This issue of GPN is being published as a blog until construction of our website is completed. The website will include a much stronger search capacity, as well as other features. When it is completed, we will also publish this issue on it so that all contents of GPN are included in future searches.

Remember to click on Older Posts at bottom of each page to see the rest of the issue.


Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Holocaust and Genocide Education in Israel



Including a Sad Story of Exclusivity for the Holocaust, and a Happy Story of One University Program in Israel About the Genocides of Many Peoples
Yair Auron
The struggle about knowing and remembering the acts of genocide has a unique significance in the case of the State of Israel - a country of people who were the victims of the Holocaust. Israel must hope and work for finding a more suitable balance between the Zionist, Jewish and universal lessons learned from the Holocaust. Even in teaching the Shoah and inculcating the coming generations with its memory, the basic approach has to be that the value of human life is the same for all humans, whether Jews, Roma (Gypsies), Armenian or Palestinians. I believe that it is essential to develop a greater sensitivity among Israeli youth to the suffering of others and to strengthen universal, humanistic values, which are well grounded in the best of Jewish tradition.

This essay describes a program for teaching about genocide in two university level courses at the Open University in Israel which achieve these goals very successfully. The program includes publication of a series of 12 new textbooks in Hebrew on genocide -- as a process and in respect of different cases of genocides of several peoples.


The struggle about knowing and remembering the acts of genocide has a unique significance in the case of the State of Israel – a country of people who were the victims of the Holocaust. The ethos and the policy of the State of Israel since its creation have moved between two poles. On one hand is the wish to be "a light unto the nations," to support underdeveloped countries, to share progress in science and medicine, and to display the willingness of the new state to achieve its place among the family of nations based on universalistic values of peace and justice.

On the other hand is the feeling that the world, even the whole world "is against us," as was exhibited by anti-Semitism, condemnation of Israel in the U.N., and breaking off the diplomatic relations with Israel by many countries especially during the 1970s. For many years the dominant attitude of the Israeli governments towards genocides of other people was, generally speaking, an ethnocentric, pragmatic, realistic, abusive and cynical one. Israel among others has not recognized the Armenian Genocide. The cynical attitude can be seen also in the attitude of Israel towards the genocides in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and the ethnocide in Tibet.

The way in which the Holocaust and other genocides are taught in Israel is crucial and it is influenced by the concept which is promoted by many circles in Israel of the uniqueness of the Holocaust in world history.

It could have been simple. Part of the struggle against the occurrence of any case of genocide in the future is education, so that it would "never happen again," although, surely, teaching is not enough. But the reality of education about the Holocaust and genocide in Israel is, of course, much more complex.

Teaching the Holocaust in Israel
Two forces have led to the attitude of the state of Israel and its leading institutions toward teaching and remembering other acts of genocide than the Holocaust: a) the pressure of the Turkish government regarding remembering and teaching the Armenian Genocide, and b) the opposition of several high-powered Jewish-Israeli groups who are afraid that dealing with other genocides could damage the concept of the uniqueness of the Shoah.

The terrible tragedies that befell the Jews at the hands of Nazi Germany became, historically, an important element of Jewish and Zionist education. The educational institutions of the secular Jewish community in Israel, both before and after the establishment of the State of Israel, undertook the mission of constructing "the new Jew" as a moral, conceptual and political entity. Building the newly constructed Israeli collective was considered after the Holocaust, the continuation of the struggle for survival. After the end of World War II, Zionist historiography used knowledge about the Holocaust as part of building a Zionist moral education. The hegemonic version of Holocaust memories became the central educative apparatus. Historical memory was mobilized for constructing the new Jew as one whose ethnocentric collective identity would be ensured by a particular historical memory in which the term "Auschwitz" was understood as not realizing the essence of modern Jewish identity – namely, strong, independent and part of a Jewish sovereign national state. The obligation to remember the Holocaust, that served for the justification of Zionist morality and practice was based on the Hebrew biblical word, zachor.
This "Zachor et asher asah lecha Amalek" ( Remember what Amalek did to you) is part of the formation of the secular halutz and sabra myth in collective Israeli identity.
Some Israeli scholars divide the history of dealing with the issue of the Holocaust in formal educational institutions of Israel into periods according to their orientation. Ruth Firrer and Dalia Ofer make the distinction between the "Zionist Period" (1948-1977) and the "Humanistic Period." (1979 till now). In principle, I myself accept the chronological distinction between the "Zionist period" and the "humanistic period," but I have reservations as to the definition of the second period as a "humanistic period". In my opinion, the humanistic values are not represented enough in what is called a "humanistic period."

In 1979 the Holocaust was introduced as an independent unit in the high-school curriculum, and in 1981 it was introduced as a unit of the matriculation exams.

Dialogue about the Holocaust became more meaningful in the 1980s and 1990s. In 1989, the Ministry of Education initiated a program for high-school students, which included a site visit to Poland and the extermination camps. The program has become common in the last few years – about 25,000 high-school students travel every year to Poland, and a number of studies have demonstrated the strong impact these visits have had on students' understanding of themselves and their Jewish identity.

Essentially, the major dilemmas facing the teaching of the Holocaust in Israel are similar to the dilemmas generally faced by all pedagogues in all subjects: why to teach, what to teach, how to teach, what the student has to remember, how to help him to remember, when to teach, and when to remember. In all cases, the danger is in transforming the Holocaust into an instrument, a means, rather than an end in itself. In my opinion, the Holocaust is not over-taught or over-commemorated in Israel. Rather it is being used for too many goals of Zionist ideology, i.e., renewing the sense of Zionism and Israeli pride among young Israelis. Therefore, the other victims of the Nazis and other genocides are rarely mentioned in Israel.

Concerning teaching other occurrences of genocide in general, and the Armenian Genocide in particular, there has been practically no change over the years, at least in the official attitude. Nothing has been done. I will discuss this further now.

Teaching about Genocide in Israel
Over the years there was one initiative to introduce teaching and remembering other genocides in the Israeli educational system in a program entitled "Awareness of World's Suffering – Genocide in the 20th Century."

It was the conviction of those of us who prepared the study program that Israel has a special moral and political responsibility to place the issue of genocide on the world agenda. We also believe that it is essential to develop sensitivity among our youth to the suffering of others, and to strengthen universal humanistic values.

At first, our proposal was warmly received by the Ministry of Education in Rabin's government (this was November 1993 and the minister was then a member of the Meretz human rights party). The Ministry proposed also that the program be expanded to include the genocide of the Gypsies during the Second World War, and one of the more recent acts of genocide, such as Bosnia or Rwanda. I was also requested by the Ministry to develop a special educational program, designed for high school, seminary and college students, and to plan a supplementary instructive program for teachers. All was set to begin teaching the program in mid-December 1994, with both the blessing and support of the Ministry of Education.

A few weeks before the program was to commence, we were informed that the Minister of Education would personally have to approve the program and that meanwhile it was to be be put on hold. The decision was to depend upon the decision of the Academic Committee on History or by its Chairman. In December of 1994 the Chairman of the Committee decided to reject to proposed program. The official statement was that "from a professional point of view" the program was unsuitable and should be immediately abolished.

The protest in the press was stormy. The Ministry of Education was accused of succumbing to political pressure and using a thin "fig leaf" of pedagogical reasons to justify its action. Things became more apparent when the protocol of the meeting of the Academic Committee became available to the press. At that meeting, which had been held on 19 January 1995, one professor rejected the course claiming "We do not foster sensitivity, we teach," and that the place for education of values is in the youth movements and not in the schools. The main thrust of the criticism was that the presentation of the Armenian Genocide was not balanced. [Ed note: The Chair was a Professor Abitboul. In reading the text of his decision to cancel the program, I was stunned to find he had copied very directly from the writings of an arch French denier of the Holocaust, Giles Veinstein. To add insult, as well as ignorance to the injury, he also cited no less than an outstanding scholar of the Armenian Genocide, Vahakn Dadrian, as a source to justify the conclusion that the telegrams of Talaat, Turkey's Minister of State, authorizing and urging on the genocide were forgeries. -- Israel W. Charny]

At the high school level, as a result of the criticism directed at the Ministry of Education, the minister was quick to state that although the proposed study program was rejected, a different and better program would be prepared and would be ready to be taught in the following school year. Instead of "Awareness of World Suffering," a textbook was prepared entitled "Minorities in History – the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire." This book did not take a stand on the question "Should the murders of the Armenians in the years 1915-1916 be called 'genocide'?" Two views were represented and the question was left open. Ultimately, because of sharp criticism the second program was not implemented. The Ministry of Education then promised that the second program would be corrected, but nothing has been done during the 14 years (in the year 2000 then Minister of Education, Yossi Sarid promised that the Armenian Genocide and the subject of genocide will be taught, but then he lost his post, though not because of this public declaration).

