quote:

---

"Thanks to people's wishes and God's will the trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is downwards and this is what God has promised and what all nations want," he said.

"Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added.

---

Did Kennan mean that all the people east of Bonn, had to go?

Baker's recent report on Iraq highlighted the necessity of drawing Iran (with Syria) into a constructive dialogue on the future of Iraq, but also the entire region. He highlighted, as any serious analyst must, the future of Palestine. This is what happens when that door, as it has been for too long, is closed.

I think hardline rejectionists on all sides -
American, Israeli, Iranian, etc. - have reduced the debate to what we are seeing here, culminating in the ghastly low (on the rhetorical front) of staging this deeply disturbing conference.

quote:

---

"Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added.

---

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: Coyote ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:
I find this continued attack on Jeff House extremely distateful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
Jeff, you're a sorta clever guy - being a lawyer and all - do you understand what a simile is?

In your universe, Jeff, was the Soviet Union wiped out in a hail of nuclear fallout?

---

I don't see the humour in this.

The quotes speak volumes of the lunacy of this dictator who loves his Nukes.

Ahmadinejad quotes:

Holocuast denial

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

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."

"The real Holocaust is what is happening in Palestine where the Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of Holocaust as blackmail and justification for killing children and women and making innocent people homeless."

"The West claims that more than six million Jews were killed in World War II and to compensate for that they established and support Israel. If it is true that the Jews were killed in Europe, why should Israel be established in the East, in Palestine?"

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

Threats against Israel

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

"Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

"If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d' tre, Israel will be annihilated."

"Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."

"Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."

Relations with West

"[There is] no significant need for the United States."

"Iranians possess delicate characteristics. They introduce their merits, which are extremely attractive to whole the world."

"We are ready to hold dialogue with all countries of the world except for the Israeli regime."

"Those who insulted the prophet should know that you cannot obscure the sun with a handful of dust. The dust will just get back and blind your own eyes."

"We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point - that is the Almighty God. My question for you is, 'Do you not want to join them?'"

"There are no limits to our dialogue."

"Do you think you are dealing with a 4-year-old child to whom you can give some walnuts and chocolates and get gold from him?"

Conspiracy theory

"Could [9/11] be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services - or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?"

Freedom of speech

"We believe that accurate dissemination of news and information is necessary for political growth and awareness as well as effective interaction among nations in today's world.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961353170&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Sh owFull

Thee KKK must just love there new hero

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: Centerfield ]

quote:

---

Right On Schedule

The Israeli government believes it will take Iran approximately nine months to get the 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz up and running, and another year to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a first bomb.

So far, Iran is right on schedule.

In June, the Israelis were estimating that it would take Iran six months to master the technology of the two experimental uranium enrichment cascades they had installed at Natanz. Iran announced that it had mastered that technology earlier this month.

If the Iranians continue to hold to the timeline of their public declarations to the IAEA, they will become a nuclear weapons power by September 2008, just before the next U.S. presidential elections.

But that timeline for Iran's nuclear weapons development is based solely on what Iran has told the IAEA.

"We know that Iran is not telling the full story," an Israeli nuclear expert told NewsMax. "They are not telling lies, but they are not telling the full story."

"There can be no doubt that Iran has a clandestine, parallel nuclear weapons program," a senior Israeli intelligence official told NewsMax last week.

Start of New Arms Race

Even countries that do not agree with the United States that a nuclear-armed Iran poses a threat to international security agree that Iran's actions are likely to spawn a nuclear arms race.

"There is a real concern that Iran's nuclear ambitions could fuel similar ambitions across the Middle East," a Western diplomat in Vienna told NewsMax on Monday.

So far, the United States has not reacted officially to the announcement from Saudi Arabia and its partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council of their intention to launch peaceful nuclear research.

However, diplomats in Vienna speculated that the Saudis might be trying to "get in before the door closes" sometime in the next two or three years, once a U.S.-backed program to establish an international "nuclear fuel bank" goes on line.

The U.S. is supporting efforts by developing countries to build nuclear power plants, as long as they forego acquiring sensitive nuclear fuel cycle technologies, as Iran is doing. The nuclear fuel bank would give such countries guaranteed supplies of nuclear fuel, virtually eliminating the proflieration risks.

Paula A. DeSutter, assistant secretary of state for verification and compliance, stated that the report of GCC nuclear developments was troubling.

"If true, it underscores an important aspect of Iran's noncompliance with its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty obligations, namely that one nation's noncompliance, if not addressed and corrected, creates new security concerns for the region and teaches other countries that there are no negative consequences for that behavior," she said.

---

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/12/11/204349.shtml

Ah!!! Perfect time for a conference with a group of anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, and racists.

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: Centerfield ]

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: Centerfield ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
Why is there any defence for Holocuast deniers on Babble?

---

There isn't. Please quote someone defending anyone for denying the Holocaust.

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

Speech delivered by Rabbi Aharon Cohen of Neturei Karta. There are some theological points he raises and that cause me to cringe. But he is no Holocaust denier.

quote:

---

To sum up, the Orthodox Jewish view is that yes there was a Holocaust to a terribly significant degree whatever that was. But in no way can it be used to justify the illegitimate and criminal cause and actions of Zionism.

My friends I wish to end with the prayer that the underlying cause of strife and bloodshed in the Middle East, namely, the State known as ‘Israel’, be totally and peacefully dissolved. To be replaced by a regime fully in accordance with the aspirations of the Palestinians. When Arab and Jew will be able to live peacefully together as they did for centuries.

