Following last week’s rethink on homophobia Fidel Castro has a message for the Iranian leadership on its bonkers, unhistorical, offensive Holocaust denial. This extract is from his interview in The Atlantic.

image 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.

41 responses to “"Wise up" – Castro's message to Ahmadinejad”

  1. “Following last week’s rethink on homophobia Fidel Castro…”

    To be a little pedantic, I think Fidel ‘rethought’, and began change, official homophobia more than 30 years ago (the laws were changed in 1979 and his daughter Mariela has been quite strident for gay rights since at least the early 90s). Last week he was more explicit about his personal responsibility for past errors in this regard, perhaps.

    Like

  2. Viva comrade Castro,

    I hope his radical views on this topic receive wider attention on the British and European Left!

    Like

  3. So Castro does his bit for identifying anti-zionism with anti-semitism. No wonder `modernity’ is on board.

    Like

  4. I think Castro explains a bit of history and a bit of basic anti-racism, which is long over due for many Westerners to take in….

    Like

  5. I am all for the lesson in basic anti-racism but appealing to the Zionist lobby by betraying the Palestinians and recognising Israel so that Cuba can get America’s approval. No thanks.

    Like

  6. Comrade Ellis isn’t explaining himself too well.

    Perhaps Comrade Ellis would like to point out **precisely** which of Castro’s points he disagrees with, and show why Castro’s arguments are false…

    It would be far better to deal with Castro’s words and his arguments directly.

    Like

  7. Castro is wrong to say this….

    “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.”

    It is simply not true today that Jews are more slandered than Muslims. Was true once, but today the Muslims are under concerted attack from reactionaries who would not dare say similar things about Jews.

    Christian preachers are not proposing to burn the Talmud, they are proposing to burn the Koran, just to give one of many possible examples.

    (if they were, it would be just as important to protest the burning of the Talmud as it is the Koran).

    Nor has Muslim anti-Jewish sentiment anything to do with ‘killing God’. Muslims do not believe that Jesus – alleged to have been killed on the say-so of Jews – was divine, so this is an attack that misfires. There is nasty stuff – including holocaust denial – borrowed from European anti-semitism by the likes of Ahmedinejad, but it has nothing to do with Christian ‘theological anti-semitism’ as the bit about ‘killing God’ implies.

    It about the Zionist colonial project, the seemingly endless siezure of land from mainly Muslim Palestinians, and the massive threat from Israel’s nuclear arsenal against all the states and peoples around it, none of which have nukes (unlike Israel, which has hundreds of the things). Its a reactionary, racist response to racism. Tit for tat, to put it crudely.

    Castro is out of touch with some of the realities of the Middle East. He understands something of Israeli-Jewish psychology, but not so much that of those they are in conflict with.

    Like

  8. Castro: `trying to understand why Israelis fear for their existence.’

    Modernity: The reason Israelis fear for their existence is because they are living on stolen land not because they are jewish. Israel is not a nation marxists can legitimise for two reasons: 1. it is a colonial state and 2. it is attempting to give national and state expression to a religion and that is about as anti-democratic and feudal as it gets.

    Whilst Ahmedinajad might not recognise Israel for anti-semitic reasons it is altogether different for Marxists.

    Like

  9. “Castro: `trying to understand why Israelis fear for their existence.’”

    So that’s it?

    Comrade Ellis, you don’t disagree with any of Castro’s other points?

    Have a re-read of the interview, just to make sure?

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/09/fidel-to-ahmadinejad-stop-slandering-the-jews/62566/

    Like

  10. I think some of Castro’s comments, in this piece, are quite thoughtful but nevertheless it suffers from a limitation of his politics in not addressing mass movements and the current plight of the Palestinians.

    His comments on anti-Semitism are of course relevant historically. The anti-Semitism of the church was a huge factor, though Castro fails to relate it to class society, first feudal and then bourgeois. Anti-Semitism may have often taken a religious form but it was driven by social forces.

