George Mason University's
History News Network
Matthias Küntzel: Iran's Obsession with the Jews

SOURCE: Weekly Standard (2-19-07)

[Matthias Küntzel is a Hamburg-based political scientist and a research associate at the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His book Jihad and Jew-Hatred: On the New Anti-Jewish War is forthcoming this year from Telos Press. This article was translated from German by Michael Bugajer and John Rosenthal.]

On December 12, 2006, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad personally brought to a close the infamous Holocaust deniers' conference in Tehran. A strange parade of speakers had passed across the podium: former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, the nutty followers of the anti-Zionist Jewish sect Neturei Karta, and officials of the neo-Nazi German National party, along with the familiar handful of professional Holocaust deniers. Frederick Töben had delivered a lecture entitled "The Holocaust--A Murder Weapon." Frenchman Robert Faurisson had called the Holocaust a "fairy tale," while his American colleague Veronica Clark had explained that "the Jews made money in Auschwitz." A professor named McNally had declared that to regard the Holocaust as a fact is as ludicrous as believing in "magicians and witches." Finally, the Belgian Leonardo Clerici had offered the following explanation in his capacity as a Muslim: "I believe that the value of metaphysics is greater than the value of history."

If this motley crew had assembled in a pub in Melbourne, nobody would have paid the slightest attention. What gave the event historical significance was that it was held by invitation, at the Iranian foreign ministry: on government premises, in a country that disposes of the world's second-largest oil reserves (after Saudi Arabia) and second-largest natural gas reserves (after Russia). And in this setting, the remarks quoted above provoked not dismissive laughter, but applause and attentive nods. On the walls hung photographs of corpses with the inscription "Myth," and others of laughing concentration camp survivors with the inscription "Truth."

The Tehran deniers' conference marks a turning point not only because of its state sponsorship, but also because of its purpose. Up until now, Holocaust deniers have wanted to revise the past. Today, they want to shape the future: to prepare the way for the next Holocaust.

In his opening speech to the conference, the Iranian foreign minister, Manucher Mottaki, left no doubt on this point: If "the official version of the Holocaust is called into question," Mottaki said, then "the nature and identity of Israel" must also be called into question. The purpose of denying, among all the Nazis' war measures, specifically the persecution of the Jews is to undermine a central motive for the establishment of the state of Israel. Auschwitz is delegitimized in order to legitimize the elimination of Israel--that is, a second genocide. If it should turn out, however, that the Holocaust did happen after all, Ahmadinejad explains that it would have been a result of European policies, and any homeland for the Jews would belong not in Palestine but in Europe. Either way, the result is the same: Israel must vanish.

This focus explains why the conference's sponsors attached so much importance to the participation of a delegation from the Jewish sect Neturei Karta. Although it does not deny the Holocaust, the sect welcomes the destruction of Israel. That objective was the common denominator uniting all the participants in the conference. In his closing speech, Ahmadinejad formulated it with perfect clarity: "The life-curve of the Zionist regime has begun its descent, and it is now on a downward slope towards its fall. . . . The Zionist regime will be wiped out, and humanity will be liberated."

Holocaust denial and the nuclear program

Just as Hitler sought to "liberate" humanity by murdering the Jews, so Ahmadinejad believes he can "liberate" humanity by eradicating Israel. The deniers' conference as an instrument for propagating this project is intimately linked to the nuclear program as an instrument for realizing it. Five years ago, in December 2001, former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani first boasted that "the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything," whereas the damage to the Islamic world of a potential retaliatory nuclear attack could be limited: "It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality." While the Islamic world could sacrifice hundreds of thousands of "martyrs" in an Israeli retaliatory strike without disappearing--so goes Rafsanjani's argument--Israel would be history after the first bomb.

It is precisely this suicidal outlook that distinguishes the Iranian nuclear weapons program from those of all other countries and makes it uniquely dangerous. As long ago as 1980, Khomeini put it this way: "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

Anyone inclined to dismiss the significance of such statements might want to consider the proclamation made by Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, representative of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who stands even higher in the Iranian hierarchy than Ahmadinejad. A few months ago, on November 16, 2006, Rahimian explained: "The Jew"--not the Zionist, note, but the Jew--"is the most obstinate enemy of the devout. And the main war will determine the destiny of mankind. . . . The reappearance of the Twelfth Imam will lead to a war between Israel and the Shia." The country that has been the first to make Holocaust denial a principle of its foreign policy is likewise the first openly to threaten another U.N. member state with, not invasion or annexation, but annihilation.

Yet it's all confusing. Why, if Iran wishes Israel ill, does it deny the Holocaust rather than applaud it? Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial has been especially well received in the Arab world, where it has won praise from Hezbollah, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas. Yet in the Arab world, Hitler is admired not for building highways or conquering Paris, but for murdering Jews. How can Holocaust denial be most prevalent in a region where admiration for Hitler remains widespread? To unlock this paradox it is necessary to examine the anti-Semitic mind.

Brother Hitler and Eichmann the Martyr

Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism at its most extreme. Whoever declares Auschwitz a myth implicitly portrays the Jews as the enemy of humanity: The assumption is that the all-powerful Jews, for filthy lucre, have been duping the rest of humanity for the past 60 years. Whoever talks of the "so-called Holocaust" implies that over 90 percent of the world's media and university professorships are controlled by Jews and are thereby cut off from the "real" truth. No one who accuses Jews of such perfidy can sincerely regret Hitler's Final Solution. For this reason alone, every denial of the Holocaust contains an appeal to repeat it.

Consider this passage written by an Egyptian columnist for the state-controlled newspaper Al-Akhbar, Egypt's second-largest daily, and published in April 2002:

The entire matter [of the Holocaust], as many French and British scientists and researchers have proven, is nothing more than a huge Israeli plot aimed at extorting the German government in particular and the European countries in general. But I, personally and in light of this imaginary tale, complain to Hitler, even saying to him from the bottom of my heart, "If only you had done it, brother, if only it had really happened, so that the world could sigh in relief [without] their evil and sin."

Often, however, enthusiasm for the Holocaust is expressed unvarnished. In 1961, when the trial of Adolf Eichmann dominated the headlines, such enthusiasm became evident for the first time. The Jordanian Jerusalem Times published an "Open Letter to Eichmann," which stated: "By liquidating six million you have . . . conferred a real blessing on humanity. . . .

But the brave Eichmann can find solace in the fact that this trial will one day culminate in the liquidation of the remaining six million to avenge your blood." Arab writers such as Abdullah al-Tall eulogized "the martyr Eichmann," "who fell in the Holy War." In her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt summarized the mood in the Arab world:

The newspapers in Damascus and Beirut, in Cairo and Jordan did not conceal either their sympathy for Eichmann or their regret that he "did not finish the job"; a radio broadcast from Cairo on the opening day of the trial even included a little sideswipe at the Germans, reproaching them for the fact that "in the last war, no German plane had ever flown over and bombed a Jewish settlement."

This heartfelt desire to see all Jews exterminated was reiterated in the Egyptian daily Al-Akhbar in April 2001 by the columnist Ahmad Ragab: "[Give] thanks to Hitler. He took revenge on the Israelis in advance, on behalf of the Palestinians. Our one complaint against him was that his revenge was not complete enough."

Obviously, from a logical point of view, enthusiasm for the Holocaust is incompatible with its denial. Logic, however, is beside the point. Anti-Semitism is built upon an emotional infrastructure that substitutes for reason an ephemeral combination of mutually exclusive attributions, all arising from hatred of everything Jewish. As a result, many contradictory anti-Jewish interpretations of the Holocaust can be deployed simultaneously: (1) the extermination of millions was a good thing; (2) the extermination of millions was a Zionist fabrication; (3) the Holocaust resulted from a Jewish conspiracy against Germany that Hitler thwarted and punished; (4) the Holocaust was a joint enterprise of the Zionists and Nazis; (5) the Zionists' "Holocaust industry" exaggerates the murder of the Jews for self-interested reasons; (6) Israeli actions against the Palestinians are the "true" Holocaust--and so on.

