Advert for saving Jewish yourth from "getting lost"

The Prime Minister's Office and the Jewish Agency unveiled an aggressive advertisement campaign for the Masa project which is designed to strengthen Jewish identity among youths in the Diaspora and their bonds to Israel. One video clip likens Jews who marry outside of the religion to missing persons, with fake notices and pictureswhich drive home the point.

What Exactly Is Anti-Semitism?

Author: Jayne Gardener

Source: http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-exactly-is-anti-semitism.html?zx=bc4b77f30d3c7bfd

What exactly is anti-semitism? The oft-repeated Jewish claim that anti-semitism is simply an irrational hatred of Jews based solely on their Jewishness seems a pretty wild accusation on the face of it, and one that can’t be logically and reasonably defended without indicting all Gentiles on charges of insane and unjustifiable hatefulness.

What possible reason could there be for people to hold such an irrational and preposterous hatred for people of a particular group, especially if that group had never done anything to earn their ire? To reasonable people these claims would appear to have very little merit, unless you want to make a case for Gentiles being hateful lunatics hell-bent on displaying enmity towards the poor, innocent little Jew.

This concept flies in the face of all reason and logic. What purpose would Gentiles have for hating Jewish people only because they are Jews? It makes absolutely no sense. And yet, despite the sheer and utter lunacy of the claim, it is made frequently, with Gentiles usually assumed to be the guilty party.

Over the years, historians have made several attempts to explain so-called anti-semitism by claiming it was due to Jewish economic success or due to their complicity in the death of Jesus Christ. Some believe it is because of their “chosenness” and many other reasons. Personally, I believe that these aren’t reasons at all, but excuses that those of the Jewish pursuasion come up with to keep people from figuring out exactly what “anti-semitism” really is.

And what is it, exactly?

Although this may earn me a few more enemies, I have to be honest and say what I know to be true. Anti-semitism is not an irrational hatred of Jews by Gentiles. It’s a rational and reasonable response to Jewish supremacist behaviour in their host countries.

Is it so hard to believe that when you behave in destructive ways you are going to earn the enmity of the people you live among? Jews have been expelled from over 79 countries over a period of about 1,700 years, according to historians. Does it make any sense that they would be expelled for no other reason than their Jewishness, or does it seem likely that some of the responsibility for the expulsions should be placed squarely on their shoulders?

If you move into a new neighbourhood and your new neighbours take an intense disliking to you, it might be that you have moved into an area where the people are not very friendly. However, if you have moved 80 times or more over the period of a lifetime and always incur the hostility of your neighbours, I think it would be safe to assume that the problem rests with you.

Another example might be a man arrested, tried and convicted of a crime which he swears he didn’t commit. It might be that a person could be wrongly convicted, no criminal justice system is perfect. However, is it likely that you will believe that a man has been convicted 79 times and that he’s innocent in every single case? Of course not. It defies all logic and reason.

Therefore, why would it be reasonable to assume that Jewish persecution in 79 or more countries over a period of close to 2000 years was the fault of the host country and not due to anything the Jews may have done? It is an almost laughable concept and one no rational person would accept it.

Over the years, in every society, Jews have behaved in essentially the same way. They seek to degrade the culture, they engage in less than honest business practices, including usury, they push for social engineering by way of radical movements, they gain control of the majority of the wealth and they have an almost complete monopoly on the media and the dissemination of news.

That’s the only way they’ve been able to get away with it for so long. They control what we see, hear and read. No wonder they’ve been able to shield themselves for so long in our society, always operating under the radar, but as usual, they are once again overplaying their hand until there is a backlash against them, giving them another opportunity to claim perpetual victimhood status and blame Gentiles for their predicament.

Isn’t the very definition of insanity to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result? Obviously they don’t pay attention to history and seek to amend their behaviour, or they would stop doing what they’re doing to prevent further “persecuton.” However, it seems likely that they are simply incapable of changing their behaviour and so, like it is wont to do, history repeats itself and the Jews end up winning the enmity of the non-Jewish population.

Today in America is no different. Once again they control the majority of wealth in this country and they have a monopoly on the media and the dissemination of news. They attempt to degrade our culture with their disproportionate representation in the pornography industry, their defilement of art and literature, their perverse celebration of deviancy, violence, graphic sex and foul language on television and in the movies we pay to see.

