45 thoughts on “Israeli Minister Meridor Concedes Iran’s Leaders Have Never Called for Israel’s Destruction – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. The state-run Iranian press reported that Ahmadinejad said that Israel must be wiped off the map. The US press just reported on the translation which was provided the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network. If you check the English version of that website from 10/26/2005, you will see that the state-run Iranian press quotes Ahmadinejad as saying “Israel must be wiped off the map”. Perhaps the Iranians who translated the Persian phrase thought the spirit of the idiom was better captured in English with that verbiage than with the word-by-word literal translation provided by Juan Cole and others. In any case, the translation originated with the Iranian news outlet itself reporting on the speech.

    Also, you appear to have once again attributed remarks to Steven Erlanger that were actually written by James Risen. The citation that you introduce in your sixth paragraph is from the “fog” article written by Risen, not Erlanger.

    1. Mistakes are made in interpretation and translation in all kinds of areas, but that does not mean the translation in question should be used in perpetuity. While a correction was made shortly after the inaccurate one was first has remained on the lips of successive United States politicians, presidents and Israeli prime ministers, as well as others, so that is the one which is is remembered.

      It would create a very dangerous precedent to suggest that what the leaders of nations actually say is irrelevant to what others think that they meant.

      Ben Stein has recently used the phrase on CBS Sunday Morning, saying those who rule Iran “have explicitly promised to wipe Israel off the map” and a graphic was shown to demonstrate how simple he thinks it would be for Iran to drop a nuclear weapon on “tiny” Israel.

      This is an utterly absurd idea, because such an action would wipe most of the Palestinians that Israel has walled in “off the map” as well.

      When will apologists for Nuclear, Apartheid Israel whose politicians lie on a regular basis, learn that they are only encouraging them to start a conflagration in the Middle East which could kill far more people than have perished there over the last 10 years, all on behalf of Israel’s murderous expansionist policies?

    2. Even this “Israel wiped” issue has been discussed hundreds of times your propaganda needs to be corrected. What IRIB wrote in the header of their news story is not relevant. It is only a header of a story and so reflects the opinion of the journalist who wrote it, not that what the President of Iran said. In the speech to which you refer Ahmadinejad said: “the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time”. That is only a wish for a regime change, something Israeli (and US) politicians do daily in their speeches and interviews.

      There are numerous examples what the article tells and what the politician (or other interviewed person) in reality said differ. In Israel and other countries there are constantly fights between the media and politicians, where a politician claims becoming to be misunderstood and misquoted in the article.

      I suppose we all agree that a racist religious regime, which builds an apartheid society with lords and slaves in bantustans should not exist. Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims in general have good reasons to wish that the present style Zionist regime should vanish in the history and an better alternative to surface. In the speech Ahmadinejad said “the day that all refugees return to their homes [and] a democratic government elected by the people comes to power”. Hmmmm isn’t that something we all want and demand? Well most of us except Israeli settlers.

      Israelis and US politicians have for decades made direct demands of a regime change in Iran (and other countries). Lieberman’s demands to use the “US WW2 Japan example” in Gaza and threats of bombing Aswan dam are really serious, much more serious than anything Iranian leaders have said. Israel can kill hundreds of millions and create hundreds of separate mushroom clouds all around the world – today or tomorrow. Iran or any Arab country do not have that capacity, so where is the real source of potential Holocausts?

      1. It’s not just the “header” of the article. The quote is actually included in the body of the article itself.

        Here are the first four paragraphs of the article:

        Tehran, Oct 26 – Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”.

        “The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world,” the President told a conference in Tehran entitled ‘the world without Zionism’.

        “The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land,” he said.

        “As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,” said Ahmadinejad, referring to the late founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Imam Khomeini.

        Again, I would note that this article was published by the actual Iranian state-run media outlet.

        I would also note that Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader only ever refer to Israel with euphemisms such as “the Zionist entity” or “the regime occupying Jerusalem” or something similar, since they do not actually recognize Israel as a country. Those phrases are regularly translated to mean Israel in Iranian and other regional sources.

        As to the rest of the quote, one can take an idiomatic phrase in English and translate it word by word into a foreign language, or one could try to find an idiom which may have different wording but expresses the sentiments of the original more effectively in the other language.

        The important point, though, is that this translation was made by an Iranian government official source and was only repeated by the Western media who would have had no reason to doubt the translation. Or in any case, it was the translation that Iran itself wanted to present to the English-speaking world.