Nonetheless, some history teachers in high-schools teach about the Armenian Genocide on their own initiative when they teach the period of WWI. There are others who teach "Genocide in the 20th Century" as a special subject in one way or another. More than 100 students in two high-schools in Kibbutzim have learned the subject in the framework of their enlarged history courses in the years 1996-1998. Some high-school teachers also choose to use another section of "Awareness of World Suffering," which has a section about the Gypsies overall, practically nothing about the genocide of the Gypsies appears in the curricula in Israel, or in the many textbooks and educational programs about the Holocaust.

We can estimate that on the whole hundreds of high-school and college students are learning in one way or another each year (since 1995) about the genocide including the Armenian one. They and their teachers became aware of the subject, at least partly, because of the public discussion about the program and about the Armenian Genocide in general which does receive a fair amount of recognition in Israeli media.

What can an Israeli high-school student know about the Armenian Genocide through his regular textbooks? The answer is quite clear: practically nothing.

Under these circumstances it is not surprising to discover how little knowledge Israeli students have about other peoples' genocides. A survey which was conducted in 1996 about attitudes toward genocide (the first study that was conducted in Israel on this subject). 800 B.A. students from seven universities and colleges in Israel were asked about their knowledge, feelings and attitudes. Among other questions, they were asked to assess their knowledge about the Armenian Genocide. 42% answered that they did not have any knowledge, 44% that they had little knowledge, 13% that they had some knowledge, and 1% that they are well informed about it. Their answers about their degree of knowledge concerning the genocide of the Roma (Gypsies) were almost the same (36% no knowledge, 49% very little knowledge, 14% some knowledge, and 1% quite a bit of knowledge). I am almost sure that in many other countries the level of knowledge about genocide is also very low, but would have expected -- certainly desired -- that it would be clearly higher in Israelis.

In the last ten years I have given this questionnaire during the first lesson of my course on genocide (an optional B.A.-level course), which was attended by approximately 650 students. The degree of knowledge expressed by the students over the years was practically the same: 85%-90% said they know nothing or very little about the genocide of the Armenians. About the same figure, between 85% and 90%, said they know nothing or very little about the genocide of the Roma.

One of the achievements of the program, from my point of view, is the fact that students are shocked when they discover and internalize the fact that they actually did not know a single thing about the Armenian Genocide. Usually they are shocked and shaken more when they begin to understand, even partly, why they did not know about it. They are even more appalled when they learn about the attitude of the State of Israel toward it.

Certain significant changes have occurred over the years regarding Holocaust education in Israel. Practically no changes have occurred over the years in teaching the other genocides in general, and the Armenian one in particular, at least officially. Furthermore, the formal educational system has claimed in the past that this avoiding of other genocides is what could be defined as "innocent." Actually, after many years of struggle, which has not achieved any practical change, it is clear that the official attitude is a conscious one that wants to insist on the uniqueness, maybe also on the exclusivity, of the Holocaust.

The chances that there will be any changes in the official educational attitude are now more remote than ever. The fact is that the key political forces in Israel that supported the humanistic approach (among others, recognition of the Armenian Genocide and teaching it) have lost their influence. The educational system in Israel is very dependent on the political system. The failure of the Israeli academy in dealing with these issues is of course another reason for the failure in Holocaust and Genocide education in Israel.

Open University's Program of Courses and Textbooks on Genocide
Nonetheless, as noted, there are also encouraging private initiatives of teachers and directors of schools, who have decided to deal with other genocides in their schools. On the one hand, their influence is limited, yet on the other hand they exert long-term influence.

Furthermore, there is an outstanding achievement at the university level - two university-level courses are being studied in the Open University of Israel.

The Pain of Knowledge: Teaching the Holocaust and Genocide in Israel and the World - is an M.A. course in which we have every year more than 20 students. This course has been taught since 2001.

The second, Genocide, has been taught since 2005 and includes analysis and theories concerning the different aspects of the phenomenon of genocide, as well as an analysis of case studies of many genocides. Every year about 600 students have been chosen to study this course, which is an elective. The genocides studied include a variety of cases including the Armenian Genocide, Rwanda and more.

The following appears in the Open University catalogue:

Genocide
Credits: 6 intermediate credits in Political Science or in International Relations or in Sociology and Anthropology
Prerequisites: none
Academic Editor in Chief: Prof. Yair Auron
Authors [of textbooks published by the Open University in Hebrew]:Prof. Yair Auron, Dr. Alek Epstein, Lydia Aran, Prof. Arnon Gutfeld, Dr. Eitan Ginsburg, Dr. Ariel Horowitz, Prof. Israel Charny, Dr. Gilad Margalit, Prof. Benyamin Neuberger.

The course presents the ongoing and recurring phenomenon of genocide as on of the key perspectives of analyzing history since the beginning of the European colonial expansion. The course outlines major outbursts of genocide beginning with the annihilation of the indigenous populations of the Americas during the 16th century up to the end of the 19th century. The course analyzes the destruction of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during World War I; the attempted extinction of the Jews, Gypsies and people with disabilities by the Nazi regime; genocide and politicide in the U.S.S.R.; genocide and politicide in Cambodia; the destruction of Tibetan Buddhism and traditional way of life by the Chinese, and concludes with the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.

The aim of the course is to show the common features of what are at the same time very different case studies and to analyze them according to different theories. In the process of the study basic sensitivities are developed: sensitivity regarding processes of inclusion and exclusion of populations during the formation and reformation of modern political communities; sensitivities regarding function and dysfunction of third-party participants in outbursts of genocide; and sensitivities regarding the dynamics of collective memory of past genocide events in the formation of national communities and a moral international conscience.

In our experience students have found this course on genocide extremely interesting and enlightening. It was also discovered to be a way of filling in gaps in the students historical knowledge - gaps regarding unknown regions of the world (Africa, the Far East) and gaps regarding unknown process of modernity (colonialism, third world revolutionary movements). Although the phenomenon of genocide is a "dark" prism through which we look at history and political human conduct, the students find it to be a realistic one, as it gives a perspective that comes to term with the dark side of modern dynamics, and it is also a way of becoming familiar with "accidents" of the historical process. An important and meaningful concern is the way in which the international community - the sole moral agent that is capable of reacting and responds to genocide - is constructed.

Open University will have completed publishing a unique series of 12 textbooks on genocide, in Hebrew, for the courses and these books are also made available to the general public. The 12 books (200-250 pages each) deal separately with each case study (the Indians of North America, the Indian people of Spanish America, the Armenian Genocide, Nazi Germany and the Gypsies, the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide 1994); while 3 books are dedicated to analytical and comparative perspective: one to the UN Convention regarding the international crime of genocide; one to psychological understanding of perpetrators; and the last one to the phenomena of saviors and active third party participants entitled, "So That I Would Not Be Among the Silent." Each of the case study books is written by a specialist in the history of the specific genocide or the topic of analysis. The diversity of writers also helps to introduce the students to a variety of attitudes and ways of history and academic writing rather than enclosing the students in a narrow perspective and narrative.

Although the course was designed for the Israeli student, most of the texts and issues discussed in the course will require only slight adaptations for the English reading students. The course and the books do not assume prior knowledge, and every one of them can also be read independently (every book has a general introduction about genocide). One exception is the book regarding the Holocaust which naturally takes for granted the students familiarity with the basic narrative. The books are also bought and read by the general public.

Proudly but sadly, Open University is the only university in Israel which teaches genocide studies. We published 12 books on genocide in Hebrew and the university is now seeking to translate the books into English, as it seems that the integrated series on genocide is also quite unique in the world. Last year we conducted a survey among the students, who had finished the course. A majority – 67% said they had learned a lot. Quite large number (39%) said they have changed their understanding of the Holocaust. 46% said that the comparative study of the Holocaust and other genocides changed their conception of the Holocaust and brought them to understand it more than before as a universalistic event. The majority of the students said they understand now much more better the phenomenon of genocide and are more sensitive to suffering in the world. They understand much more the dangers of racism and of genocide. 92% of the students also said that the moral and educative issue of the bystander is a crucial element in the occurrence of acts of genocide and in their prevention.

Students were highly satisfied with the course (an average of 4.3 in comparison to an average of 3.9 in all the courses in the department -- the maximum is 5.).

