And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks

[Henny]

But they're not relevent to Iraq and in trying to bring stability to it, Js.  They're only relevent to you (and Miss Henny) because others who recognize irrationality and the complete implausibility of "talking" to the President of Iran, have to be diminished.

OMG, this is a serious headache (on both sides, I am sure). Sirs, you are stuck on Iraq... like broken record. You are talking about one issue. Js and I have been trying to get you to grasp the concept as a whole, using examples of other comparative issues. Could you at least try to look at the situation hypothetically and acknowledge the lack of consistency in American foreign policy (and your own assessment of the situation)?

[Amianthus]

acknowledge the lack of consistency in American foreign policy

Every government has a lack of consistency in both foreign policy and internal policy.

I don't see this as a bad thing.

[sirs]

But they're not relevent to Iraq and in trying to bring stability to it, Js.  They're only relevent to you (and Miss Henny) because others who recognize irrationality and the complete implausibility of "talking" to the President of Iran, have to be diminished.

Sirs, you are stuck on Iraq... like broken record. You are talking about one issue. Js and I have been trying to get you to grasp the concept as a whole, using examples of other comparative issues. Could you at least try to look at the situation hypothetically and acknowledge the lack of consistency in American foreign policy (and your own assessment of the situation)?

Seriously Miss Henny, I have.  I know precisely what you and Js are trying to do.  Now, I'd ask you do something for me.  Explain to me HOW YOU HAVE A RATIONAL CONVERSATION with a country and leadership who, not only demands (read: not questions) proof of the holocaust, but is also on record largely pledging to assist in the destruction of Israel. 

Please tell me what "talk" accomplishes with such a predisposed mindset, and how that "talk" brings about a radical change in their policy, that would cause Iran to cease all forms of aide and facilitation towards the current instability of Iraq.  Not being a psychiatrist myself, I'd love to know how "talk" alone fixes this

[Plane]

What use is the denial of the Holocaust to anyone in Iran?

There is no question of complicity from Iranians of that day .

What makes it worthwile to invite Klansmen and rabbis and anyone elese that might go along with the joke?

[kimba1]

I just want to know is how does one fabricate something so big as the holocaust?

I don`t recall anyone saying skin lamps are fake and don`t forget all those people who came to those camps after the end of the war seeing all those physical evidence.
and don`t forget it was not only jews.
quite afew other groups of people were in those camps

[domer]

Truths relevant to this discussion (proof lies in the archives): 1) Iran is not a "mad" state -- indeed, it rationally pursues what it perceives to be its interests, beclouded only by the "usual" social psychological baggage its utilitarian rhetoric can provoke; 2) the issue of the Holocaust is central to politics in the Middle East, and especially so for a nation interested in an Islamic hegemony (leadership role) in the region; 3) largely, but not entirely, the justification for the creation of Israel and the explanation for the flight/ouster of Palestinians from the land that is now Israel lies in the desperate throes of a "nation" lterally trying to survive in the wake of the worst assault upon a group of people in recorded history; and 4) undercut the existence and thus force of that precipitating event, and the "drive the Israelis into the sea" faction in Arab/Muslim politics gets a huge boost forward.

The truth of the Holocaust should be judged by normal historical methods through normal search of archives. I rest content that the matter has been overwhelmingly proven. Iran is free, of course, to conduct its own self-interested examination of the record (see above), but should expect itts output to bbe subjected to withering criticism if it follows the lines the initiation of the project suggests.

Finally, without a doubt, the Jewish genocide stands unique if for no other reason than its volatile significance in current day politics. I support those European states regulating denial of the Holocaust in the free exercise of their collective consciences because a) they were directly involved in the horror; b) the matter has been tested exhaustively by journalists and historians; and 3) they have made the value judgment that curtailing debate on this one topic, for the foreseeable future, will avoid the specter of a resurgent anti-Semitism, evidence of which, unfortunately, still abounds in modern life, and will thus avert perhaps an attempt to repeat the worse calamity ever to scourge the earth.