        1. What’s your point exactly? That an Iranian actually made the comment or that the mistranslation stems from the Iranian media itself?

          So far it’s not clear from your comments.

          1. My point is that there is an implicit implication that the Western media offered a deliberately inaccurate translation of Ahmadinejad’s words in order to make it appear that he said something that he did not really say.

            My contention is that since his words were translated this way by his own translators in Tehran who work for the President of Iran, Western media outlets ought not to be condemned for assuming that such translations were accurate.

            I also think it’s worth noting that he always uses euphemisms to refer to Israel and that Iranian sources regularly indicate that phrases he uses such as “regime occupying Jerusalem” and “Zionist regime” refer to Israel.

      1. I read it, I just disagree with a few of the points (and agree with others). But I’ll leave it alone since you’ve said you don’t want me to keep heating a dead horse.

        Incidentally, no hat tip for pointing out the Erlanger/Risen confusion (which you’ve since corrected)? If you need a good editor/fact-checker, you have my email address!

  2. *sigh*

    The Farsi is there, and the comment has been terribly paraphrased (if I could even call it a “paraphrase”). It is based upon an older comment by Khomenei, and several Farsi speakers have confirmed the accurate translation over the years.

    Horse to water.

  3. RE: “whatever fanatical notions you seek to attribute to the other side, you better look in the mirror first, because it’s more than likely that your co-religionists and fellow citizens have expressed thoughts equally as fundamentalist in nature.” ~ R.S.

    FROM WIKIPEDIA [Psychological projection]:

    Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]
    Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.
    An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or “projecting,” those same faults onto another person or object.
    The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud – in his letters to Wilhelm Fliess, “Draft H” deals with projection as a mechanism of defence'[2] – and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud; for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as Freudian Projection. . .

    SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

  4. RE: “James Risen, in an article from yesterday’s Times makes the following racist claim: ‘…Some analysts say that Ayatollah Khamenei’s denial of Iranian nuclear ambitions has to be seen as part of a Shiite historical concept called taqiyya, or religious dissembling…’ ” ~ R.S.

    THERE IS A DETAILED REBUTTAL OF RISEN AT ‘INFORMED COMMENT’: Iran’s Forbidden Nukes and the Taqiya Lie, by Juan Cole, 4/16/12

    (excerpts) . . . As for taqiyya, or pious dissimulation, it is widely misrepresented by Muslim-haters and does not apply in Khamenei’s case. (The analysts quoted may or may not be bigots, but it is certainly wrong to see all Muslims or all Shiites as inveterate liars assured of divine forgiveness for their trespesses).
    It is often alleged by the haters that all Muslims recognize a principle whereby it is all right to lie about their true beliefs. Some weird Scandinavian smear of Muslims went viral on the internets that began with falsehoods about all Muslims being licensed to lie. But in fact Islamic ethics forbids lying (kidhb), and it is mainly the Shiite branch of Islam that practiced taqiyya as a doctrine, not the Sunni. (There is a distinction between occasional Sunni mentions of taqiyya and a Shiite doctrine of same.)
    For Shiites, who were often a minority in early Muslim societies, the doctrine of pious dissimulation was permission to say that they were actually Sunni Muslims if saying that would save their lives or their big property. . .
    . . . there are restrictions on the practice of pious dissimulation. The Shiite would have to feel that his or her lives and property were in immediate danger. That is, if you had a Sunni mob with torches coming up the hill to your house, you could go out and say you were Sunni.
    But say some Sunni Muslims of the Hanafi school believe drinking wine is all right. A Shiite could not join them in a glass of wine even when practicing pious dissimulation. You can dissimulate your basic religious identity to protect your life or big property, but you can’t just throw religious law out the window on a wholesale basis. . .
    . . . Taqiyya is therefore not a license to just lie about anything at all, or to commit perfidy. It is just a permission to avoid dying uselessly because of sectarian prejudice. . .

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://www.juancole.com/2012/04/irans-forbidden-nukes-and-the-taqiya-lie.html

  5. Among the many baseless claims Silverstein makes is that the Holocaust is a religious issue and Netanyahu of all people bases his claim on the West Bank on religious grounds. The fact is six million people (sorry, Richard on their Jews but they were chosen not because of their religion but because Hitler regarded them as a nation) went to their death. It’s a historic fact, not a chapter out of the Bible with a purely religious significance like Christ on the cross. You are free to interpret what should be learned from this fact, but it is no different than Americans deriving lessons from the Civil War. As to Netanyahu being motivated by religion. Give me a break — he is not personally religious, never uses religious imagery or justifications for settlement. Your analysis in inaccurate, crude and tendentious to the point of adding nothing to the world’s store of perspectives.