They seek to destroy traditional marriage and the nuclear family by way of the radical homosexual movement and the feminist movement and propogandize and brainwash us to accept them both.

They are commited to attempting genocide against those of us who are of white European descent through wide open immigration laws, encouraging an influx of third worlders while actively discouraging immigrants from Europe, as well as the encouragement of racial integration and miscegenation. They push multiculturalism and diversity on us, brainwashing us all into believing both of those things are good for us, then they try to deplete our numbers through the advocacy of birth control, abortion and euthanasia.

They use their control of the media to mock and defame the majority religion in this country and have worked tirelessly to have it removed from our schools and from the public square. They deliberately dumb down our educational system in order to create a generation of functional illiterates who will be too stupid and too malleable to fight against those who seek to destroy them.

They use the “Holocaust” to engender a collective guilt in us and to manipulate us into not recognizing or ignoring their nefarious machinations. And for those of us smart enough to recognize it, they advocate for hate crime legislation that has very little to do with actual hate crimes per se, but are merely an effective way to silence their critics, under penalty of legal prosecution.

They commit “false flag” operations in order to convince a trusting and gullible population that it’s in their best interests to go to war in the middle east, not to fight for the best interests of America and its people, but for the best interests of Jews and Israel. They control our congress and our president and they will bring down the American empire by way of endless war, the exact same thing that caused the sun to eventually set on the British Empire.

As we speak, young American men and women are dying overseas in a war for Israel. The treasonous Neo-Cons in the Bush administration have conspired with the Israeli lobby to entangle America in a war that can’t be won and has no benefit for the USA or her citizens.

Despite their desperate attempts to hide the true rationale for the war from the American people, and their collusion in covering up another “false flag” operation that served as a catalyst for the current middle east conflict, they have not succeeded, and more and more citizens are speaking out against the travesty in Iraq and their fervent hope that there will be no war with Iran.

Is it reasonable to expect that the people who know what’s happening, and are quite aware of who is responsible for it, will keep silent and not alert the rest of the people in an attempt to warn them of the eventual outcome if the Jewish supremacist agenda is realized?

Does it make sense that rational people who understand whats’s going on and know which group is behind it would remain kindly disposed towards their enemy?

Of course not. If Jews feel put upon and discriminated against and hated, perhaps they should at least be honest enough to stop blaming it on unreasonable and irrational hatred on the part of Gentiles and instead, examine Jewish behaviour throughout history to see a long line of nefarious, underhanded and contemptuous behaviour that would explain and excuse the animus directed their way.

What did they expect to happen in Germany prior to the war, when the German people, who were still struggling to survive under the extremely punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles, were dealt another blow when the Jews declared economic war against Germany, causing her collapse and forcing even greater hardship on the citizens who lost everything they had, only to see it snatched up by Jews who acquired it at a mere fraction of its former value?

Does anti-semitism seem a legitimate response to the horror that was perpetrated on the people of the former Soviet Union in the name of Communism? It seems a perfectly justifiable response to hate the Jews with every fibre of your being when you have been deprived of the fruits of your labour, intentionally starved and sent to Gulags to face impossible odds against long term survival.

How could the Russian people not hold great anger and hostility towards the people who inflicted this horror on them? And unlike the Jewish suffering in the “Holocaust,” there are not a host of centres and museums devoted to their suffering, nor are there a myriad of books, television programs or movies. Their suffering has never been truly acknowledged and no remorse expressed by the people responsible for it.

I shudder to think of the backlash and anger directed at Jewish supremacists when the true extent of their duplicity and treachery is exposed for all to see. And if it is, will there be the usual cries of anti-semitism directed at those who wish seek to hold them responsible? Since that is the case almost every time they are criticised for their trickery and disloyalty, I will predict that the answer is a definite yes.

Jews have, throughout history, behaved in ways that are damaging to their host countries and due to that, it would seem perfectly reasonable for many people to hold some animosity towards the Jewish community, especially in light of the human misery the Zionists among them have caused and continue to cause.

Anti-semitism doesn’t exist, in reality, at least not in the way they claim. No one hates Jews simply because they are Jewish any more than people hate the black race simply because of the hue of their skin. They are hated by many because their behaviour, both past and present, has been egregious, heinous and has usually entailed a large degree of callous disregard towards human suffering.

