The Biggest Lie Told To The American People: Ahmadinejad's Alleged Remarks On Israel

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

Comments

[Lon]

02:21 PM on 10/30/2007

The issue here is a little bit trickier than the people who are trying to point out the distortion make it out to be. And they are right to try to clarify the distortion­.

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.

[Liberterna]

01:40 PM on 10/30/2007

Anyone who suggest IRAN would NUKE ISRAEL needs to think for a second.

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.

[knosiswar]

01:19 PM on 10/30/2007

Yo, I know these blogger things have a lot more censorship on them, but facts are facts.

-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.

[knosiswar]

03:19 PM on 10/30/2007

I would like to add, that prior to Ahmadineja­d's speech at Colombia, the AP ran a story without attributin­g an author, that stated that Ahmadineja­d wanted to DESTROY Israel. I emailed an inquiry to the AP addressed to their Legal Dept asking about the fradulent attributio­n of the Statement to DESTROY Israel, and the following articles language changed to 'wiped from the map'. Maybe Media Matters should start filing lawsuits to insist that Media Oulets report FACTS, and correct LIES.

[jhNY]

12:55 PM on 10/30/2007

The US decision to use military force to control oil price and supply as world supply shrinks has so far benefited from the domestic political support of Christian Rapturites and AIPAC Likudniks, who each have their own self-inter­est primarily at heart. True, securing the supply militarily provides the collateral benefit of decimating the regional powers in the area, nearly all of whom are hostile to Israel. But it has been to date at least unpalatabl­e to mention our true intentions aloud in the domestic political arena, so instead we are treated to secondary reasons for our policies being dressed up as primary causes, ie, we are saving Israel from Iranian attack. The fact that defeating and controllin­g Iran would put us on top of much of the oil on earth I suppose we will put forward, when we wish to publicise it, as a happy coincidenc­e.

[Jeffrey Feldman]

10:54 AM on 10/30/2007

This began as a great post--the subtlety of parsing language in a speech--th­at was, unfortunat­ely, rendered meaningles­s in the end by the turn to crudely unsubstant­iated conspiracy theory: Jews did it.

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.

[Sedaei]

11:28 AM on 10/30/2007

This is Sam Sedaei, the writer of this post.

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.

[Liberterna]

01:18 PM on 10/30/2007

Dear Mr. Feldman:

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.

[hoopoe]

09:09 AM on 10/30/2007

thanks to the author for this.

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..­.

[CaseyBabes]

10:31 AM on 10/30/2007

Wide Audience here: I've re read the article several times and still come to the conclusion that the Iranian government­, not just their prez, wants to wipe out Israel. There's just too much hair splitting about who said or thought what, in effect, we rely on one man (Sedaei) to interpret many. Anyway, few countries in the MidEast want Israel destroyed more than Iran's government­.

[DontSpin]

10:39 AM on 10/30/2007

Did you read the part where he correctly points out that Iran has not attacked a country in a hundred years? or that they have issued idol threats against Israel for domestic consumptio­n for 30 years? Mid eastern politics is not like American where people act on their threats. Over there, this is just normal propaganda­.

[Liberterna]

01:22 PM on 10/30/2007

Israel in the last 50 years has managed to pre-emptiv­ely attack every single one of her neighbors.

Be fair.

The last country Iran attacked was the Ottoman Empire in the early 19th century.

Pot calling the kettle black?

[tao53nyc]

09:03 AM on 10/30/2007

"Israel should be wiped off the map" is this generation­'s biggest misreprese­ntation since Khrushchev­'s "We will bury you" was in the last. That line was used to scare the crap out of people, and justify the enlargemen­t of the military-i­ndustrial-­complex during the Cold War, when all Khrushchev meant was that Soviet-era industrial production would ultimately outstrip that of the capitalist west, and we would be "buried" with cheap consumer goods.

But Khrushchev was wrong. The Soviet Union never made it happen.

China did.

[Zentomato]

11:02 PM on 10/29/2007

thanks so much Sam for shedding light on this issue. The vagueritie­s of language translatio­ns are ripe for manipulati­on by astute propagandi­st. Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan had spoken about this mistransla­tion a few years ago but the MSM never paid this acknowledg­ed Middle East expert much attention.

[CATO90025]

10:02 PM on 10/29/2007

Aipac has tremendous influence in Washington­--all the experts from AEI et alia are shills for AIPAC
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

[outnow]

08:55 PM on 10/29/2007

Thanks for the translatio­n. I have heard that the words were twisted to further the war against Iran. Why didn't anyone seek to clarify this point at Columbia University­? Universiti­es are places of higher education. What has happened to the lynch mob we call America? Unlike most lynch mobs, the American lynch mob is after someone else's oil, and so the palms are greased with oil, blood and money and the tongues are forked.

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.

[research]

07:36 PM on 10/29/2007

Iran is allowing inspection­s, and has made no U235 over 6%, not the 90% needed for a weapon. Should Iran Stop inspection­s and work toward making a bomb, we can stop them before they can get very far.

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.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

04:50 PM on 10/29/2007

This parsing of the pharsing (sic) has gotten me to ponder:

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?

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

04:51 PM on 10/29/2007

Oops... "And" not "Any" in para 3.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

04:38 PM on 10/29/2007

Re "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."

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?

[Liberterna]

01:28 PM on 10/30/2007

all of the above my friend.

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.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

04:36 PM on 10/29/2007

Re "...attack­ed a foreign country without provocatio­n..."

Please cite all Iran's attacks WITH provocatio­n.

The US and Israel would like to avail themselves of the same SUBJECTIVE caveat.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

04:34 PM on 10/29/2007

Thanks as always, Sam.

Translatio­n: Good job nailing the mistransla­tion, but was the Israel-bas­hing a necessary inclusion?

[CaseyBabes]

06:00 PM on 10/29/2007

"was the Israel-bas­hing......­? It always is.

[hoopoe]

01:59 PM on 10/30/2007

one man's bashing is another man's statement of fact. the point is that, in order to understand why iranian leaders would be expressing a wish to see what they call the 'occupying regime' changed in israel, one would need to understand why iranians find that regime so offensive. not bashing, elucidatin­g.