Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s visit to Columbia University continues to provoke intense debate. The controversy tends to revolve around his comments regarding the Holocaust and calls for Israel’s destruction. While the debate surrounding his visit focuses on the Iranian president’s views, the more important issue to consider is why anti-semitic language carries such currency in the Arab world. By understanding this rhetoric in the context of Iran’s ambitions for regional power, the rationale for his demonization of Israel becomes more clear.

Ahmedinejad’s public observations on the Holocaust are another strategic move in framing the future of the Middle East along Iran’s hegemonic hopes. The recent war in Lebanon, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and his incessant critique of Jewish history all served to demonize Iran in the eyes of America, but in doing so also galvanized its reputation on the Arab “street.” The more Iran thumbs its nose at Israel, and by default America, the more popular it will become with the one constituency it must win over to achieve regional hegemony – that being Sunni Muslims.

As a predominantly Shia nation, Iran’s success in achieving regional power in the Middle East, and potentially across the Muslim world, will be based on framing conflict as a matter of Muslims vs. Israel and America, as opposed to one nation or sect versus another. This is also one way of neutralizing the other nation with regional ambitions in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia. The Saudis benefit from sectarian division that pits Sunni vs. Shia, thereby setting Iran at odds with the rest of the majority Sunni Muslim nations. However, with regards to the Arab public, the Saudis suffer from their close political and military ties to the US. As the impression remains in the Middle East, a friend of America’s is de-facto in league with Israel. Iran, recognizing this fact, is manipulating anti-Israel and anti-American sentiment to bolster its standing with Arabs across the region. The irony is this sentiment was fostered mostly by Sunni regimes over the past 30 years as a means of managing public anger. It is a political maneuver that, in the case of Ahemdinejad’s Holocaust commentary, is morally and ethically reprehensible.

The fact that this type of rhetoric actually works is informative of the intellectual poverty and defeated mentality of the larger Arab world. Ahmedinejad is a pragmatic realist, in the Machiavellian sense of the term. He would not initiate this type of anti-semitic discourse if he did not think it would help him garner support. And the true tragedy is that there are probably some who think higher of him for doing it. However, Arab peoples are not inherently anti-Jewish. They are simply responding to what their leadership gives them.

One of the few consistent freedoms Arabs across the region have had since colonial independence is the freedom to belittle, caricature and dehumanize Jews. If a street light blacks out in Damascus, rest assured it will be blamed on the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Peruse a book bazaar on the streets of Cairo and you will either find a copy of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” or a children’s book equivalent. The anti-semitism that Ahemdinejad is feeding on with his Holocaust commentary is the product of decades of political oppression and economic stagnation. The ruling regimes of the Middle East have used and manipulated the Palestinian tragedy to pacify their populations in hopes that they forget their own leadership leaves so much to be desired.

Ahmedinejad’s discourse on Jewish history is by all means reprehensible, there is nothing to be gained by revisiting the magnitude of the Holocaust. The real tragedy, however, is the political repression of the Arab peoples by their leadership. Anti-semitism will remain a potent political tool in the Middle East as long as Israel is the only thing Arabs are allowed to publicly complain about.

>> the future of the Middle East along Iran�s hegemonic hopes <<

Thats the vision of almost all politicised Islamic movements in the Middle East as far as I can tell.

He does it because thats the political prerogative of the moment. He uses Palestine the way Bush will use 9-11. It is the same political methodology with a different political background. HE will say muslim, Bush Americans. He will say Islam, Bush will say democracy. The same tyranny and abuse of powere for two different groups.

I see/hear this "muslim-pride", Ummah domination talk just about everywhere. Most people speak it because they believe this blind sycophantic loyalty is a requirement of Imaan. Muslim politicians and Ulema know about this tendency and manipulate it to its maximum. Which makes it no different to the nationalism and secularism of the Americans. And I fail to see how this very poltically astute analysis is being reserved for a Shia leader where there is little/no talk about specific Sunni politicians and specific Arab regimes.

>> a friend of America�s is de-facto in league with Israel <<

Friends with the current administration, the military industrial complex and the oil cartels definitely can be considered this.

>> One of the few consistent freedoms Arabs across the region have had since colonial independence is the freedom to belittle, caricature and dehumanize Jews <<

Some people would have me believe its our Islamic duty.

The President of Iran is no Hitler. After reading transcript of his speech, my conclusion is that he is a statesman, and a great anti-imperialist leader. I was surprised to learn that he still teaches at the university level. He has handedly exposed the designs and hypocrisy of the powers who seek to dominate the region. A strong Iran is bad news for American and Israeli expansionists.
Given the genealogy of the Arabs, it is an act of pure ignorance to call them "anti-semetic."

