Is Ahmadinejad an Anti-Semite? A Look at his Statements
Who is he really pointing the finger at? (photo credit: AP/Mehr News, Sajjad Safari)
Under no circumstances should this be viewed as a personal defence of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as that is not my intention nor is it my desire. This piece is an academic exercise in provoking thought on preserving the legitimacy of words like ‘anti-semitism’ and the accuracy of their usage in post-WWII society by using Ahmadinejad as a case study to this effect.
If you live in Europe or North America and don’t conduct independent research on West Asian issues very much, it is extremely likely that you think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an anti-semite. I was in that boat for a long time. Now, while I continue to have numerous concerns about the Iranian regime, I find myself firmly convinced that Ahmadinejad is a man who despises the Israeli government and its policies, not Jewish people. No, they are not the same thing. Hear me out.
To demonstrate the validity of my claim, I have found a compilation of Ahmadinejad’s supposed ‘anti-semitic’ remarks on Jews and Israel since 2005. To further prove that I am coming at this from an unbiased angle, I acquired the compilation from the website of the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish NGO that tasks itself with advocating for Israel and Jews and fighting anti-Semitism. My goal here is to shed light on the truth, not at all to defend Ahmadinejad.
To make the argument as clear as possible, I’ll examine three aspects of Ahmadinejad’s views: his statements on Israel and Zionism, his statements on the Holocaust, and his statements on Jewish people in general/Judaism as a religion. From the ADL’s compilation of quotes, I’m going to use the best examples I can here, but you can find the full compilation in the link in the preceding paragraph. If you think I’m selecting quotes in a biased manner in this post, I challenge you to look at the list yourself and find any quotes that contradict the arguments I am about to make.
Israel
January 28th 2009- “The illegal Zionist regime… has demanded blood money of some victims…and have used some of this money to establish a Zionist regime in the land of Palestine, and have used this excuse to attack Palestine and by killing and displacing the people from their motherland they have occupied their mother land and established a Zionist regime, which is tasked with the job of denying an Islamic power emerging to counter the West.”
September 18th 2008- “I have heard some say the idea of Greater Israel has expired….I say that the idea of lesser Israel has expired, too…We have no problems with these people (Israelis) but they should leave the occupied territories, leave them to their genuine owners and get back to their countries and homes where they originally came from.”
October 5th 2007- On resettling the Jews from Israel to Canada or Alaska:
“…you cannot tolerate the presence of Zionists in Europe but want to inflict them on the people of our region? You have so much land in your possession. This vast land of Canada and Alaska can be used to resettle the Jews. Save yourselves.”
November 13th 2006- “Israel is destined for destruction and will soon disappear…Israel is “a contradiction to nature, we foresee its rapid disappearance and destruction.”
And of course the famous one from October 26th 2005- “Israel must be wiped off the map … The establishment of a Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world . . . The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land.”
From these quotations, it is extremely clear that President Ahmadinejad thinks that the Israeli state is a vile, cruel one that oppresses Palestinians and should be destroyed. I don’t think anyone can argue that those are pro-peace sentiments. But, he makes the important distinction between the state/state policy and the Israeli people in the 2008 quote. He says he has “no problems with these people (Israelis).” Therefore, the issue boils down to this: If Ahmadinejad calls for the destruction of an Israeli state and lambasts its policies, but he has “no problems” with the Israeli people, even if you wanted to make the argument that Israelis are synonymous with Jews and Jews Israelis, there is no foundation here for an accusation of anti-semitism.
I’m willing to make the same argument with regards to his thoughts on Zionism. He doesn’t like them. That is evident. But not all Jews are Zionist. Zionism is not a pre-requisite for being Jewish. In fact, Zionism was an idea that originated in the last two to three centuries among European Jews. If you asked a Jew in Uzbekistan in 1900 what Zionism was, he/she would have had no idea. They might have even told you that a return to Israel was not necessary until the arrival of the Messiah, as some ultra-conservative Jews claim today. Therefore, while many Jews are Zionist, to despise that part of Jewish society is not the same thing as calling for the destruction of the Jewish religion and race (if you in fact believe that Jews that constitute a race). If it was, then it would amount to anti-semitism. But it’s not.
The Holocaust
I really only need two quotes here to make my point.
September 18th 2008- “The Holocaust is a lie and the real Holocaust is happening to the Palestinians.”
