Yaroslav Trofimov. The Wall Street Journal. 6/23/2009 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124571901245939581.html#printMode)
JERUSALEM—In his Friday sermon, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reserved special wrath for "Zionist radio" that he said tried to drive a wedge between the Iranian people and the Islamic Republic. Such attention from Iran's supreme leader was music to the ears of Menashe Amir, a bespectacled Iranian-born Israeli who has been broadcasting in Persian from Jerusalem for the past five decades.
"We're listened to in Iran and considered very credible and effective," Mr. Amir says with pride. "We're close to the Iranian people, we know what they want, and we have our sources that give us detailed news about everything that's going on in Iran."
The spread of the Internet and satellite television in Iran over the past decade seemed to eclipse the prominence of Mr. Amir's old-fashioned shortwave broadcasts on Kol Israel, Israel's public radio. But now, as the Web in Iran is either blocked or dramatically slowed and satellite-TV channels are jammed by the government amid spreading unrest, Mr. Amir has suddenly become relevant again.
"Today we have many more listeners inside the country because Iranians are thirsty for any information" about the unrest, the 69-year-old Mr. Amir says. He estimates the Iranian audience for Kol Israel's 85-minute daily show in Persian is between two million and six million people. Independent audience numbers, for obvious reasons, are impossible to come by.
Though semiretired, Mr. Amir has been hosting the show every day since Iran's controversial June 12 elections, narrating news summaries and taking live telephone calls from listeners within Iran. The call-in part of the broadcast, normally a weekly feature, is now on air daily due to the current unrest. Because Iran bans phone and postal links with Israel, Iranian callers dial a special number in Germany; as a precaution, Mr. Amir asks them not to mention their names or hometowns.
On a recent day, as Mr. Amir sat in his tiny studio in Kol Israel's Jerusalem offices, one caller from Iran, his voice trembling with emotion, recounted how "there's blood on the streets and people are being killed like butterflies." Another urged the world to help the protesters—reminding that Persian emperor Cyrus the Great protected and aided the Jews two and a half millennia ago, and asking the Jewish state to repay the favor by supporting Iranian demonstrators today.
Mr. Amir hasn't made any calls to sources inside Iran for decades, he says, fearing his voice would be recognizable to anyone who may be monitoring his contacts' phones. But he and other journalists at the service keep in touch via email and other means of electronic communications with local sources.
He boasts of being able to beat the competition on anything from the latest price of cheese in Tehran to confidential discussions within the Islamic Republic's establishment.
Neatly dressed in a dark suit, white shirt and a tie despite Jerusalem's sweltering heat, Mr. Amir embodies the golden age in Israel's relationship with Iran, the Jewish state's closest regional ally until the shah was overthrown in 1979's Islamic revolution.
"I am 100% Iranian, and I wish the best to Iran. Israel and Iran are natural friends," he says, his studio decorated with posters of Iranian movie stars, a printout of an Iranian flag and a family photograph of Prince Reza Pahlavi, the late shah's exiled son and heir.
"There are still many who remember the period of fruitful cooperation between Israel and Iran, and they want it back," Mr. Amir adds.
Still, Israeli analysts caution, Mr. Amir's vision of renewed Israeli-Iranian friendship is unlikely to materialize in the foreseeable future, even if the protesters, led by former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, somehow gain the upper hand in Tehran.
"The entire population has been raised for the past 30 years with the cultic mantra of "death to Israel," " says Prof. Ze'ev Maghen, a Persian speaker who heads the Middle East Studies department at Israel's Bar Ilan University. "It's almost impossible to conceive of a positive outlook on peace between Israel and Iran."
Born into a Jewish family in Tehran, Mr. Amir worked for Iran's Kayhan newspaper—now the mouthpiece of the Islamic regime—before he moved to Israel in 1960. He is one of some 60,000 such immigrants—a community that still maintains close contact with the estimated 15,000 Jews who remain inside Iran.
The community plans a demonstration of support for Tehran protesters on Tel Aviv's seafront promenade Tuesday. Iranian-born Israelis include Shaul Mofaz, until earlier this year Israel's minister of defense, who is often heard in Mr. Amir's broadcasts.
An institution in Israel, Mr. Amir, who also edits the Israeli foreign ministry's Persian-language Web site, bristles at suggestions that he must be coordinating his programming with Israeli government officials because Kol Israel is a public broadcaster that targets a strategic foe.
"Nobody gives us advice—we're the ones who give advice" to the government, he says indignantly. "We know the Iranian psychology, and can tell exactly what's happened there and what the news means."
Mr. Amir minces no word in expressing his outrage over a statement by Meir Dagan, the chief of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency, who told a parliamentary committee last week that the extent of fraud in Iran's contested presidential elections was no worse than what happens in liberal democracies.
"If that's what Mossad really thinks, they don't have any idea of what's going on in Iran," Mr. Amir said.
Kol Israel, of course, isn't the only foreign radio station broadcasting in Persian. The British Broadcasting Corporation, the Voice of America and U.S.-funded Radio Farda also beam into the Islamic Republic. Ayatollah Khamenei, however, on Friday singled out Kol Israel, naming it first in his tirade against alleged foreign interference in Iranian affairs.
"The enemies are trying through their media, which is controlled by dirty Zionists. The Zionist, U.S. and U.K. radio are all trying to say that there was a competition between those who supported and those who didn't support the state," the ayatollah said, insisting that all presidential candidates fully accepted the Islamic Republic and its government system. "Accusing the government of corruption because of Zionist reports is not the right thing."
Ayatollah Khamenei's diatribes are likely to lure new listeners to Mr. Amir's program, Israeli analysts say. "The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend," explains Shmuel Bar, director of studies at the Institute for Policy and Strategy in Herzliya. "But, if the regime is so much against it, you have to listen to it."
Write to Yaroslav Trofimov at yaroslav.trofimov@wsj.com
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A6
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Showing posts with label Being Jewish and Persian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Being Jewish and Persian. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Iranian Jewish Family Celebrates Nowruz in Israel
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27464937@N00/115773180/
Monday, April 13, 2009
Oldest Jewish Immigrant From Iran Arrives in L.A.
Jewish Journal. Karmel Melamed. 03/25/09.
(http://www.jewishjournal.com/50_Plus/article/oldest_jewish_immigrant_from_iran_arrives_in_la_20090325/)
Heshmat Elyasian, nearly 103 years old, at Los Angeles International Airport, where she arrived with her son and his family. An Iranian Jewish client of HIAS, the international migration agency, Heshmat is the oldest refugee in HIAS records, which date back to 1909, and may be the oldest ever to arrive in the United States. Photo by HIAS
After living in Iran for more than a century, witnessing the rise and fall of three kings and the upheaval of an Islamic revolution 30 years ago, 102-year-old Heshmat Elyasian arrived in Los Angeles two months ago with her immediate family to become the oldest Jewish immigrant from Iran to resettle in Los Angeles.
Because of an age-related mental decline, Elyasian was not fully aware that she had resettled in the United States. However, she said she was in good spirits during an interview with The Journal.
“I have some pain in my arms and legs from arthritis, but otherwise, thank God,” she said in her native Persian, while seated in a wheelchair and surrounded by family members at a relative’s home in the Valley.
Elyasian immigrated to the United States with her son, Manouchehr Tabari, and his family with the help of the New York-based Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS). According to HIAS records, Elyasian is the oldest refugee they have helped.
“Making the transition to life in America is not easy for many reasons, especially since the Iranian currency is worth so much less when converted to dollars, but we’re grateful to be here,” said 68-year-old Tabari, who was a cinematographer and filmmaker in Iran.
Tabari said the decision for his immediate family to leave Iran was based on his desire to pursue better educational opportunities for his children in the United States. Since extended families typically live together in Iran for many years, it was only natural for Tabari to immigrate with his mother.
“The plane trip here was very difficult for all of us, especially for my mother, because it was for many hours, and they had seated all of us in different parts of the airplane,” said Tabari, who now lives at his niece’s Tarzana home. “We are still trying to get over the exhaustion of the trip and the shocks of this new environment.”
Elyasian’s long life in Iran has not been the easiest, her son explained. After her marriage, her husband, who was a butcher, lost his savings after livestock he had purchased and ritually slaughtered were not kosher due to some impurities. The couple and their six children barely survived while they lived in poor conditions in Tehran’s run-down Jewish ghetto. Her husband was forced to work small and low-paying odd jobs, while she raised their children and also earned a living helping other families with their cooking, sewing and hand-washing their laundry.
“I am the only person in my family that has had formal education, and my mother really sacrificed on my behalf so that I could get an education,” said Tabari, who produced documentary films for television networks in Iran after studying film and drama in New York during the 1960s. “I’ve taken care of her myself ever since my father suddenly died of a heart attack at age 62.”
Iranian Jewish historical scholars said they were excited about Elyasian’s arrival in the United States because of her life experience and the fact that her father was one of a few Jewish musicians to entertain the late Iranian king, Nasser-al-Din Shah Qajar, which could shed new light on how Jews were treated in the king’s court during the early 20th century.
“Life was not easy for Jews living in Iran during the time this woman was born,” said Daniel Tsadik, a professor of Iranian studies at Yeshiva University in New York. “They were typically living in poverty, faced persecution in various cities and their movement was restricted in the country, because they were considered ritually impure by the local Muslim leaders.”
Despite several mattresses and open suitcases stuffed with clothing laid out in her living room, Elyasian’s granddaughter, Soheyla Tabari, said she was excited to welcome her grandmother and uncle’s family to stay with her temporarily until they settle in their new lives in Los Angeles.
“I’ve been telling them to come here for the past 20 years, and we lost some valuable time that we could have really enjoyed together,” Soheyla Tabari said. “But it’s been a great experience for all of us to find each other again — four generations living under one roof.”
Elyasian and her family have already begun the slow process of resettlement with the help of local Jewish agencies. Once Iranian Jewish families reach the United States, the Jewish Vocational Service, Jewish Family Service and other agencies affiliated with The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles typically are among the first to help these new immigrants.
Local Iranian Jewish groups also have helped out, including the Torat Hayim Center, the SIAMAK organization and the Hope Foundation. These groups have collaborated to create the Caring Committee, which will temporarily help the family with rent, groceries, medical and legal bills, transportation and school tuition. The local Iranian American Jewish Federation has also been involved in helping these new immigrants.
The issue of Jewish immigration from Iran is particularly sensitive for local Iranian Jewish leaders. For the most part, the work of HIAS to help Jews emigrate from Iran since the 1980s has happened under the media radar in order not to embarrass the Iranian government. Community leaders have long feared that any publicity could potentially jeopardize the current flow of Jewish immigration out of Iran. The process of immigration varies for different Iranian Jews and can take anywhere from nine months to several years.
According to HIAS records, since 1979, the organization had aided more than 15,000 Iranian Jewish refugees in immigrating to the United States, nearly half of them to the Los Angeles area.
During 2007, the Chicago-based Christian Jewish nonprofit, International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (IFCJ), along with the Jewish Agency in Israel, offered $10,000 per person to encourage Jews to leave Iran and immigrate to Israel. IFCJ officials reported that of the 20,000 Jews still living in Iran, only 125 accepted the offer and immigrated to Israel.
Frank Nikbakht, an Iranian Jewish activist and director of the L.A.-based Committee for Minority Rights in Iran, said despite the Iranian regime’s hostility toward Israel and treatment of Jews as second-class citizens, a substantial number of Jews continue to stay in Iran because they feel they will face economic and cultural challenges if they leave the country.
“Some successful and resourceful Jews [in Iran] have either a false sense of security or are willing to take risks, hoping to outlast the regime,” Nikbakht said. “Some have converted to Islam or other ‘safer’ religions, such as Christianity, to help them survive.”
For his part, Tabari said he still has a fondness for Iran and hopes to travel back there at a later date to visit with his other family members. Likewise, he said his wife is planning to care for his mother while he is looking for employment in Los Angeles’ film industry.
“I am a very optimistic man and believe strongly that God will help us,” Tabari said. “America is a land of opportunity, and we are hoping for the best here”.
For more about this story and local Iranian Jews, visit Karmel Melamed’s blog: www.jewishjournal.com/iranianamericanjews.
(http://www.jewishjournal.com/50_Plus/article/oldest_jewish_immigrant_from_iran_arrives_in_la_20090325/)
Heshmat Elyasian, nearly 103 years old, at Los Angeles International Airport, where she arrived with her son and his family. An Iranian Jewish client of HIAS, the international migration agency, Heshmat is the oldest refugee in HIAS records, which date back to 1909, and may be the oldest ever to arrive in the United States. Photo by HIAS
After living in Iran for more than a century, witnessing the rise and fall of three kings and the upheaval of an Islamic revolution 30 years ago, 102-year-old Heshmat Elyasian arrived in Los Angeles two months ago with her immediate family to become the oldest Jewish immigrant from Iran to resettle in Los Angeles.
Because of an age-related mental decline, Elyasian was not fully aware that she had resettled in the United States. However, she said she was in good spirits during an interview with The Journal.
“I have some pain in my arms and legs from arthritis, but otherwise, thank God,” she said in her native Persian, while seated in a wheelchair and surrounded by family members at a relative’s home in the Valley.
Elyasian immigrated to the United States with her son, Manouchehr Tabari, and his family with the help of the New York-based Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS). According to HIAS records, Elyasian is the oldest refugee they have helped.
“Making the transition to life in America is not easy for many reasons, especially since the Iranian currency is worth so much less when converted to dollars, but we’re grateful to be here,” said 68-year-old Tabari, who was a cinematographer and filmmaker in Iran.
Tabari said the decision for his immediate family to leave Iran was based on his desire to pursue better educational opportunities for his children in the United States. Since extended families typically live together in Iran for many years, it was only natural for Tabari to immigrate with his mother.
“The plane trip here was very difficult for all of us, especially for my mother, because it was for many hours, and they had seated all of us in different parts of the airplane,” said Tabari, who now lives at his niece’s Tarzana home. “We are still trying to get over the exhaustion of the trip and the shocks of this new environment.”
Elyasian’s long life in Iran has not been the easiest, her son explained. After her marriage, her husband, who was a butcher, lost his savings after livestock he had purchased and ritually slaughtered were not kosher due to some impurities. The couple and their six children barely survived while they lived in poor conditions in Tehran’s run-down Jewish ghetto. Her husband was forced to work small and low-paying odd jobs, while she raised their children and also earned a living helping other families with their cooking, sewing and hand-washing their laundry.
“I am the only person in my family that has had formal education, and my mother really sacrificed on my behalf so that I could get an education,” said Tabari, who produced documentary films for television networks in Iran after studying film and drama in New York during the 1960s. “I’ve taken care of her myself ever since my father suddenly died of a heart attack at age 62.”
Iranian Jewish historical scholars said they were excited about Elyasian’s arrival in the United States because of her life experience and the fact that her father was one of a few Jewish musicians to entertain the late Iranian king, Nasser-al-Din Shah Qajar, which could shed new light on how Jews were treated in the king’s court during the early 20th century.
“Life was not easy for Jews living in Iran during the time this woman was born,” said Daniel Tsadik, a professor of Iranian studies at Yeshiva University in New York. “They were typically living in poverty, faced persecution in various cities and their movement was restricted in the country, because they were considered ritually impure by the local Muslim leaders.”
Despite several mattresses and open suitcases stuffed with clothing laid out in her living room, Elyasian’s granddaughter, Soheyla Tabari, said she was excited to welcome her grandmother and uncle’s family to stay with her temporarily until they settle in their new lives in Los Angeles.
“I’ve been telling them to come here for the past 20 years, and we lost some valuable time that we could have really enjoyed together,” Soheyla Tabari said. “But it’s been a great experience for all of us to find each other again — four generations living under one roof.”
Elyasian and her family have already begun the slow process of resettlement with the help of local Jewish agencies. Once Iranian Jewish families reach the United States, the Jewish Vocational Service, Jewish Family Service and other agencies affiliated with The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles typically are among the first to help these new immigrants.
Local Iranian Jewish groups also have helped out, including the Torat Hayim Center, the SIAMAK organization and the Hope Foundation. These groups have collaborated to create the Caring Committee, which will temporarily help the family with rent, groceries, medical and legal bills, transportation and school tuition. The local Iranian American Jewish Federation has also been involved in helping these new immigrants.
The issue of Jewish immigration from Iran is particularly sensitive for local Iranian Jewish leaders. For the most part, the work of HIAS to help Jews emigrate from Iran since the 1980s has happened under the media radar in order not to embarrass the Iranian government. Community leaders have long feared that any publicity could potentially jeopardize the current flow of Jewish immigration out of Iran. The process of immigration varies for different Iranian Jews and can take anywhere from nine months to several years.
According to HIAS records, since 1979, the organization had aided more than 15,000 Iranian Jewish refugees in immigrating to the United States, nearly half of them to the Los Angeles area.
During 2007, the Chicago-based Christian Jewish nonprofit, International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (IFCJ), along with the Jewish Agency in Israel, offered $10,000 per person to encourage Jews to leave Iran and immigrate to Israel. IFCJ officials reported that of the 20,000 Jews still living in Iran, only 125 accepted the offer and immigrated to Israel.
Frank Nikbakht, an Iranian Jewish activist and director of the L.A.-based Committee for Minority Rights in Iran, said despite the Iranian regime’s hostility toward Israel and treatment of Jews as second-class citizens, a substantial number of Jews continue to stay in Iran because they feel they will face economic and cultural challenges if they leave the country.
“Some successful and resourceful Jews [in Iran] have either a false sense of security or are willing to take risks, hoping to outlast the regime,” Nikbakht said. “Some have converted to Islam or other ‘safer’ religions, such as Christianity, to help them survive.”
For his part, Tabari said he still has a fondness for Iran and hopes to travel back there at a later date to visit with his other family members. Likewise, he said his wife is planning to care for his mother while he is looking for employment in Los Angeles’ film industry.
“I am a very optimistic man and believe strongly that God will help us,” Tabari said. “America is a land of opportunity, and we are hoping for the best here”.
For more about this story and local Iranian Jews, visit Karmel Melamed’s blog: www.jewishjournal.com/iranianamericanjews.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Born Without A Name
Interfaithfamily.com. Growing Up in an Interfaith Family
Issue 212: July 10, 2007
(http://www.interfaithfamily.com/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ekLSK5MLIrG&b=297382&ct=4063597&tr=y&auid=2826038)
Tiffany Collins
In 1976, I was born without a name. I continued to be nameless for two weeks because my parents could not agree on one. At the time they may not have understood the source of their problems, but today, I know with certainty that it was due to their cultural differences. They finally agreed on the name Tiffany, which they chose in reference to a friend's daughter. I've never really felt like a Tiffany. As the child of an Ashkenazi (of Eastern European origin) Israeli Jew and Iranian non-practicing Shi'a Muslim, I never quite felt my name reflected my spirit.
Prior to my birth, my parents decided that I would be raised Jewish. I often consider myself lucky that my mother is Jewish and my father Muslim. This combination automatically gave me the choice of being either of these religions: in Orthodox and Conservative circles of Judaism the religion is inherited through the mother, and in Islam, through the father. Nevertheless, I was thankful my parents chose my religion for me. I was Jewish. It kept things clear.
Yes, I have suffered ignorance and pettiness by those people who can't understand how my parents could marry out of their faith. But, truly, more difficult than the religious difference has been the socio-political divide between Israelis and Iranians. In a world where politics has become infused with religion, choosing "a side" almost feels like an issue of safety--as if a hypothetical voice would whisper to me when I was alone, If a war breaks out between Jews and Muslims, whose side would you stand with?
I did not grow up in a religious home. To my parents, who met and fell in love in the liberal and exploratory university environment of California in the '70s, traditions had more merit than religion. My parents, both quite independent in nature and enjoying their cultural similarities, never really pondered how more conservative members of their individual faiths might view their union.
My fondest childhood memories paint a picture of my double life.
My favorite Jewish moments came from Shabbat (Sabbath) songs at Jewish summer camps and annual trips to Israel to see my extended family, which spoke Hebrew, Yiddish and Russian, and ate borscht! Those who could, spoke to me in English. Those who couldn't, spoke to me in Hebrew and Yiddish. To me, Judaism was Mediterranean beaches, Passover singing, and everyone treating me like family.
