“Are you sure the Islamic Republic/Ahmadinejad have asked for Israel to be wiped off the map?” This is the question I have been asked by so many people over the course of the last few years. While I became more and more concerned why so many people kept asking the same question, I kept describing it, quite diligently, to whoever asked the question that “Israel is described as the tumor of the region by the former leader of the Islamic Republic and it is quite common to see slogans which ask for the destruction of Israel in military marches and such”.
Because the people who asked the question were more or less identifiable as belonging to the so-called “left”, I convinced myself that people are trying to negate the Bush administration’s perspective through saving the face of the Islamic Republic. When I was asked the same question for the last time by another friend a few days ago, however, I realized that the Iranian call for the “wiping off” of Israel might in fact be not about a “second Holocaust”.
A few days ago, I was asked the same question, this time by a friend who works for an institute some people accuse of leaning towards the “right”. When my friend Mark (name is fake) asked me the same question, I gave him the same answer, quite like playing a sound track I had stored somewhere in my brain. He refused to accept and sent me the link to the page on Wikipedia which talks about Ahmadinejad’s remarks about Israel. That was when I started doing a bit of research on the Persian sentence Ahmadinejad used in his speech at the “World without Zionism” conference on October 2005. Based on my knowledge of the Persian language, which I speak as my mother tongue, the translation given by Juan Cole, whose political viewpoints might be point of debate but his scholar weight in the field is irrefutable, and also given the translation published by MEMRI, which has no intention of apologizing for Ahmadinejad, I think the president of the Islamic Republic did not in fact ask for the “wiping-off” of the Jewish state. What he asked for, not that I find it legitimate, was the removal of the current regime in Israel.
Maybe this will make the issue more clear. My understanding of the average Iranian, and I am not referring to the super-ideological Armageddon-lover hardcore members of Basij, is that while they are mad at Israel because of its continuous portrayal as the “regime which has occupied Qods” in the national television, there is no strong anti-semitic sentiment in the Iranian public. I would compare that with what I have perceived in some of my Arab friends and how hateful some of them are when we talk about Israel. Without making any judgment about any person, I argue that in the Iranian case, even if Ahmadinejad does ask for the a second Holocaust, I do doubt that he would be able to gather an army who would fight for his “cause”.
I remember talking to a veteran of the Iraq war and he angrily remembered Iranian soldiers refusing to attend the fight when Iran started occupying land in Iraq. “The soldiers said they were not allowed to pray in occupied land”, he said. Although living under a hateful regime, the Iranian public is still very conscious when it comes to committing hate-inspired actions such as what Ahmadinejad is accused of having asked for.
The important question is, who should be blamed for the wipe-off misunderstanding. Is it the Western media which “took advantage of a vague remark”, as the following video seems to suggest? I think not. The number one person to blame is no one but Ahmadinejad, for being talkative and vague. He lacks the basic skills a politician, let alone a human being, has to possess, and that is spending more time thinking than giving speeches. He, whatever idiotic ideology he subscribes to, would have been told not to mention such a vague sentence, given he had asked for an advice before uttering his infamous “wipe-off” speech. The second place, in the list of people/entities to be blamed for in this misunderstanding, is IRIB (the state-run television), which started the use of the idiom in their English translation of the speech, without knowing what it exactly meant in English.
The fact is, as shown numerously on this blog and elsewhere, the English-language state-run media sources in Iran are hasty and irresponsible. They make such silly mistakes (see: Press TV’s Latest, and Funniest, Mistake) that I sometimes ask myself if, for example, the “prestigious” Press TV is taken seriously even by its own staff (see:Video of the Day: A very up-to-date PressTV Anchor).
The “wipe-off” sentence has been referred to in the media over and over and has become another “proof” that “Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler”. While I am not sure if he does not daydream about that, the Iran I used to live in was not a country he would be able to produce a genocidal army out of.
By the way, happy 60-th anniversary to all Israeli friends.