September 18th 2009- “They (the Western powers) launched the myth of the Holocaust. They lied, they put on a show and then they support the Jews…. If as you claim the Holocaust is true, why can a study not be allowed? … The pretext for establishing the Zionist regime is a lie… a lie which relies on an unreliable claim, a mythical claim, and the occupation of Palestine has nothing to do with the Holocaust…This claim is corrupt and the pretext is corrupt. This (the Israeli) regime’s days are numbered and it is on its way to collapse. This regime is dying.”
The holocaust happened. This is an undeniable fact. Ahmadinejad’s denial of it makes him a buffoon and an idiot in the strongest possible sense. But does it also make him anti-semitic? I think that really just depends on why he’s doing it. All of his comments suggest that he denies the Holocaust more to try to undo the occupation of Palestinian land than to personally insult Jewish people simply because they are Jewish.
Lest I sound too glib, I want to make it clear that I understand and internalise the horror and tragedy of 6 million Jews being exterminated. I have personally visited the Dachau concentration camp in Germany and have shed tears for those who died there. But I think as logical thinkers we need to be able to draw lines in terms of what ways we will let the shock of the Holocaust impact our society. I disagree with Holocaust-denial being illegal solely on the principle that it should not be a criminal offence to say what you want as long as you are not encouraging violent hatred against living people. The United States legal system clearly agrees with me because Holocaust denial is not a criminal offence there thanks to the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
I think that Ahmadinejad’s claims are rooted in a refusal to accept that any historical event large enough to justify the displacement and oppression of Palestinians ever occurred. From the quotations, it is impossible to logically conclude that he denies the Holocaust out of any deep-seated hatred for Judaism or Jewish people as a whole. That brings me to the next point, his views on Jews.
Jews
18 September 2008- ”The Zionist regime (Israel) is going towards its final collapse after 60 years of aggression. The final solution would be a referendum on Palestine’s future fate with the participation of all Palestinians, regardless of whether Muslims, Jews or Christians.”
24 September 2007- ”…on the other hand, they gather a number of Jews from different parts of the world through false propaganda and with the promise of providing them with welfare, jobs and food, and settle them in the occupied territories, exposing them to the harshest restrictions, psychological pressures and constant threats. They prevent these people from returning to their homelands and by coercion and propaganda induce them to malevolence toward the indigenous Palestinian people.”
In the 2008 quote, Ahmadinejad includes Jews in the category of Palestinians. In that quote, he advocates inclusion, not exclusion.
The 2007 quote sounds harsh and I would not have believed it…until in the third week of my second year at the LSE I discovered that it was actually 100% true. If you ask an Israeli historian, they will likely agree as well. The forced aliyahs (migrations) of African and Oriental Jews (mizrahim in Hebrew) to Israel in the early days of the Zionist settlement is an appalling stain on Israeli history for even Israelis themselves. Many of these Jews had no understanding nor inclination towards Zionism, and yet they were loaded onto buses and planes and, upon arrival in Israel, settled by the state into what can only be referred to as ghettoes. Ben Gurion, in a horrifying and shockingly strange display of racism just 3 years after the Holocaust, referred to these mizrahim as being sub-human and of a lesser mind than European Jews. For a full account of the atrocities committed to the mizrahim, read Joseph Massad, ‘Zionism’s Internal Others: Israel and the Oriental Jews’, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 25, No 9 (1990).
Doesn’t Ahmadinejad’s 2007 quote, then, show him sympathising with the plight of non-European Jews? These are Jews nonetheless. It serves as further evidence that his troubles are with the governing regime of the State of Israel, not the Jewish people.
Finally, and most importantly, I want to address the world-famous ‘wipe Israel off the map’ quotation. It never happened. This is fact. The text of the speech in question, in the original Persian, is:
این رژیم اشغالگار قدس باید از صفحه روزگار محو شود
Transliteration: Ein razhim-e ishghalgar-e Qods bayed az safhahye rozgar mahw shawad
Literal translation: This regime that occupies Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. source
The most crucial note to be made here is that he does not refer to ‘Israel’. To do so would be referring to the nation-state including not only its government but its inhabitants as well. He refers to the regime that occupies Jerusalem, implying that his quarrel is with the government and its policies. Of that government and its policies, he says they must vanish from the page of time. This is Farsi poeticism. They must be forgotten. They must eventually cease to exist. They cannot be a permanent feature in the pages of time. This is, as University of Michigan professor Juan Cole says, not at all the same thing as saying you will wipe someone off the map or that someone should be wiped off a map. It is not as violent nor as indicative of a wish to invade or actively destroy.