My favorite Persian moments were weekends at my paternal grandmother's house in the United States, where we would savor saffron-infused rice, potato taddik (fried rice and potato crust) and kabobs. Islam was warm kitchens, people dancing and singing to Middle Eastern music, polite social gestures, family respect for hierarchies and colorful holidays. At these gatherings everyone would speak to me in Farsi, and say hello with cheek-to-cheek kisses.
But as I aged, the hidden religious symbols became more evident.
My father and his immediate community in the San Francisco Bay Area came from a pre-revolutionary Iran where culture took precedence over religion. In 1979, this community's identity was transformed by the Islamic Revolution. The transformation of their country from a seemingly secular state to a religiously orthodox one left them feeling stateless. I, too, took on the identity of a refugee; this model world that they were raising me in, in which being both Persian and Jewish was safe and accepted, no longer existed, if it ever had. There was no Iran to which I could go back as a part-Israeli Jew to find my roots.
As I got older, my religious identity became more confusing. Moments like when my Persian grandmother would bless me with her Koran as she sent me off to a trip to Israel come to mind. My religious identity came under the greatest scrutiny when my parents divorced when I was 9. No longer bound by the compromises of interfaith marriage, my parents naturally migrated back toward their origins. My father, especially, became more and more attracted to his homeland. He began taking me to Persian concerts, speaking to me in Farsi and courting a Persian woman. Hitting my teenage years, insecurities due to not fitting the standard religious mold took their toll.
At 15, I made a radical decision that would change my life. After spending the summer with my family and friends in Israel, I announced to my parents that I absolutely had to live in Israel. Looking back, it's quite obvious to me that my decision was based on an extreme thirst to connect with an identity, and I had been given a Jewish one. I went to a French boarding school in Jerusalem where most of the students were of Sephardic (descendents of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews) origin and from more Orthodox branches of Judaism. The nationally mandated Zionist curriculum infused our day-to-day experiences. The following three years in that boarding school were a time of religious awakening for me. I became immersed in Jewish life. I felt at home among the Sephardic Jews. Their culture brought together elements of my Jewish and Persian cultures more than the traditional Ashkenazi culture I had become accustomed to in the U.S.
The only problem was that I didn't want anyone in the school to know I was different. My strategy of pretending to be just like everyone else came to a crossroads in my second year in that school (eleventh grade), when my father decided to move back to Iran to settle old family financial matters. How could I explain having a father who lives in Iran to my Jewish friends in Israel? I ended up sharing this information with only my closest friends, who took it quite well. But of course, I lived in Israel in the early '90s when the hope for peace in the region was still quite alive.
I wondered how I could talk to my father about such things as wanting to join the army to serve the Jewish homeland. In Israel, everyone goes into the army when they turn 18. It's not a political statement; it's an expected step on the way to adulthood. It turned out that my father preferred not to discuss such matters. He felt that just mentioning the topic could be dangerous to him within the Persian community and Iran. At the time my feelings were hurt as I felt he was embarrassed by his Jewish daughter. Now, with a more mature understanding of the politics of the Iranian regime, I understand that his concerns were legitimately connected to his personal safety. Also upsetting was the fact that I could never visit my father in Iran given my Israeli connections. In those years of living in Israel, I became quite religious. Somewhere deep inside, I felt a need to know as much as possible to compensate for not having a Jewish father.
After five years in Israel, I decided to come back to the U.S. Attending university enabled me to gain the maturity and cognitive skills necessary to create my own identity. I re-connected with my Persian side after years of pretending to be a purebred in Israel. I realized that being Jewish and practicing Jewish traditions were my birthright and no one could take that away from me. The ability to combine my newfound analytical skills with my solid knowledge of Judaism gave me a great sense of empowerment, enabling me to create my own personal religious practices and cultural traditions.
The day I finally felt liberated was my wedding day. I hand-picked every tradition, color, and rite that was to carry me into my future life. I chose a ketubah (Jewish wedding contract) with a Persian design created by a local artist. I held two weddings, a secular Persian one with religious symbols, at which my aspiring-actor cousin married us against a backdrop of Persian wedding motifs, sweets and festivities; and a Jewish one that had everything from Israeli live music to a chuppah (Jewish wedding canopy) held by my best friends.
I did not marry a Jewish man. My husband is part-Japanese Buddhist, part-American Baptist--a hybrid, just like me. We've had many cultural elements to subsume into our life as a couple, yet our respect for multiculturalism has prevailed. Before marrying, my husband asked me if he should convert to Judaism. I said no, because I felt that this is something that he should want to do for himself, not just to satisfy me. I did tell him, though, that I would need his consent to raise our children as Jews.
We now have a beautiful little boy named Raphael who has been circumcised. He's learning French, Hebrew, Farsi and Japanese. We take a Shabbat class together at the Jewish community center. My husband and son have both been to Israel. While we're not your typical Jewish family, we are Jewish nonetheless. The last time my husband flew back from Israel, separately from me, the security guards on the flight asked him if he was Jewish. He said, "Yes, by marriage." The guard responded, "That's not exactly the same, is it?"
Being Jewish and multicultural is not always easy. Not everyone accepts our way. I've had close friends from high school lecture my husband on how he must convert. But ultimately, that's not my immediate community or the people I seek to learn from. In creating my own traditions, I have combined the histories and stories of Persians and Jews to give richness to my life--discovering how to learn from the practices of others and adapt them as my own.
Issue 212: July 10, 2007
(http://www.interfaithfamily.com/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ekLSK5MLIrG&b=297382&ct=4063597&tr=y&auid=2826038)
Tiffany Collins
In 1976, I was born without a name. I continued to be nameless for two weeks because my parents could not agree on one. At the time they may not have understood the source of their problems, but today, I know with certainty that it was due to their cultural differences. They finally agreed on the name Tiffany, which they chose in reference to a friend's daughter. I've never really felt like a Tiffany. As the child of an Ashkenazi (of Eastern European origin) Israeli Jew and Iranian non-practicing Shi'a Muslim, I never quite felt my name reflected my spirit.
Prior to my birth, my parents decided that I would be raised Jewish. I often consider myself lucky that my mother is Jewish and my father Muslim. This combination automatically gave me the choice of being either of these religions: in Orthodox and Conservative circles of Judaism the religion is inherited through the mother, and in Islam, through the father. Nevertheless, I was thankful my parents chose my religion for me. I was Jewish. It kept things clear.
Yes, I have suffered ignorance and pettiness by those people who can't understand how my parents could marry out of their faith. But, truly, more difficult than the religious difference has been the socio-political divide between Israelis and Iranians. In a world where politics has become infused with religion, choosing "a side" almost feels like an issue of safety--as if a hypothetical voice would whisper to me when I was alone, If a war breaks out between Jews and Muslims, whose side would you stand with?
I did not grow up in a religious home. To my parents, who met and fell in love in the liberal and exploratory university environment of California in the '70s, traditions had more merit than religion. My parents, both quite independent in nature and enjoying their cultural similarities, never really pondered how more conservative members of their individual faiths might view their union.
My fondest childhood memories paint a picture of my double life.
My favorite Jewish moments came from Shabbat (Sabbath) songs at Jewish summer camps and annual trips to Israel to see my extended family, which spoke Hebrew, Yiddish and Russian, and ate borscht! Those who could, spoke to me in English. Those who couldn't, spoke to me in Hebrew and Yiddish. To me, Judaism was Mediterranean beaches, Passover singing, and everyone treating me like family.
My favorite Persian moments were weekends at my paternal grandmother's house in the United States, where we would savor saffron-infused rice, potato taddik (fried rice and potato crust) and kabobs. Islam was warm kitchens, people dancing and singing to Middle Eastern music, polite social gestures, family respect for hierarchies and colorful holidays. At these gatherings everyone would speak to me in Farsi, and say hello with cheek-to-cheek kisses.
But as I aged, the hidden religious symbols became more evident.
My father and his immediate community in the San Francisco Bay Area came from a pre-revolutionary Iran where culture took precedence over religion. In 1979, this community's identity was transformed by the Islamic Revolution. The transformation of their country from a seemingly secular state to a religiously orthodox one left them feeling stateless. I, too, took on the identity of a refugee; this model world that they were raising me in, in which being both Persian and Jewish was safe and accepted, no longer existed, if it ever had. There was no Iran to which I could go back as a part-Israeli Jew to find my roots.
As I got older, my religious identity became more confusing. Moments like when my Persian grandmother would bless me with her Koran as she sent me off to a trip to Israel come to mind. My religious identity came under the greatest scrutiny when my parents divorced when I was 9. No longer bound by the compromises of interfaith marriage, my parents naturally migrated back toward their origins. My father, especially, became more and more attracted to his homeland. He began taking me to Persian concerts, speaking to me in Farsi and courting a Persian woman. Hitting my teenage years, insecurities due to not fitting the standard religious mold took their toll.
At 15, I made a radical decision that would change my life. After spending the summer with my family and friends in Israel, I announced to my parents that I absolutely had to live in Israel. Looking back, it's quite obvious to me that my decision was based on an extreme thirst to connect with an identity, and I had been given a Jewish one. I went to a French boarding school in Jerusalem where most of the students were of Sephardic (descendents of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews) origin and from more Orthodox branches of Judaism. The nationally mandated Zionist curriculum infused our day-to-day experiences. The following three years in that boarding school were a time of religious awakening for me. I became immersed in Jewish life. I felt at home among the Sephardic Jews. Their culture brought together elements of my Jewish and Persian cultures more than the traditional Ashkenazi culture I had become accustomed to in the U.S.
The only problem was that I didn't want anyone in the school to know I was different. My strategy of pretending to be just like everyone else came to a crossroads in my second year in that school (eleventh grade), when my father decided to move back to Iran to settle old family financial matters. How could I explain having a father who lives in Iran to my Jewish friends in Israel? I ended up sharing this information with only my closest friends, who took it quite well. But of course, I lived in Israel in the early '90s when the hope for peace in the region was still quite alive.
I wondered how I could talk to my father about such things as wanting to join the army to serve the Jewish homeland. In Israel, everyone goes into the army when they turn 18. It's not a political statement; it's an expected step on the way to adulthood. It turned out that my father preferred not to discuss such matters. He felt that just mentioning the topic could be dangerous to him within the Persian community and Iran. At the time my feelings were hurt as I felt he was embarrassed by his Jewish daughter. Now, with a more mature understanding of the politics of the Iranian regime, I understand that his concerns were legitimately connected to his personal safety. Also upsetting was the fact that I could never visit my father in Iran given my Israeli connections. In those years of living in Israel, I became quite religious. Somewhere deep inside, I felt a need to know as much as possible to compensate for not having a Jewish father.
After five years in Israel, I decided to come back to the U.S. Attending university enabled me to gain the maturity and cognitive skills necessary to create my own identity. I re-connected with my Persian side after years of pretending to be a purebred in Israel. I realized that being Jewish and practicing Jewish traditions were my birthright and no one could take that away from me. The ability to combine my newfound analytical skills with my solid knowledge of Judaism gave me a great sense of empowerment, enabling me to create my own personal religious practices and cultural traditions.
The day I finally felt liberated was my wedding day. I hand-picked every tradition, color, and rite that was to carry me into my future life. I chose a ketubah (Jewish wedding contract) with a Persian design created by a local artist. I held two weddings, a secular Persian one with religious symbols, at which my aspiring-actor cousin married us against a backdrop of Persian wedding motifs, sweets and festivities; and a Jewish one that had everything from Israeli live music to a chuppah (Jewish wedding canopy) held by my best friends.
I did not marry a Jewish man. My husband is part-Japanese Buddhist, part-American Baptist--a hybrid, just like me. We've had many cultural elements to subsume into our life as a couple, yet our respect for multiculturalism has prevailed. Before marrying, my husband asked me if he should convert to Judaism. I said no, because I felt that this is something that he should want to do for himself, not just to satisfy me. I did tell him, though, that I would need his consent to raise our children as Jews.
We now have a beautiful little boy named Raphael who has been circumcised. He's learning French, Hebrew, Farsi and Japanese. We take a Shabbat class together at the Jewish community center. My husband and son have both been to Israel. While we're not your typical Jewish family, we are Jewish nonetheless. The last time my husband flew back from Israel, separately from me, the security guards on the flight asked him if he was Jewish. He said, "Yes, by marriage." The guard responded, "That's not exactly the same, is it?"
Being Jewish and multicultural is not always easy. Not everyone accepts our way. I've had close friends from high school lecture my husband on how he must convert. But ultimately, that's not my immediate community or the people I seek to learn from. In creating my own traditions, I have combined the histories and stories of Persians and Jews to give richness to my life--discovering how to learn from the practices of others and adapt them as my own.
Monday, June 25, 2007
The Dating Game
An anthology prepared by students in Professor Gissler's 2001 seminar
Shandray Mehdian
(http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/race/2001/date_mehdian.shtml)
Accessed 06/ 25/2007)
It was not a typical teen-age fight over a girl. The outraged student at Great Neck North High School in suburban Long Island was defending the honor of his Jewish-Iranian sister who had been smeared by what he deemed a vicious rumor. She had been accused of dating an American boy.
To the Jewish-Iranian community, the rumor was double trouble. Any form of dating by teen-age girls is prohibited, and dating outside the faith deepens the disgrace. At stake is the family's reputation and the girl's chance for marriage. So the brother punched out the Jewish-Iranian student who had spread the false tale - and was suspended for two days.
"My best friend went crazy," Sasha, an 18-year-old senior, said of the fist swinger. Like many other Jewish-Iranian students, Sasha asked that only his first name be used.
However, schools officials familiar with the Jewish-Iranian community, were not shocked by the fight. "For a girl to be seen with someone, or even a rumor about her, can get brothers and fathers excited," said Angelo Sabatelli, assistant principal at Great Neck North. "Because then the marriage proposal is gone. Now everyone thinks she is not pure."
Though the fight was unusual , the issue of dating plagues many of the Jewish-Iranian teens at Great Neck North, which has a 38 per cent Iranian student population, most of them Jewish. Not only does the strict bar against girls dating or socializing with the opposite sex collide with American popular culture, but the rule, under Jewish-Iranian tradition, also exempts boys who are free to date any and all girls - a double standard that sometimes creates puzzlement and resentment among Jewish-Iranian girls.
The remarkable situation at Great Neck North can be traced to the 1978-79 revolution in Iran. Waves of Jewish Iranian immigrants fled to the United States, finding new homes all over the country, with the largest populations in New York and southern California. In Great Neck alone, Jewish Iranians estimate that there are nearly 3,500 families. With so many families packed into a small town of about 37,000, they say, a close-knit subculture inevitably emerges and defense of family integrity - and particularly the reputation of young women - becomes crucial.
In the Jewish-Iranian culture, women uphold the values and virtues of the community. When it comes to dating and socializing with the opposite sex, women must abide by the strictest standards and remain a symbol of purity. Thus "casual" dating by females, with no intention of marriage, or dating outside the community is out of the question, said Shanaz Goldman, a social worker at Great Neck North since 1994. "I have not yet met a Jewish-Iranian mother who'd feel comfortable with her daughter having an American boyfriend," said Goldman, also a member of the Pupil Personnel, a group of psychologists, social workers and mental health professionals.
Usually, the slightest deviance can mar the reputation of a young woman and her family's integrity. "God forbid that a girl have a bad name in the society," Goldman said. "Her prospects of finding a mate will be doomed."
On the other hand, the opposite is true of Jewish Iranian boys. Not only are they expected to date at an early age, but they are encouraged to date non-Iranian women. "Boys can do whatever the girl cannot," Goldman said. "Parents will encourage him to have a girlfriend - it's like a badge of honor."
Sabatelli agreed. "While Iranian girls are not permitted to date, Iranian boys are encouraged to 'have fun,'" he said. "The boys are not discouraged from dating the American girls." Sabatelli, who has been at the high school for 20 years, says 60 per cent of the Jewish-Iranian male seniors are dating non-Iranian females. "But you'll never see an Iranian girl holding hands with another boy," he said. "You just don't see it -- not even at the prom."
Though the double standard is deeply rooted in the traditional Iranian culture, Sabatelli, who has studied European and Middle Eastern history, feels it has also become a "macho thing" among the high school boys at Great Neck North to date American girls.
According to Goldman, who puts on parenting workshops for adults throughout the academic year, several factors explain the double standard. First is the influence of the Islamic culture that, some critics say, dictates the second-class status of women. "The woman's job was to be subservient," Goldman said. "She had to stay home and take care of the children." In present day Iran women must still wear the traditional head covering, the chador, and are forbidden to ride bicycles in public parks and streets.
A second factor is class, Goldman said. In Iran, a country based on a class system, the upper echelon could afford to send their male children abroad for education. Thus the men had greater opportunities and freedom to mingle with Western women.
A third factor, according to Goldman, is the fact that Jews in Iran were a minority and consequently adhered more to their cultural ways. Most considered pre-marital sex and intimacy unacceptable, as stipulated by Jewish laws and mores. Here in America, Jewish Iranians again represent a minority community. "But because mainstream American culture is so different, some values are played out more strongly than they were in the homeland and adhered to with greater tenacity," Goldman said.
In Iran this system seemed to work well, observers say. But America is a different story, especially for the new generation of youth born and reared in a culture so different from that of the older generation.
"If their culture means that much to them, that's great," said Jessica, a junior who has been in the Great Neck public school system since elementary school. "But I think it's overdone a little." Jessica says she comes from a Jewish-Iranian family that is more open-minded but she must still marry only a Jewish-Iranian male.
Jessica said her parents, who "love each other to death" and who have been together for 25 years, met each other in Iran and were married six days later. Those sorts of marriages were common in Iran 20 or 30 years ago.
But now times are different. And tension and conflict arise when the older generation demands to uphold the traditional values of the Jewish-Iranian culture and their first- generation children wish to follow the ways of their non-Iranian peers. And in no other area does this tension surface more clearly than when it comes to dating and socializing. At times Jessica feels confused. "Iranian girls aren't supposed to date until they want to get married," she said. "But how will you gain dating experience for marriage when you haven't had any relationships?"
As for the double standard, Jessica thinks it's wrong for parents to impose a set of strict standards for one child and not for the other. "It's so annoying," she said. "My brother was allowed to do everything at my age - had no curfews and about a hundred girlfriends. If I had one boyfriend my parents would say 'what's going on?'"
"There's definitely, definitely a double standard," Goldman said. "All these girls want is to have a normal adolescent life. But their parents are so fearful that they place restrictions on behavior. They have limits on their freedom-no sleepovers, no camps, early curfews, and no unchaperoned parties."
What sometimes happens, said Goldman, herself a mother of three, is that the children who face restrictions without any knowledge of their culture or understanding of their values, end up with resentment, fear and anathema. "Those are the ones who hate the culture, who don't like to speak Farsi, or be called Iranians," Goldman said. "They have no sense of identity with the culture."
On the other hand, Goldman argues that the Jewish-Iranian children who "embrace their heritage" and have a good sense of their culture and where they come from are more accepting of their parent's values.
"All the kids my age are still living in that mentality, in the shadow of their parents," Jessica said. "And as long as that happens, it's never going to end." But after a moment's thought, Jessica modified her conclusion: "It's stressful, but it works out well in the end because it leans towards a more disciplined life."
Mark, a 16-year-old Jewish-Iranian student with spiked hair, has no problem with the double standard. "It's better for Iranian girls to be like that," he said. "When an Iranian guy is ready to get married he's not going to look for the girl who's been dating ever since she was a teen-ager." Sabatelli explained it further. "When it comes to marriage, the boys know they must marry a 'nice, Iranian girl,'" he said. "The parents want to hold on to those values to ensure that their daughter or son marry within the Iranian culture."
"The young boys want to marry someone pure," Goldman said. "That's what's been ingrained in them."
Mark said his sister didn't date until she was ready for marriage. He estimates that at Great Neck North 15 per cent of Iranian girls date casually but 75 per cent would do it "if they could."
So are there any signs of change in how Jewish-Iranian traditions play out at Great Neck North? Yes and no, say students and school officials. While basic values remain in tact and dating is restricted, "girls and guys can hang out [???] when they wouldn't even think about that years ago," Mark said, referring to groups of friends going to see a movie together.
