President Ahmadinejad of Iran visits New York

The dean of Columbia University's school of International and Public Affairs, Lisa Anderson, invited the Iranian President, Mr Ahmadinejad, to speak at the World Leader's Forum, a year-long program that aims to unite "renowned intellectuals and cultural icons from many nations to examine global challenges and explore cultural perspectives." A staggering thing to do? Well Columbia University has form in the area of inviting representatives of anti-semitic regimes to speak at their University. In 1933 Columbia University invited a representative of the Nazi government in Germany to speak at the University, you can read an article on this visit here. "in 1933, Columbia president Nicholas Murray Butler invited Nazi Germany’s ambassador to the United States, Hans Luther, to speak on campus, and also hosted a reception for him. Luther represented "the government of a friendly people," Butler insisted. He was "entitled to be received ... with the greatest courtesy and respect." Ambassador Luther's speech focused on what he characterized as Hitler's peaceful intentions. Students who criticized the Luther invitation were derided as “ill-mannered children” by the director of Columbia’s Institute of Arts and Sciences...Columbia also insisted on maintaining friendly relations with Nazi-controlled German universities. While Williams College terminated its program of student exchanges with Nazi Germany, Columbia and other universities declined to do likewise. Columbia refused to pull out even after a German official candidly asserted that his country’s students were being sent abroad to serve as “political soldiers of the Reich.”

In 1936, the Columbia administration announced it would send a delegate to Nazi Germany to take part in the 550th anniversary celebration of the University of Heidelberg. This, despite the fact that Heidelberg already had been purged of Jewish faculty members, instituted a Nazi curriculum, and hosted a burning of books by Jewish authors. Prof. Arthur Remy, who served as Columbia’s delegate to the Heidelberg event, later remarked that the reception at which chief book-burner Josef Goebbels presided was “very enjoyable.”"

Of course Columbia was not unique in inviting representatives of Nazi Germany to speak at American Universities, Harvard, MIT and Princeton all did likewise. The difference is that these other universities seem to have learnt the lesson of the 1930's whilst Columbia has not. According to Israel’s ambassador, inviting Ahmadinejad to speak is the equivalent of “inviting Hitler to [speak] in the 1930s,” because “appeasing fanatics and granting them legitimacy leads to genocide and war.” Will some future Columbia president one day look back at the invitation to Ahmadinejad and say the same thing? I hope not but fear it may be the case.

It appears that the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, yesterday withdrew the invitation to the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In a statement issued yesterday afternoon, Mr. Bollinger said he canceled Mr. Ahmadinejad's invitation because he couldn't be certain it would "reflect the academic values that are the hallmark of a University event such as our World Leaders Forum." He told Ms. Anderson that Mr. Ahmadinejad could speak at the school of international and public affairs, just not as a part of the university-wide leader's forum. That is something but appeasement was not the answer in the 1930's and I don't believe it is the answer now.

It appears that President Ahmadinejad also asked to visit Ground Zero during his visit and this request provoked the response that he wanted, that is lots of anger that a supporter of terrorism in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and elsewhere and a vehement enemy of the USA wanted to visit the site of the Twin Towers' destruction by Islamic terrorists in 2001.

Judge them by what they say

This is copied from the latest Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin as I think it worthy of spreading.

"The widespread condemnation of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's speech attacking Israel and Zionists at the UN's "Durban II" conference in Geneva made headlines around the world. But Western leaders and media seem reluctant to take the next step: Recognizing that the Iranian leader's views are not an isolated phenomenon, but are widespread in the Muslim world.

PMW director Itamar Marcus and associate director Barbara Crook examined this issue in an article published in The Ottawa Citizen.
When Hatemongering is Common Currency
Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

Ottawa Citizen, April 24, 2009 (online edition), April 27, 2009 (print edition)

The world reacted with outrage at the speech by Iranian President Ahmadinejad at the Durban Review Conference on Racism in Geneva. European countries stormed out of his talk and released an array of statements condemning his words.

But the real problem is not that an Ahmadinejad exists, or that he proudly and vociferously spews hatred against Jews and blames Zionism for the world's evils. The problem is that his views are anything but unique in the Muslim world.

Tragically, it seems that Western leaders are using Ahmadinejad as their radical Islamic whipping boy in order to content themselves that they are doing all they can to fight growing radical Islamic racism, its calls for a world without Israel and genocide of Jews, and its espousal of Holocaust denial.

In reality, the strong media and government reactions to Ahmadinejad's hate promotion serve only to highlight their hypocrisy in ignoring the same ideology when it's expressed by Arab leaders who have succeeded in making the Western world's list of "good guys."

Saudi King Abdullah - whom President George W. Bush kissed and to whom President Barack Obama bowed earlier this month -- has blamed Israel for terror attacks in Saudi Arabia: "We can be certain that Zionism is behind everything ... I don't say 100 percent, but 95 percent." [Saudi 1 Television, May 2, 2004]

Grade 9 children in Saudi Arabia are taught that "the hour [of judgment] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees, until the rocks or the trees say, 'O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him!"

Earlier this year, the head of the Department of Islamic Studies at Saud University pronounced that "Jews are the enemies of Allah." Dr. Walid Al-Rashudi also prayed for the extermination of all Jews: "Kill them one by one and don't leave even one." [Al-Aqsa (Hamas) TV, Jan. 12, 2009.

It is the very existence of the Jews, not their actions or even their Zionism, that fuels the rhetoric of many Islamic political and religious leaders.

"If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not. . . . They are enemies not because they occupied Palestine. They would have been enemies even if they did not occupy a thing," said Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Ya'qoub.

". . . You must believe that we will fight, defeat, and annihilate them, until not a single Jew remains on the face of the Earth." [Al-Rahma TV (Egypt), Jan. 17, 2009]

Is this any different from Ahmadinejad's calls for a world without Israel?

And look at Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, depicted by the West as a moderate to whom Israel is supposed to offer statehood. But the TV channel directly controlled by Abbas's office regularly runs educational programs to teach Palestinian adults and children alike that there is no state called Israel, and that all Israel's land is actually "occupied Palestine."

Palestinian children are taught that Israeli cities throughout the entire country - from Haifa in the North, to Jaffa (part of Tel Aviv), to Eilat in the south, are all actually Palestinian cities. Videos feature songs about a "Palestine" that erases Israel and a future when the Israeli cities Jaffa and Haifa will be "liberated."

Hamas, which has convinced many Western leaders and journalists that it spends more time building schools than bombing civilians, broadcast a sermon earlier this month depicting the Jews as enemies of humanity, inherently evil, seeking to rule the world and a dangerous threat to Muslims.