Christopher Hitchens, the BBC, and others have argued that there is no direct translation of the Persian idiom into English; that this could be interpreted a number of ways; that wiping off the map is an accurate idiomatic equivalency in English.
I simply have no idea how they’ve managed to arrive at such a conclusion. The translation I provided above is word-for-word (this can be confirmed by any Persian scholar) and still makes perfect grammatical and syntactical sense in English! Furthermore, if Ahmadinejad wanted to say anything about maps, he could have easily done so! The Persian word for map is naqshah and can be used freely, contrary to what Hitchens and BBC for some reason want you to believe, without befuddling the average Persian speaker. There is no idiomatic significance here. It was a normal sentence with a normal meaning. As they say everywhere from Morocco to India, khalas!
To conclude, Ahmadinejad’s remarks above clearly refute any claim that he has an aversion to Jewish people. That would have been the only grounds on which he can be branded anti-Semitic. Furthermore, if there are any quotations brought to my attention that I (and the ADL) missed which indicate otherwise, that would only prove that Ahmadinejad is a man with contradictory views, not set views in any one direction. This would allow us to brand him as two-faced, possibly as crazy, but not definitively as an anti-Semite. I strongly disagree with the Iranian regime as much as the next son of a regional exile raised in the West. But I cannot, as a young academic, stand for important and meaningful words in our society like ‘anti-Semite’ to be mutated and abused in order to expound false ideas about anyone.
As always, I am happy to accept comment, debate, and factual correction. Based on the evidence I have found and provided above, I don’t think Ahmadinejad is anti-semitic. I think he is just anti-Israeli government. I welcome any attempts to change my mind.
Join the Conversation
He is muslim, then absolutely he is anti-Semite. Every true muslim must be an anti-Semite. Why you are not yourself?
005.082
YUSUFALI: Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, “We are Christians”: because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.
PICKTHAL: Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud.
SHAKIR: Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.
Thank you for the informative article. Iranian regime is not Anti-Semite for the matter that many Jews live in Iran and we have the largest community of them in the Middle East after so called Israel.
Am currently reading an interesting book, name as “The Invention of the Jewish people” by Shlomo Sand the Israeli historian. He proves in his book that there were never Jews as an ethnicity while it has been always a religion like Islam and Christianity.
He also discusses how Israel in a racist attitude tried to misuse Judaism in racist theory of Zionism and he also tries to discuss the fact that there was NOT any Jews in Palestine once upon time before occupation of the Palestine and majority of current Jews are NOT from the Jacob’s family!!
…………………….
Lord Kavi,
What the verse said is true based on what we see right now in the current events and what’s happening in Palestine. The most violent events are happening against the Palestinians in so called Israel and Israelis don’t even show a pity to the dead bodies. Along with the western governments who basically support such violent acts.
And Yes, Zionism been created by priests and monks, and its against the teachings of the Moses (Peace be upon him). There are Jews (some of them are my dear friends) who are against Zionism bcs they believe that’s an innovation and not based on the Torah. With the quoting that verse you’re not disregarding Islamic belief but also prove the extra knowledge that is inside Quran our book
I recommend you to read these verses as well, for being enlightened little bit more:
Quran(Yusuf Ali Translation)
Correction: There was NOT any “Jewish kingdome” in Palestine once upon time before occupation of the Palestine bcs majority of current Jews are NOT from the Jacob’s family!!
When I first published the above piece on 13/2/2010, within just a few hours I received an email from a man who I’ll refer to as ‘anonymous respondent’ (AR). He listed a couple of his own arguments to counter my piece, the most salient of which was the question of why, if Ahmadinejad has been so misunderstood an is not really anti-Semitic, has he not come out and clarified his position and denounced the worldwide media for throwing the accusation at him? The exact quote was:
“Surely and allowing for the strictures to which the flow of information in Iran is subject, even Ahmadinejad himself must realize that his proclamations have been so-interpreted. Had he the mind to do so, he could have clarified his stance at any time.”
It is a great point. But there is, I feel, also a great answer. First of all, Ahmadinejad has in fact come out and literally said the words “I am not anti-Semitic” and “I respect them (Jews) very much.” You can find that here. Whether you choose to believe him or not is up to you, but the reality is that he has come out and said that. If he hated Jews and if he, as many claim, has already come out advocating their extermination, why would he have even bothered saying he’s not anti-Semitic and that he respects Jews at all?
