Log in

View Full Version : Fidel tells Ahmedinejad to stop slandering the jews



scarletghoul
8th September 2010, 06:53
This is good. It would be interesting to read the full interview, especially his view on the State of Israel (I hope he does not equate Israel with all Jews). Anyway yeah pretty cool imo
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/09/fidel-to-ahmadinejad-stop-slandering-the-jews/62566/
Fidel to Ahmadinejad: 'Stop Slandering the Jews'

Sep 7 2010, 12:06 PM ET
(This is Part I of a report on my recent visit to Havana. I hope to post Part II tomorrow. And I also hope to be publishing a more comprehensive article about this subject in a forthcoming print edition of The Atlantic.)

A couple of weeks ago, while I was on vacation, my cell phone rang; it was Jorge Bolanos, the head of the Cuban Interest Section (we of course don't have diplomatic relations with Cuba) in Washington. "I have a message for you from Fidel," he said. This made me sit up straight. "He has read your Atlantic article about Iran and Israel (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/09/the-point-of-no-return/8186). He invites you to Havana on Sunday to discuss the article." I am always eager, of course, to interact with readers of The Atlantic, so I called a friend at the Council on Foreign Relations, Julia Sweig, who is a preeminent expert on Cuba and Latin America: "Road trip," I said.

I quickly departed the People's Republic of Martha's Vineyard for Fidel's more tropical socialist island paradise. Despite the self-defeating American ban on travel to Cuba, both Julia and I, as journalists and researchers, qualified for a State Department exemption. The charter flight from Miami was bursting with Cuban-Americans carrying flat-screen televisions and computers for their technologically-bereft families. Fifty minutes after take-off, we arrived at the mostly-empty Jose Marti International Airport. Fidel's people met us on the tarmac (despite giving up his formal role as commandante en jefe after falling ill several years ago, Fidel still has many people). We were soon deposited at a "protocol house" in a government compound whose architecture reminded me of the gated communities of Boca Raton. The only other guest in this vast enclosure was the president of Guinea-Bissau.

I was aware that Castro had become preoccupied with the threat of a military confrontation in the Middle East between Iran and the U.S. (and Israel, the country he calls its Middle East "gendarme"). Since emerging from his medically induced, four-year purdah early this summer (various gastrointestinal maladies had combined to nearly kill him), the 84-year-old Castro has spoken mainly about the catastrophic threat of what he sees as an inevitable war.

I was curious to know why he saw conflict as unavoidable, and I wondered, of course, if personal experience - the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 that nearly caused the annihilation of most of humanity - informed his belief that a conflict between America and Iran would escalate into nuclear war. I was even more curious, however, to get a glimpse of the great man. Few people had seen him since he fell ill in 2006, and the state of his health has been a subject of much speculation. There were questions, too, about the role he plays now in governing Cuba; he formally handed off power to his younger brother, Raul, two years ago, but it was not clear how many strings Fidel still pulled.

The morning after our arrival in Havana, Julia and I were driven to a nearby convention center, and escorted upstairs, to a large and spare office. A frail and aged Fidel stood to greet us. He was wearing a red shirt, sweatpants, and black New Balance sneakers. The room was crowded with officials and family: His wife, Dalia, and son Antonio, as well as an Interior Ministry general, a translator, a doctor and several bodyguards, all of whom appeared to have been recruited from the Cuban national wrestling team. Two of these bodyguards held Castro at the elbow.

We shook hands, and he greeted Julia warmly; they have known each other for more than twenty years. Fidel lowered himself gently into his seat, and we began a conversation that would continue, in fits and starts, for three days. His body may be frail, but his mind is acute, his energy level is high, and not only that: the late-stage Fidel Castro turns out to possess something of a self-deprecating sense of humor. When I asked him, over lunch, to answer what I've come to think of as the Christopher Hitchens question (http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/08/hitchens-talks-to-goldblog-about-cancer-and-god/61072/) - has your illness caused you to change your mind about the existence of God? - he answered, "Sorry, I'm still a dialectical materialist." (This is funnier if you are, like me, an ex-self-defined socialist.) At another point, he showed us a series of recent photographs taken of him, one of which portrayed him with a fierce expression. "This was how my face looked when I was angry with Khruschev," he said.

