73 thoughts on “‘We’ll Wipe Israel Off the Map’ and Other Things Ahmadinejad Never Said – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. Richard, you are right to emphasize this mistranslation and keep it in the public eye. Robert Fisk already did a couple of years ago. Unfortunately the lie continues to be put forth through Lobby propaganda. Maybe your blog will reach more people out there who are still believing it.

    1. Je suis d’accord. Le mensonge sur le gouvernement Iranien se répète à nouveau! Es muy importante que todo el mundo se entere de esto.

      Now, for those who don’t speak Spanish or French, which of the above words can you immediately recognize?

      gouvernement ? Iranien ? Repete ? Importante ?

      Well, in the above statement by Ahmadinejad, the common word “Regime” is used. Gene is quite right, the world needs to have this MEMgineering (a new term I’ve coined for memory engineering) reversed. I’ve also another post here awaiting moderation that will reveal how this fits into the larger perspective.

  2. -=A FEW INCONVENIENT TRUTHS – IT’S TIME TO CONNECT THE DOTS=-
    ~PersianAdvocate presents to you, a RICHARDSILVERSTEIN.com Exclusive WikiLeak!~
    -57 Years Ago-
    August 15, 1953 – NY Times, “Mossadegh Plays with Fire”
    A few days before “Operation Ajax” (Google term), the NY Times prints this:
    http://www.filedropper.com/mossadeghplayswithfire
    An article I scanned and uploaded from a microfilm – available at any reputable library, look for that specific date’s print. It’s a PDF and can download it by looking for the gray “Download File” button to avoid the ads on Filedropper.com)

    -35 Years Ago-
    The Shah of Iran has an interesting conversation with Mike Wallace:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kySR3fpa5s (runtime: ~3 min)

    -Present Day-
    “Save Sakineh” campaigns are led by “Mujahedin-e Khalq” (Google term) members and the public is again fooled into thinking that cases of torture and brutality are aplenty;
    Ahmadinejad is mistranslated yet again and the entire media pretends that he’s a 9/11 conspirator:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABveHYugEkk&feature=fvw

    ———————————–

    Well so, does the Lobby exist?

  3. You are right Richard. And that Holocaust denial conference he held was actually a Jewish Victims of Oppression Memorial Conference.

    Crafty Zionists and their lies!

    1. A non sequitur. What does Holocaust denial have to do with whether or not Iran has stated it will destroy Israel? Ahmedinejad’s views may be loony regarding the Holocaust, but that’s not grounds for bombing Teheran.

    2. Were the Neturei Karta that attended also Holocaust “deniers”?

      Ahmadinejad’s approach was critiqued within Iranian society as it stands today, and by many clerics, in fact. But, as far as the Holocaust goes, he agrees wholeheartedly that it happened. Indeed, he had a hand in running this TV series to counter the propaganda you just peddled again:
      http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/09/iranian_tv_shows_holocaust_mov.php

      Yet, when you read the AP article, they make it seem like he wasn’t the one who had a hand in it. In addition, someone who has been labeled Hitler has NEVER, EVER taken a pic quite like this:
      http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/nk%20kiss.jpg

      And ya, the propaganda works both ways. You live by your propaganda; you will die by your propaganda.

      1. BTW, the series about the “Iranian Schindler” is a true story, was run on State TV, and during said “Holocaust Denial Conference”, which was actually entitled, “A World Without Zionism”

          1. Not sure if I am informed enough as you would be, Richard. Perhaps you’ll tell me one day why it was not a good idea referencing them. I know they are an extreme view, but they are still Jewish, right? Am I wrong? I really don’t know…

          2. If we’re talking about Neturey Karta, then they’re the fringe of the fringe. Ultra-Orthodox so purist in their beliefs that they believe there can be no Jewish state in Israel until, literally, the Messiah comes. They are reluctantly willing to accept the existence of Israel as a state, but refuse to recognize it as Jewish in any form that they would affirm. Most Jews look upon them with a mixture of chagrin and embarrassment.

    1. -=A FEW INCONVENIENT TRUTHS=-

      -57 Years Ago-
      August 15, 1953 – NY Times, “Mossadegh Plays with Fire”
      A few days before “Operation Ajax” (Google term), the NY Times prints this:
      http://www.filedropper.com/mossadeghplayswithfire
      An article I scanned and uploaded from a microfilm – available at any reputable library, look for that specific date’s print. It’s a PDF and can download it by looking for the gray “Download File” button to avoid the ads on Filedropper.com)

      -35 Years Ago-
      The Shah of Iran has an interesting conversation with Mike Wallace:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kySR3fpa5s (runtime: ~3 min)

      -Present Day-
      “Save Sakineh” campaigns are led by “Mujahedin-e Khalq” (Google term) members and the public is again fooled into thinking that cases of torture and brutality are aplenty;
      Ahmadinejad is mistranslated yet again and the entire media pretends that he’s a 9/11 conspirator:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABveHYugEkk&feature=fvw

      Check out some of the other videos on that last one.