The World Without Zionism poster has a feature in it that most people over look.
The little ball falling through the hourglass is the metaphor of the eventual destruction of Israel.
The part that is overlooked is that the little ball representing the United States IS ALREADY shattered and broken on the ground.
This tells me that whatever attack Iran may have planned for Israel. they will attack the United States first.
Kamangir: You are absolutely right. My my point is, this is all about “regimes” and not “people”. Not that this will make these calls legitimate.
Comment by Vince P — April 27, 2008 @ 3:00 am
Kamangir,
I respect you, but I cannot disagree more. Your assertion that “wiping off the map†comment is merely a call for “regime changeâ€, I am afraid, is incredibly naïve.
1. Hitler never said he wanted to kill all Jews per se either, but he did, did he not? He too, like Ahmadinejad, hid his cruel intentions under covers of “regime change†that would lead to “stronger Germanyâ€, free of control of evil Jews. If Ahmadinejad really is preparing for Holocaust, what would you like for him to say? “Hello guys, I will launch a nuke at Jerusalem on October 1st, 2009 at 5:00PMâ€? Will you only believe that Ahmadinejad prepares for massacre of Jews if he says so on prime-time national TV speaking in English?
2. Ahmadinejad, just like Hitler, blames everything bad in his country on Jews, and Jew-controller USA, does he not? He supports Hamas and Hezbollah, does he not? For one example, BBC reported on February 22nd, 2006, that Iran even publicly – openly – offered Hamas financial aid (read at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4739900.stm ). I will not even bother to give example of Iranian support for Hezbollah – it is common knowledge. These are standing armies of religious fanatics that kill Jewish civilians for sport on daily basis – not soldiers but civilians – left and right. These are standing armies of religious fanatics who believe every word of Mein Kampf and Protocols of Elders of Zion. Sderot civilians, for example, have been under barrage of Kassams from Gaza for past two (!!) years.
If there is a “regime change†to the liking of Ahmadinejad, what are the chances that it would it be a democratic government (just like in Israel now), or Hamas/Hezbollah-style Islamic theocracy (just like in Iran)? This leads me to believe that “regime change” Ahmadinejad has in mind will not be the one letting Jews remain alive.
Simply put, even if Ahmadinejad would suddenly change his mind about Holocaust 2, how could he stop Hamas/Hezbolllah from genocide of Jews, after decades of inciting it himself?
Do you know a famous quote by Hassan Nasrallah: ‘If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them world wide.’
Have you seen this clip from MEMRI-TV (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/962.htm ) where a Lebanese poli-sci university student says this on Al-Manar TV: “There is no such thing as unrealistic. Just as Israel… Just like Hitler fought the Jews – We are a great Islamic nation of Jihad, and we too should fight the Jews and burn them.â€
My point is: even if “wiping off the map†meant “regime change†in Israel, that would make no difference for Jews. The resulting massacre of Jewish civilians would be just as deadly as a direct nuclear salvo from Iran, make no mistake about that.
Kamangir: I do agree with you. The Islamic Republic does support the Islamists throughout the world and many inside the administration do fancy the annihilation of Jews/Zionists/Israelis. My point is, in that speech he did not address a second Holocaust, instead he discussed his plans, which I do not agree with, of a “new” Israel.
Comment by armilnov — April 27, 2008 @ 11:04 am
Kaman, don’t forget that the “the regime” also includes all those “outsider colonialist Jews” who came to live here. Ahmadinejad has a tendency of referring to the “original citizens of Palestine”, to whom I doubt he includes the vast majority of Israel’s current Jewish population – that’s been pretty clear from the rhetoric so far.
So what happens to us? Do we get expelled to Siberia – which was once what Hitler publicly stated? Or will we be merely *encouraged* to emigrate? I see the latter as likeliest, but the similarity to the former… troubles me.
Kamangir: This is exactly why I think what he says does not make sense. Nevertheless, his call did not include direct encouragement to a genocide. That is my point.
