16 December 2006

WEEK OF OUTRAGE



Iran’s much touted Holocaust conference opened Tuesday in Tehran with former Ku Klux Klan imperial wizard David Duke, hot off the “White World’s Future” conference this summer in Moscow, in attendance. He thanked “the distinguished scholars who are here at a conference that history shall one day deem as one of the most important of the 21st century.” Duke explained that his primary reason for being there is a commitment to freedom of speech, although he did refrain from expressing an empathy with those who are hanged in Iran for a similar commitment. Also attending the conference were Frenchmen Robert Faurisson and Georges Thiel, veritable poster boys for Holocaust denial, who claim that gas chambers were never used to kill Jews, and Australian Fredrick Toben, who claims that, at the very most, 2,007 people might have been killed at Auschwitz.

“Results of surveys so far show Holocaust is no more than a myth,” concluded Ali-Akbar Mohtashamipour, secretary general of the International Congress to Support Palestinian Intifada and former Iranian interior minister, in an interview with the Islamic Republic News Agency. In his speech to the conference, president Ahmadinejad said: “The Zionist regime will disappear soon, the same way the Soviet Union disappeared,” Thus, “humanity will achieve freedom.”

When one participant, Gholamreza Vatandoust, from Shiraz University, talked about the scholarship confirming the Holocaust, his views were quickly dismissed. For three days, seventy revisionist historians and white supremacists from thirty nations denied the atrocities of the concentration camps concentrating instead on such trivia as the existence of exhaust chimneys and the half-life of the poison Zyklon B.

While previous revisionist conferences have been held in seedy motels, largely ignored by the world's media, as would conferences of flat-earthers, the
Tehran revisionists were the honored guests of the president and parliament of a sovereign nation.



Meanwhile, in the United States, former president Jimmy Carter has been on a tour promoting his new book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” On Tuesday night in Phoenix, Arizona, after a hastily arranged hour-long meeting with a group of rabbis, Carter declared: “We ended up holding hands and circled in prayer.” In a letter to The New York Times published on 15 December, however, Rabbi Darren Kleinberg representing the executive committee of the Board of Rabbis of Greater Phoenix, asserted that Mr Carter’s statement should not be construed “as representing any agreement or conciliation by us with Mr Carter’s position” and that “the opposite is true.”

Both Mr Carter’s use of the terms ‘apartheid’ and ‘colonisation’ to describe Israel’s policies, as well as his assertion that Israel is guilty of human rights abuses, have been very controversial. The furor comes a week after Kenneth W. Stein, an adviser to Mr Carter and former executive director of the Carter Presidential Library, resigned after calling the book “replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments.”

But Mr. Carter is steadfastly defending the book, saying he believes there is a valid comparison between Israelis and the white South Africans who oppressed blacks. “It was obviously going to be somewhat provocative,” Mr. Carter said of the title. “I could have said ‘A New Path to Peace’ or something like that.” But Mr. Carter said he felt apartheid was the most pertinent word he could use, and in retrospect he would not change any of the book’s content.



And finally, on Wednesday in France, Jean-Marie Le Pen unveiled new election posters that seek the support of Arab and black voters and criticise what he characterises as the failed integration policies of the political establishment.

In one poster, a young black woman with a long mane of hair and a bare midriff makes a ‘thumbs down’ sign. The slogan reads: “Right/Left. They have broken everything!” Another poster shows the 78-year-old Mr. Le Pen walking with the young woman and a number of other people under the slogan, “With Le Pen. All Together, Let’s Lift Our France Back Up.”

Worse still and more troubling is his support: His latest poll rating, according to TNS Sofres, is 18% - higher than it was before the 2002 election.


What is the world coming to?

4 Comments:

Blogger gay super hero said...

Is there some connection there that I fail to observe, some shared "outrage" between a conference of lunatics sponsored by a tyrranical regime and the legitimate criticism or even (shock, horror!) condemnation of the actions of Israel as a sovereign state by a former statesman or anyone else for that matter? Are people who deny the Holocaust and despise the Jews on racial grounds somehow connected with those that criticise Israel's policies towards the Palestinian Arabs? Will anyone who is not comfortable with certain israeli actions be automatically branded an "antisemite" and thrown into the same basket with Nazis and Holocaust revisionists, because this is the only way that some people in Israel can deal with the dead-end they have helped to create? Neocons and Israeli right-wingers have indeed adopted a similar policy to de-legitimise any criticism of their actions over the past five years, however all this has become stale by now and even Americans are waking up to the fact that perhaps they are in need of more imaginative policies and more goodwill among the Arabs.

As for the use of the words "colonisation" and "apartheid" by a former president, there is no doubt that colonisation is not far off the mark. Israel is a nation of european settlers created in the middle of arab territory. It has built illegal settlements even on the 20% of Palestine it does not (yet) legally possess. Is the use of the word "apartheid" equally valid? I very much doubt that the 700.000 arabs displaced during the first arab-israeli war and still living in squalid camps would appreciate the subtlety of these arguments. They know that they will never be allowed to return even if the Palestinians achieve some sort of national state.

