1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

The American Era & Palestine Question

Discussion in 'Middle Eastern Politics' started by almaster87, Nov 24, 2008.

  1. almaster87

    almaster87 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let’s have an intelligent conversation about the facts and opinions regarding the Era of America today and where and for what reason the bulk of hate extends towards America. I will draw the conclusion that the bulk of this comes from the “global policeman” America plays in a mono-power world and the support for Israel and the distaste it brings from the majority of Arabs. I would like to encourage people from around the world to make comments on this; especially from those who feel they are directly affected by such policies and not just a ‘herded sheep’.

    Undoubtedly the one of the most influential and controversial topics of our time has been and will be for ages to come the conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian state. Relations have always been off-scale horrible between these two countries and it seems other than a little fancy talk no other nation is truly willing to mitigate or arbitrate this dispute. Since the late 1940s and the British Mandate an untold amount of blood has been shed on both sides and has yet to rectify the situation; perhaps only extending it and making it worse. No one person truly knows the number that has died on either side fighting for their own beliefs, but it can be assured that ultimately this number will be far too high to accept.

    Since 9/11 America has finally opened its eyes to the world beyond its borders. Before then this conflict was scarcely mentioned among fellow citizens and definitely weakly understood by all. Many in America approach this situation with a head on attitude: destroy all who oppose America and spread democracy throughout the world. How funny it seems that just a few decades before this time Americans viewed the Soviet Union in the same fashion: taking out all who oppose them and to spread communism throughout the world; and almost all American viewed such a doctrine as the root of evil itself. The American hand has grown out of control since the fall of the Soviet Union; a fact that was most likely unavoidable due to the tremendous power vacuum left behind. The American unconsciousness probably assumed it right to become the “policeman” of the world after the fall of the Soviet Union. Using the fall of communism as a pretext to believe that communism after all was evil and fell for the reason that America preached.

    However, today we know this fact to be untrue. The fall of the Soviet Union was predicted by many prominent Soviet and communist leaders even in the early days of the union itself. After personally surveying Russia with a professor the conclusion was quickly made that almost no one current approved of the collapse and almost everyones life since then has gotten worse. China remains the prime example that communism has not failed; but almost promotes the true fact that in order to survive on Earth in the modern age a selective blend of Capitalism must be applied. In an effort to be most brief the point must be made that without a balancing power the United States is more willing to take chances on the world stage that it would not have taken otherwise. In the entire world a single power is unable to stop the force of America so such policies that it sees fit for the world to follow, regardless if there is actual support for such, it pushes ahead.

    Much hatred follows from this point; many believe that America should keep its hands in its own pocket. Many have come to believe, especially after the invasion of Iraq, that America is out for its life blood, oil. They are probably right. In the most evil sense it would be reasonable to take over a country rich with oil so that it may influence and disrupt the region to maintain a firm grasp on a commodity that if cut off from would certainly denote the country into a third world nation. Reason can stand that this only makes up half the total percentage of dislike that America is now faced with. The other, more volatile, percentage comes from the Arab community over the support of Israel.

    It seems impressive that another country hundreds miles away could decide of the fate of those in the Palestinian area. Many will say after the horrendous persecution of the Jews in Germany it was their given right to return to land that was once theirs. Although it is absolute fact that they suffered miserably it can not be agreeable to transmit this fact to another race. Take for instance the history of the United States. In the early days the North American continent was inhabited by Native Americans; that was their land and their country. Now as European settlers emerged they gradually took away their land, battle by battle, year by year. The same is true for the loss of Israel’s land; they were eventually driven out by the Arabs who surrounded them and administered by an Arab country. Now back to America; what if the Native Americans were to be taken by another power and plopped right on top of America today. They would take control of the continent, affairs, government, ECT and would maintain a policy to keep the American population under control. It is quite probable the distress among Americans would be at the boiling point. You would have attacks daily on Native American sources of government and a fervent hate of those administers. This is the case in Palestine. A country that was dropped on by another country and now screams out to be in charge. Their own land which they have tilled, worked, and buried their ancestors has become in part land that the state of Israel now owns and exceeds influence on. An exact mirror image of this situation would be seen in America if such an example as the Native Americans were to happen.