We are dealing here with a parallel universe in which the reality principle is ignored, and blatantly contradictory fantasies about Jews all have their place so long as they serve to reinforce anti-Semitic paranoia and hatred: a universe in which the laws of reason have been abolished and all mental energy is harnessed to the cause of anti-Semitism.

Amid the confusion, this universe is characterized by two constants: the refusal to come to terms with the facts of the Holocaust as it actually took place; and a willingness to find in the Holocaust a source of encouragement and inspiration, a precedent proving that it is possible to murder Jews by the million. This is why the precise content of Ahmadinejad's Holocaust tirades is not the issue. He is obsessed with the subject because he is fascinated by the possibility of a second Holocaust.

Why, then, did Ahmadinejad repeatedly and publicly embrace the ultra-orthodox Jews at the conference? Why did he personally greet every Jew present and say that "Zionism should be strictly separated from the Jewish faith"? Let us take a look at modern anti-Semitism in Iran.

Ahmadinejad and the Jews

Ahmadinejad's great inspiration, the Ayatollah Khomeini, not only recognized the mobilizing power of anti-Semitism in the struggle against the shah, he made use of it himself, as far back as the 1960s. "I know that you do not want Iran to lie under the boots of the Jews," he cried out to his supporters on April 13, 1963. That same year, he called the shah a Jew in disguise and accused him of taking orders from Israel. This drew a huge response from the public. Khomeini had found his theme.

Khomeini's biographer Amir Taheri writes: "The Ayatollah was by now convinced that the central political theme of contemporary life was an elaborate and highly complex conspiracy by the Jews--'who controlled everything'--to 'emasculate Islam' and dominate the world thanks to the natural wealth of the Muslim nations." When in June 1963 thousands of Khomeini-influenced theology students set off to Tehran for a demonstration and were brutally stopped by the shah's security forces, Khomeini channeled all their anger toward the Jewish nation: "Israel does not want the Koran to survive in this country. . . . It is destroying us. It is destroying you and the nation. It wants to take possession of the economy. It wants to demolish our trade and agriculture. It wants to grab the wealth of the country."

After the Six Day War of 1967, the anti-Semitic agitation, which drew no distinction between Jews and Israelis, intensified. "[I]t was [the Jews] who first established anti-Islamic propaganda and engaged in various stratagems, and as you can see, this activity continues down to the present," Khomeini wrote in 1970 in his principal work, Islamic Government. "[T]he Jews . . . wish to establish Jewish domination throughout the world. Since they are a cunning and resourceful group of people, I fear that . . . they may one day achieve their goal." Then in September 1977, he declared, "The Jews have grasped the world with both hands and are devouring it with an insatiable appetite, they are devouring America and have now turned their attention to Iran and still they are not satisfied." Two years later, Khomeini was the unchallenged leader of the Iranian revolution.

Khomeini's anti-Semitic attacks found favor with the opponents of the shah, both leftists and Islamists. His anti-Semitism ran along the same lines as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the turn-of-the-century hoax beloved of the Nazis that purports to expose a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. The Protocols was published in Persian in the summer of 1978 and was widely disseminated as a weapon against the shah, Israel, and the Jews. In 1984, the newspaper Imam, published by the Iranian embassy in London, printed excerpts from The Protocols. In 1985, Iranian state authorities did a mass printing of a new edition. Somewhat later, the periodical Eslami serialized The Protocols under the title "The Smell of Blood: Jewish Conspiracies."

Just two years ago, in 2005, at the Iranian booth at the Frankfurt Book Fair, I was readily able to buy an English edition of The Protocols published by the Islamic Propagation Organization of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Other anti-Semitic classics were also available, such as Henry Ford's The International Jew and Mohammad Taqi Taqipour's screed Tale of the "Chosen People" and the Legend of "Historical Right." The cover of the latter volume caught my eye: a red Star of David superimposed over a grey skull and a yellow map of the world. Obviously, even after the death of Khomeini in 1989, the worldwide dissemination of anti-Semitism by Iran continued.

The fact that 25,000 Jews now live in Iran, making it the largest Jewish community in a Muslim country, is not incompatible with the foregoing. The Jews in Iran are made clearly to feel their subordinate Dhimmi status. Thus, they are not allowed to occupy higher positions than Muslims and so are disqualified from the leading ranks in politics and the military. They are not allowed to serve as witnesses in court, and Jewish schools must be managed by Muslims and stay open on the Sabbath. Books in the Hebrew language are forbidden. Up to the present, the regime, which has time and again published anti-Semitic texts and caricatures, has prevented such hate-mongering from resulting in violence against Jews. Nevertheless, the combination of incitement and restraint leaves the Jewish community in a state of permanent insecurity. Today, the Jewish community serves Ahmadinejad not only as an alibi in his power game, but also increasingly as a deterrent: In the event of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, this community would find itself hostage and vulnerable to acts of reprisal.

Irrespective of the leeway that Ahmadinejad has, for the time being, left the Iranian Jews, his rhetoric is steeped in an anti-Semitism that is unprecedented for a state leader since World War II. Ahmadinejad does not say "Jews" are conspiring to rule the world. He says, "Two thousand Zionists want to rule the world." He says, "The Zionists" have for 60 years now blackmailed "all Western governments." "The Zionists have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural, and media sectors." "The Zionists" fabricated the Danish Muhammad cartoons. "The Zionists" are responsible for the destruction of the dome of the Golden Mosque in Iraq.

The pattern is familiar. Ahmadinejad is not a racist social Darwinist who, Hitler-like, wants to eliminate every last trace of "Jewish blood." The term "half-Jew" is not used in Islamist discourse. But he invests the word "Zionist" with exactly the same meaning Hitler poured into "Jew": the incarnation of evil.

The Iranian regime can court the Jewish Israel-haters of Neturei Karta all it wants, but anyone who makes Jews responsible for the ills of the world--whether calling them Judas or Zionists--is clearly driven by an anti-Semitism of genocidal potential. Demonization of Jews, Holocaust denial, and the will to eliminate Israel--these are the three elements of an ideological constellation that collapses as soon as any one of them is removed.

Ahmadinejad inhabits a delusional world that is sealed off from reality. The louder the liberal West protests against Holocaust denial or the Islamists' demands for the destruction of Israel, the more conviced Ahmadinejad becomes of Zionist domination. In a conversation with the editors of the German newsweekly Der Spiegel, the Iranian president reacted as follows to the remark that the magazine does not question Israel's right to exist: "I am glad that you are honest people and say that you are required to support the Zionists." Only when we too finally realize that the Holocaust is a Jewish lie--only when we too want to annihilate Israel--only then will Ahmadinejad be convinced that we are academically credible and politically free. It is this lunacy that makes the revolutionary mission of the Iranian leadership so dangerous.

Which brings us to the question of the broader significance of Iranian Holocaust denial. The Islamist mission is by no means restricted to Israel.

"Historical War"

In his first speech on the guiding principles of his politics, Ahmadinejad made this clear: "We are in the process of an historical war, . . . and this war has been going on for hundreds of years," he declared in October 2005. This is a war, then, that is not fundamentally about the Middle East conflict and will not end with the elimination of Israel. He continued: "We have to understand the depth of the disgrace of the enemy, until our holy hatred expands continuously and strikes like a wave." This "holy hatred" is boundless and unconditional. It will not be mitigated by any form of Jewish or non-Jewish conduct--other than subordination to sharia and the Koran.

In his letter to George W. Bush, the Iranian president described his objective: "Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems." The letter also tells how the liberal democracies will be shattered. Even here (if slightly diluted), the ideology of martyrdom--You love life, we love death--is propagated: "A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world. . . . A good land and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves."

