As the Bush Administration beats the drums for another war of choice with another country that had nothing to do with 9/11, they are using another series of fabricated facts to indoctrinate the American people into thinking that Iran poses a serious threat to our security. At the core of these fabrications is the claim that on October 25, 2005, during a speech at the Ministry of Interior conference hall, the then newly-elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remarked that "Israel must be wiped off the map." As someone who was born in Tehran, lived there for seventeen years and is a native Farsi speaker, I have read the original transcripts of the speech in Farsi and want to inform you that Ahmadinejad never said "Israel must be wiped off the map," but rather, his statement was grossly mistranslated and taken out of context, perhaps to help make a case for military action against Iran.
Let's analyze what Ahmadinejad said. His exact words in Farsi were as follows: "Emam goft een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzegar mahv shavad."
The correct translation of the statement is as follows: "Imam said this occupying regime in Jerusalem must vanish from the page of times."
And the word-to-word translation of the statement is as follows: Emam: Imam (Khomeini, leader of the 1979 revolution); Goft: said; Een: this; Rezhim-e eshghalgar: occupying regime; Qods: Jorusalem; Bayad: must; Az: from; Safheye: page of; Ruzegar: times; Mahv shaved: vanish.
There are several important points to understand about this quote:
1) The original transcript does not contain the words "Israel," "wipe off" or "map."
2) Ahmadinejad in fact misquoted Imam Khomeini who really said "sahneyeh roozegar," or "stage of times," not "safheyeh roozegar."
3) "Occupying regime in Jerusalem " does not refer to the state of Israel because the word "regime" does not mean "state" or "country." Merriam-Webster defines the term "regime" as a "mode of rule or management" or "a government in power." Furthermore, the terms "stage of times" or "page of times" both are highly abstract and metaphorical terms and cannot possibly be translated to "map," which is a real object illustrating countries with defined political borders. To translate "page of times" to "map" shows a conscious effort to give people the idea that Ahmadinejad's statement was not a metaphorical expression of discontent but a real foreign policy declaration. This effort becomes even clearer when one learns that Ahmadinejad used the verb "vanish" - not "wiped off" - to describe what he wished would happen to the regime in Israel. Vanish is a transitive verb, meaning "to disappear." By definition, disappearance is something that an object does to itself or naturally happens to it without an outside party's intervention. "Wipe off," on the other hand, has a strong emphasis on the party that does the wiping off. In other words, as opposed to vanishing, things can't wipe themselves off; they require some external force to do the wiping off. By translating "mahv shavad" to "wiped off" instead of the correct translation "vanish," the translators consciously framed Ahmadinejad as implying that an outside party - i.e. Iran, by implication - should have a role in wiping off the regime in Israel while he was merely wishing an outcome on a regime he did not agree with. He could have said "wiped off" or "Iran will (or shall) wipe Israel (or the regime in Israel) off the map," but he did not. The U.S.'s official translation of his statement misrepresents what Ahmadinejad said or meant.
4) The fact that Ahmadinejad specifically mentioned the occupation of Jerusalem indicates the main reason for his discontent. It is certainly legitimate for one to wish the fall or disappearance of a regime - "a government in power" - based on the policies that that government has pursued. American presidents, public officials and various activists - including this blogger - have openly expressed hope that the regime in Iran would vanish, although for different reasons. The United States ' official policy throughout the entire Cold War was to actively pursue policies that would lead to communist regimes vanishing, and some may argue, that policy continues today. And groups like "The World Can't Wait" openly hope for the end of what they call the "Bush Regime." And it only takes basic research to find out that the Israeli "regime" has been illegally occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip, built settlements, built roads, expropriated land, deported, tortured and killed Palestinians, restricted freedom of movement, harmed the economy and made them impoverished for four decades, all in direct violation of international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention. And they have done all of this with U.S.'s aid and 47 vetoes of UN Security Council resolutions against Israel since the beginning of Reagan administration alone (Chomsky). Israeli regime has also militarily supported the military regime of Burma, which recently used Israeli weapons to kill pro-democracy civilians (British Jane's Intelligence Review). That is state sponsorship of terrorism. America is also a partner in this enterprise as it continues to give Israel 3 Billion Dollars of military aid every year. In fact, between one-third to one-fifth of the entire U.S.'s foreign aid goes to Israel each year.
