Portrait Of A Holocaust Denier
I highly recommend this extraordinarily blunt exchange between German magazine Der Spiegel and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the way the questioner peels back the layers of the anti-Semite’s mind:
SPIEGEL: First you make your remarks about the Holocaust. Then comes the news that you may travel to Germany – this causes an uproar. So you were surprised after all?
Ahmadinejad: No, not at all, because the network of Zionism is very active around the world, in Europe too. So I wasn’t surprised. We were addressing the German people. We have nothing to do with Zionists.
SPIEGEL: Denying the Holocaust is punishable in Germany. Are you indifferent when confronted with so much outrage?
Ahmadinejad: I know that DER SPIEGEL is a respected magazine. But I don’t know whether it is possible for you to publish the truth about the Holocaust. Are you permitted to write everything about it?
SPIEGEL: Of course we are entitled to write about the findings of the past 60 years’ historical research. In our view there is no doubt that the Germans – unfortunately – bear the guilt for the murder of 6 million Jews.
Ahmadinejad: Well, then we have stirred up a very concrete discussion. We are posing two very clear questions. The first is: Did the Holocaust actually take place? You answer this question in the affirmative. So, the second question is: Whose fault was it? The answer to that has to be found in Europe and not in Palestine. It is perfectly clear: If the Holocaust took place in Europe, one also has to find the answer to it in Europe.
On the other hand, if the Holocaust didn’t take place, why then did this regime of occupation …
SPIEGEL: … You mean the state of Israel…
Ahmadinejad: … come about? Why do the European countries commit themselves to defending this regime? Permit me to make one more point. We are of the opinion that, if an historical occurrence conforms to the truth, this truth will be revealed all the more clearly if there is more research into it and more discussion about it.
SPIEGEL: That has long since happened in Germany.
Ahmadinejad: We don’t want to confirm or deny the Holocaust. We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not. If it did, then those who bear the responsibility for it have to be punished, and not the Palestinians. Why isn’t research into a deed that occurred 60 years ago permitted? After all, other historical occurrences, some of which lie several thousand years in the past, are open to research, and even the governments support this.
SPIEGEL: Mr. President, with all due respect, the Holocaust occurred, there were concentration camps, there are dossiers on the extermination of the Jews, there has been a great deal of research, and there is neither the slightest doubt about the Holocaust nor about the fact – we greatly regret this – that the Germans are responsible for it. If we may now add one remark: the fate of the Palestinians is an entirely different issue, and this brings us into the present.
Ahmadinejad: No, no, the roots of the Palestinian conflict must be sought in history. The Holocaust and Palestine are directly connected with one another. And if the Holocaust actually occurred, then you should permit impartial groups from the whole world to research this. Why do you restrict the research to a certain group? Of course, I don’t mean you, but rather the European governments.
SPIEGEL: Are you still saying that the Holocaust is just “a myth?”
Ahmadinejad: I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it.
SPIEGEL: Even though no Western scholars harbor any doubt about the Holocaust?
Ahmadinejad: But there are two opinions on this in Europe. One group of scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part. Hence, an impartial group has to come together to investigate and to render an opinion on this very important subject, because the clarification of this issue will contribute to the solution of global problems. Under the pretext of the Holocaust, a very strong polarization has taken place in the world and fronts have been formed. It would therefore be very good if an international and impartial group looked into the matter in order to clarify it once and for all. Normally, governments promote and support the work of researchers on historical events and do not put them in prison.
Remarkable – on principle alone, this a man we most decidedly CANNOT deal with…
Speaking with this man, in any form, be it face-to-face or diplomatic correspondence, would be a collossal waste of time – as Der Spiegel discovered.
“We don’t want to confirm or deny the Holocaust. We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not.”
What sort of doubletalk is that?
Madeline Albright is on a book tour and I heard her being interviewed. In response to a question about Iran she said she advocates engaging in direct dialogue with the Iranian regime. She makes a point similar to that posed by others here: how can it hurt? She then went on to say that she had been a strong, and successful, advocate in the Clinton Administration of engaging in talks with the North Koreans back in their early – pre nuclear – days. This example, and its historical outcome, do not, unfortunately, advance her argument on Iran.