"The time will come, by Allah's will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this earth." [Hamas (Al-Aqsa) TV, April 3, 2009]

Why is Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial so passionately denounced when Palestinian Holocaust denial is so utterly ignored? Hamas TV broadcast a special documentary last year, explaining that the Holocaust was a Zionist scheme to rid the world of elderly and handicapped, and to gain world sympathy. Fatah's PA TV broadcast a children's program that said explicitly that Israel burned Palestinians in ovens. (Click to view)

So why is Abbas presented as a peace partner, Egypt as a peace broker and Abdullah as a friend of the West? Why does the world not react with outrage to calls for "extermination" of Jews from anyone other than Ahmadinejad?

If the West is serious about peace, then all hatred must be condemned. And we must recognize that the real enemies of peace are not only the Ahmadinejads of the world, but the "friends" who have mastered the doublespeak of calling for peace in English while inciting hatred in Arabic."

Why won't the world listen to what Muslim political and religious leaders say to their own people as well as what they say to the outside world?

He hasn't gone away

I haven't blogged about Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a while, mainly because I find reporting his antics boring and depressing, however this report of his recent visit to Turkey caught my eye:

"Ahmadinejad's visit produced little in terms of substantive policy; the signing of a multibillion-dollar natural gas pipeline deal was put off. But Ahmadinejad got something just as valuable: a chance to spin his own image, court popularity and bash the United States and Israel.... Departing from established practice of having visiting Muslim heads of state pray in a smaller mosque in Istanbul, the government allowed Ahmadinejad to pray in the Blue Mosque, Turkey's symbol of tolerant Ottoman Islam. With permission from Turkish authorities, he also allowed Iranian television to videotape him during the entire prayer, in violation of Islamic tradition, which requires quiet and intimate communion between God and the faithful. There was so much commotion around Ahmadinejad that the imam had to chide the congregants. Then, as he left the mosque, Ahmadinejad got out of his car to encourage a crowd of about 300 to chant, "Death to Israel! Death to America!""

He really is a little charmer, isn't he?

Anyone who thought that electing the AKP, under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Abdullah Gül, into power in Turkey was a good and sensible idea may want to think again, and maybe should read my linked articles...

"It's alright, it's just rhetoric", "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad didn't mean that Iran wants to wipe Israel off of the map"

"It's alright, it's just rhetoric" and "Ahmadinejad didn't mean that Iran wants to wipe Israel off of the map" are just two of the lines I hear from haters of Israel. Odd that as here's something that Ali Reza Forghani, a supporter of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and former governor of Kish province, published in an article titled "Countdown to an Attack on Israel". Here's an extract:

'Naturally, after that we must equip and upgrade the Syrian forces for the final blow against Israel, [a blow that will continue] until it is totally destroyed. We must in no way repeat the mistake of the Gaza [war] – accepting a ceasefire.'

...

'"Of course, the Allies in the Syria war perceive Israel's existence in the region in the same way – that is, that it conflicts with the existence of several governments and ideologies [in the region – i.e. those of Iran, Syria, and Hizbullah]. So, attacking and completely eradicating Israel from the planet is the only solution to this problem.'

Actually to be fair it's not just Israel that Iran's Islamist leaders want to destroy. Here's another extract:

'"Another important difference between World War II and the Syria war that will eventually lead to World War III, is the playing field. Unlike World War II, the Syria war began in a single country; the invading players [intend for it] to end in a second country, Iran.

...

"[Then] World War III will erupt... and that game will have no winners. Both sides will lose, because some countries on both sides have nuclear weapons. Once the war escalates, the threat of these weapons... will make the other side launch a nuclear war.

"So nothing can be expected but the destruction of all humanity. But even before nuclear weapons are used, World War III could cost more than five times as many lives as World War II – some 260 million."'

You can find much more of this material at MEMRI but almost certainly not on the BBC who ignore the fact that many of the Iranian leadership, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are believers in the coming of the 12th Imam. A brief explanation; according to Islamic belief, an Imam is an anointed leader or ruler. Amongst Shia Islamists, an Imam is believed to be a prayer leader or cleric who is anointed by the Islamic prophet Allah and a perfect example being able to lead mankind in every way. The 12th Imam, according to some Shia Muslims including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a great spiritual saviour. This saviour has a name; Muhammad al Mahdi. This Mahdi was born around 868 A.D. but devout Shiites believe he continues to guide Muslims. Mahdi’s followers are often called ‘Twelvers’. Some devout Shiite Muslims believe him to be a direct descendant of the prophet Mohammed. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is seemingly, a deeply committed Shiite Muslim and has spoken often and openly about praying for the return al Mahdi, his saviour. He believes that the 12th Imam is coming soon and that he is the chosen one. Chosen by Allah himself to bring about the Mahdi’s return; which is to be hastened by creating chaos throughout the world. 

So now do you see why people like I am concerned by President Ahmadinejad's desire for nuclear weapons. It's not just Israel that he wants to destroy, it really is everything!

Are Channel 4 taking the piss on Christmas Day?

This year Channel 4's Alternative Christmas message will be delivered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Channel 4 state that:

"He will be delivering a spiritual message and his broadcast will also feature a message of seasonal goodwill."

Here's an extract:

"If Christ was on earth today, undoubtedly he would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies the world over"

I wonder which countries Mr Ahmadinejad has in mind as "warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies"; somehow I think he is thinking of the USA, UK and of course Israel rather than China or Russia or Iran (via its proxies) or any other Islamic country.

Then there is the matter of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's documented anti-Israel and holocaust denying comments. Do Channel 4 think that they should give a platform to a holocaust denier? Will they be allowing David Irving a platform to speak, maybe on Yom Kippur 2009?

Do Channel 4 think they are "just" being edgy and controversial or do they actually support the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?


Maybe they could introduce Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by playing this introduction to an address by him, this speech being by Columbia University President, Lee Boolinger:


Somehow I doubt that they will be anything like as "controversial".





Thanks to Donal Blaney for the video spot.