Within that context, it is certainly a legitimate position to wish an outlaw regime that has defied the will and moral standards of the international community vanished and perhaps see it replaced with one that opposes apartheid. But to say that wishing a ruling regime, system of government of or ideology in a country vanished equates wishing that country vanished or the people in it harmed is an egregious departure from the truth.
Iranian regime's position on Israel is that there should be a referendum with both Jews and Arabs participating based on their right of self-determination to decide whether they want a single- or double-state solution. While Iran believes in a single-state solution, the country's official policy is to support the referendum. Besides, Iran has been issuing empty rhetoric against America and Israel since the 1979 revolution. Yet that is what they have been; empty rhetoric for domestic consumption, not a foreign policy doctrine. In fact, as opposed to the United States or Israel, Iran has not attacked a foreign country without provocation for over a hundred years.
I am fundamentally against the theocratic regime in Iran for its human rights violations and know that the reformist students' movement in Tehran can gain momentum again and lead to a nonviolent democratic change if given the time and opportunity. But as I speak with some of these students everyday, I sense how much anti-Ahmadinejad rhetoric from America is hurting their movement - especially when the rhetoric is based on lies - because those lies make it easier for the outlaw Iranian regime to call America out on those lies, undercut the West's legitimacy, rally the people around itself and cut the legs from under the pro-western reformers. One of these pro-democracy activists wrote to me the following in English on Sunday: "One should try to mainstream discussion of Israel in the US media. Israel is paranoid and paranoia in a place like the mid east is extremely dangerous. I dislike and despise A[h]madinejad, but I disagree with the way he's been portrayed and treated in the US. His reception at Colombia, for example, was every bit as despicable as he himself is! I think the greatest threa[t] to American hegemony is America's double standards. That's far more dangerous than Al Qaida."
The mistranslation originated from AlJazeera. Nonetheless, this blogger finds it difficult to believe that not a single Iran expert or Farsi speaker within the government has voiced concerns about the mistranslation. But this is not surprising as this oversight fits nicely into the larger pattern of this administration's - and Israel lobby's - distortion of facts to manufacture a false image of world affairs and create a false context within which he could sell another disastrous war of choice to the American people.
Follow Sam Sedaei on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SamSedaei
The phrase "wipe Israel off the map" is not so much a mistranslation as it is an ambiguous translation which could be taken as Ahmadinejad gave it, that the country of Israel would cease to exist as a jewish state. Or it could be taken to mean, as it usually is, that Iran is threatening an invasion, either by itself or proxies, of Israel. The latter meaning misses what he has said, but the fact that the former is not a bad translation means that some sites that are not trying to misrepresent him have given this translation as well. Presumably they optimistically expect the phrase to be understood as they intend rather than as it is.
That Ahmadinejad has the former meaning in mind is also made clear by the fact that he has pointed to the USSR as an example of what he means. And of course that was a country that was peacefully wiped off the map.
That said, the idea that 60% of all donations to the Republicans comes from jewish sources seems highly unlikely. And putting the Washington Post in parentheses does not actually count as a citation.
This is the second nice post in a row by Sedaie that is marred by what looks like jewish baiting.
Islam's third holiest site is in Jerusalem, Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan are all within 50 miles.
Whoever thinks that it's POSSIBLE to nuke Israel without taking out the Al Aqsa Mosque (among many other mosques and churches in the area) is plainly nuts.
Nuking Israel would mean nuking palestine and lebanon, radioactivity travels with the wind.
