Why what some of you say leads to Iran
dayan
Posts: 475
The Road to Tehran
Polite society helped pave the way for Iran's Holocaust conference.
BY BRET STEPHENS
Saturday, December 16, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
"Not acceptable," says Ban Ki Moon, new Secretary-General of the United Nations. "Repulsive," say the editors of Britain's Guardian newspaper. "An insult . . . to the memory of millions of Jews," says Hillary Rodham Clinton. Global polite society is in an uproar over the Holocaust conference organized this week in Tehran under the auspices of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Moral denunciation is what reasonable people do--what they must do--when a regime that avows the future extermination of six million Jews in Israel denies the past extermination of six million Jews in Europe. But let's be frank: Global polite society has been blazing its own merry trail toward this occasion for decades.
The Australian Financial Review is not the Journal of Historical Review, the Holocaust-denying "scholarly" vehicle of some of the Tehran conferees. But in 2002 the AFR thought it fit to print the following by Joseph Wakim, at one point the country's multicultural affairs commissioner: "Sharon's war is not a war," he wrote. "Genocide would be a more accurate description." In Ireland Tom McGurk, a columnist in the very mainstream Sunday Business Post, noted that "the scenes at Jenin last week looked uncannily like the attack on the Warsaw Jewish ghetto in 1944." Jose Saramago, Portugal's Nobel Laureate in Literature, observed after a visit to Ramallah that the Israeli incursion into the city "is a crime that may be compared to Auschwitz."
Never mind that the total number of Jews "dealt with" in the Warsaw ghetto, according to Nazi commandant Jürgen Stroop, was 56,065, whereas the number of Palestinians killed in Jenin was no more than 60. Never mind that at the time Mr. Saramago visited Ramallah a total of about 1,500 Palestinians had been killed in the Intifada, whereas Jews were murdered at Auschwitz at a rate of about 2,000 a day. Let's concede that, for the sake of moral truth, strained comparisons may still serve useful rhetorical purposes. (Jews and Israelis also often make inapt Holocaust and Nazi comparisons.) Let's concede, too, that the comments cited above amount to criticisms of Israeli policy, nothing more.
Yet once a country's policies are deemed Nazi-like, it necessarily follows that its leaders are Nazi-like and--if it's a popularly elected government--so are at least a plurality of its people. "As the dogma of intolerant, belligerent, self-righteous, God-fearing irridentists . . . [Zionism] is well adapted to its locality," wrote Tony Judt, head of New York University's Remarque Institute, in the New York Review of Books. Ian Buruma of Bard College derided Israel's "right-wing government supported by poor Oriental Jews and hard-nosed Russians." And from British MP Gerald Kaufman, this: "If the United States is keen to invade countries that disrupt international standards of order, should not Israel, for example, be considered as a candidate?"
As it happens, Messrs. Judt, Buruma and Kaufman are all Jewish. So let's also concede that it is not anti-Semitic to oppose Zionism. After all, among the Tehran conferees were rabbis from the ultra-orthodox Neturei Karta movement, who, like Mr. Ahmadinejad, actively call for the elimination of the state of Israel.
Yet simply because opposition to Zionism ideologically or Israel politically isn't necessarily anti-Semitic, it doesn't therefore follow that being anti-Zionist or anti-Israel are morally acceptable positions. There are more than six million Israelis who presumably wish to live in a sovereign country called Israel. Are their wishes irrelevant? Are their national rights conditional on their behavior--or rather, perceptions of their behavior--and if so, should such conditionality apply to all countries? It also should be obvious that simply because opposition to Zionism does not automatically make one guilty of anti-Semitism, neither does it automatically acquit one of it.
Such nuances, however, seem to go unnoticed by some of Israel's more elevated critics. Michel Rocard said in 2004 that the creation of the Jewish state was a historic mistake, and that Israel was "an entity that continues to pose a threat to its neighbors until today." Mr. Rocard is the former Prime Minister of France, an "entity" that itself posed a threat to its neighbors for the better part of its history.
