Iran's pres never said "Israel must be wiped off the map"--?

[dorkulon]

I recognized this pattern last year, when the New York Times addressed the fact that, despite having been quoted as saying “Israel must be wiped off the map” by every man, woman and child in the United States over the past year, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a frequent victim of deliberate mistranslation, never actually said that. A correct translation, according to many native Farsi speakers, goes something like, “The regime occupying Israel must vanish from the pages of history,” and was a direct quotation of Ayatollah Khomeini.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/49416/ -- good article on lies in the MSM.

[Robbien]

1. Yeah, he didn't

But never let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

[PDJane]

2. The US translations

Leave something to be desired. In fact, they are blatant propaganda.

[youngdem]

8. This fact needs to be better understood

VERY, VERY often, the 'official' translations show blatant mistranslations meant to propagandize the statement for domestic consumption.

Yet another disgusting tactic employed by our overlords.

[The Doctor.]

41. So you are familiar with Sible Edmonds...

If not, then you should learn why.

It's a travesty of corruption usurping national security.

[PDJane]

62. I am familiar with Sibel Edmunds

And with the fact that they put a gag order on her résumé, which is a waste of damn time and impossible to enforce, since the résumé is already public. This harassment is just outrageous.

[barb162]

95. That's a total crock. Here's the Al Jazeera translation

UPDATED ON:
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2005
6:49 MECCA TIME, 3:49 GMT
Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

Ahmadinejad addressed students at a conference


"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
snip
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816

[AnOhioan]

3. Why let the truth stand in the way of

blatant militarism??

[malaise]

4. My only response is

Duh! I pointed that out ages ago.

[confludemocrat]

5. If that's true, then why do so many here at DU quote it as truth?

just asking
Anyway when it is misquoted or whatever, it never gets attacked as a "repub talking point", which it is.

[Kagemusha]

6. Because it may be inaccurate but it serves the greater truth

and because bad men deserve no benefit of the doubt from an accurate translation.

If you don't believe me, ask The Magistrate. I'm not gonna argue the point.

[confludemocrat]

77. You're kidding I'm sure, but just in case you aren't,

to paraphase your little proverb, "and because bad men deserve no benefit of the doubt from accuracy" , that's an excellent characterization of a Repub strategy point

[Kagemusha]

81. It is quite literally what I was told with complete clarity and seriousness

and in articulate and polite manner...

Edit: And no matter what I think of it, which isn't much, I know better than to argue the issue a second time. I'm just letting you know as a favor, to literally answer your question as to why it is quoted as truth here.

[Malikshah]

65. It's not a "repub talking point" alone, alas-- many Dems use it too.

A neo-con/DINO talking point... yup.

A talking point for folks who want endless war? Yup

A talking point for folks who don't want to know reality? Bingo.

[BlueJac]

7. What is the truth?

It has been quite some time since we have heard any such thing.

[Disturbed]

9. The US Corp Media is complicit with the Bush Regime

in spreading lies. It is to the benefit of Media Moguls to be complicit with the Fascism and Imperialism of the Bush Regime.

[Deja Q]

10. And this 'real' translation is a comment of peaceful intent?! How?

I must be missing something, I'll freely admit my naivety.

Does Ahmadinejad engage in magic tricks?

Does he want a functioning time machine and go back to day 1 and really make good on his word of makin' them vanish from the pages of history?

It certainly doesn't sound like an invite for afternoon tea and conversation at the local coffee shop.

The truth is in the middle.

[wain]

18. Sober reply

You really are quite lucid on GD. A balanced response based in reality, as unpleasant as it is.

:-)

[Canuckistanian]

73. There's a big difference

Between calling for the eradication of a regime and eradication of an entire country.

Just like Bush is *not* America, the Likud party is *not* Israel.

[cali]

86. Sorry. Ahmadinejad and others refer to Israel as

"the Zionist Regime". That's widely known. He is not referring to any form of Government, he's referring to the Israeli state.

[Igel]

11. So it seems.

Translators are advised, in their training, to use parallel idioms and proverbs when they can. Translating lexical item for lexical item frequently produces gibberish, and that is especially true with literary allusions, idioms, and proverbs. However, the minute that an idiom or allusion in a translation is too blunt, politicians and their enablers everywhere try to weasel "in between" the words actually used so as to find the much preferable meaninglessness, and gleefully blame the translator for doing too good a job. I'd note, foolishly, that Ahmedinejad also didn't use the words 'vanish from the pages of history' ... those are English words, not Persian, and use English grammar, not Persian; but that's the level of reasoning frequently used, so I both need to point it out and to qualify it as "foolish". Back to my point.

Take Khrushchev's "my vas pokhoronim" ("we will bury you"), or a roughly parallel "I'll see you dead." The beauty in the expressions is that there's no explicit threat. "I'll see you in hell" is the same; all it's explicitly saying is that the speaker thinks he and his interlocutor are bad people and, after death, will both be in hell. The kicker is in the cause of the death of the person you're talking to: How that death comes about is fully unstated. If it comes about by natural means, there's no threat. I will almost certainly see my father dead, just as a matter of course; he's 80, I'm 47. But the expressions are easily construed as a threat: The reason for saying them often involves what the listener should understand about the cause of death.

"Vanish from the pages of time" (or "history", as I've also seen it glossed) means little in English. It can be taken as saying that Israel will one day disappear as a political entity; that's what some have argued that Khomeini et al. are saying--truly a trivial point. Similarly, "be wiped off the map" also means less than it usually does: Take an eraser, and voila! Israel's wiped off the map. Big deal. When I was a teenager I once rubbed out Switzerland, completely by accident, and completely trashed Africa; such is the risk when you leave a map on the floor.