Furthermore, putting that aside for a minute, I think AR really was onto something in that Ahmadinejad has not done all in his power to demonstrate that he is a friend to Jews. He hasn’t gone above and beyond to demonstrate it. That’s important. But one must remember, as sad as it is, that as a politician Ahmadinejad is prone to cater to a fervent and irrational party base in the same way that Sarah Palin says shockingly controversial things to rile up her party base. Also, we cannot rule out the likelihood that Ahmadinejad is just a devious man. Even if he has respect for Jews, why would he go above and beyond his obligations to clarify it when his current stance allows Americans who aren’t careful and misinterpret him to grow angry? That gives him his ammo with which he can slander the American public, calling them ignorant liars and warmongers. If the American public did not play into his hands, did not treat him like a common criminal when he gives a visiting lecture at an American university, and did not misinterpret his words, his own people would probably realise that he is an instigator of controversy and he should be voted out immediately. The reality is that Ahmadinejad has found a very clever way to voice a common sentiment (anti-Zionism/Israeli occupation) in a way that invites uncommon anger and thereby makes him look like a hero to many in the region.
Well, there is a question here. Did Ahmadinejad’s statements on Israel made a difference in the casted votes?
As an Iranian who entered the election, i’d say no. Being against Israel is an IR policy, not related to Nejad as an indivitual president. doesnt matter which one of the candidates would get the votes, they persisted that they do not recognise Israel for being an occupier. Even Mousavi who was the motivator of the green movement, persisted several times on the idea that israel is an illegitimate country (last time in his interview with Aljazeera english just a day before election day). So being against Israel was not something to change ideas of Iranians bcs it was not something especially for any candidate.
That’s why when CNN Rick Sanchez asked me why you voted for a person who says so and so against Israel, i had to laugh, since it was the last thing i would consider about Nejad to vote for him!
So now this question comes to the mind that how Ahmadinejad got the vote? Well, i was one of those who wanted to vote for Mousavi at first. I’ve been critic of Nejad all the time, you can find my articles on my blog. But then i changed my mind exactly after the debates, and more exactly after the famous televised debate between Nejad and Mousavi. That was the time that i decided i no longer vote for mousvi but i’ll vote for Nejad. He simple brought up the issue that most iranians are worried about, the curroption of IR elite. More specifically he named Rafsanjani and his children whom the majority of Iranians hate them so much for their economical corruption and the misuse of power.
Mousavi, Rezaei and Karroubi were all from the same fabric backed by Rafsanjani family. They just showed it very clearly during pre-post election events that i dont want to discuss in details now. However, Nejad appeared so frank and smart and at the time if the other candidates had any document about his corruption they would expose it right away. But they didnt find any. So They instead started the most immoral way of advertisement, ridiculing Nejad for his short height, for him not being handsome, etc.. Funny, Just such way of disregarding the person for what he looks like, not for the content.
You might not get it as a non-Iranian what kind of events we went through. But this immorality was so disgusting. And this immorality plus hating Rafsanjani family were the most important motivators for majority of Iranians to vote for Nejad. And yes, Nejad got the votes with no doubt!
Unfortunately, Americans usually fail to understand the middle eastern people. Western politicians come to be so illiterate about us. One of reasons that they are deepening more and more into their own mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan. They dont know Middle Eastern people’s affairs, ideas and demands. At the moment, they are so arrogant to come and learn. Thats why their policies usually fail. They add up sanctions on Iran and Iran gets more and more influence in the region. The inverse result..
cast votes*
As a Jew, I can only say that with friends like Ahmadinejad, who needs enemies?
I saw a movie once, that argued that Hitler himself was not really anti-Semitic. When he came back from the war, and started building his base politically, he tried all sorts of tactics to get peoples’ attention. People weren’t interested, however. But when he started, by chance, to talk about the Jews, all of a sudden, everyone in the room fell silent, and a political career was born. So, Hitler wasn’t anti-Semitic. He was just a smart politician who used the Jews to consolidate power, for the “good” of his country. How touching.
Sulaiman, you seem to draw a strong distinction between Jews and Zionists. I don’t think that it is an accurate distinction to draw. It’s not that “many Jews are Zionist,” but really, the vast majority of Jews are Zionists, in that they believe in the right of Jews to have a homeland of their own, in the land of their ancestry, the land of Israel, where their history originated over 3000 years ago.
