Hamas leader parrots Iranian nonsense

It's perhaps a minor issue when you're looking at the wider ramifications of the Hamas victory in the recent Palestinian elections. But those have been astringently laid out by Meryl Yourish here, world-wearily by Allison here, mordantly by Shai here and here, and typically spikily by Imshin here, here and here. I commented at length on a couple of Imshin's posts, and the points which I've seen least widely echoed elsewhere are these:

I think the most significant things about the Hamas victory are:

the power it will give them to put their placemen and women into every position they can– just as Fatah did. The difference is that dedicated believers in the ideology of Hamas, including its commitment to the destruction of Israel, will exercise power at every level of Palestinian society, including the education system. The ramifications of that will take a long time to become clear, but to me those are the most significant of all.

To the extent that Hamas has strong funding relationships with Syria and Iran, the PA begins to look rather more like a client state than it did before. I wonder if it will make the EU now eager to fund a Hamas-run PA in order to avoid the worse outcome of funding from Syria and Iran.

the very likely outcome that the Hamas militias and gangs will be incorporated into the PA forces. The requirement to dismantle terror organizations built into the road map will become a nonsense.

The Palestinians did have a choice. For example, there was a candidate list for “third way” politics.

You may argue that that list stood no chance of getting elected, and the Palestinian electorate were simply choosing the only available alternative to a thoroughly corrupt Fatah, with its attendant gangs of gunmen. But what lies behind that? Maybe people get the politics they deserve. So much political energy amongst the Palestinians and their liberal supporters and apologists in the west has gone into supporting the rhetoric of armed struggle, “solidarity with the Palestinians” and “understanding the despair” which is supposed to lead to people feeling they have no alternative to blowing themselves up in cafes. Or feeling that they must support the politics of armed struggle and boycotting Israel at all costs.

......

But the people of eastern Europe eventually confronted and brought down the oppression of Soviet communist dictatorship without resort to these methods.

I think we break faith with those courageous Palestinian journalists and dissidents who have repeatedly exposed both Fatah/PA corruption and mafia-style gangsterism *and* Hamas’ cynical use of welfare programmes funded by countries like Iran and Syria if we accept that the Palestinians had no real choice.

But, like I said, I've got an altogether more minor issue. In itself, it's hilarious.

The Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar has made a first demand on Israel, now that they've come to power. Israel must change its flag. Why? Well, here's Mr Zahar's "explanation":

"Israel must remove the two blue stripes from its national flag," said Zahar. "The stripes on the flag are symbols of occupation. They signify Israel's borders stretching from the Euphrates River to the Nile River."

Let's hope that's not too accurate an indicator of how well informed Hamas is going to be in government. Because the lines on the Israeli flag are representative of the stripes in the tallis, the prayer shawl worn by Jewish men. As this Wikipaedia entry makes clear, open anti-semites like the Palestinian Nazi collaborator Haj Amin Al Hussayni falsely claimed that Zionists wished to claim the territory from the Nile to the Euphrates, and the notorious Israel Shahak claimed that the lines in the flag were a secret reference to this.

But that's perhaps not where Mr Zahar got his information from. I don't really see him as a Wikipaedia man. What seems much more likely, though, is this surprising--or not so surprising coincidence.

On 5th January this year, Iran's Channel 2 TV ran an amazing programme which was a farrago of every Holocaust denial trope and myth you can think of-- and then some. You can read MEMRI's transcript of the programme here and watch the programme itself with English subtitles here.

For example, a new variant of the tendency of Holocaust deniers to blame the Jews themselves for the techniques as well as the outcome of the mass murders, there's this claim that the Jews themselves invented murdering and systematically burning the bodies of their victims. Back at the time of Jesus, according to "political analyst" Dr Majid Gouzardi....

When Jesus appeared, many people became followers of this great prophet. The king of Yemen at that time, who was probably a Jew – as can be seen in some sources – said to (the Christians): "You have two options – either you convert (to Judaism) and renounce your Christianity, or else we will burn you."

They prepared a great pit of fire, and burned those Christians who refused to renounce the pure religion of Jesus.

This case of burning people, of burning believers, has become engraved in the Jewish consciousness. Later they exploited this issue, and said that in World War II – between 1942 and 1945 – the Germans did this to them. They failed to mention that historic event, and the fact that they themselves had done the same to the Christians.

They said that the (Germans) would take them from the camps, would put them in some room, and burn them.