      Richard’s blog has pointed out the Mujahedin-e Khalq’s role in supplying the State Department and Mossad with bad intel here: https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2010/11/30/mossad-and-mujahadeen-e-khalq-partners-in-assassination/

      This is a group that is at least 70 years old and has contributed to the overthrow of every government in Iran since Mossadegh. They helped the Khomeinists come to power and were subsequently ousted to Iraq, where they joined Saddam to invade Iran, and killed thousands of Iranians in an unjust invasion. Over 100,000 Iranians were killed with Chemical Weapons in a single event, the effects of which still reverberate around Iran (many more were injured). They are not America’s friend, whatsoever. For instance, as Richard points out in the article linked in my post that he wrote, the MEK has passed off falsified data about Iran’s nuclear program. In addition, they now run under different names within the US, publishing books like the “Iran Threat” (which, has the kind of bibliography you would make in 2nd grade, replete with references you knew your teacher wouldn’t check if you were clever enough — okay, maybe that was me lol — anyway, the citations disintegrate under the light of day), making fake accounts on HuffingtonPost.com and other sites to compliment their own members who are blog authors, censoring counterpoints, and more.

      This is another Al Qaeda in the making.

      Now, the kicker. Shirin Ebadi, a supposed lawyer and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize (a medal which Shimon Peres uses to beat Palestinians to death before bedtime), has been caught removing the word “not” from an Article of the Islamic Penal Code to try to contribute to the “Save Sakineh” campaign and make it seem like Iran is the stoning capital of the world, when there was actually a moratorium, and the picture of the woman paraded around the world was at least 20 years younger (with no details as to case history, judicial posturing, the 3-2 Supreme Court split, the automatic appeal (which you don’t get in the US), etc.)

    2. Sorry, I didn’t mean to spam. My browser is playing tricks on me and I took the liberty of adding more below. I thought the other comments were gone for some reason. Also, the typo note is about my comment, not Richard’s blog.

  4. Richard, this is important: not only did Ahmadinejad never speak of wiping Israel off the map, but he also explicitly said that Iran would not take action to make the Zionist regime vanish. From the Iranian Presidency’s official site:

    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the Zionist regime is inherently doomed to annihilation and there is no need for Iranians to take action.

    Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of D8 summit in Malaysia, he said the Zionists themselves are well aware of the fact that their time is over.

    “They label us as aggressors but this is a big lie because the Iranian nation throughout the history never attacked any nation,” he said.

    This is a very clear statement that Iran will not attack Israel.

  5. Well, let’s not go too far and make the guy a saint. Even if everyone agrees he didn’t say what he is alleged to have said, he’s still an a**hole. And a lousy president, as well as being an accused murderer.

    1. Is he though, Gene? I felt that way too until I found out that Shirin Ebadi pretty much lied. Then the entire wall crumbled or proverbial dam burst. The Green Movement, is a sham, and it was run by MEK members who have a LOT of money now thanks to the Bush administration (See Seymour Hersh’s articles) and, thus, additional allies. So, Shirin Ebadi, is on record MISQUOTING Article 86 of the Islamic Penal Code: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/07/iran-sakineh-mohammadi-ashtiani .

      In that article, she states, “Under its penal code, the punishment for a single man or woman guilty of sex outside marriage became 100 lashes; under Article 86, the punishment for a married person became death by stoning.” Article 86, in actuality, has the word “NOT” in it, which she omitted, and that COMPLETELY reverses the meaning.

      Article 86, as presented in its first form to then President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (December 21, 1991), ALWAYS included the word “not”. Here is the real text translated in verbatim: “Adultery of a permanently married man or a permanently married woman who does not have access to his or her spouse, due to travel, incarceration or similar impediments, shall NOT require stoning.” (Emphasis added).

      This is a supposed “Nobel Peace Prize Laureate”, a prize that has been politicked to death and completely taints the more noble efforts of innovative scientists and others. It’s about time people saw the truth about Shirin Ebadi. I find this failure of character to cause her integrity to completely crumble and forces me to question her motives and agenda. Source for translation (Women’s Rights Organization): http://www.learningpartnership.org/lib/islamic-republic-iran-penal-code-excerpts-relating-women

      Please keep in mind that is the first draft. Of course, I, too, seek reform in Iran. I was fooled into thinking the “Green Movement” was the answer, and ignored the clear conflict of interest in Mousavi spearheading it. A man with that history, talking about social freedom, cannot be one with integrity.

      And let’s be intellectually honest, what world leader is not an a-hole to someone or an accused murderer to someone else… well save for Nelson Mandela.

      Funny thing about Nelson Mandela, a living hero — he stopped showing up in the papers as soon as he criticized Israeli policies.

