Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Admits Ahmadinejad Never Said
fuck
Posts: 4,069
Israeli Minister Admits Ahmadinejad Never Said Israel Should Be "Wiped Off the Map"
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/19/h ... ff_the_map
Israeli Minister Admits Ahmadinejad Never Said Israel Should Be "Wiped Off the Map"
A top Israeli official has acknowledged that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said that Iran seeks to "wipe Israel off the face of the map." The falsely translated statement has been widely attributed to Ahmadinejad and used repeatedly by U.S. and Israeli government officials to back military action and sanctions against Iran. But speaking to Teymoor Nabili of the network Al Jazeera, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor admitted Ahmadinejad had been misquoted.
Teymoor Nabili: "As we know, Ahmadinejad didn’t say that he plans to exterminate Israel, nor did he say that Iran policy is to exterminate Israel. Ahmadinejad’s position and Iran’s position always has been, and they’ve made this — they’ve said this as many times as Ahmadinejad has criticized Israel, he has said as many times that he has no plans to attack Israel. He simply said that if you hold a referendum in this part of the world with everybody who lives here, he will accept the outcome of that referendum."
Dan Meridor: "Well, I have to disagree, with all due respect. You speak of Ahmadinejad. I speak of Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, Rafsanjani, Shamkhani. I give the names of all these people. They all come, basically ideologically, religiously, with the statement that Israel is an unnatural creature, it will not survive. They didn’t say, ’We’ll wipe it out,’ you’re right. But 'It will not survive, it is a cancerous tumor that should be removed,' was said just two weeks ago again."
Teymoor Nabili: "Well, I’m glad you’ve acknowledged that they didn’t say they will wipe it out."
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/19/h ... ff_the_map
Israeli Minister Admits Ahmadinejad Never Said Israel Should Be "Wiped Off the Map"
A top Israeli official has acknowledged that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said that Iran seeks to "wipe Israel off the face of the map." The falsely translated statement has been widely attributed to Ahmadinejad and used repeatedly by U.S. and Israeli government officials to back military action and sanctions against Iran. But speaking to Teymoor Nabili of the network Al Jazeera, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor admitted Ahmadinejad had been misquoted.
Teymoor Nabili: "As we know, Ahmadinejad didn’t say that he plans to exterminate Israel, nor did he say that Iran policy is to exterminate Israel. Ahmadinejad’s position and Iran’s position always has been, and they’ve made this — they’ve said this as many times as Ahmadinejad has criticized Israel, he has said as many times that he has no plans to attack Israel. He simply said that if you hold a referendum in this part of the world with everybody who lives here, he will accept the outcome of that referendum."
Dan Meridor: "Well, I have to disagree, with all due respect. You speak of Ahmadinejad. I speak of Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, Rafsanjani, Shamkhani. I give the names of all these people. They all come, basically ideologically, religiously, with the statement that Israel is an unnatural creature, it will not survive. They didn’t say, ’We’ll wipe it out,’ you’re right. But 'It will not survive, it is a cancerous tumor that should be removed,' was said just two weeks ago again."
Teymoor Nabili: "Well, I’m glad you’ve acknowledged that they didn’t say they will wipe it out."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
He didn't say 'Israel' should be wiped off the map. He said that the Israeli regime will disappear from the pages of time. He also didn't say that Israel was a cancerous tumour. He said the Zionist regime is a cancerous tumour.
No it doesn't.
If i say "the Obama Administration has to go"
does that mean i said "America should die"
or "The United States is a Plague, and must be destroyed"
?
The kind of "mistranslations" (rather, deliberately propagandized NON-translations) that take place around these peoples comments are so far from the intended meaning as to be laughable if they weren't so transparently politically hypocritical.
What i mean is, sure Ahmadinejad has plenty about his politics to criticize, but his comments are about needing\hoping for the removal of what he perceives as a virulent type of political structure. In response to his comments about needing the removal of a political structure, that self-same political structure smears his comments in an ironic attempt at bolstering public international support for the removal of HIS regime.
???
If you don't think there are at least a few things to criticize about Israeli, and Western-Israeli-"Coalition" Politics ... then you either aren't reading any alternative news sources, or you aren't reading any of Byrnzie's threads.
If you don't think there is something fundamentally wrong with the politics of a country that repeatedly and without blinking an eye violates international law, and that such actions would WITH GOOD REASON cause growing animosity towards the Israeli government (and by sad consequence, their people as a whole, as well) [just as many Arabs hate "America" and "Americans" as a proxy for their government] ... then I just don't know how to continue in this dialogue.
The comment that the Zionist Regime is "cancerous" is FACTUALLY ACCURATE ... Israel LITERALLY keeps growing ... to displace current occupants, by force, and with no justice ... procuring settlements indiscriminately ... and then delaying their closure if\when international law actually sides with the people who HAD been living in those places.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
No it isn't. It's a reference to the regime that currently governs Israel. The Zionist regime which is based on a racist ideology that seeks to usurp all of the land from the Jordan river to the Meditteranean sea.
