Log in

View Full Version : Iran's President Did not Say



Mikhail Frunze
21st January 2007, 07:50
By Arash Norouzi

01/18/07 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran's President has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, "Israel must be wiped off the map". Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made, as this article will prove.

BACKGROUND:

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".

THE PROOF:

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Here is the full transcript of the speech in farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site
www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm

THE SPEECH AND CONTEXT:

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.

THE ORIGIN:

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.

Confusing matters further, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pontificates rather than give a direct answer when questioned about the statement, such as in Lally Weymouth's Washington Post interview in September 2006:

Are you really serious when you say that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth?

We need to look at the scene in the Middle East — 60 years of war, 60 years of displacement, 60 years of conflict, not even a day of peace. Look at the war in Lebanon, the war in Gaza — what are the reasons for these conditions? We need to address and resolve the root problem.

Your suggestion is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth?

Our suggestion is very clear:... Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted.... The people with no roots there are now ruling the land.

You've been quoted as saying that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Is that your belief?

What I have said has made my position clear. If we look at a map of the Middle East from 70 years ago...

So, the answer is yes, you do believe that it should be wiped off the face of the Earth?

Are you asking me yes or no? Is this a test? Do you respect the right to self-determination for the Palestinian nation? Yes or no? Is Palestine, as a nation, considered a nation with the right to live under humane conditions or not? Let's allow those rights to be enforced for these 5 million displaced people.

The exchange is typical of Ahmadinejad's interviews with the American media. Predictably, both Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes and CNN's Anderson Cooper asked if he wants to "wipe Israel off the map". As usual, the question is thrown back in the reporter's face with his standard "Don't the Palestinians have rights?, etc." retort (which is never directly answered either). Yet he never confirms the "map" comment to be true. This did not prevent Anderson Cooper from referring to earlier portions of his interview after a commercial break and lying, "as he said earlier, he wants Israel wiped off the map".

Even if every media outlet in the world were to retract the mistranslated quote tomorrow, the major damage has already been done, providing the groundwork for the next phase of disinformation: complete character demonization. Ahmadinejad, we are told, is the next Hitler, a grave threat to world peace who wants to bring about a new Holocaust. According to some detractors, he not only wants to destroy Israel, but after that, he will nuke America, and then Europe! An October 2006 memo titled Words of Hate: Iran's Escalating Threats released by the powerful Israeli lobby group AIPAC opens with the warning, "Ahmadinejad and other top Iranian leaders are issuing increasingly belligerent statements threatening to destroy the United States, Europe and Israel." These claims not only fabricate an unsubstantiated threat, but assume far more power than he actually possesses. Alarmists would be better off monitoring the statements of the ultra-conservative Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who holds the most power in Iran.

As Iran's U.N. Press Officer, M.A. Mohammadi, complained to The Washington Post in a June 2006 letter:

It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month's remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that "We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state."

The Israeli government has milked every drop of the spurious quote to its supposed advantage. In her September 2006 address to the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni accused Iran of working to nuke Israel and bully the world. "They speak proudly and openly of their desire to 'wipe Israel off the map.' And now, by their actions, they pursue the weapons to achieve this objective to imperil the region and threaten the world." Addressing the threat in December, a fervent Prime Minister Ehud Olmert inadvertently disclosed that his country already possesses nuclear weapons: "We have never threatened any nation with annihilation. Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?"

MEDIA IRRESPONSIBILITY:

On December 13, 2006, more than a year after The World Without Zionism conference, two leading Israeli newspapers, The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz, published reports of a renewed threat from Ahmadinejad. The Jerusalem Post's headline was Ahmadinejad: Israel will be 'wiped out', while Haaretz posted the title Ahmadinejad at Holocaust conference: Israel will 'soon be wiped out'.

Where did they get their information? It turns out that both papers, like most American and western media, rely heavily on write ups by news wire services such as the Associated Press and Reuters as a source for their articles. Sure enough, their sources are in fact December 12th articles by Reuter's Paul Hughes [Iran president says Israel's days are numbered], and the AP's Ali Akbar Dareini [Iran President: Israel Will be wiped out].

The first five paragraphs of the Haaretz article, credited to "Haaretz Service and Agencies", are plagiarized almost 100% from the first five paragraphs of the Reuters piece. The only difference is that Haaretz changed "the Jewish state" to "Israel" in the second paragraph, otherwise they are identical.