---

http://tinyurl.com/y7kjer

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]

quote:

---

Unlike catholicism and much like islam, judaism does not have a central religious authority. As such, it is to be expected that different people will make different conclusions from the same text. 500_Apples

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
Perhaps its me but why are people targeting Jeff House? Why is there any defence for Holocuast deniers on Babble? It boggles the mind that any progessive thinker would not slam the Iranian gobernment on this. But here on Babble it should be a slam dunk. Sad so so sad what is happening here.

---

What I can't understand is why there is any defence of attack by innuendo and the ad hominem. But for some people it seems to be there life blood, so I guess I will have to settle for, "it takes all kinds," to mess up a world.

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I am specifically saying that the people who won't criticize this conference should be ashamed that their political allegiances require them to take such immoral stands.

I am specifically saying that people who are associated with, or generally support the line of, one or another Communist Party,
who would have supported the USSR when it existed, are now stuck with allies such as Ahmadinejad.

You know, the one who God promised that Israel and the USSR belong together in the dustbin of history?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Wow, talk about changing the subject.

---

To the contrary, Cueball is right-on topic.

Ahmadinejad has drawn a parallel between the decline and downfall of Soviet Russia, and the eventual decline and downfall of Zionist Israel.

Although you appear to imply this indicates hawkish intent, it indicates the exact opposite: Confidence that a corrupt and unjust regime will eventually implode under the weight of it's own unsustainability.

quote:

---

What about the Negroes in the South?

---

A more topical example of injustice can be found in the millions of Palestinians that have been ethnically cleansed and crowded into every-shrinking concentration camps.

[ 13 December 2006: Message edited by: Legless-Marine ]

quote:

---

Although you appear to imply this indicates hawkish intent, it indicates the exact opposite: Confidence that a corrupt and unjust regime will eventually implode under the weight of it's own unsustainability.

---

Jeff, I'm not sure why you're seeing a commie behind every bush, but I'd really like you to stop accusing everyone who doesn't parrot what you tell them they should say of being involved in some kind of communist plot.

ohara and Petsy, so nice of you to join us with your histrionics about babblers excusing Holocaust denial, but really, that's not what's happening. In fact, I haven't seen anyone yet stand in solidarity with the white supremacists or Holocaust deniers who have gone to this conference. I also see that Petsy was wringing his poor little hands over the supposed mistreatment of Jeff House in the first few posts of the thread. When what actually happened, for those who are actually trying to discuss this issue with some substance and aren't trying to derail the topic with concern trolling, is that Cueball and B.L.Zeebub interpreted Ahmedinejad's words differently than Jeff did, and used a quote from Jeff's article to support their point.

And I think it's pretty funny that Petsy and ohara are all up in arms about the way Jeff is treated but have nothing to say over Jeff's continued redbaiting and insinuations.

I would like the sniping to stop on all sides, or else I'm just going to start closing these threads as soon as they turn ugly. Consider it the equivalent of a parent of five year-olds giving them a time-out when they start bickering with each other.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle in the other thread:
I've decided that we don't need two threads on this.

---

quote:

---

Now, are you guys able to discuss this subject with a better tone, or do I turn the car around and go home? -Michelle

---

These points don't deal with the Holocaust denier's festival, which I somehow think will prove counter-productive for the Iranians. But it's important to know that Amadinejad, although he's "President" does not enjoy nearly the power that title would imply in many countries. Apparently all the real decision making and strategic planning is in the hands of senior religious clerics who do not make the kinds of anti-Israel statements we've been hearing from Mr. A. He's playing to a domestic audience and probably is more comparable to a John Bolton than a George Bush in terms of actual power.

Further to this, I've been coming across believable looking reports that Iran has on more than one occasion extended a behind the scenes olive branch to the US, only to be re-buffed. The point is, there's evidence to suspect that Iran is not nearly as bellicose or obdurate as the western media would have it.

quote:

---

Perhaps its me but why are people targeting Jeff House? Why is there any defence for Holocuast deniers on Babble? It boggles the mind that any progessive thinker would not slam the Iranian gobernment on this.

---

It's freaking bizarre.

quote:

---

It's freaking bizarre.

I can't believe anyone vaguely on the Left promoting the Iranian theocracy or its overtures to fascists. This is the most degenerate for of 'anti-imperialism' one can think of.

---

I'm really not seeing anyone who is promoting the Iranian theocracy or its overture to fascists? As it was posted above maybe you can cite some evidence to support this accusation.

Why are you and other babblers starting to sound like David Frum?

Re what Spector said in the last thread before it got locked, whether some attendees were serious well meaning scholars or not, inviting KKK members and neo-Nazis to a supposedly serious conference on the history of the Holocaust is kinda like inviting Creationists to give 'the other side' on a natural history conference. It kinda undermines any legitimacy it might otherwise claim.

However, why is it OK for there to be Islamic Republics like Iran but it's not OK for there to be a Jewish state like Israel?

[ 13 December 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

[ 13 December 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:
If I had my druthers all states would be secular.

However, why is it OK for there to be Islamic Republics like Iran but it's not OK for there to be a Jewish state like Israel?

Unless he's prepared to declare his own country a secular country based on the separation of church and state, Ahmedinejad is being a total hypocrite.

---

quote:

---

As a former student of Shiraz Dossa, I am dismayed by much of the reaction produced by his attendance at the Holocaust conference in Tehran. I can tell you first hand that a number of his lectures, often in divergent classes, came back to the tragedy of the Holocaust.