Castro opened our initial meeting by telling me that he read the recent Atlantic article carefully, and that it confirmed his view that Israel and America were moving precipitously and gratuitously toward confrontation with Iran. This interpretation was not surprising, of course: Castro is the grandfather of global anti-Americanism, and he has been a severe critic of Israel. His message to Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, he said, was simple: Israel will only have security if it gives up its nuclear arsenal, and the rest of the world's nuclear powers will only have security if they, too, give up their weapons. Global and simultaneous nuclear disarmament is, of course, a worthy goal, but it is not, in the short term, realistic.
Castro's message to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, was not so abstract, however. Over the course of this first, five-hour discussion, Castro repeatedly returned to his excoriation of anti-Semitism. He criticized Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust and explained why the Iranian government would better serve the cause of peace by acknowledging the "unique" history of anti-Semitism and trying to understand why Israelis fear for their existence.
He began this discussion by describing his own, first encounters with anti-Semitism, as a small boy. "I remember when I was a boy - a long time ago - when I was five or six years old and I lived in the countryside," he said, "and I remember Good Friday. What was the atmosphere a child breathed? `Be quiet, God is dead.' God died every year between Thursday and Saturday of Holy Week, and it made a profound impression on everyone. What happened? They would say, `The Jews killed God.' They blamed the Jews for killing God! Do you realize this?"

He went on, "Well, I didn't know what a Jew was. I knew of a bird that was a called a 'Jew,' and so for me the Jews were those birds. These birds had big noses. I don't even know why they were called that. That's what I remember. This is how ignorant the entire population was."

He said the Iranian government should understand the consequences of theological anti-Semitism. "This went on for maybe two thousand years," he said. "I don't think anyone has been slandered more than the Jews. I would say much more than the Muslims. They have been slandered much more than the Muslims because they are blamed and slandered for everything. No one blames the Muslims for anything." The Iranian government should understand that the Jews "were expelled from their land, persecuted and mistreated all over the world, as the ones who killed God. In my judgment here's what happened to them: Reverse selection. What's reverse selection? Over 2,000 years they were subjected to terrible persecution and then to the pogroms. One might have assumed that they would have disappeared; I think their culture and religion kept them together as a nation." He continued: "The Jews have lived an existence that is much harder than ours. There is nothing that compares to the Holocaust." I asked him if he would tell Ahmadinejad what he was telling me. "I am saying this so you can communicate it," he answered.

Castro went on to analyze the conflict between Israel and Iran. He said he understood Iranian fears of Israeli-American aggression and he added that, in his view, American sanctions and Israeli threats will not dissuade the Iranian leadership from pursuing nuclear weapons. "This problem is not going to get resolved, because the Iranians are not going to back down in the face of threats. That's my opinion," he said. He then noted that, unlike Cuba, Iran is a "profoundly religious country," and he said that religious leaders are less apt to compromise. He noted that even secular Cuba has resisted various American demands over the past 50 years.

We returned repeatedly in this first conversation to Castro's fear that a confrontation between the West and Iran could escalate into a nuclear conflict. "The Iranian capacity to inflict damage is not appreciated," he said. "Men think they can control themselves but Obama could overreact and a gradual escalation could become a nuclear war." I asked him if this fear was informed by his own experiences during the 1962 missile crisis, when the Soviet Union and the U.S. nearly went to war other over the presence of nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba (missiles installed at the invitation, of course, of Fidel Castro). I mentioned to Castro the letter he wrote to Khruschev, the Soviet premier, at the height of the crisis, in which he recommended that the Soviets consider launching a nuclear strike against the U.S. if the Americans attack Cuba. "That would be the time to think about liquidating such a danger forever through a legal right of self-defense," Castro wrote at the time.

I asked him, "At a certain point it seemed logical for you to recommend that the Soviets bomb the U.S. Does what you recommended still seem logical now?" He answered: "After I've seen what I've seen, and knowing what I know now, it wasn't worth it all."

I was surprised to hear Castro express such doubts about his own behavior in the missile crisis - and I was, I admit, also surprised to hear him express such sympathy for Jews, and for Israel's right to exist (which he endorsed unequivocally).