The Jerusalem Post article by Herb Keinon pilfers from both the Reuters and AP stories. Like Haaretz, it uses the following Ahmadinejad quote without attribution: ["Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added]. Another passage apparently relies on an IRNA report:

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom," Ahmadinejad said at Tuesday's meeting with the conference participants in his offices, according to Iran's official news agency, IRNA.

He said elections should be held among "Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner."

Once again, the first sentence above was wholly plagiarized from the AP article. The second sentence was also the same, except "He called for elections" became "He said elections should be held..".

It gets more interesting.

The quote used in the original AP article and copied in The Jerusalem Post article supposedly derives from the IRNA. If true, this can easily be checked. Care to find out? Go to: www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0612134902101231.htm

There you will discover the actual IRNA quote was:

"As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated".

Compare this to the alleged IRNA quote reported by the Associated Press:

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom".

In the IRNA's actual report, the Zionist regime will vanish just as the Soviet Union disappeared. Vanish. Disappear. In the dishonest AP version, the Zionist regime will be "wiped out". And how will it be wiped out? "The same way the Soviet Union was". Rather than imply a military threat or escalation in rhetoric, this reference to Russia actually validates the intended meaning of Ahmadinejad's previous misinterpreted anti-Zionist statements.

What has just been demonstrated is irrefutable proof of media manipulation and propaganda in action. The AP deliberately alters an IRNA quote to sound more threatening. The Israeli media not only repeats the fake quote but also steals the original authors' words. The unsuspecting public reads this, forms an opinion and supports unnecessary wars of aggression, presented as self defense, based on the misinformation.

This scenario mirrors the kind of false claims that led to the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq, a war now widely viewed as a catastrophic mistake. And yet the Bush administration and the compliant corporate media continue to marinate in propaganda and speculation about attacking Iraq's much larger and more formidable neighbor, Iran. Most of this rests on the unproven assumption that Iran is building nuclear weapons, and the lie that Iran has vowed to physically destroy Israel. Given its scope and potentially disastrous outcome, all this amounts to what is arguably the rumor of the century.

Iran's President has written two rather philosophical letters to America. In his first letter, he pointed out that "History shows us that oppressive and cruel governments do not survive". With this statement, Ahmadinejad has also projected the outcome of his own backwards regime, which will likewise "vanish from the page of time".
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article16218.htm

Kropotkin Has a Posse
21st January 2007, 08:03
I've heard this before, and it makes sense to me. But the mainstream media will do nothing to rectify this misquoting, and already too many people think that he said "Israel should be wiped off the map."

It's almost as though people won't accept any sort of revision, no matter that the original "facts" were false. There are people who still worship the Reagan rhetoric of the "Evil Empire," and I daresay ten years from now people will still wrongfully quote Ahmedinejad.

Dimentio
21st January 2007, 08:17
Ahmadinejad does not have as much power as Khamenei, so I wonder why everyone is behaving like he had that. The military and foreign policy is determined by Khamenei.

Mikhail Frunze
21st January 2007, 08:38
Right. The bourgeois media is rather confused in how they want to portray Ahmadinejad. They seem to have a hard time in deciding if he's a ruthless dictator or a puppet of the mad mullahs. But the fact is that in terms of foreign policies Iran has not deviated much since the election of Ahmadinejad. There is certainly no new Iranian policy regarding nuclear technology.

ComradeR
21st January 2007, 12:37
This dosen't surprise me, The US has had it's sights set on Iran ever since the Shah was overthrown and it lost control of Irans oil. The US bourgeoisie is doing everything it can to demonize Ahmadinejad, to turn him into another "Saddam" in order to justify a war to bring this "lost neocolony" back under US control. It's no big secret that the US is making preparations for a war with Iran, from it's deploying of another carrier group to the gulf, it's increasing the size of the armed forces, and it's aggressive moves against Iranian officials in Iraq.

Demogorgon
21st January 2007, 13:11
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:17 am
Ahmadinejad does not have as much power as Khamenei, so I wonder why everyone is behaving like he had that. The military and foreign policy is determined by Khamenei.
Khamenei unobligingly doesn't make controversial statements to the international press. The media have found themselves a bogeyman who we are toi fear and be willing to invade to get rid of.

Intifada
21st January 2007, 18:10
Everytime the US threatens another country, the first thing they do is drum up a huge media campaign that will paint the leader(s) of the said country as Hitlerian maniacs.