As he himself admits, much of his academic focus has been on the work of Jewish scholar Hannah Arendt, a thinker who was perplexed by the outrageous evil committed by German soldiers. A second scholar he often cites is Norman Finkelstein, also Jewish, who has repeatedly questioned why the Palestinians are forced to pay for the crimes of Western Europe, a fair question but one rarely heard.

---

quote:

---

At the university, he teaches courses such as History of Political Thought, and Third World Politics. People claiming to be his students on ratemyprofessor.com have both praised and complained about his teaching style.

As news of his presence at the conference spread around campus, students posted messages on the student union website. Some defended him.

". . . The man is emphatically not a Holocaust denier. He is a serious academic, anyone in any of his classes that didn't need to be spoon-fed regurgitated textbook crap could see that. I'm sure he was thoroughly embarrassed when he found out who some of the other guests at the conference were," one person wrote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:
Why indeed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:
If I had my druthers all states would be secular.

However, why is it OK for there to be Islamic Republics like Iran but it's not OK for there to be a Jewish state like Israel?

Unless he's prepared to declare his own country a secular country based on the separation of church and state, Ahmedinejad is being a total hypocrite.

---

[ 14 December 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy:
But the standards applied to this conference are completely different.

If an American Christian university held a conference questioning whether First Nations had experienced genocide at the hands of white settlers, and David Duke attended, the babble would not welcome someone who defended the event, even with qualifications.

---

There is some truth here. Another truth here is that if anyone were to defend any other country for doing the things like Israel is doing in the West Bank, in the manner that some do here, they would most surely be banned, or at least condemned from all quarters.

Yet, a different standard is applied in defence of Israel, and things that would comonly be outright rejected (summary execution by stinger missile for instance) are somehow acceptable to some people.

This is a state which has routinely had people in position say things about Arabs that are without any doubt at least as racist or "problematic" as those things said about Ameninejad.

Sharon's minsters of tourism Ze'ivi called Arab-Isralies "lice," before a Palestinian gun man put us out of his misery, and the present "Liberal" government under Olmert has another cabinet minster presently who espouses transfering all Arab-Israelis (that is Arab citizens of Israel) out of Israel.

None of this kind of racism gets anywhere near the attention that Ameninejad is getting here for his off the wall comments.

But, even if it must be said that Ameninejad is a reactionary, his reaction is at least partly a reaction against Israeli reactionaries in government who have been promoting even further ethnic cleansing for Palestinian Arabs, to far less attention in the press.

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: arborman ]

B.L. Zeebub, thanks for the reply, and I agree that Palestine is leading many leftists to equivocate in repudiating Holocaust deniers.

But that's not an excuse.

The Iranians have done nothing for the Palestinians beyond talk, and their talk is contaminating the Western left. No one helps Palestine by weasel-wording condemnations of an event featuring David Duke.

If Ahmedinejad can divert support for Palestine into support for his disgraceful regime, which came to power over the bodies of the Iranian left who helped overthrow the Shah, then it says little for us as leftists or as supporters of an independent Palestinian state.

People are being used by a regime as comfortable with the tools of propaganda as the governments more usually demonized on babble.

Cueball, I don't see how undermining condemnation of the Holocaust helps address the wrongs of Israel. Is it going to cause a change in government policy in Tel Aviv? Or is it going to further isolate whatever progressive voices are left, reminding them that Israel really is surrounded by enemies.

And of course a more paranoid Israel is a great tool to remind neighbouring Muslim states that they need a strong regional protector. A country like Iran, maybe?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy:
Cueball, I don't see how undermining condemnation of the Holocaust helps address the wrongs of Israel. Is it going to cause a change in government policy in Tel Aviv? Or is it going to further isolate whatever progressive voices are left, reminding them that Israel really is surrounded by enemies.

---

I didn't say that it would.

However, my point was that while your criticism of Nejad's general political drift is more or less in line with my thinking, that in no way undermines the fact that this focus on Ameninejad seems to be serving an agenda quite seperate from rectifying the wrongs in Iranian society, but more about justifying or simply disapearing other wrongs.

And while you can comfortably argue that reaction only creates and opposite reaction and does little to serve the purposes of conflict resolution, it seems to me that this media frenzy is creating the impression that this process of reactive reactionism begins with Nejad and the Iranians as if he just stepped out of some time machine from 1938.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

So, let me ask you this: Are we serving the interests of Palestinians by paying lip service to the propoganda machine that seems intent on erasing the long history of Israeli reactionaries, as if Nejad has suddenly appeared, now, to retroactively justify the steady stream of racist propaganda emenating from Israel for years and years, as if this situation does not begin with the British decision to make the Arabs pay the price of the Holocaust?

And surely a student of Iranian history will want to make note of terrible repression metted out against the Tudeh party and the rest of the left by the Islamic revolution, but will not want to make such a note without further pointing out that Persia, a neutral country at the time of WW2, was summarily carved up by the British and Russians, and that at least some of the animosity felt by Asian peoples for the "secular left" exists not entirely out of the context of Stalin and British imperialism.

So, if we are going to review the history, lets try and avoid making it too instrumentalist. Picking the point at which to begin a narrative always has an interesting impact on the shape of a discourse, don't you think?

Few people when selecting a starting point for discussion about Hitlers rise to power begin in 1919 with Clemenceau for example. There is no doubt in my mind that Hitlers racist message was recieved very well by a German public suffering under the punative regieme imposed upon it by ourselves by the treaty of Verrsaille, Versaille was very much the Trojan Horse of the NSDAP, likewise Muslim reaction is served by the very real opression of Palestinians by Israel, which we also imposed.

