Options
Did Ahmadinejad Really Call To "wipe Israel Off The Map?"
Ahnimus
Posts: 10,569
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...
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
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.
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.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
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
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?
Really? In what respect? Have you been there?
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.
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
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
<scratches head>
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
www.myspace.com/jensvad
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.
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:
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?
I agree, even if the Iranians had a nuke would they really use it to "wipe Israel of the map". I doubt it. cuz if they send one their way they know that Israel will send one and the US will send a bunch more leaving nothing of Iran. I dont think they hate Isreal enough to warrent their own destruction.
which part of the word "translation" didn't you understand? Never seen a live event who got translated while taking place, or do you think every news stations in the world are having a transltaion-conspiracy? What is there you were trying to prove, that I knew what I was talking about (via live translation) and you didn't have a clue, so you just assumed?
Well, good for me then
So you basically think we should just trust that guy & see what happen, right? To trust the guy who is actually funding a terror organizations to fight Israel. Sure, lets give him a chance. Maybe he'll kill you, but maybe not.
Which "God's People" ? Muslims? Christians? Jews? (insert religion of choice)?
They all claim to be "God's People". Muslims do, Jews do, Christians do.
Personally I think Hockey fans and Hockey Players are "God's People".
Think I'll start a new religion. I'll call it Puckism. Puckist. I'm a Puckist.
Im not saying you should trust the guy, he definately doesnt want the best for Isreal but I really dont think of him capable of going that far. It would'nt make much sense. I think the guy is a nut but hes not stupid. I think that putting preasure on him and allowing for a revolt from the inside is much better than banging on the drums of war just because this guy can snap at any moment, i dont think its very realistic.
Enough of the facile arguments about Americans ... Was that even the topic of this thread? Do you really want me to post a list of "acts of aggression"? OK, sure ... How about attacking Iraq in the 80s. How about arming and training Hezbollah, definitely sounds like an act of aggression to me. Now, did that change your mind? Thought not.
ha! ... is iraq now a victim cuz its convenient? ... iraq invaded iran just like they did in kuwait because of border disputes ... and if we are going to be talking about arming ... who arms the rest of the world??
see ... this is the crux of the difference between us - i'm not sitting here saying iran is some good guy and everyone is bad ... you can take all the propaganda out there and convince yourself of this axis of evil but when all is said and done ... the past actions of the so called "good guys" does not fit that mantra ...
so ... while the marketing campaign follows the drum beats of war - i'm gonna tune out ... you can buy in all you want ... all i know is that more innocent people will die because people buy into this bs ...
Israel is not banging on any drums of war, we've just got out of one. In fact, Israel said over & over again it has no intrest with war against Iran nor Syria. The problem is, if the US decides to do something, us Israelis will be the first to get hurt.
Btw, Hitler was also nut and not stupid, but that didn't stop him from starting ww2. Too many people are listeing to that guy, so we got evey reason not to relate him only as some crazy guy.
The competing translations are:
"must be wiped off the map"
vs:
"must vanish from the pages of time" or "eliminated from the pages of history"
Can any of those be positive????? George Bush has said less about Iran and half of the people here are going apeshit about the US "starting a war". What's the difference?
Forget it, man.
It's absurd. Everything can be twisted, spun and bent. It's dispicable.
I often wonder how many of these lslam extremist apologists, are Muslims, themselves.