If the Holocaust proved anything, it was that without a homeland of their own, the Jews would be dead men walking, as they turned out to be in the Holocaust. The extermination of six million Jews, which amounted to one third of all Jews, confirmed the suspicions of people like Hertz that Jews had no future unless they took charge of their destiny by creating a homeland of their own. Therefore, if this proposition is correct, and the Holocaust was strong evidence in this regard, then if we destroy Israel, we destroy the Jews. As such, the desire to liquidate Israel is anti-Semitic in that it calls for the dead end of Jewish survival.
In my mind, Holocaust denial is a prima facie case of anti-Semitism.
If you go to the concentration camps, as you have, and see the countless number of barracks, and the gas chambers, and the ovens, and if you see the photos of endless piles of corpses, and shoes, and eyeglasses, and if you see the movies, or read the books, and see the misery brought to life, and if you see all this, and then proceed to deny it, then what are you but an anti-Semite?If the term anti-Semite means anything, it is a blind hatred of the Jews, and what greater hatred is there than denying someone the history of his oppression?
The “governing regime of the State of Israel” are the Jewish people. Israel is a Jewish State, but is also a democracy. Therefore, the Jewish citizens of Israel elected the current government, and the current government is representative of the Jewish people.
The Sephardim, or non-European Jews, of which I am one, were discriminated against in the early years of the state, but the vast majority of them immigrated voluntarily, after being kicked out of the Arab states, in which they lived for hundreds of years. It is true that 700,000 Palestinians left Israel during the War of Independence, but it is also true that some 850,000 Jews were exiled from Arab states, and my wife and her family where some of these.
We can play with words, but meanwhile, the man is building atomic weapons. If Jews have learned anything, it is to take such men at their word, and to take them very seriously. How would you go about eliminating the “regime that occupies Jerusalem” without bringing about a second Holocaust? There is no way. Therefore, destroying the regime is the same as destroying the Jewish people.
I respectfully disagree. Ahmadminejad smacks of anti-Semitism at every turn. We don’t have to penetrate his inner most thoughts to discern his intent. He denies the Holocaust, as you suggest, to deligimitize Israel’s right to exist. But in doing that, he demonstrates utter recklessness to the memory of millions of lives that perished, and if you’re willing to do that, even in the name of political calculation, you are an anti-Semite, because you demonstrate utter contempt for the Jews. He is building the bomb, and under the right circumstanaces, he will use it. He pretends to care about Palestinians, but he funds the terror organizations that deny them a decent future. He may have some Jewish friends, but that does not nullify his anti-Semitic words, and even more importantly, his actions.
just for information sake, “semites” include palestinians. both jews and palestinians are semites. the term anti-semitism is used to denote hostitily towards jewish people, but strictly speaking they are both of the semitic race, just like iranians are aryans, whether they are Moslems or Baha’is or Jews or whatever.
of course if you ask me – we’re all one and these words are just words…
Yes, he’s an anti-Semite! And yes anti-Semitism is more horrible than you ever think. To hate/despise people because only they’re Jews isn’t accepted or welcome in 2010.
Ahmadinejad is good at speeches and oppression. Nothing more than that! On the international level, he’s a big liar and any war can cost his country a lot.
Well, what’s the point you’re trying to defend?! The man is an autocrat and people in Iran are dying and crying for help! And you’re making a weird point of “Is Ahmadictatorinejad is an anti-Semite or not? Come on!
A man who says that he wants another country to be wiped off is merely a terrorist!
Mate, I don’t know what are you trying to argue for here!
We’re trying to build bridges of peaceful dialogue here, and you’re defending the Big Dictator?
@Leyla,
You’re right! But in the political aspect, it describes a deep despise to the Jewish people in specific!
Anti-semitism has been the platform that the regime has been using since it began. As the author stated adopting a harsh stance toward Israel is the best approach if one wants to be a leading power within the ummah or Muslim community. Iran can’t unite all Muslims around it’s revolution since it’s 1.a Shiite state and 2.because they aren’t Arab. A religion that has it’s roots in arabia; Muslims wouldn’t let a non Arab state be the leadingu Muslim power in the middle east. Adopting an anti Israel stance is the best way to unite all Muslims (the extreme ones anyway).
Shahrazad:
You made a very interesting point in your first hand account of the motivations of many Iranians in voting for Ahmadinejad. If what you have said is true, that policy towards Israel plays such a small role in garnering votes for Ahmadinejad (although there is no poll I’ve seen that proves that yet), then in that case Ahmadinejad is probably using his anti-Israel policies to gain leadership among Arab countries, of which Iran is not a member. If that’s not the case either, then I have no choice but to conclude that he actually is anti-Semitic and wants to do as much damage to Jews as he can without being branded pro-genocide.
