I have often wandered if America is being beaten at its own game. They spread propaganda, fill the hearts of people with fear, and antagonize/terrorize the rest of the world with threats of bombings, embargos or lack of aid. Yet they are easily upset and offended when another bully enters the ring. I find it highly amusing to watch the power play between the US and Iran, better still the reaction of the US people. American’s cried for Saddam’s blood and now they are crying for Ahmadinejad. The cost of one war though upsetting seems to weigh very little in their arguments.
Bush did a fine job molding the American’s people’s point of view in them jumping at the thought of threat. None of them stopping long enough to question or consider that Ahmadinejad is simply playing the game America started. He has made his comments about the Holocaust, and everyone reacted to him as being the next Hitler. Never once stopping to think or question his motives for saying what he did and that what he said could have merely been done for a reaction rather than expressing his personal truth or belief. But then he has learned to play the “big boys” game of “Western Politics,” while most Americans know very little to nothing of their own history, politics or government.
My question is, if he had brought up slavery or the genocide of Native Americans throughout the Americas would we be having this conversation?
7 comments:
No, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
While slavery and Native American genocide are certainly horrific moments in American history,and I don't wish to diminish either of those events, they don't have roots that are as ancient or as holy as Israel's.
Israel is holy to those who are Christian, Jewish, and Islamic. Ahmadinejad's comments that we should just "move Israel to Europe, the US, Canada, or Alaska (?!)" are almost as ridiculous as denying the existence of the holocaust. I mean really, the reason that we aren't "stopping long enough to question or consider" anything he says is because it is pure nonsense.
We know the holocaust existed. I'm not going to list the reasons why- because that would be obvious and silly.
I know why everyone wants Israel. It's a place you can practice your religion freely, like we couldn't do during the holocaust. It's one of the most beautiful places on earth, but more importantly, you feel holy just being there. You can't move the location of The Last Supper. You can't just move Qubbat Al-Sakhra, which dates back to 600 something AD, the sit where Mohammed is said to have descended to heaven. And you certainly can't move the Western Wall, the holiest site in all of Israel, which is the last remaining remnant from when the Roman's destroyed the Jewish temple.
I may not know much about religion, but I do know that while many people identify Israel as a Jewish place, Jerusalem is actually respectfully divided into Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and Armenian quarters. Christians actually have a very strong presence in Israel, and America. In fact, one of the most surprising things to me at the Western Wall was the strong presence of nuns and religious Christians all around me. And everyone was all praying together (well except men and women). You see, while these groups don't agree on whether it is God, or Allah, or Jesus, or any combinations of these that makes Israel so important, they recognize its importance as a place that needs to remain Holy.
So, to get back to the question at hand, Ahmadinejad wouldn't have brought up slavery, or Native American genocide, because neither are tied to Israel- the place he has said he wants to "wipe off the map"- not America, not Africa, not anybody but little bitty Israel, a state which you can (and I have) driven across in under an hour.
Speaking of rhetoric, we have to dissect the discourse in the US around Iran.
Ahmadinejad never said that he wants to "wipe Israel off the map", this was made up during translation.
In Farsi, Ahmadinejad's language, the idea of "wiping off of the map" does not exist. there is no way to say such in Farsi. This is spin/rhetoric that is coming from those who want to bomb Iran. (see article below) Ahmadinejad was criticizing Israel's occupation of Palestine.
http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/ahmadinejad-i-am-not-anti-semitic.html
While I am no fan of Ahmadinejad, he and everyone else must be treated fairly in the press, which is what is not happening now. The New York Post and others media outlets should not be rhetorical and one-sided, they should be factual and neutral. Just shows the sorry state of American journalism.
Juan Cole also says in that post:
"If Ahmadinejad is a genocidal maniac who just wants to kill Jews, then why are there 20,000 Jews in Iran with a member of parliament in Tehran? Couldn't he start at home if that was what he is really about?"
There is a really good documentary on LINK TV that profiles Jews in Iran and the Jewish representative in the Iranain government is interviewed. I was quite surprised to see how the climate is not hostile towards the Jewish population. It's good to see opposing sides of an issue so one can separate fact from fiction and what is true and what is false in both sides' rhetoric.
After reading Brady's post I asked my boss who is Persian about he translation and he agrees that there is no literal translation from Farsi the will say "wipe off the map." Farsi like Arabic has many innuendos, words and phrases that can not have word for word translations.
The fact that Israel is a holy place is not what Ahmadinejad is talking about. No on will contest that Israel is a holy place. What he is talking about is the what that Israel treats Palestine and that Palestine is being (for want of a better term) "oppressed" by Israel. This is a partial interview on what Ahmadinejad's has to say on the topic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykd-syzZ4ZY
I do not agree with him saying the Holocaust did not happen because yes there is evidence that it did, but I do agree with him that Israel has no right to displace Palestine. There is a documentary Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land (i think is the name) that you can watch that tells you of what Israel does to Palestine everyday.
War is never about religion, never has never will. What we are talking about is war, politics and genocide .