Shiite Islamism confronts us with an adversary who reviles the achievements of modernity as Satan's work, who denounces the international system created after 1945 as a "Jewish-Christian conspiracy," and who therefore wishes to overturn the accepted historiography of the postwar period. At the start of the Holocaust deniers' conference, Foreign Minister Mottaki explained that the problem is the "wording of historical occurrences and their analysis [are written from] the perspective of the West." As against this "Western" historiography, Islamism wants to create a new historical "truth," in which the Holocaust is declared a myth, while the Twelfth Imam is deemed real. Whereas the delusional worldview of Holocaust denial is elevated to the norm, any deviation from it is denounced as a symptom of "Jewish domination."

Even as he is conducting his religious war, Ahmadinejad is also playing the role of a global populist. He addresses his speeches to all the world's "oppressed." He cultivates good relations with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez and ingratiates himself with the Western left by using anti-American rhetoric. His use of the word "Zionist" is strategic. It is the Trojan horse by which he makes his anti-Semitism respectable, allowing him to be at once an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier and the ultimate spokesman for the "oppressed nations."

Of course, Iran would not have to rely on Holocaust denial to pursue its strategic objectives. Yet Ahmadinejad insists on the point, in order to provide ideological undergirding to his push to destroy Israel. He also speculates that this project might win the approval of the Europeans. After all, in Europe the delegitimization of Israel has been going on for some time--if for different reasons. Recently the BBC organized a symposium on the question of whether Israel would still exist in 50 years. In a poll taken four years ago in the E.U., 59 percent saw Israel as "the biggest danger to world peace." Even in the United States, a growing number of intellectuals are convinced that Israel and its American supporters are the real source of the problems facing American foreign policy.

The alarm cannot be sounded loudly enough. If Iran is not put under pressure without delay and forced to choose between changing course and suffering devastating economic sanctions, the only remaining alternatives will be a bad one--the military option--and a dreadful one--the Iranian bomb.

Source: 
Weekly Standard
Source URL: 
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/271uktmd.asp
Date: 
2-19-07

Confusion front and center

This article offers a few interesting insights which don't add up to any kind of coherent conclusion.

There is good evidence here that Iranian president Ahmadinejad is highly prone to anti-Semitic remarks, as was Khomeini decades earlier, is solidly on public record as favoring the elimination of the state of Israel, and that this anti-Semitic and anti-Israel bluster, thinly disguised as "anti-Zionist", is riddled with lies and inconsistencies.

So what?

If Ahmadinejad were to completely cease all this demagogical rhetoric, and stop talking about Zionists, Israel, and the Holocaust altogether, or better yet, if he had never ever made a public utterance on such topics to begin with, would this

a) make Iran under his misrule less of a threat to peace and stability in Iraq, in the Mideast and the world?

b) excuse the lies and evasion behind Iran's strides towards nuclear weaponry?

c) invalidate international efforts to impose collective and "devastating" (to use Küntzel's translated word) economic sanctions on Iran?

d) have any meaningful effect on the demographic and economic predicament of the Iranian people?

e) render less disastrous for the civilized world, and less helpful to Ahmadinejad, the Cheney-Bush administration's massively failed and deceit-based attempt to remake Iraq?

f) or, if none of the above (a-e) are of any concern, and all we (HNN) care about is minimizing risks for Israelis, what evidence is there that Ahmadinejad's asinine bigotry and so far utterly empty threats are 1/100th as important to the security of Israel as

(i) Iran's possession or non-possesssion of deliverable WMD?

(ii) the desires and concerns of the Iranian masses?

(iii) the ability of the ruling Iranian clerics to persuade millions of Iranians to commit suicide or force them to do so against their will?

Israeli arms sales to Iran

Washington Report, November 1986

Special Report
Israeli Arms Sales to Iran
By Jane Hunter

In September, when the Israeli government radio accused Iranian troops of training Lebanese Shiite guerrillas for attacks on the Israeli-backed South Lebanon Army, and said that Iranians themselves might also have been among those who attacked Israeli positions in Lebanon, the US media reported those charges in great detail. None found the time or space, however, to note how ironic it was for Israel to complain about Iranian military activities.

Iran might have been hard put to continue its costly six-year-old war with Iraq—not to mention simultaneously stirring up followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Lebanon—if Israel had not been willing to sell the Khomeini government great quantities of the weapons Iran desperately needed to keep its army in the field. That is only one of the anomalies of Israel's booming arms trade. US law and US policy also come in for some stretching and twisting.

Over the course of the Gulf war, Iran's quest for weapons has become legendary, with many countries and hordes of private arms dealers eager to conclude arms deals and reap the premium commissions Iran offers. Israel, with standing access to the same models of US-made arms upon which the Shah based Iran's arsenal, and with its desire to build up an indigenous arms industry, has led the pack. The London Observer estimated that Israel's arms sales to Iran total $500 million annually.

full: http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/1186/8611002.html

Nobody disputes real history of WWII, only the findings of Nurem

The use of imprisonment to enforce acceptance of the holocaust stories is what the Tehran conference was all about, the growing number of Western societies that imprison historians.

There are no revisionists who question what really happened to the Jews during WWII, placed in concentration camps, tatooed, used in forced labor, 100s of thousands dying towards the end of the war of typhus and starvation, skeleton people found at camps during liberation, and large piles of yet cremated corpses.

What they dispute is what we were told the Zionist dominated Nuremberg trials "proved," that there was a plan of extermination, 6 million Jews dying in gas chambers.

The "second "Holocaust.

Well I guess that as long as people in the West are NOT able to distinguish, as we do, between "Jew" and "Zionist" the myth about a "second" Holocaust" will persist in western minds to everybody’s , but mainly to Jews', detriment.

As far as the anti Zionist movement is concerned the "dismantlement", the diZionization, not the "destruction", of Israel will involve the radical rebirth/transformation of the Jews residing presently in Palestine into a spiritual/confessional community , among others, residing in Palestine, as distinct from their present identity as usurping "colons" bound together by the pernicious, aggressive and racist political creed: Zionism.
The myth of the “second” Holocaust seems to be designed and envisaged by the Zionist movement as a potentially lucrative business promising ample political and financial rewards. A potential replay of the First unmythical and abominable Holocaust that was exploited and milked into the service of an abject colonialist project.

I note with pleasure that Ahmedi Nejjad was quoted correctly, in a post otherwise replete with Zionist sloganeering and blind anti Iran hatred,. in his statement:


"The life-curve of the Zionist regime has begun its descent, and it is now on a downward slope towards its fall. . . . The Zionist regime will be wiped out, and humanity will be liberated."

The campaign against Iran’s nuclear research and potential nuclear capability , if not coupled with a parallel call for Israel’s nuclear disarmament, is a campaign to maintain Israel’s regional monopoly of same and thence Israel’s military superiority.

Re: Confusion front and center

Peter,

Contrary to your interpretation, this is an important article in the effort for Jews not to be swept away again in the whirlwind of world events. As well known historian Benny Morris writes:

As with the first, the second Holocaust will have been preceded by decades of preparation of hearts and minds, by Iranian and Arab leaders, Western intellectuals and media outlets. Different messages have gone out to different audiences -- but all have (objectively) served the same goal, the demonization of Israel. Muslims the world over have been taught: 'The Zionists\the Jews are the embodiment of evil' and 'Israel must be destroyed.' And Westerners, more subtly, were instructed: 'Israel is a racist oppressor state' and 'Israel, in this age of multi-culturalism, is an anachronism and superfluous'. Generations of Muslims and at least a generation of Westerners have been brought up on these catechisms.

The Second Holocaust, by Benny Morris.

I think what you are really saying is that your agenda is not the same as that of the author. But, frankly, the cause espoused by the author is an important one for people who care about their fellow human beings. So, this is not a trivial point. It is centrally important.

"Right-wing" Jews' obsessions with the outward superfi


You are 180 degrees off from reality, once again, Mr. Friedman.

This article is an "important" contribution to this week's insweep to the dustbin of history. It amounts to little more than a scrambled and confused cut-and-paste recycling of out-of-context excerpts from the already well-documented history of Anti-Semitism.

You are correct to imply that Küntzel's article is essentially a knock-off of Benny Morris, and it is also appropriate to refer to Morris as "well known."