Sasha, the senior, agreed that "times are changing," but only in limited ways. He sees more Iranian girls casually dating than in the past. "Now we're in America," he said. "American guys are out there." But the traditional values ingrained in first-generation Jewish Iranians are still strong. "Iranian girls really respect their parents, they're really into the family thing - very traditional," he said. "They really do care." Therefore if they do date casually, said Sasha, the boy has to be very special and it must be secretive. "Iranian girls are still uptight about it because they think about marriage - it's on their minds."
"A very little portion of society has become open-minded," Goldman said. "There's still so much concern about what others think." Goldman refers to the Iranian concern with "keeping face" in the community - or aberu. If aberu is gone, then so is the family's name and honor.
Preoccupation with aberu - denying one's self in order to be well regarded in the community - continues to impel parents to restrict their daughters' dating. "Even those parents who have lived here longer, who are more open-minded, don't allow their kids to go out with non-Iranians because they fear what others may think of them," Goldman said.
Even the younger generation practices this concept. "At a party you want to drink with your friends but you feel uncomfortable doing it in front of other people because you know they'll say 'Oh she's such a slut, you should have seen her this weekend…,'" said Jessica.
"The kids are very confused," Sabatelli said. "They want to uphold the old Iranian traditions and culture. They can't break away from it because then they'd have to break away from the family, but there's also a lot of resentment."
In past years Goldman put together an Iranian girls group that would meet to talk about their experiences growing up in Iranian families. "It was great support," she said. "One girl would talk about her experience and then another would say 'I can relate to that' and so on and so on."
"You have to understand how different cultures operate," said Sabatelli, who believes he understands the Iranian culture better because of his own Italian background. "Or else you make mistakes." Sabatelli said that Great Neck North began noticing differences between Iranian and American cultures once the number of Iranians started to grow. Then in 1994, the school decided to hire a Farsi-speaking social worker to deal with the teens and their families.
Today Goldman says she sees some change in the families with which she has worked. For example, more and more Iranian parents allow their daughters to go away to college, a privilege traditionally reserved for young males. "These girls come to me and beg me to speak to their parents," Goldman said. "I work together with the families to open the communication lines and break that resistance." This year, she says, is the first year that no one came to her. She attributes that to parents' better understanding of the issues that their teen-agers face.
Sabatelli is also optimistic. "Though the majority are still holding on to the traditional ways, they are changing somewhat," he said. "When this first generation has children, they will continue to assimilate more and more. Within two generations it will be mostly assimilated. The shift will be towards greater liberalization and acceptance."
Shandray Mehdian
(http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/race/2001/date_mehdian.shtml)
Accessed 06/ 25/2007)
It was not a typical teen-age fight over a girl. The outraged student at Great Neck North High School in suburban Long Island was defending the honor of his Jewish-Iranian sister who had been smeared by what he deemed a vicious rumor. She had been accused of dating an American boy.
To the Jewish-Iranian community, the rumor was double trouble. Any form of dating by teen-age girls is prohibited, and dating outside the faith deepens the disgrace. At stake is the family's reputation and the girl's chance for marriage. So the brother punched out the Jewish-Iranian student who had spread the false tale - and was suspended for two days.
"My best friend went crazy," Sasha, an 18-year-old senior, said of the fist swinger. Like many other Jewish-Iranian students, Sasha asked that only his first name be used.
However, schools officials familiar with the Jewish-Iranian community, were not shocked by the fight. "For a girl to be seen with someone, or even a rumor about her, can get brothers and fathers excited," said Angelo Sabatelli, assistant principal at Great Neck North. "Because then the marriage proposal is gone. Now everyone thinks she is not pure."
Though the fight was unusual , the issue of dating plagues many of the Jewish-Iranian teens at Great Neck North, which has a 38 per cent Iranian student population, most of them Jewish. Not only does the strict bar against girls dating or socializing with the opposite sex collide with American popular culture, but the rule, under Jewish-Iranian tradition, also exempts boys who are free to date any and all girls - a double standard that sometimes creates puzzlement and resentment among Jewish-Iranian girls.
The remarkable situation at Great Neck North can be traced to the 1978-79 revolution in Iran. Waves of Jewish Iranian immigrants fled to the United States, finding new homes all over the country, with the largest populations in New York and southern California. In Great Neck alone, Jewish Iranians estimate that there are nearly 3,500 families. With so many families packed into a small town of about 37,000, they say, a close-knit subculture inevitably emerges and defense of family integrity - and particularly the reputation of young women - becomes crucial.
In the Jewish-Iranian culture, women uphold the values and virtues of the community. When it comes to dating and socializing with the opposite sex, women must abide by the strictest standards and remain a symbol of purity. Thus "casual" dating by females, with no intention of marriage, or dating outside the community is out of the question, said Shanaz Goldman, a social worker at Great Neck North since 1994. "I have not yet met a Jewish-Iranian mother who'd feel comfortable with her daughter having an American boyfriend," said Goldman, also a member of the Pupil Personnel, a group of psychologists, social workers and mental health professionals.
Usually, the slightest deviance can mar the reputation of a young woman and her family's integrity. "God forbid that a girl have a bad name in the society," Goldman said. "Her prospects of finding a mate will be doomed."
On the other hand, the opposite is true of Jewish Iranian boys. Not only are they expected to date at an early age, but they are encouraged to date non-Iranian women. "Boys can do whatever the girl cannot," Goldman said. "Parents will encourage him to have a girlfriend - it's like a badge of honor."
Sabatelli agreed. "While Iranian girls are not permitted to date, Iranian boys are encouraged to 'have fun,'" he said. "The boys are not discouraged from dating the American girls." Sabatelli, who has been at the high school for 20 years, says 60 per cent of the Jewish-Iranian male seniors are dating non-Iranian females. "But you'll never see an Iranian girl holding hands with another boy," he said. "You just don't see it -- not even at the prom."
Though the double standard is deeply rooted in the traditional Iranian culture, Sabatelli, who has studied European and Middle Eastern history, feels it has also become a "macho thing" among the high school boys at Great Neck North to date American girls.
According to Goldman, who puts on parenting workshops for adults throughout the academic year, several factors explain the double standard. First is the influence of the Islamic culture that, some critics say, dictates the second-class status of women. "The woman's job was to be subservient," Goldman said. "She had to stay home and take care of the children." In present day Iran women must still wear the traditional head covering, the chador, and are forbidden to ride bicycles in public parks and streets.
A second factor is class, Goldman said. In Iran, a country based on a class system, the upper echelon could afford to send their male children abroad for education. Thus the men had greater opportunities and freedom to mingle with Western women.
A third factor, according to Goldman, is the fact that Jews in Iran were a minority and consequently adhered more to their cultural ways. Most considered pre-marital sex and intimacy unacceptable, as stipulated by Jewish laws and mores. Here in America, Jewish Iranians again represent a minority community. "But because mainstream American culture is so different, some values are played out more strongly than they were in the homeland and adhered to with greater tenacity," Goldman said.
In Iran this system seemed to work well, observers say. But America is a different story, especially for the new generation of youth born and reared in a culture so different from that of the older generation.
"If their culture means that much to them, that's great," said Jessica, a junior who has been in the Great Neck public school system since elementary school. "But I think it's overdone a little." Jessica says she comes from a Jewish-Iranian family that is more open-minded but she must still marry only a Jewish-Iranian male.
Jessica said her parents, who "love each other to death" and who have been together for 25 years, met each other in Iran and were married six days later. Those sorts of marriages were common in Iran 20 or 30 years ago.
But now times are different. And tension and conflict arise when the older generation demands to uphold the traditional values of the Jewish-Iranian culture and their first- generation children wish to follow the ways of their non-Iranian peers. And in no other area does this tension surface more clearly than when it comes to dating and socializing. At times Jessica feels confused. "Iranian girls aren't supposed to date until they want to get married," she said. "But how will you gain dating experience for marriage when you haven't had any relationships?"
As for the double standard, Jessica thinks it's wrong for parents to impose a set of strict standards for one child and not for the other. "It's so annoying," she said. "My brother was allowed to do everything at my age - had no curfews and about a hundred girlfriends. If I had one boyfriend my parents would say 'what's going on?'"
"There's definitely, definitely a double standard," Goldman said. "All these girls want is to have a normal adolescent life. But their parents are so fearful that they place restrictions on behavior. They have limits on their freedom-no sleepovers, no camps, early curfews, and no unchaperoned parties."
What sometimes happens, said Goldman, herself a mother of three, is that the children who face restrictions without any knowledge of their culture or understanding of their values, end up with resentment, fear and anathema. "Those are the ones who hate the culture, who don't like to speak Farsi, or be called Iranians," Goldman said. "They have no sense of identity with the culture."
On the other hand, Goldman argues that the Jewish-Iranian children who "embrace their heritage" and have a good sense of their culture and where they come from are more accepting of their parent's values.
"All the kids my age are still living in that mentality, in the shadow of their parents," Jessica said. "And as long as that happens, it's never going to end." But after a moment's thought, Jessica modified her conclusion: "It's stressful, but it works out well in the end because it leans towards a more disciplined life."
Mark, a 16-year-old Jewish-Iranian student with spiked hair, has no problem with the double standard. "It's better for Iranian girls to be like that," he said. "When an Iranian guy is ready to get married he's not going to look for the girl who's been dating ever since she was a teen-ager." Sabatelli explained it further. "When it comes to marriage, the boys know they must marry a 'nice, Iranian girl,'" he said. "The parents want to hold on to those values to ensure that their daughter or son marry within the Iranian culture."
"The young boys want to marry someone pure," Goldman said. "That's what's been ingrained in them."
Mark said his sister didn't date until she was ready for marriage. He estimates that at Great Neck North 15 per cent of Iranian girls date casually but 75 per cent would do it "if they could."
So are there any signs of change in how Jewish-Iranian traditions play out at Great Neck North? Yes and no, say students and school officials. While basic values remain in tact and dating is restricted, "girls and guys can hang out [???] when they wouldn't even think about that years ago," Mark said, referring to groups of friends going to see a movie together.
Sasha, the senior, agreed that "times are changing," but only in limited ways. He sees more Iranian girls casually dating than in the past. "Now we're in America," he said. "American guys are out there." But the traditional values ingrained in first-generation Jewish Iranians are still strong. "Iranian girls really respect their parents, they're really into the family thing - very traditional," he said. "They really do care." Therefore if they do date casually, said Sasha, the boy has to be very special and it must be secretive. "Iranian girls are still uptight about it because they think about marriage - it's on their minds."
"A very little portion of society has become open-minded," Goldman said. "There's still so much concern about what others think." Goldman refers to the Iranian concern with "keeping face" in the community - or aberu. If aberu is gone, then so is the family's name and honor.
Preoccupation with aberu - denying one's self in order to be well regarded in the community - continues to impel parents to restrict their daughters' dating. "Even those parents who have lived here longer, who are more open-minded, don't allow their kids to go out with non-Iranians because they fear what others may think of them," Goldman said.
Even the younger generation practices this concept. "At a party you want to drink with your friends but you feel uncomfortable doing it in front of other people because you know they'll say 'Oh she's such a slut, you should have seen her this weekend…,'" said Jessica.
"The kids are very confused," Sabatelli said. "They want to uphold the old Iranian traditions and culture. They can't break away from it because then they'd have to break away from the family, but there's also a lot of resentment."
In past years Goldman put together an Iranian girls group that would meet to talk about their experiences growing up in Iranian families. "It was great support," she said. "One girl would talk about her experience and then another would say 'I can relate to that' and so on and so on."
"You have to understand how different cultures operate," said Sabatelli, who believes he understands the Iranian culture better because of his own Italian background. "Or else you make mistakes." Sabatelli said that Great Neck North began noticing differences between Iranian and American cultures once the number of Iranians started to grow. Then in 1994, the school decided to hire a Farsi-speaking social worker to deal with the teens and their families.
Today Goldman says she sees some change in the families with which she has worked. For example, more and more Iranian parents allow their daughters to go away to college, a privilege traditionally reserved for young males. "These girls come to me and beg me to speak to their parents," Goldman said. "I work together with the families to open the communication lines and break that resistance." This year, she says, is the first year that no one came to her. She attributes that to parents' better understanding of the issues that their teen-agers face.
Sabatelli is also optimistic. "Though the majority are still holding on to the traditional ways, they are changing somewhat," he said. "When this first generation has children, they will continue to assimilate more and more. Within two generations it will be mostly assimilated. The shift will be towards greater liberalization and acceptance."
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Iran, the Jews and the Holocaust
The Stephen Roth Institute for Comparative Anti-Semitistm and Racism. Tel Aviv University. David Menashri[*] Accessed 06/07/2007
(http://www.antisemitism.tau.ac.il/asw2005/menashri.html)
During the last two centuries, Iranian politics have oscillated between extremes as the country has searched for a viable path to confront the challenges of modernity. Since the late eighteenth century, it has gradually undergone a phase of Westernization—a process that was intensified prior to the collapse of the Pahlavi Monarchy (1925−79) − only to reverse direction under the Islamic Republic.[1]
The dichotomy that has characterized recent Iranian politics is best exemplified by the distinctive visions of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. By all accounts, Khomeini’s worldview was the complete antithesis of that of the Shah. The latter’s attachment to the legacy of Cyrus the Great gave way to a return to the traditions of the Imam ‘Ali. While the Shah sought to generate loyalty to the monarchy and to Iran’s pre-Islamic heritage, the Islamic Republic’s policies are based on strict adherence to Islamic dogma and values. While the previous regime made a determined drive for Westernization, the Islamic Republic views Western influence as a major threat.
Evidently, such vastly opposing views invariably subsume the two regimes’ respective attitudes toward minority religions as well. As part of Iranian society, the Jews were inevitably influenced by the revolutionary change; as members of a religious minority, this cataclysm had distinctive ramifications for them. The revolution’s virulently anti-Israel and anti-Zionist stance, too, was bound to arouse feeling against world Jewry and affect attitudes toward the Jews in Iran.
This essay will analyze the evolution of Iran’s position toward its Jewish minority and toward Jewish issues worldwide, as well as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s harsh rhetoric regarding world Jewry and the Holocaust. In order to better comprehend the magnitude of the change, it will begin by tracing the historical legacy of Iran’s treatment of its Jews and discuss policy vis-à-vis Iranian Jewry since the Islamic Revolution. It will then examine in greater depth attempts in Iran to cast doubt on the validity of the Holocaust by focusing on the views of leading officials, scholars and media publications.
Iranian Jewry: Past Legacy and Contemporary Challenges
The history of Iranian Jewry has known periods of suppression, persecution, and harassment as well as intervals of tolerance and peaceful coexistence. All in all, however, their experience was even more trying than that of Jews in other Muslim communities. “Compared to the Jews of Iran,” Bernard Lewis wrote, “the Jews of the Ottoman Empire were living in paradise.”[2] Growing contact with the West, mainly since the early nineteenth century, and the liberal movement that gave birth to the Constitutional Revolution in Iran (1905−11), helped to ameliorate their situation somewhat. As Habib Levy stated, these events brought the Jews the “precious gift” of an opportunity to break “the invisible chains which had bound them hand and foot,” even if they “did not suddenly erase the toxic impurity of anti-Semitism” from peoples’ minds.[3] However, it was primarily during the Pahlavi monarchy, that Iranian Jews were able to improve their position in Iranian society.
The two decades under Reza Shah’s rule “brought temporary relief to the Jews and other non-Muslims.”[4] While the Jews experienced significant advances in their social and economic situation during Reza Shah’s reign, it changed even more substantially under Mohammad Reza Shah (1941-1979), reaching its zenith during the reform movement of the White Revolution (from 1963) − marking the Golden Era of Iranian Jewry. At that time, Jews enjoyed almost complete cultural and religious autonomy, unprecedented economic progress, and had political rights that were close to those of their Muslim compatriots. Even then, however, progress was often interrupted by difficult periods. Antisemitic literature continued to be published throughout the Pahlavi monarchy,[5] and anti-Jewish propaganda became more visible in Iran during the early 1950s, following the establishment of the State of Israel, and under Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq. Yet, in comparison to earlier periods, the Jews’ status improved considerably under the Pahlavis.
The Islamic Revolution turned assets into obvious liabilities for Iran’s Jews. Their prominent socio-economic standing under the monarchy, their identification with the Shah and his policies, and their attachment to Israel, Zionism, and ‘American imperialism’ were all held against them. Iran’s historical mistreatment of the Jews had left its mark on popular attitudes. The short interval of Jewish freedom under the last shah was too brief to cause a significant shift in societal attitudes toward the Jews. The basic principles of the revolutionary regime were based on radical interpretations of Islamic dogma, and Ayatollah Khomeini’s own doctrine (see below) would only exacerbate anti-Jewish sentiment. The economic challenges following the change of regime and the pressure on Iran from the outside world were also attributed, at least in part, to Israel and the Jews, who were believed to be ‘moving the wheels’ of the world economy. Moreover, the Islamic regime’s decision to become the bearer of the anti-Zionist and anti-Israel flag fuelled this feeling. Less than three decades after the revolution, approximately two-thirds of the Jewish community (including most of the religious and social leadership) have left Iran. In 2007, an estimated 25,000 Jews remain there. Although there has been no actual governmental incitement or systematic harassment, “the Iranian Jews have received harsher treatment” than other recognized religious minorities − excluding the Baha’is.[6]
Khomeini’s doctrine, as formulated prior to the Islamic Revolution, contained distinct anti-Jewish elements, combining Shi‘i ideology with typical elements of European antisemitism. On the first page of his book Al-Hukumah al-Islamiyyah (Islamic Governance), Khomeini pointed out: “Since its inception, the Islamic movement has been afflicted with the Jews,” who “established anti-Islamic propaganda and joined in various stratagems, and as you can see, this activity continues down to our present day.” The Prophet Muhammad “eliminated” the Jews of the Bani Qurayza, Khomeini recalled, because they were a troublesome group, corrupting Muslim society and “damaging Islam and the Islamic state.”[7] In his earlier book, Touzih al-Masa'el (Clarification of the Questions), he emphasized the Shi‘i doctrine of the ritual impurity of unbelievers (nejasat), listing “eleven things that contaminated,” including sperm, dogs, pigs, carrion and unbelievers: the latter’s entire body is unclean; even their “hair and fingernails and [bodily] secretion.” Products which cannot be purified (such as food) should not be bought from infidels.[8] A school textbook on Islamic culture and religion from the early years of the revolution which discussed “impure things [chizhaye napak],” similarly refers to causes of disease (microbes and viruses) and then lists the impure things, including dog, pig, alcohol, excrement, and infidels.[9] In contrast to the nationalistic Pahlavi rule, which held the Jews as equals, Khomeini’s Islamic doctrine inevitably led to the Jews being treated as inferior to the Muslim majority.
Immediately following Khomeini’s triumphant return from exile, prominent leaders of the Jewish community, headed by Chief Rabbi Yedidya Shofet, visited him to convey loyalty to the new regime. They argued that Judaism and Zionism were wholly distinct issues. Khomeini adopted this formula. Vague as it often appears, this distinction is still generally endorsed in official statements.
Once the Islamic Revolution had stabilized, venomous attacks gave way to more balanced and tolerant statements with regard to Iranian Jewry. Religious minorities (with the exception of the Baha’is) came to rely on a measure of tolerance and protection. The Jews received official recognition as a minority group, and representation in the Majlis (parliament). Freedom of worship was not substantially restricted and numerous synagogues have remained active; as small as the Jewish community is, it is still the largest in any Muslim country.
The Islamic regime’s relatively tolerant approach was noticeable on the surface, but at a deeper level matters were often more complex. Anti-Jewish sentiments abounded among segments of the population and occasionally found expression in official statements. To begin with, the distinction between Jews, Israel and Zionism was often blurred, much as it is in the Arab world. There were numerous references to Israel as a ‘bunch of Jews’, and occasional allusions to seventh century Jews as ‘the Zionists of [Prophet] Muhammad’s time’. Khomeini himself − often careful not to incite against the Jews − made a revealing slip. In 1982, he began one of his speeches by saying that those who followed in the path of Jesus Christ were even worse than the Jews, although it was perhaps “impossible to say that there is anything worse than the Jews.” He then retracted: “I mean the Jews of Israel.”[10] Over time, negative references to Jews became commonplace in Iranian parlance. According to a series of articles published on the eve of the 1998 International Day of Jerusalem in the newspaper Kar va Kargar, all Jews, regardless of where they reside, are Zionists, and retain the same basic unflattering features.[11] An article in Ettela‘at quoted the Qur’an to prove Jewish animosity to Islam: “Cursed were the unbelievers of the Children of Israel” for “their rebellion and their transgression.”[12] During the Iran-Iraq war, an Iranian military operation was given the codename Khaybar, after the Jewish oasis besieged and conquered by the Prophet. President ‘Ali Khamene’i explained that the name was in memory of the glorious victories of Islam over the Jews: Since “the front opposing us today is a Zionist front,” he continued, “this will serve as a reminder for us of the struggle of Islam against the Jews of Khaybar.”[13] The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as well as virulently antisemitic caricatures, were published repeatedly throughout this period.