Comment by Roman Kalik — April 27, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
It didn’t, I agree. And yet, what it *did* include isn’t fine and dandy, either. I have little wish to live in Ahmadinejad’s New Order – it doesn’t sound like it has any room for me and mine, one way or another.
Kamangir: I agree and I apologize.
Comment by Roman Kalik — April 27, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
There’s no need to apologize, Kaman. You’re not him, or the establishment that brought him up as its current official public face. This, to me, is about being honest and accurate. You’re honest, and you do your best to be accurate – that’s more than I usually get from people I meet, and I thank you for your approach.
And you noted another thing quite accurately in this post, though you may not view it the same way as before… quite a few people would blindly do the anti-Bush thing and try to exonerate AJ simply because AJ doesn’t like Bush and the US. I’ve seen it and heard it time and time again – they never do bother looking into the context, the background, all the little things that make that statement of AJ’s more than what they claim – that AJ merely wants peaceful political change in Israel. Of course, they just love the history if it supports their “It’s All Western Imperialism” claim – the rest being quite irrelevant.
Which includes, among other things, people *other* than Western Imperialists being fully developed and responsible people, who have their own goals and background. Because at the end of the day… I have rarely heard more patronizing and simplisticly arrogant drivel than I have from the self-anointed anti-imperialist Left. These guys give the rest of the Left an incredibly bad rep.
Comment by Roman Kalik — April 27, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Moslem world has always condemned Israel for invading Palestine and occupying it. They do think that Israel with aid and support of USA is cruelly pushing back the Palestinians from their homeland. They also believe that the Jerusalem is a wholly land that belongs to Moslems. I do not accept or reject these believes. I am simply describing them. Some Iranians may share the same opinion about Israel with other Islamic nations and especially they feel sympathy for Palestinians because they do believe that Israel is treating them harshly and kills innocent children and defenceless young boys that throw stones at Israelies’ tanks ( it is Israel picture as painted by Iranian official media. I have seen videos of childern being shot to their death by Israelies soldiers myself which is a shame anyway. However it is a one-sided media campaign against Israel and surely is not fair and just). remarkable number of Iranians consider Jews as Iranians historical allies and therefore think that Iran should support Israel or at least stop being in front of the opposition. You may compare Ahmedi Nejad with Hitler but concluding that Iran may cause a second Holocaust means comparing Iranians with Germans at 1930s. This is most unfair to Iranians. Hitler was selected by his nation in a free election with clear reference to his personal believes that Germans are the dominant race however Ahmedi Nejad was elected as president in an election controlled by the Islamic Regime without ever saying anything about Israel and just promising better living conditions to his nations. He turned out to be a big liar anyway. Iranians do not want to kill people because of their race as they never did and they will never cooperate with someone who intends to do so. They hate any sort of war. The Regime always promises us with peace. Iran government is seriously treated by a USA invasion and they play Israel card as a strategy. They do not want to attack Israel. Do you think that they are crazy enough to perform a suicidal attack on Israel? So why they have waited this long (30 years)? And just know that Iran is encircled by USA army they are going to attack her? I know what my government says about Israel is not friendly but they have never said that they want to attack it (even a carzy man like Ahmedi Nejad did not say that Iran will attack Israel, he says that God will do that!!! even if he threats you, he is threating you as a GOD not as an Iranian!!) . And even if there are crazy people who fancy such a thing in my government, they will never achieve it because I know that Iranians will never support them if they ever want to attack defenceless people (which was the case in Germany in 1930s since the majority of people supported Hitler’s ideas in action). What do you think Iranians are? Bunch of bloodthirsty racists how are willing to die and kill for wholly causes ? You really think that any nation on this planet will enter into a war willingly? My government may support Hezboalah or Hemas groups but they never have asked for nation’s approval nor ever verified it to the public that they are doing so. People always critisise them about this action. Besides although financially helping terrorist groups who claim that are fighting against occupation of their countries and trying to put an end to their people’s misery ( these are what these groups claim) is a very bad action however it is not comparable to enter an open war in order to kill all Jews. Even open enemies of Israel such as Palestinians and Lebanon have never stated that they want to kill all Jews. They say that they want their homeland back. First of all Iranian will not support entering a war with Israel for any cause. Motivations such as racial preferences or wholly war (they have never been an Iranian suicidal bomber so far) do not even exist in Iran. Secondly, Ahmadi Nejad does not want to kill Jews because so many things he may be he is not a racist as Hitler was, and lastly even Iran government do not want to enter a war with Israel because it knows that it will be its end and it is trying to last in power not to lose it. They are not as crazy as they may seem from outside. I hate my regime and it is not a defense for them, it is a defense for Iranians that are believed to be bunch of Islamic fundamentalists thanks to our regime crzay statements and actions.