If Jews are hated, it’s because they have laboured long and hard to earn that hate.

Jews need to stop laying the blame for their perceived persecution at the foot of the Gentile and be honest enough to admit that they behaved in ways that created less than charitable feelings towards them by the citizens of their host countries. It’s a sane and healthy reaction to hate those who hurt you and seek to destroy you.

It seems ironic to me that Jews would constantly make claims of anti-semitism against their detractors, when there is ample and easily obtained empirical evidence of their Talmud-inspired hatred of Gentiles and Christians, and yet they are never called on the carpet to answer to the charges of anti-Gentilism. Why is it always assumed that the hatred flows one way, and that only one group is ever completely guilty while the other is only ever completely innocent?

Invoking their past suffering is no longer going to work, especially as their lies, exaggerations and complete fabrications with regard to the Holocaust become widely known. Eventually, they will push Gentiles too far by overplaying their hand yet again, and when that happens, and the response is to expell them, or worse, they will, of course, fall back on their standard excuse for everything, their suffering and victimhood at the hands of Gentiles.

But no one will buy it this time.

The Jews themselves have removed all meaning from being called an anti-semite. It has been so overused that it no longer creates the sting it used to when it’s hurled in your direction, because now you really understand it. It’s not about actual hatred aimed at Jews for no reason, it’s simply a smear tactic to silence those who expose them for what they are.

They will continue to fling it at their detractors in an attempt to muzzle them, because they can’t allow their duplicity and treachery to be exposed for all to see.

So if someone wants to label me an anti-semite because I see what’s going on and will not be silent about it, they can go ahead and hurl whatever invective they wish to throw in my direction. If exposing Jewish supremacist perfidy for the evil that it is makes me an anti-semite, then I will embrace it.

I will continue to work tirelessly to expose their anti-gentilism and hatred towards non-Jews and rest easily in the knowledge that I have done my best to expose the greatest threat we face as a people.

It’s not Islamic terrorists we need to fear, despite the hysterical fear-mongering.

Jewish supremacy is the enemy.

Germany under Jews: Sprite ad

My name is Max Isaacson, I directed and produced the fake Sprite ads that have been making the rounds over the past five days. There have been quite a lot of false statements made regarding these and I would like to make a few things very clear about these spots. First, there was no involvement from either The Coca-Cola Company or Greencard Pictures. Second, this was not supposed to be taken seriously by anybody. They were made completely on spec, which was clearly stated on the YouTube pages on which the ads were primarily seen. I paid for, produced and directed both spots independently. I am frankly quite surprised that spots of this nature were so quickly and easily believed to be legitimate. I hope that all parties involved will understand that this was a simple mistake that went much too far too fast, and that it is now made clear that these were not real commercials, nor were they ever produced with intention of being taken as such.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/20/sprite-blow-job-ad-banned_n_240851.html

Holocaust denier Fredrick Toben to serve time in jail

Author: Tim Dornin

Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25924475-12377,00.html

HOLOCAUST denier Fredrick Toben has been taken into custody to serve a three-month jail term over publishing offensive material on the internet.

The 64-year-old was taken from the Federal Court in Adelaide by Australian Federal Police today after losing his appeal against his conviction for contempt of court.

The Full Court of the Federal Court also ruled that his jail term, originally imposed in May this year, was in no way excessive.

"In our opinion, the sentence of three months cannot, on any stretch of the imagination, be considered excessive or unwarranted," the three-judge panel said.

The judges said Toben also had a disregard for the orders of the court and had acted to undermine the authority of the court.

Earlier this year, Toben was found guilty on 24 counts of contempt for ignoring a previous court order preventing him from publishing racist material on the Adelaide Institute website. When he later imposed a three-month sentence, Justice Bruce Lander said Toben had continued to breach those 2002 orders, which prevented him from publishing specific anti-Semitic material.

The 2002 orders stemmed from a racial discrimination case brought against him by Jeremy Jones, a former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.

In his final submissions today, counsel for Toben, David Perkins, suggested the material published on the Adelaide Institute website, which questioned whether the holocaust even occurred, was just a "drop in the bucket" compared to the amount of revisionist material available on the internet.