Below are some letters received from students after they finished the course and passed the examination.

These letters were initiated by students who also filled out an official feedback form given by the university about the course.
  • An amazing course, excellent teaching
  • An amazing semester
  • I looked forward to the lesson every Sunday afternoon
  • An incredibly fascinating semester, interesting and amazing. I think it also helped me find a general direction for a second degree
  • I took this course quite by chance, and was unfamiliar with the subject of genocide until now. My daughter, who is in the army, has also developed an interest in the subject
  • May there be more lecturers and tutors who are able to teach such a difficult and painful subject to the population of students and to provide them with insight into a subject they are unfamiliar with
  • I have no words to describe how fascinating, interesting and thought provoking this course was
  • I waited every week for this lesson
  • I have not stopped recommending this course to as many people as possible, whether to students who can take the course in the framework of their studies, or to others who are not students but simply want to learn a subject that arouses their curiosity and interest
  • The course Genocide deals with sensitive issues that play upon deep emotional chords. I have personally gained a lot from the course and it has lead to many discussions and conversations with friends and family on the subject of genocide
  • I have been meaning to write to you for a while now, to express my deep appreciation for all the volumes of your course at the Open University. There is no doubt that the choice of texts and contents, together with their presentation within the volumes of the course, worked very successfully. Well done! (A lecturer from another university)
  • I’d like to thank you for the course. (Even though I have written this in the feedback form, it was important for me to tell you more personally in an email.) The fascinating and moving course dealt with topics about which I was unfamiliar (or only had a vague idea about); I am completing my master’s degree in Computer Science, a completely different field altogether
  • This was one of the most amazing, fascinating and stirring courses I have ever taken (especially in light of the fact that I took the course by default).
  • During my studies at the Open University I have had – and still have – about 20 different tutors. You are without a doubt one of the best (if not the best) among them.
  • Thanks to you the course turned into a great learning experience which is not easy to expect from a course on Genocide.

Conclusion
I believe that it is essential to develop a greater sensitivity among Israeli youth to the suffering of others and to strengthen universal, humanistic values, which are well grounded – I believe – in the best of Jewish tradition. The Shoah constitutes an important and central component – as we have seen – in Jewish identity.

I argue that Israel must hope and work for finding a more suitable balance between the Zionist, Jewish and universal lessons learned from the Holocaust. Even in teaching the Shoah and inculcating the coming generations with its memory, the basic approach has to be that the value of human life is the same for all humans, whether Jews, Roma (Gypsies), Armenian or Palestinians. The way to work towards this goal is to combine basic principles which seem apparently contradictory: on one hand, emphasizing the unique historical characteristics of the Shoah and its uniqueness for us as Jews; on the other, sensitively and even emphatically relating to the catastrophes of others and to other genocides in history. This is the integration between the unique and the universal for which we must struggle.

Yair Auron is a professor in the field of genocide and contemporary Judaism at the Open University of Israel and the Kibbutzim College of Education.

Professor Auron has published numerous books and essays, mainly on genocide and on Jewish identity in Israel and Europe. He is the author of books in Hebrew such as Between Paris and Jerusalem (Selected Passages of Contemporary Jewish Thought in France); Jewish-Israeli Identity; Sensitivity to World Suffering: Genocide in the 20th Century; and We Are All German Jews: Jewish Radicals in France During the 60s and 70s (also in French). His book The Banality of Indifference: Zionism and the Armenian Genocide was published in both Hebrew and English (Transaction Publishers, 2000). His book, The Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide was published in Hebrew and English (Transaction Publishers 2003).

Most recently, Auron is co-author of A Perfect Injustice: Genocide and the Theft of Armenian Wealth (Transaction Publishers, 2009) with Hrayr S. Karagueuzian. He is currently editing for the Open University a series of twelve books in Hebrew entitled Genocide, which includes theoretical volumes concerning the phenomenon of genocide as well as an analysis of case studies such as the Holocaust, the genocide of the Gypsies, the Armenian genocide and other historical and contemporary genocides such as Rwanda, Tibet and Indian population of the Americas. In this series, he published in 2009 Reflections on the Inconceivable: Theoretical Aspects of Genocide Studies, and in 2007 The Armenian Genocide: Forgetting and Denying. In 2006, his book Genocide: So That I Will Not Be among the Silent, was also published in this series. His book Israeli Identities: Jews and Arabs Facing Mirror and the Other in 2010 is published in Israel by Resling and in a few months will be published in English in the United States by Berghahn Books.

List of the Books in the Open University Series on Genocide Studies

Volume 1: Yair Auron, Thought on the Inconceivable: Theoretical Aspects of Genocide Studies
Volume 2: Yair Auron, Issac Lubelski (Editors). Racism and Genocide
Volume 3: Arnon Gutful, Genocide in the "Land of Free" - The Indians of North America 1776-189.
Volume 4: Eitan Ginsburg, Conflict and Encounter: The Destruction of the Indian Peoples of Spanish America
Volume 5: Yair Auron, The Armenian Genocide: Forgetting and Denying
Volume 6: Ariel Hurwitz, Hurban – The Destruction of the Jews by the Nazi Germany
Volume 7: Gilad Margalit, Nazi Germany and the Gypsies
Volume 8: Benyamin Neuberger, Rwanda 1994 – Genocide in the "Land of Thousand Hills"
Volume 9: Lydia Aran, Tibet 1950 -2000: Destroying a Civilization
Volume 10: Alek Epstein, Political and Ethnic Cleansings in USSR, 1912-1953
Volume 11: Israel W. Charny, "And You Must Destroy the Evil Inside of You": We are the Human Beings who Commit Holocaust and Genocide
Volume 12: Yair Auron, So That I Wouldn't Be Among the Silent

Read full text......

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Is International Terror Caused by the Creation of Israel?



by Gunnar Heinsohn
“Terrorism will not be defeated without peace […] between Israel and Palestine. Here it is that the poison is incubated.” Tony Blair, 17 July 2003, to U.S. Congress.

Tony Blair is no Mel Gibson or Osama Bin Laden. He is no mortal enemy of the Jews of Israel. Yet, since his assumption is so deeply ingrained in the mind of mankind one has to look for a method to test it. Is there a factor in our multicausal explanations of the conflict not yet appropriately tested? That appears to be highly improbable. Yet, what about the extremely old fashioned way of counting superfluous sons? Can a body count shed light on the validity of Tony Blair's view?



Conflicts 1949-2010 with at least 10,000 Fatalities.
Nations with Muslim majorities - all of them with youth bulges at the time of slaughter (in bold letters)