Both these thing in fact share comone history with the "Peace to end all peace."

quote:

---

Linking the Holocaust and the faults of today's Israeli state dishonours the former and does nothing but exacerbate the latter.

---

While it seems clear that some revisionist historians are the soft edge of a movement that could be summarized as the "Hitler should have finished the job" types I find it odd that there is no similar statements of outrage at the appearance of David Duke in Iran from "the world," when Israeli historian Benny Morris is invited to speak at a conference when he is on record as saying in no uncertain terms that Ben Gurion's biggest mistake was not finishing the job in 1948 -- he is in fact fetted and sought after by the most prestigious learning institutions in the west.

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

But, even if it must be said that Ameninejad is a reactionary, his reaction is at least partly a reaction against Israeli reactionaries in government who have been promoting even further ethnic cleansing for Palestinian Arabs, to far less attention in the press.

---

Oh please. Every reactionary from Hitler and Mussolini on down is reacting against something.

Apologists for Israeli racism will also claim that they are doing so "in reaction to" something some Arabs did.

But more to the point, did it ever occur to you that the reason you actually think I am a communist is because you don't actuallty read what I write, have never read what I write, or are to stupid to actually understand what I write. For in fact I just said what you said:

quote:

---

Few people when selecting a starting point for discussion about Hitlers rise to power begin in 1919 with Clemenceau for example. There is no doubt in my mind that Hitlers racist message was recieved very well by a German public suffering under the punative regieme imposed upon it by ourselves by the treaty of Verrsaille, Versaille was very much the Trojan Horse of the NSDAP, likewise Muslim reaction is served by the very real opression of Palestinians by Israel, which we also imposed.

---

I conclude that your misaprehensions are most likely caused by the last of the possible reasons I have suggested.

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Oh Pulease, you are fine with Cardy making the case that the problem is Ameninejad because he will only encourage Israeli reaction. But if I say that Israeli reaction is the cause of Ameninejad's appearance on the scene I am a Sharia-Bolshevik or worse: indecent!

---

I didn't mention Cardy. I am not "fine" with the idea that Israeli racism is ok.

I didn't mention the Sharia, either. I was talking about the racist conference sponsored by Iran.

Comparing atrocities and grievance is the same game the US has played since 9/11.

This is a thread about a regime and a president who have never gone to war in support of the Palestinians, who have viciously repressed their own people, and are using the Palestinians to cloak their own ambitions.

You're right, this conference was a distraction, but it was a distraction conjured by the Iranian government, for a purpose. Why? A neutral exercise in free speech or scholarship, as some here have claimed? Please.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy:
Cueball, you raise a range of facts that have nothing to do with supporting Holocaust revisionism/denial.

Firstly, comparing atrocities and grievance is the same game the US has played since 9/11.

---

I am not "comparing" atrocities. You introduced the whole issue of the historical realtionaship between the left and Iran yourself, when you said:

quote:

---

If Ahmedinejad can divert support for Palestine into support for his disgraceful regime, which came to power over the bodies of the Iranian left who helped overthrow the Shah, then it says little for us as leftists or as supporters of an independent Palestinian state.

---

I was merely giving those historical relationship between the "left" and Iran more context, and warning against "instrumentalist" history, history that includes only the "true" narrative that supports whatever orthodoxy one happens to represent.

Well enough for you to complain about the attack upon the secular left in Iran, but not ok for me to put that into the context of Stalin's invasion of Iran? Because why? Is there some cut off point for what is and is not allowable as part of the historical record when discussing present day phenomena?

When does it become "old hat."

Believe you me, in 1979, just before the Islamic regieme attacked the secular left in Iran the looming presence of the Soviet Union was still a very pertinent political presence, and the memory of its 1941 invasion, a living memory for the greatest number of Iranians. Would it be too much to remind you that the second major and the most lethal attack against the left, happened just after the Bath "socialist" Party of Saddam Hussein invaded Iran as part of the Whirlwind War?

Again, lets avoid being too instrumentalist, because I am begining to get the impression that it you who is supporting his views with only the convenient facts of the historical racord.

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy:
[conversation carried on from one of the various locked threads]

B.L. Zeebub, thanks for the reply, and I agree that Palestine is leading many leftists to equivocate in repudiating Holocaust deniers.

But that's not an excuse.

---

That's all well and good. Can you please, for the record, quote someone "repudiating Holocaust deniers" here on Babble. Besides repeating this nonsense, you've entirely missed my point. The more sinister aspect of several posters injunction to "denounce" involves a tacit justification of the ongoing (now, today, and tomorrow) abuse of Palestinians by Israel. The modus operendi of these posters is to shift attention onto Iran, Holocaust Denial, etc. in order to reduce any and all criticisms of Israel by Iran (or anyone who might be successfully associated with them) to symptoms of "Holocaust Denial". Their interest in this conference is not due to a desire for historical accuracy, nor even for a basic modicum of justice, rather it is a mechanism of Israeli state propaganda.

quote:

---

No one helps Palestine by weasel-wording condemnations of an event featuring David Duke.

---

Again, can you please quote someone supporting David Duke? I realize it might be tough to reach the keyboard; what for the big Strawman in the room... You see, in continuing down this line, you're playing right into the game I outlined above. In fact, just about everyone involved in this conversation has already clearly and unequivocally distanced themselves from David Duke et al..

quote:

---

If Ahmedinejad can divert support for Palestine into support for his disgraceful regime, which came to power over the bodies of the Iranian left who helped overthrow the Shah, then it says little for us as leftists or as supporters of an independent Palestinian state.

