Iran, the Holocaust and Palestina. Boy oh boy, what to think.

[ik911]

Iran leader: Holocaust a 'myth'

Wednesday, December 14, 2005; Posted: 11:11 a.m. EST (16:11 GMT)

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has described the Holocaust as "a myth" and suggested that Israel be moved to Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska.

Germany, the United States, the European Commission and Israel condemned the remark, with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier calling it "shocking and unacceptable."

The Israeli government said Ahmadinejad's regime had "a distorted sense of reality."

Ahmadinejad sparked widespread international condemnation in October when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Last week he also expressed doubt about the killing by the Nazis of six million Jews during World War II, but Wednesday was the first occasion when he said in public that the Holocaust was a myth.

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets," Ahmadinejad said in a speech to thousands of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan, according to a report on Wednesday from Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB).

"The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets," he said. "(It) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet."

"If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel," Ahmadinejad said.

"Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"

Mark Regev, spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry, said: "The combination of a regime with a radical agenda, together with a distorted sense of reality that is clearly indicated by the statements we heard today, put together with nuclear weapons -- I think that's a dangerous combination that no one in the international community can accept."

"What the Iranian president has shown us today is that he is clearly outside the international consensus, he is clearly outside international norms and international legitimacy, and in so doing he has shown the Iranian government for what it is -- a rogue regime opposed to peace and stability and a threat to all its neighboring countries," Regev said.

In addition, Ahmadinejad spoke in Zahedan about Iran's nuclear program, maintaining it will insist on its right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

"Those who themselves produce nuclear arms should not raise hue and cry against those who only want to gain access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes," he said, according to a report from the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

"Countries which have arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons which can be used against other countries at their whim and those who supplied the Baathist regime with (chemical) weapons that killed thousands of innocent Iranians ... now go to all lengths to block Iran from gaining access to peaceful nuclear technology," he said.

"We are sure they have criminal intentions, and there was never any doubt that they were piling weapons of mass destruction to be used against less powerful nations," Ahmadinejad said, according to the IRNA report.

(...)

Tehran-based political analyst Mahmoud Alinejad said the president could feel his speeches strengthen Iran diplomatically.

"There is a perception, based on past experience that only when Iran threatens and pushes does the West back off," he told Reuters.

source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ael/index.html

The white nationalist comunity will be excited about finding another supporter of their holocaust disbelief.

But to become friendly with that extremist group is not his motive for saying such radical things.

The West does not like the idea of Iran enriching (sp?) uranium. Iran says it wants to enrich the raw material to use it to create nuclear energy. However, the material he seeks can also be used for creating nuclear warheads and that's something the West doesn't look forward to and they're trying to work against him.

According to Alinejad, the speech is meant to scare the West off.

What if he's being honest and we're just overly concerned. In that case we're creating a hostile/negative atmosphere by blocking him.

I don't know...

[dragon wench]

*wonders how long it will be before there is a war in Iran.....*

Various conflicting responses rise to mind here...
In part, I think it is wise to attempt to block a nation like Iran from gaining access to nuclear aresenal. But, another response is, who should decide which nations are "allowed" to have access to it? And what gives them the right?
My idealist side reacts by saying, nuclear fusion should have been outlawed at the global level after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...... when its horror was fully seen..

Regarding the denial of the Holocaust... I suspect the Iranian president may just be posturing for political purposes, hard to say though.

[Vicsun]

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets"

...

"If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel," Ahmadinejad said.
"Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"

That doesn't make any sense; he's openly contradicting himself. Did we or did we not 'burn the jews'?

[dragon wench]

Originally Posted by Vicsun

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets"

...

"If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel," Ahmadinejad said.
"Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"

That doesn't make any sense; he's openly contradicting himself. Did we or did we not 'burn the jews'?

Part of the reason I figure much of this is political posturing....
Still, you'd figure his speech writers (or does he write his own?) would have seen the glitch...

[Magrus]

I don't see that as a contradiction at all. He's putting out his point of view on what he thinks happened, and then putting out his suggestion for a reasonable response for what everyone else beliefs has happened. It's a perfectly logical line of thought IMO. The "If" "if' "if" in that second statement is the key.

This, is not good. Not at all. Like the Israel/Palestine situation needed to have gas thrown on the fire.