 1  40,000,000 Red China, 1949-76 (outright killing, manmade famine, Gulag, Muslim Uighurs)
 2  10,000,000 Late Stalinism, 1950-53; Post-Stalinism, to 1987 (mostly Gulag), more than 100.000 Muslims in Chechnya
 3  5,800,000 Zaire (Congo-Kinshasa): 1967-68; 1977-78; 1992-95; 1998-today
 4  4,000,000 Ethiopia, 1962-92: Communists, artificial hunger, genocides
 5  2,800,000 Korean war, 1950-53
 6  2,200,000 Sudan, 1955-72; 1983-2006 (civil wars, genocides); Dafur to today
 7  1,870,000 Cambodia: Khmer Rouge 1975-79; civil war 1978-91
 8  1,800,000 Vietnam War, 1954-75 (more than 90% Vietnamese, Allies)
 9  1,800,000 Afghanistan: Soviet and internecine killings, Taliban 1980-2001
 10 1,250,000 West Pakistan massacres in East Pakistan (Bangladesh 1971)
11  1,100,000 Nigeria, 1966-79 (Biafra); 1993-today
12  1,100,000 Mozambique, 1964-70 (30,000) + after retreat of Portugal 1976-92
13  1,000,000 Iran-Iraq-War, 1980-88
14  900,000 Rwanda genocide, 1994
15  875,000 Algeria: war with France 1954-62 (675,000); Islamists/Government 1991-2006 (200,000)
16  850,000 Uganda, 1971-79; 1981-85; 1994-today
17  650,000 Indonesia: Marxists 1965-66 (450,000); East Timor, Papua, Aceh etc, 1969-today (200,000)
18  580,000 Angola: war against Portugal 1961-72 (80,000); after Portugal’s retreat (1972-2002)
19  500,000 Brazil against its Indians, up to 1999
20  430,000 Vietnam, after the war ended in 1975 (own people; boat refugees)
21  400,000 France in Indochina, 1945-54
22  400,000 Burundi, 1959-today (Tutsi/Hutu)
23  400,000 Somalia, 1991-today
24  400,000 North Korea up to 2006 (own people)
25  300,000 Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, 1980s-1990s
26  300,000 Iraq, 1970-2003 (Saddam against minorities)
27  240,000 Columbia, 1946-58; 1964-today
28  200,000 Yugoslavia, Tito regime, 1944-80
29  200,000 Guatemala, 1960-96
30  190,000 Laos, 1975-90
31  175,000 Serbia>Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, 1991-1999
32  150,000 Romania, 1949-99 (own people)
33  150,000 Liberia, 1989-97
34  140,000 Chechnya, 1994-today in independence war against Russia
35  150,000 Lebanon civil war, 1975-90
36 140,000 Kuwait War, 1990-91 (Arabs from Iraq and Kuwait, Allies)
37  130,000 Philippines: 1946-54 (10,000); 1972-today (Muslim Marxists, 120,000)
38  130,000 Burma/Myanmar, 1948-today
39 100,000 North Yemen, 1962-70
40  100,000 Sierra Leone, 1991-today
41  100,000 Albania, 1945-91 (own people)
42  80,000 Iran, 1978-79 (revolution)
43  75,000 Iraq, 2003-today (domestic)
44  75,000 El Salvador, 1975-92
45  70,000 Eritrea/Ethiopia, 1998-2000
46  68,000 Sri Lanka 1997-today
47  60,000 Zimbabwe, 1966-79; 1980-today
48  60,000 Nicaragua, 1972-91 (Marxists/natives etc,)
49  54,000 Arab wars against Israel, 1948-today (excluding the Israel-Palestine conflict; see 69) 44.000 Arabs; 10.000 Israelis
50  50,000 Communist North Vietnam, 1954-75 (own people)
51  50,000 Tajikistan, 1992-96 (secularists against Islamists)
52  50,000 Equatorial Guinea, 1969-79
53  50,000 Peru, 1980-2000
54  50,000 Guinea, 1958-84
55  40,000 Chad, 1982-90
56  30,000 Bulgaria, 1948-89 (own people)
57  30,000 Rhodesia, 1972-79
58  30,000 Argentina, 1976-83 (own people)
59  27,000 Hungary, 1948-89 (own people)
60  26,000 Kashmir independence, 1989-today
61  25,000 Jordan government vs. Palestinians, 1970-71 (Black September)
62  22,000 Poland, 1948-89 (own people)
63  20,000 Syria, 1982 (against Islamists in Hama)
64  20,000 Chinese-Vietnamese war, 1979
65  18,000 Congo Republic, 1997-99
66  19,000 Morocco: war against France, 1953-56 (3,000), Western Sahara, 1975-today (16,000)
67  15,000? "Tens of thousands of casualties and displaced" (Le Monde, 06-10-09). Yemen government against Huthi rebels.
68  14,000 Nigeria 2000 - 2010 (Muslims, Christians)
69  13,500 Israel-Palestinian conflict 1947-87 (5,000); 1987-91 (2,000); 2000-2010 (6,200: 80% Arabs, 20% Jews)
70  10,000 South Yemen, 1986 (civil war)


If conflict number 69 out of 70 conflicts with at least 10,000 casualties since 1950 is ranked as number 1 in need of an urgent solution to save the world, causes other than noble concerns for suffering may be at work. Since the Jews of Israel belong to the most persecuted ethnic and religious group in history, the mismatch between facts and their worldwide perception may force us to ask, again, if an anti-Jewish bias blurs the perception.

Around 11,000,000 Muslims suffered death by violence between 1948 and 2009. Of these, some 54,000, i.e., 0.5 percent or 1 out of 200 Muslims who were killed violently since 1948 died within the more than 60 years of fighting against Israel (1948-2010).

In other words, more than 90 percent of the 11 million Muslims perished in violence, since the creation of Israel, died in Muslim-on-Muslim violence.

A conflict would probably exist in Palestine as it does in territories with similar cases. Yet there are similar cases without bloodshed, e.g., Russian settlers in Latvia, as there are similar cases with bloodshed, e.g. Moroccan settlers in Western Sahara or Arab Iraqi settlers in Kurdish Iraq. There must be factor at work that can easily drive the Palestinian way of conflict resolution into a mortal mode.

The mortal mode can persist because well meant western aid – where nearly every newborn is provided for as a refugee – enabled Palestine to defeat Israel demographically. Gaza jumped from 200,000-240,000 inhabitants in 1950 to more than 1.6 million in 2010. In 2006, there were 640.000 Jewish boys under 15 against 1,120,000 Arab boys under 15 (West-Bank, Gaza Strip and Israeli Arabs combined). The last cohort with a Jewish majority – 30 to 44 years with 540,000 against 410,000 Arabs – has passed fighting age.

The death toll in the Israel-Palestine conflict remained low over six decades (1948-2009) because only one side tries to kill at random, whereas the Israeli side most of the time tries to defend itself with surgical strikes or targeted killing.

One could even say that the major factor for low Muslim casualties vis à vis Israel - as opposed to conflicts in which Muslims kill Muslims at random - is due to one side of the conflict not being Muslim.

Thus, it may be a good fortune for Palestinian Arabs that most of the time they must not turn against their own to consume their youth bulges but can turn the rage of their angry young men against Jews.

Yet, the battle of Lebanon against the Palestinian town of Nahr el Bared (May to September 2007) with a total of nearly 500 dead, or the internecine slaughter between Hamas and Fatah in Gaza since 2006 (more than 300 casualties) may give a hint of what may happen if hatred can no longer be executed against Jews. When Israel, in December 2008, tried to end the missile attacks from Gaza the strip suffered 1,385 casualties. Those are considerable losses. Yet, if Israel had pounded Gaza the way Lebanon has pounded Nahr el Bared killing 273 Islamists out of a population of 30,000, Gaza – with a population fifty times larger – would have lost 13,650. If Israel had smashed Gaza like Syria flattened the old city of Hama where, in February 1982, some 30.000 of its 300.000 inhabitants were killed to annihilate the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood – “the single deadliest act by any Arab government against its own people” (Wright 2008, 243) – there would have been a loss of 150.000 in Gaza.

Yet, the battles of Nahr el Bared in Lebanon (May to September 2007) with more than 500 dead, or the intenecine slaughter between Hamas and Fatah in Gaza since 2006 (around 500 casualties) may give a hint of what may happen if hatred can no longer be executed against Jews.

Sources:

Brzezinski, Z., Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century, 1993.

Courtois, S., ed., Le Livre Noir du Communism, 1997.

Heinsohn, G., Lexikon der Völkermorde, 1999. Heinsohn, G., Söhne und Weltmacht, 2006, 8th ed.

Rummel. R., Death by Government, 1994.

Small, M., Singer, J.D., Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars 1816-1980, 1982.

White, M. Please click here for Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century (2003).

Wright, R., Dreams and Shadows : The Future of the Middle East, Penguin, 2008

*Gunnar Heinsohn (born 1943 in Gdynia/Poland; "summa cum laude" doctorates 1974 in sociology and 1982 in economics), serves, since 1993 as speaker of the Raphael-Lemkin-Institut at the University of Bremen, Europe's first institute devoted to comparative genocide research where he authored the first encyclopedia of genocide (Lexikon der Völkermorde; 1998; 1999, 2nd ed.), as well as an outline for an international body to monitor genocidal developments globally (Völkermordfrühwarnung / Genocide Watch, 2000 [1998]).

His study “Sons and World Power: Terror in the Rise and Fall of Nation (Söhne und Weltmacht; Zürich 2003; with 10th impression in 2008 a scholarly bestseller; Dutch, Japanese, and Polish editions in 2008) tries to illuminate the role of youth bulges in mega-killings of past, present, and future.

From 2005 to 2009, he gave lectures on the subject of youth bulges and violence to many German and international institutions He has published on the subject in the major newspapers and magazines of the German language area as well as in the Wall Street Journal, the International Herald Tribune, Le Monde, the Financial Times, the Weekly Standard, NRC-Handelsbald (Amsterdam), etc.

Together with Philippe Bourcier de Carbon (Paris), he was the only expert from continental Europe consulted for the study, The Graying of the Great Powers by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS; Washington DC 2008).

Read full text......

