UN racism summit

[Amun-Lothain]

Ok, so this might be old news, but it was just something that made me want to bang my head against a wall.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNew ... 0320090420

Granted, I didn't expect much from Ahmadinejad, and obviously neither did the other countries who boycotted the conference altogether, but then he goes and makes a statement that was... true. Following WWII, you have the creation of a Jewish nation, with what would be a racist government by definition, in a land occupied mostly by Palestinians. Because of racism in Europe, you have a racist regime created in the Middle East. Seems accurate to me.

And then you have these democratic nations like France, Italy, and the US that call this outrageous, hateful, vile, etc., and don't want to hear a word of it. Seems a tad hypocritical. Now maybe its a bit like the boy who cried wolf, but Ahmadinejad is making a true statement this time, and no one listens. There seems to be a mythology surrounding this whole issue, so much that we're afraid to discuss it.

Thoughts?

[Lethalis]

I'm sure someone somewhere deep down meant well to organise such a summit. But realistically, the lines in international politics are drawn and reason doesn't enter into it.

[Allerion]

ah, the old "we dont like what your saying, so were not going to listen" policy....

heaven forbid the "democratic" nations try to understand what someone says, and the logic behind their reasoning.

[Loflar]

Funny, it seems that even Reuters did not bother to publish the full speech. You can read it here: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=92046

Well, our news did not cite it at all, they just informed about racist and antisemitic speech which made democratic (the word is now used in meaning: those we like and worship) politicians leave...

I don't agree with everything he said. In some parts it really sounds like claiming that every wrong was prepared by evil Jews in US establishment. But a lot of what he said seems to be truth, it's just that western diplomats will never admit it, because they would have to admit that they are guilty.

And I fully agree that inability of UN to really act against some crimes is solely caused by some states having veta in security council. But again, these states will never officially admit it.

[VictorK]

I have to strongly disagree with you, Amun. Israel was not established because of the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad's history is completely false on this, Jewish settlement in Palestine had been going on for sixty-seventy years before the Holocaust.

There is something to be said for Zionism being motivated by systemic Christian anti-semitism in Europe, but it is incredibly disingenuous to suggest as Ahmadinejad does that Israel is the result of European powers feeling guilty for the Holocaust. The historical record doesn't support that, and chronologically it's impossible.

[Loki17]

I have a hard time believing that Ahmadinejad's position on Israel being racist simply has to do with the reasons that he gave and nothing to do with the whole "We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth" reason he believes in.

[Ahriman]

Alot of this comes down to perspective. Everyone has different views on the Israeli state. And it is these perspectives that drive the countries to eith help or hinder Israel. The Arab/Muslim nations will never accept Israel and will constantly look to disrupt Israel, diplomatically or otherwise. Why? Because the view Israel and its people as invaders who have taken the land that belongs to the Plaistineans. And the Israelis will never surrender their nation. Why? Because they finally have their Promised land. Which they were promised during the time of Moses. So essentialy we have a never ending conflict. And as for the US/UK/ someother western nations. They are stuck supporting Israel, because to not support them will be akin to commiting political suicide.

I have a hard time believing that Ahmadinejad's position on Israel being racist simply has to do with the reasons that he gave and nothing to do with the whole "We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth" reason he believes in.

Yes but that is the perspective of most, if not all Arab nations. They see Israel as a nation that shouldnt exist as they have stolen land that, in their view, rightfully belongs to the people of Palestine.

[VictorK]

Alot of this comes down to perspective. Everyone has different views on the Israeli state. And it is these perspectives that drive the countries to eith help or hinder Israel. The Arab/Muslim nations will never accept Israel and will constantly look to disrupt Israel, diplomatically or otherwise.

Then why have Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel? Why is Turkey aligned with Israel?

The history is far more complex than mere 'perspective'. This conflict is not endless. It is not thousands of years old. It can be solved through the normal operation of politics.

[Ahriman]

Then why have Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel? Why is Turkey aligned with Israel?

The history is far more complex than mere 'perspective'. This conflict is not endless. It is not thousands of years old. It can be solved through the normal operation of politics.

