So what happens on Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) when the guardian.co.uk reports that Ahmedinijad engaged in Holocaust denial in a speech delivered during Quds Day events?
Well you have abbas123 who engages in outright Holocaust denial (hat tip AKUS):
19 Sep 09, 9:05pm
If what German forces did to Jews is Holocaust then what do you say about American bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
We are not sure about the Holocaust since there are many evidences that say Holocaust didn’t took place. [emphasis added]
Even if we assume Holocaust took place it does not justify the Israeli’s illegal occupation of Palestine.
Dr. Ahmadinejad is correct to call Israel as Racist because these people have built an apartheid wall which is causing the Palestinians reduced freedoms, road closures, loss of land, increased difficulty in accessing medical services, restricted access to water sources, and economic effects. The UN General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice to evaluate the legal status of Israels separation wall. In July 2004, the Court declared the illegality of the wall. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other Human rights groups have protested both the routing of the wall and the means by which the land to build the wall was obtained. In a 2004 report Amnesty International wrote that “The fence/wall, in its present configuration, violates Israels obligations under international humanitarian law.”The Red Cross has declared the barrier in violation of the Geneva Convention. On February 18, 2004, The International Committee of the Red Cross stated that the Israeli barrier “causes serious humanitarian and legal problems” and goes “far beyond what is permissible for an occupying power”. People wake up and stop these Racist Governments (America and Israel).
Although abbas123′s comment is now deleted, according to AKUS, it took between 3-5 hours for the moderators to delete this while comments which do not accord with the Guardian World View are deleted in minutes.
And then there is this from Chapaev, that is now deleted:
19 Sep 09, 6:36pm
Ahmadinejad is accused of being a denier of fascist crimes even there is no evidence that he has indeed done so. He did not say that the fascists did not build concentration camps where millions of people were murdered. Nor did he seek to rehabilitate the fascists by demonizing the allies, as many Anglo-American and eastern European revisionist liars do when they equate Russia to Hitler.
The real holocaust deniers are those hateful zionists who deny the fact that massacres, ethnic cleansing, expulsions against the Palestinians have taken place. In particular, they deny the fact that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled by the marauding Zionists in 1948, but instead blame the victims, whom they accuse of voluntarily leaving. Zionist extremists go as far as to deny the fact that even a Palestinian people
From the school of Ben White (remember his 2006 article that flirted with Holocaust denial), we have this undeleted comment from quadibloc:
18 Sep 09, 5:36pm
The term “myth” can have many meanings, so it’s possible Ahmadinejad is actually choosing his words with more care, and he is merely claiming that the West invests the Holocaust with too much meaning. Just because it actually happened would not make it an excuse for the conquest of lands belonging to Muslims. I think that’s a misreading of history, but the issue is complicated; and I still think regime change is the best option for Iran, but I realize the U.S. has quite a bit on its plate right now.
As well as this undeleted one from guysheard:
19 Sep 09, 9:20am
This strikes me as poor reporting. In America there are many national myths (The Alamo, Little Big Horn, 9/11). To call something a myth is not to say that it didn’t happen. It is to say that it is used as a rallying point to focus feelings of nationalism, partriotism, tribalism etc.
When Ahmedinejad describes the holocaust as a myth he may be trying to say many things. It is difficult to say precisely what as the translation into English may have distorted the meaning. The irony is that Ahmedinejad uses the holocaust to try to build an iranian nationalism and is himself myth building.
I don’t see any reference here from Ahmedinejad saying that millions of jews did not die in the Holocaust. It appears that he is saying that the event of the holocaust was used to justify the establishment of the state of Israel by the west on the basis that jews were not safe in a non-jewish state. It is this claim that is inaccurate by ahmendinejad.
The vast majority of jewish immigration into the land of the british mandate of Palestine occured between the first and second world wars. It was these jewish settlers who established themselves by buying land from arabs and creating socialist agricultural communes. There were factors such as the jewish force of numbers which made indigenous arabs feel less comfortable and therefore prepared to sell land around growing jewish settlements to new jewish settlers (in the same way that cultural ghettos have developed in Britain). There was also racially motivated violence between both jews and arabs which carved out small areas of race defined pockets in palestine. It was the jews of this period of immigration who fought a bloody civil war against the arabs and won large areas of territory. They declared a state of israel. The Holocaust itself would not have changed this reality, therefore Ahmedinejad’s analysis is wide of the mark.