EwokUtopia
22nd January 2007, 07:41
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:10 pm
Everytime the US threatens another country, the first thing they do is drum up a huge media campaign that will paint the leader(s) of the said country as Hitlerian maniacs.
Prooves that Americans have no real sense of history. The only villain they can think of is Hitler. The only genocide they can name is the Holocaust, and most fail to grasp that completely. It really pisses me off when people say "Hitler killed 6 million people in the Holocaust", when in fact the Nazi's (goes far beyond the silly speech maker) killed 12-13 million people, 6 million of whom were Jewish. The Romani holocaust (Porajmos) deserves far more recognition than it gets. You hear holocaust, you instantly think Yellow star of David, never Pink, Green, Red, Black, or Blue triangle. The Jewish victims of the holocaust deserve our infinate respect, but no more than the Roma, Sinti, Homosexual, Slavic, Communist, or Disabled victims, all are equal, all were brutally murdered.
The media accuses Ahmadinezhad of denying the holocaust (I'd like the translation of that statement), I accuse the same media of ignoring more than half of the holocaust, as well as countless other genocides which slip under the American historical radar.

While far from being the ideal leader, Ahmadinezhad certainly isnt the bloodthirsty hitler he is made out to be, the worst you could say of him is that he's a bit of an idiot. But try convincing that to the American masses before the War on Terror becomes the War on Tehran.

EDIT- Does anyone else get the feeling most Americans thought he said "Israel must be wiped off the map" in English? I doubt CNN told them that leaders of other countries speak different languages than the only one they hear without turning SAP on...

Vargha Poralli
22nd January 2007, 08:06
It really pisses me off when people say "Hitler killed 6 million people in the Holocaust", when in fact the Nazi's (goes far beyond the silly speech maker) killed 12-13 million people, 6 million of whom were Jewish. The Romani holocaust (Porajmos) deserves far more recognition than it gets. You hear holocaust, you instantly think Yellow star of David, never Pink, Green, Red, Black, or Blue triangle. The Jewish victims of the holocaust deserve our infinate respect, but no more than the Roma, Sinti, Homosexual, Slavic, Communist, or Disabled victims, all are equal, all were brutally murdered.

Yes they also never mention the number of Germans they have murdered(KPD and SPD cadres).

As for the OP i have read that the support for Ahmedinjad had declined considerably Majilis and with Khameini. Obviously they feel his stupid rhetoric speeches about the Nuclear program is damaging Iran's support among other nations.They are working to replace him with a moderate face(obviously).

Spirit of Spartacus
22nd January 2007, 09:48
President Ahmadinejad is one of our leaders in the struggle against U$ and I$raeli imperialism, like it or not.

Despite our dis-taste for the repressive regime in Tehran, to abandon the Iranian workers and peasants at this crucial moment in their struggle against the First World is nothing short of criminal.

We'll talk of regime change, aye we will. But when the Yanks stop messing around with Tehran...only then!

The Grey Blur
22nd January 2007, 12:30
President Ahmadinejad is one of our leaders in the struggle against U$ and I$raeli imperialism, like it or not.
No he's not, he's a figurehead of the theocratic regime in Iran.


Despite our dis-taste for the repressive regime in Tehran, to abandon the Iranian workers and peasants at this crucial moment in their struggle against the First World is nothing short of criminal.
I honestly can't believe you wrote that. The only way to combat an Imperialist war is to mobilize the working-class of all affected nations. We can't rely on the bourgeois of Iran to defend the workers and peasants.


We'll talk of regime change, aye we will. But when the Yanks stop messing around with Tehran...only then!
We can't unconditionally support a brutal dictatorship which has suppressed working-class movements in the past. Defend Iran from US Imperialism, mobilize the working-class of America & Iran to oppose it!

Karl Marx's Camel
22nd January 2007, 14:24
Thanks Frunze. This is what I have always said.


never Pink, Green, Red, Black, or Blue triangle.

There was pink, green, red triangles also? really? I didn't know that? :blink: :blush:

Vargha Poralli
22nd January 2007, 15:12
There was pink, green, red triangles also? really? I didn't know that?

Nazi Concentration Camp Badges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badges)

Phalanx
22nd January 2007, 17:05
Regardless of what he said, he's still responsible for the murder of homosexuals and repression of women and leftists.