[Fiona]

I am conscious I haven't seen the text of the speech, only the "edited highlights" which you have posted. I would like to see the whole speech since as reported it seems to be covering a lot of areas which have little relation to each other. I have no way of knowing how accurate the report is

Having said that, if I assume for the moment that this is an accurate reflection of what was said, we seem to have a number of issues.
1. The holocaust was a myth. This seems to me to be nonsense
2. The west has elevated the importance of the holocaust above the importance of god. Don't quite know what this means, but since the west is largely secular I wouldn't wish to argue with it. Nor do I see anything wrong with it
3. I infer that the speaker is arguing that Israel is given special status because of the holocaust and I think there is some evidence in support of this view. Israel does seem to have been shielded from criticism, at least in the past, and to some extent criticism of Israeli policy has been met with accusations of anti-semitism which others are very reluctant to attract.Guilt may play a part here
4. I agree with Magrus that there is no contradiction, and with his interpretation. I have to say that I find the question as to why Israel is where it is legitimate. Although there is a satisfaction for Israelis in being there, given their account of history, the real need was for a homeland and the security that gives. It could have been anywhere. I think there is a piquancy in the question as to why it was not placed in an area where anti-semitism was historically a major problem. I am not very educated in the history but I thought that the land was handed over by the British, when the territory was controlled by the UK. It would seem obvious it wasn't theirs to cede, and I also think I read that it had also been promised to the palestinians. If this is true there is no question that it was an inexcusable act by a colonial power.
5. Even if that is accepted it does not help much since it is unlikely that the western world will offer a comparable territory within their own borders, even if the current inhabitants of Israel would accept it. This is a stalemate and I see no solution to it.

6. The question of nuclear proliferation is entirely separate, I think. The non-proliferation treaty provides that non-nuclear states will not try to develop nuclear weapons and this is the part of the treaty which gets a lot of attention. However it also provides that the nuclear states will disarm and this is perhaps less well known. I see no progress at all on that part of the treaty, and if it is not honoured then why should the rest of it be?

7.The treaty also provides that the nuclear states will ensure that the non-nuclear states benefit from any peaceful techonology etc which arises from nuclear research and will do so without including the costs of research and development in the price to the non-nuclear nations. At least that is how I understand it. If that is right what are the Iranians doing wrong in trying to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes?

It seems arrogant to me that the west assumes the right to interfere in the affairs of what it is pleased to call "rogue states". Would it not be better to address those things which they can control and which they have treaty obligations to do ie to get rid of their own arsenals of nuclear weapons. They have had plenty of time to do so and if the rest of the world is tired of waiting, I can see their point.

[TonyMontana1638]

I was shocked and appalled until I realized where this comment was coming from ...

The same place that produces religious maniacs willing to commit suicide while taking the lives of thousands/hundreds/scores of innocent civilians ... Their reward for their actions? 72 virgin sex slaves upon entering heaven ...

Me? Disgusted?
Yes.
Surprised?
No.

[Fiona]

@ Tony. Is infibulation not largely a sub-saharan african practice?

[TonyMontana1638]

Could be, but I originally heard of the practice as a Middle-Eastern custom specifically Iranian. I have no such fact at hand to back that up, however, so if someone proves to me that isn't true then I'll remove that part of my post and correct my mistake (and thinking)... I was told it was another way in which women were degraded in their culture. Once again I'm no professor though, so instruct me otherwise if you believe me to be in error.

[Fiona]

I don't know enough to say definitely but I did find this

http://www.jannah.org/genderequity/equityappendix.html

I don't know how accurate it is, but I have always thought it was common in places like Sudan and Somalia. It is practiced in Malaysia, I think, and in Indonesia. Egypt seems to have a tradition of female circumcision. I don't associate it with Iran but I may well be wrong.

This concurs and I am more confident that the source is reliable (mainly because I have heard of it)

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/archive/6994ed1.htm

[TonyMontana1638]

... Hmmm, you may be right as I don't truly know anything about it myself: it was one of those random facts (or... ummm... not-facts? ) I thought came from my World Studies course in high school when we were studying the Middle East and Islam. I may just have been mistaken, but I definitely heard this somewhere: obviously it is a practice but I guess it may not be Iranian.

Regardless I'll remove comment, just for safety's sake.... Don't want to spread incorrect info... It doesn't serve any real purpose anyways: like we need any more proof that Iran is frigged-up