» I did say the failed coup would have no difference on polls. Westminster lives far too much in a bubble. 7 hrs ago

» CAMPAIGN to stop Rod Liddle being made editor of the Indy! http://tinyurl.com/ybz54uy (please RT!) 7 hrs ago

» I'm shocked (not)! RT @DaveSemple: More examples from @BickerRecord of Tom Harris' moral hypocrisy - http://bit.ly/5QoECx 13 hrs ago

» Thread of the week RT @libcon: All the full lol-plot pics (32!), with new 'Mandelkitteh' http://bit.ly/7bop1H 18 hrs ago

» Ugh! If Rod Liddle ends up editing the Indy, it'll be the last time I'll be buying or linking to the newspaper. 1 day ago

More updates...


  • Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sonia Afroz
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Aqoul
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Blairwatch
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • MT and friends
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
    • Women Uncovered
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sajini W
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Ahmedinijad does Holocaust denial, again


    by Sunny on 19th September, 2009 at 6:36 AM    

    Well, that should settle the question once and for all whether Ahmedinijad is a vile anti-semite or not. He deserves all the abuse he gets.


         
            Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Current affairs, Middle East






    46 Comments below   |   Add your own

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs


    1. Andy Gilmour — on 19th September, 2009 at 10:03 AM  

      “Uh-oh, they’re still pissed-off that I stole the election…errr..quick! Look! Over there! Jews! I haven’t stopped hating them, they’re bad and nasty, love me, love me!”

      Why does this odious man have to seem so bloody healthy?

    2. Paul — on 19th September, 2009 at 11:22 AM  

      Why does president Ahmedinijad “deserve abuse” for Holocaust denial, but not (for instance) Stormfront, which regularly carries Holocaust-denial postings?

      Sunny, do you think it is wrong to deny the Holocaust? If so, do you think Holocaust denial should be criminalised in the UK, as it is in other EU countries?

      If you don’t think it should be criminalised, and if you feel that free speech must prevail, then why are you complaining about president Ahmedinijad?

      If you do think it should be criminalised, do you think that websites carrying Holocaust denials should be closed down? Do you think that Stormfront should be banned in the UK?

      Right-wingers who complain loudly about Holocaust denials by Israel’s opponents usually have no interest in Nazi war crimes. They are simply looking for a stick to beat critics of Israel. The inconsistencies in their position derive from this one-sided instrumentalisation of history.

    3. cjcjc — on 19th September, 2009 at 11:28 AM  

      The use of the word instrumentalisation suggests you might be another johng-esque SWP nutter.

      Do you think Sunny has time for Stormfront?

      What on earth are you on about?

    4. Shatterface — on 19th September, 2009 at 11:46 AM  

      ‘Why does president Ahmedinijad “deserve abuse” for Holocaust denial, but not (for instance) Stormfront, which regularly carries Holocaust-denial postings?’

      WHEN did Sunny defend Stormfront?

      Fuckwit.

    5. Tanvir — on 19th September, 2009 at 12:38 PM  

      I dont get it, were we all expecting a spontaneus injection of PR skills into his brain? Some light-bulb moment where his history lessons at school all come back to him. Why give this idiot the media space?

    6. Paul — on 19th September, 2009 at 12:39 PM  

      The abusive reactions are an indication of the sensitivity of the issue. Let Sunny say if he supports free speech for Stormfront. I would guess that he does, but let him say that himself.

      Perhaps he can also explain, why he supports free speech for David Irving. Sunny in 2006: “As much of a twat he is (I remember thinking that during my history A levels too when we did 20th century European history)… I think its stupid to bang him up. Suing him and forcing him to prove his fallacies was the right thing to do.”

      And he extends the principle to the BNP: “And you think by putting him in jail and giving him the oxygen of publicity will get rid of the problem? I don’t like the BNP or what they say, but jailing them is not going to get rid of their supporters so easily is it?”

    7. Paul Moloney — on 19th September, 2009 at 1:04 PM  

      Speaking of behalf of all Pauls, that Paul is a moron.

      Paul.

    8. douglas clark — on 19th September, 2009 at 1:22 PM  

      Paul Moloney,

      Speaking on behalf of all people that have forenames, that Paul is a moron.

    9. douglas clark — on 19th September, 2009 at 1:26 PM  

      Paul.

      The right to free speech, which I support, also includes the right to make a complete utter tit of yourself. Believe me, I know.