Let this be a lesson to all you new posters out there. Dont follow my lead and post too early in the morning before you are "in the zone". Otherwise you will be owned by someone else. Just like I was. I think from now on I should refrain from posting before 1 pm in the afternoon to avoid any further ownage

[Musashi]

I have to strongly disagree with you, Amun. Israel was not established because of the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad's history is completely false on this, Jewish settlement in Palestine had been going on for sixty-seventy years before the Holocaust.

There is something to be said for Zionism being motivated by systemic Christian anti-semitism in Europe, but it is incredibly disingenuous to suggest as Ahmadinejad does that Israel is the result of European powers feeling guilty for the Holocaust. The historical record doesn't support that, and chronologically it's impossible.

It was an ongoing project, but the aftermath of WWII prevented any really serious attempts at curtailing it.

[Amun-Lothain]

I have to strongly disagree with you, Amun. Israel was not established because of the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad's history is completely false on this, Jewish settlement in Palestine had been going on for sixty-seventy years before the Holocaust.

There is something to be said for Zionism being motivated by systemic Christian anti-semitism in Europe, but it is incredibly disingenuous to suggest as Ahmadinejad does that Israel is the result of European powers feeling guilty for the Holocaust. The historical record doesn't support that, and chronologically it's impossible.

I'll grant that it has been ongoing before the Holocaust, but as Musashi said, WWII played an important role. I should have added to first post, but I don't agree with everything Ahmadinejad says. It wasn't European guilt, it was kind of a win-win convenience thing. You had Europe, which doesn't want the Jews, you had the Jews, who didn't want to continue to be persecuted, and you had this nice chunk of land with no officially recognized owners. So creating Israel was like killing two birds with one stone. The push to settle exploded after that, and you had thousands of Jews immigrating in and thousands of Arabs being pushed out. Palestine was attempting to create a recognized nation at the same time as well, but the Zionist movement won out. The best comparison I can think of is Iran and their push for nuclear weapons. After their war with Iraq, where you had just about every country supporting Iraq, and turning a blind eye to Iraq's illegal tactics, Iran gets the feeling that "Well damn, they're gassing us, bombing us, nobody cares. The only way we'll get anyone to take us seriously is if we get some nukes." It was kind of the same thing after WWII for the Jewish people. "Well damn, they're gassing us and killing us by the thousands, and nobody cares. The only way we'll get anyone to take us seriously is to have our own country. Oh and we can get some nukes."

I have a hard time believing that Ahmadinejad's position on Israel being racist simply has to do with the reasons that he gave and nothing to do with the whole "We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth" reason he believes in.

Also granted. I'm not saying I'm a fan of his, just saying that his statement has truth to it.

[VictorK]

It was an ongoing project, but the aftermath of WWII prevented any really serious attempts at curtailing it.

So long as the aftermath of WWII in this sense is not considered to be the Holocaust. The only people who could've prevented the emergence of the Jewish State were the British who controlled the Mandate, and along with a general de-colonization impulse that went on throughout the Middle East that saw the installation of Hashemite monarchs in Jordan, Iraq and Syria the British were not willing to continue to fight the Jews and the Arabs over Palestine. They washed their hands of the matter and stepped back when the mandate expired. I don't see any more sympathy for the Jews than that which inspired measures like the well known Balfour Declaration. Indeed, during the war the British stepped back from their gaurantee of statehood to the Jews, because they realized they needed Arab oil a lot more than they needed the political support of prominent Jews. This led David Ben-Gurion to make his famous statement (paraphrased) following the British policy change: "We will fight the Nazis as if there were no white paper, and we will fight the white paper as if there were no war."

Remember when Israel was established. They just celebrated their 61st anniversary. 1948. Not very long after the war at all. Holocaust as a term to describe the event, while in use for a variety of things before the war and passing through elite and academic circles since the 1950s, isn't a term that gained wide popular usage until the late 1970s. Even Shoah, the word used by the Jews to describe the genocide, wasn't adopted formally until the 1950s. The Convention on Genocide, a response to the Holocaust, doesn't gain traction until right about when Israel is being created. It is difficult to say that support for Israel in the early years derives from the Holocaust, as the event while known, reflected upon and understood, did not really have the same power it does now. That was constructed over many years. Look at the language used in the 1947 partition plan:

1. It is incontrovertible that any solution for Palestine cannot be considered as a solution of the Jewish problem in general.