Thanks to AZ StarNet here is a transcript of Lee Boolinger's speech:

"I would like to begin by thanking Dean John Coatsworth and Professor Richard Bulliet for their work in organizing this event and for their commitment to the School of International and Public Affairs and its role -- (interrupted by cheers, applause) -- and for its role in training future leaders in world affairs. If today proves anything, it will be that there is an enormous amount of work ahead of us. This is just one of many events on Iran that will run throughout the academic year, all to help us better understand this critical and complex nation in today's geopolitics.
Before speaking directly to the current president of Iran, I have a few critically important points to emphasize. First, in 2003 the World Leaders Forum has advanced Columbia's long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate, especially on global issues. It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas or our weakness of our resolve to resist those ideas or our naivety about the very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open our public forum to their voices; to hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.
Second, to those who believe that this event should never have happened, that it is inappropriate for the university to conduct such an event, I want to say that I understand your perspective and respect it as reasonable. The scope of free speech in academic freedom should itself always be open to further debate. As one of the more famous quotations about free speech goes, it is an experiment as all life is an experiment. I want to say, however, as forcefully as I can that this is the right thing to do, and indeed it is required by the existing norms of free speech, the American university and Columbia itself.
Third, to those among us who experience hurt and pain as a result of this day, I say on behalf of all of us that we are sorry and wish to do what we can to alleviate it.
Fourth, to be clear on another matter, this event has nothing whatsoever to do with any rights of the speaker, but only with our rights to listen and speak. We do it for ourselves. We do it in the great tradition of openness that has defined this nation for many decades now. We need to understand the world we live in, neither neglecting its glories nor shrinking from its threats and dangers. It is inconsistent with the idea that one should know thine enemy -- I'm sorry -- it is consistent with the idea that one should know thine enemies, to have the intellectual and emotional courage to confront the mind of evil, and to prepare ourselves to act with the right temperament. In the moment, the arguments for free speech will never seem to match the power of the arguments against, but what we must remember is that this is precisely because free speech asks us to exercise extraordinary self-restraint against the very natural but often counterproductive impulses that lead us to retreat from engagement with ideas we dislike and fear. In this lies the genius of the American idea of free speech.
Lastly, in universities we have a deep and almost single-minded commitment to pursue the truth. We do not have access to the levers of power, we cannot make war or peace, we can only make minds, and to do this, we must have the most fulsome freedom of inquiry.
Let me now turn to Mr. Ahmadinejad.
First, on the brutal crackdown on scholars, journalists and human rights advocates. Over the past two weeks, your government has released Dr. Haleh Esfandiari and Parnaz Azima and just two days ago, Kian Tajbakhsh, a graduate of Columbia with a PhD in Urban Planning. While our community is relieved to learn of his release on bail, Dr. Tajbakhsh remains in Tehran under house arrest, and he still does not know whether he will be charged with a crime or allowed to leave the country.
Let me say this for the record, I call on the president today to ensure that Kian will be free to travel out of Iran as he wishes. (Applause.) Let me also report today that we are extending an offer to Kian to join our faculty as a visiting professor in Urban Planning here at his alma mater in our Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, and we hope he will be able to join us next semester. (Applause.)
The arrest and imprisonment of these Iranian Americans for no good reason is not only unjustified, it runs completely counter to the very values that allow today's speaker to even appear on this campus, but at least they are alive.
According to Amnesty International, 210 people have been executing In Iran so far this year, 21 of them on the morning of September 5th alone. This annual total includes at two children, further proof, as Human Rights Watch puts it, that Iran leads the world in executing minors.
There is more. Iran hanged up 30 people this past July and August during a widely reported suppression of efforts to establish a more democratic society. Many of these executions were carried out in public view, a violation of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a party. These executions and others have coincided with a wider crackdown on student activists and academics accused of trying to foment a so-called "soft revolution." This has included jailing and forced retirement of scholars. As Dr. Esfandiari said in a broadcast interview since her release, she was held in solitary confinement for 105 days because the government believes that the United States is planning a velvet revolution in Iran.
In this very room, last year we learned something about velvet revolutions from Vaclav Havel, and we will likely hear the same from our World Leaders Forum speaker this evening, President Michelle Bachelet of Chile. Both of their extraordinary stories remind us that there are not enough prisons to prevent an entire society that wants its freedom from achieving it.
We at this university have not been shy to protest the challenge -- and challenge the failures of our own government to live by our values, and we won't be shy about criticizing yours. Let's then be clear at the beginning. Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator. And so I ask you -- (applause) -- and so I ask you, why have women, members of the Baha'i faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country? Why, in a letter last week to the secretary-general of the U.N., did Akbar Ganji, Iran's leading political dissident, and over 300 public intellectuals, writers and Noble Laureates express such grave concern that your inflamed dispute with the West is distracting the world's attention from the intolerable conditions in your regime within Iran, in particular the use of the press law to ban writers for criticizing the ruling system? Why are you so afraid of Iranian citizens expressing their opinions for change?
In our country, you are interviewed by our press and asked to speak here today. And while my colleagues at the law school -- Michael Dorf, one of my colleagues, spoke to Radio Free Europe, viewers in Iran a short while ago on the tenants of freedom of speech in this country -- I propose further that you let me lead a delegation of students and faculty from Columbia to address your universities about free speech with the same freedom we afford you today. (Applause.)
Secondly, the denial of the Holocaust. In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as "a fabricated legend." One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers. For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda.
When you have come to a place like this, this makes you, quite simply, ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated. You should know -- (applause) -- please -- you should know that Columbia is the world center of Jewish studies -- us a world center, and now in partnership with the -- Institute of Holocaust Studies.
Since the 1930s, we provided an intellectual home for countless Holocaust refugees and survivors and their children and grandchildren. The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history. Because of this, and for many other reasons, your absurd comments about the debate over the Holocaust both defy historical truth and make all of us who continue to fear humanity's capacity for evil shudder at this closure of memory, which is always virtue's first line of defense. Will you cease this outrage?
The destruction of Israel. Twelve days ago you said that the state of Israel cannot continue its life. This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the past two years, including in October 2005, when you said that Israel "should be wiped off the map", quote-unquote. Columbia has over 800 alumni currently living in Israel. As an institution, we have deep ties with our colleagues there. I have personally spoken -- personally, I have spoken out in most forceful terms against proposals to boycott Israeli scholars (in/and ?) universities, saying that such boycotts might as well include Columbia. (Applause.)
More than 400 -- more than 400 -- more than 400 college and university presidents in this country have joined in that statement.
My question then is, do you plan on wiping us off the map too? (Applause.)
Funding terrorism: According to reports of the Council on Foreign Relations, it's well-documented that Iran is a state sponsor of terror that funds such violent groups as Lebanese Hezbollah, which Iran helped organize in the 1980s, Palestinian Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. While your predecessor government was instrumental in providing the U.S. with intelligence and base support in the 2001 campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces. There are a number of reports that you also link your government with Syria's efforts to destabilize the fledgling Lebanese government through violence and political assassination.
My question is this: Why do you support well-documented terrorist organizations that continue to strike at peace and democracy in the Middle East, destroying lives and the civil society of the region?
The proxy war against the United States troops in Iraq -- in a briefing before the National Press Club earlier this month, General David Petraeus reported that arms supplies from Iran, including 240- millimeter rockets and explosively formed projectiles, are contributing to, quote, "a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support." A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy.
Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi'a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?
And finally Iran's nuclear program and international sanctions: This week, the United Nations Security Council is contemplating expanding sanctions for a third time, because of your government's refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment program. You continue to defy this world body by claiming a right to develop a peaceful nuclear power, but this hardly withstands scrutiny when you continue to issue military threats to neighbors. Last week, French President Sarkozy made clear his lost patience with your stall tactics, and even Russia and China have shown concern.
Why does your country continue to refuse to adhere to international standards for nuclear weapons verification, in defiance of agreements that you have made with the U.N. nuclear agency? And why have you chosen to make the people of your country vulnerable to the effects of international economic sanctions, and threaten to engulf the world in nuclear annihilation? (Applause.)
Let me close with a comment. Frankly -- I close with this comment frankly and in all candor, Mr. President. I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately I am told by experts on your country that this only further undermines your position in Iran, with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there.
A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country, as at one of the meetings at the Council on Foreign Relations, so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party's defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more. (Applause.)
I am only a professor, who is also a university president.
And today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better. Thank you. "