      Saying anything whatsoever leaves you open to challenge. Sometimes it is better to remain silent lest ones suspected stupidity is confirmed by ones words.

    10. Don — on 19th September, 2009 at 1:27 PM  

      Paul,

      Logic. You’re doing it wrong.

    11. Shatterface — on 19th September, 2009 at 1:44 PM  

      Paul. I support your right to make a tit of yourself, even when you are attributing demonstrably false opinions to Sunny.

      Do you support Ahmedinijad’s right to deny the Holocaust but not Stormfront?

      I think both parties are abominable - do you?

    12. Rumbold — on 19th September, 2009 at 1:46 PM  

      Paul:

      I support free speeach. I also support the right to criticise those with whom I disagree. There is no contradiction.

    13. soru — on 19th September, 2009 at 1:49 PM  

      The use of the word instrumentalisation suggests you might be another johng-esque SWP nutter.

      I’d guess someone who went along to one of the meetings, but didn’t quite follow the arguments being made. Even the SWP is usually a bit more sensible than that.

    14. Sunny — on 19th September, 2009 at 1:50 PM  

      Do you think Sunny has time for Stormfront?

      What on earth are you on about?

      I get the feeling he’s playing that game of whataboutery that you do everytime cjcjc. Someone writes an article criticising the English Defence League, and people suddenly turn up saying ‘yeah but why aren’t you criticising the Muslim terrorists?’ etc etc.

    15. Paul — on 19th September, 2009 at 2:16 PM  

      As noted, abusive reactions indicate the sensitivity of the issue. I suggest Sunny does a separate post on why Holocaust denial is wrong, in his view. In the specific case, president Ahmedinijad explicitly questions the justification of Zionist claims to a state, by historical reference to the Holocaust. The underlying objection is presumably, that Israel’s right to exist should not be questioned. If that is Sunny’s primary reason for objecting to Holocaust denial, then it would be useful if he said so. The deontological position - that it is simply wrong to deny historical truth - would contradict his support for David Irving’s right to speak.

      There can be no general right to free speech, because it is legally forbidden to say certain things. Justification of terrorism, for instance, is a crime in the UK, the Terrorism Act 2006 criminalises “a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences.” Since there is no general right to free speech in the UK, it is not valid to argue from this principle (in the UK), for instance concerning David Irving or the BNP. (This point, that no country in practice has anything like ‘free speech’, has been made often enough, but right-wingers persist in appealing to the principle.)

      In any case … my questions were about the internal consistency of Sunny Hundal’s position. He has not answered them yet, so why not wait for that. Probably he would accept, that reference to the Holocaust has been used to justify the State of Israel. I accept that too, but then it constitutes a legitimate ground to deny the Holocaust. Either to undermine the historical foundation of the State of Israel, or to contribute to its demise. However, Israel’s right to exist is beyond the scope of Sunny’s short comment, which is why I suggest he expands the topic in a new post.

    16. douglas clark — on 19th September, 2009 at 2:46 PM  

      Oh, for Gods sake!

      As noted

      As noted by whom? You? And you have the cheek to quote your own post at length. How exactly does that forward a discussion? Tell me Paul how repeating your worn tropes does anything other than emphasise what you got wrong?

      I find this offensive in the extreme, not to mention wrongheaded and counterproductive:

      In the specific case, president Ahmedinijad explicitly questions the justification of Zionist claims to a state, by historical reference to the Holocaust.

      Letting President Ahmedinejad off the hook for a second, what exactly is Pauls issue with the historical facts surrounding the holocaust? It is pretty well proven that an extended holocaust took place. Why bring it up? Lipstadt has already proven that revisionism of an Irving complexion doesn’t stand up in a court of law. It has fuck all to do with Israels right to exist or not. It is either a historical fact, which it is, or it isn’t. The latter having already been disproved in a British Court of Law and the moron that thought otherwise having been subject to a prison sentence in Austria for repeating a lie.

      You, sir, have a very warped idea about what constitutes discussion around here.

    17. Cjcjc — on 19th September, 2009 at 2:48 PM  

      Oh I’m sure we are all guilty of whataboutery at times!

      I’m not sure I have been wrt the EDL though?

    18. Cjcjc — on 19th September, 2009 at 2:51 PM  

      Nobody uses the word “deontological” in normal discourse.