EwokUtopia
23rd January 2007, 00:49
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 02:24 pm
There was pink, green, red triangles also? really? I didn't know that? :blink: :blush:
Yeah, we would all be bearers of the red triangle here.

Severian
23rd January 2007, 03:05
Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 22, 2007 03:48 am
President Ahmadinejad is one of our leaders in the struggle against U$ and I$raeli imperialism, like it or not.
Speak for yourself. I'll defend Iran against imperialism, but I see no reason to follow Ahmadinejad's lead in doing so.

The original article's good: combats some cheap imperialist demonization. It also correctly points out Ahmadinejad's really played into that demonization.

He has done plenty of inflammatory rhetoric, including sucking up to European and North American Nazi sympathizers at his Holocaust denial conference. Does nothing to combat imperialism and plenty to help imperialism gear up politically for attacks on Iran.

And probably helps Ahmadinejad divert attention domestically from his failure to carry out most of his economic populist campaign promises.

****

There's nothing wrong or necessarily warlike about a world without Israel or without Zionism, anymore than the idea of a world without apartheid.

Some people say its OK to oppose the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but not to oppose the Israeli regime altogether. This is equivalent to saying it was OK to advocate South Africa get out of Namibia, but anyone who opposed apartheid altogether obviously hated Dutch people.

Phalanx
23rd January 2007, 03:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:05 am
Some people say its OK to oppose the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but not to oppose the Israeli regime altogether. This is equivalent to saying it was OK to advocate South Africa get out of Namibia, but anyone who opposed apartheid altogether obviously hated Dutch people.
For the most part I agree with you, but the only difference is that the Dutch hadn't come out of a genocide like the Jews had. In that postwar hysteria, they felt the only solution was to create a Jewish state. The South African state was formed of settlers wanting to get rich off the backs of Zulus and other tribes, not because they were escaping persecution.

EwokUtopia
23rd January 2007, 06:51
Originally posted by Tatanka [email protected] 23, 2007 03:35 am
For the most part I agree with you, but the only difference is that the Dutch hadn't come out of a genocide like the Jews had. In that postwar hysteria, they felt the only solution was to create a Jewish state. The South African state was formed of settlers wanting to get rich off the backs of Zulus and other tribes, not because they were escaping persecution.
Thats not really a viable excuse, if it were, there would be a Roma state in India, because the Roma came from there a millenium ago. Zionism was around before the holocaust, zionism is wrong in all cases.

however the Jewish people obviously have the right to live in Palestine, Canada, the US, Germany, Russia, or wherever they want to go. This does not give them the right to deny other people to the land, no matter how badly they were genocided 50 years ago. The Arabs werent even remotely responsible for the holocaust, you want to make a good Jewish state in response to the Holocaust, why not make it out of conquered German territory? Why not turn what was East Prussia (and is now Kaliningrad) into a Jewish state? they expelled all the Germans from that patch of land anyways, it would be ideal. But no, the Zionist movement was already well off the ground while Hitler was still drawing shitty nudes for scraps of bread. Anyway, the Jews are in Palestine (if they want to call it Israel, they have that right) and they have about as much right to be there as Europeans living in the America's...that is to say, they are invaders, but most were born there, so it is their home as well, and that must be remembered and respected.

Ideally, Jews, Arabs, Armenians, Druze, Samaritans, Roma (there are a few in Gaza) would all be equal citizens under one secular state. This is really the only viable solution, but its going to be one hell of a time to get us to that point.

However, the Regime occupying Al-Quds must vanish from the pages of time.



And, just for the record, many French Protestants (Huguenots) who were being massacred by Catholics in france came to South Africa (as well as North America and Ireland), learned Dutch (which became Afrikaans) and eventually started aparthied, it wasnt just about exploiting Zulu's for all the colonists.

Edit- By the way, a bunch of Soviet buffs around here, has anybody ever heard of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast? It was set up as an autonomous jewish state inside the Soviet Union in a relatively unpopulated area on the Chinese border near Vladivostok. Ironically, only about 3% of its current inhabitants are Jewish (Stalin flunked it like he flunked most everything else), but it was proposed as a Socialist Alternative version of the Jewish State.

metalero
23rd January 2007, 08:52
Good answer Ewokutopia! we must uncover ultra nationalist and racist policies that constantly seek refuge in the hypocrite remembrance of jewish sufferings. Unfortunately, Iran president just plays the same game as zionist, anti-semites and imperialist do, in giving too much credit to zionist issue regarding the holocaust and anti-semite right wing holocaust denial, rather than focusing on the national liberation struggle against the apartheid regime.