After this first meeting, I asked Julia to explain the meaning of Castro's invitation to me, and of his message to Ahmadinejad. "Fidel is at an early stage of reinventing himself as a senior statesman, not as head of state, on the domestic stage, but primarily on the international stage, which has always been a priority for him," she said. "Matters of war, peace and international security are a central focus: Nuclear proliferation climate change, these are the major issues for him, and he's really just getting started, using any potential media platform to communicate his views. He has time on his hands now that he didn't expect to have. And he's revisiting history, and revisiting his own history."

There is a great deal more to report from this conversation, and from subsequent conversations, which I will do in posts to follow. But I will begin the next post on this subject by describing one of the stranger days I have experienced, a day which began with a simple question from Fidel: "Would you like to go to the aquarium with me to see the dolphin show?"
What do you think ?

The Vegan Marxist
8th September 2010, 07:35
I think it's about time someone spoke up about Ahmedinejad's known anti-semitism. Granted, we must defend Iran from external forces, we must also allow criticism as well on what's needing to be criticized.

Crimson Commissar
8th September 2010, 07:45
I think it's about time someone spoke up about Ahmedinejad's known anti-semitism. Granted, we must defend Iran from external forces, we must also allow criticism as well on what's needing to be criticized.
Uhm, why should we be defending Iran at all? Being a victim of US imperialism doesn't automatically make them socialists.

The Vegan Marxist
8th September 2010, 08:16
Uhm, why should we be defending Iran at all? Being a victim of US imperialism doesn't automatically make them socialists.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that Socialist countries is all that we care about. Forget about any other independent country trying to break off from foreign colonialism. That's so un-communist of us..:rolleyes:

AK
8th September 2010, 08:28
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that Socialist countries is all that we care about. Forget about any other independent country trying to break off from foreign colonialism. That's so un-communist of us..:rolleyes:
Problem is, Iran is a repressive capitalist state and, a lot of the time, defence against imperialism tends to amount to the flawed enemy-of-my-enemy principle and people then end up actually showing support for Iran.

Saorsa
8th September 2010, 08:37
We oppose imperialist attacks and imperialist intervention against Iran. That's what TVM meant. Does anyone here not oppose the Western embargoes and military threats against Iran?

DragonQuestWes
8th September 2010, 09:01
I'm glad Fidel Castro spoke out against Ahmedinejad a little. I mean it's good that they're friends and all, but sometimes even the best of friends need to accept some criticism so that they can improve.

Personally, I think Iran would be more likely to be successful in repelling US/Israeli Imperialism if Ahmadinejad can learn a little more about the Holocaust rather than denying it completely.

As Capitalist as Iran may be, we do have to remember that the United States' Capitalism can hurt other Capitalist nations as well, because Capitalism is based on corporate competition (which is very harmful to the second and third world).

maskerade
8th September 2010, 12:37
An imperialist attack against Iran would probably strengthen all the reactionary and repressive elements, and all of these sanctions will eventually make the country dependent on the military or state, as happened in Iraq.

And I don't support Iran in anyway, but that doesn't mean I want to see them attacked by Israel or the US...

Crux
8th September 2010, 12:51
We oppose imperialist attacks and imperialist intervention against Iran. That's what TVM meant. Does anyone here not oppose the Western embargoes and military threats against Iran?
Than there's more to criticize than Ahmadinejads anti-semitism. The lack of basic worker's rights, for one thing.

The Vegan Marxist
8th September 2010, 13:00
Than there's more to criticize than Ahmadinejads anti-semitism. The lack of basic worker's rights, for one thing.

Worker's rise to power from the bottom-up. Though, we tear down who is in power from the top-down. We can't just eliminate the lowest stages of Capitalism without first dismantling the highest stages of Capitalism - which is imperialism. Sure, criticize what's needing to be criticized, but we must also recognize when countries are in need of support from the highest stage of Capitalism - imperialism.

Crux
8th September 2010, 13:10
Worker's rise to power from the bottom-up. Though, we tear down who is in power from the top-down. We can't just eliminate the lowest stages of Capitalism without first dismantling the highest stages of Capitalism - which is imperialism. Sure, criticize what's needing to be criticized, but we must also recognize when countries are in need of support from the highest stage of Capitalism - imperialism.