Should we have attacked North Korea, TMS? Just curious what you think should have been done instead.
I see nothing threatening in Ahmadinejad’s statements here. What is extraordinary (when knowing who is speaking) here? He has been brought up to believe the Holocaust is a sham. There are many people brought up to believe various unfounded things. Why is this a surprise? My point is generally rational human beings can be very irrational about certain things after many years of indoctrination (like the existence of God for instance or Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or Big Brother or Fascists [the liberal proverbial Fascist named George Bush, not the historical Italian Fascist]).
Nothing extraordinary about Holocaust Denial?
This man is not a child, he is the President of Iran. He is certainly intelligent enough not to believe his own bullsh**…
The Holocaust is as much a certainty as any event can be…it has been documented beyond all doubt.
This is not a subject that is open to debate…individual facts relating to the Holocaust can be and are reexamined constantly by the scholarly community – but the fact that roughly 6 million Jews were murdered in cold blood by Hitler’s Nazis is not a question, it is a concrete reality…
Mikebdot, your point in as many words -
A) Rational people are sometimes irrational when they are indoctrinated
B) The President of Iran has been indoctinated
C) The President of Iran is rational but indoctrinated
So, our scholarly and skilled wordsmiths will show him the error of his indoctrinated ways in lengthly discussions regarding the proliferation of nuclear weapons and his views on the recognized state of Israel?
It is precisely this line of reasoning that allowed North Korea to gain nuclear weapons, and it will be this line of reasoning that may ultimately allow Iran to gain the same capabilities. Though no one will be foolish enough to call Ahmadinejad “rational” (maybe), the actions of the U.N., United States, and other nations involved speak to the remarkable adherance to this ridiculous line of logic. This man is not rational. Maybe it is because he’s indoctrinated, but that is irrelevant.
I don’t know if attacking North Korea was the way to go, but I do know that at least one other indoctrinated dictator got the message when we went into Iraq. Invasion may not be the answer, but more “talks” certainly will not solve anything with this clearly irrational man.
I know many adults who believe their own bullsh**.
And, yes, I don’t think there is anything extraordinary about denial of any event. People do it all the time. I’ve been to Auschwitz. I know it was a horrible crime against humanity, but that’s not to say I cannot fathom someone thinking it didn’t happen. This should be a very easy topic to discuss with him directly to prove how rational or irrational he is. Show him the evidence, watch his reaction (the questions he asks in return) and have a grand old time with it. Speak truth to power! [that's for you Mark]
There are plenty of people who still believe Saddam had WMD, (the president included?) but that the weapons were hidden or somehow otherwise disappeared. It wouldn’t surprise me if there was a report tomorrow detailing WMD existence and them being hidden in the desert, but that doesn’t mean I believe they exist either.
Evan: A further point not made is:
A) Rational people are sometimes irrational [about certain issues] when they are indoctrinated
B) The President of Iran has been indoctrinated [about this issue]
C) The President of Iran is rational but indoctrinated [about this issue]
D) Let’s un-indoctrinate the president of Iran about this issue [and possibly the rest of the indoctrinated/-ing crowd surrounding him, i.e. the Iranian people/leadership]
Evan: We’re wasting time twiddling our thumbs as it is anyway [what concrete steps have been taken in the past 6 months since Ahmadinejad made similar comments?], let’s actually do SOMETHING diplomatically on the surface and continue whatever path we’re currently pursuing [i.e. planning a war/U.N. resolution]. Parallel paths work fantastically well.
mikebdot, I guess it’s a good thing there are idealists like you to balance out cynics like me – I find it very amusing (not to make fun of you, but in my own cynicism) that you think that (a) Ahmadinejad is open to receiving proof, (b) that he hasn’t received it already, and (c) that he wouldn’t dismiss the proof if delivered from on high as part of the VAST worldwide Zionist conspiracy™…
The level of denial and hatred regarding Israel is so strong among certain elements that, if it has not been witnessed firsthand, it simply cannot be believed…
“Should we have attacked North Korea, TMS?”
