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.
An Existential Threat and its Solution.
May 8, 2009
by Brad Stroud
The bottom line is the settlements. They are an existential threat to the Palestinians. Their expansion is an existential threat to the Palestinians. Therefore the expansion of settlements must stop. Therefore the settlements must be dismantled.
The bottom line is the settlements. They are an existential threat to the Palestinians. Their expansion is an existential threat to the Palestinians. Therefore the expansion of settlements must stop. Therefore the settlements must be dismantled.
This is the only true and real existential threat in the Middle East.
Do not be placated by political talk from the lips of Obama and administration or any member of the Israeli government including Netanyahu until the words are these:
Obama: “Mr. Netanyahu. Dismantle the settlements.”
Netanyahu: “The Zionist ambition for a Greater Israel has seduced us into believing that anything great could come out of the complete destruction of a homeland for the Palestinians. Our future, our greatness as a nation, can only come about from a greatness of spirit. This spirit begins today with me as I sign into law the dismantling of the settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.”
(Citizens and human rights advocates around the world cheer in unison! And those opposed? What ill thoughts must they be thinking to oppose this?)
by Brad Stroud
Israel’s Settlements Entail the Destruction of an Independent Palestinian State Putting aside every other issue, Israel’s settlement policy in the West Bank alone is sufficient to destroy the possibility of a viable Palestinian State (i.e, a politically independent entity with autonomous control over its borders, its resources and the movement of its people.). Since 1967 and its victory in the Six Day War, Israel has developed the public policies and policing strategies to ensure a steady and incremental appropriation of Palestinian lands and resources while also severely restricting Palestinian rights and freedoms. These policies and strategies continue more or less unabated even during so-called peace negotiations such as the current talks initiated at Annapolis in November, 2007.