Even if the translation doesn't directly mean "wipe off the map", his translators have confirmed the negative connotation. His words meant that he wanted to "wipe Israel from the page of time", exactly. Here is an article on that: http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2006/06/16/01
To say that PALESTINE is being oppressed by ISRAEL! Ridiculous! I mean, when I'm in Israel, my cell phone even reads "Welcome to Palestine". The phone companies there won't even RECOGNIZE Israel
Ahmadinejad quoted an old saying of Ayatollah Khomeini calling for 'this occupation regime over Jerusalem" to "vanish from the page of time.'
He wants the OCCUPATION wiped out from the pages of time, NOT Israel. We need to be factual and fair here. That is what Khomeini said when he was in power and this is what Ahmadinejad is quoting.
It's also extremely important to know the power that Ahmadinejad has is minimal. He holds no power over the military and authority is based on a governmental body (is it the Supreme Council?), headed by the mullahs. Ahmadinejad is viewed as much as a joke in Iran as Bush is in America. Unfortunately, the President of Columbia (in NY) made him a martyr by insulting him publicly, boosting his profile in Iran. He was about to lose an election because his #'s were so low.
The Israeli occupation of Palestine is well documented in many sources, including by many of Israel's own scholars who have compared the occupation to apartheid in South Africa.
I am sure that American tourists would be treated well in Israel proper. But dress up like a pregnant Arab woman or an ailing Palestinian and walk through any checkpoint and the matter would be different.
B'tselem's (the Israeli information center for human rights in the occupied territories) pages are voluminous of the indignities and crimes imposed on Palestinians at checkpoints.
www.btselem.org/english
also, electronicintifada.org
My husband, who was Bar Mitzvah'ed in 1968, says that non-religious Jews in Israel are discriminated against by the extreme religious orthodox establishment who are part of the Israeli cabinet. This group establishes laws regarding the practice of Judaism, from food service to death and burial, that can be viewed as extreme if one does not practice in such a way. He says it may not be as restrictive, punitive and extreme as Sharia (Muslim religious practice with harsh consequences for the non-believer) but it's a matter of degree.
It is interesting that my colleague believes that moving "Israel to Europe, the US, ..." is as ridiculous as denying the holocaust. She should look at the writings of Theodore Herzl (founder of Zionism) who looked at Eastern Africa as a possible site, among other places. "Palestine" was not a absolute given.
Furthermore, read David Ben-Gurion's (founder of Israel) statements regarding how the new nation would deal with Palestinians who live on the land. Throughout negotiations with the British and themselves, the constant was "Transfer" to deal with the "Arab problem". "Transfer" today, how it was envisioned by Mr. Ben-Gurion, is the modern equivalent of "Ethnic Cleansing". The formation of Israel was a power grab, a land grab. Look today how Israel constructs a wall that separates Palestinian families from their olive orchards! Look how the treatment of Israeli violence is treated gently while rock throwing by Palestinian boys could mean the destruction of the family home.
The Baltimore Sun last Sunday did a cover story on the children of Palestine sitting in jails, often without charge or proof of crimes. Clearly, the US army learns from them on how to treat prisoners who are not charged with any crimes.
To my colleague, you're looking at Israel with blinders. You're looking ahead when oppression is on all sides. Next time you go to Israel, visit Palestine, don't just read about it. Read Haaretz, not just the Jerusalem Post. Talk to members of Peace Now for a different perspective.
But this is a rhetoric class and I think that we have covered the rhetoric surrounding Ahmadinejad.
I have to dispel this myth that Herzl looked at Eastern Africa for Israel's location, and that Palestine was not an absolute given. I've heard this misconception before. Joseph Chamberlain, the British Colonial Secretary at the time, offered the Zionists parts of Uganda and Kenya as a settling place for the Jews. At the time, they were looking for a place with fertile land and no population that they could call their own. Some "Zionists" thought that "Israel" could figuratively be anywhere that God was watching over the Chosen People. But literal Zionists, especially Herzl, rejected the idea immediately, stating that the Jews could not settle for land that was just empty and fertile, and that the starting re-settling place MUST be Palestine, where Israel initially blossomed. He did note in his diary, that it wouldn't be out of the question for some Jews to later emigrate to Uganda or Kenya, an area they were considering colonizing only after Israel was secured-- NEVER leaving or MOVING Israel, simply expanding. On a side note, the Zionists learned that the area of South Africa was of course not empty, and that Chamberlain was not recognizing the native Africans as people.
I wouldn't know how American tourists are treated in "Israel proper" because I'm not one. I think what's not clear here is that Israel IS Palestine IS Israel. Right now, what is considered Palestine are some territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and this colleague actually WAS there in July.
I also visited borders with Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria with friends of mine that are Israeli soldiers.
I'm not sure what the fact that Hasidic Jews discriminate against "non-religious" (what does this mean? reform? non-practicing? conservative?) Jews has to do with anything. That is not something that just happens in Israel, it is prevalent everywhere that there are Jews, especially in the US in heavily Jewish areas such as Brooklyn or Pikesville even! I could argue that there are sects of any religion that look down upon others of the same religion for whatever reason.
Lastly, it is not up to anyone to make guesses as to what I have or have not read while in Israel, where I have or have not visited, and who I have or have not spoken with regarding these issues.
I agree, this is a rhetoric class, and that's why I think we should refrain from personal attacks and stereotypes.
Post a Comment