Alternatively, Professors Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, whose paper on "The Israel Lobby" is now being turned into a book, have complained that "anyone who criticises Israel's actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy . . . stands a good chance of being labeled an anti-semite." Maybe. But earlier this week, former Klansman David Duke took the opportunity to tell CNN that he does not hate Jews but merely opposes Israel and Israel's influence in U.S. politics. He even cited Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer in his defense. Would they exonerate him of being an anti-Semite?
In fact, anti-Zionism has become for many anti-Semites a cloak of political convenience. But anti-Zionism has also become an ideological vehicle for an anti-Semitism that increasingly feels no need for disguise. In January 2002, the New Statesman magazine had a cover story on "The Kosher Conspiracy." For art, they had a gold Star of David pointed like a blade at the Union Jack. This wasn't anti-Zionism. It was anti-Zionism matured into unflinching anti-Semitism. And it was featured on the cover of Britain's premiere magazine of "progressive" thought.
The scholar Gregory Stanton has observed that genocides happen in eight stages, beginning with classification, symbolization and dehumanization, and ending in extermination and denial. What has happened in Tehran--denial--may seem to have turned that order on its head. It hasn't. The road to Tehran is a well-traveled one, and among those who denounce it now are some who have already walked some part of it.
Polite society helped pave the way for Iran's Holocaust conference.
BY BRET STEPHENS
Saturday, December 16, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
"Not acceptable," says Ban Ki Moon, new Secretary-General of the United Nations. "Repulsive," say the editors of Britain's Guardian newspaper. "An insult . . . to the memory of millions of Jews," says Hillary Rodham Clinton. Global polite society is in an uproar over the Holocaust conference organized this week in Tehran under the auspices of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Moral denunciation is what reasonable people do--what they must do--when a regime that avows the future extermination of six million Jews in Israel denies the past extermination of six million Jews in Europe. But let's be frank: Global polite society has been blazing its own merry trail toward this occasion for decades.
The Australian Financial Review is not the Journal of Historical Review, the Holocaust-denying "scholarly" vehicle of some of the Tehran conferees. But in 2002 the AFR thought it fit to print the following by Joseph Wakim, at one point the country's multicultural affairs commissioner: "Sharon's war is not a war," he wrote. "Genocide would be a more accurate description." In Ireland Tom McGurk, a columnist in the very mainstream Sunday Business Post, noted that "the scenes at Jenin last week looked uncannily like the attack on the Warsaw Jewish ghetto in 1944." Jose Saramago, Portugal's Nobel Laureate in Literature, observed after a visit to Ramallah that the Israeli incursion into the city "is a crime that may be compared to Auschwitz."
Never mind that the total number of Jews "dealt with" in the Warsaw ghetto, according to Nazi commandant Jürgen Stroop, was 56,065, whereas the number of Palestinians killed in Jenin was no more than 60. Never mind that at the time Mr. Saramago visited Ramallah a total of about 1,500 Palestinians had been killed in the Intifada, whereas Jews were murdered at Auschwitz at a rate of about 2,000 a day. Let's concede that, for the sake of moral truth, strained comparisons may still serve useful rhetorical purposes. (Jews and Israelis also often make inapt Holocaust and Nazi comparisons.) Let's concede, too, that the comments cited above amount to criticisms of Israeli policy, nothing more.
Yet once a country's policies are deemed Nazi-like, it necessarily follows that its leaders are Nazi-like and--if it's a popularly elected government--so are at least a plurality of its people. "As the dogma of intolerant, belligerent, self-righteous, God-fearing irridentists . . . [Zionism] is well adapted to its locality," wrote Tony Judt, head of New York University's Remarque Institute, in the New York Review of Books. Ian Buruma of Bard College derided Israel's "right-wing government supported by poor Oriental Jews and hard-nosed Russians." And from British MP Gerald Kaufman, this: "If the United States is keen to invade countries that disrupt international standards of order, should not Israel, for example, be considered as a candidate?"