Morris is mainly well-known for having a rather combative and disagreeable personality, and for being an apologist for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians during the establishment of Israel in the late 1940s. His credentials as a historian or analyst of Iran appear to be precisely nil.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris


Morris's notion of a "Second Holocaust," as outlined in the article from the New York gutter rag you cited, amounts to little more than ahistorical and fear-based speculation.


It is instructive to step aside from this polemical hysteria for a moment, and reflect on the actual history of the real Holocaust (not the denialist farce which is already rearing its ugly and ignorant head on this page).

The mass-murder inflicted upon European Jews (among others) in the early 1940s was something beyond the imagination of almost every one in the world a decade earlier when Hitler first got into power, and started ranting from a position of authority and establishing a "consolidation" inconceivable in today's theocratic yet pluralistic Iran. Most people then, including most Jews, were incapable of seeing Hitler and the Nazis for what they really were. Instead, visions were trapped in the past. It was widely assumed that the Nazis would produce just another, albeit slightly nastier and more modern, installment of the age-old waves of occasional anti-Semitic pogroms which had disgraced Europe from time to time over past millennia. Very few people were able to break out of this no longer relevant past and really figure out the true (and, as it developed, much more horrific) reality that was shortly to follow.


Morris's "Second Holocaust" fantasizing today amounts to the same sort of lazy and self-delusional thinking: that the most immediate past is necessarily the best guide to what might happen in the future.


It is time to face reality,

1. Ahmadinejad is very different from Hitler, notwithstanding some rhetorical likenesses,

2. Iran in 2007 is very different from Germany in 1933,

3. The Mideast today is very different from Europe in the 1930s (although both are/were instable and dangerous places),

4. Secular European fascism of the early 20th century is very dissimilar to the Mid-eastern Shiite fundamentalism of the early 21st century,

5. Israel today is very different than Jewish Europe in the early 1930s,

6. Global geopolitics today are radically different than their counterparts 70 years ago,

7. Railroads, concentration camps, and crematoria have little in common with nuclear warheads and missiles,

and to dispense with the warmed-over fearmongering that clouds our ability to uncover the true nature of what is undoubtedly a very serious threat (to Israel, to America, and to the world) coming from the current nuclear-fixated regime in Iran.

Re: "Right-wing" Jews' obsessions with the outward sup

Peter,

You cite Wikipedia. That is not a sufficient source for anything. That is now, however, the primary source of lazy Peter.

You state that Morris does not know anything about Iran. But, in fact, he does. Ask Professor Eckstein who knows Morris.

You state that Iran is not Germany. That is true.

However, you make a number of other comments that require evidence.

Provide exact sources - first hand sources - for your assertions. Otherwise, they are just rhetoric that is beyond your competence.

Again, you are not a Middle East scholar. You have not read any books about that region. You are simply stating your preferences - bald assertions.

Morris, by the way, is a left winger and not an apologist for anything. Wikipedia has his position wrong. Morris made a comment once to Haaretz which was misinterpreted.

In any event, Israel did not "ethnically cleanse." Otherwise, the country would not be 20% Arab.

And, the extent of Israel's activities vis a vis the Palestinian Arabs is known due to his scholarship. His view is that there was a war and that people lost their homes, some of them by armies acting out of line but, in a small percentage of cases, with actual intent. But, there was no plan to drive out Palestinian Arabs.

Re: The "second "Holocaust.

Odd and disjointed conclusions you draw again, Omar. You choose to believe Ahmedinejad's threats are figurative, even as he raves about the Mahdi whilst scrambling to assemble nukes. And unlike the Holocaust-denying sewage offal above, the Joe Morgan character, you do recognize the reality and the evil of the Holocaust on one hand, but at the same time you insist that the Jews should not draw any conclusions from that event, not to mention others preceeding it, and insist that they reject their historical connection to the land of Israel, drop aspirations of political independence, return to medieval pietism and effectively submit to dhimmi status to an imperialist Islam.

How rosy such a fate would be is hardly a guessing matter. A judenrein Middle East as your exxhibit "A" and as exhibit "B", the millions of Christians, Buddhist, Hindus and others ... all supposedly living as "spiritual/confessional communit(ies)," The latter would not doubt gladly testify to the noble intentions of the "Religion of Peace." Alas, they are a tad busy at this time, what with trying to keep their heads on their shoulders (literally) and their women and children from being abducted into slavery.

Re: The "second "Holocaust.

Omar forgets that if --God forbid-- Ahmadinajad or anybody else in Iran were to send a nuclear weapon Israel's way, it might cause plenty of Arab deaths too. How do you feel about that, Omar?
By the way, last summer's war with the Hizbullah saw a few dozen Israeli Arabs dying from Hizbullah rockets, that were indiscrinately fired at Israel in the hope of killing civilians. What say you to that, `Umar?
As for his proposal that Jews become a "faith community," that is a polite way of denying our nationhood, although our nationhood was accepted by the Quran and traditional Arab historians, like Ibn Khaldun. It is also a thinly veiled invitation to Jews to become dhimmis, second or third-class subjects in the Islamic state. `Umar hates Zionism because it makes Jews a historical subject, not an object of oppressors, Western or Arab, and Zionism takes Jews out of the status of oppression to the Arabs/Muslims.
The Arabs are the conquerors and colonists in the Land of Israel. Read Moshe Gil on the history of the Land of Israel under the early Arab-Muslim conquerors.

Re: "Right-wing" Jews' obsessions with the outward sup

N.F. is right (as usual); I do know Benny Morris--he does not have an unpleasant personality. Peter--did you pick up that slur on Wikipedia?

And of course Israel did not engage in widespread "ethnic cleansing": though there was some (which Benny Morris was the first to write about with emphasis), it was no more than the Arab armies against Jews did during the 1948 war. And this sort of thing not only was widespread in the last stages of WWII and decolonization (the 2,000,000 ethnic Germans purged from what is now Poland, for instance--and they were treated FAR more violently than any Palestinians were; or the 7,000,000 Hindus pushed from Pakistan and 7,000,000 Muslims pushed from India--ditto), but such conduct BEGAN in the Mandate of Palestine with the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Hebron--where they had lived for THREE THOUSAND years, by the forces of Hajj Amin el Husseini (the later ally of Hitler). This event occurred in...1929.

Muslim countries, in addition, DID engage in ethnic cleansing of Jews after 1948, and at least 900,000 Jews were forced to leave their homes (and somebody is living in them today, Peter, somebody has all that property--yet it's a topic that is NEVER discussed; only Palestinians are victims it seems), and arrived in Israel mostly penniless. That's 200,000 more victims than the Palestinian Nakbah. And THAT is why, whereas Arabs make up 20% of the population of Israel, Jews make up essentially 0% of, say, Egypt, Morrocco, or Iraq.

One EU definition of anti-semitism is when Israel is held to different standards of conduct than any other state.

straw-clutching

Well, Mr. Eckstein, it has been awhile, and I suppose students of ancient history have finally had some attention in the meanwhile, but corroborating one tangential correction of his hardly makes your non-student Friedman any less ignorant of basic European history. (The Holocaust DID occur in Europe.) After years posting comments on this website, it has not yet penetrated his cranium that Europe is not and never has been anything remotely resembling a single nation-state. Not since the fall of Rome at any rate (if even then).

To be sure, the personality of historians who write for trash-can- liner Likudomanic newspapers, on topics outside their expertise, is certainly almost entirely independent of the character of such "news" organs, and Wikipedia is hardly infallible. So, I stand corrected (probably) on my (mis)interpretation of Wiki and Mr. Morris. But this is a slender straw for you to clutch. More dubious, moreover, is your condoning of ethnic cleansing by saying, in essence, "lots of folks have done it." Every ethnic group also commits burglary, rape, and murder, but such crimes are no less immoral if they are committed in regions or by peoples where the frequency is lower than elsewhere.