      In any case, the way forward is with accuracy and honesty, with guided instruction, and to remove ALL justifications for suppression of dissent — including the Lobby’s push from the outside, which is the most powerful one of all.

  6. Gary Sick at Columbia has also been pointing out the mis-translation for years — and he also is no friend of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, pointing out other bellicose statements — statements in the same “hotness” range as the Israeli government’s.

    The Green party debacle reminds me of things Nasrollah Fatami (now diseased oil minister in the Mosaddegh regime, in exile in the USA) used to say — that Iran veered between socialism, crony capitalism and kleptocracy without ever developing really efficient economic underpinnings. In the 1970s he kept saying that everyone looked at religious issues in the Middle East but the real trouble was economic — solve the economy and the religious issues fade into the background. He noted that economically inefficient ba’athist regimes (as in Egypt, Syria and Iraq at the time) had rejected religious extremism (they were military dictatorships) but were still bellicose as well.

    Iran is now back to Mosaddegh socialism with a more religious tone but apparently with even worse management skills, and it isn’t working well, either. I’d worry more about that than about any statements Ahmadinejad makes or is even alleged to have made, because economically unstable governments tend to get more adventuresome internationally.

    1. economically inefficient ba’athist regimes (as in Egypt, Syria and Iraq at the time)

      Funny, but Iraq enjoyed emerging first world status under the Ba’thists until the foolish debacle of the war with Iran began to take its toll, followed by the well-calculated devastation of the so-called “Gulf war” and thirteen years of the most brutal sanctions in modern history.

      Syria is not doing badly economically under the Ba`thist regime of Bashshar Al Assad, considering that they have minimal oil resources, and despite the extremely heavy burden of a million and a half or more Iraqi refugees, many of whom are quite destitute. The standard of living is not close to what it was in Iraq in the ’70’s and early ’80’s, but the majority manage the necessities of life quite well, and are able to go somewhat beyond that at least from time to time. There is a strong middle class, a reasonably well-educated populace for a third world country. The country is reasonably self-sufficient with a lot of manufacturing for domestic use and export, their own domestically produced automobile, and very strong agricultural sector (most of the ready-to-wear clothing sold in Jordan and other neighboring countries is manufactured in Syria). The transportation infrastructure is pretty good, last time I was there there was a lot of building going on in some areas (I saw a lot of building going on in Homs), and I have seen quite a bit of improvement in infrastructure in the last few years. And since Bashshar became President the internet has really taken off there, and the number of cafes and restaurants with free wireless has exploded. Not bad for an economically inefficient regime.

  7. PA – Everything you say above about Shirin Ebadi may be true. The only things I know about her are from the publicity surrounding her winning of the Nobel, and from reading her book. I have no way of knowing more. Obviously, as an Iranian, you might have some inside poop, that I do not have privilege to, and it’s not worth my while to probe deeper. However, just what does your screed have to do with my opinion of Ahmadinejad? His record, beyond the negative hasbara, is out there for all to see. He was involved in the raid on the US embassy; his economic policies have helped to destroy iran’s wealth and harm the people. And most of the time he behaves rather like a loose cannon, and goes out of his way to rave like a nut. The subject of this post is what Ahmadinejad said or didn’t say about Israel. No need to obfuscate it with your dislike of Mme. Ebadi. One thing in her favor was her defense of Shaul Bakhash’s wife, Haleh Esfandiari, when she was imprisoned for purported espionage against Israel.

    1. I actually wanted to go into that, but I always feel like I write my own blogs on Richard’s entries and he is just too nice to say anything to me about it. I hit my word limit, submitted it and so forth.

      As for him being President, let’s consider what he has done for Iran:
      (1) watched the US and Israel draw the line in the sand (the “red line”) and kept stepping over it while asking, “What are you going to do?” and now Iranian soft-power has increased 200 fold;
      (2) become the face of the “evil government” – and once he is gone, so will that evil face;
      (3) rang the bell and the US/Israel laid down sanctions, which the whole world knows is duplicitous and dishonest, while giving him a reason to justify the suppression of dissent and therefore the threats of regime change, a drive for Iran’s independence in petroleum refinement (they actually made a major innovation in that field and combined the extraction-refinement process in one apparatus for specific products);
      (4) re-arranged the global equation (the non-Aligned Movement) whereby developing countries are now firmly standing behind Iran against a US that dictates leadership instead of seeking cooperation (he increased soft-power and bettered relations across the globe, including the US’ backdoor);
      (5) created his own English-speaking PR apparatus (PressTV) to combat the mainstream media – yes, biased as well if we’re being honest – but at least there’s now a second side; and,
      (6) despite facing election unrest and a strong PR drive to dispose of him, is still there.

      Is Mousavi any better? The alleged “Butcher of Lebanon”? How is Rahnavard, his wife, speaking of strong, independent women when she LOOKS like a caged canary?