As it happens, Messrs. Judt, Buruma and Kaufman are all Jewish. So let's also concede that it is not anti-Semitic to oppose Zionism. After all, among the Tehran conferees were rabbis from the ultra-orthodox Neturei Karta movement, who, like Mr. Ahmadinejad, actively call for the elimination of the state of Israel.
Yet simply because opposition to Zionism ideologically or Israel politically isn't necessarily anti-Semitic, it doesn't therefore follow that being anti-Zionist or anti-Israel are morally acceptable positions. There are more than six million Israelis who presumably wish to live in a sovereign country called Israel. Are their wishes irrelevant? Are their national rights conditional on their behavior--or rather, perceptions of their behavior--and if so, should such conditionality apply to all countries? It also should be obvious that simply because opposition to Zionism does not automatically make one guilty of anti-Semitism, neither does it automatically acquit one of it.
Such nuances, however, seem to go unnoticed by some of Israel's more elevated critics. Michel Rocard said in 2004 that the creation of the Jewish state was a historic mistake, and that Israel was "an entity that continues to pose a threat to its neighbors until today." Mr. Rocard is the former Prime Minister of France, an "entity" that itself posed a threat to its neighbors for the better part of its history.
Alternatively, Professors Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, whose paper on "The Israel Lobby" is now being turned into a book, have complained that "anyone who criticises Israel's actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy . . . stands a good chance of being labeled an anti-semite." Maybe. But earlier this week, former Klansman David Duke took the opportunity to tell CNN that he does not hate Jews but merely opposes Israel and Israel's influence in U.S. politics. He even cited Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer in his defense. Would they exonerate him of being an anti-Semite?
In fact, anti-Zionism has become for many anti-Semites a cloak of political convenience. But anti-Zionism has also become an ideological vehicle for an anti-Semitism that increasingly feels no need for disguise. In January 2002, the New Statesman magazine had a cover story on "The Kosher Conspiracy." For art, they had a gold Star of David pointed like a blade at the Union Jack. This wasn't anti-Zionism. It was anti-Zionism matured into unflinching anti-Semitism. And it was featured on the cover of Britain's premiere magazine of "progressive" thought.
The scholar Gregory Stanton has observed that genocides happen in eight stages, beginning with classification, symbolization and dehumanization, and ending in extermination and denial. What has happened in Tehran--denial--may seem to have turned that order on its head. It hasn't. The road to Tehran is a well-traveled one, and among those who denounce it now are some who have already walked some part of it.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
There appears to be a phenomenon going on in which an entire nation of people have adopted a victim mentality...a subconscious affect on the macro scale. What I'm suggesting is that because the people of Israel see themselves as victims, they will continue to be victimized.
Asking people who have a deep-seeded, generational, historical hatred of you to acknowledge a dark period in your history is the same as not being able to let it go. It happened. No one can fix it. But, unless you yourself were a prisoner during WWII, I can't muster a whole lot of sympathy for you...just as I can't muster a whole lot of sympathy for today's so-called African American because of slavery. Maybe if I knew some slaves, things would be different.
My point is, chooing to hang onto one period in the history of your people, and throwing it in the face of the world at every opportunity is just asking for it. It's the propogation of the victim mentality across an entire culture...ultimately leading to a social failure on the part of that culture.
Thing is, it's easier for any people who have been wronged to point the finger and cry about it then it is to accept that it happened, and move on. There's also a breezing over of a more universal concept...that of karma. Not saying that the holocaust was karmic comeuppance, but did the Jews ever really attone for their involvement in the slave trade?
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=849&letter=S
Every act of wrong or evil that you do will be revisited upon you at some point...often with interest. I've seen it happen too many times to discount it. It's happened to me too many times to discount it.
Just some thoughts I'm working though...