What would be the advantage of that to Iran? ( "they're nuts logic doesn't apply to them" is a cop-out)
Iran nuking Israel (if they had the nukes) would also mean Iran nuking Palestine and Lebanon with it.
Such a stupid prediction that Israel will be in the eventual cross hairs of a non-existent Iranian Nuke is utterly divorced from reality.
Iran's main rival in the region is Saudi Arabia, an Iranian nuclear weapon (which will be detected the moment it is tested) would most likely be followed by a Saudi Purchase of nuclear technologies from their ally U.S. and Western Europe making Saudi Arabia militarily equal to Iran. Right now Iran has 75 million in population compared to Saudi Arabia's 24 million. Staying non-nuclear would make sure Iran has a major man advantage over the Saudis, going nuclear and knowing that Saudis will get the nukes (probably with US blessing) will make that manpower advantage disappear overnight. Why would Iran want to weaken against their main rival.
-AIPAC is not a Jewish organization so much as a ZIONIST organization.
-The author should not leave HAMAS and SYRIA out of this conversation when we talk of the threat that Iran does pose.
-And their lack of respect for Western values, with potentially nothing to lose in threating the Gulf of Hormuz(?sp).
-They did turn down an offer to have as their nuclear fuel source, for the purpose of nuclear power, the Russians who offered to be responsible for the material and act like a sub-contractor therefore avoiding any necessary capacity to manufacture their own.
-The Bolshevik Revolution was financed to bring about regime change and we wound up with COMMUNISM, Leon Trotsky was financed by NY Bankers.
-Hitler's NAZI Socialism was financed by NY BANKERS in an effort to effect REGIME change in RUSSIA to get at RUSSIA's rich OIL reserves, and we got the HOLOCAUST. AND the creation of the thorn in the side of the MUSLIM NATIONS of the MIDDLE EAST - ISRAEL. AND the financing was organized by PRESCOTT BUSH, W's Grandaddy, as a senior VP at Brown Brothers, go SKULL & BONES.
Check any source in any language and you will not find a definition of a 'Jewish' media conglomerate. Because there's no such thing.
In the end, the post betrays its own insistence that we do the work to find the actual meaning of words. And it's unfortunate, because otherwise, it could have been a great analysis.
It amazes me that even after Mearsheimer and Walt got us passed the tipping point of being able to criticize Israel like a normal country, such criticisms still immediately get attacked in America regardless of the merits of the arguments.
If you have not run across any source that acknowledges the predominantly Zionist point of view in the media or our government, I strongly recommend that you read Noam Chomsky's latest book, Failed States, or Professors Mearsheimer and Walt's "Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" where they speak about all of these influences extensively.
If you believe this post betrays its own purpose, you missed the purpose of the post. Part of its purpose was to shed light on the correct translation, but the second and equally important point was to offer a legitimate criticism of the Israeli government (because that makes the desire to want a change in the way government is run in Israel more legitimate). Criticism of Israel must become acceptable in the mainstream media in order to truly understand what exactly is pushing this country into another war. This task is harder and attacks are harsher for those of us who are the first to criticize Israel in American political circles, but love this country so much that I cannot sit back quietly and watch AIPAC and Neocons take it into another war out of paranoia.
Grow up and learn to distinguish subtleties. Jews need to take criticism and look at themselves as a varied and multi-ethnic and diverse groups as they are. If AIPAC is implicated in a wrong doing or a batttalion of the Israeli Defense Forces are found to have committed war crimes that does NOT mean that every Jew is somehow responsible.
This atmosphere of "Jews are above criticism" does only one thing, it separates us. American Jewry is part of America and Jews in general are a part of the human race and by definition our brethren. But they are not perfections on earth, nobody is.
I suggest that you take a closer look of what is being done in the name of the Jewish cause, Israel etc....
If you little brother misbehaves you may criticize, that doesn't mean you hate him.