For most Arab states, the conflict with Israel is chiefly a national and territorial dispute, but for Islamic Iran (much like Islamist movements, such as Hizballah and Hamas in the Arab world) it is a religious crusade. As one Iranian intellectual put it, since Israel is “by nature” the enemy of Islam and the Qur’an, it is “the religious duty [taklif-e shar‘i]” of every Muslim to confront it.[14] According to this logic, while in the past the West wished to achieve its goals through the Church, it now promoted its interests indirectly − by setting the Jews against the Muslims in order to divide the Muslim world and eventually wage war against them. Former Foreign Minister ‘Ali Akbar Velayati claimed that the creation of Israel was a “diabolical action” aimed at “creat[ing] a Zionist and anti-Islamic fracture in the heart of the political geography of Islam,” and at transplanting “the historical crisis between Christians and Jews of Europe to the Islamic world and converting it into a crisis between Jews and Muslims in Palestine.” This, he added, was a “historical deal” which in part “absolved Jews of the death of Jesus Christ” and led to the “materialization of the aspiration of extremist and racist Jews in setting up a Jewish state.”[15] All in all, Iranian policy was a combination of instigation and restraint; sowing the seeds of hatred − whether consciously or unconsciously − while preventing that hatred from being translated into violence.
The circumstances that led to the election of President Mohammad Khatami in 1997, his relatively pragmatic policy, and the more moderate statements following his election, inevitably led to some relaxation with regard to the Jews, too. Khatami’s emphasis on inter-faith dialogue and civil society and the need to defuse tension (with the West, for example), revealed a greater commitment to Iranian national interests than to doctrinaire religious convictions, and had a soothing effect on Iran’s religious minorities.
Occasionally, milder statements emerged, primarily from liberal thinkers. Hojjat ul-Islam (and Professor) Mohsen Kadivar − a devout adherent in the early days of the revolution and later one of the symbols of Iranian liberalism − maintained that the “truth of Islam does not mean the absolute falsehood of Judaism and Christianity.” While “complete salvation and reward” belongs to Muslims, he agreed, “we can both believe in one supreme truth and also not consider other religions and followers of other religions as completely false.”[16] He reminded his co-religionists that even the Prophet and Imam ‘Ali “conducted talks with Jews” and signed treaties with them.[17] Another leading Iranian intellectual, Hojjat ul-Islam Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari, further maintained that the principles of religion and human rights were not necessarily identical. The latter, he noted, derive from a philosophical concept of equality, based on the idea that “the humanism of an individual has priority over his belief,” unlike religious principles in which equality is based on faith. Based on such premises, Shabestari stressed the need for dialogue between faiths, which in his view was not only recommended (mostahab) but essential (zarurat).[18] For his part, Khatami rejected antisemitism as a Western phenomenon with “no precedent” in Islam, where Jews and Muslims have long “lived harmoniously together.” In the East, he said, “we have had despotism and dictatorship, but never fascism or Nazism,” which were Western phenomena.[19]
Nevertheless, the conservative press maintained its critical tone, even when discussing general Jewish issues. An article in Jomhuri-ye Islami rejected as incorrect Khatami’s suggestion that “anti-Judaism was a Western phenomenon with no precedent in Islam;” Islamic history, it stated, was rife with “Jewish plots against the Noble Prophet,” and the Holy Book warned against the Jews’ “enmity [‘adavat]” and “rancor (kineh]” toward Muslims.[20] Another article in Kayhan castigated Jews for viewing Muslims as “inferior peoples,” who were born only to slavery [bardagi] and doomed to remain thus forever.[21] Iranian sources further argued that the “Talmudic mentality” approved “the logic of force,”[22] advocating “the annihilation of the Muslims and legitimiz[ing] the shedding of their blood.”[23] While Islam forbade terrorism, another article continued, their “misleading Torah” explicitly commanded them: “Kill their [enemy’s] men, women, and children; kill even their cattle and sheep; burn their farmlands and destroy their abode.” The “thought process” of the Zionists and of Hitler, the article concluded, was similar.[24]
Casting Doubt on the Holocaust
In recent years Iran has become a major center for disseminating radical views regarding the Holocaust. Such views combine typical Western denial claims with Middle Eastern arguments (see below), and some distinctive Iranian revolutionary assertions. It should be stressed that while most Iranian sources do not openly deny the Holocaust altogether, they attempt to distort it, belittle its historical significance, or trivialize Holocaust atrocities. To begin with, Iranian sources stressed that obsessive Jewish references to the Holocaust were part of an orchestrated conspiracy to attract sympathy for Zionism and win international support for the establishment of Israel. Further, they argued, the Jews used Holocaust references to lend legitimacy to Zionist policies, further suppress the Palestinians and advance Zionist schemes.
As Middle East scholars Meir Litvak and Esther Webman demonstrate, representations of the Holocaust in the Muslim World − ranging from condemnation to justification or denial − have become criteria according to which Jews in general, and the State of Israel, in particular, are judged. While treatment of the Holocaust has never been monolithic, one early assertion has remained relatively constant: The Jews cultivated a compelling sense of sympathy following World War II, which was consequently exploited to mobilize support for the establishment of their state. Adolf Hitler’s Nazi antisemitism was justified, such arguments go, in light of Jewish sedition, financial dominance of the West, and currently, Israeli policy. The difficulty of reconciling the Jews’ weakness and vulnerability in Europe with their newfound strength in the Middle East led a growing number of Muslims to highlight elements of Holocaust denial, as opposed to merely justifying this genocide.[25] Holocaust denial in Iran, Litvak continues, is one manifestation of a broader fusion between Iran's vehemently anti-Zionist position and traditional anti-Jewish themes. Ahmadinejad’s portrayal of the Holocaust as a legend or myth is thus neither a new nor uniquely personal obsession but an intensification of themes prevalent in Islamic Iran’s ideological discourse.[26] In line with the Arab Middle East, Iranian emphasis on Holocaust denial gained momentum in the late 1990s, even when Khatami’s pro-reform camp was reaching the peak of its power.
The following commentary, published in Tehran Times, six months after Khatami’s election, reflects the multi-dimensional charges, as well as the harsh language, often used to cast doubt on the Holocaust. It denounces the so-called Kosher brotherhood, as a group “too long intent on Goebbels-style propaganda, acting helpless and crying wolf as the occasion required, picking random targets for destruction and annihilation throughout the Middle East.” They behave as an “American envoy at one time, as plenipotentiaries for some European states” at others and sometimes as “trained henchmen and paid killers, becoming pimps and tarts.”[27] Oddly, Iranian sources at times stress the harm done to Jews in World War II in a fairly objective way, but this is mainly to emphasize that such atrocities occurred in the West; or to draw a comparison with ‘the holocaust of our days’ − that of the Palestinians.[28] Iran’s representative in the UN Geneva office further argued that because Europe “wished to get rid” of the Jews, it rushed to establish a state for them. The Palestinians were thus called to “pay the price of Europeans’ crimes in Auschwitz and Treblinka.”[29] Moreover, just as the Europeans were right to fight Hitler, the Palestinians are justified in confronting “the Zionist invaders.”[30] Rafsanjani typically added that Israel was “illegal, just as the Nazis’ presence in France was.”[31]
The trial of Roger Garaudy, who was convicted in a Paris court for contesting crimes against humanity,[32] was exploited by Iran in order to establish a link to Iranian claims against Israel, Zionism, and world Jewry. Following his trial, Garaudy was invited to Tehran where he was received by top officials. The visit was used to expose Iranians to his views and express support for his ‘scientific studies’, but also as an opportunity to add their own particular charges. They condemned Israel for bringing about a ‘Palestinian holocaust’ and denounced the West for establishing Israel and for bringing Garaudy to trial while at the same time defending British author Salman Rushdie who was accused of defaming Islam. Meeting Garaudy (20 April 1998), Iran's Supreme Leader ‘Ali Khamene’i pointed to the similarities between Zionism and Nazism, and castigated the West, which on the one hand deplored “the racist behavior of the Nazis,” but at the same time supported the Zionists’ “Nazi-like behavior.”[33] President Mohammad Khatami grieved that “a thinker” and “a believer” like Garaudy was brought to trial merely for publishing research which was “displeasing to the West.”[34]
Addressing an international conference on Palestine in Tehran (April 2001), Khamene’i further argued that there was “evidence on hand that a large number of non-Jewish hooligans and thugs of Eastern Europe were forced to migrate to Palestine as Jews.” The purpose, he said, was “to install in the heart of the Islamic world an anti-Islamic state under the guise of supporting the victims of racism.” Khamene’i added that historical documents attested to “close collaboration of the Zionists with Nazi Germany,” and that the “exaggerated numbers” of Jews killed in the Holocaust, were “fabricated to solicit the sympathy of world public opinion, lay the ground for the occupation of Palestine and justify the atrocities of the Zionists.”[35] An article in Tehran Times added that during the war, some poor non-Zionist Jews were deliberately sacrificed to further the hideous goal of establishing a Jewish state. According to the writer, “historical documents” proved that the massacre of Jews was “limited to the working class”—indicating collaboration between the Nazi regime and the Zionist lobby in purging Jews who were considered insignificant.[36]
The hard-line press adopted an extremely radical tone. An article in Jomhuri-ye Islami maintained that “the false slogan of the murder of millions of Jews” was a “ridiculous pretext” through which the Zionists managed to convince world public opinion of the need to establish a Jewish state. Every writer, researcher and historian, who sought to refute “this historical allegation on the basis of reliable evidence,” as did Roger Garaudy, was silenced.[37] Garaudy was brought to trial even though his claim was “not far from the truth” and many scholars considered the events of Auschwitz to be a “big lie,” a Resalat article claimed, suggesting that it was quite possible, that instead of “writing the history” of the Nazi gas chambers, Western thinkers had “invented history.”[38] A Tehran Times article defended the rights of scholars to doubt the “so-called Holocaust” which was the “brainchild of the Zionists,” designed to “seek sympathies from the West” and “grab billions of dollars annually” from them. To keep their “weapon of blackmail vibrant,” the article continued, they make innocent people like Garaudy the “targets of their irrational attacks.”[39]
Referring to Garaudy’s trial, an article in Kayhan International typically termed it a “judicial holocaust” and the “trial of freedom of speech.” It claimed that the West had become “an obvious hostage” to the theory of “original sin,” to the point that countries such as France did not mind even violating their own founding principles just to appease the Zionists. Garaudy was only guilty “of not blindly towing the Zionist line” of “six million Jews killed.” By bringing such people to trial, the article added, “Europe wants to atone for its [own] periodic persecution of Jews,” while Jews “enjoyed every basic right and rose to prominent positions in the Muslim world.” Oddly, in France, “one can say anything against [French] national interests,” but a single word “against the preposterous fables of Israel and its vocal lobbies” was considered a crime. This was the result of “the Semitic myth” that had been “blown out of proportion” by the Zionists who controlled “the American state apparatus and economy.” This “anti-Semitic bug” has “so horrifyingly bitten the West” that many seem to consider the Jews as the only Semites, and to turn a blind eye to oppression of the Palestinians.[40] Garaudy was put on trial merely for expressing an “expert judgment,” that the gas chambers were among “the founding myths of the usurper state known as Israel.” Trying him was “tantamount to the dawn of a dark era of witch hunting,” the article concluded.[41]
Tehran Times seemed especially obsessed with the Holocaust. Perhaps “the biggest lie in history,” one article maintained, took shape during the Nuremberg trials, where confessions “obtained by means of torture” became “the cornerstone of the official Auschwitz version.”[42] No one has ever asked the “gas chamber witnesses” any critical questions and, thus, “the terrible accusation” of genocide, remained based upon “the lies of a handful of Jewish swindlers like Rudolf Vrba, Filip Mueller and Elie Wiesel,” and “the confessions of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss who was tortured for three days before signing the statement his tormentors had prepared for him.”[43] There is no evidence on record for the gassing “of even one human being in a German camp,” it added, and German documents “directly refute” the “Holocaust story.”[44] According to an article published in Tehran Times, about 150,000 prisoners died in Auschwitz, “mostly from diseases.” There were also executions, it admitted, but this was only “for acts of resistance and sabotage.” Yet, it complained, the “massive reductions” of the Auschwitz death toll do not affect the “sacrosanct figure” of six million Jewish victims, which “remains as solid as the pyramids.”[45] Had Auschwitz been an extermination camp, another article in the Tehran Times suggested, “virtually no Jew would have survived it,” yet memoirs of former Auschwitz inmates filled entire libraries. Such “professional survivors” who present themselves as witnesses of the Holocaust are themselves “living proof that the alleged extermination of the Jews did not take place.”[46]
Another Tehran Times article reiterated that the Holocaust, “one of the biggest frauds of the outgoing century,” was a story “made up by Zionists to blackmail the West.” It regretted that those who dared to reveal ‘the truth’ were persecuted. One such case was the Swiss Gaston-Armand Amaudruz, who “proved with logic and evidence” that the Zionists’ claim was “false and unsubstantiated,” and was consequently sentenced to one year in prison under the Swiss anti-racism law. Similarly, in Britain, David Irving lost his libel battle in a British court to defend his views on the Holocaust. Yet, while the West paid reparations for “baseless claims,” it turned a blind eye to the Palestinians’ suffering. Their attitude, the article declared, was “a token of their subservience to Zionist circles, particularly their submission to the pro-Zionist US administration.”[47] The Jews claimed a “right to be paranoid,” another article continued, because they felt that the world was “after them.” Yet, not only governments, but all major publishing houses, newspapers and the entertainment industry in the US were headed by Jews. However, did being “historically persecuted,” give them the right to rule the world, to “occupy it, usurp it, control it?”[48] Most international financial institutions in the world, another article continued, were controlled and run by Zionists. Zionists prepared the ground through propaganda bombardment and brainwashing public opinion. They could even prevent scientific research if its conclusions did not fit their line. Thus, it asserted, Roger Garaudy wrote a book, “based purely on research,” which challenged the Holocaust and other notions exaggerating the number of Jews killed, but due to Zionist influence in the French judicial system, he was “fined for revealing historical facts.”[49]
While Garaudy was the main guest of honor in Iran in 1998, other figures known for Holocaust distortion were also welcomed. German-born Fredrick Toben (who lives in Australia) arrived in December 1999. According to Kayhan International article, Toben was sentenced to jail in Germany (but subsequently released) in November 1999 for having exposed the fabrications of the gas chambers. Hitler was criminal, the article agreed, but why distort facts “to magnify the killings of a few thousand Jews into the preposterous figure of six million.” In the Christian West, it noted, one could insult Jesus Christ and the fundamentals of the faith, but it was “a crime to question the holocaust.” Any research on the number of Jews killed, brought on “the wrath of Zion.”[50]
The link between events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Holocaust was made even more frequently following the outbreak of the second intifada in 2000. Reporting from the West Bank, IRNA stated on the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day, 2001, that that year the commemoration had occurred in the midst of “a genocidal war” launched by the Jews against the Palestinians. Indeed, the report went on, the brutality and utter callousness of Israeli repression had prompted the analogy between “the German holocaust” against Jews and “the Jewish holocaust” against the Palestinians. The siege and encirclement of the Palestinian population, which had effectively turned these towns and villages into “concentration camps,” IRNA maintained, was hardly an un-Nazi practice.[51]
The Ahmadinejad Factor
Radical views regarding the Holocaust, as noted above, were pronounced clearly long before Ahmadinejad’s presidency. However, Ahmadinejad’s critical tone, his frequent and inflammatory statements, and the fact that he is the incumbent head of state, have combined to further such attitudes in Iran and attract worldwide attention. Moreover, Ahmadinejad’s public support for such a position has encouraged a series of initiatives in Iran − conferences, a caricature contest, widespread media coverage and books.
One might have thought that Ahmadinejad, whose election was due largely to his promise to improve the lot of the underprivileged, would have concentrated on domestic (socio-economic) issues rather than on the Holocaust. Moreover, while Iran’s central objective seems to be buying time until it acquires a nuclear capability, such declarations and the consequent attention to Iranian radicalism would seem to be detrimental to its nuclear ambitions. The presence of American forces stationed close to Iranian borders and US influence encircling Iran, too, might be considered further inducement for Ahmadinejad to pay more attention to the ‘near abroad’ than to threaten to eradicate Israel or question the Holocaust. Yet, Ahmadinejad has taken every opportunity to voice his radical views.
On 26 October 2005, he presented his vision of a world without Israel or the US, urging that Israel be wiped off the face of the map.[52] On 8 December, during the Islamic Conference Organization in Mecca, he made headlines by calling the Holocaust into question. Some European countries maintain that Hitler “burned millions of oppressed Jews in crematoria,” he said, and “if someone proves the opposite, they convict him and throw him into prison.” Although he did not accept this claim of the annihilation of European Jewry, even assuming it was true: “Does the killing of oppressed Jews by Hitler” justify support for the Zionist regime?[53] On 13 December, responding to the international uproar caused by his statements, he added: The Holocaust “has never been presented for a free scientific debate, and has become a red line and a myth that cannot be discussed.”[54] On 15 December, he went even further. They have invented “a legend” under the name “Massacre of the Jews,” he said, which they hold higher than God, religion and the prophets. “Why are you using those killings as a pretext to come to the heart of the Islamic world and dear Palestine and impose a phony Zionist regime?” he asked. He then appealed to Europe: “If you have committed a crime, it’s good if you allocate a part of your country or Europe, America, Canada, or Alaska to them so that they can establish [there] a country for themselves.”[55]
In January 2006, following the Danish cartoon imbroglio, Ahmadinejad announced a Holocaust cartoon contest and an ‘academic’ conference to be held later in the year. Why, he asked, was it acceptable to defame the Prophet of Islam but not simply to question the veracity of an historical event? On 11 February 2006, in a televised address to a rally, he referred to Western scorn for Holocaust denial as “a medieval way of thinking.”[56] Ahmadinejad often frames the issue around the identity of his interlocutor, such as his open letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and interview with Der Spiegel, in which he emphasized the supposed injustice of blaming innocent young Germans and hinted at a global conspiracy propagating this myth to further Zionist and Israeli interests.[57] Since early 2006, however, Ahmadinejad has focused on his purported desire for an honest intellectual examination of the issue and its historical implications.[58] Thus, a consistent feature of his position is that regardless of the historical facts surrounding the Holocaust, the “real holocaust” is that which the Israelis are perpetrating against the Palestinians.
Ahmadinejad’s announcement of a conference on the Holocaust spawned worldwide condemnation and the meeting was postponed on numerous occasions. However, the “Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision” conference ultimately took place on 11−12 December 2006. Rasoul Mousavi, head of the Foreign Ministry’s Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS), which organized the event, explained the need for the conference as an opportunity for scholars to discuss the subject “away from Western taboos and the restriction imposed on them in Europe.”[59] Thus, the alleged lack of academic freedom of inquiry regarding the Holocaust became the premise for holding such a conference. This notion is reflected in the IPIS call for papers:
Recently, ‘the Holocaust’ turned into a main factor to influence the history and even the destiny of certain nations. The Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS) believes that a suitable scientific and research opportunity and space shall be provided for researchers and for those interested in order to clarify the hidden and open corners of this issue, which is considered as the very important preoccupation of our world today.[60]
The participation of six delegates from the Jewish ultra-Orthodox and anti-Zionist Neturei Karta received particular attention. While this group does not deny the Holocaust or challenge the validity of accepted death toll figures, they deemed their front-row presence at the event important “to lessen the hatred present in the entire Arab people against Jews,” according to Jerusalem representative of the group, Israel Hirsch.[61] However, their attendance can better be explained by the features common to both Neturei Karta’s ideology and Ahmadinejad’s anti-Israel rhetoric. Acknowledging the veracity of the Holocaust, Neturei Karta’s Rabbi Yisroel Feldman stated in his address prepared for the conference (and read there by Rabbi Aharon Cohen): “There is also no moral justification for using these events to dispossess and occupy another people who have nothing whatsoever to do with what was done in Europe. Let Europe make amends for what took place if they so desire, not the Palestinians.”[62]
The remainder of the conference participants can be classified loosely into two groups: pseudo-academics and leaders of extremist groups from the West, who are alienated in their respective countries due to their radical views; and individuals from Arab and Muslim countries. Those belonging to the first group − including ex-Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and prominent revisionist thinkers such as Frederick Toben, director of Australia’s Adelaide Institute, American Bradley R. Smith, and French Professor Robert Faurisson − appeared to have dominated the floor at the conference, easily overshadowing Iranian and Muslim representatives.