I also note that the much more pertinent (to the topic of the page) profound differences between Europe on the eve of the Holocaust and the current geopolitics of the Persian Gulf (although there are superficial anti-Semitic and Holocaust denial similarities, of course) which I pointed out above, are studiously ignored by you and Friedman both. How surprising that real history seems to be of little interest here unless it fits prefabricated ideologies.

Re: straw-clutching

If "everybody does it," and many do it far more violently, why does only Israeli action so infuriate you? See the EU definition of anti-semitism.

Ahmedinejad is certainly a Hitleresque figure--his rhetoric is Hitleresque, his attitudes are, he has pushed Iran as hard as possible to get an atomic weapon despite isolating Iran increasingly (and causing the Saudis to try to bankrupt his govet0 ,while overtly threatening the destruction of Israel on religious grounds. Yet you shrug your shoulders, and want to ignore the Hitleresque rhetoric coming from someone who will soon have atomic weapons. Would you be saying the same thing, say, if Ariel Sharon had continually threatened Iran with atomic annihilation, on, say, religious grounds? "Oh well, that's just rhetoric." Somehow, I can't see you taking that position, Peter...

Re: straw-clutching

Peter,

I well appreciate your attempt to rehabilitate your argument. But, leave me out of your phony rant.

I merely posted, in the first instance, what Benny Morris thought. It exactly contradicts your position on evidence that, evidently, you accept. So, rather than consider the implications of that, you accuse Morris of favoring ethnic cleansing.

What Morris actually stated in the Haaretz interview - and I paraphrase - is that had Israel, in fact, driven out the Palestinian Arab population in its entirety, the dispute might not have acquired the intensity for Arabs that it came to have. So, he was making an observation, after which he made the further observation that had the conflict not have taken the turn it took, that might have been a good thing. Such, however, is something quite different from saying he favors ethnic cleansing - except for people who want to make controversy and tar Morris for not opposing Israel's existence.

Now, I never claimed expertise on European history. But, I have read enough to know how Jews were vilified. And, I know that such served to create an atmosphere in which genocide was more readily deemed to be acceptable. That much, among other things, I have read.

Again, Peter, since you are fond of demanding first line evidence from everyone else, let us now have some from you. Again: back up all of your assertions. And note: you are already one strike down, having misstated Morris' position.




Re: The "second "Holocaust.

Green's fervent prayer that no nuclear arms are ever used is commendable and shared by all ; however Green should understand that Israel regional MONOPOLOY of nuclear arms is categorically unacceptable, and will never be.

It would underline the regional military superiority of the Zionist colonists of Palestine an equally unacceptable proposition no matter what the cost.

Green's worry about the damage a nuclear weapon would inflict on ALL should be, were it sincere, coupled with a clear stand against Israel's nuclear weapons and a call for Israel's nuclear disarmament...I see no sign of that anywhere in his post.

Re: The "second "Holocaust.

You're forgetting, Omar, that the "Zionist colonialists" (a "colony" of what country, you never answered) are not the only ones who have (or is claimed to have) nukes. Forget Pakistan? Rumours would have it and their flag might indicate that its official religion is the "religion of peace."

Btw, Iran shouldn't have the nuke simply because it's run by a bunch of nutjobs. That's as good reason as any. Unfair? Who cares, chances are they'll have their "Osirak moment" soon enough, and then they can booh-hoo over the unfairness of it all.

Time to return to day job


I think it is time for you go back to grading papers and attending committee meetings, Dr. Eckstein. After only one post here you have reverted to your prior practice of making up lies.

I never said "only Israeli action infuriates" me. Nor did I ever remotely suggest that Ahmadinejad should be ignored. This rapidly resurfaced serial misattribution speaks volumes about the hypocrisy and logical bankruptcy of your dubious involvement here.

Ahmadinejad is not pushing for Iranian “Lebensraum,” he is not trying to take over Afghanistan, Iraq or Pakistan. He is not speaking of a 1000 year empire. Nor, at least based on this very neo-con article, does he appear to be mistreating Iranian Jews anymore than Jews in other Mid-eastern Moslem countries are being mistreated. He IS, however, clearly exploiting both the blunders of the crooked and inept neo-con Cheney-Bush administration and the barbarities committed and endorsed by the uncivilized "neo-con"-linked crypto-fascist fringe of Israeli politics, and is clearly BENEFITTING from the slipshod analogies being made about him from such sources. Ultimately his ilk and the Israeli lunatic fringe feed on each other and support one another.

Re: The "second "Holocaust.

Omar's equivocating between Israel's possession of nukes and Iran's aspiration for nukes makes me wonder if he things modern treaties, such as the NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY which IRAN HAS SIGNED, NOT ISRAEL, should not be respected.

Re: Time to return to day job

Peter,

Apart from Iran, there are all but no Middle Eastern Jews in any Muslim country. So, it is difficult to make comparisons. In fact, your comment is further evidence of why you should read a book about that part of the world before ranting as you do.

In the case of Iran, the country at one point would sell Jewish people to Israel for $50,000 in hard currency per head. I have first hand knowledge of this. Nice guys, eh?

And, as always Peter, you lack the knowledge to make most of the nasty assertions that you do make - which may explain why you fail to recognize Iranian statements of the need to expand. In fact, Iran's leader has spoken about reclaiming lands for Islamdom and about destroying Israel as part of a strategy to begin that that process. So, you are factually mistaken.

Lastly, as a typical Peter C. slur, you call the article a neocon. Such, in logic, is called an ad hominem argument. Or, in English, your argument is invalid.

By the way, stop calling the professor a liar.

Re: straw-clutching

Come, now, Peter-- I never said you SAID that only Israeli actions infuriate you; I didn't quote you. What I SAID was that only Israeli actions infuriate you, other and far worse actions by others do not, and I then asked why that was--citing the EU definition of anti-semitism.

So I'm not lying about anything you said, since I wasn't quoting you (as you wrongly claim), which if you'd bothered to read SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY, you would have seen.

Here is ecactly what I said, from #105810, as posted at ll:53 a.m.:

If "everybody does it," and many do it far more violently, why does only Israeli action so infuriate you? See the EU definition of anti-semitism.


Now, do you see any false quotations from you where I claim you ever said "only Israeli action infuriates me"? No. They aren't there.

And therefore you owe me an apology. Not that I expect to get it, any more than I ever get one from barbarous Omar when he makes one of HIS gross mistakes.

No apologies for calling a spade a spade

I stand by the historical observations I have made of the article in question here, Mr. Eckstein, reject your unfounded and irrelevant personal misattributions, and wonder if you will ever get around to making your first informed, accurate and relevant-to-the-article comment about history in this thread.

calling all hypocrites

So, now the whole Likudnik-gang is here. How complete. Now we can all have tea and discuss how unfair it is that we cannot be children for life.

I am not particularly worried about the remote possibility of a madman in Israel using nukes to attack other countries. I have also never and will certainly not now defend in the slightest the lying and cheating practiced for many years as matter of policy by Iranian regimes, including less menacing predecessors of the current very disturbing tyrant, but UN member and number-1-UN-insulter Israel has hardly set a fine example of civilized international behavior in recent years. As Israelis who are not card-carrying rightwing propagandists know, there WERE good excuses for Israel to resort to a few double-standards to international law, when it was surrounded by countries at war with it that were backed by up a superpower. Not coincidentally, those were the years when the country repeatedly brilliantly outmaneuvred its adversaries. Now it slaughters 1000 Lebanese in order to NOT get back two soldiers it carelessly lost, and the kneejerk gang here expends hundreds of asinine posts in defense of the utterly indefensible.

Go ahead, Mr. Simon, try to be consistent, once you have look the word up in a dictionary. Tell us why Ahmadinejad should be allowed to blow up anything he feels like, the way the Israeli PM does while George Megaincompetent Bush licks his boots.

Re: No apologies for calling a spade a spade

Peter,

Grow up. The professor's comment was fair.

Re: calling all hypocrites

You are one dumb a**hole, "Peter". And your own implied maturity has yet to reveal any intellectual components.