      Paul can only be one of johng’s tutorial group I think…

    19. douglas clark — on 19th September, 2009 at 2:55 PM  

      cjcjc @ 18,

      This is really worrying. I agree, again.

      I had to look it up.

    20. douglas clark — on 19th September, 2009 at 3:05 PM  

      Paul,

      You said, amidst your pathetic diatribe, this:

      Since there is no general right to free speech in the UK, it is not valid to argue from this principle (in the UK), for instance concerning David Irving or the BNP. (This point, that no country in practice has anything like ‘free speech’, has been made often enough, but right-wingers persist in appealing to the principle.)

      There is a presumption of free speech, I think. There is no country on the planet - I’ll stand corrected - that allows you to shout ‘Fire’ in a theatre when there isn’t one. In mature democracies the right to speak, as you are allowed to here, by the grace of Mr Hundal, ought to tell you just how free your speech actually is. But, and it is a but, you must accept it will be deeply challenged when it is, err, how can I put this, as devoid of sense as your posts have become.

      Just saying.

    21. Don — on 19th September, 2009 at 3:17 PM  

      The deontological position – that it is simply wrong to deny historical truth – would contradict his support for David Irving’s right to speak.

      No. X is (morally/ethically)wrong =/= X should be punishable by law. There is no contradiction.

      … the Holocaust has been used to justify the State of Israel… it constitutes a legitimate ground to deny the Holocaust.

      Still no. A historical fact remains such regardless of any putative uses to which it may be later put. The September 11 attacks were used to justify the invasion of Iraq but that does not constitute a legitimate ground for denying that they took place.

      …abusive reactions indicate the sensitivity of the issue..

      Sometimes they indicate irritation at pompous, ill-argued nonsense.

    22. Sunny — on 19th September, 2009 at 4:03 PM  

      . In the specific case, president Ahmedinijad explicitly questions the justification of Zionist claims to a state, by historical reference to the Holocaust.

      No, he’s denying the facts relating to the Holocaust, which is an entirely different matter to what one thinks of the state of Israel.

    23. Chris Baldwin — on 19th September, 2009 at 5:11 PM  

      Yeah sure, the guy’s an arse. Let’s make sure, though, that we don’t use that fact as an excuse to start killing Iranians.

    24. soru — on 19th September, 2009 at 5:42 PM  

      @23: yes. In point of fact, his arsosity is a pretty good argument against any such thing.

      Say, hypothetically, you believed fighting a war with Iran was a good idea, was likely to get you some benefits you wanted (oil, regional stability, democracy, whatever). Pretty silly belief, but some politicians no doubt hold it.

      Even so, with Ahmedinijad the way he is, there would be no point pushing for such a thing, because he is clearly in a political and mental position where, if he’s left in office for a few years, he will have started one.

      So it saves effort to just wait for that to happen.

    25. douglas clark — on 19th September, 2009 at 6:55 PM  

      soru.

      I’d certainly be willing to wait to see how Iran turns out. They are letting nuclear weapons inspectors in, are they not?

      http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gQhoRT5ZgbRSsYMMQAJzSYx-XsPw

    26. sastaRasta — on 19th September, 2009 at 8:37 PM  

      douglas (#25), how about letting ‘em inspectors into Britain and have them take a look if they find incriminating stuff? Are you a lackey of the UK government? If not, why do you think Iran can’t have nuclear weapons?

    27. Paul — on 19th September, 2009 at 8:38 PM  

      The historical truth of the Holocaust is irrelevant for the issue of Holocaust denial. Is it wrong to lie, even if good will come of lying, and telling the truth will cause great evil? This is the classic example of deontology versus consequentialism. (These are the standard terms).

      Some people say you must always tell the truth, no matter what the consequences. But if the consequence is the existence of the State of Israel, and its society and government, and its policies, and the army that implements those policies, then surely it is better to lie? That’s the underlying issue, which is obscured by the political correctness about Holocaust denial.

      It has also become an immigration-related issue, because opponents of immigration in western Europe have taken it up as a stick to beat Muslims with. Holocaust denial used to be typical of neonazis, especially in Germany itself. But as they switch to a pro-Israel line (like the BNP), Holocaust denial is increasingly used by Muslims to question the legitimacy of Israel’s foundational mythology. So, insistence on holocaust affirmation as part of ‘western values’ becomes a test to distinguish Muslims, and assess their ‘loyalty’. That is presumably Sunny Hundal’s interest in the issue.