Comment by Bardia — April 27, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
I am thankful for your intention to clarify the issue but was surprised to see that finally you blamed Ahmadi Nejad for being vague and not the Western Media that despite several attempts by Ahmadi Nejad to clarify his remark continue their propaganda bombardment over his remark. I think both of them are to be blamed.
I am also interested to know your opinion about the same remark made by Hillary Clinton recently about “totally obliterating” Iranian people while in fact it is Israili regime that keep threatening Iran for bombing and war. In fact the reporter
should have asked her “what would you do if Israil attack Iran?”not the other way around!
Quated from this blog http://iranfacts.blogspot.com/2008/04/hillary-clinton-promises-to-obliterate.html#links
Jerusalem Post: “Military Action Against Iran Ready”
AFP: Israel may have to take military action against Iran, Bolton says
Israel Toda: “Israel receive the blessing of EU and US to attack Iran”
London Time: “Leaked, Israel plans nuclear strike against Iran”
London Telegraph: Israel seeks all clear to attack Iran
ICH: Petraeus signals attack against Iran
I found this article also interesting
A US Casualty of war, A threat to World Peace: Clinton Dehumanised
by Mehrnaz Shahabi(CASMII Columns)
Friday, April 25, 2008
The shameful exposition by the American presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton, of her mass genocidal intentions towards Iranians was tragic proof of the dehumanising impact of warmongering on an elite western mind. It is said that humanity is the first casualty of war and this has been starkly clear, not only in the murderous boasting of the presidential candidate’s preparedness to “totally obliterate†an entire nation, to prove her appeal as the American president, but worse still, in the meek and acquiescent response or no response at all of the western mainstream journalists, politicians and intelligentsia.
Where are those super champions of human rights and western liberal values who were so ‘outraged’ by the announcement of Fatwa on Salmon Rushdie? Does that loud and sanguine defense of “freedom of expression†translate into this blood-soaked acquiesce to the liberty of threatening an entire nations to “total obliteration�
And compare this complacent silence to the flooding of the airwaves and newsrags with propaganda bombardment over the Iranian president’s misquoted “wiping Israel off the map†remark, which has gone on incessantly for two and a half years despite frequent attempts at clarification and correction. Such was the “outrageâ€. Of course, many people take their cues on how to respond to the avalanche of complex news, from the mainstream media itself and politicians. So the silence is a cue heavy with meaning and menace.
The Orwellian double talk and double standards are so part of the fabric of every day political culture that they now go down without the need for a pinch of salt and are comfortably digested. However, when the threat of mass genocide, amidst overwhelming silence or inaudible whimpers, is interpreted as a “gaff†(Timothy Garton-Ash, Guardian 24th April), and a rare objection describes it as “probably imprudent†(Lord Malloch-Brown, Guardian 24th April), this is the unmistakable indication of the deadening of sensitivity and tolerance of violence towards nations who are deemed as ‘dispensable’; as in Iraq and in Palestine.
This deadening of humanity is the most serious casualty of the immoral invasion of Iraq in the aggressor countries, and if not recovered, there will be dire consequences for the entire world.