[Plane]

  I don't agree with the European governments that have made it a hate crime to question the history of the Holocaust ,driveing the question underground does nothing to answer it , it just feeds the notion that there is a diffrence between the government approved truth and the truth.

    In Iran I kind of expect an earnest inquiry to turn up the most politicaly expedient answer , and the alternate answers to become offensive to the state.

[Henny]

Seriously Miss Henny, I have.  I know precisely what you and Js are trying to do.  Now, I'd ask you do something for me.  Explain to me HOW YOU HAVE A RATIONAL CONVERSATION with a country and leadership who, not only demands (read: not questions) proof of the holocaust, but is also on record largely pledging to assist in the destruction of Israel. 

Please tell me what "talk" accomplishes with such a predisposed mindset, and how that "talk" brings about a radical change in their policy, that would cause Iran to cease all forms of aide and facilitation towards the current instability of Iraq.  Not being a psychiatrist myself, I'd love to know how "talk" alone fixes this

Ah, now we're back to the crux of the matter. Now I respond to you, how can you have a rational conversation with a country that has worked for over 50 years to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from the region? How can you have a rational conversation with a country whose flag represents their goal of land from the Euphrates to the Nile?

I know the answer. You say it can be done because you don't believe that these things are happening. You've never SEEN proof. Or the proof has been manufactured. Or the Palestinians "had it coming to them."

On the other hand, did you know that Iran is a very well educated and advanced society? Did you know that the majority of even women pursue higher education? That they have a well trained and developed military? Or are they just a bunch of idiots riding around on camels? Lunatics, all of them? The idea of not talking to them is what is absurd.

[Henny]

So I did some searching on President Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel. What was the entire text of the speech he gave? Of course, the media generally only presented one sentence of it. What I found through a compilation on Wikipedia is that Ahmadinejad has a mouth comparable to.... oh, say Donald Rumsfeld. He says something and everyone in Iran cringes. But there was interesting information available about what he said, what he says he meant, and what others think. I just thought it would be interesting to throw it in here.
2005 World Without Zionism Speech
In his translation of a speech to the "World Without Zionism" conference held for students in October 2005, Nazila Fathi of The New York Times' Tehran bureau reported Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying, in part:

Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks.

Ahmadinejad also claimed in the speech that the issue with Palestine would be over "the day that all refugees return to their homes [and] a democratic government elected by the people comes to power", and denounced attempts to normalise relations with Israel, condemning all Muslim leaders who accept the existence of Israel as "acknowledging a surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."

The speech also indicated that the Iranian President considered Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip to be a trick, designed to gain acknowledgement from Islamic states. In a rally held two days later, Ahmadinejad declared that his words reflected the views of the Iranian people, adding that Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid.

Translation of phrase "wiped off the map"
Many news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad's phrases in Persian as a statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map", an English idiom which means to cause a place to stop existing.

Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:

[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.

On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said.

In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner stated that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away." Bronner stated: "So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."

On June 15, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele cites several Persian speakers and translators who state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "wiped off the map".

A synopsis of Mr Ahmadinejad's speech on the Iranian Presidential website states:

He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away.

The same idiom in his speech on December 13, 2006 was translated as "wipe out".

Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out."

Interpretation of speech as call for genocide
The speech was interpreted by some as a call for genocide. For example, Canada's then Prime Minister Paul Martin said, "this threat to Israel's existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran's obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore."

Cole interprets the speech as a call for the end of Jewish rule of Israel, but not necessarily for the removal of Jewish people:

His statements were morally outrageous and historically ignorant, but he did not actually call for mass murder (Ariel Sharon made the "occupation regime" in Gaza "vanish" last summer[sic]) or for the expulsion of the Israeli Jews to Europe.

In the speech, Ahmadinejad gave the examples of Iran under the Shah, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq as examples of apparently invincible regimes that ceased to exist. Ahmadinejad used these examples to justify his belief that the United States and the State of Israel can also be defeated claiming, "they say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan."