    28. douglas clark — on 19th September, 2009 at 8:45 PM  

      sasaRasta,

      Yes. You might find your brain exploding, but I would be very happy to allow the UK’s nuclear deterrent to be placed in a basket of options for nuclear peace. Which, clearly, is not to favour proliferation. Is that clear enough for you?

    29. douglas clark — on 19th September, 2009 at 9:03 PM  

      Paul,

      The historical truth is, err, the historical truth. Which school of moral relativism did you attend?

      So, insistence on holocaust affirmation as part of ‘western values’ becomes a test to distinguish Muslims, and assess their ‘loyalty’.

      No, not exactly. It determines whether you are reality based or not. It certainly doesn’t distinguish you as a Muslim. Or not. C,f, David Irving who is not a Muslim, to the best of my immediate knowledge. And appears as a denialist.

      Much as your good self….

    30. fentonchem — on 19th September, 2009 at 10:14 PM  

      “But as they switch to a pro-Israel line (like the BNP), Holocaust denial is increasingly used by Muslims to question the legitimacy of Israel’s foundational mythology.”

      The reason that the BNP has played down its antisemitism and Holocaust denial is that they have to differentiate themselves from groups like the SWP, RESPECT, StWC and other groups in the left.
      The idea that you propagate, that Israel is a European colony in the Islamic/Arab world made up from Holocaust survivors is a myth, though much favored in the Arab world and on the left.
      Approximately half of Israel’s Jewish population are themselves, or descendents of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, moreover it should be pointed out that they received no humanitarian aid from the United Nations.
      Attacks on oriental Jews from ancient Jewish centers within the Arab world intensified upon the founding of Israel and more than a million became refugees, about 65% went to Israel, the rest to Europe and North America. Between 1948 and 1968 780,000 had been ethnically cleansed, so many more Jew’s were made refugees by the Arab’s, than Arab’s were made refugees by the Israelis.

    31. KB Player — on 19th September, 2009 at 10:22 PM  

      What is more revolting:-

      a) a Holocaust denier;

      b) someone who thinks Holocaust denying is politically expedient.

      Discuss, with special reference to comment 27 above.

    32. tom — on 19th September, 2009 at 10:33 PM  

      Chris Baldwin (#23) in case it has escaped your notice the “arse” is already killing Iranians.

    33. Sunny — on 20th September, 2009 at 12:00 AM  

      So, insistence on holocaust affirmation as part of ‘western values’ becomes a test to distinguish Muslims, and assess their ‘loyalty’. That is presumably Sunny Hundal’s interest in the issue.

      Dunno what Muslims you hang out with, but all the ones I know don’t spend their time questioning the Holocaust or seeing it as some sort of a loyalty test.

      Chris - of course not, I’ve always been against invading Iran and any idiot who advocates it needs to be taken out and sent to the warzone right at the front.

    34. douglas clark — on 20th September, 2009 at 12:15 AM  

      Sunny @ 34,

      Dunno what Muslims you hang out with, but all the ones I know don’t spend their time questioning the Holocaust or seeing it as some sort of a loyalty test.

      Me neither.

    35. Ben — on 20th September, 2009 at 1:06 AM  

      “…It ([the Holocaust] has fuck all to do with Israels right to exist or not. .”

      President Obama’s speech in Cairo suggested that it did. This was deeply resented in Israel, whose leaders accused Obama of ignoring and denying their claims to a Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel based on a national history in that territory ranging from 3000 years ago to the present. The US State Department has only deepened Israeli resentment by revamping its website to remove references to the continuity and vitality of the Jewish presence in Eretz Israel through the ages.

      Political leaders in the Gentile world, especially in Britain, should be telling their peoples that it was their failure to establish a Jewish state earlier that cost most of the lives lost in the Holocaust. Anything less is also a form of Holocaust denial.

    36. douglas clark — on 20th September, 2009 at 3:46 AM  

      Ben,

      The right of Israel to exist or not is independent of the Holocoust, and is independent of whatever President Obama has to say on the subject.

      Political leaders in the Gentile world, especially in Britain, should be telling their peoples that it was their failure to establish a Jewish state earlier that cost most of the lives lost in the Holocaust. Anything less is also a form of Holocaust denial.

      Eh!