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
The difference with African Americans is that they don't have to fear being enslaved again in the States. The Jews are surrounded by countries that would gladly repeat the Holocaust again. Bear in mind that Iran's leader wanted to obliterate Israel from the map, and doesn't even believe the Holocaust existed. So while they have a victim's mentality, it is for good reason. The U.S.'s support of Israel will save Israel. Europe appears to be quickly siding against Israel.
Just put yourself in the shoes of a Jew, and look around at your borders. With all of the hate that people have for you. With the ramping up of nuclear programs in Iran. With Hezbollah and Syria taking over Lebanon. See if you don't get defensive. It is not in their "heads," it is their reality. This hatred of Jews was around long before the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is not the reason. Israel's enemies don't want Palestine to have some land, they want Israel off the map. They couldn't care less about Palestine.
The Jews are not hanging their hat on the Holocaust. Throughout their whole history they have been enslaved and oppressed. Keep in mind they didn't even have a sovereign territory before the Holocaust. So it isn't like the Holocaust was the one bad thing that has happened to the Jews. They didn't even have a sovereign territory before the Israeli-Palestine conflict. So to blame the hatred of Israel on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is ludicrous. The only reason that conflict exists is because Israel's land was stolen from them in the first place.
Not an excuse, but just about every ethnic group participated in slave trades, including Africans.
You're disgusting. The Jews had it coming to them? "did the Jews ever really attone for their involvement in the slave trade?" Honestly that's just sick. How about you go talk to some survivors and tell them that. Tell them that they deserved to robbed of their humanity and butchered like animals. You're honestly out of your mind.
"They deserved it"...absolutely not my words. They didn't deserve it anymore than the slaves they bought and sold "deserved" it. Brush up on your reading comprehension a bit, and note where I stated "unless you were a prisoner in WWII". That is sympathy for anyone caught in the situation.
History doesn't lie. Yes, the Jews were slaughtered by the thousands during WWII, but the things they participated in long before WWII...where's the accountability? That's all I'm asking. I believe that accountability bears out for any group of oppressed or oppressors.
Are you suggesting that oppressors should go unpunished thoughout history? That would be truly "sick" and "disgusting" as you put it. If someone survived the holocaust, that's a great thing. If someone survived slavery, that too is a good thing. Whether or not they were deserving is not the issue. The issue is, in the grand scheme of things, is it not reasonable to expect that if you treat humans in inhuman ways (ie. slavery), should you not expect to be treated inhumanly as well at some point in the near present or future? Could it not be argued that those actions set in motion a series of events that would ultimately place the oppressors of history into the shoes of the oppressed?
As for African Americans not having to fear enslavement again in the USA, I'm not convinced. The enslavement takes the subversive form of economic and intellectual enslavement these days.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
That's a horrible thing to say.
And finally it's only opinions but I honestly think Europe is not "quickly siding against Israel". Europe supports Israel but speak out when Israel breaks UN resolutions, wich happens sometimes.
In a way I agree with some of what you are saying. The Holocaust was a tragedy that no race or ethnicty on this earth deserves to suffer, but at some point youhave to move past it. So what if the Iranian government denounces the Holocaust. It has no impact on Israel or Jews across the globe. So what if they hold a conference to denounce the Holocaust. Again it has no bearing of Israel or the jews. By directing so much attention to the rantings of lunatics you only fuel their agenda. Israel is far from the helpless victim anymore. They have the ability to defend themselves from Iran if the situation should arise. As fasas Israel being surrounded by enemies that may be true but Israel has not done anything to alieviate that situation (their invasion of Lebannon is a perfect example). Where the government of Lebannon was anti-Syrian, pro-west and had no ill will toward Israel. Now that government is crumbling and in my belief it is due to Israel invasion of Lebannon. The people of that country have now seen their government as unwilling to protectthem from Israel and have fallen hook line and sinker for Hezbollah's propaganda and a new Pro-Syrian/Pro-Hezbollah movement is ttaking root.