Read ‘One Palestine, Complete’ for a good understanding of Palestine’s pre-Holocaust jewish history
And then we have the MEMRI mistranslation meme from Fozzie (also undeleted):
18 Sep 09, 5:13pm
I have no doubt that the Holocaust happened and do not question the figure of 6 million.
The only thing I would say is that Ahmadinejad has been deliberately mistranslated in the past by Zionist outfits (e.g. MEMRI) purporting to offer “objective” translations of Farsi for the Western media. On subjects as sensitive as the Holocaust, it would be easy for them to cynically distort what he actually says and create the wrong impression. So, I urge caution when reading the above.
An example of mistranslation was Ahmadinejad’s alleged statement about “wiping Israel off the map”. He said no such thing. His actual words were “remove the Israeli REGIME from the pages of time.” Just as the Soviet regime was removed from history.
By the way, did anyone ever bother to count –or commemorate–the number of Slavs, socialists, communists, trades unionists, travellers and gays killed by the Nazis? At least 20 million Russians alone died in the fight against Nazism–dwarfing the numbers killed by the Holocaust.
Never mind that according to the BBC (hardly a Zionist outfit!) Ahmedinijad is quoted as saying at the Quds Day events that the Holocaust was “a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim”. Seems pretty unequivocal to me especially given Ahmdedinijad’s previous outbursts denying the Holocaust, his organization of a Holocaust denial conference and an officially sanctioned Holocaust denying cartoon competition.
At least there is one commenter with some sense. According to Discussant:
Ahmadinejad is a jew-baiter of the highest order, so naturally many Guardian commentators rush to defend his every utterance. He says the holocaust is a myth, they rush to say he meant it is over-sacralized. He says the Holocaust is a lie, they rush to say he meant it was a myth that has been over-sacralized to justify the oppression of the Palestinians.
Ahmadinajad calls for the destruction of Israel, and Guardian commentators rush to assure us that he only means “the regime.” Never mind that his speeches are delivered to crowds chanting “Death to Israel.” Orwell could not have designed a better 2 minutes of hate than that which is the normal day to day fare for the Iranian regime. Airstrip One had its Goldstien and the Islamic Republic (and the Guardian) have Israel.
Some commentators are gracious enough to acknowledge the slaughter of the Jews, but note that Russians, Poles, and other peoples also died in WWII. Never mind that no other people lost 90% of its numbers. Never mind that the goal of the Nazis was to kill every single Jew they could get their hands on.
Some commentators note the timing of this news, 2 days after the UN report about Gaza. Ah yes, the ever present hand of the Jew is evident in controlling even Ahmadinejad’s utterances, and the scheduling of Iran’s Quds day.
But this still begs the question, what is it that attracts this kind of discourse to the pages of what is supposed to be a respectable mainstream news media site?





26 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 23, 2009 at 12:47 am
CIFDisgustsMe
The ‘Hate Israel’ crowd at CI(F) are probably, without doubt, the ‘Hate USA’ crowd too.
Achmedinejad is a real prize for them. Just one ‘feature’ would have been acceptable but here we have a ‘Double Whammy’ and ‘protected’ by a pseudo democracy.
It would therefor be natural that they would jump to the defense of Achmedinejad whenever an attempt to remove him and his fanatical backers is discussed.
It doesnt matter that he is homophobic and mysogenistic. I doesn’t matter that he is supported by the same fanatical ayatoullahs who were responsible for the slaughter of the Iranian Left after they took control.
What is important for them is that he is anti US and anti Israel.
Such is the demise of the extreme Left.
September 23, 2009 at 1:09 am
The GuardianIsEvil
But this still begs the question, what is it that attracts this kind of discourse to the pages of what is supposed to be a respectable mainstream news media site?
… and the furtheer question of whether the Guardian management is deliberately fomenting such discourse.
September 23, 2009 at 1:55 am
JerusalemMite
TheGuardianIsEvil – and the furtheer question of whether the Guardian management is deliberately fomenting such discourse.
Good question.
And indicates that you name should be TheGuardianManagementIsEvil.
September 23, 2009 at 2:27 am
Mita
What I found interesting is that when we returned to action on the Al Tikriti thread there were far fewer recommendations for the dark side than usual especially at first, though during the course of the day the numbers grew. Without us around the quiet lurkers had found the article quite unremarkable apparently and hadn’t stayed to encourage the pros since there were none of us to heckle.
