Iranian Conference on the Holocaust

"Last month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech, "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred, and place this above God, religions and the prophets."

He added, "The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews."

He argued that the "myth" of the Holocaust served as Europe’s pretext for the existence of Israel."  CNN


It will probably surprise a lot of people that the notion that the West invented the story of the Holocaust as an excuse for the creation and continuing support of Israel is believed by many in the Arab and Islamic Worlds.  There are also many in those parts who think that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a historical document which somehow "leaked" from within Jewish circles.

The president of Iran is not universally thought of as a "nut" in the Middle East.  Many think he is merely indiscreet.  It should be instructive to those who think that the West’s problem with the Islamic World is about communication that while this head of state can comfortably spout such tripe, to say the same thing is a felony crime in many European countries.  My father was in the government of occupied Germany and I was taken to see the camp at Dachau at the age of eight.  Ahmadinejad is wrong.  What would cause people to deny a historical catastrophe of this magnitude?

Many people in "the region" see life as essentially an us versus them, zero sum game in which the "other" is felt to be altogether alien, enemy and hostile.  Not all people feel that way, but many do.  For folk with that mentality the actions of the other must always be seen as motivated from the same kind of exclusivist hostility that they feel themselves. This is mirror imaging with a vengeance. 

The creation of Israel by the Zionist movement with British collusion is seen by such people as a hostile, anti-Arab, anti-Islamic plot carried out with malevolent intent.  The idea that such a thing could have happened as a product of serendipitous circumstance is discounted as absurd in such a world view.  The West says continuously that the impetus for the independence of Israel after WWII was the Holocaust, therefore this statement must be a lie and part of the plot.

Don’t believe me?  Wait and see what the judgment of the conference will be…

Pat Lang

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Iranian Conference on the Holocaust

  1. angela says:

    Wow! My big mouth was right!
    I wrote months ago that the Shiites and their allies had us were they want us. Now Iran and Hakim are playing the game of total chutzpah.
    In my opinion they are fanatical and will make sacrifices for “victories” if necessary. After all it was Shiite Hizbuillah which had the first arguable victory against Israel.
    And the politics of the right and this administration are totally opposed to massive conservation measures to reduce demand enough to compensate for the cut off of Iranian and southern Iraqi oil. Or with beefing up troops to protect supplly routes and other key points from Iraqi Shiite militias.
    Indeed the argument on the right is that people like Hakim will support the attack.
    The adminstration may know better, but this will discorage action. And it may not know better which means it will choose a course that increases the odds of economy breaking oil prices and serious costs in Iraq.

  2. Di says:

    What you say is true but here’s something I don’t quite get. Arab countries were allied with Germany in World War ll. Many Nazis fled to Eygpt and Syria after the war ended. I don’t know about Iranians but every Arab I ever met seem to be very well versed in their own history going back to the Prophet. A description isn’t necessary just a name and they know the year and every detail. Is it possible that they have a complete blank spot for WWll? In addition everyone in the Middle East must know that Iraqi,Yemeni, and Egyptian Jews moved to Israel.
    I always thought that fascist states need the other,an enemy. Demonizing Israel and the US in Egypt is a safe bet. Criticizing Mubarek – not a good idea.
    Disclaimer-I’m not denying or discussing other reasons for animosity.I’m just talking about Holocaust denial.

  3. W. Patrick Lang says:

    This is a case of selective knowledge and memory. Muslims do not want to “remember” the Holocaust.

  4. John Carey says:

    International Community Reaps Shame, Not Glory
    By John E. Carey
    August 21, 2006
    Inside Lebanon—There is no government here. Nobody with which to make peace. The people that run this region are Hezbollah. The Lebanon Army is a joke. They themselves know they are interlopers here. They refuse to disarm Hezbollah. So the arms have disappeared. You are supposed to believe that peace can be achieved here.
    You’d be wrong.
    That is where Condi Rice, the President of the United States, John Bolton and one John Carey disagree. I am going to tell the Prime Minister of Israel to also disagree with the President of the United States. The “peace plan” the U.S. signed up for is only paper. It changes nothing. Unless the peace is full, enforceable and verifiable the Israelis should still choose war.
    France and every other nation that volunteered to make peace possible reneged on the deal.
    France said they would lead the peacekeeping: then volunteered 400 troops, mostly engineers.
    Last month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech, “They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred, and place this above God, religions and the prophets.”
    He added, “The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews.”
    This is Israel’s dilemma.
    Israel wants Hezbollah off its back. And Hezbollah has shown it has missiles that can pierce into Israel 42 miles and more. Killing Israelis indiscriminately. Israel may need a “buffer” into Hezbollahland some 42 miles. And international peacemakers with real muscle to enforce order. To keep peace. To prevent further missile launches and indiscriminate killing of Israelis.
    You cannot make peace without sides. You cannot make peace without peacekeepers. There is only one side for peace here: Israel.
    Israel faces an angry pack of dogs: Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Even Kofi Annan at the UN has demonstrated a very anti-Israeli tone.
    The President of the United States says “there is a way forward and the choice is theirs.”
    The choice is now Israel’s. This is an existential struggle for Israel. They get to cut the deck and deal the cards, in my book.
    In fact, the choice is Mr. Ehud Olmert’s and the people of Israel.
    The President of the United States says there is a two state process between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
    All the “parties” except Israel want the Israelis pushed into the sea. Tonight we stand in Lebanon. But in fact we stand with Israel.

  5. Mo says:

    Mr Carey you sound a tad upset. Perhaps your article is tinted with emotions which is why it is so lacking in objectivity?
    Lets look at these 2 statements shall we:
    “You are supposed to believe that peace can be achieved here.
    You’d be wrong.”
    “And Hezbollah has shown it has missiles that can pierce into Israel”
    And yet when Hizbollah offered to stop the missilies if Israel stopped killing civilians what was the Israeli response?
    When Israel declared it would allow a 48 hour cessation of air bombardement which side was it that honoured that agreement and which side did not?
    “Killing Israelis indiscriminately ”
    I won’t even bother with the hypocrisy of that line. What I wil counter is its factuality. 4000 missiles, less than 60 dead. Doesn’t sound very indiscriminate. Why not go to Israel ask the IDF where most of the missiles landed or more honestly ask them to show you where they landed. Bet you they decline. Bet you they say it would be detrimental to national security.
    For the Iranian Presidents remarks, if that is what he said then it is reprehensible. I do not speak Farsi, but others that do say that the translation is wrong. Perhaps you can check on that?
    “There is only one side for peace here: Israel.”
    Sorry? On what evidence? On the number of civilinas they kill? On the cavalier attitude to human life that they have? to the misery and abject misey they force on the Palestinians?
    The refuge of the morally, intellectually, artistically and economically bankrupt is war. And that is what Israel always chooses.
    “Israel faces an angry pack of dogs: Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria and Iran”
    Ah, now I see. We aren’t humans, we’re dogs, so its ok to kill us. How delightfully Western you are that the President of Iran should be evil for his racist, bigotted comments yet you are happy to announce yourself to be a racist bigot.
    existential struggle? Please stopping being such a drama queen. Hizbolah are no threat to the existence of Israel and if that isn’t clear to you you shouldn’t be writing about it.
    It is your choice who you stand with obviously. But I think you will find the Israelis wanted to cut the deck and deal the cards even with the marked ones the US gave them. Hizbollahs slight of hand made them lose their chips. I know they got plenty more, do you reckon they’ll risk them? I don’t.

  6. wtofd says:

    Mo, thanks.
    John, is this you? What is your background in the Middle East? Work, travel, study?

Comments are closed.