Spirit of Spartacus
23rd January 2007, 09:55
Speak for yourself. I'll defend Iran against imperialism, but I see no reason to follow Ahmadinejad's lead in doing so.

True. But then again, its he who leads the state apparatus which will defend Iran in case the imperialists strike there.


He has done plenty of inflammatory rhetoric, including sucking up to European and North American Nazi sympathizers at his Holocaust denial conference. Does nothing to combat imperialism and plenty to help imperialism gear up politically for attacks on Iran.


Sucking up to politically-irrelevant neo-Nazis in Europe and North America shows nothing more but the extent to which imperialism has pushed the Iranian leadership.

And I'm no sympathizer of the Ayatollahs or their ideology. But so long as they stand between the Iranian working-class and US imperialism, I personally don't see any option but to support them.

Spirit of Spartacus
23rd January 2007, 09:58
Speak for yourself. I'll defend Iran against imperialism, but I see no reason to follow Ahmadinejad's lead in doing so.

But yeah, maybe I did get a little over-enthusiastic in supporting Iranian anti-Imperialism.

I certainly don't endorse the Iranian regime as a whole.

Phalanx
23rd January 2007, 16:12
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 06:51 am
Thats not really a viable excuse, if it were, there would be a Roma state in India, because the Roma came from there a millenium ago. Zionism was around before the holocaust, zionism is wrong in all cases.
I'm well aware of that, I'm just trying to explain the thought process the early Zionists had. An ethnically-based state has no place in the future, so the current Israeli regime will fall just like any other fossils of the past.

EwokUtopia
23rd January 2007, 19:35
Originally posted by Tatanka [email protected] 23, 2007 04:12 pm
I'm well aware of that, I'm just trying to explain the thought process the early Zionists had. An ethnically-based state has no place in the future, so the current Israeli regime will fall just like any other fossils of the past.
Yeah, some early Jewish migrants have no blame to share, but this isnt really Zionism, it was more of a lack of any other choice. The Zionists were largely already in Palestine by this point and blowing up British and Arab hotels and strongholds to try and secure their state. The holocaust actually benefitted these people, as it gave them a shitload of new comming Jews from Europe who would have otherwise stayed there and it also filled many Jews with a fear that without a Jewish State the holocaust would happen again. It is a really sad endevour, especially considering that the Zionists and the Nazi's had ties during the early part of the regime, and they refused to evacuate Jews to anywhere but Palestine, which wasnt an option, so many needlessly died because of Zionist fanaticism. I do not consider the people who had everything stolen from them and nowhere else to go who went to Palestine to be Zionists.

Always remember that the Holocaust happened due to an abundance of ethnocentric ultranationalist militaristic governments, not a lack of them. This is what Zionists fail to grasp.


Oh, and Also, on Ahmadinezhad....Imminent danger looms over Iran, There is talk that Israel may launch a strike against them before the year is through, and that nuclear weapons may be used against targets in Iran, and of course America would hop in after it has been softened enough by their little allies.. Since this danger looms over them, we should not exacerbate the situation by talking profusely about regime change unless we are living in Iran. Regime change will happen from within as long as it isnt destroyed from without. As a Westerner, it is not my duty or right to seek a regime change in Iran, but it is my absolute duty to stand by Iran when the west is threatening it in this way.

Phalanx
23rd January 2007, 23:10
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 07:35 pm
Yeah, some early Jewish migrants have no blame to share, but this isnt really Zionism, it was more of a lack of any other choice. The Zionists were largely already in Palestine by this point and blowing up British and Arab hotels and strongholds to try and secure their state. The holocaust actually benefitted these people, as it gave them a shitload of new comming Jews from Europe who would have otherwise stayed there and it also filled many Jews with a fear that without a Jewish State the holocaust would happen again. It is a really sad endevour, especially considering that the Zionists and the Nazi's had ties during the early part of the regime, and they refused to evacuate Jews to anywhere but Palestine, which wasnt an option, so many needlessly died because of Zionist fanaticism. I do not consider the people who had everything stolen from them and nowhere else to go who went to Palestine to be Zionists.