Israel a "stinking corpse"

Haaretz report that:

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday called Israel a "stinking corpse" which is doomed dissappear, as the state celebrated 60 years of independence.

"Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.

"Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation," he said.
Advertisement
Ahmadinejad added that Israel "has reached the end like a dead rat after being slapped by the Lebanese" - a reference to the 2006 war between Israel and the Shiite Hezbollah militia."

Seems like a nice peaceable man, just the sort of leader who should have nuclear weapons. Nobody will be able to say they weren't warned when Mr Ahmadinejad launches that first strike on Tel Aviv or supplies terrorists with dirty bombs to explode in several Israeli cities.

Iran and nuclear weapons

The prevailing "wisdom" seems to be that Iran would never attack Israel because they fear the response and that President Ahmadinejad's threats are just rhetoric. Maybe the proponents of this theory would care to read this article from the Islamic Republic News Agancy of Iran, it is entitled

"President says Zionist Regime of Israel faces deadend Tehran" and is dated June 3: "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Monday that the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will under God's grace be wiped off the map.

"O dear Imam (Khomeini)! You said the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map. I should say that your illuminating remark and cause is going to come true today. The Zionist Regime has lost its existence philosophy... the Zionist regime faces a complete deadend and under God's grace your wish will soon be materialized and the corrupt element will be wiped off the map," said President Ahmadinejad.

Addressing a ceremony on the 19th departure anniversary of the late Imam Khomeini, President Ahmadinejad said the Palestinian nation has distinguished its path and is proceeding rightly in the way.

Elsewhere in his remarks, the President termed the late Imam Khomeini as "flag bearer of monotheism" in the contemporary world and said Iranians will continue to remain loyal to his aspirations."

It amazes me that "intelligent people" will say there is no real threat even after a threat has been made.

Israel has been denigrated for so long by the West's media, especially by the BBC, that it is probably the case that Iran could launch a nuclear attack on Israel and the majority of people in Europe would think that Israel deserved it. We truly live in fucked up times.

Lembit Opik and his new employers; some questions...

I Lembit Opik has got himself a job at Press TV, the controversial Iranian-owned satellite channel. Lembit apparently doesn't see a problem with working for Press TV, reportedly saying:

"It is necessary for me to work. I don’t see that Press TV is 'controversial’: that is to pass judgement and it is not for one media organisation to pass judgment on another."

I can only assume that Lembit Opik is unaware of the Iranian regime's vile views and actions as otherwise he would not have taken the job alongside such luminaries as George Galloway. So to bring Lembit up to speed, just last week the delightful Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is reported by Reuters as saying that:

'the September 11 attacks with hijacked airliners on New York and Washington D.C. had been trumped up as an excuse for the United States to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

Speaking at a Tehran conference, Ahmadinejad said there was no evidence that the death toll at New York's World Trade Center, destroyed in the attacks, was as high as reported and said "Zionists" had been tipped off in advance.

"What was the story of September 11? During five to six days, and with the aid of the media, they created and prepared public opinion so that everyone considered an attack on Afghanistan and Iraq as (their) right," he said in a televised speech.

No "Zionists" were killed in the World Trade Center, according to Ahmadinejad, because "one day earlier they were told not go to their workplace".

"They announced that 3,000 people were killed in this incident, but there were no reports that reveal their names. Maybe you saw that, but I did not," he told a gathering of the Iranian news media.

...

On Saturday, Ahmadinejad repeated his belief that the Holocaust had been invented to justify the creation of Israel.

"They made up an event, the so-called Holocaust which was later laid as the basis for the innocence of a group," he said.'

So Lembit, where do you stand on 9/11 'troofers' and the historical veracity of the holocaust? And if, as I would hope, you accept that 9/11 happened and was carried out by Islamic jihadis and that the holocaust did happen; then why are you working for an organisation funded by a denialist regime? Saying you need the money is of course not an acceptable answer.



Thanks to Harry's Place for the news story spots.

The bias is in the wording

The BBC report on the Pope's meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. From the beginning you can sense the disdain in which he is held by the BBC (my emphasis):

"Israel's right-wing new Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has held talks with Pope Benedict on the pontiff's visit to the Israeli town of Nazareth.

TV cameras were allowed to capture the two men sitting down together but the talks themselves were private.

Pope Benedict repeatedly has called for a separate Palestinian state during his tour of the Holy Land.

Mr Netanyahu has not committed himself to the principle of two states, which past Israeli leaders have accepted.

His election this year was ill-received in the Arab world because of his hard-line views, including his opposition to returning land captured in wars. "

Where to begin? "right wing" is BBC code for "wrong, wrong, wrong" if not "evil". Then Benjamin Netanyahu is described as having "hard-line views", is this a phrase that is ever used to describe President Ahmadinejad or the leaders of Hamas or the Palestinian Authority or are they models of flexibility? Finally this "land captured in wars" begs the question "who started the wars" and the answer that in each case Israel was responding to an attack or an imminent acknowledged attack.


One report that I read this week that I don't believe the BBC have covered was that:

"Hamas will accept no less than a fully sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, the group's political leader in exile said Saturday.

Khaled Meshal, who lives in Syria, called a two-state solution unacceptable because Hamas cannot envision living with Israel in peace and security.

Meshal spoke Saturday at a news conference, following a gathering of several Palestinian factional leaders in exile, reported KUNA, the Kuwait news agency.

Hamas envisions a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 border with Israel, with Jerusalem as the capital, all Jewish settlements dismantled and full sovereignty over land, air and water, Meshal said."