Reflecting the notions discussed at the conference, the leading submissions to the Iranian Holocaust cartoon contest were also on display. Using traditional antisemitic stereotypes, the cartoons portrayed Israel’s exploitation of the Holocaust, to justify brutality in the Middle East and oppression of Palestinians. The winning entry, submitted by a Moroccan, ‘Abdallah Derkaoui, depicted an Israeli crane piling large cement blocks on Israel’s security wall, gradually obscuring al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem; an image of a Nazi concentration camp covered the wall.[63]
Such attitudes towards the Holocaust by top Iranian officials, obsessive media treatment of the issue, and the lack of alternative sources of information, combined with a negative image of the Jews and denunciations of Israeli politics, gave such contentions additional force.
Recently, there has been a proliferation of pseudo-academic and objective studies in Iran. In a way, the IPIS conference was an example of an attempt to conduct a supposedly fair academic review. Individual studies or collective works quickly followed. One such book authored by Mohammad Taghi Taghipour, Beyond the Holocaust Scene, was published by the Tehran-based Political Science & Research Institute (PSRI).[64] In the preface, PSRI states that its aim is to expose the legendary nature and historical distortion of the Holocaust. Contrary to the efforts of the Zionists’ propaganda machinery, it maintained, free thinkers were now casting doubts on such claims. The book promises to expose in a “comprehensive, but precise, academic, and documented” study the Zionists’ false claims about the issue (pp. 7−8). It contends that there was no Nazi scheme to eliminate Jews, although there were − as in any other war − prisoner camps where people from all nationalities were held. It also maintains that in 1942 typhoid broke out in some German camps, including Auschwitz, which led to some casualties (pp. 88−90). According to the study, recent documents show that there were no gas chambers in the Third Reich (pp. 95−6). In short, according to Taghipour, all available documentation confirmed that the Holocaust was “one big historical lie” created by world Zionism to advance their political goal of a Jewish state. Further, Europeans and Americans − to compensate for a crime that never took place − agreed to this scheme for which the Palestinians have to pay the price (pp. 117−118, 126).
The Historical Studies Quarterly published by PSRI devoted its fall 2006 edition to the Holocaust. Among the titles were: “Did 6 Million Really Die?” and “Truth Burning Furnaces.”[65] Another new book on the Holocaust, The Place of the Holocaust in the Zionist Project (Myth or Reality), by Sayyed Mohammad Tarahi, was published by the Center for Islamic Revolution Documents.[66] The book maintains that the Holocaust was an instrument, or a legend (afsaneh), created to justify the establishment of the Jewish state. The book promises to prove scientifically the various dimensions of the Holocaust myth (Ostureh) (pp. 17−21). In its five chapters the book explores the so-called historical, cultural, religious, political, and economic aspects of the Holocaust. Accordingly, the promotion of this myth was instrumental in achieving the Zionists’ political goals and making it a symbol of their sufferings (mazlumiyyat) in order to extract reparations. It concludes that no nation should be rebuked for emphasizing its sufferings, yet propagating and profiting unjustly from them should be admonished (pp. 261−7).
Additionally, Iranian TV programming has increasingly broadcast content that denigrates Jews and distorts the historical significance of the Holocaust. Under the guise of scholarly and learned discussion they transmit venomous views about the Jews and the Holocaust, which are disseminated to the wider population.
Criticism of Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust rhetoric has not been limited to Western figures; opposition has also emerged from among intellectuals and members of the Iranian Jewish community. Referring to the Tehran conference, Sadegh Zibakalam, a political science professor at Tehran University and one of the most vociferous opponents of Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust arguments, stated:
As an Iranian, I’m perplexed and astonished by the actions of our Foreign Ministry. I don't know what is the honor of gathering a group of anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, and racists—and bring them to Iran, for what?… And this is happening at a time when our nuclear case is at the UN and we have to do our best to gain the trust of the international community [sic].[67]
Elsewhere, he asserted that the Foreign Ministry was trying “to please the president,” and in so doing failed to properly inform him of the ramifications of his declarations. Other like-minded individuals joined in slamming Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric for its negative impact on Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its reputation in the international community. ‘Abbas ‘Abdi, one of the student leaders of the 1979 US embassy siege, warned of the “political and economic price” that would accompany Ahmadinejad’s initiatives. “What do we gain by denying the Holocaust,” he asked in an interview with E‘temad-e Melli. “It is best for us as humans to condemn the Holocaust and even participate in its memorials in order to confront Zionist crimes.”[68] The exiled Iranian cartoonist Nikahang Kosar viewed the Holocaust cartoon exhibition as “disrespect to the survivors” of the Holocaust and those who suffered during the war, adding: “I don’t think it’s very humane to use this tool to loathe Israel or to question the legitimacy of the Israeli regime.”[69] Haroun Yahaya’i, head of Iran’s Jewish community, also spoke out. Unlike the political and economic concerns of intellectuals and cartoonists, Yahaya’i’s remarks stemmed from personal offense and a sense of betrayal. He described the Holocaust as one of the 20th century's “most obvious and saddest events” and asked: “How is it possible to ignore all the undeniable evidence existing for the killing and exile of the Jews in Europe during World War II?” Holding a “Holocaust denial seminar” in Iran would not achieve anything for the Iranians, merely soothe “the complexes of racists.”[70]
Conclusions
What then are Iran’s reasons for promulgating such views? The immediate explanation may simply be a sincere belief in the need to eliminate Israel and a conviction that the Holocaust was a primary tool used to establish the Jewish state and justify the suppression of the Palestinians. America’s involvement in Iraq and growing Iranian oil income may have contributed to a perceived sense of strength. In addition, Ahmadinejad may hope to consolidate his political position at home by giving voice to extremist views against Israel. With Iran’s domestic problems continuing to multiply, he may also be trying to divert attention away from economic issues and toward an external enemy in order to mollify public opinion. Finally, voicing such opinions and taking the lead in supporting the Palestinian cause may be Ahmadinejad’s way of promoting Iranian leadership in the Islamic world. Regardless of the reasons for his frequent harangues on the Holocaust, the strong sentiments held against Jews (although not necessarily against the Jews of Iran) by the president and the media serve to further radicalize such views in Iranian society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*] Professor in the Department of Middle Eastern and African History, Director of the Center of Iranian Studies and Incumbent of the Parviz and Pouran Nazarian Chair for Modern Iranian Studies, Tel Aviv University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] For a detailed analysis on the developments discussed here in a broader historical perspective, see David Menashri, Post-Revolutionary Politics in Iran: Religion, Society and Power (London, 2000). For a discussion of the Jews in Iran, see David Menashri, “The Jews of Iran: Between the Shah and Khomeini,” in Sander Gilman and Steven Katz (eds.), Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis (New York University Press, 1991), pp. 353−71; idem, “The Pahlavi Monarchy and the Islamic Revolution,” in Houman Sarshar (ed.), Esther's Children: A Portrait of Iranian Jews (Center for Iranian Jewish Oral History, 2002), pp. 381−402; see also Antisemitism Worldwide, 1994-2001, Stephen Roth Institute, Tel Aviv University.
I wish to thank the research assistants in the Center for Iranian Studies − Brandon Friedman, Rachel Kantz and Michael Maze − for their help in research for this paper.
[2] Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam (Princeton University Press, 1984), p. 166.
[3] Habib Levy, Comprehensive History of the Jews of Iran (Costa Mesa, CA, 1999), pp. 483, 495.
[4] Eliz Sanasarian, Religious Minorities in Iran (Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 46.
[5] Amnon Netzer, “Anti-Semitism in Iran: 1925-1950,” and Michael Zand, “The Image of the Jew among Iranians during the Second Half of the Twentieth Century: 1945-1979,” Pe‘amim 29 (1986), pp. 5−31 and 109−39, respectively (in Hebrew); Jaleh Pir-Nazar, “Chehreh-ye Yahud dar Athar-e Seh Nevisandeh-ye Motejadded-e Irani,” Iran-Nameh 13/4 (Spring 1995), pp. 483−502.
[6] Sanasarian, Religious Minorities in Iran, p. 110.
[7] Ruhollah Khomeini, Al-Hukumah al-Islamiyyah (1970), pp. 7, 83, 121. See also Hamid Algar, Islam and Revolution: Writing and Declarations of Imam Khomeini (Berkeley, 1981), p. 127.
[8] Ruhollah Khomeini, Towzih al-Masa'el (Tehran, 1962), pp. 15, 18.
[9] Farhang-e Islami va Ta‘limat-e Dini, fifth year elementary school, 1981/2 edition, pp. 121−2.
[10] Jomhuri-ye Islami, 20 Sept. 1982.
[11] Kar va Kargar, 17 Jan. 1998.
[12] Sura of the Table, 82, in Ettela`at, 28 Feb. 1984.
[13] Kayhan, 25 Feb. 1984 (all references to Kayhan are to the paper published in Tehran). Majlis Speaker ‘Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani pointed out a similar connection in a speech in the House: Kayhan, 26 Feb. 1984.
[14] ‘Ali Akbar Behbudikhwah, “Naqd Toujihat-e Ta`rikhi-ye Sahionism dar moured-e Mashru‘iyyat-e Rejim-e Qods,” Siyasat-e Khareji 2 (Tir-Sharivar 1368\1989), pp. 314−17.
[15] `Ali Akbar Velayati, Iran va Masa’leh-e Felastin (Iran and the Question of Palestine) (Tehran: 1997), pp. IV−VI, in English, Introduction , and pp. 89−90, 181−2.
[16] Salam, 1 Jan. 1998.
[17] Hamshahri, 15 Nov. 1998 − DR.
[18] Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari, “Islam va Masihiyat-e Orupa’i” (Islam and European Christianity), Siyasat-e Khareji 4/3 (Mehr-Azar 1989), pp. 409-15. See also Mohsen Kadivar and Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari, “Din, Modara va Khoshunat” (Religion, Tolerance and Violence), Kiyan 45 (Jan.-March 1999), pp. 6−19.
[19] CNN, 7 Jan. 1998.
[20] Jomhuri-ye Islami, 10 Jan. 1998.
[21] Kayhan, 31 Oct. 1994.
[22] Radio Tehran, 26 Feb. – DR, 28 Feb. 1994.
[23] Kayhan al-‘Arabi, 27 Feb. – DR, 7 March 1994.
[24] Kayhan, 11 March – DR, 18 March. Another article reiterated the comparison between Zionism and Nazism following Operation Grapes of Wrath: Kayhan, 21 April 1996.
[25] Meir Litvak and Esther Webman, “The Representation of the Holocaust in the Arab World,” Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Studies; Tel Aviv University, 2006; in Hebrew; idem, “The Representation of the Holocaust in the Arab World,” The Journal of Israeli History, 1 (Spring 2004), pp. 100−15.
[26] Meir Litvak, IranPulse, Center for Iranian Studies, Tel Aviv University, 3 (11 Sept. 2006).
[27] Tehran Times, 28 Dec. 1997.
[28]. Kayhan, 1 March 1994.
[29]. Ettela‘at, 24 Feb.; Kayhan, 1 March 1994.
[30] Radio Tehran, 20 Oct. – DR, 21 Oct. 1994. Similarly, Kayhan, 1 March 1994.
[31] Le Figaro, 12 Sept. – DR, 13 Sept. 1994.
[32] See http://antisemitism.tau.ac.il/asw98-9/france.htm.
[33] IRNA, 20 April 1998 − DR.
[34] Tehran TV, 19 Jan. 1998 − DR.
[35] IRNA, 24 April 2001. Palestinian President, Mahmud ‘Abbas accused the Zionist Movement, in his doctoral thesis, of cooperating with the Nazis, due to their shared interests. Litvak and Webman, “The Representation of the Holocaust” (in English), p. 108.
[36] Tehran Times, 7 May 2000.
[37] Jomhuri-ye Islami, 14 Jan. 1999.
[38] Resalat, 13 Jan. 1998 − DR.
[39] Tehran Times, 4 April 1998.
[40] Kayhan International, 20 April 1998.
[41] Kayhan International, 19 Jan. 1998.
[42] Tehran Times, 25 Jan. 2001.
[43] Tehran Times, 17 Feb. 2001.
[44] Tehran Times, 1 Feb. 2001.
[45] Tehran Times, 29 Jan. 2001.
[46] Tehran Times,19 Feb. 2001.
[47] Tehran Times, 10, 11, 12 April 2000.
[48] Tehran Times, 28 Sept. 2000.
[49] Tehran Times, 4 July 1999.
[50] Kayhan International, 6 Dec. 1999.
[51] IRNA, 19 April 2001.
[52] The Guardian, 27 Oct. 2005.
[53] MEMRI, “The Role of Holocaust Denial in the Ideology and Strategy of the Iranian Regime,” 15 Dec. 2006.
[54] MEMRI, “Iranian Leaders: Statements and Positions (Part I),” 5 Jan. 2006.
[55] MEMRI, “The Role of Holocaust Denial in the Ideology and Strategy of the Iranian Regime,” 15 Dec. 2006.
[56] MEMRI, “Ahmadinejad on the ‘Myth of the Holocaust’,” 1 4 Feb. 2006.
[57] IRNA, 28 Aug. and Der Spiegel, interview with Ahmadinejad, 30 May 2006.
[58] MEMRI, “The Resolution of the Holocaust Issue Will End in the Destruction of Israel,” 15 June 2006.
[59] International Herald Tribune, 11 Dec. 2006.
[60] IPIS Call for Papers: http://www.ipis.ir
[61] Ynet News, 12 Dec. 2006.
[62] Neturei Karta website: http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Speeches/2006Iran-Feldman.cfm
[63] AP, 2 Nov. 2006; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15525133/; http://www.haaretz.com/ hasen/spages/782695.html. For the winning cartoons see: http://www.irancartoon.com/120/ holocaust/index.htm.
[64] Mohammad Taghi Taghipour, Pas Pardeh-e Holocaust (Tehran, 2006\7).
[65] Faslnameh-e Motalle‘at-e Ta’rikhi, Vizhenameh-e Holocaust, 14 (Fall 2006).
[66] Sayyed Mohammad Tarahi, Jaigah-e Holocaust dar Projeh-e Zahionizm (Ostureh ya vaqe‘iyyat) (Tehran, 2006).
[67] Radio Free Europe\Radio Liberty, 11 Dec. 2006.
[68] Khaleej Times, 14 Dec. 2006.
[69] RFE\RL, 18 Aug. 2006.
[70] RFE\RL, 13 Feb. 2006.
(http://www.antisemitism.tau.ac.il/asw2005/menashri.html)
During the last two centuries, Iranian politics have oscillated between extremes as the country has searched for a viable path to confront the challenges of modernity. Since the late eighteenth century, it has gradually undergone a phase of Westernization—a process that was intensified prior to the collapse of the Pahlavi Monarchy (1925−79) − only to reverse direction under the Islamic Republic.[1]
The dichotomy that has characterized recent Iranian politics is best exemplified by the distinctive visions of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. By all accounts, Khomeini’s worldview was the complete antithesis of that of the Shah. The latter’s attachment to the legacy of Cyrus the Great gave way to a return to the traditions of the Imam ‘Ali. While the Shah sought to generate loyalty to the monarchy and to Iran’s pre-Islamic heritage, the Islamic Republic’s policies are based on strict adherence to Islamic dogma and values. While the previous regime made a determined drive for Westernization, the Islamic Republic views Western influence as a major threat.
Evidently, such vastly opposing views invariably subsume the two regimes’ respective attitudes toward minority religions as well. As part of Iranian society, the Jews were inevitably influenced by the revolutionary change; as members of a religious minority, this cataclysm had distinctive ramifications for them. The revolution’s virulently anti-Israel and anti-Zionist stance, too, was bound to arouse feeling against world Jewry and affect attitudes toward the Jews in Iran.
This essay will analyze the evolution of Iran’s position toward its Jewish minority and toward Jewish issues worldwide, as well as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s harsh rhetoric regarding world Jewry and the Holocaust. In order to better comprehend the magnitude of the change, it will begin by tracing the historical legacy of Iran’s treatment of its Jews and discuss policy vis-à-vis Iranian Jewry since the Islamic Revolution. It will then examine in greater depth attempts in Iran to cast doubt on the validity of the Holocaust by focusing on the views of leading officials, scholars and media publications.
Iranian Jewry: Past Legacy and Contemporary Challenges
The history of Iranian Jewry has known periods of suppression, persecution, and harassment as well as intervals of tolerance and peaceful coexistence. All in all, however, their experience was even more trying than that of Jews in other Muslim communities. “Compared to the Jews of Iran,” Bernard Lewis wrote, “the Jews of the Ottoman Empire were living in paradise.”[2] Growing contact with the West, mainly since the early nineteenth century, and the liberal movement that gave birth to the Constitutional Revolution in Iran (1905−11), helped to ameliorate their situation somewhat. As Habib Levy stated, these events brought the Jews the “precious gift” of an opportunity to break “the invisible chains which had bound them hand and foot,” even if they “did not suddenly erase the toxic impurity of anti-Semitism” from peoples’ minds.[3] However, it was primarily during the Pahlavi monarchy, that Iranian Jews were able to improve their position in Iranian society.
The two decades under Reza Shah’s rule “brought temporary relief to the Jews and other non-Muslims.”[4] While the Jews experienced significant advances in their social and economic situation during Reza Shah’s reign, it changed even more substantially under Mohammad Reza Shah (1941-1979), reaching its zenith during the reform movement of the White Revolution (from 1963) − marking the Golden Era of Iranian Jewry. At that time, Jews enjoyed almost complete cultural and religious autonomy, unprecedented economic progress, and had political rights that were close to those of their Muslim compatriots. Even then, however, progress was often interrupted by difficult periods. Antisemitic literature continued to be published throughout the Pahlavi monarchy,[5] and anti-Jewish propaganda became more visible in Iran during the early 1950s, following the establishment of the State of Israel, and under Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq. Yet, in comparison to earlier periods, the Jews’ status improved considerably under the Pahlavis.
The Islamic Revolution turned assets into obvious liabilities for Iran’s Jews. Their prominent socio-economic standing under the monarchy, their identification with the Shah and his policies, and their attachment to Israel, Zionism, and ‘American imperialism’ were all held against them. Iran’s historical mistreatment of the Jews had left its mark on popular attitudes. The short interval of Jewish freedom under the last shah was too brief to cause a significant shift in societal attitudes toward the Jews. The basic principles of the revolutionary regime were based on radical interpretations of Islamic dogma, and Ayatollah Khomeini’s own doctrine (see below) would only exacerbate anti-Jewish sentiment. The economic challenges following the change of regime and the pressure on Iran from the outside world were also attributed, at least in part, to Israel and the Jews, who were believed to be ‘moving the wheels’ of the world economy. Moreover, the Islamic regime’s decision to become the bearer of the anti-Zionist and anti-Israel flag fuelled this feeling. Less than three decades after the revolution, approximately two-thirds of the Jewish community (including most of the religious and social leadership) have left Iran. In 2007, an estimated 25,000 Jews remain there. Although there has been no actual governmental incitement or systematic harassment, “the Iranian Jews have received harsher treatment” than other recognized religious minorities − excluding the Baha’is.[6]
Khomeini’s doctrine, as formulated prior to the Islamic Revolution, contained distinct anti-Jewish elements, combining Shi‘i ideology with typical elements of European antisemitism. On the first page of his book Al-Hukumah al-Islamiyyah (Islamic Governance), Khomeini pointed out: “Since its inception, the Islamic movement has been afflicted with the Jews,” who “established anti-Islamic propaganda and joined in various stratagems, and as you can see, this activity continues down to our present day.” The Prophet Muhammad “eliminated” the Jews of the Bani Qurayza, Khomeini recalled, because they were a troublesome group, corrupting Muslim society and “damaging Islam and the Islamic state.”[7] In his earlier book, Touzih al-Masa'el (Clarification of the Questions), he emphasized the Shi‘i doctrine of the ritual impurity of unbelievers (nejasat), listing “eleven things that contaminated,” including sperm, dogs, pigs, carrion and unbelievers: the latter’s entire body is unclean; even their “hair and fingernails and [bodily] secretion.” Products which cannot be purified (such as food) should not be bought from infidels.[8] A school textbook on Islamic culture and religion from the early years of the revolution which discussed “impure things [chizhaye napak],” similarly refers to causes of disease (microbes and viruses) and then lists the impure things, including dog, pig, alcohol, excrement, and infidels.[9] In contrast to the nationalistic Pahlavi rule, which held the Jews as equals, Khomeini’s Islamic doctrine inevitably led to the Jews being treated as inferior to the Muslim majority.