    Ahmedinejad today in Iran may also use religion as a bulwark of social reaction and class dictatorship over the working class and social oppression of women and ethnic minorities but again it is bourgeois politics that drive this.

    A gaping hole in Castro’s remarks is how imperialism today is targeting Muslims using Islamophobia and how this politics is related to Israel’s role as an enforcer of imperialism in the Middle East and almost completely ignoring the denial of basic rights to millions of Palestinians.

    Ahmedinejad may rhetorically be an anti-imperialist but he represents the class enemy, a barbaric dictatorship that executes women, gay people and workers fighting for the most basic of democratic rights.

    The only ultimately effective anti-imperialism is one of the working class across borders and religious divides uniting in defence of the rights of all, Arab, Kurd, Jew, Iranian, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, other religions, no religion fighting for a secular workers’ state of Palestine/Israel based on workers’ democracy and freedom.

    This can only be built by mass movements, not the individual leaders who Castro addresses.

    It must be a movement of the working class, the peasantry and sections of the urban petit bourgeoisie. This movement, based on has the power to smash the racist Zionist state, overthrowing capitalism and recognising the rights of all Arabs and Israeli Jews in a secular workers’ state as part of the struggle for socialism and democracy and against imperialism in the Middle East’.

    Anyway as a festive aside I should say Happy Ethiopian New Year, melkam addis amet, to everyone and get back to the partying.

    Like

  11. The whole piece is a bit of zionist propagaganda wrapped in a few platitudes. It is timed to coincide with the `peace’ talks to swing Stalinist opinion behind them in line with the two-stage theory of treachery. The intent for Castro is to gain the approval of the zionist lobby in the US for the lifting of the blockade at the expense of the Palestinian revolution. Clearly too economically there is a big perestroika and glasnost coming in Cuba hence the sudden discovery of gay rights after all these years.

    Like

  12. Ahmedinejad has been due for a public slap-down for a long time.
    Castro’s just the man to do it.
    No one can accuse him of wanting the country to be attacked
    The pathetic Iranian Holocaust Conference; the invitation to KKK leader David Duke, the hangings, stonings & lashings for sexual transgression are all good reasons.
    Only dupes and apologists can overlook Ahmedinejad’s atrocious track record on these issues in the name of “anti-imperialism”.
    They are a massive own goal on his part.
    I’d prefer it if Castro’s comments were written up as an article in the Cuban press, or issued as an open letter to the Iranian leader though.
    Allowing the comments of an 83 year old, who is no longer a state official to be re-interpreted by a US journalist in this way is just not satisfactory.

    But I really wish the gushing Ellis would stop pretending to be some ultra-Trotskyist.
    His positions are internally contradictory and he doesn’t respond to logical argument.
    Being such a schematic “ultra-Trot” in “Respect” must be really difficult act.
    Especially with all those latter Pop Frontists in it!

    Look at how Galloway has dealt with the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani.
    The best he could do was plead with Ahmedinejad that she should be deported from Iran!
    Pathetic.

    See the video interview in this piece :-
    http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2010/08/19/4175/

    Like

  13. “The whole piece is a bit of zionist propagaganda wrapped in a few platitudes. It is timed to coincide with the `peace’ talks to swing Stalinist opinion behind them in line with the two-stage theory of treachery. The intent for Castro is to gain the approval of the zionist lobby in the US for the lifting of the blockade at the expense of the Palestinian revolution. Clearly too economically there is a big perestroika and glasnost coming in Cuba hence the sudden discovery of gay rights after all these years.”

    Comrade Ellis,

    Thank you for your analysis and deep psychological insights into Castro thinking, but please could you detail which of his **arguments** you disagree with and why that is the case?

    Like

  14. Priankoff: the only person trying to be the ultra-trot on here is you.

    Galloway had a chance to question the President of Iran on broadcast TV about the fate of woman facing a vile death penalty and he took it. Do you think he should have demanded that Ahmedinejad should initiate a socialist government immediately or make a serious effort to save this woman’s life? You condemn him for cowardice. I think if anyone is posturing it is you.