But in their verdict, the judges said the case before them was not about the holocaust, gas chambers or the execution of Jews during World War II. They said it was about whether or not Toben had complied with orders of the court.

"Obedience to the court is not optional," they said.

As the court rose, Toben asked if he could say something to the judges, only to be cut off by Justice Jeffrey Spender who simply said, "No".

Iranian Elections: The ‘Stolen Elections’ Hoax

Author: James Petras

Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PET20090618&articleId=14018

Introduction

There is hardly any election, in which the White House has a significant stake, where the electoral defeat of the pro-US candidate is not denounced as illegitimate by the entire political and mass media elite. In the most recent period, the White House and its camp followers cried foul following the free (and monitored) elections in Venezuela and Gaza, while joyously fabricating an ‘electoral success’ in Lebanon despite the fact that the Hezbollah-led coalition received over 53% of the vote.

The recently concluded, June 12, 2009 elections in Iran are a classic case: The incumbent nationalist-populist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (MA) received 63.3% of the vote (or 24.5 million votes), while the leading Western-backed liberal opposition candidate Hossein Mousavi (HM) received 34.2% or (13.2 million votes).

Iran’s presidential election drew a record turnout of more than 80% of the electorate, including an unprecedented overseas vote of 234,812, in which HM won 111,792 to MA’s 78,300. The opposition led by HM did not accept their defeat and organized a series of mass demonstrations that turned violent, resulting in the burning and destruction of automobiles, banks, public building and armed confrontations with the police and other authorities. Almost the entire spectrum of Western opinion makers, including all the major electronic and print media, the major liberal, radical, libertarian and conservative web-sites, echoed the opposition’s claim of rampant election fraud. Neo-conservatives, libertarian conservatives and Trotskyites joined the Zionists in hailing the opposition protestors as the advance guard of a democratic revolution. Democrats and Republicans condemned the incumbent regime, refused to recognize the result of the vote and praised the demonstrators’ efforts to overturn the electoral outcome. The New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, the Israeli Foreign Office and the entire leadership of the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations called for harsher sanctions against Iran and announced Obama’s proposed dialogue with Iran as ‘dead in the water’.

The Electoral Fraud Hoax

Western leaders rejected the results because they ‘knew’ that their reformist candidate could not lose…For months they published daily interviews, editorials and reports from the field ‘detailing’ the failures of Ahmadinejad’s administration; they cited the support from clerics, former officials, merchants in the bazaar and above all women and young urbanites fluent in English, to prove that Mousavi was headed for a landslide victory. A victory for Mousavi was described as a victory for the ‘voices of moderation’, at least the White House’s version of that vacuous cliché. Prominent liberal academics deduced the vote count was fraudulent because the opposition candidate, Mousavi, lost in his own ethnic enclave among the Azeris. Other academics claimed that the ‘youth vote’ – based on their interviews with upper and middle-class university students from the neighborhoods of Northern Tehran were overwhelmingly for the ‘reformist’ candidate.

What is astonishing about the West’s universal condemnation of the electoral outcome as fraudulent is that not a single shred of evidence in either written or observational form has been presented either before or a week after the vote count. During the entire electoral campaign, no credible (or even dubious) charge of voter tampering was raised. As long as the Western media believed their own propaganda of an immanent victory for their candidate, the electoral process was described as highly competitive, with heated public debates and unprecedented levels of public activity and unhindered by public proselytizing. The belief in a free and open election was so strong that the Western leaders and mass media believed that their favored candidate would win.

The Western media relied on its reporters covering the mass demonstrations of opposition supporters, ignoring and downplaying the huge turnout for Ahmadinejad. Worse still, the Western media ignored the class composition of the competing demonstrations – the fact that the incumbent candidate was drawing his support from the far more numerous poor working class, peasant, artisan and public employee sectors while the bulk of the opposition demonstrators was drawn from the upper and middle class students, business and professional class.

Moreover, most Western opinion leaders and reporters based in Tehran extrapolated their projections from their observations in the capital – few venture into the provinces, small and medium size cities and villages where Ahmadinejad has his mass base of support. Moreover the opposition’s supporters were an activist minority of students easily mobilized for street activities, while Ahmadinejad’s support drew on the majority of working youth and household women workers who would express their views at the ballot box and had little time or inclination to engage in street politics.