5. Two basic questions have been taken into account in appraising the feasibility of the federal-State solution, viz., (a) whether Jewish nationalism and the demand for a separate and sovereign Jewish State must be recognized at all, costs, and (b) whether a will to co-operate in a federal State could be fostered among Arabs and Jews. To the first, the answer is in the negative, since the well-being of the country and its peoples as a whole is accepted as out-weighing the aspirations of the Jews in this regard. To the second, the answer is in the affirmative, as there is a reasonable chance, given proper conditions, to achieve such co-operation.

This doesn't exactly sound like the report of a body overly concerned with making amends for Nazi crimes. I'll continue this discussion, but Amun-Lothian's points need to be addressed.

I'll grant that it has been ongoing before the Holocaust, but as Musashi said, WWII played an important role. I should have added to first post, but I don't agree with everything Ahmadinejad says. It wasn't European guilt, it was kind of a win-win convenience thing. You had Europe, which doesn't want the Jews, you had the Jews, who didn't want to continue to be persecuted, and you had this nice chunk of land with no officially recognized owners. So creating Israel was like killing two birds with one stone. The push to settle exploded after that, and you had thousands of Jews immigrating in and thousands of Arabs being pushed out. Palestine was attempting to create a recognized nation at the same time as well, but the Zionist movement won out.

This is a fundamentally false interpretation of the establishment of the state of Israel. The entire point I'm trying to make, between you and Musashi, is that of autonomy. The push to settle exploded after that? Jews, organized in Europe, had been purchasing land in and settling people on the area of the Ottoman Empire known as Palestine since the 1880s, perhaps even before depending on your source. The Jews raised their own money, conducted their own political lobbying campaigns, and organized themselves. There was no magic moment or a backroom deal when the European powers decided to create Israel. It was what we would now call a grassroots colonization project independent of a European state sponsor. Before Europe gained control of the Middle East during WWI the Jews worked with the Ottomans. Afterwards they worked and had a very turbulent relationship with the British.

Prior to the Holocaust the Jewish Authority governed the Jewish community in Palestine, and the Haganah defended them. They were, for all intents and purposes, self governing and had procured enough weapons to be self sustaining. The period of the explosion of Jewish settlement was the 1920s and 1930s. Indeed, it coincides with the rise of Nazism, but do you know what the British reaction was? They made immigration to Palestine illegal! This was hardly a case of the Europeans foisting the Jews off on the Middle East. For better or for worse, for right or for wrong, the Jews made their own destiny. That's what makes the story so compelling, some Jews recognized in the /1860s/ that the pendulum of anti-semitism which was ingrained in Christian European culture was going to swing back against them and that the only way that they could ever survive and flourish as a people was to establish their own independent state. And they did it! In another age they would be hailed as heroes, but they had the misfortune of being late to the colonial game and running right smack dab into the anti-colonization movement. What the Jews did in Israel is merely the latest incarnation of a European trend that had been going on for centuries, the only substantial difference is timing. We are wiser now than we were then.

But for these reasons I cannot in any sense endorse Ahmadinejad's or anyone else's contention that Israel was established before the Holocaust. Indeed, Israel is tied to European anti-semitism, but it is not a direct response to the Nazis. The idea of Israel predates them, the settlement of Palestine is older than Nazism, and if the Nazis had any role at all it was proving Herzl right. The rise of Nazism was an immigration pressure, not a causal factor. Nor did states immediately gravitate to Israel because of Holocaust guilt. The oft-touted line that the United States was the first state to recognize Israel has more to do with the second state to recognize Israel than it does with the Holocaust; in this case the Soviet Union. The primary benefactor of Israel up until the 1960s was not the United States but France. The point is that all of this has more to do with each state's interests in the region than it does with Holocaust guilt. Can you imagine a United States President today essentially ordering the Israelis to give up territory as Eisenhower did during the Suez Crisis? No, it's unthinkable. The idea of the Holocaust as the legitimator of Israel is the same as pretty much most of our ideas about the Holocaust; it was constructed over time by people who have a certain interest. They might be correct, but it's still constructed. None of this arises organically. That is not to cast doubt on the historical facts of what happened, only to say that those facts do not have an unambiguous meaning. Actors must intervene to give historical events, even genocides, meaning. And these claims by Ahmadinejad and members of this forum that the Holocaust was an impetus or a powerful force in the creation of Israel are just an aspect of that constructed meaning reaching backwards through time.