    Like

  15. `Ahmedinejad has been due for a public slap-down for a long time.
    Castro’s just the man to do it.’

    That is an extremely odd way of putting it. Ahmedinejad needs more than a slap down and how can we take Castro’s `slap down’ seriously when it comes with an explicit recognition of Zionism and with that a tacit rationalisation of its crimes. It loses its potential echo in the Iranian working class through being associated with an apologia for the region’s most heavily armed stooge in the region.

    Like

  16. People might take the verbose Ellis seriously if he didn’t continually fabricate nonsense and put words into other people’s mouths.

    Galloway does a paid gig on Iranian state TV.
    He’ll never embarass the government there by making the correct demand on the issue of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani
    Which would be lifting the death sentence on her and opening this and other such cases up to public investigation.
    It’s an elementary democratic demand, but one that Galloway was unable to make.
    That means he seperates himself from anyone fighting for such demands in Iran and fails to provide any socialist leadership to them.
    Ellis’ twaddle about “demanding immediate socialism” is just a smokescreen that obscures that evasion.
    It’s almost Stalinist in its dishonesty.

    Using the same methodology as Ellis, I could accuse him and Galloway being Jew Haters, holocaust deniers, collaborators with the Ku Klux Klan, Homophobes and religious bigots.
    I won’t. The problem is more complex than that;
    It stems from the original political compromise made in the formation of “Respect”.
    i.e. It was an alliance between socialists and supporters of an organised religion.
    This not only limits the extent to which it can ever become a truly nation-wide political organisation, it defines the parameters of debate within it.
    Ultimately, these are set by religion and it has a mind-numbing effect on Respect’s political practice.
    Whether it’s the neo-Popular Frontist English Nationalists like Newman, or the pseudo Trot windbags like Ellis, they all genuflect to this.

    I think Fidel Castro has bowled a googly at this.
    Its already been fumbled in the slips by the Latino Nationalist groupies, now the Respect groupies have dropped it on the rebound.

    Castro’s actual views are here:-
    “Fidel Castro Says He Was Misinterpreted”
    http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=29161

    Like

  17. `I won’t. The problem is more complex than that;’

    You won’t not because of any complexity but because it would simply be adding idiocy on top of idiocy.

    The charge would however seem to apply to you who thinks the holocaust denying ahmedinejad, leader of the regime that smashed the Iranian working class to bits needs a good public slap down. I think you have managed to subordinate yourself to petty bourgeois clerics and Stalinism all in one post. See anybody can do hatchet jobs like yours.

    Galloway raised the case on Iranian State TV with the President. What have you done windbag?

    Like

  18. So I make a comment based on the reportage on this blog and you call me a sectarian uber trot and then post an article in which Castro claims to have been misrepresented. You are some piece of work.

    Like

  19. It was pseudo not uber.

    And I think it is fairly obvious that what would have done is suggest “lifting the death sentence on her and opening this and other such cases up to public investigation”, but you could have read that for yourself.

    Like

  20. I don’t agree with Carl Packman’s conclusion in “Though Cowards Flinch” article, that
    “no element of the left wing in this or any other country should have anything else to do with (Galloway)”.
    But I do agree with the other criticisms he makes.

    Unions and LP branches should send motions on the Ashianti case to the Iranian embassy.
    They should demand the lifting of the death penalty, full access by her lawyers and family and an open public inquiry into such executions.
    The TV “confession” was a complete farce.
    Was it even her? Was she tortured? Were her children threatened?

    This obviously should be within the general orientation of supporting the democratic and working class movement of Iran, but opposing imperialist intervention.
    Unions and LP branches should also be protesting at the recent statement by Blair, supporting a potential military attack on Iran.
    Blair’s recent reception in Dublin shows the way to respond.
    Any Labour candidate for leader that follows his lead should be given similar treatment.