It suggests that the worst thing we can do for CIF and the Guardian’s financial position is to reply to the posts here and not on CIF
September 23, 2009 at 5:20 am
Fairplay
“Ahmadinejad is a jew-baiter of the highest order, so naturally many Guardian commentators rush to defend his every utterance…
Orwell could not have designed a better 2 minutes of hate than that which is the normal day to day fare for the Iranian regime. Airstrip One had its Goldstien and the Islamic Republic (and the Guardian) have Israel.”
Some excellent points by Discussant.
September 23, 2009 at 6:03 am
modernityblog
good post
September 23, 2009 at 7:47 am
Louise
What Mita said
September 23, 2009 at 8:05 am
moishe
I’m missing something here: The Guardian is at fault for taking several hours, or sometimes not deleting the offensive posts, But Cifwatch leaves the disgusting anti-Semitic posts of one “Henry Ford” posted?
September 23, 2009 at 8:08 am
Ariadne
Tweet against the mad Azeri at the UN:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/09/23/twitter-against-ahmadinejad/
September 23, 2009 at 8:25 am
Hawkeye
Moishe
“I’m missing something here: The Guardian is at fault for taking several hours, or sometimes not deleting the offensive posts, But Cifwatch leaves the disgusting anti-Semitic posts of one “Henry Ford” posted?”
Henry Ford’s post has been left up purposefully as an example of the antisemitic scum that are attracted to CiF.
And Moishe when posts are deleted in minutes by the mods why should it take between 3-5 hours to take down a post with blatant Holocaust denial (probably only because enough Jewish posters reported abuse) and why are other posts that flirt with Holocaust denial not deleted. And is abbas123 banned for making such an antisemitic comment? These are the questions you should be asking.
September 23, 2009 at 8:29 am
Fairplay
Yes, Moishe – you’re missing the point.
If memory serves, Ford merely posted a link to a racist Website, which most readers of CW wouldn’t touch with a bargepole. Sure, he deserved to be deleted, but as he didn’t actually use antisemitic language, his post received plenty of feedback and was left to stand.
I’m sure that CW has made sure that he won’t be able to use his old moniker in future.
September 23, 2009 at 8:29 am
Fairplay
Bingo, Hawkeye
September 23, 2009 at 8:54 am
AKUS
Excellent article that demonstrates with facts – not opinions – the reality of what goes on daily on CIF, and specially when only certain moderators are available. I have long noticed that it is possible to detect when moderators change shifts as the number of pro-israeli comments suddenly start disappearing from the I/P threads
That web-site acts as a comfortable home for a variety of anti-Semites, first by giving them cover as “only” anti-Zionists, and second by a ferociously biased deletion and banning policy. The moderators, who are either specifically trained to do so, or are selected for their existing bias, seem able to detect and delete comments in seconds that refer to Islam in ways they regard as, shall we say, “unappreciative”, seem to have no such radar available to them when similar comments are directed at Israel, Israelis, and Jews. Calling Israelis “fascists”, “racists”, etc. – except, of course, the three or four house-Jews selected by the Guardian to write condemning Israel’s every move – is the daily fare of CIF commenters.
Certain topics are taboo altogether – usually, any comment that references the hamas Charter is instantly deleted, and the Guardian must have belatedly realized what a terrible mistake it made in allowing AlTakriti to write his article in praise of Hamas yesterday. Numerous references condemning the Charter could not be deleted after hundreds of readers hit the “recommend” button without both destroying the thread entirely and also bringing down further claims of discrimination against the Guardian.
It really does beg the question of why the Guardian does this – and there seem to be only three possible answers, not very pleasant:
a) It drives the number of clicks, and therefore influences advertisers who may be unaware of the sort of readership they are sponsoring – follow the money is usually a pretty good approach to investigating motive
b) Its a convenient way for a small group of inveterate Israel bashers who have taken control of the Guardian to allow others to do their dirty work for them while pretending to take the high road – “Facts are Sacred”
c) They are actually oblivious, due to their biases, of the nastiness they have unleashed and for which they provide a haven
September 23, 2009 at 8:56 am
moishe
Fairplay, I am asking those questions, particularly since I was banned from CIF. But please take a look at Henry Fords latest comment on the “Shana Tova” thread.
September 23, 2009 at 9:27 am
JerusalemMite
AKUS. I think all three. (a), (b) and (c).
September 23, 2009 at 11:25 am
Jubilation1
Has anybody noticed that Talknic is contributing to the green revolution by recycling his names … we now have talkingto2
September 23, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Hawkeye
“And is abbas123 banned for making such an antisemitic comment? These are the questions you should be asking.”