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Armenian Jews and Israelis - Remembering and Denial



Yair Auron Lecture in Paris, 2010

The State of Israel continues to struggle against Holocaust denial on one hand, but participates in the denial of another genocide on the other. This most likely will damage the struggle against Holocaust denial in the future. The recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Israel is crucial since the denial of the Armenian Genocide is very similar to the denial of the Holocaust of the Jews. One might view this attitude as a moral failure. I am sure, a great many Jews, in Israel and in the world, will continue the struggle for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Israel and by the world. This is our obligation to ourselves as human beings; this is our obligation as Jews and as Israelis.

I will speak about the special connections between our two peoples, about Jewish memory and Armenian memory, about the attitudes of the State of Israel to the Armenian Genocide, and then conclude with some general comments about our common responsibilities, Jews and Armenians alike, regarding moral issues.

There are similar characteristics in the history of the Armenian and the Jewish peoples, who for long periods lived as ethno-religious minorities among majorities, different from and hostile to them. The genocides we, Jews and Armenians alike, have suffered have created another similarity and connection between us.

Let me demonstrate the special connections between our two peoples by recalling two examples which appear in my first book:.

In 1918, Shmuel Talkowsky, the secretary of Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader who became the first president of the State of Israel, wrote with the approval of Weizmann, an important article entitled "The Armenian Question from a Zionist Point of View."
"We Zionists look upon the fate of the Armenian people with a deep and sincere sympathy; we do so as men as Jews and as Zionists. As men our motto is "Homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto." "I am a human being. Whatever affects another human being affects me." As Jews our exile from our ancestral home and our centuries of suffering in all parts of the globe have made us, I would fain say specialists in martyrdom; our humanitarian feelings have been refined to an incomparable degree, so much so that the sufferings of other people – even alien to us in blood and remote from us in distance – cannot but strike the deeper chords of our soul and weave between us and our fellow-sufferers that deep bond of sympathy which one might call solidarity of sorrow.

And among all those who suffer around us, is there a people whose record of martyrdom is more akin to ours than that of the Armenians? As Zionists we have a peculiar question of principle. Zionism being in its essence nothing else than the Jewish expression of the demand for national justice, it is natural and logical for us to be deeply interested in the struggle for emancipation of any other living nation. … In our opinion, a free and happy Armenia, a free and happy Arabia, and a free and happy Jewish Palestine, are the three pillars on which will rest the future peace and welfare of the Middle East." This was written, I remind you in 1918. Unfortunately the policy of the State of Israel is very far from the principle raised by the Zionist movement 92 years ago.
Jewish memory and Armenian memory

Jewish history in the post-Holocaust era cannot be understood without an awareness of the profound and lasting influence of the Holocaust. The Second World War and the Holocaust on one hand, and the establishment of the State of Israel on the other, fundamentally changed the history of the Jews. Within a period of only a few years the Jewish People experienced its greatest disaster and witnessed the birth of the Jewish State and Jewish sovereignty.

In spite of the passage of time, Jewish attitudes to the Holocaust and its implications remain a crucial element in contemporary Jewish identity. From the point of view of Jewish and Israeli identity, and from an educational point of view, this raises a substantive question, which is relevant in my opinion also to the Armenians: Is it possible in the long term to foster an identity on the basis of elements which are fundamentally negative? Is not a balance called for in terms of positive Jewish elements?

Similarly, Armenian history in the post-genocide era cannot be understood without an awareness of the profound and lasting influence of the genocide on the first, second, third and now even fourth generation. In spite of the passage of time, and even maybe because of it, Armenian attitudes toward the genocide and its implications remain a crucial element in contemporary Armenian identity in Armenia and, even more, in Armenian communities all over the world. The genocide is a central component today in the attitudes of young Armenians – the third and the forth generation – when viewing themselves as Armenians, be it the U.S, Canada, Armenia, Australia, Israel or elsewhere.

Furthermore, for you Armenians, there is also the painful fact that your genocide is unfortunately not recognized. By denial you have been victimized twice. There is something sad, even depressing in the ongoing efforts of the Armenians and their supporters over 95 years to gain recognition from the international community and the many states where they are living in diasporas as a direct consequence, very often, of the genocide. During the past 20 years I have seen your struggle in Israel, as well as in many other Armenian communities across the world.

The attitudes of the State of Israel

I know how important for the Armenians is the attitude of the Jews, especially the attitude of the State of Israel, to their genocide. Concern with that position is raised again and again, I believe, because the State of Israel was populated by people who were victims of a similar genocide.

The State of Israel has officially refrained from relating to the Armenian Genocide. A combination of factors connected to Israel's relations with Turkey and concepts of the uniqueness of the Shoah have brought about an almost total absence of its mention by Israeli representatives. Government ministers - apart from a few such as Yair Tzaban, Yossi Sarid, Yossi Beilin and Haim Oron [all members of the same liberal party, Meretz - Ed.] - have systematically avoided the issue altogether by declining to participate in Armenian Memorial Day ceremonies.

Public debates and argument about that official attitude towards the Armenian genocide has erupted several times due to a number of events. In 1978, a film on the Armenian Quarter in Jerusalem was banned from being screened. In 1982, the Israeli Government intervened unsuccessfully to bar an International Congress on the subject of the Shoah and Genocide, pressing the organizers to eliminate lectures on the Armenian Genocide. In 1989, Israel was involved in preventing Congress from recognizing the Armenian genocide in the American calendar. In one way or another Israel and Jews were involved in the debate in the State also in1985,1987,1989, 2000, and 2007' and eventually in 2010. In 1990, the showing of "Armenian Journey", a TV film produced in U.S., was banned.

In this context I would like to mention two statements. One was made by Yossi Sarid, at that time the Minister of Education, on April 24, 2000 at the memorial gathering of the Armenian community in Jerusalem. Sarid sympathized with the pain of the Armenians over the denial of the genocide. He concluded his statement with a commitment to ensure that the Armenian Genocide be included in the Israeli secondary school history curriculum.

He stated:
"I would like to see a central chapter on genocide, on this huge and inhuman atrocity. The Armenian genocide should occupy a prominent place in this program, which does justice to the national and personal memory of every one of you, to the memory of all the members of your nation. This is our obligation to you, this is our obligation to ourselves."

Sadly nothing resulted from this courageous statement.

About a year later, on April 10, 2001, the Foreign Minster of Israel (now the president) Shimon Peres was quoted as saying "We regret attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. It is a tragedy but not a genocide". This statement was repeated by the Israeli Ambassador to Armenia Rivka Cohen in February 2002. These statements may be regarded as Israel's escalation from passive to active denial, from moderate denial to hard-line denial. An Armenian friend told me, rightly so, "I do not know of any enlightened politician in a democratic state that has ever made remarks such as these; You, the Jews, of all people."

The Armenian Genocide was raised in the Israeli Parliament around the month of April (the Armenian Memorial day) in 2007, 2008, and 2009 by a member of the Knesset, Haim Oron, who asked the Knesset to debate the issue, but the government opposed his request. The issue will be raised by Oron another time in the next weeks, without any chance to gain the majority.

Jewish and Israeli responsibility

It is clear to all those who are involved overtly and covertly in the controversies regarding Israel’s attitude to the Armenian Genocide – Jews, Turks, Armenians – and also to the rest of the world, that the issue has special moral significance. The fact that the country in question is of a people that was the victim of the Holocaust, and the unique problems that resulted, come to the fore .

The recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Israel is crucial in this regard, since the denial of the Armenian Genocide is very similar to the denial of the Holocaust of the Jews.

The State of Israel continues to struggle against Holocaust denial on one hand, but participates in the denial of another genocide on the other. This most likely will damage the struggle against Holocaust denial in the future. One might view this attitude as a moral failure. We have to remember that moral claims can have influence only if they are consistent.

Many observers estimate, in the case of the Armenians, that one act could radically change the long-standing denial of their Genocide: recognition of the Genocide by the United States or Israel. These are the pivotal countries that could bring about a Turkish recognition of the Genocide. There is a connection or even interdependence between the decisions of the two states. If one of them recognized the Genocide, sooner or later the second would do the same.

There is no doubt that morally speaking, Israel should be the first. Sadly, however, taking a realistic view of Israeli society and policy, this is not likely to happen in the near future.

Everyone would agree that Israel has no right to bargain with the memory of the Holocaust. But, even more, it has no right – by no means, in any circumstances, and much less so than any other country – to bargain with the memory of another victim group. And yet Israel did just that with the Armenian Genocide. Israel is contributing to the process of genocide denial and by doing so, it also betrays the memory and the legacy of the Holocaust, at least from my point of view.