---

Sure... But that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. At the risk of being crass, could you please not where anyone has suggested that they think the "disgraceful regime" in Tehran is okay? Perhaps an example of this "left" you speak of support the "disgraceful regime" would help?

I repeat that you are continuing to lie, along with some of the other inquisitors, though you are trying to hide behind a veil of "moderation". Look again at your line of reasoning. It is all based on the assumption that there are people here who actually support Iran, with the subtext that perhaps they then succor Holocaust Deniers. It's more subtle than some, but that's what you're doing.

quote:

---

Linking the Holocaust and the faults of today's Israeli state dishonours the former and does nothing but exacerbate the latter.[/qb]

---

Finally, we agree. Though I would add that linking the Holocaust and the supposed achievements of today's Israeli state does exactly the same thing.

My intention was to point out that there is a social/psychological struggle at play in this particular discussion. Despite agreement on basic principles (i.e. Holocaust denial is bad) there continues to be an attempt to goad and badger people into a party line about what the conference represents politically. This process has little to do with countering Holocaust Denial (of which there is none present here) and more to do with painting criticisms of Israel which some in Iran make with a "Holocaust Denier" brush, and thus laying the rhetorical and ideological groundwork for countering those same arguments when articulated by a non-Holocaust denying element. This is part of an ongoing struggle by reactionary protectors of Israel (among others) to conflate the "far right" with "the left". This is part-and-parcel of the familiar trope. about "left-wing antisemitism". The effort to equate the far right with the left has been going on for a long time, and in this case is an ideological protection for a nominally "democratic" state engaged in massive human rights violations and a concerted program to deny their existence.

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

If you put words in other people's mouths, it may be because you are unwilling to directly denounce Iran for the Conference.

---

It "may" be this, it "might" be that. You "might" be typing into the keyboard while holding your dick in your hand. If I were to say sumise such, would I be engaging in serious discussion worthy of consideration, or would I merely be poisoning the well in order to score cheap court room debating points?

Secondly, and most importantly, this entire discussion is being held completely within its historical context, in terms of how the Holocaust is percieved in the underlying ideological constructs of western society. Lets not fool ourselves into thinking that the attack upon Holocaust denial, and in particular this case invovling Ameninejad, moves towards the view that he is neo-Nazi at worst, some kind of other fascist at best. We can not escape the fact that this is an analysis founded in the history of Europe and the Holocaust.

In this light it is not merely good enough to declaim, because as I was trying to point out, one of the most important lessons of WW2 was that Hitler's message appealed largely because there were unadressed wrongs being commited against the German people as a result of the treaty of Versaille, handed to the Germans as a fait acompli resulting from the so called Paris Peace conference of 1919, in the first ever such conference, not to include the vanquished as a party to the conference negotiations.

To wit: Ameninejad's appeal exists entirely because of the ongoing injustice, and can not be seperated from the real time facts of the occupation of Iraq, the threatened invasion of Iran, and the repression of Palestinians by Israel.

Trying to divert attention away from those facts, and instead focusing solely on Ameninejads performance on the world stage, without critiquing why he appeals to Iranians, and clearly speaking about our actions and the actions of our allies as comlimentary to him, as if we are not a responsible party to all of this, does a diservice to our attempts to thwart him and only really gives comfort to reactionaries here.

In the end I am more interested in what Ameninejad means when he uses the word "myth."

Because if he means that the Holocaust exists as an underlying justification for certain political activities, and has been bent to specific political agendas and has taken on proportions and a meaning quite seperate from the facts of the Holocaust -- become in fact partly a mythology -- as an ideological breakwater where no questions can be asked, then he is indeed correct, as Israel has always justified its existance upon the facts of the pogrom, and the Holocaust has become an mantra which excuses all kinds of abuse in the name of "never again."

Because in fact, as you say, "Linking the Holocaust and the faults of today's Israeli state dishonours the former and does nothing but exacerbate the latter," who justify all manner of things by invoking the Holocaust.

All manner of nationalism construct mythologies based on intsrumentalist histories selecting "true facts" from the historical record. For example, the Serbs have a highly evolved national mythology built on the battle against the Ottomans on the "Field of Black Crows" in Kosovo. This signifies to Serb nationalists that Kosovo is an intergral part of Serbia, even the motherland, despite the fact that Muslim Albanians have been the majority in Kosovo for quite sometime. To question the mythological aspects of the way the "Field of Black Crows" justifies the opression of Muslim Albanians, even to the extent of calling the "Field of Black Crows" a myth is not necessarily to deny the historical fact that there was a battle in Kosovo in 1389 at the "Field of Black Crows," it can be just to question Serbian reifications of the collateral meanings that many Serbs attach to it.

To question the underlying national mythology, which surounds the "Field of Black Crows" is not "Field of Black Crows" denial. And were any Serbian to assert that to question the mythology was unconciounable, and racist, prima facie, then I would definitely think they were loading the dice for effect, out an inability to confront the other missing "true facts" aspects of the Kosovo narrative that do not so convieniently fit into a self-serving national agenda.

Such a mythology definitely exists in Israel, and it is definitely bound up with the Holocaust.

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Provide data to support your explanation for Ahmedinejad's election. The Iranian presidential election revolved around rural poverty, urban disillusionment with reformists, and interference from the political clerics in the process of selecting candidates.