    No one person has all the answers, and to be caught in the past is to be doomed to repeat it. However it must acknowledged by those in America and those who agree abroad that both a mono-power “policeman” American world can not exist at peace and that what has been done with Israel has been wrong in many aspects. It is time for the UN to become the “global policeman” and take charge of this situation in Palestine before the beating of a butterflies wind unleashes a hurricane – God himself could not stop.
     
  2. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,630
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    ..... you know it always makes me comfortable and happy when someone starts off a post with this sort of thing........ "Let’s have an intelligent conversation about the facts and opinions regarding....{insert topic}....." because what it actually means is "this is my oppinion and if you don't agree with me then you are an idiot". True to form you end your first paragraph with ".....who feel they are directly affected by such policies and not just a ‘herded sheep’." thus you have confirmed my theory and made me quite content.....:rolleyes:

    Okay..... my innate cynicism aside for a second, lets make a cursory examination of your first post. Particularly interesting is the chice of topic considering the forum; you are basically pitching up on a forum which is predominantly about American politics throwing around sweeping statements like "support for Israel and the distaste it brings from the majority of Arabs." Which Arabs would these be?

    As far as I understand it, the vast majority of Arabs are quite happily going about their business, living their lives and pro-creating and are really quite ambivalent towards America. Personaly I think you are deliberately confusing and espousing the views of the vocal minority that are either intent on perpetuating a political agenda or more likely a theological crusade. The broad thrust of your post seems to be a dislike of the political situation in the Middle East and the US support for Isreal to which I would simply say... tough $hit!

    You see in my rather simplistic and "sheep" like world I think that the Palestinians are just puppets; they are simple playthings in the hands of sinister people. They are cannon fodder for the politically motivated, theologically corrupt and pathelogically insane criminals that want control over these foolish people for their own personal agrandisment and/or fiancial gain. Anyone that has any money, intelligence or sense indeed anyone not of a fanatical religious conviction has long since got out of Palestine. Unfortunately that just leaves the poor, the stupid and the religous zealots, who tragically are being killed by allowing themselves to be manipulated into believing that their povety and religion is caused by and under threat from outside forces whilst all the time they are being cynically manipulated and sacrificed in the name of religion and greed and realpolitik by those in Iran who, lets face it, have their own agenda which does not include a peaceful co-existance with the rest of the world!

    So......anyway, back to all of these Arabs that hate the USA because of Israel...... care to be a bit more specific before we carry on this critique?
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    I love your post~! very well said
     
  4. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    Your post was interesting, but in the end I really dont give a rip if there is a group of Arabians who dont like that we are friends to Israel. We have nut jobs like that freak in Iran who constantly talk about killing all the Jews. You should be mad at them and the Arabs who are not happy should be mad at them. It is because of crazy whacked out groups like them that we need to be such close friends to Israel.

    If those groups were "normal" and had a live and let live attitude we would not be nearly as close to Israel as we are.
     
  5. Agnapostate

    Agnapostate New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2008
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    California
    Whom are you referring to?

    This should be interesting.
     
  6. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Hey Scotsman you clearly know nothing about the treatment of Palestinians by Israel.

    And the wealth and weaponry that is used to kill Palestinians is largely supplied by the US.

    And Israel is allowed to have US supplied nuclear weapons whilst the US trumps up charges of WMD against arab states to justify attacking them.

    The US said it would not recognise Hamas because it was not a democratically elected organisation.

    Then, when it was democratcially elected the US would not recognise it because it is a terrorist organisation whilst the US bombs the living **** out of one of its neighbours.

    Maybe, just maybe that is what is behind the original post on this board that you dismiss so readily.
     
  7. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,630
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    Look Dawkins before we get all excited and start rushing off at tangents with our arms flapping in the wind lets just look at the post and manage the information provided.

    Statement - all Arabs hate the USA

    Fact or Fiction?
     
  8. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Fiction of course.