Well, well, well. I think thats what the Pope said about dealing with Hitler. Leave it to Allah, eh, Ghulam Bhai. But unfortunately, no hurricane or great flood popped up to eliminate the evil empire. Someone had to take up arms to eliminate the scrouge. And taking up arms has its own dynamics, irrespective of your religious persuasion.

>>... taking up arms has its own dynamics, irrespective of your religious persuasion.

Not if you're Muslim, not if you cared an ounce about the good and evil deeds you'd carry to your grave, and not if you understood the nature of modern warfare.

>> I think thats what the Pope said about dealing with Hitler.

Guess what .. being racist is not war?! It only befits tyrants to manipulate such weak sentiment in the favour of war. Which is why our Prophet SAW waged war on those Jewish tribes that betrayed the pact of Medinah but not against those who did not or had no part in that agreement. Because from his noble example, he (PBUH) was NOT a manipulative, miseducating propogandist and tyrant.

>> A strong Iran is bad news for American and Israeli expansionists.

A strong America is bad news for Al Qaeda and Iranian expansionists. Freedom of the press is bad news for these groups (western islamic eastern african martian). Human rights are bad for all these groups. Economic justice is bad for all these groups. Governments that are accountable to their people are bad news for all these groups. There is no fundamental difference in the philosophy that is expressed through their actions and words.

>>... taking up arms has its own dynamics, irrespective of
>> your religious persuasion.

> Not if you're Muslim, not if you cared an ounce about the
> good and evil deeds you'd carry to your grave, and not if
> you understood the nature of modern warfare.

I see. So kindly enlighten us on the difference between temporary marriages allowed to Sahaba with local women while on war duty and the rape of local women by American soilders in Iraq. Sound pretty similar to me.

Firas Ahmad, you wrote, "The anti-semitism that Ahemdinejad is feeding on with his Holocaust commentary is the product of decades of political oppression and economic stagnation."

Why did you leave out the fact that the United States had toppled the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in 1953 and put in his place the puppet Shah? (See this book review of All The Shah�s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror at
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss17/booknotes-All.shtml )

Why did you leave out the fact During the Iran-Iraq war the United States sold weapons and gave false intelligence to both sides of the conflict? (see
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2292 )

Is it because you are ignorant or is it because you are in denial?

Firas Ahmad, your wrote, "The ruling regimes of the Middle East have used and manipulated the Palestinian tragedy to pacify their populations in hopes that they forget their own leadership leaves so much to be desired."

Remember when on 9/11 Israel released a film that was shown world wide, alongside the image of the collapsed World Trade Center towers, which purportedly showed Palestinians cheering about the attack?

You have nothing to say about this.

Are you aware that on 9/11 several Israelis were arrested on 9/11 for dancing and cheering while filming themselves with the WTC in the background?

Learn about it here and note none of the reporters are Arab or Muslim

-- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=575834042418696847

-- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6110095161238848541

-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2nVkN983fU

-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7-hSEyVDz0

-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTFImTQm6Kk

>A strong America is bad news for Al Qaeda and Iranian expansionists.<

Nonsense. The Iranians have not invaded any country for over 200 years. "Al-Queda" is a by product of American terrorism, they're just a generic label yanks throw around to justify invading countries. To call either group expansionists is nothing short of dishonesty and ignorance.

How come Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, doesn’t get the same attention as Ahmedinejad for being a “Holocaust denier”? See http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=ia&ID=IA9502

Israel has no problem supporting Abbas against Hamas. Just like Israel had no problem supporting and allowing to flourish Hamas against the secular Yasser Arafat.

Actually “support” is the wrong word to use. Israel pits one group against the other, in order to fuel and perpetuate the violence.Then Israel uses this as an excuse to bomb and occupy Palestine.

>> The Iranians have not invaded any country for over 200 years. "Al-Queda" is a by product of American terrorism

So the wars between Iran and Iraq in the 80's, and all the other quibling middle east regimes is over somebodys goat? Expansionism whether militarily, economically or ideologically for the sake of maintaining and controlling power is ... expansionism.

>> So kindly enlighten us on the difference between temporary marriages allowed to Sahaba with local women while on war duty and the rape of local women by American soilders in Iraq.

What are you talking about? This is exactly the problem. There aren't any Sahabah waging defensive wars or anti-oppressive wars anywhere. The modern military operates on a conscienceless basis with little or no arbitration between groups and the use of extremely destructive machinery of war. Nobody can wage a clean war anymore. Ask the Janjaweed militias in Sudan. There are no smart bombs or satisfactory temporary marriages in 21st century conditions.

And don't fool yourself... whether Americans initiate or support terrorists in an open or subversive way .. knowledgeable and devout MUSLIM MEN are rushing to take part in terrorism with full faith of their justifications. While I don't fault them their situation, BUT the relevance of the Prophet SAW example in their methods has dwindled to nothingness and it is that way in the case of modern war.