Your Versailles analogy is flawed; the Iranians have never been occupied or attacked by Israel and Iran shares nothing with Palestine beyond a religion, and not even the same denomination.

None of this has anything to do with the equivocation of some in these threads when it comes to a condemnation of a conference of Holocaust deniers in Tehran. An equivocation you continue in your most recent post.

You are free to continue to be interested in Ahmedinejad's perspectives on the Holocaust. I will continue to wonder why anyone who invites David Duke to his country deserves such interest from anyone on the left.

For me, David Duke defines the company he keeps.

Its all so clear to the ideologically ossified.

If you aren't a "commie" you must be an antisemite, or both. Lol. All this because I dared talk about Bill Clintons support for ethnically cleansing 150,000 Serbs from Croatia.

When the truth is that the Red Guard is out in force these days demanding that people confine their political discourse to big charachter posters celebrating the "Five Kinds of Red," or condemning the "Seven Kinds of Black." Anything beyond that is equivocation amounting to reactionary appeasement of the capitalist roaders of Liu Shiao Shi.

quote:

---

Your Versailles analogy is flawed; the Iranians have never been occupied or attacked by Israel and Iran shares nothing with Palestine beyond a religion, and not even the same denomination.

---

No. They were attacked and occupied by the same empire which then errected Israel, based on the same right of imperial will. Trying to distance Israel from the context of its creation as if it is a hermetically sealed as a can of tomatoes is like to thinking that tomatoes are grown in cans.

Iran in fact has been attacked repeatedly both by the co-founders of Israel, but also by Israels chief ally, who among other things overthrew the government of Iran, and sicked their bully-boy Saddam Hussien on them. In fact they are being again threatened by self same ally, which now quite inexplicably has its army on both the East and Western borders of their country, in tandem no less with the last vestiges of the army of Persia's late imperial occupier, Great Britain. Every single neighbouring country to Israel has been partially occupied, or are still partially occupied by Israel, a country that has also repeatedly threatened to attack Iran.

But of course, the refrain is "what has Israel got to do with this." Talk about whistling in the graveyard after dark.

Is it really so shocking that regieme which overthrew the Shah should take a foreign policy stand quite at odds with the one taken by the dictator who was imposed on them by the self-same people who created Israel, not five years before? I can hardly see how the imposition of the Shah and creation of Israel could be seen as anything other than the two facets of the same policy, given that the actors were the same, even if the victims were somewhat different.

In fact probably the most sailent feature of the connection between the Nazi rise to power, and Ameninejad, is not his political point of view, but the connection both have to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, Balfour et al, at least from a historical perspective.

quote:

---

None of this has anything to do with the equivocation of some in these threads when it comes to a condemnation of a conference of Holocaust deniers in Tehran. An equivocation you continue in your most recent post.

---

My equivocation? I just asked for a clarification of what Ameninejad actually said, in context and not simply a errant quote. Weren't you just taking people to task for not quoting you in proper context?

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

The problem is, someone has to be the first to say, I won't respond with violence, racism and hate. Racism and oppression occurs on Israel's part. Racism and oppression occurs on the PA's part. Sexism, oppression and religious persecution occurs on Iran's part. Is any of this justification for "finishing the job" to get rid of inconvenient Arabs who live on the land who've been promised by the UN (and God in your mind)?

Does it justify forcing your citizens to pay for holocaust deniers and white supremecists from around the world to visit your country? Is it justification for calling for the destruction of a country, whether it be Israel under a regime dominated by Zionists, the US dominated by neocons, Iraq dominated by Baathist socialists or Iran dominated by a theocratic Ayatollah? Does it justify refusing that a PA dominated by violent religious factions form their own country?

Personally, I wasn't at all shocked by Iran's conference, it is quite consistent with statements their president has made in the past. In the St. FX prof's case he doesn't genuinely seem to be anti-semitic or a holocaust denier, but I question his intelligence for pleading ignorance at who would be attending such an event.

At any rate, the US has called for the destruction of the Iranian regime, not its people, yet received condemnation. If we believe that's all Iran is calling for in regards to Israel (which I don't believe), why not condemn them for it as well?

quote:

---

Originally posted by EmmaG:
Cueball, Thank you for your continual mention of various aspects of history, which are so often ignored. It is crucial to mention history when discussing the middle east, as often people who live in the region remember not only the history of invasion and imperialistic will, but also events and conflicts from centuries ago. It's not just all about the West's perspective either, sometimes the only mannder in which events are discussed is in the "we beat Hitler" context.

---

True enough, the age old conflict between Shia and Sunni, as well as any number of standing cultural conflicts between the Arabs themselves, is never far from the surface as a useful handle for manipulation of local political forces for whatever designs the "great powers," (aka today as the "International Community") have for the region.

People seem bemused by the apparent failure of the US to make something sustainable out of the ashes of the Bathist regieme in Baghdad. They talk about opportunities missed, and "great potential," the "generally optimistic attitudes" of the Iraqi people and "where the good will" went, as well as undermanning of Pentagon force requirements needed to properly maitain order.

Mistakes were made.

Very few ever seem to question the recieved wisdom that the Neo-cons wanted to create some kind of meaningful order in Iraq, and ignore the sailent possibility that the whole excersize was not an attack upon Saddam but on the idea of unified Iraqi state, latently capable of challenging Israel, and really about devide and conquer.

It been done before, why not here and now? Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Chenney and donald Rumsfeld are percieved to be above that kind of thinking?