Immediately following Khomeini’s triumphant return from exile, prominent leaders of the Jewish community, headed by Chief Rabbi Yedidya Shofet, visited him to convey loyalty to the new regime. They argued that Judaism and Zionism were wholly distinct issues. Khomeini adopted this formula. Vague as it often appears, this distinction is still generally endorsed in official statements.
Once the Islamic Revolution had stabilized, venomous attacks gave way to more balanced and tolerant statements with regard to Iranian Jewry. Religious minorities (with the exception of the Baha’is) came to rely on a measure of tolerance and protection. The Jews received official recognition as a minority group, and representation in the Majlis (parliament). Freedom of worship was not substantially restricted and numerous synagogues have remained active; as small as the Jewish community is, it is still the largest in any Muslim country.
The Islamic regime’s relatively tolerant approach was noticeable on the surface, but at a deeper level matters were often more complex. Anti-Jewish sentiments abounded among segments of the population and occasionally found expression in official statements. To begin with, the distinction between Jews, Israel and Zionism was often blurred, much as it is in the Arab world. There were numerous references to Israel as a ‘bunch of Jews’, and occasional allusions to seventh century Jews as ‘the Zionists of [Prophet] Muhammad’s time’. Khomeini himself − often careful not to incite against the Jews − made a revealing slip. In 1982, he began one of his speeches by saying that those who followed in the path of Jesus Christ were even worse than the Jews, although it was perhaps “impossible to say that there is anything worse than the Jews.” He then retracted: “I mean the Jews of Israel.”[10] Over time, negative references to Jews became commonplace in Iranian parlance. According to a series of articles published on the eve of the 1998 International Day of Jerusalem in the newspaper Kar va Kargar, all Jews, regardless of where they reside, are Zionists, and retain the same basic unflattering features.[11] An article in Ettela‘at quoted the Qur’an to prove Jewish animosity to Islam: “Cursed were the unbelievers of the Children of Israel” for “their rebellion and their transgression.”[12] During the Iran-Iraq war, an Iranian military operation was given the codename Khaybar, after the Jewish oasis besieged and conquered by the Prophet. President ‘Ali Khamene’i explained that the name was in memory of the glorious victories of Islam over the Jews: Since “the front opposing us today is a Zionist front,” he continued, “this will serve as a reminder for us of the struggle of Islam against the Jews of Khaybar.”[13] The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as well as virulently antisemitic caricatures, were published repeatedly throughout this period.
For most Arab states, the conflict with Israel is chiefly a national and territorial dispute, but for Islamic Iran (much like Islamist movements, such as Hizballah and Hamas in the Arab world) it is a religious crusade. As one Iranian intellectual put it, since Israel is “by nature” the enemy of Islam and the Qur’an, it is “the religious duty [taklif-e shar‘i]” of every Muslim to confront it.[14] According to this logic, while in the past the West wished to achieve its goals through the Church, it now promoted its interests indirectly − by setting the Jews against the Muslims in order to divide the Muslim world and eventually wage war against them. Former Foreign Minister ‘Ali Akbar Velayati claimed that the creation of Israel was a “diabolical action” aimed at “creat[ing] a Zionist and anti-Islamic fracture in the heart of the political geography of Islam,” and at transplanting “the historical crisis between Christians and Jews of Europe to the Islamic world and converting it into a crisis between Jews and Muslims in Palestine.” This, he added, was a “historical deal” which in part “absolved Jews of the death of Jesus Christ” and led to the “materialization of the aspiration of extremist and racist Jews in setting up a Jewish state.”[15] All in all, Iranian policy was a combination of instigation and restraint; sowing the seeds of hatred − whether consciously or unconsciously − while preventing that hatred from being translated into violence.
The circumstances that led to the election of President Mohammad Khatami in 1997, his relatively pragmatic policy, and the more moderate statements following his election, inevitably led to some relaxation with regard to the Jews, too. Khatami’s emphasis on inter-faith dialogue and civil society and the need to defuse tension (with the West, for example), revealed a greater commitment to Iranian national interests than to doctrinaire religious convictions, and had a soothing effect on Iran’s religious minorities.
Occasionally, milder statements emerged, primarily from liberal thinkers. Hojjat ul-Islam (and Professor) Mohsen Kadivar − a devout adherent in the early days of the revolution and later one of the symbols of Iranian liberalism − maintained that the “truth of Islam does not mean the absolute falsehood of Judaism and Christianity.” While “complete salvation and reward” belongs to Muslims, he agreed, “we can both believe in one supreme truth and also not consider other religions and followers of other religions as completely false.”[16] He reminded his co-religionists that even the Prophet and Imam ‘Ali “conducted talks with Jews” and signed treaties with them.[17] Another leading Iranian intellectual, Hojjat ul-Islam Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari, further maintained that the principles of religion and human rights were not necessarily identical. The latter, he noted, derive from a philosophical concept of equality, based on the idea that “the humanism of an individual has priority over his belief,” unlike religious principles in which equality is based on faith. Based on such premises, Shabestari stressed the need for dialogue between faiths, which in his view was not only recommended (mostahab) but essential (zarurat).[18] For his part, Khatami rejected antisemitism as a Western phenomenon with “no precedent” in Islam, where Jews and Muslims have long “lived harmoniously together.” In the East, he said, “we have had despotism and dictatorship, but never fascism or Nazism,” which were Western phenomena.[19]
Nevertheless, the conservative press maintained its critical tone, even when discussing general Jewish issues. An article in Jomhuri-ye Islami rejected as incorrect Khatami’s suggestion that “anti-Judaism was a Western phenomenon with no precedent in Islam;” Islamic history, it stated, was rife with “Jewish plots against the Noble Prophet,” and the Holy Book warned against the Jews’ “enmity [‘adavat]” and “rancor (kineh]” toward Muslims.[20] Another article in Kayhan castigated Jews for viewing Muslims as “inferior peoples,” who were born only to slavery [bardagi] and doomed to remain thus forever.[21] Iranian sources further argued that the “Talmudic mentality” approved “the logic of force,”[22] advocating “the annihilation of the Muslims and legitimiz[ing] the shedding of their blood.”[23] While Islam forbade terrorism, another article continued, their “misleading Torah” explicitly commanded them: “Kill their [enemy’s] men, women, and children; kill even their cattle and sheep; burn their farmlands and destroy their abode.” The “thought process” of the Zionists and of Hitler, the article concluded, was similar.[24]
Casting Doubt on the Holocaust
In recent years Iran has become a major center for disseminating radical views regarding the Holocaust. Such views combine typical Western denial claims with Middle Eastern arguments (see below), and some distinctive Iranian revolutionary assertions. It should be stressed that while most Iranian sources do not openly deny the Holocaust altogether, they attempt to distort it, belittle its historical significance, or trivialize Holocaust atrocities. To begin with, Iranian sources stressed that obsessive Jewish references to the Holocaust were part of an orchestrated conspiracy to attract sympathy for Zionism and win international support for the establishment of Israel. Further, they argued, the Jews used Holocaust references to lend legitimacy to Zionist policies, further suppress the Palestinians and advance Zionist schemes.
As Middle East scholars Meir Litvak and Esther Webman demonstrate, representations of the Holocaust in the Muslim World − ranging from condemnation to justification or denial − have become criteria according to which Jews in general, and the State of Israel, in particular, are judged. While treatment of the Holocaust has never been monolithic, one early assertion has remained relatively constant: The Jews cultivated a compelling sense of sympathy following World War II, which was consequently exploited to mobilize support for the establishment of their state. Adolf Hitler’s Nazi antisemitism was justified, such arguments go, in light of Jewish sedition, financial dominance of the West, and currently, Israeli policy. The difficulty of reconciling the Jews’ weakness and vulnerability in Europe with their newfound strength in the Middle East led a growing number of Muslims to highlight elements of Holocaust denial, as opposed to merely justifying this genocide.[25] Holocaust denial in Iran, Litvak continues, is one manifestation of a broader fusion between Iran's vehemently anti-Zionist position and traditional anti-Jewish themes. Ahmadinejad’s portrayal of the Holocaust as a legend or myth is thus neither a new nor uniquely personal obsession but an intensification of themes prevalent in Islamic Iran’s ideological discourse.[26] In line with the Arab Middle East, Iranian emphasis on Holocaust denial gained momentum in the late 1990s, even when Khatami’s pro-reform camp was reaching the peak of its power.
The following commentary, published in Tehran Times, six months after Khatami’s election, reflects the multi-dimensional charges, as well as the harsh language, often used to cast doubt on the Holocaust. It denounces the so-called Kosher brotherhood, as a group “too long intent on Goebbels-style propaganda, acting helpless and crying wolf as the occasion required, picking random targets for destruction and annihilation throughout the Middle East.” They behave as an “American envoy at one time, as plenipotentiaries for some European states” at others and sometimes as “trained henchmen and paid killers, becoming pimps and tarts.”[27] Oddly, Iranian sources at times stress the harm done to Jews in World War II in a fairly objective way, but this is mainly to emphasize that such atrocities occurred in the West; or to draw a comparison with ‘the holocaust of our days’ − that of the Palestinians.[28] Iran’s representative in the UN Geneva office further argued that because Europe “wished to get rid” of the Jews, it rushed to establish a state for them. The Palestinians were thus called to “pay the price of Europeans’ crimes in Auschwitz and Treblinka.”[29] Moreover, just as the Europeans were right to fight Hitler, the Palestinians are justified in confronting “the Zionist invaders.”[30] Rafsanjani typically added that Israel was “illegal, just as the Nazis’ presence in France was.”[31]
The trial of Roger Garaudy, who was convicted in a Paris court for contesting crimes against humanity,[32] was exploited by Iran in order to establish a link to Iranian claims against Israel, Zionism, and world Jewry. Following his trial, Garaudy was invited to Tehran where he was received by top officials. The visit was used to expose Iranians to his views and express support for his ‘scientific studies’, but also as an opportunity to add their own particular charges. They condemned Israel for bringing about a ‘Palestinian holocaust’ and denounced the West for establishing Israel and for bringing Garaudy to trial while at the same time defending British author Salman Rushdie who was accused of defaming Islam. Meeting Garaudy (20 April 1998), Iran's Supreme Leader ‘Ali Khamene’i pointed to the similarities between Zionism and Nazism, and castigated the West, which on the one hand deplored “the racist behavior of the Nazis,” but at the same time supported the Zionists’ “Nazi-like behavior.”[33] President Mohammad Khatami grieved that “a thinker” and “a believer” like Garaudy was brought to trial merely for publishing research which was “displeasing to the West.”[34]
Addressing an international conference on Palestine in Tehran (April 2001), Khamene’i further argued that there was “evidence on hand that a large number of non-Jewish hooligans and thugs of Eastern Europe were forced to migrate to Palestine as Jews.” The purpose, he said, was “to install in the heart of the Islamic world an anti-Islamic state under the guise of supporting the victims of racism.” Khamene’i added that historical documents attested to “close collaboration of the Zionists with Nazi Germany,” and that the “exaggerated numbers” of Jews killed in the Holocaust, were “fabricated to solicit the sympathy of world public opinion, lay the ground for the occupation of Palestine and justify the atrocities of the Zionists.”[35] An article in Tehran Times added that during the war, some poor non-Zionist Jews were deliberately sacrificed to further the hideous goal of establishing a Jewish state. According to the writer, “historical documents” proved that the massacre of Jews was “limited to the working class”—indicating collaboration between the Nazi regime and the Zionist lobby in purging Jews who were considered insignificant.[36]
The hard-line press adopted an extremely radical tone. An article in Jomhuri-ye Islami maintained that “the false slogan of the murder of millions of Jews” was a “ridiculous pretext” through which the Zionists managed to convince world public opinion of the need to establish a Jewish state. Every writer, researcher and historian, who sought to refute “this historical allegation on the basis of reliable evidence,” as did Roger Garaudy, was silenced.[37] Garaudy was brought to trial even though his claim was “not far from the truth” and many scholars considered the events of Auschwitz to be a “big lie,” a Resalat article claimed, suggesting that it was quite possible, that instead of “writing the history” of the Nazi gas chambers, Western thinkers had “invented history.”[38] A Tehran Times article defended the rights of scholars to doubt the “so-called Holocaust” which was the “brainchild of the Zionists,” designed to “seek sympathies from the West” and “grab billions of dollars annually” from them. To keep their “weapon of blackmail vibrant,” the article continued, they make innocent people like Garaudy the “targets of their irrational attacks.”[39]
Referring to Garaudy’s trial, an article in Kayhan International typically termed it a “judicial holocaust” and the “trial of freedom of speech.” It claimed that the West had become “an obvious hostage” to the theory of “original sin,” to the point that countries such as France did not mind even violating their own founding principles just to appease the Zionists. Garaudy was only guilty “of not blindly towing the Zionist line” of “six million Jews killed.” By bringing such people to trial, the article added, “Europe wants to atone for its [own] periodic persecution of Jews,” while Jews “enjoyed every basic right and rose to prominent positions in the Muslim world.” Oddly, in France, “one can say anything against [French] national interests,” but a single word “against the preposterous fables of Israel and its vocal lobbies” was considered a crime. This was the result of “the Semitic myth” that had been “blown out of proportion” by the Zionists who controlled “the American state apparatus and economy.” This “anti-Semitic bug” has “so horrifyingly bitten the West” that many seem to consider the Jews as the only Semites, and to turn a blind eye to oppression of the Palestinians.[40] Garaudy was put on trial merely for expressing an “expert judgment,” that the gas chambers were among “the founding myths of the usurper state known as Israel.” Trying him was “tantamount to the dawn of a dark era of witch hunting,” the article concluded.[41]
Tehran Times seemed especially obsessed with the Holocaust. Perhaps “the biggest lie in history,” one article maintained, took shape during the Nuremberg trials, where confessions “obtained by means of torture” became “the cornerstone of the official Auschwitz version.”[42] No one has ever asked the “gas chamber witnesses” any critical questions and, thus, “the terrible accusation” of genocide, remained based upon “the lies of a handful of Jewish swindlers like Rudolf Vrba, Filip Mueller and Elie Wiesel,” and “the confessions of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss who was tortured for three days before signing the statement his tormentors had prepared for him.”[43] There is no evidence on record for the gassing “of even one human being in a German camp,” it added, and German documents “directly refute” the “Holocaust story.”[44] According to an article published in Tehran Times, about 150,000 prisoners died in Auschwitz, “mostly from diseases.” There were also executions, it admitted, but this was only “for acts of resistance and sabotage.” Yet, it complained, the “massive reductions” of the Auschwitz death toll do not affect the “sacrosanct figure” of six million Jewish victims, which “remains as solid as the pyramids.”[45] Had Auschwitz been an extermination camp, another article in the Tehran Times suggested, “virtually no Jew would have survived it,” yet memoirs of former Auschwitz inmates filled entire libraries. Such “professional survivors” who present themselves as witnesses of the Holocaust are themselves “living proof that the alleged extermination of the Jews did not take place.”[46]
Another Tehran Times article reiterated that the Holocaust, “one of the biggest frauds of the outgoing century,” was a story “made up by Zionists to blackmail the West.” It regretted that those who dared to reveal ‘the truth’ were persecuted. One such case was the Swiss Gaston-Armand Amaudruz, who “proved with logic and evidence” that the Zionists’ claim was “false and unsubstantiated,” and was consequently sentenced to one year in prison under the Swiss anti-racism law. Similarly, in Britain, David Irving lost his libel battle in a British court to defend his views on the Holocaust. Yet, while the West paid reparations for “baseless claims,” it turned a blind eye to the Palestinians’ suffering. Their attitude, the article declared, was “a token of their subservience to Zionist circles, particularly their submission to the pro-Zionist US administration.”[47] The Jews claimed a “right to be paranoid,” another article continued, because they felt that the world was “after them.” Yet, not only governments, but all major publishing houses, newspapers and the entertainment industry in the US were headed by Jews. However, did being “historically persecuted,” give them the right to rule the world, to “occupy it, usurp it, control it?”[48] Most international financial institutions in the world, another article continued, were controlled and run by Zionists. Zionists prepared the ground through propaganda bombardment and brainwashing public opinion. They could even prevent scientific research if its conclusions did not fit their line. Thus, it asserted, Roger Garaudy wrote a book, “based purely on research,” which challenged the Holocaust and other notions exaggerating the number of Jews killed, but due to Zionist influence in the French judicial system, he was “fined for revealing historical facts.”[49]
While Garaudy was the main guest of honor in Iran in 1998, other figures known for Holocaust distortion were also welcomed. German-born Fredrick Toben (who lives in Australia) arrived in December 1999. According to Kayhan International article, Toben was sentenced to jail in Germany (but subsequently released) in November 1999 for having exposed the fabrications of the gas chambers. Hitler was criminal, the article agreed, but why distort facts “to magnify the killings of a few thousand Jews into the preposterous figure of six million.” In the Christian West, it noted, one could insult Jesus Christ and the fundamentals of the faith, but it was “a crime to question the holocaust.” Any research on the number of Jews killed, brought on “the wrath of Zion.”[50]
The link between events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Holocaust was made even more frequently following the outbreak of the second intifada in 2000. Reporting from the West Bank, IRNA stated on the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day, 2001, that that year the commemoration had occurred in the midst of “a genocidal war” launched by the Jews against the Palestinians. Indeed, the report went on, the brutality and utter callousness of Israeli repression had prompted the analogy between “the German holocaust” against Jews and “the Jewish holocaust” against the Palestinians. The siege and encirclement of the Palestinian population, which had effectively turned these towns and villages into “concentration camps,” IRNA maintained, was hardly an un-Nazi practice.[51]
The Ahmadinejad Factor
Radical views regarding the Holocaust, as noted above, were pronounced clearly long before Ahmadinejad’s presidency. However, Ahmadinejad’s critical tone, his frequent and inflammatory statements, and the fact that he is the incumbent head of state, have combined to further such attitudes in Iran and attract worldwide attention. Moreover, Ahmadinejad’s public support for such a position has encouraged a series of initiatives in Iran − conferences, a caricature contest, widespread media coverage and books.
One might have thought that Ahmadinejad, whose election was due largely to his promise to improve the lot of the underprivileged, would have concentrated on domestic (socio-economic) issues rather than on the Holocaust. Moreover, while Iran’s central objective seems to be buying time until it acquires a nuclear capability, such declarations and the consequent attention to Iranian radicalism would seem to be detrimental to its nuclear ambitions. The presence of American forces stationed close to Iranian borders and US influence encircling Iran, too, might be considered further inducement for Ahmadinejad to pay more attention to the ‘near abroad’ than to threaten to eradicate Israel or question the Holocaust. Yet, Ahmadinejad has taken every opportunity to voice his radical views.
