« Egyptian dissidents make news | Home | Day 49 of counting the Omer »
May 31, 2006
Dhimmi badges redux
[ UPDATE: On the one hand, I love being able to post at Winds of Change and get a larger audience. On the other hand, my posts there get all the comments and hits, for example big discussion on this post. ]
Now that Amir Tahari has been invited to the White House, everyone is dusting off their outrage at the supposed calumny of the "Iran mandates badges for Jews" story. So let's dust off some context:
1) Taheri is a respected and knowledgeable pundit on the Middle East.
2) He was born and raised in Iran, so he knows his people and speaks their language.
3) Making dhimmis wear special clothing was a common practice in Islamic countries throughout the centuries. Either the Nazis thought of it independently, or got the idea from Islam, but certainly not the other way around. Iran has mandated special clothing for Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians in the past, in addition to other institutionalized discriminatory practices which still exist.
4) Taheri and several Iranian expat leaders still claim that this is being discussed and considered by the Iranian regime. And given the above, it is not unreasonable to assume that until we know otherwise.
Judith | 05/31/06 at 02:16 PM | Categories: - Antisemitism watch
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.keshertalk.com/cgi-bin/mtb.cgi/5046
Comments
Forget about the badges, are Jews allowed to share the sidewalk with their betters?
soccerdad
| May 31, 2006 04:51 PM
What about last week's story in The Jewish Week about all this?
jaws, that story made no mention of the precedent for such laws in Iran and Muslim countries, but only invoked Nazi laws. Thereby making it look like it was a smear against Iran for adopting a Nazi practice, rather than palcing it in the context of Muslim practices that go back much further than the Nazis.
I was very disappointed in that article, usually TJW is more savvy than that.
Judith Weiss | May 31, 2006 10:38 PM
So it's reasonable to treat a pretty much debunked story as true, but treasonable to discuss, even mention, the much more well documented incident at Haditha until the allegations are thoroughly proven by the courts-marshal?
Yeah, yeah, I know, the Iranians don't enjoy the presumption of innocence, but that doesn't absolve you of the burden of proof.
Geebus, Judith, Murtha has fewer partisan bones in his entire body than you have in your left pinky, and he's been doing it for a living for 30 years.
Bloggerhead | June 1, 2006 12:52 PM
I didn't "treat a pretty much debunked story as true." I pointed out that based on Iran's history in this area, and statements of some people involved, it isn't that clear at this point. I am also criticizing the scandalized response, for example of the Jewish Week, whose headline was "Yellow Journalism!" Well, no.
"much more well documented incident at Haditha until the allegations are thoroughly proven by the courts-marshal"
Right. The Haditha situation is much more well-documented. The badge story isn't yet. That's part of my point.
You are comparing apples and oranges. The Iran story is one of investigative journalism to find out something about another nation's policies. The Haditha story is one of forensic investigation and trial to find out whether several US citizens are guilty of murder. If you can't see the huge difference between those two I don't know what else to say.
Judith Weiss | June 1, 2006 02:42 PM
What's the problem, Bloggerhead? Even if Judith were doing what you claim, she's just being postmodern.
Tawana Brawly, Rigoberta Menchu, any number of others, have been exposed as frauds and the usual response from the left is that, well, it may not be factually true but it bespeaks a deeper reality.
Now Judith can add to the masthead: "Kesher Talk--On the Cutting Edge of Criticism."
Alex Bensky | June 2, 2006 10:58 AM
I never read the National Post article which took what Taheri initially wrote and ran with it, but I expect that Taheri is being fair in claiming that the media misconstrued what he wrote about having actually been passed into law vs what was a matter of discussion, at least by the more fanatical fanatics.
Otherwise, if you legislate the kind of clothes the majority of Iranians (Shia Muslims) wear, then, by default, don't you make it possible to identify non-Muslims, along with pressuring Muslims to dress like they were still living in the 7th century?
Lynne | June 2, 2006 12:55 PM
I'm so glad this story turned out not to be true. Thank God Jewish storeowners in Iran won't have to wear yellow stars while working in their stores which have to display their religious status on the front window.
Gormlessnorman | June 3, 2006 01:17 AM
To save one's bacon... Elizeus
Elizeus | November 22, 2006 08:03 AM