I wonder if the BBC chose not to report that speech as it would have gone against their "narrative" that Israel is the block to peace and that the Palestinians want a two state solution. In fact Hamas have a very clear aim their Charter calls for the replacement of Israel and the Palestinian Territories with an Islamic Palestinian state. That same Charter quotes the Koran :

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

As I reported last month:

"Saudi King Abdullah - whom President George W. Bush kissed and to whom President Barack Obama bowed earlier this month -- has blamed Israel for terror attacks in Saudi Arabia: "We can be certain that Zionism is behind everything ... I don't say 100 percent, but 95 percent." [Saudi 1 Television, May 2, 2004]

Grade 9 children in Saudi Arabia are taught that "the hour [of judgment] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees, until the rocks or the trees say, 'O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him!"

Earlier this year, the head of the Department of Islamic Studies at Saud University pronounced that "Jews are the enemies of Allah." Dr. Walid Al-Rashudi also prayed for the extermination of all Jews: "Kill them one by one and don't leave even one." [Al-Aqsa (Hamas) TV, Jan. 12, 2009.

It is the very existence of the Jews, not their actions or even their Zionism, that fuels the rhetoric of many Islamic political and religious leaders.

"If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not. . . . They are enemies not because they occupied Palestine. They would have been enemies even if they did not occupy a thing," said Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Ya'qoub.

". . . You must believe that we will fight, defeat, and annihilate them, until not a single Jew remains on the face of the Earth." [Al-Rahma TV (Egypt), Jan. 17, 2009]

Is this any different from Ahmadinejad's calls for a world without Israel?

And look at Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, depicted by the West as a moderate to whom Israel is supposed to offer statehood. But the TV channel directly controlled by Abbas's office regularly runs educational programs to teach Palestinian adults and children alike that there is no state called Israel, and that all Israel's land is actually "occupied Palestine."

Palestinian children are taught that Israeli cities throughout the entire country - from Haifa in the North, to Jaffa (part of Tel Aviv), to Eilat in the south, are all actually Palestinian cities. Videos feature songs about a "Palestine" that erases Israel and a future when the Israeli cities Jaffa and Haifa will be "liberated."

Hamas, which has convinced many Western leaders and journalists that it spends more time building schools than bombing civilians, broadcast a sermon earlier this month depicting the Jews as enemies of humanity, inherently evil, seeking to rule the world and a dangerous threat to Muslims.

"The time will come, by Allah's will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this earth." [Hamas (Al-Aqsa) TV, April 3, 2009]

Why is Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial so passionately denounced when Palestinian Holocaust denial is so utterly ignored? Hamas TV broadcast a special documentary last year, explaining that the Holocaust was a Zionist scheme to rid the world of elderly and handicapped, and to gain world sympathy. Fatah's PA TV broadcast a children's program that said explicitly that Israel burned Palestinians in ovens.

So why is Abbas presented as a peace partner, Egypt as a peace broker and Abdullah as a friend of the West? Why does the world not react with outrage to calls for "extermination" of Jews from anyone other than Ahmadinejad?

If the West is serious about peace, then all hatred must be condemned. And we must recognize that the real enemies of peace are not only the Ahmadinejads of the world, but the "friends" who have mastered the doublespeak of calling for peace in English while inciting hatred in Arabic."

In January I reported on another "sermon":

"We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world - except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquility under our rule, because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history. The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews - even the stones and trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew."


That is from a sermon delivered by Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris and broadcast on Palestinian Authority television shortly before Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005.

Do you believe that Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris will be satisfied by a return to the 1967 borders? Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris and his ilk want all Jews dead, they say so again and again (and quote the Koran to justify their views) whilst most of the world just ignores the words and blames the Israelis for the problems of the Middle East.

Is there any chance that the BBC will ever report the speeches of Palestinian leaders or would that contradict the BBC's agreed "narrative" on the Middle East?

So why won't the world listen to what Muslim political and religious leaders say to their own people as well as what they say to the outside world? Why do the BBC and others prefer to spread the lie that Israel is against peace whereas the Palestinians want peace?

Iran’s Ahmadinejad could face 74 lashes over election ‘violation’ - Alarabiya.net English | Front Page

'Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may face punishment if charged with breaking electoral rules, the country's electoral watchdog said.' 

More here http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2013/05/13/Iran-s-Ahmadinejad-could-face-74-lashes-over-election-violation-.html

It's hard not to laugh...

Shh the British don't need to know all the facts about who's talking to who in the Middle Esat

The BBC report that

"The head of the Lebanese Shia Islamist movement Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, has made a rare public appearance in the Syrian capital, Damascus.

Sheikh Nasrallah attended a dinner with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both Syria and Iran provide the group with financial and military support. "

'If you can judge a man by his friends...'

The BBC have to remind everyone of the scum that they are dealing with; sorry this is the BBC so the scum are not who a sensible person might expect:

"Hezbollah fought a 33-day war with Israel in 2006 during which more than 1,200 Lebanese people, mostly civilians, were killed. Some 160 Israeli people, most of whom were soldiers, also died. "

The same old figures time and time again, no explanation of the definitions of civilians on the Hamas/Palestinian side or the Hamas tactic of using civilian human shields.

The BBC do report that:

"Before Thursday's dinner, Sheikh Nasrallah and President Ahmadinejad discussed "the latest developments in the region, and Zionist threats against Lebanon and Syria", Hezbollah's al-Manar television reported.

"If the Zionist regime decides to repeat its past mistakes, the region will finish it off," al-Manar quoted the Iranian leader as saying.

After bilateral talks on Thursday, President Assad said Syria and Iran were working together to confront "Israeli terrorism".

Both leaders dismissed US calls for Syria to distance itself from Iran, emphasising their "deep and brotherly" ties. "

But there is something lacking from that piece of coverage, something that can be found in The Washington Post:

"The presidents of Iran and Syria on Thursday ridiculed U.S. policy in the region and pledged to create a Middle East "without Zionists," combining a slap at recent U.S. overtures and a threat to Israel with an endorsement of one of the region's defining alliances.

...

Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier, spoke of Israel's eventual "demise and annihilation" and said the countries of the region could create a future "without Zionists and without colonialists.""

There you have a prime example of the BBC casting aspersions on Israel and ignoring what the people representing countries or organisations, two of which are on record as desiring the total destruction of Israel, are saying when they call for the Middle East to be in effect 'judenfrei'.

What is going on in some of London's Universities?

Harry's Place has two very interesting pieces up this week. This piece relates how:

"University College London Union has defied calls to cancel a provocative talk organised by the Ahlul Bayt Islamic Society, stoking up anger from students and the Iranian ex-patriot community who accuse the University of fermenting Islamic extremism and implicitly condoning the brutal actions of the regime in Iran.