    As to religious nationalism, find me an Arab state that is not founded on the principle of being a Muslim entity (except Lebanon where they went to civil war over it) and does not give preference to Muslims over other faiths? Don’t bother Dick, you won’t.

    1. What nonsense. You’re making a distinction without a difference. Hitler killed Jews because of their religion. Of course he viewed them as a nation, but that has little meaning or significance independent of their religion. The Holocaust was not an event that happened to the Israeli people. It happened to the Jewish people. Classical Zionsists like you love to collapse this important distinction but we won’t allow you to. The Civil War was an American war fought by the American nation. The Holocaust was not an event that occurred to the Israeli nation. It was an event that perhaps led to creation of that nation. But that is not the same thing.

      he is not personally religious, never uses religious imagery or justifications for settlement

      That is a steaming load of bullshit. He doesn’t have to be a devout Jew to have religious concepts deeply ingrained in his consciousness. He is an ultranationalist who makes common cause with the most extreme of the settlers. Whether or not he’s personally religious is immaterial. His entire being is imbued with Judaism, Jewish concepts, Jewish tradition, etc. And he certainly does use religious imagery & justifications for settlements & every major policy initiative including Iran.

      Your analysis is inaccurate, crude & tendentious–and just plain wrong.

      1. Richard wrote: “What nonsense. You’re making a distinction without a difference. Hitler killed Jews because of their religion”

        How on earth can you make such a patently wrong assertion? Hitler’s victimization of Jews was based solely on race. This is such common knowledge that to discuss it further seems ludicrous.

        Your assertion that the settlement enterprise is purely religious in nature lacks the nuance found in your usual analysis. The first settlements were established under a Labor government – hardly known for their adherence to religious fundamentalism – to say the least. The drive to settle the West Bank was mostly a defense issue for those that helped implement it. Not that religious considerations did not factor in of course – keep in mind, the Kotel, the Mount of Olives, Kever David, Kever Rachel, Me’arat Ha Machpela, Kever Yoseph – all of these are behind the green line. But still. The biggest settlement blocs, Ariel and Maaleh Adumim are hardly hotbeds of Jewish fundamentalism. You’d know that if you lived here. Or visited.

        1. pea, with race you are right and wrong in the same place. The Nazi notion of “race” went parallel to the discovery of genetic reductionism, but the basics of it were of tribalistic origin, centered on descent. Christian catholizism and evangelism also preserve the concept of descent when it comes to intermarriages, at least in Europe. Judaism, as you should know, is much more bound to tribalism. Nazi ideology stuck in practice to that, while experimentally trying to corroborate the race concept biologically. So Richard is basically right – Nazis defined jewish the offspring of a religious jewish mother. Otherwise my father, son of a jewish father and an “arian” mother would not have survived and I wouldnt have been born 🙂
          PS. Marx in “Zur Judenfrage” got the core of modern racism, though in terms not quite simply accessible.

          1. Why is everyone trying to find a rational reason for irrational behavior? Hitler’s hate for the Jews was irrational. No solely religious (why were secular Jews deported? why Jews who had converted to Christianity?), not solely on descendancy. The concept of arian (“clean” [rein]) blood is irrational.

        2. So you’re saying that Hitler was most offended by Jews due to their race, but not offended at all by their religion? So he allowed them to practice their religion in the camps? He never remarked on Jewish religious beliefs or used them as part of his anti-Semitic world view. This is stuff n nonsense & if you don’t know it, then you’re a fool. Stop trying to make distinctions where none need be made. This is pure casuistry & I find it annoying.

          The settlement enterprise is deeply embedded in Jewish religious nationalism & part of a millenial yearning characteristic of Judaism in some periods. It is rooted in the teachings of Rav Kook, perhaps the most pre eminent Israeli Jewish theologian. Labor chose to embrace the settlement enterprise after the 67 War because they were swept up in this religious nationalist fervor.

          Saying it was a defense issue is pure nonsense. That may’ve been part of it esp. for people like Yigal Allon. But the prevailing motivation for Greater Israel was religious & not defense. Again, if you argue this you’re either historically ignorant or you simple want to be contrary just for its own sake.