The attitudes of Israel and its society towards the Armenian genocide and towards other cases of genocide have a unique significance. It is because of the unique history of our people: the victim during the Nazi period, we, Israelis are, unique third parties. Our attitudes towards Genocides – the attitudes towards genocides of the present and towards genocides of the past, is in many ways an example to the rest of the world that finds itself regarding the Israeli attitudes as a moral reference point.

Our common struggle for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide bears, at least for me, a major moral significance, and in our joint moral struggle we must be consistent. That should mean that every human and every people, but in my opinion especially we, Jews and Armenians, have a continuing obligation never again to be victims, of course never to be perpetrators, but also never to be bystanders.

I can assure you that I, and I am sure, a great many Jews, in Israel and in the world, will continue the struggle for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Israel and by the world. This is our obligation to ourselves as human beings; this is our obligation as Jews and as Israelis.

This lecture was delivered in Paris to the International Colloquiem of the Bureau Francais de la Cause Armeniénne - Armenia-Turkey: How to normalize relations? on April 14, 2010.

Yair Auron is a professor in the field of genocide and contemporary Judaism at the Open University of Israel and the Kibbutzim College of Education.

Professor Auron has published numerous books and essays, mainly on genocide and on Jewish identity in Israel and Europe. He is the author of books in Hebrew such as Between Paris and Jerusalem (Selected Passages of Contemporary Jewish Thought in France); Jewish-Israeli Identity; Sensitivity to World Suffering: Genocide in the 20th Century; and We Are All German Jews: Jewish Radicals in France During the 60s and 70s (also in French). His book The Banality of Indifference: Zionism and the Armenian Genocide was published in both Hebrew and English (Transaction Publishers, 2000). His book, The Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide was published in Hebrew and English (Transaction Publishers 2003).

Most recently, Auron is co-author of A Perfect Injustice: Genocide and the Theft of Armenian Wealth (Transaction Publishers, 2009) with Hrayr S. Karagueuzian. He is currently editing for the Open University a series of twelve books in Hebrew entitled Genocide, which includes theoretical volumes concerning the phenomenon of genocide as well as an analysis of case studies such as the Holocaust, the genocide of the Gypsies, the Armenian genocide and other historical and contemporary genocides such as Rwanda, Tibet and Indian population of the Americas. In this series, he published in 2009 Reflections on the Inconceivable: Theoretical Aspects of Genocide Studies, and in 2007 The Armenian Genocide: Forgetting and Denying. In 2006, his book Genocide: So That I Will Not Be among the Silent, was also published in this series. His book Israeli Identities: Jews and Arabs Facing Mirror and the Other in 2010 is published in Israel by Resling and in a few months will be published in English in the United States by Berghahn Books.

Read full text......

Thursday, April 15, 2010

An Open Letter to the President of Turkey and Israel


February 4, 2010

Dear Mr. Gul and Mr. Peres,

We too were embarrassed by the “Chair Episode” embarrassing, in which Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon sought to humiliate the Turkish Deputy Ambassador —and are relieved that our government has apologized for his inappropriate insulting behavior. Such behavior brought shame and embarrassment to Israel.

But this unfortunate episode should not detract attention from the substance of our alarm concerning the Turkish TV serial Valley of the Wolves, representing Mossad agents engaged in baby snatching. The details on this program are readily available from many sources. This presentation, and a previous one on the Farewell Program several months ago, apparently depicting Israeli soldiers shooting at a child followed by an image of blood spattering on a glass, recycled dangerously old blood libels used to incite to anti-Semitism. Such blood libels over the centuries have triggered pogroms causing the loss of much Jewish life. They were examples of state-sanctioned demonization and disinformation.

As scholars concerned with the protection and promotion of health and the prediction and prevention of genocide and genocidal terror, we recognize that --
(1) State sanctioned demonization and disinformation concerning members of a group defined by their national, racial, religious and ethnic origin are early warning signs, precursors, initiators, catalysts and promoters of genocidal agendas.

(2) Such demonization and disinformation, along with the use of dehumanizing language, have been precursors of genocidal mass atrocities in the Mid-East and Near-East, resulting in the deaths of 1.2 million Armenians, as well as tens of thousands Pontine and Assyrian Christians and Yezedis, nearly a century ago. At that time, Jews too were probably earmarked and a beginning expulsion of them from the Tel Aviv area in Palestine had begun but was canceled by international pressure. Turkey, unlike Germany, has yet to internalize the lessons from these past genocidal horrors and make amends for their occurrence.

(3) Currently there has been a frightening resurgence of Jihadist Genocidal antisemitism In the Muslim world. Its architects, notably the current Iranian Government, but also various Arab regimes, use dehumanization, delegitimization, defamation, disinformation, denial of past genocide and apply double standards to propagate their message, with disastrous effects—for everyone, including their own citizens.

(4) In the Mideast, political leaders often exploit the motifs of genocidal anti-Semitism—now repackaged as anti-Zionism, to gain power by positioning themselves as leaders of this wave. Such postures are in violation of all norms of respect for life and human dignity.

(5) Turkey will be playing with fire by participating in the spread of these motifs and its government should repudiate them immediately and not recycle them. Turkey today should not allow itself to be drawn into the orbit of Jihadist genocidal anti-Semitism.

Genocide --the willful and intentional destruction of life—results from human choices. Turkey should reject demonization, delegitimization, defamation, hate and incitement. It should choose respect for life and dignity, and work to promote life and respect for human life for all in the region.

We propose a positive approach. We suggest that Turkey show leadership in two lines of activity to advance core values of respect for human life and dignity.

The first line of activity is to promote regional cooperation in earthquake prediction, prevention and emergency response. Earthquake emergency response is a major priority issue in our region. Israel these past two weeks rushed aid to help the victims of the Haitian earthquake, and Turkey sent an aid group as well. In the past Israel aided Turkey and Armenia during their earthquakes in the same way that it aided Haiti.

The second line of activity is to promote a region wide approach to meeting the water needs in the mid and Near East. Turkey’s water surplus dwarfs the total demands of water-depleted countries in the region, and can be part of the solution to win-win solutions in the region. Turkey and Israel, together with other countries concerned with promoting life and well being, have much to do to advance cooperation on these existentially important problems.

We suggest moving on to a more positive approach to asserting our national identities and core values.

Respectfully,

Professor Elihu D Richter, MD, MPH
Head, Genocide Prevention Program
Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine
Jerusalem Israel
Associate Director, Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide
Director, World Genocide Situation Room, GPN GENOCIDE PREVENTION NOW
e-mail: elihur@ekmd.huji.ac.il

Professor Israel Charny, PhD
Executive Director, Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem
Editor-in-Chief, GPN GENOCIDE PREVENTION NOW
Editor-in-Chief, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF GENOCIDE
Past President and Co-Founder, International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS)

Professor Yair Auron, PhD
Director, Genocide Studies Program, Open University of Israel
Associate Director, Institute on Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem

Read full text......

Sunday, April 4, 2010

Israel Charged with Creating Flu Virus

On January 31, 2006, the Syrian government daily Al-Thawra published an article by columnist Abd Al-Rahman Ghunaym suggesting that Israel created the Avian flu virus in order to damage the "genes carried only by Arabs." The article further speculates that Israel may have planted the virus in East Asia in order to mislead the world, and that is why the disease first appeared in that remote region. Another possibility given is that the virus was created to attack the "yellow race - especially in China and Vietnam" which are "rising powers" that threaten the exclusive American hegemony over the world. The Zionists are capable of attempting this [risky] adventure if [they have] a preventive treatment or a [cure for the disease"].

Source: MEMRI (February 16, 2006). Syrian Government daily suggests Israel created, spread Avian Flu virus. Special Dispatch-Syria, No. 1094. Read full text......

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Iran's Nuclear Anti-Zionism is Genocidal, Not Political

Kenneth L. Marcus
inFocus

Charles Asher Small, director of Yale's Interdisciplinary Initiative for the Study of Anti-Semitism, tells the story of the reception he received from Rwandan activists at this year's Durban II Conference. As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rose to the Geneva stage, the Rwandans asked Small why the Jewish community is not doing more to prevent the obvious consummation of Ahmadinejad's fiery rhetoric. The Rwandans had heard similar propaganda before.

They used this language against your people in the 1940's, they said, and they used it against our people in the 1990's. Why do you not see that Iran's treatment of Israel today is no different?

From bitter experience, the Rwandans recognized genocidal intent in the Iranian leader's invective. They could not understand how a people that had its own state, organizations and resources is not able to understand and combat the growing threat that Iran presents.


Read full text...... Read full text......