      I have never heard that arguement before. Perhaps it has some historical merit, but you’d have to explain it to me. There was a contrary arguement that the Jewish race should be given Madagascar, if I remember correctly, without any explanation of what the indigenous population may have made of it.

    37. sastaRasta — on 20th September, 2009 at 7:11 AM  

      Last OT comment.

      Douglas (#28), indeed, that may happen to an intellectual lightweight like me when confronted with convoluted logic… anyhow, I find it ludicrous that you can entertain ideas of non-proliferation when the reality none of the major powers are going to give up anything. I’d be glad to have my head or any other organ explode if Britain was to give up its arsenal.

    38. douglas clark — on 20th September, 2009 at 7:53 AM  

      sastaRasta,

      Well, non proliferation seems to me to be a common good. So, I’d be willing to see our nuclear detterent go if it was part of a package. Otherwise, no. Negotiation would seem to me to be the name of the game.

    39. chairwoman — on 20th September, 2009 at 11:22 AM  

      “There was a contrary arguement that the Jewish race should be given Madagascar, if I remember correctly, without any explanation of what the indigenous population may have made of it.”

      And immediately rejected as the whole point was a return to Israel, not to just form a Jewish state anywhere.

    40. Paul — on 20th September, 2009 at 2:13 PM  

      Fentonchem claims

      “The idea that you propagate, that Israel is a European colony in the Islamic/Arab world made up from Holocaust survivors is a myth, though much favored in the Arab world and on the left.”

      No, that is not the idea that I propagate. The idea that Israel was a refuge for Holocaust survivors, and a now a ’safe haven’ for Jews providing a guarantee against a repetition, is propagated by Israel itself (by the government, apparently with general public support). It is also used as an argument by supporters of Israel in the West.

      It is perceived as an important factor in the emergence of the State of Israel, by that state’s opponents. Now, that can’t be entirely true, because Zionism and the Balfour Declaration predate the Holocaust. The term ‘Holocaust’ is in use since the 1960’s, so you won’t find it in any early Israeli political propaganda either. However, by now it has become an important legitimising argument. Conversely, Israeli outrage at Holocaust denial in Muslim countries, is partly fuelled by the Israeli perception that it is a blow at Israel’s existence rights.

      Probably even if everyone ceased to believe in the Holocaust, Israel would not simply evaporate or collapse. But it is a political reality that western campaigns in support of Israel appeal to the Holocaust, and if Holocaust memory does contribute to Israel’s continued existence, then that is reason to oppose it in the West, and to suppress it if possible.

      The comment by fentonchem opposes that strategy, by suggesting that the Holocaust is not a contributory factor in Israel’s existence. Filling in the unsaid part, he is suggesting that Holocaust deniers must have some other reason. Many of them did: traditionally Holocaust denial was aimed at rehabilitating Nazi Germany, and the German people, and the German army. That is still a live issue in Germany (where deserters from the wartime army were only rehabilitated a few weeks ago). That is the Holocaust denial which David Irving represents.

      But he has been side-lined by recent developments. The far right in Europe is re-aligning itself with Israel and against Islam, with immigration and Islamisation as its main themes. The right, which once had some sympathy for deniers like Irving, now accuses Muslims of Holocaust denial. See the Holocaust teaching controversy of 2007. Certainly in the Netherlands and Germany, insistence on Holocaust teaching is now directed entirely at Muslims (Moroccans and Turks, mostly). There are lots of other things that Muslims are accused of, but this one seems to have a factual basis in the differing attitudes to the Holocaust. (I did see some surveys: I can’t find them immediately, but then someone like Sunny Hundal wouldn’t accept them anyway). So asking people to sign up to some kind of ‘Holocaust affirmation’ would indeed function as a ‘Muslim test’. (Compare the one used for citizenship tests in Germany: “What would you do if your son told you he is homosexual?”).

      The fact that people like Geert Wilders now use “Holocaust denial” as a xenophobic instrument, is not in itself reason to go around denying the Holocaust. The reason for Holocaust denial is to do good, and counter evil, by preventing the consequences of the historical truth. Not the historical truth itself is wrong, but telling the truth if its consequences are evil. That is not ‘political expediency’, as ‘KB Player’ claims, but moral action. Killing children with phosphorous munitions is wrong, preventing it is good.

    41. Don — on 20th September, 2009 at 2:56 PM  

      The reason for Holocaust denial is to do good, and counter evil, by preventing the consequences of the historical truth.