      Ahmadinejad also made this speech, unpublicized as much as anything else that would make him seem like a hardcore fascist: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/zvi-bar-el-ahmadinejad-vs-iran-s-morality-police-1.297776

      Why did he do that? Because Ahmadinejad is a leftist in disguise. People were right when they said he took over the Embassy and with the other students, I believe. Does that make him a bad person? Well, the series, “Dateline” along with it’s count-up (Day 1…Day 2…. Day 3…. Day 444) would make you think that. The leftist students who took over the embassy were actually unrelated to the Clerics. The Clerics only ratified it thereafter seeing it as a positive spin on their foreign policy perspective. The reason the students seized the embassy was because they called it a “den of spies” — something WikiLeaks vindicated only 30 years too late. And also, keep in mind that no Americans were actually seriously hurt or killed during said “Hostage Crisis”. Only when Operation Eagle Claw ended in disaster, but only then.

  8. Translate this.
    עַל נַהֲרוֹת, בָּבֶל–שָׁם יָשַׁבְנוּ, גַּם-בָּכִינוּ: בְּזָכְרֵנוּ, אֶת-צִיּוֹן.
    עַל-עֲרָבִים בְּתוֹכָהּ– תָּלִינוּ, כִּנֹּרוֹתֵינוּ
    כִּי שָׁם שְׁאֵלוּנוּ שׁוֹבֵינוּ, דִּבְרֵי-שִׁיר– וְתוֹלָלֵינוּ שִׂמְחָה:
    שִׁירוּ לָנוּ, מִשִּׁיר צִיּוֹן
    אֵיךְ–נָשִׁיר אֶת-שִׁיר-יְהוָה: עַל, אַדְמַת נֵכָר
    ינִאִם-אֶשְׁכָּחֵךְ יְרוּשָׁלִָם– תִּשְׁכַּח יְמִי
    תִּדְבַּק-לְשׁוֹנִי, לְחִכִּי– אִם-לֹא אֶזְכְּרֵכִי:
    אִם-לֹא אַעֲלֶה, אֶת-יְרוּשָׁלִַם– עַל, רֹאשׁ שִׂמְחָתִי

    If you can and you understand, your will realize why you can never wipe away Zionism.

    1. One of the most original Zionists, as you probably know, was the Gentile Messiah referred to as Cyrus the Great (his actual name Couroche (pronounced Coo-row-sh) is lost in translation. Cyrus was another in his dynasty and we pronounce that name, See-roo-s).

      He stood for social justice and tolerance – the two key stones of the Iranian culture. His gift to the Israelites, besides opening the Babylonian jail cells, was to also help them rebuild, finance, and upstart Jerusalem, and along with it, the Second Temple Mount. Jerusalem became a Satrap, or the original concept of a province, of the Iranian Empire.

      If we are talking about historical “deeds” here, it follows that the Iranians still hold said deed. As one such Iranian who tries to live by the virtues of his forefather, I have to say, Zionism should be done away with – it should be reformed to meet its original designers’ wishes.

      1. that comment should read “Zionism should NOT be done away with”

        …in an ironic twist, I’ve performed a “Shirin Ebadi”

          1. More like iPhone spell check gone awry lol it’s a nasty thing that this Steve Job made. Shai, shoot me an email at PersianAdvocate at gmail dot com 🙂

          2. I would really recommend not to explicitly post your email on a public website like that. There are people who run bots that scan websites and your address may be caught & misused for various purposes. In the future, should you decide to make your address public, make sure you post it as a phrase the bots cannot pick up, such as “persianadvocate AT gmail DOT com”.

            Anyway, thanks!

    2. Can someone please translate? Who’s “you” anyway?

      Zionism is like the Mission Impossible tape; it’s programmed to self-destruct.

      Of course, that program can reverse itself, if Israelis come to their senses in time, make room for their Palestinian brethren and share equal rights with them, but then this isn’t Zionism is it?

      Zionism or peace, what’s it gonna be?

      1. Definitions are not written in stone. Peace requires compromise, a definition I would like to offer anyone who thinks Zionism has to mean racism. As I pointed out, Couroche, a Zionist, would not be a contemporary one

      2. By the rivers of Babylon….pslam 137.
        My point is that the existance of this psalm written in 500-600 BC already represents the deep groove that Zionism and Jerusalem have on the Jewish psyche.
        This groove only runs deeper with the advancement of time. “Eradicating the Zionist regime” phrased any which way you want is not really a possibility. You may be able to fill in the void for a while, as has been proven througout history, bu the jews will always return to Zion.

        1. A convenient distortion of Jewish history. Jews returned from Babylon because there was a gracious Persian king who encouraged them to do so. YOu left that out.

