Exterminating Israel not the solution

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is conducting a problematic or, to be precise, paradoxical foreign policy in our region. Here are three examples:

The first is the occupation of three Arab islands by the Islamic Republic of Iran: The Greater Tunb, the Lesser Tunb and Abou Musa, which belong to the United Arab Emirates. Despite repeated appeals by the small Gulf state to end the occupation and return the land to its real owners, Iran's leaders have refused to do so for different reasons, and perhaps strange ones.

But an occupation is an occupation, and an Israeli occupation of Arab land cannot be separated from the Iranian occupation. Those who demand that Israel end the occupation in the territories are not entitled to do so for moral and political reason when they themselves are occupying lands of others.

Another example is that since he rose to power, the Iranian president has not missed an opportunity to attack Israel. He reiterates in front of any open microphone that he would do anything in order to wipe the Jews' state off the map.

But these remarks are an insult to intelligence. It should be made clear to Ahmadinejad and his group of tempestuous friends that the Palestinian Arab people, which has been suffering under the Israeli occupation for more than 40 years, is sick and tired of listening to this outdated rhetoric. Not only do his words of nonsense cause irreversible damage to the Palestinian problem, but they also serve the Israeli propaganda in the world.

The most important point on the Palestinians' part is that we do not wish to wipe Israel off the map, we do not wish to exterminate it. We have accepted its existence and internalized this historic fact. We wish to establish a secular and democratic Palestinian state, not a state of ayatollahs, alongside the State of Israel, as long as eastern Jerusalem becomes its capital and a just solution is found for the refugee problem, in accordance with the UN's resolutions.


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3526012,00.html

Now tell this to Hamas, since they seem to ascribe to the same beliefs as the Iranian president.

"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made an analogy to Khomeini's determination and success in getting rid of the Shah's government, which Khomeini had said "must go" (az bain bayad berad). Then Ahmadinejad defined Zionism not as an Arabi-Israeli national struggle but as a Western plot to divide the world of Islam with Israel as the pivot of this plan.

The phrase he then used as I read it is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

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.

Again, Ariel Sharon erased the occupation regime over Gaza from the page of time.

I should again underline that I personally despise everything Ahmadinejad stands for, not to mention the odious Khomeini, who had personal friends of mine killed so thoroughly that we have never recovered their bodies. Nor do I agree that the Israelis have no legitimate claim on any part of Jerusalem. And, I am not exactly a pacifist but have a strong preference for peaceful social activism over violence, so needless to say I condemn the sort of terror attacks against innocent civilians (including Arab Israelis) that we saw last week. I have not seen any credible evidence, however, that such attacks are the doing of Ahmadinejad, and in my view they are mainly the result of the expropriation and displacement of the long-suffering Palestinian people.

It is not realistic for Americans to call for Iran to talk directly to the Israeli government (though in the 1980s the Khomeinists did a lot of business with Israel) when the US government won't talk directly to the Iranians about most bilateral issues. In fact, an American willingness to engage in direct talks might well pave the way to an eventual settlement of these outstanding issues.

cheers

Juan Cole

http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html

:eyes:

Do be sure to pass that link on to the multitude of Arab sources and conference using Ahmadinejad's "misquote."

...they do have a certain amount of validity as to it's actual meaning.

...and yet, I can understand British, Australian, Pidgin, Southern dialects, slang, and a variety of on-line "languages." I am fairly certain Farsi speakers in Iran knew what he said and what he meant...have to go...it's raining cats and dogs here. Do you think I may actually step in a poodle?

ARABIC
Old North Arabian
Old Arabic
Eastern Arabic, the main source of Classical Arabic
Western Arabic (the Hijaz)
Western varieties:
Maghrebi Arabic
Koines:
Moroccan Arabic
Algerian Arabic
Tunisian Arabic
Libyan Arabic
Fully pre-Hilalian:
Jebli Arabic
Jijel Arabic
Siculo-Arabic
Maltese language
Bedouin:
Saharan Arabic
Hassaniya Arabic
Andalusi Arabic
Central varieties:
Egyptian Arabic
Sa'idi Arabic
Sudanese Arabic
Northern varieties:
North Mesopotamian Arabic
Levantine Arabic (Eastern Arabic)
North Levantine Arabic
North Syrian Arabic
Lebanese Arabic
Syrian Arabic
Palestinian Arabic (South Levantine Arabic)
Bedawi Arabic
Cypriot Maronite Arabic
Iraqi Arabic (Mesopotamian)
qeltu-varieties
Baghdad Arabic (Jewish)
gilit-varieties
Baghdad Arabic
Southern varieties:
Gulf Arabic
Baharna Arabic
Najdi Arabic
Hijazi Arabic
Yemeni Arabic
Hadhrami Arabic
Sanaani Arabic
Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic
Dhofari Arabic
Omani Arabic
Shihhi Arabic
Peripheries:
Central Asian Arabic
Tajiki Arabic
Uzbeki Arabic
Khuzestani Arabic
Shirvani Arabic
Chadian Arabic (Baggara, Shuwa Arabic)
Nigerian Arabic
Sectarian varieties:
Judeo-Arabic
Judeo-Iraqi Arabic
Judeo-Moroccan Arabic
Judeo-Tripolitanian Arabic
Judeo-Tunisian Arabic
Judeo-Yemeni Arabic
Diglossic variety:
Standard Arabic
Creoles:
Nubi Creole Arabic
Babalia Creole Arabic
Sudanese Creole Arabic (Juba Arabic)
Country-based dialects:
Algerian Arabic
Bahraini Arabic
Chadian Arabic
Egyptian Arabic
Emirati Arabic
Iraqi Arabic
Jordanian Arabic
Kuwaiti Arabic
Lebanese Arabic
Libyan Arabic
Hassaniya (Mauritanian Arabic)
Moroccan Arabic
Nigerian Arabic
Omani Arabic
Palestinian Arabic
Qatari Arabic
Sahrawi Arabic
Saudi Arabic
Sudanese Arabic
Syrian Arabic
Tunisian Arabic
Yemeni Arabic

