Did Ahmadinejad Really Call To "wipe Israel Off The Map?"

Ahnimus

I see a lot of people quoting Ahmadinejad as saying this, and I want you all to know that you are wrong. That's just what the headlines say, nowhere have I seen this directly quoted and/or properly translated. Read the below article for a better understanding, please.

I read again in this morning's Boston Globe a matter of fact reference to Iran's threat to "wipe Israel off the map." This echoes the repeated allegation by President Bush and other top administration officials that Iran's President Ahmadinejad has issued such a call. "We are talking about a specific threat on a partner of the U.S. and Germany," Bush told the German newspaper Bild last week. But is this not just more neo-con disinformation, designed to inspire fear that Iran's nuclear program, which heads the long list of Washington's charges against Iran, is really designed to annihilate Israel?

It turns out that Ahmadinejad never said what is being routinely attributed to him. Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at University of Michigan who reads Persian, explains that he actually stated (quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini): "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

Now, some might say, "So he didn't say, 'wipe off the map,' he said 'erase from the page.' What's the difference? Anyway he's saying he wants to get rid of Israel." But Cole explains why the mistranslation significantly distorts the Iranian leader's words. "Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope -- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that 'Israel must be wiped off the map' with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time."

How would it sound if Bush kept repeating: "The Iranian president has quoted Ayatollah Khomeini, who died seventeen years ago, as saying 'the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time?'" Pretty lame, huh? Or if he were to say, "In ten years, Iran might be able to build a nuclear weapon to use against Israel, which itself has had a couple hundred nukes for quite awhile?" Pretty lame, too. You can be sure that employees in the current incarnation of the Office of Special Plans aren't being paid to churn out that kind of stuff. They're paid to produce effective propaganda to justify the planned attack on Iran.

"This is how we'll spin it," some wise neo-con must have suggested as soon as the Iranian leader made his statement. "We'll say Ahmadinejad has stated publicly that he wants to wipe Israel off the map, and since we know that Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons, clearly Iran plans to nuke Israel at the earliest opportunity. People will say, 'That's crazy, Israel would respond to an attack by destroying Iran.' But we'll say, 'Ahmadinejad is indeed crazy. And he's as bad as Hitler!'"

There are risks in this spin. In the build-up to war on Iraq, the security of Israel was only referenced marginally. The suggestion that the war was "for Israel" was roundly pooh-poohed and those arguing this were and are tarred with the brush of anti-Semitism. But here the president is all but declaring that he will attack Iran rather than allow the country to acquire the ability to produce nuclear weapons which might someday be deployed against nuclear Israel. On March 20 Bush declared specifically, "The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace. I made it clear, and I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel." Not, "One of the threats from Iran," but "The threat from Iran." The problem with Iran (which has never in modern times attacked another country) is that it threatens, not the U.S., but Israel! That's the pretty clearly stated position of the administration. And if it's actually unlikely that Iran plans military action against Israel, the administration will doctor the intelligence as it has in the past, and ensure that the press hypes the threat. "Vanish from the page of time" becomes "wipe off the map." Ahmadinejad becomes Hitler. A legal nuclear program once promoted by U.S. administrations becomes a cause of inherent suspicion because Iran with all its oil has no reason for nuclear power. A design on a stolen laptop becomes confirmation of a military nuclear program. Iran's withdrawal from a voluntary non-binding agreement between Europe and Iran becomes a violation of international law. The U.S. eager to effect regime change in Iran becomes the "international community" supposedly "losing patience" with Iran.
More...

rebornFixer

I just posted a freaking link from an Arabic website! What is you problem?

Ahnimus

reborncareerist wrote:

I just posted a freaking link from an Arabic website! What is you problem?

Problem is, Iran is a persian country.

dg1979us

Ahnimus wrote:

Problem is, Iran is a persian country.

I dont know the answer to this as I dont speak Arabic or Farsi, but I would venture to guess that an Arabic news organization, based out of the ME, would have some people on its staff capable of speaking Farsi.

rebornFixer

Ahnimus wrote:

Problem is, Iran is a persian country.

In case you haven't noticed, I am the one who usually points that out on here. But thanks. My point was, wouldn't an Arabic source be inclined to go easy on Iran's leader? They seem to be OK with repeating what he said.

thankyougrandma

I don't believe that (said or not said) it is the worse thing about Iran, human rights REAL violations is the bigger concern in this country to me. I mean you can't wipe out a country or a religion off the map, it's impossible. If Iran want to destroy Israel, they'll get destroy before achieving their supposed goal, it's all a huge breaking news drama thing, so bad...

Ahnimus

reborncareerist wrote:

In case you haven't noticed, I am the one who usually points that out on here. But thanks. My point was, wouldn't an Arabic source be inclined to go easy on Iran's leader? They seem to be OK with repeating what he said.