          As for the Zionist “groove” running deeper w. time, I’m afraid I’ll have to dispute that. First, you’re talking about the classical supremacist version of Zionism. And no, that version has no deepening groove in Jewish consciousness. In fact, the groove is rapidly wearing down & out. There may be a critical version of Zionism that could survive, but it won’t be one you’ll agree w. since it will advocate sharing the land with its indigenous inhabitants & according them equal rights & parity.

          Who said anyone about eradicating the ZIonist regime or any regime?? That’s precisely the stupidity & lies I’m rebutting.

          1. A very significant percentage of Jews chose NOT to “return” to a place they had never been since they found that Babylon was the home they and their ancestors knew and found comfortable.

          2. The Jews were only 70 years in Babylon until Cyrus\Couroche\Coresh allowed and encouraged their return, so some of the elders would still remember Zion from first hand. Of course many preferred the flesh pots of Babylon over “ideological Zionism” of the time.

            I wonder what will happen to the Palestinian refugees, many of whom “have never been” to Palestine, if they will be allowed to return – will they prefer to stay in the diaspora in those places where they have been treated well?

          3. many preferred the flesh pots of Babylon over “ideological Zionism” of the time.

            The problem w. classical partisan ZIonists like you is that you distort everything in Jewish history & make it about Zionism. Babylon was no more a fleshpot than the U.S. is. What do you think? Jews in Babylon wined & dined & shtupped shiksas all night along (apologies for my vulgarity but it’s to make a pt)? Stuff & nonsense. Babylon was simply a good place for Jews to live as is the U.S. BTW, Israel? Not so good. A dangerous place for Jews thanks to the policies of yr gov’t.

            Shame the Americans shook off their colonial masters

            Yes, I’d far prefer seeing lawyers here wearing hot stuffy horsehair wigs. It’s so becoming. What are you, nuts? Don’t answer, we already know the answer.

            Instead of publishing many short comments in the same thread, I urge you to save up yr comments & publish less separate ones.

            the Guardian and the Telegraph which are written in understandable British English.

            What language is the NY Times written in? Most who read it (including many outside the U.S.) find it quite understandable.

          4. many preferred the flesh pots of Babylon over “ideological Zionism” of the time.

            “Flesh pots of Babylon”. Indeed? Where do you people get this rubbish? Do you make it up, or is it one of the plethora of stock phrases you guys routinely pull verbatim from some moronic website, or propaganda pamphlet? Sounds more like the latter to me. In fact, Jews enjoyed a good life, and rose to quite high status in Babylon and maintained that for hundreds of years. It was European political Zionism that ultimately led to the events that ruined that life for them, resulting in their mass migration to a situation that turned out not to be so great for them after all.

            I wonder what will happen to the Palestinian refugees, many of whom ‘have never been’ to Palestine, if they will be allowed to return – will they prefer to stay in the diaspora in those places where they have been treated well?

            First, you would probably be very surprised how many Palestinians who were NOT born in Palestine have chosen to go there, and are there now. I am personally acquainted with more than a few. Second, most of those who have managed to build good lives for themselves in other countries will no doubt choose to remain where they are. So what? That is human nature.

            Interesting, though, how you have managed unwittingly to present a very strong argument against the most popular Israeli excuse for refusing to even address the Palestinians’ right of return. I believe the applicable phrase is hoist on your own petard.

          5. Like most Americans, British humour is lost on you, never mind

            Oh puleeeeeze! I grew up and cut my teeth on British humour and that was not British humour.

    3. As Persian Advocate has pointed out, the Jews would never have returned from those Rivers of Babylon which you quote above, were it not for the beneficence of their patron, Cyrus the Great. This is the great king of the Persian kingdom which your gov’t wants to attack.

      1. Israel wouldn’t want to attack a Persia that had a king like Cyrus.

        As a matter of fact there was a time when Israel was on a friendly basis with the area called Lebanon over 2000 years ago (Hiram of Tyre)… different rulers different times.

        The land of Persia may be the same physical area, but it isn’t the same kingdom and certainly isn’t the same ruler.

        1. Iran might be able to have a ruler like Cyrus if Israel didn’t project such a hostile image to Iran and threaten it with annihilation on a semi-regular basis. That really tends to dampen the prospects of those who support Iranian democracy and the Green Movement.

          1. This comment makes no sense.
            Let a leader like Cyrus step up and let the people of Iran elect or place him/her in charge.
            Iran has enough natural resources, population, and land mass that a small piddly little country like Israel shouldn’t matter. Let them step up with some innovation for a change rather than place proxy millitaries on Israel’s doorstep.

          2. Iran can currently have no leader like Cyrus because Israel has threatened Iran with annihilation. Just as Israel resorts to the worst most bellicose right wing leaders when it perceives an existential threat, so do Iranians. Let Israel stand down & Iran will then eventually be able to elect democratic leaders it deserves.

            You mean a “small piddly country like Israel” with the 5th most powerful army in the world & 400 nuclear weapons? Or did you forget those facts?