In April 2006, Iran's ambassador was asked directly about Ahmadinejad's position towards Israel by CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer:[19]

BLITZER: But should there be a state of Israel?

SOLTANIEH: I think I've already answered to you. If Israel is a synonym and will give the indication of Zionism mentality, no.
But if you are going to conclude that we have said the people there have to be removed or they have to be massacred or so, this is fabricated, unfortunate selective approach to what the mentality and policy of Islamic Republic of Iran is. I have to correct, and I did so.

Interpretation of speech as call for referendum
Iran's stated policy on Israel is to urge a one-state solution through a countrywide referendum. Juan Cole and others interpret Ahmadinejad's statements to be an endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for; which would normally be an end to the "Zionist state".

In November 2005 Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, rejecting any attack on Israel, called for a referendum in Palestine:

We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government.

Ahmadinejad himself has also repeatedly called for such solution. Most recently in an interview with Time magazine:

TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?

Ahmadinejad: [...] Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way.

[BT]

Pardon my ignorance, but for the palestinians to go home wouldn't they have to occupy about half of Jordan?

[Henny]

Holocaust denial and demands to relocate Israel

In a speech given on 14 December 2005 in the city of Zahedan, and carried live on Iranian television, Ahmadinejad reportedly made the following comments:

According to the Iran's official news agency:

If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why should the Palestinian nation pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions. [...] The same European countries have imposed the illegally-established Zionist regime on the oppressed nation of Palestine. If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there. Then the Iranian nation will have no objections, will stage no rallies on the Qods Day and will support your decision.

According to United States media:

They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets. The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets, (it) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet. If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel? Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?

The remarks were condemned immediately by the Israeli government. Mark Regev, spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry stated:

The combination of a regime with a radical agenda, together with a distorted sense of reality that is clearly indicated by the statements we heard today, put together with nuclear weapons -- I think that's a dangerous combination that no one in the international community can accept.

What the Iranian president has shown us today is that he is clearly outside the international consensus, he is clearly outside international norms and international legitimacy, and in so doing he has shown the Iranian government for what it is -- a rogue regime opposed to peace and stability and a threat to all its neighboring countries.

Many other foreign governments also issued condemnations, including those of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany.

In an interview on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad said "I've just asked two questions. But I have not received any clear answers." referring to his previous statements on Holocaust. He added "I will not make any historical argument. European scientists are in a position to answer these questions". Referring to Europeans, Ahmadinejad added "I want them to offer a clear answer to these questions... what ever they say I would agree".

According to Aftab News, Mohammad-Ali Ramin, a political analyst and an advisor to Ahmadinejad, was the one who initiated the idea of relocation of Israel and also the idea that holocaust is a myth. He himself accepted the full responsibility of this action, as Aftab News reported. In an interview with Financial Times, Mohammad-Ali Ramin stated that he has also initiated Holocaust commission in Iran and he is the founder of the Conference on Holocaust in Tehran. Ramin praised Ahmadinejad for having voiced his doubts over the Holocaust and the need for relocating the Jews to Europe if Europeans really did the massacre during the Second World War.

In February 2006, Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying: "Now, in the West, insulting the prophet is allowed, but questioning the Holocaust is considered a crime. We ask, why do you insult the prophet? The response is that it is a matter of freedom, while in fact, they are hostages of the Zionists." In the same month, Poland banned visas to Iranian researchers who were planning to visit Auschwitz.

In a press conference in Tehran on April 24, 2006, Ahmadinejad declared that "Israel can ultimately not continue its existence" and said:

Anti-Semitism in Europe has forced Jews to leave their countries of origin, but what they did instead was occupy a country which is not theirs but that of Palestinians

We are sorry for any human being killed in the two world wars. We respect Moses as we respect Jesus, but it is just unacceptable that the Palestinians should suffer from the aftermath

He stated his belief that the Middle East conflict could be settled only within a "just peace plan," but reaffirmed that this must be preceded by the return of all Palestinians to their homelands.