Answering this question is as much a waste of time as trying to have a rational conversation with the president of Iran. There is no answer to this question, there is only what was done. If our goal was to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons into North Korea then the action taken failed. Speculation on what might have been had a different course been taken is pointless.
But, in a concilliatory gesture, I would add: reading your posts here is not (pointless).
TMS: Thanks for the sentiment. I do however disagree as we are now talking about what we ought to be doing with Iran. Just because one thing didn’t work with North Korea doesn’t mean it won’t work with Iran. Also, if there isn’t another course of action that you would rather have seen us take with North Korea it would most definitely apply here in Iran. Do you think we should invade Iran even without diplomatic efforts?
Mark: I understand the point of your last statement. Very funny. I’m not saying I don’t believe it, I’m only saying that it’s not out of the ordinary “i.e. extraordinary” for someone to believe whack ass sh**. I see it all the time. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone that didn’t harbor some whack ass thought or another. In this case it is extremely unfortunate as the man is the president or Iran, but I do think like any other human being he can indeed be reasoned with. Yes, optimistic, but I have to be…
Also, this bit on page two is funny:
SPIEGEL: Mr. President, doesn’t there come a time when one should accept that the world is the way it is and that we must accept the status quo? The war against Iraq has put Iran in a favorable position. The United States has suffered a de facto defeat in Iraq. Isn’t it now time for Iran to become a constructive power of peace in the Middle East? Which would mean giving up its nuclear plans and inflammatory talk?
[emphasis mine]
Honestly, I find the discussion [in the interview] very good. I wish we could get a dialogue like that with the president. Not only would it be an interesting read, but I do think it would get something accomplished. Or, wait, Bush is still in office, huh? Maybe not…
“I see nothing threatening in Ahmadinejad’s statements here.”
Try telling that to the Israelis, Mike.
Mikebdot, the whole “un-indoctrinate” idea can only be accomplished by regime change in the short-term, and something tells me you’re un-inclined towards that option (neither did you insinuate your added point 4 in your first post). I do agree we should stop twiddling our thumbs, and I’m with you that concrete action should be taken and therewith followed-through.
Might I ask why you HAVE to be optimistic? Since when has optimism worked out for us in dealing with irrational leaders and dictators in American foreign policy?
The ‘Deadly Charm’ Offensive
Charm offensive’ means of course our Thug-In-Chief’s effort to strengthen anti-Semitic neo-Nazi groups in Germany. “I believe that the German people today are also prisoners of the Holocaust.” These kind of statements are bound to fall on some fert…
We should talk directly to Iran for three good reasons.
First, if the talks fail and we need to use a military option, we will need to demonstrate to both our allies and our enemies that at least we made a serious effort at diplomacy. Any threat of military force will be much more credible if we have others on our side.
Secondly, it is impossible to predict how the talks will work out. Sometimes unexpected things happen when people sit down across a table, “kneecap to kneecap” (to borrow a phrase from Kim Jong Il). We have made deals with some pretty bad people, like Stalin, Kruschev, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, the Fahd family…
Finally, Iran has high unemployment, a crappy economy, and a disaffected populace. The government lacks any legitimacy, but it has maintained its grip on power since the Ayatollah by creating crises and using the Great Satan as the enemy. If we negotiate with the government – even if the talks fail – then it is at least likely that the government will lose its raison d’etre and its ability to rally the masses. The best reason to negotiate directly with Iran is that it is the path which is most likely to lead to the dissolution of the government from within.
Well, Mike and Peter, I’m actually with you, to an extent – I don’t mind pursuing the diplomatic course in tandem with the more aggressive sanctions/force preparations – as long as we all understand just who we’re dealing with and how little his word is worth…perhaps my post overstated the ‘no negotiations, period’ stance – but this constant ‘Zionist conspiracy’ crap rattles my cage, frankly…
Well, as a great American once said, trust but verify…
I think Peter’s first point underscores the necessity of diplomacy in the modern world, so I’m not against using it. However, I think the stakes necessitate pessimissm in order to properly prepare for the likely failure of such diplomatic undertakings. That doesn’t mean I hope it fails, it means we should prepare for other options under the assumption talks will fail, and if they somehow don’t, then great.