Nissim:
Your point on Hitler in your first paragraph is well taken. Perhaps, however, it just demonstrates that unless we are willing to read someone’s mind and make assumptions about what they’re thinking rather than using the hard evidence of their speeches and actions, then we can never know if someone has genocidal or anti-Semitic views until they actually act on them. This is a very scary possibility for people on both ends of the ideological spectrum. If we wait until they act, by then genocide or full-blow anti-Semitic action will have started and the costs are guaranteed to be horrifying. At the same time, what about the ethical problems involved with pre-empting someone’s actions and intentions before they’ve made them totally clear. This is why we don’t arrest people for incitement of violence just because they tend to have prejudiced or racist views. We wait until they actually begin inciting violence. Furthermore, it’s why we haven’t been able to quite justify bombing Iran for their nuclear programme yet. Quite frankly, I empathise with you because if I was Jewish and my people had gone through the Holocaust, I would want to pre-empt any possibility of it repeating itself. But, like I said, there are ethical dilemmas involved.
Secondly, I respectfully disagree with your equation of Zionism to Judaism completely. In fact, I detect a clear logical fallacy in that aspect of your argument. You say:
Even if (and I want to really emphasise the if) the ‘vast’ majority of Jews are Zionist, it still absolutely does not make Zionism and, more pertinently, the current occupation of the land in question, synonymous with the Jewish religion. To use a simplistic, but demonstrative, analogy, the vast majority of apples in this world are red, but you don’t have to be red to be an apple.
Unlike most people from the region, I actually do believe that the State of Israel should continue to exist because it is now composed of generations of modern citizens who are blameless for the immense faults in the creation of the government that was set up in 1948. I am for peace and for an Israel/Palestine in which the Jews should stay and the Palestinians should stay. But, like most people from the region, I believe that in principle the founding of the Jewish state at the expense of Palestinian lives and livelihoods was a grave mistake. So I am not sympathising with any call for the destruction of Israel. I am making what I believe to be an important distinction, a distinction that even Israelis today must make in order to co-exist with their neighbours, between a radical Zionist dream to take land in the levant exclusively for Jews and the actual religion of Judaism itself.
I do agree with much of your last paragraph, Nissim, but I do have to emphasise that Ahmadinejad being a bad person is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the question of ‘what is anti-Semitism and when is it appropriate to accuse someone of it?’ Ahmadinejad is a case study, as I wrote in the piece, to this effect.
Ahmed:
You have completely misunderstood my intentions in the piece. Perhaps a re-reading is in order for you? I am not at all ‘trying to defend the Big Dictator’. I’m on your side there, my friend. But any dictatorial or non-dictatorial policies that the current regime in Iran adopts has nothing to do with my argument here. Let me be clear for you. My argument is that we need to very carefully think about what it means to be an anti-Semite. Based on Ahmadinejad’s speeches alone (I believe the only hard evidence for his thoughts on Judaism as a religion as opposed to Jewish citizens of Israel) there is little basis to assume that he has a hatred of the Jewish religion, its teachings, and the genetic/ethnic/racial makeup of the Jewish population.
Quite frankly, it’s not a ‘weird point’ as you say. It’s the difference between us trying Ahmadinejad for human rights crimes against his own people and us trying him for trying to incite genocide. While you let yourself succumb to the mob mentality of lumping together any indictment that is thrown towards a leader you don’t like, I prefer to at least try to understand what I am accusing someone of. As you can see from earlier in this comment and throughout the piece, I am not close-minded. I am willing to have this debate and to admit to concessions if someone makes a good point. But it’s a discussion worth having.
There is a moral dilemma with respect to pre-emption. However, like anything else, you have to use your common sense to navigate the moral ambiguities. When it comes to one individual, it is difficult to justify punishment before an actual crime is committed. Even here, however, if somebody looks like he’s carrying a bomb in a plane, I could see the passengers taking pre-emptive action proportional to the risk, if the risk is perceived reasonable.
However, when it comes to nuclear weapons, and when someone like Ahmadinejad has spoken words which could reasonably be interpreted as posing an existential threat, then pre-emtive action may be taken, in my opionion, which is proportional to the risk, and which is calculated to minimize the killing of innocents. The risk posed by Iran possessing an arsenal of nuclear weapons is so great, that it may well justify, in moral sense, taking pre-emptive action.