The “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocideâ€, of the United Nations, defines Genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious groupâ€. as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; …â€.
Hillary Clinton is threatening the destruction of a “whole national group†and by her violent threat is causing them “serious mental harmâ€. In her ABC News interview, she has unequivocally threatened that: “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iranâ€. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.” This was in reply to the question on how she would respond if Iran attacked Israel by nuclear weapons.
Not only, according to the intensive IAEA inspections, there is no evidence of Iran working towards weaponisation or indeed any rationale for such a threat, but even if, hypothetically, such a threat existed, the threat of “total obliteration†issued to an entire nation remains an insane and criminal intent. This threat of total annihilation which would presumably imply the use of nuclear weapons is directed against a helpless population with catastrophic consequences. Such an attack would not compensate against any unlikely hypothetical attack from Iran, neither would such a threat act as a fearsome deterrent – as it is claimed to be. Just as it is intended to grab the presidency through fear mongering and to feed the monster of America’s continuing wars with paranoia, similarly the impact of such fear in Iranians would be the anxiety to defend oneself against a deranged president and a population that goes along with it. According to the UN definition of genocide, Hilary Clinton is threatening mass genocide of an entire nation of 70 million. Is this violent woman fit to hold the presidency of a country with the most powerful war machine in history? Have we become so dehumanised by our incessant killing that we have lost any capacity for outrage?
With over a million Iraqis and thousands of coalition soldiers killed and maimed, the prospect of Hilary Clinton’s presidency, who voted in favour of that illegal and immoral war, and has publicly declared her voracious appetite for mass genocide, is a truly terrifying specter.
A lone voice of conscience, in a readers’ letter in the Guardian newspaper (24th April) asks: “What would she do if Israel attacked Iran (which is more likely)?â€. This is the question Clinton should have been asked and the question she should now be asked by the world community. So should statesmen, politicians and journalists internationally be questioned on their views on the US presidential hopeful’s mass genocidal intents.
Comment by mani — April 27, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
Kamangir,
My impression is that you are splitting hairs here.
“Removing the current regime” as you have reframed it clearly means removing Jewish sovereignity, in other words destroying Israel as a state for Jews. The call may not be outright for genocide but it is not far off.
Bardia,
I am quite with you. The situation in Iran now could only be compared to Germans who had been under Nazi rule for 40 years. As we know, the imperium of 1000 years just lasted 12 so we cannot make this comparison.
You make a good case why deterrence might work after all against Irak.
Mani,
Just answer me this: Israel has – for all we know – had nuclear weapons since 1973. If it contemplated genocide not only against the Palestinians (as you surely allege) but also against Iran under the Mullahs: Why has it not acted?
Comment by Ruth — April 28, 2008 @ 6:43 am
Bardia, regarding Hitler and Germany… I’m afraid that you’re wrong. Nearly as completely and utterly wrong as you can get, in fact.
Hitler wasn’t elected to start a war or to enact genocide. Hitler was elected to end the economic strife, create jobs, bring order to the streets, and restore German’s sense of pride in their nation in the post-WWI era. The perception was that Germany was humiliated and economically exploited following the loss in WWI, and the economic strife and job situation of the Great Depression pretty much destroyed the recovering German economy – and the German public shifted the blame squarely to the Weimar Republic leadership, those who supposedly failed in signing the treaty that ended WWI and destroyed Germany’s pride.
Hitler played on that, and the Nazi Party’s influence grew with each elections. Eventually, as riots filled the streets (with the Nazi’s own goons doing a fair share of the havoc), Hitler promised law and order.
