Speaking to thousands of people in south-eastern city of Zahedan, Mr Ahmadinejad brushed aside criticism of his views, saying it was orchestrated by supporters of Israel.
"If someone were to deny the existence of God... or prophets and religion, they would not bother him. However, if someone were to deny the myth of the Jews' massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can," he said.
"If you [Europeans] committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?
4 comments:
I'm confused by your posting of this article Nadir. By doing so, are you condemning, or endorsing the Iranian President's viewpoint? Or maybe you're simply bringing it to our attention.
What would you see as an acceptable response from Israel and Europe to this kind of rhetoric and threat?
I'm posting it because I think the debate is entertaining.
I think you know my views on imperialism and colonialism. It's a controversial position, but I agree with Paul on this one. Find a country that is willing to take them and set up a state of Israel there.
Of course, that couldn't include anywhere in North, Central or South America or Austrailia because they are not currently ruled by the rightful owners either...
Why not Russia?
To answer your second question, I don't think the proper response from Israel/Europe/U.S. is to bomb Iran. He is talking shit. He is trying to win allies for the coming war against his country among those Middle Eastern residents (not all radical) who believe the nation of Israel should not exist.
From what I understand though, most Iranians are not happy with his rule or his rhetoric. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
I have a mixed reaction to the Iranian president's views. As for locating a Jewish state somewhere besides the former Palistine, I theoretically support this position. I believe that establishing a Jewish nation in Isreal was the greatest lasting mistake made in the 20th century (other bigger mistakes -- communism, fascism, naziism, Japanese imperialism -- having been corrected). But I also view the refusal of the Muslims to accept that mistake as a nearly equal big mistake. Justifying the establishment of Isreal in Palistine either because of old testiment fairy tales or German attrocities committed in Europe are preposterous.
However, that was over 50 years ago, and every state (city-state, nation-state, etc.) that has ever existed can trace its existance to actions that are unjustifiable by today's standards (Azteks, Zulus, Mongolians, Romans, Egyptians, Ethiopians, etc.). Nadir's quest to find a nation today that is "ruled by the rightful owners" is thus a fool's errand, except for the application of a single standard: governments that "are of and for the people" of today. No one living today participated in any of the atrocious actions that led to the existance of most nations that today are governed by the rules of representative democracy. Regardless of what any of our ancestors suffered or committed, if we find ourselves born into a democracy, or if we immigrate into a democracy, we are lucky to find ourselves unique in history and even in the world today: living in a nation "ruled by its rightful owners."
By this standard, I grade Isreal as very nearly qualifying for this distinction. In contrast, I believe that none of the other Arabian (or, if you prefer, "Arab") countries come close to qualifying as "ruled by its rightful owners," with Iraq and Lebennon making a push for this certification. If either of those countries do produce a democracy, and make no special designations for racial or religious designation (as Isreal does), the muslim world will finally have some moral justification for objecting to Isreal assigning special previlidges to humans who qualify as "Jewish."
"No one living today participated in any of the atrocious actions that led to the existance of most nations that today are governed by the rules of representative democracy."
I would have to say there are quite a few people who were alive 50 years ago and are still around today. Ariel Sharon is one.
Also these conquests are ongoing processes. The Palestinians have not given up the fight and they suffer atrocities today. 50 years is not a long time in the history of the world.
The Mohawks in Quebec still consider themselves to be a sovereign nation, and they rebelled against the Canadian authorities in 1990 to prove that point. They never surrendered, and in their mind the Canadians are living on occupied territory. Sound familiar?
Paul, democracy is not a religion, though you treat it like it is. If you believed that were the case, however, you would certainly be advocating the rights of native Americans to retain their land rights. The Iroquois nation was one of the oldest and best forms of democracy.
Post a Comment