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6183061.stm

"Conference of Hate" from the program "From Our Own Correspondent"

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: Cardy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy:

B.L. Zeebub, last words to you I'm afraid, you quote me twice, but omit words in both cases that change the meaning of my words entirely, to suit your ends. Once could have been a mistake but clearly this was deliberate; not cool.

---

I did nothing on purpose.

For starters I was rip-roaring drunk when I wrote that post, and looking at it now I see some pretty funny stuff in there. Sorry about calling you a liar. I think your post was well-intentioned and I got on a bit of a tear there.

Sorry 'bout that. Seriously.

Note to self: Don't drink and internet.

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

What gets lost in the shuffle is Israel's dreadful human rights record.

The ironic part is that the right-wing politics from where this nonsense eminates is not only anti-Islam (a formal antisemitism) but was the traditional hotbed of antisemitic thought - i.e. support for Germany before and after the war, Holocaust revisionism and denial, etc. Israel's supporters have gotten into bed with the primary source of anti-Jewish ideas in our society in order to counter the lefts' criticisms of Israel - criticisms which are based in the same principles that saw the left fight to get Jews included in our society as equals. Look back at the Anti-Defamation League, for example, and we see that those organisations used to be attacked by the right for being "commie stooges" etc. while they were fighting for Jews, Blacks, etc.

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

I was wondering that, B.L. Zeebub, thinking, is it fair to hold anything anyone says against them when they write it late on a Friday night?

Although here in Nepal they finished writing a new interim constitution late last night, so I shouldn't be too critical.

Back to the fight...

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: Cardy ]

One really has to question the authority of "journalist" who isn't on the ball enough to write the name of Robert Faurisson into his copy and instead calls him "one french speaker," and then comes to the conclusion that this summarizes the whole thing, and assert, based on this one speech, by this "one french speaker" that:

quote:

---

It had all the simplicity of a mathematical proof - refuting the worst genocide in living memory and absolving one of the most evil and wicked regimes in history of its crimes against humanity.

---

Does Harrison note, for instance that the session at which Faurison spoke was only one of 20 or 30 sessions, and that most of those sessions had nothing to do with the factual accounting of the Holocaust? No.

Did he bother to attend any of the others? His copy doesn't really seem to sugest he did.

For instance did Harrison pick up on the presence of a Canadian professor there and then take the time to go and see what else was being said at the conference, in order to fill out his piece? All speakers, even Sossa from St Xavier categorically denied the Holocaust, as Harrison makes out? Is that the case? Is it the case that Dr. Sossa of St. Xavier is also a dyed in the wool antisemite like Faurisson and David Duke?

I doubt it. Harrison, a journalist who doesn't seem professional enough to get the proper name of "one french speaker," and put it in his copy, is hardly the type to do anything more energetic than to make a b-line for story that will sell, so you can make people like Shazum feel comfortable about posting quasi-racist cartoons from right wing web sites that advocate torture on Babble, and get away with it.

Talk about "reaction and reactionaries." If anything better underscores the point I am trying to make about how the present frenzy about this conference is feeding a fascist agenda, then I think Shazum's cartoon, and the web site it comes from summarizes the whole thing.

Here is another one:

Its been a while since I saw a "Nip" cartoon featuring MacCarthur.

Thanks for opening up that door, Cardy.

Another one:

One is known by the compamy one keeps, isn't that right Cardy?

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shazum:
Sorta reminds me of this cartoon a friend sent me which has unfortunately been the case for progressive people these days.

---

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Ahmadinejad may have said the Holocaust is a myth, but if he has, it has escaped my attention. Of course, I don’t follow him around with a tape-recorder and babel fish in my ear, so maybe I missed it. Still, the file of Ahmadinejad quotes I have before me, which goes back two years, hasn’t a single quote that backs up the near media consensus that Ahmadinejad has “repeatedly called the Holocaust a myth,” let alone called it one even once. Which is odd. Considering that demonizing the leader of the next oil-rich country on the White House list of targets slated for take-over has become something of a sport in the Western media, you’d think the “no, there never was a Holocaust” quote would be a simple matter to unearth and thrust before the world, like Iraq’s WMD. Oh, right.

In the stories that followed the conference, there were dozens of Ahmadinejad quotes, which, if you read them carefully, played opposite type (they didn’t say what the headlines said they said) but not one of them had Ahmadinejad saying “Holocaust? Pshaw -- as phony as an all-beef hotdog.”
....
Did Ahmadinejad really threaten to wipe out Israel? No more than scientists predicting the melting of the polar ice caps are threatening to melt them themselves. What Ahmadinejad did say was that, “The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was” – a prediction, not a threat. And since the Soviet Union wasn’t wiped out in a hail of nuclear missiles, a storm of terrorist attacks, or an epidemic sparked by biological weapons, it might be safe to conclude that Ahmadinejad expects Israel to collapse through self-inflicted wounds – the way the Soviet Union did – and not under a barrage of nuclear missiles launched from Tehran.
....
Shiraz Dossa, an admirer of Noam Chomsky and Hannah Arendt, who teaches Third World politics at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, delivered a paper on the abuse of the Holocaust to justify the war on terror. Dossa calls the Holocaust a reality and says that “anyone who denies it is a lunatic.” He accepted the invitation to speak at the conference to help Tehran make its point: That the West’s commitment to freedom of speech extends only to insulting someone else’s sacred cows.

---

quote:

---

True, Ahmadinejad has played around the edges of the issue, saying things that amount to “maybe it did or maybe it didn’t happen, but either way, it doesn’t justify what was done to the Palestinians.” Always, the emphasis is on the Holocaust as a political construct, not an historical reality. That’s not quite in the same league as David Irving, the writer who was jailed in Austria for denying the Holocaust.

