My friend Alice is wont to dub him "Adolf Ahmadinejad" (she doesn't think much of his views on gays, for one thing). I wouldn't go that far; but neither would I subscribe to this view, expounded on the website Voltairenet.
Reuters participates in a propaganda campaign against Iran
In order to justify a military operation against Iran, the neoconservatives have started to create a record. The have put a lot of effort into making people believe that this country is ruled by dangerously crazy people who are trying to make a nuclear bomb to be used. In view of such a danger, the only answer is to wage a preventive war.
Within this context, the U.S. press agency Reuters, one of whose representatives is, since the summer, a member of the War Room of the Pentagon, launched an insidious operation against Iran.
On October 26, 2005, Reuters wrote: 'Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that Israel should be wiped off the map, the official news agency IRNA reported, dampening hopes Iran would temper its hostility toward the Jewish state. Support for the Palestinian cause is a central pillar of the Islamic Republic which officially refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist. "Israel must be wiped off the map," Ahmadinejad told a conference called "The World without Zionism," attended by some 3,000 conservative students who chanted "Death to Israel" and "Death to America."
Surprisingly, not many people thought of checking the original wire from IRNA, "Ahmadinejad: Zionist regime bent on countering world of Islam", IRNA, October 26, 2005]], that does not cite the words attributed to president Ahmadineyad.
Based on Reuters wire, the international press talked about a radicalization of the Islamic Republic of Iran while the United States and the whole world reminded us that they recognize the State of Israel and its existence could not be questioned.
... However, the facts are very different. President Ahmadineyad never said that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map, but he endorsed the statement made by imam Khomeini that someday the Zionist regime would be wiped from the map (see document below). There is therefore, no such radicalization of Iran, but the same position stated 25 years ago. Neither is there a threat from Iran to kill anyone, let alone to commit genocide against the Israeli people. There is only a position of principle to condemn the Zionism on the same basis as Iran condemns apartheid, racism and anti-Semitism.
Articles like this led to comments like this one on the Guardian newspaper's website:
"For the record the Iranian president went to an anti-Zionist conference and quoted Ayatollah Khomeini, saying that the ?Occupation regime? must ?vanish.? This has been grossly misquoted by the Zionist led media and is another example of the war party?s propaganda machine at work."
Of course, I knew it, it must be the Jewish media again. So could it really be that Mr Ahmadinejad meant, say, that Israel could stay, but it would have to stop behaving in a Zionist way, occupying the West Bank, etc.? That he's not so bad after all? Except that - what's this we read in the Voltairenet article's translation of his speech?
Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime had to be wiped off the face of the earth. This was a very wise statement. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise. It is possible to create a new front from within an old one. This means defeat, and he who accepts the existence of this regime in fact signs the defeat of the Muslim world. In his battle against the World of Arrogance, our dear Imam set the occupying regime as the target of his fight. I do not doubt that the new wave which has begun in Palestine and which today we are also witnessing in the Islamic world is a wave of morality which has spread all over the Islamic world. But we must be alert and distrust the traps.
For more than 50 years, the World Oppressor has tried to give recognition to the existence of this occupying regime, and has taken steps in this direction to stabilize it. An important stage was reached 27 or 28 years ago. Regrettably, one of the countries of the first line made this mistake and we still hope that it will correct it [e.g. Peace treaty between Egypt and Israel] .
I hope you caught that. What he calls the 'occupying regime' has been around 'for more than 50 years'. Not since the 1967 war. The entire state of Israel is an occupying regime, and he wants it eliminated. End of story.
By the way, I endorse the comments by Juan Cole that this does not amount to a call for genocide. Countries can be wiped off the map by various means, including non-violent ones. Scotland was wiped out as an independent nation state in 1707. A few years ago, a small independent island in the Indian Ocean, previously a French colony, voted to rejoin France, thus wiping itself off the map. Personally I find it hard to see Israel ceasing to exist in either of these peaceful ways. There are some idealists out there who still dream of a one-state solution with some form of power-sharing arrangement of the sort that has, um, proved such a success in Northern Ireland. There are others who support a one-state solution which would prove less amenable to my concepts of human rights and which I would not happily consign the Israeli people.
