The holocaust gang and Ahmadinejad

By Khalid Amayreh

PIC, October 3, 2008

Following Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at the UN last week, Zionist and pro-Zionist circles  lashed out at the Iranian leader, calling his speech “anti-Semitic.”

Israeli President, Shimon Peres, a notorious liar and  war criminal, went as far as asking UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon  to bar the Iranian leader from talking at the UN again as if the world body were an annex establishment answerable  to the World Zionist  Congress.

Moreover, Peres had the audacity to claim that Iranian support for “terrorist groups,” was the main reason for the deadlocked peace process. Peres utterly ignored  the all-conspicuous  fact that the intensive building of Jewish-only colonies  in the West Bank, especially in East Jerusalem,  is the main obstacle impeding peace in the Middle East.  In fact, even some Israeli politicians and Knesset members as well as numerous  journalists don’t deny this fact. But a liar is a lair.

Eager to pursue their genocidal ethnic cleansing against their Palestinian victims, the shipyard dogs of Zionism couldn’t resist the temptation of using the holocaust to besmirch the Iranian leader.

Fortunately, however, the erstwhile potent weapon of throwing the canard of anti-Semitism in the face of Israel critics has become increasingly stale and lost much of its previous potency.

Obviously, this is causing a lot of frustration among  Zionist hasbara doctors  who are struggling desperately to keep the old weapon relevant in a world where the once-undisputed  Zionist propaganda is being  increasingly countered with accurate and veracious reports from Palestine.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier , whose country has been  trying rather feverishly  to atone for the holocaust by keeping silent in the face of Israel’s slow-motion genocide in Palestine, has also joined the shipyard dogs of Zionism in denouncing the Iranian leader.

“The blatant anti-Semitism of his speech this year was intolerable and demands our mutual condemnation,” said Steinmeier who wouldn’t utter a word against the unmitigated expansion of Jewish settlements in occupied Palestine.

And Condoleezza Rice, the failed American Secretary of State, also joined the chorus, suggesting that opposing Israeli policies was an ultimate red line that shouldn’t be crossed.

The two American presidential candidates and their running mates have also attacked Ahmadinejad, with some of them equating opposition to Israeli apartheid and racism to the Nazi holocaust. Well, this is America’s whoring political  season, after all.

I am not a great fan of Ahmadinejad, and I am not really infatuated with many of his pronouncements which I often find unscrupulous, undiplomatic and occasionally repugnant.

However, for the sake of intellectual honesty, I must admit that I do agree with most, if not all, of what he  said in his speech regarding Israel and its manifestly criminal treatment of the Palestinian people.

Let us consider the following paragraph of Ahmadinejad’s speech:

“In Palestine, 60 years of carnage and invasion is still ongoing at the hands of some criminal and occupying Zionists. They have forged a regime through collecting people from various parts of the world and bringing them to other people's land by displacing, detaining, and killing the true owners of that land. With advance notice, they invade, assassinate, and maintain food and medicine blockades, while some hegemonic and bullying powers support them. The Security Council cannot do anything and sometimes, under pressure from a few bullying powers, even paves the way for supporting these Zionist murderers. It is natural that some UN resolutions that have addressed the plight of the Palestinian people have been relegated to the archives unnoticed.”

Well, after reading the above paragraph word by word, I don’t see any wrong with it.  In fact, this is what numerous non-Palestinian, non-Arab and non-Muslim intellectuals are saying.  Let us be honest, we all know that Israel wouldn’t have seen daylight  had it not been for the systematic and murderous ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinian inhabitants at the hands of Ashkenazi Jews coming  from Eastern Europe. So where is the anti-Semitism here?

Ahmadinejad did say that the Zionists, though a tiny minority, were dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers as well as the political decision-making centers in many western states.

“It is deeply disastrous to witness that some presidential or premiere nominees in some big countries have to visit these people, take part in their gatherings, swear their allegiance and commitment to their interests in order to attain financial or media support.”

Again, his remarks  are certainly politically incorrect and might sound a kind of “taboo” to western ears. However, upon meticulous examination, one will eventually conclude that the Iranian President didn’t really deviate  from truth.

For it is a fact that the Zionists do control to a large extent  the policies and politics of the United States. One former American senator once referred to  US Congress as “Israeli occupied territory.”

In his book, “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid,” former President Jimmy Carter made several references to the sweeping power of the Israeli lobby in American politics.

In an interview with Forward Carter reiterated his views in this regard: “I think the Israel Lobby, so-called to use your phrase, that’s not my phrase – is much stronger now and much more effective now than it was when I was in office. I felt, for instance, that we should sell F-16 airplanes to Saudi Arabia so Saudis could defend themselves against threats from Iran, and AIPAC and others were adamantly against it, but we finally prevailed. And I called within three months of when I went into office for a Palestinian homeland. And I worked for the Camp David accords, which called for Israel’s political and military withdrawal from the occupied territories, and so forth and I think that that kind of independence was also exhibited by George Bush, Sr., who condemned Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and even withheld funds from Israel, which I never did, by the way.… That’s almost impossibility now in the present political environment of America.”

Carter, who was subjected to a virulent smear campaign by the organized Jewish lobby and by the Jewish-controlled or Jewish-influenced media in North America, defended his book, accusing his Jewish-Zionist accusers of seeking to stifle any debate in America over the Israeli apartheid regime.

“It is almost a universal silence concerning anything that might be critical of current Israeli policies of the Israeli government.

“There is a tremendous intimidation in this country that has silenced our people. And it’s not just individuals; it is not just folks who are running for office. It’s the news media as well.”

Of course, this issue of exposing Zionist domination over American politics didn’t start with Carter.

In 1978, the renowned American Jewish author Alfred Lilienthal wrote a very informative book entitled ‘The Zionist Connection’ which exposed and meticulously documented the Zionist domination of American politics and media.  In my view, ‘The Zionist Connection: What Price Peace?’ was one of the best books ever written in the 20th century.

A few years later, a former American senator, Paul Findley wrote a book detailing how Jewish pressure groups were blackmailing American politicians and institutions into supporting Israel and her colonialist policies in Palestine.

And now we have Professors  Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s book “The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy”  which explains in meticulous details  how this Zionist snake is controlling American Foreign Policy by controlling domestic American politics.

In short, Ahmadinejad is not inventing anything. What he said with regard to Israel and Zionism at the UN last week could have been said by Carter or Paul Findley or any other  honest observer of the American political scene for the past few decades.

Yes, the tone of his speech may have been sharp and a little provocative, but there is no doubt as to the veracity of he said.