In other words, "holocaust" means ovens for burning people, or Jews, which were used in Poland and Germany.

In response, an English-speaking "expert", Iqbal Siddiqui, Editor of London's The Crescent, acknowledges that, yes, there was a genocide of Jews under Hitler during World War II, only promptly to claim that the Jews (not the Zionists) use it to justify what he claims are acts of equal and equivalent evil on their part against the Palestinians:

But whatever the Jews suffered at the hands of the Nazis - it does not and cannot justify what the Jews have done in Palestine, what the Jews have done in other parts of the world, and, basically, the attitude of the Jews and the Zionists that as a result of the suffering in Europe under Hitler, for the rest of history, the rest of the world owes them a living, and that they must be treated now as a special people, the chosen people, who are entitled to do whatever they like.

This is the image of the Jewish people that is being promoting, and the Holocaust - the supposed Holocaust - is being constantly used and mythologized, in order to serve this political agenda, which ultimately means, of course, the interests of the state of Israel.

[...]

What happened to the Jews was a matter of immense evil, whether six million died, or five million, or four million, or three million. What is the issue is not the numbers. It is the use to which these events have been put subsequently by Jewish and Zionist leaders to justify acts of equal and equivalent evil on their part against the Palestinians.

[...]

Dr. Majid Goudarzi: The (Zionists) claimed they had to be rulers of the world. That's why they prepared the Protocols in Russia, and implemented each and every clause. They wrote instructions how to gain control of the global media, and how to control the world's natural resources. Part of this control...

Interviewer: They became the board of directors of the world.

Dr. Majid Goudarzi: Yes.

[...]

They want to write history as they wish, and in light of their unparalleled power in the media – if you like, we could talk about that on another show – they have managed to impose the (Holocaust) issue, and to depict themselves as oppressed.

And here's the end of the programme, as Dr Safataj and Dr Majid Gouzardi make it clear that the lines in the Israeli flag represent Jewish intentions of world domination... for which "cancerous tumour" the only remedy is... an operation.

Dr. Majid Goudarzi: But even if we assume it happened... The Zionists, according to their protocols, wanted to control the world, and they have not given up this idea. They are using various means, such as the Freemasons, or the Baha'is. [...] I heard a report today that the Austrian government has agreed to give the Zionists 210 million dollars of the poor taxpayer's money, so that they could more easily kill people like the crippled, defenseless Sheik [Ahmad] Yassin Ramadhan, like Muhammad Al-Durra, and other youngsters. I really feel sorry for the German and the Austrian peoples. Dr. Majid Safataj: The Zionists created something out of nothing. First they said three million were killed. Gradually, the number climbed to six million. If the Zionists' claims had not been doubted, the number would probably have reached ten or twenty million. [...] Dr. Majid Goudarzi: A country like Israel... Its flag has two colors: blue and white. The upper stripe represents the Nile, and the bottom stripe the Euphrates. It says that its reign stretches from the Nile to the Euphrates. It puts the Star of David in the middle, and demonstrates its aggressive character daily, by raising this flag. I hope that one day humanity will reach the conclusion that the only solution for this cancerous tumor is an operation.

Of course, it could be entirely coincidental that Mr Zahar made the very same reference to this nonsense about the lines in the Israeli flag. And turned it into Hamas' first political demand on the Israeli government.

Comments

[David T]

John Reid, the secretary of RESPECT, is a signatory to the Second Cairo Conference Declaration, which included this statement:

Participants in the 2nd Cairo conference stress that the occupation of Iraq...is also part of the Zionist plan, which targets the establishment of the greater State of Israel from to [sic] Nile to Euphrates...

I believe that George Galloway and Tony Benn signed up to this as well.

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/10/14/peace_conference.php

[Pounce]

Keep up the good work.
it makes me so sick when I hear of all these idiots who try to say the Holocaust didn't happen. Of course if the BBC had their way they would ensure that, that message was the only message.

[Stephen]

Oh no, heaven forbid! The BBC doesn't have a position on it! It simply reports both sides, don't you know. All viewpoints are equally valid. (Well, except right-wing or Jewish ones, of course.)

[Jack]

Personally I am not so sure that there is such a significant difference between Hamas and Fatah. In some respects it is easier to deal with a group that is so open about their hatred.

[Ben-David]

Could that "Zioniut" be "Zionanut"?

It would then be a play on the word "onanut" - the original Hebrew version of "Onanism".