          3. @Richard
            “because Israel has threatened Iran with annihilation”

            Can you support this with a reliable link – or are you doing exactly what you claim Israel supporters do in the opposite direction?
            I think you’ll find it difficult to substantiate this statement.

          4. Before asking me to prove something that is self-evident pls. do a 30 sec. Google search on keywords like “Israeli threats against Iran.” Undoubtedly you’ll find scores of references to gov’t ministers too numerous to mention who’ve avidly discussed military strikes against Iran & the damage they’d do.

          5. I googled just about any combination of destroying, annihilating, wiping off, decimating, removing, etc etc of Iran by Israel and could not find any reference whatsoever to your statement that “Israel threatens Iran with annihilation”.

            Yes, threatened to bomb or destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity (like Israel did to Iraq or Syria without annihilating them, they’re still very much there!) but to existentially threaten Iran – no find!

            I still challenge you to find proof that any leader in Israel has threatened to “annihilate” Iran, or retract your above unsubstantiated statement.

          6. No, it goes much farther than that. There are many in the highest political and military circles in Israel who believe in regime change. That is, violently overthrowing (“annihilating”) the Iranian regime. The nuclear strike is only part of the strategy. If you don’t know this then you’re woefully misinformed.

            You also appear not to have read Benny Morris’ excremental NY Times op ed advocating a massive attack on Iran. I wrote about that here. I’ve also written in the past about Israeli cabinet ministers who’ve issued bellicose threats against Iran.

            I don’t take kindly to anyone challenging me or demanding that I retract my statements.

          7. I understand that you don’t take kindly to commentators challenging you or demanding retractions. (after all it’s your blog, your rules)

            But in fact you have cleared up the point – you clearly state NOW in your answer to me that some Israeli leaders countenenced the annihilation of the “Iranian regime” (true)and not as you previously stated twice on this thread that they wished to annihilate “Iran” (not true).

            This is a major difference as per the topic of the thread that Ahmadinijad “only” wishes to wipe out the “zionist regime” and not to annihilate “Israel”.

            Same idea but reversed roles.

          8. Israeli leaders countenenced the annihilation of the “Iranian regime

            “Countenanced?” No, advocated, connived, planned for, etc. Do you understand the diff.?

            they wished to annihilate “Iran” (not true).

            Israel’s top generals and politicians explicitly said they wished to send both Lebanon & Gaza back to the stone age during the most recent wars against those respective entities. And they did a pretty good job of it too. So is it your claim that if Israel engaged in a similar assault against Iran that it wouldn’t want or intend to do to it what it’s done to both of those places? Is it your claim that the type of massive, multi target attack necessary to damage, let alone destroy Iran’s nuclear program would be the kind of “surgical strike” to which you likened the Syrian reactor attack? Of course it wouldn’t.

            Ahmadinijad “only” wishes to wipe out the “zionist regime” and not to annihilate “Israel”.

            Nonsense. Ahmedinejad has never said he wishes to wipe out either Israel or the Zionist regime. But nice try.

            I have never read or even seen a copy of the NY Times, so have certainly never read Benny Morris there.

            Have you ever heard of a this new-fangled invention called “the internets.” It allows you to read a newspaper you’re not actually holding in your hand. It’s amazing, you should try it. The NY Times is one of the world’s great newspapers; or at least one the America’s great newspapers. Not perfect by a longshot, but important.

          9. And by the way, as a Brit by birth and Israeli now, I have never read or even seen a copy of the NY Times, so have certainly never read Benny Morris there.
            From what I gather from people who write on this blog, I’m not missing out on anything and ignorance is bliss…

          10. If I had time I’d read many Western and other newspapers, but I prefer to read the Guardian and the Telegraph which are written in understandable British English. Shame the Americans shook off their colonial masters, they might speak proper English today.

    1. Dunno why it worked fine for me and others as well. Are you clicking the gray download file button and putting in the captcha code? Just tried again worked fine. Or you can find it on Proquest at libraries or personal subscription, or micofiche/film

  9. How ought someone who is reasonably informed and not stupid, naive, delusional, or disingenuous parse that engineering professor’s explanation?

    First, they wouldn’t be greatly impressed with the claim that this was an “exact translation” of what Ahmadinejad said, and what his spiritual mentor Khomeini said before him. Save for the simplest and/or most straightforward expressions, that notion of an “exact translation” is a generally dubious one. And Amadinejad wasn’t matter of factly pronouncing himself on anything like the weather, a subject that leaves little room or use for ambiguity. Classic Arabic is known for employing “metaphoric” expression, and I expect the same is true of modern Persian/Farsi, with native-speakers well attuned to such. “Vanish from the page of time” is not metaphor, that is non-symbolic speech? Do Shia Muslims believe in the literal existence of a Great Satan and a Little Satan who they might believe Khomeini, Ahmadinejad, and others meant to be understood literally when calling the United States the former of those and Israel the latter?