Only a fool would think imperialist intervention would do anything to help iranian worker's. Likewise, only a fool would bloc politically with the Iranian regime. Iran's geopolitical interests and anti-imperialism are not the same thing.
You seem to have a rather gradualist view of worker's power, you see we do tear down those who are on top.

The Vegan Marxist
8th September 2010, 13:14
Only a fool would think imperialist intervention would do anything to help iranian worker's. Likewise, only a fool would bloc politically with the Iranian regime. Iran's geopolitical interests and anti-imperialism are not the same thing.
You seem to have a rather gradualist view of worker's power, you see we do tear down those who are on top.

Didn't say it'll help advance the Iranian workers. But I am going to say that if we don't resist these imperialist attacks, if one takes place, & they succeed, then we'd be harming the Iranian workers. Not every action we make will lead to the advancement of workers power, but it'll always be a blow against the Capitalist system, for whatever means it may be.

Kassad
8th September 2010, 13:20
We oppose imperialist attacks and imperialist intervention against Iran. That's what TVM meant. Does anyone here not oppose the Western embargoes and military threats against Iran?

I wouldn't be so sure. There was a thread on North Korea recently where a lot of people were saying that they refuse to even defend Korea from imperialism and that they would be totally fine with a US invasion, since it would be preferable to the current state of affairs.

You have to remember, Alastair, that a lot of people on this website are not actually communists.

bricolage
8th September 2010, 13:33
I wouldn't be so sure. There was a thread on North Korea recently where a lot of people were saying that they refuse to even defend Korea from imperialism and that they would be totally fine with a US invasion, since it would be preferable to the current state of affairs.
Its false dichotomy to present thing as; 'defend'(*) North Korea/Iran/whatever versus support US/Israeli whatever attacks on them.
Pretty much everyone who rejects the former, opposes the latter.

Of course anyone who is 'totally fine with a US invasion' has a pretty reprehensible outlook. However it turns out it isn't as many people as you'd like to thinl.

* I've always wondered how everyone here would actually 'defend' these states, you got a bunch of guns lying around in Tehran or something?


You have to remember, Alastair, that a lot of people on this website are not actually communists.Indeed.

Crimson Commissar
8th September 2010, 16:02
Didn't say it'll help advance the Iranian workers. But I am going to say that if we don't resist these imperialist attacks, if one takes place, & they succeed, then we'd be harming the Iranian workers. Not every action we make will lead to the advancement of workers power, but it'll always be a blow against the Capitalist system, for whatever means it may be.
We should oppose imperialism against any sort of nation, but only because it would cause harm to the people of that nation. The current regime in Iran is reactionary and entirely based on religious fundamentalism. We can't just support everyone who isn't friends with the US. We should defend the people of Iran, but oppose the government of Iran.

RedSonRising
8th September 2010, 16:25
I like Fidel's old-man scoldings filled with historical perspective better than Chavez's strategic praising of anyone against US imperialism. But in all seriousness, I always appreciated Castro's honesty and his ability to admit his mistakes in hindsight, and as a statesman he shows he considers all sides of a conflict. We all know the real conflict is one of class, but certain international situations such as this one carry a lot of weight culturally and it's good to see Fidel trying to reach out to another significant leader's ignorance. This might be his quiet way of frantically preventing a nuclear war he's so anxious will happen, actually.

Comrade Marxist Bro
8th September 2010, 16:40
This is good. It would be interesting to read the full interview, especially his view on the State of Israel (I hope he does not equate Israel with all Jews). Anyway yeah pretty cool imo
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/09/fidel-to-ahmadinejad-stop-slandering-the-jews/62566/
What do you think ?

I don't think any rational person would equate Israel with all Jews, and I generally very much liked Castro's interview. Opposing anti-Semitism and opposing anti-Arab bigotry are really two parts of the same coin. We stand on the side of humanity as a whole, and the oppressed of the world before any other distinctions. We naturally reject nationalism and ethnic divisions, and seek international solidarity among all workers as part of the struggle.

That said, I wonder if the interview doesn't go overboard as far as two things -- for how can the long history of anti-Jewish persecution and the unique atrocity of the Holocaust mitigate the level of opposition to Israel and its Zionist establishment?


