Debating Ahmadinejad's Speech at the UN Racism Conference
by Brad Stroud
Mondoweiss has provided an excellent forum for an exploration of the questions of the Holocaust, Holocaust denial, Zionism and the denial of Zionist racism. It centers around Ahmadinejad's speech at the (just completed) UN Racism conference.
Bruce Wolman wrote Who is the bigger obstacle to peace, Netanyahu or Ahmadinejad?. Philip Weiss, however, included a response to this piece: "a vigorous defense of Ahmadinejad by Mohammad of Vancouver, our Iranian-Canadian correspondent." What I'm increasingly admiring about Philip Weiss is his unrelenting openness. Noting that, "as a Jew" he had taken comfort in Wolman's piece, he added "but this site is not about comfort. We aim to be a place where dialogue occurs across national, ethnic and religious lines in a new world."
My view is that the key to understanding what is going on whenever Ahmadinejad speaks and the "west" reports on it is that there are both deliberate and accidental misinterpretations of what he actually states. Aside from the more obvious problems of media distortion of such speeches, there is the problem of meaning and of understanding the objectives that inform the choice of rhetoric. Delving into such matters requires that us "westerners" recognize that we have more than a few shibboleths and that among them are "the Holocaust" and "Zionism".
What some readers may encounter for the first time in reading these two pieces is the idea that "Holocaust" has been and is put to use to accomplish various objectives and that these uses are, in fact, distinct from the fact of the extermination of six million Jews at the hands of the Nazis. "Zionism" is also put to use in manners to achieve particular objectives. For example, it is used by some to ward off all criticisms of Israeli territorial occupation and expansion as being antisemitic (that is, racist). This use can be rather effective in obviating the fact that expansionist Zionism is itself a racist program entailing the complete eradication of a Palestinian homeland.
This is clearly illustrated by reading Wolman's piece, followed by the response of Mohammad of Vancouver.
*
To expand on this topic, another interesting contrast of views about Ahmadinejad's speech comes out of comparing two pro-Palestinian writers at Palestinian Think Tank.
Mary Rizzo, questions Ahmadinejad's tactics in giving such as speech, because it appears he is either not concerned or does not recognize the ways in which "the west" will interpret and disseminate what he says. In the process, Ahmadinejad's speech will be used to attempt to undermine progress towards key peace initiatives in the region.
Gilad Atzmon, by contrast, flat out celebrates the speech. Atzmon, however, celebrates it in terms of truthfulness. That is he applauds Ahmadinejad for stating to "the west" that their history is a long history of racism and that with Zionism, "the west" wishes not to face the fact that it is pretending that Zionist racism is not racism at all.
The two perspectives are not strictly speaking a contrast. Rizzo, however, like Wolman and others such as Jerrold Kessel and Pierre Klochendler mean to emphasize that the dominant powers are western - including the power to dominate the terms of discussion of world conflicts and historical events - and that, in this respect Ahmadinejad's speech plays into that dominant western stranglehold on interpreting world affairs. Atzmon, however, is blatantly emphasizing that Ahmadinejad has uttered truths most unpalatable to "the west" so soaked in a history of racism as they have been. Mohammad of Vancouver, alternatively, provides a look at the meanings and rhetoric of the speech as they will be understood within the populations of the Middle East (save Israel, of course) while contrasting the relatively benign rhetoric of Ahmadinejad, especially when compared to the public statements of Israeli leaders over the past years.
*
Final note: Mohammad of Vancouver also posted at Mondoweiss a breakdown of the nations who either did not attend the conference or walked out due to the Ahmadinejad speech. Any guesses as to the geographical preponderance of these nations?
willtotruth
Mondoweiss has provided an excellent forum for an exploration of the questions of the Holocaust, Holocaust denial, Zionism and the denial of Zionist racism. It centers around Ahmadinejad's speech at the (just completed) UN Racism conference.
Bruce Wolman wrote Who is the bigger obstacle to peace, Netanyahu or Ahmadinejad?. Philip Weiss, however, included a response to this piece: "a vigorous defense of Ahmadinejad by Mohammad of Vancouver, our Iranian-Canadian correspondent." What I'm increasingly admiring about Philip Weiss is his unrelenting openness. Noting that, "as a Jew" he had taken comfort in Wolman's piece, he added "but this site is not about comfort. We aim to be a place where dialogue occurs across national, ethnic and religious lines in a new world."
My view is that the key to understanding what is going on whenever Ahmadinejad speaks and the "west" reports on it is that there are both deliberate and accidental misinterpretations of what he actually states. Aside from the more obvious problems of media distortion of such speeches, there is the problem of meaning and of understanding the objectives that inform the choice of rhetoric. Delving into such matters requires that us "westerners" recognize that we have more than a few shibboleths and that among them are "the Holocaust" and "Zionism".
What some readers may encounter for the first time in reading these two pieces is the idea that "Holocaust" has been and is put to use to accomplish various objectives and that these uses are, in fact, distinct from the fact of the extermination of six million Jews at the hands of the Nazis. "Zionism" is also put to use in manners to achieve particular objectives. For example, it is used by some to ward off all criticisms of Israeli territorial occupation and expansion as being antisemitic (that is, racist). This use can be rather effective in obviating the fact that expansionist Zionism is itself a racist program entailing the complete eradication of a Palestinian homeland.
This is clearly illustrated by reading Wolman's piece, followed by the response of Mohammad of Vancouver.
To expand on this topic, another interesting contrast of views about Ahmadinejad's speech comes out of comparing two pro-Palestinian writers at Palestinian Think Tank.
Mary Rizzo, questions Ahmadinejad's tactics in giving such as speech, because it appears he is either not concerned or does not recognize the ways in which "the west" will interpret and disseminate what he says. In the process, Ahmadinejad's speech will be used to attempt to undermine progress towards key peace initiatives in the region.
Gilad Atzmon, by contrast, flat out celebrates the speech. Atzmon, however, celebrates it in terms of truthfulness. That is he applauds Ahmadinejad for stating to "the west" that their history is a long history of racism and that with Zionism, "the west" wishes not to face the fact that it is pretending that Zionist racism is not racism at all.
The two perspectives are not strictly speaking a contrast. Rizzo, however, like Wolman and others such as Jerrold Kessel and Pierre Klochendler mean to emphasize that the dominant powers are western - including the power to dominate the terms of discussion of world conflicts and historical events - and that, in this respect Ahmadinejad's speech plays into that dominant western stranglehold on interpreting world affairs. Atzmon, however, is blatantly emphasizing that Ahmadinejad has uttered truths most unpalatable to "the west" so soaked in a history of racism as they have been. Mohammad of Vancouver, alternatively, provides a look at the meanings and rhetoric of the speech as they will be understood within the populations of the Middle East (save Israel, of course) while contrasting the relatively benign rhetoric of Ahmadinejad, especially when compared to the public statements of Israeli leaders over the past years.
Final note: Mohammad of Vancouver also posted at Mondoweiss a breakdown of the nations who either did not attend the conference or walked out due to the Ahmadinejad speech. Any guesses as to the geographical preponderance of these nations?
willtotruth
posted by willtotruth @ 10:06 AM
