and then sent an invasion force from Ottoman Palestine toward British-ruled Egypt. The British had to conquer Palestine to protect their Egyptian 'veiled colony' and their control of the key Suez Canal.
Elsewhere he says,"My dear ones, the pretext used to establish the Zionist regime was a lie and a corrupt act. It was a lie based on a fabricated claim that cannot be proven. The occupation of the Palestinian land had no connection with the issue of holocaust. The claim, the pretext, and the masterminds are all fraudulent and corrupt. They are all historical criminals. They are responsible for plundering and colonizing the world for the past 500 years." I need to examine the Persian text more carefully, but Ahmadinejad seems to be blaming Jews for the European age of sea-borne empires-- an age that began when Jews were still excluded from many European countries, or had been forcibly converted to Catholicism by the Inquisition! (I looked again and he actually says that both the perpetrators and the 'protectors' (hamiyan) are corrupt; if he means by 'protectors' the Western powers, then his reference to 500 years of colonialism may be to the Europeans; but it is still a weird allegation, since, when they began their colonial endeavors, most European great powers were riddled with anti-Semitism--what I said above still holds. And it is possible that the referent for the colonialists of 500 years is in fact the 'Zionists.')
He also appears to blame Jews for the Nazi crimes against them, saying that the Zionists spread around anti-Semitic books and films in Europe so as to make Jews hated and so as to cause them to be expelled to Palestine.
In other words, he is saying, all of modern history (possibly from the Portuguese conquest of Goa) and certainly the British conquests during WW I, the Nazi persecution of Jews, and last year's American presidential race, has been the unfolding of a secret Jewish plot, wherein"Zionists" control everything that happens.
You wonder why he holds out any hope of Palestinians prevailing in the face of such a long-lived and all-powerful conspiracy! It is sort of like The Highlander meets the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!
The US press coverage of the speech has focused on Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust, which seems more complete than before (he has in the past said that the number of dead, 6 million, has been 'exaggerated'). He said this time,"Four or five years after the Second World War, all of a sudden they claimed that during this war, the Holocaust had occurred. They claimed that a few million Jews had been burned in the crematorium furnaces. They institutionalized two slogans. One was the innocence of the Jews. They used lies and very sophisticated propaganda and psychological ploys and created the illusion that they (the Jews) are innocent. The second goal was that they created the illusion that the Jews needed an independent state and government. They were so persuasive and convincing that many of the world's politicians and intellectuals were deceived and persuaded." Elsewhere he called this 'pretext' a"lie" and a"myth" (afsaneh).
He then went on to repeat his bizarre claim that researchers are prevented from researching the Holocaust. Surely no event in history has been better documented by historians from primary sources.
I just felt a chill, and frankly then nausea, as I read this sewage.
I am not saying that Ahmadinejad is genocidal. He has killed many more Muslims than Jews (I don't know that he has directly killed any Jews, and Iran has 20,000). A campaign of vilication against me was kicked off when I pointed out that Ahmadinejad had not in fact threatened to wipe Israel off the map, but had just quoted Ayatollah Khomeini to the effect that the 'Zionist regime over Jerusalem' must eventually 'vanish from the page of time.' Since expressing a wish that a regime will collapse is not a casus belli, hawks who wanted a war on Iran were furious at me for revealing the truth. The usually reasonable New York Times even did a hand-waving smoke and mirrors piece attempting to deflect my argument without actually disproving it. And it remains the case that Ahmadinejad is not the commander in chief of the armed forces and cannot make troops march into war-- that prerogative is with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Ahmadinejad could not even appoint a vice president he wanted without Khamenei's permission (and when it was not forthcoming, he had to dismiss him).
But the venomous rhetoric against Jews (it isn't just Zionists if it is projected back 500 years) that he used in this speech is so hateful that if it became widespread and ensconced in Iranian society, it certainly would have bad and tragic results-- for Jews, Iranians and for us human beings in general.
One of the dangers of the right-wing Zionists' tactic of smearing as"anti-Semitic" all criticism of any Israeli policy is precisely that they end up trivializing this deadly, soul-killing phenomenon, and by crying wolf so often may actually decrease vigilance toward the real thing. Saying that former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert is corrupt, or that Israeli settlers in the West Bank are violating the international law of occupation, is not anti-Semitism. Neither one is doing any favors to Israel or to world Jewry, and it is odd that anyone should defend them or see criticism of them as bigotry. But the bilge that came out of Ahmadinejad's mouth on Friday, that is the real thing.
Luckily, most Iranians clearly were not taken in, and his opponents put around pamphlets saying"No to Gaza and Lebanon, I will give my life [only] for Iran!" In fact, by associating it with himself, Ahmadinejad may single-handedly be sinking support for the Palestinian cause among Iranians, since most of them despise him and everything he stands for.
Now excuse me while I go take a shower with lava soap. Ugh.
comments powered by Disqus
Elliott Aron Green - 9/21/2009
correction to incomplete sentence:
Just about everybody in Israel knew that Olmert WAS CORRUPT.
- - - - - - - - - -
Prof Cole, I do appreciate that you acknowledge Ahmadinejad's Judeophobia.
Elliott Aron Green - 9/21/2009
Just about everybody in Israel knew that Olmert. Maybe Pres Bush and Condi Rice didn't know it. They would thus have been among the few.
As to the claim "that Israeli settlers in the West Bank are violating the international law of occupation," Geneva Convention IV forbids "transfer" of population. Transfer is a compulsory act of govts. Geneva IV does not forbid persons from voluntarily going to live in occupied territory. Furthermore, it is far from proven that Judea-Samaria are "occupied territory." After all, they were part of the Jewish National Home juridically erected by the San Remo Conference , recognized by the League of Nations in 1922, confirmed by the UN Charter [Article 80; 1945], etc. The UN Gen. Assembly partition plan was a mere recommendation as are all Gen. Assembly resolutions on political matters [see UN charter, Arts. 10-12]. On this, you might see a recent book by Howard Grief, Esq., a recent article by Jerrold Auerbach in Midstream, my own article in Midstream about 1999, writings by the French int'l law specialist, David Ruzie, etc.
- Five Things You Need to Know to be a Better Digital Preservationist
- Book on Losing British Generals Wins American History Prize
- Stanford scholar explores civil rights revolution's positive impact on the South's economy
- Harvard Historian Nancy Koehn on Amazon's Tentacular Reach
- Q&A with historian and author Nick Turse