My reading comprehension is just fine thank you. I challenge you to show me one person killed in the holocaust who was involved in the slave trade. Correct me if I'm wrong but we believe in punishing people for the crimes they commit, not the crimes their co-religionists commit. And please explain to me how the holocaust constitutes punishment. punishment implies some measure of justice. I wasn't aware that any of hitlers victims got trials. they were just rounded up and slaughtered. so yeah, in my opinion you're disgusting, because spin it whichever way you like, you've said they had it coming.
oh really????
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
that's what he wrote, and that is what I'm responding to. please explain to me how the sentence above does not come down to an imlicit assertion that the Jews had it coming because of their alleged involvement in the slave trade?
The problem with your article is that it states an opinion and no ideas, so it's kind of hard to respond except to say :
well imo I disagree with this guy.
The trouble with Israel is that it's a country based on a religion :
What (at least in my point of view) the author seems to finds anti-zionist are on one hand severe critics of Israel's foreign policy (and on the other attitude towards Jews in the US, but I don't live there so what would I know). And he follows that being anti-zionist is a helpfull cover for real anti-semites.
So what he basically is saying is when Europe condemns Israeli actions (choose your pick : bombing lebanon, colonies in palestinian territory, the wall...) they are in fact telling Iran to go ahead and do their low-life conference?
The author seems to be forgetting two things :
1 - Europe, and Europe as a whole suffered from nazism and no one here will ever forget the holocaust.
2 - Condemning the actions of a country violating international law is necessary
And finally things will never get less tense down there while the conflict between Israel and Palestine is going on. The only way problems will stop rising, as well as violence and intolerance is when (or most likely if) a reasonable solution is found there.
It is clear that you believe that the Jews should get a free pass for the evil that they themselves have perpetrated in the world, so having a conversation with you about it will always be one-sided, and I do not participate in one-sided conversations. I am speaking directly to the universal principles of karma. Karma is ancestral. Attonement for the worngs falls under that premise.
If you're incapable of seeing past the pitiful way that the Jews have conducted themselves since the holocaust, that is understandable. You're certainly not alone. What goes around, comes around. treat people inhumanly, and you have no excuse when you or your children, or your children's children are treated inhumanly in return. It's all part of a cycle much larger than the Jews and their problems.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
Weird that you say that.... I have listened to several debates following the open admission by Olmert that Israel had nukes, and this 'victim mentality' came up in every single one of them. Note the debates were not just with english non jews but international panels of various religions and political affiliations. Most came to an agreement regarding this mentality (even some of the israelis).
The holocaust was horrible. 11 million human beings were killed... 6 million jews and 5 million non jews (which we seem to 'forget'), ie gypsies, slavs, homosexuals, communists and other political dissidents,Jehovah's witnesses, Protestant and Catholic priests, blacks, the mentally and physically disabled, and others. This should not be forgotten....
But.. do the jews 'deserve' or 'have the right' to be treated differently because of what happened during WW2? Do we have to bring up the holocaust every time something is not to the Israelis taste? The holocaust is being used by the jews as an excuse for everything it seems...
Because the article is of no importance. No one cares that Iran is holding a conference to denounce the Holocaust. It would be discussion worthy if Bush held a conference denouncing the Holocaust because that would be extremely out of character, but not that mental case from Tehran. It's nothing new. It's the same dribble coming from the same idiot.
Who hear is a Nazi apologist?
this title of the article and the content don't seem to match up...in fact, it jumps all over place...
so it's a bad thing to be "polite"...?
I don't think the article is saying that anyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-semite. I think the article is pointing out that criticism of Israel has become so accepted, and the tone of that criticism has become so hateful, that it now acts as a shield for people who are not simply criticizing policy but are actually racist.
then you haven't read the article. I agree, no one is surprised that Iran would do this. what is being pointed out in the article is that public debate on Israel is no longer civil. there is so much hate directed at Israel that racists are able to pick up on that language and pretend that they don't really hate Jews, they just hate all the evil Israel is doing in the world. For God's sake can't anyone see how even some of the comments made on this thread lower the bar on civil debate and make it so easy for "criticism" to slip into racism.
