An unfortunate, but perhaps understandable, situation:
"Arab governments appeared reluctant Thursday to condemn Iran's president for calling the Holocaust a 'myth' used by Europeans to create a Jewish state in the heart of the Islamic world.
"While official Arab reaction in such cases is usually slower than international reaction, any issue involving a defence of Israel is a thorny one for Arab governments, who risk appearing to side with Israel against a Muslim nation."
"Arab governments appeared reluctant Thursday to condemn Iran's president for calling the Holocaust a 'myth' used by Europeans to create a Jewish state in the heart of the Islamic world.
"While official Arab reaction in such cases is usually slower than international reaction, any issue involving a defence of Israel is a thorny one for Arab governments, who risk appearing to side with Israel against a Muslim nation."
Al Ayyam newspaper, close to the Palestinian Authority, was a notable exception.
4 Comments:
It is understandable concerning the Islamic mindset. It is like morality.
As morality is driven, not by rational and reasonable thought, but rather by a God-given edict. The Islamic desire to kill the infidel is moral. Very moral. As is Islamic antisemitism.
And who said eddie had no sense of humor?
That Ahmadinejad, what a guy.
The John Howard of Iran.
Except Ahmadinejad is not legitimately elected, he’d blame misshapen fruitloops on 'the Jews', he has no concern for Western ideals (like that pesky liberalism/economic liberalism, thing), is a slave to Islamic fundamentalists, doesn’t have to consult a party made up of MPs elected from around his nation on policy development, doesn’t have to inform an opposition (because there is none) on matters of national security, has no effective constitutional obstacles to policy development or the implementation of legislation, and he doesn’t live in a society which allows freedom of the press. Etc., etc....
That and John Howard has no religious obstacle to stop him from eating pork, Ahmadinejad does.
Interesting points, Comical, I'm sure they will be well-ignored here.
Orange- your comparing the leader of what is still a democratic state with the figurehead of a semi-theocracy.
If Howard claimed the holocaust was a myth, there would be a political backlash across all the seats held by the Coalition (or one would hope so). If the Iranian leadership claimed, say, Muslims are the sons of pigs and donkeys, it could suppress any upset by force and through its controls over civil society.
Your belief that the Coalition plays its constituencies to win seats, no doubt you have many ‘examples’- actions following the 1990s influx of reffo’s, anti-terrorism rhetoric, etc., but the fact remains people are rational and have their own reasons for voting, even if these are sometimes irrational (i.e., voting for the party your parents did/do).
But perhaps, instead of assuming people have been ‘tricked’ into voting for the Liberals, its time to accept Australia’s goodwill for the Middle East and its (often fleeing) inhabitants has run out? Perhaps this is the real reason the Coalition has been consistently returned to power since March 1996? Then again, it’s easier for you to claim a ‘racist underbelly’, and ‘fear of the other’, and other assorted terms sociologists have made up.
If you are opposed to the Government, unlike in Iran and with the Iranian leadership, you can express your views in public and within the civil society sphere. You haven’t lost the freedom to do that.
Post a Comment
<< Home