    But you coould forgive them if they did
     
  9. Stalin

    Stalin Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,073
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    ...Sigh.. get your facts straight

    "On October 26, 2005, IRIB News, an English-language subsidiary of the state-controlled Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, filed a story on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent speech to the "World Without Zionism" conference in Asia. The story was entitled: Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map.[1] The story was picked up by Western news agencies and quickly made headlines around the world. On October 30, The New York Times published a full transcript of the speech in which Ahmadinejad was quoted in part as follows:

    Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.[2]

    Ahmadinejad also claimed in the speech that the issue with Palestine would be over "the day that all refugees return to their homes [and] a democratic government elected by the people comes to power",[3] and denounced attempts to normalise relations with Israel, condemning all Muslim leaders who accept the existence of Israel as "acknowledging a surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."

    The speech also indicated that the Iranian President considered Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip to be a trick, designed to gain acknowledgement from Islamic states. In a rally held two days later, Ahmadinejad declared that his words reflected the views of the Iranian people, adding that Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid.[4]

    [edit] "Wiped off the map" or "Vanish from the pages of time" translation

    Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) statement that Ahmadinejad had demanded that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9]

    Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website.[10]

    According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:

    The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[11]

    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."[12]

    The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly.[13] On June 2, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this reasoning.[14]

    Sources within the Iranian government have also denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat.[15][16][17] On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel "wiped off the map," saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime," he said.[18][19][20]

    In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor and Israeli resident Ethan Bronner affirmed that Ahmadinejad had called for Israel to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner stated: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away." Bronner continued: "..it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran's president call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."[12] This elicited a further response from Jonathan Steele.[21]

    Shiraz Dossa, a professor of Political Science at St. Francis University in Nova Scotia, Canada who presented a paper at a conference in Iran, defended Jonathan Steele's preferred view of the translation:

    Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation—"wipe Israel off the map"—suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can "wipe out" U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.[22][23][24]

    [edit] Clarifying comments by Ahmadinejad

    President Ahmadinejad has been asked to explain his comments at subsequent press conferences. At a later news conference on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad stated his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted.[25] "There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want."

    Speaking at a D-8 summit meeting in July 2008, when asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel he denied that his country would ever instigate military action, there being "no need for any measures by the Iranian people". Instead he claimed that "the Zionist regime" in Israel would eventually collapse on its own. "I assure you... there won't be any war in the future," both the BBC and AP quoted him as saying.[26][27]

    And asked if he objected to the government of Israel or Jewish people, he said that "creating an objection against the Zionists doesn't mean that there are objections against the Jewish". He added that Jews lived in Iran and were represented in the country's parliament.[26]

    In a September 2008 interview with Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman on the radio and television program Democracy Now!, Ahmadinejad was asked: "If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?" and replied

    If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.[28]

    Interviewer Juan Gonzalez called the reply "a tiny opening".[28] Another observer however dubbed it an "astonishing" admission "that Iran might agree to the existence of the state of Israel," and a "softening" of Ahmadinejad's "long-standing, point-blank anti-Israeli stance". Australian-born British human rights activist Peter Tatchell also asked whether the statement reflected opportunism on Ahmadinejad's part, or an openness by Iran "to options more moderate than his reported remarks about wiping the Israeli state off the map."[29]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#2005_.22World_Without_Zionism.22_speech
     
  10. Stalin

    Stalin Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,073
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    No comment apart from fawning remarks in the US media about this statement from the useless Hillary Clinton

    "..Nobody seems to have noticed that Hillary Clinton has broken international law by threatening Iran with 'obliteration.'

    "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said in an interview with ABC. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

    Why are alarm bells not ringing?

    In chapter I, article II of the United Nations Charter, it states:

    All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

    The U.N Charter was signed in San Francisco in 1945 by the United States along with 50 other countries. Each country is bound by its articles, and the treaty prevails over all other treaties (including 'special' relationships with other nations). In other words, regardless of any hypothetical attack on Israel, the United States is legally bound not to threaten Iran or any other country. This is also enshrined in the constitution. Article IV Clause II states:

    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    It is incredible that public debate regarding Hillary Clinton's threat to annihilate Iran centers around campaign strategy rather than international law. I have been scouring the mainstream media to find anything criticizing Clinton's remarks for their illegality, but can find nothing other than comments like 'Clinton's tough talk on Iran' (taken from ABC News)

    While most Democrats have kept quiet, Obama rightly denounced Clinton's remarks saying, "It's not the language we need right now, and I think it's language reflective of George Bush."

    Obama is right of course (although he had his own moment with Pakistan), but still falling a few thousand miles short of calling it what it is.