Now, I don't know that 'vanish from the pages of history' has any conventional, non-compositional meanings in Farsi like "wiped off the map" has in English. But I suspect that if * got up and made a speech, saying that Iran will most certainly vanish from the pages of history most people here wouldn't say, "Oh, what a cute expression--of course Iran will vanish from the pages of history." It's not what's said; it's what's understood, and what the speaker assumes his listeners will understand.

I have yet seen anybody argue that the much decried translation wasn't, in fact, accurate, and that the two expressions don't entail having the exact same threat understood by the listener in the context of Ahmedinejad's speech.

[scarletwoman]

21. "I have yet seen anybody argue that the much decried translation wasn't, in fact, accurate..."

Well then, you apparently haven't read Juan Cole:

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

<snip>
...He (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.

Or Jonathon Steele:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html

Lost in Translation

Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks.

<snip>
The New York Times goes on: "The second translation issue concerns the word 'map'. Khomeini's words were abstract: 'Sahneh roozgar.' Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as 'map', and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not 'Sahneh roozgar' but 'Safheh roozgar', meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word 'map' again."

This, in my view, is the crucial point and I'm glad the NYT accepts that the word "map" was not used by Ahmadinejad. (By the way, the Wikipedia entry on the controversy gets the NYT wrong, claiming falsely that Ethan Bronner "concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map".)

If the Iranian president made a mistake and used "safheh" rather than "sahneh", that is of little moment. A native English speaker could equally confuse "stage of history" with "page of history". The significant issue is that both phrases refer to time rather than place. (my emphasis) As I wrote in my original post, the Iranian president was expressing a vague wish for the future. He was not threatening an Iranian-initiated war to remove Israeli control over Jerusalem.

Two other well-established translation sources confirm that Ahmadinejad was referring to time, not place. The version of the October 26 2005 speech put out by the Middle East Media Research Institute, based on the Farsi text released by the official Iranian Students News Agency, says: "This regime that is occupying Qods must be eliminated from the pages of history." (NB: not "wiped". I accept that "eliminated" is almost the same, indeed some might argue it is more sinister than "wiped", though it is a bit more of a mouthful if you are trying to find four catchy and easily memorable words with which to incite anger against Iran.)

<snip>

Finally, I approached Iradj Bagherzade, the Iranian-born founder and chairman of the renowned publishing house, IB Tauris. He thought hard about the word "roozgar". "History" was not the right word, he said, but he could not decide between several better alternatives "this day and age", "these times", "our times", "time".

So there we have it. Starting with Juan Cole, and going via the New York Times' experts through MEMRI to the BBC's monitors, the consensus is that Ahmadinejad did not talk about any maps. He was, as I insisted in my original piece, offering a vague wish for the future.

A very last point. The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favour Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out.

There, now you've seen some arguments that the translation wasn't, in fact, accurate.

sw

[Igel]

29. I've seen them.

They play trivial semantic games to forcefully establish a possibility; then they assume that the possibility *must* be the only possibility, because otherwise it would be saying something politically unpalatable. Remember, the UN has decided that Darfur isn't genocide ... the same kind of game, for the same kind of purpose.

The second can be dismissed as not being worth a serious response. He jumped higher than his ears and that those that accept his argument have spread out their noodle. If he's right, you know exactly what that meant. But no, it merely sounds silly. Both are very common Russian idioms (the second a bit jocular, standardly it's 'spread out their ears'). Perhaps "he's out of his depth and those that accept his argument are being gullible" is more standard, but obviously based on an erroneous theory of translation.

Cole's argument establishes possibility. He was talking to Palestinians, who we all know are living peacefully with Israel beside them, telling them to simply be patient, Israel will eventually fall apart all by itself. No?

He was declaring that Palestinian Muslims--perhaps with the help of the Iranian-paid paramilitary in Lebanon, perhaps with help to Hamas, perhaps as a matter of eschatology or a world-wide uprising of Muslims and the return of the Mahdi or Issa--would be victorious. It was encouragement to continue to "resist" and kill Israelis, at the very least. It's also plausibly saying to fight even harder. Or it could be a threat, either direct (not very plausible), mediated by Hezbollah or some other agency (remember Ahmedinejad's alliance with Syria). It's just barely possible--not very plausible, however--that it's a bit of eschatological philosophizing, a call for Palestinians to sit on their laurels and wait however long it takes. Cole absolutely must choose the last option, however low the chances that it's right, and that is both sad and predictable.

[scarletwoman]

44. Whatever. I was countering your statement that no one was arguing that the standard translation was

inaccurate, by posting examples of people doing just that.

There is no question that Ahmedinejad wants Israel gone. So do a great many people in the Muslim world, it's not a particularily extraordinary sentiment.

The question is whether or not Ahmedinejad's words were an active statement -- that is, a direct threat -- or a passive statement of prediction -- that eventually, "the Zionist regime", like the regime of the Shah, will cease to exist.

Seizing on the (mis)translation that seems to confirm the former, gives aid and comfort to the warmongers who are itching to drop bombs on Iran -- something that I absolutely do NOT support.

Giving consideration to the possibly that his statement means the latter, is NOT endorsement of Ahmedinejad, it merely places his words in a more accurate context.