Teheran's Genocidal Incitement against Israel

Elihu D. Richter MD, MPH
Head of Genocide Prevention Program, Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine
Associate Director, Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide
and


Alex Barnea
Research Assistant
Project Manager of GPN's World Genocide Situation Room

DOWNLOAD FULL PDF VERSION WITH REFERENCES

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made international headlines when on October 27, 2005, he declared in Persian that Iran would “wipe Israel off the map.” Some commentators in the United States, most notably University of Michigan professor Juan Cole, argued that the phrase was a mistranslation and that Ahmadinejad did not have genocidal intent. But, the Islamic Republic’s official English translation rendered the phrase “Israel must be wiped off the map,” and the regime reiterated its English translation on billboards and murals.

Iranian statements demonizing Jews are not new and, indeed, have long been part of Iranian political and religious culture, but they have acquired new significance in the light of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear enrichment technology, its development of missile delivery systems, and its support of terror proxies. Tel Aviv University professor Meir Litvak has extensively chronicled official Iranian anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lectures above a sign saying “Death to Israel” in Persian and Arabic, not “Down with Israel” as in the English translation below. Ahmadinejad has also declared in Persian that Iran will “wipe Israel off the map.” University of Michigan’s Juan Cole argued that the phrase was a mistranslation.

Background

It was under the shah that the government began a massive dissemination of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the hundred-year old Russian forgery alleging a Jewish plot to take over the world; its publication was subsidized and was made even more widely available after the Islamic Revolution. Excoriation of Jews was a frequent theme in Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s writings going back to the 1970s. In his famous Hukumat-i Islami (Islamic governance), the 1970 book which laid out the philosophy of clerical rule, Khomeini referred to “wretched Jews” and offered allusions to Islamic history to depict Jews as a source of corruption among Muslims, asking God to curse them. Khomeini declared, for example, that the “Jews … wish to establish Jewish domination … Since they are a cunning and resourceful group of people, I fear that … they may one day achieve their goal,” and that the “Jews have grasped the world with both hands and are devouring it with an insatiable appetite; they are devouring America and have now turned their attention to Iran and still they are not satisfied.”

After the Islamic Revolution, statements calling for the eradication of Israel and hate language using dehumanizing medical metaphors to describe Jews and Israel became commonplace although Khomeini began substituting the word “Zionist” for “Jew.” The Iranian leadership has made such statements more frequently since Ahmadinejad assumed office in 2005. While Khomeini’s image personifies radicalism in the West, it was his successor, Grand Ayatollah Sayyid‘Ali Hosayni Khamane’i, who began to dehumanize Israel as a “cancerous tumor,” a term he and his allies have continued to use through the years. However, the frequency and intensity of such anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist statements fluctuates across time. Evidence suggests that Iranian leaders’ genocidal rhetoric declines in frequency as the international community augments pressure. Conversely, when diplomats engage with and relieve pressure on the Islamic Republic, the severity of Iranian oratory increases—a trend present through March 2009.

Rhetoric matters and words kill. The U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide and Incitement to Genocide specifies that incitement to genocide is a crime against humanity. Since the Holocaust, genocide scholars have identified hate language and incitement—notably the use of dehumanizing medical metaphors—as predictors, promoters, and catalysts of genocidal agendas in Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and the Sudan. Gregory Gordon, former legal officer of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, has written that genocide cannot occur without incitement. He has outlined the legal tools available for the international legal community to deal with incitement to genocide and spelled out five questions relevant to defining such incitement: “Where was the statement made? Is it sufficiently public? Is it sufficiently direct? Is it permissible free speech or criminal incitement? What is the state of mind of the person uttering the statements—is there intent to incite?” Gordon notes that, given the precedents in international law, “causation is not an element,” and that even if incitement does not result in genocide, the person who incites may still be guilty of incitement to genocide—a principle applicable to the repeated statements by Khamane’i, Ahmadinejad, and other Iranian officials.

While Cole and the National Iranian American Council—the Islamic Republic’s de facto lobby in Washington—play down Iranian rhetoric and deny any incitement to genocide, a number of scholars, most prominently Tel Aviv University scholar Joshua Teitelbaum, editor-designate of the Middle East Quarterly Denis MacEoin, and German political scientist Matthias Küntzel, have chronicled Iranian rhetoric, including its dehumanizing medical metaphors recalling those used by Nazi propagandists since Adolf Hitler wrote Mein Kampf.

Table 1 compiles statements by members of the Iranian political hierarchy and clerical leaders going back to 2000. Public statements appear to have increased in frequency from February 2008 and generally conform to Khomeini’s substitution of Zionists for Jews although there have been exceptions. On April 14, 2005, for example, Grand Ayatollah Hosein Nuri-Hamadani, one of Shi‘ism’s top twenty-three authorities, declared, “One should fight the Jews and vanquish them so that the conditions for the advent of the Hidden Imam are met.” Nuri-Hamadani is also noted for his extreme views on women, secularism, liberalism, and Islamic mysticism.

Table 1: Timeline of Statements by Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders (2000-2008)

Date Person Statement and Actions
Dec. 15, 2000 Khamane'i Iran's position, first expressed by the imam, and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region.
Jan. 15, 2001 Khamane'i "...the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region." Translated by journalist Kasra Naji: "...mission of IRI is to erase Israel from the map of the region."
Dec. 14, 2001 Rafsanjani "If one day … the Islamic world will be equipped with weapons available to Israel now … the employment of even one atomic bomb inside Israel will wipe it off the face of the earth but would only do damage to the Islamic world."
Sept. 22, 2003 Banner on Shihab 3 missile (photo) "Israel must be uprooted and wiped from history."
Oct. 2005 Iranian regime Iranian publishers display English edition of Protocols of Zion at a Frankfurt book fair
Apr. 2005 Ayatollah Nouri-Hamedani "One should fight the Jews and vanquish them so that the conditions for the advent of the Hidden Imam will be met."
Oct. 26, 2005 Ahmadinejad "Our dear Imam [Khomeini] ordered that this Jerusalem occupying regime must be erased from the page of time. This was a very wise statement." "Soon this stain of disgrace will be cleaned from the garment of the world of Islam, and this is attainable."
Oct. 27, 2005 Ahmadinejad "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." Any Islamic leader "who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."
Oct. 30, 2005 Hossein Shariatmadari "We will be satisfied with nothing less than the complete obliteration of the Zionist regime from the political map of the world."
Apr. 14, 2006 Ahmadinejad "Israel heading towards annihilation." "a dried, rotten tree that will collapse with a single storm."
June 9, 2006 Mohammad Ali Ramin "Among the Jews, there have always been those who killed God's prophets.... it was said that they were the source for such deadly diseases as the plague and typhus. This is because the Jews are very filthy people. For a time, people also said that they poisoned water wells belonging to the Christians and thus killed them."
Oct. 22, 2006 Resalat (Tehran) "Great war is ahead of us, perhaps tomorrow, or in a few months, or even a few years. The nation of Muslims must prepare for the great war, so as to completely wipe out the Zionist dream, and remove this cancerous growth."
Nov. 2006 Banner on bus at military rally "Israel should be wiped off the face of the world!"
Dec. 2006 Ahmadinejad "the Zionist regime will be wiped out, and humanity will be liberated" - freed, that is, from the "acquisitive and invasive" minority.
Sept. 2007 Ahmadinejad "brutal Zionists" "Zionist regime" "Palestine and Iraq will be liberated from the domination of the occupiers, and the people of America and Europe will be free of the pressure exerted by the Zionists."
Oct. 4, 2007 Shariatmadari "Death to America and death to Israel are not only words written on paper, but … a symbolic approach that reflects the desire of all the Muslim nations."
Feb. 5, 2008 Ahmadinejad "A people falsified, invented. [Israel] will not last, they must leave the territory."
Feb. 12, 2008 Ahmad Jannati "[We have] bigger crowds, slogans more enthusiastic, 'Islamic Republic of Iran' regime getting better and better." "The blind enemies should see that the wish of these people is the death and destruction of America and Israel."
Feb. 18, 2008 Mohammad Ali Jaafari "In the near future, we will witness the destruction of the cancerous microbe Israel by the strong and capable hands of … Hezbollah."
Feb. 18, 2008 Manoucher Mottaki "even after 60 years, the Zionist regime has neither gained any legitimacy nor played any role in this region."
Feb. 23, 2008 Yahya Rahim Safavi "with God's help, the time has come for the Zionist's regime death sentence. … the death of this unclean regime will arrive soon following the revolt of the Muslims."
Feb. 23, 2008 Haddad Adel "The countdown has begun for the destruction of the Zionist regime."
Feb. 20, 2008 Ahmadinejad "they [the global powers] have created a black and filthy microbe called the Zionist regime."
Mar. 14, 2008 Ahmadinejad "the Zionist regime is on its way out [destructible]."
Apr. 17, 2008 Ahmadinejad "The region and the world are prepared for great changes and for being cleansed of Satanic enemies" [referring to the Great Satan (USA) and Little Satan (Israel)]
May 13, 2008 Ahmadinejad "global arrogance established the Zionist regime." "[which is] a stinking corpse"
May 13, 2008 Mohammad-Reza Khabbaz, member of the central committee of National Trust reformist party "Creation of Israel only served the purpose of creating a cancerous tumor in the body of Islamic society."
June 13, 2008 Ahmadinejad "terrorist and criminal state … backed by foreign powers … regime to be swept away by Palestinians."
June 14, 2008 Ahmadinejad "Israel's days are numbered … peoples of region know there is the narrowest opportunity to annihilate this false regime."
July 2, 2008 Ahmadinejad "Thanks to God, your wish will soon be realized, and this germ of corruption will be wiped off the face of the world."
July 24, 2008 Esfandiar Rahim Masha'i "Israel is a cancerous tumor." "Israel will soon disappear."
Sept. 23, 2008 Ahmadinejad "The Zionists are the eternal enemy of 'the dignity, integrity, and rights of the American and European people." "Although they are few in number, the Zionists have been dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers as well as the political decision-making centers of some European countries and the United States in a deceitful, complex and furtive manner." "Even some presidential or premier nominees in some big countries have to visit these people, take part in their gatherings, swear allegiance and commitment to their interests in order to attain financial or media support." Even "the great people of America and various nations of Europe" are caught in the clutches of Jewish power. They "need to obey the demands and wishes of a small number of acquisitive and invasive people. These nations are spending their dignity and resources on the crimes and occupations and the threats of the Zionist network against their will." "Today … the Zionist regime is on a definite slope to collapse. There is no way for it to get out of the cesspool created by itself and its supporters."
Sept. 25, 2008 Ahmadinejad "Zionism … is the root cause of insecurity and wars. … What commitment forces the U.S. government to victimize itself in support of a regime that is basically a criminal one?"
Nov. 26, 2008 Ahmadinejad "Iran will support Hamas until the destruction of Israel."
Dec. 25, 2008 Ahmadinejad "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." [Iran hangs nine individuals before 12/24/08 bringing the yearly total to 244.]
Dec. 30, 2008 Ahmadinejad "the real Holocaust is now taking place in Gaza Strip and Palestine."