No need for further comment to a cowardly pseudonym who thinks that mentioning adherence to treaties that a country CHOOSES to sign (the NPT no less!) has anything to do with right-wing Israeli politics, except I suppose to idiots who have a bug so far up their behind as to moronically follow the line that Israel is the sum total of everything that's wrong with the world. Go and see if you can find me an example of these "Israelis who are not card-carrying rightwing propagandists" who think Israel SHOULD sign the NPT. Oh yeah, I forgot. That would entail looking it up or actually knowing what you're talking about, which means, you won't. It's just more of your blustering B.S. As usual.

You have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about and I highly doubt you would display such ignorance which serves no purpose other than serve up more of your pseudonymously posted propoganda. Nothing you say here has anything to do with my brief comment whatsoever, except, of course, to reveal those facts. It is incredible to imagine that you wouldn't even realize that. But I suppose it's easier to deceive oneself when one's basic identity is such an issue. You are a waste of everybody's time here.

Re: calling all hypocrites

Peter,

You assert a lot of facts. Please present evidence showing that your facts are correct.

Again: you are not an authority on the Middle East. You do not appear to have read much. So, there is no reason to trust your ever appearing bald assertions. So, cite your facts!!! Then we can discuss them.

Re: calling all hypocrites

Peter, in the unfortunate event that the above post not remain, I am astounded by how bizarre your comment is. Perhaps you do not realize that treaties are typically entered into voluntarily, which wouldn't be surprising - I expect you not to realize such things - or to look them up, for that matter. My comment had to do with Iran's violating an important treaty that it chose to sign, not Israel's not violating the same treaty - which it never chose to sign. Of course, I could understand why labelling a country "number-1-UN-insulter" could be an important intellectual crutch for someone whose pseudonymity provides good cover for not feeling obliged to provide evidence for whatever equivocating treaties you feel Israel is bound to and has, yet, shown evidence of not feeling itself bound to. But if that's the best you can do, then you could at least be honest to your pseudonymous self and admit that that's just a diversion that really doesn't have much of anything to do with what I said - as brief as it was.

But once again, I suppose it's easier to deceive oneself when one's basic identity is such an issue.

Re: calling all hypocrites

I think it's way beyond safe here to accept that he has absolutely no idea what his pseudonymous self is talking about. His post is truly a propogandistic rebuke in search of the appearance of an intellectualized exchange - (with "rightwing" "children" no less!)

It really takes an effort to look past the gibberish of his emoting with ignorance to understand what his own untrained mind was even trying to say. What a waste of time he is. HNN should give him the boot. Only a pseudonym would be so consistently willing to look so stupid.

Re: calling all hypocrites

Whether expressed one way or another, though mostly as anti Arab, anti Islam vituperation, the Herd are all agreed about one thing: Israel to maintain its nuclear arms monopoly and no other major state in the region (Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey) to have a similar capability!

On the one hand this stand is only to be expected, on the other it is to be welcomed.

To be expected for Zionist Israel is becoming gradually more aware of the region's, progressive and correct, perception of its usurping, aggressive/expansionist and ALIEN character and its consequent total regional rejection; hence the need to be always on guard and ready to face the day of reckoning.

To be welcomed for, more than any other thing, this nuclear armament monopoly, and its political and economic implications, underlines Israel’s aggressive /expansionist ambitions and highlights its ALIEN character.

This attitude will only accelerate and deepen Israel's alienation in the region and its total rejection by it ... a positive development by any standard considering its usurping, aggressive and racist i.e. Zionist provenance!

Cohen of the Washington Post was correct, and possibly more clairvoyant than he intended to disclose ,when he deemed the establishment of Zionist Israel in Palestine as a mistake and said so in as many words.
.

Interesting, "E" despite the predictable irrelevance

Are you "Embarassed" by your first name, or by hypocritically making an issue of other people's names, or just afraid that your monumental violations of minimally-enforced rules on civility and
relevancy might cause YOUR posts to be deleted? Go ahead, use the cusswords that come so readily to your history-deficient tongue, unless you are too "cowardly."

clarifying

While I respect Mr. Baker’s right to civilly express his opinions relevant to the topic of the page, and admire his consistency in standing up to what one now departed poster a few months ago once aptly referred to as "pack animals," I do not share his position on the Israeli nukes. I agree that it is desirable that they be eliminated, and the sooner the better, but they do not pose anywhere near a comparable threat to regional peace and stability which nukes in the hands of the Iranian theocrats would. We all know that, unlike its Arab neighbors, Israel is a democracy (for Jews at least) whose religious leaders, even the most lunatic among them, do not routinely advocate suicidal mass murder of civilians as a legitimate tactic of ideological-furtherance. As a practical matter, furthermore, countries and parties, including Hamas, need to accept the decades-long internationally recognized right of Israel to exist AS a Jewish homeland WITHIN in its pre-1967 boundaries, BEFORE any attempt to get Israel to abandon its nukes has any realistic chance of success. In contrast, once the most-internationally incompetent and disastrous US presidency of all-time is finally gone, there IS a realistic, though not hugely probable, chance of striking a Palestinian-Israeli deal that would finally rescue the all-but-inevitable two-state solution from the clutches of the lunatic fringes on both sides. It will probably be too late then to stop Iran from getting the bomb, however, in which case we will have to learn to live somehow with this lasting legacy of the monumental failures of neo-con-hypocrite American foreign policy non-leadership of recent years. And, we had better understand that probably-coming dangerous predicament from the perspective of sane, civilized citizens of the world, and not succumb to herd-worship of the paranoid world-views of half-crazed West Bank religious-nut-case terrorist-settlers.

The Zionist/Israeli Obsession with Iran


The latest Zionist/Israeli addiction is Iran.

The ridiculously misnamed and catastrophically mismanaged, for all except Israel, "war on terror" seems to have been sidelined, for now , in favour of the "Iran" ("Second" Holocaust myth etc) craze.

This shift seems to be, from a Zionist viewpoint, amply warranted for the following reasons:

1- Iran is the first nonArab nation to voice categorically it total rejection of a Zionist entity colonizing Palestine. (Turkey next?)
Coming from an erstwhile friend, and occasional strategic ally, this volte face must have hurt badly.

2-Iran seems to have successfully deployed Islam (the radical nemesis of Jewish Zionism) as a weapon against Zionism; a radical transformation of the present, and more so of the potential, balance of power between the pro and anti Zionist camps.

3-Iran seems to be, so far, the only viable regional competitor for Israel's nuclear armament capability and monopoly.

4-Iran seems to be an equally transfixly addictive issue to the neocon /Zionist Administration of President Bush.

Considering 1, 2 and 3 above, 4 seems to offer Israel the rare opportunity of a strategic demarche on the cheap: a US paid for, in blood and treasure, war to the sole benefit of Israel.

There precious little doubt about Zionist/Israeli intentions and designs re Iran, the question is : will the USA be duped once more?

Your question re neo-con lies

"will the USA be duped once more?"

You mean: as it was in 2002-03 when the "cakewalk to Baghdad" was fanatically demanded as the only possible solution to "Saddam bin Laden-Hussein's imminent "mushroom cloud" ?

I highly doubt it.

But don't be fooled the other way either. Israel may or may not be mainly a tactical-rhetorical scapegoat for him (we will never get anywhere near the truth with the pathological Likudnik fibbers, insult-addicts and brainwashed extremists on this page), but Ahmadinejad is up to no good: not for Iranians, not for Arabs, not for Moslems, not for anyone except his own dupes and puppet-masters.

time to return to your fantasyland

"Iran's leader has spoken about reclaiming lands for Islamdom and about destroying Israel as part of a strategy to begin that that process. So, you are factually mistaken."

Maybe such a statement exists (which would of course be quite different than anything spouted by the atheist Hitler), and I missed it. (As did the German author in this article that nobody but me has anything to say about. Surprise, Surprise.) But certainly not based on your atrociously lousy memory of what you might have read in propaganda rags, which you suppose qualify you to brag about your imagined superior knowledge, motormouth 3rd grader style.