In any case, discontent with Ahmedinejad is already proceeding apace in Iran. He may very well find himself the subject of "regime change" before long, from within Iran itself. What will the warmongers do for a bogeyman then?

sw

[MLFerrell]

42. I was totally with you until your last sentence...

I will gladly argue that "vanish from the pages of history (or time)" is possessed of a radically different connotation in English than "wiped off the map". As you correctly observed, the semantic meaning of the latter phrase is largely innocuous, but in its common usage, it denotes clear hostility. To "vanish from the page of time (or history)" implies a much less belligerent stance.

The Soviet Union "vanished from the page of time (or history)" in 1991.

Poland was "wiped off the map" in 1939.

The mistranslation of Ahmadinejad's words is deliberate, to deleterious effect, and is intended to create a popular perception of him amongst Westerners as dangerous and bellicose. I fully concur that translation is a tricky business, and that subtle nuances are inevitably lost in transposition. Idiomatic expressions are imbued with particular and distinct meaning amongst dialects of the same language, let alone radically different tongues. But that being so, translators of dual-fluency almost invariably have a sufficient understanding of BOTH cultures to account for these differences, and to accurately express BOTH the rhetorical intentions of the speaker as well as the literal definition of their words.

Example: I'm in grad school. For my studies, I was recently reading a book (in English) on the history of Madrid. The quotes were presented in both Spanish and English. The Spanish phrase was: Me invitaron conocer la Zona Sur. The English translation provided by the author read "The invited me to see the southern zone." A more accurate translation would be "They invited me to get to know the southern Zone."

The latter implies a degree of familiarity or intimacy that the former does not. Additionally, to "get to know" a thing in English implies an active role that mere "seeing" does not. Mind you, this example is quite simplistic in comparison, but in my opinion, is also quite illustrative.

Just my $0.03 (inflation). :)

EDIT: included example

[skipos]

12. True, but he is still nutz imo. nt

[cali]

13. Who cares?

Some sources say that he did- including Al-Jazeera and some Farsi translations, others including Juan Cole say he didn't. This is not some conspiracy to make Ahmadinejad look bad. He does a swell job of that himself. Just a couple of weeks ago he referred to Israel as Satan. He held a Holocaust denial Conference with some exceedingly creepy people in attendance.

Quite frankly, I have little use for Ahmadinejad. But hey, to each their own.

[Nikia]

14. In a way, that sounds worse

Not only must Israel be destroyed, but it must also be forgotten that it ever existed.

[BushOut06]

52. Really? Because that's how most of us feel about the current US administration

This current admin must be made to vanish. Which we will have another chance to do in '08, if he isn't impeached before then.

[Skinner]

15. This sounds to me like a distinction without a difference

Oh, I get it. He only said that the regime occupying Israel must vanish from the pages of history. I see. At least he didn't say anything about wiping from maps, because that would really be bad.

His Holocaust-denial conference was totally misunderstood, too.

(Note: This post may contain irony and/or sarcasm.)

[cali]

19. LOL!

I think that sums it up neatly.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

26. The distinction is "regime", as in the "BushCo regime".

Advocacy of removing bad rulers from a nation, is much different than advocating the removal of a nation and all its people. This was the statement made in the OP. It was not a pro-Iranian piece.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. I think the distinction was "occupying Israel"

Of course there's no regime occupying Israel. I really don't see any saving graces even in the translations of what he said that are trying to make out what he said wasn't that bad. This is the guy who was convinced a spiritual aura surrounded him when he addressed the UN General Assembly and made threatening remarks about Israel...

[bonito]

36. This is what he said

. When asked if the Holocaust was a myth, he responded "I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it"
I mean where did he go to school, thats probley the deep seated root of it all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad

[MLFerrell]

46. "I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it"

What a fucking moron. The evidence is clear, and irrefutable that the Nazi regime systematically murdered millions of Jews, and Roma, and homosexuals, and the mentally ill, and the handicapped, and alcoholics...

Ahmadinejad needs to read up on the Wannsee Conference... :eyes:

Not to mention the myriad eyewitness testimony, both Jewish and otherwise.

[bonito]

49. Agreed.

And he's the pres? :crazy: Just like the chimp, no wonder everything is all fucked up.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

58. Ding ding ding. We have a winner!

Having these maniacs rule our world seems like not such a good idea...

[juno jones]

16. translations are the key

from the goddamn bible on up. What else in this world have we lost thru bad or biased translation?... The chance to understand each other maybe?

[Bonobo]

23. Speaking as a professional translator...

Few of my clients understand that translation of unrelated language (like mine, Japanese to English, or Arabic to English) is not simply a matter of replacing words. It requires knowledge of history, context, culture to put the proper "spin" on a translation. Now if you have pressure to put on a certain political "spin", well...

[Igel]

30. I once had an editor that insisted that

my tech translations had to "sound Russian", and if there was a possible word that was a borrowing or calque (even if it wasn't quite right) it was the only possible translation. She was Russian. Fortunately, the proofreader was American and reversed her corrections.

[Bonobo]

37. That's a good one.

A translation can't be seperated from its intended use. If it's for a scientific paper or a legal work, it should be accurate with less regard for style. If it's entertainment, just the reverse.
And it it's politics... it should apparently serve the needs of the administration that commissioned it.

[MLFerrell]

47. Well said!

Knowledge of the culture of both speaker and audience is essential. If one has an political agenda, deliberate mistranslation is yet another tool in the proverbial box.

I wish I spoke Farsi, so I could arrive at my own conclusion... So many languages, so little time.

[oblivious]

17. From the founder of 'Campaign against sanctions and military intervention in Iran' (CASMII)

Abbas Edalat is the founder of CASMII and Professor of Computer Science and Matheamtics at Imperial College London. He is interviewed by Oscar Dahlston for Felix the student newspaper of Imperial College London.

