This is my third diary here. My first post was, I thought, fairly successful in arguing that Iran is not in violation of its NPT obligations.
In the comments to that post, I'd say the most common dissenting response was that even if Iran is not in violation of its obligations, it still is a special case because its leadership called for wiping Israel off the map.
My second post aimed primarily at addressing that issue. I'd say it did that successfully. Ahmadinejad clearly called for ending what he calls the Zionist regime of Israel, he clearly compares that hope to the hope he and other Iranians had that the Shah's regime would be ended and that Hussein's regime would be ended. It is clearly a call for regime change rather than genocide.
But the comments section to that post was a disaster. Probably 40 or more of my comments were hidden. I was called a troll. I certainly did not use any of the hallmark tactics of trolls I've encountered elsewhere on the net. I made no significant ad-hominem attacks. I did not use any inflammatory language or slurs. All of my responses related directly to issues raised in the posts they responded to. But everything I did to reduce the level of hostility was, according to those who troll rated every single comment I made, regardless of content, proof of how clever I am as a troll.
The issue that was most argued in that comments section was not whether or not Ahmadinejad threatened to destroy Israel either with the "wiped off the map" comment or the tree that will fall in a storm comment. The issue was whether or not Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier.
I disagree with the position held by most of the people in that comments section and I believe the issue can be examined without trolling.
In the comments section I noticed two arguments that Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier and one other argument that Ahmadinejad favors ethnic cleansing of Jews.
The first argument is a quotation that Ahmadinejad is reported to have said "they have created this myth..."
While that is not an indication of the certainty about the Holocaust that is expected in the West in non-skinhead/Nazi sympathizer circles, it is also not a denial of the Holocaust. Unlike skinheads and Nazi sympathizers in the West, Ahmadinejad did not raise the point in the context of attempting to demonstrate supposedly unfair treatment given to Hitler, Germans, Aryans or Nazis. Ahmadinejad raises the point in one context only: the Holocaust does not justify the treatment of the Palestinians. Myth, even in English, does not necessarily imply untruth and I suspect the translation was the most provocative one possible.
While Western nerves are triggered largely because of the Western experience with skinheads and Nazi sympathizers, Ahmadinejad is neither. An important difference is that skinheads and Nazi sympathizers do more than express uncertainty. They assert that the Holocaust did not happen or is exaggerated. There is no quotation where Ahmadinejad does that.
The second argument is a press release where someone in Iran's government points to a statement by Irving supportive of Ahmadinejad. That is still not an assertion by the Iranians or by Ahmadinejad that Irving's thesis is correct. There is no assertion by Iranians or Ahmadinejad that Irving's thesis is correct. It is a crude form of guilt by association but it is not evidence of Ahmadinejad's views.
I would say it is fair to say Ahmadinejad has said that doubt has been expressed about the Holocaust. It may be fair to say Ahmadinejad has expressed doubt himself. It is not fair or true to say Ahmadinejad has asserted that the story of the Holocaust is false.
More importantly, it is certainly not fair to say that, as is usually the case when Westerners encounter doubts about the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad's position is motivated by sympathy for Nazis, Germans, Aryans or German policies during the Holocaust.
So the connection between the level of doubt Ahmadinejad expressed, while never making an assertion that the Holocaust story is false, and hatred of Jews because of their race or religion that Westerners have been conditioned to expect because of Nazi sympathizers is not called for in the case of Ahmadinejad.
There is no quotation available from Ahmadinejad that expresses hatred of Jews because of their race or religion.
There is also a significant amount of Jews in Iran. Iran's treatment of them is strong evidence against those who accuse Iran's leadership of being comparable to Nazi Germany. The "myth" quote is often presented as evidence of such hatred, and people conditioned by the White Aryan Resistance may think it does, but I argue that a closer examination shows it does not demonstrate hatred of Jews because of their race or religion.
The last piece of evidence presented in that section is Ahmadinejad's call for Europeans, if they want to compensate Jews for the Holocaust, to create a Jewish state in Europe. This is presented as a call for ethnic cleansing of Israel.
But there is no call for ethnic cleansing there. A lot of Jews left North America for Israel. They were not ethnically cleansed. If all Palestinian refugees are allowed to vote in Israel's elections and some Jews decide they would rather voluntarily go to a set-aside Jewish state in Europe, that would be in no way ethnic cleansing. Ahmadinejad is accused of advocating ethnic cleansing, but there is no statement by Ahmadinejad that supports that accusation.
An important part of the case that Ahmadinejad hates Jews seems to be the position that even if Ahmadinejad has never said he hates Jews, everyone knows he really does. Even if his statements do not necessarily imply anti-Jewish positions, everybody knows the what he really means is worse than what he actually says.
The only information we have about what Ahmadinejad actually believes is what he actually says. Everything that everyone thinks they know about his beliefs, other than words can be produced and attributed to him, may well be wrong.
Bush, and his partners in creating an atmosphere of hysteria, have a lot of incentive plus the ability to exaggerate and misrepresent his statements. Taking a position about Ahmadinejad's beliefs uncritically has a lot of potential to lead to positions systematically unfair to Ahmadinejad and Iranians.
****
About trolling and hiding comments. You tell me where the line is. I'm new here. You claim I am lying because I don't really believe what I write? What would a person who really believed this do differently? You are asserting it is impossible for anyone to really believe it? People believe a lot of things. I find that position unreasonable.
I believe pointless flaming starts at the point where both sides have already presented all of their arguments. Many of the arguments I made above do not appear anywhere in my recent comments section because they were deleted or the discussion was deliberately stifled.
As the discussion began veering towards an argument about the essential legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state, I bowed out. I don't want to participate in that debate just because that's already been done to death. I would consider that pointless flaming as you already know all of my arguments and I already know yours. On the other hand, I may not have seen all of your arguments that Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denyer. I've responded to all of the arguments I've seen, but I have not seen how you address my responses.
I am arguing that the conventional wisdom about Ahmadinejad is wrong. I hope there can be at least one civil discussion that considers that.
I hope the best arguments supporters of the conventional wisdom can make are not ad-hominem. I consider a valid argument either showing that one can be a Holocaust-denier without denying the Holocaust or that showing that Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust, i.e., asserted that Jews were not killed or that the number was exaggerated. If instead of making a valid argument, the best CW supporters can do is accuse me, with no supporting argument, of being a stooge for Irving then that validates my position.