    "That is not a word gaffe," writes Robert Scheer. "It is an assertion of the right of our nation to commit genocide on an unprecedented scale."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-c...e=2&show_comment_id=12888705#comment_12888705
     
  11. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    My facts are straight. The man is a total nut job, he is dangerous, crazy and the biggest Jew hater to come along since Hitler.

    But you have the right to disagree.
     
  12. Stalin

    Stalin Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,073
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Facts seemed to have changed their definition since I was at school.

    If one is looking for "nut jobs" and "crazies" there is no need to look further than the immense number of religious loonies of the Jewish faith that infest Palestine ( aka Israel ), especially those born in the US and Russia.

    The colonization of Palestine by Europeans has been a disaster for those Jews who lived in harmony and concord with other indigenous Palestinians before the Zionist waves of migration started.

    Comrade Lazar Kaganovich, standing in for comrade Stalin
     
  13. Stalin

    Stalin Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,073
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    more..er.."facts"..

    On Tuesday, October 25th, 2005 at the Ministry of Interior conference hall in Tehran, newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech at a program, reportedly attended by thousands, titled "The World Without Zionism". Large posters surrounding him displayed this title prominently in English, obviously for the benefit of the international press. Below the poster's title was a slick graphic depicting an hour glass containing planet Earth at its top. Two small round orbs representing the United States and Israel are shown falling through the hour glass' narrow neck and crashing to the bottom.

    Before we get to the infamous remark, it's important to note that the "quote" in question was itself a quote— they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office.

    THE ACTUAL QUOTE:

    So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi:

    "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

    That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

    So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".

    While the false "wiped off the map" extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad's actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the "map" comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a "world without Zionism". One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.

    In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.

    Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:

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

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

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

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

    Amid heated wrangling over Iran's nuclear program, and months of continuous, unfounded accusations against Iran in an attempt to rally support for preemptive strikes against the country, the imperialists had just been handed the perfect raison d'être to invade. To the war hawks, it was a gift from the skies.

    It should be noted that in other references to the conference, the IRNA's translation changed. For instance, "map" was replaced with "earth". In some articles it was "The Qods occupier regime should be eliminated from the surface of earth", or the similar "The Qods occupying regime must be eliminated from the surface of earth". The inconsistency of the IRNA's translation should be evidence enough of the unreliability of the source, particularly when transcribing their news from Farsi into the English language.

    THE REACTION:

    The mistranslated "wiped off the map" quote attributed to Iran's President has been spread worldwide, repeated thousands of times in international media, and prompted the denouncements of numerous world leaders. Virtually every major and minor media outlet has published or broadcast this false statement to the masses. Big news agencies such as The Associated Press and Reuters refer to the misquote, literally, on an almost daily basis.

    Following news of Iran's remark, condemnation was swift. British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed "revulsion" and implied that it might be necessary to attack Iran. U.N. chief Kofi Annan cancelled his scheduled trip to Iran due to the controversy. Ariel Sharon demanded that Iran be expelled from the United Nations for calling for Israel's destruction. Shimon Peres, more than once, threatened to wipe Iran off the map. More recently, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, who has warned that Iran is "preparing another holocaust for the Jewish state" is calling for Ahmadinejad to be tried for war crimes for inciting genocide.

    The artificial quote has also been subject to additional alterations. U.S. officials and media often take the liberty of dropping the "map" reference altogether, replacing it with the more acutely threatening phrase "wipe Israel off the face of the earth". Newspaper and magazine articles dutifully report Ahmadinejad has "called for the destruction of Israel", as do senior officials in the United States government.

    President George W. Bush said the comments represented a "specific threat" to destroy Israel. In a March 2006 speech in Cleveland, Bush vowed he would resort to war to protect Israel from Iran, because, "..the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel." Former Presidential advisor Richard Clarke told Australian TV that Iran "talks openly about destroying Israel", and insists, "The President of Iran has said repeatedly that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth". In an October 2006 interview with Amy Goodman, former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter referred to Ahmadinejad as "the idiot that comes out and says really stupid, vile things, such as, 'It is the goal of Iran to wipe Israel off the face of the earth' ". The consensus is clear.

    more at http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=5866
     
Loading...

Share This Page