Felix: Iran's president Ahmadinejad is reported as having said that Israel should be 'wiped off the map' and organised a conference for holocaust-deniers. Is Israel right to feel an existential threat from Iran?

Abbas Edalat: It is a myth that Ahmadinejad has ever said that Israel should be “wiped off the map”. This myth was created first by a mistranslation of the statement Ahmadinejad made and later by its deliberate distortion. What he actually said in October 2005 is that “The Zionist occupying regime of Jerusalem should cease to exist in the page of time”. He has also specifically said in very clear terms that “Israel should go through a regime change in the same way that the Soviet Union went through a regime change.” The Soviet Union of course went through a bloodless regime change. Ayatollah Khamenei, who has the final say on any major state and foreign matter, issued a statement, after the mistranslation of Ahmadinejad, saying that Iran has not and will not threaten any country but that it will defend itself against any aggression. Of course none of this is ever really reported in the western media.

In contrast to Khamenei’s statement that rules out any threat by Iran against other countries, the Israeli and US leaders have not just called for a regime change in Iran but have publicly threatened, in violation of the UN charter, to launch an air assault on Iran and have been actively planning a regime change by covert military operations inside Iran to foment ethnic violence and unrest in the country.

It was foolish to organise the Holocaust conference in Tehran; it played right into the hands of warmongers in Israel and Washington. However its objective was not to deny the Holocaust but to investigate how it has been abused to justify the atrocities committed by Israel against Palestinian people.
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/1623

[cali]

20. Oh please.

Sorry, that's really some biased crap. I suggest reading Hypnotoad and Igil and Skinner in this thread.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EVDebs]

57. A closer translation would be 'annihilated' according to this article

The Cole Report: When it comes to Iran, he distorts, you decide.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Tuesday, May 2, 2006,
http://www.slate.com/id/2140947/

""Esrail ghiyam-e mossalahaane bar zed-e mamaalek-e eslami nemoodeh ast va bar doval va mamaalek-eeslami ghal-o-gham aan lazem ast.
My source here is none other than a volume published by the Institute for Imam Khomeini. Here is the translation:

Israel has declared armed struggle against Islamic countries and its destruction is a must for all governments and nations of Islam.

This is especially important, and is also the reason for the wide currency given to the statement: It is making something into a matter of religious duty. The term "ghal-o-gham" is an extremely strong and unambivalent one, of which a close equivalent rendering would be "annihilate." ""

[stillcool]

24. It's odd...how many take at face value..

opinions written by (?), and regard them as fact. I don't get it. A few sentences trivialize a life. I'm not speaking only of the Iranian President,..but the defamation of people in general, by the obnoxious, self-righteous, acerbic critics speaking from(?)

[cali]

27. Yeah, imagine the nerve of anyone criticizing Ahmadinejad.

So what if he holds a Holocaust denial conference or call Israel Satan or has a cartoon contest about Jews in response to a DANISH newspaper publishing objectionable cartoons about Mohammed. Imagine that! How dare anyone "trivialize" him!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

59. Hi Cali. I equate Ahmadinejad with Bush. And both citizenries are stuck with

blindered leaders.

MKJ

[cali]

60. Yep, I agree. n/t

[stillcool]

70. exactly!

The germans kill the jews, the jews kill the arabs, the arabs kill the hostages...and that is the news. Trivia.

[bonito]

25. I've known this for a while

Wikipedia been very very good to me.

[rockymountaindem]

28. That sounds like the difference between telling someone "I'm gonna kill you"

and telling them "I really wish somebody would kill you". Either way it's not a good thing to say.

[scarletwoman]

31. No, it's more like the difference between saying "I'm going to kill you" -- which is a threat -- and

saying "I am confident that you will die" -- which may not be nice, but is NOT a threat to personally bring that death about.

sw

[HCE SuiGeneris]

32. Consider the term "regime". It does (not) equate to a nation. eom

Edited to clear up my message... :evilgrin:

[Behind the Aegis]

34. Perhaps in most circles.

However, much of what comes out of Iran refers to Israel as the "Zionist regime." That is to say that the nation-state of Israel and 'Zionist Regime' are interchangable.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

38. I concede your point.

And therein lies the rub. Intentional distortion of a message only aids in obfuscation of the truth.

[frogcycle]

33. "and was a direct quotation of Ayatollah Khomeini."

if he was quoting Khomeini, then the context is essential to interpretation. Was he ENDORSING what Khomeini said, or merely quoting it? This could be like Kerry's being slammed for quoting what troops had told him - very typical hannity/oreilly-like tatcics

[Behind the Aegis]

35. And what about the whole Pope fiasco?

Is this really in different when he quoted a 14th century (I think) pope? It really does come down to, as another poster put it, what is understood.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

40. And this proves....?

:shrug:

[MLFerrell]

48. "And this proves....?"

That the Neturei Karta have lost their collective mind?

I will never understand how those ultra-Orthodox Jews can stand to be in the same room as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Make a deal with the devil... how does that go again?

[cali]

43. The Jews that came are total nutcases

that believe that Israel can't exist as a nation until the coming of their Messiah- or something like that. No where was this conference more roundly condemned than within the Jewish Community. Though that said, it was condemned by virtually everyone.

[rockymountaindem]

45. "Nutcases" to say the least

Though I have a few other words for them.

[Lithos]

50. Please

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a duck. He has had more than a few chances to "clarify" his remarks and he has done nothing of the sort.