It's in the best interest of the Arabic world at this time to act against Iran. Most of the Lebonese people I have spoken to dislike Iran all together, regardless of who is running the country. Very similar to American perspective, they just dislike any country with the name Iran or that particular geographical area of the planet. Quite saddening really.

miller8966

Ahnimus wrote:

It's in the best interest of the Arabic world at this time to act against Iran. Most of the Lebonese people I have spoken to dislike Iran all together, regardless of who is running the country. Very similar to American perspective, they just dislike any country with the name Iran or that particular geographical area of the planet. Quite saddening really.

well iran does kind of suck

shiraz

reborncareerist wrote:

I just posted a freaking link from an Arabic website! What is you problem?

Ahmadinejad's speeches are also being broadcasted via TV (=video) with a translation, that's how I got the "wipe Israel off the map" thing. Do you think maybe there's a global translation-conspiracy?

Byrnzie

miller8966 wrote:

well iran does kind of suck

Really? In what respect? Have you been there?

Byrnzie

shiraz wrote:

Ahmadinejad's speeches are also being broadcasted via TV (=video) with a translation, that's how I got the "wipe Israel off the map" thing. Do you think maybe there's a global translation-conspiracy?

No, just an American translation snowball effect. Lazy media stations in the west pick up on what someone in the states says - i.e, their mis-translation of Ahmadinejad's speech - and this becomes accepted as fact, for reasons of either laziness or convenience - or both.

OutOfBreath

reborncareerist wrote:

In case you haven't noticed, I am the one who usually points that out on here. But thanks. My point was, wouldn't an Arabic source be inclined to go easy on Iran's leader? They seem to be OK with repeating what he said.

Not necessarily, as the longest running conflict down there is between shi'ites and sunnis. Iran is the only shi'ite country, and is viewed with suspicion by mostly sunni arabs. Shi'ite arabs side with Iran on religious grounds yes. But the majority are sunnis, who dont like shi'ites. so there is no reason to assume sunni gulf-state news to go easy on Iran.

Peace
Dan

El_Kabong

shiraz wrote:

Ahmadinejad's speeches are also being broadcasted via TV (=video) with a translation, that's how I got the "wipe Israel off the map" thing. Do you think maybe there's a global translation-conspiracy?

<scratches head>

shiraz wrote:

I'm not gonna be demagogic about it. Do you understand hebrew?

This, This is what I'm talking about. Assuming things just becasue someone said something that matched your point of view and there we have it

How LOW can you guys go?

PaperPlates

The whole country is a big pile of shi'ite.

polaris

so ... everyone thinks that the president of iran (much easier to type than his actual name) sole purpose is to build nuclear weapons so he can destroy israel?? ...

what do you guys take iranians for? ... for pete's sake ... i guess in the end - it makes it easier to put a real hate on the guy for future actions against iran ...

i don't have any love for right wing hardliners like him but i'm not gonna buy into this marketing ad to support more war ...

even flow?

Seems that until one of the two factions just disappears things will not get better. And if things are to get better, who really cares what side disappears as long as one does.

even flow?

polaris wrote:

so ... everyone thinks that the president of iran (much easier to type than his actual name) sole purpose is to build nuclear weapons so he can destroy israel?? ...

what do you guys take iranians for? ... for pete's sake ... i guess in the end - it makes it easier to put a real hate on the guy for future actions against iran ...

i don't have any love for right wing hardliners like him but i'm not gonna buy into this marketing ad to support more war ...

Much easier to blame Iran as you can't say anything about gods people and have them accept it.

dkst0426

Byrnzie wrote:

No, just an American translation snowball effect.

Al-Jazeera
Bangkok Post
BBC

Yeah, those are such "American" media outlets there. :rolleyes:

rebornFixer

polaris, you need to relax. No one on here is clamoring for another war ... If you want to be annoyed, why not direct it at the man who actually made the comment about Israel? If anything is going to cause a war, it is this idiot looking for one.

jeffbr

dkst0426 wrote:

Al-Jazeera
Bangkok Post
BBC

Yeah, those are such "American" media outlets there. :rolleyes:

Yeah, but on the MT the USA is the source of all evil. :rolleyes:

polaris

reborncareerist wrote:

polaris, you need to relax. No one on here is clamoring for another war ... If you want to be annoyed, why not direct it at the man who actually made the comment about Israel? If anything is going to cause a war, it is this idiot looking for one.

and this is the problem ... what acts of aggression have iran committed against other countries? ...

do you honestly think he is sitting there and his sole purpose is to destroy all of israel?? ... if so, then i can understand why everyone wants to bomb him and all his people ...

and why we will never have peace ... as far as i can tell - the americans have done more invading then anyone else ... why aren't we bombing them?