Well criticism of Israel has become accepted because much of what people are saying has some validity to it, I'm not talking about the Holocaust deniers. Unlike a country like Iran, which also deserves the critisism it receives, Isreal will never be subject to any punishment for their actions because the US will never allow it. Just look at this comparison. Israel creates a nuclear weapons program, in secret, and refuses to sign the NPT and nothing is ever done about it because the US vetos any resolution but forth against Israel. Iran is accused of creating a nuclear weapons program and everything from invasion to sanctions is discussed.
I did read the article and regardless of the amount of the amount of critisism that exists toward Israel these people would still be acting and saying the same. Their actions are not based on what the rest of the world says about Israels actions. Their actions are based on their own racist beliefs. Just because they may use some valid points put forth by reasoned people doesn't discredit that point or the individuals who may have made it. And again I haven't seen any racism towards Jews on this thread. I have seen a lot of disgust with Israels actions, I have seen a lot of disgust with the US' unconditional support of Israel and it's actions, but not once have I seen anyone make any anti-semetic remarks.
yeah but the difference is that in the decades Israel has had its nukes they have never used them either to attack or bully or blackmail their neighbors. Israel doesn't talk about destroying the states surrounding it, and it doesn't fund terrorist all over the world. Iran on the other hand funds terrorist just about everywhere, and talks constantly about wiping Israel off the map. Add to that Iran's internal upheaval due to a poor economy and you can imagine how stirring up conflict could be to the regimes benefit. It's all about context. no one says anything about Israel having nukes because Israel has proven itself to be a responsible nuclear state. Iran, at least at this juncture, seems like a nightmare scenario with nukes.
I wasn't saying that people on this thread have made any anti-semitic remarks (although the comments about all the evil the Jews have caused in the world might just do it). I was saying that the hateful criticism exhibited on this thread are an example of the sort of environment in which anti-semitism could easily be nurtured. I'm saying that you should all feel free to critisize Israel but that you should be aware that when you talk about Israel being the worst state on earth, and go on and on about the evil they commit, and say things about Israel controlling the US, and how you can't critisize Israel anymore (which is clearly not true as anyone on the train should be able to see) and comparisons are made between Israel and the Nazis, you create a tone, and environment, which is conducive to the creation and the nurturing of actual anti-semitism. All I'm saying is what you write can have consequences, and people should be aware of that and act responsibly.
While I do agree with you on the possibility of Iran possessing nukes. My point is that Israel, the state not the people, has special treatment because of it's association to the US. If any other country had acted as Israel did during their invasion of Lebanon you can be sure the US would not have been so supportive. You can be sure that resolutions would have been passed in the UN unoppessed by the US. Iran does not even have nuclear weapons. There is no proof thatIran is even developing a nuclear weapons program but yet the powers that be already want sanctions and have already resorted to saber rattling and I'm sure hadour militray not been so bogged down in Iraq, miliatry operations would have been underway already. Their has always been a double standard andnot just with Israel but with many of the powerfull nations of this world.As long as that double standard exists andwecontinue to operate under it people like David Duke and Amedinhjad will continue to mix their racist beliefs with legitamate arguements.
I also agree that it is dispicable to veil your racism by leaching on to legitamate arguements against Israel.
I remember you posting that you where there at the time. I found Israel's actions to be heavy handed but like you said we will probabaly disagree so there is no use for this back andforth. I also find it a horrible shame that my own country would object to any type of peace accord between Israel and Syria.
Anyone here, such as enharmonic, who tries to justify or rationalize the Holocaust.
I think that says it all.
While I don't agree with his sentiment it is far from being apologetic for the nazis. This is exactly what I was refering to. Some one is critical of the Jews and while his/her critism may be a bit harsh they are instantly compared to Nazis or Nazi sympathizers.