As for this being lies of the US MSM, strange, but one of those who reported on this was none other than Al Jazeera who I would think WOULD Understand the subtleties of his remarks.

ranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

Ahmadinejad addressed students at a conference

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government rallies.

http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816

And because such remarks have been previously used previously in government rhetoric, what was said was NOT said in vacuum as the alternet article would suggest. The intent and use has a history which is quite clear.

What would be better served are those who would quit defending Mr. Ahmadinejad and would rather promote the image of the average Iranian as being quite different than the face of Mr. Ahmadinejad. Mr. Ahmadinejad owes his election as President to the war/fear jingoistic speeches of Bush and his PNAC allies.

L-

[cali]

54. Hear, hear! But I can almost guarantee you

that your words will fall on deaf ears. Hell, one poster on this thread is making the claim that the Holocaust conference was legit, and that Ahmadinejad has said that he "loves the Jews", and that that was an accurate translation.

I find the frequent defense of Ahmadinejad somewhat dispiriting. And I completely agree that we should stand with ordinary Iranians.

[Malikshah]

66. If it quacks like a duck? OK

Let's add this little salvo to the list of things to apply to those in the govt who are salivating over a new war. Hmmm.

Can we then refer to the likes of HRC, Barack, Lantos, Lieberman, etc. as hawkish war-mongers without being pilloried?

[oblivious]

68. You quote an AFP article. The website just posts AFP and AP news articles, like any US paper.

They make slight changes to the original, sometimes rewording a paragraph of reported speech with very minimal paraphrasing, or adding something from another agencies so that they can put 'Agencies' rather than 'AFP' or 'AP'. Here's the same AFP article in other papers. It's not an Al-jazeera article any more than it is a Democratic Underground article.

Israel should be 'wiped off the map': Iran president

TEHRAN (AFP) — Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and lashed out at Muslim nations who recognise the Jewish state.

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran entitled: 'The World without Zionism' on Wednesday.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he thundered in a fiery speech on what he called an "historic war between the oppressor and the world of Islam".

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's ...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200510/ai_n15742432

Israel should be wiped off the map, says Iranian President
Tehran,AFP:
Iran’s hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”.

“The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world,” he told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday. The meet was held to discuss ‘The World without Zionism’.

“The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land,” he said.

“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,” said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran’s revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Addressing some 4,000 students gathered in an interior ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point “where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come”.

“The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland,” he said in the fiery speech that centred on an “historic war between the oppressor and the world of Islam”. The term ‘oppressor’ is used by the clerical regime to refer to the United States.

“We should not settle for a piece of land,” he said of Israel’s pullout from the Gaza Strip.

“Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world,” he asserted.
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/Oct272005/foreign1885120051026.asp

[Lithos]

72. The transcript of the speech

Transcript of speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at “World Without Zionism” conference in Tehran

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4164

Reported by Iranian government-owned news agency ISNA on 26 October 2005 at 13:10 local time (for original Persian text see: http://www.isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-603209)

Tehran, Iran, Oct. 28 – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a keynote speech on Wednesday at the gathering of 4,000 students organised by the Association of Islamic Students Societies. The text follows:

I am grateful to God for giving me the great pleasure of speaking at this very important gathering. I thank God for seeing the pious faces of you, the valiant, aware, God-fearing and selfless children of the revolution, who understand with vigilance and intelligence the most important issues of our times and are active with great zest and in a decisive way in the most central issues of the Islamic world. I thank God for the presence of you dear young people.

The real question is what is Zionism? No doubt there have been many discussions in this conference on this issue and you have made studies in this regard, and you may know what I want to emphasize, but it is something worth mentioning.

We must see what the real story of Palestine is. Is the conflict in Palestine a war between some Jews on the one side and Muslims and non-Jews on the other side? Is it a war between the Jews and other faiths? Is it the war of one country with other countries? Is it the war of one country with the Arab world? Is the conflict only over the limited lands of Palestine? I think the answer to all these questions is negative.

The creation of the regime occupying Al-Qods (Jerusalem) was a heavy move by the globally dominant system and Global Arrogance against the Islamic world. There is a historic battle going on between the Oppressor World and the Islamic world and the roots of this conflict goes back hundreds of years.

In this historic conflict, the fronts have shifted many times. There were times when the Muslims had the upper hand and were active and forward-moving, while the Oppressor World was on retreat.

Unfortunately, in the past three hundred years, the Islamic world has been on retreat in the face of the Oppressor World.

I do not intend to go to the roots of the issue and I concentrate on a historical review of the events. In the past one hundred years, the last trenches of the Islamic world fell and the Oppressor World created the regime occupying Al-Qods as the bridgehead for its domination of the Islamic world. Bridgehead is a military term in warfare. When two divisions or armies are fighting each other, if one side advances and breaks through the front and captures a piece of enemy territory and builds up fortifications and strengthens its hold to make it a base for further territorial expansion, then we call this a bridgehead.

The occupying state (Israel) is the bridgehead of the Oppressor World in the heart of the Islamic world. They have built a base to expand their domination to the entire Islamic world. There is no other raison d’etre for this entity without this objective.

The battle that is going on in Palestine today, therefore, is the frontline of the conflict between the Islamic world and the Oppressor World. It is a battle of destiny that will determine the fate of hundreds of years of conflict in Palestine.

Today, the Palestinian nation is fighting the Oppressor World on behalf of the Islamic umma (nation). Thank God, from the day the Palestinian nation moved towards an Islamic struggle with Islamic objectives and an Islamic environment, and made Islam the dominating force in its behaviour and orientation, we have been witnessing the progress and successes of the Palestinian nation every day.

