I just wonder: What if he had acknowledged the historical reality of the holocaust, and condemned it for what it was, before going on to his remarks about Europe?
This would be a troublesome frame for a lot of reasons. Under this reading, Israel becomes the final indignity of the colonial powers collectively, who dumped their moral obligations on Palestine instead of cleaning up their own mess.
To the extent that Europe exerts any kind of a stabilizing influence on the region, this frame would have a destabilizing tendency by undermining Europe's moral authority.
I'm not sure whether Ahmadinejad would be more or less dangerous if he acknowledged the holocaust. The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
If you look at the troubles of the middle east through the prism of British decolonization, Israel really is the last time that Britain got away with what they wanted. The next time they tried (Suez) they and the French took a beating and the US took over.
Robert Fisk just recently published a book highlighting how the current occupation of Iraq parallels the disastrous British occupation after the Ottoman empire collapsed.
Geopolitical abuses of 60 years ago are difficult to undo. If Ahmadinejad is advocating another abuse to compensate the Palestinians he'd just be sowing the seeds of 60 more years of conflict. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
I'm not entirely sure I understand your statement:
"Israel really is the last time that Britain got away with what they wanted."
I don't know the history of the region in great detail, but as I recall, Jewish organizations waged a fairly bloody campaign against the Mandatory government in the years following WW2 (prime minister Menahim Begin was involved in a hotel bombing that claimed over 90 lives). The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
I suppose it's hard to attribute what the British Empire wanted so I shouldn't have said that. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
The British government used troops who had spent most of their war in the far east ( my grandfather spent a good deal of the second world war avoiding capture ). This was so they would not be too "soft" on the Jews emmigrating from Europe.
At the time the Arab League were using availability of oil to make threats to the British.
At the same time Jews, in Poland who were returning to their homes form the camps were the victims of pogroms by their old neighbours. Money is a sign of Poverty - Culture Saying
it's dangerous because of its historical grounding
Santayana's dictum that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it is often quoted. For my part, I think history is too often just a list of grievances, and that remembering history all too often just leads to re-enacting it with the roles of victim and executioner reversed, adding an item to the list and waiting for the next repetition. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
This said, Ahmadinejad is being criminally stupid in his poker game. He feels emboldened by the quagmire that Bush created next door, and free of any balance now that the main regional enemy, Iraq, is gone for good. However, these are gratuitous kicks to the European governments, the only people standing between him and a full-scale confrontation with the US. He's making it difficult for Paris and Berlin to help him, and I don't really understand why... unless he really is another little Adolf.
Don't you ever miss those old, predictable Soviet leaders...?
British interest in Zionism dates to the rise in importance of the British Empire's South Asian enterprises in the early 19th century
During World War I the British had made two promises regarding territory in the Middle East. Britain had promised the local Arabs, through Lawrence of Arabia, independence for a united Arab country covering most of the Arab Middle East, in exchange for their supporting the British and Britain had promised to create and foster a Jewish national home as laid out in the Balfour Declaration, 1917.
In June 1922 the League of Nations passed the Palestine Mandate. The Palestine Mandate was an explicit document regarding Britain's responsibilities and powers of administration in Palestine including "secur[ing] the establishment of the Jewish national home", and "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine". The document defining Britain's obligations as Mandate power copied the text of the Balfour Declaration concerning the establishment of a Jewish homeland
The document defining Britain's obligations as Mandate power copied the text of the Balfour Declaration concerning the establishment of a Jewish homeland
Besides, do you really think the European leaders will do anything more than informing bush about how it is a royally bad idea to invade Iran, regardless of holocaust-denying or not?