[Gondarion]

I don't buy the idea that a Jewish state, even one foisted on the the middle east, is racist. Yet I also doubt Europe even thought or cared a lick about the non-white apple cart they were upsetting.

Either way, the UN, the US and the rest of the world have done way too much to legitimize this dumbass loud-mouth Ahmedinajad. He's a smug, possible insane idiot and whats more is a mere puppet of the clerics, he isn't worth paying any attention to, seeing as he's not actually the leader of Iran. Of course, intelligence isn't in big supply amongst world leaders and government bodies. neithr likely is sanity, for that matter.

[Allerion]

He's a smug, possible insane idiot

isnt this an accurate description of the majority of politicans?

I think the Jewish govt. cares more about Jews than Arabs, but not to an extent to where its an issue.

Has Europe ever really cared for their non-european possessions? besides what the territory can do for them? (ducks from inevitable object thrown at me)

[The Red Elf]

I don't buy the idea that a Jewish state, even one foisted on the the middle east, is racist. Yet I also doubt Europe even thought or cared a lick about the non-white apple cart they were upsetting.

When they did what? In the UN, American states played a greater role than European ones in both recommending (4 vs 3) and approving (15 vs 13) Palestine's partition. Undermining the influence of the UK in the Middle East was the goal of the USSR and France (which, owing to its rule of the Maghreb and greater dependency on Arab oil cared a lot more about the Arabs than any American state); you criticise European racism, but it actually played a far smaller role than American racism. Without the impact of the Holocaust, it is incredibly unlikely the UN would have approved of partition, and indeed doubtful whether the Zionist insurgency would have embarassed the UK enough for it to get that far.

[VictorK]

It's important to remember that the partition of Palestine never actually happened, what emerged at the end of the Mandate was the British washing their hands of any outcome and the Jewish Authority declaring a state the night before it ended to stick their thumb in Britain's eye. The divided nature of Palestine up until 1967 is a reflection of the war that preceded and followed the declaration of the state; the first the defeat of the Palestinians in the civil war and the second the actions of the Arab states that invaded Palestine following the declaration. I still maintain the influence of the Holocaust was largely on immigration, the UN Partition never went into effect (being rejected by the Palestinians) and no nation intervened to aid Israel, the Jewish Authority did the heavy lifting.

[Elaithnir]

Victor's research is well done as usual. The colonisation of Palestine by the Zionist movement had already been gaining a lot of momentum before the 40s and the Holocaust. The Holocaust I think merely provided that extra bit of immigration incentive. As for Europe/America not caring about upsetting the situation because the residents were non-white...Probably they would have acted the same no matter by who or where the drama was being played out. Colonies, and especially troublesome ones, were a decidedly low priority for Western powers after WW2.

[VictorK]

If there is racism here I think it's found in the general imperialist impulse that was consensus in Europe and America and informed the tactics of the Zionist movement. The final ratification of the state of Israel has less to do with racism and more with simply recognizing the facts on the ground. You'd be extremely hard pressed to say that the British or the Americans at the time of the creation of the state of Israel were racist against Arabs in favor of the Jews. Imperialism inherently short changed them, but the British pulled back their support for the Jewish project because they needed Arab oil during the war and the only reason the United States recognized Israel was because we didn't want them to become a Soviet satellite in that critical region. It's perhaps important to note at this point that Zionism was a heavily socialist enterprise, some Zionists even saw Israel as an economic experiment as well as a Jewish state.