Entitled, 1979 – The Revolution that Shook the World, the event takes place on the 11th of February, coinciding with expected protests and possible fatalities in Iran on the penultimate day of the 11 Days of Dawn, which mark the return of Ayatollah Khomeini and the 1979 revolution.

Attending, the guest speakers include Islamic convert Yvonne Ridley from the controversial Iranian state-owned 24-hour broadcaster Press TV, which is currently under an Ofcom investigation for breaching the code of conduct.

More controversially still, the event has earmarked a seat for Dr Mohammad Marandi from Tehran University. Marandi has stated his support for the execution of protesters, and recently condoned the execution of Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour who was aged as young as 19, saying on Al Jazeera “there isn’t much sympathy for these two people.”

...

Revelations of this latest controversy come hot on the heels of damaging allegations that UCL is rife with Islamic extremism, following the failed terrorist bombing on Christmas Day by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who studied at UCL and was the president of the Islamic Society in 2006-2007, the second Islamic society at UCL alongside Ahlul Bayt.

An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph in January disclosed the number of radical Islamic preachers who’ve attended talks held in the Darwin Lecture theatre, which ironically include “Muslim radicals who have challenged the theory of evolution”.

Of the keynote speakers invited, one had “suggested that homosexuals and opponents of Islam should be killed”, reports The Telegraph. Abu Usamah, a preacher at Birmingham’s Green Lane mosque had been filmed in a 2007 Channel Four documentary, where he praised Osama bin Laden and said: “If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be murdered, that’s my freedom of speech, isn’t it?”"

And this piece relates how:

"earlier this week ... two SOAS academics were pictured receiving awards from President Ahmadinejad. SOAS is one of those universities that have also previously accepted cash from the Iranian government...

One of those academics who met Ahmadinejad recently was Mohammad Abdel Haleem, King Fahd Professor of Islamic Studies at the Department of the Languages and Cultures of Near and Middle East, and Director of the Centre of Islamic Studies at SOAS. This Centre was set up following a £1m donation from the Saudi government, specifically from King Fahd himself.

Haleem’s appointment at SOAS in June 1995 was a controversial one, coming in the context of thirty SOAS employees protesting the £1m donation that the university had received from King Fahd. One academic said at the time that ‘Saudi Arabia is known to have a certain agenda on Islam and there could be implications about accepting money from such a source’. However, according to Arabic newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi, the academics were also angry that Haleem – who had been a lecturer at SOAS for several years – had been appointed to a professorship at the Centre without the post being advertised inside or outside the university. The reaction to the donations within SOAS led to the establishment of a working party in order to ‘codify the principles on working with sponsors’.

Haleem’s links to King Fahd go even further – he is also one of seven trustees at the Saudi-run King Fahd Academy, which offers primary and secondary school education and operates ‘under the support and supervision of the Embassy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in London’. This academy got itself into a spot of bother in 2007 after admitting that it used textbooks that called Jews ‘apes’ and Christians ‘pigs’. Perhaps he was unaware of the content of the textbooks – yet his willingness to accept patronage from Ahmadinejad is undoubtedly a black mark on his record.

Equally culpable are those universities who accept donations from such regimes in the first place, of which SOAS is a clear example. In correspondence with them last year, SOAS told me that their donation from Iran came with ‘no strings attached’ and that ‘The donations from Iran and Saudi Arabia have had no detrimental impact on the University’. Yet this week, Durham University – who have recently accepted cash from Iran themselves – admitted that they have ‘taken steps…to sever all financial ties with…any representatives of the Iranian regime’, as ‘Iranian money comes with strings attached’.

SOAS has obviously managed to retain a better working relationship with the Islamic Republic than Durham. It will be interesting to see how the other British universities that Iran tells us it has been in negotiations with – specifically to fund Islamic studies programmes – gets on."

All is obviously well at SOAS and UCL and there is absolutely no way that Saudi Arabia or Iran could possibly be influencing policy at these two institutes of learning.

Overcompensating?

It seems that there may be a surprising reason for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hatred of Israel, apart from the requirements of fundamentalist Islam that is. It seems that:

"A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card during elections in March 2008 clearly shows his family has Jewish roots.

A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver.

The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth. "

Poor chap, it must be hard to be of Jewish descent and be a credible spewer of fundamentalist Islamic bile; mind Ahmadinejad does manage quite well.

"There are no gays in Iran"

I "humorously" blogged about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's staggering remarks back in October at the time of his visit to New York. Now I read in the Times that "Homosexuals deserve to be executed or tortured and possibly both, an Iranian leader told British MPs during a private meeting at a peace conference, The Times has learnt. Mohsen Yahyavi is the highest-ranked politician to admit that Iran believes in the death penalty for homosexuality after a spate of reports that gay youths were being hanged. President Ahmadinejad, questioned by students in New York two months ago about the executions, dodged the issue by suggesting that there were no gays in his country...Minutes taken by an official describe a meeting between British and Iranian MPs at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, a peace body, in May. When the Britons raised the hangings of Asqari and Marhouni, the leader of the Iranian delegation, Mr Yahyavi, a member of his parliament’s energy committee, was unflinching. He “explained that according to Islam gays and lesbianism were not permitted”, the record states. “He said that if homosexual activity is in private there is no problem, but those in overt activity should be executed [he initially said tortured but changed it to executed]. He argued that homosexuality is against human nature and that humans are here to reproduce. Homosexuals do not reproduce.”

Nicole Pichet, a researcher who also took notes of the gathering, told The Times that the discussion began with British MPs discussing the underage gay hangings. Mr Yahyavi responded by saying homosexuality was to blame for a lot of diseases such as Aids. Ann Clwyd, the Labour MP and head of Britain’s delegation, said yesterday: “It is of great concern that these attitudes persist and we made it clear what we felt.”

Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Nigeria apply the death penalty for homosexuality, according to the International Lesbian and Gay Association."

The UN and racism

The United Nations has released a new draft declaration for the Durban II "anti-racism" conference. This declaration "Reaffirms the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) as it was adopted at the World Conference against Racism ... in 2001." That earlier declaration says that Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism—with Israel the only U.N. state found guilty of racism. And though today’s draft divides provisions into the negotiable and non-negotiable, it announces that reaffirming Durban I is text which does not "remain to be negotiated."

You can read more about the UN's previous Durban conference and the planning for this one in my articles here, here and here. These reports will inform you that as well as Libya as Chair of the group "a meeting yesterday by the Human Rights Council’s five regional groups also named Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia as among the 15 bureau members who will oversee preparatory deliberations for a 2009 gathering".

Libya is a country that is

"a racist regime that gave its highest award in 2002 to convicted French Holocaust-denier Roger Garaudy, brutalizes black African migrants, and tortures Bulgarian and Palestinian medics for the crime of being foreigners."

according to Prof. Gerald Steinberg, executive director of NGO Monitor.