    Second, who for a moment imagines that when Khomeini, and later Ahmadinejad, spoke of “this regime occupying Jerusalem,” he did not mean the “Jewish regime occupying Jerusalem”? Any who do are simply not credible, whether they favor or oppose the current regime occupying the modern Iran, or those regimes that previously occupied Persiat, that one along with that of the Shah and those before the Shah’s all reigning over the same population.

    Third, what does it matter that when Khomeini “said it years earlier…no one took it seriously”? When Khomeini said it, Iran had its hands full with Iraq, it had not trained and armed two proxy armies to fight Israel, and it did not have the missles it now has or the prospects of nuclear weapons. If the utterance wasn’t taken seriously when it came from Khomeini, it should be taken seriously coming from Ahmadinejad either?

    Fourth, like the prior two, who honestly believes “must disappear” is merely the prediction of “regime change” and in no way implies “must be destroyed”? If a fellow citizen said at time that the Republicans occupied the White House and controlled Congress something like “these Republicans must go,” few would imagine they meant that Republicans should be forced into tumbrels and taken to the guillotine. But how many outside the anti-Israel crowd will maintain that those who speak in apocolypic terms, celebrate death as a martyr, and persecute Jews, could not mean “must be destroyed” when saying “must disappear”?

    And finally, if Khomeini and Ahmadenijad made clear that they only hoped that “Israel’s regime and political system (would disappear in a way) akin to what happened in the Soviet Union, where the regime disappeared without bloodshed, that would be no big deal. The bogus confederation that was the Soviet Union dissolved, just as the must longer running Ottoman Empire did 70 or so years earlier, but Russia remained Russia ruled by Russians with none slaughtered or forcibly driven out. How many who are not stupid, naive, delusional, or disingenuous believe that is the sort of “regime change” that would see Israel, “the regime occupying Jerusalem” to “vanish from the page of time”?

    1. This is mere vacuous wind-bagging.

      Classic Arabic is known for employing “metaphoric” expression, and I expect the same is true of modern Persian/Farsi

      YOu don’t know Farsi clearly, yet you want to expound upon a Farsi-language statement by claiming that rhetorical style in Arabic must be true of Farsi. I’d be willing to bet that anyone knowing both languages would take exception.

      Vanish from the page of time” is not metaphor, that is non-symbolic speech?

      Yes, indeed, it’s a highly metaphoric statement. Do you actually know anything about either rhetoric or literary analysis?

      Do Shia Muslims believe in the literal existence of a Great Satan and a Little Satan

      What does this have to do w. the price of beans. So Iran’s leaders have used such rhetorical terms. Similar terms have been used by Israel to excoriate Iran.

      who for a moment imagines that when Khomeini, and later Ahmadinejad, spoke of “this regime occupying Jerusalem,” he did not mean the “Jewish regime occupying Jerusalem”?

      Sorry, bub, but you weren’t inside the minds of those who heard either one deliver the speeches in which these words were said, so besides not knowing Farsi or Iranians, you simply don’t know what anyone was thinking when they heard this. Iran certainly doesn’t like Israel (who can blame them). But Iran’s leaders have affirmed (& you’ve curiously left this out of yr diatribe) that they would accept any solution approved by the Palestinian people. ANY solution. Not just a one-state solution or an anti-ZIonist solution. But ANY solution. Did you forget that?

      it had not trained and armed two proxy armies to fight Israel

      Whoa, Hezbollah and Hamas are ARMIES? Since when? If so, then why couldn’t that Hamas army inflict greater damage on Israel? And if Iran is “training and arming” Hamas, it’s certainly doing a piss poor job of it.

      who honestly believes “must disappear” is merely the prediction of “regime change” and in no way implies “must be destroyed”

      You seem to have a problem with basic English. “Disappear” and “destroy” are quite different words. YOU may believe there’s no difference, but anyone speaking halfway decent English will understand the diff.

      I warn you that if your goal is to enter into similarly long-winded rants full of opinion & light on fact, this isn’t the place.

    2. Classic Arabic is known for employing “metaphoric” expression

      And you are an expert in classic (sic) Arabic? Somehow, I don’t think so. I also doubt seriously that you know anything about Farsi, classic (sic) or otherwise.

    3. PS I love the fact that you are trying to compare classic (sic) Arabic to modern Farsi, which kind of automatically negates any claim you might try to make to expertise (or even minimal knowledge) of either.

    4. It would be fun to completely dissect your entire comment, and demolish all the explicit and implicit nonsense. Unfortunately, I just don’t have the time these days, so will have to limit my entertainment to pointing out just a couple of the more blatantly silly bits.

      Do Shia Muslims believe in the literal existence of a Great Satan and a Little Satan who they might believe Khomeini, Ahmadinejad, and others meant to be understood literally when calling the United States the former of those and Israel the latter?