Hitler was made Chancellor in the hopes that it would mellow him down and dissipilate his more extreme racist rhetoric. Instead he changed the political reality of Germany by destroying the Communist Party, making emergency laws to essentially remove most human rights in the process. He then went on elections, and won a clear majority in Parliament now that his biggest opponents were gone. He then went on to form a two-third majority vote in Parliament with several other parties, essentially buying a two-third parliamentary majority to amend the constitution and make the cabinet the supreme power and him, Chancellor Hitler, as more powerful than the President (who could remove him from power until that moment, but who was unfortunately extremely mentally ill by then).
It was only then that the Fuhrer was born, and the Nazi party essentially fused itself with the state.
Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party rose through the Democratic institution to devour the state. They rose with extreme and racist rhetoric, but they also rose with the usual promises of economic growth, welfare, jobs… stability, national pride, righteousness. And they won, because they manipulated the crowd. Few, *very* few, were true-believers in the Nazi cause when they were voted in. People focused on the usual things, and blinded themselves to the rest. The Nazis would bring stability, improve the economy, and mellow down on the extreme rhetoric after a while. Surely. It only makes sense after all.
Only it didn’t quite work out that way.
But no, Iran is not Germany during the Great Depression. If anything, it is much more similar to the Soviet Union in its final period, with the lessening political dogma but with the unyielding control of the Party still holding on. The rigid political framework may have a more preconceived role for the likes of Ahmadinejad, but it also encourages people with a rhetoric similar to his – because other candidates get filtered out before they even get to the starting line of the elections. Ahmadinejad doesn’t scare me as much as the people who may follow.
Comment by Roman Kalik — April 28, 2008 @ 7:47 am
Unfortunately it hasn’t been a “vague remark”. “Israel must be gone” Khomeini explicitly said. My translation is a word by word literal translation of his. To me there’s no doubt that he wanted them gone. The other famous word of those hard liners is “The path to Quods, passes through Karbala” and this was when Iran was in the middle of the war with Iraqis. An average Joe westerner translates this: “When we conquered Iraq and got rid of ‘em, it’s gonna be Israel’s turn.”
Thank god that the majoroty of iranian people don’t give a shit about what these mullahs say every freaking day.
Comment by The11ave — April 28, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
salam arash jan
webloge farsit bala nemiad, ye check bokon. shayad irad az connectione man bashe, vali chand bar test kardam,load nashod. tnx.
Comment by youlio — April 28, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
Two points, one using a KKK member to refute Mahmoud’s “wipe the Jews off the map” statement is a bit comical…
two, so he may not have said wipe off the map, instead he said erase from the pages of history…not much difference – and what he said about “without America” is pretty self explanatory
seems odd that those who are translating are Muslims, so they must be Sunni translators right? purposefully misinterpreting Mahmoud’s words to bring the wrath of the big and little Satans? al jazeera would never falsely report anything would they?
Comment by Vera — April 28, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
Archer
I have to disagree with you. If US president would tell viewers in the US that very soon this stain of disgrace [i.e. Iran] will be purged from the center of the Asian continent what would you think he has in mind? I also am not sure but have heard that administration in IRI do not use word “Israel” they use instead “Zionist entity”, “stain of disgrace” and so on and so forth. If that is true, than of course Ahmadinejad, khamenei and others will not say they want to wipe out Israel – they do not acknowledge Israel as a country and Israelis as a nationality. It is as simple as that.
I know that Iranian as compared to arabs are much less anti-semitic but if IRI will get nuclear bomb the leaders of Iran would not need to use army to try to destroy Israel.
And one more thing, there was discussion about how Iranians are not bloodthirsty people like nazis, but nazis also were not bloodthirsty. Majority of nazis were normal people, they had wives, children, they were living normal life, they even had jewish friends – up to a certain point in time.
In some circumstances “normal” people can behave like criminals and the border between “normal” behaviour and “genocidal” behaviour is unfortunately quite thin even if we think it is not.
Kamangir: I do agree with you, and I definitely find it shameful, that the IRI leaders do fancy the destruction of Israel. The point here is that they do not call for a genocide.