      Sure it is. Any other historical truths you want to deny?

      Or is it only historical truth involving Jews which is evil?

      ‘Preventing the consequences of truth.’ Now there’s a banner to march under. Idiot.

    42. soru — on 20th September, 2009 at 4:27 PM  

      ‘The reason for Holocaust denial is to do good,’

      Which, for a suitable definition of ‘good’, was pretty much Hitler’s reason for perpetrating the Holocaust in the first place. Sure, he had a pretty limited definition of ‘good’: opera, shiny uniforms and busty barmaids serving lager on a sunny day. But he didn’t go down in history as a monster for sharing the tastes of an Austrian rural mayor, but for getting propaganda and reality so mixed up in his head that even he didn’t know which was which - he could make up a lie, then get genuinely angry when it was repeated back to him.

      So far so daily mail columnist, but he did go at least one step further. He took extreme, taboo-breaking actions based on the ideas he made up, precisely to demonstrate his commitment to them.

      Which is why the fascist mindset is always drawn to Holocaust denial, no matter how little logical or tactical sense it makes, or what national dress they see their imaginary busty peasant as wearing.

      How can you demonstrate your true belief in a cause in any better way than doing something that is both repulsive and futile?

    43. fentonchem — on 20th September, 2009 at 7:00 PM  

      “it is a political reality that western campaigns in support of Israel appeal to the Holocaust, and if Holocaust memory does contribute to Israel’s continued existence, then that is reason to oppose it in the West, and to suppress it if possible. The comment by fentonchem opposes that strategy, by suggesting that the Holocaust is not a contributory factor in Israel’s existence.”

      No, I wish you would cease spreading the 21st century blood-libel, that the Jews in Israel have no Middle Eastern heritage. It is becoming increasingly common to refer to the Jews in Israel as alien European settlers and/or colonists; in addition the ‘Kazars’ of Asia are often stated as the forbears of Europe’s Jews, especially with respect to the Eastern European Ashkenazim.
      The new meme is that Jews in Arabia converted to Islam and became ‘Palestinian”; the Jews who migrated north converted the Kazars to Judaism who then migrated West. During and after WWII ethnic Europeans mistreated, but not killed, the hated Kazar-converts were sent into ‘Palestine’, displacing the decedents of Abraham and forming a European colony. The libel finishes; the Arab “Palestinians” are the true decedents of the Jews of the Talmud and New Testament and the incoming ‘Jews’ are a fake people with Asian/European roots.
      In this meme it is ‘Holocaust Guilt’ that is the reason is why the USA and Europe supports Israel. Get rid of the Holocaust, and then the guilt disappears and there should be no US/EU support for the Jews in Israel; indeed, all support should be transferred to the ‘indigenous’ Arabs. The term Arab Jew is being popularized in the Arab press to signify the Jew who lived in the ME before 1948, attempts to show that the majority of Israel’s Jews do not fall into the category is deeply racist.

    44. Paul — on 20th September, 2009 at 8:18 PM  

      Note that I did not say anything about either the blood libel, or the genetic origins of Jews (or anyone else). Pro-Israel (online) activism typically appeals to unifying conspiracy theories in this way, lumping everything together. Maybe someone else said it on another blog.

      Anyway, the Khazarian theory of the origins of East European Jews is not a ‘new meme’, but dates at least from the 19th century. It acquired some political significance when the Zionist movement became committed to settlement in Palestine. However, it does not seem to have played any major role, one way or the other, in the establishment of Israel.

      The genetic or ancestral origins of nations confer no rights whatsoever on those nations. They are simply irrelevant, which is why I said nothing about them.

      Nationalists, on the other hand, are obsessed with the question. That includes attempts to disparage the other side’s origins in conflict. And that certainly includes the Zionist movement, the Israeli government, and Israel’s supporters in the West - they all regularly claim that the Palestinians are not a ‘real’ nation.

    45. Noor the abducted — on 21st September, 2009 at 11:03 AM  

      http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/

    46. chairwoman — on 21st September, 2009 at 12:32 PM  

      ‘Anyway, the Khazarian theory of the origins of East European Jews is not a ‘new meme’, but dates at least from the 19th century.’

      Considering most Jews in Eastern Europe arrived there, particularly in Poland where the they had been invited by the king, as a result of trouble in Spain, 19th Century seems pretty damn late in the day for the ‘theory’ to have a reliable provenance.



    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.