Then there is Iran which under the vehemently anti-semitic President Ahmadinejad is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons while calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. President Ahmadinejad is expected to attempt to use the opportunity to further foment anti-semitism on a global scale. The Organization of the Islamic Conference has already given indications that it will seek to drive through an agenda that would create international rules which would greatly expand concepts of Islamophobia while severely limiting freedom of speech, diminish concern over anti-semitism, and seek to cast Israel as another apartheid South Africa.


The final document of the first NGO conference which led into the government forum declared Zionism was racism and the government declaration found Israel to be the one and only racist state in the world today. That's Israel, the only real democracy in the Middle East where Muslims have the vote, sit in Parliament, have served as Ministers, have freedom to practice their religion etc. etc. Not Saudi Arabia which is a country where you may not bring a Christian (let alone Jewish) Bible, where it is forbidden to practice Christianity (let alone Judaism), where non Muslims are forbidden from accessing areas of the country reserved for Muslims only. Nor any of the other Muslim countries in the Middle East where Jews have been persecuted and expelled over the last century and this one and where you may not enter if you have an Israeli stamp in your passport. This really gets to me, I am a generally calm person but the injustice of this sort of thing really makes my blood boil.

Mocking the leader

My recent pieces about the open mocking of Gordon Brown in the main stream media (MSM) as well the right of centre blogosphere came to my mind as I read this piece from The Telegraph about "Ahmadinejad mocked at World Cup qualifier ahead of election". One passage really caught my eye

"once on the terraces, the supporters quickly showed their respective political colours again. "Bye bye Ahmadinejad," cheered the Mousavi supporters. "He hasn't had a shower for two weeks," they added, a cruel reference to the Iranian leader's alleged personal hygeine problems."

It struck me that we may have less freedom of expression in the UK than people enjoy in Iran. These were thousands of people opening chanting an insult to their President with no repercussions. In the UK people have been made to cover up "Bollocks to Blair" T-shirts.

Maya Anne Evans was arrested for simply standing by the Cenotaph and reciting a list of names. She was prosecuted under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. On 7 December 2005, Maya Evans, a vegan chef aged 25, was convicted of breaching the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act by reading aloud at the Cenotaph the names of 97 British soldiers killed in Iraq. So serious was her crime that it required 14 policemen in two vans to arrest her. She was fined and given a criminal record for the rest of her life.

Also in 2005, John Catt was wearing a T-shirt proclaiming "Bush Blair Sharon to be tried for war crimes torture human rights abuse" and, lower down, "the leaders of rogue states". The stop-and-search form filled out by the police officer stated, under grounds for intervention, "carrying plackard and T-shirt with anti-Blair info". The purpose of the stop and search was stated as "terrorism". So now we know. For the Sussex police, at any rate, an anti-Blair slogan is a ground for suspecting terrorism.

Then there was Walter Wofgang who attended the 2005 Labour Party conference as a visitor and sat at the back of the hall in the part of the hall reserved for visitors. During a speech by the then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, in response to Jack Straw's statement that "We are in Iraq for one reason only: to help the elected Iraqi government build a secure, democratic and stable nation", Wolfgang shouted "Nonsense!". Some witnesses claimed he then may have added "That's a lie and you know it!" and/or "Pack of lies!". In full view of the television cameras Walter Wofgang was picked up and forcibly removed from the hall and had his security pass confiscated. Erith and Thamesmead Constituency Labour Party chairman Steve Forrest, who was sitting nearby, was also removed (more forcibly) for voicing his objections to Wolfgang's treatment. When Wolfgang attempted to re-enter the conference later the same day, his pass showed that he had been removed previously, and he was briefly held by police under section 44 of the Terrorism Act.


The United Kingdom used to be described as a beacon of free speech; I fear that beacon was dimmed by Tony Blair and that it burns no brighter under Gordon "no referendum, no election" Brown.




For an interesting article about the legal ramifications of the Walter Wofgang case, do take a read of Marcel Berlins' Guardian article from 2005. Please note that the references to masturbating judges relate to the USA and France and not to the UK's judiciary.

You couldn't make it up...

Which country would you not put on your list of 20 to plan an anti-racism conference? The UN have decided that their committee to plan the 2009 UN World Conference against Racism (known by some as Durban II) will comprise the following countries. Libya (chairman), Argentina, Armenia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Croatia, Cuba, Estonia, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, Norway, Russia, Senegal, South Africa and Turkey. This committee will decide on the modalities and objectives of the 2009 conference. Let's take a look at the members and see if we can work out what their priority will be... Libya, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and Cuba - I think a denouncement of Israel and much vituperation about Zionism will be approved along with an attack on Islamaphobia.

Libya is a country that is "a racist regime that gave its highest award in 2002 to convicted French Holocaust-denier Roger Garaudy, brutalizes black African migrants, and tortures Bulgarian and Palestinian medics for the crime of being foreigners.” according to Prof. Gerald Steinberg, executive director of NGO Monitor.

Iran under the vehemently anti-semitic President Ahmadinejad is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons while calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. President Ahmadinejad is expected to attempt to use the opportunity to further foment anti-semitism on a global scale. The Organization of the Islamic Conference has already given indications that it will seek to drive through an agenda that would create international rules which would greatly expand concepts of Islamophobia while severely limiting freedom of speech, diminish concern over anti-semitism, and seek to cast Israel as another apartheid South Africa.

I could go on about the other Muslim countries on the committee but I frankly am losing heart.


In 2001, the UN hosted Durban I - an anti-racism conference held in Durban, South
Africa, which degenerated into a platform for some of the worst anti-Semitic propaganda witnessed since Nazi Germany. The final document of the NGO conference which led into the government forum declared Zionism was racism and the government declaration found Israel to be the one and only racist state in the world today. That's Israel, the only real democracy in the Middle East where Muslims have the vote, sit in Parliament, have served as Ministers, have freedom to practice their religion etc. etc. Not Saudi Arabia a country where you may not bring a Christian (let alone Jewish) Bible, where it is forbidden to practice Christianity (let alone Judaism), where non Muslims are forbidden from accessing areas of the country reserved for Muslims only. Not any of the Muslim countries in the Middle East where Jews have been persecuted and expelled over the last century and this one and where you may not enter if you have an Israeli stamp in your passport. This really gets to me, I am a generally calm person but the injustice of this sort of thing really makes my blood boil.