In a May 30 interview with Der Spiegel Ahmadinejad again questioned the Holocaust several times, insisting there were "two opinions" on this. When asked if the Holocaust was a myth, he responded "I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it", and further stated:

We are saying that if the Holocaust occurred, then Europe must draw the consequences and that it is not Palestine that should pay the price for it. If it did not occur, then the Jews have to go back to where they came from.

On August 15 2006 a contest for best Holocaust caricatures was officially opened in Tehran. This was Ahmadinejad's "retaliation" for the Danish Paper Muhammad caricatures. 204 Holocaust denial caricatures were presented.

Iranian responses to Holocaust controversy

In March 4, 2006, Iran's parliament speaker, Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel, said "the Western media empire is trying to portray Iran as an anti-Semitic country. However, our support for Palestinians should not be interpreted as anti-Semitism". He added "If our president questions Holocaust, It does not mean that Iran believes in anti-Semitism. In our history, there were no anti-Semitism and genocide". Iran parliament speaker said according to ISNA.

Regarding Ahmadinejad's position on the Holocaust, sole Jewish Majlis MP Maurice Motamed has expressed some concerns, noting that "Denial of such a great historical tragedy that is connected to the Jewish community can only be considered an insult to all the world's Jewish communities." He also criticised Iranian television for broadcasting anti-Semitic programmes.

Also, the head of Iran's Jewish community, Haroun Yashayaei, sent a letter to Ahmadinejad in early 2006 that read, in part, "How is it possible to ignore all of the undeniable evidence existing for the exile and massacre of the Jews in Europe during World War Two? Challenging one of the most obvious and saddening events of 20th-century humanity has created astonishment among the people of the world and spread fear and anxiety among the small Jewish community of Iran."

In February 2006, former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami made remarks affirming the Holocaust but decrying what he described as the connection between the Holocaust and present-day persecution in Palestine "We should speak out if even a single Jew is killed. Don't forget that one of the crimes of Hitler, Nazism and German National Socialism was the massacre of innocent people, among them many Jews."[63] "[Israel has] made a bad use of this historic fact with the persecution of the Palestinian people."

[Henny]

Pardon my ignorance, but for the palestinians to go home wouldn't they have to occupy about half of Jordan?

They already do occupy half of Jordan - Palestinian refugees are more than 50% of the population here. (Add to that more than 1 million Iraqi refugees and you have a very overburdened infrastructure.)

The count is at about 5 million Palestinian refugees. The idea is that they should have the right to return if they choose - not a mandatory call to return. Many Palestinian families have lived elsewhere for generations and are not eager to rip up their new roots.

[BT]

But wasn't Jordan part of the palestinian homeland?

[_JS]

Seriously Miss Henny, I have.  I know precisely what you and Js are trying to do.  Now, I'd ask you do something for me.  Explain to me HOW YOU HAVE A RATIONAL CONVERSATION with a country and leadership who, not only demands (read: not questions) proof of the holocaust, but is also on record largely pledging to assist in the destruction of Israel. 

Please tell me what "talk" accomplishes with such a predisposed mindset, and how that "talk" brings about a radical change in their policy, that would cause Iran to cease all forms of aide and facilitation towards the current instability of Iraq.  Not being a psychiatrist myself, I'd love to know how "talk" alone fixes this

First of all, no one has said that we have to use "talk alone." We can still work on securing Iraq's borders. Secondly, we have rational diplomatic discussions with Turkey and Japan, why can't we have a rational diplomatic discussion with Iran?

As Henny said, you seem fine with the idea of having rational discussions with the Israeli Government, who has perpetrated some of the nastiest bigoted policies of the past two decades, yet this bothers you?

[_JS]

Domer, I agree with just about everything you've said in your post. I have no problem with the European states that regulate the denial of the Holocaust. Something to consider as an addendum to what you've said is the damage that neo-right wing extremists have caused in some European nations. To some extent these laws are a pragmatic way to mitigate that.

I do wish that they had done more to stem the bigotry toward the Roma that still very much exists in Europe today.