A number of newspaper pundits, including Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times, claim as evidence of electoral fraud the fact that Ahmadinejad won 63% of the vote in an Azeri-speaking province against his opponent, Mousavi, an ethnic Azeri. The simplistic assumption is that ethnic identity or belonging to a linguistic group is the only possible explanation of voting behavior rather than other social or class interests.

A closer look at the voting pattern in the East-Azerbaijan region of Iran reveals that Mousavi won only in the city of Shabestar among the upper and the middle classes (and only by a small margin), whereas he was soundly defeated in the larger rural areas, where the re-distributive policies of the Ahmadinejad government had helped the ethnic Azeris write off debt, obtain cheap credits and easy loans for the farmers. Mousavi did win in the West-Azerbaijan region, using his ethnic ties to win over the urban voters. In the highly populated Tehran province, Mousavi beat Ahmadinejad in the urban centers of Tehran and Shemiranat by gaining the vote of the middle and upper class districts, whereas he lost badly in the adjoining working class suburbs, small towns and rural areas.

The careless and distorted emphasis on ‘ethnic voting’ cited by writers from the Financial Times and New York Times to justify calling Ahmadinejad ‘s victory a ‘stolen vote’ is matched by the media’s willful and deliberate refusal to acknowledge a rigorous nationwide public opinion poll conducted by two US experts just three weeks before the vote, which showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin – even larger than his electoral victory on June 12. This poll revealed that among ethnic Azeris, Ahmadinejad was favored by a 2 to 1 margin over Mousavi, demonstrating how class interests represented by one candidate can overcome the ethnic identity of the other candidate (Washington Post June 15, 2009). The poll also demonstrated how class issues, within age groups, were more influential in shaping political preferences than ‘generational life style’. According to this poll, over two-thirds of Iranian youth were too poor to have access to a computer and the 18-24 year olds “comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all groups” (Washington Porst June 15, 2009).

The only group, which consistently favored Mousavi, was the university students and graduates, business owners and the upper middle class. The ‘youth vote’, which the Western media praised as ‘pro-reformist’, was a clear minority of less than 30% but came from a highly privileged, vocal and largely English speaking group with a monopoly on the Western media. Their overwhelming presence in the Western news reports created what has been referred to as the ‘North Tehran Syndrome’, for the comfortable upper class enclave from which many of these students come. While they may be articulate, well dressed and fluent in English, they were soundly out-voted in the secrecy of the ballot box.

In general, Ahmadinejad did very well in the oil and chemical producing provinces. This may have be a reflection of the oil workers’ opposition to the ‘reformist’ program, which included proposals to ‘privatize’ public enterprises. Likewise, the incumbent did very well along the border provinces because of his emphasis on strengthening national security from US and Israeli threats in light of an escalation of US-sponsored cross-border terrorist attacks from Pakistan and Israeli-backed incursions from Iraqi Kurdistan, which have killed scores of Iranian citizens. Sponsorship and massive funding of the groups behind these attacks is an official policy of the US from the Bush Administration, which has not been repudiated by President Obama; in fact it has escalated in the lead-up to the elections.

What Western commentators and their Iranian protégés have ignored is the powerful impact which the devastating US wars and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan had on Iranian public opinion: Ahmadinejad’s strong position on defense matters contrasted with the pro-Western and weak defense posture of many of the campaign propagandists of the opposition.

The great majority of voters for the incumbent probably felt that national security interests, the integrity of the country and the social welfare system, with all of its faults and excesses, could be better defended and improved with Ahmadinejad than with upper-class technocrats supported by Western-oriented privileged youth who prize individual life styles over community values and solidarity.

The demography of voting reveals a real class polarization pitting high income, free market oriented, capitalist individualists against working class, low income, community based supporters of a ‘moral economy’ in which usury and profiteering are limited by religious precepts. The open attacks by opposition economists of the government welfare spending, easy credit and heavy subsidies of basic food staples did little to ingratiate them with the majority of Iranians benefiting from those programs. The state was seen as the protector and benefactor of the poor workers against the ‘market’, which represented wealth, power, privilege and corruption. The Opposition’s attack on the regime’s ‘intransigent’ foreign policy and positions ‘alienating’ the West only resonated with the liberal university students and import-export business groups. To many Iranians, the regime’s military buildup was seen as having prevented a US or Israeli attack.