I must say that you have chosen a very valuable title for your gathering . Many are sowing the seeds of defeat and despair in this all-out war between the Islamic world and the Infidel Front, hoping to dishearten the Islamic world.

Such people are using words like “it’s not possible”. They say how could we have a world without America and Zionism? But you know well that this slogan and goal can be achieved and can definitely be realised”.

If we take a look back, we had in our country a regime that was very violent, anti-popular, dependent on foreigners, and armed to its teeth. Members of SAVAK controlled every move and a terrible reign of terror existed.

But when the dear Imam said this regime must be destroyed, and we want a world without a client state, many of those who claim to be political gurus and other things said it’s not possible. The day when the Imam started his move, all the powers of the world supported that corrupt regime. Even after the massacre of Black Friday, the West and the East and regional powers all supported the regime. But our nation fought and now for 27 years we have a government that is independent of America. The Imam said the domination of the East and the West must be destroyed, but weak-minded persons, who only see the little world around them, didn’t believe him…

Our dear Imam ordered that the occupying regime in Al-Qods be wiped off the face of the earth. This was a very wise statement. The issue of Palestine is not one on which we could make a piecemeal compromise… This would mean our defeat. Anyone who would recognize this state has put his signature under the defeat of the Islamic world.

In his struggle against the World Arrogance, our dear Imam targeted the central and command base of the enemy, namely the occupying regime in Al-Qods. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in dear Palestine and which we witness today all over the Islamic world will soon wipe this scourge of shame from the Islamic world. This can be done.

We have to watch out for conspiracies. For more than 50 years, the World Arrogance has tried to give recognition to the existence of this fake regime and they have make many efforts to first stabilize it and then take further steps.

Some 27 or 28 years ago, they took an important step in this regard and, unfortunately, one of the frontline countries made this mistake, and we hope that country will rectify its mistake.

Recently, a new conspiracy has been plotted and is underway. They have been forced to evacuate a corner of Palestine and this was imposed on them by the Palestinian nation. But they want to sell this as the final victory and use the evacuation of Gaza and the creation of a Palestinian state as an excuse to end the Palestinian cause and goal.

Today they are making an evil and deceptive effort to turn the struggle into an internal conflict of the Islamic world. They want to create conflict among Palestinian groups inside Palestine by making them greedy for political positions or high office, so that these groups abandon the decisive issue fo Palestine and turn on each other.

With the excuse of having cleared the Gaza Strip to show their good will, they want a group of Muslim nations to recognise this corrupt regime, and I am very hopeful and pray to God that the Palestinian nation and the dear Palestinian groups will be cautious of such sedition.

Today the unity of the front in Palestine on its goals is a pressing necessity. The issue of Palestine is by no means finished. The issue of Palestine will only be resolved when all of Palestine comes under Palestinian rule, when all the refugees return to their homes, and when a popular government chosen by this nation takes the affairs in its hands. Of course, those who have come to this land from far away to plunder this land have no right to participate in the decision-making process for this nation.

I am hopeful that just as the Palestinian nation continued its struggle for the past ten years, it will continue to maintain its awareness and vigilance. This phase is going to be short-lived. If we put it behind us successfully, God willing, it will pave the way for the annihilation of the Zionist regime and it will be a downhill route.

I warn all the leaders in the Islamic world to beware of this conspiracy. If any of them takes a step towards the recognition of this regime , then he will burn in the fire of the Islamic umma (nation) and will have eternal shame stamped on his forehead, regardless of whether he did this under pressure by the dominant powers, or lack of understanding or naiveté or selfishness or worldly incentives.

The issue of Palestine is the issue of the Islamic world. Those who are closeted behind closed doors cannot make decisions on this issue and the Islamic nation does not allow this historical enemy to exist at the heart of the Islamic world.

To bring in a descriptive Slate article about the matter, what was being repeated was a commonly stated party line about Israel and the US. But going back to the source, Khomeini's original quote, the intent and context is quite clear:

the term "occupying regime" means Israel and the term "world oppressor" stands for the United States. (The title of the conference, incidentally, was The World Without Zionism.) In fact, Khomeini's injunctions are referred to twice. Quite possibly, "wiped off the map" is slightly too free a translation of what he originally said, and what it is mandatory for his followers to repeat. So, I give it below, in Persian and in English, and let you be the judge:

Esrail ghiyam-e mossalahaane bar zed-e mamaalek-e eslami nemoodeh ast va bar doval va mamaalek-eeslami ghal-o-gham aan lazem ast.

My source here is none other than a volume published by the Institute for Imam Khomeini. Here is the translation:

Israel has declared armed struggle against Islamic countries and its destruction is a must for all governments and nations of Islam.

This is especially important, and is also the reason for the wide currency given to the statement: It is making something into a matter of religious duty. The term "ghal-o-gham" is an extremely strong and unambivalent one, of which a close equivalent rendering would be "annihilate."

http://www.slate.com/id/2140947/

Seems quite clear his intent and context is for the destruction of Israel.

Both Bush and Ahmadinejad are the wrong men driving things at this time and are at this time. Both men have had ample opportunity to stop and deflect and disarm the other, but both continue fan the flames as part of their various individual agendas. Both men are wrong and both men I feel are promoting a selfish and extreme minority interest at the expense of what is best for their respective countries and if allowed to continue will likely cause long term grievous harm to many innocents and widen the conflict in ways which will guarantee turmoil for many years to come.