When asked how a state which openly denies the Holocaust could find itself in such a role, a UN spokesperson said "The Preparatory Committee is an inter-governmental body, meaning States were chosen freely to sit on the Prep-Com. It is the Member-States who decide." In fact the countries were selected by the UN's Human Rights Council which has effectively been taken over by the countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) thus allowing Iran and Libya access to key roles. The majority of seats on the Human Rights Council are held by the African and Asian regional groups and the OIC has a majority of seats on each of these groups. Western states do not have the votes to block this and so we have Iran and Libya on this committee.

That's it, I have had enough for today, after this load of tosh I need a drink...

Turkey and the Gaza 'aid' flotilla

From The Washington Post some facts that the BBC amongst others chooses to ignore:

'The relationship between Mr. Erdogan's government and the IHH ought to be one focus of any international investigation into the incident. The foundation is a member of the "Union of Good," a coalition that was formed to provide material support to Hamas and that was named as a terrorist entity by the United States in 2008. In discussions before the flotilla departed, Turkish officials turned down offers from both Israel and Egypt to deliver the "humanitarian" supplies on the boats to Gaza and insisted Ankara could not control what it described as a nongovernmental organization.

Yet the IHH has certainly done its best to promote Mr. Erdogan. "All the peoples of the Islamic world would want a leader like Recep Tayyip Erdogan," IHH chief Bulent Yildirim proclaimed at a Hamas rally in Gaza last year. And Mr. Erdogan seems to share that notion: In the days since an incident that the IHH admits it provoked, the Turkish prime minister has done his best to compete with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah's Hasan Nasrallah in attacking the Jewish state.

"The heart of humanity has taken one of her heaviest wounds in history," Mr. Erdogan claimed this week. He has had next to nothing to say about the slaughter of Iranians protesting last year's fraudulent elections, but he called Israel's actions "state terrorism" and a "bloody massacre" and described Israel itself as an "adolescent, rootless state." His foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said in Washington on Tuesday that "this attack is like 9/11 for Turkey" -- an obscene comparison to events in which more than 2,900 genuinely innocent people were killed.

Mr. Erdogan's crude attempt to exploit the incident comes only a couple of weeks after he joined Brazil's president in linking arms with Mr. Ahmadinejad, whom he is assisting in an effort to block new U.N. sanctions. What's remarkable about his turn toward extremism is that it comes after more than a year of assiduous courting by the Obama administration, which, among other things, has overlooked his antidemocratic behavior at home, helped him combat the Kurdish PKK and catered to Turkish sensitivities about the Armenian genocide. Israel is suffering the consequences of its misjudgments and disregard of U.S. interests. Will Mr. Erdogan's behavior be without cost? '

A birthday vigil for Neda Soltani

Today would have been the 27th birthday of Neda Soltani so at 4pm vigil outside the offices of the Iranian government agency owned Press TV at Westgate Building, Hanger Lane, Ealing, London, W5 1YY.

To reinforce the message that Neda Soltani was murdered by an agent of the iranian state when she was just 27, there will be 27 pictures of Neda with 27 roses (her favourite flower) and 27 candles laid outside Press TV reception. If you attend the vigil you will be able to leave a message in a memorial book which will later be sent to Neda's family.

Come one, come all and demonstrate in favour of freedom of speech.



Oh and if you happen to meet George Galloway remind him of his Daily Record article in which he wrote:

"There are grounds for being surprised at the result of the Iranian election.

Even grounds for being disappointed.

But there are absolutely no grounds for the cats' chorus of criticism and allegations now emanating from some quarters after the cookie crumbled the wrong way.

I have been more closely interested than normal in this poll.

I present two weekly shows for Iranian-owned Press TV.

As such, I know that, uniquely for a developing country, the Iranian broadcast media went to extraordinary lengths to be fair to all four presidential candidates.

More than 85 per cent of the electors turned out to vote - compared with 35 per cent in our own elections recently. That's nearly 40million Xs on ballot papers.

This massive exercise took place without trouble of any kind - the polling stations were kept open longer than required to facilitate the huge lines of people outside.

Indeed, that's one of the reasons I discount the opposition complaints.

When a candidate is reduced to protesting that too MANY people were allowed to vote, you know he's in trouble.

The counting, too, was awesome. And, by the way, there were observers from all four camps present throughout these stages.

Although the western media largely did the usual thing - not straying far from their five-star hotels, talking to those who would happily talk to them and especially if they spoke English - it's clear they mistook the plusher parts of the capital for the country at large. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad commands the loyalty of the poor, the working class and the rural voters whose development he has championed.

He lives like them, looks like them - he's never worn a suit since becoming president - and there's more of them than the English speaking more liberal elites now on the streets demonstrating.

It will soon fizzle out.

This election almost mirrors the class composition of the recent polls in Venezuela. President Hugo Chavez has exactly the same friends in his country. And the same enemies.

I've said many times that Ahmadinejad's comments about the Holocaust are a disgrace. His rhetoric can be ugly and he does not play well in Peoria, the mid-west weather vane here in the US where I am at present.

But he is the president of an important country and we'll just have to accept it."

Even Castro turns against the Cuban model and the BBC wail...

Feel the BBC's pain as they report:

'Cuban model no longer works, says Fidel Castro

Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro has said the Cuban model no longer works.

He made the comment in an interview with a US journalist, who asked him if Cuba's model was still worth exporting to other countries.

In a previous interview with the same journalist, he criticised Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for what he called his anti-Semitic attitudes.

Mr Castro also questioned his own actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Mr Castro was speaking to Jeffrey Goldberg, a journalist with The Atlantic magazine based in Washington, DC, whom he personally invited to Cuba.

"The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore," he told him.

With this comment, it is clear Mr Castro is not abandoning the principles of socialist revolution, says the BBC's Will Grant: rather, it is an overt acceptance by the 84-year-old former leader that state control of the economy in Cuba is gradually being loosened.

The comment came as the current Cuban leader, Fidel's younger brother, Raul Castro, is reducing the state's control of the economy and allowing private ownership on the communist island.

Last month, Raul Castro announced to the National Assembly that small businesses would now be permitted and small business owners would have the right to employ and pay employees.

Recent examples include hairdressers, who are now allowed to run their businesses as private entities, as well as a growing number of taxis and buses. Agriculture and tourism have also opened up to private investment. '

Cuban socialism is not worthwhile exporting admits Castro, I wonder if the Today programme will acknowledge this?

I also note that the BBC report that:

'Over the course of a five-hour discussion, Mr Castro "repeatedly returned to his excoriation of anti-Semitism", and criticised Mr Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust.

"The Jews have lived an existence that is much harder than ours. There is nothing that compares to the Holocaust," the former president said.

Mr Castro said that Iran could further the cause of peace by "acknowledging the 'unique' history of anti-Semitism and trying to understand why Israelis fear for their existence", Mr Goldberg wrote'

What is the world coming to when a BBC hero goes off message in such a way?