Sedentary vs. Bedouin
A basic dialectal distinction that cuts across the entire geography of the Arabic-speaking world is between sedentary and Bedouin varieties. Across the Levant and North Africa (i.e. the areas of post-Islamic settlement), this is mostly reflected as an urban (sedentary) vs. rural (Bedouin) split, but the situation is more complicated in Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula. The distinction stems from the settlement patterns in the wake of the Arab conquests. As regions were conquered, army camps were set up that eventually grew into cities, and settlement of the rural areas by Bedouins gradually followed thereafter.

If the mistranslation is picked up by fractious mobs, it doesn't prove it was said in the first place.

Do you feel that Iran is helping or hindering the Palestinian cause (or neither)?

beyond that Iran and Israel's regional competition poisons everything IMO

I mean, it *was* the translation offered by the Iranian translator working for the Iranian news agency in Tehran.

And these students apparently know their native language much less than Cole:

"Wiped off the map image"

Note that had the students' demonstration not been acceptable, they would have been "corrected".

(and now let's see how that link works)

(on edit: to answer my own implicit question, it works not at all; perhaps another try?)

(on fourth edit: yahoo should not end a link with "/" ... grumble)

THE SPEECH AND CONTEXT:
http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/

While the false "wiped off the map" extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad's actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the "map" comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a "world without Zionism". One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is. In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.
Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:

(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch
(2) The Soviet Union
(3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein

In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini's own words foretelling that individual regime's demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini's unfulfilled wish: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise". This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.


One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising.

The inflammatory "wiped off the map" quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.

...Jewish to non-Jewish, thus eliminating the current regime. Was he calling for a direct war against Israel? I doubt it. Why would he? The proxy wars against Israel are going so well. So in essence, whether he said it directly or not, he was indeed calling for the end of Israel.

imagine the outrage if any other country, besides Israel, had verbal rhetoric threatening its very existance, and had governments threatening to annihilate it?

Most Israelis were not involved in its establishment. It is a reality on the ground and should be accepted as such.

That is unless we want to return the Americas to native peoples, give Kosavo to Serbia based on 14th Century history, and run the descendants of Normans out of England. And the the old call will be issued to go back another millenia and give all of Palestine to the Jewish people -- or do we stop around a millenia ago and divide it between Muslim and Christian kingdoms? Hey, how about giving Jerusalem back to the heirs of Saladin -- the Kurds?

Hmm, wouldn't the best thing be to just return to the 1967 boundaries?

but I see you've made the point yourself!

Yes, indeed, those bloody Normans!

Yes, it would, most certainly. (Even though the 1967 boundaries are somewhat larger than the original 1948 UN boundaries). Proposing this, however, seems to make one a mortal enemy of Israel and an ally of terrorists and despots.

Israel isn't removing several hundred thousand people, many of whom have lived there for two generations, from their homes.

It's time for a new reality, which includes land swaps, but not the '67 lines.

What land, where? The Jordan River aquifer for a few acres in the Negev?

I hate this kind of speechifying and posturing, because it gives Israel some sort of moral highground.... I'm sure that a day after 1900 new houses go up in the WB, TPTB in Israel are probably grateful for this!

The Iranian leadership should keep its mouth shut and let the light shine on Israel's misdeeds.

what he does is of far more importance, but apparently there are people who buy into the hysteria, so once again I will ask if Iran were to nuke Israel, what would be Iran's fate in very short order?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We would not invade except for maybe the oil fields which is a small area on the Iraq border. Any ground attack by them would end up being a massacre because of our air power. They would not get close.

In any case Israel would most likely shoot its wad at Iran and any Arab country who supported Iran or made threatening moves to Israel. Its the Sampson option

The 400 or so Nukes
They have ICBM capability with their Shavit missile
The Jericho 3 can hit all of the ME, Europe and most of Asia
The 3 subs have popeye and Harpoon cruise missiles
They have nuclear cannon
They also can use Bombers they have

Iran could nuke Israel and the world would shake its finger at Israel? Puleez Iran would be reduced to ashes within days and Israel would never have to fire a shot, the US would be more than happy to do this no matter who was president.

Based on what I have seen, if Iran shot first, that is what would happen.