Not all apples are red, as you point out, but there are qualities or characterisitics which are intrinsic to all apples. The idea of a Jewish homeland in the land of Israel is intrinsic not just to Jews, but to Judaism itself. Abraham, the first Jew, and the father of Christianity and Islam, made a covenant with God, if you believe the Bible, that his people would be God’s people, and that in exchange, they would come to enjoy certain privileges, including the land, the land of Israel. This connection to the land was followed up by the story of Moses, who was a Jew, and who is mentioned in one third of the suras in the Qur’an. The Jews were slaves, and as part of their redemption, and their delivery out of slavery, they were taken to the Promised Land, the land of Israel. And after a lot of the Jews were kicked out by the Romans in the year 70, and the second temple was destroyed, they added a prayer to their liturgy, “Next year in Jerusalem.”
So what I am trying to say here, Sulaiman, is that the founding of the State of Israel, was not simply a coicidence, or a bright idea that people like Hertz came up with, but was in fact the realization of what it meant to be a Jews, to have a home of your own, in the land that was promised to you by no other than God Himself. Therefore, Judaism and Zionism are in fact two sides of the same coin.
However, I don’t agree with your characterization of how Israel came to be a state. It was a very bold idea indeed to build a Jewish state in the heart of the Arab world. It could only be imagined for close to 2000 years, but events like the Holocaust made it clear that there would be no alternative to the founding of a modern Jewish state. Given the enormity of the challenge, I would argue that the Zionist enterprise was undertaken in an ethical manner, and with due consideration to the indigenous population. I know you disagree strongly. But I don’t believe that the Jews came to plunder the land
,
There is a moral dilemma with respect to pre-emption. However, like anything else, you have to use your common sense to navigate the moral ambiguities. When it comes to one individual, it is difficult to justify punishment before an actual crime is committed. Even here, however, if somebody looks like he’s carrying a bomb in a plane, I could see the passengers taking pre-emptive action proportional to the risk, if the risk is perceived reasonably.
However, when it comes to nuclear weapons, and when someone like Ahmadinejad has spoken words which could reasonably be interpreted as posing an existential threat, then pre-emtive action may be taken, in my opionion, which is proportional to the risk, and which is calculated to minimize the killing of innocents. The risk posed by Iran possessing an arsenal of nuclear weapons is so great, that it may well justify, in moral sense, taking pre-emptive action.
Not all apples are red, as you point out, but there are qualities or characterisitics which are intrinsic to all apples. The idea of a Jewish homeland in the land of Israel is intrinsic not just to Jews, but to Judaism itself. Abraham, the first Jew, and the father of Christianity and Islam, made a covenant with God, if you believe the Bible, that his people would be God’s people, and that in exchange, they would come to enjoy certain privileges, including the land, the land of Israel. This connection to the land was followed up by the story of Moses, who was a Jew, and who is mentioned in one third of the suras in the Qur’an. The Jews were slaves, and as part of their redemption, and their delivery out of slavery, they were taken to the Promised Land, the land of Israel. And after a lot of the Jews were kicked out by the Romans in the year 70, and the second temple was destroyed, they added a prayer to their liturgy, “Next year in Jerusalem.”
So what I am trying to say here, Sulaiman, is that the founding of the State of Israel, was not simply a coicidence, or a bright idea that people like Hertz came up with, but was in fact the realization of what it meant to be a Jew, to have a home of your own, in the land that was promised to you by no other than God Himself. Therefore, Judaism and Zionism are in fact two sides of the same coin.
However, I don’t agree with your characterization of how Israel came to be a state. It was a very bold idea indeed to build a Jewish state in the heart of the Arab world. It could only be imagined for close to 2000 years, but events like the Holocaust made it clear that there would be no alternative to the founding of a modern Jewish state. Given the enormity of the challenge, I would argue that the Zionist enterprise was undertaken in an ethical manner, and with due consideration to the indigenous population. I know you disagree strongly. But I don’t believe that the Jews came to plunder the land, to kick the Palestinians out, to build walls and fences, and to kill innocent people indiscrminately.
There were injustices, I cannot deny. Some people were displaced unjustifiably. Some people were killed in a morally repugnant way. However, the Palestinians who remained became Israeli citizens, and enjoy more rights, and a higher standard of living than any Arabs in the region. That, in and of itself, does not speak of any intent to destroy or humiliate another people.