On 26 October 2005, he presented his vision of a world without Israel or the US, urging that Israel be wiped off the face of the map.[52] On 8 December, during the Islamic Conference Organization in Mecca, he made headlines by calling the Holocaust into question. Some European countries maintain that Hitler “burned millions of oppressed Jews in crematoria,” he said, and “if someone proves the opposite, they convict him and throw him into prison.” Although he did not accept this claim of the annihilation of European Jewry, even assuming it was true: “Does the killing of oppressed Jews by Hitler” justify support for the Zionist regime?[53] On 13 December, responding to the international uproar caused by his statements, he added: The Holocaust “has never been presented for a free scientific debate, and has become a red line and a myth that cannot be discussed.”[54] On 15 December, he went even further. They have invented “a legend” under the name “Massacre of the Jews,” he said, which they hold higher than God, religion and the prophets. “Why are you using those killings as a pretext to come to the heart of the Islamic world and dear Palestine and impose a phony Zionist regime?” he asked. He then appealed to Europe: “If you have committed a crime, it’s good if you allocate a part of your country or Europe, America, Canada, or Alaska to them so that they can establish [there] a country for themselves.”[55]
In January 2006, following the Danish cartoon imbroglio, Ahmadinejad announced a Holocaust cartoon contest and an ‘academic’ conference to be held later in the year. Why, he asked, was it acceptable to defame the Prophet of Islam but not simply to question the veracity of an historical event? On 11 February 2006, in a televised address to a rally, he referred to Western scorn for Holocaust denial as “a medieval way of thinking.”[56] Ahmadinejad often frames the issue around the identity of his interlocutor, such as his open letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and interview with Der Spiegel, in which he emphasized the supposed injustice of blaming innocent young Germans and hinted at a global conspiracy propagating this myth to further Zionist and Israeli interests.[57] Since early 2006, however, Ahmadinejad has focused on his purported desire for an honest intellectual examination of the issue and its historical implications.[58] Thus, a consistent feature of his position is that regardless of the historical facts surrounding the Holocaust, the “real holocaust” is that which the Israelis are perpetrating against the Palestinians.
Ahmadinejad’s announcement of a conference on the Holocaust spawned worldwide condemnation and the meeting was postponed on numerous occasions. However, the “Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision” conference ultimately took place on 11−12 December 2006. Rasoul Mousavi, head of the Foreign Ministry’s Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS), which organized the event, explained the need for the conference as an opportunity for scholars to discuss the subject “away from Western taboos and the restriction imposed on them in Europe.”[59] Thus, the alleged lack of academic freedom of inquiry regarding the Holocaust became the premise for holding such a conference. This notion is reflected in the IPIS call for papers:
Recently, ‘the Holocaust’ turned into a main factor to influence the history and even the destiny of certain nations. The Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS) believes that a suitable scientific and research opportunity and space shall be provided for researchers and for those interested in order to clarify the hidden and open corners of this issue, which is considered as the very important preoccupation of our world today.[60]
The participation of six delegates from the Jewish ultra-Orthodox and anti-Zionist Neturei Karta received particular attention. While this group does not deny the Holocaust or challenge the validity of accepted death toll figures, they deemed their front-row presence at the event important “to lessen the hatred present in the entire Arab people against Jews,” according to Jerusalem representative of the group, Israel Hirsch.[61] However, their attendance can better be explained by the features common to both Neturei Karta’s ideology and Ahmadinejad’s anti-Israel rhetoric. Acknowledging the veracity of the Holocaust, Neturei Karta’s Rabbi Yisroel Feldman stated in his address prepared for the conference (and read there by Rabbi Aharon Cohen): “There is also no moral justification for using these events to dispossess and occupy another people who have nothing whatsoever to do with what was done in Europe. Let Europe make amends for what took place if they so desire, not the Palestinians.”[62]
The remainder of the conference participants can be classified loosely into two groups: pseudo-academics and leaders of extremist groups from the West, who are alienated in their respective countries due to their radical views; and individuals from Arab and Muslim countries. Those belonging to the first group − including ex-Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and prominent revisionist thinkers such as Frederick Toben, director of Australia’s Adelaide Institute, American Bradley R. Smith, and French Professor Robert Faurisson − appeared to have dominated the floor at the conference, easily overshadowing Iranian and Muslim representatives.
Reflecting the notions discussed at the conference, the leading submissions to the Iranian Holocaust cartoon contest were also on display. Using traditional antisemitic stereotypes, the cartoons portrayed Israel’s exploitation of the Holocaust, to justify brutality in the Middle East and oppression of Palestinians. The winning entry, submitted by a Moroccan, ‘Abdallah Derkaoui, depicted an Israeli crane piling large cement blocks on Israel’s security wall, gradually obscuring al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem; an image of a Nazi concentration camp covered the wall.[63]
Such attitudes towards the Holocaust by top Iranian officials, obsessive media treatment of the issue, and the lack of alternative sources of information, combined with a negative image of the Jews and denunciations of Israeli politics, gave such contentions additional force.
Recently, there has been a proliferation of pseudo-academic and objective studies in Iran. In a way, the IPIS conference was an example of an attempt to conduct a supposedly fair academic review. Individual studies or collective works quickly followed. One such book authored by Mohammad Taghi Taghipour, Beyond the Holocaust Scene, was published by the Tehran-based Political Science & Research Institute (PSRI).[64] In the preface, PSRI states that its aim is to expose the legendary nature and historical distortion of the Holocaust. Contrary to the efforts of the Zionists’ propaganda machinery, it maintained, free thinkers were now casting doubts on such claims. The book promises to expose in a “comprehensive, but precise, academic, and documented” study the Zionists’ false claims about the issue (pp. 7−8). It contends that there was no Nazi scheme to eliminate Jews, although there were − as in any other war − prisoner camps where people from all nationalities were held. It also maintains that in 1942 typhoid broke out in some German camps, including Auschwitz, which led to some casualties (pp. 88−90). According to the study, recent documents show that there were no gas chambers in the Third Reich (pp. 95−6). In short, according to Taghipour, all available documentation confirmed that the Holocaust was “one big historical lie” created by world Zionism to advance their political goal of a Jewish state. Further, Europeans and Americans − to compensate for a crime that never took place − agreed to this scheme for which the Palestinians have to pay the price (pp. 117−118, 126).
The Historical Studies Quarterly published by PSRI devoted its fall 2006 edition to the Holocaust. Among the titles were: “Did 6 Million Really Die?” and “Truth Burning Furnaces.”[65] Another new book on the Holocaust, The Place of the Holocaust in the Zionist Project (Myth or Reality), by Sayyed Mohammad Tarahi, was published by the Center for Islamic Revolution Documents.[66] The book maintains that the Holocaust was an instrument, or a legend (afsaneh), created to justify the establishment of the Jewish state. The book promises to prove scientifically the various dimensions of the Holocaust myth (Ostureh) (pp. 17−21). In its five chapters the book explores the so-called historical, cultural, religious, political, and economic aspects of the Holocaust. Accordingly, the promotion of this myth was instrumental in achieving the Zionists’ political goals and making it a symbol of their sufferings (mazlumiyyat) in order to extract reparations. It concludes that no nation should be rebuked for emphasizing its sufferings, yet propagating and profiting unjustly from them should be admonished (pp. 261−7).
Additionally, Iranian TV programming has increasingly broadcast content that denigrates Jews and distorts the historical significance of the Holocaust. Under the guise of scholarly and learned discussion they transmit venomous views about the Jews and the Holocaust, which are disseminated to the wider population.
Criticism of Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust rhetoric has not been limited to Western figures; opposition has also emerged from among intellectuals and members of the Iranian Jewish community. Referring to the Tehran conference, Sadegh Zibakalam, a political science professor at Tehran University and one of the most vociferous opponents of Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust arguments, stated:
As an Iranian, I’m perplexed and astonished by the actions of our Foreign Ministry. I don't know what is the honor of gathering a group of anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, and racists—and bring them to Iran, for what?… And this is happening at a time when our nuclear case is at the UN and we have to do our best to gain the trust of the international community [sic].[67]
Elsewhere, he asserted that the Foreign Ministry was trying “to please the president,” and in so doing failed to properly inform him of the ramifications of his declarations. Other like-minded individuals joined in slamming Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric for its negative impact on Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its reputation in the international community. ‘Abbas ‘Abdi, one of the student leaders of the 1979 US embassy siege, warned of the “political and economic price” that would accompany Ahmadinejad’s initiatives. “What do we gain by denying the Holocaust,” he asked in an interview with E‘temad-e Melli. “It is best for us as humans to condemn the Holocaust and even participate in its memorials in order to confront Zionist crimes.”[68] The exiled Iranian cartoonist Nikahang Kosar viewed the Holocaust cartoon exhibition as “disrespect to the survivors” of the Holocaust and those who suffered during the war, adding: “I don’t think it’s very humane to use this tool to loathe Israel or to question the legitimacy of the Israeli regime.”[69] Haroun Yahaya’i, head of Iran’s Jewish community, also spoke out. Unlike the political and economic concerns of intellectuals and cartoonists, Yahaya’i’s remarks stemmed from personal offense and a sense of betrayal. He described the Holocaust as one of the 20th century's “most obvious and saddest events” and asked: “How is it possible to ignore all the undeniable evidence existing for the killing and exile of the Jews in Europe during World War II?” Holding a “Holocaust denial seminar” in Iran would not achieve anything for the Iranians, merely soothe “the complexes of racists.”[70]
Conclusions
What then are Iran’s reasons for promulgating such views? The immediate explanation may simply be a sincere belief in the need to eliminate Israel and a conviction that the Holocaust was a primary tool used to establish the Jewish state and justify the suppression of the Palestinians. America’s involvement in Iraq and growing Iranian oil income may have contributed to a perceived sense of strength. In addition, Ahmadinejad may hope to consolidate his political position at home by giving voice to extremist views against Israel. With Iran’s domestic problems continuing to multiply, he may also be trying to divert attention away from economic issues and toward an external enemy in order to mollify public opinion. Finally, voicing such opinions and taking the lead in supporting the Palestinian cause may be Ahmadinejad’s way of promoting Iranian leadership in the Islamic world. Regardless of the reasons for his frequent harangues on the Holocaust, the strong sentiments held against Jews (although not necessarily against the Jews of Iran) by the president and the media serve to further radicalize such views in Iranian society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*] Professor in the Department of Middle Eastern and African History, Director of the Center of Iranian Studies and Incumbent of the Parviz and Pouran Nazarian Chair for Modern Iranian Studies, Tel Aviv University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] For a detailed analysis on the developments discussed here in a broader historical perspective, see David Menashri, Post-Revolutionary Politics in Iran: Religion, Society and Power (London, 2000). For a discussion of the Jews in Iran, see David Menashri, “The Jews of Iran: Between the Shah and Khomeini,” in Sander Gilman and Steven Katz (eds.), Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis (New York University Press, 1991), pp. 353−71; idem, “The Pahlavi Monarchy and the Islamic Revolution,” in Houman Sarshar (ed.), Esther's Children: A Portrait of Iranian Jews (Center for Iranian Jewish Oral History, 2002), pp. 381−402; see also Antisemitism Worldwide, 1994-2001, Stephen Roth Institute, Tel Aviv University.
I wish to thank the research assistants in the Center for Iranian Studies − Brandon Friedman, Rachel Kantz and Michael Maze − for their help in research for this paper.
[2] Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam (Princeton University Press, 1984), p. 166.
[3] Habib Levy, Comprehensive History of the Jews of Iran (Costa Mesa, CA, 1999), pp. 483, 495.
[4] Eliz Sanasarian, Religious Minorities in Iran (Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 46.
[5] Amnon Netzer, “Anti-Semitism in Iran: 1925-1950,” and Michael Zand, “The Image of the Jew among Iranians during the Second Half of the Twentieth Century: 1945-1979,” Pe‘amim 29 (1986), pp. 5−31 and 109−39, respectively (in Hebrew); Jaleh Pir-Nazar, “Chehreh-ye Yahud dar Athar-e Seh Nevisandeh-ye Motejadded-e Irani,” Iran-Nameh 13/4 (Spring 1995), pp. 483−502.
[6] Sanasarian, Religious Minorities in Iran, p. 110.
[7] Ruhollah Khomeini, Al-Hukumah al-Islamiyyah (1970), pp. 7, 83, 121. See also Hamid Algar, Islam and Revolution: Writing and Declarations of Imam Khomeini (Berkeley, 1981), p. 127.
[8] Ruhollah Khomeini, Towzih al-Masa'el (Tehran, 1962), pp. 15, 18.
[9] Farhang-e Islami va Ta‘limat-e Dini, fifth year elementary school, 1981/2 edition, pp. 121−2.
[10] Jomhuri-ye Islami, 20 Sept. 1982.
[11] Kar va Kargar, 17 Jan. 1998.
[12] Sura of the Table, 82, in Ettela`at, 28 Feb. 1984.
[13] Kayhan, 25 Feb. 1984 (all references to Kayhan are to the paper published in Tehran). Majlis Speaker ‘Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani pointed out a similar connection in a speech in the House: Kayhan, 26 Feb. 1984.
[14] ‘Ali Akbar Behbudikhwah, “Naqd Toujihat-e Ta`rikhi-ye Sahionism dar moured-e Mashru‘iyyat-e Rejim-e Qods,” Siyasat-e Khareji 2 (Tir-Sharivar 1368\1989), pp. 314−17.
[15] `Ali Akbar Velayati, Iran va Masa’leh-e Felastin (Iran and the Question of Palestine) (Tehran: 1997), pp. IV−VI, in English, Introduction , and pp. 89−90, 181−2.
[16] Salam, 1 Jan. 1998.
[17] Hamshahri, 15 Nov. 1998 − DR.
[18] Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari, “Islam va Masihiyat-e Orupa’i” (Islam and European Christianity), Siyasat-e Khareji 4/3 (Mehr-Azar 1989), pp. 409-15. See also Mohsen Kadivar and Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari, “Din, Modara va Khoshunat” (Religion, Tolerance and Violence), Kiyan 45 (Jan.-March 1999), pp. 6−19.
[19] CNN, 7 Jan. 1998.
[20] Jomhuri-ye Islami, 10 Jan. 1998.
[21] Kayhan, 31 Oct. 1994.
[22] Radio Tehran, 26 Feb. – DR, 28 Feb. 1994.
[23] Kayhan al-‘Arabi, 27 Feb. – DR, 7 March 1994.
[24] Kayhan, 11 March – DR, 18 March. Another article reiterated the comparison between Zionism and Nazism following Operation Grapes of Wrath: Kayhan, 21 April 1996.
[25] Meir Litvak and Esther Webman, “The Representation of the Holocaust in the Arab World,” Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Studies; Tel Aviv University, 2006; in Hebrew; idem, “The Representation of the Holocaust in the Arab World,” The Journal of Israeli History, 1 (Spring 2004), pp. 100−15.
[26] Meir Litvak, IranPulse, Center for Iranian Studies, Tel Aviv University, 3 (11 Sept. 2006).
[27] Tehran Times, 28 Dec. 1997.
[28]. Kayhan, 1 March 1994.
[29]. Ettela‘at, 24 Feb.; Kayhan, 1 March 1994.
[30] Radio Tehran, 20 Oct. – DR, 21 Oct. 1994. Similarly, Kayhan, 1 March 1994.
[31] Le Figaro, 12 Sept. – DR, 13 Sept. 1994.
[32] See http://antisemitism.tau.ac.il/asw98-9/france.htm.
[33] IRNA, 20 April 1998 − DR.
[34] Tehran TV, 19 Jan. 1998 − DR.
[35] IRNA, 24 April 2001. Palestinian President, Mahmud ‘Abbas accused the Zionist Movement, in his doctoral thesis, of cooperating with the Nazis, due to their shared interests. Litvak and Webman, “The Representation of the Holocaust” (in English), p. 108.
[36] Tehran Times, 7 May 2000.
[37] Jomhuri-ye Islami, 14 Jan. 1999.
[38] Resalat, 13 Jan. 1998 − DR.
[39] Tehran Times, 4 April 1998.
[40] Kayhan International, 20 April 1998.
[41] Kayhan International, 19 Jan. 1998.
[42] Tehran Times, 25 Jan. 2001.
[43] Tehran Times, 17 Feb. 2001.
[44] Tehran Times, 1 Feb. 2001.
[45] Tehran Times, 29 Jan. 2001.
[46] Tehran Times,19 Feb. 2001.
[47] Tehran Times, 10, 11, 12 April 2000.
[48] Tehran Times, 28 Sept. 2000.
[49] Tehran Times, 4 July 1999.
[50] Kayhan International, 6 Dec. 1999.
[51] IRNA, 19 April 2001.
[52] The Guardian, 27 Oct. 2005.
[53] MEMRI, “The Role of Holocaust Denial in the Ideology and Strategy of the Iranian Regime,” 15 Dec. 2006.
[54] MEMRI, “Iranian Leaders: Statements and Positions (Part I),” 5 Jan. 2006.
[55] MEMRI, “The Role of Holocaust Denial in the Ideology and Strategy of the Iranian Regime,” 15 Dec. 2006.
[56] MEMRI, “Ahmadinejad on the ‘Myth of the Holocaust’,” 1 4 Feb. 2006.
[57] IRNA, 28 Aug. and Der Spiegel, interview with Ahmadinejad, 30 May 2006.
[58] MEMRI, “The Resolution of the Holocaust Issue Will End in the Destruction of Israel,” 15 June 2006.
[59] International Herald Tribune, 11 Dec. 2006.
[60] IPIS Call for Papers: http://www.ipis.ir
[61] Ynet News, 12 Dec. 2006.
[62] Neturei Karta website: http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Speeches/2006Iran-Feldman.cfm
[63] AP, 2 Nov. 2006; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15525133/; http://www.haaretz.com/ hasen/spages/782695.html. For the winning cartoons see: http://www.irancartoon.com/120/ holocaust/index.htm.
[64] Mohammad Taghi Taghipour, Pas Pardeh-e Holocaust (Tehran, 2006\7).
[65] Faslnameh-e Motalle‘at-e Ta’rikhi, Vizhenameh-e Holocaust, 14 (Fall 2006).
[66] Sayyed Mohammad Tarahi, Jaigah-e Holocaust dar Projeh-e Zahionizm (Ostureh ya vaqe‘iyyat) (Tehran, 2006).
[67] Radio Free Europe\Radio Liberty, 11 Dec. 2006.
[68] Khaleej Times, 14 Dec. 2006.
[69] RFE\RL, 18 Aug. 2006.
[70] RFE\RL, 13 Feb. 2006.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Mom, They're Staring at You
Jackie Levin. Sep 15 2006 (http://cornellsun.com/node/18292). Accessed May 17, 2007.
“There’s something I’d like to get off my chest here because it’s been a real crowd-pleaser these days. [pause] I’m Iranian ... and Jewish! Now, I know what you’re all thinking: ‘Should I hate him ... or hate him?’” — comedian Dan Ahdoot.
Like the very funny Mr. Ahdoot, I, too, am an Iranian Jew. Given the current state of global affairs, I realize this combination sounds about as likely as Tom Cruise’s return to Earth or Mel Gibson advocating Zionism, but alas, it is true. There are all of about, say, six of us in the world — but we do exist.
Being an Iranian Jew is a difficult situation to be in, mainly because of all the internal conflicts that arise from it. For instance, should I enrich uranium or my wallet? Rice or couscous? Turban or yarmulke? But the toughest part of being an Iranian Jew isn’t so much hating yourself as it is surviving as the first generation child of Iranian Jewish parents — or F.O.B.s, as I more affectionately like to call them. [If you are unfamiliar with the term, an F.O.B. is someone who is “Fresh Off the Boat” — an immigrant, to be precise.] Talk about a double-whammy. My parents are Jewish ... and Middle Eastern! If you take your most overprotective Jewish mother and times her by a thousand, you might begin to have an idea of what I’m talking about here.
I have friends from countries like ... England ... who try to convince me they are the children of F.O.B.s. I tell them that being an F.O.B.-child in America is much like being a war veteran — it’s traumatic, disquieting and disturbing on all levels —and not something that can just be arbitrarily claimed. It is a title which must be earned. If your parents can speak clear, unaccented English, you are probably not the child of F.O.B.s. If your parents know who Jimi Hendrix is, you are probably not the child of F.O.B.s. And if your mother was a member of the PTA, you are probably not the child of F.O.B.s.
But just in case there is still any confusion, I have come up with a guide in determining whether or not you are the child of F.O.B.s.
You know you are a F.O.B.-child if ...
... if your parents always let you do whatever you wanted in high school ... as long as you were doing it with other kids of your ethnic group.