    Castro’s interview and the choice of journalist he selected was carefully calculated , as this article persuasively argues.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0911/1224278643423.html

    Like

  21. `I don’t agree with Carl Packman’s conclusion in “Though Cowards Flinch” article, that “no element of the left wing in this or any other country should have anything else to do with (Galloway)”.’

    That is very big of you given that Galloway is the only politician in this country who has done anything whatsoever, apart from impotent bleating and some pathetic imperialist saber rattling, to try and secure Ashianti’s release. He at least has never been in any kind of bloc with the Ahmedinejad regime. Do you think any kind of bourgeois journalist would have raised the issue of Ashianti with the President to conclude an interview?

    Like

  22. Do you think any kind of bourgeois journalist would have raised the issue of Ashianti with the President to conclude an interview?
    Yes, if only as a stick to beat him with. Oh and her name is spelled “Ashtiani”
    He at least has never been in any kind of bloc with the Ahmedinejad regime. He was very supportive of them over the elections, works for Press TV,what part of bloc do I have a block over?

    Like

  23. http://www.salmayaqoob.com/2010/07/lift-this-death-sentence.html

    This is a funny example of a ‘popular front’ that can’t have anything to say about this issue supposedly because of a ‘rotten bloc’ with Ahmedinejad.

    I have my differences with Respect, Salma Yaqoob and George Galloway, but they are NOT over their defence of Iran against imperialism and its willingness to engage both in joint work and even political blocs with some Islamic radicals, a section of which are sympathetic to the left.

    This attack on Galloway for working for Press TV is worthy of Harry’s Place, and unworthy of anyone who calls themselves a socialist. There are lots of ways of getting all-out criticisms of Ahmedinejad and the Iranian regime into the public domain, not everything depends on Galloway.

    Iran still needs defending against the threat of imperialist war, and that has to be a political defence, not just some bunch of Trot ritualists chanting sterile formulas about the difference between ‘military’ and ‘political’ support. Delivering real solidarity to Iran in the face of concerted islamophobic war propaganda involves taking some real political risks. That doesn’t make Galloway particularly popular with some kinds of formalist thinkers, but I don’t suppose he is too bothered about that. Nor am I.

    The ‘left’ Dawkins-like critique of Respect from the likes of Prianikoff is just an excuse for sitting on one’s arse and bragging about how ‘pure’ you are. It doesn’t deliver any solidarity with anyone. Whom do you think’s criticism of Iran over this poor woman is more likely to exert influence, Prianikoff’s, or Salma Yaqoob’s? To ask the question is to answer it.

    DELETED – SEE COMMENTS POLICY

    Like

  24. I am with Ellis here, the timing of Castro’s words are to coincide with his brothers plans for the future of Cuba, a future that ditches the state socialist model of the past and embraces the market and foreign capital. Mark this day in your calendar as the day of the official defeat of that form of socialism.

    Oh and fuck Zionism and Zionists.

    Like

  25. Priankoff: `Unions and LP branches should send motions on the Ashianti case to the Iranian embassy.’

    Great. So from the movement that gave you a million dead muslims in the country next door here are some more threats. Galloway has a chance to mobilise internal pressure on the Ahmedinajad regime from within and influence events because he has a record of principled anti-imperialism and is known to the masses of the Middle East as one of their champions in the West. Unfortunately the labour movement is seen only as yet another face of imperialist agression in the area thanks to the likes of Blair and Co. Shedloads of resolutions from Labour Party and TU branches at this point are more likely to speed up the carrying out of this vile death penalty.

    ID: I never met Healy, he was dead before I’d heard of Marxism let alone Trotskyism but I guess from my studies his attitude toward Respect would have been more like yours than mine.

    Like

  26. “I never met Healy, he was dead before I’d heard of Marxism let alone Trotskyism but I guess from my studies his attitude toward Respect would have been more like yours than mine.”