The injustices that were done to Palestinians can be redressed by Israel, and by the Jews, but only to the extent that the Palestinians themselves, and the Arab world as a whole, is willing to be open to that redemptive process. Israelis can stand on their head, but justice can only come out of a process of coming together, and letting go of past grievances, for the sake of building a brighter future.
Dr Meyer also insisted the definition of “anti-Semitic” had now changed, saying: “Formerly an anti-Semite was somebody who hated Jews because they were Jews and had a Jewish soul. But nowadays an anti-Semite is somebody who is hated by Jews.”
Sami,
Do you really want to link to a David Duke site?
Should we even pretend anymore?
Sami,
One more thing, are you aware that David Duke used to be (or still is) the Grand Wizard (their Fuhrer I guess) of the KKK?
Michael…
Read between the lines and dont be superficial … the line I quoted was the last line … or, as they call it in hebrew “shorah tachtona” !! Plus, I read in Arabic, ie, from the bottom to top !!!
Sami
Sami,
Is that your explanation to how you ended up finding a quote on David Duke’s site? Next time you decide to defend someone from accusations of antisemitism, don’t bring something from David Duke’s site to make your case.
Arabic doesn’t go from bottom to top. It goes from right to left, just like in Hebrew. Unless you are talking about ancient texts I don’t know of.
My Dear Friends, Nissim, Shahrzad and others,
You are going nowhere. The discussion always persists. Always there will be Anti-Semites. There are many roots why this problem is immortal.
Jews have some religious principles which make them behave strange to other religious sects, although they behave unintentionally. So it establishes some kind of hatred in other sects. Also Muslims have some principles that are in contradiction with Jews.
These two cant tolerte each others. So yeasterday Hitler said so, today AhmediNejad says so, tomorrow another guy. Thats something exists, persists and you dont see. It is in the core of these religions. Thats how these two see the world. They see differently and are not very good with the other one. Thats the same for Christianty.
As long as religious sects exist in Middle-East, conflict exists.
AhmediNejad is just a person. Please see a little deeper.
I would agree with most of that, Lord Kavi.
Once we believe in something, like religion, we tend to be very possessive of our beliefs, to the exclusion of other beliefs. And our leaders, who nurture our beliefs, can easily manipulate what we think, and what we believe, in order to separate us from the “other,” in a bid to consolidate political power, in the guise of promoting religious belief. We have been the victims of such manipulation for centuries.
So given all that, what is the answer?
In my opinion, religion can be a good thing, but as with all other things, if taken to an extreme, even religious belief can become an extremist position. We may believe in God, for example, but if we start believing that God wants us to kill those who believe differently from us, then it may be time to reign in some of our beliefs, in favor of what makes sense.
The road to peace in the Middle East, and around the world for that matter, will require a new ideological framework, a new belief system, based on common sense principles. We can still love our religions, and our religions can still instruct us on what to believe, but all belief should be filtered through the prisim of common sense. If something makes sense, then go ahead and believe it. If it doesn’t, then have the courage to let it go.
Instead of believing what we want to believe, or what others tell us to believe, we may have to start belieiving in what makes sense. Instead of jumping to false belief and then rationalizing why we’re right, why not use rationality in the first place, to arrive at what is worth believing in?
Judaism, for example, has had to come to terms with the fact that certain things that were written in the Bible just don’t make sense. We don’t go around, for example, killing homo-sexuals. We don’t go around killing our wives, when we find out they are not virgins. These “laws” were either never enforced, or were nullified over time by the changing moral sensibilities of the people.
Christianity had to go through a similar reformation with the Protestants.
And Islam may have to reform itself from within, as well.
I, for one, do not believe that God wrote the Bible, or the New Testament, or the Quran. God did not write holy scripture. God wrote the universe, and gave us the common sense to discern its meaning. We can go around pretending we are all so very different from one another, while going at each other’s throats. Or we can come to terms with the obvious conclusion that we are all basically the same, and that we owe it to ourselves, and to our children, and to the countless generations of children yet to come, to come together in common cause, and with common purpose, to bring justice and sustainability to this increasingly volatile and vulnerable world.
As for Ahmadinejad, yes he is only one person. But history has shown that even one person, properly positioned, and possessed of an idea that will not let him go, can change the course of history, for the better, and for the worse. In Ahmadinejad’s case, the writing may be on the wall, and the risk just too great to bear.