---

In other words challenging the national Israeli mythology surrounding the Holocaust, not the Holocaust itself. I am not in love with this guy, but I am getting tired of having a "new Adolph Hitler" in the media every two years. I am losing track of them all.

What the new Adolph Hitler actually said:

quote:

---

Elections, explained Ahmadinejad, should be held among “Jews, Christians and Muslims” in Palestine (by which he means Israel, Gaza and the West Bank together) “so that the population….can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner.” (

---

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
The one you offered, borderline, the rest, as bad as any Nazi cartoon depicting Jews as Rats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shazum:
...the old adage, the enemy of my enemy is my friend ...

---

It's insulting to leftists to suggest that the only reason we have to defend someone against racist and imperialist attacks is that that someone in question is an "enemy" of the United States.

To an idiot with no knowledge of world politics and no analysis of neoliberal imperialism such an insult might make sense.

But the rest of us just wonder why you are here rather than playing with your right wing pals at one of their many forums.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shazum:

something tells me if one of those were put on Rabble, it would be met with applause what when blind eyes are turned to Iran and North Korea and Hizbullah simply because they are enemies of the United States.

---

So you agree then that the your "conservative" friends are racists fuckheads. Good. That is a start.

By the way, that "something" in your head that tells you things, is your "inner idiot." If it speaks to you again, turn up your stereo and try and drown it out. If that fails to quell the beast, make sure that you do not at all, in any circumstances repeat what it is telling you out loud to anyone, in particullar to anyone whom you wish to respect you.

Its probably ok to post it on the web were you are anonymous, and it might even be therapudic for you to let it out of your grip, as a kind of emotional saftey release, but for god sake don't let your mother see what you are posting.

[ 17 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I know I haven't been around to play with you for a while but it's sad you have to resort to playing with yourself.

quote:

---

You are hardly one to talk about hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Calling people "fuckheads" and posting racist cartoons; a hard day's work building socialism, eh?

---

Other notable talking points included an attack on the UN for being "no friend of Jews or Israel", and suggesting that Ahmadinejad was hoping to delegitimise the Holocaust to delegitimise the Jewish people and lay the groundwork for another Holocaust.

Besides echoing rightwing tropes about the ineffectiveness of the UN, this so-called "progressive" jumped right into bed with McKay and Harper for their condemnations of China, while hypocritically managing to completely avoid dealing with Israel's human rights record, and their silence about that. Far from having "progressive" principles, it is clear that the CJC are sycophants willing to toady up to whoever will further their agenda - i.e. diverting attention away from the crimes done in the name of the "Jewish State of Israel".

As I mentioned earlier, this conference has sent Israel's mouthpieces into high gear. And they are not only interested in countering Holocaust denial (certainly laudable) for it's own sake, but largely in providing cover for Israel's crimes against the Palestinians. Would it that these people had the guts to stand against both outrages.

[ 17 December 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
"so-called progressive"?

Who ever called the CJC "progressive"? If that were the case, the word would be meaningless.

---

Don't you get it? They create the B'nai B'rith so that they can call the CJC progressive. That way, you have a "choice".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shazum:
Sorta reminds me of this cartoon a friend sent me which has unfortunately been the case for progressive people these days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy:
Cueball: the only person posting racist cartoons, by your own definition, is you.

I know I haven't been around to play with you for a while but it's sad you have to resort to playing with yourself.

You are hardly one to talk about hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Calling people "fuckheads" and posting racist cartoons; a hard day's work building socialism, eh?

---

"Building socialism?" Are you nuts? I was more focussed on the simple goal of preventing the demonization of Iranians by the right for fear that the "New Hitler" mantra might be useful for justifying an aerial Masacre of Iranians.

Now I understand your problem: A possibly cogenital problem with contextualizing. Here I have posted other cartoons from the web site, and the author of the cartoon which Shazum, the person whom has chosen to support your ideas here, has posted here.

So, I took the liberty of checking out the source of the original borderline piece, in the interest of finding out where the author of your friends friends -- associative guilt is such a fine thing -- were coming from. Low and behold, your friends friends are sourcing their ideas to a full blown anti-Muslim racist hate site, which featured the other cartoons I posted.

What does that say about you since now you are "defending" Shazum and by exstension his mentors? Nothing of course, but let it serve to remind you regarding the problems with associative guilt.

For someone who seems fairly adept at throwing around general accusations based on the associative guilt shared by all person whom might, or might not have shat in the same toilet as David Duke, I find it odd that you have a problem making the connection between the cartoons that share the same author. Or is it possible the people at CoxandForkum, were merely being derrisive to Arab people on the day the penned the peacenik cartoon Shazum posted, and out and out racists the day they made the cartoon featuring Muslim people hanging airline passengers?

A racist one day, then not the next, on the principle that the CoxandForkum people are "not bad people, merely people having a bad day."

And its I who equivocate?

Or is your complaint that the fault for exposing this racist screed lies with me for actually exposing the truth of what Shazum was advertsing here, not his for originally advertising it, if not provably yours for encouraging it: Cueball's problem because it was he who posted the hard core racist cartoons of CoxandForkum, not the racist "lite" ones that Shasum has posted.

Is that your point?

If that is the case all I can say is that it is unlikely that Adolph "I am Zionist too" Eichmann couldn't prevericate on a point of administrative definition better than you.

Purely banal.

[ 17 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]