Source: Genocide Prevention Now World Situation Room of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem, and Genocide Prevention Program of the Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine. Published with the permission of Genocide Prevention Now website. An expanded version of this paper and timeline will be posted on the Genocide Prevention Now website.

Based on available citations, Iranian hate language and incitement against Israel has varied in frequency and intensity across time. Between the September 11, 2001 attacks and the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, incitement decreased. This was at the height of Iranian president Mohammad Khatami’s so-called “dialogue among civilizations.” Khatami was widely feted as a reformer interested in rapprochement, and it was in this guise that the West embraced him. When his presidency came to an end, both Harvard University and the National Cathedral in Washington invited him to deliver high-profile speeches, and St. Andrews University in Scotland sought to bestow an honorary degree on him; here, however, protestors outraged by his weak endorsement of human rights forced the university to downgrade the award to one not related to human rights. The protestors were not wrong. Khatami’s own staff acknowledged his insincerity. “We had one overt policy, which was one of negotiation and confidence building, and a covert policy, which was continuation of the activities,” the president’s former spokesman, ‘Abd Allah Ramadan-Zada, acknowledged during a June 2008 speech at the University of Gilan.

President Ahmadinejad

On June 24, 2005, Ahmadinejad was elected president. The mayor of Tehran for only two years, he was a virtual unknown in the West. Many Western officials hoped that he would continue the rhetorical trend initiated by Khatami and the so-called reformists and, indeed, Ahmadinejad’s spokesman promised he would do just that.

It was not to be. On October 26, 2005, Ahmadinejad declared, “As the Imam said, the Jerusalem-occupying regime must be erased from the pages of time.” He followed shortly after with “this stain of disgrace will be cleaned from the garment of the world of Islam, and this is attainable.” Such statements were met with outrage from world leaders, most vocally German chancellor Angela Merkel.

There were six inflammatory statements reported in 2006 although there was a pause in the incitement when, at the end of the year, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed the first of three resolutions sanctioning the Islamic Republic for its nuclear activities, and, in 2007, when the U.S. House of Representatives voted 411 to 2 for House Resolution 21, “Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.”

Genocide scholars have noted that architects and perpetrators of mass murder are often sensitive to outside public opinion and conceal, camouflage, or calibrate their agendas. This may explain why the frequency and intensity of the hate language and incitement abated after the U.N. Security Council resolutions, even if the personalities holding office in the Iranian government remained constant.

Iranian incitement increased after the U.S. National Intelligence Council released its November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Tehran had ceased its pursuit of a nuclear weapon in the spring of 2003 when the United States invaded Iraq—an association missed by the council. The release of the estimate relieved diplomatic pressure on the Islamic Republic, whose senior leaders had previously believed there was some possibility that the Bush administration might order military strikes against it. Thereafter, throughout 2008, the Iranian media quoted not only Ahmadinejad but also Khamane’i and a range of other senior officials including Kayhan editor Hossein Shariatmadari, Council of Guardians chairman Ahmad Jannati, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps chief Mohammad Ali Jaafari, and Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, a senior expediency council official, making inflammatory statements containing dehumanizing medical metaphors. (See Table 1.)

During the same period, Western universities and media began to book Ahmadinejad as a guest or host him for speeches coinciding with his annual visits to the opening annual sessions of the U.N. General Assembly, thereby bestowing the legitimacy of statesmanship upon him. The Council on Foreign Relations, for example, invited Ahmadinejad to a meeting on September 20, 2006, and Columbia University hosted a speech by Ahmadinejad in September 2007. During his September 2008 trip to the United States, both The New York Times and CNN’s Larry King interviewed him, and various religious figures—including the leadership of the American Friends Service Committee, the leading Quaker nongovernmental organization, dined with him. Three months later, Britain’s television Channel 4 invited Ahmadinejad to deliver its annual alternative Christmas address, a broadcast that, with some irony, occurred concurrently with Iranian police raids on the BBC Persian offices in Iran. True to the pattern, as international isolation continued to ease, incitement using the medical metaphors of hate language returned. Hassan Rowhani, Supreme Leader Khamane’i’s representative on the Supreme National Security Council, referred to Israel as a “cancerous tumor” on January 12, 2009. Soon after President Barack Obama called for a renewal of U.S. engagement with Iran, Khamane’i again referred to Israel as a “cancerous tumor.”

The record suggests that a mixture of increased complacency, acquiescence, and tolerance for ever harsher Iranian hate language, at times with a subtext of legitimization, may have removed the inhibitions to the increasing use of such language, provided it is interspersed occasionally with more circumspect language, such as in Ahmadinejad’s U.K. Christmas Channel 4 oration.

Conclusion

Thirty years have passed since the inauguration of the Islamic Republic. Senior members of the Iranian leadership, first under Khomeini and now under Khamane’i and Ahmadinejad, have successfully transmitted incitement and hate language across generations. The reach of this message is now prolonged, far-reaching, and deep—in part because such messages play on preexisting anti-Semitic motifs already embedded in Middle Eastern and Islamic political culture.

Iranian official rhetoric may serve two purposes. First, it may provide a window into regime thinking: Public hate language and incitement from the senior Iranian leadership signal genocidal intent to destroy Israel, an accomplishment that would deter anyone in the Islamic world from resisting Tehran in the future. Second, with their economy sinking, Iranian leaders may believe that demonizing internal and external enemies could be a useful diversionary tactic.

Whatever the case, the Iranian leadership appears to calibrate the output and intensity of its incitement to the intensity of world reactions. If there is to be any engagement with the Iranian leadership, it must include specific demands for the cessation of incitement to genocide. Such engagement should occur concurrently with the application of the existing tools of international law such as prosecuting individual Iranian leaders for incitement to genocide, or referring the Islamic Republic to the International Court of Justice. Without such tangible measures, Iran’s leaders may believe they have a free hand to implement a genocidal agenda.

Read full text......