“Vhat? You are coming home at te-ree AM? You are heetch-hiking vit some te-ruck derivers? Dey are offering you co-cane? ... Ohh, ohh, ohkay. As long as Fariba’s parents said ees okay, too. See you later, darleeng.”
... if your mother never liked that one white friend of yours who insisted on calling her by her first name.
“Hi Parveen! I love your new hairdo. What’s new??” “No-teeng, Brittany. Um, vhat a nice, um, tattoo you have.”
...if your parents never drove you to school.
“In EE-ron, I had to valk tventy-four keelometers on hot sand to get to es-chool! Vhat is dees ‘car-pool’?? Did Brittany teach you dees!? You valk!”
...if your parents don’t have a clue about modern technology and/or the internet.
“Ask Goo-gel if he has Prada dress in size nine!” “Ask Vikipedia how much sugar for baklava.” “I pressed the es-pace bar! Vhy com-pu-ter no turn on?”
... if, as a girl, your dad threatens to beat you for dating, yet slips your older brother twenties for strip clubs.
“Young lady, you date vhen you are married!” “Es-steven, get von vit big be-reasts.”
...if your parents talk loudly and indiscriminately about other people in public places, not caring and/or realizing if they are overheard.
“Ja-kee, your mo-ther says dat girl looks like vhite te-rash! And she theenks her Cha-nel bag is fake! Vhat you theenk?”
... if your parents misuse common phrases in horrifying ways, and almost always in conversation with your friends.
“Alex, you look so built up! Have you been leef-teeng irons? I can see you vere pumping it out!”
...if your dad only values math and science classes.
... if your house smells like Sangam at dinner time.
... if your mom decks out in designer clothing and furs on a ten minute jaunt to the supermarket “just in case” she runs into other members of your ethnic community.
... if you told your friends your dad was related to Saddam. Not to be funny, but because it might be true.
... if your friends believed you.
... if your mom has tried using coupons at the Dollar Tree.
... if your parents answer your private cellular phone as though it were a main house line.
... if your mom would be just as happy if you got your MRS. as she would be if you got your M.D. or phD.
... if family reunions resemble Al-Qaeda gatherings.
... if everything is compared to how it was in the “mother country.”
... if your parents love America, but hate everyone here.
If you have personally experienced any of these particular traumas, or worse, Congratulations: you probably are the child of F.O.B.s!
So the next time your mother tries to haggle at The Gap or your father declares any male friend of yours with an earring “gay,” and you’re left sitting there fantasizing about different ways to die, just remember: being a F.O.B.-child is not without its advantages. Chances are you’re multi-lingual, which is very cool, and you probably get to travel to different countries to visit relatives who are still O.B. (On the Boat). And, best of all, if you’re lucky, your culture probably comes along with some pretty decent food.
So cheer up! Things could have been a lot worse.
We could have been Canadian.
Jackie Levin is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at jl482@cornell.edu. Everything In Its Right Place appears alternate Fridays.
“There’s something I’d like to get off my chest here because it’s been a real crowd-pleaser these days. [pause] I’m Iranian ... and Jewish! Now, I know what you’re all thinking: ‘Should I hate him ... or hate him?’” — comedian Dan Ahdoot.
Like the very funny Mr. Ahdoot, I, too, am an Iranian Jew. Given the current state of global affairs, I realize this combination sounds about as likely as Tom Cruise’s return to Earth or Mel Gibson advocating Zionism, but alas, it is true. There are all of about, say, six of us in the world — but we do exist.
Being an Iranian Jew is a difficult situation to be in, mainly because of all the internal conflicts that arise from it. For instance, should I enrich uranium or my wallet? Rice or couscous? Turban or yarmulke? But the toughest part of being an Iranian Jew isn’t so much hating yourself as it is surviving as the first generation child of Iranian Jewish parents — or F.O.B.s, as I more affectionately like to call them. [If you are unfamiliar with the term, an F.O.B. is someone who is “Fresh Off the Boat” — an immigrant, to be precise.] Talk about a double-whammy. My parents are Jewish ... and Middle Eastern! If you take your most overprotective Jewish mother and times her by a thousand, you might begin to have an idea of what I’m talking about here.
I have friends from countries like ... England ... who try to convince me they are the children of F.O.B.s. I tell them that being an F.O.B.-child in America is much like being a war veteran — it’s traumatic, disquieting and disturbing on all levels —and not something that can just be arbitrarily claimed. It is a title which must be earned. If your parents can speak clear, unaccented English, you are probably not the child of F.O.B.s. If your parents know who Jimi Hendrix is, you are probably not the child of F.O.B.s. And if your mother was a member of the PTA, you are probably not the child of F.O.B.s.
But just in case there is still any confusion, I have come up with a guide in determining whether or not you are the child of F.O.B.s.
You know you are a F.O.B.-child if ...
... if your parents always let you do whatever you wanted in high school ... as long as you were doing it with other kids of your ethnic group.
“Vhat? You are coming home at te-ree AM? You are heetch-hiking vit some te-ruck derivers? Dey are offering you co-cane? ... Ohh, ohh, ohkay. As long as Fariba’s parents said ees okay, too. See you later, darleeng.”
... if your mother never liked that one white friend of yours who insisted on calling her by her first name.
“Hi Parveen! I love your new hairdo. What’s new??” “No-teeng, Brittany. Um, vhat a nice, um, tattoo you have.”
...if your parents never drove you to school.
“In EE-ron, I had to valk tventy-four keelometers on hot sand to get to es-chool! Vhat is dees ‘car-pool’?? Did Brittany teach you dees!? You valk!”
...if your parents don’t have a clue about modern technology and/or the internet.
“Ask Goo-gel if he has Prada dress in size nine!” “Ask Vikipedia how much sugar for baklava.” “I pressed the es-pace bar! Vhy com-pu-ter no turn on?”
... if, as a girl, your dad threatens to beat you for dating, yet slips your older brother twenties for strip clubs.
“Young lady, you date vhen you are married!” “Es-steven, get von vit big be-reasts.”
...if your parents talk loudly and indiscriminately about other people in public places, not caring and/or realizing if they are overheard.
“Ja-kee, your mo-ther says dat girl looks like vhite te-rash! And she theenks her Cha-nel bag is fake! Vhat you theenk?”
... if your parents misuse common phrases in horrifying ways, and almost always in conversation with your friends.
“Alex, you look so built up! Have you been leef-teeng irons? I can see you vere pumping it out!”
...if your dad only values math and science classes.
... if your house smells like Sangam at dinner time.
... if your mom decks out in designer clothing and furs on a ten minute jaunt to the supermarket “just in case” she runs into other members of your ethnic community.
... if you told your friends your dad was related to Saddam. Not to be funny, but because it might be true.
... if your friends believed you.
... if your mom has tried using coupons at the Dollar Tree.
... if your parents answer your private cellular phone as though it were a main house line.
... if your mom would be just as happy if you got your MRS. as she would be if you got your M.D. or phD.
... if family reunions resemble Al-Qaeda gatherings.
... if everything is compared to how it was in the “mother country.”
... if your parents love America, but hate everyone here.
If you have personally experienced any of these particular traumas, or worse, Congratulations: you probably are the child of F.O.B.s!
So the next time your mother tries to haggle at The Gap or your father declares any male friend of yours with an earring “gay,” and you’re left sitting there fantasizing about different ways to die, just remember: being a F.O.B.-child is not without its advantages. Chances are you’re multi-lingual, which is very cool, and you probably get to travel to different countries to visit relatives who are still O.B. (On the Boat). And, best of all, if you’re lucky, your culture probably comes along with some pretty decent food.
So cheer up! Things could have been a lot worse.
We could have been Canadian.
Jackie Levin is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at jl482@cornell.edu. Everything In Its Right Place appears alternate Fridays.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Famous Persian Jews
Accessed 04/15/2007 (http://www.answers.com/topic/persian-jews)
Bahram V King of Persia (421–438). Jewish mother
Dan Ahdoot - Stand-up comedian
Jonathan Ahdout - Actor
Sa'ad al-Dawla - Physician and statesman
Rashid al-Din - Doctor, writer, and historian
David Alliance - British businessman and a Liberal Democrat politician
Shmuley Boteach - Rabbi (Persian father)
Sacha Baron Cohen - Comedian (Persian mother)
Daniel - Biblical character of the Book of Daniel
Richard Danielpour - Composer
Habib Elghanian - Businessman
Saeed Emami - Iranian Intelligence officer
Esther - A heroine of the biblical Book of Esther
Hacham Uriel Davidi- Religious leader
Soleiman Haim - One of the first dictionary writers of the Persian language.
Roya Hakakian - Writer
Lilly Hakim-Segal - President of the Cornell Sephardic/Mizrachi Organization
Dan Halutz - Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces
Moshe Katsav - Current President of Israel
Rita Kleinstein - Israeli singer
Isaac Larian - Chief Executive Officer of MGA Entertainment
Shaul Mofaz - Current Israeli Minister of Transport
Mordechai - Biblical character Book of Esther
Maurice Motamed - Jewish member of the Iranian parliament
Gina Nahai - Author
Benjamin Nahawandi - Karaite scholar of the early Middle Ages
Subliminal - Iranian musician and Tar player
Meulana Shahin Shirazi - Early Persian poet
Bahar Soomekh - Actress
Tami Stronach - Professional dancer and choreographer
Lotfi Zadeh - Mathematician and computer scientist
Bahram V King of Persia (421–438). Jewish mother
Dan Ahdoot - Stand-up comedian
Jonathan Ahdout - Actor
Sa'ad al-Dawla - Physician and statesman
Rashid al-Din - Doctor, writer, and historian
David Alliance - British businessman and a Liberal Democrat politician
Shmuley Boteach - Rabbi (Persian father)
Sacha Baron Cohen - Comedian (Persian mother)
Daniel - Biblical character of the Book of Daniel
Richard Danielpour - Composer
Habib Elghanian - Businessman
Saeed Emami - Iranian Intelligence officer
Esther - A heroine of the biblical Book of Esther
Hacham Uriel Davidi- Religious leader
Soleiman Haim - One of the first dictionary writers of the Persian language.
Roya Hakakian - Writer
Lilly Hakim-Segal - President of the Cornell Sephardic/Mizrachi Organization
Dan Halutz - Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces
Moshe Katsav - Current President of Israel
Rita Kleinstein - Israeli singer
Isaac Larian - Chief Executive Officer of MGA Entertainment
Shaul Mofaz - Current Israeli Minister of Transport
Mordechai - Biblical character Book of Esther
Maurice Motamed - Jewish member of the Iranian parliament
Gina Nahai - Author
Benjamin Nahawandi - Karaite scholar of the early Middle Ages
Subliminal - Iranian musician and Tar player
Meulana Shahin Shirazi - Early Persian poet
Bahar Soomekh - Actress
Tami Stronach - Professional dancer and choreographer
Lotfi Zadeh - Mathematician and computer scientist
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Exclusive: Immigrant moves back 'home' to Teheran
Orly Halpern, The Jerusalem Post. 11/03/2005
Ishak can't wait to get "home" to Teheran.
After he immigrated to Israel two years ago, said the short man with dark circles under his eyes, his life became increasingly miserable.
Standing and fretting inside his empty shop on Jerusalem's Rehov Ben-Yehuda, Ishak (not his real name), a 51-year-old Jewish-Iranian who is in Israel now only for a final visit, said the jewelry shop he opened here never sold anything, the renters to whom he leased a property did not pay and his heart began to fail him from the stress of monthly mortgage payments and no income.
So 10 months ago gray-haired Ishak gave up on the Zionist dream and began to move his family and belongings back to Iran. He filled some of his numerous suitcases and trunks with the Persian carpets, silverware, and home decorations he came here with, and flew to Turkey with his two sons. There they sent their new Israeli passports by express mail back to his daughter in Israel. Then they took out their Islamic Republic of Iran passports and boarded a flight to Teheran.
When he arrived, his Muslim friends were incredulous.
"I have a lot of Muslim friends and they all knew I'd moved to Israel," he said. "They asked me, 'Why did you come back?'" His Jewish friends in Iran already knew the answer.
Despite the declaration last week by Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel must be wiped off the map, the Shihab missiles displayed in Teheran with "Israel" painted on them, the broadcasting of anti-Semitic films on national television and the much-publicized trials of 13 Jewish Iranians on spy charges, Ishak insists that life in Iran is far better for Jews than life in Israel.
"If you have problems there, people help you - and they know you are Jewish," said Ishak, who has now briefly returned to Israel to sell his shop and leave for good. "But here, everyone is looking out for himself. You can't trust anybody."
Ishak is not the only recent immigrant who prefers his Islamic birthplace to his Jewish homeland. Jerusalem's Jaffa Road and Rehov Ben-Yehuda are lined with shopkeepers originally from Iran who say they are desperate to go back - some to visit, some to live.
And while most outsiders might believe that routine contact between the citizens of the two sworn enemies is impossible, in fact, not only are the phone lines between Teheran and Tel Aviv used actively, but so also are flight routes via Istanbul.
Jewish Iranians travel frequently to Israel. To avoid getting the Iranians in trouble back in their home country, Israeli border authorities do not stamp entry visas into their passports. As with journalists, the entry visa is stamped on a separate slip of paper, which is later thrown away upon exit from the Zionist state.
"My parents came for a visit and left two months ago," said Avi, who owns a shoe store on Jaffa Road. But the elderly couple has no intention of moving here.
"The Jews there live very well," he explained. "When [Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini got in power he said there is a difference between Persian Jews who are from Moussa (Moses) and Zionist Jews."
Avi acknowledges that initially Jews were not allowed to travel. "No one was," he said. "But now it's no problem."
Summertime is the most popular season for travel but sometimes Iranians come for just a wedding.
At Avi's, all the shoe salesmen are Iranian Jews. One of them is expecting his mother-in-law back in Israel from a two-month visit to Teheran. Meanwhile, his wife speaks to her mother regularly. "My mother-in-law buys calling cards there for $10 and they speak one hour."
But even more curious is the cooperation of Iranian authorities in allowing Iranian-Israelis who don't have an Iranian passport to visit the country of their birth and roots.
"My uncle's cousin had not been in Iran for over 20 years," said David, who runs a gift shop on Rehov Ben-Yehuda with his brother and parents and asked that his last name not be printed because he does not want the Iranian government to know who he is. "He went to the Iranian embassy in Turkey and told them, 'I am Persian and I am now Israeli. I want to go back to Iran. If you give me a passport great, if not that's fine, too. And they gave him one,'" said David, who is considering trying the method.
The 30-year-old is afraid to ask and he thinks he won't get one because he left Iran by illegally crossing the border into Pakistan some 15 years ago without a passport. But he, too, is dying to go back to Iran.
"I love the country, I don't like the people," stressed the young man dressed in jeans and a black kippa who said he came to Israel because of Zionism.
"I thought that here it was good. I thought that all the Jews leave their doors unlocked and no one stole. But the Israeli people are not cultured. They are rude and disrespectful. In Iran people trust each other and when they give their word they keep it. Here you need a lawyer to get anyone to keep their promise."
Moussa (also not his real name) is a 42-year-old clothing salesman on Jaffa Road who came to Israel in the 1970s when he was 10. His family members own four shops along the street. Many from his family travel frequently between the two enemy states. "They come and go and do business," he said.
Many of the Iranian-Israelis said that after former moderate president Muhammad Khatami got in power in 1997 the government turned a blind eye to the travel. Now some fear that may change since hardline president Ahmadinejad took over in August.
"I'm scared," said Moussa. "Especially after what Ahmedinejad said. He's a new leader and he wants to show off like a peacock. We don't know what it will be like now."
Ishak can't wait to get "home" to Teheran.
After he immigrated to Israel two years ago, said the short man with dark circles under his eyes, his life became increasingly miserable.
Standing and fretting inside his empty shop on Jerusalem's Rehov Ben-Yehuda, Ishak (not his real name), a 51-year-old Jewish-Iranian who is in Israel now only for a final visit, said the jewelry shop he opened here never sold anything, the renters to whom he leased a property did not pay and his heart began to fail him from the stress of monthly mortgage payments and no income.
So 10 months ago gray-haired Ishak gave up on the Zionist dream and began to move his family and belongings back to Iran. He filled some of his numerous suitcases and trunks with the Persian carpets, silverware, and home decorations he came here with, and flew to Turkey with his two sons. There they sent their new Israeli passports by express mail back to his daughter in Israel. Then they took out their Islamic Republic of Iran passports and boarded a flight to Teheran.
When he arrived, his Muslim friends were incredulous.
"I have a lot of Muslim friends and they all knew I'd moved to Israel," he said. "They asked me, 'Why did you come back?'" His Jewish friends in Iran already knew the answer.
Despite the declaration last week by Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel must be wiped off the map, the Shihab missiles displayed in Teheran with "Israel" painted on them, the broadcasting of anti-Semitic films on national television and the much-publicized trials of 13 Jewish Iranians on spy charges, Ishak insists that life in Iran is far better for Jews than life in Israel.
"If you have problems there, people help you - and they know you are Jewish," said Ishak, who has now briefly returned to Israel to sell his shop and leave for good. "But here, everyone is looking out for himself. You can't trust anybody."
Ishak is not the only recent immigrant who prefers his Islamic birthplace to his Jewish homeland. Jerusalem's Jaffa Road and Rehov Ben-Yehuda are lined with shopkeepers originally from Iran who say they are desperate to go back - some to visit, some to live.
And while most outsiders might believe that routine contact between the citizens of the two sworn enemies is impossible, in fact, not only are the phone lines between Teheran and Tel Aviv used actively, but so also are flight routes via Istanbul.
Jewish Iranians travel frequently to Israel. To avoid getting the Iranians in trouble back in their home country, Israeli border authorities do not stamp entry visas into their passports. As with journalists, the entry visa is stamped on a separate slip of paper, which is later thrown away upon exit from the Zionist state.
"My parents came for a visit and left two months ago," said Avi, who owns a shoe store on Jaffa Road. But the elderly couple has no intention of moving here.
"The Jews there live very well," he explained. "When [Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini got in power he said there is a difference between Persian Jews who are from Moussa (Moses) and Zionist Jews."
Avi acknowledges that initially Jews were not allowed to travel. "No one was," he said. "But now it's no problem."
Summertime is the most popular season for travel but sometimes Iranians come for just a wedding.
At Avi's, all the shoe salesmen are Iranian Jews. One of them is expecting his mother-in-law back in Israel from a two-month visit to Teheran. Meanwhile, his wife speaks to her mother regularly. "My mother-in-law buys calling cards there for $10 and they speak one hour."
But even more curious is the cooperation of Iranian authorities in allowing Iranian-Israelis who don't have an Iranian passport to visit the country of their birth and roots.
"My uncle's cousin had not been in Iran for over 20 years," said David, who runs a gift shop on Rehov Ben-Yehuda with his brother and parents and asked that his last name not be printed because he does not want the Iranian government to know who he is. "He went to the Iranian embassy in Turkey and told them, 'I am Persian and I am now Israeli. I want to go back to Iran. If you give me a passport great, if not that's fine, too. And they gave him one,'" said David, who is considering trying the method.
The 30-year-old is afraid to ask and he thinks he won't get one because he left Iran by illegally crossing the border into Pakistan some 15 years ago without a passport. But he, too, is dying to go back to Iran.
"I love the country, I don't like the people," stressed the young man dressed in jeans and a black kippa who said he came to Israel because of Zionism.
"I thought that here it was good. I thought that all the Jews leave their doors unlocked and no one stole. But the Israeli people are not cultured. They are rude and disrespectful. In Iran people trust each other and when they give their word they keep it. Here you need a lawyer to get anyone to keep their promise."
Moussa (also not his real name) is a 42-year-old clothing salesman on Jaffa Road who came to Israel in the 1970s when he was 10. His family members own four shops along the street. Many from his family travel frequently between the two enemy states. "They come and go and do business," he said.
Many of the Iranian-Israelis said that after former moderate president Muhammad Khatami got in power in 1997 the government turned a blind eye to the travel. Now some fear that may change since hardline president Ahmadinejad took over in August.
"I'm scared," said Moussa. "Especially after what Ahmedinejad said. He's a new leader and he wants to show off like a peacock. We don't know what it will be like now."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)