          1. Of course religion enters the mix in the evident fact that the only people practising Judaism are Jews (duh!). And certainly the “otherness” of Jewish customs was exploited (and distorted beyond recognition, think blood libel) for all sorts of propaganda. But the religious principle of maternal descendancy is in itself obviously genealogical, leading to the fiction of Jews as a “race”, the Nuremberg Laws and all that. Indeed secular or even Christianised Jews weren’t spared.

            That said, the very word “holocaust” has a religious subtext that I find quite inappropriate, offensive even, especially when capitalised. A burnt offering by whom to whom? The way Bibi and his ilk (not you, Richard!) use it, it doesn’t take much cynicism to think the Jews of Europe were sacrificed on the Nazis’ altar so the survivors could have their state.

  6. Richard writes:
    “A Jew may argue that the prime minister has no choice because the Jews were exterminated during the Holocaust for their religion.”

    This suggests a very basic misunderstanding of the holocaust on Richard’s behalf. Hitler murdered Jews based on the fictive notion of race. He would hunt down Christians with Jewish roots as well as “mitbolelim”, who did not adhere to the Jewish religion.

    The holocaust was not about the Jewish religion.

          1. “these sort of blogs attract the bigots…”

            In a sense you are right, Commoner. Anyone who subscribes to the “all men are created equal” concept (as Richard does) is going to come under attack sooner or later. It sure is disheartening that there are bigots out there who refuse to accept that Palestinian life is equal to Jewish life, isn’t it?

  7. Once again Israel attempts and the world buys a new MEGA LIE: that Iran threatened to wipe Israel off the map.
    The less chauvinistic and relatively less un reasonable Meridor put an end to that MEGA LIE.
    But Israel & Co will go repeating the MEGALIE and Western pro Israel media , for reasons not wholly altruistic! nor solely propelled by concern over Israel’s security!, will go on buying and propagating
    The interesting thing is that re Israel’s and Zionism’s record of LIES and FABRICATIONS two major developments are underway:
    1-The antagonists of Israel i.e. the PRO Palestinians’ inalienable rights alliance no longer cares about these LIES
    2-The less biased i.e. the more objective media and political circles in the West have come to take ALL new Israeli declarations with a grain of salt and have come to smile warily whenever a new Israeli declaration is floated!

  8. I have been reading this blog for a while and i do enjoy it and think it is crucial that these voices be heard, solely because they are rarely heard.
    But i have to say that in trying so hard to discredit and disect polititians’ rhetoric, i believe you are missing the bigger picture.
    Iran doesn’t just fund and supports terrorism, it creates it. I agree that often times israel is more aggressive, both in its rhetoric and actions- but that is because israel has to in order to survive as a modern democracy. Iran has a much more long term strategy to grow stronger and more influential in the region. Iran will never achieve its goals in a single all-out war but it will achieve its geo-political end-of-time goals through creating a new strategic balance between israel and iran.
    A nuclear weapon is a main tool for iran to create this new geo-political future.
    I am curious as to what YOU think Iran’s goal is here. If we were to let Iran do as it pleased, do you believe iran WOULDN’T develop a nuclear missile? If you do believe that, i think you either dont know all the facts or aren’t analysing the situation correctly.
    However, if you think that there is a need to deal with this existential long-term threat, then i think you aren’t focusing on the important consequences of the evets happening in our time.
    DO YOU believe iran and israel are comparable in religious fanaticism?
    DO YOU believe iran “may” have a nuclear weapons program, as the report politically-correctly states, or are you willing to see the bigger picture, in which iran OF COURSE has long term plans for nuclear weapons and greater control in the region?

    1. Wow, Iran creates terror. And Israel doesn’t? And how many dead are there from Israeli terror compared to Iranian? Israel doesn’t have to be a terror state in order to preserve its democracy. The very notion is bizarre beyond belief. And in fact, Israel is a democracy in name only.

      Iran has a long term strategy to grow stronger, but Israel doesn’t?? Really, I find it hard to believe that you credit this nonsense, but you actually do sound sincere in yr illusions.

      It isn’t Iran that will create a new strategic balance. Every time Israel goes to war against a neighbor it tips the strategic balance farther & farther toward its enemies. Israel is, I’m afraid, often its own worst enemy on that score.

      As for nuclear weapons, Iran doesn’t have one & I see no evidence it will have one in the foreseeable future. Israel has one & to tell you the truth the farther right the Israeli gov’t goes the more that scares me.