The vast majority of Jews moving to Israel/Palestine during the 40s and 50s weren't rabid Zionists, on the contrary, most were Jews moving to Israel simply because they couldn't get into America. Many of the 750,000 Jews that had fled the Arab world after the creation of Israel didn't have any romantic ideals of a Jewish homeland, they simply wanted to get out of the country that was oppressing them.

The actual idealistic, rabid Zionists were very much in the minority. They pressured Britain and the United States to drop immigration quotas on Jews hoping to get to the UK or US and gave them no other choice but to move to Israel. If this hadn't happened, believe me, there would have been alot more Jews in the UK, USA and France.

And although Zionists had ties with the Nazis, many Arab leaders did as well. They saw the threat of massive immigration was to the sovereignty or Palestine, so a few Arabs actually joined the SS.

Severian
24th January 2007, 07:16
Originally posted by EwokUtopia+January 23, 2007 12:51 am--> (EwokUtopia @ January 23, 2007 12:51 am)
Tatanka [email protected] 23, 2007 03:35 am
For the most part I agree with you, but the only difference is that the Dutch hadn't come out of a genocide like the Jews had. In that postwar hysteria, they felt the only solution was to create a Jewish state. The South African state was formed of settlers wanting to get rich off the backs of Zulus and other tribes, not because they were escaping persecution.
Thats not really a viable excuse, if it were, there would be a Roma state in India, because the Roma came from there a millenium ago. Zionism was around before the holocaust, zionism is wrong in all cases. [/b]
Yeah, that's what I was going to say.

Also, the sponsors of Israel's creation - the US and UK - turned away Jewish refugees during the Holocaust. The bourgeois Jewish organizations in the U.S., at least, said nothing. Some because they were Zionists, and wanted the refugees to go to Israel instead. Some simply because they were bourgeois, and didn't want a lot of poor newcomers who, they feared, would provoke more anti-Semitism.

They only groups in the U.S. which did speak up and demand the refugees be admitted: the various self-described Socialist and Communist organizations, plus some labor unions, especially those with a lot of Jewish members like the garment unions.

This reality doesn't stop those bourgeois Jewish organizations, like the ADL, from wrapping themselves in the mantle of the Holocaust, and levying the accusation of anti-Semitism - against the some of the same Socialist and Communist organizations.

ComradeR
24th January 2007, 10:03
Originally posted by Severian+January 24, 2007 07:16 am--> (Severian @ January 24, 2007 07:16 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:51 am

Tatanka [email protected] 23, 2007 03:35 am
For the most part I agree with you, but the only difference is that the Dutch hadn't come out of a genocide like the Jews had. In that postwar hysteria, they felt the only solution was to create a Jewish state. The South African state was formed of settlers wanting to get rich off the backs of Zulus and other tribes, not because they were escaping persecution.
Thats not really a viable excuse, if it were, there would be a Roma state in India, because the Roma came from there a millenium ago. Zionism was around before the holocaust, zionism is wrong in all cases.
Yeah, that's what I was going to say.

Also, the sponsors of Israel's creation - the US and UK - turned away Jewish refugees during the Holocaust. The bourgeois Jewish organizations in the U.S., at least, said nothing. Some because they were Zionists, and wanted the refugees to go to Israel instead. Some simply because they were bourgeois, and didn't want a lot of poor newcomers who, they feared, would provoke more anti-Semitism.

They only groups in the U.S. which did speak up and demand the refugees be admitted: the various self-described Socialist and Communist organizations, plus some labor unions, especially those with a lot of Jewish members like the garment unions.

This reality doesn't stop those bourgeois Jewish organizations, like the ADL, from wrapping themselves in the mantle of the Holocaust, and levying the accusation of anti-Semitism - against the some of the same Socialist and Communist organizations.[/b]
Exactly, the bourgeois Zionists are hypocrites when they use the Holocaust to justify Israel.
This is from one of my other posts, i think it's relevant here.


Here's an interesting fact. Avraham Stern, the founder of the infamous "Stern gang" (the right-wing Zionist splinter group that broke with the Irgun, and was responsible for indiscriminate attacks that killed British, Arabs, and Jews) and who is considered a hero by the Israeli state, was impressed and influenced by the Fascist regime of Italy while he was living there. Stern even proposed an alliance with Nazi Germany, in 1941 he initiated contact with Nazi authorities to discuss an alliance against Britain, the only reason this alliance never formed was because the Germans turned him down.
Even knowning this Avraham Stern&#39;s memorial day is attended every year by Israeli political and government officials. In 1978, a postage stamp was issued in his honor. And in 1981 the town "Kochav Yair" (Yair&#39;s star) was founded and named after Stern&#39;s nickname. <_<

Mikhail Frunze
24th January 2007, 22:13
He has done plenty of inflammatory rhetoric, including sucking up to European and North American Nazi sympathizers at his Holocaust denial conference. Does nothing to combat imperialism and plenty to help imperialism gear up politically for attacks on Iran.