The scale of the opposition’s electoral deficit should tell us is how out of touch it is with its own people’s vital concerns. It should remind them that by moving closer to Western opinion, they removed themselves from the everyday interests of security, housing, jobs and subsidized food prices that make life tolerable for those living below the middle class and outside the privileged gates of Tehran University.

Amhadinejad’s electoral success, seen in historical comparative perspective should not be a surprise. In similar electoral contests between nationalist-populists against pro-Western liberals, the populists have won. Past examples include Peron in Argentina and, most recently, Chavez of Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia and even Lula da Silva in Brazil, all of whom have demonstrated an ability to secure close to or even greater than 60% of the vote in free elections. The voting majorities in these countries prefer social welfare over unrestrained markets, national security over alignments with military empires.

The consequences of the electoral victory of Ahmadinejad are open to debate. The US may conclude that continuing to back a vocal, but badly defeated, minority has few prospects for securing concessions on nuclear enrichment and an abandonment of Iran’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas. A realistic approach would be to open a wide-ranging discussion with Iran, and acknowledging, as Senator Kerry recently pointed out, that enriching uranium is not an existential threat to anyone. This approach would sharply differ from the approach of American Zionists, embedded in the Obama regime, who follow Israel’s lead of pushing for a preemptive war with Iran and use the specious argument that no negotiations are possible with an ‘illegitimate’ government in Tehran which ‘stole an election’.

Recent events suggest that political leaders in Europe, and even some in Washington, do not accept the Zionist-mass media line of ‘stolen elections’. The White House has not suspended its offer of negotiations with the newly re-elected government but has focused rather on the repression of the opposition protesters (and not the vote count). Likewise, the 27 nation European Union expressed ‘serious concern about violence’ and called for the “aspirations of the Iranian people to be achieved through peaceful means and that freedom of expression be respected” (Financial Times June 16, 2009 p.4). Except for Sarkozy of France, no EU leader has questioned the outcome of the voting.

The wild card in the aftermath of the elections is the Israeli response: Netanyahu has signaled to his American Zionist followers that they should use the hoax of ‘electoral fraud’ to exert maximum pressure on the Obama regime to end all plans to meet with the newly re-elected Ahmadinejad regime.

Paradoxically, US commentators (left, right and center) who bought into the electoral fraud hoax are inadvertently providing Netanyahu and his American followers with the arguments and fabrications: Where they see religious wars, we see class wars; where they see electoral fraud, we see imperial destabilization.

UN members must stand up against Iranian ruler

Author: Maureen Shamee

Source: http://ejpress.org/article/39160

NEW YORK (EJP)---World Jewish Congress (WJC) President Ronald S. Lauder said the latest denial of the Holocaust by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is “another good reason for United Nations members to walk out on him" when he speaks before the United Nations in New York this week.  
At an anti-Israel rally in Tehran on Friday, Ahmadinejad declared that the "Holocaust is a false claim, a fairy tale, used as a pretext for crimes against humanity."

_______________________________________________________________________________________

FOLLOW UP:
What masters decree, slaves follow:
Walkout at Iran leader's speech
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8008572.stm
The US, Israel, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and New Zealand had all boycotted the conference being held in Geneva, in protest at Mr Ahmadinejad's appearance.

Iran's Ahmadinejad proud of Holocaust denial

Author: NASSER KARIMI and LEE KEATH

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran

He stoked the fires ahead of the visit with new comments casting doubt on the Holocaust. Asked about widespread condemnation of such remarks, Ahmadinejad said Monday: "The anger of the world's professional killers is (a source of) pride for us," according to state news agency IRNA.
During a speech Friday, he questioned whether the Holocaust was "a real event" and called it a pretext used by Jews to trick the West into backing the creation of Israel. He said the Jewish state was created out of "a lie and a mythical claim."
The United States branded the speech "hateful." Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said Monday that Ahmadinejad "yet again shames the great tradition of the noble Iranian people" and has chosen "the violent repression of Iranians over a policy of friendship and cooperation that would have promoted their welfare and their honor."
Israel often touts Ahmadinejad's comments on the Holocaust — and his predictions of the Jewish state's demise — as proof of the threat from Iran if it obtains nuclear weapons.