    DELETED

    Since I was a founder member of Respect even before it had the name ‘Respect’, and a firm partisan of it for most of its existence until it renounced one if its key original aims – a united left electoral challege to New Labour – and still outspokenly defend it against attacks from ‘left’ Islamophobes and similar detractors – I guess David has a very rose tinted view of Healy.

    DELETED

    Like

  27. DELETED. I have no desire whatsoever to purge Respect. It was the SWP that deserted the project having established Respect amongst muslim communities and it is you who have characterised Respect as having `jumped the shark’ last November thereby excusing you of any obligation to support its electoral campaign. Much as you’d like to portray yourself as some sad victim of a purge or witchhunt the truth is you walked out and have been attacking Respect ever since. Put away your martyrs crown, take some responsibility and stop lieing to yourself and please stop trying to associate me with Healy who I’m sure would have taken your current line on Respect rather than mine. The type of man who deserves only contempt.

    DELETED

    Like

  28. ID and David – have you tried ignoring each other? It works with me and Jeremy Clarkson.

    I’m just going to start deleting any comments in which you mention each other’s names. If you want to have a slagging match do it somewhere else.

    Like

  29. So according to our friend whose name I am supposed not to mention, it is right to stay unconditionally loyal to an organisation even if it renounces the main purpose for which one joined it in the first place.

    I supported Respect for reasons of politics, not blind loyalty. I’ll leave that kind thing to cultists like our friend. And I still hold Respect membership, I have not left. If it resumes its original purpose of united a broad left challenge to the parties of neo-liberalism, instead of being just a pressure group, then I will be active again in its support. I don’t write off that possiblity, though at the moment that looks quite distant.

    Like

  30. Any attack on the Trotskyist or Leninist traditions should be vigorously repulsed and it is difficult to see why some expect to be handled with kid gloves when they abandon that tradition and begin to trample it into the dirt. It is the special pleading of the deserter perhaps? Repulsing such attacks is not Healyism. It is in fact the opposite. Healy was a Stalinist in the ranks of Trotskyism and there was nobody who had more thoroughly ditched the theory of Permanent Revolution, if he had ever in fact embraced it, or cowed to so many tu and LP bureaucrats and stalinists than him from what I read. He was among the first of the post War trotsyists to ditch so-called `orthodoxy’ and start the process of revisionism. Those who would dabble in eclectisicm and treat the Marxist method with impugnity are welcome to join him in the grave of wasted lives.

    Like

  31. ID – I wouldn’t object to Galloway (or anybody) defending Iran against imperialism. But when it is suggested that there is no evidence of any connection it seems a little OOT to sugest that one must be a partisan of HP to point out the opposite. Working for Press TV isn’t a problem in itself, but when it is combined with support for the regime over the elections things become a little more complicated.

    Like

  32. “So Castro does his bit for identifying anti-zionism with anti-semitism.”

    Unfortunately comrade Ellis hasn’t demonstrated conclusively that’s what Castro did.

    If Comrade Ellis could re-read the article and provide evidence to backup his negative assertion against Commandante Castro then it would be most helpful:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/09/fidel-to-ahmadinejad-stop-slandering-the-jews/62566/

    Like

  33. Our friend whose name must not be mentioned;-)

    “Healy was a Stalinist in the ranks of Trotskyism and there was nobody who had more thoroughly ditched the theory of Permanent Revolution, if he had ever in fact embraced it, or cowed to so many tu and LP bureaucrats and stalinists than him from what I read.”

    Actually, Healy was both a fanaticial Trot capable of the most bizarre heresy-hunting behaviour, particularly in his earlier years, and someone who flipped over to craven support for all kinds of odd third world regimes in his later years. He eventually gave up on sterile orthodoxy, probably percieving (correctly) that it was sterile, and ended his political career as a kind of political mercenary seeking funding for his still ultra-sectarian political project from virtually anyone who would give him funds.