It&#39;s humourous how self-proclaimed revolutionary leftists regurgitate the same sort of slander propagated by the bourgeois media. The fact is that numerous points of view were presented at Iran&#39;s conference and there were even Jews in attendance.


Many of the 750,000 Jews that had fled the Arab world after the creation of Israel didn&#39;t have any romantic ideals of a Jewish homeland, they simply wanted to get out of the country that was oppressing them.

Jews did not flee Arabic countries but instead voluntarily emigrated after countries like Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco attained liberation. A large portion of Jews in these countries were in elite segments of society whose priveleges were threatened after power was assumed by national liberation fronts. And then there was systematic encouragement by the Zionists for Jews abroad to immigrate. The fact is that Arabic countries had been initially reluctant to permit Jews to emigrate because this would strengthen the Zionist regime.

This is a manifestation of Zionist propaganda on your part by trying to show paralells between the ethnic cleansing towards the Palestinians from their homeland and the voluntary emigration of Jews from former Anglo-French colonies. Both the persecution of Jews by the German regime and the so-called "exodus" from Arabic countries by Jews are employed by Zionists as propaganda for the purpose of trying to justify the existence of their illegitimate state in Palestine.


Also, the sponsors of Israel&#39;s creation - the US and UK - turned away Jewish refugees during the Holocaust.

Actually, England never advocated the creation of Israel. England abstained on the vote by the deliberative General Assembly which recommended handing over most of Palestine to the Zionists. The claim that that America and England turned away Jewish refugees during World War II is dubious considering that both countries contain a sizable amount of Jews whose parents of grandparents emigrated from east-central Europe.


however the Jewish people obviously have the right to live in Palestine, Canada, the US, Germany, Russia, or wherever they want to go.

That is objectionable. European descended Jews have no more of a right to exploit Palestine and oppress the native Palestinians than did the repatriated 1 million French colonists in Algeria, 500 thousand Portuguese in Angola, and hundreds of thousands of Japanese in Korea, and so on.


Why not turn what was East Prussia (and is now Kaliningrad) into a Jewish state?

Because East Prussia which is today divided between Russia and Poland exclusively consists of Russians and Poles. The rights of the inhabitants would be violated if a Jewish state was forceably imposed on them. Moreover, Kaliningrad is historical Slavic territory. What right would Jews who have never had a historical connection to Kaliningrad have in forcing the Russian and Polish inhaibants to live in a Jewish state?

pandora
25th January 2007, 02:25
The actual quote was, "I&#39;m an idiot working for George Bush&#39;s henchmen who pay me a lot of money to stand up here and make idiotic statements for you to rally against." :D

EwokUtopia
25th January 2007, 04:38
That is objectionable. European descended Jews have no more of a right to exploit Palestine and oppress the native Palestinians than did the repatriated 1 million French colonists in Algeria, 500 thousand Portuguese in Angola, and hundreds of thousands of Japanese in Korea, and so on.

I was speaking about the inalienable human right to immigration, not the establishment of racial states. Jews have the right to live anywhere they want as long as they dont nationalize and oppress people like they are doing now, but Israeli&#39;s certainly should not be forced out of the place they were born, they just should be forced to accept the idea of a multi-ethnic egalitarian secular state that doesnt priviledge them.


Because East Prussia which is today divided between Russia and Poland exclusively consists of Russians and Poles. The rights of the inhabitants would be violated if a Jewish state was forceably imposed on them. Moreover, Kaliningrad is historical Slavic territory. What right would Jews who have never had a historical connection to Kaliningrad have in forcing the Russian and Polish inhaibants to live in a Jewish state?

How was it right to force the German majority out of East Prussia and make it a part of the RSFSR? When in history did the Russians comprise the majority of people in East Prussia before 1945?? It would be more just to make it into a Jewish state. Ashkenazi Jews have more of a historical attachment to Northeastern Europe than they do to the Middle East.