To try and argue a game of semantics over a phrase which may not have specifically been stated, but still nonetheless idiomatically identical, is also wrong. Neither Bush nor Ahmadinejad are sponsors or supporters of peace or progressive goals and to excuse either of them in such a manner is not helpful.

L-

[cali]

75. Our dear Imam ordered that the occupying regime in Al-Qods be wiped off the face of the earth. This

Anyone care to argue that Ahmadinejad isn't in full agreemnent with the Imam's statement? How about the old chestnut that he was mistranslated? Or that he doesn't really mean it?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

51. All the hate. It saddens me greatly.

It seems the current propagandizing of Iran by our media and Government has been extremely effective. With a population of 70,000,000 PEOPLE -- it appears most can not disassociate the tyranny of its current leaders, with the people of that country.

I suppose we deserve the reputation we have in the world now, as our leaders are viewed in relatively the same light. Only difference is, we are out there actively killing others on a daily basis.

[cali]

55. It saddens me greatly to see

the vigorous defense of a world class hater like Ahmadinejad. Frankly, I think it's inexcusable.

[leftynyc]

88. I'm in total agreement with you

Inexcusable and embarassing.

[Redstone]

53. Oh, and that doesn't mean the same thing? This is pretty fucking lame.

Redstone

[Forkboy]

56. I sure that makes Israel feel MUCH better.

[Dave From Canada]

63. I don't think people should make excuses for Holocaust deniers.

He may have not said Israel should be wiped off the map in that particular example, but he's been saying that for quite a while. What about all of the other times he's mentioned it in one way or another? Are those also "mistranslations"? Also, I read Canadian newspapers and watch Canadian news programs. Is the Canadian media also part of the American MSM conspiracy? Even the CBC? Sorry, but I doubt it.

[HuffleClaw]

64. it won't stop bush and fox news from repeating it EVERY time iran is mentioned

of course. this is like the 'iraq had a hand in 911' meme they engineered.

[Malikshah]

67. It is a good article, but many folks don't want to see their idols smashed.

It feels better to have an enemy that wants to kill you.

It's better when one's enemies are unhinged, irrational, "madmen" if you will.

Any reasonable discussion that includes, oh, say the facts of the case--all of them lead to a more nuanced understanding

Facts-- Ahmadinejad has been cast as a crackpot villain of tremendous stature whose bellicosity shows his true nefarious desires--regardless of the inability of those doing the translating and contextualization to get a grip on reality.
Facts--Ahmadinejad sponsored a heinous conference bringing in scholars who question the veracity of the Holocaust and its scope--
Facts--Ahmadinejad does not run the 50+million population of Iran


But folks want their villain. They want to feel victimized. They want war. They want blood. They just don't want to get their hands dirty or to admit their desires.

[cali]

69. No. For me it has nothing to do with "wanting an enemy"

I do not see Ahmadinejad as a threat. I do not see Iran as a threat. I do not want blood, or war. Yet according to all knowing you, I and others here, who criticize Ahmadinejad for what he is- a bigoted little demagogue, I just don't want to get my hands dirty or to admit to my nefarious desires for war.

He is unhinged. He is a hater. And saying so does not make me a war monger with an agneda.

[Dave From Canada]

74. Exactly! I'm not sure why so many people have such a hard time admitting that Ahmadinejad is a

bigoted, hateful human being. It doesn't mean you want to invade Iran, it doesn't mean you think the same of the citizens of the country, and it doesn't mean you need or want an enemy. It just means you're not blind, that you have a brain and use it, and that one thing doesn't mean another. Oh, and I'm sure that some of Ahmadinejad's best friends are Jewish.

[leftynyc]

89. Simple minds

do not seem able to wrap their brains around the concept that disdain for Bush can peacefully coexist with a disdain with the leader of iran. It doesn't have to be a "contest".

[Malikshah]

80. There are many unhinged folks out there. Many haters.

Bush, Olmert, Sharon, Ahmadinejad, Duke, Delay, Qaddafi, any standard Hamas militant, Taliban, al-Qa'ida.

By focusing on just one...by beating the drums of war over and over and over again against just one--

Those that do so-- no including present company-- in the media are no better than the haters and bigots.

[Skinner]

82. That is really one of the lamest arguments I have ever heard.

Tell me, if someone criticizes Sharon or Bush or David Duke or Tom Delay, do you respond by saying that there are "many unhinged folks out there" and that "focusing on just one" makes us "no better than the haters and bigots"?

I think David Duke is a fucking racist asshole. By criticizing him, am I "no better than the haters and bigots"?

Or does only Ahmadinejad get a pass?

[Malikshah]

83. Sorry to hear you say that. It appears that the statements of other folks

can be ignored. I'm not seeking to give Ahmadinejad a pass, as so many appear to read into my statment.

He's got a long history of being a radical, hating in an irrational fashion the U.S., Israel, and others. This is clear from his own history dating back to the crises of the late 1970s and 1980s. His current actions are par for the course with him and shouldn't be overlooked. I've never said as much, and yet I am pilloried for pointing out that by focusing solely on Ahmadinejad and not others is dangerous.

To be inconsistent in calling out the bigotry of world and national leaders is dangerous.

To focus on only one in a clear lead up to war is dangerous.

We have been down this path countless times in the history of US involvement in the Middle East.


With Nasser
With Khomeini
With Hussein
With Arafat
With al-Asad

And every time who gets the pass? Who is not pilloried and attacked/invaded/censured?

To believe that the "list of villains" repeatedly focused upon is complete has led us down the garden path to the morass we now find ourselves in. Does this mean we should give or have given Nasser, Khomeini, Hussein, et al. a pass? No.