6:17 am  
Blogger ilias said...

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

First things first: there is no "shared" outrage among the three events of this past week. That is, none other than my personal reaction to each. Since you seem to agree that the Tehran conference was ill-advised and since you have signaled to me in the past that you consider Le Pen's 'multi-culti' posters as scraping the bottom of the barrel, let's concentrate on Jimmy Carter's new book.

A blog is inevitably the reflection of its creator's view, philosophy, and experiences; it would be boring if we all agreed. My own positions are inescapably and predictably colored by the fact I lost my Jewish grandfather and most of his family to the gas chambers of Auschwitz. While the Israeli Weltanschaung is not my incontestable compass (and indeed I happen to be a frequent critic of Israel's policies), I am an interested party in the Middle East dispute. Before rushing to judge me, do remember that an overwhelming majority of Greeks supported Slobodan Milosevic, someone the civilised world at large viewed and still views as a war criminal and a perpetrator of genocide.

Prejudices aside, you will appreciate that we can argue about this issue forever and never agree. If we can disagree and still respect each other's right to disagree, if we can debate without sounding mean, shrill or sarcastic, then we will have hopefully enriched each other's point of view, even if neither of us ends up with a altered point of view.

I did not imply that Carter was an antisemite. His choice of words does seem to suggest nevertheless a certain bias. As I argued above, I consider this bias to be absolutely legitimate. Which brings me to the main point I wish to make: each situation affords several points of view. And each point of view has its own proponents who, through fact manipulation (selective use of data), make their argument sound impregnable. If Carter feels compelled to argue the Israelis practice apartheid, then others may just as legitimately feign "shock, horror!" at his choice of words. Somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, I found myself puzzled by his rather unscholarly tumble into partisan vernacular. Less than a month ago, Ali Yahya presented his credentials as Israel's new ambassador to Greece to President Papoulias. Yahya happens to be one of the many distinguished and high-ranking officials of Arab origin in the State of Israel. Is this what you call 'apartheid?'

One always reads between the lines that the Jewish lobby exerts undue influence on American policy in the Middle East. I do not shy away from this. Why should it be otherwise? Aren't we justifiably proud of the influence and achievements of the Greek lobby? Why the double standard then? Both lobbies work to curry favor by way of the democratic process. Both have their roots in the story of immigrants who were never given a free lunch, let alone a free ride. Both worked hard to achieve what they have gained. Speaking of working hard, there are those who just happened to be sitting on ever more precious oil deposits. They have, according to estimates by The Economist, $700 billion of surplus foreign reserves this year (over triple China's 'alarming' trade surplus). Why is it then that their Arab brethren still live in "squalid camps?" Why is it that the EU and the US feel obliged to subsidise the Palestinian Authority? And why is it that Ismail Haniya has to go to Tehran to beg for a few million dollars to smuggle back? But that is another point.

As I wrote earlier, we can debate this issue forever and never convince each other. Let's please agree to disagree.

2:19 pm  
Blogger gay super hero said...

Ok you raise many things, let's just answer them one by one

Of course it would be boring if we all agreed. It is out of respect to the fact that you care about these things that I write to you. And out of gratitude that I can have a meaningful conversation with somebody (which would not be the case if we agreed:)

I have not lost anyone in the Holocaust. I still consider it the most heinous crime modern humanity has ever concosted. And I understand and support the jewish people's right to have a secure homeland. About Milosevic, no disagreement there. I consider Greece's stance the biggest national shame in its modern history.

I admire and respect Israel's attitude towards its minorities, especially gays and lesbians. However I also see that the Arabs of Palestine will feel disposessed and angry forever and ever. I understand that their position right now is not solely the work of Israel. It was the arab states who attacked Israel and never accepted its existence in the first place, giving Israelis the cover they needed to kick these people from their homes and then occupy the rest of Palestine. It is the wealthy Arabs of today that keep them in camps to blackmail the world's opinion. All these are facts, but I still expect Israel as the strongest party and the only democracy in the region to show more flexibility and more strategic wisdom than it has.

Finally you don't have to read anything between the lines. I say what I think out loud. I don't believe that the pro-israeli lobby exerts "undue influence". I do believe that there has been an unholy alliance between neo-conservatives in Washington and Israeli right-wingers to reshape the region as they see fit. And I believe that this effort has backfired and that it has proved a terrible disservice to both Arabs and Israelis.

2:56 pm  
Blogger ilias said...

Disagreement, as you point out, generates meaningful conversations. Meaningful conversations require grey matter. And thus, I am always happy to see a comment by you. We both know blogs where self-congratulation and flattery is the norm and dissent is not tolerated. What is the point?

Unfortunately we are for once condemned to be boring! I cannot find one single point in your last comment I disagree with.

3:34 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home