If you don't see the ferocious attack on Ahmadinejad when he visited new york that made even those who are opposed to him pause and look at the ravenous and illogical AIPAC led campaign to demonize him, you will see the shadow of a purposeful organized effort against all things Iranian; most suspect in preparation for war.
Don't let your pride blind you, you are being led to an abyss by the persuasion of your love of your people.
when a statement is as politically charged as this one, it is the duty of all of us to do the research and get to the truth. many of us have recognized this as a politically expedient mistranslation, and i am disheartened when i hear every single voice in the media and every statement from politicians repeat this error as a matter of fact without challenge.
i hope this post reaches a wide audience...
Be fair.
The last country Iran attacked was the Ottoman Empire in the early 19th century.
Pot calling the kettle black?
But Khrushchev was wrong. The Soviet Union never made it happen.
China did.
and sound the siren alarm of the nuclear threat to the US.
Did they not take a full page ad out in the NY Times--the sole purpose of which was for the US to nuke Israel's arch-enemy because of the threat.
This is priority number 1 for the Neo-cons: AIPAC, and Likuud.
To deny this is tantamount to either ignorance or the arrant defense of an agenda.
Res Ipsa loquitor, o katarate
It isn't evidence or exact translations that Americans (or too many) seek. They want a pound of someone else's flesh. It wouldn't be the first time in US history for that.
The more that one reads US history the more we see the exploitation of the third world and the expropriation of their resources. Don't expect a fair hearing here for your people. We don't give our own a fair hearing.
I hope that people are beginning to realize that the concept of a just war has been replaced by the concept of preventative wars. You go to war to prevent a war - but only if there is a buck to be made and the consequences will be slight in proportion to what is to be gained economically.
Noam Chomsky should be required reading for those who still believe in Manifest Destiny. The Monroe Doctrine has circled the entire world. It's empire building on steroids and Uncle Sam wants your resources. Corporations own Uncle Sam.
However, I don't think the attack on Iran has anything to do with nukes. Nukes are just rationalization number 7 for starting Armageddon where Bushes cult believes God has foretold, or to further constrict the oil supply for BushCo petro-friends or to extract more authority over us from our fear, or to destroy the power of all nations so that multinational robber barons can reign. Whatever the reason, BushCo wants to go to war with Iran.
While Iran's religious nut cakes are calling for the destruction of Israel, our religious nut jobs are calling for the destruction of Islam and calling for world war 3 and 4.
Only an impeachment trial has a chance to stopping this train wreck.
IF one were to say, "I want to see the President vanish from the page of times," I am sure the Secret Service would soon be asking that person what exactly they meant, as the plain meaning is plain to all.
In short, no one would think Ahmadinejad was making an endorsement of Labor over Likud. And given that you don't simply toss an entire govenermental structure out with a wave of one's hand, the message is clear: Iran (by whatever translation) has hostile intentions toward Israel. Any Iran will support all attempts to actualize hostility toward Israel.
Especially in the middle east, where it has been frequently proven so easy to throw a match on the arab street and light a bonfire. Or do you think Intifadah's are truly spontaneous combustion?
Exactly which Arabs do you assert the Iranian regime is referring to?
Those that live in Israel proper?
Those that live in Gaza and/or the West Bank?
Those that live in Sinai?
Those that live outside the above?
If a single jewish grand parent is enough to get a Latvian to have full rights in Israel, then an Arab who's grandparents owned land in Jerusalem should at least have similar rights in that land.
Israel should be for all citizens regardless of race creed or religion. the whole "Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state" sounds dangerously like Israel's right to make all non-jews into second class citizens.
The time for religious rule over public life is over. No Ayatollah's in government, no Rabbi's making policy, let them go seek hashem in their solace and leave governance to the sane.
Please cite all Iran's attacks WITH provocation.
The US and Israel would like to avail themselves of the same SUBJECTIVE caveat.
Translation: Good job nailing the mistranslation, but was the Israel-bashing a necessary inclusion?