You could perhaps make a different argument based on relations as they currently stand, but the relationship of the West to Israel today is far different than it was in 1948. Pretty much every Western state acted in furthering its own interests in the early years of Israel's existence, and didn't start to shift to more 'unconditional' modes of support until much later.

[The Red Elf]

It's important to remember that the partition of Palestine never actually happened, what emerged at the end of the Mandate was the British washing their hands of any outcome and the Jewish Authority declaring a state the night before it ended to stick their thumb in Britain's eye. The divided nature of Palestine up until 1967 is a reflection of the war that preceded and followed the declaration of the state; the first the defeat of the Palestinians in the civil war and the second the actions of the Arab states that invaded Palestine following the declaration. I still maintain the influence of the Holocaust was largely on immigration, the UN Partition never went into effect (being rejected by the Palestinians) and no nation intervened to aid Israel, the [Jewish Agency] did the heavy lifting.

I mentioned the UN Partition Plan because I think it's clear that's the way Gondarion thinks Israel was 'foisted on the middle east' by 'Europe', and because you had previously brought it up. As I said in my previous post, the impact on the Holocaust on international opinion severely limited the ability of the British to suppress the Zionist insurgency and was largely responsible for the embarassment that caused the UK's 'washing their hands' of the Palestine issue. Were it not for the Holocaust, the UK could have suppressed the Zionist insurgency and the fate of Palestine would not have been handed over to the UN. Israel was certainly created by the Zionists' greater force of arms, not the UN Partition Plan, but it was the Holocaust that prevented an even greater force (the British armed forces) being used to stop them and therefore left the Arab Palestinians at their mercy.

The racism I was talking about was in the population of American states that feared social instability caused by an influx of Jewish refugees were a Jewish state not established in Palestine. Glick cites this as one of three systematic reasons for the broad approval of partition amongst Latin American states (others being genuine concern for the refugees' welfare and nationalism). Syria alleged that Poland (where many Jewish refugees were expected to be resettled) was similarly motivated in its vote in favour of partition, but by 1947 its foreign policy was clearly dictated by Soviet realism. The point is that the desire to avoid having to resettle their share of refugees caused by the Holocaust caused them to decide to foist Israel on the Middle East. It is incidental that the Palestine Commission was never able to carry out the UN Partition Plan, which as I previously said is also the result of the Holocaust's impact on international opinion.

[VictorK]

I mentioned the UN Partition Plan because I think it's clear that's the way Gondarion thinks Israel was 'foisted on the middle east' by 'Europe', and because you had previously brought it up. As I said in my previous post, the impact on the Holocaust on international opinion severely limited the ability of the British to suppress the Zionist insurgency and was largely responsible for the embarassment that caused the UK's 'washing their hands' of the Palestine issue. Were it not for the Holocaust, the UK could have suppressed the Zionist insurgency and the fate of Palestine would not have been handed over to the UN. Israel was certainly created by the Zionists' greater force of arms, not the UN Partition Plan, but it was the Holocaust that prevented an even greater force (the British armed forces) being used to stop them and therefore left the Arab Palestinians at their mercy.

You'll have to educate me on this, were there British plans to suppress the Zionist insurgency? I know that the British had tangled with the Zionists throughout the tumultuous Mandate period and with the Stern Gang especially, but given that the Mandate was going to expire anyway and that the British could prop up any interests they had in the region through Transjordan with its largely British trained and commanded Arab Legion? It's plausible, and perhaps I'm just looking at too late a period, but I don't sense anyone holding the British back from activity in Palestine, it seems to better fit within a general exhaustion on the part of the British for their monumental efforts during the war.

It is incidental that the Palestine Commission was never able to carry out the UN Partition Plan, which as I previously said is also the result of the Holocaust's impact on international opinion.

I wonder why that isn't in the language of the partition? I again think that this is plausible, but the preamble to the Partition that I quoted in this thread on at least two occasions downplays the role of any Jewish sympathy in the Partition and seems more interested in recognizing facts on the ground generated by sixty years of Zionist immigration.

[Andruillius]

I think the Jewish govt. cares more about Jews than Arabs, but not to an extent to where its an issue.

Umm, EXCUSE ME?

You should read up on the policies of Israel's new foreign minister. And continue from there.