Comment by ella — April 29, 2008 @ 12:57 am
This article is related to the topic:
http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/iranian-holocaust-denial
“Anyone who looks closer, however, will soon discover that Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric is steeped in an antisemitism not found in any state leader since World War II. Ahmadinejad does not say “Jews†are conspiring to rule the world. Instead he says, “Two thousand Zionists want to rule the world.†“The Zionists have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural, and media sectors.†“The Zionists†fabricated the Danish Muhammad cartoons. “The Zionists thrive on war and hatred. Everywhere they exist there is war.â€[11] The pattern is familiar. He invests the word “Zionist†with exactly the same meaning Hitler poured into “Jewâ€: the incarnation of evil. Anyone who makes Jews – whether as “Judas†or as “Zionist†– responsible for all the ills of the world is obviously driven by antisemitism. He must want to eliminate Israel, as the “germ of evilâ€, in order to “save†the world.
In this regard, in his opening speech to the conference, Iranian Foreign Minister Manucher Mottaki left no doubt: if “the official version of the Holocaust is called into question,†Mottaki said, then “the nature and identity of Israel†must also be called into question.[12] If, however, the Holocaust did occur after all, then – per Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric – Israel has even less of a reason to be in Palestine, but should be transplanted instead to Europe. One way or another, the result is the same: Israel must vanish.
The elimination of Israel, the demonisation of Jews and Holocaust denial – these are the three elements of an ideological constellation that collapses as soon as one of the elements is removed.”
Comment by Noga — April 29, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
Does “abadpur” mean “slave of luck”, or “slave of destiny”?
Kamangir: Excuse me?
Comment by me — April 29, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
“What he (Ahmadinejad) asked for, …, was the removal of the current regime in Israel.”
Please, forgive my sarcasm but what regime would satisfy Ahmadinejad?
Does it include Jews in charge of their destiny or limited number of dhimmies will suffice?
Comment by leo — May 2, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
Bardia @ 6,
I believe you are correct and this is what makes it so difficult for me. I do not wish bad for Iranian people and it pains me to see their suffering under crazy regime. Something I can relate to as former Soviet citizen.
Unfortunately Iranian people do not get to decide whether to attack Israel or not. Ahmadinejad does. And for Israel to take chance with Ahmadinejad’s obsession with WMD (true or not?) would be most unwise. I truly hope we will never reach point of no return. Sadly, at the moment it does not look all that promising.
Comment by leo — May 2, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
Wow you really felt that poor poor Ahmadinejad needed your defense?!
Comment by City Boy — May 5, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
I think the president of the Islamic Republic did not in fact ask for the “wiping-off†of the Jewish state.
If that’s true, then how do you explain the pictures in this blog post?
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2008/03/11/wont_somebody_tell_juan_cole.php
Kamangir: Not that I find the call for the assasination of the heads of the Israeli government legitimate, but that is not call for genocide either. See, there is no question that Ahmadinejad is a moron and an extremist, what I and others say is that he did not call for a genocide.
Comment by Marvin — May 6, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
Kamangir: “See, there is no question that Ahmadinejad is a moron and an extremist, what I and others say is that he did not call for a genocide.”
May be so. Then how would one go about wiping any country “off the map” or “out of the World”?
“there is no question that Ahmadinejad is a moron and an extremist”
There is probably not a single rational person who will disagree with you but it does not mean this moron and extremist not capable of bringing disaster and first of all to Iran.
Kamangir: You are right. This is not about his insanity, this is about the precise meaning of his words.
Comment by leo — May 7, 2008 @ 7:13 am
As a Persian, I Love and respect Israel. I hope we become friends soon again.
Comment by Kaveh — May 12, 2008 @ 3:54 am
I hear what you’re throwing out. I don’t think I quite agree with it, but you’re right that we should look for the difference.
If he’s talking about government change, then that may or may not be a good enough reason for us to knuckle up.
If he’s talking about genocide, then that really limits our options.
Comment by brando — May 12, 2008 @ 7:25 pm