War is war. It has its own dynamics. Mostly of the ugly kind. Surely as Muslims, there is a sweet overcoating to it. But once you wipe that of the surface, you find behaviorly, everybody behaves the same way. Its like taking a Pepsi-Coke taste test. You blindfold the neutral observer (i.e. hide the outer labels) and he won't be able to tell who is the good guy and who is the bad guy in the game of war. And that is my point.

When you have a standing military, there is always someone itching for a fight, Muslim or not. For this one ought to watch the cartoon movie FATIH SULTAN MOHAMMED, featuring the story of the capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Sultans. Quite interesting how similar the Ottomans look like the Americans in thier quest therein.

The poochy poochy pseudo-sufi types like Ghulam Bhai are always quick to quote the Prophetic example, but the Prophet (pbuh) did fight in wars and did kill off a nice chunk of enemy Jewish fighting men in cold blood, when he very well could have sent them into exile instead. And the Sahaba like anyone else did crave for some nice war booty (metaphorically speaking). MEANING: One should not be too judgemental of Iranian sabre rattling. Comes as part of the package for maintianing a standing army of fighting Muslim men to defend ones lands.

Or put another way. WAR is inevitable between Good and Evil, like or not.

It seems like everyone has taken it for granted that Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust. I dont know if that is true, but i know that the media has certainly framed him in this way. What actually does Ahmadinejad believe, does anyone know this, with any reasonable level of certainty (I certainly dont claim to know)? The comments I've heard by him seem to skip around the issue of acceptance or denial of the holocaust but seem to focus more on the percieved lack of openness about the issue in the West.

The real interesting question to me is, how is it that secular scientific europe came to a such a point that Jews were demonized and persecuted from a non-religious secular point of view? Though I grew up learning about the holocaust and of course sympathizing with its victims, this question was never addressed. Remember Germany was one of the most advanced countries scientifically at the time, they had long ago liberated themselves from religion and its "shackles." The media encourages us to believe that it is religion (or at least religious extremism, however defined) that is the source of intolerance, but the holocaust seems to be a significant anomaly.

The second issue is, how has the holocaust been used for political ends. This is the other issue that I've heard Ahmadinejad bring up and I think in this case it is a legitimate one, that has been sorely overlooked. Narratives of suffering can be used for political ends, there is no doubt about that. The question is then, how has the narrative of suffering inherent in our memorials to the holocaust been used to justify the continued existence and behavior of Israel? This is an important question, but one that cannot be asked in the West in an open way. It's too controversial and its a question thats avoided out of fear ultimately, that one might be percieved as an anti-semite. Is this an obstruction on our freedom of expression? Certainly it is a legitimate query, and a legitimate question for academic research. I've heard Norman Finklestein has dealt with this issue in his The Holocaust Industry, and not surprisingly he's been the source of tremendous controversy. (there were attempts made to fire him from his university professorship, he's been demonized and pretty much been excommunicated from the Jewish community, his parents also happen to be holocaust survivors )

This is how I've understood some of Ahmadinejad, ( I dont claim to understand him). His objection is that Muslims are attacked by Westerners on the grounds of freedom of expression, but that same freedom of expression is not granted with respect to this issue. It's a double standard. The subtlety of this position is absolutely lost, perhaps in translation, perhaps in misinformation. Given that most percieve the Iranian leadership to be the equivalent of Osama bin Laden and his cronies, portraying Ahmadinejad as a holocaust denier fits in the box of the Muslim extremist, and then our discussion turns away from an academic discussion of the holocaust, to the extent to which we condemn Ahmadinejad. I think we saw this last week or so in the controversies surrounding ahmadinejad's visit and columbia invitation for him to speak.

I've heard Norman Finklestein has dealt with this issue in his The Holocaust Industry, and not surprisingly he's been the source of tremendous controversy. (there were made to fire him from his university professorship)

The other disturbing thing is that I've noticed that many people have begun to equate bush and ahmadinejad as being equally extereme in their politics. This seems silly to me. Iran hasn't attacked any countries in probably the last several hundred years, and they have no plans on doing so. Ahmadinejad does not support wanton terrorist activity against citizens of the west. America has a much more extensive history of military engagement. One cannot make analogies based on rhetoric; a more appropriate basis for comparison is their historical record.

>So the wars between Iran and Iraq in the 80's, and all the other quibling middle east regimes is over somebodys goat? Expansionism whether militarily, economically or ideologically for the sake of maintaining and controlling power is ... expansionism.<

Don't play with words and lie, Ghulam. Iran never attacked Iraq. The Iran-Iraq war happened because Iraq invaded a portion of Iranian territory, with support from the west and its local allies. Your allegation of an Iranian expansionism sounds more the propaganda put out by the Americans, the same people who are doing the expanding.