Reuters participates in a propaganda campaign against Iran
In order to justify a military operation against Iran, the neoconservatives have started to create a record. The have put a lot of effort into making people believe that this country is ruled by dangerously crazy people who are trying to make a nuclear bomb to be used. In view of such a danger, the only answer is to wage a preventive war.
Within this context, the U.S. press agency Reuters, one of whose representatives is, since the summer, a member of the War Room of the Pentagon, launched an insidious operation against Iran.
On October 26, 2005, Reuters wrote: 'Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that Israel should be wiped off the map, the official news agency IRNA reported, dampening hopes Iran would temper its hostility toward the Jewish state. Support for the Palestinian cause is a central pillar of the Islamic Republic which officially refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist. "Israel must be wiped off the map," Ahmadinejad told a conference called "The World without Zionism," attended by some 3,000 conservative students who chanted "Death to Israel" and "Death to America."
Surprisingly, not many people thought of checking the original wire from IRNA, "Ahmadinejad: Zionist regime bent on countering world of Islam", IRNA, October 26, 2005]], that does not cite the words attributed to president Ahmadineyad.
Based on Reuters wire, the international press talked about a radicalization of the Islamic Republic of Iran while the United States and the whole world reminded us that they recognize the State of Israel and its existence could not be questioned.
... However, the facts are very different. President Ahmadineyad never said that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map, but he endorsed the statement made by imam Khomeini that someday the Zionist regime would be wiped from the map (see document below). There is therefore, no such radicalization of Iran, but the same position stated 25 years ago. Neither is there a threat from Iran to kill anyone, let alone to commit genocide against the Israeli people. There is only a position of principle to condemn the Zionism on the same basis as Iran condemns apartheid, racism and anti-Semitism.
Articles like this led to comments like this one on the Guardian newspaper's website:
"For the record the Iranian president went to an anti-Zionist conference and quoted Ayatollah Khomeini, saying that the ?Occupation regime? must ?vanish.? This has been grossly misquoted by the Zionist led media and is another example of the war party?s propaganda machine at work."
Of course, I knew it, it must be the Jewish media again. So could it really be that Mr Ahmadinejad meant, say, that Israel could stay, but it would have to stop behaving in a Zionist way, occupying the West Bank, etc.? That he's not so bad after all? Except that - what's this we read in the Voltairenet article's translation of his speech?
Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime had to be wiped off the face of the earth. This was a very wise statement. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise. It is possible to create a new front from within an old one. This means defeat, and he who accepts the existence of this regime in fact signs the defeat of the Muslim world. In his battle against the World of Arrogance, our dear Imam set the occupying regime as the target of his fight. I do not doubt that the new wave which has begun in Palestine and which today we are also witnessing in the Islamic world is a wave of morality which has spread all over the Islamic world. But we must be alert and distrust the traps.
For more than 50 years, the World Oppressor has tried to give recognition to the existence of this occupying regime, and has taken steps in this direction to stabilize it. An important stage was reached 27 or 28 years ago. Regrettably, one of the countries of the first line made this mistake and we still hope that it will correct it [e.g. Peace treaty between Egypt and Israel] .
I hope you caught that. What he calls the 'occupying regime' has been around 'for more than 50 years'. Not since the 1967 war. The entire state of Israel is an occupying regime, and he wants it eliminated. End of story.
By the way, I endorse the comments by Juan Cole that this does not amount to a call for genocide. Countries can be wiped off the map by various means, including non-violent ones. Scotland was wiped out as an independent nation state in 1707. A few years ago, a small independent island in the Indian Ocean, previously a French colony, voted to rejoin France, thus wiping itself off the map. Personally I find it hard to see Israel ceasing to exist in either of these peaceful ways. There are some idealists out there who still dream of a one-state solution with some form of power-sharing arrangement of the sort that has, um, proved such a success in Northern Ireland. There are others who support a one-state solution which would prove less amenable to my concepts of human rights and which I would not happily consign the Israeli people.
posted by Lopakhin at 4:59 AM
1 Comments:
Tim, good post, but I think its somewhat superseded (not sure of spelling) by Mr Ahmad etc.'s recent comments about a 'storm' which will 'annihilate' Israel. What he said earlier sound mild by comparison.
Post a Comment
<< Home