Peter, I’m not so sure the premise of your second point is grounds enough to justify negotiating with Iran. I would submit that most, if not all, of those deals made with the “bad people” you list ended up being more detrimental to the U.S. than useful. A deal is not, ultimately, what is desired. Prevention of nuclear proliferation, and nothing else, is what should be acceptable and expected.
As to your third point, it is likely that your “best reason” is precisely why diplomacy will not work. Should your assumption that talks will decrease the Iranian government’s credibility be true (and I think it’s a likely premise to an extent), that will be exactly why Iran will become increasingly pompous as their leverage and position deteriorates. They will likely feed more blantant and enormous lies to the masses to keep them in fear that “The Great Satan” means to destroy them all
Point one: agreed – only the chronically naïve would be optimistic — but the possibility (or likelihood) of failure shouldn’t prevent us from doing the right thing
Point two: the direct and indirect channels we had to the Kremlin were a factor in avoiding nuclear war – without these channels we would not have had a hot line to the Kremlin, the various treaties, etc. – also they were useful when crises arose (the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Russian downing of KAL 007) — of course it remains to be seen whether we can have similar success with Iran (if you define success as the absence of catastrophe) –
Point three: of course we are in the realm of speculation here, but there are many instances in history where a tipping point is reached and the government crumbles because it erodes from within – e.g., Romania, Albania, Poland, the Soviet Union – I think if we tried this tactic with Cuba (instead of simply waiting for Castro to die) we might have felicitous results –
The Soviet Union is really the exception, though, and doesn’t compare well in this situation because the level of power and influence excercised by the Kremlin does not come close to matching Iran’s. Iran is a cornered animal while the USSR was a free-roaming superpower.
While it’s true those governments mentioned in point three crumbled from within, nuclear proliferation and diplomacy relating to it were not factors there. Plus, note that all of your examples are from the Cold War, and each of the mentioned governments fall had everything to do with the erosion of the USSR. My point was that it is precisely because it risks their legitimacy with those who keep them in power that Iran will not listen or act diplomatically. Unfortunately, they will not play into our hands of your point three, as desirable of an outcome that may be. My point wasn’t that it wouldn’t work given the chance, but that the Iranian government won’t give it a chance because they know it would lead to their downfall.
Other examples outside the Cold War: the Philippines (People Power sending Marcos into exile), South Korea (military dictatorships giving way to genuine democracy), Mongolia, and India (the Gandhi-led movement ending British rule). These all — to varying extents — are examples of illegitimate governments being peacefully overthrown from within.
It is certainly possible that the same thing could happen in Iran, regardless of what the government does in reaction. While nothing is a sure bet, in my opinion a direct negotiation with Iran is the likeliest path to true regime change –
“[A] direct negotiation…is the likeliest path to true regime change”? You’re missing the whole point! The Iranians will not negotiate with us on our terms. Our interests in negotiation in no way match theirs, and talking about it will not change their mind.
Of all your historical examples, approximately zero of them came about from direct negotiations with irrational tyrants in the mold of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If we wish to overthrow the Iranian government from within, we need to forget Ahmadinejad and start talking to the people of Iran. However, like their fearless leader, I’m not sure how willing they are to listen.
Negotiations will occur because the rest of the world won’t support action if they don’t, but you’re not being realistic if you honestly think negotiations are the best shot we have at stopping nuclear proliferation.
No, I think you’re missing my point. Let’s suppose that we negotiate with the Iranian leadership and the talks fail. Do you think the government will be able to continue to rally its people blaming the US as the source of its problems? Despite record oil prices, their economy is weak; they have high unemployment; there is a new generation which doesn’t want to end up in prison for not wearing burkas. We come in and offer trade and diplomatic relations in return for a cessation of their nuclear program. If the leadership accepts: we have a successful negotiation. If they choose guns over butter: the government will have no hold over its people except for its prisons. The examples above are all situations where the prisons were insufficient to keep an illegitimate government in power.