    I don’t consider his behaviour came from Stalinism. Indeed, at times he was acutely Stalinophobic – witness his witch-hunting attack on Scargill at the 1983 TUC over Scargill’s criticism of Polish Solidarnosc. Though he eventually became a fan of Mikhail Gorbachev, though not for his ‘Stalinism’ but for his liberalism.

    What our friend has in common with Healy is ferocious heresy-hunting verbiage combined with a somewhat low-level political understanding. If you want to defend what you consider to be Marxism, you really need to come up with convincing arguments in favour of your views, that are superior to those used against you and can be seen to be so, including by uncommitted readers. Denouncing those who oppose you as ‘revisionists’, ‘liquidationists’ and all the epithets in the world does not substitute for such arguments.

    It is that method, of religious-style denunciation as a substitute for substantive arguments, that marks our friend’s method out as similar to Healy.

    skidmarx (on George Galloway)

    “Working for Press TV isn’t a problem in itself, but when it is combined with support for the regime over the elections things become a little more complicated.”

    Possibly, but I don’t think GG’s views on the elections would be any different were he not working for Press TV. His views are understandable and held by quite a few others who are not supporters of the regime, but wary of oppositional movements that may portend something worse.

    I think in this particularly case they are mistaken, but I admit I considered the idea myself and was very cautious in coming to the conclusion that the oppositional movement was not pro-imperialist. Sometimes from a distance it is difficult to discern what is really going on – I don’t pretend to be an expert on Iranian politics, and I think caution is appropriate in this period when imperialism does promote ‘colour revolutions’ and the like as part of an arsenal of tactics that also includes armed conquest a la Iraq.

    Like

  34. Comrade Ellis still hasn’t managed to substantiate his comment against Commandante Castro:

    “So Castro does his bit for identifying anti-zionism with anti-semitism.”

    Like

  35. I don’t dance to your tune tb and I certainly can’t help it if you can’t read. But just to shut your zionist yapping:

    `I think their culture and religion kept them together as a nation.’

    `The Iranian government should understand that the Jews were expelled from their land’.

    That is sufficient in my opinion to say that Castro is casting the Zionist project as a legitimate jewish aspitration for his own new-found reasons.

    Like

  36. “`The Iranian government should understand that the Jews were expelled from their land’.”

    A commonplace misconception, very widespread among many who would not consider themselves Zionist – including to some extent myself until recently. But not historically accurate, as the Israeli Professor Shlomo Sand demonstrates at length in his very interesting book “The Invention of the Jewish People”.

    It’s a book anyone with Castro’s ear might want to suggest for his reading list;-)

    See review:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/17/shlomo-sand-judaism-israel-jewish

    Like

  37. From the above, comrade Ellis is arguing that Castro’s statement of:

    “I think their culture and religion kept them together as a nation.’”

    reads as “So Castro does his bit for identifying anti-zionism with anti-semitism.

    when clearly that is not what Commandante Castro is saying, as he continues in the article:

    “”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.”

    In fact, Commandante Castro doesn’t even mention Zionism or Anti-Zionism, his concern is with antisemitism, something that all socialists should acknowledge.

    It would be far better if comrade Ellis did not invent arguments that Commandante Castro did not put forward, but actually dealt with what he said.

    Like

  38. I am pleased that modernity agrees that it would be wrong for commandante castro to attempt to legitimise israel by arguing that being anti israel is the same as being anti semitic and am glad that he has proved that Castro is not trying to legitimise that disgusting state. I am happy to concede that commandate castro still finds Israel to be a filthy imperialist thieving vassal state and that his proncouncements were purely about opposing the disgusting anti semitic outlook.

    Like

  39. I am baffled as to why comrade Ellis would misread Commandante Castro’s comments and so gravely misunderstand them.

    Like

  40. Don’t be baffled, it took your guiding genius for me to realize that Commandante Castro still thinks Israel is a nasty illegitimate shite hole. Thank you very much comrade. Be baffled no longer.

    Like

Leave a comment

Trending