      The problem with people like you is that you see everything in black & white. Iran cannot “get” a nuke in the same way Israel has 200-400 of ’em. It can pursue research toward a nuke though it’s not clear that it is. But it can never put one together because Obama has said he will bomb them if they do & I believe him. The Iranians do as well. But the Iranians do want a Samson option so if a future Saddam brings the nation to its knees & threatens its destruction they want the option of being able to put a weapon together much like Israel did in 1967 in case it lost that war.

      The world will not come to an end even if Iran gets a bomb. Most serious nuclear analysts accept this as do most nations of the world outside of Europe, the U.S. & Iran’s Sunni enemies.

      I’ve answered all your questions in myriad posts & comments & I won’t repeat myself. Google your questions & seek out what I’ve written on these subjects. You might learn something though I’m not terribly hopeful on that score.

      1. You aren’t understanding my point so ill try to be more clear. But first I’ll respond to a few of your points.
        “Wow, Iran creates terror. And Israel doesn’t?”
        I never said that. In fact, i conceded that israel is more aggressive in rhetoric AND actions.
        ” Iran has a long term strategy to grow stronger, but Israel doesn’t???”
        Obviously israel has a long term goal to grow stronger, as does every single individual, group and society since the beginning of time. But there is a fundamental difference. Iran wants to rule the middle east and spread it’s extreme religious doctrine to iraq, Afghanistan, syria, lebanon, north africa and countless other countries. Of course israel wants to become stronger but only in order to protect itself. It has no long term agenda to control various parts of the world, and it sees the occupation as a burden.
        Another statement you make is that iran wont get the bomb because obama will strike preemtively if they get close. On the other hand, you are extremely opposed to militant rhetoric by israeli leaders. This is insane circular logic. Do you not realise that the reason obama is willing to give these assurances is precisely BECAUSE israel has threatened to act? My argument works on two levels. The first level is straightforward. Israel does have the right to attack if it thinks it is necessary to do so. And we cannot be under the complete mercy of America’s wishes (America refused to attack the syrian reactor after being asked to do so) . The second level is that israel is playing a diplomatic game and analysts yelling “oh no war is bad! Dont attack! That crappy UN report used soft language so you can’t!” shows a misunderstanding of said game.
        Finally, I want to emphasize a certain axiom (that i personally believe in) that i didnt think needed to be emphasized but maybe it does. Ultimately, israel is a force of good. Is it perfect? Of course not. Does it use dark, horrible, undemocratic tactics in order to stay a democracy? Yes, as do other democracies. But it is trying to protect a core of good and it always strives to be better in protecting human rights. (the potential ultra-orthodox takeover of the demographic negates this point, but for the time being it stands. And in my opinion this takeover will never happen)
        Iran on the other hand, is a force that is not beneficial to the continuation of mankind. This is because it is both exremely religious and extremely non-democratic.
        Obviously it isnt as clear as “good” and “bad” and each country has good and bad sides- However, my final point is this:
        Even if the battle was equal in each side’s will for power and control (which it isnt), i would still want israel and it’s allies to win.

    2. “I have been reading this blog for a while and i do enjoy it and think it is crucial that these voices be heard, solely because they are rarely heard.”

      All except, that is, the “voices” whose comments are deleted. You are kidding yourself if you think this is an open and honest forum. Several of my comments have been deleted, so the forum is, on the whole, a lie, because it disallows comments from people that someone, whoever he or she is, does not agree with.

      1. Actually I deleted your comments for several reasons, one that you’re a Holocuast denier, but almost as important is that you’re off-topic. Read the comment rules. If you can comment on the topics of the post themselves instead of on whatever subject happens to obsess you, you’ll be published here. IF not, go visit Michael Santomauro’s blog.

        1. Someone named David first brought up the Holocaust, and I note that you have not deleted his comment as being off topic. David says: April 16, 2012 at 10:19 PM

          Also, the tags for this blog are:

          Tags: holocaust, iaea report, iran-nuclear-program, israel

          so how could my comment about the holocaust be off topic, when it is one of the tags and even you have brought it up, yourself?
          Richard Silverstein says: April 17, 2012 at 1:32 AM

          I am not a holocaust denier, and in one of my comments I wrote something like “… any more than I deny that the Titanic sank with the loss of more 1500 lives.” So you have written something that you know is not true, which makes you a liar attempting to hide behind the off-topic rule.

          Furthermore, I later used the fact of suppression of genuine historical research into the holocaust and compared it with the continuation of the lies about what Ahmadinejad said, which is very pertinent to the article-in-question, and to the way that public opinion is being manipulated against Iran because of what he didn’t actually say.