I’m not under any illusion that meeting with Ahmadinejad will turn Iran into a Jeffersonian democracy. They may decide to make a deal out of their own self-interest: swapping nukes for American trade relations may boost their economy and keep them in power. However, I think that if they decide not to make a deal, then it is at least likely that their hold on power will become impossible to maintain, as was the case in the examples above.
One other point: by refusing to negotiate with Iran, we are playing into their hand. The Iranian people can correctly perceive us to be inflexible, unyielding, and militaristic. We are demanding the end result (nuclear disarmament) as a pre-condition for talks. No successful negotiation begins this way. There is no dialogue from us, only filibuster. Our President labelled them as being in the axis of evil. We invaded the country next door to find purported WMD, in what the Iranians (and most of the rest of the world) view as a war of aggression. It’s hard to imagine us playing the role of the Great Satan any better than we’ve done — and it’s also hard to imagine that Iran would be as aggressive as they have been if our troops were not bogged down in Iraq.
If Bush were to go to Tehran, it would be a masterful stroke, similar to Nixon going to China. JFK said that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never be afraid to negotiate. Well, to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, Bush is no Jack Kennedy. The strategy of calling Iran an axis of evil and refusing to talk to them has produced no benefits and made the situation much worse. A serious effort to negotiate is the best option available to us.
“The Iranian people can correctly perceive us to be inflexible, unyielding, and militaristic…”
If you take a good look at the oppostion web sites that are currently being run out of that country (in spite of daily threats and jailings for their founders), you would well conclude that this is not a viewpoint than many of them will ever hold.
Well, my Farsi isn’t that good, so I’ll have to take your word for it –
This was one of the main ones, but they shut it down last year – but you can still access their archives (no Farsi required):
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/086169.php
Here’s are two decent ones that are still operating:
http://www.iran.org/
http://iranfocus.com/modules/news/index.php?storytopic=0&start=1950
Brave people who put these out. Here is something of interest from iran.org:
“The State Department says it will spend $85 million to promote democracy in Iran. But will that money actually go to people and organizations who will work toward that goal? An estimated $50 million of the money has already been earmarked to expand Persian-language broadcasting into Iran – by the U.S. government, not by Iranians who know their country best. And some of the remaining money appears to have been mis-spent as well, given to supporters of “reformist” clerics in Iran, not to groups and political parties who seek to put an end to absolute clerical rule.”
Yes, it’s a fairly objective site, as are the others. They’re definitely not shills for the Bush administration, and are not shy about criticizing our country’s policies. For example, when some pundits not too long ago suggested that the Iranian people really wanted our forces to invade and get rid of the mullahs, these sites basically said that was a dangerous notion, owing to their people’s basic pride and confidence in their ability to take care of their own business, thank you very much.
They’ve also taken great pains to point out that Iranians have never considered themselves as Arabs, nor Arabic in nature. Call them Persians always, and do not confuse what Iran wants with what the “Arab world” wants – there is no relationship there.
Absolutely true — after all, they speak Farsi and not Arabic — I have friends and co-workers from Iran (there is a large Iranian population in LA and SF) — apparently the government keeps databases even on expatriates, as I worked with someone who went home to visit his sister and the Iranian government knew which US company he worked for and where he lived –
Now, that’s really creepy.
Please, read the interview again. Carefully.
Ahmadinejad plays brilliant political soccer as he leads the western interviewer from one atrocity and its acceptance, to denial of another atrocity, where gross culpability exists and another historical confession is obviously due.
He does not deny the Holocaust. He works to enable the acknowledgement of the occupation of Palestine and its dreadful consequences.
van, with all due respect, if you read that interview and don’t come away feeling Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier, then your cognition skills are impaired.
I don’t deny the Palestinians have frequently come off on the bad end of the stick…that doesn’t justify Ahmadinejad’s frequent Holocaust denial…