But we should *not* have given or continue to give folks in this country or other countries a pass --folks who have said, supported, and aided and abetted bigoted hate-filled statments.

I'm still trying to find out in my post where I specifically told folks to give Ahmedinejad a pass.......

[Skinner]

84. I am going to back off, because you have explained yourself somewhat.

But I would like to simply explain why I suggested that you were "giving a pass" to Ahmadinejad, because I think you need to understand what is implied by the argument you are making.

If we were criticizing David Duke or Ariel Sharon or George W. Bush, I suspect you would not be bothering to explain to us the danger in being "inconsistent in calling out the bigotry of world and national leaders." You would be agreeing with the criticism, and rightly so. It is obvously true that Ahmadinejad is not the only bigot who holds high office on this planet, and yes, consistently holding bigots accountable is a good thing to do. But I strongly suspect that you don't emply this line of argument when certain other world leaders are being criticized. The fact that Ahmadinejad is one of the few bigoted world leaders for whom you will employ the lots-of-world-leaders-are-bigots defense makes it appear that your intent is to defend him.

If you do employ this same argument consistently for all bigoted world leaders, then I apologize that I have accused you of giving a pass to Ahmadinejad. I guess the question that you need to ask yourself is this: Do you?

[Malikshah]

87. No -- I have never nor will I ever give Ahmedinejad a pass.

His role in events during the late 1970s on through today make him culpable. He has used his new platform to spread disdain and bigotry.

I apply it to any who use their power to wage war for their own ends. To spread hatred of others. To ignore the human lives their actions take away from us.

At the same time--I will not single out Ahmedinejad over others.

You asked a question--I have a few for others and yourself.

Whose actions have led to the deaths of innocents by the thousands and hundreds of thousands?

Whose countries have pre-emptively struck and/or invaded others?

In both cases, Iran and its President (the voice of the country, but not the one who pulls the strings--they are a more nefarious lot) are not the answers.

Alas, other leaders, many of whom I have mentioned fit the bill to those questions and yet--they appear to be given a pass.

Kissinger still walks the streets as does Bush. Others have passed or are incapcitated and thus are not able to be taken to account for their actions.

This whole discussion, however, is a bit far from the OP.

www.informedcomment.com by Juan Cole provides numerous links to discussions of Ahmedinejad and they do not pull any punches--nor does he. He, too, has been pilloried.

Such is life.

[cali]

91. When people single out Ahmadinejad to

defend him, as in this OP, or to argue that he's misunderstood, or a certain comment he's made, is mistranslated, people are going to "single" him out for criticism.

[Malikshah]

92. And the cycle continues.

It appears clear that the points I was making in my posts here do not appear to mean much.

And so it goes.

[cali]

93. It appears to me that you're unable

to understand others' points, or to answer the question posed to you a couple of times: When bush or Sharon or Ohmert or others are criticized, do you rush in with qualifiers about how many others are equally bad?

[Malikshah]

94. I don't rush in in any case. If you wish to try and pin me down and

apply actions to me it won't work.

Last I saw, Bush, Sharon and Olmert did not have the drumbeats of war pounding on their collective doors.



Bush, Sharon, and Olmert are not about to be invaded. Big difference that appears lost on some.

I would say it's a nice try, but it wasn't. Standard obfuscation. The worm will survive this casting.

[oberliner]

96. Sharon is in a coma

He has been unconsciousness since early 2006.

[Malikshah]

98. May he continue to *rest* in peace and be comforted.

[LeftishBrit]

71. It's pretty clear that Ahmadinejad wants Israel to disappear altogether

It doesn't really depend on a single word in a single translation. It's a consistent attitude on his part.

He is also a general all-round nutter.

Does that mean that I think America should invade Iran, or start a war there? NO! There are lots of nasty leaders all over the world, and this does not justify imperialist invasions! And starting yet another war in the Middle East would be far more dangerous to all Middle Eastern countries (including Israel) than anything else.

But none of that means that Ahmadinejad is an admirable character.

[bluedawg12]

76. Aren't wars started on the basis of words?

The topic is accuracy in translation.

Since Iran is an important topic--or to use neo-pig phraseology a "serious" topic then a serious discussion should include an accurate translation of the Iranians words.

As far as his intentions, we won't know his itentions until we know his exact words, or we see his actions or both.

Using intentions as a basis of foreign poilicy didn't work with Iraq where we were "certain" of Saddam's intentions about WMD.

[confludemocrat]

78. Take home message: Repub talking points are OK as long as they serve Israel's

interest in ultimately erasing Iran such as it is as a religious state (who does that sound like?) "from the pages of history", which is tantamount, based on Skinner's reasoning to saying "wiped off the map".

[Lithos]

79. Take home message:

Skinner is smart enough to know things are NOT black and white, all or nothing and supporting extremely hateful people like Ahmadinejad, especially on such absurd points as those made in this thread is completely anti-thetical to not only the Democratic platform, but to the best interests of the world at large. The real fight against hate and ignorance can not be defined in terms of singular support for Bush or Ahmadinejad; but in terms of how you approach dealing with both.

Lithos
DU Moderator

[leftynyc]

90. Extremely well said (eom)

[kaal]

85. Did he say it or didn't he...?

How can there be so much confusion over Ahmadinejads words?

I've always believed he say it. I'm shocked to now hear that he "probably" didn't.

[TomClash]

97. 119 posts on this?

OK, I'll play too and make it 120. Isn't it pretty hard to spin this? Either interpretation of his remarks is damning; this logic would allow the US to attack Iran at will.