Re: Interesting, "E" despite the predictable irrelevan

The initials of one's name do not, under any definition that can be achieved with a lesser degree of retardation than yourself, constitute a pseudonym. P.T. Barnum was not a pseudonym. J.K. Rowling is not a pseudonym. The false name of Peter K. Clarke, however, is a pseudonym. I anticipated last night that you would be so stupid as to make this blunder. Stop hiding behind your pseudonym before HNN deletes that account and prevents your sorry, pseudonymous self from coming here and putting more of your monumental stupidity on display behind the pithy pseudonym that makes you feel so undaunted in displaying it.

Re: clarifying

Peter, I agree with your statement here:

"We all know that, unlike its Arab neighbors, Israel is a democracy (for Jews at least) whose religious leaders, even the most lunatic among them, do not routinely advocate suicidal mass murder of civilians as a legitimate tactic of ideological-furtherance. As a practical matter, furthermore, countries and parties, including Hamas, need to accept the decades-long internationally recognized right of Israel to exist AS a Jewish homeland WITHIN in its pre-1967 boundaries, BEFORE any attempt to get Israel to abandon its nukes has any realistic chance of success."

But you also must face the reality that crazed barbarians such as Omar are a very strong presence in the Middle East and you can see what HIS position IS. I'm sure you also understand that any hardline position by Israel will be seen by people such as Omar as insufferable dhimmi arrogance provoking "legitimate rage", whereas, conversely, any concessions proposed by Israel will not be seen as evidence of goodwill but as evidence of weakness to be triumphantly exploited. Given that sort of situation what do you then propose--realistically?

Re: time to return to your fantasyland

Peter,

The speech involved was well publicized in the US. In the speech, he explained why he supports the Palestinian Arab cause and why he hoped for Israel's demise. It was not to help the Palestinian Arabs but, instead per se. He indicated that Islam had lost land to Christians in Europe. He said that Israel's demise would help in reclaiming lands lost to Europe.

further clarifying

I already said what I "proposed": a less incompetent US executive branch.
More specifically: The current administration, featuring the most screwed-up and ruinous foreign policy in US history, has squandered American leadership in authority in the world, thrown away trillions of dollars in massively botched invasion and occuptation and sitting-duck intervention, badly damaged our military capability, strengthened Al Qeada except (for the time being in Afghanistan), turned Iraq from an instable tyranny to an even more instable anarchy of anti-US resentment and future terrorist recruitment, helped Hamas and Hezbollah achieve new heights of popularity and power, surrendered wholesale to the North Korean Stalinist wackos, and on the Waziristan havens, and done little about Saudi support for terrorism. Stay tuned for surrender on Iran, and cut-and-run from Iraq. It is not only "realistic," but probable that no matter who or what the successor administration, it will be less disastrous for America, for Israel, for the world than current clowns. You cannot spin your way out of the historic catastrophe the inept hypocrite neo-cons have wrought, but the inevitable regime change in the US will come none too soon for the future of America. Neither decades-outdated and anyway historically-incomplete ideas about "Zionism," nor screwball paranoia-based expectations of an imminent Swastika flying over the presidential palace in Tehran, have more than very minor relevance to these broader, and (for America) not very cheery, geopolitical trends.

Re: clarifying

The perennially unworthy Professor and incorrigible LIAR (See post #105823) Eckstein is back at it: substituting reason and knowledge with personal insults.

Noting that he is much more adept at that, and at lying, it is understandable but still unacceptable.

For him to depict those who see through his blind racist biases, and personal incompetence cum total vacuity, as:
"crazed barbarians such as Omar are a very strong presence in the Middle East "
tells us more about his ineptitude and intellectual bankruptcy than anything else except, possibly, his (sole?) capability at pejorative vituperation.

No more, or no less ?, is expected from him ; being what he is.
However to depict as crazed "barbarians" those who reject and oppose the racist Zionist dogma and its aggressive and alien offspring, Israel, might be the first shot in an attempt at a new classification of human kind .

Considering its provenance from a disciple of the ultra racist Zionist creed and its formative influence which discriminates between "Jew" and "Goy" in everything up to the dictates of the principles of universal justice, with a different punishment for the SAME crime depending on the racial/confessional provenance of the criminal, this inane attempt at classification does not surprise me.

The surprise would be if he is still (?) a "Professor" in that unlucky University stuck with him until....

Re: further clarifying

Peter, I truly and heartily agree with what you wrote here:

"I already said what I "proposed": a less incompetent US executive branch.
More specifically: The current administration, featuring the most screwed-up and ruinous foreign policy in US history, has squandered American leadership in authority in the world, thrown away trillions of dollars in massively botched invasion and occuptation and sitting-duck intervention, badly damaged our military capability, strengthened Al Qeada except (for the time being in Afghanistan), turned Iraq from an instable tyranny to an even more instable anarchy of anti-US resentment and future terrorist recruitment, helped Hamas and Hezbollah achieve new heights of popularity and power, surrendered wholesale to the North Korean Stalinist wackos, and on the Waziristan havens, and done little about Saudi support for terrorism. Stay tuned for surrender on Iran, and cut-and-run from Iraq. It is not only "realistic," but probable that no matter who or what the successor administration, it will be less disastrous for America, for Israel, for the world than the current clowns."

But, still, I'm asking again: what do you propose as POLICY? Saying "I propose a less incompetent administration"--well, sure! But I'd like you to define competence in terms of specific policy choices that need to be made in the real and very dangerous world we face.

You and I clearly differ greatly on the nature and intensity of the Iranian nuclear threat. My study of the 1930s convinces me that when crazy men speak, they mean exactly what they say--even though rational people, appalled at the idea that this could be so, simply don't believe them. I think that's your problem with Ahmedinejad.

But I had a a long discussion with N.F. on the complex ins-and-outs of the complex Iranian govt about two weeks ago. Ahmedinejad isn't the whole govt. The mulllahs are more powerful than he (and they are somewhat divided), and he lost the municpal elections. But, as you can also see from some of the postings above, Ahmedinejad's principles of operation have plenty of supporters among the barbarous, the ignorant and the proud who make up so much of the Middle East

“It is 1938, and Iran is Germany” - Binyamin Netanyahu

( http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RVPQTVP )

Crazy men speak craziness and what that means is almost never what they say.

Hitler, who was fanatical and psychologically unhinged but not insane, never said he would murder millions of Jews. At least not in any precise formulation in print anywhere that anyone has found. He effectively DID it, however. And a lot of somewhat less nasty things leading up to it. THAT is what is important to learn and remember about Hitler. Not a failure of 1930s politicians to use mythical crystal balls.

Ahmadinejad has not SAID he would use first-strike nuclear bombs to kill millions of Israelis (and Arabs). Nor is there any indication of him sending millions of jack-booted goose-stepping troops on Blitzkriegs throughout the Mideast and to build rail lines to transport Jews and Gypsies in box cars to concentration camps in the Syrian desert. There is, however, a very legitimate and highly serious concern that he or some theocratic and fanantical successor might USE future nukes in a future first strike, and THAT, not Likudnik poppycock, is what legitimate historians and concerned citizens are paying attention to (in bonafide scholarly and intellectual forums, not on this page, obviously).

Your immediate problem here, Eckstein is not that you are speaking about a epoch of history you are not even ignoring students in, but have ignored yourself, but that your rants are straight from crooked crypto-fascist playboy Netanyahu's play book. He does not speak for most Israelis, let alone any American, and he speaks for no serious historian of 1930s Europe.

By the way, I am not aware of any "postings above" which support Ahmadinejad's principles, and I see no good reason for you to invent any such fable.

Re: “It is 1938, and Iran is Germany” - Binyamin Netanyahu

Wow, Peter--you say you're unaware of anyone endorsing Ahmedinejad's principles? I guess you still can't read:

You say:
By the way, I am not aware of any "postings above" which support Ahmadinejad's principles, and I see no good reason for you to invent any such fable


Omar said (Feb. 19, at 3:44 p.m.)