The question is then, how has the narrative of suffering inherent in our memorials to the holocaust been used to justify the continued existence and behavior of Israel?

Ahem. Treating this as a secular and non-religious matter, The Holocaust had the effect of making the establishment of Israel an imperative. However, the secular "justification" for its existence was enshrined in the WWI Balfour Declaration. It was all part of the break-up of the Ottoman Empire: the Jews of Palestine were to switch their allegiances from the Turks to the Brits, so they could become sodiers in British-led joint Jewish plus Arab armies to wipe out the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East. Israel's establishment, then, is at least as legitimate as the Arab nations of the Middle East; it was a package deal from the very beginning. If there was any error made, it was waiting until after WWII to set up a Jewish administration of Palestine, rather than setting one up immediately as was done in the Arab states.

As for the legitimacy of Israel's continued existence, one sufficient reason that Israel is needed is testified by the action of the independent Arab states of disenfranchising, impovershing, and expelling their Jewish populations, people who probably would have been exterminated otherwise - as too many Arabs still seek to do.

>> The Holocaust had the effect of making the establishment of Israel an imperative.

That is a farce. When did zionist terrorism start in Palestine? (date it please) When did the Naqba occur and when did the world discover the atrocities that were the holocaust? Don't make stuff up.

>> who probably would have been exterminated otherwise

THAT IS A RACIST LIE! A hypocritical and untrue statement meant only to demean Muslims. 1400 years of Muslim history in the middle east indicate differently. Indeed ... the 50 odd years since the apartheid state was established are true indicators of neighbourliness and assimilation that zionism is. When the arab refugee population is as big as the jewish population, I wonder who has the right to pre-empt extermination in that circumstance.

>>> The poochy poochy pseudo-sufi types like Ghulam Bhai (not your bhai) are always quick to quote the Prophetic example, but the Prophet (pbuh) did fight in wars and did kill off a nice chunk of enemy Jewish fighting men in cold blood.

Are you saying that the Prophet SAW did not allow people recourse? That he used trumped up allegations to legitimise war? That he instilled the Sahaba with some base/nafs fervour to make them good soldiers? I'm asking you to justify your statements in light of the history. You also going to ignore the tremendous torture and difficutly Muslims faced in establishing the cause before they established the fight? What is poochy is how keenly aware you are of what mob mentality is like when armed with rifles. My religion has no mob intentions. Nobility and humanity aren't minor byproducts. SEARCH THEM OUT AND FIGHT THEM, BUT DO NOT TRANSGRESS THE LIMITS... and what if they submit?

>>> One should not be too judgemental of Iranian sabre rattling.

Firstly ~ That is not what Iranians are doing. Secondly ~ Modern warfare needs to be quintessentially professional. Only Nations that are quick to slaughter their own men (for lack of the capacity run a military campaign) resort to such petty tactics.

Secondly this topic is not about some delusional fascist self effacing vision where you imagine history in glorious Rambo styled patches. Armies are fuelled by men and men fuel armies through discipline and respect for the chain of command. The ethical requirement on Muslims who are commanded to fight by Allah under specific conditions and within those moral guidelines seems to escape you.

>> Are you saying that the Prophet SAW did not allow people recourse? That he used trumped up allegations to legitimise war? <<

Well. Firstly I am not here to second guess the Prophet (S)!! Only to draw some lessons from the incident. It seems awfully harsh punishment to kill a bunch of local militiamen for something trivial like treason. Duh. The punishment was of course not chosen for them by the Prophet (S) himself, but by a mutually agreed upon independent ombudsman. That the Prophet (S) did not reduce that to a lighter sentence must lead one to some conclusion. One cannot say that was "humane or noble". One can say that it was just.

>> That the Prophet (S) did not reduce that to a lighter sentence must lead one to some conclusion. One cannot say that was "humane or noble".<<

The ethical guidelines on Muslims regarding Jihaad are very stringent. As per your "injunction" that the random "militia"-men committing treason is a less than heinous crime, you have to consider the risk to the fragile Medinian state that resulted from the treason and the many Ansaar and Muhajireen killed because of it. Then you must consider that the tribes were fearful of the Prophet SAW and so chose their own arbitrator over him. They suffered the failed choice of their own chiefs and the punishment was the punishment of their own talmudic law. Had they requested the Prophet SAW for mercy, it would be reasonable to consider that he would have granted it because the Quraan justifies this as the required action. And in final it must be said that the Prophet SAW may have not "liked" the action but as Muslims we accept that he acted in accordance with the will of Allah SWT in the matter.

hmmm .. is it shirk to say that the Prophet SAW acted in accordance with the "will" of Allah? I feel like its a philisophical boundary that has been crossed.