Except he didn't say that the state of Israel is a cancer that should not exist. He was referring to the Zionist regime. And the Zionist regime and the state of Israel are not one and the same thing. So your point is moot.
'The Third Reich' was not the same thing as 'Germany', and the 'Apartheid regime' in South Africa also wasn't the same thing as 'the state of South Africa'.
Bu then Israeli's need to create threats where they don't exist, because they can use these phantom threats to justify and excuse the ongoing occupation, and the regular-as-clockwork military attacks against their neighbours.
If Israel was invaded and conquered by her neighbors, and they went ahead and created a state with a non-Jewish majority that no longer allowed for Jewish self-determination, but the state was still called Israel, your logic would dictate that the state of Israel would still exist, even though everything that meaningfully distinguishes Israel as Israel would no longer exist. Your argument is slieght of hand.
It is true. Israel could still be a state - much like any other state we see in the World today - without being founded upon ethnic Nationalism and racism.
"Nor does “Zionism is racism” stand up to scrutiny. On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly voted for partition of the then Palestine so as to create a state for Jews and a state for Arabs. For Jews it was Zionism come true — the return to their ancestral home and the creation of a refuge from centuries-old persecution. They accepted partition but Arabs did not. Israel now has a Jewish majority and they have the right to decide how to order the society, including defining citizenship. If the majority wish to restrict immigration and citizenship to Jews that may be incompatible with a strict definition of the universality of humankind. But it is the right of the majority. Just as it is the right of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states not to allow Christians as citizens, or the right of Ghana and other African states to reject or restrict whites as citizens, or the right of South Africa to have a non-racial citizenship policy. It’s the norm for countries to have citizenship laws and immigration practices which do not subscribe to universal ideals, but which are, on the contrary, based on their perceptions of colour or religion or economic class or whatever. Europe demonstrates that every day in dealing with would-be economic migrants.
Israel’s “Law of Return”, giving every Jew anywhere in the world the right to immigration — apart from exceptional cases relating to known criminals and kindred miscreants — is part of the majority’s right to decide whom to admit. It stems from the original purpose in creating a Jewish state, or a state for the Jews. Orthodox rabbis in Israel have a controlling influence in deciding who is a Jew. Descent is matrilineal. It is a religious issue — not an “apartheid” one as some claim — which is being fought over among Jews, with the Reform and Conservative streams of Judaism demanding a role.
At the same time, it is clearly unfair from the victims’ point of view for Israel to give automatic entry to Jews from anywhere while denying the “Right of Return” to Palestinians who fled or were expelled in the wars of 1948 and 1967, and their descendants. This unfairness, to put it at its mildest, is a tragic consequence of war. Again, however, it is not unique to Israel. The same has happened in recent times, often on far greater scales, in Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, India and Pakistan, to list but a few parallel situations."
By the way, via wikipedia, here's a list of the countries that have repatriation laws giving members of the national diaspora special privileges with regard to immigration:
Armenia
Belarus
Bulgaria
People's Republic of China
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Diego Garcia's Chagossians
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
India
Iraqi Kurdistan
Ireland
Israel
Japan
Kazakhstan
Lithuania
Norway
Palestinian territories
Poland
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Spain
Taiwan (Republic of China)
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Under "Other" wikipedia provides the following:
"A non-exhaustive list of other countries believed to have similar laws is South Korea, Moldova, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Similarly, the Liberian constitution (currently defunct and being rewritten) allows only people "of Negro descent" (regardless of ethno-national affiliation) to become citizens. As with other laws enacting rights of return, many of the laws in these countries appear to reflect a desire by governments to guarantee a safe haven to diaspora populations, particularly those assumed to be living under precarious conditions."
Except there's a big difference between citizens of a country living in an overseas territory, now wishing to return home - i.e, a Falkland Islander wishing to immigrate to England - and an American, or Peruvian Jew, or recent convert to Judaism, wishing to immigrate to Israel, a country to which they have zero connection. Also, the United Kingdom, for instance, doesn't discriminate on racial or religious grounds, unlike Israel.
And can you please explain to me how Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, India and Pakistan, can be considered 'parallel situations'?
Oh, and congratulations for being compared to Saudi Arabia. I expect that must be something to be proud of.
Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, India and Pakistan are parralel situations because those are all instances where, as a result of war millions of refugees left/were expelled from the countries they had been living in and were unable to return to their homes in the aftermath because of subsequent political realities. In each case these refugees were absorbed into the societies in which they found themselves and moved on with their lives.
I am certainly not proud to be compared to Saudi Arabia, but that misses the point. People do not have an inherant right to move to whichever country they wish. States can legitimately govern who is allowed into their borders and who can acquire citizenship. It is not illegitimate for a national majority to implement immigration laws to perpetuate their majority status. If, for example, a population of turks surpassing the total current population of Greece wanted to move to Greece and aquire citizenship (thereby making Greeks a minority in their own country) it would be legitimate for Greece to deny them the right to immigrate and aquire citizenship.