"I note with pleasure that Ahmedi Nejjad was quoted correctly, in a post otherwise replete with Zionist sloganeering and blind anti Iran hatred,. in his statement:
"The life-curve of the Zionist regime has begun its descent, and it is now on a downward slope towards its fall. . . . The Zionist regime will be wiped out, and humanity will be liberated."

Duh.

Re: clarifying

Your monitor must be a veritable spittoon by now, Omar. Try to control yourself. Why should you object to the good professor's label "crazed barbarian," when that's precisely the PR image your heroes and leaders have been working so hard to project? Just turn on the news for half an hour on any given day and you'll see what I mean.

And you think YOU have problems with Zionists? So do I, and if you think you're mad, I'm seething! For example, what I can't understand for the life of me is how a supposedly Zionist Israeli population found itself with a stupid, inept government headed by a slick little poltroon interested only in giving away Jewish lands to psychopathic murderers. I'd also think that given the failed "disengagement" experiment, Gush Katif and the other evacuated Jewish communities should have been re-taken and turned into bristling fortresses after the firt Kassam, so that not even a spit-ball could fly out of Gaza. And, hello? Why is there still a thing called Hezbollah? After the first rockets on Israeli cities and towns I would have expected them to be pounded into an archeological layer...or atomized into a thin fart. But don't get depressed, governments change and there's still a chance to correct such errors.

Re: clarifying

Wow, Omar--when you are going to apologize for your stupidity and carelessness in thinking a question I quoted and said was directed at Nonie Darwish on a blog a week ago was directed (somehow!) at you, and then you called me a liar because YOU never said what the question quoted Darwish CORRECTLY as saying?

Wow did you look barbarous and ignorant on THAT one!

Oh, but that's right. You can't apologize to a dhimmi. Even when you're wrong. So just keep calling him a liar in the face of all the facts cause that's what you've evidently been taught is morality.

Grotesque.

Re: further clarifying

Professor,

I was not quite taking the view that all of Iran is the same. I believe we discussed that issue and I believe, based on what Benny Morris noted, that he saw the regime as having some inherent characteristics so far as the ruling party is concerned. Such, after all, is pretty much what his articles says.

As for crazy, I doubt that Ahmadinejad is any more crazy than Hitler - at least if we judge that by being certifiably crazy. They are crazy because their political agendas are crazy.

To Peter, I note Churchill's point in The Gathering Storm that Hitler pretty much laid out what he would do and then did it. Ahmadinejad and the Islamists have pretty much laid out what they would do if they find a way - and it is scary as can be.

Re: further clarifying

1. On the Iranian govt:
Oh, yes, N.F.! I think we were BOTH saying in the end that things were complex in Iran, though our emphases were slightly different. But not that much different.

2. On Ahmedinejad:

N.F. writes:

"To Peter, I note Churchill's point in The Gathering Storm that Hitler pretty much laid out what he would do and then did it. Ahmadinejad and the Islamists have pretty much laid out what they would do if they find a way - and it is scary as can be."


I agree completely with the parallel, N.F.. Chamberlain simply didn't believe that Hitler was as crazy as he seemed; it was impossible for Chamberlain (born in 1869) to believe that the head of ANY major state could be as out-of-control as Hitler was. That was Chamberlain's WEAKNESS, a weakness of imagination which "Peter K. Clarke" also suffers from, and which Hitler exploited at Munich in 1938 and right up to March 1939 when Hitler betrayed the Munich agreements and took over all of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain went into shock: Herr Hitler he'd thought, was simply a person which specific grievances, Chamberlain should've read Mein Kampf. It's all in there, just like it's in Ahmedinejad's speeches. But lots of people just can't believe their ears.

Like I said, it's a failure of historical imagination.

To NF and AE

It is a long stretch indeed, but the closest parallel by far to your ever-loathed Chamberlain is your ever-beloved Likudnik-bootlicking clown George W. Bush. He appeased India and Pakistan, he has appeased North Korea, and he will probably try, in his lame way, to appease Ahmadinejad too. No betrayal of America is too extreme if it might lend his rock-bottom presidency some face-saving pretense of achievement.

As for pro-Ahmadinejaders not in the White House and Knessett, e.g. here, I don't think Baker meant to express support for A-jihad's rhetoric, but for the factually-correct quotation thereof. The clarification is, however, his (Baker's) to make. I certainly agree that there is nothing pleasurable about even the most insulting member of the UN being wiped off the map. Any such attempt would negate the core purpose of the UN and create nothing but misery for the whole region which is yet another reason why most analysts think it unlikely, at least in the medium term.

Re: To NF and AE

Peter,

Why, on this Earth, do you call me a Likudnik? I am not Israeli and have no interesting in becoming an Israeli. I have no interest in the various positions taken by the competing Israeli parties. How Israel deals with its various problems is, for the most part, not my concern - at least not enough to care whether Likud or Labor or Kadima win. Were I to become an Israeli, then I would face the questions that Israelis face. I do not face them so it is not my part to choose sides anymore about Israel than I might do about the UK.

In any event, I know that throwing words around gets you off, but it does not help a conversation.

If you drop your ridiculous invective, I shall stop reminding you of something that is not so ridiculous but, instead, a matter that should bother you and anyone who has to read your comments, namely, that you have not read enough about the Islamic regions to hold any opinions, much less the ones you hold.

As for the "wiping" comment, that is not, by a long shot, the most outrageous thing that Ahmadinejad has said. Again, his program is to reclaim land in Europe, with Israel's demise merely being a part in a much bigger war. That, not whether he used this or that specific word or phrase - the focus upon which is merely smoke thrown out by apologists for a truly dangerous regime - is what concerns me. OK?

As for Baker, he is a master diplomat. However, we are perhaps paying the price, in many, many ways for his diplomacy at the expense of statesmanship, including, not to mention a small aside that might be remembered by you, his assistance after the vote in getting Bush II into office the first time.

Re: further clarifying

Professor,

I think we agree entirely here.

Re: To NF and AE

Omar, like Ahmedinejad is on record as supporting all violent means to destroy Israel. He admires Ahmedinejad--not just the rhetoric but the INTENT. That isn't a "fable."
Omar also supports the goals of al-Qaeda, if you remember from the summer, which includes a world-wide Caliphate. His only quarrel with al-Qaeda is that occasionally its behavior can be counterproductive--he doesn't have a moral quarrel with sucide bombing as far as I can see. Like the 75-80% of the Palestinians he supports the continuous massacre of Israeli civilians.
"Peter", even if GWBush were an exact carbon copy of Chamberlain, that would not change the criticism of Chamberlain. By going after GW (as if any one here defended him!), you're just tyring to change the subject; its irrelevant to the discussion of Ahmedinejad. Chamberlain naively or cynically (depending on your position) allowed the destruction of Czechoslovakia WHILE criticizing the Czech goverment for not being more accommodating in its negotiations with the Sudeten German leader Henlein (sound familiar?), whom we NOW know was under orders from the Nazis to make ever more outrageous demands if the Czechs made concessions (sound familiar?)

As for Israel being the most insulting member of the UN, SUDAN engages in genocide at the million-DEATH level and is a respected member of the Muslim League and the Muslim group at the UN. CHINA invaded and conquered all of Tibet 60 years ago, destroyed Tibetan Bhuddist culture, and imported a million colonists of Chinese origin. (Now THAT"S colonizaton). Yet China is a respected member of the UN and sits on the Security Council. The SYRIAN government intentionally killed twice as many civilians in ONE WEEK in 1982 (about 20,000) than the Israelis have unintentionally killed in all its wars which the Muslims have inflicted upon it since 1948--but you apparently aren't exercized over ITS place in the UN.


Re: To NF and AE

This post was addressed to "Peter K. Clarke" (who doesn't have the honesty to post here under his real name, as I do).

And the first line should read: "Omar, like Ahmedijedad, etc. [That is, there should be a comma after the second ignorant barbarian mentioned.]

This is in case Omar, seeing his name, again thinks this post is addressed to him.

Re: To NF and AE

Professor,

Why do you believe that Peter C. uses a pseudonym? Do you know Peter C.'s real name?