"This went on for maybe two thousand years," he said. "I don't think anyone has been slandered more than the Jews. I would say much more than the Muslims. They have been slandered much more than the Muslims because they are blamed and slandered for everything. No one blames the Muslims for anything."

Yes, we know that Jews have collectively faced more persecution that anyone else throughout their history. But "no one blames the Muslims for anything"? What about Castro's own record of opposition to Zionism? I wouldn't read this literally, but he certainly should have been a lot less polemical.


I was surprised to hear Castro express such doubts about his own behavior in the missile crisis - and I was, I admit, also surprised to hear him express such sympathy for Jews, and for Israel's right to exist (which he endorsed unequivocally).

I'd rather hear Castro put this in his own words than have to rely on Goldberg's paraphrasing. What Castro probably means is the two-state solution, which would be a quantum leap relative to the current farce of the so-called peace process.

A democratic Israel that gave full and equal rights to all of the Palestinian population would be justifiable as a concept. Both Jews and Arabs have a right to exist as human beings. But Israel as it is right now -- a nationalist state with a form of apatheid in place for the Palestinians in the territories -- must earn this (so-called) right before it actually lays claim to it.

M-26-7
8th September 2010, 16:42
This thread is remarkably civil so far, and it's kind of nice.

Os Cangaceiros
8th September 2010, 16:50
I wouldn't be so sure. There was a thread on North Korea recently where a lot of people were saying that they refuse to even defend Korea from imperialism and that they would be totally fine with a US invasion, since it would be preferable to the current state of affairs.

You have to remember, Alastair, that a lot of people on this website are not actually communists.

The problem is that a lot of people characterize the debate over the DPRK as being one that's clearly divided: you either support the government of the DPRK, or you don't, in which case you're implicitely giving your support for U.S. imperialism. A lot of people have a nuanced view of the DPRK as well, but there is a disturbing amount of people both on this board and off who have a chronic case of ideological myopia when it comes to such issues.

That's something that I've often found pretty fucking terrifying about "big C" communism, is that it ascribes the very worst, most vile intentions to it's critics, and reacts to them accordingly. I can see how some people see communism as a "godless religion", when any deviation from one's particular communist sect is seen as heresy.

Wanted Man
8th September 2010, 16:58
That's not what Kassad said at all. Kassad said that some people in the DPRK discussions basically say that they would be ambivalent about military attacks on the DPRK, or even supportive. Those are the ones who are not actually communist according to Kassad. He didn't say anything about "implicit support for imperialism" or that you are obligated to support the DPRK.

Os Cangaceiros
8th September 2010, 17:08
Yeah...I know that some people don't care if the U.S. attacks N. Korea (although I don't think that's likely), or welcomes it...I was referring more to the Soviet Dudes of the world, though, who view any kind of non-support for the DPRK's gov. as automatic support for U.S. aggression. :rolleyes:

edit: I probably shouldn't play this game...I don't particularly like the unnecessary sectarianism around here anymore than anyone else does, honestly.

bricolage
8th September 2010, 18:47
That's not what Kassad said at all. Kassad said that some people in the DPRK discussions basically say that they would be ambivalent about military attacks on the DPRK, or even supportive. Those are the ones who are not actually communist according to Kassad. He didn't say anything about "implicit support for imperialism" or that you are obligated to support the DPRK.
He also mentioned people who 'refuse to even defend Korea from imperialism'. 'Defending' North Korea, despite the fact it is completely abstract and irrelevant in the practical, in the theoretical refers to support for the North Korean state.

4 Leaf Clover
8th September 2010, 18:54
Communist always reserve right for themselves to choose the lesser evil , everyone who read Lenin knows that. I will oppose American geopolitical and economical interests in Middle East , as much as i would oppose Iranian interests in Middle East , that would affect other countries such as Iraq , and ethnic minorities such as Kurds... In the possibility of war between USA and Iran i would support Iran , so please explain me what is wrong in this approach.

You dont support opressed side because you align with their Government , but because they are opressed. Rapists of the UN , the security council , is un-democraticaly by political intrigues buying points for Embargoing Iran , because of its legitimate right to develop nuclear technology. Thats opression according to me.