          Some Israelis would say that the wiping-Israel-off-the-map remark was heaven-sent, and it is still on the lips of everyone who would like Iran to be wiped off the map, but it wasn’t what was said.

          You really don’t want to make the world a better place for everyone, only for the chosen ones, I suspect. The truth matters, no matter the subject, and if it is being suppressed on one subject, the likelihood is that it will be suppressed on other subjects.

          I am not obsessed with any topic, I am interested is finding out what is true and what is false, and I dare you not to delete this comment, but to respond to it, honestly.

          1. Anyone who uses the word “allegedly” associated with the phrase “6 million Jews died” is a Holocaust denier. I don’t care what words you use to describe your beliefs. I don’t mince words when it comes to the Holocaust. Nor do 99% of the rest of the world. If you want to be in the 1% when it comes to the Holocaust be my guest. But you won’t disseminate that nonsense here.

            As I said, if you want to post comments that are on topic you may. But you may not use the comment threads here as a platform for Holocaust denial. Now stop the whining about suppression of free speech or whatever other nonsense you want to bring up. Get on with commenting following the rules if you choose. If you don’t choose there are myriad websites where yr views are welcome concerning the Holocaust. This isn’t one of them.

          2. @ A.L.
            The holocaust is part of a founding myth of a “jewish state”. Note: There is no such thing as “jewish state”. The adjunct “jewish” at best an intitlement for a policy, a “reason of state”. Therefore the religious nationalists in Israel continue to insert the founding myth in anything that aims at sanctioning their doings, also in construeing an Iran- Myth that is topic here.
            Now you come in with the religious notion “truth”. Note: there is no such thing as “truth”, there is at best veracity and/or what is factual and what is not. With the notion truth you mix the factual reference of the two myth, that are intertwined in the said way. Refering to the founding myth Holocaust factual is not, how many jews were killed and in wich way, but the intention to exterminate the jewish tribe in and from the european population. What we can learn from Meridor is, refering to the israeli Iran myth, factual is not, what Khamenei /Ahma did say or did not say, but the intent of whatever was said. And this intent, that is reflected (!) by the ways of construeing the myth, aims not at exterminatin or killing jewish people, but at eliminating the above named israeli reason of state from the palestinian theater.

            So. I understand Richard’s distrust in your or anyones motive to mix up the factual references of the topic. But, Richard, I seriously object to you saying, “anyone who uses the word ‘allegedly’ associated with the phrase ‘6 million Jews died’ is a Holocaust denier” because of the religious notion of truth that this saying parts with its counterpart. The Holocaust is a widely used myth not only in respect of israeli raison d’etat and its history is three, nearly four generations back. So young people have to doubt the myth to come to judge, what is factual and what is not, the same way you elate everyone to do refering to the Iran myth in this blog.

            I hope I did’nt offend anyone with my english and that at the horizon of what I said emerges, that the *factual truth* behind the Holocaust myth is the reemergence and corroboration of the very religious notions, that at least sanctioned it, if not a lot more.

          3. I have no problem with criticizing the uses to which the Holocaust is put by Jewish leaders & organizations in the way Norman Finkelstein has done. The Holocaust as myth can be deeply pernicious and I’ve blogged about this here often.

            But I certainly object strenuously to anyone who disputes the historical truth of the event itself.

  9. Netanyahu’s sly method to preserve the lie:
    “According to a March 2012 article in Israel’s Jerusalem Report, “Even if the Iranians don’t use the bomb, [Netanyahu] fears the very fact that they have it could lead to a mass exodus of Jews from an Israel under nuclear threat, weakening the state and compromising the Zionist dream.”
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R42443.pdf p.14

  10. Richard Silverstein wrote:

    “I don’t care what words you use to describe your beliefs.”

    I don’t have any beliefs. I think about what is right and what is wrong; possible or impossible; free to be studied or suppressed by others.

    I leave beliefs to those who are unable to offer proofs for the claims they make.

  11. @TomGard

    You wrote.

    “Note: there is no such thing as “truth”


    “I hope I did’nt (sic) offend anyone with my english…”

    English is obviously not your first language, but you could have, at least, looked up the meaning of the word “truth” in a decent English dictionary. The word does have an obvious and logical meaning, so it is quite absurd to suggest that there is no such thing and attempt to replace it with veracity and factual

    The religious notion of truth (your words) is quite another issue, but it is meaningless to someone who is not under the thrall of unprovable superstitions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link