Seems someone at CiF is watching this thread because it appears abbas123 is banned. So since the CiF folks are reading this:
WHY NOT BAN THE COMMENTERS IN OUR COMMENTERS SECTION? ARE THEIR COMMENTS TOLERABLE TO YOU? BECAUSE YOUR FAILURE TO BAN THOSE COMMENTERS AFTER BEING PUT ON NOTICE MEANS YOU IMPLICITLY ENDORSE THEIR VIEWS.
AND WHY SHOULD JEWS BE FORCED TO POLICE YOUR SITE?
September 23, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Fairplay
Wow – Gadaffi just talked of the Arab-Israel conflict at the UN. He claims the Arabs don’t hate the Jews. I can’t wait for Ah-mad-inejad’s speech. Hope the Western countries stage a walkout !
The UN is a world stage. We – the West – must set a good example.
September 23, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Mita
Before the link is deleted I thought I would post the URL that Social Injustice left in his comment:
http://anothermudpit.blogspot.com/2009/09/guardian-uk-as-big-brother-analogy.html
Social Injustice
23 Sep 09, 6:36pm (8 minutes ago)
Well the as usual, the real debate here in the coments isn’t about the topic supposedly being discussed, its about free speech, or the lack thereof in Guardian forums.
I participated heavily in the debate today. And just like clockwork, all the sudden all traces of my posts disappeared. Its the Guardian once again playing the role of the Ministry of Truth from George Orwell’s 1984. You’re all invited to read my newest blogpost: The Guardian UK as Big Brother.
September 23, 2009 at 2:17 pm
StickyMickey
“Henry Ford’s [sic] post has been left up purposefully as an example of the antisemitic scum that are attracted to CiF.”
He wasn’t posting on CIF-He was posting on CIFWatch. That makes him an example of the “antisemitic scum” attracted to CIFWatch.
September 23, 2009 at 2:44 pm
modernityblog
StickyMickey,
CifWatch has previously stated that they *might” leave up antisemitic comments as an example of what they are.
It is their blog, they can do whatever they want, you would to well to remember that.
So if they choose to leave up an antisemitic comment it is for demonstrative purposes only, not because they agree with it.
September 23, 2009 at 2:55 pm
StickyMickey
modernityblog
The point I’m making (not too difficult to grasp) is that anti-semitic comments appearing on CIFWatch should not be attributed to CIF unless the comment is being reproduced from CIF. Do you have any evidence that HenryFord has any association with CIF?
September 23, 2009 at 3:02 pm
modernityblog
StickyMickey,
Do you have any evidence that HenryFord has no association with CIF?
Hmm, same answer eh?
September 23, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Irish
Modernity
I found the site linked to by ford vile.It is upto Cifwatch’s owners which posts they leave to stand, however – what would be the reaction if a CiF poster gave link to thesame site, what is the d ifference?
September 23, 2009 at 6:13 pm
StickyMickey
modernityblog-
HenryFord has been represented by this blog “as an example of the antisemitic scum that are attracted to CiF” without providing any evidence of any association this commenter has with CIF. It’s not me making any assertions about HenryFord. Why do I need evidence?
September 23, 2009 at 6:56 pm
modernityblog
Irish you wrote: “what would be the reaction if a CiF poster gave link to thesame site, what is the difference?”
I suppose it comes down to the difference between CiF and CiFWatch.
On CiF, anti-Jewish racism is acceptable, often condoned and rarely severely punished.
On CiFWatch, the contrary is the case, anti-Jewish racism is critiqued and highlighted.
It would not be possible to critique anti-Jewish racism without examples of it, thus there may be occasions where unacceptable racism **in other circumstances** has to be left up as an example of what antisemitism is.
Without examples it would be near impossible to explain the problem with those links, or particular statements, and anyone wishing to familiarize themselves with the habits of these nasty anti-Jewish racists would not have any material to go on.
That’s the difference.
Which brings us back to Henry Ford’s contribution, it seems unlikely that he found this site out of the blue
It is more probable that it was mentioned on CIF and he followed the link, as a CiF reader. However, it is perfectly clear that he is not a liberal rather a Holocaust denier, as evidenced by that site and his comments.
The Rebel Group is a well-known fixture on the Holocaust deniers/neo-Nazi landscape. It is run by Andrew Winkler from Australia, he also runs the nasty Ziopedia, which pushes Holocaust denial material. Winkler is an active supporter of Ernest Zundel, of “The Hitler We Loved and Why” book fame.
This might help explain about Zundel, http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/p/prutschi-manuel/zundel-affair/za-09.html
I hope that helps explain things.