      ROFLOL! What an amusing example of presumption based on utter ignorance. No. There is no “Great Satan”, nor is there a “Little Satan” in Shi`a theology or any other theology that I am aware of.

      who for a moment imagines that when Khomeini, and later Ahmadinejad, spoke of “this regime occupying Jerusalem,” he did not mean the “Jewish regime occupying Jerusalem”? Any who do are simply not credible, whether they favor or oppose the current regime occupying the modern Iran, or those regimes that previously occupied Persiat, that one along with that of the Shah and those before the Shah’s all reigning over the same population.

      Your grasp of history and reality, not to mention your logic and reason are shockingly poor. East Jerusalem is de jure and de facto under occupation by a foreign power, specifically Israel, which could reasonably be called a Zionist regime. Since all of Jerusalem is still de Jure an international zone one could reasonably argue that even West Jerusalem is under occupation by a Zionist regime. By contrast there is no regime at all occupying Persia/Iran. Iran is governed by Persians/Iranians, not an occupation, and has been for many centuries. Therefore your comments in that regard are no more than inane blatherings.

      [Iran] trained and armed two proxy armies to fight Israel

      Once again you eagerly display only your pathetic ignorance. Presumably you are referring to Hezballah and Hamas, both home-grown resistance and political organizations that came into being independently of Iran in order to combat foreign occupations and are not now nor have ever been proxies for anyone, or for that matter, armies of any sort. As a matter of fact, if you would like to speak of Hamas as a proxy it would be more appropriate to discuss Yitzhak Shamir’s development of that organization as an Israeli proxy against the PLO, but that might be too painful for you.

      My advice would be that you educate yourself at least minimally before you pontificate. That way you might manage to avoid revealing just what a complete fool you really are.

  10. “A non sequitur. What does Holocaust denial have to do with whether or not Iran has stated it will destroy Israel? Ahmedinejad’s views may be loony regarding the Holocaust, but that’s not grounds for bombing Teheran.”

    Do you know many, if any, Holocaust deniers who are not hard-core antisemites? Antisemites are more likely to wish for an end to the Jewish state, and so it is relevant to note the Holocaust denial when interpreting Ahmadinejad remarks.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-israel-shamir-russia-scandinavia

      1. Indeed, Ahmadinajad does not determine Iranian policy toward Israel or any other aspect of Iranian foreign (or military) policy, so even if views of the Holocaust determined policy toward Israel, and there is no evidence that they do, Ahmadinajad’s views would be irrelevant.

  11. One doesn’t need to be a speaker of Arabic or Farsi, classic or other here, and know how often Iranian leaders like Khomeini, and now Ahmadinejad, employ metaphoric speech which allows uncertainty as to their intended meaning. Undeniably, though, “must vanish from the page of time,” the professor’s “exact translation” of their words, has no literal meaning. History is what happened in the past and it cannot be changed, though Holocaust deniers like Ahmadinejad and his regime that convened that conference of Holocaust deniers might try. So the facts as they relate to Israel and the Palestinians up until now are the facts, not susceptible to revision by Ahmadinejad or anyone else.

    So, what were the implications a reasonable listener would find in what Khomeini said and Ahmadinejad repeated after him? If it doesn’t matter who uttered those words, whether they were hostile to Israel or not, whether they were Holocaust deniers or not, then what would be understood by those same words if they were said by another speaker. Suppose for example that tomorrow, Barach Obama speaking for the Oval Office were to say something like, “Iran’s leaders have said, “This regime, occupying Jerusalem, must vanish from the page of time,” but we accept no such thing. We say, “This regime, occupying Tehran, must vanish from the page of time.” Would you say Obama, speaking essentially the same words as Khomeini and Ahmadinejad, and requiring no translation into English, was making no implied threat against Iran?

    1. One doesn’t need to be a speaker of Arabic or Farsi, classic or other here, and know how often Iranian leaders like Khomeini, and now Ahmadinejad, employ metaphoric speech which allows uncertainty as to their intended meaning.

      Uh, yes, one does. Unless one uses precise & exact translations fr. Farsi which convey the exact meaning. You clearly don’t do either which makes yr interpretations suspect.

      As for yr hypothetical about Obama, it would depend on what other statements he’d made on the subject. Since neither Ahmadinejad nor Khameini have ever said they they or Iran would destroy Israel, if Obama hadn’t made any similarly bellicose statements about the U.S. intending to destroy Iran, then you’d have to say he didn’t intend to advocate regime change.

      BTW, Israeli leaders are on the record as advocating precisely what you erronenously claim Ahmadinejad was proposing in that speech (Israel regime change). Israel has said it favors Iran regime change & has acted to bring it about. So even if you were right about what A. was ultimately intending to say (which you weren’t), why isn’t what’s good for the Israeli goose good for the Iranian gander??

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *