Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today announced that the days of Israel, which he calls the “filthy Zionist entity”, are numbered and the said “entity” will fall soon or later.
AFP reports this:
- “I advise you to abandon the filthy Zionist entity which has reached the end of the line,” Ahmadinejad told world powers in a speech in the southern city of Bushehr carried live on the state television.
“It has lost its reason to be and will sooner or later fall,” he said. “The ones who still support the criminal Zionists should know that the occupiers’ days are numbered.”
I abhor such hate speech. Even if Iran’s president and many of its people are strongly opposed to the policies of the Israeli government, then describing the whole state of Israel (and by extension, its citizens) as “filthy” is a quite unacceptable and degrading way to refer to them.
Referring to Israel as “the Zionist entity” rather than the name it has as a recognized public entity in the international arena is also abhorrent.
Isn’t it also the case that that, at a time when Iran’s negotiators are dealing with the latest round of Security Council diplomacy concerned with their nuclear program, and when Iran clearly seems eager to build warmer relations with states like Egypt, which has a longstanding peace agreement with Israel– then to have the country’s president spouting off such abhorrent hate speech must be quite unhelpful to such efforts?
I’ve been very interested, over the years, to study the relationships among what the Arabs call the “Jabhat al-Mumana’a“– the “blocking front” of regional states and parties dedicated to blocking the implementation of Israeli-US hegemonist plans for the region. The main members of this front are Iran, Syria, Lebanon’s Hizbullah, and Palestine’s Hamas.
We should note that none of the other members of the JM refer to Israel in the same demeaning, hateful way that A-N does. First of all, the leaders of all the other JM members refer overwhelmingly to “Israel”, not to the “Zionist entity”. Secondly, they don’t use hateful descriptors like “filthy” when referring to it. Thirdly, they show varying degrees of readiness to deal with Israel as an established fact in the region.
For example, Syria participated in a lengthy, and actually remarkably productive process of face-to-face peace negotiations with Israel from 1991 through 2000. President Bashar al-Asad, like his father before him (since 1973 or so), has always stood ready to negotiate a final peace agreement with Israel. Syria sent a representative to the regional peace talks held in Annapolis, Maryland, last November.
Hizbullah has battled Israel’s armies mightily, mainly on the land of its own native Lebanon. But it has also, from 1996 on, shown itself ready to participate in indirect ceasefire negotiations with Israel and then– with one notable exception, in July 2006– to abide by the ceasefires thereby agreed. (And Israel has been a frequent violator of those ceasefires.)
Regarding Israel’s longterm stature as a mainly-Jewish state in the region, Hizbullah’s leaders have repeatedly abstained from pronouncing on that, saying that that is a matter for the Palestinian people, not the Lebanese people, to decide.
As for Hamas, its leaders talk frequently and easily about “Israel.” They certainly accept– and are sometimes eager for– the idea of limited cooperation on ceasefires and other matters, though with the general proviso that these be negotiated through third parties, not directly. Regarding Israel’s longterm stature in the region, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal repeated to me just two weeks ago the organization’s readiness to conclude a hudna of undefined length with an Israel that had withdrawn from all the Palestinian lands occupied in 1967 and had satisfied all the Palestinians’ rights including the right to return.
Hamas’s position is quite evidently different from that of, for example, PA president Mahmoud Abbas. Different, too, from the kinds of peace settlement envisaged by the vast majority of that fast-fading breed, the Israeli peaceniks, at this time. But it is also notably different from the hateful, almost specifically genocidal position articulated by Ahmadinejad.
I can’t imagine why Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei allows A-N to carry on like this.
Maybe the subtle ploy there is to make the other members of the Jabhat al-Mumana’a look moderate by comparison?
President Ahmadinejad’s comments have precedents here in the US. Consider President Reagan’s categorization of the USSR as “the evil empire”. And lest we forget, President Bush’s categorization of Iran as an element of “the axis of evil”.
Ahmadinejad has been frequently misquoted by the mainstream Western media. However, it is true that a familiar theme in his commentaries is that Israel’s moral justification for existence is unsound and that it will fail. In this respect, his comments mirror that of past US moral objections to communist regimes in the USSR, China and VietNam. They also mirror past moral objections to the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
I do agree, Helena, such comments can be unhelpful in the pursuit of peace.
Mark, has he been misquoted?
If you check back, you will find that it was IRIB, Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, that first presented Ahmedinejad’s remarks in translation, under the title “Ahmedinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map”, on their English-language Web site. While many Farsi-speaking apologists have tried to “translate” Ahmedinejad’s way out of this, IRIB is not only the official broadcasting authority of Iran, they are also under the direct admnistrative oversight of the President of Iran. If this is not what he meant, I would presume that he would have done something about it, but until recently, IRIB still ran the story, under that headline on their Web site.
“abhorrent hate speech”
With the possible exception of the world ‘filthy’ (and I’d be interested to see other translations) I hardly think the above quotes qualify as “abhorrent hate speech”. If we take the second quote:
“”It has lost its reason to be and will sooner or later fall,”
I would say that the sentiments aren’t in fact all that different from many cautious admirers of Israel who believe that the state has lost whatever moral justification it may once have had, and is now doomed. Nor do I see why Ahmedinejad, or anyone else for that matter, is in any way morally obliged to accept the existence of a Jewish state (as opposed to Jewish people) in Palestine.
“the hateful, almost specifically genocidal position articulated by Ahmadinejad.”
Come on! I’m no fan of the Iranian prez, but ‘genocidal’???
Certainly, whether of not one agrees with him, Ahmedinejad’s speech is nowhere near as ‘abhorrent’ or ‘hateful’ as the recent demands by a high-ranking Israeli cleric that the Gazans be deported to the Sinai.
“I can’t imagine why Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei allows A-N to carry on like this”
Perhaps because he has little control over the antics of the Prez, or perhaps because he knows that such rhetoric appeals to quite a few people in the Middle East? Particularly as Iran is attempting to promote itself as the polar opposite of the servile, endless acquiescent Arab governments?
JES:
Rest assured, I’m not an apologist. But I’ve seen many instances where Western media sources have deliberately misquoted Iran’s leadership.
I’m not familiar with the specific case you cite. However, such remarks compare with US commentary regarding “regime change” directed against the Islamic Republic.
I’ve a historical perspective to add to Helena’s observations. Names such as “Zionist entity” and invectives were once standard practice for Arab regimes. Decisive military defeats on the battlefield and the emergence of US regional hegemony put a brake on this kind of thing. However, Iran is an exception in that it presents itself free from Western dependence, and it has successfully resisted being decisively defeated in war. The existing cold war with the US (and Israel) prompt such obvious exercises in rhetoric. The intended audience for such commentary is “the Arab street”, where it’s said it enjoys a measure of popularity.
Again, I agree with Helena that such commentary is counterproductive to the pursuit of peace, a goal I share.
‘Dude, where’s my country?’ was the cry of Arafat and the Mid East nationalists.
The US and Israel contrived to replace them with Islamic fundamentalists who now ask, ‘Dude, where’s my kingdom of God on earth?’
This passes for progress in our faith-based era.
Before quoting Cheney and his indictment of the Iranian regime, that is equivalent to Ahmadinajed’s indictment of the Zionist regime , these kind of rhetorics not only hinders the peace process, but world peace.
Cheney and co. fell short of advocating regime change in Iran, a la Afghanistan and Iraq. He castigated “the nature of the regime”; said that Iranians have a “right to be free from oppression, from economic deprivation and tyranny”; and declared that “America looks forward to the day when Iranians reclaim their destiny.
Both are interested in regime change, the difference, Iran had experienced first hand Saddam’s war on Iran that was supported by the Americans right after the revolution took place in Iran.
The immense pushing- to put it lightly- of Israelis to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, when “she” is the only one in the region to own nuclear war headssss, is probably the cause of such kind of language .
It is really as if Helena Cobban was calling Mandela hateful, genocidal and abhorrent for not accepting at least a small White-majority state.
The mainstream view both in Iranian and in most Muslim societies is that Israel is an illegitimate state that should be replaced by one that gives equal rights to the Palestinians and to all of the refugees – which would not be a Jewish or Zionist state.
Ahmadinejad has consistently presented this view. Including in his original speech when he compared Israel directly to the USSR, the Shah’s regime and the Baathist regime – all of which, according the him, were removed from the map, but none of which was removed from the map in an act of genocide.
Westerners really have trouble getting their minds around the fact that it is possible for a person to believe there should not be an Israel without that person being hateful or genocidal or abhorrent.
That is a big problem because _most_ reasonable, non-hateful, non-genocidal people in the Middle East look forward to a world without Zionism, while Westerners can’t even understand that such a view exists.
One reason that is a problem is that once you define the position held by over two-thirds of the population in every poll I’ve seen as unreasonable, hateful, abhorrent, etc, etc. Then you put yourself in opposition to democracy.
You almost have to condescendingly hold that until the people of the Arab world become as enlightened as you are, they should be ruled by friendly though corrupt dictators. (Corrupt enough to ignore the views of the people they represent in favor of whatever the West can give them. See Abbas, Mubarak, etc.) Even if otherwise you consider yourself liberal or progressive.
According to Cole, “Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ because no such idiom exists in Persian”. Instead, “He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.”[14]
Wikipedia has an article whose citations make up a good chronology of events. You can check it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#_note-8
To summarize:
On October 26, 2005 (the day of the speech) the first English-language coverage of the speech came out on IRIB under the title “Ahmedinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map”. Those were the words they used and the translation they gave in the article. (They appear to have wised up after more than two years and removed this story from their site.)
Four days later, on October 30, 2005 the New York Times published a translation of the full speech by Nazila Fathi from their Tehran bureau. She used the expression “wiped off the map”, which Ahmedinejad attributed to his “dear Imam”, and which, if one reads the speech, he clearly endorses.
More than a half year later, on May 3, 2006 Cole appears with his “translation”. I think that one can only question the arrogance of Professor Cole in asserting that his version is correct (i.e. that because the exact idiom doesn’t exist, Ahmedinejad or his “dear Imam” could not have meant such a thing), while the official broadcasting authority, under the control of the speaker, on the same day as the speech, conveyed what they believed was the intended meaning, and that this went unchanged for more than two years. Astounding that anyone would buy Cole’s version (unless, of course, they want to argue that perhaps the CIA or Mossad run IRBID!)
As to Murphy:
Perhaps no one is “in any way morally obliged to accept the existence” of any state (including the Islamic Republic of Iran) in theory. But come on man, when one talks about the elimination of a state they are talking about, what Yehoshefat Harkabi termed, “politicide”, and that, by definition, involves the death or displacement of many people. I do not accept the argument of Jewish people being allowed to exist in Palestine, as long as this is not in their own state, which is a nice way of saying as long as they don’t get all “uppity”.
As to Yona Metzger that “high-ranking Israeli cleric” (and, by the way, not a Zionist), and what he may or may not have said, he is not an official of the Government of Israel, nor is he in a policy-making position (and, he will likely soon not even be employed by the government). Ahmedinejad, in contrast, is the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that is the difference.
Arnold Evans:
One reason that is a problem is that once you define the position held by over two-thirds of the population in every poll I’ve seen as unreasonable, hateful, abhorrent, etc, etc. Then you put yourself in opposition to democracy.
Where on earth did you acquire the all-encompassing hubris to make such an outrageous statement. Even if you had actually seen every available poll and were personally able to vouche for the veracity of those polls, where on earth do you get the gall to somehow equate democracy with public opinion surveys? I’m certain that one could have polled people in Germany in the 1930s or in the US South in the same years and found a healthy majority in favor of the policies of the time in relation to their respective minorities (even if you’d polled the minorities as well!). Would that have made those societies’ actions moral? Could one have held up “democracy” as defence of Nuermberg or Jim Crow?
I hate to break it to you Arnold, but people who hold those views – even when comprising the majority in the latest public opinion survey, are indeed, unreasonable, hateful and abhorrent.
Helena:
I have to agree with you on this one, and not because I am Israeli, but because what you said about Ahmedinejad is right!
Zionism is filthy:
“The experiment in famine began on January 18, 2008. Israel hermetically closed all of Gaza’s borders, preventing even food, medicine and fuel from entering the Strip. Power cuts, which had been frequent for many months, were extended to 12 hours per day. Due to the electricity shortage, at least 40 percent of Gazans have not had access to running water (which is channeled through electric pumps) for several days and the sewage system has broken down. The raw sewage that has not spilled onto the streets is now being poured into the sea at a daily rate of 30 million liters.”
Neve Gordon,
http://www.counterpunch.org/gordon01302008.html
JES:
Whoosh!
Everyone else:
I don’t think the point I was trying to make is difficult to understand. If someone else misunderstands what I wrote in a similar way to JES, let me know and I’ll clarify. I don’t want to rewrite the same comment only slightly changing some words just for one person.
LOL Arnie. Don’t bother. I understood your twaddle perfectly.
JES and his arrogance:
More than a half year later, on May 3, 2006 Cole appears with his “translation”. I think that one can only question the arrogance of Professor Cole in asserting that his version is correct (i.e. that because the exact idiom doesn’t exist, Ahmedinejad or his “dear Imam” could not have meant such a thing), while the official broadcasting authority, under the control of the speaker, on the same day as the speech, conveyed what they believed was the intended meaning, and that this went unchanged for more than two years. Astounding that anyone would buy Cole’s version (unless, of course, they want to argue that perhaps the CIA or Mossad run IRBID!)
Juan Cole’s translation is perfectly correct. I’ve seen the Persian, and he’s quite right. The “official broadcasting authority”, to drag out the old Israeli propaganda yet one more time – a bit tired now (I thought remarks in these comments were supposed to be fresh, according to Helena’s instructions) – simply made a slovenly translation.
I have to say I’m with Mark Pyruz on this one. Given the language of evil used against Iran, I can’t see anything wrong with Ahmedinejad calling Israel ‘filthy’. And the rest of the language in the speech doesn’t seem to pose a problem.
Nevertheless, I do think you have to look at the Persian. The implications of the Persian word being translated as ‘filthy’ may be quite different; it’s a very strange translation. ‘Filthy’ is a very loaded word in English; I wonder whether it is right as a translation.
Zionism can exist in degrees. When one takes a hardline vision of Zionism one then insists on a Greater Israel, and considers mass civilian suffering justifiable. Much in the same way that one can be fundamentalist about a religion. I don’t equate al-Qaeda philosophy with all of Islam. And so I don’t equate acts like that described by Dominic with all of Zionism. Likewise, wishing for a world without Zionism is by no means a reasonable wish. Simplistic mainstream viewpoints like “Zionism should be wiped out” or “Iran is inherently evil” perpetuate war footings between peoples.
Ahmadinejad just loves stirring up the zionists that’s all! Dunno why Helena takes it seriously, although it’s been funny to read the zionist-haters here defending him. The comparison with Mandela was hilarious.
btw Helena – when you have these interviews with high level Syrians do you ever ask them when they are going to recognise Lebanon as a sovereign state?
ps: I think Syria stopped referring to the “filthy zionist entity” on June 11, 1967.
How about a world without Apartheid, a world without Communism, a world without Baathism, a world without the Shah’s regime?
Most people in the Middle East consider Zionism evil. You can disagree, but you won’t win the debate if you have it in Cairo.
Most people in the Middle East believe the right of displaced Palestinians is of a higher order than the right of Jews to have a state where they are the majority. Disagree, but yours is not the only reasonable position. Really it is not the most reasonable position, I’d argue it is not _a_ reasonable position.
Most people in the Middle East disagree with fundamendalist Zionism and supposedly liberal Zionism.
Interestingly, saying it is not a reasonable position a priori saves supporters from having to actually argue it which is lucky, though lazy for them because it is very difficult to argue that the right of Jews to have a Jewish majority state is of a higher order than the right of Palestinian refugees to return.
There are some things though, that you can believe if you really want and nobody can stop you. Ahmadinejad says again and again and again that Israel will go the way of the USSR. Yet there are some who want to believe he is calling for genocide. If you want to believe it, you’re going to believe it.
The reason supporters of Israel believe Ahmadinejad called for genocide, no matter what Ahmadinejad actually said, is because there is not a good reason that Israel as a Zionist state should not go the way of the USSR. Instead of arguing against what Ahmadinejad says, it’s easier to stretch his words way in a direction he is repeatedly clear he himself did not take them and argue against that.
“But it is also notably different from the hateful, almost specifically genocidal position articulated by Ahmadinejad.” [Yes and no]
The “abandon Israel” is a key element of Hamas rhetoric in case of US-elections [last time Abu Abdullah, midterm congressional election June 2006, Ynet-Interviews]. The intresting thing here is the belive in such circles that the americans themselve are betrayed of the “Great Satan” and “If the White House officials allow us to be present as an observer in their presidential election we will see whether people in their country are going to vote for them again or not.” [A., 26.11.07 in front of Basijis.] The “free” american will withdraw from Iraq, abandon Israel, blabla.
They really belive that Israel is the “shadow over the world” and [for alex, etc…] its not only a problem of WORDS. I would not tell them “crazy”, the other side has their … “belivers”, too. And it seems like the world of today gives them “belivers” a little too much power.
Referring to Israel as “the Zionist entity” rather than the name it has as a recognized public entity in the international arena is also abhorrent.
Agreed. Too bad Hezbollah routinely refers to Israel this way. “Zionist entity” is an entire subheading on their website, while until recently “Israel” received scare quotes.
http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/News.aspx?language=en
Oops I spoke too soon. “Israel” still earns scare quotes, on Arabic versions of Hezbollah’s page:
http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=33752
“إسرائيل”
Guess its a matter of marketing.
“although it’s been funny to read the zionist-haters here defending him”
Who will you rather see them defending? and why bb
So…is it really so bad to describe a nation, dedicated to the principle of exclusive benefit for the members of one race/religion, as “filthy”?
After Shah Regime Iran propaganda by Mullah starts same as other regimes in ME, like Saddam and others, now most Arab regimes inline with US and under their supervisory lines.
When Khomeini came to the power in Iran he start talking about exporting his revolutions to his neighbours mixing that with librating Jerusalem from Zionist.
Watching Iran Mullah behaviours and their loud voices with flummery worlds we conclude the following:
By thinking that Iranian regime support of Hamas or Hezbollah reflects support of Palestinians case you are mistakenly wrong in this view. The reality Iranians support to those two is more problem to their nations/state than Israel conflict.
We can also add the Iranian fiddling in Iraq its more problem and severe for Iraqis and Iraq than the occupier in fact some how its benefiting the occupier by many ways, you don’t need to prove for that the reality on the ground tells more what Iranian doing inside Iraq and what they benefits and achieved despite those American noises about Iranian support for militia which casing in some cases killing of Americans.
I hope one day to get the opportunity to be a Ahmadinejad-defender. To provide a defense of statements Ahmadinejad really has made..
I wish somebody would say “Ahmadinejad calls for a referendum that includes all Palestinians about what form of government should prevail in the territory currently controlled by Israel – what a bad guy he is”
Or “Ahmadinejad says Israel is no more eternal than his examples of the USSR, the Shah and Hussein’s regimes – what a bad guy”
Instead I get “Ahmadinejad ‘nearly’ calls for genocide – he’s unreasonable, hateful, ‘nearly’ genocidal and abhorrent”
I’m not defending Ahmadinejad as much as I’m pointing out that words of a figment of the imagination of defenders of Zionism – created specifically to make defense of Zionism easier – do not match the words of the actual Ahmadinejad.
WP
Senor Chavez. He’s the only friend Ahmie’s got and viccie versa.
Professor Cole enlightens us that in the dialect of farsi spoken in his native Garmsar province, Ahmadinejad actually denied that gays exist in Iran and that there ever was a “Holy Cross”.
The “official broadcasting authority”, to drag out the old Israeli propaganda yet one more time – a bit tired now (I thought remarks in these comments were supposed to be fresh, according to Helena’s instructions) – simply made a slovenly translation.
Really Alex? Are you suggesting that this is not what was posted on IRIB (because I saw it cleary posted there as late as last month – with the original date)? Are you suggesting that IRIB is not the official broadcasting authority of the Islamic Republic of Iran? Because you can check it out right here:
http://www.iribnews.ir/front_en.asp?sec=front_en
Are you suggesting that the whole thing was made up by Israel? Because, in that case, I’d say that, I may be as arrogant as Juan Cole, but I’d also say that you should check out the tin-foil hat!
he’s unreasonable, hateful, ‘nearly’ genocidal and abhorrent”
Yea Arnold, that pretty much covers it for Ahmedinejad. He’s also short and ugly.
Truesdell: We went over that deliberate media misquote in the past. Don’t you remember? Why are you still referring to it?
JES: I’ve seen many sloppy English translations in the Iranian web press. Since the quote you refer to has been changed or removed, perhaps it was finally corrected. Otherwise it would still be there- right?
bb: He has friends in Baghdad in Kabul. In fact, the government of Iraq has just invited him to Baghdad for an official state visit.
Salah: Where did many Iraqi Arabs turn to for sanctuary from Sadaam? Iran. Today, when the Iraqi government is being pressed to accept agreements with the occupational authority that are not in their interest, where do they turn to? Iran. When the Arab people of south Lebanon were in desperate need of assistance to end the foreign occupation of their country, where did the help come from? Iran. When the Palestinian Arabs voted in a free election that offended the West, which nation stepped forward with economic assistance to reduce the ill effects of the effective siege? Iran. You’re an intelligent man. You know these things. Why do you offer an Arab grudge against Iran?
Mark, that speech was given on October 26, 2005, and the translation was posted on the very same day. It was up at least until last month, which means that they left it there for over two years. This is the official organ of the regime and directly under Ahmedinejad’s control. If you want to believe that they just now got around to realizing they made a mistake then fine. I hope they have the same level of attention to detail and timing in other projects, such as their nuclear one!
By the way, I’ve seen many “sloppy translations” of Hebrew in the press and on anti-Israel Web sites as well.
“when one talks about the elimination of a state they are talking about, what Yehoshefat Harkabi termed, “politicide”, and that, by definition, involves the death or displacement of many people.”
That is simply false. On this occasion, and on others, Ahmedinejad has talked about the elimination of the “Zionist regime” – a political system. There are several examples of political systems being eliminated with little or no bloodshed – the fall of the Soviet Union (referred to by Ahmedinejad in this very context) being an obvious one.
“As to Yona Metzger that “high-ranking Israeli cleric” (and, by the way, not a Zionist), and what he may or may not have said, he is not an official of the Government of Israel, nor is he in a policy-making position (and, he will likely soon not even be employed by the government)”
Hmmm…. so he IS employed by the government? BTW has he been sacked yet? Have religious Jews come out in masse to protest his statements, the way Muslims would certainly be requested to do, were the tables turned? Plus, I don’t know what your ‘may or may not have said’ is meant to mean – his comments were widely (though not widely enough) reported. To me, they are far more outrageous than the statements by an Australian imam about ‘women being uncovered meat’ or something to the effect, yet they have got comparably little attention.
In any case, the rabbi does speak for a large number of Jews, and it’s also worth pointing out that his comments do not appear to be an aberration among the Israeli elite: witness Lieberman’s recent advocacy of ethnic cleansing, a policy which, according to polls, most Israeli Jews favour. As for Ahmedinejad, yes, he is the President of Iran, but if you know anything at all about the political system in that country, you’ll know that his executive powers are probably less than those of an Israeli minister like Liebermann.
Arnold, good posts.
“It is really as if Helena Cobban was calling Mandela hateful, genocidal and abhorrent for not accepting at least a small White-majority state.”
CC: Helena (since I am talking about you in the third person while you are in the room)
While I DO think that Helena has made some serious overstatements here, I hardly think that A-N can realistically be equated to Mandela!
And while I do not consider A-N’s statements even remotely genocidal, I prefer genocidal blahblahblah over genocidal actions such as those Israel has taken in respect to the Palestinians, and the United States has taken in respect to the Iraqis since 1991.
I also find A-N’s use of his undeniably big mouth far preferable to Israel’s and the United States’ use of their big bombs and other weapons of death and destruction.
Iran has no history of aggression against other countries, and A-N is not in a position to initiate aggression, even if he were so inclined. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Israel or the United States, whose leaders have, by the way, made many statements as ugly and far more threatening than A-N’s (did anyone hear what Bush said about and “to” Iran last night?).
“. “Israel” still earns scare quotes, on Arabic versions of Hezbollah’s page”
You mean similar to the manner in which “Palestine” and “Palestinians” regularly earn scare quotes most Zionist/Israel publications? Oh, how horrible! Simply unconscionable! Not to mention genocidal!
But hey, pot, keep on whining about how black the kettle is if that’s all you’ve got.
“. “Israel” still earns scare quotes, on Arabic versions of Hezbollah’s page”
You mean similar to the manner in which “Palestine” and “Palestinians” regularly earn scare quotes most Zionist/Israel publications? Oh, how horrible! Simply unconscionable! Not to mention genocidal!
But hey, pot, keep on whining about how black the kettle is if that’s all you’ve got.
Murphy, there was a hell of a lot of bloodshed and disposession as a direct result of the fall of the Soviet Union. Azerbaijan, Chechnya and Georgia are three examples that come to mind.
The elimination of the state of Israel and implementation of literal right of return would involve, at least, the disposession of millions of Israeli Jews. That is a fact.
Yona Metzger is paid by the government, but he is neither a government appointee, nor is he elected by the Israeli populace. Further, his area of responsibility is strictly limited to the personal status of Israeli Jews, primarily in relation to matters of marriage, divorce and burial. And, yes, the Chief Rabbi’s remarks were roundly condemned by the Israeli press and real government officials and public figures, if you take the trouble to check. In any event, he has no influence on government policy, nor was he invited to represent Israel at the opening sessions of the UN General Assembly.
Lieberman is no longer a minister or member of the government, largely because the coalition was not willling to adopt his policies. The polls that really count concerning Ivet Lieberman are elections. Lieberman and his ilk, while garnering a number of votes that is cause for concern, have never been able to achieve anything nearing approval of their policies by the public.
I suggest that, before you lecture others on the political system in Iran, you take the trouble to learn about the political system in Israel. Lieberman, when he was a minister, had nowhere near the powers or authority of Ahmedinejad. I will grant you this, however, in Iran, unlike in Israel, the unelected clerics to hold real power that is “supreme” in relation to elected officials such as Ahmedinejad.
when the Iraqi government is being pressed to accept agreements with the occupational authority that are not in their interest, where do they turn to? Iran.
Forgive me I rally find this argument laughable.
Did you heard or read that letter signed by 300,000 Southern Iraqi “Arabs” raising their concern about Iran fiddling inside Iraq especially southern Iraq region?
Is this give evidence from inside Iraq that Iraqi fed up with Iranian interfering with their internal affairs?
Do you know most of these guys you call them “Iraqi government “are Iranian proxies if you don’t know them well search after them you will find more about them and their background?
Yes they are supported and funded by Iran not for the good of Iraq and Iraqi but Iran support as to their necessity; same can be said about other examples you stated.
What main point here Iranian regime how mach words and thread they announced publicly, they are cleverly manipulating things to their necessity and their gains in the region rather than real thread to Israel.
Arab grudge against Iran?
This is not what I meant you miss my point here, if Iran really likes their neighbors and looking for strategic alliances, you need to look 25 years of history or further before that what Iran doing for that long time?
this the question should be asked and what Iran doing to gain the trust and good well to offered by her to her neighbors to build strong relations that really works for the best of all in the region.
when the Iraqi government is being pressed to accept agreements with the occupational authority that are not in their interest, where do they turn to? Iran.
Forgive me I rally find this argument laughable.
Did you heard or read that letter signed by 300,000 Southern Iraqi “Arabs” raising their concern about Iran fiddling inside Iraq especially southern Iraq region?
Is this give evidence from inside Iraq that Iraqi fed up with Iranian interfering with their internal affairs?
Do you know most of these guys you call them “Iraqi government “are Iranian proxies if you don’t know them well search after them you will find more about them and their background?
Yes they are supported and funded by Iran not for the good of Iraq and Iraqi but Iran support as to their necessity; same can be said about other examples you stated.
What main point here Iranian regime how mach words and thread they announced publicly, they are cleverly manipulating things to their necessity and their gains in the region rather than real thread to Israel.
Arab grudge against Iran?
This is not what I meant you miss my point here, if Iran really likes their neighbors and looking for strategic alliances, you need to look 25 years of history or further before that what Iran doing for that long time?
this the question should be asked and what Iran doing to gain the trust and good well to offered by her to her neighbors to build strong relations that really works for the best of all in the region.
Salah:
This is the second or third time you’ve cited “that letter signed by 300,000 southern Iraqis’. You’ll have to excuse me, but given the actual source and timing of that letter campaign, I have my doubts concerning its legitimacy.
I agree, there are elements of the Iraqi government that maintain ties with Iran, the same may be said of the army and security forces. The relationship extends as far back as the resistance to Sadaam and Sadaam’s war against Iran during the 1980’s. Where it was once resistance, now the Iraq-Iran relationship rests on a form of counterbalance to the occupational authority, where there are extra-regional attempts at subordinating truer regional interests.
Regarding the relationship of Iran to its neighbors the past 25 years, Iran took in a great many refugees from Iraq escaping the the terrible tyranny of Sadaam. What’s more, Iraqi POW’s from the war were treated reasonably well, some forming military brigades to fight against Sadaam, which now comprise elements of the Iraqi Army. Regarding Iran’s neighbor to the east, for decades Iran accepted a huge number of refugees from Afghanistan, escaping the terror of Soviet occupation and, later, oppression from the Taliban. Also, an extraordinary Iranian aid package was delivered to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. Likewise, prompt financial aid has been delivered to Lebanon and Palestine, recent victims of foreign aggression and blockade.
So Salah, what is the specific source of your grudge against Iran? Is it the fact that Iraq has now become the first Shia Arab nation?
“. “Israel” still earns scare quotes, on Arabic versions of Hezbollah’s page”
You mean similar to the manner in which “Palestine” and “Palestinians” regularly earn scare quotes most Zionist/Israel publications? Oh, how horrible! Simply unconscionable! Not to mention genocidal!
But hey, pot, keep on whining about how black the kettle is if that’s all you’ve got.
Mandela would not accept even a small White state. He wanted the whole area to be under majority Black control.
Was that hateful, abhorrent, almost genocidal and unreasonable?
The question is not “is there some difference between Ahmadinejad and Mandela”
The question is “was it hateful, abhorrent, almost genocidal and unreasonable for Mandela to deny the national rights of Whites or Afrikaaners in southern Africa”
But if supporters of Zionism prefer not to answer, I understand. It really is a question that answers itself.
The question is “was it hateful, abhorrent, almost genocidal and unreasonable for Mandela to deny the national rights of Whites or Afrikaaners in southern Africa”
Quite possibly.
It is no less “hateful, abhorrent almost genocidal and unreasonable” to deny the national rights of Jews in Israel than it is to deny those same rights of Arabs in Palestine. What is most unreasonable is for either side to demand sole rule over the entire area from the river to the sea. In other words, you (just like a right-wing settler or Islamic Jihadist) see nothing wrong with a maximalist position, as long as it fits into your own polar view of things. I don’t see it that way.
You mean similar to the manner in which “Palestine” and “Palestinians” regularly earn scare quotes most Zionist/Israel publications?
You’d be hard pressed to find an example from any mainstream Israeli newspaper(whereas Al Manar unquestionably represents mainstream Hezbollah view.) I’d love to see one.
Do you read many mainstream Israeli newspapers Shirin? Most Zionists (including all those engaged in conversation with you now) don’t have any problem with a Palestinian state, and would never use scare quotes around the word. Aren’t we Zionists better qualified to represent our own beliefs than non-Zionists like yourself or Arnold Evans?
The ANC was probably concerned with South Africa shattering into many small, very weak states. There were strong arguments of practicality against Afrikaners, Zulus, Xhosas, and others forming their own homeland states. But I don’t think the principle of homelands for those peoples and cultures would be wrong. In college I had a friend from Somalia. Without me asking, he once claimed that there was a fraction of land in South Africa that really had no inhabitants before the white settlers can, and he was open to the idea of that land being an Afrikaner state. Again, he was from Somalia instead of South Africa, but he always seemed savvy about African politics.
And I’m sure Mandela would never have accepted a small white state that still had Apartheid laws. I would see nothing wrong with Afrikaner/Xulu/Zhosa states that permit anyone to become citizens after passing the test and living in them for a long enough time. I don’t think a Jewish state requires the Apartheid-like rules people living in the occupied territories are suffering under either. Non Jews can become citizens of Israel; there are many living in Israel proper. Israel can remain the Jewish state where Jewish cultural heritage is protected and passed to all its citizens, the destination of the aliyah, with the blue and white flag, menorah emblem and Hatikvah anthem. That need not depend on the demographics. Similarly, France will always remain a French state, continuing French language and cultural heritage, whether or not the population turns majority muslim or not.
While I’m talking about this, I tend to be supportive of “breakaway” states when the majorities of their peoples strongly support independence. That is their wish. So I support independence for Abkhazia, Somaliland, Kurdistan, and Chechnya if the majority still wants independence there. I also support the right of Kosovo to merge with Albania, Trans-Dniester and South Ossetia to join the Russian Federation, and Nagorno Karabakh to merge with Armenia. Those are the majority opinions.
Speaking of Africa, most of the independent nations there had their borders created during colonial times. Borders that don’t reflect cultural history at all. So then, couldn’t the borders be redrawn so that they correspond to cultural homelands instead of colonies? No more states that arbitrary throw different cultures together. What are the arguments against that?
Vadim:
Glad to hear you’ve no problem with a Palestinian state. Will you put up a window sign on your home for Shalom Achshav?
Mark, I’d be happy to, but unfortunately I live on a high floor in an apartment building. The only creatures likely to read such a sign are the pigeons.
JES:
I read your “quite possibly” about calling Mandela “abhorrent” for denying Afrikaaner national rights as a “yes”.
You’re welcome to your opinion, and it’s the only possible opinion consistent with support of Zionism. But that opinion it not only outside of the mainstream in the Middle East, it is far outside of the mainstream of liberal thought in the West.
Most Western liberal supporters of Zionism find some way to avoid or dodge the question, so you get a point for answering the question as clearly as you did, but “yes” would have been clearer.
Inkan:
Israel isn’t on a plot of land that really didn’t have Palestinians, as your Somalian friend believes a possible White state could have been.
I’m guessing you hold that if the White South Africans had been as smart in the 1940s as the Israelis at that time, and instead of denying Blacks the vote in place, had driven them outside of what they could have declared as “South Africa proper” then a state for White people established on that basis would be acceptable to you.
A state established on that basis would not be acceptable to Africans. The ANC would fight a state formed on that basis until the people removed from “South Africa proper” for being of the wrong ethnicity were returned. A state formed on that basis would not be acceptable to most Western liberals.
A state formed on that basis would be seen by very few people, you seem to be one, as significantly better than the actual Apartheid state.
Helena Cobban:
It’s amazing to me that for a liberal, opposing Israel as a state formed on that basis is abhorrent, even going as far as to say “almost genocidal”. That is mind boggling.
What is laudable in the case of South Africa, is not even reasonable, further it is “hateful” and even further it is “almost genocidal” in the case of Israel.
The return of people displaced to create an ethnic state is not an unreasonable demand. And even if you think it is, nobody in the Middle East agrees with you. Including the corrupt leaders that you think are on your side.
The corrupt leaders that you have to support – in your ideological war against the Muslim mainstream – believe regrettably that they are in too weak a position to achieve a just outcome. And if you pay them enough, they just won’t think about just outcomes one way or the other. But they do not, and probably never will, share your belief that it is abhorrent to call for ending Israel’s status as a Jewish state.
I answered the question honestly as “possibly”. I don’t think that your own reaction is telling:
But that opinion it not only outside of the mainstream in the Middle East, it is far outside of the mainstream of liberal thought in the West.
I don’t aspire to holding or expressing only positions that are within the mainstream – not of the Middle East, and certainly not of what you call “liberal thought in the West”. I don’t know what makes you think that you are the judge of what mainstream Western liberal thought is, but I think you might just consider that your attempts at “thought policing” others is a tad presumptuous.
You see, Arnold, it doesn’t impress me what the average “reasonable” person in the Middle East thinks, particularly when they are carrying a copy of the “Protocols” under their arm. I don’t care if I will not be able to win a debate in Cairo, because my basic premise is not that the sorry state of the many Muslim Arabs today is not solely the result of Western imperialism and Zionism.
Let me just say that I think that your apartheid comparisons are inapt, and, perhaps, just a bit simple-minded. I think that your use of Mandela to confront your fellow-liberal audience is a case of bullying – but, for me at any rate – quite entertaining.
I meant to say that I do find your reaction telling.
I was not trying to draw an analogy between my friend’s idea of an Afrikaner state with Israel. You did not specify if Mandela would oppose a White state where people once already inhabited, you just said “white state”. And BTW: didn’t Mandela want the whole area to be under the control of all South African citizens, not just the Black majority?
You keep trying to use guesses and “seems” to construe everything someone says in response to you into the strawman you keep hurling your anti-Israeli rhetoric against. Much as you contrue Middle East “Reality” into the anti-Israeli dogma you preach on about. Please quit guessing and supposing. I don’t want you to put words in my mouth.
You have fingers. If I guess wrong, you are perfectly capable of correcting me by typing your actual position. I assume you would if I was wrong. I assume you’re not because I’m not wrong.
BTW, Just as Mandela wanted South Africa to be controlled by all of its citizens, not just the Black majority, I want the territories currently administered by Israel to be under the control of all of its citizens, not just what would be the Palestinian majority after all refugees who want to return are enabled.
I guess you do not. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I want the territories currently administered by Israel to be under the control of all of its citizens[sic]
Arnold, its been explained to you that Palestinians living in occupied territory are not Israeli citizens. The areas controlled by Israel are not congruent with Israel’s national borders. why is this so very hard to grasp?
I guess my point has been made. Let me stop bullying you guys. I’m bowing out of this comment thread now.
Why is it every time the comparison between occupied Palestine and South Africa apartheid mentioned we find some of the commentators become agitated, I think it is an apt analogy.
The future will look brighter once the borders are removed, then the plight of all those who live in Palestine and Israel will become one. They will hold hands and build together, just like South Africa.
Ideologies that are build on racism are doomed to failure, they become over saturated with blood, more importantly guilt, after all we are all equal.
Peace,Salaam,Shalom